is non-binary/non-passing transgenders bad models for the trans comunety?

[Natkat]

I think another major point is a divide in how trans* people view themselves. Some are ashamed of the entire thing, or have no desire to discuss it, some are indifferent, some are extremely proud of it. A spectrum within a spectrum, if you will. And trans* pride will slowly lead to more awareness, which is both a good and a bad thing.

these categories arn't clear and just based of our own view but also depending on our situations.
Some can be out and proud cause its nessesarry with awareness, and some can "have no desires to discuss it" cause its nessesarry not to do so.
--
last year when I went with a demonstration we where shouting and clear to be outed. being honest I dont want to shout, make demonstrations and come home lying cause my famely dont like me to make political mess, but it was nessesarry to save someone I know, if I had just had a sign on me I wouldnt get a bigger reaction than the homeless on the streets.

on the other hand theres situations where your do want to be out but your not suposed to as it can get you into trouble, in worst caise killed, if you travels you can get in those situations.
--
I tend to be a bit annoyed when someone make a line between people who are more stealth and more out like its a choice, cause its not nessesarry a choice.

[AdamMLP]

ok, so dont share your opinion when it hurts others? Got it. Just for the record, I not only think non binary folks exist, i totally support them being non binary. I am a pretty extreme liberal. Be who you want, be a man or a woman or neither or both. Be what you feel you are on the inside. I dont think anyone is worthless because of their gender identity.

and i totally agree with you that we shouldnt be hurting one another. I just think that everyone has a right to their own reaction. I do not identify as trans, but I am 100 percent here on the board to help anyone who has questions. As a man who has been on testosterone for over 10 years, has had top and bottom surgery, I have no desire to be 'out' but i do want to help others in any way possible. I dont care if that person is trans or male or gender queer or what not. We all have a right to our opinions and I dont think its ok to call names because someone disagrees.

The bit about believing that non-binary people don't exist was mostly aimed at wheat thins. Sorry i should of made that clearer.

[Johe]

I truly feel my words are being misinterpreted here. I am not sure how many times i have to say that i support non binary definitions of gender, but i do. i just also think its ok to not understand or not think that non binary identity applies to ones self. Come on now folks.

But is that what's being said? I get that people label themselves in different ways, possibly quite different than the world labels them. But is it being said, by saying there is only man or woman, male or female, that there is not a non-binary existence? I'm not trying to say people need to change their beliefs, but isn't it a bit obnoxious to ignore this other part of the world that exists, who struggle in much the same way an MTF or FTM does with their gender identity? It's not necessarily that someone doesn't identify with the non-binary definition, it's that a good part of the tran community is A) being completely ignored or unrecognized or B) being described as not "transgender enough" and snubbed not only by the cis-folks but by their own community. This doesn't happen in every case, but I think what's being argued here now is the recognition that non-binaries need to be understood just as much as any other transgender, that they are every much a part of this battle we all go through, whether it is shared or not.

Having media attention brought to non-binaries was said to not be a good thing, that it harmed the transgender community...but why? Or how? Because according to belief, the spectrum doesn't exist? That's almost like saying a whole race doesn't exist...wasn't that the problem with segregation?

[chuck]

But is that what's being said? I get that people label themselves in different ways, possibly quite different than the world labels them. But is it being said, by saying there is only man or woman, male or female, that there is not a non-binary existence? I'm not trying to say people need to change their beliefs, but isn't it a bit obnoxious to ignore this other part of the world that exists, who struggle in much the same way an MTF or FTM does with their gender identity? It's not necessarily that someone doesn't identify with the non-binary definition, it's that a good part of the tran community is A) being completely ignored or unrecognized or B) being described as not "transgender enough" and snubbed not only by the cis-folks but by their own community. This doesn't happen in every case, but I think what's being argued here now is the recognition that non-binaries need to be understood just as much as any other transgender, that they are every much a part of this battle we all go through, whether it is shared or not.

Having media attention brought to non-binaries was said to not be a good thing, that it harmed the transgender community...but why? Or how? Because according to belief, the spectrum doesn't exist? That's almost like saying a whole race doesn't exist...wasn't that the problem with segregation?

OK I see what you are getting at here. I think there is a huuuuge divide in the tras community about identity. And im guessing that neither wants to be 'mislabeled'. I think the frustration rises from genderqueer folks using the word transsexual (which technically does not apply to them) so when a genderqueer person speaks for the trans community, some folks find it frustrating. Many of us see ourselves as a specific gender and want to be seen that way only. That means that when someone goes to the media with a message of 'I am extremely different from you, but accept me any way' it can be frustrating for a guy whose message is "im pretty much the same as you, so please accept me"

I think your analogy about race is a decent one. There was also the same sort of struggle within the civil rights movement. Who made more progress is arguable malcom X or Dr. king? One saw himself as extremely different and demanded  equal (even superior) treatment while another saw himself as the same and asked for equal rights.

So to answer your question, i think that media attention on gender queer folk CAN make it harder for transsexuals to be accepted by being such an extreme selection of the community. Whether right or wrong, an average joe shmoe is more likely to say "hey, that dude with the beard and a suit is just like me, why am I so prejudice?" than he is o saying "wow, that person does not identify with either gender. I dont know if that person is a man or woman, I am confused but I will accept that person regardless'

I am not speaking to the logic of this, just that extremeism can indeed be a detriment to political and social acceptance.  Does that make sense?

[androgynoid]

I don't know where the concept of "it's my opinion" being the ultimate perfect defense forever and always came from... but it's not. Saying it's "my opinion" that I'm worthless and don't exist, doesn't actually successfully make your statement less rude than it otherwise would be. It doesn't make you not-a-jerk.

"Everyone has a right to an opinion" is possibly the most meaningless statement ever dreamed up. Sure, you have a right to being an unpleasant human being. But I think being an educated, aware, and kind human being is actually better. All opinions are simply not equal. This is where etiquette comes in. Politeness. The capacity to carry on a conversation with someone you potentially disagree with.

And I know there's even a kind of attractive temptation attached to "being-a-jerk." Somehow it's perceived as honesty. Nope. It's actually just rude. It is very easy to say the same things without being horrible. The English language is almost infinitely flexible. So if you are choosing to use words that make other people feel BAD, even after they have indicated that those are not-polite things to say, what kind of human are you actually? A human who LIKES hurting other humans. Charming.

Now I know this is on the FTM board. And I have been told recently that apparently posting here is problematic for x-y-x reasons. But you start saying nasty things about me, and I feel like I don't care so much if it's problematic anymore.

And you know what's funny? I have a rep point from you for telling someone to be POLITE. To express themselves better. So you understand this. You understand why this stuff matters. You are just, what? Enjoying yourself there, buddy? Cause I'm not.

I came here to say basically this, and you said it better than I ever could have. +1 to you. May I show your response to a guy who's been harassing me for being "politically correct" IRL?

[Natkat]

when we speak "us and them" as transexuals and non-transexuals I wonder about those who might fit into more than juist 1 categori of the trans umbrella..

personally I dont think I might be transexual alone, I do identify as male but I dont really feel like being nessesarry male or dressing up nessesarry as male al the time, I feel my gender is a varientation of how men are. I am unsure what this make me.. a queer transman or just a transexual-crossdresser? or genderqueer/fluid transexual?.. but im not alone, I know transguys who also are dragqueens or crossdressers besides being transexual, so 1 box might not always be enough to jugde...

[Natkat]

I know this is on the FTM board but it does bring a valid point that affects all TG people.

yeah sure this is not just ment for ftms. I guess its just a bad habbit to post my post in the ftms section unless its dirrectly ment for mtfs..

[Johe]

OK I see what you are getting at here. I think there is a huuuuge divide in the tras community about identity. And im guessing that neither wants to be 'mislabeled'. I think the frustration rises from genderqueer folks using the word transsexual (which technically does not apply to them) so when a genderqueer person speaks for the trans community, some folks find it frustrating. Many of us see ourselves as a specific gender and want to be seen that way only. That means that when someone goes to the media with a message of 'I am extremely different from you, but accept me any way' it can be frustrating for a guy whose message is "im pretty much the same as you, so please accept me"

I think your analogy about race is a decent one. There was also the same sort of struggle within the civil rights movement. Who made more progress is arguable malcom X or Dr. king? One saw himself as extremely different and demanded  equal (even superior) treatment while another saw himself as the same and asked for equal rights.

So to answer your question, i think that media attention on gender queer folk CAN make it harder for transsexuals to be accepted by being such an extreme selection of the community. Whether right or wrong, an average joe shmoe is more likely to say "hey, that dude with the beard and a suit is just like me, why am I so prejudice?" than he is o saying "wow, that person does not identify with either gender. I dont know if that person is a man or woman, I am confused but I will accept that person regardless'

I am not speaking to the logic of this, just that extremeism can indeed be a detriment to political and social acceptance.  Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I don't see the message from non-binaries, or those who may not be transsexual but fit in the transgender spectrum, claiming that message: "I am extremely different from you, but accept me anyway"...What I see, hear, read is this: "I may not fit in your gender roles, but I am still like you. Accept me for me." And isn't that what you're trying to say too, as a transsexual? I think the problem is not whether non-binaries are good or bad for the media or even acceptance as a transsexual but rather the fear that you may be outed. There is nothing wrong with being stealth, but how much of a role can you play in the transgender community and still blend in with the crowd?

As for mis-using the word transsexual, it could and could not be. It depends on your definition of transsexual, for starters. Secondly, not every non-binary is non-op. Some do feel the need to align their bodies with the mind, and they take the same steps like other transsexuals.

But I don't think non-binaries or anyone is claiming to be superior. The struggle is wanting to be seen as equal, as human despite the gender, race, orientation, disability, etc. isn't a bad cause to fight for.

Yes, and no. It may be harder to wrap their head around the word androgyn, gender-queer, non-binary, and you may be right –- it may be easier to find acceptance for someone who is just an FTM or just an MTF, but it doesn't make anyone less valid for wanting acceptance, to wanting to be seen as a person. That's my point. It's not a bad thing for a community (GLBT) whose whole campaign started with the idea of human equal rights.

When we get past all the physical, we are all just...human. I was raised to believe in human equal rights. Were you?

[chuck]

It does make sense, but I don't see the message from non-binaries, or those who may not be transsexual but fit in the transgender spectrum, claiming that message: "I am extremely different from you, but accept me anyway"...What I see, hear, read is this: "I may not fit in your gender roles, but I am still like you. Accept me for me." And isn't that what you're trying to say too, as a transsexual? I think the problem is not whether non-binaries are good or bad for the media or even acceptance as a transsexual but rather the fear that you may be outed. There is nothing wrong with being stealth, but how much of a role can you play in the transgender community and still blend in with the crowd?

As for mis-using the word transsexual, it could and could not be. It depends on your definition of transsexual, for starters. Secondly, not every non-binary is non-op. Some do feel the need to align their bodies with the mind, and they take the same steps like other transsexuals.

But I don't think non-binaries or anyone is claiming to be superior. The struggle is wanting to be seen as equal, as human despite the gender, race, orientation, disability, etc. isn't a bad cause to fight for.

Yes, and no. It may be harder to wrap their head around the word androgyn, gender-queer, non-binary, and you may be right –- it may be easier to find acceptance for someone who is just an FTM or just an MTF, but it doesn't make anyone less valid for wanting acceptance, to wanting to be seen as a person. That's my point. It's not a bad thing for a community (GLBT) whose whole campaign started with the idea of human equal rights.

When we get past all the physical, we are all just...human. I was raised to believe in human equal rights. Were you?

I see where youre coming from, I am stealth and I do not identify as transsexual. And I think this is where the miscommunication comes from. ALOT of guys are not saying "I do not fit into your roles but accept me" they are saying "I DO fit into your roles so whats the problem?" for them and for me, I am most extremely comfortable doing things that are manly, i "fit" the sterotype of what a man is and I dont identify as anything other than a guy. 

i am 100 percent "stealth" and i think I can still be pretty helpful to the "trans" community. I do that through these boards and other support groups online. I have no strong desire to be a part of the "transgender" community. I dont know any other trans folks in real life and I dont seek them out. I am here on the board to offer advice from my years from transitioning. So I suppose my role is limited, and thats not a bad thing to me. I am not transgender and I am not sad about that. 

And to me, I dont even believe in being "outed" so its not about fear but rather about what i feel is my true identiy: Man. End of story. If someone is super curious, I have a medical condition that involves the appearance of genitals. What is there to out? I dont want to know about my buddy's missing testicle and i dont really care to tell him about being born with too much estrogen.

Like i keep saying, i too think that non binary folks should be treated with respect and dignity. the question that is being asked in the post is whether or not gender queer visibility could be detrimental to the trans community.

[Johe]

I see where youre coming from, I am stealth and I do not identify as transsexual. And I think this is where the miscommunication comes from. ALOT of guys are not saying "I do not fit into your roles but accept me" they are saying "I DO fit into your roles so whats the problem?" for them and for me, I am most extremely comfortable doing things that are manly, i "fit" the sterotype of what a man is and I dont identify as anything other than a guy. 

i am 100 percent "stealth" and i think I can still be pretty helpful to the "trans" community. I do that through these boards and other support groups online. I have no strong desire to be a part of the "transgender" community. I dont know any other trans folks in real life and I dont seek them out. I am here on the board to offer advice from my years from transitioning. So I suppose my role is limited, and thats not a bad thing to me. I am not transgender and I am not sad about that. 

And to me, I dont even believe in being "outed" so its not about fear but rather about what i feel is my true identiy: Man. End of story. If someone is super curious, I have a medical condition that involves the appearance of genitals. What is there to out? I dont want to know about my buddy's missing testicle and i dont really care to tell him about being born with too much estrogen.

Like i keep saying, i too think that non binary folks should be treated with respect and dignity. the question that is being asked in the post is whether or not gender queer visibility could be detrimental to the trans community.

And this is where I'm confused. Maybe I'm being a little brazen here, but how can you not be a part of the transgender community when you are on a board for those on the transgender spectrum? Isn't that like saying you're in, say, North Dakota but you're really in South Dakota? Or maybe the question should be if you are not transgender, how much right should be afforded to you in the trans community? You're not trans, okay, but then who represents what and how shouldn't be a concern of yours or those who feel the same way.

As for being "outed", I admit it could have been the wrong word to use, but wasn't that the argument (not necessarily by you) of why they didn't want other transmen showing off their scars on television? Because someone may "clock" him for having said medical condition and question him as a man? Isn't that where the fear comes in?

I identify as a man. Stereotypical or not, I am a man. But I was born female, therefore by someone else's standards, I do not fit the assigned gender role. That was the point. Whether you start out male or start out female and transition, you break the norm. In that way, you are not like other men. It's not to say you are less of a man for that, because frankly, that's a BS argument if I ever heard one, but the difference between FTM and non-binary are only by the definitions that we place on each other.

As for that last line in the previous post, I apologize. I do not, however, agree with your last statement.

[chuck]

And this is where I'm confused. Maybe I'm being a little brazen here, but how can you not be a part of the transgender community when you are on a board for those on the transgender spectrum? Isn't that like saying you're in, say, North Dakota but you're really in South Dakota? Or maybe the question should be if you are not transgender, how much right should be afforded to you in the trans community? You're not trans, okay, but then who represents what and how shouldn't be a concern of yours or those who feel the same way.

As for being "outed", I admit it could have been the wrong word to use, but wasn't that the argument (not necessarily by you) of why they didn't want other transmen showing off their scars on television? Because someone may "clock" him for having said medical condition and question him as a man? Isn't that where the fear comes in?

I identify as a man. Stereotypical or not, I am a man. But I was born female, therefore by someone else's standards, I do not fit the assigned gender role. That was the point. Whether you start out male or start out female and transition, you break the norm. In that way, you are not like other men. It's not to say you are less of a man for that, because frankly, that's a BS argument if I ever heard one, but the difference between FTM and non-binary are only by the definitions that we place on each other.

As for that last line in the previous post, I apologize. I do not, however, agree with your last statement.

hmm so you want to know how i can identify as something that doesnt fit into this particular category. Interesting question.

I dont think i deserve any rights in the transgender commuity. I am not transgender. And im not overly concerned with who represents whom within it. It has no bearing on me.  I cant speak for anyone else's argument, so im not going to try. I am simply attempting to explain what I see happening. i think your response does a good job of magnifying the gulf between those who identify as man with a different experience and those who identify as trans something. 

Again, the question in the OP is whether or not gender queer folks are a detriment to the progress of the trans community.

As far as what has been said about scars.  I think it is frustrating for a lot of guys (trans or not) for two scars accross the chest to lead to result in a thought of "you had/have a vagina" I think for alot of guys its sort of a matter of privacy.

And its correct, no one is really like someone else. A guy with pyronies is not like a guy without it. Doesnt mean he wants to run around talking about his crooked penis to everyone.

Any way, my whole bottom line is this. Everyone should identify how they want. Who cares if others dont like it? You have a right to identify any way you want, and I have a right to say "that person does not speak for me" or "that person does not represent me and I wish they didnt claim to"

Its been nice discussing this, (not sarcasm, it has really been interesting) but it's late where I am and its about time for me to wrap up my work. I think this is a fascinating world, with amazing people in it. We all feel how we do and I have no desire to change your mind or be changed by your opinion. I find dialogue very interesting but I can not speak for anyone else so I can not address your concerns about some overall argument that I have not been a part of.

My response to the orignal question whether or not gender queer folks in the media are harmful has been given. 

I hope everyone has a great day/night/afternoon

[Nemo]

Erm, excuse me.. Not only being late to the party again, but been away licking my wounds for the past couple of years.. although as someone who is both non-binary *and* physically transitioning, I feel the need to say my piece.

Is it better if the media for transgender is showing people who seams very clear succsesfull male/woman without doubt, to give a good impression of transpeople.

or do you feel the media should be more fluent to show diffrent kind fo transpeople so everyone is invold and that this fluentness will make trans seams more normal.

Everyone's different, so both are good. Of course binary trans-folk should be covered in the media, especially since that's how most people seem to identify. However, the problem is that these are the *only* trans-folk highlighted in the media.

Speaking from a personal viewpoint, this creates all sorts of problems:

- Because the only guys* on documentaries "definitely knew they were [id'ed gender]", and tend to fit the stereotypes fairly well (at least), I'm left not feeling well represented. This leads to...
- - Spending ages wondering why I felt ill at ease with my body, feeling uncomfortable being treated as a girl, but feeling "Well I can't be trans, I don't relate to much (if any) of how those guys felt"
- - Being faced with a mother who insists I was a girl when little, because I collected My Little Pony and played with dolls, despite the fact that I also enjoyed playing with Lego, Stickle Bricks etc with my brother and climbing trees
- - Hearing remarks to the tune of "But you wore skirts and make-up in your teens!" (Yeah, during the time I figured that was how I was meant to dress)
- - Being asked "those questions" by cis-folk who expect certain responses, e.g assuming I "felt like a man in a girl's body" because that's how everyone like me felt, isn't it? Yay, I get to scramble their brains even more by telling them not every trans person has the same feelings
- Then of course, you get the fun of being mis-understood (at best) by people within the trans community, as seen in this thread. Just because you don't *think* there's a gender spectrum, doesn't mean it's not there.

Actually, that debate in this thread is a perfect example of why we need (more) GQs in the media. Educate binary trans-folk, educate cis-folk, enlighten those who are self-questioning but don't identify with anyone in the documentaries.

*guys as in everyone, not just men

Augh, I hate this stupid connection >_< I also added that I'm not poking anyone in particular, just bear in mind that you can be non-binary *and* transsexual. We all change our bodies for the same reason - to feel more at home in our own skin.

[eli77]

oh. Gotcha. I agree, I think most people try to be kind. The "kid" was older than me because I was a kid when it happened. He was bigger than me so I wouldnt call him harmless and I fail to see how using words like "jerk" is any better than me finding a haircut funny.

Really? I think a lot of people are actually rather unpleasant. Most people think they are kind, but that isn't quite the same thing. If as many people tried to be kind as thought they were kind, this world would look very, very different.

And etiquette is a social contract. You breached it. Why would you expect me to continue to treat you with respect? As far as I'm concerned, I am being far more polite to you than you have any "right" to expect.

I came here to say basically this, and you said it better than I ever could have. +1 to you. May I show your response to a guy who's been harassing me for being "politically correct" IRL?

Thanks.

You are more than welcome to use it. I'd only ask that you edit out the part that refers to this particular situation (i.e. the last two paragraphs).

[Anatta]

[
I am wondering about those questions, what do you think?

Is it better if the media for transgender is showing people who seams very clear succsesfull male/woman without doubt, to give a good impression of transpeople.

or do you feel the media should be more fluent to show diffrent kind fo transpeople so everyone is invold and that this fluentness will make trans seams more normal.

-----

Kia Ora Natkat,

I would have thought most trans-people who are fortunate enough to 'blend in' would have an overwhelming desire to do just that...
To expose ones 'transness' publicly would defeat the whole purpose of transitioning...

However in answer to your question, I think it makes more sense for there to be a mix when it comes to media exposure.

Metta Zenda

[Johe]

hmm so you want to know how i can identify as something that doesnt fit into this particular category. Interesting question.

I dont think i deserve any rights in the transgender commuity. I am not transgender. And im not overly concerned with who represents whom within it. It has no bearing on me.  I cant speak for anyone else's argument, so im not going to try. I am simply attempting to explain what I see happening. i think your response does a good job of magnifying the gulf between those who identify as man with a different experience and those who identify as trans something. 

Again, the question in the OP is whether or not gender queer folks are a detriment to the progress of the trans community.

As far as what has been said about scars.  I think it is frustrating for a lot of guys (trans or not) for two scars accross the chest to lead to result in a thought of "you had/have a vagina" I think for alot of guys its sort of a matter of privacy.

And its correct, no one is really like someone else. A guy with pyronies is not like a guy without it. Doesnt mean he wants to run around talking about his crooked penis to everyone.

Any way, my whole bottom line is this. Everyone should identify how they want. Who cares if others dont like it? You have a right to identify any way you want, and I have a right to say "that person does not speak for me" or "that person does not represent me and I wish they didnt claim to"

Its been nice discussing this, (not sarcasm, it has really been interesting) but it's late where I am and its about time for me to wrap up my work. I think this is a fascinating world, with amazing people in it. We all feel how we do and I have no desire to change your mind or be changed by your opinion. I find dialogue very interesting but I can not speak for anyone else so I can not address your concerns about some overall argument that I have not been a part of.

My response to the orignal question whether or not gender queer folks in the media are harmful has been given. 

I hope everyone has a great day/night/afternoon

I'm sure this post won't illicit a response but I would like to clarify the same point because I feel you misunderstood. Or perhaps I misunderstood you. You can say someone doesn't speak for you or represent you, as a man. My question solely lies in the fact that why would it be a concern of yours when you claim no part in the transgender community? That is what makes me curious: those solely wanting to be seen as a man – only a man with no ties to ->-bleeped-<- or its spectrum but still have a voice within the community, who still feels the need to dictate this person is a "detriment" to the gender social structure? It shouldn't matter because you are not transgender, by your own definition.

And yes, I understood what the OP was asking. My arguments started off on the subject and, as more points were brought up, I added. The above paragraph, I feel, is still on topic.

As for showing scars and automatically thinking someone is hiding a vagina, shouldn't we be more concerned about assumption itself rather than preferring someone to hide how they identify, scars and all? And you don't have to talk about it – continue to live stealth and be happy. The point was people are worrying that those who don't pass, those that are non-binary are somehow going to ruin what little progress there is – that is a load that surely stinks.

There are no facts to prove this to be true, and the overall message isn't accept only me or accept only a "real" man. It is accept me. Me who is more than my medical condition. Me who is more than transgender. Me who is more than just the labels and indentifyers. Me who is a person, no matter the similarities and differences between us. I am your brother. I am your sister. I am your broster. I am family. I am human. I deserve to be respected. I deserved to be seen as an equal.

That is the message I want to be seen. That is the message I'm arguing for. I don't see non-binary folks as a detriment. I find those that want to block out a part of the community from having a voice to be an issue though.

As you have said, it has been an interesting conversation. Thank you for being open and honest.