Susan's Place Transgender Resources

The LGBs insist that transgendered persons are part of their community, yet I feel that transgenders are left to take the leftovers and friend for themselves. It'd seem that whenever there is political action, the GLBs often fight for their rights at the exclusion of TGs. They often see TGs as a threat, and are afraid TGs will cost LGBs their victories. If gays are too afraid to help TGs, and only consider them an afterthought, then why do they include them at all or consider them to be allies?

Why not replace the term LGBT with TG? A transgender is someone who somehow "violates society's rules in regards to gender", right? Society says that men are not to dress as women nor have sex with men. So whether you are a man who dresses as a woman, a man who lives as a woman to some degree, or a man who chooses to have sex with men, then you are "violating society's rules" for how men should behave. So instead of TGs being a part of the LGBT, aren't LGBs really part of the transgendered term?

Quote from: Jeannette on August 17, 2007, 04:47:30 AM
The LGBs insist that transgendered persons are part of their community, yet I feel that transgenders are left to take the leftovers and friend for themselves. It'd seem that whenever there is political action, the GLBs often fight for their rights at the exclusion of TGs. They often see TGs as a threat, and are afraid TGs will cost LGBs their victories. If gays are too afraid to help TGs, and only consider them an afterthought, then why do they include them at all or consider them to be allies?

Why not replace the term LGBT with TG? A transgender is someone who somehow "violates society's rules in regards to gender", right? Society says that men are not to dress as women nor have sex with men. So whether you are a man who dresses as a woman, a man who lives as a woman to some degree, or a man who chooses to have sex with men, then you are "violating society's rules" for how men should behave. So instead of TGs being a part of the LGBT, aren't LGBs really part of the transgendered term?

I'm not sure I'd say this is always the case though, Jeannette.  I'd say it depends greatly on where you're at, and what elements of the LGB community you're dealing with.

In my hometown for example, there really IS a lot of mutual support, respect, and work amoung all elements of LGBT.   There's always going to be exceptions of course too...  just as there's surely some Lesbian/Gay/Bi folks in your community that are very supportive and inclusive of Transfolk, I know there's some that aren't supportive here in Portland.

Moreover, unless you're talking about a pretty small city, the LGBT community in most places is simply too large to really be able to say anything about it as a blanket truth.  For example, I could make a very similar and accurate argument about the Portland community's acceptance of the Leather/SM sub-communities.  While there's been a lot of interaction and good history, you could also say the same thing you did and just substitute Trans with Leather.

In any group, you're going to find some that are inclusive, and others that operate out of fear, desire for larger societal acceptance, or just their own personel phobias, hang-ups or denial.

I'd suggest not giving up on the LGB folks where you live; concentrate on just finding those that are true allies and friends; educating the mass middle group; and letting the others kiss your....  um....  whatever.   ;)

Just remember - no one knows how to oppress like the oppressed themselves.  (sadly enough...)


Scott

Personally, I would prefer not to be lumped in with GLB.

I have nothing against these groups of people, but the public at large has enough trouble with the T( Transsexual).

Being Transsexual is not a life choice, choosing your partner or significant other is.

Buffy

It wasn't us who grouped us in with the GLB, it was society and at the time that happened there wasn't much support for us, so generally speaking we embraced the merger as it provided a place for support.  However,  some GLB groups didn't welcome us and still don't.

The problem is an old and there have been several topics as to why this happens, one of which relates to TS not wanting to be know as TS after transition and SRS, they simply want to know as their true gender.  Belonging to a group that identified them would betray their past to others.

Steph

I think, the fact that TS (those that truly identify as women) are only transient under the transgendered umbrella while they sort themselves out and in fact, later on, don't want that umbrella at all and are quite happy with whatever protection or support being a human being provides :-).

Its this transient mix or TS and gender variants and CD's that kinda mixes up the issue.

We are not really transgendered, we've always got one gender and our body's kinda not agree for a little while.

Quote from: Buffy on August 17, 2007, 07:17:54 AM
Personally, I would prefer not to be lumped in with GLB.

I have nothing against these groups of people, but the public at large has enough trouble with the T( Transsexual).

Being Transsexual is not a life choice, choosing your partner or significant other is.

Buffy

Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not a choice any more than being transsexual is. Choosing to live with someone you love is as much of a choice as choosing to transition. Sure, you could not do it, but at what price to yourself?

Dennis

This argument is really complex. Kinda like from where I sit: is that person bailing water outta the boat or helping to swamp it?

Yes, most MTFTS, most of the ones I meet, do not want to do away with the binary, and are more likely to kinda want to fade into the fabric as a 'just another' than other people in the LTBG coalition. Although as the MTFTS population gets statistically younger, more people come from the G party to identify as TS, or at least T.

OTH, most FTMTS I meet have no problems with the LTBG coalition. In fact, they are much more likely to have associated a good part of their lives with the L party of the coalition than with the T party. They seem to be able to view things a bit differently than do many MTFTSes because they come from a different association.

Coalitions are always fragile; they rely on a range of different people with different opinions agreeing enough to work together.

I don't see the difficulty in that necessarily being any one group's fault. Just a different set of circumstances and views about how to get from point A to point G and which points to plot on that course, and when.

Face it, regardless Lynn Conway's guestimates, TS people are probably a fairly rare group. Being able to include CD/TV/DQ et. al. tends to bolster those number. Being able to align, with greater or lesser ease with LBG people ups the sum of any statistical population to some where between 5% and 10%.

That seems a positive political reality. But, the frustration lotsa T people feel is that we are the last addition to GBLT and the first jettisoned when it comes to political changes. That can be awfully frustrating.

Part of the problem is the way a lot of us MTFTSes were conditioned: gay is bad. We were married or at least often attempted to have girlfriends, etc as a function of the way we felt we had to stay hidden. CDs and TVs prolly can ditto that, maybe a lot of Androgynes as well.

Overall, even with the frustration, I imagine that TSes are better off politically within a group that increases our very small numbers. Gay males and Lesbians have been and continue to be the most vigorous groups pushing for changes. They also often tilt tactics and strategy to maintain their own gains if push comes to shove over an issue.

Can't say that is not understandable. In a majority rules coalition, minority parties are often left without major parts of their agendas implemented.  ???

Yet, change has come. And I really do suspect that with the establishment of Real ID and the invasive and pervasive effects of the new cold war against 'terrorists' that Ts of all stripes will need as much support as we can get. At least the LTBG  :) are familiar with us more than are nons.

Hard questions, real practicalities on a political level.

Nichole

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Quote from: Buffy on August 17, 2007, 07:17:54 AM
Personally, I would prefer not to be lumped in with GLB.

I have nothing against these groups of people, but the public at large has enough trouble with the T( Transsexual).

Being Transsexual is not a life choice, choosing your partner or significant other is.

Buffy

I would respectfully, but emphatically, disagree.  Being G/L or B is no more of a 'choice' for most people than being Trans. 

And while politics do indeed make interesting bedfellows, and brings up some interesting issues, it's a simple reality that we are far better off allieing ourselves with groups that we share some goals with, than trying it alone - we're simply too small of a group to have any real political clout alone.

Anyway, some of the responces on this thread alone point point to the inherant problems of any political alliences... fragile at best...  ;)

Scott

While each group under the GLBTIQetc umbrella has its own unique issues, there is also plenty of common ground, I believe joining together will help all of us gain our rights sooner. There's been considerable difficulty in the past due to feelings of having our concerns ignored and inclusion in name only, however I believe things have gotten much better than a few years ago. I think that often when GLB people are discriminated against, it isn't only because they are gay, but also for non adherence to traditional gender roles, so that is an area of overlap. In addition, many of us in the trans community are also LG or B, or perceived as such.

Zythyra

It seems like T's ( all varients) undermind part of the GLB message that lesbians are not "butch dykes" and Gay men are not all "sissy boys".

Society as a whole could very well see us as a reinforcement of those old views. Especially since many of the unwashed masses still consider us our birth Gender, just "mutilated" Most also automatically consider us Gay. I can understand how they can see us as damaging. I really don't see how we could ever have a movement when those who pass just slip into the fold. Not to knock them, I can only pray for that blessing but that only leaves the "men in dresses" to defend themselves.

It is quite a conumdrum(sp?).

Quote from: Kara on August 17, 2007, 03:19:12 PM

It seems like T's ( all varients) undermind part of the GLB message that lesbians are not "butch dykes" and Gay men are not all "sissy boys".

Society as a whole could very well see us as a reinforcement of those old views. Especially since many of the unwashed masses still consider us our birth Gender, just "mutilated" Most also automatically consider us Gay. I can understand how they can see us as damaging. I really don't see how we could ever have a movement when those who pass just slip into the fold. Not to knock them, I can only pray for that blessing but that only leaves the "men in dresses" to defend themselves.

It is quite a conumdrum(sp?).

Indeed it is, and this is yet one more example of some of the commonality we have with the LGB part of LGBT...  It can very difficult to politicize a group when some, if not many of its members can choose not to be 'open' if they wish.  Unlike many groups facing discrimination, many LGBT folks don't have to 'come out' if they don't want to.

Closets can be safe, comfortable spaces... then again, so can coffins. 

Scott

It is confusing since the labels are talking about orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Not just one aspect, though the grouping almost makes it sound like one grouping. Even then the cultures (for defining gender identity and gender expression) which are being compared vary from person-to-person, region-to-region, country-to-country. Having said that, its also true for individual labels as well.

But such talk having said that is non-sense. Because even unrelated parties and persons can unite and bring some important issues to mutually aggreeable. Though the dominant parties rule, hopefully the weaker smaller parties get some consideration from time to time. Its like "I am with you, but every once in a while, do something for me."

I think the problem is that there isnt really a LGBT communit*y*. Theres really the L, G, B, and sometimes T communit*ies* that every once in a while work together but usually dont like each other.

Being a transsexual woman, I don't like to be lumped up with people who have not experienced what I have experienced.  TS are a different group just like Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender are and need to be acknowledged and kept as a separate category.

Quote from: Yvonne on August 19, 2007, 05:44:15 AM
Being a transsexual woman, I don't like to be lumped up with people who have not experienced what I have experienced.  TS are a different group just like Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender are and need to be acknowledged and kept as a separate category.

I agree

Quote from: Yvonne on August 19, 2007, 05:44:15 AM
Being a transsexual woman, I don't like to be lumped up with people who have not experienced what I have experienced.  TS are a different group just like Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender are and need to be acknowledged and kept as a separate category.

If anyone is the red-headed stepchild of the LGBT community, it is the bisexuals. Because our numbers are so low, we would have almost zero without being part of this coalition. Living at ground zero of the LGBT political movement (San Francisco) I think the coalition is working rather well actually. We need them more than they need us. Gay men here who are politically involved have always stepped up to the plate on issues involving us. I don't think any of the recent laws protecting Ts would have passed without support form the coalition. Many times the National Center for Lesbian Rights have taken up cases involving transwomen, Susan Stanton being one of the most recent ones.

Please, let us not bite the hands that feed us.

QuoteTS are a different group just like Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender are and need to be acknowledged and kept as a separate category.

Early on in the movement when gay and lesbians and later bisexuals first joined together under one umbrella, there was much discussion regarding differences between each and there were numerous instances of lack of inclusion. Ultimately though, everyone realized that we need to work together against discrimination. Yes, TS are different than TG or CD or androgynes, and from GLB, however we are ALL oppressed by the het majority, and for pretty much the same fundamental reasons. I gladly work with any and all allies, be they gay, trans or straight, and I've been fighting for your rights for the last 25 years, whether you want me to or not. :)

Zythyra

Quote from: Jeannette on August 17, 2007, 04:47:30 AM
Why not replace the term LGBT with TG? A transgender is someone who somehow "violates society's rules in regards to gender", right? Society says that men are not to dress as women nor have sex with men. So whether you are a man who dresses as a woman, a man who lives as a woman to some degree, or a man who chooses to have sex with men, then you are "violating society's rules" for how men should behave. So instead of TGs being a part of the LGBT, aren't LGBs really part of the transgendered term?

I agree with you totally there.

And the reason we tend to get sidelined on the LGB thing is that hey, we strike people as being weirder than cisgendered lesbians and gays. And they figure they can mainstream and get respect by not seeming freaky, by seeming like ordinary cisgendered men and women who don't voilate society's rules in any way except who they sleep with. There's no difference between the exclusion of transpeople and the actions of those suit-wearing 'straight-acting' gay professionals who are so very very quick to dissassociate themselves from gay guys who swish and wear things that might be tight and sparkly, or grope each other in public. I just recently listened to a gay guy whining about how he hates other gay men who make that stereotypical effeminate hand-gestures or lisp, because somehow this makes him look like a poof by proxy, just 'cause he's gay too. Or something like that. It's all very stupid.

And no different from fifteen-years-ago women's groups who didn't want to include lesbians 'cause they figured that'd make them look bad and brings down the women's movement.

Personally, (and I know some people will find it hideously offensive) I think that gay/lesbian/bi folks should not only learn to accept that they are in the trans-spectrum but that transpeople should accept that they are in the freak spectrum. Violating society's rules as regards to gender is violating society's rules, and that's a freak/outlaw thing to do. May as well unite with the other outlaw freaks. I'll be standing over here next to Jim Rose, and the deaf kids, and that guy with the dwarfism, and the guy with the badger. Except, heh, all those freaks but Rose don't wanna be identified as freaks either, so they won't want a weirdo like me to get near 'em.

We are all people and we all want equal rights.  For this reason, I'll join anyone marching for equal rights.  You can throw me into any group and I'll fight for the same cause.  And you know what?  I'll end up coming away with friends.  It always happens.  I don't have friends because of their <fill in the blank category> status.  I get to know people for their hobbies, interests, or professional interests.

Cindi

Quote from: melissa90299 on August 19, 2007, 10:09:11 AM
If anyone is the red-headed stepchild of the LGBT community, it is the bisexuals. Because our numbers are so low...

Please, let us not bite the hands that feed us.

I agree about the bisexuals.  I think one of the main reasons is that people don't think there is such a thing.  A lot of gay people I know, or have met, think that you are either gay or you are hetero, period.  And I've heard the concept that if you think you are bisexual, then you are in denial about being your true sexuality of gay/hetero.  Of course, this is rubbish. 

I'm not an activist myself and there are many people more able and motivated to bring forth the bi and trans causes.  But, I don't feel any sort of warm and gooey feeling being lumped in the LGBT "community".  If anyone L or G's want to further the trans causes under this umbrella, I think that's great and I quietly thank them. 

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 19, 2007, 05:56:41 PM
We are all people and we all want equal rights.

that may be, yet are we equal in every aspect?   can you honestly say that a gay man is equal to a ts woman in terms of needs?  i think not.

Quote from: Katia on August 19, 2007, 09:07:06 PM

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 19, 2007, 05:56:41 PM
We are all people and we all want equal rights.

that may be, yet are we equal in every aspect?   can you honestly say that a gay man is equal to a ts woman in terms of needs?  i think not.

Sorry to be a bit slow, but would you mind explaining that one a bit more?

No, we do not have equal needs.  We are not equal in our physical form, calorie intake, or intelligence.  We do not have the same aptitude in the workplace.  Neither do we have the same desires or ambitions.

BUT, under the law, we all deserve equal rights.  Our nation should treat each individual as fairly as the next.  Legal discrimination needs to be stamped out.

Cindi

Quote from: Katia on August 19, 2007, 09:07:06 PM

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 19, 2007, 05:56:41 PM
We are all people and we all want equal rights.

that may be, yet are we equal in every aspect?   can you honestly say that a gay man is equal to a ts woman in terms of needs?  i think not.

    Different needs maybe, but certainly equal as an individual.  The LGBT group as a whole has many shared needs and goals.  The smaller groups which make up the larger group has it's own needs.  Just because there is a difference in our needs at some point, there is no reason to distance ourselves from each other.
   
    Other groups who have advocacy issues and needs, such as handicapped people, (an example.  please do not lecture me that we are not handicapped and blah blah blah) - you can argue that they don't all have "equal needs".  Of course, they don't all have the same needs, but they do need their community in order to do the work that is important to each group's needs.

QuoteBut, I don't feel any sort of warm and gooey feeling being lumped in the LGBT "community". 

Quotethat may be, yet are we equal in every aspect?   can you honestly say that a gay man is equal to a ts woman in terms of needs?  i think not.

OK, lots of people are concerned with differences between G, L, B and T. I totally agree that there are differences between each, and for that matter, plenty of differences among any one group. A white gay male republican might have very little in common with an African American lesbian democrat except for both being in same sex relationships. When we're talking equality, here are some things that I believe concern us all. My examples are pertain to the USA, I am not aware of all the local laws in other countries.

Marriage. If a M2F goes through full transition and is legally a woman, her marriage to her wife is now illegal, unless she lives in Massachusetts. If the couple lives in a small handful of other states, they could get a civil union, but will no longer be eligible to receive 1100 plus federal benefits to marriage. Conversely, if the M2F lives in Ohio, she cannot change her birth certificate, so she couldn't legally marry a man. GLBT is currently working toward marriage equality, or civil unions that will have ALL benefits of marriage, and these would be available to any transperson and their partner.

Discrimination. Transpeople suffer discrimination in employment, housing and are among the highest victims of violent hate crimes. Most LGBT advocacy groups include gender identity and expression along with sexual orientation in current drafts for anti discrimination and hate crimes bills.

Right to serve in military. Currently, a transperson can be discharged from hir position in the military. Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will guarantee transpeople the right to serve their country.

There are plenty more rights that concern both LGB and T people. IMO, working together will help us to attain these rights sooner than if we work separately.

Zythyra

Quote from: Doc on August 19, 2007, 04:29:47 PM
Personally, (and I know some people will find it hideously offensive) I think that gay/lesbian/bi folks should not only learn to accept that they are in the trans-spectrum but that transpeople should accept that they are in the freak spectrum.

As a matter of fact, I do find it hideously offensive. You just decimated whatever the hell it was you were trying to get across with that incendiary statement.
Accept that we are in the 'freak spectrum?' FREAK spectrum!
Doc, you may be in the freak spectrum, but I certainly am not.
I'm no more a freak than any other human being in this world.

Quote from: Doc on August 19, 2007, 04:29:47 PM
Personally, (and I know some people will find it hideously offensive) I think that gay/lesbian/bi folks should not only learn to accept that they are in the trans-spectrum but that transpeople should accept that they are in the freak spectrum. Violating society's rules as regards to gender is violating society's rules, and that's a freak/outlaw thing to do. May as well unite with the other outlaw freaks. I'll be standing over here next to Jim Rose, and the deaf kids, and that guy with the dwarfism, and the guy with the badger. Except, heh, all those freaks but Rose don't wanna be identified as freaks either, so they won't want a weirdo like me to get near 'em.

What the hell ever.

Quote from: regina on August 20, 2007, 09:47:43 AM
This thread is getting so picky/snitty. How can you possibly objectively evaluate needs for another group? Yes, I think millionaires don't have needs as great as a hungry child living in Soweto but when it gets down to gay men/transpeople... last time I looked these aren't monolithic groups. By and large, transwomen experience more discrimination than most gay white men. Both have high levels of violence targeted against them. But we're not just talking about amorphous groups, we're talking about individuals with personal stories. A young teenage gay male who's kicked out of his family and is living on the street turning tricks to survive is probably in worse shape than someone mtf who transitions on the job, maintains most of their social contacts and is fairly passable. It's on a story by story basis.

My question is... what do LGBT subgroups specifically have in common other than the discrimination they face? In general, groups brought together by common discrimination form temporary alliances to oppose that discrimination, but don't necessary create community or personal bonds.

Gina,

Apologies if anything I've said comes across as snitty, it isn't meant to be. Regarding your question, what do we have in common, other than discrimination? Perhaps not all that much. We are all humans though, so there's common ground in as much as we'd have with anyone else. I think it can also depend where one lives. For someone living in San Francisco, there are enough people in any given subculture to not have to "mingle" with others one doesn't wish to socialize with. I live in a rural area, and have established close friendships w/ a few gay men, lesbians and the very occasional other transperson. I find the bonds w/ other GLBT to be deep here, because it's so easy for us to feel isolated where we live. When we get together, we feel that we can let our hair down a little.  :)

I want equal rights for everyone, not just LGBTIQ, straight people too. I'll roll up my sleeves and work side by side with anyone to achieve the world in which I want to live.

Zythyra

I don't have a problem with being a freak.  It's what separates me from the humans.    :)


i don't have a problem with being the unwanted step-child.  I've been worse.

Quote from: Nero on August 20, 2007, 10:40:20 AM
I'm no more a freak than any other human being in this world.

And that is exactly the point. We are, all of us (you, me, Elizabeth II, George W. Shrubbery, and the rest), freaks by someone's standards. The fundamentalist fringe does not accept that, or the implications: what we need is a society that accepts a much wider range of variety than now. The L, G, B and T communities (among others) have a rather strong interest in that acceptance, so it makes sense to present a united front in this.

Like someone said in another thread a while ago, we need to make it safe for the blatantly non-passing guy in a dress. At that point it will be safe for the rest, too -- and before that point the rest of us can't be sure it's safe.

  Nfr

To get back to the original question...

It's because too many of us can't pass as "normal."  The heart of the Gay Rights Movement has been the message, "See?  We're normal just like the rest of you."  Most CDs, DQs, etc. don't fit that model, so anything TG is pushed to the side hoping we will remain invisible.

QuoteIt's because too many of us can't pass as "normal."  The heart of the Gay Rights Movement has been the message, "See?  We're normal just like the rest of you."  Most CDs, DQs, etc. don't fit that model, so anything TG is pushed to the side hoping we will remain invisible.

Absolutely true Lisbeth!. In my opinion, the trans movement is just as guilty of trying to sweep our "undesirables" under the carpet in an effort to appear "normal" and gain acceptance by society. G-ddess help any of us who might be a "man in a dress" with a bass voice :P

Zythyra

Quote from: y2gender on August 20, 2007, 04:08:39 PM
In my opinion, the trans movement is just as guilty of trying to sweep our "undesirables" under the carpet in an effort to appear "normal" and gain acceptance by society. G-ddess help any of us who might be a "man in a dress" with a bass voice :P

You've got that right!

Quote from: Seshatneferw on August 20, 2007, 01:55:33 PM

Quote from: Nero on August 20, 2007, 10:40:20 AM
I'm no more a freak than any other human being in this world.

And that is exactly the point. We are, all of us (you, me, Elizabeth II, George W. Shrubbery, and the rest), freaks by someone's standards. The fundamentalist fringe does not accept that, or the implications: what we need is a society that accepts a much wider range of variety than now. The L, G, B and T communities (among others) have a rather strong interest in that acceptance, so it makes sense to present a united front in this.

Like someone said in another thread a while ago, we need to make it safe for the blatantly non-passing guy in a dress. At that point it will be safe for the rest, too -- and before that point the rest of us can't be sure it's safe.

  Nfr

Very well put.

The freak spectrum would be the spectrum of people whose differences may be taken as a good excuse to mock, revile, cheat and abuse them. You don't have to be Jim-Jim The Dog-Faced Boy to belong. On a global scale, more people are born intersex than are born redheaded, yet the cultural reaction to one is severe, and to the other indifferent. I am not suggesting we belong within some range of comically loathsome spectacle. I'm on about owning your difference, and understanding difference and the meanings of difference, and uniting against it when difference (ours or anyones) is assigned false, unjust, dangerous and hurtful meanings.

First off I don't really care who you are, but unless you care to be a circus performer, or treated as a cadged animal please do not use the term freak to refer to anyone..

As to acceptance as a Transsexual or Innersexual into the Transgender community much of that is based off of history and western cultures supposedly civilized treatment of people who are slightly different for some reason. If you honestly feel that you're a freak then perhaps you should wear an upside-down pink triangle so that you may be sorted into the correct gas chamber because your obviously do not belong to the Arian race.

That same thought process is what helped create the World War II holocaust. It's also the same thought process that people like Virginia (Chuck) Prince used during the Stonewall riots to coin the term Transgender all because he didn't like the term transvestite, while he too thought that transsexuals were freaks that should be institutionalized.
In part it's that same separatist thought process that separates us, but it's simply societies treatment that binds us together.
What we all have to remember is that as men and women we are simply people who are trying to make our ways through life with some different challenges than what western culture dictates as normal.
   
And then lastly I don't know about any of you.. but I didn't choose to be a transsexual, later learning that I'm actually innersexed.
Does that make me a freak because I was born with a slightly different genetic code than what science/western culture said was normal.

Food for thought
Kristine

Hi Kristine,

   Would you like to write a brief intro to yourself here
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/board,8.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/board,8.0.html)
   It'll help people to get acquainted with you a little.

   Thank you for your input in this thread.


Rebis

Well, a man choosing to perform the feminine behavior of sleeping with men is just as gender variant as a man choosing to perform the feminine behavior of wearing a dress. Society says that men are supposed to sleep with women and wear pants.

Actually, the LGBT confuses sexuality and gender. If they didn't want sexuality to be confused with gender, they wouldn't have the T tacked on the end. Transgender isn't about "being" the other gender, but doing things of the other gender.

My point is that maybe gays should fight for all cross-gender behaviors and under a single identity. Men wearing dresses is no more cross-gender behavior than men having sex with men, like women are "suposed" to. So why the need to separate crossgender behaviors? Why not call it all transgender, and fight for the rights of everyone to do things outside what their gender is "supposed" to do? To society, a man is not supposed to have sex with men anymore so than a man is supposed to wear a dress.


Remember also that the question here is about transgenders, gays, and other gender variant, not transsexuals.  TSs are people with cisgender beliefs who were born with a birth defect that gave them the wrong body.

TGs are men or people other than women who dress as "women," act "feminine" as they define it, and are obsessed with keeping their male parts. So they are men who practice the feminine behaviors of wearing dresses and other things.

Gays, are men who engage in the feminine behavior of having sex with men. Society says that sex with women is a masculine behavior and sex with men is a feminine behavior. Men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women are still practicing contra-gender behaviors, even if their dress as their own gender and don't want to change. As far as that goes, even TGs want to do things outside what is right for their gender, and without changing their bodies to do it. 

Okay that's my view on this anyway.  eeeeeeeeekkkkkk!

Quote from: Jeannette on August 17, 2007, 04:47:30 AM
The LGBs insist that transgendered persons are part of their community, yet I feel that transgenders are left to take the leftovers and friend for themselves. It'd seem that whenever there is political action, the GLBs often fight for their rights at the exclusion of TGs. They often see TGs as a threat, and are afraid TGs will cost LGBs their victories. If gays are too afraid to help TGs, and only consider them an afterthought, then why do they include them at all or consider them to be allies?

Its an unfortunate phenomenon that no matter what a group of people have gone through or what experiences they've had, they still are, in the end, people.

People hate. People don't understand. People fear what's different.

Homosexuals and bisexuals are no exception. Hell even we are not exception. The trans community is JUST as guilty of violating pacts with allies and sweeping the undesirables under the rug in many instances.

And then there's just the lack of cohesive connection for a lot of homosexuals. They look at their situation and go, "this is about who we're attracted to" and they look at us and go, "this is about who they are"

What is the connection? There's really no conceptual connection between our movements. Its entirely being allied on the basis of us having all the same enemies.

Those are the reasonings of the unreasonable, jerkish types. The ironic hypocritical dislike of us for being different or the idea that we don't have a connection and the unrealistic idea that we can all succeed on our own.


But the thing that really hurts us in the eyes of the reasonable and intelligent homosexuals? The fact that so many of us transition, stealth and disappear.

We're the only group that loses such a huge degree of advocates and fighters to actually leaving the fight to immerse into primary society. Homosexuals can't do that without going back in the closet and it can generate a certain degree of both resentment and anger (resentment because many homosexuals wish to be considered "normal" and anger because its arguably abandoning the fight and making it harder for everyone else)

Of course its very dependent on area too. There are plenty of locations where the trans community is an integral and valued part of LGBT and treated as such by the LGB allies.

Quote
Why not replace the term LGBT with TG? A transgender is someone who somehow "violates society's rules in regards to gender", right? Society says that men are not to dress as women nor have sex with men. So whether you are a man who dresses as a woman, a man who lives as a woman to some degree, or a man who chooses to have sex with men, then you are "violating society's rules" for how men should behave. So instead of TGs being a part of the LGBT, aren't LGBs really part of the transgendered term?

That's a pretty big stretch of the term transgendered. It really doesn't include sexual attraction. So calling LGBT, "TG" would hopelessly muddy the waters and confuse the common folk more then normal.

One thing we don't need is more confusion.

Having sex with men isn't really a feminine behavior and having sex with women isn't really a masculine one.

Its only perceived so by the opposition and lauded as such by them.

Quote from: Sophia on August 22, 2007, 12:51:08 PM
Having sex with men isn't really a feminine behavior and having sex with women isn't really a masculine one.

Its only perceived so by the opposition and lauded as such by them.

True, which is part of the underlying problems we face. Some actually believe that gay men are like women and lesbians are like men. A lot of misconceptions about us are born of this - that TS are just such extreme homosexuals that we want to be the opposite sex.

Quotebut... but... i *like* girls!

What's not to like?  ::)

Many years ago I was explaining about being trans to a gay male friend, he assumed I'd be interested in men. When I told him I was in a relationship with another woman, he was absolutely amazed that I'd go through the ordeal of changing sex just to end up with a woman.  ;D

Zythyra

Quote from: Nero on August 22, 2007, 02:15:14 PM

Quote from: Sophia on August 22, 2007, 12:51:08 PM
Having sex with men isn't really a feminine behavior and having sex with women isn't really a masculine one.

Its only perceived so by the opposition and lauded as such by them.

True, which is part of the underlying problems we face. Some actually believe that gay men are like women and lesbians are like men. A lot of misconceptions about us are born of this - that TS are just such extreme homosexuals that we want to be the opposite sex.

Which is ridiculous because it totally doesn't account for transpeople like myself, that are attracted to our target sex.

I'm a lesbian and it blows that whole theory out of the water and into the stratosphere.

^_^

This might be a bit off topic, but last year, I got the courage to go to a gay bay (more like the city's gay bar) for a drag night. My main goal was to interact with the performers and get their insight and maybe doctors who knew about hormones, therapy, support groups, etc. There were a few performers who were :o that looked nearly like GGs from head to toe. I was stunned, amazed, saddened my life did not yet take that course, yet I was filled with a little hope that this could be a possibility for me.

Anyways, the locals did not even take notice of me at all. Good, bad, who knows. I felt like an outcast. Strangely, I tried to look as "queer" as possible to blend in. I might as well have been a ghost. I did not feel confortable, yet I went back a few times. I never spoke to anyone there except to order drinks.

It was a good experience though, as I saw people acting free, no one was around to bother them, they didn't care what people thought of them, outsiders like me included. It helped me, because now I have the mindset of, well who's gonna tell me anything if my eyebrows are too thin, or if I'm too skinny, or walk too girly, the list goes on.

Just thought I'd share.  :)

I've never liked the idea of being mixed with gay people.  I have nothing against them.  I just don't think we share the same goals and ideas.  My issues are gender or identity related; they have nothing to do with sex or sexual matters.

Well I look at it like this... Gay and lesbian people have something very similar in common, both are attracted to members of the same sex they are born.  They want to go out in public and display the same type of affection, etc as hetero people without discrimination.  Bisexuals are in a somewhat different category since they can "pass" as hetero without faking it, at least part of the time.  But what I've noticed is there are almost no bisexual activists out there.  ???  I digress...

Trans persons are in a totally different category though.  This is an issue of gender identity and not gender orientation.  There are transpersons who are hetero, gay lesbian and bi. 

We got lumped in with the LGB group to gain some clout and probably to gain some personal strength.  Going it alone would have been a long hard road, much harder than any of the gay or lesbian persons had.  Exactly how we became part of that group I don't know, but I do know at first the LGB communities didn't want us included on a bill because they felt it would hurt the chances of that bill passing.  Today it's different.  And for that I'm grateful.

With statistics being made public that we spend over $400 billion a year (money talks) I think it's just a matter of time before we will be able to stand alone, if that's what we want.

Julie

QuoteBut what I've noticed is there are almost no bisexual activists out there.

As someone who's been part of the bi community since we were trying to get inclusion w/ GL, I know some bi activists, many of whom are working alongside w/ GL and T activists for their causes. It's very easy for bi folks to be invisible, if in a relationship with same sex, they're seen by others as gay, and if with a opposite sex parter, they're seen as het. It was my own coming out process as bi that also paved the way to make me more aware and accepting of my gender variance.

Zythyra

Quote from: y2gender on August 20, 2007, 04:08:39 PM
G-ddess help any of us who might be a "man in a dress" with a bass voice :P

Zythyra

*raises his hand*

Why?  because there's no connection between the two groups.  We claim to be part of one another but reality says the opposite.  Our interests aren't mutual and even though both groups are minorities, we don't share anything in common aside from the obvious, discrimination.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on September 03, 2007, 04:30:16 AM

Quote from: y2gender on August 20, 2007, 04:08:39 PM
G-ddess help any of us who might be a "man in a dress" with a bass voice :P

Zythyra

*raises his hand*

Child of the Light,

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one here ;D Truth be told though, I'm really a baritone, not a bass  ;)

Zythyra

Quote from: Fer on September 03, 2007, 06:49:07 AM
Why?  because there's no connection between the two groups.  We claim to be part of one another but reality says the opposite.  Our interests aren't mutual and even though both groups are minorities, we don't share anything in common aside from the obvious, discrimination.

Honestly? If more groups that only shared discrimination banded together, there would be a whole hell of a lot less discrimination.

Do our interests go against the interests of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual rights movement? Definitely not. There is no conflict between our groups beyond the small predjudices that exist for individuals within each group. None of these actually come from the group's goals themselves, but from these people's upbringings and experiences.

If African Americans, Native Americans, Women, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Asexuals, Transgendered and Transsexuals, and numerous other groups got together and decided to fight as one group for all our needs, we'd win every battle thrown at us.

It just seems kind of dangerous to drop allies when we're so outnumbered to begin with.

Only too true, redfish. I hope some day we can break that misconception of the oppressor.

Quote from: Yvonne on August 19, 2007, 05:44:15 AM
Being a transsexual woman, I don't like to be lumped up with people who have not experienced what I have experienced.  TS are a different group just like Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender are and need to be acknowledged and kept as a separate category.

i agree.  why?  because...

Quote from: Natasha on December 29, 2007, 04:22:04 PM

as far as 'outsiders' are concerned, a transvestite, a cross-dresser, an androgyne, and a transsexual woman are all just different words for a 'man in a dress'.

The transgender community uses this to their advantage; in the last few years, there has been an increase (small, but still significant) in the general understanding and acceptance of transsexualism; we've made advances socially, legally and medically, and the transgender activists want some of that acceptance for themselves which is why there is this subtle insistence that transsexual people come under the "transgender umbrella", and therefore society can't deny "other transgender" people the rights and acceptance that it's beginning to offer to transsexual people.  all nonsense, of course, but very plausible, and it carries with it a dangerous barb for us.

lumping transsexual people into the transgender camp means that we are viewed as having a psychological problem, and are told to either get over it, or "see a shrink" to have it fixed. as a result, the proper medical treatment of hormones and surgery can become more difficult, if not in some cases impossible to obtain. jobs can be denied. the denial of the right of marriage in some states and countries (due to the belief that "assigned with one sex at birth, means you are always that sex", results in the refusal to change birth certificates) is also reinforced. this creates the possibility of revoking this right in other states and countries, where transsexual people are considered to be transgender, since transgender people are almost never considered by the general public to be any sex other than the one they were assigned to at birth.

being considered transgender does me, a woman born transsexual, more harm than good. why? because it creates the probability that i will be viewed as "born a man, always a man" even though i was never a man. i was born transsexual; i've had treatment for that; i'm anatomically female.

furthermore, it doesn't matter that i've had the corrective surgery, or that i've spent years in therapy, and thousands on hormones, hair removal, other medical treatments and speech therapy; because as a "transgender" individual one's sex never changes from the one you're assigned at birth. it also creates the nasty unspoken subtext of "why can't you just live with what you have, and be happy with it like a cross-dresser, transvestite, she-male, drag queen or other does?"  fyi i'm a woman who was born transsexual. and i'm not "transgender".

Quote from: Dennis on August 17, 2007, 09:30:27 AM

Quote from: Buffy on August 17, 2007, 07:17:54 AM
Personally, I would prefer not to be lumped in with GLB.

I have nothing against these groups of people, but the public at large has enough trouble with the T( Transsexual).

Being Transsexual is not a life choice, choosing your partner or significant other is.

Buffy

Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not a choice any more than being transsexual is. Choosing to live with someone you love is as much of a choice as choosing to transition. Sure, you could not do it, but at what price to yourself?

Dennis

That's actaully not entirely true Dennis.
I am active with our local Pride, and LGBT community, and there are many LGB people who would like to stop asserting that.

For most people, it isn't a choice, but to say that as a blanket statement margenalizes the experience of many people for whom it is.

(The other reason they are against it is because it simply shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or not.

The final being that there are many other things in humanity that peopleare born with that are unacceptable, if the only responnse to why they should have rights is the "biological claim" then by that same argument people who are born skitxzophrenic or psychotic should be able to do what they want. Logically Speaking.

These have nothing to with your statement, but is an interesting note non-theless.)

Posted on: December 30, 2007, 02:44:33 PM

---

In REsponse to the original Post:

I have thought about this some myself, and I have reached sort of a two-fold conclusion:

One; We do need to stand on our own.

With our own organizations, activism, fundraising, lobbying, etc. We need some sort of form-able as well as fromidable community.

I belive this is true whether or not someone wishes to be "seen as trans" or not. If those who have already transitioned do not help, the next generation will just have to go throught the same stuff they went through, and so I belive they should, in good consience, help.
We need to be able to make big decisions and actions independantly of the GLB groups.

The other things is that I believe we need to be able to work with them on common issues and accept their help when it is offered.
However we should not depend on this help as a crutch, and we need to make it known that our support on their issues, is not unconditional, and that if they use the "t" in their label and yet are not trans-active or trans-inclusive that we will actively brand them as such and as hipocrites. And we need to do so. We ought to create an organization simply to watch the GLB organizations, and post, rate, reward, and chastize those who do a good or bad job of inclusion. An organization has no right to use the "t" in their labeling when they are not trans inclusive.
I feel we need to let them know loud and clear that our participation, and endorsement is not un-conditional
and that if they don't perform, or fall short, we will withdraw and pull out.

And we should do so.

I recently read an essay where the writer suggests that the deep-down root cause of the hatred towards the GLBT community might be because the GLBT community renounces procreation.

But the GLB portion retains their fertility.  They could spawn offspring.

Transsexuals, on the other hand, become sterile as part of their transition.  Might this, the the renouncing of fertility, be part of the deep frame that causes the hatred by the Gs and Ls toward the Ts?

Karen

Quote from: Blanche on August 24, 2007, 08:43:21 AM
I've never liked the idea of being mixed with gay people.  I have nothing against them.  I just don't think we share the same goals and ideas.  My issues are gender or identity related; they have nothing to do with sex or sexual matters.

Quote from: Karen on December 30, 2007, 08:11:41 PM
Might this, the the renouncing of fertility, be part of the deep frame that causes the hatred by the Gs and Ls toward the Ts?
Karen

I'm glad you kept this a personal dislike.  Not all of us share your point of view. The fact is, WE transsexuals have the same orientation diversity as the general population.  I hate to pop your bubble, but many of us (transsexuals) are lesbian, gay, or bi. 
The whole notion of being disincluded in major human rights issues is a vast generalization.  Yes, I still feel the sting of the HRC when they threw us under the ENDA bus (or did they throw us in the back of the bus?) this year.  Yes, HRC is the biggest, most financially capable gay rights pressure group in the country, but they did not take a vote of their membership at large in regard to their stand on gender identity rights at the last moment. A handful of decision makers in HRC made that lousy decision, so please don't paint the whole lgb community as being uncaring, or not understanding.

I have met so many lovely people, and couples, mostly through my job, that treated me first, as a woman, then specifically as a lesbian woman.  Also, none mentioned if they knew I was ts or not, though it was obvious (to me) that most of them did.  I've had gay couples go waaay out of their way to make sure I was paid my commission; left the store if I was not there, and returned for me.  That's not exclusion behavior, but inclusion behavior.

*sigh* grrrr.

Bev

Quote from: y2gender on August 20, 2007, 09:44:01 AM

Marriage. If a M2F goes through full transition and is legally a woman, her marriage to her wife is now illegal, unless she lives in Massachusetts. If the couple lives in a small handful of other states, they could get a civil union, but will no longer be eligible to receive 1100 plus federal benefits to marriage. Conversely, if the M2F lives in Ohio, she cannot change her birth certificate, so she couldn't legally marry a man. GLBT is currently working toward marriage equality, or civil unions that will have ALL benefits of marriage, and these would be available to any transperson and their partner.

Yes, thank you for posting this, this is very important

Quote
Discrimination. Transpeople suffer discrimination in employment, housing and are among the highest victims of violent hate crimes. Most LGBT advocacy groups include gender identity and expression along with sexual orientation in current drafts for anti discrimination and hate crimes bills.

Yes, they don't always do a perfect job in this respect, but I am glad they include us.

Quote
Right to serve in military. Currently, a transperson can be discharged from hir position in the military. Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will guarantee transpeople the right to serve their country.

This will also be very helpful if this can be done, a lot of people can and have lost their jobs for this.

Quote
There are plenty more rights that concern both LGB and T people. IMO, working together will help us to attain these rights sooner than if we work separately.

I agree. We should be able to stand on our own, and, we have a lot in common and it would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because some HRC beuracrats are idiots.

Posted on: December 31, 2007, 03:52:20 PM

---

Quote from: Sophia on August 22, 2007, 12:16:03 AM

And then there's just the lack of cohesive connection for a lot of homosexuals. They look at their situation and go, "this is about who we're attracted to" and they look at us and go, "this is about who they are"

What is the connection? There's really no conceptual connection between our movements. Its entirely being allied on the basis of us having all the same enemies.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." -Unknown

Quote
But the thing that really hurts us in the eyes of the reasonable and intelligent homosexuals? The fact that so many of us transition, stealth and disappear.

We're the only group that loses such a huge degree of advocates and fighters to actually leaving the fight to immerse into primary society. Homosexuals can't do that without going back in the closet and it can generate a certain degree of both resentment and anger (resentment because many homosexuals wish to be considered "normal" and anger because its arguably abandoning the fight and making it harder for everyone else)

Yes, I agree with this line of thinking. I completely agree with them on this. I understand the feelings of those who wish to go stealth, but it does not help us. It makes it difficult for those of use who are not, as many of our experienced members of our community are invisible to the public. After going through all that, they go underground, and the help and support they could provide is not availble to the next generation. This just slows the process down.
I'm sorry to those who are, but it really does not seem helpful for the rest of us. There really is no way to change peoples views other than making the need for the change obvious.

You're stealth not because you want to make a political statement, but
because you've had enough of it all and just want to live.

When you've suffered for 20-40 years, you just don't want to deal with
this issue if you can. Who can blame anyone for that!!

I think it would be selfish to say to those, like me and many others, who have suffered so
much for decades, that they should go "once more into the breach" (as Shakespeare would say).
Our very lives for all these years was an flag into the wind of non conformity and
we should be faulted to want a break from this.

Once people have come to peace with themselves and their past and rebuild themselves
an identity, they may or may not come back. Many TS have come out of stealth
after years or decades.

If you're an activist and out, are you in fact living the life that many TS aspire to.
Can you really speak for them. Many stealth are offended that activists TS purport
to speak for them when its obvious they're not.

The only TS that can be advocates
for the TS stealth are those that have given it up after awhile and not those
who have been offended by the very idea of it.

Quote from: Keira on December 31, 2007, 04:15:43 PM

You're stealth not because you want to make a political statement, but
because you've had enough of it all and just live.

When you've suffered for 20-40 years, you just don't want to deal with
this issue if you can. Who can blame anyone for that!!

I think it would be selfish to say to those, like me and many others, who have suffered so
much for decades, that they should go "once more into the breach" (as shakespeare would say).
Our very lives for all these years was an flag into the wind of non conformity and
we should be faulted to want a break from this.

Once people have come to peace with themselves and their and rebuild themselves
an identity, they may or may not come back. Many TS have come out of stealth
after years or decases.

If your an activist and out, are you in fact living the life that many TS aspire to.
Can you really speak for them. Many stealth are offended that activists TS purport
to speak for them when its obvious they're not.

The only TS that can be advocates
for the TS stealth are those that have given it up after awhile and not those
who have been offended by the very idea of it.

I wish more people could understand this. :)

I do understand that.
And,
It does make it more difficult for the rest of us.

I wouldn't say that one should or shouldn't.

Only you can now in your heart what is best for you.





Posted on: December 31, 2007, 04:28:31 PM

---

Quote from: Keira on December 31, 2007, 04:15:43 PM
If you're an activist and out, are you in fact living the life that many TS aspire to.
Can you really speak for them. Many stealth are offended that activists TS purport
to speak for them when its obvious they're not.

The only TS that can be advocates
for the TS stealth are those that have given it up after awhile and not those
who have been offended by the very idea of it.

I was just thinking about this...

See the thing is, it's not a matter of whether it is good or bad, it is a matter of which consequences one is willing to accept.

If someone is an activist and out, they will state their own opinion at a meeting or whatever.

That opinion may not be shared by someone who is stealth for instance.

But the very nature of being stealth, means that one who is has effectively taken away their own voice. One has voice if one uses voice.

The person who is an activist does not speak for them neccicarily, but they have to go by what infomation they have, and speak for those who are heard. as best they can.

If one  doesn't hear someones opinion, how are they to represent it in a meeting or activist cause?

Someone who is stealth is Underground.

See what I'm saying?

It's sort of like people who don't vote talking about how the elected officials don't represent them.

They may not be perfect, but they are the only ones speaking publicly for our community other than the GLB's.

But, are the activist really speaking for the stealth, how
can they if they're underground.

I've seen the great disdain many out TS have for the stealth or even the merely passable.
How can you speak for those you don't respect.

The stealth TS has a voice as a women and while this is a smaller voice in a great ocean. It has force by the very strength of the 51% of the population being women. They could actually work from the inside to making sure that women are respected no matter their gender presentation. This would serve by extension any non passable TS post op and non gender conforming women in general.

I wish there was some way for the stealth population to get a little more voice.
I mean with the internet and all there has to be some way for those who wish to not be public, to still get their views across in private, such as this forum. it seems perhaps there might be a need for this to be more formally taking place, you know, such as a "stealth issues or concerns" blog or thread so that they can better communicate their concerns and needs as a more 'below the radar' community, but yet still be able to communicate with the rest of us without being outed. This forum is a good place for this, but there isn't an effective system set up to streamline communication on these issues. It may be helpful to set somthing like that up. There are many great people here who are stealth and still with to participate in some way (ie donate money to lobby groups, participate in support for new transitioners, etc.) but who do not wish to out themselves publicly.

The people who are out in in the public eye, and are working to represent us publicly as well as work on legal reform, etc. would probably be greatly aided by some form of improved communication with those who are stealth. Also having a some way to count the stealth population with those who are not, yet still keeping the privacy of the stealth population.

I'm sure there is some way we can find a way that helps everybody get adequate voice and make sure peoples views are heard and represented.

Why are transgendered people the unwanted step-child of the LGBT?   


cos they seem a bit weird.

I really doubt that stealth is any longer an option. I suspect that most if not each of us could be 'outed' given someone's desire to do so being great enough. Just too damned much information available anymore.

If you didn't transition thirty years ago, stealth may no longer be possible.

But, i also agree with what Keira is saying Sarah.

I have no desire to enter the fray as a fighter or activist. If you want that life, please have it. I would prefer not to, just like Bartleby the Scrivener.

I don't 'owe' any other TS or former TS anything at all that i don't 'owe' to any human being who asks my help. An honest answer and any help I can conscientiously give him or her. I don't owe them my life or the contentment I have in that life. For me, being an activist would be to give my life.

And the lives of my sons. They do not wish to sacrifice themselves and their mother (me) for 'the cause.' Because the cause is the lives we lead with each other.

One does what he or she may be moved to do, or should anyhow. Do I feel guilty or beholden because my genetics have been fortunate? Or because I have busted my but to reach a place where I am content just to be myself?

Nope.

You be you, Sarah.

Nichole

Quote from: Jeannette on August 17, 2007, 04:47:30 AM

Why not replace the term LGBT with TG? A transgender is someone who somehow "violates society's rules in regards to gender", right? Society says that men are not to dress as women nor have sex with men. So whether you are a man who dresses as a woman, a man who lives as a woman to some degree, or a man who chooses to have sex with men, then you are "violating society's rules" for how men should behave. So instead of TGs being a part of the LGBT, aren't LGBs really part of the transgendered term?

Why does it seem to be common practice to associate the term transgender or trans only with men? I am not trans...just a friendly lesbian...but I have been trying to learn more and have noticed that there seems to be a bias towards MTF in so many things.
Don't get me wrong, I think trans folks are just as interesting as potential friends as anyone else no matter which gender was thrust on them or which they identify with. I couldn't even care less where anyone is in there transition...I just find it to be almost insulting that even within our own sub cultures...there seems to be sexism or bias toward genetic males???
Please understand that I am not saying this as a slam...but really more questioning. This is my first time here and I have been very interested in learning more about trans folks because I have realized how little exposure I have had in the past and that the T in LGBT does seem to be excluded or dismissed as a rule.
Anyway...just askin' ;)

Hi Lee,

QuoteWhy does it seem to be common practice to associate the term transgender or trans only with men?

    My thought is that the women (MtF) are more visible as a group than are FtM's.  Also, the men (FtM) tend to be more tight lipped about stuff and so bring less attention to themselves.

     Part of the issue is that society seems to find the Male to Female issue a 'prurient' one and so the media focuses more on them.  This is changing a bit, however.  I've seen some news reports that show some class in their coverage of trans issues.  Better and more thoughtful portrayals by the media might help to give the men (FtM) more visibility in the future.  I have seen a couple of really recent reports that covered FtM individuals.

    Another piece of the focus on Women (MtF) is that our culture is sexist.  Everything revolves around males so when society sees people who it considers 'males' stepping away from that role, it pays attention.  It's ironic because you would think the focus would be on FtM's in that they are males and are willing to be a part of the male world.  You'd think there'd be a party every time a female born person declares their true gender as male.  But instead of a party, they get ignored.

Just my thoughts at this time.
Not meant to offend.
anyone who can better state what I'm trying to say is welcome to improve upon my reply.


Rebis  ---> male bodied androgyne with no ties to either gender.

Quote from: LeeProctor on December 31, 2007, 11:55:07 PM

Why does it seem to be common practice to associate the term transgender or trans only with men? I am not trans...just a friendly lesbian...but I have been trying to learn more and have noticed that there seems to be a bias towards MTF in so many things.
Don't get me wrong, I think trans folks are just as interesting as potential friends as anyone else no matter which gender was thrust on them or which they identify with. I couldn't even care less where anyone is in there transition...I just find it to be almost insulting that even within our own sub cultures...there seems to be sexism or bias toward genetic males???
Please understand that I am not saying this as a slam...but really more questioning. This is my first time here and I have been very interested in learning more about trans folks because I have realized how little exposure I have had in the past and that the T in LGBT does seem to be excluded or dismissed as a rule.
Anyway...just askin' ;)

Hi, Lee,

Welcome to Susan's. Please be acquainted with the Site Rules and terms of service: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html

Nice questions. One's I don't see asked a lot.

I have a few notions, but haven't really made concrete a way to talk about them as yet. So, I can agree with what Rebis said. I might expand on that after I give it some more thought.

It's nice to have another lesbian on the board. Hope you enjoy yourself.
:)

Nichole

It may be partly attributed to age, to hormones, to socialization, or just to what list or thread you're on. 

In May, we went to Esprit with probably 110 mostly older crossdressers, 40 MTF transsexuals, and maybe 10 wives.  In August we went to Gender Odyssey with close to 400 mostly young FTMs and androgynes and many lesbian partners with a sprinkling of MTF partners/wives.  Both were in the Seattle, Washington area.  Very different conferences; very different demographics. 

It is interesting to work in both worlds, but the FTM conference is the more alive and more relevant of the two (IMHO).

Robyn

Quote from: Nichole W. on December 31, 2007, 11:25:50 PM
I really doubt that stealth is any longer an option. I suspect that most if not each of us could be 'outed' given someone's desire to do so being great enough. Just too damned much information available anymore.

If you didn't transition thirty years ago, stealth may no longer be possible.

But, i also agree with what Keira is saying Sarah.

I have no desire to enter the fray as a fighter or activist. If you want that life, please have it. I would prefer not to, just like Bartleby the Scrivener.

I don't 'owe' any other TS or former TS anything at all that i don't 'owe' to any human being who asks my help. An honest answer and any help I can conscientiously give him or her. I don't owe them my life or the contentment I have in that life. For me, being an activist would be to give my life.

And the lives of my sons. They do not wish to sacrifice themselves and their mother (me) for 'the cause.' Because the cause is the lives we lead with each other.

One does what he or she may be moved to do, or should anyhow. Do I feel guilty or beholden because my genetics have been fortunate? Or because I have busted my but to reach a place where I am content just to be myself?

Nope.

You be you, Sarah.

Nichole

Oh sorry,
I didn't mean to be confusing,
I meant "activism" in a more broader sense like even posting on this forum.
That's pretty active if you ask me.
I mean anybody who ever sends the NGLTF or even the HRC (back when they were still representing us) money is being an "activist" as far as I am concerned.