transgender

[LeaP]

Nobody needs that drama.

+1.

Quizzle-bleep-blorps

That gets a vote for sheer weirdness.

"Transgender" - I don't like the term, because it is effectively meaningless. More precisely, that it means different things to different people. For all practical purposes, the only people who recognize the umbrella thing are those in the so-called community, and some of those who those who write about it. For everyone else, it pretty much means transsexual as we use it here. You read "transgender" in a headline concerning kids or celebrities in the news, you don't expect a story about CDs or fetishists. Official policies usually use the phrase "gender identity and gender expression" anyway.

[Nicole Erin]

Transgender is an easy and polite enough word.
Yeah the trans community could try to push for a bunch of stupid varying labels for exactly what they see themselves as but why confuse people?
It would just backfire anyways. Can you imagine people THEN stumbling over a bunch of words as to not offend?

Other communities like to change the "politically correct" word for what they are on a regular basis and it just creates hostility. Especially when it gets so bad that certain people have to use certain words.

This is just my impression but it seems "transgender", to the general public, means someone who's gender expression is different than their birth sex. People don't assume pre or post op, or that it is a fetish, or a weekend hobby... Even those who do assume those things are not going to be impressed with different labels anyways so let's just leave it as Transgender and be done with it.

[arbon]

The term transgender makes it hard to argue the point that Transgender girls are girls, that transgender women are women, if it is not actually true.

In the case of the district policy I am trying to defend, how do I make the argument when we have self identifying transgender students who do not fit the binary? For example a crossdressing boy, gender fluid...I totally love and support him but it shreds my argument.

When the policy did not include the term transgender, but simply dealt with gender identity, it was easier.

[LeaP]

If you have a look at a lot of US federal regulations, you'll encounter the phrase "gender identity and transgender status."

Gender identity is invariably defined as binary-based, cross-sex identity. Transgender status refers to medical transition. I'll scare up some examples when I have time. Gender EXPRESSION gets very little coverage. I.e., even the Feds are trying to primarily address TS.

[Starling]

I think it's time to introduce terminology which is "meaning-neutral".

Lallie

[LeaP]

Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs: Executive order 11246 prevents using federal contractors who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The department also clarified that the order was a further clarification of an earlier rule that relied on the EEOC's ruling in Macy versus Holder regarding gender identity and transgender status. The executive order itself also mentions Macy v Holder and Price Waterhouse v Wilkins in the context of the order not changing prior discrimination rules based on gender identity and transgender status. Gender identity is defined as: "The term 'gender identity' refers to one’s internal sense of one’s own gender."

The Federal Office of Personnel Management defines gender identity as: "Gender identity is the individual's internal sense of being male or female." They define transgender as: "Transgender individuals are people with a gender identity that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth. Someone who was assigned the male sex at birth but who identifies as female is a transgender woman. Likewise, a person assigned the female sex at birth but who identifies as male is a transgender man. Some individuals who would fit this definition of transgender do not identify themselves as such, and identify simply as men and women, consistent with their gender identity. The guidance discussed in this memorandum applies whether or not a particular individual self-identifies as transgender."

From the EEOC: "The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Housing And Urban development equal access regulation ( this rule was subsequently finalized) : "On Friday, November 20, 2015 HUD announced its proposed "Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs Rule (Gender Identity Rule)." The proposed Gender Identity Rule would require recipients and sub-recipients of assistance from HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), as well as owners, operators, and managers of shelters, buildings, and other facilities and providers of services covered by CPD's programs, to provide transgender persons and other persons who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth with access to programs, benefits, services, and accommodations in accordance with their gender identity."

As an interesting sidelight to the HUD regulation, it was extended literally in the last week to Native American tribes. That ruling sites the violence against women reauthorization act of 2013 which contains a provision mandating that states accepting certain federal funding must prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity… which is the basis for the federal government's suit against North Carolina.

The OSHA guide on access to restrooms for transgender people cites as a core principle that equal access should be based on gender identity. It defines "transgender" as referring to people whose gender identity does not match their sex at birth, further describing that as transgender men and transgender women.

Enough for now, but the pattern is apparent anyway. Federal regulations generally do not address gender expression. Gender identity is a protected category in federal regulation as sex discrimination under interpretation of several statutes or explicitly under yet others (e.g., the violence against women act). Transgender is defined in terms of gender identity in a binary context.

[StarrOfDelite]

I will point out that the homosexual community doesn't use that term to describe themselves. They say "Gay and Lesbian."

I know that some disagree with this, but I wish that gender designation on official documentation would go the way of racial designations. My driver's license doesn't state my race and the world hasn't ended.

In the First World it may not be very far in the future when we reach the point where Big Brother has a DNA sample for each of us in its data base, and all that a police officer has to do is take a swab from the inside of the mouth and process it through a tablet computer to instantly get a positive identification of the person who is being challenged for whatever reason.

At present the DNA database is limited to people who get involved with the criminal investigative and prosecution process in some way. However, as the technology becomes simpler and cheaper, I think it's inevitable that the FBI, NSA, TSA, Homeland Security, inter alia, would love to see DNA sampling become part of the issuance of drivers' licenses and official ID's, and maybe even require that an individual's DNA be recorded as part of birth certificate info.

At that point in time I'm not even sure what else that is listed on a driver's license is worth keeping, including the gender/sex designation.

[LeaP]

The term transgender makes it hard to argue the point that Transgender girls are girls, that transgender women are women, if it is not actually true.

In the case of the district policy I am trying to defend, how do I make the argument when we have self identifying transgender students who do not fit the binary? For example a crossdressing boy, gender fluid...I totally love and support him but it shreds my argument.

When the policy did not include the term transgender, but simply dealt with gender identity, it was easier.

That's the thing, isn't it? NONE of the common terms are (or should be, IMHO) primary identities. Transgender, transsexual, gay, lesbian ... Any and all of these are adjectives or at most, partial identities. Only idiots say things like "he's a gay." Or the one I hate the most, "a transgender." A person is a gay man or a gay woman. A trans man or a trans woman. The term lesbian is something of an exception as it includes by definition womanhood, but even so, it denotes two partial identities joined into a single term – gay and woman.

I don't really care one way or another about any particular term as long as it is used (i.e., meant) descriptively as a qualifier. Even the descriptive use is unnecessary unless it relates to the context at hand, though. It is utterly pointless to qualify someone as a gay man, a trans woman, a bisexual elderly person unless the qualifier pertains to the context. That some people DO always include the qualifier is an indication of either ignorance or having a hair across their ass over "those kind" of people.

The identity point is what drives the endless, pointless exchanges on labels. Adjectives in context are useful. Adjectives turned into primary identifiers are the kind of labeling to which people object. So with the TS "hierarchy" controversy, the two camps are usually talking right past each other. Most transsexuals do not identify as transsexual - at all! The term describes medical status. It might refer to a diagnosis. A transitory state. Or the term is being used for the kind of shorthand convenience where the term itself is not the point (as I used it used it 3 sentences back). Etc. So when someone complains that a trans woman is being elitist by not admitting someone to the club on the basis of the use of "transsexual" as an identity, they are completely missing the point.

In any event, I agree that "gender identity" is something of an improvement. The phrase has its own problems, though. One that the haters have latched onto is twisting the meaning of identity, turning it into something you choose or with which you associate, as opposed to something you ARE. Unfortunately, the semantics support both relationships of the association type as well as "is a" relationships. But it also doesn't help that most people think gender = physical sex anyway. So they ridicule "gender identity" because they understand it to be saying that we are choosing something that is nonsensical to begin with. Except, of course, when they DO understand what we mean by the phrase but are simply being smug, pigheaded, and obstructionist.

[MissDanielle]

I'll just use trans and people will know what I'm talking about immediately.

[flatlander_48]

The definition of transgener being used by the DOE is : Transgender describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth.

Except that by that definition, either This OR That, I don't exist (and I could have sworn that I did...).

I am not a Crossdresser. I am not a Transsexual. I am not gender fluid as the ratio of the male part of my persona to the female part is, for the foreseeable future anyway, essentially fixed. It doesn't change as a function of presentation or by who I'm with or my surroundings or phase of the Moon, etc.

Anyway, it is quite disconcerting when one has no place to be.

DeeAnn

[LeaP]

It doesn't mean you don't exist. It means that you are not covered by that definition, which only exists for, in this case, the DOE's purposes. But that's consistent with what's coming out in this thread – that transgender is often understood as identical to transsexual. Theresa's OP point, of course, was that it is a crummy word in some respects anyway. Your response illustrates one way in which it goes awry.

[Eryn]

I think it's time to introduce terminology which is "meaning-neutral".

Newspeak is doubleplusgood for unmake thoughtcrime and make goodthink.

[LeaP]

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe

It seems we like meaningless nonsense sometimes.

[Mayo]

As I read the DOE definition provided by LeaP, I see "identity [that is] different from the sex they were assigned at birth", which to me fits well with the umbrella concept and can also cover non-binary/agender people. I suppose one could still argue that it might exclude at least those CDs who still identify exclusively as male even though their gender expression is unconventional, but this is more or less the same issue as including trans people under the LGBT umbrella (orientation vs identity). To my mind, though, anti-trans discrimination occurs primarily because people are seen to be messing with the binary (which upsets some folks' idea of the Natural Order of Things^TM), and so a broader definition is useful in covering as many cases as possible.

Just as people understand (more or less) that L, G, B and T are different things, so too should they come to understand that there are different ways of being trans and that the umbrella designation is not 'one size fits all'. Even as L and G have their own subcategories, so too do trans people have a variety of more specific terms to distinguish among the different subgroups. But it will take time for the general public to understand some of the nuances, should they care to make the effort.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

you have to make them care... why should i change my view of the natural order of things because yours is different (and vice versa)
its a one on one thing...you make them care by proving to them that you can be productive and constructive in your gender

the way to make them hate you is to legislate their feelings, and debate what words mean and to try to use the government to force people to feel a certain way...

to me we look a big bunch of crybabies... sorry DeeAnn if you feel like an outsider, welcome to humanity...

most cispeople that read this thread would just shake their heads and say way too weird, way too complicated, way too close to the gender 3rd rail.... let them all figure it out... i don't really care...
but keep men out of my daughters bathrooms..

sucks for us..

[Megan G]

it will take time for the general public to understand some of the nuances, should they care to make the effort.

The general public is never going to understand that there are these "subcategories" of trans unless people that are not TS (CD, GF, agender, Bigender ect) stand up and be counted. You need to be seen and heard by the general public. You can't do it from the comfort of your closet. Right now for the most part they only see transexual's, because we are the ones out there living our lives every single day.

Kaitlyn says it perfect when she mentioned that they need to see that you can be a productive and well functioning member of society in your gender. You need to normalize it for them...

[flatlander_48]

It doesn't mean you don't exist. It means that you are not covered by that definition, which only exists for, in this case, the DOE's purposes. But that's consistent with what's coming out in this thread – that transgender is often understood as identical to transsexual. Theresa's OP point, of course, was that it is a crummy word in some respects anyway. Your response illustrates one way in which it goes awry.

No, it isn't the word. It is the stated meaning of the word. It would have been easy enough to add text to the effect there are people who are somewhere between the 2 defined poles. Perhaps it goes back the the incorrect notion about gender being a binary construct. I don't know.

its a one on one thing...you make them care by proving to them that you can be productive and constructive in your gender

I'm afraid it's going to take more than that. Remember that this is a country where we've had a Black president for 2 terms. We have women running for the nomination to run for the presidency. Women and minorities of every stripe run major corporations, are entrepreneurs and run governments. Every day people are out there doing the work, yet racism and sexism are still alive and well. This is not a simple deal. It is like a Hydra.

the way to make them hate you is to legislate their feelings, and debate what words mean and to try to use the government to force people to feel a certain way...

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

sorry DeeAnn if you feel like an outsider, welcome to humanity...

No, it's not as an outsider. Even an outsider has a specific place with respect to whatever else is going on. That's different from not leaving space at all. That makes it all the more necessary for us to define ourselves. When you let others do it, shit happens...

DeeAnn

[Mayo]

The general public is never going to understand that there are these "subcategories" of trans unless people that are not TS (CD, GF, agender, Bigender ect) stand up and be counted. You need to be seen and heard by the general public. You can't do it from the comfort of your closet. Right now for the most part they only see transexual's, because we are the ones out there living our lives every single day.

I absolutely agree with you. Right now 'the public' has only a vague understanding of trans people that conflates drag queens, CDs and TSs.

[LeaP]

Clarification - I didn't provide the DOE definition, Theresa (Arbon) did. The FULL definition she cited does not fit with the umbrella concept. The sentences that follow your snippet are part of the definition (not something Theresa added) and are there to clarify EXACTLY what is meant. It's a 100% binary definition and essentially identical with transsexual as we use it. THAT was my point and supports what I and many others have maintained for years ... that when people hear "transgender" in the news or at work, etc., they take it as a transitioner. ... Transsexual (antiquated or not).

[Mayo]

Okay, my bad. I was looking at the OPM definition you cited near the top of this page and considering it from the perspetive of gender identity rather than the transgender label specifically. As I was reading it, gender identity is any "gender expression [that] may or may not conform to social stereotypes associated with a particular gender". I agree that the specific definition of transgender as given in this document is unequivocally binary. My point was that, if gender identity is the protected class, having a broad definition (that includes transgender as a subcategory) is useful as it will cover more cases, but since the OP was about the term 'transgender' rather than gender identity per se, I stand corrected.

[LeaP]

... It would have been easy enough to add text to the effect there are people who are somewhere between the 2 defined poles. Perhaps it goes back the the incorrect notion about gender being a binary construct. I don't know.

The words aren't there because the non-binary types are essentially irrelevant to the DOE's concerns. (PLEASE understand that I DO NOT MEAN that such people are irrelevant!) But they don't present a population in need in public schools. As Kaitlyn said, no-one has given them a reason to care.

But if you want an illustration of how an "inclusive" definition can completely blow trans kids out of the water, you need look no further than the schools. Although there is still considerable resistance, the weight of public empathy in most of the country is supportive of trans kids' needs. Try telling them CD (MtF) high school kids who KNOW they are male are going to be using the girls facilities. Or go for broke ... since the umbrella encompasses sexual fetishists, tell them those guys have admittance, too. This is not the same as the typical, adults-focused public accommodation debate. The difference is that some kids WILL do it for recreational purposes, no matter WHAT their identity, as anyone exposed to enough kids knows. A whole lot more than in the adult population. Why? Because kids are stupid ... or, in scientific terms, lack mature judgement and risk assessment.

Are there some TG kids who need consideration (regardless of solution)? Maybe ... but no-one knows because no-one is knocking on the door. It's all theoretical right now in the public schools context.

[Starling]

...most people think gender = physical sex anyway. So they ridicule "gender identity" because they understand it to be saying that we are choosing something that is nonsensical to begin with. Except, of course, when they DO understand what we mean by the phrase but are simply being smug, pigheaded, and obstructionist.

People in both camps apparently consider us over-privileged elitists, which, if it weren't so destructive to our acceptance in the larger society, would be hilarious. I can't forget that when the NY Times published their series of articles and first-person accounts of life as whateverthehellwebes, hundreds of responses questioned why the paper would devote so much space to such a minuscule bunch of spoiled rich people with too much jolly time on their hands. Of course using the pejorative "muggles" to describe non-us folks does not foster the populist angle one bit.

Would actual statistics help them understand it's not much of a lark, nor much of a threat to their wives and daughters either, do you think?

Lallie

[Tina_gm]

We can all be quizzle-bleep-blorps for all I care.

I have long suspected R2D2 of being transgender. This just confirms my suspicions.

Becky really nailed it by showing a lack of labels. Though we may not always like them, they are needed to communicate effectively.
I have been thinking lately that the term transgender is causing a lot of problems lately inside of this community. For those who are TS, too broad. CDers are now running from it as well. TS isn't politically correct either, because sex is icky here in Merica Also, sexual at the end is limiting and not a truly accurate description. So maybe we should just scrap TG altogether?

Then there are people like me, gender fluid, which could possibly be non binary, a little of both, but not always at the same time, never really either..... at which point I think quizzle bleep blorp is pretty accurate.

[LeaP]

People in both camps apparently consider us over-privileged elitists, which, if it weren't so destructive to our acceptance in the larger society, would be hilarious. ...

Would actual statistics help them understand it's not much of a lark, nor much of a threat to their wives and daughters either, do you think?

We are every bit as privileged as the residents of the next town ISIS will capture.

Would stats help? I'm really not sure. The reaction of some to the suicide statistics are glee at the prospect of us killing the problem for them.

I have been thinking lately that the term transgender is causing a lot of problems lately inside of this community. For those who are TS, too broad. CDers are now running from it as well. TS isn't politically correct either, because sex is icky here in Merica Also, sexual at the end is limiting and not a truly accurate description. So maybe we should just scrap TG altogether?

The term has ALWAYS been problematic. I think transsexual is fairly accurate, but understand why it, too, is problematic. My preference is "cross-sexed." Again, that's not an identity. It describes the underlying condition better, whereas transsexual conflates it with solutions, and transgender obliterates it.

Sex is icky everywhere in some respects, it turns out. I recently posted a thread on a study of why humans perceive certain things as creepy. Injecting sex into anything tends to trigger certain underlying mechanisms. I'm not going to take that further, as the mods decided it was a non-TS topic. Suffice it to say that some of the terms we use aren't helping.

The fact that a lot of CDs don't like "transgender" gets less attention (and far fewer protests) than the objections of TS for some reason. It's an interesting phenomenon. Perhaps those who protest don't care if they aren't associated with CDs, and their affiliation needs are elsewhere. When was the last time you recall a CD being accused of being elitist and exclusionary because they didn't want to huddle under the umbrella?

[Zooey]

Sexualization is also a big part of why, problematic as it is to say here, crossdressers (or at the least the idea of them most cis people have) are in many ways the sticking point.

I know that the language used by the people supporting the discriminatory law is often targeted at abuse or molestation, but in my opinion there's a much more deep seated fear amongst the more moderate among them that goes beyond that, and it's one that I share. Nobody wants to be going to the bathroom and have that be a pleasurable experience (especially with potentially sexual undertones) for a stranger in the next stall.

If you read the comment threads on these things (it's a cesspool, I don't recommend it for your health), you cannot help but see lots of comments to the effect of "I don't care about 'real' transgender people with real issues who transition, but I don't want men who happened to put on a dress in there". To be clear, that's what they write - the "real" in there is not mine.

I wish more crossdressers considered and understood that every one of those people is a person WE could have on our side much more easily if we weren't trying to get broader protections in place.