Imposing our Lifestyle on Others

[Foxglove]

Hi, Guys and Girls!

I wanted to talk about something that’s been bugging me lately. Often on the net you’ll see one of our critics (that is, our enemies) complaining that we’re trying to “impose our lifestyle on them”. Now in this post, I’m not considering our relations with our SO’s, where our lifestyle does impinge heavily on someone else. There’s umpteen threads on this forum concerning that issue, and here I’m only talking about our relations with the general public.

This accusation that we TG’s are trying to impose our lifestyle on others is usually found in the comment section of some article concerning TG rights. I have to say I’m not entirely sure what the complainant means by the accusation. Normally, I’d understand it to mean that we TG’s are trying to force cisgender people to live our sort of lifestyle (that is, a TG lifestyle). This is obviously absurd: no TG person to my knowledge has ever demanded that cisgender people live like us.

So I can only conclude that what they mean is that we’re forcing them to be aware of us and our lifestyle. That’s what they don’t like. We’re different from them, we’re sick, we’re perverts, we’re lowlife trannies, etc. (and this is pretty much in line with what some people say about us on the net), and basically they don’t want to have to see us or know anything about us. They want us to stay in the closet where we belong so that they don’t have to come face to face with disgusting people like us.

Now to my way of thinking, they’ve got things backwards. As I say, for me, imposing my lifestyle on someone else would mean demanding that they live the way I do. But we’re not doing that. What we are demanding is that they respect our freedom to live as we like, so long as we’re not hurting anybody else, which we’re not. When they refuse to respect that freedom, the freedom that any citizen of a country ought to have, they’re trying to impose their lifestyle on us. Either we have to live the way they want us to, or we have to remain hidden in the nether darkness.

They say we’re a small minority, which is true. But the principle has long been established now that minorities should have equal rights. They obviously don’t like us, but there are lots of things that all of us dislike but which we tolerate for the sake of keeping the peace and respecting other people’s rights. If we’re demanding that they tolerate us, we’re only demanding that they treat us and our lifestyle the way they have to treat lots of other things.

So rather than us imposing on them, I think they’re imposing on us. Does anyone agree with this, or am I the one who’s got things backwards?

Best wishes, Annabelle

[StaceyJane]

I totally agree with you. I just want to live my life in a way that makes me happy. How they live theirs is up to them.

[arbon]

Imposing my lifestyle on them is just being me and saying stop discriminating and treating people like me as freaks, 2nd class citizens, being marginalized. By asking for that they feel imposed upon, were asking to much, and that we are taking away their rights to do those things that hurt us.

[YorkshireRose]

I agree Annabelle, sadly life is full of prejudice. People tend to have very stereotypical ideas about what in "their opinion" is and is not acceptable. Although as difficult as it is in western society, at least we are not in danger of being stoned to death like in certain countries. I do wonder if it it is a generation thing though, hopefully over time things will change for the better.

As always you raise good points Annabelle

Charlotte

[Kate Simmons]

The "pot" calling the "kettle" black never works very well no matter how it's presented Hon.:)

[sandra-leigh]

About a week ago at a local university, (nearly?) all 20 LGBT-friendly posters were torn down and trashed. A lot of comments in response to the news article claimed that the posters were "ramming" LGBT "down people's throats" just by posting (with permission!) 20 posters in a university that didn't even have an LGBT organization. The gist of many comments was that you can be LGBT as long as you sit down and shut up and stay invisible about it, then you won't actively be hunted down. That's many people's notion of "tolerance", apparently. :sad:

[GingerLeigh]

People don't need my permission to be themselves, nor do I need theirs. Just don't break any laws or hurt anyone. Public ignorance is our real enemy. I think if you had an intelligent discussion with most rational people, intolerance would be rather uncommon. At least I'd like to think so. People fear what they don't understand and crossdressers are about as enigmatic as you can get.

ginger

[Cheryl T]

Small minds like things in neat little packages and hate when someone disturbs their little world.
Just because we wish to be part of society does not mean that they must interact with us if they choose not to.
Just let us be us and they can be ... whatever....

[Foxglove]

About a week ago at a local university, (nearly?) all 20 LGBT-friendly posters were torn down and trashed. A lot of comments in response to the news article claimed that the posters were "ramming" LGBT "down people's throats" just by posting (with permission!) 20 posters in a university that didn't even have an LGBT organization. The gist of many comments was that you can be LGBT as long as you sit down and shut up and stay invisible about it, then you won't actively be hunted down. That's many people's notion of "tolerance", apparently. :sad:

Thanks to all of you for your replies. This phrase "ramming something down people's throats" is also one that I've come across. So it goes. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's picked up on this.

Annabelle

[Emily Ann Brown]

I have found those who feel I am shoving my lifestyle on them (by only wanting to blend in and be the woman I am) want to shove their values (that I am a sickie) on me.


Em

[LeaP]

So rather than us imposing on them, I think they’re imposing on us. Does anyone agree with this, or am I the one who’s got things backwards?

One's view of imposition depends on political and sociological views with regard to the social contract. Take a view primarily constructed around individual rights and imposition is a non-sequitur. Other views, e.g. community-based, religious, and others, not so much. The problem is most people want it both ways. As a result, even though people pander to freedom and individual rights, they are all to happy to compromise someone else's at every opportunity when threatened.

The law tends to back them up in myriad ways that empower coalitions, organizations, and interest groups. Thus we have homeowners associations, zoning, historic districts, etc. compromising property rights, semi-official status granted to industry organizations (think medicine and law), notions like community standards baked into legislation and judicial rules, etc. There are thousands of examples all around us in every area of life.

Thus anything new, anywhere, from anyone is almost always seen as a threat and an imposition by someone. As social creatures, we naturally look to an authority somewhere for assurance that the new thing is OK. As authority is constructed around protecting what is, it is naturally conservative and the burden of acceptability is put on the person presenting the new thing.

All this is simple, well-understood human behavior which works well for evolutionary social change. Challenges to gender are too deep and fundamental to expect normal governing and authority mechanisms to operate efficiently or even rationally. If you accept, then, that our governing mechanisms (2nd paragraph) are normal, natural, and reasonable, at some level the argument that we are an imposition makes some sense.

That's not to say that the judgement is correct, simply that it's understandable. There is little doubt, however, that our social governance is becoming MORE communitarian (some would say authoritarian or centralized), not less. As political argument turns more and more to arguments of social impact, whether cost, community standards, law & order, speech & offense, or any other approach, we can expect to have to defend our existence and differences more also.

So, are you an imposition to someone living their township-planned, zoned, building department approved, utilities regulated, uniformed school childrened, policed, driving regulated, leash lawed, no soliciting allowed, no liquor sales or noise on Sunday, only cissexuals get to marry lives?

You bet you are.

Should you be? No, but you are the one that has to prove it, and in a whole lot of places in a whole lot of ways.

Lea

[Michelle.M]

I know, I just love that "imposing their way of life" stuff. It's right up there with "they want special privileges".

Really? Special like how? Reserved parking? Head of the line at the post office?

This stuff is fearmongering that always gets the attention of simpleminded folks. That's the only tactic critics can use when they really have nothing useful to say.

[Marleena]

Annabelle people are brave behind their computers. We are different and they hate seeing us push for our freedoms. They consider it imposing on them. Some don't like it and just don't want to hear or see it. Minorities are always easy to push around since they are outnumbered.

I'm pretty sure the majority that post crap about us wouldn't to our faces. Anything worth fighting for takes time.

[ArleneRaquel]

IMHO most haters are also cowards. I known that I impose nothing on anyone else. If you don't like the way I decide to live my life then please don't associate with me.

[Foxglove]

One's view of imposition depends on political and sociological views with regard to the social contract. Take a view primarily constructed around individual rights and imposition is a non-sequitur. Other views, e.g. community-based, religious, and others, not so much. The problem is most people want it both ways. As a result, even though people pander to freedom and individual rights, they are all to happy to compromise someone else's at every opportunity when threatened. . .


. . . Thus anything new, anywhere, from anyone is almost always seen as a threat and an imposition by someone. . .

Lea

This is a good post, Lea, and I'm not sure how to reply to it while doing it justice. Suffice it to say that you're touching on something here that I've noticed myself: in the Western world, especially in certain countries, people talk a lot about freedom and how important it is, but in practice freedom means relatively little to many of them. They tend to live according to the usual norms and do next to nothing by way of personal expression. I'm not saying that it would make no difference if we lived under a tyranny, just that a lot of people shy away from what is outside the norm. "We will be geared to the average rather than the exceptional."

I myself grew up in a home where freedom (always highly praised and valued) meant the absolute, inalienable right to live within carefully defined parameters. It's undoubtedly the main reason I've always been a rebel and a maverick, not to say a loner.

So I can understand why certain people might regard us as an "imposition"--though in the context of what I'm talking about here, perhaps the word "challenge" would be better. That we challenge certain cherished views held by cisgender people is unquestionable, I think. Where they err is in the view that we seek to impose something on them, unless you want to raise the question of exactly what we wish to impose. I think I'd accept that we do wish to impose a broader view on them in certain regards--specifically in the area of TG issues, but more generally in the area of being tolerant of differences between people. That is, we're asking them to be more open-minded about certain things. But as far as imposing our lifestyle on them--that is, requiring them to live as we do--there they're way off base.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[KellyJameson]

Minorities that show distinctively different traits from the majority historically are suppressed as well as groups (individuals that form a collective or are grouped together by circumstance) that have less power than other groups.

Homosexuality has been around as long as heterosexuality but the individuals who practiced it stayed hidden for survivals sake living in a hypocritical and tyrannical world where the sinner destroys the other sinner to hide his own sins becoming the unwilling and unknowing sacrificial powerless lamb destroyed by the powerful lion.

Everything that is with us has always been with us, there is nothing new under the sun. The only thing that may or may not change is the free expression of that which has remained hidden.

The level of individual freedom is determined by the amount we are willing to give others which is decided by our own relationship with fear and everything born from it.

You do not have it backwards, you are experiencing the consequences of being different from the dominant group, something that blacks in America understood very well when lynching was common and like them, we (you, me, us), must stand up for our right to live without fear for our sakes and for others. Being TG causes no more harm to others than the color of ones skin. FDR was correct we have nothing to fear but fear itself. It is OK for a man to die for his country but he may not wear a dress. It is a paradox that if a man is not willing to bend over and take the whip to the back he is considered selfish.

[LeaP]

. But as far as imposing our lifestyle on them--that is, requiring them to live as we do--there they're way off base.

But that's not what they mean. What they really mean is that you offend and threaten them, and they believe they have the right not to be so offended or threatened. They hang their arguments on anything that can be advanced in either public opinion (e.g., morals) or in court (e.g., property values).

The political battles that result from such collisions usually drive out the realities - including validating the feared impacts at times - but only solve things over very long timeframes, really by creating a public dialog, not by actually triggering solutions. What's really going on behind the scenes is that the weight of public opinion shifts over time, and social rules and legislation catch up.

Lea

[ReineD]

So, are you an imposition to someone living their township-planned, zoned, building department approved, utilities regulated, uniformed school childrened, policed, driving regulated, leash lawed, no soliciting allowed, no liquor sales or noise on Sunday, only cissexuals get to marry lives?

You bet you are.

Should you be? No, but you are the one that has to prove it, and in a whole lot of places in a whole lot of ways.

Lea

The only hope for change is to give credence to science and research. We all know the world isn't flat now. An increasing number of people believe in the theory of evolution. :p And I dare say there are more people than ever who are concerned about climate change.

We need to start teaching our kids about gender and sexual non-conformity.

[Barbara Ella]

Excellent thread that brings up several points. First is the willingness of today's society, and particularly the press to allow individuals or groups to redefine words or phrases to suit their agendas, and yet provide no public explanation of their deceit. This is what is behind the general acceptance, or lack of caring, about terms like "forcing our lifestyle on them," "Shoving their lifestyle down our throats." These individuals/groups can blissfully use totally improper phrases that elicit hatred/fear, and later when called on it they will fall back with the "what I was really saying was.....and you just misunderstood....." Total BS, but totally effective because the general public doesn't give a damn, they have been so desensitized by the Press allowing and supporting this.

Secondly, Lea accurately points out the social contract approach that more and more define/restrict what can be done where. These can work, when appropriately constructed and confined to narrow issues. They fail miserably when applied to broad social issues which are so all encompassing that they must included non like minded people. In general, this would be good, and good spirited discussions of differences would ensue. However, in today's society, we have been forced by politicians and do gooders to include all individuals in our discussions, and consider them good participants. In the past, these marginalized haters have been ostracized and trivialized and pushed aside in the general discussion. Not true today, and the haters are given as much credit as the sane individuals who just disagree. Today's society, driven by Political Correctness says that all people are good and must be given the same worth. Total BS.

Fighting for the civil rights of minorities in today's society is much more difficult than in the past because the public is still the same uneducated, ill informed, apathetic, group of humans as they were in the past, but now they have so much more access to the now mainstream minority of hate pushers.

OK, my rant is done. Put me among the haters, I hate haters, and will do whatever necessary to re marginalize them.

Barbara

[Foxglove]

But that's not what they mean. What they really mean is that you offend and threaten them, and they believe they have the right not to be so offended or threatened.

Lea


. . . the willingness of today's society, and particularly the press to allow individuals or groups to redefine words or phrases to suit their agendas, and yet provide no public explanation of their deceit. This is what is behind the general acceptance, or lack of caring, about terms like "forcing our lifestyle on them," "Shoving their lifestyle down our throats." These individuals/groups can blissfully use totally improper phrases that elicit hatred/fear, and later when called on it they will fall back with the "what I was really saying was.....and you just misunderstood....." Total BS, but totally effective because the general public doesn't give a damn, they have been so desensitized by the Press allowing and supporting this.

Barbara

Perhaps you're right, Lea. Perhaps I don't really know what these people mean. I did kind of touch on that in my OP (but then went on, assuming that I knew what they meant.) Barbara's touching on the issue of deliberately deceitful language, and I think she's certainly right about that. A lot of times you don't know how to argue with your opponents because it's hard to pin down exactly what they mean.

Annabelle

[JessHaust]

Usually 'Imposing our Lifestyle' on them is code for we don't live our lives the way they think we should.

[ArleneRaquel]

Usually 'Imposing our Lifestyle' on them is code for we don't live our lives the way they think we should.

Jess,
100% correct.

[Foxglove]

Usually 'Imposing our Lifestyle' on them is code for we don't live our lives the way they think we should.

Agreed. Whatever they mean exactly by the phrase, we can take it that they don't like us.

[mikiSJ]

In the very important case to many on this forum, Lawrence v Texas, Justice Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

Unfortunately, we must wait generations for change to be effective.

[kimdl93]

Your right - whoever uses the "imposition" argument is thinking bass ackwards. It suggests that we are forcing someone to do something. I don't recall ever insisting that some dress as I do, chose nor insisted that non-TG people live as the opposite sex.

EVery individual should be able to participate fully as an equal member of society. My ex used to work with children and adults with disabilities - physical and congnitive. Some people find the appearance of these individuals disturbing....and for centuries people with disabilties were shunned or shut away, so as to not offend the sensibilities of other people. It was a grave injustice. Just as its a grave injustice to suggest that all TG people remain quietly in their closets as these misguided people might prefer.

[Miriam-J]

Another very interesting thread, Annabelle. And I especially appreciate Lea's analysis - spot on and I wish I could express it as well.

We present yet another disruptive ripple into our society, and societies prefer stability and calm waters. We witnessed the disruptions of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, and women's rights movement in the 70s and 80s. Each made many uncomfortable and prompted the same calls for hate that other disruptions bring on today, including the very visible Lesbian and Gay movements of recent decades. Each of these disruptions has been succeeded by a society with greater, but not universal, acceptance - and a very visible hate community.

At this point the CD/TG community is barely a noticeable ripple on the waters. Very few are even aware of our presence, let alone motivated to gain knowledge on its realities. If we are as ubiquitous as some of us have speculated, it may only be a matter of time before we too emerge into a movement that once again transforms the attitudes of society. This will cause inconvenience and discomfort, like the movements before us, and there will still be a hate community. Still, I hope it succeeds so that our children can be freed from still another irrational fear - and also so we can feel free to practice our own variations.

We must also consider which other variants might be freed ... nudists? BDSM practitioners? ... If we seek to have our own ripples accepted, might not these also emerge? Would we stand up for their rights as well?

Miriam

[carhill2mn]

No, I don't think that you have things backwards. Much of society (especially the "far right", very conservative) are trying to force people like us to conform to their ideals. The phrase "Me thinks one doth protest too loudly" seems to me to be very
appropriate.

[Foxglove]

My ex used to work with children and adults with disabilities - physical and congnitive. Some people find the appearance of these individuals disturbing....and for centuries people with disabilties were shunned or shut away, so as to not offend the sensibilities of other people. It was a grave injustice. Just as its a grave injustice to suggest that all TG people remain quietly in their closets as these misguided people might prefer.

I think this is a good analogy, Kim, and one very appropriate in my own case. I don't know why, but I've always had a thing about serious mental and physical disabilities. They touch something deep in me. They truly horrify me. I got over this to a certain extent in my youth when I worked for a while at an institution for mentally handicapped people (many of whom were also seriously disabled physically). You learn that they're people like any others in many, many ways.

But to keep them in the closet was, as you say, a grave injustice. It's something that people like me simply need to learn to accept. Whenever I see a handicapped person, I rant at the injustice of life that someone could be born like that. But to allow and to help such people live the best lives they can is the answer, not to shut them up out of sight.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[Frédérique]

They say we’re a small minority, which is true. But the principle has long been established now that minorities should have equal rights. They obviously don’t like us, but there are lots of things that all of us dislike but which we tolerate for the sake of keeping the peace and respecting other people’s rights. If we’re demanding that they tolerate us, we’re only demanding that they treat us and our lifestyle the way they have to treat lots of other things. So rather than us imposing on them, I think they’re imposing on us. Does anyone agree with this, or am I the one who’s got things backwards?

There are no such things as “rights.” Somebody made all this up. Whether I have the right to exist or not, as I wish, or demand, is immaterial. I’m HERE, through no fault of my own, and I wish to look around, try things, try things ON, and see what I can get away with. Maybe it’s because I have my mother’s powerful conscience - since I do not wish to impinge on anyone else’s idea of existence, I either respect what they do, or turn away and incorporate any displeasure I feel as a learning experience. I don’t know why others do what they do, and they will never understand what I do (crossdress), so the world is neatly balanced in that regard. What was the question?
:idontknow:

No, I don’t feel the world (or THEY) are impinging on me, the boy who likes to wear girl’s clothing. I’m merely challenging standards of behavior, albeit gently, by doing something I’m not meant to do. I assume everyone, even those who would censure me, understand pleasure, so I will stay in my own little sphere of self-satisfaction and be happy. It’s as simple as that, or as complex as you want it to be, whether or not so-called “rights” are being created and quoted for expediency – I would rather work within the constraints that I see (or feel) from my little window on the world, and leave everyone else alone. Truth be told, I get an undeniable “kick” out of having a beautiful secret...
:battingeyelashes:

[TxKimberly]

I would bet that many of those same attitudes were expressed when America was integrating schools, public transportation, etx.

"Why do those damned coloreds have to force themselves into out schools?! Why can't they just go to their own schools and leave us alone??!!" I say this in sarcasm, but I'd bet you a thousand dollars that those very words WERE spoken somewhere in the USA.

People have a view of their world and their society and they don't like it when you shove them out of their comfort zone and make them adapt. It's pretty simple though - adapt or die!

[Kaz]

I am going with Freddie on this one... I am who I am. I totally respect the views and considerations of others and wish no harm to anyone. I try to behave in a way that will not cause harm to others. I respect every living thing and I also respect the non-living. I respect my environment on which we all depend. I make mistakes but hopefully I learn from them and develop.

Sadly we live in a different world where people wish to have power and manipulate things to meet their own ends. Society is a social construction and is therefore not 'real'... it is just relative. All the crap in the world is down to individual greed and assumed importance - the 'pecking order'.

This is what drove many people to emigrate to America many years ago... to build a new world... sadly it just turned into the old one! Power and greed will always dominate and dictate societal rules... against stupidity, the Gods themselves labour in vain...

[noeleena]

Hi,

So its about a life style thats interesting so as a woman im liveing a lifestyle then what about most of us who are women doing then.

so we are imposeing on others what we'v been doing for at least 10.000 years more like these imposers have imposed on us thier life style of & i wont go in to the details of abuse that they have more than imposed on us, are these males we are taking about . id like to see what other woman such as my self have to say.

So all my women friends have a life style as well some are married some single .

so can we look at this .

A way of life or style of liveing that reflects the attitudes & values of a group or person ,

Does this life style be 24 / 7 or now & again, so how do we then define our life style as women....... as just liveing, abused. border line liveing , oppresed . on meds that strip your insides . i dont need to say any more, i work with women who have .....our life style .....& its not changeing with attitudes that are still there,




Im accepted as a woman because i am one that does not need to be debated .so just being a woman is my life style,


...noeleena...

[Michelle Deere]

In our “free” society, we are taught that we have the right to live our lives to the fullest; we can be whatever we want to be if we put our minds to it, BUT, only within certain boundaries of a “norm”. These boundaries have changed slightly over time. As Miriam points out, these boundaries were adjusted with the civil and womens rights movements, but are indeed very difficult to move and not recognized by those who refuse to keep up with the times and are unwilling to accept change to the “norm”.
If everybody wanted everybody else to be just like them, who should we all be like? A bunch of identical individuals. How boring!

We are not imposing anything on anybody, just pushing the boundaries off to the side, helping to broaden the “norm”.

And what ever happened to the comfort zone of the “modern North American family”?Father worked, mother stayed home and cooked, 2.5 kids and the dog played in the yard surrounded by a white picket fence with a station wagon in the driveway. I don’t see anybody imposing that “norm”, so why is society trying to impose a fictitious “norm“ on us?

M.

[Lorileah]

I have never imposed my life on anyone else. I do have an agenda. I want to be treated well and to do as I wish as long as it does not take air from anyone's lungs or food from their mouth. I want to be who I am and if you don't like it, don't look. I have yet to find anyone who has a logical reason why I cannot wear what I like. (I do not find religious arguments as logical unless there is physical proof).

Wouldn't life be boring if we all looked and acted alike?

[Sandra1746]

We are now having a very similar debate here in Maryland. This year the legislature ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Of course the religious groups are outraged and are petitioning the bill to referendum. Their 'argument' is that the LGBT community is "forcing" their lifestyle on others and "degrading" the 'sacred' institution of marriage.

Logic in this argument is nearly futile as some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage are members of the black community who were the target of legal segregation and miscegenation laws here not so very long ago.

Narrow minds don't like change.

Hugs,
Sandra1746

[Stephanie47]

In my state the law, state and municipal code, affirms the rights of various minorities more than the U S Title Codes. Yep, CDers are protected with all other 'minority' groups. However, in the finality of life, nobody is required to freely associate with anybody else. My employer may be required to accept me in a dress and heels, but, my neighbor does not have to invite me to a backyard BBQ. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Carole made a valid point. Some political dogma dictates limited governmental involvement in our lives unless it does not conform to their beliefs.

[Foxglove]

My employer may be required to accept me in a dress and heels, but, my neighbor does not have to invite me to a backyard BBQ.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. People have the right to choose their friends, but being discriminated against in employment is something different altogether.