transgender

[LeaP]

Very clear and well-written, Zooey.

[flatlander_48]

The words aren't there because the non-binary types are essentially irrelevant to the DOE's concerns.

The thing is this: a well written policy document should clarify a situation and not contribute added confusion.

DeeAnn

[LeaP]

I agree with your statement completely, DeeAnn. There is no way to discern intent, however - and therefore any intended precision - of the language. The DOE cite IS unambiguous as written. That a binary construct is used, however, and that is is similar in coverage to so many other regs, even those employing different language, leads me to believe only transsexual transitioners are intended.

True insight into CFR regs has to be sought elsewhere. A given court may or may not look for such documentation, though, depending on the nature of the litigation and the arguments themselves.

[Eringirl]

Legislation has NOTHING to do with feelings. All it does is define acceptable behavior and the consequences for not meeting that minimally accepted behavior.

I respectfully disagree...Legislation has everything to do with feelings. Having written such things and years of interpreting and writing opinions on statues and legislation, the emotional discussion and debate they invoke during their creation and implementation is unavoidable. Certainly, we argue the enforcement of such things logically, trying desperately to ensure that emotions don't end up adding unwanted colours to the deliberations. However, anyone who does not prepare for such things is only deluding themselves. We attempt to mitigate that as much as possible, but we often see such displays of emotion from various segments such as we are seeing now with several pieces of legislation being introduced. Feelings are what differentiate us with other life forms. It is almost impossible to ignore or negate them. When people can't articulate a logical opinion, emotion and feelings are what they resort to. So ya, in my opinion, that is what many people feel like, the government is telling them how they are to deal with their feelings on a certain level.

Just my $.02 worth......

[Kaitlyn Michele]

as usual DeeAnn totally misses what matters
DeeAnn you simply do not live a transsexual experience, you repeatedly shoot blanks at our thoughts

the FEELINGS of people IS the problem....its "trans rights to crap" vs "safety of children"... that's the way the debate gets framed... and because people FEEL THE WAY THEY DO, that ridiculous framing of the situation is taken seriously..

the lack of support for the position is because of the feelings... and they have not changed that much... and this bathroom thing has done more to cement negative feelings about us than anything i've seen in my life..

being supported because people feel its the politically correct thing is not the same as people supporting us because they truly feel we are women....

[LeaP]

Kaitlyn, I agree, with one exception.

The overall framing IS a problem. The trans rights PART of it is not ... for now. Civil rights demands are the entrée to cultural acceptance, if I read history correctly. The cycle is the same over and over: identification, oppression, demand, gradual integration and acceptance.

That said, which forum in which one presents a demand matters a lot. I don't think it is marching in the streets or protesting for transsexuals. It's the courts and regulatory org. hearings and review processes that interpret sex discrimination based on existing law and regulation. This has driven virtually everything positive that's happened so far. It's only been in the context of transsexual rights (no matter how expressed) that any degree of public empathy and understanding has been achieved.

What's happened in the streets has usually conflated additional issues into any controversy over the rulings themselves (this is where the "transgender umbrella" stuff comes up), contributed to the circus atmosphere, provided a stage for the opposition to display their rage, and is now threatening the progress for transsexuals that has been achieved. Hence the now multistate suit brought against the federal government over the attorney general's recent public schools guidance, based on challenging the DOJ's reliance on title IX as well as the violence against women reauthorization act of 2013.

We'll never know if such a suit, or such a suit on such a large scale and broad basis of challenge, would have been brought without the whipping of the crowd. But I doubt it. TS had a degree of public support. It's being corroded by the haters, and by TS who don't know any better in concert with non-TS transgender people, not just by piling on, but in the wrong places, at the wrong times, and in the wrong ways.

What's happened and continues to happen in the courts, coincident with the start of our extraordinary public visibility, makes this civil rights fight different than all others. Broader rights for non-TS transgender people has some resonance (justifiably so) in the LGBT community itself. The general public… not so much. I hate seeing public empathy for TS contaminated before TS rights are barely off the ground. The haters fully understand the public sensitivity to non-TS inclusion in what has been achieved thus for TS and are exploiting it to the max.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

i see what you are saying..makes alot of sense
to that i have two thoughts..

one... the federal gov't is on shaky legal ground and that poisons the well...it means "our" fight is tied to another fight...if the states win, its a rebuke to transsexuals even though the legalities and their merits do not reflect on us..
and lets not talk politics but its fair to say that the us administration has plenty of vocal haters already and a reputation for challenging the court system by pushing limits (this seems to be a trend over the years, not something only with this admin)

two.. bathrooms... toilets.... locker rooms.... reallY?? this our battleground? optics matter, and unfortunately the optics of this are as bad as it gets...haters will hate..this situation makes it easy to spread that hate in a way that actually will resonate with many people..

this whole thing is going very poorly and i can't predict the future, but my bet is it will not end well..


i'm not saying we should sit down and shut up...i'm saying we should pick our fights better

[flatlander_48]

I respectfully disagree...Legislation has everything to do with feelings. Having written such things and years of interpreting and writing opinions on statues and legislation, the emotional discussion and debate they invoke during their creation and implementation is unavoidable.

Actually, when I wrote that I was thinking more about actual laws and not legislation. Legislation often gets compromised as there may be a number of different voices to at least somewhat satisfy before it actually becomes a law. We all pretty much agree that murder is a bad thing. Laws dealing with that behavior are well defined and without compromise. However, when dealing with discrimination laws for the trans population, there's a range of opinions from the discrimination should not exist to trans people don't exist. You start out with something clear and purposeful, but things are likely to become diluted by the time everyone has their say. Historically, I think this is what happens to discrimination legislation in general.

as usual DeeAnn totally misses what matters
DeeAnn you simply do not live a transsexual experience, you repeatedly shoot blanks at our thoughts

And I'm sorry, but you can't seem to see the forrest for the trees. I would guess that discrimination based on your trans status and being female are the only kinds that you have had contact with. However, when you transitioned, you joined LEGIONS of other people who are discriminated against for many reasons beyond their control. You can't continue to consider this only through the lens of a trans person. You really need to take a broader perspective. Myopia has no place here.

Discrimination of just about every sort has the same dynamic. When you take a broader perspective, you tap into a wealth of experience and history. Is it exactly like what we've been talking about here? No, of course not, but there are similarities. This is not the time to be trying to reinvent the wheel. Build upon what has gone before.

being supported because people feel its the politically correct thing is not the same as people supporting us because they truly feel we are women....

And I would posit that support, for whatever reason, should be the important thing. You want your cake and eat too. Having people support you because they truly feel that you are women may take a long time. Are you willing to wait for that? What you're not understanding is that you take what you can get and build upon it. You take the support that people are willing to give and that becomes the bedrock. You use that to convince others and move forward. What you're saying is "I don't want your support unless you think I am also a woman." and I would say at this moment in time that is a luxury that you can't afford. At the very least you want support because people feel it is the right and appropriate thing to do. Talking about politically correct is just bull shit.

All through the course of the Civil Rights Movement there were a number of Jewish people who were deeply involved and heavily committed to the project. Living, or not living, the Black experience had nothing to do with it. They were involved because they understood oppression; what it looks like and what it does to you. We talk about events, ideas and reactions here, but in effect what you're saying is that transsexual experience trumps an understanding of the mechanics and psychology of oppression. I do not believe that to be true.

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

All through the course of the Civil Rights Movement there were a number of Jewish people who were deeply involved and heavily committed to the project. Living, or not living, the Black experience had nothing to do with it. They were involved because they understood oppression; what it looks like and what it does to you. We talk about events, ideas and reactions here, but in effect what you're saying is that transsexual experience trumps an understanding of the mechanics and psychology of oppression. I do not believe that to be true.

DeeAnn, this may me be misinterpreting things, but I feel like there have been at least a couple of times where I've drawn parallels to the Civil Rights Movement and what followed in the decades to come, and you've bristled a bit at those comparisons. I agree with what you're saying here, but you also can't have it both ways. I think intersectionality is important, and should be recognized.

The situation is also interesting in my opinion, because IMO we really are talking about very different issues right now, with respect to transitioning/transitioned trans men/women (TS) vs large parts of the rest of the umbrella (CDs, etc.), and trying to lump them into one mega issue. From my perspective, it'd be like if Dr. King refused to accept progress on Black Rights unless the government also outlawed elephants in the circus.

I know that seems like a selfish perspective on my part, and I won't pretend that it's not, but I believe at the end of the day that conflating gender presentation and gender identity is ALWAYS a bad idea.

[flatlander_48]

Z:

Personally, I don't remember any exchanges between us about the Civil Rights Movement. You would have to point them out. But, what I said above is a repeat of something that I've said before. Also, remember that men were involved in Women's Liberation, straights were involved in Gay Liberation and non-Latinos were involved in the Farm Workers Movement. I don't think it is useful to throw up artificial barriers because one isn't from a particular constituency.

The fact is that the basic construct of discrimination is very similar, even though the target group may change. For example, questions about religious freedom are imbedded in what we've been talking about here. Religion has come up before regarding gay rights, women's issues and racial segregation. However, I don't remember anyone ever quoting Bible verses in support of ageism or discrimination against people who are differently abled. To me, same thing, only different. Anyway, I don't think it is wise to look at this from only a Trans perspective. If you do that, you don't have the benefit of prior knowledge and experience that exists in the world as it relates to other similar issues.

For purposes of this particular discussion, I haven't really said anything about Crossdressers, Transgender people and Transsexuals except for my comments about DoE text. How all this works concerning presentation and identity seems to be a different, although parallel, discussion.

DeeAnn

[Starling]

Although the US still has a long way to go before there is uncomplicated inclusion of, and equality of opportunity for, people who are not White, the Civil Rights movement has mostly succeeded. (Now the problem is rollbacks. 'Twas ever thus...)

But while Dr. King and millions of other Americans of all races and creeds structured a new way of looking at what our country should mean to its citizens, and government acted to codify this new understanding, much of the progress made specifically by Black people had to do with White people in the 50s and 60s and 70s falling in love with Soul music when they were young, and emotionally wide open. As insufficient as it may be for a people to be accepted for their ability to move us with their brilliance at music or sports, these skills brought a disregarded people into view in a different, better and truer, light.

Hey, they're just like us! Something that was true all along, but was not credited by many in the majority society.

And what we need is what Kaitlyn and Zooey have been driving at, which is engaging and forming relationships in a way which reassures others that we are indeed, just like them in many more ways than not. By changing their perception of us from Other to Us. Law alone will not bring on that emotional metamorphosis; especially now that States are eager to take cases to a Supreme Court which these days tends to ratify the worst in us.

Personal relationships...and one-banger, unisex bathrooms! This would definitely be a case of form following function.

Lallie

[Zooey]

DeeAnn, I don't think it is a different discussion though... They're being conflated right now.

When considering non-transitioners like CDs and folks with non-binary identities (like yourself), the question becomes: When it comes to gendered spaces, is it about what you're wearing or who you are? There's a very important conversation about reducing the prevalence of gendered spaces, but right now we're talking about the gendered spaces we currently have. Thankfully, nobody is yet talking about the abolishment of gender as a concept, and going back to biology only (except the radfems and TERFs, ugh).

If we say it's about who you are (identity), then male identified CDs most certainly should not be allowed in the women's room, and it's debatable whether non-binary folks should be. in the absence of e.g. unisex bathrooms, does being a "third gender" grant you access to ALL spaces or DIFFERENT spaces?

If we say it's about how you present at the time, then the concept of gender identity is tossed out of the discussion, which is tough because that's what we've been saying the conversation is supposed to be about all along.

[Rianna Humble]

This thread has descended into yet another battle between one member who insists she is the only person whose view is valid and everyone else. Thread over.