Have You Noticed any "Cait Effect?"

[Rhonda Jean]

The furor seems to have quickly subsided. Maybe that is the largest effect of all. Maybe people have decided it's not such a big deal after all.

I read about things that are probably somewhat, even largely, due to a Cait effect. Schools changing dress codes, mostly. I thought for a while I noticed that people reacted differently toward me, but that was probably because I was looking for it. I think for me personally the effect has been nil. I think the people who were strongly negative before are still strongly negative. I'd be curious to hear if there's been any effect positive or negative for those of you in relationships.

In the case of schools, my sense is that whatever happens in the way of gender expression is more publicly noted now. I know of a couple of girls who went through high school dressing to one extent or another and nothing was ever made public about it. Now I think it'd make the news. Of course, social media is responsible for a lot of that.

With only one exception, I haven't seen anything since Cait that I haven't seen before, or any more of us. Except for the infrequent gay club, I'm not out in what would be considered trans-friendly places. If there were more of us out in those places I wouldn't know it. Anybody notice anything in those places? The only thing I've personally seen that I've never seen before is a wife waiting outside the dressing rooms at a big thrift store while her husband tried on a variety of women's clothes. He'd come out to look in the mirror (in an area that is open to the whole store), ask her opinion, and go try on more. I was able to hear some of her comments, and their interaction was no different than had they both been GGs. I only heard the comments of two other women which were along the line of "no big deal". I don't think any of that was a Cait effect, but there might have been some influence.

There is an astonishing divide in different parts of the country. You can read of one school having a TG homecoming queen, yet still in Texas there are boys being kept out of school for long hair. Surely to God they'll move beyond the long hair issue!

As far as Cait herself, to me she seems a bit contrived on TV. My impression is that she's at heart a quiet person who'd rather avoid the spotlight. Sounds ridiculous given what we've seen, I know. She just comes across as uncomfortable to me. I think she's damn well comfortable with her changes. She just seems to try to play a part. And her friends try to thrust her into this leadership role, but only if she leads the way they want her to. I fully expect next season's bombshell to be who she decides to date. I hope it's entirely her choice and not a "made for TV" relationship. Seems like everything that whole family does is made for TV. It's all they've known for so many years.

[MissDanielle]

When I started coming out to friends as trans, one person said I was mentally ill and that we could no longer be friends. We're no longer talking.

[Jane G]

What is ciat?

[MissDanielle]

Cait = Caitlyn Jenner

[Lorileah]

Danielle...how does that relate to Caitlyn Jenner?

[MissDanielle]

With me, I didn't come to terms until after all the trans visibility over the last year. Transparent more so than Jenner.

[Jane G]

Ok ten minutes on Google and I now know who Caitlyn Jenner is, and what you meant by Ciat, thanks miss Danielle, Life is an education, but never assume I know anything, I'm a scouse girl, living in Cornwall. :heehee:

[Nicole Erin]

A few people asked me my opinion of Cait.

I dont get why it took Cait though to make the nation notice TG'ism. I mean wasn't there Miss Canada and also Jazz Jennings? They were in the media first.

As far as the furor subsiding, if that means the buzz about Cait - There is always something new in the news. People get bored quickly.

[Karren H]

The only thing I've personally noticed is my wife doesn't change the tv channel as quickly when there something TG on. Used to be "click". Now its more of a "C. L. I. C. K". Now that's Progress!!!

[Gretchen_To_Be]

Cait has been the topic of much amusement to my bigoted work colleagues. I'm on the exec team of a company, and our head of HR (who is supposedly in charge of promoting diversity) likes to joke about Ms. Jenner. We are an all male board (well, sort of in my case, LOL) and I think he feels free to say stupid things. The CEO joins him in the inappropriate banter. A fellow VP who is of slight stature and somewhat quiet gets ribbed about him being our "diverse" board member, because he is feminine. I don't rise to the bait and engage in these discussions, though on more than one occasion when Cait was discussed, I just said quietly, "Hey, whatever makes you happy." I've thought about actively challenging them both on their views, but I don't know what good it would do. I have a thick skin and it doesn't bother me personally, so I don't want to rock the boat--or raise suspicion. I suppose it's good to know who I am dealing with, however, should I ever decide to go further down the path of gender expression.

[Jane G]

@Gretchen: I'd love to scream tell them who you are and tell the bigots how life should be. But it's only 2016 and I still fear I would be sidelined on the spot in the world I work in, if I stuck my neck out, What wimps we are. Apologise if that's not you but I'm still hid and still happy.

[ReineD]

I read about things that are probably somewhat, even largely, due to a Cait effect. Schools changing dress codes, mostly. I thought for a while I noticed that people reacted differently toward me, but that was probably because I was looking for it. I think for me personally the effect has been nil. I think the people who were strongly negative before are still strongly negative. I'd be curious to hear if there's been any effect positive or negative for those of you in relationships.

Same here. Cait's coming out opened up a public conversation for a time but didn't change fundamental opinions as far as I can see. People who are not involved in this community see it (mostly) as entertainment, just as politics have become a huge source of entertainment. The people I know who thought being TG was weird before, still feel that way. And now her second season is beginning without fanfare as far as I can see, so the people who will watch the show I suspect are those who have a personal stake in it, i.e. CDs/TGs/TSs and their friends and families, or people who have a perverse wish to be entertained with whatever they find entertaining about her.

I think Cait has had a positive effect on people actively involved in this community though. Wives married to CDers, who want to resolve their internal conflicts about it, have been open to Cait's life story according to some members here. I also think some wives are able to understand a desire to be feminine without thinking their CD husbands might be TS, if their husbands tell them they are not interested in living as women full time like Cait. And maybe even Cait has helped young TSs realize who they are and perhaps seek help, even if they do not relate to her rich Hollywood lifestyle. But, TS teenagers experiencing issues with their parents might not see an improvement if their parents still object despite Cait's coming out. And certainly Cait was popular among CDers who yearn for public acceptance of males who present as women, even though this is not how Cait identifies. The media stories were very much about Cait being Bruce Jenner, which linked both personas in the public mindset.

As to some schools changing dress codes and allowing access to bathrooms and locker rooms, I think this would happen anyway. There is an increasing number of parents advocating for their trans children and helped by trans-advocacy organizations. Still these changes are not done without many other parents objecting forcefully. But attitudes in the psychological/medical spheres have changed due to increased research and trans-advocacy, which is helping the laws improve. Also social media has some impact on general awareness, even if those who do not know any TGs/TSs tell themselves, "that's fine for them, but it does not impact me in any way and it doesn't change anything about my life".

I have not seen more CDs/TGs/TSs out there since Cait came out.



As far as Cait herself, to me she seems a bit contrived on TV. My impression is that she's at heart a quiet person who'd rather avoid the spotlight. Sounds ridiculous given what we've seen, I know. She just comes across as uncomfortable to me.

She's in the unfortunate position of being a well known person (as Bruce Jenner first, and then as part of the K-clan) having had to transition in the public eye. Things might have gone well enough if she had not been interested in continuing with reality TV, but now she has to balance who she really is with the public persona she thinks will reflect positively in the ratings. I think if she had not actively helped to place her transition in the limelight (with the magazine bustier cover and then the reality show), if she instead had become involved with trans-advocacy groups, talks in high schools, etc, in the same way as non-famous people, and then perhaps granted interviews with the inevitable media interest (but without all the glam), then the public opinion about her I think would be vastly different and I dare say more favorable. People would have told themselves "Oh look, here is a famous person who is trans too and who is advocating for trans rights" (like Chaz Bono), rather than "Oh boy, is she ever milking it for money".

:2c:

[Sheren Kelly]

I dont get why it took Cait though to make the nation notice TG'ism. I mean wasn't there Miss Canada and also Jazz Jennings? They were in the media first.

Jenna and Jazz became known after they transitioned, so the public never knew them as male. Caitlyn was first known for her Olympic Gold as a man; in a sense, the public went through transition with Caitlyn.

[AllieSF]

I had a youngish girl tell me at the coffee shop that I looked like Caitlyn Jenner. I was in male mode with my long hair down for that day. It was a surprise and a real confirmation that I do sometimes see some of Cait in my face when I look in the mirror. Other than that, no other conversations involved in or over heard when out. That being said, I do believe that many more people are talking about what being trans is all about, especially due to all of last year's publicity about Cait, Laverne Cox, Transparent and other news stories. That to me is good as making the general public aware that we even exist is much more progress than in the past.

[nikkiwindsor]

Together, my wife and I watch some of the shows that feature Cait. On occasion, the conversation turns to her asking me if I want to transition. She's concerned about that. I truthfully explain that I'm different than Cait. Rather, as a crossdresser, I have both feminine and masculine qualities but that I'm not a woman born with a physically male body not in harmony with my inner being. After these conversations, she feels relieved but it's never 100% because the topic does arise again from time to time. Putting myself in her shoes, I can fully understand why she'd be concerned and ask for assurances periodically.

[sometimes_miss]

Oh, some people are still pissed off. They just realize that others have gotten tired of their ranting about it. We have one curmudgeon at work who would bring up the topic every day. His complaint was that he didn't want it 'in his face' all the time, why she deserved to be newsworthy. I asked him why adult men who play children's games get a whole section of the news to themselves, don't they realize how dumb it looks to be a grown man playing with a ball all day long, what's the point of that? He still didn't get the message, so we eventually all just told him to STFU and turn the page, because he was way more annoying than any news item.

[JeanTG]

Oh, some people are still pissed off. They just realize that others have gotten tired of their ranting about it. We have one curmudgeon at work who would bring up the topic every day. His complaint was that he didn't want it 'in his face' all the time, why she deserved to be newsworthy. I asked him why adult men who play children's games get a whole section of the news to themselves, don't they realize how dumb it looks to be a grown man playing with a ball all day long, what's the point of that? He still didn't get the message, so we eventually all just told him to STFU and turn the page, because he was way more annoying than any news item.

My experience with people like this is that they are often themselves in the closet but haven't come to grips with their reality; I know because I was like that too for a time when I tried to deny my gender issues. There was a guy back in my college days that would rant on and on about gays. Then he left the dorm and moved in with another guy and guess what, turns out he was gay... the other guy had to leave as he made the situation intolerable for him.

[ReineD]

I asked him why adult men who play children's games get a whole section of the news to themselves, don't they realize how dumb it looks to be a grown man playing with a ball all day long, what's the point of that? He still didn't get the message,

You mean sports? It's a great way to acquire and maintain physical skills and stay in shape, it builds physical strength and it's a healthy form of competition, much better than violent alternatives. Physical competition has been with us for thousands of years! :)

[Jenniferathome]

Jenner is just one voice. The acceptance of transgender people does not ride on her shoulders but she is helping make the issue known. Now, I was out and about before Jenner and have been out after Jenner went public. There is no difference that I, as just one individual, can see or feel, but I KNOW Jenner is having an impact. Joe Average can not write her off as a corner case. When she was Bruce Jenner, she was the World's Greatest Athlete. If Bruce Jenner can be transgender, anyone can. That alone is a powerful thought.

[Rhonda Jean]

I think if she had not actively helped to place her transition in the limelight (with the magazine bustier cover and then the reality show), if she instead had become involved with trans-advocacy groups, talks in high schools, etc, in the same way as non-famous people, and then perhaps granted interviews with the inevitable media interest (but without all the glam), then the public opinion about her I think would be vastly different and I dare say more favorable.
:2c:

I think the most common complaints I heard about her were about the way she dressed. Not that she obviously dressed as a woman, but the bustier, the miniskirts, the heels... I could so get this part! For one thing, look at where she'd just come from. A sex and glam environment like no other. Besides, she looks awesome! I'm sure it was liberating for her to wear these things so publicly, yet within the safety that her situation affords.

Early on, she was much less comfortable with herself and much less experienced dressing than I ever expected. There are a lot of girls on here much further along. She'd lived in a fishbowl, without even the freedom of a closeted crossdresser.

I'd love to hear just one person say the Cait effect saved their marriage, or caused a major change in attitude within their family or with their wife.

[Alice Torn]

I have seen two television commercials with characters blurring the gender lines. Today's multimedia, instant news and information pop culture blitz, has most of us not surprised much at anything , and heads spinning, too busy to care much, or remember much. Everthing coming at us so fast!

[ReineD]

I think the most common complaints I heard about her were about the way she dressed. Not that she obviously dressed as a woman, but the bustier, the miniskirts, the heels... I could so get this part!

Yeah, but she did tone it down eventually. I think she is aware of the criticism. I've since seen pictures of her dressed in normal clothes.



I'd love to hear just one person say the Cait effect saved their marriage, or caused a major change in attitude within their family or with their wife.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that if a husband is transitioning and a wife is not prepared to be in a relationship with another woman, there are no numbers of Caits who will make a difference. But, some members here have said their wives understood their desire to express femininity more after hearing Cait's interview with Diane Sawyer, although as nikkiwindsor said above, some wives may instead be concerned that their husbands will eventually decide to go the way of Jenner.


So maybe a lot of people are seeing Jenner as being responsible for a larger presence of transsexuals and gender non-conforming people in the media. I think it's the reverse ... social values are changing, they've been changing slowly since the 70s and laws are catching up. Hollywood has been catching up for years. This is why Jenner came out now, just like everyone else. It's more acceptable now than it ever has been.

[Stephanie47]

After the initial media blitz of Caitlyn everything settled down. She became a non-event except for reality TV. Then several weeks ago the State of Washington came out with regulations indicating transgenders are legally able to use the restroom of their choice. That brought some politicians out of the woodwork to sponsor legislation to align usage to their birth gender. Privacy concerns is the stated reason for the proposed legislation. There was also a lively discussion in the media of the local Y's adopting the same position for transgenders, i.e., choice. There was some resignations of family memberships. More later as the legislature gets down to business or whatever they do in Olympia.

[CONSUELO]

I still believe that Caitlyn did something that took a lot of courage and she can do and dress in whatever way she wishes as far as I am concerned. I do hope that all her ventures go well and that she achieves happiness and contentment. By the way I loved the bustier picture. My thought was "good on you girl".

[Gretchen_To_Be]

although as nikkiwindsor said above, some wives may instead be concerned that their husbands will eventually decide to go the way of Jenner.
Yup. That's what is happening in our house! :straightface:

[Robin414]

The only thing I've personally noticed is my wife doesn't change the tv channel as quickly when there something TG on. Used to be "click". Now its more of a "C. L. I. C. K". Now that's Progress!!!

My SO has always been open minded since our kids have at least one TG friend (FtM) and they regularly support the annual Pride Parades but to your post, same here, my SO watches her show quite often and even watches the Kardashians just to see what Bruce was like, and she thinks he was and she is an amazing person...what has CJ done for ME, quite a bit actually...if nothing else, proved we're not weirdos and and can actually be successful, influential, wonderfull, normal people ☺

[Rachael Leigh]

I'm not sure it has anything to do with as you say Cait effect but for me going out an about here in Texas I've seen few if any problems in fact I've been very much accepted at least with the interactions I've had. Now that's not to say what they say about the CD after I've left the store but so far I'm very comfortable going out dressed where I live.
Is that mean more acceptance I really don't know

[Christen]

We are certainly living in a time of change. The exposure that Cait has given to transgender issues has to be good, but we'll also see, if not a backlash, some strident opposition to acceptance of a gender diverse world.
Today is Australia Day down here. Every year each state selects a person of the year and they are in the running for Australian of the year. This year Cate McGregor , a transwoman, was Queesnsland Australian of the Year. She didn't get the Australian of the year but hey! it's a big deal!
Times, they are a'changin' ....

[docrobbysherry]

The "Cait" effect?

Nationally, she's nearly single handedly opened up conversations about trans in most media forms. And, among much of the public as a result. As many here have mentioned above, some is good, some bad. But, i think it's ALL beneficial because trans r being discussed more openly and honestly everywhere!

Personally, an old trans friend met Cait in a small discussion group in LA. She said Cait is a bit like me. In that it's really important to her to look good. And, she's not very involved in the trans community. Funny! I felt I had some things in common with her even before I heard that.

Some trans bad mouth Cait on FB for being self centered and for not helping the trans community as she could.
As if no other trans r self absorbed. Or, that we all spend our efforts helping others.:brolleyes:

Yes, she IS when she wants to be. But, she was when she was a he, too.

Anyone that doesn't think "reality shows" like hers and her TV family's r scripted, is living in a river in Egypt!:tongueout

[Lily Catherine]

I didn't find Cait of any help at all - the media buzz was oddly absent, and the Vanity Fair cover didn't show up much in local newspapers. Activism has thus far been sidelined and LGBT issues are skirted due to the fairly conservative nature (and NIMBYism) of Singaporean society.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the online community has reacted much more positively and are generally much more supportive especially considering the public witnessed the entire process with her (already famous before she began transition). On that same note, she's as good as become a yardstick (read: "Oh, so you're going down the same path as Caitlyn Jenner") for the loved ones of TGs, so it's difficult for her to truly stand for the entire transgender spectrum as much as she may attempt to speak for said spectrum.

Meanwhile in Singapore, the most salient examples of crossdressing (rather than TG or TS issues) in recent history (outside of entertainment) were isolated cases of attempting to sexually harass women inside the female restrooms. This kind of case is unfortunately not going to help us in the slightest. However, as these cases are closer to home and have more direct effects, they likely last longer in the local public eye than the fleeting celebrity of Caitlyn Jenner. Especially since fear (more positively caution) is a considerable individual driving force.

[Eryn]

Well, My wife didn't have to worry about me going down the same path as Caitlyn, since I was already on it.

Caitlyn is a unique person and her actions reflect her situation. Of course she wears heels and miniskirts, she's lived around a bunch of women for whom that is normal dress. She emerged from her closet with no experience in being a woman in public. She was criticized for her voice, mannerisms, and outlook. If someone would have put my first steps out the door under the same microscope I probably would not have fared as well as she.

She's also been burdened by lots of trans activists who want to hitch their wagons to hers. They're happy to bask in the glow of her fame, but then they turn around and criticize her for her own views.

Personally, I feel that the "Caitlyn Effect" is certainly positive. When the All-American boy decided to transition it took transgenderism from the LGBT ghetto to the mainstream. Even those bigots who ridicule Caitlyn can't get past the bare fact that she has a Olympic Decathlon gold medal, an exploit that no loudmouth can match.

[ReineD]

I'm not sure it has anything to do with as you say Cait effect but for me going out an about here in Texas I've seen few if any problems in fact I've been very much accepted at least with the interactions I've had.

We experience the same thing (for the most part) and we've been going out for almost 10 years. If the people we run into disapprove, they tend to keep their opinions to themselves. And all service personnel (SAs, restaurant staff, bar tenders, doormen, etc) are always polite and some are even friendly, in fact most of them remember us. :)

So maybe that's why I don't see much difference. We are treated as we've always been, and I don't see more CDs/TGs/TSs out and about.

[grace7777]

Caitlyn has got me to thinking of how many other accomplished athletes are trans. It seems to me there is a good chance that there are others, but they are closeted so we do not know who they are.

[donnaS]

Cait for me is how my wife found out about Donna. She calls me on the way to work on day and asks me; What's up with Bruce. Well, that started the coming out.
I replied, she is like the rest of us. My wife responded; Who is us?
It went on from there.
It had been two months into my marriage to her.
My wife had watched the Caitlyn series and learned a lot.
I am working on transitioning to a certain point.
My wife doesn't understand most of it. But has agreed that " I am me" and should've happy in life.
Where will our relationship go from here? We are not sure. But I have learned this,
Caitlyn broke the ice in my relationship and I'm not going back to my old self. It's a ad place. Hopefully my wife will stay with me. We love each other very much. I feel guilty for coming out. But the question was asked and I answered it honestly. I have no regrets, no matter the outcome.

[Princess Chantal]

Nope haven't noticed any "Cait effect". Noticed the "Isabella effect", the "Shandi effect", the "Lara effect", the "Patti Dawn effect", the "Reece effect" and even some would say that there is a "Chantal effect" plus the thousands other "transgender people effect" here in Winnipeg. Oh can't overlook the important "friendly allies effect". All of these local people play a big part of educating Winnipeg!

[Jenn A116]

I'm afraid the "Caitlyn Effect" might have missed the mark for those of us who are simple crossdressers and like to wear women's clothes occasionally. Now there's a need to explain the difference between Trans and CD.

[ReineD]

Now there's a need to explain the difference between Trans and CD.

Yes there is! :)

[SHY KIM]

My SO has always been open minded since our kids have at least one TG friend (FtM) and they regularly support the annual Pride Parades but to your post, same here, my SO watches her show quite often and even watches the Kardashians just to see what Bruce was like, and she thinks he was and she is an amazing person...what has CJ done for ME, quite a bit actually...if nothing else, proved we're not weirdos and and can actually be successful, influential, wonderfull, normal people ☺

I'm carry the same position as Robin. My wife embraced the Cait story and openly supported her courage. Once I saw her reaction it gave me the courage to re-introduce Kim to her after 12 years in the closet. NOTE: I did try to resurrect Kim about 4 years ago and the response went over like a lead balloon!

[Eryn]

...And all service personnel (SAs, restaurant staff, bar tenders, doormen, etc) are always polite and some are even friendly, in fact most of them remember us. :)...

Heavens, do I resemble that remark. SAs that I've interacted with once months before say "I remember you, welcome back!

They have invariably been friendly and welcoming. I used to interpret it as "Ohmygosh, I've been made! Panic!" Now I realize that it's simply that a 5'14" fiftysomething woman doesn't walk in every day, particularly with a petite wing-girl.


Now there's a need to explain the difference between Trans and CD.

I've walked both sides of that street and nobody has ever asked me if I was transexual versus CD. Most people don't draw a distinction and frankly, I don't want to waste my time enlightening them. As long as they treat me nicely they can think whatever they like.

[ReineD]

I've walked both sides of that street and nobody has ever asked me if I was transexual versus CD. Most people don't draw a distinction and frankly, I don't want to waste my time enlightening them.

Yes agreed, the general public doesn't care. They just see an alternate gender presentation (if the person in question is read), and they assign their own meanings to it. Likely most people we run across take it my SO is like Kaitlin Jenner. It doesn't matter to us what they think.

I was thinking more in line with finding a way to explain the differences to members in this forum. :p And of course their wives.

[flatlander_48]

As far as Cait herself, to me she seems a bit contrived on TV. My impression is that she's at heart a quiet person who'd rather avoid the spotlight. Sounds ridiculous given what we've seen, I know. She just comes across as uncomfortable to me. I think she's damn well comfortable with her changes. She just seems to try to play a part. And her friends try to thrust her into this leadership role, but only if she leads the way they want her to. I fully expect next season's bombshell to be who she decides to date. I hope it's entirely her choice and not a "made for TV" relationship. Seems like everything that whole family does is made for TV. It's all they've known for so many years.

Many people here have said that, in their minds, they have always been female. I understand what they are saying, but I think there is a bit of a rub to that. In spite of their belief that they were always female, the vast majority were reared and entered adulthood as males. Full transition may be spread over a few years, assuming counseling, various surgeries and legal document changes. That's the timeframe for adjustments to perceptions, socialization and physicality of being female. My guess it that that doesn't happen overnight and it suggests that Caitlyn Jenner is still trying to find her groove. Perhaps this is the source of her discomfort as she's just not quite "there" yet.


Ok ten minutes on Google and I now know who Caitlyn Jenner is, and what you meant by Ciat, thanks miss Danielle, Life is an education, but never assume I know anything, I'm a scouse girl, living in Cornwall. :heehee:

Over the years, I've worked with a number of people from the UK. One of them explained the term to me, but it's been too long. However, I thought the word had an "r" on the end of it. Are there different forms of the word?


Today is Australia Day down here.

I've been to Sydney on Australia Day. I have in-laws there and my wife and I visited in 2007. We spent most of the day downtown and did the roof walk on the Sydney Tower.

DeeAnn

[PaulaQ]

We take a parochial view here, don't we. :)

Oh I've noticed a "Cait Effect."

It's gotten me on TV a couple of times, and in the newspaper as well. It's done that for hundreds of other trans people, too. A lot of us have shared our stories, and this hopefully helps cisgender people understand that trans people are really just people, and not something to be feared.

On the positive side, more people are knowledgeable and sympathetic to trans people than ever before. Unfortunately, not enough of them, but more on that in a minute. The issue of trans people is in full play in the public discourse. And for those of you who think "oh, the public will be bored with this soon enough," well, think again. This issue isn't going away, mainly because of certain interactions between cisgender and transgender people in public spaces.

On the negative side, Caitlyn Jenner coming out in the same year as the Obergefell v Hodges ruling, has put a really large target on each and every one of us.

My state last year, and a bunch of other states this year, are trying to pass laws to criminalize our presence in public. They didn't have much luck with this at first, but in Houston they found the formula that seems to work remarkably well: "No men in women's restrooms." Those five words are being used to sink equal rights ordinances around the country, as they did in Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, and a city with an openly lesbian mayor.

The increased trans visibility we now enjoy, in part because of Caitlyn Jenner, is being used by the forces of uptightness to sandbag LGBT rights by focusing solely on the "T". These folks are willing to do great harm to transgender people mostly to propel political careers in some cases, and to pander to people who are freaked out by the notion of a trans woman. (They never talk about the men.)

What's happening right now politically is exceedingly dangerous for all of us, in my opinion. Even if you are a CD of the "I'll never leave my house" variety, you have to understand that if you are ever accidentally outed, say by an angry spouse, that it can't be a good thing for your employer, for example, to be able to freely discriminate against you should they find out because she told them about it. Of course if you are a CD who likes to venture out, there are variations of the various laws that would more or less require businesses to discriminate against you. Yep. Not making that up. Wish I was. And if they get their way, should you be unfortunate enough to use a public restroom, you could face jail time and heavy fines for using the women's restroom. And don't expect much sympathy from anyone - because if they pass such laws, they'll have done it by convincing people that YOU are probably a sexual predator and pedophile.

We are the focal point for the backlash against same sex marriage. And we are that focal point because we are visible, and powerless. And we are even more visible now, in part because of Caitlyn.

As a small aside, the efforts, or lack thereof, on our behalf by our feckless gay and lesbian allies, is also having an impact on this issue. After years of ignoring us and spinning the tale "look, gay people are just like straight people, but with two mommies or two daddies, so can we get married please?", surprise, surprise, they have no idea how to advocate for trans people. The HRC put unprecedented resources into Houston to make sure that the HERO ordinance was passed by voters. They lost, and they lost big.

But by all means, please feel free to continue on in your beliefs that people will happily understand and accept you as men in women's clothing, but revile a trans woman like me, once they understand the difference between us. You can assert "But I'm a STRAIGHT MAN, I just like to be pretty" all you want, but I think you'll find that "No men in women's restrooms" begins to hit a lot closer to home than most of you expect. Because unlike someone like me, that's PRECISELY what most of you who go out in public are. My guess is you'll find people to be a whole lot less sympathetic than what you expected, at least if the forces against us succeed in convincing people that we are all potential sexual predators. No, not only will people not understand the differences between us, but your assertion of them will only confirm their worst fears about YOU.

Don't worry though. Feel free to be bored by all this. Continuing dressing up, and ignoring the wider world around you.

Unfortunately, it appears that the wider isn't going to continue to ignore you.

How's that for a "Cait Effect?"

[Beverley Sims]

Every time a new notable transgender person comes along, it is another step forward in understanding and tolerance.

[Rhonda Jean]

Paula,

Whew! That was a spanking!

Just as my lack of activism doesn't help you, I'm not so sure your brand of activism helps me. I've been dressing in public in broad daylight since I was 16. In all that time I've had only ONE really scary situation, and it was most likely harmless. Not that everybody loves me. I've had a few other times that fall a bit below the threshold of scary. I HAVE been told by one establishment not to use their ladies room anymore, but, as you point out, I'm not a woman. Maybe it's true that I've tagged along behind the activism and at the expense of others, but honestly I don't feel like I have. I didn't ask for it, and really didn't think I needed it. I know I'm precisely playing into your point.

The backlash you speak of is not a matter of debate. It is a backlash in part due to in-your-face activism that demands abrupt change. Of course I wish I could wear a dress and heels to work today and it'd be accepted as ordinary, but that's not going to happen. Am I kidding myself that because I am out in public, that I present myself well, that I'm nice to people, that I spend money in their stores, that I appear to the public that I'm a good and responsible person... am I not doing my part in my own way toward furthering acceptance of myself and others? Doesn't that count for something? Maybe when you and others are demanding legislative change, somebody will remember me, and begin the think that their prejudices and fears are unfounded.

I do think that the broader acceptance of gays has been a tremendous help to all of us. The general public thinks we're ALL gay.

I certainly am influenced to a great degree by my own fears, which are as you pointed out. Case in point, I don't have an avatar or pictures on here anymore (figured I'd point that out before you did).

I have what I think is a good analogy. In simple terms I think it describes the difference between you and me (at least one of them!). I had long hair all my life (until recently). Even as a toddler. When I started to school in 1964 my hair was well below my shoulders. I was the only boy in school with long hair. Hell, I might have been the only boy for hundred of miles with hair that long. The dress code was that boys hair couldn't touch their ears or their collar. Not sure it's not still that way around where you live. It would have had to have been my mother back then who would've been the one to be the activist, but my point is she (nor I, of course) demanded that the dress code be changed. She just didn't cut my hair. She had two meetings with the principle in elementary school about my hair. I know in the first one he said that he wouldn't enforce the dress code, but if anybody complained he'd have to. Guess nobody complained. It was not necessary for me personally to demand change. I just did my thing. Much like now. I think you would have been demanding a change in the dress code so that all boys could have long hair. I don't know when or even if the dress code was officially changed. Maybe if it was, some of those on the school board might have remembered me. Good kid, good grades, respectful, pleasant to be around... Just happened to have long hair.

What if they'd made me cut my hair? Probably would have changed my attitude on activism.

Luv ya, sis.

[flatlander_48]

What's happening right now politically is exceedingly dangerous for all of us, in my opinion. Even if you are a CD of the "I'll never leave my house" variety, you have to understand that if you are ever accidentally outed, say by an angry spouse, that it can't be a good thing for your employer, for example, to be able to freely discriminate against you should they find out because she told them about it. Of course if you are a CD who likes to venture out, there are variations of the various laws that would more or less require businesses to discriminate against you. Yep. Not making that up. Wish I was. And if they get their way, should you be unfortunate enough to use a public restroom, you could face jail time and heavy fines for using the women's restroom. And don't expect much sympathy from anyone - because if they pass such laws, they'll have done it by convincing people that YOU are probably a sexual predator and pedophile.

This can't be repeated enough as crossdressers don't see/recognize the intersection with trans politics and vice-versa. The thing to remember is that when someone does a belly flop into the pool, EVERYBODY gets wet. People are not going to readily distinguish between crossdressers and transsexuals (pre, during or post) even if they know the difference intellectually.

We also have to remember what ENDA laws (employee non-discrimination act) do. As currently written (most without the trans part) it is intended to provide protection for LBG employees, AND ALSO people who are perceived to be LGB, but are not. Potential GENDA legislation (gender expression non-discrimination act) is intended to provide protection for the T part of the population. This was the part that was sacrificed to insure passage of the rest.



The backlash you speak of is not a matter of debate. It is a backlash in part due to in-your-face activism that demands abrupt change.

R J, you have an opportunity. I am 67 years old. You can be the first to explain to me how being silent (or at least quiet) leads to constructive change. You understand that precedents in history are working against you. I assume that you reside in the US. If not, please correct me. So, consider the Suffragette Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Liberation Movement and the Gay Rights Movement. NONE of these were silent endeavors after initial resistance to change. Even the concept of Civil Disobedience is In Your Face by way of presence.

Also, consider the part of the Gay Rights Movement related to Marriage Equality. There was no abrupt change. People have been working on that since the 70's. In all cases above the rights demanded were "in addition to" and not "in place of". By that I mean that no one's position was reduced. Yet, when it comes to granting rights, it is always seems to be thought of as a Zero Sum Game. Interesting...

NOTE: This is a history lesson and not a political discussion.

DeeAnn

[sherri]

Ok so, I live in a red state, born and raised, and am myself conservative on some issues (economic, foreign policy, faith, etc), so yeah, I have quite a few conservative friends in life and social media. Since I'm not out in straight circles it would not occur to any of these people to mince words around me, and I must say I have not seen or heard a single positive response to Caitlyn; to the contrary, all of the response has ranged from snarky to vehemently negative. What seemed to trigger the most reaction is the notion that Cait was courageous in coming out. You and I know Cait's action took tremendous courage, but these folks believe that's a crock. Pretty sad.

I have wondered if it was just coincidence that Cait's outing and the recent legal judgements against TGs in women's restrooms occurred in roughly the same time frame, or is it some sort of social reaction to her high-profiling such issues. Don't know, but what I do know is if people even remotely understood us they would know this is such a non-issue. Now I know there are bound to be a few pervs among us, but I personally have never known a TG of any kind who is interested in anything more than a tinkle and touching up the makeup when they visit the loo. And I also know it's far more dangerous for us in a men's restroom than in the ladies', but I don't think we're likely to garner much sympathy in that regard.

[1958Candi]

We experience the same thing (for the most part) and we've been going out for almost 10 years. If the people we run into disapprove, they tend to keep their opinions to themselves. And all service personnel (SAs, restaurant staff, bar tenders, doormen, etc) are always polite and some are even friendly, in fact most of them remember us. :)

So maybe that's why I don't see much difference. We are treated as we've always been, and I don't see more CDs/TGs/TSs out and about.

Your man is so lucky to have you!

[Eryn]

...But by all means, please feel free to continue on in your beliefs that people will happily understand and accept you as men in women's clothing, but revile a trans woman like me, once they understand the difference between us....

Paula, try as I might, I cannot find any post that states that belief.

The real danger is that our enemies will succeed in dividing the LGBT community. Blaming transpeople for the failure of the HERO ordinance could do just that. The failure was caused by religious bigots who managed to convince ignorant people that a falsehood was true. That's how political strategy works. If they hadn't picked on the bathroom issue, they would have tried something else.

[PaulaQ]

Paula, try as I might, I cannot find any post that states that belief.

It's an old belief from Tri-Ess. You still find it in some groups currently. Perhaps unfairly, but it's not difficult to infer this attitude from some of the posters. "Oh Paula, so many of the things you talk about only affect trans people like you, not CDs like me..." Well alrighty then...


The real danger is that our enemies will succeed in dividing the LGBT community. Blaming transpeople for the failure of the HERO ordinance could do just that. The failure was caused by religious bigots who managed to convince ignorant people that a falsehood was true.

Well, part of the danger is that our "friends," Big Gay Inc. (tm), have already divided the community, tossing the B's and T's under the bus until quite recently. Unfortunately, now that they've had a change of heart and decided "oh gosh, trans people, it's your turn now - see, we told you we'd come back for you!" They are faced with three problems:
1. The backlash is large, powerful, rich and really angry - this is gonna be kinda hard
2. Now that they can get married, all those Big Gay Groups (c) are kinda losing members and steam. "We're done!"
3. They have no idea how to fight this battle, because they didn't bother to learn much about us over the past 30 years.
So while I hope this doesn't happen, I will not be surprised if they fall back to throwing us under the bus.


The backlash you speak of is not a matter of debate. It is a backlash in part due to in-your-face activism that demands abrupt change.

As for demanding abrupt change, how long should we wait to demand change. Right now, on average, 41% of trans people attempt suicide. I should know - I'm one of them. Should I wait for it to be 66% of us? 85%? 99%?

The funny thing is, I don't want to be a political activist. I hate politics.

What I really want to do is just live my life. What I find myself doing all the time is looking for lost, confused trans people who appear to be on the verge of sticking a pistol into their mouths and blowing their brains out, and yet haven't figured out that they REALLY need to transition, and getting them to help. I've aided quite a few people this way.

This seems like a fairly harmless activity to me.

What I've noticed along the way:
1. Medical institutions often treat us VERY badly, if they'll treat us at all
2. Psychiatric institutions are worse - calling 911 for a suicidal trans person can put them in a terrible, terrible situation where they will not improve.
3. Law enforcement - wait for it - treats us very badly sometimes

So more or less people like me appear to be on our own, aided by a few allies. (And I do mean FEW.) OK, fine. I can deal with that.

But now they want to make it criminal for us to be in public places - and not just a ticket - oh no - many of the proposed laws in various states make using the "wrong" bathroom an offense just below a felony. (See point #3 for what happens next.)

So I don't much feel like I am being given a whole lot of choice. I just want to live my life and help a few people along the way (honestly, it'd be nice if more of the institutions cis people depend on would pick up some of this load, because "just living my life" would actually be pretty swell.) But no, they have decided that since they didn't stop same sex marriage, they are coming after trans people next. We are but tiny pawns in a game between a huge and oppressive force of cisgender heterosexuals, and a small, but still way bigger than us, force of gays and lesbians.


I'm not so sure your brand of activism helps me.

I guess what I'm trying to do here is get people to look at the bigger picture. The activism of transgender people has by and large won you the ability you enjoy to exist in public. As late as the 1980s in some states, Texas being one of them, there were laws specifically against crossdressing in public. And yes, they enforced them at times. I have a friend who's father did precisely that. Enjoy having places where you can go without fear of being ejected for CDing? Again, thank a trans person. We fought for all that.

The thing is - they aren't just coming for people like me. They don't understand, nor care about, the differences between a CD and a TS. If they manage to do half the things they seem to have in mind, I think you'll find people's perceptions of CDing to be very different. Look, CDs already have a lot of the same problems as TSs, at least if they are outed. You could lose your jobs, lose your kids, etc. How much worse do you think that will be when some aspects of going to public spaces is made illegal for us all? The SECOND you put the word "illegal" in the sentence, many otherwise reasonable people will assume you are doing something awful - even if the law against what you are doing is completely unfair and unreasonable. How well received do you think you'll be in public when the image people have of you, thanks to their propaganda, is that you are a potential rapist and pedophile? Because that is what they are telling people we are. They are after all of us.

The stuff they are doing now is nasty, ham-handed, and potentially pretty lethal. But it's also fairly dumb. I have watched this happen before, during the Reagan years. It took one small change to executive policy, guided by rather intelligent, but hateful people, to make transition nearly impossible for hundreds of thousands of us for 30 years. I am reasonably certain that someone of that ilk, if they had access to power, could do fairly unobvious things that would be lethal to someone like me, and make your life as a CD quite miserable.

That's assuming they need subtlety. It is possible, of course, that mean, dumb, and ham-handed will get the job done, depending on the outcomes of our next national elections.

By the way, I think the type of activism you do - being yourself in public - IS actually very helpful. And I understand not everyone is cut out to be an activist. I really do get that. But what I do hope to accomplish here is a wakeup call. There are political people out there who are intent on using us as scapegoats. Historically speaking, it's really bad to be the scapegoat.

So wakeup already. Look, I've talked to friends in Houston. Some of them tell me that after those horrible ads aired - they DID notice much less friendly treatment. Can you imagine what it will be like after a hatchet job like that on a national scale gets done to us?

We can blame Cait. We can blame certain fundamentalists. We can blame politicians. We can blame Big Gay Inc. (tm). We can blame trans activists like Crazy Paula. I don't care who we blame really - the point is - dangerous stuff is on the horizon, and all of us need to be aware of it.

If nothing else, doesn't it disturb you, even a little, that the central message being used against us right now is this "We can't let transgenders (sic) into the women's restroom because what happens if a man who claims to one day feel like a woman, another day like a man, tries to use the women's room? What happens to our wives and daughters?!?"

If it doesn't chill you that the behavior I've bolded that they use to justify their bogus fears doesn't apply at all to someone like me, but totally describes many of you, then I don't know what else to say.

The stakes are much higher than a reality TV show. God I wish they weren't.

[flatlander_48]

I guess what I'm trying to do here is get people to look at the bigger picture. The activism of transgender people has by and large won you the ability you enjoy to exist in public. As late as the 1980s in some states, Texas being one of them, there were laws specifically against crossdressing in public. And yes, they enforced them at times. I have a friend who's father did precisely that. Enjoy having places where you can go without fear of being ejected for CDing? Again, thank a trans person. We fought for all that.

As information for R J and younger folks, in New York State, the law used to be that you had to wear at least 3 articles of clothing consistent with your documented sex. Otherwise, you could be arrested. This was the basis the police used for rousting CD/TG/TS folks at places like the Stonewall Inn and that was how the riots started.

DeeAnn

[Katey888]

If nothing else, doesn't it disturb you, even a little, that the central message being used against us right now is this "We can't let transgenders (sic) into the women's restroom because what happens if a man who claims to one day feel like a woman, another day like a man, tries to use the women's room? What happens to our wives and daughters?!?"

If it doesn't chill you that the behavior I've bolded that they use to justify their bogus fears doesn't apply at all to someone like me, but totally describes many of you, then I don't know what else to say.


I think this is the most important point for ANYONE who thinks that it's impossible for our out-and-about community not to be driven back to their closets. There are powerful and bigoted forces in the media and elsewhere who are prepared to commit to campaigns of disinformation and slur to negate legislation for new rights and even impose more punitive constraints than are presently legislated... This may not affect everyone, in every state (or country) but it seems a little myopic of ANYONE that goes out to think that they might be insulated from the effects. One example in our little bastion of democracy this side of the pond was found and posted by Teresa over in Media (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?236343-Do-we-police-ourselves) that demonstrates how a newspaper of a certain persuasion can spin pejorative tales to millions of gullible readers. On the upside, this was in response to a UK government report that has published over 30 new recommendations on policy areas to improve equality for transgender people - it's clear that there is a powerful and prejudiced lobby against these changes and we should all be aware of what might happen... Well, all except the Closeteers, obviously... :devil:

Katey x

[ReineD]

Katey, the article you linked to posted by Teresa ... this is from a tabloid! Surely tabloids do not influence policy ... as evidenced by the government report that you posted in the same thread?

As to CDers wanting to use bathrooms ... it would be nice to find a way to separate the CDers who do not dress for sexual reasons from those that do. Even in this forum we've had members say how excited they were (use your imagination) to feel as "one of the girls" when using women's washrooms. They were quickly put down by the other members, but don't forget that CDers who join this forum to engage in sexual titillation usually don't stick around because of the forum rules. But look at the millions of other websites out there that cater to the sexual aspect. Should they all use women's bathrooms too?

So here's the thing. If a MtF identifies as a woman (not a back-and-forth-woman), she should use the women's bathroom. Presumably she is taking steps to transition. If he identifies as a man even if s/he feels feminine while dressed or as gender-neutral, then s/he should find alternate facilities like single-user or gender-neutral (https://www.google.com/search?q=gender+neutral+bathrooms&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjulo-Iu83KAhXFGD4KHbhECD4Q_AUICSgD&biw=1371&bih=711&dpr=2)bathrooms that I dare say are becoming more prevalent.

If on the other hand a non-sexual CDer who identifies as a man can pass as a woman (which is often the case among our older members), then by all means use the women's bathroom. No one will stop you.

I'm responding to the bathroom issue because it's been commented on before me by several people.

[Zooey]

If nothing else, doesn't it disturb you, even a little, that the central message being used against us right now is this "We can't let transgenders (sic) into the women's restroom because what happens if a man who claims to one day feel like a woman, another day like a man, tries to use the women's room? What happens to our wives and daughters?!?"

If it doesn't chill you that the behavior I've bolded that they use to justify their bogus fears doesn't apply at all to someone like me, but totally describes many of you, then I don't know what else to say.

Exactly right, and in exactly the same way as (to use Paula's words) Big Gay Inc™ left trans folks by the wayside in order to gain "easier" approval for their issues, rest assured that lots of transitioning/transitioned men and women (myself almost-certainly included) will do the same thing to the broader "trans community" if it becomes anything anywhere close to necessary. It would not be terribly hard to argue that it has already become necessary.


So here's the thing. If a MtF identifies as a woman (not a back-and-forth-woman), she should use the women's bathroom. Presumably she is taking steps to transition. If he identifies as a man even if s/he feels feminine while dressed or as gender-neutral, then s/he should find alternate facilities like single-user or gender-neutral (https://www.google.com/search?q=gender+neutral+bathrooms&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjulo-Iu83KAhXFGD4KHbhECD4Q_AUICSgD&biw=1371&bih=711&dpr=2)bathrooms that I dare say are becoming more prevalent.

I personally agree.


If on the other hand a non-sexual CDer who identifies as a man can pass as a woman (which is often the case among our older members), then by all means use the women's bathroom. No one will stop you (probably).

Bold part added by me. When it comes to bathrooms, equal-rights ordinances, etc., the question is not whether you can get away with something not being an issue most of the time. The question is what your rights are when/if somebody does try to make it an issue.

[Teresa]

Reine,
The tabloid misquoted the government report as Katey pointed out and I stand corrected, I should have checked on the report rather than the second hand version.

The rest room was the main point raised apart from the start of the article which stated that competitors at the next Olympics may not have their gender checked if they claim to be TG. I would think that statement is also flawed , especially in the light of recent claims of ignoring drug usage by athletes .

As far as the bathroom issue is concerned I'm sure it's never going to be totally resolved .

[ReineD]

The question is what your rights are when/if somebody does try to make it an issue.

But realistically, who could possibly make it an issue if someone passes, even if they're in a long line? They don't have to talk to anyone. If they don't pass and are transitioning, there are ways to prove this, should issues arise. And if they are not transitioning then we are back to finding single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms.

It may not be a perfect solution for everyone (solutions seldom are), but it's workable.

[Zooey]

But realistically, who could possibly make it an issue if someone passes, even if they're in a long line? They don't have to talk to anyone. If they don't pass and are transitioning, there are ways to prove this, should issues arise. And if they are not transitioning then we are back to finding single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms.

Well, anybody can end up being accused/questioned of being a man in the women's room, including ciswomen.
http://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues

My point is that, if some people get their way, the consequences of being accused are not as simple as "don't ever do that again". It's more like, "pay heavy penalties and/or go to jail if you're found out and not legally considered transitioning". That's regardless of how you look - you might pass, you might not - it's about what you can prove.

As I mentioned, that doesn't affect me in the same way - as you said, I'm fine (or should be) with showing my license, being a woman in the eyes of the law, and all of that (assuming that the standards are applied consistently). It's not really a solution for CDs and other non-transitioners though, regardless of how well they pass.

[Katey888]

Katey, the article you linked to posted by Teresa ... this is from a tabloid! Surely tabloids do not influence policy ... as evidenced by the government report that you posted in the same thread?


Other way around, Reine... :)
If you read the media thread you'd see that it was the government recommendation that had precipitated the spun tabloid drivel... While in this case it's a bigger positive because the policy recommendations are promoting equality, the tabloid articles reach nearly a couple of million people every day, and influence people(badly), who vote... Just an example of how some specific bias is out there and working against TG equality.

Fortunately, we don't have the same lobbying in this country that seems to influence so much policy in yours - I suppose that speaks to Paula's point that even more activism is necessary simply to maintain a balance against some very large and powerful opinion blocs...

I agree with your point about fetish/ sexual CDers, btw (and I've said it before :)) - this forum is not representative of the majority of men that crossdress for any and all purposes - and THAT is another reason for me why any crossdresser who dresses for merely an inkling of identity should be happy to fall under the TG umbrella... Given a choice (and I don't believe it really is but we still have some diehard 'hobbyists' here) I would much rather I was seen to be doing this for an expression of identity rather than just getting off... (no offence to anyone who does - just saying where I'd rather have my hot tush reside...)

Oh yeah... and the Cait Effect...? Well - CJ may just have propped everyone's head up above the parapet... :eek:

Katey x

[ReineD]

Other way around, Reine... :)
If you read the media thread you'd see that it was the government recommendation that had precipitated the spun tabloid drivel... While in this case it's a bigger positive because the policy recommendations are promoting equality, the tabloid articles reach nearly a couple of million people every day, and influence people(badly), who vote... Just an example of how some specific bias is out there and working against TG equality.

But that's what I'm suggesting. Government policies continue to improve, despite the drivel in the tabloids. The same thing happens in the US and Canada. There are lots of negative comments at the bottom of online articles, lots of groups who fight against the inclusion of MtF TS students in female locker rooms, lots of people who fight against gay marriage, lots of people who are downright vicious against transwomen in general, yet things keep improving. It's not improving without a fight and some states lag behind others, but things are continually moving forward if you compare it to the way it was 30 years ago. And it will continue to improve.


... except maybe the question of allowing male-identified folks to use female bathrooms while dressed. As I mentioned earlier, that's a sticky one especially if they continue to identify as male. How do we separate CDers who dress for identity reasons from the CDers who dress for non-identity reasons (re the millions of sex-oriented sites for CDers on the net, outside of a few forums like this one). Best to have GGs and MtF transitioners (HRT and/or SRS) use the women's rooms, and all others (unless they pass to the extent that no one would have a clue) could use single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms, which, as mentioned, there are more and more of anyway.

... that said, I've used the men's bathrooms in a pinch a few times. Stuff happens and it is likely that most CDers can and do use the women's bathroom without inciting a riot (my SO does), as long as they stay away from overly busy times in ladies rooms filled to capacity with mothers and their young daughters, and they go about their business efficiently while there.

[Eryn]

...but don't forget that CDers who join this forum to engage in sexual titillation usually don't stick around because of the forum rules. But look at the millions of other websites out there that cater to the sexual aspect. Should they all use women's bathrooms too?...

How many of these "sexual titillation" dressers go out in public?

[ReineD]

I couldn't begin to guess Eryn. But I've seen a lot of CDers present in ways that are more sexually oriented (breast forms quite large for their bodies, shorter skirts, higher heels, longer, redder nails, etc) than the women I see out and about where I live. I'm guessing it is members like these who post in threads wondering about creative ways to rework male plumbing, or the endless panty-type threads, or any of the other fantasy-flavored posts we often read here. Do none of these people go out dressed? I have no clue.

[ReineD]

Well, anybody can end up being accused/questioned of being a man in the women's room, including ciswomen.
http://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues

Gosh, that's awful! They wouldn't even look at her ID! I hope she wins her lawsuit. She had every right to be there, and I agree that MtFs who are transitioning have every right to be in the women's room too.

There are extremists everywhere though, like the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who disobeyed the Supreme Court and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Hitting their pocketbooks heavily is a good way to get them to rethink their positions.

[PaulaQ]

The bill requires that “gender identity” be proven with at least 12 months of medical care and consistent and uniform assertion of that gender identity in those past 12 months — a burden placed on the individual filing the complaint.

Well, y'all aren't the only ones trying to separate CD from TS. What do you think of the above proposal for trans bathroom access?

[flatlander_48]

Gosh, that's awful! They wouldn't even look at her ID! I hope she wins her lawsuit. She had every right to be there, and I agree that MtFs who are transitioning have every right to be in the women's room too.

The embarrassment that she felt (just the very act of being challenged) wouldn't be any different from what a trans person would experience. Obviously documentation doesn't mean anything for people. And, as I have noticed here before, folks seem to do documentation change as they near the end of their transition process and not near the beginning.


There are extremists everywhere though, like the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who disobeyed the Supreme Court and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Hitting their pocketbooks heavily is a good way to get them to rethink their positions.

Not so sure about that. One parallel for me would be all of the decades that we had economic sanctions against Cuba. They survived, maybe not great, but they survived.

You're also forgetting the legions of folks that will contribute the the legal defense funds for people like Ms. Davis. She was just the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of folks who are very supportive. For what you cite, many would take that as just more reason to dig in deeper. You're assuming rationality in this and that is not the case. There is NOTHING rational about prejudice.

DeeAnn

[Rhonda Jean]

Sometimes the best discussions here come from disagreement. It always makes me think. I'm pretty stubborn about changing my mind, but it makes me think.

A couple of Paula's points that kinda stuck... That since they weren't able to stop gay marriage, we're the next target. I can see that. Not only did they not stop gay marriage, but then comes Cait and all the trans visibility of 2015. They must feel like they're the ones being attacked, and they're losing. The bathroom issue is quite an obvious target. I hadn't thought of the gay marriage issue playing into this.

Also Paula, you said that people are more likely to accept someone like me more so than you. I think that's situational. Back when I had long hair and got my hair done frequently, every hairdresser I went to thought I was TS and immediately assumed I liked men. I just rolled with it. I was perfectly comfortable with them thinking I was full time and I thing they were more comfortable and accepting of that than a part-timer who they'd probably assume was doing it just to get off. At one of these places I spent a lot of time because they did hair, nails, facials, and waxing. I got to know them pretty well. Especially after the novelty of having a TS client wore off, I felt very much like one of the girls. I know this is one place and I was able to very selective about where, when, and to whom I was out like this. I certainly don't pretend that this is representative of real life. Thus the defining difference between you and me. The only point I'm trying to make is that not only at this place, but at everywhere I can think of that I went often and of those everywhere we had any discussion about it, to them I was TS.

Another point. You said that because of trans activism I'm able to go out now when I couldn't have before. Not really. The first time I wore a dress, makeup, heels... the whole bit (including a bra stuffed with toilet paper) in public was as soon as I could drive at age 16 in 1973. I had decades of experience dressing as a woman in public before there was any sort of trans activism. As to the bathroom issue, I can't remember the first time I used the women's. Honestly, I've always avoided it, and still do. I don't go unless it's a dire emergency, unless I was with a GG.

As for you're personal situation of hating politics but being forced into an activist role, I think you could just go live your life. I've known you through this forum for a long time. You are driven to help others (and maybe driven by the challenge of it) to your own detriment. An admirable quality (I'm not just saying that!), but you certainly do it at your own peril. Another difference between you and me is I wouldn't do it. I know full well this puts me on a lower rung of humanity. Just being honest. I'm selfish in that way. I'd live my life as a woman. I'm sure I'd venture over into the gayborhood, as you put it, but I wouldn't be taking up anybody's causes but my very own. I think you could do exactly that if you wanted. That's just not you.

This thread is getting a bit contentious. I certainly hope it doesn't get shut down. This is healthy discussion! So far, at least, this is pretty respectful disagreement. I damn sure respect Paula. She's climbed a mountain that I won't and couldn't. The rest of you don't know, but we've disagreed mightily on a number of things, but, for me at least, I have always respected her in the end. In other words, she's a great person, just misguided.:)

[Zooey]

Well, y'all aren't the only ones trying to separate CD from TS. What do you think of the above proposal for trans bathroom access?

I do agree with the idea of a separation (from a policy standpoint), but I do not agree with that set of criteria. While it would cause me no issues NOW, it does not meet a lot of transitioners needs.

I believe that the feds already have a good standard for recognizing gender change - being under the care of a licensed medical or mental health professional, who is willing to provide a written statement that you are undergoing "appropriate treatment" and (implicitly) that they believe you should be legally considered as your target gender. I'd like to see that standard adopted broadly as the defining line.

IMO, if you have the letter, then whether or not you are on HRT, have changed IDs, have had surgeries, etc., you should be allowed. I am not lobbying for self-identified men in the women's room, but I definitely understand the needs of someone in early transition, and they do need to be addressed somehow.

[flatlander_48]

Exactly right, and in exactly the same way as (to use Paula's words) Big Gay Inc™ left trans folks by the wayside in order to gain "easier" approval for their issues, rest assured that lots of transitioning/transitioned men and women (myself almost-certainly included) will do the same thing to the broader "trans community" if it becomes anything anywhere close to necessary. It would not be terribly hard to argue that it has already become necessary.

That makes it very hard for anyone in the community, other than transsexuals, to support this issue if this separation comes to pass. I mean, logically speaking, why would I or anyone else, who is not a transsexual?


As for you're personal situation of hating politics but being forced into an activist role, I think you could just go live your life.

People become activists by way of conscience.

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

That makes it very hard for anyone in the community, other than transsexuals, to support this issue if this separation comes to pass. I mean, logically speaking, why would I or anyone else, who is not a transsexual?

I totally understand that. My personal opinion is that the long-term solution to supporting gender-variance is a transition (ha!) towards more gender neutral facilities in the future. While I value gendered spaces in some cases, I don't believe they are as necessary as people think they are. To the extent that gendered spaces do exist and may need to in the future, what I described is the bar I'm personally comfortable with for access.

My counter-question is this... Given what a small fraction of the general population is trans, is it easier for the FAR LARGER cis community to support something like I'm proposing than it would be for them to support the free-for-all proposal that the broader trans community would like? Assuming a move towards gender-neutral facilities over time, is that a reasonable compromise in the interim? For me, it obviously is, but I'm just one person and it's just my opinion based on my priority structure in my life. I would gladly support more permissive proposals if I feel they have a chance of passing, but I'm beyond willing to accept what I proposed if it becomes a viable option.

[AllieSF]

These are always interesting discussions that ramble all over the place and as just recently stated above help some of us think about certain topics in a different way thus helping us to understand other points of view. I understand the thinking on arriving at a standard and acceptable way of legally proving, when necessary that one is a woman, transitioning, transitioned or not required. However, when we get down to the basics of how to use that self identity tool in real life is where all this talk, discussion and rambling starts to fall apart. You are only legally required to prove who you are when doing specific things, like making a credit card purchase, entering a bar where the owner's want to protect their liquor license so they want to be sure about their patrons ages. Why would we want to add another identity check point to everybody's lives for using the ladies' or men's restroom when needed?

From my point of view California and other states and cities have it right when they simply state that you may use the restroom corresponding to how you are presenting. Perfect, probably not. Better than carrying around a letter to prove whatever when asked, much worse. When someone starts showing meaningful statistics about assaults in restrooms by non-letter carrying people presenting as the opposite gender, then maybe I would start to think differently. My point is that discussion is great, but in the real world we need to select the approach that really has a chance to work allowing people to do what needs to be done in restrooms and still keep people safe?

[Lorileah]

How many of these "sexual titillation" dressers go out in public?

I know several. There used to be a bar here that was known for sexual hookups...now back to the OP?

[AllieSF]

Zooey, are you proposing that transitioning people be certified as that and then need to become card carrying members so that they can get access to women's restrooms? I could maybe see that for access to areas where nudity may come into play as in gyms. But for restrooms? That is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasted money to use those simple facilities.

I personally do not want to be required to give out any personal information to anyone unless absolutely necessary for fraud protection and personal safety. It is bad enough that we have to give out our Social Security Number for so many things, when all experts, including the Government advise against it. Oh, and then the Government makes your Social Security number you Medicare ID number, so there it is out and proud to everyone that does not need it but may decide to use it fraudulently! Do you think that John and Jane Doe Public will put up with that? Will stores and restaurants and gas stations and bars be required to hire another person to check ID's at the bathroom door? I believe that it will be easier for the general public to accept what California and other jurisdictions have already done. Give access based on presentation. Those protesting that type of legislation are also in the minority, probably a minority much larger than the trans community, but much smaller than those that can accept it, or at least learn to live with it whether they like it or not. Laws should protect minorities when they need protection, they should not cater to all minority thought or ideological groups.

I am in favor of requiring more unisex restroom facilities in all public access buildings and facilities, but all of us will be long dead and gone before all buildings can be so equipped. Look at all the apartment buildings without fire sprinkler systems that are still legal and unsafe. So, I would not hold my breath nor expect that to solve today's needs for restroom usage by all.

[Zooey]

Zooey, are you proposing that transitioning people be certified as that and then need to become card carrying members so that they can get access to women's restrooms? I could maybe see that for access to areas where nudity may come into play as in gyms. But for restrooms? That is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasted money to use those simple facilities.

I'm not suggesting that everybody needs to be carrying a card at all times, and I'm certainly not suggesting a government-operated "registered transgender database".

My belief, which I believe is founded, is that anybody can be accused of being in a women's space that they shouldn't be (including ciswomen; see above). The question is, when accused, what constitutes proof of you being in the right vs. being in the wrong, to the extent that that is necessary.

For a variety of reasons, largely to do with the impracticality of enforcing anything else, I support access based on presentation, and I'm happy we have it here. I do live in California, as you know... We've met, have at least one rather large-chested mutual friend, and I like it here. A lot. :)

I also have friends I love in states like Michigan that have no such protections, and you better believe that it puts me on serious edge (despite having all my id changes done) when I go visit them. I want something standard across the country, and what I described is what I'm willing to vote for. If I think we have a chance of getting that passed nationally with broad'ish support, but not access based on presentation, I'm voting for what I suggested.

[flatlander_48]

I totally understand that. My personal opinion is that the long-term solution to supporting gender-variance is a transition (ha!) towards more gender neutral facilities in the future. While I value gendered spaces in some cases, I don't believe they are as necessary as people think they are. To the extent that gendered spaces do exist and may need to in the future, what I described is the bar I'm personally comfortable with for access.

Well, when the "What's in it for me?" doesn't apply, you're stuck with the "It's the right thing to do." and usually that doesn't go too far.


My counter-question is this... Given what a small fraction of the general population is trans, is it easier for the FAR LARGER cis community to support something like I'm proposing than it would be for them to support the free-for-all proposal that the broader trans community would like?

Perhaps, but it is still a tough sell considering that the transsexual community would be like a speed bump on the Bonneville Salt Flats compared to the rest of the population. There's no, or at least not enough, motivation there. In theory the logic there, but I just don't see it happening. They would not perceive a compelling reason.


Assuming a move towards gender-neutral facilities over time, is that a reasonable compromise in the interim? For me, it obviously is, but I'm just one person and it's just my opinion based on my priority structure in my life. I would gladly support more permissive proposals if I feel they have a chance of passing, but I'm beyond willing to accept what I proposed if it becomes a viable option.

Consider this. Think about how difficult it was to get the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) passed. There's no moral part of the discussion compared to LGBT issues. Basically it covered accommodations that would improve the quality of life for those who have a disability of some sort. And the thing is, in spite of this being the law of the land for some time now, there are still serious gaps in implementation and enforcement. I've seen this first hand as my wife uses a wheelchair. Judging by how the ADA has gone, I don't see gender neutral facilities happening in a major way for some time.

Further, not to single Wal-Mart out, but...

I was in one the other day and went to the restroom when I entered the store. In this store, which is between 5 and 10 years old, the restrooms are at the front opposite the cashiers. However, the gender neutral facility is at the rear of the store. And if you know Wal-marts, the rear of the store is a long ways away.

Looks a lot like Separate But Equal to me...

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

I totally get your concerns, but here's another example...

The Affordable Care Act is FAR from perfect, and not what I really want. I am extremely happy that we got it passed though, and would not want to go back to the time before it, when my best friend could barely get insurance when she was between jobs because she had a pre-existing chronic stomach issue (well controlled with medication). It is a good step, has moved the discussion about healthcare in the US forward, and gives us a slightly higher platform from which to reach what I hope are the next steps.

I'm willing to accept progress if we can't manage to jump straight to the end goal.

[Eryn]

We're being diverted into arguing about trivia. Our enemies don't care whether we are properly registered, have surgery, or any other "litmus test" of gender. They want us dead, period. If they had their way the "showers" would be in operation tomorrow. Any compromise that we make with them will simply be seen as the starting point for their next attack.

Our enemies use fear and ignorance as their weapons. Unfortunately, all we have is reason and reality. As one of the people involved in the Houston fight stated "Your rights should not be subject to a popular vote."

[flatlander_48]

I totally get your concerns, but here's another example...

The Affordable Care Act is FAR from perfect, and not what I really want. I am extremely happy that we got it passed though, and would not want to go back to the time before it, when my best friend could barely get insurance when she was between jobs because she had a pre-existing chronic stomach issue (well controlled with medication). It is a good step, has moved the discussion about healthcare in the US forward, and gives us a slightly higher platform from which to reach what I hope are the next steps.

I'm willing to accept progress if we can't manage to jump straight to the end goal.

The point about Wal-Mart really had more to do with what you get when commitment is lacking. If folks are not going to be sufficiently committed to the disabled population, the message is that it is really uphill for what is being discussed here.

Also, I believe one of the reasons behind the to aversion to activism is that probably people have had little contact with it. Chances are that if you are closeted because you dress or are trying to sort out or avoid the notion of being transsexual, you probably do not spend much time discussing these issues in public. You wouldn't do that because then people would know that you are very different. No one would want to put themselves in the limelight if that is the situation.

DeeAnn

[PaulaQ]

I do agree with the idea of a separation (from a policy standpoint), but I do not agree with that set of criteria. While it would cause me no issues NOW, it does not meet a lot of transitioners needs.

I believe that the feds already have a good standard for recognizing gender change - being under the care of a licensed medical or mental health professional, who is willing to provide a written statement that you are undergoing "appropriate treatment" and (implicitly) that they believe you should be legally considered as your target gender. I'd like to see that standard adopted broadly as the defining line.

Yes, the suggested criteria I quoted were from SB100 from Indiana, a decidedly anti-trans piece of legislation. How does one acquire a year of living continuously as your self-identified gender if you are not allowed in public spaces such as restrooms? Well you just don't.

I think requiring a letter from a doctor is excessive as well. It's fine for people with access and means to afford trans medical care, and who happen to live someplace where such care is available. That excludes easily 90% of the US... And that assumes the trans person wants a medical transition - not all do.

By the way, the correct answer to the whole bathroom issue is this - just make them all unisex. People in the US need to get over their weirdness about restrooms. If someone is going to enter a restroom to commit a sexual assault, they are unlikely to be deterred by the fact that it's illegal for them to be in that restroom.

[flatlander_48]

Yes, the suggested criteria I quoted were from SB100 from Indiana, a decidedly anti-trans piece of legislation. How does one acquire a year of living continuously as your self-identified gender if you are not allowed in public spaces such as restrooms? Well you just don't.

Yes, a year is a long time to hold it...


By the way, the correct answer to the whole bathroom issue is this - just make them all unisex.

Like this:

Where Men's and Women's share a common wall, remove the separation, make all stall walls floor to ceiling, add a small mirror and a fold down shelf to each stall, make the row of stalls visible from the external hallway, re-position the wash basins to the external hallway and eliminate the mirror over the wash basins.


If someone is going to enter a restroom to commit a sexual assault, they are unlikely to be deterred by the fact that it's illegal for them to be in that restroom.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

DeeAnn