Is it logical and/or prudent for the Gay community to be aligned with Transsexuals?

[brickbacon]

Is it logical and/or prudent for the Gay & Lesbian community to be aligned with Transsexuals/Transgendered people (and to a lesser extent Transvestites)?

It always struck me as odd that the two groups are aligned when it seems they different agendas. I think the main issues Gay Advocacy groups groups speak about are marriage, equal treatment under the law, and child adoption. I know there are plenty more, but that's what I hear about most often as a casual observer. I really don't see those issues effecting Transgendered people in the same way. AFAIK, most of the transgendered agenda deals with changing societal views of the binary gender system. I understand that both groups face similar discrimination and harassment, but if that is the only prerequisite, many other minority groups could be included. I could see it if all transgendered people were homosexual, and could be classified as a subset, but that's not the case.

I may be missing why the relationship between the two is more logical than I give it credit for, but I'm confident it's not a mutually beneficial one. I sincerely doubt society will ever change its views on gender, whereas homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable. Even the notion that the binary system should be changed is ridiculous to most people, and not even worthy of serious debate. As a result, it doesn't seem like transgendered people will be integrated, or accepted into mainstream society anytime soon. While including transgendered people may be the right thing to do, it doesn't seem like a smart move.

What do you guys think the results of this relationship will be, and is it a wise move for Gay organizations?

[comrade33]

i think that they stick together beacuse they are both (along with what i hope is more than a few straight people) concerned about sexual issues that are similar in the sense that both groups feel like second class citezens because of society's view on sexuality and what it should and should not be. i think that they are both aiming for the same thing infact. equality, no more no less. a noble endeavor if you ask me. i do, however, see your point. the transsexual part of the alliance gives straight people (i know not all straight people see things this way) something to point at in the pride parade and think to themselves "i knew it! these people are confused, they don't even realize what their god given gender is!" but i don't think that all societies will always look down on the trannnies. in fact you should take a look at this (http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html). it says in the fourth paragraph in the very visible communities of hijras, transgendered males who have a semi-sacred status and often engage in sexual relations with men. now this isn't exactly mainstream hinduism, but they get far more respect there than they do here.

[brickbacon]

i think that they stick together because they are both (along with what i hope is more than a few straight people) concerned about sexual issues that are similar in the sense that both groups feel like second class citizens because of society's view on sexuality and what it should and should not be. i think that they are both aiming for the same thing infact. equality, no more no less.

OK, I see where you are coming from, but the inequalities you speak of apply to all sorts of groups most gay organizations don't concern themselves with. Also, I think sexual orientation and gender issues are very different, and aren't really defined well by the term sexual issues. They seem like they are related, but I think they are different enough that it makes the alliance seem strange to me.

The one thing I have thought of is some of the discrimination both groups face is due to individuals in both groups not conforming to gender norms. Society expects a man to act like a man and a woman to act like a woman. It seems to me that masculine gay males face less discrimination than effeminate ones. A man who actually wants to be a woman would face similar scrutiny. However, I think society has some contempt for anyone who is different, and that that small point doesn't rise to the level of a mutual interest that only transgendered and gay people share. You also have to factor in that many people are homophobic because of religious reasons (among others). For them, it's less about being different and more about it homosexuality being "unnatural".

a noble endeavor if you ask me. i do, however, see your point. the transsexual part of the alliance gives straight people (i know not all straight people see things this way) something to point at in the pride parade and think to themselves "i knew it! these people are confused, they don't even realize what their god given gender is!" but i don't think that all societies will always look down on the trannnies. in fact you should take a look at this (http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html). it says in the fourth paragraph now this isn't exactly mainstream hinduism, but they get far more respect there than they do here.

Very interesting article. I agree with you that many straight people see transgendered and transvestite people and write them off as freaks, and that that may make the jobs of gay advocates harder. However, I wasn't trying to say that transgendered people would never be accepted, just that the ideas they push will not. I don't think you can sell the idea that there is a gender spectrum to most people. It requires you to change the way you think about life, and nature. Most people are not willing or able to do that.

[matt_mcl]

I think it's just and right for the Queer movement to be allied with the transgendered and transsexual movements (plural, because the various groups in those movements have very different, but not incompatible, agendas).

There are a couple of reasons. First, it could be argued that homophobia stems, at its base, from a reaction to gender outlawry. It's not the fact that the two people are of the same gender that's icky -- it's the fact that a man or a woman is not doing what is expected of him or her.

And femme guys are attacked to the cry of 'faggot' - by which is meant 'gender outlaw.' You are behaving unacceptably for a man; we will punish you.

In the end, both movements call for a reanalysis of gender, and a reduction of gender roles from mandatory and enforced to optional.


There's also the matter of access -- both movements deal with things we don't have access to because society is set up to accommodate only a certain range of choices -- is based on certain tacit assumptions that we violate, thus causing us to be excluded.


There's the government angle -- we both call for a reanalysis of the role of the state in our sex, gender, bodies, families, and choices, and we demand either its removal when that role is illegitimate (for example, sodomy laws and gender definition) or the loosening of its strictures when its legitimate mechanisms exclude us (for example, marriage and employment protection).


Finally, there's the practical matter that in many cases our communities overlap and/or have historically overlapped -- those of us who are queer/gender-variant often move in the same circles already, especially in the activist world. We are, to some extent, used to working together.


Let me be clear -- the movements are distinct and have their own separate revendications. But I think it's very important, in particular, for Queer people to support the struggles of trans and gender-variant people, a matter in which we have far too often fallen down. We will never achieve our place in society by saying 'please tolerate us because we're more normal than they are' -- far too often, the message our political leadership has sent.

[comrade33]

I wasn't trying to say that transgendered people would never be accepted, just that the ideas they push will not.

i see, sorry for the misunderstanding. i hate to agree with you, the humanist/taoist in me believes that the whole conscious universe is progressing towards enlightenment, but i am dualistic (seemingly contradictory, no? well, opposites are like the poles on magnets, you wouldn't call one side or the other a seperate thing but you would call them two sides of a whole) and the empirical side of me thinks (note that i believe one thing and think another)
that you are correct. part of being conscious is being biased, because the mind divides, compares, and catagorizes. god, sometimes i think i need to take an english or writing class.

[matt_mcl]

It requires you to change the way you think about life, and nature. Most people are not willing or able to do that.

That's what many, many people have already done with regard to gay and bisexual people, it seems to me. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that there was no word for "heterosexual," because that was just the way things are. People either had no idea gay people existed, or else they were dimly aware of it as some sort of rare mental condition or criminal act.

In just 100 years, the basic conception of society shared by a very large segment of our population has been completely rebuilt in this matter. I would say don't write the possibility off.

Also, not everyone is interested in 'destroying the binary.' The minimum requirement is really just that it be considered optional. It's really not that challenging, once you get used to it.

[brickbacon]

I think it's just and right for the Queer movement to be allied with the transgendered and transsexual movements (plural, because the various groups in those movements have very different, but not incompatible, agendas).
Can you elaborate on that last part.

There are a couple of reasons. First, it could be argued that homophobia stems, at its base, from a reaction to gender outlawry. It's not the fact that the two people are of the same gender that's icky -- it's the fact that a man or a woman is not doing what is expected of him or her.

And femme guys are attacked to the cry of 'faggot' - by which is meant 'gender outlaw.' You are behaving unacceptably for a man; we will punish you.

In the end, both movements call for a reanalysis of gender, and a reduction of gender roles from mandatory and enforced to optional.

I as mentioned in my post, I can see that side of it. But I think most gay people follow most gender roles in one form or another. When they legalized gay marriage in a few places, most of the couples they showed on TV and in line where surprisingly average looking unassuming people. Aside from loving someone of the same sex, they appeared to follow societal mores.

In addition, I don't know many gay people who have a personal investment in seeing a reanalysis of gender. Gender roles have been evolving since the women's movement. There was a clearly good reason for such a shift to occur. I don't think the same can be for gender reanalysis.

There's also the matter of access -- both movements deal with things we don't have access to because society is set up to accommodate only a certain range of choices -- is based on certain tacit assumptions that we violate, thus causing us to be excluded.

But plenty of groups that gay groups don't advocate for have problems with access and equality. Are you speaking about specific things or in general?

There's the government angle -- we both call for a reanalysis of the role of the state in our sex, gender, bodies, families, and choices, and we demand either its removal when that role is illegitimate (for example, sodomy laws and gender definition) or the loosening of its strictures when its legitimate mechanisms exclude us (for example, marriage and employment protection).
Can't transgendered people get married to a person of the opposite sex? I see the overlap, but combining sex (sexual orientation) and gender seems unnecessary, and somewhat arbitrary.

Finally, there's the practical matter that in many cases our communities overlap and/or have historically overlapped -- those of us who are queer/gender-variant often move in the same circles already, especially in the activist world. We are, to some extent, used to working together.

Is this a natural occurrence, or is this a result of both groups being ostracized and marginalized? Also, what do you think the consequences of this relationship will be?

[brickbacon]

That's what many, many people have already done with regard to gay and bisexual people, it seems to me. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that there was no word for "heterosexual," because that was just the way things are. People either had no idea gay people existed, or else they were dimly aware of it as some sort of rare mental condition or criminal act.

In just 100 years, the basic conception of society shared by a very large segment of our population has been completely rebuilt in this matter. I would say don't write the possibility off.

Also, not everyone is interested in 'destroying the binary.' The minimum requirement is really just that it be considered optional. It's really not that challenging, once you get used to it.

That first part is just not true. Plenty of societies over time have various beliefs about homosexuality, or, at the very least, intercourse between people of the same sex. In many of those societies, it has been an accepted part of life. Many powerful Greeks and Romans (among others) were bisexual. It seems as though people have understood and recognized homosexuality/bisexuality for a long time.

[wolfstu]

That first part is just not true. Plenty of societies over time have various beliefs about homosexuality, or, at the very least, intercourse between people of the same sex. In many of those societies, it has been an accepted part of life. Many powerful Greeks and Romans (among others) were bisexual. It seems as though people have understood and recognized homosexuality/bisexuality for a long time.


And such views had, by the dawn of the twentieth century, been forgotten by the bulk of western society. The Greeks' attitudes to sexuality were no longer widely known or held in Europe or North America a hundered years ago -- which goes to show that ideas about sexual roles or other seemingly essential behaviours/traits can undergo great changes given enough time. A few psychologists and historians may have thought about homosexuality or about Greek sexual mores, but I'd say matt_mcl's analysis:

People either had no idea gay people existed, or else they were dimly aware of it as some sort of rare mental condition or criminal act.

...is a bullseye. It pretty well exactly describes the environment I grew up in in the 1980s and 1990s, and thus my attitude with regard to homosexuals as of, say, five years ago.

[matt_mcl]

Can you elaborate on that last part.

Sure. For example, the transsexual community (in general) is not so much interested in the deconstruction of the gender binary (which many of them fit - just not as they were assigned at birth) so much as access to medical care such as SRS, change of legal gender, and protection from discrimination. Genderqueer people are more focused on reducing the strength of gender stereotypes and protection for those with minority gender presentation.

I as mentioned in my post, I can see that side of it. But I think most gay people follow most gender roles in one form or another. When they legalized gay marriage in a few places, most of the couples they showed on TV and in line where surprisingly average looking unassuming people. Aside from loving someone of the same sex, they appeared to follow societal mores.

Well, that's the thing -- loving someone of the same sex is a violation of social mores for many; more specifically, a violation of gender norms. As Queers, we have to realize that it's ineffective and wrong to seek rights for our community on a hierarchical basis - those who fit in best, first.

In addition, I don't know many gay people who have a personal investment in seeing a reanalysis of gender.

No, unfortunately at this point, many queer people do not support the trans/genderqueer movement adequately. Oh, they'll happily put the T into the acronym, but they won't do anything to earn it, not even educate themselves about trans/genderqueer issues. It's unfortunate, in my opinion.

Gender roles have been evolving since the women's movement. There was a clearly good reason for such a shift to occur. I don't think the same can be for gender reanalysis.

I can: people are being killed over it.

But plenty of groups that gay groups don't advocate for have problems with access and equality. Are you speaking about specific things or in general?

I'm just listing reasons why the existing common cause between sexual orientation minorities and gender identity/expression minorities should be strengthened. Remember, this isn't a new proposal.

Can't transgendered people get married to a person of the opposite sex? I see the overlap, but combining sex (sexual orientation) and gender seems unnecessary, and somewhat arbitrary.

I was giving examples of things that Queer people are seeking that fall into certain themes, not necessarily specific issues that queer and trans/genderqueer people have in common.

However, since you asked, in many cases, due to the intransigence of the state in not permitting change of gender assignment, it may be impossible for a trans person to marry even a person of the other gender. And what of a trans person who transitions while he or she is already married?

Is this a natural occurrence, or is this a result of both groups being ostracized and marginalized? Also, what do you think the consequences of this relationship will be?

In recent history, it seems to me, many of the people who would today identify as trans or genderqueer sought out the gay community and vice versa as the only accepting milieu. So it really has a historical basis more than anything born out of deep strategic analysis.

As for consequences, hopefully, it means we share resources and make common cause for a good end.

[KellyM]

There would be no Gay Pride Month in June if not for the transsexuals. Have we forgotten Stonewall so soon?

[jayjay]

That first part is just not true. Plenty of societies over time have various beliefs about homosexuality, or, at the very least, intercourse between people of the same sex. In many of those societies, it has been an accepted part of life. Many powerful Greeks and Romans (among others) were bisexual. It seems as though people have understood and recognized homosexuality/bisexuality for a long time.

Not quite...before the latter part of the last century, exclusive homosexuality as an inherent orientation was practically unknown. Even the Greek and Roman "bisexuality" (which is something they would never have called it, even in translation) wasn't the same thing. The very word "homosexual" is less than 150 years old.

Even in ancient Greece, for all the snickers and whispering that people do when it comes up, there was no acceptance of a purely homosexual orientation. In fact, the man who took the passive role was usually considered inferior, which is one reason that it was often someone of lower station, or someone much younger. The older man was almost always married with a family, and often helped the younger man find a wife when that time came. There are many examples in ancient letters and journals of the scandal when a highly-placed man would be found to be playing "catcher" to a social inferior. Scorn was heaped high in such cases.

The ancient acceptance of homosexual conduct was very complex. You can't just say "the Greeks were tolerant of gays". It's inaccurate in that formulation.

[kimera]

Not quite...before the latter part of the last century, exclusive homosexuality as an inherent orientation was practically unknown. Even the Greek and Roman "bisexuality" (which is something they would never have called it, even in translation) wasn't the same thing. The very word "homosexual" is less than 150 years old.

It is stupid to say that homosexuality as we know it today didn't exist in ancient times because the word wasn't invented. The people in those societies simply used other terms. The 'Sacred Band' was composed of both passive and active partners and yet the entire group was honored. Rome was stricter about sexuality than Greece, and a senator was accused of continuing to be passive long after he became a man, but there are plenty of counter-examples, including Plato who wrote an essay where he suggested that homosexuality was inborn. There is plenty of evidence that people recognized themselves and others as inherent homosexuals before the recent centuries. Il Sodoma (http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/s/sodoma/) being a prime example of an individual who clearly self-identified as gay. Most cultures had prescribed roles for sexuality in general, but individuals who stepped out of those roles were recognized and even afforded respect.

For more information check out any books by Stephen O. Murray, John Boswell, Louis Crompton and others. AFAIK, most gay historians now support Essentialism over Social Construction.

[matt_mcl]

I think jayjay meant "unknown" as, literally, unknown, rather than "nonexistent."

[jayjay]

I think jayjay meant "unknown" as, literally, unknown, rather than "nonexistent."

That's it. It never even crossed my mind that someone would think I meant "non-existent" in that context. It's not that there WAS no homosexual orientation. It was that an exclusively homosexual orientation as we know it today wasn't generally practiced, even by those WITH a homosexual orientation. Men and women got married and had kids, almost universally, regardless of how they actually felt about folks of the opposite sex.

[Lemur866]

And of course arranged marriages were the norm for most of human history. It didn't matter if you were gay, if your parents arranged for you to marry Princess Lucky you married her and had kids with her regardless of whether you were sexually attracted to her or she to you.

[kimera]

It was that an exclusively homosexual orientation as we know it today wasn't generally practiced, even by those WITH a homosexual orientation. Men and women got married and had kids, almost universally, regardless of how they actually felt about folks of the opposite sex.

That's what I am arguing against. There were plenty of individuals in the past who said "I'm here, I'm queer and your gonna deal with me if you want to or not." Check out the books I suggested for examples. Exclusive homosexuals were known in plenty of cultures.

[matt_mcl]

Well, jayjay did say "not generally practised." Certainly, you did have analogous phenomena -- witness Agathon and boyfriend (name escapes me at present) who were basically the equivalent of the nice gay couple on the block circa 1978; everyone else was buggering boys like all-get-out, but it was fairly unusual that two men would live together basically as life partners for a long period of time. That made them "queer," if you will -- odd enough to cause talk -- where other modes of same-sex love were not queer.

The existence of an out Queer community in the west is comparatively recent, and sexual orientation has been interpreted ("constructed") in a great many ways at different times.

[kimera]

The existence of an out Queer community in the west is comparatively recent, and sexual orientation has been interpreted ("constructed") in a great many ways at different times.

We'll have to just disagree on that then. :) I understand what you are saying, but my favorite scholars lean more towards the Essentialist camp than the Social Constructionist one. I'll stop hijacking this thread.

I think it's very logical for the gay community to be aligned with the transsexual community but I wish there wasn't such animosity between the two groups. Some of the most intolerate people towards transsexuality that I have dealt with have unfortunately been gay and I know several transsexuals who are less than tolerant towards gay people, even some who wish to seperate themselves from LGBT. I think it is best for both parties to remain together. After all, religious fundamentalists view all members as equally horrible and have considerable more money and political clout than the Queer Community currently does.

[brickbacon]

We'll have to just disagree on that then. :) I understand what you are saying, but my favorite scholars lean more towards the Essentialist camp than the Social Constructionist one. I'll stop hijacking this thread.

No worries. I don't mind if the discussion heads in that direction.

I think it's very logical for the gay community to be aligned with the transsexual community but I wish there wasn't such animosity between the two groups. Some of the most intolerate people towards transsexuality that I have dealt with have unfortunately been gay and I know several transsexuals who are less than tolerant towards gay people, even some who wish to seperate themselves from LGBT. I think it is best for both parties to remain together. After all, religious fundamentalists view all members as equally horrible and have considerable more money and political clout than the Queer Community currently does.

Can you elaborate on this. Why is there such animosity between the two groups?

[Max the Immortal]

I feel compelled to throw in my perspective.

I am not particularly well-informed on the issues important to the gay and trangendered communities; I am straight, white, male, middle-class, and more or less mainstream.

I like and admire way too many gay people to entertain a homophobic attitude. I support gay marriage and gay adoption, and will not hesitate to argue in favor of these issues in political discussions. To me, gay people are normal people.

On the flipside, I don't know any transgendered people. I imagine that most (probably all) of the depictions of transgendered people I've seen on TV and in movies are wildly innacurate caricatures, but that's all I've seen. On a gut level, I am not comfortable discussing the agenda of the transgendered community, or even watching trangendered people on TV. I just plain don't want to have anything to do with transgendered people; I'd prefer if they'd live their lives the way they want to where I don't have to deal with them. I don't like that I have this aversion. I recognize that I have this aversion because of my own issues, and that I may feel differently a few years from now.

The fact remains, though, that while I have no problem backing homosexual rights, the T in LGBT would prevent me from getting on their bandwagon.

[cwthree]

I feel compelled to throw in my perspective.

I am not particularly well-informed on the issues important to the gay and trangendered communities; I am straight, white, male, middle-class, and more or less mainstream.

I like and admire way too many gay people to entertain a homophobic attitude. I support gay marriage and gay adoption, and will not hesitate to argue in favor of these issues in political discussions. To me, gay people are normal people.

On the flipside, I don't know any transgendered people. I imagine that most (probably all) of the depictions of transgendered people I've seen on TV and in movies are wildly innacurate caricatures, but that's all I've seen. On a gut level, I am not comfortable discussing the agenda of the transgendered community, or even watching trangendered people on TV. I just plain don't want to have anything to do with transgendered people; I'd prefer if they'd live their lives the way they want to where I don't have to deal with them. I don't like that I have this aversion. I recognize that I have this aversion because of my own issues, and that I may feel differently a few years from now.

The fact remains, though, that while I have no problem backing homosexual rights, the T in LGBT would prevent me from getting on their bandwagon.

Since you acknowledge that you "imagine that most (probably all) of the depictions of transgendered people I've seen on TV and in movies are wildly innacurate caricatures," I really don't understand why you have this aversion. You apparently understand that until quite recently, most popular depictions of gay and lesbian people were at best broad stereotypes (even a positive stereotype is still a stereotype) and at worst "wildly innacurate caricatures."

Are you more comfortable with gay and lesbian people because you know some? Don't be so sure you don't know any transgendered people. I know many, and I will tell you now that your average transwoman does not look like a linebacker in a garden frock and your average transman does not look like a Soviet-era lady athlete on steroids. How would you feel if you learned that someone you know wasn't always the gender that you assumed they were? Would this make you more or less sensitive to the concerns of transgendered people?

How do you think transgendered people want to live their lives? If you agree that what you've seen are inaccurate depictions, then what's left? If transgendered folks DON'T want actually want to be someone's freak show, could it be that they want to do pretty much the same things you take for granted - do productive work, feel safe at home, grow old in the company of family? At that point, just how is the "agenda" of the transgendered community any different from that of the gay and lesbian community or from your own?

[panache45]

I imagine that most (probably all) of the depictions of transgendered people I've seen on TV and in movies are wildly innacurate caricatures, but that's all I've seen.
It's important to point out that until recently, the same was true for all minorities – sexual, racial, religious, etc. If you go back only 50 years, the stereotypes you saw were not intended to make you want to embrace these people, even if your were one of them. I, as a gay man, never saw any positive portrayals of gay men until I was an adult. We all know what the standard stereotype was, and there was absolutely nothing to counteract it.

[Max the Immortal]

Perhaps I need to clarify the intention of my post. I in no way want to convey that I feel that my aversion to transgendered people is justified or acceptable. It isn't. I may be off base, but I imagine that this attitude is commonplace in the mainstream. I shared my attitude simply to frame the question: Is it logical and/or prudent for the Gay community to be aligned with Transsexuals?



In response to your questions, cwthree, I really don't know how I'd react if I were to discover that an acquaintance of mine is a transsexual. I imagine it would have a significant impact on my outlook; if I like said person, I would probably become more tolerant toward transsexuals (rather than less tolerant toward this particlar person). This requires more contemplation on my part. Thank you for challenging my attitude, cwthree.

[kimera]

As for the hijack - there are two big schools of thought in the subject of homosexuality and its history - the Social Constructionists (http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/constructionism.htm) and the Essentialists (http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/essentialism.htm). Basically, a pure Social Constructionist believes that no one is gay or straight but sexuality is completely influenced by society. The pure essentialist believes that biology/psychology is responsible for our sexual drives. The Social Constructionists were the first big group that started back in the 70s with Foucalt and Halperin being the two main authors. Then in the 80s and 90s the essential camp began making a lot of noise with books from Boswell, Norton (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0304338915/qid=1119664854/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/002-1589802-8028012?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) (I highly suggest his most famous book), Crompton (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067401197X/qid=1119664943/br=1-9/ref=br_lf_b_9//002-1589802-8028012?v=glance&s=books&n=4985) and others. Most scholars aren't pure, but tend to lean to one side. For example, I believe culture does strongly influence expressions of sexuality, but I think that biology is the main drive. I also believe that the ancient greeks (and other cultures) recognized that some individuals were gay because of something inborn and that there were gay 'hangouts' and subcultures and all that good stuff.

Can you elaborate on this. Why is there such animosity between the two groups?

I am afraid I implied that the groups overall are hostile towards each other. That isn't the case. I don't know the exact percentage of hostility, but it isn't the majority. Just the fact that hostility exists is annoying to me.

And for the reasons for the hostility, some gays (and people in general) think that transgendered people are just individuals who are in denial of their homosexuality. This completely ignores the fact that there are plenty of gay and lesbian transgendered people, but I have heard it said before. There are also gays who don't want the T to be including in LGBT because they believe that having the T confuses straight people about homosexuality and makes gaining rights harder.

On the flip side, most of the Transgendered individuals I know are supportive of gays and gay rights (most are bisexual) but I do know some who say that they don't 'get' homosexuality. I also know some who hate being aligned with the gay community and wish to seperate themselves, although these individuals are very rare.

[Johanna]

I feel like I should say something here.

I was on board with gay rights before I went trans, but especially since I went trans I feel a strong kindred alliance with lesbian and gay issues and people. Now, gayness, lesbianism, and heterosexuality are all variations on one theme. Transgender is another thing entirely different from all of the above. Regardless of which way your sexual orientation is pointing, gay or straight, the basic fact is that it's about who you're attracted to. It's all about relating to others. Kate Bornstein in her great book Gender Outlaw noted that gay and lesbian orientations inherently build communities, because it's all about connecting with others. Meanwhile, transgender has no reference to others; it's about how you understand your own self. It's inherently introspective and maybe also introverted. That's the explanation for why there isn't much of a transgender "community" compared with the big, vibrant gay & lesbian communities.

Regardless of the above, gay and trans are natural allies because we're all queers. Queerness unites us. That counts for a lot. KellyM was right on target by citing the Stonewall riots as not only the defining moment for gay consciousness, but for gay-trans alliance. It was mainly trans leaders who made it happen at Stonewall in 1969. How soon their contribution to queer liberation is forgotten.

I haven't noticed animosity between gays and trans people personally, although I've been involved with the LGBT scene only a short time. There was one tendency among some feminists to bash transsexuality, but Patrick Califia (back when he was still a female-identified butch dyke named Pat Califia) argued back eloquently against this prejudice in Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism, and I think succeeded in persuading many lesbians and feminists to accept trans people. Califia has done a lot toward trans understanding, both before and after he went trans. I feel we all owe him a big debt of gratitude. As for trans prejudice against gays, this makes no sense to me whatever. I haven't seen any such attitudes among the trans activists I've been among. AFAIK, it's taken for granted that gay rights are for the good of society as a whole. We do have feelings of resentment for being treated as an afterthought, as stepchildren of the LGBT movement, in short, we hate being ignored. It's just too easy to overlook us, to pretend to forget about us. We just don't have the numbers to be very influential in anything. Gays and lesbians outnumber us by what, something like a thousand to one. Cite: www.gluteo_numeric_extraction.com ;)

I don't know what anyone means when they say trans people "are gay" or "are not gay." Once you enter the trans zone and break down the gender binary, the very definitions of "gay" and "straight" lose their applicability and relevance. I do not think of myself in terms of either category. I don't define myself by who I'm attracted to. If I were able to totally enter the female identity and be accepted as female, like a successfully passing stealth transsexual, then if I dated only women I suppose you could say I was "lesbian" and if I dated only men then you might be able to get away with saying I was "straight." But it feels nonsensical to me to think along those lines. I know I'll always be trans, and as such I'll always be queer, so don't you dare call me "straight" regardless of whom I date. Kate Bornstein likes to date women, but she doesn't claim to be "lesbian" because there is a definite lesbian subculture, or rather a suite of various lesbian subcultures, none of which she really fits into. So she just says, I'm trans, deal with it.

As long as intelligent and caring gentlemen like matt_mcl are around, I believe the gay-trans alliance has a bright future. Thanks for explaining these things so well, matt!

[matt_mcl]

*bows deeply*

[DMC]

Is it logical and/or prudent for the Gay & Lesbian community to be aligned with Transsexuals/Transgendered people (and to a lesser extent Transvestites)?

Since they all have the same end result in mind, equal rights, then sure.

I don't think you can sell the idea that there is a gender spectrum to most people. It requires you to change the way you think about life, and nature. Most people are not willing or able to do that.

To be quite honest, I find two males having sex to be "icky" when I think about it, but that just means that it's not for me personally. That's my problem, not the problem of homosexuals. I'm pretty sure that for many of them, thinking about my wife and myself getting busy isn't exactly pleasing either, but they aren't trying to stop it from happening. The same applies to the "most people" you reference above. They don't have to change the way they think about things, they just have to change the fact that they are treating people as second class citizens. Being humans, GLBTs are entitled to the exact same rights as you and I.

[Anaamika]

but i don't think that all societies will always look down on the trannnies. in fact you should take a look at this (http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html). it says in the fourth paragraph now this isn't exactly mainstream hinduism, but they get far more respect there than they do here.
I've got nothing to contribute to the discussion. I just wanted to thank you profusely for this link. I've been looking for something similar.

[KellyM]

On the flipside, I don't know any transgendered people. Actually, you likely do. Most people know at least one transgendered person. They just likely don't know it.

[KellyM]

There are also gays who don't want the T to be including in LGBT because they believe that having the T confuses straight people about homosexuality and makes gaining rights harder.Which is a really interesting claim in light of several surveys that have found that a greater percentage of the population -- even in conservative states like Virginia -- favors nondiscrimination law for transsexuals than does nondiscrimination law for homosexuals. Adding gender identity language to a bill to protect sexual orientation does not appear to impair the ability of the bill to pass; for example, in Illinois almost no debate in the legislature focused on the gender identity language and nobody questioned its appropriateness. But if it's not added, a subsequent attempt to add gender identity will frequently fail; for example, a bill to extend nondiscrimination in Vermont (which already has sexual orientation nondiscrimination) is failing due to a belief that it's "redundant" with sexual orientation.

Many of us have therefore concluded that anyone who argues that adding gender identity to sexual orientation legislation will keep it from passing is actually a transophobe and is deliberately trying to keep trans people from getting rights.

There is some empirical evidence for this position: Rep. Barney Frank (one of the politicians who routinely opposes trans-friendly legislation in Congress) is a well-known transophobe, and his influence, combined with all the second-wave feminist lesbians that currently hold a lot of of the lobbying positions in these areas (second-wave feminists tend to be antitranssexual, due to the influence of Janice Raymond and of radical feminism generally on that demographic), make it appear that gay people don't want trans people getting rights. Most of us realize that it's not all gay people who hold those attitudes, just a strikingly large proportion of those gay people who are heavy into politics. Eventually the second-wavers will die off and the third-wavers (who are generally not transophobic) will take over and things will get better. But that'll take another 20 years, probably.

[Johanna]

KellyM, good news. Barney Frank has come around on trans issues, I found out a couple months ago when lobbying Congress with the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition. He supported trans inclusion in this year's hate crimes bill, IIRC. Yes, it was rotten of him that in years past he wasn't on board with trans rights, but he is now. I wouldn't label him "transphobic" unless you can point to a specific thing he said that indicates he has a problem with TG per se. I think he excluded trans from previous legislation out of a "practical" motive, the misguided apprehension that trans inclusion would slow down the progress of gay rights. Mr. Frank is very intelligent, so he is capable of wising up if he is shown new evidence. I don't know any reason to think he ever held ideological transphobia of the ugly Janice Raymond kind. I would like to think the sort of bigotry spewed by Raymond has been dying out for several years now in the lesbian community.

Thanks, Kelly, for the information about the surveys on transphobia and legislation. That is really interesting to hear. I wish the NTAC had thought of that when we were lobbying a couple months ago. It would have been a very useful fact to explain to Congress. Where did you find this out?

[KellyM]

KellyM, good news. Barney Frank has come around on trans issues, I found out a couple months ago when lobbying Congress with the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition. He supported trans inclusion in this year's hate crimes bill, IIRC.Cynical ol' me believes that he's supporting it now only because he knows the bill has no chance of passing. There is a lot of friction between HRC (which Frank gets a lot of his support from) and trans groups likes NTAC and TSM; HRC is trying to repair that now because they have no hope of getting any meaningful federal legislation out of the current Congress anyway. HRC has done this before, and then when they've gotten a friendlier legislative environment turned around and dropped trans support. I'm not buying it.

We've been around this merry-go-round with Frank and HRC over and over again: a public show of support, and a private "forget it, sweetcheeks".

My source for most of my comments on this issue is Transsexual Menace International, whose mailing list I've been on for the past couple of years; a lot of the contributors on that list are the people who are in the trenches lobbying for NTAC and other trans rights groups. They've been fighting with Frank and HRC over their lackluster commitment to trans rights for many years now. The problem is that both Frank and HRC are in favor of gay rights for "normal looking gays": that is, people like Will from Will and Grace. If you're not a upper-middle class gay professional, you don't count in their eyes (besides, you have no money to donate, so you REALLY don't count). The rest of us can, and should, go away, and that includes the transsexuals, who are especially weird in their eyes and thus an embarrassment to them. A lot of us would prefer that HRC stop claiming to lobby for transsexual rights when in fact they don't want to; by accepting money intended to benefit transsexuals and then not doing anything for transsexuals, they dilute the resources available to actually try to do something for transsexual rights. Which, as many of us suspect, is what they want.

[KellyM]

I should add that the reason why Frank has opposed trans rights is what he calls "the locker room issue". He feels that it's inappropriate for trans people to be allowed to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender and has stated that he will not support any legislation that doesn't address this issue. He feels that trans people should use whichever restroom corresponds to their genitalia. He's been raising this issue for a long time now (far longer than it's been in public play, which is really only since late 2004), long enough and consistently enough that a lot of us think that it's a personal issue for him. Thus the conclusion that he's transophobic.

Illinois has had law for quite some time that states that an individual is entitled to use whichever restroom (or locker room) corresponds to the legal sex listed on their Illinois state-issued identification; Illinois will change listed sex on a driver's license based only on a letter from a doctor or psychologist. This, combined with Illinois' recent adoption of nondiscrimination law for trans people, means that an MTF is entitled to use the women's restroom and locker room, whether or not pre-op. I haven't heard any screaming over this yet. Mr. Frank would prefer to have such a person required to change in the men's locker room. Why?

[rfgdxm]

Actually, you likely do. Most people know at least one transgendered person. They just likely don't know it.
Seems unlikely to me. How many TG people are there in the US?

[KellyM]

Seems unlikely to me. How many TG people are there in the US?Estimates of the rate of incidence of transsexualism vary from 1 in 500 to 1 in 40,000 depending on who you ask; I personally suspect the rate is around 1 in 1000, as theorized by Lynn Conway. If Conway is correct, there are therefore around 300,000 transsexuals. Note also that this is the incidence of transsexualism; it doesn't count nontranssexual transgendered individuals, for which it is even harder to establish incidence rates for because most of them never publicize their status to anyone other than their sexual partners, or they conduct their transgendered behaviors in a manner calculated to protect the privacy of their "everyday" lives. For all you know, the guy two cubicles down from you spends every Wednesday night dressed up as a blonde bombshell at a bar halfway across town.

[brickbacon]

I feel like I should say something here.

I was on board with gay rights before I went trans, but especially since I went trans I feel a strong kindred alliance with lesbian and gay issues and people. Now, gayness, lesbianism, and heterosexuality are all variations on one theme. Transgender is another thing entirely different from all of the above.

Which is why I'm surprised there is an alliance.

Regardless of which way your sexual orientation is pointing, gay or straight, the basic fact is that it's about who you're attracted to. It's all about relating to others. Kate Bornstein in her great book Gender Outlaw noted that gay and lesbian orientations inherently build communities, because it's all about connecting with others.

What is inherent about homosexuality that is conducive to building communities?

Meanwhile, transgender has no reference to others; it's about how you understand your own self. It's inherently introspective and maybe also introverted. That's the explanation for why there isn't much of a transgender "community" compared with the big, vibrant gay & lesbian communities.

Good point.

Regardless of the above, gay and trans are natural allies because we're all queers. Queerness unites us. That counts for a lot.

If you are using "queer" to be weird or out of the ordinary, then plenty of groups fit that description. I don't really see why these two groups would choose to unite. Especially when one group has little to offer the other, has a completely different agenda, and is advocating a stance that most people will never accept.

AFAIK, it's taken for granted that gay rights are for the good of society as a whole. We do have feelings of resentment for being treated as an afterthought, as stepchildren of the LGBT movement, in short, we hate being ignored. It's just too easy to overlook us, to pretend to forget about us. We just don't have the numbers to be very influential in anything. Gays and lesbians outnumber us by what, something like a thousand to one. Cite: www.gluteo_numeric_extraction.com ;)

But the fact that, beyond certain charismatic individual activists, transgendered people offer very little in terms of moving closer toward societal acceptance. In fact, I think they hinder the progress being made in many ways. That's not to say the alliance is the wrong thing to do, just that you can't be surprised that some in the homosexual community feel that way.

I don't know what anyone means when they say trans people "are gay" or "are not gay." Once you enter the trans zone and break down the gender binary, the very definitions of "gay" and "straight" lose their applicability and relevance. I do not think of myself in terms of either category. I don't define myself by who I'm attracted to. If I were able to totally enter the female identity and be accepted as female, like a successfully passing stealth transsexual, then if I dated only women I suppose you could say I was "lesbian" and if I dated only men then you might be able to get away with saying I was "straight." But it feels nonsensical to me to think along those lines. I know I'll always be trans, and as such I'll always be queer, so don't you dare call me "straight" regardless of whom I date. Kate Bornstein likes to date women, but she doesn't claim to be "lesbian" because there is a definite lesbian subculture, or rather a suite of various lesbian subcultures, none of which she really fits into. So she just says, I'm trans, deal with it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think most in the gay community are advocating what you seem to be advocating.

Which is a really interesting claim in light of several surveys that have found that a greater percentage of the population -- even in conservative states like Virginia -- favors nondiscrimination law for transsexuals than does nondiscrimination law for homosexuals.

Cite?

[KellyM]

Cite? (for my comment about conservatives being more supportive of trans rights than gay rights)I've been looking for it. I suspect it was from a Transsexual Menace email that is currently residing on my deceased laptop, and thus beyond my immediate access. I recall, however, a survey in Virginia that showed about 20% support for gay rights but nearly 60% for trans rights (where "rights" means nondiscrimination in employment and housing).

Many conservatives, especially the religious sort, view transsexualism as a "special test from God" and hark to Biblical passages such as "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" as Biblical justification for acceptance of reassignment surgery. Pat Robertson, in particular, has expressed the foregoing views more than once, and as a result we have at least the tolerance of some of the religious right.

[matt_mcl]

What is inherent about homosexuality that is conducive to building communities?

Well, I think she explained it: since a basic part of homosexuality involves sexual and affectional desire, we have a fairly essential incentive to seek out other homosexuals.


I don't really see why these two groups would choose to unite. Especially when one group has little to offer the other, has a completely different agenda, and is advocating a stance that most people will never accept.

This is the thing. To me, at base, our agendas are the same: we wish to move society's gender-based distinctions from mandatory to optional.

We just differ in the areas of focus: LGB people don't want our romantic/sexual/family lives socially or legally limited by the gender of our partner/s; trans/genderqueer people don't want our bodies, our presentation, our identities, and our legal personae to be gendered without our consent. Both of these involve removing gender from a matter of public meddling to a matter of private identity.

You're right; nowadays, many LGB people would not necessarily describe our fight in this way. But at its base, there's no denying that homophobia is discrimination on the basis of gender, gender roles, and gender presentation. Boys aren't allowed to kiss other boys; girls aren't allowed to kiss other girls. It's queer. It's gender queer.

[Johanna]

I could be wrong, but I don't think most in the gay community are advocating what you seem to be advocating.WTF? You are confused. I was not advocating anything in that paragraph you quoted. I was just explaining my personal feelings why the concepts of "gay" and "straight" cannot apply to my situation.

Are you transphobic yourself, brickbacon? I reread your comments to see if there was any other way to interpret them. I could not. What would you have us do? Get back in the closet?

KellyM, it comes as news to me that right-wing Christians could be trans accepting. I was aware that in Islamic law several mullas, of whom the best known was Ruhollah Khomeini, have ruled that transsexual Muslims have the right to sex reassignment surgery and acceptance in their preferred gender. IIRC, Iran now has the highest rate of SRS per capita in the world. That's right. The Islamic Republic of Iran. It sure makes for mixed feelings on my part as a leftist Witch. To have Pat Robertson and Khomeini as my political bedfellows? :smack: Especially while a liberal like Barney Frank is useless to my cause? Time to play "The World Turned Upside Down"! If this means I have to turn right-wing fundie, then just give me "mortality reassignment surgery," i.e. kill me now!

I want to be friends with lesbians and gays. I feel more comfortable around them and I feel common shared goals with their community, as different as we are. It hurts to be rejected by them, dammit. Kelly, for many years I had admired Barney Frank as the most articulate and passionate liberal in the U.S. Congress. I totally looked up to him. Now I feel betrayed and sick at heart. Shakespeare said it best: "This was the most unkindest cut of all."

Ironically, the first time I used a ladies' room, a crowded ladies' room at that, filled with women standing in line, it was in the Rayburn House Office Building when I was lobbying Congress with NTAC. I had absolutely no problem at all. The women all implicitly accepted me as one of them. Take that, Barney Frank! Ha! :p

So the whole picture is confusing. On the one hand, we are less acceptable than gays. On the other hand, we are more acceptable. Depending on whom you ask. The only thing that's clear is, America hasn't quite got us figured out yet.

[matt_mcl]

I want to be friends with lesbians and gays. I feel more comfortable around them and I feel common shared goals with their community, as different as we are. It hurts to be rejected by them, dammit. Kelly, for many years I had admired Barney Frank as the most articulate and passionate liberal in the U.S. Congress. I totally looked up to him. Now I feel betrayed and sick at heart. Shakespeare said it best: "This was the most unkindest cut of all."

Well, you could just start admiring Bill Siksay (http://www.npd.ca/page/1344)... :)

[Johanna]

Mais oui, matt, ça me fait très heureuse à voir quelqu'un qui combat pour nos droits. Que je puisse être canadienne, hélas!
« J’espère que l’inclusion de ce motif illicite de discrimination dans la Loi fera comprendre clairement à tous qu’il ne faut pas exclure les gens en raison de leur identité sexuelle ou de son expression. Une telle discrimination est indéfendable et cette intolérance doit cesser », a dit M. SiksayTranslation: "I hope that the inclusion of this illicit motive of discrimination in the law will make everyone understand clearly that you must not exclude people by reason of their gender identity or expression. Such discrimination is indefensible and this intolerance must stop," said Mr. Siksay.

[brickbacon]

Well, I think she explained it: since a basic part of homosexuality involves sexual and affectional desire, we have a fairly essential incentive to seek out other homosexuals.

True, but most minority groups are the same way. I don't know if it has anything to do with sexuality.

WTF? You are confused. I was not advocating anything in that paragraph you quoted. I was just explaining my personal feelings why the concepts of "gay" and "straight" cannot apply to my situation.

How am I confused? You stated your opinion which I would imagine you'd want others to share. Maybe advocate is the wrong word, but I don't think I misinterpreted you.

Are you transphobic yourself, brickbacon? I reread your comments to see if there was any other way to interpret them. I could not. What would you have us do? Get back in the closet?

I don't think so. I don't know where you get that idea from, but I have no problem with transgendered people. I don't really agree with their agenda, but I don't think people should do things to make life harder for them because they are different. The reason I started the thread was initially to understand why the groups came together, and if it's been a beneficial union. I don't think it has, but I've learned a lot about why many members of the GLBT community feel a kinship. If you would like me to clarify anything I've said, I will, but I really don't feel as though I'm transphobic.

[KellyM]

I don't really agree with their agenda, but I don't think people should do things to make life harder for them because they are different. Uh, isn't a large part of the so-called transsexual agenda that people not make life harder for them because they're different?

How can you say you don't agree with the transsexual agenda when you evidently don't even know what it is?

[brickbacon]

Uh, isn't a large part of the so-called transsexual agenda that people not make life harder for them because they're different?

How can you say you don't agree with the transsexual agenda when you evidently don't even know what it is?

Many people in this thread have outlined what it is. Let me amend my statement to, "I don't agree with much of the transsexual agenda". I think they should be treated equally, and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. The main part I have a problem with is the optional gender and/or gender spectrum thing.

[Johanna]

How am I confused? You stated your opinion which I would imagine you'd want others to share. Maybe advocate is the wrong word, but I don't think I misinterpreted you. Yes, advocate was the wrong word, that's all I was saying. It was a non sequitur in the context of my quoted paragraph. OK, thanks for clearing that up.

What you oppose about what you call our "agenda" still isn't clear, though. The style of language used is reminiscent of a phrase used by homophobes, the infamous "homosexual agenda" which is used to rally against gay rights. If you don't want to sound transphobic, you might want to steer clear of language that echoes homophobe speech. If you didn't mean it that way, then it's cool.