March 31 is Transgender Day of Visibility. I'm supposed to participate in a panel that day. I'm a bit apprehensive.
Like many gay people, I tend to tiptoe around transgender issues. This surprises some straight people I know. They say, "But as a GLBT person yourselfâ¦"
But I'm not a GLBT person. I'm a G person. (Nobody is a GLBT person. You get two letters at most, and that's only if one of them is T.)
One of my earliest experiences with the transgender community involved an angry trans woman standing up after one of my lectures in the mid-90's.
"You've talked for an hour about gay and lesbian issues," she griped, "but you've said nothing about ME. An hour-long lecture and not a word about me."
I remember at the time not knowing quite how to respond. I figured she was referring to transgender issues, because I was pretty sure she was trans. She was about 6'2", and to put it bluntly, she had man-hands.
But I didn't want to say, "Oh, you're transgender." Because if I said, "Oh, you're transgender," I might come across as saying, "Oh, you're transgenderâ¦
"â¦and not very convincing at it."
Isn't it rude to guess? To me, it's like trying to figure out if someone you know is pregnant, or just getting fat. Better to wait until she brings it up.
Of course, sometimes waiting is not an option, such as when a person's gender presentation is ambiguous and you need to refer to "him" or "her." You can only switch to the plural "they" for so long before it becomes obvious that you're avoiding gendered pronouns. I actually had this problem once with a student, whose name was as gender-ambiguous as [his? her? their?] clothing. Turns out she was a MTF who deliberately skated the line as "genderqueer"-something I discovered only when other students filled me in. But absent such informants, how does one politely ask?
Regarding my angry questioner, though, I had no such doubts-just doubts about how to respond to her "nothing about me" complaint.
At the time, I think I said something like "I don't know you, so how can I talk about you?" That was a reasonable answer then. But what about now?
The truth is I still hardly ever talk or write about transgender issues. That's partly because I'm no expert on them. There are only so many minutes in an hour (or lines in a column), and you can't cover everything.
But to be frank, it's also partly because I'm nervous about offending people whom society has already hurt enough. It's a touchy subject, and like many touchy subjects, it's often easier for those of us without a direct stake in it simply to avoid it.
And that's probably as good a reason for Transgender Day of Visibility as any. Our discomfort around the issue-I know I'm not alone in this-means that we've got some learning to do. Bravo to those trans people willing to come out and teach us.
Some gay people wonder why we get lumped with the transgender community at all. Sexual orientation is one thing, they say, and gender identity is another.
That's true as far as it goes, and perhaps it's better to talk about our overlapping communitieS than about a single GLBT community.
Still, the alliance makes sense insofar as both (overlapping) groups suffer from rigid social expectations about sex and gender. Compare "If you're born biologically male, you should grow up to be a man" with "If you're born biologically male, you should grow up to love a woman." The similarities between the two inferences seem to outweigh the differences.
Then there are those who question whether linking GLB to T might slow down GLB political progress, insofar as society has a harder time with trans issues than sexual- orientation issues.
Even if you find those who raise such questions insensitive, it's hard to argue that they're being irrational. In general, society does have a harder time with trans people than gay, lesbian, or bisexual people, which is one reason why the trans community needs and deserves our support.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of us who could benefit from frank and open dialogue about all of these issues. Transgender Day of Visibility is an important step in that direction, and gays-and everyone else-should support it.
90 Comments for “Transgender Day…and Gays”
posted by John Howard on
Very interesting post, John, especially at the end there. I am hoping for frank and open dialog about exactly that same issue – the pros and cons of linking or severing transgender issues and gay issues, where they overlap and agree, and where they disagree.
I think that as far as T means the right to be either gender and conceive children as either gender, it is not helpful to GLB people who do not assert any right to actually be the other gender. In the same way, it’s not helpful to GLB people to assert a right to conceive with either gender, which is a T issue. Though of course most transgendered people also aren’t demanding the right to conceive as either gender, so the T’s need to sever the Transhumanists and Postgenderists from their own ranks to better serve the needs of actual transgendered and intersexed people.
posted by Essem on
I am one of those guys who’s resigned his unelected citizenship in the sexual Yugoslavia of GLBTetc.-dom.
Two reasons.
I simply do not identify with a person with gender dysphoria. My sexual identity has to do with erotic orientation to other men, my own kind, not a wish to be someone else entirely. Drag queen, transgender or straight cross-dresser (why do we leave them out?)…it’s all got nothing to do with me.
Even alliance with lesbians is tricky. Believe me, I have worked in mixed orgs like that. I can go from being a fellow queer victim to a privileged male SOB oppressor in three seconds. It’s sorta like expecting Blacks and Asians to be allies just because neither is White. And that’s pretty well all they have in common!
Second, a lot of the ideology in the trans activist community is a pomo attack on the binary gender system, one more blow to men, who have already been badly served by a lot of feminism, including the queer variety. This trans ideology wierdly asserts A. that gender is an oppressive social construct but then B. finds it so massively compelling that it supports people undergoing major life-altering surgery and chemical treatment to achieve the “right” gender and demands that everyone else accomodate them.
As for your genderqueer friend, s/he deserves whatever s/he gets. You wanna be a pioneer and specialize in making people uncomfortable? Take the lumps that come with it. I am tired of yet another group of touchy entitled victims I have to listen to with faux-sympathy while they “break silence” and “speak truth to power” and teach me how heartless and insensitive I have been. My response? ZZZZZZ.
The inclusion of the T (and why the B is there God and the HRC only knows) just serves to re-inforce the large cultural assumption –one I have resisted seeing but now find inescapeable– that being a gay man really means being a girl in a male body.
I have had good social, personal and work relationships with transgendered people. Have hired them, etc. Some are fine people, some are damaged and nutty. So if anyone wants to yell at me for my lack of evolution, they can do it on their own time. But really, I see no reason why, if “we” have to include the T’s and all their issues in the gay agenda, why straight male transvestites are not invited in? Count me out.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Essem said “This trans ideology wierdly [sic] asserts A. that gender is an oppressive social construct but then B. finds it so massively compelling that it supports people undergoing major life-altering surgery and chemical treatment to achieve the “right” gender and demands that everyone else accomodate them.”.
Wrong. A minority of transgendered people may feel gender is an oppressive social construct, but most don’t. And those that do feel that way are far less likely to be those that seek out hormone therapy and sex change surgery. Feeling that one shouldn’t have a genitalia based gender identity forced on you as a chld is not the same as thinking that gender is an oppressive social construct – a distinction you would do well to learn before you presume to spout off about those whom you clearly willfully fail to understand.
Essem said “I have had good social, personal and work relationships with transgendered people”.
I find that highly doubtful given your ignorant comments and general hatred towards trans people. You sound just like the bigot denigrating black people and then laughably claiming “Some of my best friends are black”.
Fortunately most gay men are accepting and understanding of transgendered people and transphobes like Essem are in the minority.
Essem said “I see no reason why, if “we” have to include the T’s and all their issues in the gay agenda, why straight male transvestites are not invited in?”.
Straight maile transvestites are part of my LGBT community as well and I think most LGBTs would agree with this. Trans people are as much a part of the “we” as you think you are. If you don’t want to be part of the “we” then go ahead and strike out on your own and leave the broader community. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
posted by esurience on
As a youth I was fortunate enough to have access to a weekly social/support group for LGBT teens in the area (that helpfully advertised in my high school’s newspaper). We had a transgender person come to the group one time and explain trans issues to us.
I also had such exposure because I was president of my school’s gay-straight alliance and we had training sessions put on by the GSA Network that included information on trans issues.
Here’s a random assortment of my thoughts, in the spirit of coming to an understanding about these issues:
To gay people, trans issues are often explained by making the analogy to sexual orientation. The explanation goes that most people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but gay people are same-sex oriented. And similarly, most people feel like a man or a woman respectively depending on their physical sexual characteristics, but sometimes the brain doesn’t “match” the physical characteristics.
To be honest, the “female (male) brained trapped in a male (female) body” idea doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. With sexual orientation, I can relate. I’m attracted to the same-sex, and it’s not so hard to understand that other people are wired differently and are attracted to the opposite-sex. But I wouldn’t say that my brain itself feels particularly male or female.
If I were born as just a floating head (or better, a floating brain), and somehow managed to stay alive without a body and float around, I’m not so sure that I would feel particularly male or female. Without being able to look down and see a penis or a vagina, I don’t know why I would think I was one sex/gender or another. So the preceding analogy/explanation is a bit foreign to me.
Now, maybe other people don’t feel the same way. Maybe I’ve got an atypical androgynous brain and most (or some) people’s brains really _do_ feel male or female. I can accept that, and I don’t have any problems with trans people.
I do have a problem with the idea that gender is an (oppressive or not) social construction though, and that the so-called “binary gender system” is unnatural and fabricated. I don’t know if most trans people feel this way or not, but when I’ve been exposed to trans issues in a formal way, this has always been part of the message.
Another random thought: My philosophy is to conform when you can, and don’t conform when you have to. In other words, if your happiness and well-being depends on not conforming in a certain way, then go ahead and don’t conform. I’m not in the closet because I know from experience that that would be damaging to my well-being and happiness.
On the other hand, purposely not conforming in order to rebel against some allegedly oppressive “binary gender system,” or some other allegedly socially constructed norm is kind of rude, I think.
Sorry that was so scatter-brained, hopefully someone will reply to something I’ve said and I’ll be able to focus better 🙂
posted by kandra on
Other than ‘general society’ discrimination, I’m still trying to understand what ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ have in common… the transgender addition is just one more uh? to many of us. After being in the community for 40+ years, I have experienced more dissimilarities than not, and issue priorities are often miles apart.
posted by Aaron on
What?
My want to blow another guy is apart and parcel from wanting to invert my penis into a faux vagina.
I’ve never understood why we allow ourselves to be included in the “GLBT” community. I have an African American ex-boyfriend with a similar disposition. He would regularly wonder aloud if the Civil Rights Movement would have succeeded had blacks presented themselves with other minorities in some ethnic pastiche (brings a whole new connotation to “rainbow coalition”). Maybe the explicit association of homosexuality with the trans community has held us back as a whole.
(White) Women got it right with the Suffrage Movement. While some where loathe to exclude African American suffragettes, the national leadership was very aware that racism was much deeper rooted than sexism.
posted by Veritas on
As a Gay man I also feel that the G/L/B struggle has nothing at all to do with Trans folks. Essem speaks a harsh truth. Trans folks do NOT consider themselves G/L/B at all. All they want to do is “transition” then run off and play heterosexual for the rest of their lives. Plus they can legally marry once they change their gender. Essem doesn’t have to leave the movement. Whining bitches like Priya who are full of self pity are the ones who need to leave. Go find your own movement Priya. We have NOTHING in common with you!
posted by Bobby on
A transgendered person has more in common with hermaphrodites, the androgynous, and tomboys than they do with most gays and lesbians that do fit in established gender roles.
posted by Liam on
I agree with Essem. The T’s are wholly separate from the LGB (and I’d even say B is a shade off from the core LG group). Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same.
I certainly don’t hate the transgendered, but I just have little in common with them (politically, socially, etc.).
posted by Jay on
Essem you are so right on man, thanks for articulating what most fear to say. Priya, I’m sorry sweetie but you are confused. Maybe in your rainbow world everyone is nice and nothing bad ever happens but to think that most gay men and lesbians are cool with the “T,” is a sad mistake. Just as people are ALWAYS going to be ethnocentric there will always difference between GLB & T. The issues you strive for are not similar. Seek out legal protection but do it as your own group. Transgendered people need to realize you have an internal audience in the greater Gay Lesbian and Bisexual population who do not understand you because you are perenially acting like victims. You do not seek assimilation in the larger society and your goals of community inclusion are more about setting yourselves apart then working toward a common good…Where are YOUR community leaders? When most GLB people see you we see the mass media stereotype of our community that the Hetero world lumps us into which could not be further from who we really are.
posted by celticdragon on
Veritas says
“As a Gay man I also feel that the G/L/B struggle has nothing at all to do with Trans folks. Essem speaks a harsh truth. Trans folks do NOT consider themselves G/L/B at all. All they want to do is “transition” then run off and play heterosexual for the rest of their lives.”
Tell that to my wife whom I am still married to.
Trans people are often married to their original partners during and after transition.
We advocate for SSM…because we are living it.
posted by David on
esurience said: “Without being able to look down and see a penis or a vagina, I don’t know why I would think I was one sex/gender or another.”
This seems like an example of the unmarked case to me. Since your neurological gender isn’t at variance with your other biological markers of gender, you don’t notice that you have one. One way of describing the experience of being transgender is that you notice that you have a neurological gender.
As for many other commenters here, it sounds like your knowledge of the trans community is pretty limited. “A pomo attack on the binary gender system” ? Um, no. If anything, the growing visibility of trans people demonstrates just how insistently binary gender asserts itself. Brain wiring is biological, immutable, and gendered – just as those awful determinists always said it was.
Furthermore: A significant number of transgender people ARE gay or lesbian or bisexual, so the idea that there could be some severed T movement doesn’t make a lot of sense. Overlapping communities is in fact the reality, so I’ll just stick with that.
posted by BobN on
I’m a bit perplexed by those who say we share nothing with the Ts. Don’t you notice who opposes them? And who opposes us? And how they confuse our issues with T issues and vice-versa?
I can see some similar issues, but I can’t see how anyone can deny the shared oppression.
posted by Diana Powe on
As a transwoman who transitioned from male to female while working as a police officer in Richardson, Texas more than eight years ago, I’m quite familiar with the idea that group solidarity can be pretty ephemeral. As part of the “thin blue line” I had a group that accepted me without question until I violated the mandate which I had unwittingly become subject to by virtue of having been born with a penis and testicles. Interestingly, despite Texas’ reputation as being a less-than-liberal place, virtually all of my coworkers were completely professional about my transition and I had the full support of the city government even though I had absolutely no legal protection. Of course, the fact that I was well under six feet tall, smaller than most officers and had surgery to modify the bony structure of my face probably helped because I didn’t become one of those…people…who go around “making” other people feel “uncomfortable”.
As to the common contention that “gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same”, a bit of careful thought shows that this is patently untrue. In fact, without gender identity, sexual orientation makes no sense unless gay men and lesbian women want to buy into the notion that all they care about in potential sex partners is a certain kind of arrangement of genital tissue. Of course, that would completely validate the common anti-gay theme that gays and lesbians are obsessed with sex.
I found the comments by esurience about not having a brain that feels specifically male or female quite intriguing. However, if that is genuinely true (and I assume it to be true), then presumably esurience wouldn’t find following societal expectations for females in terms of dress and behavior difficult. Any feedback on that would be interesting.
posted by Bokai on
“You do not seek assimilation in the larger society and your goals of community inclusion are more about setting yourselves apart then working toward a common good.”
“Trans folks do NOT consider themselves G/L/B at all. All they want to do is “transition” then run off and play heterosexual for the rest of their lives.”
Herein lies the catch 22 for transgender folks. As they transition they are EXTREMELY visible. Everyone, including GBL people, will quickly say ‘I’m nothing like them, I’m just a normal person who happens to not be straight. I’m perfectly in line with society genderwise.’
Then, a MTF/FTM who transitions successfully becomes invisible, particularly if they are straight. They are no longer trying to ‘flaunt their differentness’, they are ‘playing straight’. And now they are expelled from the queer community for trying to hard to conform to sexual norms.
Here is the reason that GB and L get to deal with T. Because within we may think that we are nothing alike, but those who are oppressing us, straight people who are comfortable in their bodies, have put us in the same place. A MTF is a faggot, a gay man is not a real man, a FTM is a butch dyke that has raging penis envy, a Lesbian is a woman who just wants to be a man deep down on the inside.
None of this is true, but it is what the world thinks of us. We all have to deal with the same ignorance and shit from the the same people. Transgender people get the added bonus of having those who should know better turning around and heaping their ignorant BS on us too. You know why you should be supporting trans rights even if you are trans? Because it is important for straight people to support gay rights even if they are not gay, because it is important for all of us to support the rights of EVERYONE else because that is how we defend ourselves from an ignorant and malicious majority.
I consider myself queer. I have a lot in common with the gay community and a lot in common with the trans community, and yet I don’t really fit in both. When people sit on one side of the line or the other they tend to see the differences in positions very clearly, but I am sitting on the fence, and I see mostly similarities.
posted by Jorge on
I’m another person who is much more sympathetic than than to what Essem posts (gender dysphoria indeed!).
However I believe the “queer” alliance has its uses. Mainly for young people who desperately need to “question” their identity. I believe there is a benefit to presenting a united front against patriarchical male sexist homophobia that demands machismo. People who do not fit in need to be told at a vulnerable time in their lives that there is a place for them. Sexual orientation and gender identity are a great mystery, but some people choose to use that which does not make sense, the outliers, as an excuse to destroy people.
Legislatively I do not think we have the same interests at all.
Beyond adulthood I assume people to have grown up enough to fight the system on their terms without any help from other “queer” categories.
posted by Diana Powe on
Of course, how much community is there in just “G”, for instance? Are all gay men just alike? How much do straight-acting gay men ever discriminate, at least on a personal basis, against feminine (non-passing) gay men? Are masculine gay men who are attracted to feminine gay men the same as masculine gay men who are not? Does it really make a difference to anything?
posted by freeburn on
Yikes. I know there is a lot of anger to go around, but take it from an outsider to the conversation (as a male-gender-identifying straight male) – chill out.
This reminds me of the prop 8 thing, when some of my (straight) political allies were suddenly finding discrimination to be A-OK, as long as it wasn’t directed at them (WTF?).
Communities exist for a lot of reasons, and you can’t expect everyone to want the same things, or to have any community, however defined, support every role. Apparently some people think the T’s should be cut loose, ’cause they’re dragging down the [political and social-acceptance] progress of the [what, G-only, GL? GB? LB?] movement. For F’s sake, stop it. The reason that any community of GLBT subsets or supersets got started in the first place, (I mean, human-behavior-fundamentally, aside from situational currents and feeding-in effects of this or that local drama) is that most people are a-holes a lot of the time, and the people who were getting the shit needed some kind of rock, some sort of family, a center of gravity. So G’s and L’s and B’s were there. And I’m guessing T’s were there, in the beginning. Part of the proto-movement, because it intuitively and emotionally made sense. So is it different now?
If people like Essem think they are making progress, they figure they can make it faster if they drop the most controversial clubbers out of the club. I think that when GLB people are accepted more than they are now by more people, people like Essem will just be identified as being annoying self-satisfied wankers.
Seeing as how there are enormous mysteries in biological systems, with hormones, brain chemicals and so on having complicated effects and having diverse consequences in terms of how we feel, think, look; given that people are different from each other, and that people are the same, just try to be nice, get over it, try again tomorrow.
posted by esurience on
Diana Powe inquired, “I found the comments by esurience about not having a brain that feels specifically male or female quite intriguing. However, if that is genuinely true (and I assume it to be true), then presumably esurience wouldn’t find following societal expectations for females in terms of dress and behavior difficult. Any feedback on that would be interesting.”
As far as wearing a dress or a skirt, I don’t even like to wear shorts, so that won’t be happening 🙂 And I think for most people the days have passed where women are expected to not wear pants (occasional jokes about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits notwithstanding, I don’t think people really care).
As far as behavior goes, I’m not sure what specific behaviors you’re talking about. Certainly, on average, women and men behave differently in certain contexts. But there’s also plenty of variation within an individual sex as well. As an example, I don’t like sports (either watching or participating), even though sports are seen as a typical male thing. But I also don’t like cheerleading (but I do like the movie “Bring it On!” 🙂 ), or ballet, or easy-bake-ovens. I played with GI Joes, and when I had a male friend when I was about 4 years old who had barbies, I thought it was kind of strange.
I don’t feel the need to act in a particular way to meet people’s expectations of how I should act, but I don’t feel the need to intentionally defy their expectations either. Deliberately acting in a typically female manner wouldn’t do anything for me, and it would have the negative of making others uncomfortable (and thus myself uncomfortable).
I like being able to pee standing up, fart and burp without people thinking that’s something my sex (especially) shouldn’t do in public, and I’m glad I don’t have to go through the daily hassle of putting on make-up 🙂
Does that make my brain specifically male? I don’t really think so. I’m just recognizing some of the advantages, either biological or social, of maleness.
When it comes to sex/gender and it’s influence on behavior, it’s hard to separate what is biologically based versus the effect of social expectations. There are definitely biologically-based behavioral differences between males and females (all those hormones have got to do something), but it’s hard for me to understand what specific differences would account for one wanting to change their body.
To be honest, if I could magically transmorgify myself into a male or female at will, I’d probably take advantage of that ability (I have a thing for straight men :)) I guess what I’m saying is that it wouldn’t matter a whole hell of a lot to me whether I had a male or female body, I would follow the appropriate social conventions of that body in cases where I was indifferent, and I’d depart from them if necessary.
posted by Diana Powe on
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully comment on my question.
posted by Essem on
I am pleased to have merited drawing down the righteous Saskatchewan wrath of Priya Lynn for my ignorant and willful transphobic spouting off of general hatred and anti-black-like bigotry as the door hits my ass while I exit LGBT (and “straight maile –sic– transvestite”) land. Made my annoying self-satisfied wankerish day. And I didn’t even chill out, try to be nice or get over it.
My work is done.
posted by John Howard on
Interesting comments. Not to derail from the other issues being talked about, but for anyone thinking about the issues I have been raising about conception rights for same-sex couples, perhaps I could explain how the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise would play out with regard to transgendered and intersexed people. This comment is a good starting place:
Plus they can legally marry once they change their gender.
Yes, this is true, and would still be true after Congress enacts an Egg and Sperm law to prohibit creating people from anything but a man’s unmodified sperm and a woman’s unmodified egg. But, you may ask, wouldn’t that mean that those marriages were prohibited from procreating together using their genes and marriage would lose its conception rights, or alternatively, wouldn’t it mean that we would have to allow them to attempt what to the lab would still be same-sex conception, which are exactly what I’ve been saying the problems would be with same-sex marriage? The question vexed me for a little while too, because I don’t want it to cause problems to intersexed people and people who have legally changed their sex and live as the sex they need and want to live as. But I certainly don’t think that legally changing sex should be an “end-around” the ban on same-sex conception and genetic modification. The door is opened to genetic engineering whether it is by transhumanists attempting to create “better humans”, couples attempting to enhance their own offspring, same-sex couples attempting to conceive bio-related offspring together, or by trans individuals attempting to conceive as their new sex. But, what about people who were originally given a wrong birth assignment to the one that would allow them to conceive children as, and doesn’t that depend on who they are attempting to conceive with?
Luckily the problem goes away when you realize that infertility is private, but sex is public, and so a trans individual is privately infertile when publicly allowed to conceive as their transitioned-to sex, just like infertile non-trans people are. The difference would show up when the couple makes a visit to the lab to attempt to procreate together: The lab would welcome both trans male female couples as well as a non-trans male-female couples in the door. then inside the privacy of the doctors office, the doctors would privately diagnose the problem that is keeping them from procreating together. If they determine that attempting to combine their genes would violate the “only sperm of a man and egg of a woman” language of the Egg and Sperm law they’d have to stop trying to help. In other words, if attempting to help this legally married, legal man and legal woman procreate together would require genetic modification of one of them so that they would not be combining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man, then they would not be allowed to help them. But the reason would remain private, just like any couple’s reasons for infertility would be, and so publicly they retain the right to attempt to conceive together, just like every marriage should always have.
On the other hand, a same-sex couple showing up at the same lab would be turned away at the door, because publicly, legally, they would be prohibited from attempting to conceive together by the Egg and Sperm law, even if privately, maybe one of them had transitioned or was intersexed and maybe they aren’t the least bit infertile as their “old” sex.
Obviously there would need to be clarification of what exactly is the definition of “a man” and “a woman” as far as how it would apply to the language of the Egg and Sperm law and a lab’s decision of what would violate it. It helps to look at the intention of the law to come up with a definition. The intention is to stop genetic modification and preserve everyone’s right to conceive children with our own unmodified gametes. So as far as a lab is concerned, “a man” means a person whose unmodified gametes would most likely successfully join with a woman’s egg, and “a woman” means a person whose unmodified gametes would most likely join with a man’s sperm. It’s not a circular definition because it defines a specific person by relating them to the general other sex, the total population of males or females with whom each of us could attempt to procreate with. We all can only procreate one way, with one sex, even if it doesn’t necessarily match our legal sex or our lived-as sex. Usually it’s obvious and matches external and internal signs, but not always. Labs should only help people procreate using their unmodified genes, as that should be everyone’s right. Labs should not help trans people procreate as a new sex if it would require modifying their genes, which is the same as helping same-sex couples procreate.
Most transgendered people do not expect to be able to procreate as their new sex, unless they were intersexed and mis-assigned and are now transitioning to their sex with which they can use their unmodified gametes. They’re T, but their not Transhumanist T, they’re Intersexed or gender dysphoria T, and their desires and demands are not the same as Transhumanist T’s are. Just as LGB people need to cast out the Transhumanists who are using them to usher in GE, T people need to cast out the Transhumanists too.
posted by Diana Powe on
“Obviously there would need to be clarification of what exactly is the definition of “a man” and “a woman” as far as how it would apply to the language of the Egg and Sperm law and a lab’s decision of what would violate it. It helps to look at the intention of the law to come up with a definition.”
This was the beginning of an interesting paragraph. To my knowledge, certainly in Texas law, there are no statutory definitions for “male”, “female”, “man” or “woman”. Frankly, I don’t think such an exercise, for a general usage in law, is actually possible without excluding large numbers of people.
posted by Wendy Moore on
As a Transwoman, I completely agree that trans people don’t belong in the melange of LGB politics. Transsexuality is about gender, not sexuality. Even among trans people, the issue of sexuality is so nuanced, variable and controversial that we fight among ourselves.
Strictly speaking, we don’t fit in the “we want to be homosexual” trope that aligns the LG community. Stuffing us into the fight that the homosexual community has is actually disingenuous. After SRS and the necessary paperwork, I can marry any man I should choose. In most states, same sex couples cannot, no matter how deeply committed they are.
The only place we really overlap are on the basic civil rights issues. Transpeople are such a small minority I can understand some compassionate soul wanting to throw the cloak over us. But the fight for civil rights is too big and too important to be lumped, aggregated and dealt with the divisive politics seen here.
I do not wish to be the caboose on the LGB train. I really don’t belong there. I am a different category of person, one that society has to deal with on its own.
BTW, I completely missed Transawareness day. No one sent me the memo.
posted by Andrew Triska on
Homophobes don’t make the distinction between gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered people. Therefore we all have a common cause. We don’t have to have exactly the same goals or characteristics to have this cause. That’s why we see many transgendered people (some of whom could easily blend into heterosexual society fighting for GLBT rights. It’s the same reason many lesbians help fight AIDS, even though they have a miniscule chance of contracting it. Compassion and solidarity.
We’re arguing for the same rights: marriage, non-discrimination, hate crimes legislation. The same people who commit hate crimes and discrimination against the G are are committing them against the L, the B, and the T.
posted by Robert K Wright on
I’m completely shocked and dismayed at the ignorance shown here. Does NO ONE here know the GLBT history? Don’t you know which letter is most responsible for the rights we currently enjoy? If not for the “T” we would not have risen up at Stonewall. We would have remained hidden for many years, just going along to get along, hiding in plain site. The “T’s” amongst us do not have that ability and had to take a stand while all the little white gays and lesbians were trying to assimilate in order to just be left alone. Not to insure future rights, but to be left alone. I applaud the “T’s” and am somewhat ashamed of my fellow “”G’s”. Oh, and by the way, there are MANY “T’s” who identify as “G’s”, “L’s” and “B’s”. Just because their natal bodies don’t match their gender identification does not mean that their sexuality does not enter into those other letters. Learn your history and remember to thank those “T’s”, whom you have nothing in common with, for the rights that they secured for your un-appreciative asses.
posted by esurience on
A wise man once allegedly said:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
— Ben Franklin
posted by Zoe Brain on
No need to walk on eggshells. Simply saying “I don’t know enough to be sure not to offend…” is fine. And although we shouldn’t have to educate, the reality is that like it or not, we do. So no use griping about shoulda woulda coulda.
I’ve always been female, but I used to look male – with my clothes on. Then that changed because of my particular syndrome, so I looked female – with my clothes on. Some surgery (needed in any event to avoid cancer and to re-plumb the urethra, things were a mess), and I looked female even without clothes.
So technically I’m Intersexed rather than Transsexual. Just as I’m straight rather than lesbian. But such nicities don’t matter to those who’d like to see “people like me” suppressed, repressed, or just plain extinct.
Transsexuality is orthogonal to sexual orientation – so you’ll find TS people who are bi, straight, asexual, gay or lesbian.
Work on those Intersexed people who get a ‘natural sex change’ indicates that about a third of people are BiGendered, and don’t identify strongly with either gender, they could function adequately no matter what body they had. 2/3 can’t though. Those who are bigendered can’t really see what the fuss is about when it comes to gender, just as those who are bisexual can’t see what the big deal is about being exclusively gay. Or straight.
I personally wasn’t at Stonewall, or the lesser known Compton’s Cafeteria riot that preceeded it in 1966.
“The Compton’s Cafeteria Riot occurred in August 1966 in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. This incident was the first recorded transgender riot in United States history, preceding the more famous 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City by three years.”
The Orwellian vapourising of transpeople from the original GLBT movement in the late 70’s effectively got us where we are today, with Gays complaining about the Johnnies-come-lately Transpeople riding on the GLB coat-tails. No, actually it was the other way around, in the beginning.
No matter. I was not there at the time, so can’t claim credit for it. And I’m IS anyway, a group even less visible in GLBT than the Transpeople.
Whether the GLBTs become GLB only doesn’t matter. I’m not GLB, but I can’t possibly morally claim rights for myself without fighting for GLB rights too. And for other minorities, for that matter. Sometimes being pragmatic means being idealistic, because otherwise you surrender the moral high ground, and non-minorities can validly ask why should they support you, when you don’t support others?
posted by Robert K Wright on
Oh, and by the way, for all those who don’t know who is leading the fight for marriage equality in the US. Meet Shannon Minter, “the lead attorney in the combined marriage cases that led to California’s legalization of same gender marriages back in spring of 2008. That ruling was overturned with the passage of California’s Proposition 8 in November 2008.
Early in 2009, Shannon Minter was again in front of the California Supreme Court, this time arguing that Proposition 8 should be struck down as unconstitutional, per the California Constitution.”
Shannon is a femalr to male transexual. So for the moron who claims trans people only want to change sexes and then go get legally married, well, a trans man was the major force in securing the right, however temporary it might be, for YOU to marry.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10177
Suck on that.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
As to the connection between Ts and GLBs, I think John Corvino explained it fairly straightforwardly.
Regarding Priya Lynn’s response to Essem: I am afraid that those of us who support ending anti-trans discrimination have little chance of significantly increasing the numbers of supporters if we respond so harshly to questions like his, even if his own tone is a bit combative. The best course is to patiently answer. Let me try.
Essem wrote:
“I simply do not identify with a person with gender dysphoria.”
Setting aside the issue of dysphoria, I do not see why you need to “identify” with someone in order to support their right to go about their business without being harassed and discriminated against.
Essem wrote:
“My sexual identity has to do with erotic orientation to other men, my own kind, not a wish to be someone else entirely. Drag queen, transgender or straight cross-dresser (why do we leave them out?)…it’s all got nothing to do with me.”
Of course T is different from G–otherwise it wouldn’t need a separate letter. But the two are connected in the way that Mr. Corvino stated: “the alliance makes sense insofar as both (overlapping) groups suffer from rigid social expectations about sex and gender.” As that really so hard to understand?
“Even alliance with lesbians is tricky. Believe me, I have worked in mixed orgs like that. I can go from being a fellow queer victim to a privileged male SOB oppressor in three seconds.”
You have a point there. I have experienced the same thing, and to say it is frustrating and exasperating is an understatement. But Corvino’s explanation that I just quoted above applies here as well. The reason for an alliance is that we share a common interest in ending society’s discrimination against us, which centers on our perceived violation of social expectations regarding sex and gender. Coalition work is not easy, especially when people with chips on their shoulders seem determined to undermine any chance of working together with their hostile attitude. Also, some people seem to think of activism as group therapy, which sets up a conflict between those who want an encounter session and those who want to get something done on public policy etc. Some of this can be resolved by forming different groups with different focuses. Most cities have GLBT-related affinity groups of every variety, so it’s not as if you either have to hang out with people you can’t stand or quit the movement altogether. As Gore Vidal said about God, “gay community” is a convenient fiction. But it IS convenient in various ways. Working with others who are different from you on overlapping areas of concern does not require you to agree on everything else.
“Second, a lot of the ideology in the trans activist community is a pomo attack on the binary gender system….”
This is true, but as someone else pointed out, it is not true of all transgenders. One doesn’t have to agree with the furthest-out Queer Theory in order to support ending discriminatory treatment of transgender people. I myself have managed to write about the subject without receiving torrents of denunciation. Showing a little basic respect can work wonders.
Essem:
“and demands that everyone else accomodate them.”
Asking for equal protection of the law doesn’t seem like asking too much to me.
“As for your genderqueer friend, s/he deserves whatever s/he gets. You wanna be a pioneer and specialize in making people uncomfortable? Take the lumps that come with it.”
There is truth in this. People who walk around with chips on their shoulders (something Essem may know something about), or who go out of their way to be as outre as possible, should not be surprised when they succeed. However, most transgender people are not trying to be provocative or to cause any trouble at all. They are simply being themselves (and surely they get to decide what that is, not you or I) and to go about their lives. I know a lot of transgender folk who are soft-spoken and as polite as they come. The notion that they are trying to be in everyone’s face is contradicted by their entire manner and bearing. Using some in-your-face “genderqueer” activist’s antics against a different set of people makes no sense.
“The inclusion of the T (and why the B is there God and the HRC only knows) just serves to re-inforce the large cultural assumption –one I have resisted seeing but now find inescapeable– that being a gay man really means being a girl in a male body.”
I don’t see why. Again, we are talking about including the T, not replacing the G with a T.
“I see no reason … why straight male transvestites are not invited in?”
Nor do I. But so what? Where is the big problem here? It appears to be something along the lines of, “I am a normal gay man, and I don’t want to be lumped in with a bunch of freaks.” I just don’t see what any of us gains by embracing such an attitude or framing the issue that way. It amounts to an appeal to those who hate all of us to give some of us a pass, rather than to challenge the hatred and intolerance. It would be a lot better for us to stop drinking from that poisonous well. I just don’t think it’s right to mistreat people. I don’t think it makes any more sense to discriminate against, say, an M2F transgender because of her personal appearance than it does to make a fuss over Michelle Obama wearing a sleeveless Narcisco Rodriguez dress to her husband’s address to Congress. Instead of adding your hostility to the M2F woman’s troubles, why not adopt an attitude of live and let live?
posted by Justin on
To think that homosexuality and gender identity have nothing in common simply defies logic (and scientific study). All you people who want to leave trans folks in the dust to fend for themselves are truly pathetic. I don’t really see the difference between our situations: individuals in both communities do not want to be discriminated against or treated differently based on personal choices predicated by WHO WE ARE. This ‘I’ve got mine, so screw you’ mentality is disheartening. I can only hope that the people spewing this stance get a severe bashing while pleading for help from others who stand by and do nothing, saying “Well, it’s not my problem.” Sometimes asses need to be kicked in order for minds to be changed. I’m pretty sure that’s what Gandhi was trying to say.
posted by jasper flat on
This argument about LGBT seems dated. The L G B T letters were stuck together for sociopolitical leverage in a different decade. That time has gone, but some have yet to move on. Just as HRC is a zombie which fails to grasp its own death (prop 8 ‘leadership’, anyone?), LGBT is a ghost of the past which has no viable stake in the present. Ls Gs Bs Ts are strong enough to stand on their own, and the label which affirms that this fact is false hurts all of us.
posted by Harry on
Re: Robert K Wright’s hissy fit about Stonewall and drag queens, etc. It may very well be a mythologized version of the Gay Alamo. “Little white gays and lesbians” and their “unappreciative asses” may not be so beholden after all.
Check out this 2002 Indy Gay Forum piece by Dale Carpenter.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26644.html
posted by Kyndra on
I’m speaking as a transsexual from the broader transgender category which has come to be understood as an umbrella term that cover all forms of atypical gender expression. A transsexual will usually, at some point in their life, transition from male to female gender roles, so unless they are truly asexual, they will most certainly at some point in their life be either G, B or L. That is unavoidable and definitely something we have very much in common with the rest of the community.
posted by evinfuilt on
You’re stuck with me one way or another. I was a straight male, and now I’m a Lesbian Female. A lot of you seem caught up in the idea that all Trans want to be straight, but its gender and sexual identity are different, a lot of people like me exist. I’ve seen way too much bigotry in this thread to believe is real, but so be it.
posted by Brixtonville on
Inclusion tends to make us weak. Cliched as it is, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
The problem gays and lesbians have with obtaining equal rights can be reduced to a simple “people fear them because they are different.” While gays and lesbians grudgingly try to get along to put on a face proving otherwise, we also were taught by our vaunted elders who survived the plague and saw us through the horrors of the Reagan years into the promise of the Clinton era that we must be inclusive.
Why?
As stereotypical as it is, most of the lesbians I’ve met have an almost instant dislike of me. I’m a pretty friendly guy, and very polite. But that’s almost the problem. I have a beard. I’m masculine. I hold doors open (for everyone). I pay checks. To them I’m almost a caricature…but rather than being one of a gay man I’m one of a man. There are always exceptions (and, in a callback to an above poster I have several lesbian friends) but that’s how I’ve interpreted the response.
I mention this because gays and lesbians are fundamentally different and have different goals, issues, and needs. We feel the strain of being lumped together already, because our only real uniting passions are marriage and equal rights. Yes, we want default custodial rights for our children. Yes, we want implicit living wills for our partners and families. Yes, we want default estate rights to protect our families. But after that, we have to hammer square and round pegs into a triangle hole to try and fight on a unified front.
So the mashed-together barely coherent message that comes through reaches the mainstream straight population. They already perceive us as “different” which puts them on edge. They’ve already been conditioned to see gays and lesbians as proto-molesters, just waiting for a boy scout or Oprah school student to walk by our line of vision. Add to that the very stark “differentness” of the transgender community and we are absolutely hopeless.
Just because something is “also different” doesn’t mean we’re comfortable with it, or even accepting of it. And I think in the case of gays and lesbians we’re forced to tolerate each other because there’s no one else. That doesn’t make it less strained.
If we really want to win our rights, we need to abandon the game plan of our LBGT elders. The sexual revolution is over. Your war was fought and your battles have played out. It’s time for us to go our separate ways; as individual communities (instead of one big forced co-op where we spend just as much effort being the alpha-whatever as we do producing a message) we stand more of a chance of changing minds and broadening possibilities.
posted by John Howard on
This is from the FAQ (for parents) at Trans Kids Purple Rainbow Foundation, in response to the frequently asked question “Who do they marry?”:
As an aside, can you imagine if the Supreme Court had had that cavalier attitude about fertility and marriage in Skinner v Oklahoma and Loving v Virginia? “Mr Skinner can seek out options available to other infertile men”, or “The Lovings can marry, but Virginia can sterilize Mr Loving and require them to use a black man’s donor sperm to have children”? Obviously the Court nor the state ever considered such a ridiculous callous statement, because they recognized that having one’s own children using one’s own gametes with the person of your choice (except some relations where there is a supportable basis for not allowing that relationship to marry) is the basic civil right, not “parenting” other people’s children.
Back to the point I am raising: who here thinks that Transgender rights include the right to attempt to have children as the new sex? Apparently the Purple Trans Kids Foundation people do not expect it to be a possibility, they are not advising parents that it will be possible some day. I don’t think it should be allowed, because allowing it will open the door to all forms of genetic engineering, including of course same-sex conception, to say nothing of being unsafe to the children being created. I don’t think kids should be sterilized or thwarted from healthy fertility and their basic civil right to have children.
This was the beginning of an interesting paragraph. To my knowledge, certainly in Texas law, there are no statutory definitions for “male”, “female”, “man” or “woman”. Frankly, I don’t think such an exercise, for a general usage in law, is actually possible without excluding large numbers of people.
No, because it is phrased as “most likely”, it has to be one or the other. The idea is that no one is both. No one has ever both fathered and mothered a child. No one who seems more likely to be able father a child using their unmodified gametes should be allowed to modify their genes to try to provide an “egg” in order to conceive with another man. For people who would seem to have no chance of procreating as either sex, perhaps they have no gametes at all, labs could only help them procreate as the sex they think would most likely be able to procreate as with unmodified gametes, they would not be allowed to reverse any epigenetic imprinting to make their genes more likely to join with someone else’s gamete. But they would certainly be allowed to help them procreate as one sex or the other, just not either, arbitrarily based on the chosen partner. Everyone should only be able to procreate as one sex or the other.
posted by John Howard on
By the way Diana, I’m not suggesting that everyone’s legal sex should be determined and must match their “most likely to conceive as” sex, as obviously that wouldn’t be possible even if it were desirable, and it isn’t even desirable in every case. I do think that using “most-likely-to-conceive-as” should be how the original infant sex assignment and child-rearing is carried out (ie, not according to genitalia shape as it often is now), but because it would only result in private infertility, it isn’t necessary that it match in terms of enforcing the Egg and Sperm law. Again – legally same-sex couples would get turned away at the door of the lab, because they would be publicly violating the Egg and Sperm law if they attempted to conceive together. But legally male-female couples where one was trans would be privately refused service. So there is no need for their public sex to match their fertile sex.
posted by Britt on
Essem: You write, “The inclusion of the T (and why the B is there God and the HRC only knows)” – I wanted to know why the “B” offends you so much. It seems to me bisexuals have more of a place in the gay (and I’m using gay to encompass men and women here) community than transsexuals, at least the way you see it…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brixtonville’s characterization of the history of the movement strikes me as being rather tendentious. I have been a gay activist for 30 years, and I have never seen myself as being part of any revolution, sexual or otherwise. That notion dates to the 60s and 70s. And it isn’t terribly coherent for him to generalize that lesbians are hostile to him because of his masculinity while also saying that he has several lesbian friends. In any case, the difficulties people have in getting along are reasons why working together in common cause is challenging, not a reason why we should abandon it. Speaking of stereotypes, pardon me, but if Brixtonville is so manly, why is he so eager to quit in the face of difficulty?
And please explain how you are part of “one big forced co-op.” I admit I don’t have a beard, but no one forces me to go to meetings or events or to sign up for causes against my will. No one forces me to socialize with people I don’t like. As it happens, most of my editors over the years have been lesbians. They have ranged from apparently easygoing to tough and intimidating. I have managed to have good working relationships with all of them. The older I get, the less I feel a chasm of difference between us. We have a lot in common, including our family commitments. Everyone has differences. There are lots of differences within the gay male community. So what? We are talking about working with our coalition partners on common concerns, not moving in with them.
posted by Chuck on
I’m amazed by the degree of alienation that several gay men on the thread feel toward the LBT people within our community. It is not simple expedience that allies me (a gay white male) to them. I am allied to them in a political movement, and yes, it is expedient. I am part of their community because they are friends and family to me.
To those gay men here who seem willing to throw other groups under the bus on their way to equal rights – you are hindering this movement. You are making the assertion that gay rights are civil rights a travesty. If these are not all civil rights, then the reactionary bigots on the religious right were correct, and we have no moral right to equate our fight to that of the civilo rights movement. If our fight is not the fight of Lesbians and Transexuals, then it certainly was never the fight of African Americans.
Those of you who cannot or will not socialize with Lesbians and Transexuals – You need to get out more. You need to meet and befriend people who have spent their lives oppressed in the same way you have been oppressed. If you are uncomfortable with those people, maybe it’s not just *them*, maybe it’s also *you.*
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Well stated, Chuck.
As to the person who said that Gs, Ls, Bs, and Ts would be better off going our separate ways, I’d love to have that explained to me. Sure, we would be better off without counterproductive alliances, but given the common cause we share, I don’t see how working together is inherently counterproductive. Some may be equating “GLBT” or “LGBT” with a far-left political agenda, but that is not necessarily so. Besides, if you think the current people leading a particular effort are misguided or self-defeating, the answer is an alternative effort, not abandoning the field.
posted by Robert K Wright on
Harry | April 1, 2009, 11:18am
Sorry Harry, but I have a problem accepting the writings of a pro-McCain writer. The Log Cabinittes do very little to inspire confidence in their reasoning.
And I was certainly unaware that expressing a view, even adamantly, was now labeled as a Hissy Fit. I also note that you didn’t respond to the later post about Shannon Minter and his leading the way on the same-sex marriage issue in California. Guess he should have kept his tranny ass home so you could have fought the legal case yourself. I’m still shocked and dismayed that anyone who suffers discrimination based on sexuality would opt to throw others under the bus for their own expediency. But I guess folks like you need to have someone to discriminate against. Too bad you didn’t learn compassion from your own experiences. Maybe when you grow up.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Thanks, Robert, for mentioning Shannon Minter. In addition to watching his brilliant oral presentations to the California Supreme Court via the Internet, I have dealt with him on local DC matters where he and NCLR have lent us their expertise. I can’t say enough good things about him.
posted by Mike in Texas on
I think a lot of yall are a bit misguided. Most of this arguement is about separating the LGT groups when thats an impossibility. Example: Gay men and lesbians who are “passing” do not need ENDA so who cares if it gets through congress or not unless you are not “passing”, in which case you are transgender (expressing a gender role outside of that which society expects of you). In other words, if you aren’t trans, its unlikely you even care about all this political crap (social acceptance is another issue). The current “rights” that are enjoyed really only make non-passing gay and lesbians less likely to get beaten on the streets when they are in most urban areas: something that I consider a trans right. Ultimately, this is all identity politic crap and people shouldnt buy into it. If your smart, work hard, and do the right thing, you can be happy in life and get anything you want regardless of sexuality or the politics of it all.
posted by BobN on
“Legislatively I do not think we have the same interests at all.”
Again I am perplexed. Our mutual goal is a legal system that doesn’t look down our pants to see what our rights should be.
Is there some other objective I’m not aware of?
posted by John Howard on
Our mutual goal is a legal system that doesn’t look down our pants to see what our rights should be.
Do you agree that limiting us to using our unmodified gametes is not really “looking down our pants”, but it certainly does dictate who we have our reproduction rights with. So to the extent that you are saying that people should have reproductive rights with everyone regardless of their sex, you are wrong, we should only have reproduction rights with someone of the other sex.
posted by BobN on
Yes, John, I’m already aware that you want to look down my pants AND the pants of my partner to figure out my rights.
I got that the first time, what, five years ago???
My how time flies when you’re skipping posts…
posted by John Howard on
Is there some other objective I’m not aware of?
Security and protections for same-sex relationships that are equal to the benefits and protections of marriage? To be able to live as you choose without harassment and discrimination in housing and employment and all sorts of things like that? Equality without regard for sex implies the right to conceive with (and as) either sex – to have “superfertility” as the Transhumanists call it – and it is not the right objective.
posted by Roz Kaveney on
We trans folk certainly don’t need your permission to be part of that community which describes itself as LGBT or queer or whatever. Many of us have been here from the beginning – I was part of the trans caucus in London GLF in 1971 – and we are not going away…
And we don’t even have to explain ourselves, but hey! it’s late and I am not yet quite tired so here I go again.
One of the reasons why trans people are part of the LGBT umbrella is the simple fact that a lot of us are lesbian, or gay, or bi, as well as trans. For some of us, this was a matter of changing our bodies, but now who we loved; for me, and others I know, coming to terms with ourselves ended up with the delightful surprise of still being queer after transition. As I always used to say about surgery, I didn’t go through all of that to end up straight…
The same sorts of people want to discriminate against us, or kill us; do you honestly think that murderous homophobic and transphobic thugs are terribly bothered about what specifically we have between our legs.
We’re here; many of us are queer; get used to it.
posted by Jorge on
Look, I think there are some places where gay and transgendered communities/interests/etc. are drifted apart. Sometimes it’s a little uncomfortable to be lumped together–when it’s artificial. Sometimes it is not only uncomfortable. Sometimes being grouped together demands giving up or accepting things that one does not want to. People need to understand that there is nothing morally wrong with people who feel disenchanted or not engaged. If they don’t, that is their decision, their loss for not figuring it out, but in the end they will get a little somewhere.
posted by Jorge on
“Legislatively I do not think we have the same interests at all.”
–Again I am perplexed. Our mutual goal is a legal system that doesn’t look down our pants to see what our rights should be.
Is there some other objective I’m not aware of?
………..
Well, let me just give you a few things on my mind and you can make of it what you will.
I have seen civil rights bills fail because of the explicit inclusion of gender identity or expression, and my view of that is that everyone is worse off as a result. Gays have clearly lost, of course, but I do not accept the idea that you need to explicitly include gender identity or expression in order to protect transgendered people, and I have doubts as to the reason it is necessary to include this language.
I read stories about transgender activists seeking to change state laws so that they can modify the gender listed on birth certificates and I think WTF I do NOT want this.
I think I will leave it at that.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Thanks, Roz, for your comments.
Mike in Texas writes, “unless you are not “passing”, in which case you are transgender (expressing a gender role outside of that which society expects of you)”
Um, no, Mike. The G and T are related as Mr. Corvino wrote, but they are not the same. This sort of tendentious redefinition has become popular in some quarters, whereby gays are told they are actually transgender. But one of the foundation stones of the quset for transgender rights is that others do not get to decide people’s gender identity for them. I was born genetically male and have always been happy with my male identity. I have also, as a separate point, had homosexual feelings from my earliest memories. I was aware from an early age that my sexual orientation went against societal expectations, but never thought myself wrong on that account. Sexual orientation and gender identity are two separate things. Gay people and transgender people are (as has been pointed out) overlapping groups, and in any case share common interests in fighting for their civil rights.
Jorge writes, “I read stories about transgender activists seeking to change state laws so that they can modify the gender listed on birth certificates and I think WTF I do NOT want this.”
It would be helpful to the discussion if you would offer reasons for your positions. Birth certificates are used for identification. Transgender people face a great deal of harassment and discrimination on a daily basis on account of their gender identity, and as a class are underemployed and at higher risk for hate crimes among other things. For you to say “WTF” and dismiss out of hand their effort to remove one burden that can make no difference to you seems to me cruel.
posted by BobN on
Jorge, you do raise one goal we do not share: the ability to change a birth certificate. That’s not one gay people need.
As to your other point, all it shows is that, despite all the other shared goals, you’re willing to cut T people off just so we can get what we need.
posted by Diana Powe on
“I was aware from an early age that my sexual orientation went against societal expectations, but never thought myself wrong on that account. Sexual orientation and gender identity are two separate things.”
In what context, other than gender, does claiming to have something called a “sexual orientation” make sense?
posted by Jorge on
Richard, I would rather not get into that much detail, because as you say, it is rather cruel. Suffice it to say that I want society’s definitions of sex and birth sex to be exactly the way they are now. I think they work quite well. I don’t want any changes to this written into the law.
I am giving this as an example to highlight that there are certain differences that are unpersuadables.
As to your other point, all it shows is that, despite all the other shared goals, you’re willing to cut T people off just so we can get what we need.
Couldn’t you also say it shows I don’t want G people to be cut off just so T people can get what they need? There are issues on which I think the tensions are legitimate.
posted by Diana Powe on
Jorge,
As I said, I know there’s no definition for “man”, “woman”, “male” or “female” in Texas law and I don’t think that Texas is unusual. Also, almost all states, including Texas, already have procedures in place for changing birth certificates, so your concerns about that are not terribly relevant.
posted by Essem on
Just wanted to recognize Richard Rosendall for addressing my combative comments as he did.
posted by Andrew Triska on
Jorge wrote: “Couldn’t you also say it shows I don’t want G people to be cut off just so T people can get what they need? There are issues on which I think the tensions are legitimate.”
If there were a non-discrimination bill that protected lesbians but excluded gays, would you support it? What about if it protected only white gays and lesbians? Fairness demands trans inclusion.
Also, gays and lesbians (and many straight people) have a legitimate interest in protecting the right to “gender expression,” too. What if an employer wants to discriminate against a woman not because she’s a lesbian but because she acts too “manly”? (This has happened — to a straight woman, actually.) What if a guy was fired for not liking sports, or knitting in his spare time?
posted by Brenda on
In the interest of ‘full disclosure’, I’m a post-op m2f woman. And I loved your article ‘Transgender Day…and Gays’. I completely understand about grouping ‘T’ in with ‘GLB’ and also understand why we typically are.
In my company’s GLBT group, I was the 1st open transgendered person. I transitioned at this company and incredibly fortunate that the company and our GLBT group was interested in learning and addressing the issues that transgendered people face.
It is so refreshing to hear, and have, an open and honest discussion of our mutual and our differing issues.
Thanks again!
Brenda
posted by Jorge on
If there were a non-discrimination bill that protected lesbians but excluded gays, would you support it? What about if it protected only white gays and lesbians? Fairness demands trans inclusion..
So you’re willing to expand GLBT to GLBT+Women and Whites? Well I’m not. Fairness does not demand that gays identify with and work with every single group identified as oppressed, and it is not fairness but practicality and a sense of community that has led to the GLBT alliance. Fairness does not demand that everything transgendered people think they need to have equal rights (or everything gays want for that matter), they should get. There are situations where there are legitimate tensions and where our best interests do not align, and I do not consider myself subject to attempts to guilt trip me over what I decide to do about issues that do not mean anything to me or that mean something to me in which I am opposed to where the transgendered community stands. As an American I am free to decide what I believe and what I don’t believe, and it’s not my job to try to convince myself of something I don’t agree with. It’s other people’s job to recognize the situation exists and figure out what they are going to do about it. I do not see what the problem is with this simple observation.
To answer your question, yes. Pregancy, for example, is not an issue that affects gay men. The almost issue on reparations is an issue that affects white gays differently than black gays.
Also, gays and lesbians (and many straight people) have a legitimate interest in protecting the right to “gender expression,” too. What if an employer wants to discriminate against a woman not because she’s a lesbian but because she acts too “manly”? (This has happened — to a straight woman, actually.) What if a guy was fired for not liking sports, or knitting in his spare time?
Then there should be a law passed to prohibit all discrimination, period. That is exactly what I am talking about. I have seen the GLBT community sabotage laws that protect all people with the justification that it does not explicitly say trans people are protected.
posted by Big kate on
a quick summary for those who don’t want to read the whole thing
If you took the transgender out of the LGB community all you would have left is a bunch of closeted or straight acting gay lesbian and bisexuals. DRAG is transgender, Butch women is transgender, femmme men is transgender, being camp is transgender, being visibly gay is transgender, challenging ‘traditional’ assumptions about gender is transgender
I would love to know who decided that march 31st was supposed to be transgender day of visibility, it should be april 1st. No really! It’s a much better choice of day. I don’t remember people discussing it with me.
Mind you I have only been loud (as opposed to stealth) since the eighties. I also been out. Yes OUT (and LOUD) and as much as i can be PROUD. That’s because I like fish, you know fish, that word is often uttered so many times in lesbian and gay bars filled with men who think it should be men only. Yeah i’m a dyke!
Not that has stopped quite a few gay men trying to rape me over the years. well it was for my own good because all i needed was one good fuck by them and i would know i wanted in men and I would be saved from a fate worse than death – being a woman. Because so many gay men assumed that I really like cock, because I knew I was a girl who liked sex with other girls. That I looked like a man in the seventies and early eighties was good enough, that I said I was dyke, was just a lie.
But lets get finally to the heart of he issue Transgender visibility. The saddest thing about transgender visibility is you have no idea what transgender is. You think transgender is about transexuality. And apparently transexuality is about blokes getting their cocks cut off so they can be straight with their boyfriends, oh and dykes pretending to be men and marrying their girlfriends!
If you took the transgender out of the LGB community all you would have left is a bunch of closeted or straight acting gay lesbian and bisexuals. DRAG is transgender, Butch women is transgender, femmme men is transgender, being camp is transgender, being visibly gay is transgender, challenging ‘traditional’ assumptions about gender is transgender
thats by the way teh definition we used back in the mid nineties at PRIDE, when PRIDE woke up to the reality that Bisexuals and transgendre people HAD always been a part of PRIDE. it was in fact US who were willing to be LOUD on the street when so many gay men were hiding in their bars frightened to be OUT
It could have been me that stood up at your lecture and complained, it probably wasn’t but it could have been. And yes I remember references to “my big hands” as “polite” way of saying “ooh I bet he’s had his dick cut off”. In the same way that faggot and shirt lifter are used so politely to refer to men “who like to have dick in their arse”.
I remember being told by so many organisers that they didn’t believe in all that PC crap, when i complained about non-inclusion. i was told that change took time and that we had to get everyone on board to get change. All the while complaining when ever anyone said that gays should not be in the military or that gays spread aids. Never realising the contradiction in what they said
Anyhow got to go, if you meet i’m the 6 foot 4 fat dyke who will when asked about her gender will answer – why do you need to know?
posted by Andrew Triska on
Great point, Big Kate. Anything that doesn’t conform to gender norms — whether it’s nelly gay guys, butch lesbians, or anything in between — is transgender.
Then again, a lot of gays and lesbians would love to exclude those people as well. There are plenty of straight-acting gays who get their panties in a knot over how “flamboyant” gay are setting back the movement by being so “out-there” and non-conforming. You see it every time parade season rolls around. If they had their way, only sports-watching gay guys and lesbians in skirts would be part of the movement.
posted by Diana Powe on
Which fact goes straight to demonstrating that claims that gender identity and sexual orientation are separate and unrelated are not based in reality.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Diana, which fact are you referring to?
In any case, sexual orientation and gender identity are related, but they are different things. The fact that some gay people want to throw transgender people overboard, which is myopic and selfish at best, does not make it useful to muddy the difference.
posted by Diana Powe on
The fact that I was referring to was that gays and lesbians deny the common accusation that their sexual orientation is built around being obsessed with sex and genitals while at the same time discriminating in potential romantic partners based on gender-identified behaviors such as those exhibited by feminine men and masculine women. I’m not asserting that sexual orientation and gender identity are the same thing, however, you simply cannot speak of sexual orientation without implicitly invoking gender identity. It’s nonsense. As a result, I assert that it is simply false to claim that the two are not related at all which is a claim that has been made here.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fair enough, Diana, but of course there are myriad reasons why one finds this person attractive and that one not. One’s sexual orientation in and of itself does not reach into all of those factors. The fact that I am only sexually attracted to men is necessary but not sufficient to determine the set of people I am attracted to, since I am not attracted to most men. I doubt I am unique, however, in finding a variety of different types of men attractive, including men who fall in different places along the masculine-feminine spectrum. It’s a complex subject, and I think we should be careful to avoid making false generalizations in this area. But yes, the two things are related albeit not the same thing.
posted by Diana Powe on
Richard, I absolutely agree. My point is that the two things are interwoven and inextricably linked in a complex way that cannot be rationally denied. However, that doesn’t prevent some from denying it as was done here.
posted by John Howard on
Wow, so it looks like you all see the right to attempt to have children using modified gametes as the main thing you have in common with Transgendered, which confirms my theories about why they are lumped in. I think it really does harm the vast majority of actual gays and lesbians and transgendered and intersexed people, in the same way that pushing for same-sex marriage harms most gay people. And I think that gay and trans people should purge the Transhumanists from their ranks and try to achieve useful results for themselves instead of being pawns in the Transhumanist’s secret campaign for genetic engineering. But this is clearly a Transhumanist blog, not a gay blog, and Rauch and everyone else here has been deceiving and manipulating the public for years. I could be wrong, of course, as they could be merely ignorant of my points rather than opposed to them, in which case we will find out when they wake up and endorse the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.
I don’t know what could be more clear, though: they have not repudiated same-sex conception, they have not agreed that it should be banned, they have not agreed that other goals are more important for millions of people.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John Howard wrote, “Wow, so it looks like you all see the right to attempt to have children using modified gametes as the main thing you have in common with Transgendered, which confirms my theories about why they are lumped in.”
Um, how exactly does it look like that? Who except you has raised this odd issue? Have you been talking to Michelle Bachman?
“And I think that gay and trans people should purge the Transhumanists from their ranks and try to achieve useful results for themselves instead of being pawns in the Transhumanist’s secret campaign for genetic engineering. But this is clearly a Transhumanist blog, not a gay blog, and Rauch and everyone else here has been deceiving and manipulating the public for years.”
It is odd to learn that I have contributed more than 50 articles over several years to a Transhumanist blog, considering that I don’t know what a Transhumanist is. This secret campaign you write about is so secret that I never heard of it.
posted by esurience on
“Anything that doesn’t conform to gender norms … is transgender.”
Hrmm, gonna have to disagree a bit there. Trans means “crossing over.” So to me transgender means adopting the social norms/customs of the gender opposite to your birth sex, and rejecting the social/norms customs of the gender of your birth sex.
There are variations between the way that individual males, and individual females behave. Such variations don’t make a person any less “male” or “female” and they certainly don’t make a person “transgender” just because a certain behavior of theirs is atypical for their particular sex. I think there has to be a more fundamental and consistent departure for that.
You seem to want to make “transgender” such a broad category that it includes almost everyone — which makes the term essentially useless. The terms “male” and “female” are still useful despite the variance that exists between individuals of the sexes. And I think trying to force-label people can make them resentful. I certainly resent the notion that being gay makes me in any way “transgender,” not because I have any problem with transgender people, but because that’s just not a label that I think gives accurate description to me.
“In what context, other than gender, does claiming to have something called a “sexual orientation” make sense?”
I’m attracted to people who are biologically male (not all males of course, but some), meaning that I’m attracted to the sex of the other person (among other things, but that much is a requirement), not their gender presentation. If a person’s gender presentation was sufficient to fool me, I might be initially attracted, but if I later found out they weren’t biologically male the attraction would surely dissipate.
posted by Diana Powe on
esurience,
I agree with your critique of the flabby use of the word “transgender”. Of course, there’s absolutely no agreement about what it means so it is almost meaningless.
However, how is it that you are “attracted to people who are biologically male” except through their gender presentation, meaning their visible physical characteristics? Do you insist on examining their genitalia or karyotyping them to see if they have at least one Y chromosome present before deciding if you’re attracted to them?
As you say, if a “biological female” was able to “fool” you, just like Angie Zapata so terribly “fooled” Allen Ray Andrade last year before he beat her to death with a fire extinguisher, then it’s entirely likely that your initial attraction would dissipate. Of course, how many “biological males” have you ever been attracted to only to have the attraction subsequently dissipate when you found out that you had nothing in common with them or incompatible interests?
posted by John Howard on
Richard, you might not realize you are a transhumanist, but if you think same-sex conception and genetic engineering should be allowed, then you are. It doesn’t matter that you don’t announce it or even realize it, if you are for genetic engineering of children and same-sex conception, then you are a transhumanist.
I understand that I’m hitting y’all with something that you might not be prepared to discuss right away. But it should only take a couple days of browsing around to educate yourself on this issue. Choosing to remain ignorant is not an argument. The fact is, same-sex conception and trans-conception are both real possibilities and are being researched by scientists and demanded by sci-fi fans, and by (ignorant?) trans and gay activists who demand equality with heterosexual couples. I am raising the point that their demand is imprudent and harmful to millions of people, not to mention the people that would be created. People should only have the right to conceive as the sex they are most likely to be successful as, with someone of the other sex, and all marriages should have the right to conceive together. Are you going to address the real substance of my point (which means taking a position on same-sex conception and trans-conception), or just continue to deflect and mis-state it?
posted by Shrinkoid on
I work as a psychotherapist; most of my patients are gay men. Here’s my take on the T and G.
A common thread: because of their sexual attraction to other males (regardless of their own gender style) many men who grow up to be gay experience having their very gender identity questioned. If you want sex with guys, you are not really a man, but some kind of freakish girl; you’re a faggot, a sissy, etc. The traumatic wound is to their masculinity; they are accused of being womanish or girlish.
Male development typically requires detaching from the mother and identifying with the masculine world of the father. When that transition is thwarted, as when the gay boy is rejected by his peers and cast as a pseudo-girl, a lot of psychological damage can ensue.
Some gay guys will push back (or deny) and attempt to re-claim their masculine status, refusing to accept that sexual desire for other males automatically feminizes them.
Others will give up and (either in resignation or defiance), while desiring males for sex, will identify –often maladaptively– with the femininity they have been accused of really belonging to. That femininity can include immature or defective forms. This group will often internalize a deep ambivalence about masculinity,
including their own, and gay culture’s imbibing of gender feminism and queer theory gives that stance both social validation and a self-justifying narrative of oppression and transgressive resistance.
For this second group, transgenders are often felt as fellow sufferers of masculine (aka “patriarchal”) rejection and hence, allies, even objects of veneration.
For the first group, however, being corralled by the LGBT paradigm yet again with gender-deviant males (either MFT or FTM) provokes the primary traumatic wound and appears to validate the old accusation (external and internal) that the shape of their sexual desire exiles them from the company of men.
Of course, they resist mightily.
To simplify, I think that a homosexual male’s relationship to the masculine and his own attitude toward manhood has a strong role to play in how he makes political choices in cases like the T in GLBT.
posted by esurience on
Diana Powe asked, “However, how is it that you are ‘attracted to people who are biologically male’ except through their gender presentation, meaning their visible physical characteristics?”
Because the person’s gender presentation strongly implies what a person’s biological sex is. For the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of people, the two do not diverge sufficiently to cause confusion.
I don’t need to insist on seeing a penis because I would just assume the person had one if they presented themselves as a male, and I’d almost certainly be right. On finding out that said person didn’t have a penis, yes, I’d lose my attraction. That doesn’t make me obsessed with sex or genitalia, but it’s certainly part of the package (pardon the pun) that I’m interested in. Sexual attraction is partly based on physical characteristics, and there’s no shame in that 😛
“Of course, how many ‘biological males’ have you ever been attracted to only to have the attraction subsequently dissipate when you found out that you had nothing in common with them or incompatible interests?”
Many.
posted by Diana Powe on
The fact that “gender presentation strongly implies what a person’s biological sex is” (and I’m not even pointing out the problems with defining “biological sex”) doesn’t mean that you aren’t relying on cues rooted in gender identity to bring about the initial attraction. That’s the point.
The presence or absence of a given type of genital arrangement is entirely independent of the gender identity that the person possesses and the ways in which they modify their gender presentation. Someone who is satisfied with their body’s gender presentation will still modify it through clothing choices and behavioral cues to satisfy themselves and attract others. Someone whose gender identity is at odds with their body presentation will modify it more extensively and permanently.
The fact that you might be “fooled” by someone’s gender presentation into thinking they’re the desirable “biological sex” demonstrates that you’re reliant on the choices that person makes in their presentation, which choices are rooted in their gender identity. True, almost all the time that reality works to your satisfaction but that doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t affect you.
posted by esurience on
“The presence or absence of a given type of genital arrangement is entirely independent of the gender identity that the person possesses and the ways in which they modify their gender presentation.”
Entirely independent? No, there’s a strong correlation between having a penis and acting in a way that most would consider stereotypically male. As there is a strong correlation between having a penis and labeling oneself “male.”
And when I say “strong correlation” I mean uber-ridiculously strong, almost 1:1.
posted by Diana Powe on
Almost 1:1, but NOT 1:1. In fact, no one actually knows the prevalence of full-blown transsexualism although a well-researched argument has been put forward that it may be as high as 1 in 500 births in the case of male to female. That would be well over 600,000 Americans today. If female to male transsexuals are as common, then it could be over a million Americans.
posted by celticdragon on
Richard
Um, how exactly does it look like that? Who except you has raised this odd issue? Have you been talking to Michelle Bachman?
John Howard did this over at the Balkinization law blog as well. It didn’t matter what the topic was…he wants us all to discuss a veeeery strange obsession of his.
Try not to feed him.
If you want a peek through the looking glass, you can click on his name on visit his “Sperm and Egg” blog…but I don’t recommend it.
Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is sacred!” song does come to mind 😉
posted by Jorge on
Shrinkoid: as someone who identified as gay rather late in life and always has looked down on masculinity, I can’t agree 100% with you, but it’s a fascinating idea and I would love to see your conclusion tested.
Is it really necessary for men to act masculine? Isn’t that really more a measure of social conformity and 4social stability than personal well-being? Don’t one’s own intrinsic qualities determine how “masculine” or “feminine” you are destined to be? I will say that.
To me one thing (not the main thing) that makes transgender people foreign to me sometimes is not that they blur the lines of gender but that they embrace them.
posted by steepholm on
Jorge: “To me one thing (not the main thing) that makes transgender people foreign to me sometimes is not that they blur the lines of gender but that they embrace them.”
Do feminine cis-women and masculine cis-men also feel foreign to you for that reason? Or is this a (double-)standard that only trans people need be held to? If so, it seems rather unfair, especially given that trans people’s gender presentation is generally held up to greater and more aggressive scrutiny than cis people’s anyway.
posted by Andrew Triska on
I agree, Steepholm — often, transgendered people are held up to standards that are simply ridiculous. It’s a catch-22. If they stick to traditional gender roles, people say they’re “trying too hard to be girly/manly” or “conforming to gender norms.” If they don’t, people say they’re “not girly/manly enough” or “just trying to be different.”
posted by Jorge on
Cis?
posted by Andrew Triska on
“Cisgender” or “ciswoman/man” in the transgender community is often used to mean the same thing as “genetic man/woman.”
posted by steepholm on
Yeah, sorry – I wasn’t sure how widely that term was used. I don’t much like jargon, but this piece serves a useful purpose, I think. It highlights the fact that people who aren’t transgendered also have a gender alignment, rather than just being the unmarked ‘norm’ against which transgender people are defined as an aberration. (Cf. “heterosexual”.)
posted by Kyndra on
It is instructive and entirely disheartening to read some responses here by those who profess to be gay. As gay people you should be fully aware of how it affects one’s life to be exposed to outright discrimination and bigotry, yet I’m seeing displayed here comments that reflect the exact same kind of prejudice and misunderstanding toward transgendered people as hetero-normative bigots display towards gay people. If you take much of what has been said here against trans people and replace “trans” with “gay”, you would get the argument that we hear constantly by the phobic str8s against the LGB movement. It all comes down to misunderstanding. In both cases, since the mindlessly intolerant can’t wrap their brains around the concept of what it is to be (fill in the blank), then it’s just weird or gross or scary and therefore the cause must be illegitimate. This attitude is shameful and woefully lacking in empathetic cognative function.
posted by Harry on
Dreary, Kyndra, dreary schoolmarm moralizing…God, the mind-numbing vocabulary: entirely instructive (?), the phobic str8s, hetero-normative bigotry, prejudice, misunderstanding, the mindlessly intolerant who can’t wrap their brains, misunderstanding, shameful, woefully lacking…and empathetic cognative (sic) function. It sucks all the air out of the room with its well-worn victimist outrage.
And it certainly does not move me, who’s been a professed gay for many years, to change my mind about the desirability of the “LGBT” identity construct. That’s a contingent set of human decisions, not a divinely established creation.
It’s quite possible to reject a constructed set of political identities and alliances without being Dr. Mengele. Just cause I don’t want to form a club with someone does not mean I am building them a gulag. If you have any cognitive function to spare when you’re not being empathetic, why not try to be like Rosendall and some others here and make an argument rather than getting all horrified and special because not everyone thinks exactly like your high-minded and evolved self. Try to wrap your brain around that concept.
Hetero IS normative, by the way. Ninety-five percent of the human race, give or take? You might not like it, but it’s the way it is. Some few of us are specially gifted with homosexual deviancy. It’s a heavy responsibility, but I for one am very pleased to carry it.
posted by steepholm on
“Hetero IS normative, by the way. Ninety-five percent of the human race, give or take? You might not like it, but it’s the way it is.”
“Normative” isn’t the same as “majority”. Even some minorities are normative – men, for example! It’s to do with power rather than statistics. Things become normative when they gather around themselves the institutions, laws and language that reinforce and naturalize them, and especially when they do this by defining themselves against other groups which are labelled deviant or inferior, and discriminated against on that basis. Male, hetero, white and cis are all normative in the US and UK (where I live).
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never heard of the term.
I am talking about outward presentation more than anything else. I admit there is variety here, but–just like for gay people come to think of it–when I think about the activist community, I think about people stating principles of gender that are very binary–MALE and FEMALE exist and people should be encouraged to express themselves as MALE and FEMALE.
Perhaps this is unfair. After all I’m only one person and I am rather subjective. Do I feel the same alienation toward sex-gender conforming men and women? Sure. Mostly men, but for example this idea that there’s a special thing, a special instinct about motherhood is a little odd to me.
posted by Jorge on
I also think it’s a very naive view to suggest that the reason people do not support or want to ally with (fill in the blank) is because of ignorance or misunderstanding. There are fundamental philosophical differences between people who support broad civil rights coalitions and people who do not. Those differences are not bridged by adding together a list of grievances and boogeymen–that’s something both sides have to agree to try. They are not bridged by “education”, because neither side can agree on which is the “ignorant” party. You don’t begin the “work” until you agree on what the “problem” is.
That’ll never happen.