Just curious if the movement for acceptability would be far faster if we considered our selves as a third gender rather then bumping heads with the majorities view of what defines male and female. with a third gender definition the term "passing " would be completely eliminated. Strict laws could be enacted specifically for the protection  of this form of gender expression. A third gender classification would be viewed more in terms of biology rather some sexual choice. People can wrap there heads around a third gender term rather than trying to understand some  choice to be another sex. I personally prefer being just a transgender , but not a third gender . third gender sounds more like a mutation. Just curious if progress towards acceptability can be accomplished more rapidly by a different classification.

At first thought, my instinct is to say no, it wouldn't.

Setting aside the practical hurdles of actually passing such a law defining us in that way, I think such a legal definition would do more harm than good. Even if it's legally okay, socially things would be really rocky.

A third gender focuses too much on what makes us different, rather than what we actually share with the more "classical" genders. For people who already struggle to understand us (when they even try), I think this would only encourage more division, more segregation, and therefore less acceptance.

Quote from: stephaniec on July 30, 2014, 02:50:15 PM
Just curious if the movement for acceptability would be far faster if we considered our selves as a third gender rather then bumping heads with the majorities view of what defines male and female. with a third gender definition the term "passing " would be completely eliminated. Strict laws could be enacted specifically for the protection  of this form of gender expression. A third gender classification would be viewed more in terms of biology rather some sexual choice. People can wrap there heads around a third gender term rather than trying to understand some  choice to be another sex. I personally prefer being just a transgender , but not a third gender . third gender sounds more like a mutation. Just curious if progress towards acceptability can be accomplished more rapidly by a different classification.

Personally I think a third and fourth gender, MTF and FTM would be a good idea. Sure it would cause separation but if it was totally accepted that there were two more genders that are variances but are separate and valid than just male and female alone.

Quote from: Jess42 on July 30, 2014, 03:20:53 PM
Personally I think a third and fourth gender, MTF and FTM would be a good idea. Sure it would cause separation but if it was totally accepted that there were two more genders that are variances but are separate and valid than just male and female alone.

That feels like a really optimistic view, to me. Historically, any legal distinctions used to categorize people have not ended well in Western culture, though usually it's more of a racial definition. Sure, it would make a formal recognition that "yes, these people exist" (which we already have), but it doesn't do much to make the classified group considered "valid." It usually seems like the opposite, actually. Any group being legally defined as different from mainstream society has found themselves more easily discriminated against because of it.

The examples are endless. There's extreme cases like the Romany and Jews of medieval Europe. Sure, they legally existed, but the legal classification was to restrict a lot of things they could do, not to validate them. Also coming to mind are US laws from  the 19th century regarding Chinese immigrants, or asians in general. In the 20th century, distinctions against black people, and in Nazi Germany, the Jews are notable examples. Yes, these are extreme cases, but I can't recall any example of a legal classification of any group of people having been actually used for benevolent goals, whatever the motivations behind their origins may have been, or were said to be.

To cite Brown vs. Board of Education, "Separate is inherently unequal." I believe this applies, even in a nonphysical sense like describing people. To classify someone is to say they are less equal, less the same than the group you're dividing them from, else why the distinction? How would encouraging that promote equality?

How many people would actually feel amenable to imposing this distinction on themselves, given the choice? Even if it's not so extreme as the examples I mentioned, like if the cost is as benign as being forever marked as different, you would never quite legally be the person you want to be. If that were so, how many trans* people would never seek treatment at all?

as an option for those who identify that way, it would be fine. But a lot of us still identify as male or female, not as a 3rd gender and I would have a concern that we would all be forced into that box legally if it isn't done right.

Quote from: Jera on July 30, 2014, 04:10:53 PM
That feels like a really optimistic view, to me. Historically, any legal distinctions used to categorize people have not ended well in Western culture, though usually it's more of a racial definition. Sure, it would make a formal recognition that "yes, these people exist" (which we already have), but it doesn't do much to make the classified group considered "valid." It usually seems like the opposite, actually. Any group being legally defined as different from mainstream society has found themselves more easily discriminated against because of it.

The examples are endless. There's extreme cases like the Romany and Jews of medieval Europe. Sure, they legally existed, but the legal classification was to restrict a lot of things they could do, not to validate them. Also coming to mind are US laws from  the 19th century regarding Chinese immigrants, or asians in general. In the 20th century, distinctions against black people, and in Nazi Germany, the Jews are notable examples. Yes, these are extreme cases, but I can't recall any example of a legal classification of any group of people having been actually used for benevolent goals, whatever the motivations behind their origins may have been, or were said to be.

To cite Brown vs. Board of Education, "Separate is inherently unequal." I believe this applies, even in a nonphysical sense like describing people. To classify someone is to say they are less equal, less the same than the group you're dividing them from, else why the distinction? How would encouraging that promote equality?

How many people would actually feel amenable to imposing this distinction on themselves, given the choice? Even if it's not so extreme as the examples I mentioned, like if the cost is as benign as being forever marked as different, you would never quite legally be the person you want to be. If that were so, how many trans* people would never seek treatment at all?

This this, agree completely. Labels don't do the people labelled any favors, they just serve to give the majority benefits and privileges, while minorities are still discriminated against.

Quote from: Auroramarianna on July 30, 2014, 04:20:45 PM
This this, agree completely. Labels don't do the people labelled any favors, they just serve to give the majority benefits and privileges, while minorities are still discriminated against.

the problem is we're labeled any way we go. The only people who have any sort of chance of living without labels are those who are 100 % invisible. That % of tans people is realistically incredibly small and even smaller when someone squeals  . The rad-fem won't even except the perfect ones. People live with labels everyday of their lives. I am besides transgender an Irish Catholic- English Caucasian . At one time the Irish  Catholic label meant persecusion    in Northern Ireland . The thing is that the trans community would be free of the insidious label of "passing" or not "passing"  you'd be trans like you'd be an Irish Catholic or a Russian Caucasian . Admittedly society has a lot of maturing to do before every label that exists is irrelevant I might not be making sense , but I try

no, I don't think that it would help or 'be easier' for anyone who is transsexual.  It may help the gender queer / fluid folks, but then again, look at all the good having an I option did for intersexed people...

I think a far easier solution to the same problem would be to abolish the legal gendering system entirely.  It's built on an oppressive, two tiered system, and it serves literally no other service.  Going off of what Jera said, I think it's also important to consider that designating women as the "other" has resulted in systematic oppression.  I challenge all of you to find one good thing that's come of segregating our world into two distinct of the categories on the basis of a personally significant but otherwise completely arbitrary distinction. 

Even our current system is "separate but equal"-we will never have equality until we rid ourselves of this system.

Sorry, but I transitioned to be a woman, not just a 3rd separate transgender classification. It would be nice to have a choice to choose genderless on ID forms to help out the genderqueer/androgyne/agender/intersex subset, but trans women and trans men don't need their own classification, they're just women/men.

Our culture's problem isn't labels, it's that we insist on using those labels to box people in to expected behaviors, expected boxes of self-expression, and expected appearance standards. Any label is always just a best-fit. The problem is that too many people don't realize that, they just take it as an absolute binary.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on July 30, 2014, 05:29:55 PM
Sorry, but I transitioned to be a woman, not just a 3rd separate transgender classification. It would be nice to have a choice to choose genderless on ID forms to help out the genderqueer/androgyne/agender/intersex subset, but trans women and trans men don't need their own classification, they're just women/men.

Our culture's problem isn't labels, it's that we insist on using those labels to box people in to expected behaviors, expected boxes of self-expression, and expected appearance standards. Any label is always just a best-fit. The problem is that too many people don't realize that, they just take it as an absolute binary.

So, playing the devil. is it possible ever to be seen as men and woman when there is a gradient of "pass" or" not pass".

Quote from: stephaniec on July 30, 2014, 05:35:52 PM
So, playing the devil. is it possible ever to be seen as men and woman when there is a gradient of "pass" or" not pass".

I personally find a reality where I'd never be accepted as female no matter what, because I'd always be a different gender than female, WAY harder to deal with.

All we need to do is un-villify gender-nonconformity, make it acceptable to wear whatever clothes one wants and express oneself as they see fit, and that would eliminate ALL of our problems. Because "passing" would no longer matter so damned much. If you didn't "pass," nobody would care, you're still equally human. And that's more than achievable without reclassifying trans people as a separate sex.

Also, let's expand this possible reclassification so that it benefits cis people too. Reclassifying trans people as a different sex helps no one. It makes gender-nonconforming people into a different group... "those people," allowing us to be set aside and ignored and seen as weirdos still. Decriminalizing gender-nonconformity, on the other hand, helps EVERYONE, cis, trans, or otherwise. Because it gets rid of those tight little boxes that cause social distress for so many people in the first place. We could be free to express ourselves as we see fit while still being seen as rational functional human beings, and likewise those who express gender-nonconformity without being trans are helped because now they can do those things without being accused of being trans or of being gay.

I have a few friends online who are out and proud. They seem just as happy as someone who is in stealth.

Honestly I think it depends on the person and it should since it is a personal choice.

My hope is to be out and proud, since getting tired of hiding it. 

Quote from: Carrie Liz on July 30, 2014, 05:42:29 PM
I personally find a reality where I'd never be accepted as female no matter what, because I'd always be a different gender than female, WAY harder to deal with.

All we need to do is un-villify gender-nonconformity, make it acceptable to wear whatever clothes one wants and express oneself as they see fit, and that would eliminate ALL of our problems. Because "passing" would no longer matter so damned much. If you didn't "pass," nobody would care, you're still equally human.

Well that would completely negate the problem where people were totally accepting of one another , Oh ! wait a minute didn't some body a couple thousand years ago say that.

Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on July 30, 2014, 05:26:07 PM
I think a far easier solution to the same problem would be to abolish the legal gendering system entirely.  It's built on an oppressive, two tiered system, and it serves literally no other service.  Going off of what Jera said, I think it's also important to consider that designating women as the "other" has resulted in systematic oppression.  I challenge all of you to find one good thing that's come of segregating our world into two distinct of the categories on the basis of a personally significant but otherwise completely arbitrary distinction. 

Even our current system is "separate but equal"-we will never have equality until we rid ourselves of this system.

Agree!

We live with a caste system that puts men and women into different casts and holds one higher than the other.  Anything we can do to get rid of this nonsense would be great for humanity.  Unfortunately, there would still need to be something to keep the sex distinction for those hook up apps, maybe some kind of hanky code?  (J/K on the last bit)

Except I don't want to be trans. I want to be a girl. I would even take periods and potential of pregnancy if the gender fairy offered it to me.

The only thing that would help would be mandatory unisex bathrooms replacing segregated bathrooms. Even that would only go so far.

Very interesting question.  I just learned of Cathy Brennan and the whole rad-fem issue with us last night.  Startling to say the least.  They would certainly be happier with it, but definitely not content.  I actually think it might be easier for some regular cispeople to wrap their heads around.  To be honest, i have fully accepted that i am trans, but i cannot convincingly tell myself that I am a woman. I'm sure there are a lot of cispeople that might feel the same way.  Not that anyone should ever live their lives as less to make other people feel better.  Just sayin'

Quote from: Jaime R D on July 30, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
as an option for those who identify that way, it would be fine. But a lot of us still identify as male or female, not as a 3rd gender and I would have a concern that we would all be forced into that box legally if it isn't done right.

Damn right ^^^ +1

I was born female, never doubt it, I am female, and I will die a female !

I see the concept of "third gender" as bad as the ethnic/race classifications, just a tool to classify and oppress...

Quote from: peky on July 30, 2014, 07:24:11 PM
Damn right ^^^ +1

I was born female, never doubt it, I am female, and I will die a female !

I see the concept of "third gender" as bad as the ethnic/race classifications, just a tool to classify and oppress...

Personally, pass or no pass, srs or not srs, I do not feel any different than any other female

Quote from: peky on July 30, 2014, 07:30:24 PM
Personally, pass or no pass, srs or not srs, I do not feel any different than any other female

well , having my brain being female all my like answers all the questions of why I am what I am.