Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Discussing the "transgender dilemma"

http://evangelicalvillage.com/2009/06/13/discussing-the-transgender-dilemma/ (http://evangelicalvillage.com/2009/06/13/discussing-the-transgender-dilemma/)
6/13/09

I have been talking with a fellow conservative pastor recently about the "transgrender dilemma."  He has multiple degrees and also taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for many years in the Sociology program.  Through many conversations with him on the transgender issue I realized I have been quite naive about the transgender issue and that most of evangelicalism is as well.  Many evangelicals even think transgender and homosexuality is the same issue, which shows some naiveness.  I am not saying there is no overlap, but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category.

but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category


but that is exacyly what most people do!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >:( >:(

Quote from: The Only Warrior Princess Mekayla on June 14, 2009, 07:56:54 PM
but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category


but that is exacyly what most people do!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >:( >:(

Am I the only one who thinks that we help reinforce that misconception when we allow ourselves to be enveloped under the "LGBT" umbrella on all the social activism causes?

Nothing against homosexuality, and especually nothing abainst "standing together" where we have common cause, but I sometimes wonder if the term LGBT is itself an enemy of accurate perceptions of trans people.

Quote from: Laura Hope on June 14, 2009, 10:20:05 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that we help reinforce that misconception when we allow ourselves to be enveloped under the "LGBT" umbrella on all the social activism causes?

Nothing against homosexuality, and especually nothing abainst "standing together" where we have common cause, but I sometimes wonder if the term LGBT is itself an enemy of accurate perceptions of trans people.

You're not the only one, I also feel that it's strategically a mistake to couple T with LGB for exactly the reasons cited above in this thread.  We can support and ally with the LGB community on rights, recognition and acceptance but we need to break the correlation between sexual orientation and being transgender.

I know, from being part of the unaware cisgendered (ostensibly) hetero world, that transgendered individuals are almost always mentally categorized as being a homosexual orientation.  This may well be caused by a lack of understanding about gender dysphoria combined with a solely genito-centric view of gender.   Appending T to LGB just reinforces the erroneous view that being transgendered equates to being queer.

You may be L, G or B and coincidentally T  but T *does not* equate to L, G or B

Teaches Sociology and has very little understanding of the LGBT community. Another reason why those with degrees from religious institutions should not be taken seriously.

I posted a comment on that blog - most of the respondents seem thoughtful. I particularly recommend the comment by "Zoe Brain" (is that one of our members?)

That GLBT thingy...  While I believe we should/can support each other as far as human rights and freedoms, we should not be included.  Those under the T umbrella who consider themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bi are certainly free to associate, but there are many others who do not fit.

On the Blog entry... I'm not religious in any way, shape or form but it is refreshing to see sane logical debate/discussion on the TS issue and religion.

-={LR}=-

transexuality and homosexuality confusion is exactly what i have to put up with every day at work....especially when it came to the loo. so far that has died down and no one has complained. i am glad for at least that much

The poor, tired idea of "original sin" translates out in any theology, to "somebody's gotta take a hit for this, and it can't be God who is perfect".  It is entirely likely that we are as close to perfectness as the cissexual heterosexuals and just as normal humans as any made or pro-created anywhere.

I don't myself think that being lumped in with any other "sexual deviant" group either hurts or helps us since I have a personal suspicion that "God" as I understand the supreme architect is more than a little miffed that we haven't caught on to our own responsibility to make things comfortable for ALL of us to live together whether we can all pronounce IAM the same way.

OK the pulpit is clear.   

That is brilliant. I am glad to read the post. Thank you for sharing, Natasha.

I'm going to go against the grain here and argue that TBLG is a good grouping.

Of course, "GLB" and "T" are different, but no matter how you construe "T" (or like some, dismiss it entirely after transition), it problematizes the distinction between "straight" and "gay." Nearly everyone on this site (including SO's, basically everyone but family members) might be seen as gay by someone. Not reinforcing that misconception (or correct understanding, depending on the situation) isn't the priority; making sure that it doesn't matter is. The questions raised in the article -- namely about how transgender identities might be seen as an extension of the category of intersexual conditions -- quickly leads to the conclusion (if you think about it just a minute longer) that homosexuality is yet another natural variant. That's good for everyone.

Vicky, unless you are perfect, or have ever met a single human being who is, I would like to know what you find problematic with the notion that all human beings are imperfect, which is (actually) the gist of the doctrine of original sin -- "sin" isn't "utter depraved evil" -- rather, it's "lack of perfection." Your description (or anything equivalent) is not universally held, though certainly some people (like Mr. Svoboda) seem to hold it.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on June 16, 2009, 01:20:11 AM
[...]
Of course, "GLB" and "T" are different, but no matter how you construe "T" (or like some, dismiss it entirely after transition), it problematizes the distinction between "straight" and "gay." Nearly everyone on this site (including SO's, basically everyone but family members) might be seen as gay by someone. Not reinforcing that misconception (or correct understanding, depending on the situation) isn't the priority; making sure that it doesn't matter is. The questions raised in the article -- namely about how transgender identities might be seen as an extension of the category of intersexual conditions -- quickly leads to the conclusion (if you think about it just a minute longer) that homosexuality is yet another natural variant. That's good for everyone.
[...]

A thoughtful argument, thank you.   I understand that tolerance of diversity is a good thing so that any such distinction doesn't, and shouldn't, matter.

I do feel, however, that the distinction is important because gender dysphoria is a clinically recognised, diagnosable medical condition that often requires psychological therapy, medical oversight and care, etc.. This is substantively different from sexual orientation.  Indeed, there have been some rather insidious suggestions that non-heterosexual orientation is a psychological disorder that can be "treated" via therapy.

We want therapy to be readily available to gender dysphoria sufferers but we absolutely do not want people trying to "cure" our sexual orientation, do we?  I really do think the coupling of transgender with LGB is strategically risky, as it blurs what I believe to be profoundly important distinctions and reinforces the erroneous homosexual stereotype of transgendered people, i.e. the view that transsexuals are just homosexuals who have a cross dressing fetish or that a trans-woman and a man is a "gay" same sex relationship (anatomically *and* psychologically).

Of course, this doesn't have to be in conflict with support for diversity but why is an explicit community coupling required, beyond being a symbolic representation of solidarity?  After all, what about promoting tolerance for ethnic or religious diversity?  Should we have AAT (anti-apartheid & transgendered) or TAAS (transgendered against anti-semitism)?

Obviously I'm being facetious here and I realize there is a closer relationship between LGB & T communities due to the existing stereotypical views, which is somewhat different from race & religious diversity issues.

I'm not advocating breaking the alliance or mutual campaigning.  I am, however, suggesting that the transgendered community needs to be careful about this correlation.  My perception, which may be flawed and limited by my visible world, is that there is very little explicit messaging to clarify that being transgendered DOES NOT equate to being homosexual.

One may be gay and/or one may be transsexual but they are not mutually inclusive!

Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months. This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.


By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public. 

but it is foolish to put them in the exact same category

The so called "gay" movement at Stonewall was started by transgender people. I see no reason to separate trans, I'm more than happy to include LGB people in our struggle for equal rights.  ;D

Z

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.
[...]

The missing attribution makes it hard to tell where that is aimed.  On reviewing the thread so far, the cross-hairs need some tuning either way. :)

Quote
But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).
[...]
Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.
[...]
As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.

So who is suggesting such a complete split, exactly?  I for one have explicitly said just earlier that I'm opposed to breaking this alliance or breaking any mutual campaigning.  I've only been talking about the terminology and any potential strategic downsides of compounding a stereotypical view which, without any effort being expended to explicitly clarify the difference between LGB & T, does occur.

Of course, it's inevitable that people will interpret a discussion as binary, either-or positions.  We can add that to the short sighted and narrow minded attributes too, hmm?

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Oh my. This may be more bluntness than I've seen on this whole board so far condensed into a single post (albeit I haven't been here long) - I'd like to respond but I definitely don't want to get into an argument so i'll try to be as simple and clear as i can.

It is absolutely true that i am not a "movement" expert, partly because I wasn't out or planning to be, and partly because I'm not a "movement" person by nature, which I'll touch on later.

On the other hand, what that does give me is the perspective that comes from having fraternized with the "enemy" a great deal and some insight into how they perceive things.

Quote
Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

I don't think anyone proposes a "100% seperate" agenda. By thinking is more similar to how women's rights organizations and pro-choice organizations routinely partner (essentially 100% of the time) and yet the public clearly understands that NOW and NARAL are not the same group.

Quote
Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.

My instinctive response is to tangent into a political discussion here because I think that is a highly flawed statement - but I'll resist. Because I have found that the best way to alienate a lot of folks you'd like to be friends with is to dispute their political ideas and I'd rather makes friends here than converts.

I will say that the above NOW/NARAL comment is an example of being seperate sister organization with distinct goals but neither excluding or hostile to the other. I'm sure thousands of people are members of both and nothing would prevent one being active on both a LBG basis and also on a T basis. Furthermore, I think (based on what I've seen inside the "enemy" camp) that while there may be some negatives to a seperate identity, there are also a significant number of people who can more readily accept Trans people than they can homosexuality (for whatever reason and however wrong they may be)

I suppose this could be considered leaving your allies behind in a bid for seperate acceptance, but any acceptance is good and progress for all, or so it seems in my humble opinion.

Quote
  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

One political comment, I can't hold back - there are millions of Americans with more conservative views on economics in particular (since social issues are largely taking a back seat lately) who never sniffed the faintest tiniest nanosecond of an attempt at "inclusiveness" to their views and ideas in the last year+.

All too often everyone defines "inclusiveness" as "how many people can I get to vote for me to do what I want done"

Quote
Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

I'll pass on this part - psychoanalysis, and ascribing ill motivations to those whom I disagree with never struck me as productive. I prefer to assume that my opponent is as sincere in his or her motivations as I am (or as i am not if we want to state it negatively).

Quote
You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.

So then you are saying that GWB in 2000 and 2004 was "inclusive"? Or GHWB in 1998? Or Nixon twice for cryinoutloud? Don't get too caught up in the last two election cycles and base your conclusions on a small sample size. If I may be so bold as to say so.

Quote
  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months.

Laying aside the "last six months" dig, no, I am not a veteran of the wars so maybe my views are not worthy. (albeit I say again that there's value in having intel on the opponents)
BUT
At least dismiss what's actually being said rather than what's not. No one - as i read this thread - has any intention of forgoing those connections. No one has any intention of alienating or dismissing or distancing themselves from friends and allies and political connections that have been built up over decades. It IS possible to have a seperate identity and be a political sibling to the LGB cause rather than one organism.

One can CERTAINLY debate and disagree about the wisdom of that. I concede I could be VERY wrong on whether it is a strategically sound move. But, again, criticize the suggestion for what it actually is.

Quote
This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.

Absolutely true. And speaking from an evangelical background, that's exactly where the progress has been most effective. Winning the sympathies of those who had been in opposition so that, by being "humanized" you/we become a less threatening "enemy". you don't HAVE to change the religious idea that it's "sin" in order to win folks like Rick Warren to the idea that Christianity demands love first over judgment.
That doesn't mean he's going to jump the fence and march for Gay marriage the first day - but it moves the ball, not just with him but with the millions who respect what he has to say.

You will probably not like this but it's true - the LGBT movement has made FAR more progress with the "opponents" by humanizing their situations and putting a sympathetic face on it than you ever did with pride parades and flag waving demonstrations. Again, I've heard and read the reactions within that community and I assure you you LOSE ground when the stereotypical leather and drag crowd turns out to dominate the image of the Pride parade.

It may not be fair, but it happens. And, since you said earlier that you are all about winning, it seems like maybe it's worth giving some thought to.

That being the case, every mainstream trans person - so long as T is considered synonymous with LGB - carries the stigma (again, not speaking of what OUGHT to be - speaking of what IS) of being considered the exact same thing as the flamboyant drag queen. That does us, or the mainstream LGB population for that matter, no favors.

Does that mean that i don't think that the more outrageous variants of LGBT don't deserve equality? Of course not. But if you and i get it, they will too, just because there will be no legal way to distinguish between the two. It seems to me that when the outrageous surge to the front, it is THOSE who are putting their narcissism ahead of strategic success.
If indeed anyone has such motives (and I'm not going to say they do)

Quote
By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public.

Well, duh. Was there someone here who didn't know that?

I'm sorry, and I hope I'm reading this wrong, but it has the faint air of being talked down to as a veteran "schools" a newbie.

Well, I'm new to publicly identifying my gender identity and I'm obviously not a veteran of "The Movement" but I'm not a novice to politics and political movements and it could be that there's some value in a look behind the curtain of the folks on the other side.

That said, I see too much hostility in my conclusion and I DON'T want confrontation here (which is why I avoid political threads) so please know that. I DO respect your apparent experience and your views...except where those views express unnecessary hostility. Sometimes the unintended consequence of being a veteran of the wars is the dehumanization of the enemy.

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Darn good post. I'll add to this part: That's why I liked the reasoning in the blog post; that's why I'm happy to include Friends, Family, Queer/Questioning, Intersexed, Allies, and anyone else who wants to get on board. There's plenty good room on the queer train. Almost everyone is a little bit queer, if only in their own small way, so almost everyone has something to gain from the movement. We ought to use that to our advantage.

Look, I don't really care if anyone "gets" what it means to be transgendered or transsexual. Frankly, I don't get it myself. I don't get what it means to be straight, either. Nor do I get what it means to fall in love; it just happens. What matters to me isn't that people get it, but that they let me be who I am without any need to defend myself for it.

Transgender and homosexuality are the same? Say WHAT? Any one who has that misconception has their head where the sun doesn't shine. They are completely different issues. Also, according to Webster and a number of other scources Transgender is NOT a dilemma.  Dillemma: an argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavorable or disagreeable alternatives.  Any situation in which one must choose between unpleasant alternatives. Now I must question what is unpleasant about the alternative. Life can pretty darn unpleasant if one does not choose the alternative. Evangelicals should stay in there own yard. If they don't play the game then don't make the rules. End of conversation.

I suppose that what the blogger means by "dilemma" is not the dilemma that you and I face but the dilemma the church faces reconciling the call to "love thy neighbor" with that which they (incorrectly) believe to be sin (and the resulting implication they are condoning sin)

For those who sincerely believe it is a violation of God's will, that is a legitimate "two unpleasant possibilities" situation - churches constantly face the issue of how to love a person who is caught up in some (actual) sinful behavior while not giving the appearance of condoning the sin.

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Congratulations.  Comments that are both short-sighted, as well as narrow minded.  And the keen grasp of history the total ignorance as the history of these movements both apart and together.

Short-sighted, narrow minded, and ignorant are pretty much the origination trifecta of human problems.

I'm not going to go into why, and how these movements have both been long a part of the others space and culture.  Why that would be silly (during the month of June in particular, that's just a bonus) to think they got together just because they all were the same people, hanging out in the same places, with similar agendas.

But, I would like to say, that a separate agenda, away from and 100% divorced from the LG agenda would hurt both the gay and lesbian population as well as the Trans constituent (but for sure, mostly us).

Separate is bad.  Very bad.  Ask the Republicans what happens when you tell everyone that 'you with us, or against us' and then proceed to exclude everyone from being with you.  You lose.  Inclusion is good, ask the current Dems and the old Reagan Republicans about that whole inclusion deal - it just doesn't win elections, it sweeps them. 

Separatism is brought about by a few people, with a rather creepy interpersonal agenda, and I have rarely found it to be false.  Never in fact.

It's always pushed by people who share a willingness to trade being a small part in a large victory in order to be a leader of failure at a small level.

They do this because its all about martyrdom.  The point in most separatist movements always boils down to "I tried, but the people weren't ready (see, blame someone else) and failure gets elevated to a lofty position while simple ideas, like, say... winning and losing, get lost in the shuffle.

You see, as everyone who wins knows, The side with the most supporters in the end tends to win.  Just that simple.  Those that want to get out, just want to lose.

Because, that is what will happen.  Without access to the political system though the LGBT network that has been being set up for a long, long time now and not something to be casually done away with because you realized something personal about yourself in the last six months. This political network of the LTBG has been a force in doing some pretty interesting political changes, and taking on some pretty awesome, if formidable targets and making some powerful enemies along the way.

As shown time and a again there are not enough of us to make a difference all alone.  We need to be part of a wider movement if we want to have our issues heard at a wider level.


By the way, the LG movement is not about sex.  Yeesh.  It's about your right to be attracted to who you choose, your right to be able to express yourself in a manner of your own choosing and to not be afraid of doing that day in and day out right out there in public. 

Personally speaking. I thought it was a good and thoughtful post. Not nearly as harsh as Kat could have made it. But, perhaps not everyone cares for that brand of Earl Grey. :)

Fact does seem to be that well over half of MTFs (who often appear to think that they are the only "transsexuals") never sniff the gay/lesbian life or ambience until they transition and maintain their wives. They generally do so while strolling through life believing that all their family, old friends and acquaintances actually vouchsafe any belief or credibility to that notion. Most don't, they still perceive the relationship as heterosexual. Which is exactly why marriages in USA when one partner transitions are not immediately annulled by the states.

Fact two, even while maintaining this "lesbian" fiction those people mentioned generally find no comfort in dealings with homosexuals of either sex. There's usually a good deal of aversion to the actual people and their sexual attractions. Or those who could never have imagined themselves as "gay," or admitted to same, suddenly find "hormone-induced" attractions to males. O my goodness! Let's not get into the ridiculousness of that on it's face by pointing to lesbians who have always lived in an estrogen-rich internal environment and are not attracted to males.   

Third fact is that a lot of those "only transsexuals there are" folk also seem hellbent on suddenly assuming the trappings of womanhood, as if NOW, NARAL memberships and using a "female" restroom and suddenly admiting a fondness for various shades of pink and purple that they often avoided like the colors themselves carried the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus have now somehow become indicators that "I am a woman, dammit." :) Again, seems a bit unusual, such remarkable changes brought about by a hormonal change. I suppose I am just very sceptical and should prolly be dismissed for that very reason.

Hell, most people refuse to admit that they like anything outside the norm, whatsoever. Always the mad scramble to "fit in." Or, in actuality, the scramble to be what others seem to desire one to be and make sure that I color inside all of the lines all of the time. Well, except maybe for that small matter of a sex-change. :laugh: Yeah, that one does kinda stick out as a rather glaring departure from the norm, eh? :)

And we haven't even gotten to drag-queens, genderqueers, androgynes (of all the many diverse shades.)

No, Kat's post makes everso much sense. Besides, just like this post, Kat's post wasn't "aimed" at anyone. It was aimed at ideas that found expression through the writings of some posters either in full or in one or two of a number of their posts in the thread. Don't take her post personally would be my advice.

Instead, just think about it a bit. If I can get the idea out of me that something is directed at me personally when I have not been specifically singled-out then I can often find something worthwhile to mentally chew on a bit. It can even become habitual to do so. Imagine that! :)

Nichole

And here I had decided to stay away from this thread after reading the first few posts to it! Things can change.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: >:-)

To clarify - i wasn't "taking it personally" and have no idea to what extent if at all she meant me specifically.

I simply spoke from my own experience.

As i do now when I say this: i comment on LGBT issues only to the extent that I have an opinion. I'm not an "activist" and don't intend to be. I have no interest in joining the right groups or going to the right parades. I have no idea what the future holds regarding sexual orientation nor do I very much care either way. I'd be as content to be asexual as I would on either side of the fence or straddling it. I sure as heck don't have any sort of phobia about ending up on the "wrong" side. That doesn't mean that I have any discomfort at all spending time with or being friends with gay men or lesbians.

Frankly, I never saw any point in making the distinction about things that were not my business anyway. If there is an "ambiance" I'm missing then I was certainly unaware.

And I think the conduct of my life - perhaps to my detriment perhaps not - puts me pretty well "outside the lines" in a number of ways.

I will not presume to debate whether or not your "facts" actually are. I have no dog in that hunt.

All I'm doing, in any thread here, is just speaking from my own life - at least THAT, with all due respect, doesn't require me to make assumptions about others.

Admittedly, I have a LOT to learn, and admittedly I've no doubt heard a LOT of myths that turn out not to be true. I do not mean to come off as either arrogant, or overly sensitive. But I don't think it's too bold a statement to say we can all learn from each other, both the veteran of the wars and the naive newbie.

Hey if I want to go after people in a specific example I do what Socrates taught me and let them do it themselves.  Much better to let people hang themselves with their own words then have to manufacture the rope myself.  Much too lazy for that.

And Nichole is right in at least one way, I thought I was cutting it very mild as by my vision in all of this is a bunch of people who have 'rights' that others fought for, and far from even giving them a passing acknowledgment, they get vindictive treatment for their efforts.

I mean, its a unique short sightedness that produces this, and it begins (and pretty much ends) with the 'this is not about sex.'   Sure.  Of course not.  It's about gender, and sex is between the legs, while gender is between the ears, and for that reason we have to go to head doctors before we get the plumbing fixed, but no, its not about sex at all is it?  But ya know, you don't have to read many posts in here to find the sex component do you?  But hey, its not about sex.  Right.

What it is about, and Nichole touched on it a bit here, so I'll quote her: And we haven't even gotten to drag-queens, genderqueers, androgynes (of all the many diverse shades.)   And I think that is exactly what many people would want, they want the Transgender movement to be exclusively a Transsexual movement, and they don't like the LGBT crowd because they embrace the diversity, rather than trying to expel it.  At the heart of the entire separatism argument is the need to get rid of all who do not match the expectations, or who make a different argument, and leave it exclusively to those who promote a very narrow agenda.

But, I do kind of like it when someone says It is absolutely true that i am not a "movement" expert, partly because I wasn't out or planning to be, and partly because I'm not a "movement" person and then proceeds to add a huge "HOWEVER" and goes on from there to critique the movement.

And I was only using the political parties as examples of how inclusive tends to win, and exclusive tends to lose, no matter who uses it.   

Wow!! I merited TWO nods in my post, Kat? Thank you. :)

When you're right, you're right.

But I did kinda like the This may be more bluntness than I've seen on this whole board so far condensed into a single post.

I guess she has not perused my other posts eh?

With almost 9,000 to go, it's safe to say I'm behind on THAT task.

(not criticizing, I have over 20K on another board!)

All I can say in summation is "Meh"

My thinking was another point of view would be maybe of some value.

But the tone seems to be like it is at every other site on the net I've ever seen, to wit:

"I'm right. End of discussion."

So...ok...you're right.

I curtsy in your general direction.

;)

I'm not going to give into the argumentative nature I'm trying to suppress.

Quote from: tekla on June 18, 2009, 01:01:33 AM
When you're right, you're right.

But I did kinda like the This may be more bluntness than I've seen on this whole board so far condensed into a single post.

I guess she has not perused my other posts eh?

Yeah, I liked that too. After practically 9,000 posts I would imagine that there are over two hundred of your posts that at least match that one for bluntness. :) But, I have to admit that I like this "nice-person" undercutting better than the more deadly blunt ones. It really seems a shame to see a few of those very pointed posts edited and deleted by staff! :laugh:

---

Post Merge: June 18, 2009, 01:13:59 AM

---

Laura, we mostly all think we are "right." Why bother to add anything to a thread if we think we have nothing at all to add? Now that makes no sense. And I would suppose that one would find that in any forum or blog or what-have-ya.

Dunno.

I myself have had my mind changed by a BBS discussion more times than I can count.

Maybe I'm just weak or something.

Quote from: Laura Hope on June 14, 2009, 10:20:05 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that we help reinforce that misconception when we allow ourselves to be enveloped under the "LGBT" umbrella on all the social activism causes?

Nothing against homosexuality, and especually nothing abainst "standing together" where we have common cause, but I sometimes wonder if the term LGBT is itself an enemy of accurate perceptions of trans people.

I'm with you on this one, Laura.  The only way I've been able to understand why we're under the LGB umbrella is that many people in the 'T' consider their status as trans-something to be a cultural identity, much like the members of the LGB community.

That being said, a friend asked me if I was going to SF Pride... and I am.  With a gay friend visiting from out of town.  I won't be there as a 'T', though, but as an ally.

I never try to end discussion. But I do try to steer them to the real ideals being talked about.

Quote from: Laura Hope on June 18, 2009, 01:16:09 AM
Dunno.

I myself have had my mind changed by a BBS discussion more times than I can count.

Maybe I'm just weak or something.

But when you began the discussion did you think you were right? That IS the point. If you have something to say, right or wrong, write and post it.

And you are not the only person to have their minds changed about things. Is that a weakness?

I think you know that it isn't, but the kinda passive-aggressive stance of that reply is a bit too much. So, you changed your mind. Haven't we all? 

Probably. But not all admit it, at least not publicly.

Passive aggressive?

Damn.

Ok, whatever. I'm out on the ideology stuff. I'm gonna stick to making sense of my own life. Enjoy your movement.

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 12:18:31 AM
Third fact is that a lot of those "only transsexuals there are" folk also seem hellbent on suddenly assuming the trappings of womanhood, as if NOW, NARAL memberships and using a "female" restroom and suddenly admiting a fondness for various shades of pink and purple that they often avoided like the colors themselves carried the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus have now somehow become indicators that "I am a woman, dammit." :) Again, seems a bit unusual, such remarkable changes brought about by a hormonal change. I suppose I am just very sceptical and should prolly be dismissed for that very reason.

Nichole, what are you getting at here? Facts 1 and 2 pointed to the hypocrisy of the being transsexual and trying to retain straight/cis privilege, and I guess there's a little of that here, but aren't all mtf transitioners, ipso facto, "assuming the trappings of womanhood"?

Just curious -- I liked, or at least I basically agreed with, the rest of your post, but was a bit puzzled by this. :)

QuoteThird fact is that a lot of those "only transsexuals there are" folk also seem hellbent on suddenly assuming the trappings of womanhood, as if NOW, NARAL memberships and using a "female" restroom and suddenly admiting a fondness for various shades of pink and purple that they often avoided like the colors themselves carried the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus have now somehow become indicators that "I am a woman, dammit." :) Again, seems a bit unusual, such remarkable changes brought about by a hormonal change. I suppose I am just very sceptical and should prolly be dismissed for that very reason

This had me rolling.

Can I blame the drugs again? :)

Well, I know I'm still a newcomer to many of these issues and I don't deny that I may have a resultant naivety but I'm still confused as to what the disagreement is...if any.  I mean, I agree completely with the anti-separatist argument but then I still don't see where any advocacy of separatism has occurred.  I guess I'm missing something :)

Quote from: Mister on June 18, 2009, 01:40:18 AM
This had me rolling.

Can I blame the drugs again? :)

Nah, I think it was just straight up funny. :laugh:

(I was just thinking there was a point behind the pointed snarkiness) ;)

The point is the lengths people will go to "affirm my womanhood." What? I suddenly get a longing to dress in pink when I wouldn't even wear a pink oxford shirt while I was boying it around?

Or I will now "prove" my womanhood by joining NOW after years of bitchin' and moanin' about those femi-nazis? :)

Sorry, but I tend to be snarky because I find the switch to be just utterly ludicrous. As if all women like pink or join NOW or are feminists.

It just all seems rather much a pose sometimes, Alyssa. And that's about as far as I will explain it.

Ah, except for one other thing.

Quotebut aren't all mtf transitioners, ipso facto, "assuming the trappings of womanhood"?

No, I don't believe or experience that we all are, only some who are trying too hard, imo, to impress that outward womanhood. For me that shows a rather fair amount of lack of belief in one's inner womanhood. You know, that bit about "it's gender, not sex."

It is darn well about sex, the biological kind. Not the between the sheets kind. And no amount of outward apparel or outward mannerism is gonna make the "not there" there.

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 01:59:25 AM
The point is the lengths people will go to "affirm my womanhood." What? I suddenly get a longing to dress in pink when I wouldn't even wear a pink oxford shirt while I was boying it around?

Or I will now "prove" my womanhood by joining NOW after years of bitchin' and moanin' about those femi-nazis? :)

Sorry, but I tend to be snarky because I find the switch to be just utterly ludicrous. As if all women like pink or join NOW or are feminists.

It just all seems rather much a pose sometimes, Alyssa. And that's about as far as I will explain it.

So what you're saying, Nichole, is that I need to stop crushing beer cans on my forehead?  Damnit.

Quote from: finewine on June 18, 2009, 01:45:07 AMI guess I'm missing something :)

Oh, dear. Yes, you are. I guess I'll just say you really don't want to know. There's an underlying debate that keeps coming up from time to time. It gets old really fast, kind of similar to how the BBL theory debates get old -- another thing you don't want to know about if you don't already.

Quote from: Mister on June 18, 2009, 02:01:02 AM
So what you're saying, Nichole, is that I need to stop crushing beer cans on my forehead?  Damnit.

Yeah, that doesn't make a guy. :) I can take you to a few places in TN where women do that as well. :) Hell, I can take to a few places in Cali where the women do that as well. :) Or NJ or PA!

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 02:07:48 AM
Yeah, that doesn't make a guy. :) I can take you to a few places in TN where women do that as well. :) Hell, I can take to a few places in Cali where the women do that as well. :) Or NJ or PA!

Thanks for the update.  Now maybe my chronic headaches will stop   :D

Quote from: Alyssa M. on June 18, 2009, 02:03:10 AM
Oh, dear. Yes, you are. I guess I'll just say you really don't want to know. There's an underlying debate that keeps coming up from time to time. It gets old really fast, kind of similar to how the BBL theory debates get old -- another thing you don't want to know about if you don't already.

So what "underlying debate" is that, Lyssa? If you think it's HBS you couldn't be more wrong. I debate the other side to that one. The diversity is good side, just like you do. :)

Quote from: Alyssa M. on June 18, 2009, 02:03:10 AM
Oh, dear. Yes, you are. I guess I'll just say you really don't want to know. There's an underlying debate that keeps coming up from time to time. It gets old really fast, kind of similar to how the BBL theory debates get old -- another thing you don't want to know about if you don't already.

Ah :)  ok.  I did get the sense that there was a deeper history colouring the tone here.

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 01:59:25 AMIt just all seems rather much a pose sometimes, Alyssa. And that's about as far as I will explain it.

Okay, thanks.

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 12:18:31 AMInstead, just think about it a bit. If I can get the idea out of me that something is directed at me personally when I have not been specifically singled-out then I can often find something worthwhile to mentally chew on a bit. It can even become habitual to do so. Imagine that! :)

I suppose I should admit that's about what I'm doing. Thank you for some provocative posts -- let's just say my own "belief in my own inner womanhood" and my expression thereof are both similar and dissimilar to what you describe, so your posts piqued my interest. :)

Since my particular brand of bluntness, based on prior postings, would not be entirely welcomed here and may indeed cause me trouble, I shall say that I agree on the lack of awareness of history (and it is indeed a shared a history that everyone on this board has), and that my entire position can be summed up in in a few lines:

Normal is a myth.
Make a difference by being different.
TANSTAAFL

Quote from: Nichole on June 18, 2009, 02:11:15 AM
So what "underlying debate" is that, Lyssa? If you think it's HBS you couldn't be more wrong. I debate the other side to that one. The diversity is good side, just like you do. :)

Well, yes, HBS -- frankly, you can't debate the "other side" from me because I try to avoid debating either side; I just can't be convinced of either side with my present understanding. And if you find an old post of mine that seems to contradict that statement -- I disavow the old post! ;) But the diversity issue and the HBS issue tend to get mixed up; at least, the diversity issue tends to pop up in the HBS debates in my recollection, and I've noticed a pretty strong correlation in views on HBS and diversity.



[p.s. -- I reaaaallly don't want to debate it, and I hope that ends it, but if it doesn't, I'll just concede that it seemed to me that there was an echo of the HBS debates, and perhaps only to me.]

Quote from: Alyssa M. on June 18, 2009, 02:17:32 AM
I suppose I should admit that's about what I'm doing. Thank you for some provocative posts -- let's just say my own "belief in my own inner womanhood" and my expression thereof are both similar and dissimilar to what you describe, so your posts piqued my interest. :)

They weren't meant, per se, to be provocative, but if they provoked you and you thought they were somehow about you, well, I suppose that maybe they were provocative. :)

I just believe, no, it goes beyond belief to actually knowing, that if it's there you know it. Everyone knows it and it doesn't matter if you wear an orange jumpsuit, a catsuit or a suit of medieval Italian armor. 

It's not about the outward expression, it's about what's right there where you're sitting now.

Look to what's in one's self and you'll know. It actually works for showing cis-folks that they have a "gender-identity" as well, although I am just partial to sex, finding gender to be just more socialized outward trappings.