I mean no disrespect towards TGs in this post.

I'm truly ignorant about many things, not the least of which is gender issues, so maybe I can learn something Today.

As a gay man, I've always had a problem with the Transgender movement piggybacking itself onto the GL movement. Bi-sexuals came along and they can be argued for in the same context, but Trans is a different subject matter entirely. Let me explain my confusion here.

Here we gays are, since the 50s when the Mattachine Society and Kinsey came foreward with the arguments that being gay is natural. That it's part of the human condition, that it is hardwired into ourselves and that nature should be left to it's own devices to work itself out. Later, brain studies drew findings about hypothalamus sizes, and genetics studies are leading further in the directions that homosexuality is a bilogical condition of human nature.

This is what most of our political arguments are based on. The premise that we are natural human beings only acting out our human nature, and that society should accept that, and not try to put lightening back in the bottle, or control the lives of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who are only being ourselves. There should be no therapies, surguries, drug perscriptions, or any other technological, medical, or psychiatric interference to alter who we really are, much less legislate us out of society.

.....
Then comes along the transgenders, and they say "NO! Nature made a mistake! We are not born into the bodies that we were assigned, and we need not only tolerance for that, but we need technology and science to correct what mistake nature made."

It muddies our argument that nature doesn't make mistakes, and that we gay people don't need to be fixed.

Bottom line...
GLB-Nature doesn't make mistakes. Stop trying to fix us!
T-Yes it does, and we need to be fixed.

Look, I'm a man. I've never wanted to be anything other than a man. I truly cannot put myself into the mind of someone who is in an emotional battle with the contradictions of who they are, and the body nature assigned them. I know I'm sounding unreasonable in this, and I certainly support anyone who drives for their civil rights as much as anyone else. I can, and will support any transgender who stands up to fight for their constitutional rights as the rest of us.

...but, to piggyback your drive on the gay rights movement, when what you expect us to argue for, directly contradicts the arguments we are making for ourselves, is something I have a hard time accepting the compatibility of. To argue for the transgender condition, is to negate and make impotent the arguments for Gay, Lesbian and Bi people.

Please enlighten me on where I'm wrong with this. Thank you.:hi:

Most civil rights struggles have piggy-backed on other groups struggles for respect and equal protection under the law.

transgenders were the people who openly forged a place for themselves in more primitive societies.

true they were limited to womens roles only -- i.e. they couldn't express maleness in that context or were limited in that construct -- but they were the first among us to be so open.

what the lgbtq movement truly expesses is people forging for themselves what their sexual identity is.

''reports'' only cover the surface -- but not the living.

trangendered are us -- and we are them.

heterosexuals benfit too from this exploration -- i.e. it opens sexuality and it's expressions between them.

I don't see the connection to sexuality or the expression of it. Sexuality is how we express our love, commitment, respect for each other, as well, as satisfying carnal lust, etc.

Gender Identity is about the self. Self image, and self expression in the world at large.

What does gender identity have to do with the sexual continuum? I don't see a connection there. The relationship with my boyfriend (If I can ever find one that'll stick around and not drink my last beer) does not change the fact that we are two men in mind and bodies. Neither plays the wife in any situation. To a Trans, it is an issue of the self, not about her expression of love for another.

should have been born a woman, which would make him a lesbian I suppose. Sexual identity and gender identity can be mind boggling!

And you're right, it can be mind boggling.

hmmm, I might be that?

I mean I relate to women better than men

only I don't want to dress like women, or do "girly things"

but I don't like machismo in men, or the way most men talk about women.

And I don't work on cars

and I don't like to hunt

and I think a lot of men are morons

So maybe I'm a lesbian in a man's body?

edit: but I am attracted to women (and I'm a man if you haven't guessed)

you're not trans or a lesbian.

And a "lesbian in a man's body" you referred to is real?

Care to keep this up?

And then he'll claim he's not transphobic.

I just find it hard to understand

and I don't think I'm unusual either

you say it's real, I guess I'll take your word for it since it really is no skin off my teeth, and none of my business.

It's just not something that I've ever thought about (except in jest)

But I really get annoyed at your constant labeling of anyone who doesn't think the way you want them to think as "transphobic"

I mean that's silly. What in the world is there to be "phobic" about someone who is transgendered?

I can't think of any reason to be afraid of a transgendered person, or of the phenomenon of transgender.

I say, more power to ya haruka!

Peace

Now you're getting it!

Tolerance and respect is about not judging people. You don't have to understand why we exist to accept that we do exist. I don't understand highly intelligent women who present as dumb girls, but I don't need to understand. I just accept them. They do what they do. I certainly don't need citations of scientific studies to explain why they exist before I will believe that they do exist!

Seriously. If you've never thought about the issue except in jest, do you not see how that seems to show that you think we're some kind of joke? Do you really not see how professing invalidating opinions about a subject you really have never thought about could come across as bigoted?

"I've never thought much about Jews, except in jest... but boy do I have some strong opinions about them!"

I'd never even heard of the reality of a transgendered homosexual.

I think I heard a comedian once talking about a "lesbian in a man's body" and it seemed so abstract as to be funny.

Now that is mostly because I'd never heard of such a thing as this.

So, call me a bigot if you wish, but I'm at least trying to understand something I've never knowingly seen, and have seriously never heard of.

It's hard to tell how you really feel, but it's easy to read what you write. If you write like a prejudiced bigot, it's likely you'll be assumed to be one. I don't think you're really a bigot - just prejudiced. You prejudged us, that is, gay transfolk, because you were ignorant. Both prejudice and ignorance can be fixed.

Maybe you don't know why you got the reaction you did. Here's why: You came off like a bigot by making stupid jokes and by denying people's personal experiences as valid instead of expressing curiosity and interest. Usually, people who are genuinely interested in understanding will say "Wow, I never heard of that. What's that like? How does that work?" and people who think they have all the answers already will say "That can't be, that doesn't make sense!" People who are genuinely interested, but who have offended, generally tend to answer with "Oh, I didn't know that was offensive." I've got plenty of messages from folks who have said things like "I didn't know 'tranny' could be offensive, sorry!" If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, you'd say "Oops, didn't mean to step on your foot, sorry", wouldn't you? Try giving a person's feelings the same consideration you'd give their foot.

You also stepped in a bear-trap, and probably wondered at the strength of the response to what you thought was an innocent joke. The response was as strong as it was because this issue is bigger than just you. This argument happens all the time. I've heard about all the angles, and usually, the people who make the "lesbian trapped in a man's body" joke or who say "if you want to be with a man|woman, why would you want to become a man|woman" are usually drunk, bigoted, or both. I've mostly heard it from drunk straight men in bars who were trying to pick me up even though they took me for a butch lesbian. Drunk men trying to pick up lesbians say that a lot. AlienGirl and I have both gotten that line multiple times from multiple drunk straight men who took us as a lesbian couple. It comes from the kind of drunk straight man who tends to get obnoxious, loud, and very angry when his advances are turned down, and the conversation usually ends in "goddamned dyke". Not having ever been mistaken for a lesbian, there's no way you could have known that.

Southpawkicker, one of the rights transfolk are fighting for is the right to be ordinary men and women - that is to say, to be ourselves, not what other people expect us to be. It used to be that a transwoman or transman who did not rigidly conform to a heterosexual and conservative stereotype of a woman or a man would be denied a GID diagnosis and denied treatment. No hormones, no surgery, no nothing. It still is, in many cases, that a transwoman has to be more woman than woman to get treated in the first place - she is expected to conform to a stereotypical female standard that is backward and antifeminist. The situation is similar with transmen: I have heard from transmen whose identity was called into doubt by their therapists (one must have a letter from a therapist to get hormones or surgery) because of having long ponytails. We have been expected to be cartoons of men and women, to roleplay in order to get treatment, when roleplaying is exactly what we want to stop doing. We are as varied as any other group of men and women. We are gay and straight and bisexual. We are butch and femme. We are liberal and even conservative (gasp!). In short, we're people. That's why this is important.

...why a transman or transwoman would be conservative. :)

That's partly a joke, but partly not. A transgendered conservative seems as odd to me as a Log Cabin Republican. I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would not only refuse to have me as a member but would actively disparage me and try to take away my civil rights.

But I'm guessing that was just a "we're all kinds of people" example. The rest of it makes perfect sense. Most of us don't wonder why anybody would be gay or lesbian... well, odds are that the percentage of transgendered people who are attracted to the same sex would be the same as in the general population.

you write me a novella preaching to me

and chastising me

my opinion of you right now has nothing to do with your sexuality, but rather your seeming inability to accept a mea culpa without a few kicks in the ribs while I'm down

If you answered yes, then you probably are a lesbian in a man's body. Otherwise, you're probably just another straight man who doesn't relate to anyone outside his own skin.

Tucker

Otherwise, you're probably just another straight man who doesn't relate to anyone outside his own skin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find that quite offensive attacking me personally.

No I don't want breasts and a vagina (except on my partner)

but I do not relate to men as well as I do to women

I don't understand the idea of one changing their sexual identity and then being attracted to the same sex as they changed to. I mean, I think of homosexuality as being largely a phenomenon that happens because of hormonal influences in utero.

So it seems contrary to logic for me to imagine that someone is transgender and homosexual in their changed gender.

I recall that you are very bright (even though you lost some respect from me in your attacking post I'm responding to) and gave me a good explanation of how transgender involves neurology and endocrinology.

I'd be interested in your ideas about how this (transgender who is homosexual) happens.

But if you can't post without attacking, then forget it.

The nephews of gay uncles are more likely to be gay than the nephews of non-gay uncles. The identical twin of a gay man is more likely to be gay than the fraternal twin or non-twin brother of a gay man, and the fraternal twin or non-twin brother of a gay man is more likely to be gay than the adopted brother of a gay man. For identical twins, the twin of a gay man has about a 50% probability of being gay.

This indicates that there is a genetic factor to homosexuality, but that it is not the only factor. Gay men are more likely to have more gay male relatives on their mothers' side than on their fathers' side, a possible indication that the genes influencing male homosexuality would be found on the X chromosome.

Here's an abstract of a study on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7794104&dopt=Abstract

You may think of homosexuality as being largely a phenomenon that happens because of hormonal influence in utero, and there has been a study about this widely cited in the popular press. It related the length of the fingers to exposure to testosterone, and claimed to have found (based on measuring the fingers of gay men and lesbians) that lesbians have more masculine finger length ratios, but that gay men do not have a less masculine finger length ratio. It did note that men who have older brothers tend to have more female finger length ratios, and that men with older brothers are more likely to be gay.

Here's an abstract of a study critical of the finger-length study and its conclusions about the relationship between testosterone and sexual preference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7560930&dopt=Abstract

Levels of testosterone in utero appear to affect brain development at a level not limited to mating behaviors. A male brain developing with female levels of testosterone develops female characteristics, and a female brain exposed to male levels of testosterone develops male characteristics. Stress response in rats varies by the gender of the rat: here's a study which shows how altering testosterone levels in utero or after birth affects the gendered responses of adult rats to stress:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12359876&dopt=Abstract

Other studies in rats show that masculinizing a female rat or feminizing a male rat by adjusting levels of estrogen and testosterone in the rat to that which is typical for the opposite gender causes a predictable change in brain structure and behavior. Masculinized female rats will mount females, and feminized male rats will adopt a female receptive posture for male rats. Masculinized female rats will explore their environment, show aggression, and even defecate at the same rate as male rats. Sexually dimorphic brain structures in androgenized female rats fall in size between the size of that of the female controls and the male controls. When a masculinized female rat mounts a normal female rat, she is not displaying homosexual behavior: she is displaying heterosexual male behavior.

To sum up: Neither genetics nor hormone levels provides the only explanation for either gender identity or for sexuality. Hormone levels in utero also may be linked to genetic factors of the mother, or of the fetus, creating a complex intersection of causative factors. However, it appears that genes are more strongly determinant of sexual preference, and hormones are more strongly determinant of gender identity. Think of an intersection of two axes, one of gender identity (influenced by hormones) and one of sexual preference (influenced by genetics). An individual may exist anywhere in the space defined by those two axes.

Mechanics frustrates me, most sports leave me cold, and at a party I'm often standing around where the women are talking to them.

Always been that way.

I just like women more than guys, as a group.

My wife, amusingly enough, is just about the opposite.

A young man came to look at it, wanted to rent it, but then said "I have to tell you up front that my boyfriend and I are going to get sex change operations and that may freak out the neighbors." We got into a conversation about the changes and I said "but you like men; so if you and your boyfriend have operations, you won't be attracted to each other, right?" He looked at me in an odd way and said "I don't really know". I'm gay myself, so none of this bothered me, but thank God I called him later and when he answered the phone the music in the background was so loud we couldn't hear each other so I didn't rent to him just because of that. I feel sorry for transgenders because their minds just seem really messed up on who they are and what they feel. Now don't flame me.

Sounds to THIS queer like you DID have issues with it.

didn't even attempt to turn it down to answer the phone. I had an apt building on one side of the house and an elderly couple on the other side who were friends of mine. After you've owned some rental property, get back to me.

Or, maybe, you're fooling yourself.

Or maybe you composed the sentence poorly...

"I'm gay myself, so none of this bothered me, but thank God I called him later and when he answered the phone the music in the background was so loud we couldn't hear each other so I didn't rent to him just because of that."

Reads to me like you were looking for a reason not to rent to them, and "thank god" his music was too loud so you didn't HAVE to rent to him.

Perhaps, if your intent wasn't to appear discriminatory toward them, you should have been clearer. I will accept your word that you meant otherwise.

(But, for the record, there's no rule that I have to have been a landlord to express my opinion.)

throughout time and across cultures there have been many instances of 3rd, 4th, 5th genders...and they did not always, and sometimes did, and sometimes transgressed, binary male/female roles/identities. The Algonquin berdache are a great example, there was a continuity of sexual practices and defined roles for them. The problem is with the Western "naturalized" view that does not desginate sex from gender, and places male/female, man/woman dichotomies as rooted in nature. Transgendered people could find a workable niche in a system that allowed for gender categories outside of strict m/f. So in a truly "natural" sense, BOTH gayness and 3rd, 4th, 5th etc genders are "normal". The problem lays with our cultural institutions.

Understanding the whole thing is simply not our job, it can't be, any more than I can understand what being a gay man is all about.

My job is tolerating you and transsexuals and every other person who has a normal but harmless variation of human sexuality. My job is keeping it civil and polite, respecting your right to exist and to run your life as you see fit. That applies to transgendered people, too.

Personally, I find most GLBT issues to have their roots in misogyny, a deep seated fear and hatred of anything female or feminine, but that's probably just me. However, if I can stand gay issue people denying the root of their problem, surely you and I can both manage to be civil about transgender issues.

The OP has raised an interesting question about nature making mistakes, whatever mistakes are supposed to be. I don't know enough about how a TG person even feels to know how to evaluate the argument.

I should know, I've talked with some of them. A lot of them don't like us bisexuals/pansexuals that much, either.

I've never understood it, and I've seen it from gay men at DU (such as in the "transgender murderer" thread, wherein a few gay men repeatedly and willfully called she a he).

?

lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexual

Describes it pretty well.

But I've wondered this myself.

When I went to college, and saw the GLBT group, I, too, wondered at the "T" part, thinking that was a totally different thing from GLB.

However, I also have to say, that, while I largely agree with the 'gay is genetic' thing, I do have a friend, who I visited in NYC recently, that got into a discussion with me about gay rights. I was talking about my incomprehension of the RWers inability to see that people are just born gay and that you can't make others gay, hence the fallacy of the "gay agenda" / "they're trying to take our children" / etc.

And he said to me, "But my mom made me gay!" Seriously.

He continued, "Come on, she raised two gay sons on purpose."

I just don't know about that. I think it is a spectrum, and for my friend to be able to have sex with other men, he must be at least somewhat naturally inclined to do so. Maybe he's bi and he's suppressing his attraction to women because his mother wouldn't approve (yeah, I know, it's weird). He has had a litany of girlfriends in the past. I always figured he was straight getting pressured to be gay, but what do I know? It's none of my business, of course, and I love him regardless of his sexual preference. It's just an interesting situational application of these ideas.

:hi:

Having two gay sons could indicate a genetic source.

"My mother made me a homosexual!"

Scrawled beneath it:
"If I gave her the yarn would she make me one too?"

:spray:

I believe it's normally biological, but this bathroom was SOOOOO GAY! It was gayer than a man marching down Christopher Street during a pride parade with a pink speedo and pompoms.

People aren't only all-gay or all-straight. Sexuality occurs along a spectrum. Some people are mostly straight, but find some people of the same sex attractive. Some people are close to the middle and find both sexes equally attractive. Others are mostly gay, but society lumps anyone who is even a little gay as gay, just like anyone who is even a little Black is Black. Just like some eggs have two yolks or some people are born geniuses, some people have sexual organs that don't match the rest of their internal chemistry.

Thanks.

According to many Native American peoples, you are a "two spirit" person and that makes you special.

I'm not talking about sexuality though. I'm talking about a group who's main issue is gender identity, not sexuality, even in all it's variations, and that group with their issues of gender identity being included with a movement who's issues do concern sexuality.

In practical politics, in this time and in this society, they seem inextricable. So I can see how the two are separated, but I'm not exactly clear on why they should be for the purpose of a political movement (although the OP attempts to explain it). The explanation for WHY looks more like a shortcoming in the rhetorica of the gay movement than an "intrusion" by transgender people.

Sexuality is about what draws us to each other physically, emotionally, and affectionately. Neither is less important an issue than the other, but IMO they are two different issues.

I'm gay, but am very happy being a man, and never felt the mental urge to question it. A transgender can also be gay, but they do not see themselves as their body represents. That is an issue of gender identity, and has nothing to do with how their affection is expressed with another, since the trans community's sexuality runs the entire spectrum just as much as the people who like their bodies the way they are.

Would you rather there be separate movements then?

But AlienGirl's post down at the bottom gave me a lot to think about. There is common ground in all peoples who's bodies and lives are at one time or another dictated to by outsiders like religious influence, cultural norms, and Government policy, so I don't know if I can answer differently so quickly, but I will eventually sort it out.:hi:

:popcorn:

The gay rights movement piggybacked off the rhetoric of the civil rights movement when it comes to race. It was a remarkably savvy adaptation at the time. The gay movement faced a stupid prejudice: that homosexuality was a choice. As a choice, it was a moral failing, etc., etc., we all know this tired argument. The only apparent counterargument was the "natural" argument: it is not a choice, but an essential constituent of biological identity, like melanin. But there is no melanin for homosexuality, and homosexual acts fluctuate with the specific placement of homosexuality in society. The "natural" strategy has turned out to cost the gay and lesbian movement quite a lot - not least the ridiculous conundrum that you've mentioned here.

Homosexuality is not "hard-wired." Neither is heterosexuality. And no credible study will pretend to have identitified any specific biological mechanism for such hard-wiring. Sexuality (homo, hetero, bi) is a social phenomenon, not a biological essence. But - and this is important now - that doesn't mean that it is a choice - our sexualities are determined in complex social networks, but just because they're not natural, doesn't mean we have some kind of mystical agency. This is the greatest problem of the way we think about sexuality: we assume it is EITHER a biological essence OR a choice of free will. It is a false binary: sexuality is neither a biological essence nor a choice. It is, rather, a remarkably complex phenomenon with multiple dynamic factors. It's just easier to think of it as "made this way" or "chose this way," which is why most people can't think past such simplicities (this is also why the "made this way" argument has been and may still be POLITICALLY effective, however false and stupid it is).

The transgender movement is also a question of complex social phenomenon rather than "nature gone awry."

It may have been politically effective at one time, but it is totally counterproductive in the long run.

Nature or nurture, biology or choice? The response should be, "What difference does it make? Mind your own business."

How does anyone know? The doctors and scientists that study this don't have all the answers, not by a long shot.

Is "social phenomenon" even a scientific means of describing it?

I think we've moved beyond the 'made this way' argument, by the way. I think the religious right alone have moved us past it.

It worked better for them to show us as freaks and fringe lunatics parading around at festivals, that scared middle america.

But marriage and family, that is something that mainstream America doesn't for the most part find scary. And mainstream America is starting to see the fundies as scarier than the gays.

With regards to transgender, the whole issue about made this way vs. not shouldn't be the focus. The issue should be that despite whatever issues I am struggling with at the time I deserve my civil rights under the constitution, just like anyone else. Society has moved a long way out of seeing these things as deserving of a public hanging, like they used to, probably just thanks to television more than anything else. So to set up a false dichotomy like that is self-defeating. The issue needs to be live and let live, and as far as that goes the more the merrier. Each group is being persecuted on the basis of gender, either their own or the person they desire/ sleep with/ whatever. At it's root it's about sex, and America is getting more sophisticated about control of sexuality. For me that is a really, really good yardstick of how civilized any culture is...the more control on sexuality, the more controlling the society in general. The more sexual freedom, the more freedom of all kinds. I'm tired, so I'm gonna stop there.

I'm straight so perhaps I don't have any right to speak. But speaking as one representative of the straight population I just find it inexcusable for us to be discriminate against ANYONE who might seem different from us. Bigotry in any form is NOT a family value

Maybe I should say that the thread where the TG ranted about the gay political groups not focusing on the TG community enough is what set me off on this. It's hard enough to get 4 gays to agree on a single restaurant, much less form a coherent movement. We did, and now someone else wants us to dilute the focus.

And, yes, I support any and all people who need to stake their claim as rightful citizens, no matter who, and not in the least trans people. What got me is that she came off with a sense of entitlement, as if we gay people somehow OWE the trans anything, when we're trying to stem the tide and barely treading water for ourseleves.

Also, in my opinion, transgendered people using surgery and hormones to physically align their bodies with their heads is not "fixing" them like trying to turn a gay into an ex-gay. Their treatment turns them into a unified person, what they're meant to be. Whereas, if we were to use therapy to try and convince a transgendered person that they're wrong to think they're in the wrong body and to try convincing them that they're really born into the right body, would be the equivalent of trying to convert a gay person into a straight person.

And that is this lesbian's opinion on the matter.

(This is from UncleSepp)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The body is not where the "I" resides. The "I" is in the mind. The two do have a complex relationship, but one may lose a leg or an arm and still be the same "I". When one's mind changes, does the "I" remain the same? How many stroke patients have experienced radical personality changes, and become different people to their families? How many victims of the unscrupulous brand of cognitive behavioral therapy have become different people?

"I" own my body. I am my mind. If someone were to successfully treat my mind so that I felt like a comfortable, normal woman, what would remain of me? It would be like dying. Treating my body to fit better with my mind is like becoming fully alive for the first time.

In any case, psychotherapy for gender identity disorder has had very little success, even among those who want the treatment to work. There are some indications that the brain structure of transgendered persons aligns more with their perceived or declared gender than it does with their body gender. Psychotherapy won't change what areas of one's brain process language, nor will it change the relative sizes of brain structures. Gender identity disorder appears to have a neurological component (brain structures) and may also have an endocrine component: transmen before administration of testosterone have a rate of PCOS of 25%, compared to 5%-10% of women overall. Psychotherapy isn't going to change one's hormone levels, either.

It's more than just being born in the wrong body. It's being born into a body that has a brain of largely one sex and a body of largely another sex. I hope that eventually, GID will be a medical diagnosis and not a psychiatric one, and that it can be diagnosed through such objective tools as fMRI in combination with subjective reports of the patient's experience. I also hope that it will eventually be placed where it belongs, with other intersex conditions.

Who are you waiting for?

Well I hope you find some interesting things in this post and if I sound a little snippy I'm not trying be...first lets start with a couple questions:

How do you explain gay men who find that presenting the gender identity of the opposite sex is...for lack of a better word..fun and sexy?

Also many gay men exhibit behavior and physical mannerisms reflect the those of the opposite sex. Those ones that get stereotyped.. "You know what I'm talking about beeatch"

Same for those butch lesbians.

That is why there are terms like twinks, fems, boiz, gurls, butch, hunk, girly girls and manly men...

Or explain androgyny....where a gay (bisexual or straight) man or woman purposely exihibits a ambiguous appearance of both genders...confusing the hell out of everyone in the process...how do they fit?

The gender world is quite complex, confusing and beautiful. To me gender is a term made up of three parts. Two a individual controls, one cannot be controlled (yet) and one society dictates. I think the terms are self-expanitory but I added examples to them anyway. Each are independent of one another but all three exist together. (does that make sence?)

Social Gender Identity - clothing, makeup, hairstyles, mannerisms, social behavior
Genetic Gender - chromosomes
Physical Gender - penis, vagina, breasts, hips, mannerisms, social behavior

What I call social gender identity is a natural product of our society and is different from the genetic gender one is born with. Social gender identity, Genetic Gender and Physical Gender are different things but overlap and are intertwined in the transgender equation. Different societies across the globe dictate social gender identity differently.

I am sure you have read enough of National Geographic to know that.

T-people have to brave the world full of people who express societies prescribed image of thier genetic gender and who don't realize that the individual really controls gender identity both social and physical. You can accept societies gender identity assignment and your own physical gender and that is perfectly OK. T-People are not comfortable accepting societies identity for them. They choose thier identity both social sometimes physical...and that is OK too. Really.

It is the people that adopt societies' prescribed gender identity based on genetic and physical identity that need to accept t-peoples gender choice to not adopt. That is where the difference really is. It really is as simple as that.

So when you see that "tranny" at the club...do you simply assume they are in the middle of a sex change?...you can't. YOu don't know that person. I would encourage you to talk to t-people because you will find that indeed there is a person there and that goes a long way to understanding why transgender people belong and deserve to be welcome in our society.

The reason that transgender people are part of the LGB community is because at some point many T-persons recognize that part of thier gender expression is the desire to have sex and have relationships with the same sex...(sound familiar?)

Many (not all) M2F transgender persons in pre-op and under going early gender reassignment will find that they are attracted to men. The catch is technically they still are male, even though they have a great wardrobe and possibly well formed breasts...Mr. Happy (or Viginia for F2M) is still there....Despite the outward appearance of female. Complicating matters is that other M2F transgender people consider themselves lesbians. Making them "straight" as males. A male that outwardly appears as a woman as defined by our society and is attracted to women may consider themselves a lesbian. (trans-lesbian) or simply straight with a alternative sex life.

It is all so complex and I think lib grrl (who has provided some angry but excellent posts) can provide more info but I think all you need to really know is...t-people just want to be accepted and so far the most accepting and loving community is the GLB community. Like it or not t-people are part of the rainbow of humanity...along with straight, gay, lesbian and bi-sexuals, pansexuals....and any other sexual you can think of. (within reason)

So putting up a 50 year old Kinsian argument to support a viewpoint that is at odds with reality is frankly just "old fashioned".

The reality is that since the dawn of humanity people have felt the need to express themselves outwardly as the opposite sex because they feel that way inwardly and in our modern world...we have all sort of coverings, decorations and medical technology to allow people to do just that and by gosh they do...so my advice the next time you see a t-girl at the club...

go over and ask her to dance, get to know her...you might just make a new friend.

Oh and same goes for F2M...t-people...much applies only in reverse...or vice versa...or...oh the heck with it..you know.

Peace.

You make some good points, but you come off with a truckload of assumptions about me. Not flaming here either.

I don't question the normalcy of anybody. I'm not a licensed Dr. of psychiatry. I'm (or was) questioning the compatibility of civil rights movement arguments between gender identity and sexuality. I made no judgement on the "normalcy" of TG people.

*These answers are my personal opinion...Men who find dressing up as women a turn on are fetishists, no different than those who like leather, extreme pain, or being tied up.
*Nelly/butch is probably due more to an internalization of society's expectations of how we should behave, and the Gay community's familial conformity rather than a natural tendency to do so.
*Labels is an American tendency to categorize everyone into subsets of society.
*Androgynous people fit into my world just fine. If they're just being themselves, then that's acceptable. If they're doing it to make some kind of self-congradulatory statement, that's something else (see Drag Queens).
*I have no argument against, or ill feelings towards any TG person demanding their rights, but when they blame gays (like lib grrl did) for something that the straight white guys are doing to all of us, then she needs to be told to focus her guns on the real targets.

Now for the rant...

*Drag Queens... Now I think (and I could be wrong) you may be lumping in hamming it up/camp into "social gender identity". TVs and TGs I would assume identify themselves as women, and you've made some very valid arguments for such. Drag Queens are no such animal. No woman dresses like a Drag Queen, No woman acts like a drag queen, no woman has the burning desire to be the center of attention 24/7 like drag queens do.

IMO, Drag Queens are self absorbed narcicists, who do not dress like the opposite gender, but to ape/emulate/mock/whatever Diana Ross, Kate Smith, Cher, numerous other celebrities... and Joan Crawford. Real women wear blue jeans on normal days, drag queens, when going to a gay pride event, wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of those, because they'd blend in with the crowd, which is something they cannot stand. Every event, every political rally, and every March on Washington, they insist on being the emcees, talent, vaudeville act, or minstrel show at these events, they insist on making everybody gawk at their outrageous (they would call "fabulous" :eyes: ) get-ups and their hammy emoting of whatever pop icon they are emulating now, so that we pay attention to them and only them, because that's what they crave. Why? I'm sure the reasons run the gamut, but I'm surenot the least of which is mysoginy. Making fun of women is part and parcel of a DQ's routine.

They also tend to force conformity on the rest of us. We should worship them, as the queen of the city. We should appreciate all they do for the gay community (like dressing in drag and telling dirty jokes at a gay bar fundraiser really helps people with AIDS), and that they're lip-syncing is so all that! When talking to them, up come the assumption that I would know what Tafeta is, and that I sew my own evening gowns, and that I put on make up just like they do, and if I don't, I'm not really gay. They have shoved this "We are the heroines of Stonewall" propaganda down everybody's throats for 40 years, knowing damn well, that just about everybody had enough that night, and they weren't the only ones rioting. In fact, half of them were just chorus dancing while the ones without dresses rioted and flipped over police cars.

Rant off.

One more thing... Lip Syncing is a talent about as hard to get as the flu.

Now I'm really done.

You are not wrong in your analysis of the political situation. You are not wrong in the internal contradictions.

Realize, however, that in your correctness, you are simplifying a complex reality in order to present a clear and convincing argument, with the goal of achieving a specific political aim. With the goal of creating a specific opinion in the mind of your audience. As a civil rights activist with the specific goal of equal rights for gays and lesbians, you may be effective with this approach. You may be one of the more clear-headed propagandists the gay rights movement has had in some time.

Ask yourself if you want to be a propagandist, or if you want to be a truth-teller.

Propaganda is clear in its objectives. It is not necessary that propaganda be false, but it is often necessary - as you have illustrated - that propaganda simplify the truth. Propaganda is not about enlightenment and understanding, it's about getting people to believe what you want them to believe.

Also, consider not just what is right for the moment or for this particular goal, but for your essential principle. If you are ready to go down this path of influencing people, you will be responsible for your own success.

The essential principle behind gay rights, abortion rights, the right to die, and the rights of transgendered people is that individual human beings have sovereignty over their own bodies.

In short, any adult human being has the sole right to determine what is done and what is not done with his or her own body, to the extent that his actions do not restrict the right of determination of another adult human being. Neither society nor the state has a legitimate interest in what one or more adults do with their bodies which supercedes the interest of the individual. Society's interest in propagating itself through childbirth does not supersede the right of a woman to sterilize herself, even though the woman may not have produced children, for example. The interest a family may have in keeping one of its critically ill members alive does not supercede the interest of the critically ill individual in determining the time and manner of his own death.

A citizen's body is his own, to do with as he likes. His dietary habits, his recreational preferences, his sexual and romantic relationships, his risky behaviors, his tattoos and his haircuts are his own.

The state and society have no more of a legitimate interest in stopping a transgendered person from modifying his body to suit his mind than they have in stopping a nontransgendered person from having rhinoplasty or dying his hair, or having surgery to correct a harelip, or refusing to have surgery to correct a harelip.

When an appeal for gay rights stems from this basic political principle, the 'nature' argument becomes irrelevant.

When an appeal for gay rights stems from the inborn nature of homosexuality, what principle is active then? We have the right to be as nature made us. Do we not have the right to be other than what nature made us? Which elements of inborn nature are to be defended as acceptable ways of life, and which aren't?

Without an overall guiding principle to determine that answer, you may end up building an argument you did not intend to build.

Such as, all inborn and natural behaviors are to be defended.

Or, similarly, no inborn and natural behavior should be corrected through medical or psychiatric treatment.

Who decides?

If not the individual, then who?

Who gets to say if a particular human variation, once accepted as natural and inborn rather than acquired, is pathological or benign?

What could go wrong?

These are the kinds of questions that are worth considering when you become not a conveyor of truth, but a sculptor of it.

Incidentally, nature made the transgendered, too. They want what you want, the ability to be as they are, and the right of self determination over their own bodies.

In that, both movements share a common goal.

What makes both movements natural allies is a common opposition. Anti-gay bigotry comes from the same source as transphobia, from an unrealistically rigid concept of gender roles. You transgress expectations through the body of your partner; TGs transgress expectations through their own bodies.

With a clear vision of fundamental principles of human rights, and a sharply focused understanding of the fundamental principle underlying our common opposition, we can make common cause--we being gays and lesbians and bisexuals, we being transgendered people and intersexed people, and for that matter, deaf people, little people, and mobility-disabled people.

Without that clear vision, we work at cross purposes, and the success of one group will come at the expense of another.

Tucker


(I am deeply indebted to UncleSepp for much of this post. He is unable to DU from work, so I asked for him to throw some logic at this thread. All the best points, especially about propaganda, are his, edited only to put it into my voice.)

Give my thanks to Uncle Sepp as well.

I honestly was just trying to sort out my own cobwebs, and really had no intention of framing my thoughts into a call to arms. Sorry if I came across as a propagandist, that was not my intent.

I'll have to read your post a couple of more times. There's a lot to ponder, but of course you and the poster above you make a very good point about what an eventual outcome should be...and that we should be in control of our own bodies and lives as an end result is sound. Not that the Kinsey studies are old fashioned, but I can also see the other's post about using it as an argument may be.

Thank you.:hug:...and UncleSepp:hug:

I PMed UncleSepp to express my appreciation but I also wanted to ask you to add this to your journal. These ideas are worthy of their own thread. :thumbsup:

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

You know, it may sound odd at first, but I think the War on Drugs is also a war against self-sovereignty, and that's why I think we GLBTers should also fight against the WoD.

This is a wonderful post, AG.

I have read it so many times now. I have always had loved one who were GLB, but only in this last year have I had the blessing to meet many T's in the GLBT. I am printing this out for my T friends, because this is the most honest and thought provoking essay that I have read on this issue. Wow. :applause:

No one should be discriminated against by the government or public facilities over their sexual preference, unless their preference involves children, small animals or physically harming someone without consent.

But don't ask me to pay for your sex change operation. I support your right to get married (gay or trans), I support your right to live your life the way you want to in peace, but I don't think tax dollars should be spent on people's sex change operations.

or "cosmetic" birth defects? or anything which can be argued to not be physically life threatening but in our society causes people to be "less" than what is perceived as a "complete" person? Because many trans individuals feel as though they aren't themselves, that their physical makeup belies who they really are, much as someone whose face is burnt off. In a more perfect culture, we would be able to make room for all the freaks and geeks and differently gendered people, but the painful reality is that these people are forced to conform to strict identity categories...we all are. Until we have a more encompassing culture, the only way for people to fully feel comfortable is to transform their bodies to "fit"...this is such a complex issue but I don't think the answer is for us to discriminate where money goes because we don't and most likely will never understand what it is like to feel as though your identity is somehow at odds with your biological body...

.....and here I thought it was Halliburton all along.:eyes:

Why is Medicaid/Medicare funding for a sex/gender transition an improper use of public funds designated for public health use?

The two are certainly linked, but they are not the same thing. In my humble opinion, the GLBT movement should be looking to move society's treatment of these issues away from conventions such as "normal", "not normal", etcetera. Saying the sexuality is a "natural" state is, while a necessary staging point for the reform of society, merely a step on the process to creating a full continuum of tolerance. TGism is not a matter of preference, and that is one of the next steps of acceptance that society - including its GLB members - must appreciate.

Also, within TGism, there is a continuum. Desire for full gender reassignment is simply one end of a sub-spectrum of urge, desire and identity that runs through bisexuals TVs like me - who are in happy, long term, stable monogamous heterosexual relations and have zero desire to alter their bodies - right the way down to straight guys who get a kick of of wearing their wife's panties in bed once in a while.

So who gives a flying rat fuck if someone likes to wear clothes that society says she be work by people of the opposite sex?

Why can't I go to work in a dress some days and jeans with a flannel the next?

Not saying I would of course (I usually dress in all black and always wear a cowboy hat) but I am utterly baffled by the assignments we are given. You are a man, you cannot wear a dress to work. You are a woman, you should but don't have to.

I don't understand how it hurts a damn thing. And I am not sure why people get so freaked out over seeing people like that.

If it suddenly became chic because some designer made dresses for men (with pockets for our knives and wallest of course!) I think they might sell. Hell, I would be comfortable in a nice moo-moo myself at work, better than tight pants making uncomfortable (dryer shrank em, honest!)

rant over...

Oh and as for the "dresses for men (with pockets for our knives and wallest of course!)" you have the Utilikilt. I have a few friends that love their utilikilts. One of them was even featured on their frontpage. Kilts are kilts though, not a dress and not a skirt.

My wife occasionally threatens to get me one.

On hot summer days, I almost wish she would.

I already addressed what you brought up.

My only other comment would be that as long as the religious factions fighting us continue to put forth the "choice" fallacy, then the Nature argument has it's place.

Of course "nature" is blind and just keeps photocopying the genes, which is why I think that notions like "right", "wrong", and "natural" aren't really helpful. Homosexuality is natural; blond hair is natural; cancer is natural. TGs suffer - really suffer - from an extreme body dysmorphia that can be fixed. It is an utterly different situation to homosexuality. I really don't understand your position; not for want of reading, but because I fear you haven't fully realised that we're another part of the same equation, and marginalisation within the LGBT movement is exceptionally dangerous.

Where TF do you get off? What is this equation you refuse to describe, but constantlly bring up?

"It is an utterly different situation to homosexuality" BINGO! So why undercut homosexuality by demanding that hoomosexuals deny that they were born that way, just to be inclusive?


I don't see a GLBT movement, because the T is not the same thing. You said it yourself.

"WTF do I get off"? I'm sorry you don't get it. You believe TGs have no place in your liberation movement. I understand.

just forget all of the fundamental truths in my life. The fact that I knew I was different from other boys as early as age 5, long before sexual attraction entered into the picture. You want me to ignore not only what science is damn near proving, and what I know from my own life experience, because it's not inclusive enough to you. To tell me to deny that fundamental truth, and wish me to pretend that I wasn't born gay, or at least not bring it up because "it's a tangent" from the control over our bodies arguments. I find that push for me to deny what I know in my heart to be true as insulting as you purpurt my questions on Transgender people to be.

Some on this thread have enlightened me on the issue Others, like you, come across as accusatory and willing to play gotcha games. All of you tell me to ignore the fact that I was born gay, and that fundamental truth should not be part of the argument because that truth of mine doesn't include your assessment of who I am.

Well, I'm sorry.

You brought up a point about politics. What's being discussed here is politics. Nobody is asking you to deny a damned thing in your personal life, or in your public life. The question you asked is being answered, and you don't like the answer.

The answer you're getting is that basing your arguments for gay rights on "I was born that way and don't need to be fixed" is putting gay rights on a very shaky foundation, and that separating transgendered rights from gay rights for the reasons you put forward is neither intellectually nor politically sound. The "gotcha games" are part of political argument. If you get this personally offended over political arguments on the Internet that don't go your way, I would suggest you do not put on those propagandist shoes just yet, or you will get your heart broken when you go out to face people who are actually your enemies instead of your political comrades.

How is the truth not intelectually or politically sound?

And if you want me to avoid these facts of life in politics, then I'm denying and ignoring that fact, because others aren't included in it.

Control over our own bodies is a valid argument, and one that ultimately goes to the heart of the matter of Government power. I don't think I should go for that at the expense of human truth though. What you and the others are saying is that my life, my experience and my nature are irrelevant in political discourse. Being gay shaped my point of views, influences my decisions, what makes me get out of bed in the morning, affects how I see the world around me, and is central to my outlook on life. I know how it began, and know I had no control over it, only control over how I accept it in my life. That is a major part of my motivation to change things, and TGs are asking me to ignore all that, or "sacrificing it for political expediency" just as the other thread accused gays of doing to TGs.

As if John Edwards or any other political activist never told a personal story.

And...I never wanted to be a propagandist.

I get much nastier with political enemies.:hi:

Seriously, Touchdown. Do not let your enemy determine the course of your agitprop. You're putting yourself into the passive position and allowing your opponent to choose the playing field and the rules. That doesn't work. Better to come up with your own, strong, positive ideas. By being their shadow, you allow them to be the light. That can't be what you want.

Sheesh. I'm trying to help you, and giving you the best I've got to give, and you don't even want my queer tranny ass marching next to you.

I'm just trying to find some common ground that doesn't sacrifice human truth.

in a free society. Either adults have the right to live their lives as they see fit or they don't. Genetics or no genetics that is the issue.

I just keep learning.

:hug:

:)

I probably shouldn't post this but I really like what you wrote and I think you're brave for doing so!
I'm a straight woman who completely accepts gays because they are part of nature.

It's a proven fact that most animals, and humans too, have the gay/bi/hetero spectrum of preference. I once had 2 pretty-much-gay roosters, from what I could tell, at least. They were only interested in each other, had no interest in the hens. They did the sexual mating dance to each other, that a rooster does to a hen: the rooster shuffles his wing feathers toward the hen and stomps around. But these guys did the mating dance to each other. They were really cute. I had too many roosters, so I found a home for them on craigslist.org to a really nice lady.

But, to get back on track with what you're saying, I think that homosexuality is different, and (to me) seems more natural, than the idea of becoming a different sex or behaving as a different gender.

Who am I to say? It's all good. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=383491&in_page_id=1770

Transsexual and intersexed conditions aren't that strange in nature. For some fish, it is the norm, see http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Rice/Rice.htm

Tucker

Bottom line...
GLB-Nature doesn't make mistakes. Stop trying to fix us!
T-Yes it does, and we need to be fixed.


I look at it like this:

SGLBTQ: "We're all born the way we are."
T: "The body I have does not match with what I am in my mind/how I feel."




The Republicans/Fundies main argument against GLBQ is that it is "a choice", not that it is a mistake of nature or inborn defect. That's why they send kids to deprogramming camps or encourage adults to go to "reparative/ex-gay" programs. I look at sexuality and Gender Identity as naturally occurring/inborn traits just like eye color.

The way I look at it we're the people we are, period. When I was a kid I liked girls in grade-school, when I had a son he was still in diapers and watching the girls, pretty ones in particular. It's just the way we were made and that's part of what made me understand that maybe you're naturally made the way you are as well. That and my wife working with a few who I met.

From that perspective I'm not so sure how TG is different. With you they claim all you have to do is to ignore who you feel like you are and live like the rest of us, with a TG it's pretty much the same to those opposed to you, isn't it? Your opponents claim both are a controllable condition, and both of you claim it's just who you are. I think you're both right and should be left alone.

If we're to give one the benefit of the doubt then why not the other, and if we can justify denying it to one then why not the other? Because of surgery? They've got the right to the surgery today most of the time, that's not what they are asking for. The are asking for the same thing you are, to be treated equally, not judged by the standards of those who aren't like them and can't understand. I can't see how we deny support to one without hurting the argument for both, either you can control who you feel you are or you can't.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, wanted to get this out without being influenced by others. I'll get to that now, hope they haven't been too hard on you ;)