A few questions about GLBT

[noeleena]

Hi,

Just one miner detail we are not all born with ether one or the other male..or..female,

Those of us who are intersexed, & yes it does have a lot to do with what sexual orgins we are born with for some of us we have both sets.. our issues are very different because of botched surgerys not long after birth,in fact with in weeks,& the years of suffering with more surgerys
,
Im going back to the 1940's & most of those i know wont be part of the LGBT or what ever, group is alluded to.

& the message i get is that because we are on our own we not accepted in that community hence the reason we have our own forums just for intersexed people,

Any way thought id just bring this up.

...noeleena...

[Tina B.]

Are we TG, or not? A rose by any other name, would it not smell as sweet? Or how ever Willie said it. You wear womens clothing, but you are a man, call yourself what ever you want, does not change the fact, the rest of the world, still knows you as a TG. As far as the order of the initials, it's such a guy thing to worry about who comes first. Many times when trying to work out things with the government, we where thrown over board because, with us it would fail, with out us it would pass, But the L.G.B.T. community keep up the fight until we are no longer criminals for dressing up in womens clothing, nor are we considered crazy, we didn't get there on are own, we inherited a lot of it from the Gay movement, and we owe them a lot. While Crossdressers where there at the start, we never had the numbers or the bravery the gay community showed, so they should get top billing, and our thanks.
Tina B.

[Frédérique]

Freddy, I know this "transgender" thing drives you around the bend. You my friend are a CD in the purest sense. So.. transgender is added to LGB umbrella so as to add a voice for the transgender community, and protect your rights, that's it. CDers are actually being done a favor by being included in it. So if anybody ever calls you transgender you can proudly proclaim you are a crossdresser! It's as simple as that.

[SIZE="2"]Being associated with the TG community doesn’t “drive me around the bend,” nor does the word keep me awake at nights. Quite the opposite, my friend. Since I come into contact with GLBT only here, on this site, I like to investigate how things came about by asking a few questions. Where better to seek answers? I can see how transgender may be the best descriptive word to get a point across in political terms, for those who NEED a voice in society, but one size does not fit all in the wonderful world of crossdressing. We (MtF CD’s) may be the proverbial fifty shades of grey, so it’s nice to be thought of, if not warmly welcomed, into a group that has a different agenda from some of us...

Since I’m a visual artist, I like to study something from all sides to gain a better understanding. Being alive (and well) at this point in time, I have inherited this connection with GLBT through my crossdressing adventures. Interesting. I always thought I was an individual who could not possibly be part of a group, but apparently I am, whether I want to or not. However, this is not about the function of GLBT, rather it is a discussion about four letters that have been thrown together in a certain order, and what those letters represent. The fact that “we” have been tacked on at the end, like some kind of afterthought, is most revealing...

In the art world, you can enter a juried exhibition to “compete” with other artists. There are several more-or-less traditional categories, such as painting, drawing, printmaking, sculpture, and so forth, but photography is always kept VERY separate from the others, even though it is a recognized, established fine art medium. I assume this is because it (photography) came along later, and it had to fight an uphill battle to gain acceptance. Despite this, photographers nearly always have a separate space, or a separate “tent” at the exhibition, or they are excluded altogether according to the whims of the organizers. Being an inveterate exhibitionist (with my artwork, I mean) I’m used to having “categories” separating the artists into neat camps so they can be judged by so-called experts. I see an analogy with GLBT, so this may better explain where I’m coming from...

It’s nice that GLBT exists to provide a voice for transgendered individuals, but I must say that I alone must be responsible for guarding my “right” to crossdress, a highly individualistic enterprise if there ever was one, especially in the increasingly gender-specific darkness of the early 21st century...
[/SIZE]

T comes at the end most likely because it was considered after the others.

[SIZE="2"]As far as I’m concerned, it should’ve been considered right along with the others since day one! Case in point – the ancient Greek myth of Hermaphroditus, which was created to warn males about the so-called dangers of effeminacy. That means that transgendered behavior was an issue way back when – I assume that homosexuality and bisexuality were also present and accounted for since the dawn of man/woman, but apparently wearing each other’s clothes just goes TOO far! Acceptance has never been forthcoming for this most ancient (and thus valid) of human undertakings...[/SIZE]

[Marleena]

Okay Freddy, now I get it. Based on your clarification that you are CDer in past posts I assumed you disliked the term transgender. Is it an afterthought in LGBT, I have no idea. Nor do I know why the letters are arranged in that order.

[JennyDoTell]

Could it be that GLB are more accepted than the "T"? If you are around friends that don't know of your secret and a gay man walks by, most likely no-one would think twice. However, if a man dressed in women's clothing walks by... Most people would snicker, make rude remarks or be down right ugly to the person.

[stacycoral]

Could it be that GLB are more accepted than the "T"? If you are around friends that don't know of your secret and a gay man walks by, most likely no-one would think twice. However, if a man dressed in women's clothing walks by... Most people would snicker, make rude remarks or be down right ugly to the person.

Jenny has a point, now lets throw in another thought, i heard, besides CD, TG, TS as used here i have heard many times
T-girl, which has a diferent than TG, anyway. Lets try andn get along with each other, some us are TS looking forward to be coming woman full time, so of us are TG , some us are CD enjoy are time as girls, and yes some of us are T-Girls, lets support each other as best we can, we all don't agree on everything, and yes i will not forget the IS group, everyone has sometime to add, we could be in worst place, were noone could be who they feel inside they really are.

[Vickie_CDTV]

It all depends on the context too. When people talk about the "transgender" community, it usually intends to include the hetero TV (but not always.) When people talk about GLBT-whatnot, seldom if ever does it intend to include the hetero CD/TV. When the cisgender public at large hears "GLBT" I doubt they even think of the hetero TV (of course, most of the public at large still thinks all crossdressers are gay.)

[DebbieL]

[SIZE="2"]Since, according to some, ALL MtF crossdressers are transgendered, we are associated with the GLBT community, the “T” standing for transgendered, I assume. In a broad sense, any person who transits the alleged distance between M and F is TG by definition, and I am using that modern label in this post even though I do not consider myself to be transgendered. For all of you staunch supporters of GLBT, I have a few questions. Here goes...

The word transgendered has many origins but in 1984-1985 it was used in an extended discussion in usenet newsgroups net.women and net.motss (members of the same sex) to refer to the broad spectrum of behaviors in which one might express the aspects of the opposite sex, ranging from fetish dressing to transvestites to cross-dressers to transsexuals. The term was adopted to be as inclusive as possible.

On TV tonight I heard a woman say “I support the LGBT community.” Is this because she’s a woman, and lesbians come first in the same-sex hierarchy (in her mind)? Are there perhaps regional re-orderings of the letters G, L, B, and T according to what has been decided on by the community in a given location? You tell me. Carrying on with this logic, would a bisexual say (or write) BGLT, or maybe BLGT, depending on what your birth gender happened to be? More importantly, is there a pecking order amongst same-sex individuals, or is it more like a game of musical chairs, much like the one we played back in the first grade? If we are to be as politically correct as possible, why assemble these four disparate groups in the first place? Relax, I'm just curious...

I've seen corporate directives indicating that we should now use the term LGBT. No particular reason was given, but I would suggest that this may be be based on the degrees of persecution, with Lesbians being least persecuted - but still persecuted. Gays are next, Bisexuals often struggle between the straight and gay communities and risk the rejection of both, and transgendered are the most closeted and often experience the persecution at the earliest ages and are under the pressure to remain closeted for the longest period of time. This may also be reflected in the records of suicide victims as well. As police now investigate the computer records, cell phone records, and other personal background information - looking for signs of harassment, and often find evidence of hate-crimes which can be tied back to the perpetrators. Transgenders often experience harassment for being "sissies" starting as young as 4-5 years old, and are often forced to conform and suppress their identities by parents, wives, ex-wives, and even their own children.

Yet another question – this was alluded to in another thread a few weeks ago. Maybe it was my thread about the lovely word “queer,” which used to be a catch-all term for G, L, B, and T. Tell me – if you’re a heterosexual MtF crossdresser, how can you possibly be part of GLBT? Since “T” is included in the four letters, the implication is that all transgendered behavior comes under the heading of homosexuality. This somehow marginalizes hetero MtF CD’s, and they are thus assumed to be gay, much to the consternation of their wives, SO’s, girlfriends, family members, or associates, distorting the “normal” lives everyone thinks they are living. I know concessions have to be made for political expediency, but I don’t see how heterosexual crossdressers fit into this “community” idea. Politically we don’t exist, so we cannot exist socially, and vice versa...

Sexual identity has nothing to do with sexual preference, and each is established separately, and may change as a result of other changes. For example, a MtF transsexual who transitions may have no attraction to men before they start transition, and may even be repelled. As they complete transition, they may find that they are more attractive to men, who now treat them with more respect, kindness, and interest than when they were "sissy" men. It's not really clear why a transsexual's sexual preference changes, and in many cases it doesn't.

Both preference and identity are established at very young ages, often one a male first starts experiencing erections and when girls first start to have romantic fantasies. For normal children, the girl wants to be the princess who is wooed by the prince, and the boy wants to be the hero who seduces the sexy woman. That in itself creates a conflict which plagues even "normal" heterosexual couples. But when the boy wants to be the princess wooed by the sexy woman, or wants to be the sexy woman who woos the princess, can be a much more confusing fantasy. The same is true for the prince who want's to be wooed by the hero, or wants to be the hero who woos the prince.

Later, as we experience more sexuality and eventually orgasms, these images get imprinted more and more deeply, both identity and preference. For most people, there is a period where shame, guilt, and repression by friends, schoolmates, and family. Some grow up with strong religious convictions. In some cases, the conflict, shame, guilt, fear, and anger leads to extreme behavior including self-destructive behavior, suicide attempts (many successful). This can also include "suicide by the installment plan" - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, overeating, unhealthy lifestyles, obesity, and neglect of medical care.

Here’s another question I have about GLBT – why is “T” always at the end? Are transgendered individuals the weak sisters or Johnny-come-latelys of the queer universe? Were the TG’s begrudgingly added on at some point because they are traditionally associated with homosexuals in a peripheral sense (case in point: transvestites)? Was it a case of not fitting in anywhere else, so they (we) bonded with the rest of the people that society cannot easily tolerate? Also, is it OK for a TG to say “TGLB,” or “TLGB,” or even “TBLG?” Let’s be fair in a communal sense, and display some consistency, even though it CAN get very confusing, and important issues tend to fall through the cracks as everybody jockeys for position...

As I suggested above, it may be because of the level of repression, the number of those "out" vs those in the closet. Knowing how many of each group there actually are, vs those who are out is really difficult to determine. There is so little research into the private lives of individuals to determine their closeted sexual identities and preferences. To further complicate things, there are often ranges of both preferences and identity, from the person who only wears his girl-friend's or wife's underwear when there is no one around, including his partner, to the transsexual who completes transition. And sexual preference can range from the mostly heterosexual man who might have rare and never disclosed fantasies of being seduced by a she-male or very aggressive woman who would seduce him like a man would seduce a woman, to the fully out and legally married homosexual with a lifetime partner.

Even if you break both preferences and identities down into 6 catagories each, you come up with 36 possible combinations. When you then consider that there are 36 possible combinations of possible partners of each sex, making 72 possible combinations, you get 36*72 or roughly 2592 possible combinations, and only a few are actual compatible matches. For example, if a man wants a woman to be very feminine and sexually aggressive at the same time, it could get really complicated trying to find a match. Conversely, a woman who wants a man to be very masculine, and submissive at the same time, might have a heard time finding a match.

I’m not questioning the accomplishments of same-sex advocacy groups or political movements, but, once again, I feel left out. A man who likes to wear women’s panties to feel good is not the same as a transgendered individual, do you agree? To the world, I belong with GLBT because I’m doing something very queer along the lines of gender, according to the “standard” everyone has agreed upon, but, to me, I’m just wearing the “wrong” clothes to be happy as I remain male. Oh, I might feel warmed by what I term second-hand female sensibilities, but, much like Cinderella, I always revert to drab after playing dress-up. In my case, TG stands for “tiny girl,” since I am beneath nearly everyone’s notice (and contempt). That’s OK, though – I like being small and meek, under a big sky, free of “group” thinking...

When the stonewall riots occurred in 1969, it was because the transvestites fought back. Yet in the gay liberation movement, many were trying to separate the issues of transvestites, transsexuals, and transgenders from the issues of the homosexual men. Many gay men were sick of the stereotypes of gay men as effeminate, and were eager to point out that many gay men were very masculine, many were adorable "hunks", complete with great muscles and beautiful tans, men any woman would want.

At the same time, films and movies were giving transgenders a bad reputation. Transsexuals were depicted as rapists (Myra Breckenridge), assassins (Freebie & the Bean), and Serial killers (Dressed to Kill) or crazed killers (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls). Even in "Rocky Horror Picture Show" Frankenfurter kills Meatloaf with a pick, engages in cannabalism, rapes both a man and a woman, and then engages in kidnapping and forced cross-dressing, even turns people to stone (alluding to Lot's wife?). Glenn or Glenda and Edwin Drood didn't help much either. Priscilla Queen of the Desert was a positive issue of drag queens, and To Wong Fu was a positive presentation of drag queens, but Chi Chi and Patrick Swayse's character were more transsexual in nature, even though the movie started by trying to explain the distinctions.

Other movies like TransAmerica used female actors to play MtF's who were going through transition. Even today, there are very few positive media images of transgendered or transsexual men being played by transsexuals.

For many of use, especially in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the only source of publicly available information was in adult literature. Magazines like Penthouse Forum and Variations provided stories of people who were into cross-dressing. In the 1970s Sulka was one of the first to make "Before" and "After" films of her transition, and even then it was clear that her transition was limited, she lacked a functional clitoris. Shannon did a movie of her before and after, which included interviews of what it took for her to go through transition. She was one of the first to get the procedure that gave a sensitive clitoris - but to get it she had to have surgeries done under local rather than general anesthesia, which she said was incredibly painful.

Could there possibly be such a thing as a formal CROSSDRESSING community, or are we much too individualistic to be part of anything like that?

BTW, I sincerely mean no harm - these things just fascinate me. I KNOW everybody is doing the best they can under unusual circumstances...

[/SIZE]

Cross-dressing is one of several degrees of transgender behavior. There are fetish dressers who often wear only one or two items of women's clothing, such as high heeled shoes or stockings or panties. A cross-dresser wants to appear to be a woman, but may not have the desire to actually be a woman. The transsexual might consider themselves "a girl trapped in a boy's body" (or vice versa), but not necessarily want to transition, or they may want to transition but don't want to deal with the consequences, or may not have the resources. The very rare group who actually complete transition are probably the tiniest minority of the whole spectrum, perhaps one in 1,000 or even 1 in 100,000.

Something like 3 out of 4 men have cross-dressed at least once in their lives, and about 2 in 3 have said they would do it again. I don't have that research in front of me at the moment, but it's numbers I've seen and that impressed enough that I memorized them, especially since they were relevant to me.

Part of the problem is that censorship, the motion picture code, the television code, and other corporate and government censorship policies have resulted in such deep repression of true sexual feelings and desires that most men, and women, try to say what they think others want to hear. They even say different things when they are in a group of men and when they are in a group of women, and when they are in very mixed company. In a room full of women, a many may be more comfortable expressing his own femininity but would never let on in a room full of men. A woman in a group of men might act all sexy and sexual, but a woman in a group of women would be more focused on romance, resources, and security.

When it comes to actual relationships, especially the ones that endure for many years, the combinations are more honest. Women who are a bit heavier, more aggressive, and even a bit more dominant are more likely to want to get into a marriage with a man who is more feminine, submissive, and lets her take charge, even wants her to take charge. He would never admit to being gay, even though he loves a woman who may look, act, and dress more like a man. She might be very reluctant to admit that she was attracted to him because he was a "sissy".

The biggest problem is that there is so much deception, illusion, and dishonesty, especially in the early stages of courtship. If Men and Women could be more honest in the earliest stages of a relationship, it would be much easier to great relationships that really worked for all parties involved. Instead, we will let friends "fix us up", without ever telling them about our true sexual identities and desires, we'll go to bars or clubs, looking for a woman who dresses the way we would like to be dressed, then try to pretend that we are what we think would be her ideal man, acting more masculine and controlling than we really want to be. Then, after weeks, months, years, even a decade or two of deception, we finally let the truth come out, and share who we really are and what we really want from our partner.

In A.A. a common practice, after reviewing all resentments and fears, is to review all of our relationships, friends and lovers, especially women, to see what we liked most, what we liked least, and what it would take to create a relationship that is not dishonest, selfish, hurtful of others, or self-seeking. When we have shared it with our sponsors, they suggest that we share this "Safe and Sane Sex Ideal" with at least 10-12 other people in our lives, people we know and trust, even though we are not attracted to them. It's amazing who quickly the word gets around and we find ourselves being introduced to someone who not only knows our "little secret", but is excited by it and wants to participate. It doesn't seem to matter how kinky the ideal either, as long as we are willing to share it with at least 10 to 12 other people, and let them share it with friends.

The problem for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders, is that telling those 10 to 12 people could have undesired consequences. It could cost us jobs, get us beat up, cause marital strife, create reprisals, repression, and worse. In some cases, as we have seen in recent media coverage, a secret shared in confidence, or discovered through bugging devices or captured on phone cam, is made public, leading to public and private harassment, violence, and eventually, the victim commits suicide. Police are now investigating suicides and tracing them back to these types of involuntary "outings" and public disclosures, and often prosecuting the perpetrators for manslaughter. More than half of all suicides involve "outings" of one sort or another. In some cases, there is a "trigger event" such as a boy telling his girl-friend about being transgendered and then she not only rejects him, but also makes his information public, often telling others what a "pervert" he is. Eventually, he kills himself because he believes that if she couldn't love him, nobody can.

For a transsexual, it's an even bigger problem. My father used to tell me that "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem". He would say this even though he was aware that I was transgendered, probably transsexual, and wanted to transition, but couldn't afford to do so and wasn't willing to deal with the consequences (loss of job, wife, children, even grandchildren). I had a problem that was never going to go away, would not resolve itself, and would require another form of suicide (killing my masculine identity, giving up family, job, friends, relocating...) to resolve. Yet, if I dwell too long on the thought of spending the rest of my life - another 20-30 years trapped in a man's body, death would be preferable, especially if there is a possibility of reincarnation into a girl's body, or being able to have a girl's body in heaven. On the other hand, if suicide means spending eternity in a man's body, that would be hell indeed.

[cassandra54]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think when the GLBT term was introduced, it was just Gay and Lesbian. Then they added Bisexual and then Transgender. In that order.

Now as far as why the included TG, it's simple. Being TG is a lifestyle. An alternate lifestyle. While being GLB is certainly a sexual preference, they are also lifestyles. I think when the GLBT community is looking for equal rights, they are doing so as a group looking to have their lifestyle accepted, not their sexual preference.

At least this is my take on it.

[Veronica27]

The word transgendered has many origins but in 1984-1985 it was used in an extended discussion in usenet newsgroups net.women and net.motss (members of the same sex) to refer to the broad spectrum of behaviors in which one might express the aspects of the opposite sex, ranging from fetish dressing to transvestites to cross-dressers to transsexuals. The term was adopted to be as inclusive as possible.

Many sources credit the late Virginia Prince with coining the term transgender. She actually used the word transgenderist, to refer to herself, because she no longer fit the description of membership in Tri-ess, the organization she co-founded. She had begun to live full time in her senior years, partly as a result of the demands of her position as the head of Tri-ess. She obviously saw a distinction between crossdresser and transgenderist, and did not use the latter term in any umbrella sense.

Who were involved in the 1984-1985 discussions to which you refer? What were their credentials? Why should their pronouncements be given the level of authority necessary to have them adopted as a universal opinion?

Veronica

[Raquel June]

So.. transgender is added to LGB umbrella so as to add a voice for the transgender community, and protect your rights, that's it. CDers are actually being done a favor by being included in it.

Exactly. If people didn't argue so much about the T being in there we'd probably have employment protections by now.

And I don't exactly think "transgender" should apply to CDs. I mean, if you were born male and you identify as male then there's nothing "trans" about your gender regardless of whether or not you wear panties now and then. But "transgender" sorta gets lumped together with "gender non-conforming" and stuff, and CDs should be glad to be included in the community. Maybe someday they'll stand up for your civil rights if you get outed.

Who were involved in the 1984-1985 discussions to which you refer? What were their credentials? Why should their pronouncements be given the level of authority necessary to have them adopted as a universal opinion?

That's not the way language works. Nobody cares how much pseudo-cred Virgina Prince had vs. what lack of cred someone on Usenet might have had.

Technical terms might be standardized by the IEEE. Drug names can be designated by the WHO. But the APA didn't come out and say, "We're making this new word 'transgender' and putting it in the DSM," so why do you care? Whether or not a word catches on doesn't really have anything to do with the "authority" or "credentials" of the person to say it. It's more to do with who heard them say it and if they decided to keep using it. And in that regard, anybody who gets their posts viewed on a forum or on Usenet or anywhere has a degree of authority.

Those who treat a disorder or medical condition are going to propose a name for it (like when it gets introduced into the DSM), but outside of any standard conventions (the first doctor to isolate it, first person to be diagnosed with it, first region where it was seen to prevail, etc.) they're not going to run completely counter to what the people are already calling it.

I mean, GRIDS got its name changed to AIDS for obvious reasons, but nobody's going to say, "Sorry, the word transgender that you guys have all been using isn't good enough, we're officially changing the name to Hatinzegenitals Disease."

Are you going to argue about who came up with the word "gay" and whether or not they had the proper authority for it to be adopted? If you think there's a better word then start using it and see if it catches on.

[Tracii G]

I am thankful to have the T be included and recognized by GLBT.
It has helped a lot in my community as far as legal issues and fair treatment by police,employers etc.
What is the problem with that?Much better than having no voice at all.
What I don't get is all the deep thoughts over this issue.Call yourself whatever you want TS,TG,CD,homosexual,lesbian etc. One thing you can't deny is YOU are different and deserve to be treated with respect.

[Veronica27]

And I don't exactly think "transgender" should apply to CDs. I mean, if you were born male and you identify as male then there's nothing "trans" about your gender regardless of whether or not you wear panties now and then. But "transgender" sorta gets lumped together with "gender non-conforming" and stuff, and CDs should be glad to be included in the community. Maybe someday they'll stand up for your civil rights if you get outed.

So, I am male and there's nothing "trans" about me, but I should be glad that people lump me in with those who are. I see no logic to that statement. It totally distorts the truth about me, but I should keep quiet and go along with the flow. What about all the talk about being true to ourselves? Does that only apply to the transgendered? If I were to be "outed", my so called civil rights would be the least of my concerns. The impact on my family and friends is of much greater importance to me.

As for the "1984-1985 discussions", it is very relevant who these people were. The quoted post uses that discussion in an historical context to support the reason why the writer feels that the word transgender should apply to such a wide and diverse group of people. If this discussion was among TG people who had a political agenda, without any input from any of the other diverse interests, then it carries very little weight.

Many people on this forum keep asking why we have to keep bickering over this whole CD/TG question. Why can't we all just get along? The reason is that a significant portion of the TG element keep insisting that everyone is TG, regardless of how they identify and feel. The CD element does not deny that some are TG and are free to use that designation. CD's are simply fighting for their right to be recognized as their true selves, which is what the whole trangender rights movement claims is one of their objectives. Show it by allowing the crossdressers the dignity to be who they are.

As for the word "gay" it is a complete corruption of what had been a perfectly good English word, that can no longer be used in its true context because of the modern implications. As I am not personally involved in the "gay rights" movement, I have no interest in coining a better word to describe that community, but I cannot think of a worse one. I am not a homophobe, which is a handy word used to put down any dissenting opinion about anything to do with the homosexual community, so don't try accusing me of that one. I have relatives and friends who are of the same-sex persuasion, and prior to retirement, many of them formed a large segment of the clientel of the practice run by my wife and I.

Veronica

[Lorileah]

for clarification on this whole thing: Transgender is the whole spectrum, the broad category (DQ's, Genderqueer, transmen and women, post op transsexuals , fetish dressers, and crossdressers). Otherwise, we start arguing things that make less sense. Transgender includes transsexuals but is not limited to transsexuals. Otherwise the argument does not hold up. If you say the "T" is just transsexuals (or when you narrow transgender to just those who are transsexual) then the CDs have no base to even argue the point. CDs would not be included. You won't be in the umbrella as they say. The point would be moot. Of course then if you are CD and you don't have the rights the L&G community have gained through the last few years you could be fired in ALL states for your hobby, you could be banned from certain places and you sure could not pee in a woman's restroom. You would not be protected if someone beat you up (it would be just assault and not a hate crime which would get your attacker a lesser sentence). So let's agree that Transsexual is NOT the same as Transgender. Otherwise who really cares how CD'ers dress? The whole fight would be for our sisters who will eventually become women

[Raquel June]

So, I am male and there's nothing "trans" about me, but I should be glad that people lump me in with those who are. I see no logic to that statement. It totally distorts the truth about me, but I should keep quiet and go along with the flow. What about all the talk about being true to ourselves? Does that only apply to the transgendered? If I were to be "outed", my so called civil rights would be the least of my concerns. The impact on my family and friends is of much greater importance to me.

That's correct. I don't think there's anything "trans" about crossdressers -- at least not ones like you who identify as 100% male. But you should be glad to have the LGBT community on your side. You should be glad that the blanket term "transgender" is generally seen to include you, even if it's not really the best term to use.

Yeah, let's talk about being "true to ourselves"!

So, you're so far in the closet that if you were "outed," you would be so ashamed of who you are that you would be more concerned about the reaction of your family/friends than you would about losing your job? That must be a fun place to be at psychologically where you don't care about your civil rights, you don't care about being treated as human, you just care about being able to hide who you are. Maybe it's good that you don't associate with all the people in the TG community who are fighting for the right to be true to themselves.

That's not really what you meant to say, is it?

... The point would be moot. Of course then if you are CD and you don't have the rights the L&G community have gained through the last few years you could be fired in ALL states for your hobby, you could be banned from certain places and you sure could not pee in a woman's restroom. You would not be protected if someone beat you up (it would be just assault and not a hate crime which would get your attacker a lesser sentence).

So the point's moot, then? Because unfortunately gender identity is not defended like sexual identity is. You can get fired for being trans. You can get banned from using the proper restroom. And you are not protected from hate crimes. Victims being "transgender" are not even reported most of the time, so we don't even have the real statistics of crime against trans people.

To the contrary, the "trans-panic" defense has gotten some murders reduced to assault charges, because apparently we're such an abomination that it is totally understandable for someone to murder someone who is a freak.

[busker]

Debbie,that was a really informative reply to Freddy's post.Thanks.

[Lorileah]

But you should be glad to have the LGBT community on your side. You should be glad that the blanket term "transgender" is generally seen to include you, even if it's not really the best term to use.

True that but then these are the same who scream "I AM NOT GAY" but benefit from the L&G cause

So the point's moot, then?

Yes it is a moot point IF you say that "transgender' is the same as "Transsexual" If you believe that hey are the same and that other gender variants are separate then the LGBT fight does not apply to you. Don't post, move along, nothing to see here. Please refer to the post just above the post I made that you referenced.

Because unfortunately gender identity is not defended like sexual identity is. You can get fired for being trans. You can get banned from using the proper restroom. And you are not protected from hate crimes. Victims being "transgender" are not even reported most of the time, so we don't even have the real statistics of crime against trans people.

AND that IS the point. Because so many "transpeople" don't stand up and at least join and support the L&G community, you will never get the protections.

To the contrary, the "trans-panic" defense has gotten some murders reduced to assault charges, because apparently we're such an abomination that it is totally understandable for someone to murder someone who is a freak.

Here is Colorado it is a hate crime and although the defense does call out the panic defense, it won't fly here. And Colorado is still backwards on many other issues especially if the hick areas (sorry for all the hicks I just insulted). But that is something that has come about in the last few years, mainly due to the L&G community working towards the goal. (I still say bisexuals don't really have a concern after all, it isn't something that will keep you from adopting, marrying, getting a job...it is a sexual life). And you make the point that the "T" community isn't sexual, which it isn't. Being homosexual may be a sexual thing but he ability to have a life equal to "straight" people is the point. We, as a community (sorry I keep saying that because I KNOW so many here are screaming they don't WANT to be associated with gays....but we should be a community) have gained so much on the coattails of L&G rights. But we keep dragging those same people down because so many here don't want to be associated with the homosexual community. Why do we keep cutting our own throats? Because those who don't want to associate with the L&G community are bigots, they say they aren't but inside they are.

Rachel, I think you are actually saying the same as I was (except I was being sarcastic about it). I believe that if we don't band with those who have supported us we will soon see that we are alone on our island

[DebbieL]

Many sources credit the late Virginia Prince with coining the term transgender. She actually used the word transgenderist, to refer to herself, because she no longer fit the description of membership in Tri-ess, the organization she co-founded. She had begun to live full time in her senior years, partly as a result of the demands of her position as the head of Tri-ess. She obviously saw a distinction between crossdresser and transgenderist, and did not use the latter term in any umbrella sense.

Who were involved in the 1984-1985 discussions to which you refer? What were their credentials? Why should their pronouncements be given the level of authority necessary to have them adopted as a universal opinion?

Veronica

Virginia, and several other early members of Tri-ESS were participants in these discussions. IIRC, Virginia was in Atlanta at the time. Of course, back in those days, the e-mail names were usually very terse, first name and 1 initial (I was rexb@ccivax or rexb@cci632), there was also a group at Cornell who were working on legal issues related to women and motss as well as gender identity issues. Back in those days, we had no legal rights, we could be fired for even discussing these issues, especially those who were posting from usenet accounts on corporate machines. Records of these discussions were not captured in the Google archive, with the exception of a few cross-postings. Back in those days, we generated a megabyte a day and a tape large enough to store a month's worth would cost $150 in 1980 dollars, roughly the equivalent of $500 in today's money. Budgets for these types of expenses were also very tight.