Ship of Fools: LBG but why T?

Thread: LBG but why T? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030654

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I am confused why transsexual people are categorised with lesbians, gay men and bisexual people; the LBGT cliché. As I understand things, transsexuality is a genuine medical condition – “I am a X trapped inside a Y’s body” – which is treatable to allow the person to decide upon which sex they feel most comfortable with.

What good does it do to categorise lesbians and gay people with transsexuals, as it may lead certain types of people to believe there is some kind of “cure” for homosexuality, and perhaps also lead some lesbian and gay people to not accept themselves for what they are, leading to more emotional upset. I believe homosexuality is probably epigenetic, but at the very least it isn't "a choice", and it has no need of a "cure".

On the flip side, a transsexual who believes themselves to be born that way with no hope of a cure may also become emotionally upset if they have no hope of reconciling their sexuality one way or the other.

It just seems wrong on a number of levels for the two groups of people, LBG and transsexuals, to view their sexualities in the same way, and to allow themselves to be categorised alongside each other, when one is a genuine medical condition that can be helped, and the other is so not an abnormality.

Unless of course a transsexual may be someone who is not “trapped” in that sense, but merely wishes to self-identify with the opposite sex form time to time, but wouldn’t that be a transvestite?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

Most of it comes from the fact that transexuals are an even smaller minority and need somewhere to be heard (and as pointed out elsewhere the list of letters doesn't stop at LGBT).

It is interesting you raise this though, whilst I was an LGB Officer at uni (I use LGB because the association was LGB not LGBT like most others - although several transexuals attended but more in their capacity as bi-sexuals) we put forward moves to change the organisation to include the 'T' aspect formally. However, we met resistance from the majority of the transexual community itself who wanted their own independent organisation, (which they had been seeking for awhile and kept failing to get), mainly on the grounds as you lay them out, that it was not a matter of 'sexuality', but of 'personhood' if you follow what I am saying...

You are right in your last sentence, that if they are not 'trapped' as commonly understood then they are more likely to be a transvestite (think Eddy Izzard - he's not a transexual but a transvestite, there is a big difference.)

Although the logic you put forwards is, logical, and the conclusions can be reached by clubbing together a 'medical condition' and a non-medical sexuality, but especially in the minds of LGB associations it seems to boil down to (possibly even patronisingly if you thought about it too much) that transexuals need a group to stand up for them and as a larger organisation of all non-heterosexual, set gender assigned people the voice is louder and more likely to have an impact...

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

My understanding* is that it's not a case of people who identify as transsexual being "categorised" as the same as people who identity as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

I understand that it's about one group of marginalised people finding solidarity and community with other groups of people who are also marginalised for a related reason. The common ground is in who is responsible for people in those groups being marginalised and discriminated against, that being those who consciously or unconsciously act on the basis that heterosexuality is "normal" and that all other sexualities (whatever the reason) are evil/deviant/sick etc.

* disclaimer: speaking as an outsider, not as a member of the LGBT community. Open to correction though!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I thought it was probably even less complicated. If it is about sexuality, it is lumped together. It goes even farther with the lumping together for many organizations or agencies. Often there is a "minorities officer" or a "equality department", which, in addition to the 'sexuality groups' (yes, I've heard that terminology), includes various cultural and racial groups, and those with physical and cognitive disabilities.

Mildly tangential, we also hear here of Two-Spirit people, with the acronym cited being extended to LBGTTS.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

LGBT's old hat. If you're really right-on, you refer to LGBTQQI: Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer, Questioning and Intersex.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
LGBT's old hat. If you're really right-on, you refer to LGBTQQI: Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer, Questioning and Intersex.

That's even old hat as well.

To be a proper alphabet soup you should be using: GLBTTQQIAAP

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, Pansexual.

Although I imagine others could be added...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

You guys really need to see Peterson Toscano's performance "Now I Know My gAy,B,C's" [Biased]

[ 30. January 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You guys really need to see Peterson Toscano's performance "Now I Know My gAy,B,C's"

Unless it's online/DVD I wonder if the company would pay for a trip to the states to see it?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Deano:

Your views on this matter were very much shared by the recently departed Thomas Szasz, who for years railed against the medical stigmatization of homosexuals, and later against gender-reassignment surgery as a continuation of the same basic thing.

Relevant passage starts at the second paragraph

Suffice to say, despite his role as a pioneering gay ally(at least as far as opposing medical coercion goes), Szasz's views on transexuality have not been embraced by the contemporary gay and lesbian movement as a whole. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

It is my understanding that trans-sexuals group with the others because they are marginalised and misunderstood - as are LGB people (though increasingly less so)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

OK, can someone explain the difference between 'queer' and 'gay'? And what is 'ally'?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
That's even old hat as well.

To be a proper alphabet soup you should be using: GLBTTQQIAAP

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, Pansexual.

Although I imagine others could be added...

1. Which permutation is 'Ally'?

2. What's a 'pansexual'? Doesn't bisexual cover all the options that are legal? Is it a euphemism for 'bestial'? and

3. Why would a person who is asexual need to be grouped with all these 'minority sexualities' (sorry, I'm sure that's the wrong phrase, but have no idea what the right one is)? Isn't the point about being asexual is that a person doesn't want or need it.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
That's even old hat as well.

To be a proper alphabet soup you should be using: GLBTTQQIAAP

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, Pansexual.

Although I imagine others could be added...
1. Which permutation is 'Ally'?

2. What's a 'pansexual'? Doesn't bisexual cover all the options that are legal? Is it a euphemism for 'bestial'? and

3. Why would a person who is asexual need to be grouped with all these 'minority sexualities' (sorry, I'm sure that's the wrong phrase, but have no idea what the right one is)? Isn't the point about being asexual is that a person doesn't want or need it.

1. The second 'A' - an Ally being some one who sympathises with the cause (like a hetero. groupie - someone who is cisgendender) but also everyone within the group.

2. people attracted to people of all genders, recognising the wide range of gender identities other than man or woman, such as genderqueer, bigender, neutrois, and other non-binary identities.

3. Asexuals are still a minority - and it is an umberella term for grey-asexual and demisexual as well.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Queer is like to be genderqueer, ie not identifying as either male or female. Ally is someone who whilst not identifying with any of the categories is supportive of their full inclusion. Asexual is included because it uses something else which doesn't for with the normative, default, whatever narrative about sexuality and gender. Which probably answers the original question too; Straight cisgendered people don't get LBGT issues.

Carys

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Queer is like to be genderqueer, ie not identifying as either male or female. Ally is someone who whilst not identifying with any of the categories is supportive of their full inclusion. Asexual is included because it uses something else which doesn't for with the normative, default, whatever narrative about sexuality and gender. Which probably answers the original question too; Straight cisgendered people don't get LBGT issues.

Carys

Having just read through your post and my own again (they match nicely!) I realised there is a lot more vocab. out there around this than people realise... it might allow for a branching out for retorting to insults...

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I remember it as QUILTBAG (queer, intersex, lesbian, trans, bisexual, asexual and gay).

As to why these groups get stuck together it's because they're "other than the default" in the same way that different ethnic minority groups may find common cause even though the only thing they have in common is not being in the majority. People with a variety of different disabilities do likewise. When you're different from the cis-hetero "norm" it inevitably gives you some common ground with others - not least that the same people tend to really hate all of these groups.

[ 30. January 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I remember it as QUILTBAG (queer, intersex, lesbian, trans, bisexual, asexual and gay).

- which in fact has always been my response when I hear people mention it.

Although, I guess it could be turned into an insult better than the alphabet soup.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Queer is like to be genderqueer, ie not identifying as either male or female. Ally is someone who whilst not identifying with any of the categories is supportive of their full inclusion. Asexual is included because it uses something else which doesn't for with the normative, default, whatever narrative about sexuality and gender. Which probably answers the original question too; Straight cisgendered people don't get LBGT issues.

Carys

Genderqueer is different to queer - I identify as a queer cisgendered woman. Queer is shorthand for 'not heterosexual'. I prefer using queer to LGBTQ+ to be honest but sometimes I'm in a situation where not everyone will realise I'm not using it in a pejorative sense.

And deano and others, it's transgender not transsexual. A transgender person's gender does not match their biological sex, and usually but not always have various procedures to get the two to match. There is no choosing of their 'preferred' gender, they are always that gender - it's just about being able to present as the gender they are as opposed to their biological sex. So, a transwoman has always been a woman, but may not have always looked like a woman. Indeed, in the UK at least they will be given a new birth certificate with their gender on it and it is illegal for an employer or anyone else to ask for the birth certificate with their 'old gender' on it. The LGBTQ+ grouping is for sexual minorities in general, which transgender people are.

It should be noted that access to treatment varies a lot worldwide, so many transmen and transwomen may not look like men and women but that doesn't mean they're not those genders, they just don't have access to ways of presenting as those genders.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Genderqueer is different to queer - I identify as a queer cisgendered woman. Queer is shorthand for 'not heterosexual'.

[with other places lots of snipping - no pun intended]

And deano and others, it's transgender not transsexual. A transgender person's gender does not match their biological sex, and usually but not always have various procedures to get the two to match.

The trouble, Jade, is that all those terms are rather vague and mainly umberella terms for other more complex expressions, but hte standard definition and applications are (for the words you use):

Queer = anyone of a gender and sexuality minority.

genderqueer = anyone who does not fit into the gender binary and cisnormativity

Transexual = specifically binary-identified people transitioning from male to female (MTF) or female to male (FTM).

Transgender = umbrella term used for any person whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex. This term includes both binary and non-binary identified trans people.

So whilst your use of the terminology is, in some respects right, it is not completely accurate either and deano is quite right to use transexual in the manner in which they do from what I can tell.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

When I introduced a motion at our church's vestry (what Anglican parish councils are called here), and when it was subsequently supported at the parish annual general meeting with the appropriate additional item of a letter to the bishop of the parish's stand, the wording used included the words "tolerance" and then extended to "accepting", then to "affirming". Thus we call ourselves "affirming" and avoid the acronyms on casual conversation, resorting to the sorting of the initials when needing to on deeper discussion. Affirming means that we accept the diversity of humanity on all loving grounds. Maybe "affirming" is a good general shorthand?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Whatever else this thread may be, it is not Purgatorial. Let's try DH and see if it fits there. Down you go!

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
So whilst your use of the terminology is, in some respects right, it is not completely accurate either and deano is quite right to use transexual in the manner in which they do from what I can tell.

Quite a lot of trans people don't like the term transsexual, since all the other terms that end in -sexual tend to either be related to what you do in bed, or refer to a psychological disorder. Also, the word transsexual makes assumptions about people wanting 'the operation', which is a very personal decision and shouldn't be relevant to how other people consider you.

The T in the LGBT letters definitely doesn't stand for transsexual, since that would exclude a bunch of other trans people. It probably just stands for trans, which is a catch-all term for every other word that has it as a prefix, but it might stand for transgender, which is a fairly umbrella term as you describe.

I don't think the term transsexual is in of itself offensive, but I'd be wary about applying it as a label to someone without them mentioning it first.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
So whilst your use of the terminology is, in some respects right, it is not completely accurate either and deano is quite right to use transexual in the manner in which they do from what I can tell.
Quite a lot of trans people don't like the term transsexual, since all the other terms that end in -sexual tend to either be related to what you do in bed, or refer to a psychological disorder. Also, the word transsexual makes assumptions about people wanting 'the operation', which is a very personal decision and shouldn't be relevant to how other people consider you.

The T in the LGBT letters definitely doesn't stand for transsexual, since that would exclude a bunch of other trans people. It probably just stands for trans, which is a catch-all term for every other word that has it as a prefix, but it might stand for transgender, which is a fairly umbrella term as you describe.

I don't think the term transsexual is in of itself offensive, but I'd be wary about applying it as a label to someone without them mentioning it first.

This is what I was going to say - the T is for trans* which includes transgender, genderqueer and transvestite people. Also, transsexual seems to suggest a change of sex which is not true - it is gender that is seen to change, not biological sex.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Also, transsexual seems to suggest a change of sex which is not true - it is gender that is seen to change, not biological sex.

Forgive my ignorance, but that seems backwards to me, so I'm interested to see if things have moved on from when I last paid serious attention to this.

I have a couple of friends who are post-op MtF transexual, and from their journeys as well as from other wider reading I'd always got the impression that "sex" = the physical bit and "gender" equated to one's "gender identity".

Thus in a classic case (for want of a better phrase) of a MtF transexual the birth sex would be male, the gender [identity] female, and post-op the physical sex would also be female.

To me that implies that it is the 'sex' that changes, not the gender.

Or am I just antiquated on all this stuff? As I say, it's years since I paid close attention, and these days just drop into a standard people are people mode, but it's useful to know that the underpinning knowledge is vaguely in the ballpark.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Thanks for the responses everyone. I did get an answer that transgender people look to the wider LBG community for a better voice, which is a good idea in my book.

Cool.

Posted by drnick (# 16065) on :

Within the asexual community the relationship between asexuality and the wider LGBT movement is a controversial topic. Some people think that asexuality is inherently 'queer' (ie non-heteronormative) and march in Pride parades, while others disagree and feel no connection at all. Identity politics is never simple.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

quote:
Also, transsexual seems to suggest a change of sex which is not true - it is gender that is seen to change, not biological sex.
Forgive my ignorance, but that seems backwards to me, so I'm interested to see if things have moved on from when I last paid serious attention to this.

I have a couple of friends who are post-op MtF transexual, and from their journeys as well as from other wider reading I'd always got the impression that "sex" = the physical bit and "gender" equated to one's "gender identity".

Thus in a classic case (for want of a better phrase) of a MtF transexual the birth sex would be male, the gender [identity] female, and post-op the physical sex would also be female.

To me that implies that it is the 'sex' that changes, not the gender.

Or am I just antiquated on all this stuff? As I say, it's years since I paid close attention, and these days just drop into a standard people are people mode, but it's useful to know that the underpinning knowledge is vaguely in the ballpark.

Sex isn't physical but biological - so it doesn't change, surgery or not (for instance, there have been cases of transmen who get ovarian cancer). What does change is someone living their life and presenting as their correct gender (and in the UK at least, they will get a new birth certificate to that effect). Not all trans people can afford or even want surgery, so their physical bodies may not actually ever be changed - but a transwoman (for example) who does not have any kind of reassignment surgery still has a female gender.

I'm not entirely sure about UK law surrounding this but I believe someone has to prove that they live life as their real gender to get a new birth certificate in that gender - but not sure if they are required to have gender reassignment treatment (hormones etc as well as surgery). Most will choose to have treatment but it's more about getting the outside the match the inside, and it varies from person to person (because some people pass as their real gender more easily than others without treatment, for example).

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Jade -

quote:
Sex isn't physical but biological - so it doesn't change, surgery or not

There's several problems with this definition, though. Firstly, physical is biological - though you could get round that by saying it was genetic.

Secondly, the definition of sex biologically is in relation to reproduction so genitalia have always been regarded as sexual and not gender related. As a matter of fact there already is a word that solves this particular problem - "imposex". i.e. an individual having externally imposed sexual characteristics.

Thirdly, it is exclusionary. Imagine you are an XY person with androgen insensitivity. You feel you are female. You look female. But on learning you are genetically XY you find you are excluded biologically/genetically by the definition.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Thanks for the responses everyone. I did get an answer that transgender people look to the wider LBG community for a better voice, which is a good idea in my book.

Well, not quite. What is actually going on here is that the feminist analysis that gave rise to the 20th and 21st century struggle for the liberation of women provided the foundation for the struggle for sexual liberation of Lesbians and gay males.

Despite the attempt by the 'respectable', assimilationist Gays to sideline them, the other sexual minorities would not let them forget that that same feminist analysis that drove gay liberation, a fortiori, worked for the rest of the sexual minority stew.

The problem remains the patriarchy. The struggle for the liberation of sexual minorities remains the struggle against misogyny, the malignant hatred of women.

It's not a little disturbing to me that this thread could go two dozen posts without the words feminism, patriarchy, or misogyny making an appearance.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Thanks for the responses everyone. I did get an answer that transgender people look to the wider LBG community for a better voice, which is a good idea in my book.
Well, not quite. What is actually going on here is that the feminist analysis that gave rise to the 20th and 21st century struggle for the liberation of women provided the foundation for the struggle for sexual liberation of Lesbians and gay males.

Despite the attempt by the 'respectable', assimilationist Gays to sideline them, the other sexual minorities would not let them forget that that same feminist analysis that drove gay liberation, a fortiori, worked for the rest of the sexual minority stew.

The problem remains the patriarchy. The struggle for the liberation of sexual minorities remains the struggle against misogyny, the malignant hatred of women.

It's not a little disturbing to me that this thread could go two dozen posts without the words feminism, patriarchy, or misogyny making an appearance.

Contemporary feminism is frequently transphobic (well, contemporary feminism frequently ignores the needs of anyone who isn't a white, straight, cisgender woman), see for instance the recent Suzanne Moore debacle. Apparently transphobia isn't restricted to radical feminism anymore. We need feminism to be intersectional and focus on the kyriarchy.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Jade -
quote:
Sex isn't physical but biological - so it doesn't change, surgery or not
There's several problems with this definition, though. Firstly, physical is biological - though you could get round that by saying it was genetic.

Secondly, the definition of sex biologically is in relation to reproduction so genitalia have always been regarded as sexual and not gender related. As a matter of fact there already is a word that solves this particular problem - "imposex". i.e. an individual having externally imposed sexual characteristics.

Thirdly, it is exclusionary. Imagine you are an XY person with androgen insensitivity. You feel you are female. You look female. But on learning you are genetically XY you find you are excluded biologically/genetically by the definition.

But this all ignores the role of gender, which is totally separate from sex. So, an XY person who 'feels and looks female' IS female - they have a female gender. Being an XY person doesn't change that.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Jade -
quote:
Sex isn't physical but biological - so it doesn't change, surgery or not
There's several problems with this definition, though. Firstly, physical is biological - though you could get round that by saying it was genetic.

Secondly, the definition of sex biologically is in relation to reproduction so genitalia have always been regarded as sexual and not gender related. As a matter of fact there already is a word that solves this particular problem - "imposex". i.e. an individual having externally imposed sexual characteristics.

Thirdly, it is exclusionary. Imagine you are an XY person with androgen insensitivity. You feel you are female. You look female. But on learning you are genetically XY you find you are excluded biologically/genetically by the definition.
But this all ignores the role of gender, which is totally separate from sex. So, an XY person who 'feels and looks female' IS female - they have a female gender. Being an XY person doesn't change that.

I was trying to keep them separate! I think it's you -

quote:
So, an XY person who 'feels and looks female' IS female - they have a female gender.

Female being the sex - if you link female with feminine that tightly you can no longer claim it as primarily constructed. Perhaps we should say the inclusion of which sex we think we are is a matter of gender rather than sex, though that runs foul of some very difficult identity questions.

But in any event there is no problem over issues of gender, I agree. It's a side-issue though an interesting one. It is simply an inconsistency in the issue of definition of sex I am pointing to. The third objection is resolvable but only at the expense of reactivating the first objection ISTM.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am confused why transsexual people are categorised with lesbians, gay men and bisexual people; the LBGT cliché.

Because with all due respect who the fuck cares about mechanics? Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

And the objection to all the groups is ultimately the same - the undermining of traditional gender roles. It's almost exactly the same opposition for the same reasons.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Female being the sex - if you link female with feminine that tightly you can no longer claim it as primarily constructed.

Female is the correct word to describe both the sex and the gender. Feminine is totally different — that's to do with how you behave. Plenty of people whose sex and gender are both female but don't act very feminine.

I'd define the words thus: gender doesn't change, it's what you actually are inside (i.e. what you perceive yourself to be), even if you don't look it. Sex can change through medical procedure and administering hormones — it's what your physiology suggests you are. Neither word relates to chromosomes. You could talk about "sex assigned at birth", which refers to what the doctors thought you were when you were born, although that still doesn't rule out any abnormal chromosomal conditions.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And the objection to all the groups is ultimately the same - the undermining of traditional gender roles. It's almost exactly the same opposition for the same reasons.

That's probably the main reason. Gay people are told "You can't love him, that's icky 'cos you're a man". Trans people are told "You can't ask everyone to address you as Miss, that's weird 'cos you're a man".

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am confused why transsexual people are categorised with lesbians, gay men and bisexual people; the LBGT cliché. As I understand things, transsexuality is a genuine medical condition – “I am a X trapped inside a Y’s body” – which is treatable to allow the person to decide upon which sex they feel most comfortable with.

What good does it do to categorise lesbians and gay people with transsexuals, as it may lead certain types of people to believe there is some kind of “cure” for homosexuality, and perhaps also lead some lesbian and gay people to not accept themselves for what they are, leading to more emotional upset.

Could you connect the dots for me here? I can't see a logical thread between the first paragraph and the second. In fact, I can't see the logic within the first paragraph of assuming that every medical condition is curable or even treatable.

As uncomfortable as being gay may be, I can well imagine that our misery is a drop in the bucket compared to that of a transsexual. There is no perfect resolution, only a dilemma. To have helped a transsexual decide whether having a sex change operation will relieve the misery more than not having one is a far cry from claiming that that one has cured him or her.

Furthermore, sex change operations have been available only in the past generation or two. How do you suppose someone with this condition (which, being admittedly medical, presumably existed undiagnosed before the 1960s) coped before that time? Probably they were inclined to behave, for all the world could tell, like homosexuals, and probably self-identify as such as well. We are not even now so universally enlightened that everyone experiencing either condition can say accurately which it is. Wouldn't it be a very strange morality that holds that a medical sex-change operation legitimizes behavior which would be completely illegitimate without it. Yet I have heard exactly this argument from a friend who is very conservative yet objective enough to find transsexuality a medical fact: a sex-change operation (and only that) entitles them to have sex with others of their birth gender. No operation? Sorry, you lose. If such a peculiar stance makes some sense to you, then maybe you can argue that LBG and T should never be lumped together.

I gather that calling onself gay has acquired an aura of conformity: one wants a tidy middle-class home with just as white a picket fence as the neighbors. "Queers", by contrast, feel that their having to march to the beat of a different drummer in one respect invites them to do so in more than one. They are altogether more skeptical about prevailing social norms. I've never liked the word very much, but identify more with the attitude with every passing year.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
That's probably the main reason. Gay people are told "You can't love him, that's icky 'cos you're a man". Trans people are told "You can't ask everyone to address you as Miss, that's weird 'cos you're a man".

The second reason, of course, is that if someone's gender doesn't match their sex then either the people they are attracted to are of the same sex as they are, or the people they are attracted to partner is of the same gender as they are, or the people they are attracted to also trans and heading the other way (or more than one of the above). Meaning that even a straight trans person almost inevitably appears to be L G or B at some point.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
Quite a lot of trans people don't like the term transsexual, since all the other terms that end in -sexual tend to either be related to what you do in bed, or refer to a psychological disorder. Also, the word transsexual makes assumptions about people wanting 'the operation', which is a very personal decision and shouldn't be relevant to how other people consider you.

The T in the LGBT letters definitely doesn't stand for transsexual, since that would exclude a bunch of other trans people. It probably just stands for trans, which is a catch-all term for every other word that has it as a prefix, but it might stand for transgender, which is a fairly umbrella term as you describe.

I don't think the term transsexual is in of itself offensive, but I'd be wary about applying it as a label to someone without them mentioning it first.
This is what I was going to say - the T is for trans* which includes transgender, genderqueer and transvestite people. Also, transsexual seems to suggest a change of sex which is not true - it is gender that is seen to change, not biological sex.

To you both:

If you read the explanation of the whole alphabet soup that goes beyond LGBT (rather than just stopping there) then you will realise that transgender is already included alongside transexual... transgender and transexual have common definitions which indicate what they refer to (as pointed out above) and both are included in that alphabet soup because they are different groups.

Transvestites have never been included in the list as it is a fetish rather than a matter of gender or sexuality identity, along side sado-masochism, capnolagnia etc. etc.

As for the whole transexual/transgender gender/sex thing, I have no idea, I really should but...

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
That's probably the main reason. Gay people are told "You can't love him, that's icky 'cos you're a man". Trans people are told "You can't ask everyone to address you as Miss, that's weird 'cos you're a man".

Well, this doesn't drive things far enough. "'cos you're a man" needs a reason behind it. And the reason behind it is "and acting like a woman demeans you because we value women less."

It's misogyny at base.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Transvestites have never been included in the list as it is a fetish...

This is just ignorant. The drag queens at the Stonewall Rebellion who uprooted parking meters and used them to drive back the vice squad forcing the police to take refuge in the bar they were trying to bust would have a tart thing or two to say to that.

Stonewall was transvestites. The Respectable Homosexuals were aghast.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
That's probably the main reason. Gay people are told "You can't love him, that's icky 'cos you're a man". Trans people are told "You can't ask everyone to address you as Miss, that's weird 'cos you're a man".
Well, this doesn't drive things far enough. "'cos you're a man" needs a reason behind it. And the reason behind it is "and acting like a woman demeans you because we value women less."

It's misogyny at base.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Transvestites have never been included in the list as it is a fetish...
This is just ignorant. The drag queens at the Stonewall Rebellion who uprooted parking meters and used them to drive back the vice squad forcing the police to take refuge in the bar they were trying to bust would have a tart thing or two to say to that.

Stonewall was transvestites. The Respectable Homosexuals were aghast.

There's a difference between a drag-queen and a transvestite and this article from what is a mainstream and reputable group paints a slightly different picture.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Queer = anyone of a gender and sexuality minority.

But also likely to carry a political/cultural connotation, particularly when used by individuals. So, I might refer to "queer people" as an umbrella term for all-but-cis-heteros (and even a few less conventional specimens of those) I would still speak of myself as "queer" because "gay" is bound up in a lot of class/racial/ableist baggage for me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Racial? That is a new one on me.

Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Racial? That is a new one on me.

My SWAG guess, from several points of privilege (white, hetero for much of my life, middle-class), is that "gay" can be seen as referring pretty much to white homosexual men. Going farther out on my limb, I'd posit that it also implies a more metrosexual-ish presentation.

Or I could be talking complete nonsense. Interested to hear what others have to say.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There's a difference between a drag-queen and a transvestite and this article from what is a mainstream and reputable group paints a slightly different picture.

Easy to find the leaks in that bag of gas of an article:

1. Stonewall wasn't really important.
2. Only Respectable White Gay Men were inside the bar called Stonewall.
3. "Stonewall" ought to get its meaning only from identity of those who were permitted to patronize the bar.
4. And even if it did, we should not extend civil rights to the sexual minorities we call 'trans', because, well...because..., well, just because.

The amazing blindness of the article is in the implicit assumption that the only actors those nights were the vicious vice squad and the patrons of the bar, as if the social commerce of the vast New York City summer nightscape was indoors.

Oh and, Draq Queens are not transvestites? Do tell us more about that. Or is it that transvestites are not drag queens? Which part of the identity breaks?

[ 31. January 2013, 17:45: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Oh and, Draq Queens are not transvestites? Do tell us more about that. Or is it that transvestites are not drag queens? Which part of the identity breaks?

Pigeons and doves.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There's a difference between a drag-queen and a transvestite and this article from what is a mainstream and reputable group paints a slightly different picture.
Easy to find the leaks in that bag of gas of an article:

1. Stonewall wasn't really important.
2. Only Respectable White Gay Men were inside the bar called Stonewall.
3. "Stonewall" ought to get its meaning only from identity of those who were permitted to patronize the bar.
4. And even if it did, we should not extend civil rights to the sexual minorities we call 'trans', because, well...because..., well, just because.

The amazing blindness of the article is in the implicit assumption that the only actors those nights were the vicious vice squad and the patrons of the bar, as if the social commerce of the vast New York City summer nightscape was indoors.

Oh and, Draq Queens are not transvestites? Do tell us more about that. Or is it that transvestites are not drag queens? Which part of the identity breaks?

How you came to your four point conclusion from that article I am not sure - and it seems more to do with some desire to rewrite history than anything else.

If you can't accept the words of Rivera (who si the one person normally credited with starting the whole thing of) then historical facts that you don't like are meaningless it seems.

1. Stonewall was by and far the largest and most visible expression of the fight for rights, but it was by no means the only one. Much had already happened before 1969, including the forming of the Society of Individual Rights ('64) Willie Brown's work on legislation leading upto the vote on it in '69 (which it lost) this link will provide ionfo on a small number of the USA based actions taken before Stonewall. So no the article does not do down Stonewall, but Stonewall has eclipsed all the other work that was done before hand...

2. Nobody said respectable - just that the majority of the clientel was white, gay and middle-class (although it had a long history of the local male prostitute) run by the mafia to exploit the vulnerability of a particular group of people.

3. No Stonewall should not get it's identity just from the clientel, but since transvestites and drag queens are an even smaller minority it would be hard to justify that Stonewall was a transvestite led cause. I also refer you back to my comment that transvestites and drag queens are not the same thing.

4. And nobody said that transgendered people should not have rights (transgender and transexual already comes under the alphabet soup) all that I was putting forwards was that you have blinkered, and historically lacking, urban-myth view of Stonewall and it's importance, and also some confusion between the terminology transgender, transexual, drag-queen and transvestite.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Oh and, Draq Queens are not transvestites? Do tell us more about that. Or is it that transvestites are not drag queens? Which part of the identity breaks?
Pigeons and doves.

Possibly apt, but in answer to TSA - in common understanding of the terminology:

Transvestite = a fetish which gives the transvestite some sort of pleasure normally in a sexual sense. If they were anything else then they would be transgender/transsexual based on the definitions given earlier in the thread.

Drag-queens do it for entertainment, for the fun factor rather than the sexual fantast/fetish factor. Think Hinge & Brackett for an example fo Drag Queen, or even your local gay bar where it is more than likely the hostess is a drag-queen doing it for entertainment rather than asa personal fetish or as part of a transgender or transexual identity.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There's a difference between a drag-queen and a transvestite and this article from what is a mainstream and reputable group paints a slightly different picture.
Easy to find the leaks in that bag of gas of an article:

1. Stonewall wasn't really important.
2. Only Respectable White Gay Men were inside the bar called Stonewall.
3. "Stonewall" ought to get its meaning only from identity of those who were permitted to patronize the bar.
4. And even if it did, we should not extend civil rights to the sexual minorities we call 'trans', because, well...because..., well, just because.

I think the article was very clear that it wasn't saying any of those things.

1. "the undeniable importance of Stonewall"
2."the few drag-queens present"
3. "These matters rise or fall on their own merits, not on the relative role groups played"
4. "Gay civil rights legislation would be stalled or effectively killed in many places if transgenders were included."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0