transgender

[arbon]

Other terms like transsexual have become irrelevant and meaningless out there in the bigger world.

I mean when you look at all the national debate it is all about transgender people. Even from the DOE and DOJ recently. Transgender being talked about by the president and candidates. We all get thrown into transgender label.

How do you like it?

I was at a school board meeting last night on the issue, listening to people talk and debate this stuff. Really fun watching people with no personal experience on it trying to decide whats best on these issues. They don't have a clue what they are talking about. In the policy being debated transsexual does not even get defined - only transgender. Earlier in the year I tried getting transgender removed from the policy (likewise transsexual and all such labels) to have it address "gender identity". I feel a policy in regards to gender identity is much clearer and to the point. Transgender muddies the waters. At first I got what I wanted, but it was a very brief victory, and now the policy is back to being a transgender and gender non conforming policy. I went ahead and gave comments in support of it, now I am kind of wishing I hadn't and considering how I can head it off at the next meeting. It would really piss people off at this point though, so maybe I just need to concede and say yep we are all transgender.

[pamela7]

the question is whether it's helpful, so as it has brought awareness, i think it is. We can subdivide into CD and TS but the umbrella is TG, right?

[Megan G]

Just my opinion but I don't feel like lumping everyone that is gender non conforming under one "umbrella" term such as transgender to set policies is helping at all and only feeds into the confusion that people who don't understand are having.

I think your spot on with the term transgender only muddying the water for them. To people that don't understand it fully transgender means transexual and your going to transition. They don't realize that there are people in that group that never will and don't want to. There are people in that group that do not have a gender identity issue, the identify solidly with their birth gender and just CD for other reasons..

[arbon]

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

[Megan G]

So to them transgender = transexual.

[Zooey]

I don't like it, because as you mentioned, nobody knows what they're talking about. I also am not really interested in being recognized as part of the broader transgender umbrella. I AM part of it, but I'm legally a woman at the state and federal level - I just want that to be respected and interpreted consistently.

Ignoring the extremes at either side (activists), and focusing on the "regular people" for a moment...

There are a lot of people advocating for non-discrimination ordinances who think they're specifically talking about people like you and I (more or less binary medically/legally transitioned/transitioning people), and make arguments as such, but don't realize all the other people they're talking about including. They use transgender to mean transexual, and that's a trap.

There are a lot of people opposed to non-discrimination ordinances, many who support actively discriminatory ones, who are actually worried about everybody BUT us. They're generally completely willing to throw us out with the bathwater if necessary though.

Near as I can tell, the "movement" is more or less advocating for a free-for-all, because while people like to use words like "sincerely held gender identity" nobody is willing to define an even borderline useful standard for what that means. If you accept fluid gender identities, as opposed to fluid gender expression, it may actually be impossible to do so in what feels like a manageable way. And so, free-for-all. That leaves us with Target employees telling idiotic men making YouTube videos that, yes, technically if you tell me you identify as a woman right now then you are allowed to use the women's restroom.

As I said recently to a friend, I personally believe that if this debate was just about us, much (though certainly not all) of the opposition would have stopped caring a while ago.

I believe strongly that we should have fewer gendered spaces, because they're nowhere near as necessary or desirable as some people think. i'm also 100% fine with supporting extra-inclusive laws that go beyond what I personally think is necessary/best/etc. I benefitted from one here in California for a while - I'm not sad that they exist. I just don't think that we have to completely dismantle the idea of gender in order to provide safety for people. I think that e.g. crossdressers should feel free to use the women's restroom without legal punishment if they're more comfortable when dressed, but I don't particularly think they need the legal right to be in there.

[arbon]

So to them transgender = transexual.

Yes, I guess so. That is from the guidance letter sent to all school districts in US.

[Starling]

We're never going to get the accurate--and stable--nomenclature we'd love. For the sake of communication with people I know, I'm satisfied with born with male genitalia but identify as female and intend to live full-time as a woman as soon as I can swing it. They get that, and it doesn't make them anxious, like having to use the right word would. But beyond that, these larger questions of terminology will inevitably be settled by committees of "experts."

I agree with Zooey. We should do whatever we can to support gender-neutral public bathrooms, whether they are shared or individual--preferably individual, which already works fine at places like Starbuck's. There is no practical way to assuage the fear of ignorant alarmists, but the most important truth to get across is that being in any public space where people have their pants down has always made them more vulnerable to creeps and criminals, regardless of sex or gender presentation.

:) Lallie

[Eryn]

We're the only ones who are splitting hairs over this. I don't care if I'm called by an "umbrella" term as long as the direction of the conversation is positive.

[Badtranny]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this but I can't resist the opportunity to say I agree with Eryn. LOL

I frankly never use the word transsexual outside of this forum. It feels dated to me, like hermaphrodite. Remember when that's what girls like me were called? Tranny is kind of an upgrade as far as I'm concerned.

When I come out to people (which isn't very often unfortunately), I tell them I'm transgender or trans, and they get it. The last thing I want to do is try to teach them our terminology or introduce them to our 'community'. Nobody needs that drama.

[PretzelGirl]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this but I can't resist the opportunity to say I agree with Eryn. LOL

I think I am going to the ER for a heart check! :eek:

But I agree too. Ever since I have been here, I have read threads on terminology and who think what means what. Say enough for people to understand and move on. I know my terms are not someone else's, so I just clarify if needed.

[KymberlyOct]

I understand OUR concerns regarding the use of various labels, Transgender, Transsexual, Gender Fluid, Non Binary, CD/TV etc. To the vast majority of the public these are distinctions without a difference although we know differently. In my opinion as we move the needle forward as a community with the population at large the most important thing is respect. As more of our society understands we are just trying to be our true selves and are not a threat to anyone or their way of life and support our rights to live our lives as we choose then we are going in the right direction. It's not about the words, it's about the attitude of society. In my opinion we are about 30 years behind the gay rights movement. This is encouraging for the younger members of our community because they will get there. I wish I was one of them. :-)

[Kate T]

Wow, Eryn, Sue and Melissa all agreeing. And I'm going to agree with them too!!

My personal preference is transgender. I dislike the inference of transexual that it is all about sex.

But then I'm probably just a bit of an old prude.

[I Am Paula]

This forum uses the archaic word transsexual. We are used to it, and it suits our purpose.
No one else uses it anymore.
Once again, arguing who fits where under the umbrella is pointless. In the case of the media, school board meetings, or the department of justice- None of them know us, care, or think there is a distinction. It like arguing wether you saw a dromedary, or a camel.

[becky77]

"I'm just a sweet transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania". Rocky Horror.

Yeah Transsexual is a horrible word and the 'Sexual' part gives the wrong impression.
I just say I'm a woman or trans woman, unless it's medical then I say Transsexual because they know what that means.

Transgender is fine but a little meaningless because it's now far too broad and encompassing a term to give any context.

Now I'm happily full-time the definitions have little use to me, but not so easy when you are coming out to people.

[Jeri Ann]

I agree with Kate, Sue, Eryn and Melissa. If the need ever arises, I just say TG or Trans.

Jeri

[Zooey]

I don't really care what words we use. We can all be quizzle-bleep-blorps for all I care.

What I don't like is the fact that the people currently talking about us are all using different definitions of the same word, and talking to each other like they're not. IMO, that's a problem, for a variety of reasons.

[Sue Too]

LABELS LABELS LABELS Who the heck cares? What purpose do they serve? I cant believe that intelligent people don't have more constructive things to debate. I'm a woman and happy to be one. I act respectful of others and in return I am treated with respect-----even in female bathrooms.

End of rant

Susan in Phoenix

[arbon]

What purpose do they serve? I cant believe that intelligent people don't have more constructive things to debate.

When is comes to legalities and policies they can matter a lot.

[Rianna Humble]

I'm happy to go along with you not wanting labels, but let's see what your post would look like if we star out all the labels you don't want to use


****** ****** ****** Who the heck cares? What purpose do **** serve? * cant believe that *********** ****** don't have more ************ ****** to debate. *** a ***** and ***** to be ***. * act ********** of ****** and in return * am treated with *******-----even in ****** *********.

End of ****

***** in *******

Yes, makes just as much sense without the labels. Or does it?

[Eryn]

I was sitting in the audience for a show yesterday evening with Persephone. Some acquaintances happened by and we said "hi" as they sat down.

They got into a conversation among themselves about the synagogue that one attends. She said "It's really progressive, they're even having a bar mitzvah for a transgender man!"

At that point something dawned on me. She wouldn't have made that statement in easy earshot of Persephone and me if we were perceived as transgender! I, despite my faults, was perceived as a woman.

Ultimately, that is likely where we all want to be. The only label we want is "woman" or "man."

[Starling]

People of African origin in the US have been called many things over four hundred-plus years, but only in the last fifty years have they had a voice in choosing what to be called. Even now, there are factions which would prefer other terms than those most in use; or the use of no term at all, save human. That's why I believe the fracas over transgender vs transgendered, for instance, aroused a disproportionate degree of passion. They both mean essentially the same thing in English.

I believe that in hospitals here they identify us as Transgender Female or Transgender Male. That lets the medical staff know they may be encountering something unexpected, and therefore enable them to care for us properly. It also implies a Gender Binary.

:) Lallie

[becky77]

I went to some person the other day and asked if he could increase my stuff, he wasn't sure because he didn't know why I needed stuff, well I said it's because I'm a something or other. He looked even more confused and sent me to see the thingy person.
She was quite helpful but couldn't give me stuff because she didn't know what stuff is and why it's needed.
I said obviously stuff is to help with my something because I'm a lalala.

Funnily enough I came out empty handed.

Yeah who needs labels!

Being serious if you are going through the Gender clinic (NHS UK), then these terms are crucial. None of my Psych or surgery evaluations mention the word Transgender, it's a diagnosis of F64.0 Male to Female Transsexualism.

When it comes to medical/mental diagnosis Transgender means nothing it's just a polite term for media use.
It's a nicer word to maybe use than TS but it's not a word I typically use because it doesn't achieve anything.

My ex mentioned me to someone that didn't know recently, she always just says 'Bob now lives as a woman '.
My Mum now says either 'My son is now my daughter' or 'Bob is now Rebecca'.
I never told her what to say she worked that out herself after saying Transgender just got a barrage of confused questions, she said how she tells it now people understand instantly.

I and we did use Transgender initially but quickly discovered it's a pointless descriptor.

[Eryn]

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

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

[Starling]

Interesting, Eryn, and novel.

:) Lallie

[LeaP]

Nobody needs that drama.

+1.


Quizzle-bleep-blorps

That gets a vote for sheer weirdness.

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

[Nicole Erin]

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

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

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

[arbon]

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

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

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

[LeaP]

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

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

[Starling]

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

:) Lallie

[LeaP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StarrOfDelite]

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

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

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

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

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

[LeaP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MissDanielle]

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

[flatlander_48]

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

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

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

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

DeeAnn

[LeaP]

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

[Eryn]

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

Newspeak is doubleplusgood for unmake thoughtcrime and make goodthink.

[LeaP]

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

It seems we like meaningless nonsense sometimes.

[Mayo]

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

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

[Kaitlyn Michele]

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

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

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

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

sucks for us..

[Megan G]

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

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

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

[flatlander_48]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

DeeAnn

[Mayo]

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

[LeaP]

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

[Mayo]

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

[LeaP]

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


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

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

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

[Starling]

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

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

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

:) Lallie

[Tina_gm]

We can all be quizzle-bleep-blorps for all I care.
I have long suspected R2D2 of being transgender. This just confirms my suspicions.

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

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

[LeaP]

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

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


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

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



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


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

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

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

[Zooey]

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

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

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

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

[LeaP]

Very clear and well-written, Zooey.

[flatlander_48]

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

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

DeeAnn

[LeaP]

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

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

[Eringirl]

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


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

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

[Kaitlyn Michele]

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

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

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

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

[LeaP]

Kaitlyn, I agree, with one exception.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kaitlyn Michele]

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

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

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

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


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

[flatlander_48]

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

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

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

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

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

[flatlander_48]

Z:

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

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

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

DeeAnn

[Starling]

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

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

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

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

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

:) Lallie

[Zooey]

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

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

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

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

[Rianna Humble]

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