I am against the union of transsexuals and homosexuals in the same motion 

In my opinion we should not confuse the issue of sexual orientation, with a very different as is the case with the question of gender.

This confuses people, and they think that transsexuals are gay and vice versa, gay people are transgendered

I think that transsexuals and homosexuals have much to gain from the separation.

What do you think?

I can understand how people can say that diversity should stick together and fight for the same injustice but on the other hand I do agree that it makes people lump us in the same basket creating misunderstandings.
Though the hypothetical separation may not be enough to wash away the stereotypes, especially when you're dealing with idiotic narrow minded bigots that have no interest in cutting us any slack. *shrugs*.

I agree. But the problem is it's too mixed in to separate now.

I tried arguing the point in the 90's when the efforts were beginning in ernest to shove the T on there...in essence, my concern was (and still is) that T-related issues were not the same as those confronting the gay and lesbian population.

The transsexual person generally tends to go one of two tracks post-operatively...they either identify as hetero, in which case the GLB umbrella is NOT where they desire to seek shelter.  Alternatively, they may (as I do) identify as either gay or lesbian, in which case the issues that may arise are NOT because of being transsexual or former transsexual (depending on one's point of view) but rather by virtue of being gay or lesbian. 

Forcing the addition of another segment actually created the prospect, IMO, of hurting the legislative interests of both demographics.  Just because there may be some overlaps between the differences does not mean they need to share a piece of the PAC. 

and especially ->-bleeped-<-s, who they do there?

The "T" is the tie that binds.  Effeminate gay males, masculine lesbian females. Crossing gender lines for gays and lesbians is very common, in their attire and their actions.  Spend some time in the gay or lesbian community and you will see the "T" everywhere.  And it is through crossing gender lines that gays and lesbians are most often read as such.

I understand the sexual orientation vs. gender identity debate but that's only one part of who we are.  And there are a lot of us who are attracted to the same sex as our identified gender, more so than in the general population.

Besides, if we did separate from the G&L communities, what chance do you think we'd have to have our voices heard?  What chance would we have to gain acceptance and attain equal rights?  Trying to go it alone would be a BIG mistake.  I'll put up with a little confusion.  It gives me a chance to open the conversation to education.

Quote from: Julie Marie on June 08, 2011, 09:03:09 AM
The "T" is the tie that binds.  Effeminate gay males, masculine lesbian females. Crossing gender lines for gays and lesbians is very common, in their attire and their actions.  Spend some time in the gay or lesbian community and you will see the "T" everywhere.  And it is through crossing gender lines that gays and lesbians are most often read as such.

but when push comes to shove, it was NOT the manner of presentation that creates problems for gays and/or lesbians...rather it is precisely BECAUSE of the fact of BEING gay or lesbian.     

QuoteBesides, if we did separate from the G&L communities, what chance do you think we'd have to have our voices heard?  What chance would we have to gain acceptance and attain equal rights?  Trying to go it alone would be a BIG mistake.  I'll put up with a little confusion.  It gives me a chance to open the conversation to education.[/size][/font]

I am NOT a fan of coat-tail politics.  Never was, never will be...the specific issue of discussion does not matter.  Jumbo PACs rarely work in the true best interests of the donating populous that funds the PAC in question.   

Julie is right. The T binds the LGBT. Any attempts to divorce the T from the LBG is narrow sighted separtism that only serves to make everyone week in the long run. The politics of separtism is a sure way too self defete.

We simply do not have enough members of our small comunity willing to come out of the woodwork and make themselves known. Understandable but invisibility is a death sentance.
With the LGB we can hope to get a larger pool of allies. A larger pool of allies grants us acces to more ears. More ears is more pocketbooks and wallets that fund the cause. Not pretty or nice but it is the reality of the matter that money talks. The LGBT and HRC and other semi useless organisations do not opperate without funding and we as a group certainly can not fund our own organisations as well as the gay crowd can. They have alot more of them than us so they have more cash.

Besides you can't expect the LGBT to remove the T when there are people like me who are T and who are allied with and work with the existing LGBT as is. Asking to remove the T is apropriating my share of that T that I want squarely attached to the end of my local LGBT.

oh yeah....
when I first came out as TS I was adamantly against LGBT having the T at the end. But over time my opinion has evolved.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 08, 2011, 07:17:46 AM
The transsexual person generally tends to go one of two tracks post-operatively...they either identify as hetero, in which case the GLB umbrella is NOT where they desire to seek shelter.  Alternatively, they may (as I do) identify as either gay or lesbian, in which case the issues that may arise are NOT because of being transsexual or former transsexual (depending on one's point of view) but rather by virtue of being gay or lesbian.

Erm... just to remind you, there's also a B in there somewhere, isn't there? . It's a treat - you can be a trans bisexual and get shot at from all sides, and forgotten, all at the same time.

Seriously, though, it interests me that lately I've found bisexuals the most understanding of trans people, and vice versa. We're used to being marginalised by the marginalised, so we have good empathy mojo!

I confess these days I sometimes find myself referring to the LGBTQIetc. "community" as the BLT .

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 08, 2011, 09:25:16 AM
but when push comes to shove, it was NOT the manner of presentation that creates problems for gays and/or lesbians...rather it is precisely BECAUSE of the fact of BEING gay or lesbian.

I respectfully disagree Ann.  And strongly so.  Public perception, based on presentation, is the primary method by which a person is presumed to be G, L, B or T.  And that perception is most often used when a person, employer, etc chooses to discriminate against you.  They don't ask first and discriminate later.  And you don't tell.  So they presume, based on your presentation. 

Before it was semi-ok to be gay, I remember guys being given all kinds of ->-bleeped-<- because other guys THOUGHT they were gay.  No one KNEW, they just suspected.  And everyone who is G, L, B or T knows better than to come right out and say it.  Even when ENDA discussions were first beginning there was an underlying effort to put forward straight-acting gays to present to the public.  They didn't want guys who LOOKED gay.

The reason stealth is so important to many of us is because, if no one knows, they can't discriminate against us (for being T).  There are still many people in the LGBT community who present as straight or cisgender because of this.  They can BE G, L, B or T but their presentation won't divulge that and they won't have to deal with the fallout.

Quote from: cynthialee on June 08, 2011, 01:26:40 PM
Julie is right. The T binds the LGBT. Any attempts to divorce the T from the LBG is narrow sighted separtism that only serves to make everyone week in the long run. The politics of separtism is a sure way too self defete.

narrow-sighted separatism? 

just...wow.

I wonder then how you classify the action of having FORCED the T upon the GLB PAC in the first place...were you accusing THOSE entities of being narrow-sighted at the time by the fact of lines being drawn between sex and gender?

Coat-tail politics SUCK, and that seems to be all the trans-activists want to do is ride on someone elses coat-tails.  It matters not whether it is legislation or court battles.  And they seem not to typically give a damn about whether it sinks the individual (as we just saw in recent litigation)...

Oh, and FWIW, my opposition to the T addition dates back to my days BEFORE having been post-correction...

The best line I heard was spoken at a transgender conference ....

You know why T is in the GLBQ soup?  Because we were picked on by the same people on the playground.

Every group needs folks to fight the cause.  So why not the GLBQ community.  When we fight each other we loose strength.  Reality it transgender is rare -- homesexuality is a bit more common but also low in numbers.    Some transgender folks fall into the q spectrum ... and some of us who are hetro but lived a good part of our lives in the GLBQ community don't want to call ourselves hetro --- so why not join ranks and fight together for equal rights for everyone.  Who else is willing to fight our fight with us?

Coat-tail politics SUCK

Perhaps, but coalition politics are the ONLY way to win, short of being the oil industry and just going out and buying your politicians outright on the open market.  Yeah, Harvey Milk won because of a huge amount of support from the gay community, but what really made the difference between the election he won, and the earlier ones he lost was not the gay vote, but the union support.  Harvey worked very hard to win the support of the unions by supporting union causes (to this day it's all but impossible to find Coors in any SF gay bar).  That's how it's done, and that's how its won.

they seem not to typically give a damn about whether it sinks the individual (as we just saw in recent litigation)...
Put the blame for that where it belongs (as you correctly did in an earlier post).  It was her lawyers who CHOSE that route - ill-advised perhaps - and not the 'cause' that forced them too.  She could have refused that defense by firing her legal team.  But being opportunistic, she saw only the dollar signs and let that blind her to the writing on the wall which would have said that 'cause based' (just like 'gay panic') defenses rarely work.

While each group have their own issues, I'd rather have them as friends than enemies.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on June 08, 2011, 03:22:01 PM
While each group have their own issues, I'd rather have them as friends than enemies.

Groups need not march lockstep into oblivion in order to be friends...

So Ben Franklin was wrong when he said:

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

I just have experienced transphobia within the LBG community and don't exactly feel I'm in a safe place with them. And if it isn't with them it certainly won't be found with any other group and other Ts.

Kia Ora,

Judging by what been said and by whom, it would seem most of the discontent regarding the LGB"T" comes from within the USA...Is it just a US problem? I've not come across it here in Aotearoa [NZ] but then I'm not an active member of any group...However for the most part the local LGBTQ all seem to be one big "Happy Kiwi Family"... But I could be wrong...

Metta Zenda

I've never noticed a problem here in SF.