Must the Gay Rights Movement Include the Transgendered?

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
A related point, I think, is that transgendered people are often identified as gay by some people who don’t really understand the identity issues. If a bio-male woman comes on to a straight man, for instance, some people interpret this as “a gay man pretending to be a woman to deceive a guy into having gay sex with him” (we had a thread discussing such an incident once on these boards, IIRC).

Attitudes are changing about this, but I think a large segment of society still thinks of transgendered people as being just some sort of sneaky variant of gay people. So gays and transgendered are always going to be fighting some of the same prejudices anyway; they might as well fight them together.
[/QUOTE]

The other side of this is that there are a lot of people who assume that a man who wants to have sex with other men, must want to be a woman. (Anyone else remember Billy Crystal in the pilot episode of Soap?) This belief isn’t as common as it used to be, but it’s still out there. If part of explaining what it means to be gay is going to be explaining why it’s different than being transgendered anyway, we might as well just make it official and stick their name up on the banners along with the rest of us.

[lee]

Without the drag queens and transsexuals, there would not be the gay civil rights movement and gay pride as we know it today. Look up Stonewall and the Christopher Street riots. I don’t think it does hurt to include the transgendered, but don’t make the mistake that gays are allowing the transgendered to tag along on their movement. If anything, it is the other way around.

One thing to consider is that most transsexuals just want to live their life without a lot of attention being drawn to their transsexuality. On news stories the last few year several male to female transsexuals come off as nice ladies who really would just like to live their life, but some assholes are bothering them by making an issue of a body part they did not want in the first place. I don’t think including gender identity significantly slowed the passage of our gay civil rights bill, and during the process of getting it passed the language was revised to make it crystal clear Ts were protected along with GLBs when the first draft seemed to protect Ts almost as if by accident.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Nava]
*The GLBT movement exists in many countries. The ACLU doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve got a point. Perhaps I was too parochial in that comment.

On the other hand, I tend to doubt whether there’s a great deal of value in international cooperation in our movement. After all, this is a matter of national and local laws, indicating that those of each nation fundamentally have to fight for themselves.

[QUOTE=Nava]
*There is a term which includes all those the OP listed, as well as heterosexuals, celibates, children and people with too much Alzheimer’s to know what sex is. “Human”. Why do we not just focus on human rights and just drop the pigeonholing, hmmm?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I agree that heaven sounds great, as I indicated in my OP. And which human can argue credibly against human rights? But at least here in the U.S., we need specific rights because here there’s a huge number of people who do argue adamantly and specifically against gay rights while happily endorsing what they consider to be human rights.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I agree that the groups are not identical, but see coalitions as the best way for small groups to work for mutually-beneficial changes in laws, policies, and societal attitudes.
[/QUOTE]
With respect, I don’t think that’s fully responsive. In particular, it doesn’t address the dilemma that arises wherein combining forces between a moderately unpopular group and a highly unpopular group significantly retards the social and political prospects of the former. And it very much seems to me that TGs are much more unpopular with the great unenlightened masses of the United States than the enlightened people of the SDMB seem to believe, as evidenced by the many enlightened but perhaps unrealistic and possibly too abstract and remote posts here in this thread. Consider the case of Teena Brandon/Brandon Teena, as loosely portrayed in the film Boys Don’t Cry. You see, it’s my own personal belief, based on my experiences wherein I’m submersed in a highly conservative local culture, that people find those with gender identity issues far more disturbing and unpopular than mere homosexuals, who are far more easily understood. The transgendered really seem to give these people the serious creeps.

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
I question it no more than I would question blacks and Muslims banding together because both groups were being discriminated against in housing and other access.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm… I must admit that I know little about that, but why didn’t they band together with Jews, who were also being discriminated against in matters of housing and other access? Why didn’t they join with all the other groups who were discriminated against, as almost every poster here seems as if they would advocate? Might it not be because they possessed the real-world political perspicacity to realize that that might well reduce their chances or slow their progress?

Furthermore, do you think that blacks would today believe it would be in their best political interests to align themselves with Muslims? Now that Muslims are far more feared and unpopular than they were in the past?

[Weird_With_Words]

Wanna know why the human rights movement is so disorganized? It’s composed of humans. And humans are generally more interested in defining their differences than resolving them.

And how the hell are you gonna resolve anyone else’s differences if you can’t resolve your own?

But don’t anyone blame me, I voted for the People’s Front of Judea.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
With respect, I don’t think that’s fully responsive. In particular, it doesn’t address the dilemma that arises wherein combining forces between a moderately unpopular group and a highly unpopular group significantly retards the social and political prospects of the former. And it very much seems to me that TGs are much more unpopular with the great unenlightened masses of the United States than the enlightened people of the SDMB seem to believe, as evidenced by the many enlightened but perhaps unrealistic and possibly too abstract and remote posts here in this thread. Consider the case of Teena Brandon/Brandon Teena, as loosely portrayed in the film Boys Don’t Cry. You see, it’s my own personal belief, based on my experiences wherein I’m submersed in a highly conservative local culture, that people find those with gender identity issues far more disturbing and unpopular than mere homosexuals, who are far more easily understood. The transgendered really seem to give these people the serious creeps.
[/quote]

That seems like the natural assumption, but how does one prove it? One obvious yardstick is legal recognition, and as has been pointed out above, transexuals are much further along on this road than gays. Quite a few states recognize an individual’s right to legally change their sex. That’s nothing at all like proof, but it does indicate that transexuals, at the very least, transexuals may not be as far behind as you think. I don’t think referencing Brandon Teena really proves anything. It seems likely that, had Teena’s ignorant, paint-huffing “friends” found out that he was gay but biologically male, as opposed to transgendered, they’d still have killed him. Probably wouldn’t have raped him quite so much, though.

Hmmm… I must admit that I know little about that, but why didn’t they band together with Jews, who were also being discriminated against in matters of housing and other access? Why didn’t they join with all the other groups who were discriminated against, as almost every poster here seems as if they would advocate? Might it not be because they possessed the real-world political perspicacity to realize that that might well reduce their chances or slow their progress?

Quite a few Jews were active in the civil rights movement, but one reason there was never any sort of formal alliance is that there was a lot of racism on both sides. A lot of Jews didn’t want blacks to be treated as equals, and a lot of blacks perceived their lack of equality as part of a “Jewish conspiracy.” Which is another good argument for inclusiveness in the gay rights movement. There’s a small but significant voice in the gay rights movement that is very strongly anti-trans rights. In addition to all the other reasons already listed arguing for an alliance, there is an internal politics element to it, as well. By insisting on keeping transgendered rights as part of the public face of gay rights, we’re telling elements within our own community that such bigotry is not going to be tolerated.

[ambushed]

I find that every post here (save one) has real merit. Thank you all.

But I’d like to keep at it a bit longer. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet decided quite how to respond further, as you’ve given me much to consider.

But for now, I’d just like to provide some indication of why I still tend to believe that including the transgendered is at least somewhat impolitic in that it represents yet another reason for people to hate and oppose our goals:

From: IFI E-Alert: New Bills HB 3741, SB 2037 Would REPEAL New ‘Homosexual/Trans’ Law

’Transgender’ Rights? … And just what is “gender-related identity,” anyway? Under SB 3186, if an employee, say, the maitre d’ at a restaurant, decides he is going to live (and dress) as a “woman” because that’s his preferred “gender identity,” his employer could face a lawsuit if he tries to remove him from this very visible job.

Did you know that there are dozens of “gender-related identities” out there that (confused) people proudly embrace? If you doubt what I’m saying, try doing a Google online search on the word “genderqueer.” Can you see how SB 3186 opens up a Pandora’s box for business owners already burdened by excessive government regulations?

[DMark]

I’m from the old school, and to be honest, I am still pissed off that The Advocate went from a Gay Men’s Magazine to a Gay and Lesbian (and now to the trendier) GLBT market.

I used to write for them, and know that prior to, and since then, very, very few Lesbians subscribe to the magazine. My educated guess is that very few bi and TG subscribe either.

I am not anti-Lesbian - they were the first to step up when the AIDs crisis hit and I will never forget their generosity and support.

And I am not anti-TG…they too need to be accepted in society with every legal benefit.

I am, however, pissed off that Lesbians appear in vast numbers at Gay Pride events, but seem to be invisible the rest of the year when there are benefits and calls to action. And either the numbers are small, but the same goes for TG and Bi’s when the day-to-day activities happen.

My feeling is a group of people are riding on coattails and are there when it is convenient for them.

Again…I am not anti-LBT, but I question whether they have the same motivation, goals and ideals.

Is it fair to assume that anybody who is not heterosexual should be automatically lumped together in one group?

Is everyone who is non-white banded together?
Is everyone who is non-Christian banded together?

Just because you are not heterosexual, doesn’t automatically make you my buddy.

[uglybeech]

It’s practically a gurantee that as new minority groups begin fighting for civil rights, they find that some of the people they assumed would be natural allies are in fact their bitterest adversaries. The civil rights and feminist movements were often deeply resentful of each other for that reason. Although it’s not clear to me who was riding on whose coattails there. And subsets of both are resentful of the gay rights movement. In fact one interesting development is that Christian Right is managing to make inroads with black churches in part by playing upon deep homophobia within the black community. It’s just pitiful.

So I’m not in the least surprised to hear that there is a subset of the gay rights movement that resents the “T” part of GLBT. In fact one person here seemed to resent the “L” too. And it goes without saying that deep down everybody hates the “B’s” Although I have to say the claim that the trannies are riding the coattails of gay rights is pretty brazen revisionist history.

Call me a misanthrope but my feeling is that much of civil rights is all about joining the mainstream so you can fuck other groups over. Ergo the more people who gain acceptance along with you the more meaningless that achievement. Which is what gives minority groups the impulse to squash each other wherever possible.

I mean seriously, there has to be somebody to point and laugh at at the end of the day, and the pool of social pariahs is getting dangerously low.

[Cartooniverse]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Precisely ! These last thing the various civl rights movements need to do is split into yet more, even weaker little groups. In my opinion, one reason for the ascendance of the Right is the split up of the civil rights movement into more and more jealous little groups. The phrase “Divide and Conquer” comes to mind, except in this case the conquered divided themselves without outside help.
[/QUOTE]

I could not agree more. Last weekend I was on the campus of the University of Toledo ( which is -incredibly - located in Ohio. ). There were posters aplenty encouraging attendance to various events sponsored by the school Multi-Cultural Alliance.

These were well-designed and slickly printed posters. They had photos of past events on some of them. There were no white faces.

Multi-cultural should mean just that.

Civil Rights Movement events should have been all-encompassing but it is not human nature to preserve the ideal at the expense of the emotionally driven process that makes a coalition fall apart into tiny sub-groups. Conquering one’s self through self-division, indeed.

I’m straight. ( well, bi-curious but that ain’t what this thread is about.. ) I’ve close friends who are gay and lesbian. ( ain’t I grand? " Oh god, some of my very very closest friends in the WORLD are you know, gay people… ). This has come up with most of them in conversation. The feeling is overwhelming that bisexuals are taking the cowardly way out- they get to enjoy both gay and straight sexual lifestyles, but get to pass for straight and so don’t do any of the heavy lifting if they chose not to.

I mention this because I wonder if gays and lesbians who may feel as our OP’er does may feel as though the inclusion of trans-gendered folks makes it that much harder to manage the straight public’s response to the group.( the group as defined in the OP, as GLBT ).

It goes to the ugly core of response. This isn’t the Pit, and by no means to I mean to make this become an ugly thread. But it is a bit disingenuous to lay out the discussion without being very honest about what is happening.

We all know what some straights think, because we’ve heard it voiced: I hate gays.

Others think: Well, they keep to themselves and god knows what they’re doing raising those two kids they adopted but my daughter is in gymnastics with their daughter and she says the kid’s a really nice kid and the two dad’s seem to be okay guys but still, well, you know… "

And yet others- and this is what I always figured was the goal- a difficult and possibly unattainable goal- think : They are adults who make the choices they chose, and live the lives they live- just as I do. Who am I to judge or remark upon how they live their life? Let em be as happy or not as anyone else.

And, all variations in between. Is it possible that gays and lesbians who feel as the OP’er does are afraid that most folks on the planet can wrap their head around another man being with another man, but cannot wrap their heads around a person being born inside of the body they should not inhabit who did what they had to do, to live in a sane and healthy way throughout their life?

-sigh- I’m afraid I’m gonna get flamed, or in trouble for saying this this way but it really is the core issue- I think that gays and lesbians see bisexual and transgendered folk as muddying waters that gays and lesbians have fought very hard in the last decades to clarify. If GLBT were reduced to GL as a “grouping”, then gays and lesbians would be better able to fight for the rights they fight for now across the country and planet. Why? Because so many straights cannot handle the concept of Bisexuality and Trans-Gendered lives in the same way they can handle Homosexuality.

I’m not in a position to say how I think this should go, and the OP’er is ( and has, with fine manners and grace ). But standing mostly outside of the issue and thinking about it made the quote from Der Trihs’s post resonate.

If the goal is acceptance and enlightenment to the point where all are accorded the same rights, then creating a schism can only unempower the group. Strength in numbers and all.

It’s painful to contemplate, this idea of " Yeah sure, I’m different but you? You’re really very different and so you’re outa here ! "

Cartooniverse

[Martini_Enfield]

I think part of it’s a historical acceptance of “Men Dressed As Women”, dating back to before Shakespearean times.

Certainly, a lot of English Music-Hall humour seems to involve men dressed as women (look at Little Britain, for example), and so I don’t think most people associate it with “OMG teh bumsex!1!!1!!” as much as they do when they think of gays.

Then again, I’ve never been able to fathom why people have a problem with two members of the same gender having sex. As long as they’re happy, consenting adults, what they do in private is no-one’s business but their own.

There was a debate here quite recently about legalising gay marriage, and the amount of vitriol from some people was quite disturbing- people saying that gay people marrying would cheapen their own (heterosexual) marriages, weaken the moral fabric of society, cause cows to give curdled milk, unleash plagues of locusts o’er the land, and whatever the smeg else they were carrying on about.

I can only hope we look back on this in 50 years and regard these people with patronising amusement in the same way we today regard all those people in the 1950s who objected to coloured folk riding on the same buses, eating in the same restaurants, and sending their kids to the same schools as God-fearing white folks…

[Cartooniverse]

Interesting Dope thread happening now regarding this topic.