Printable View
Monty Python. :) British comedy troupe. Had a TV show, and then a few movies, of which my favorite is Life of Brian. They had, I think, just one GG in the troupe. The rest of the female roles were played by the men, using really bad falsettoes for female voices.Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
I did not say all CDs are TVFs. I meant her spouse, from her description, is probably a TVF, and that statistically speaking it was much more likely than her husband being a TS. Maybe I was not clear about what I meant, so I revised my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Gaum
I have been involved with the trans community for almost 20 years, in both a personal and then later a professional capacity as well.
For those who say T's need their own organization, last week the Gender Justice League held a Trans-Pride Parade in Seattle a day or so before the regular Pride Parade. It's starting to come together, if we would get involved in our local towns (safely- not all locales are quite so open-minded), we can make a difference.
Hugs All!
So when you talk ofQuote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynnePlease quote specifically where I (the original poster said that... 'cause it isn't in existence. Never was, never did. Nothing has been edited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
when the T already encompasses cross-dressers, what is your purpose? I made the obvious assumption that since you wanted CD specified separately from T that you intended to separate the two groups in peoples' minds. If that is not true, then why split them out?Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
The context of my words in your second quote clearly shows that they are a direct reply to Briana, so why (unless your intention is to create conflict) do you treat them as if they were addressed to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynneI'd suggest you do... and don't try to put words down, attributed to me, that I've never written... do your research! :straightface:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
This thread is like so many Internet forum threads, there's a whole lot or writing, but very little reading. What little reading is done only with the thought of how one is going to reply to the past that has just been read.
With that in mind, if you put a different definition to a word than the general public and use that word in conversations, you will be misunderstood at best, taken for an idiot or punched at worst.
If you call a person "transgendered" or "queer" when they don't believe they are, you have put yourself in that situation. Beware.
Around here, CD's are part of the "T" in LGBT. I just don't CD's who feel they aren't part of the transgender community. In the Chicago area, we've been rubbing elbows with the LGB for decades, "expanding their horizons", as you suggest.
CD's are part of the "T".
Carol
The attitude towards bisexuals was similar, but I think a lot of that has dissipated over the years. At the root of it is strength in numbers. When it comes time to vote for marriage equality, etc., does it really make a difference WHERE the votes come from? In my home state, we have legal same-sex marriage, but the GENDA (gender expression non-discrimination act) legislation has stalled. That's the one that has a lot of implications for us, but by ourselves I don't think we have the wherewithal to gain enough support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badtranny
I think we definatly should be considered under the transgendered umbrella since we are all at some point of transgendered. Besides we put it all out there more than the lesbians or gays, they don't have to announce it to everyone they come in contact with. Once we're dressed we are who we are for all the world to see unless you are one of the fourtunate ones that can totaly pass. So I wecome them since we are all in this together and we are stronger as one.
I can see how the straight crossdressers among us can have a problem aligning themselves with the gay rights movement (speaking in broad terms). However, be aware of the larger picture. Remember that there were scores of whites involved in the black civil rights movement. There were men who were strong supporters of the women's rights movement. Political alignment does NOT require that you be of that group.
Do you wonder how a gay or lesbian feels about being grouped with us? They don't wear the clothes of another gender!
Hmmmm....
Lesbian
Gay
Bi-sexual
The others
I'm happy with that. :)
The are always exceptions to every premise...Quote:
Originally Posted by almostalady
I've spent a fair bit of time with gay and lesbian activists, and they've been very supportive of the transgender community. The year I went to Out & Equal (a workplace equality conference) I met a lot of people who were trying to understand how better to accommodate the transgender community at work. We really do have a shared struggle in many ways: people express disapproval of all of us for regions reasons, our spouses may get uncomfortable about being perceived as being in a same sex relationship, and we all make easy targets for bullies.Quote:
Originally Posted by almostalady
There are obviously individuals who feel differently, but then there are gay men who don't want to have anything to do with lesbians or vice versa, and members of both groups who think bisexuals are confused. It doesn't mean much. There are self-absorbed people everywhere who are unable to empathize with anyone else.
I looked into a similar group in Austin and all I found was a group that meets monthly in restaurants I can't afford, dressed or drab, your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by traci_k
I didn't go to the Pride parade last weekend, so I can't speak from a true position of knowledge, but the LGBs I know around here are very anti-trans. I have a good friend who moved to El Paso a year ago who stumbled across a crossdresser, and then made several Facebook posts going basically "tranny this, tranny that, I hate trannies, they're so pretentious, why can't they just choose a sex?" To which I answered "The T in LGBT stands for 'Transgender', and that's the word you should be using." Came within an inch of dropping him like a ton of bricks, but thought maybe I could hang in there and educate the poor boy.
It's ok to be a "butch" lesbian or an effeminate man, but heaven forbid you should want to wear her clothes. :/
I need to do more research. I'd be totally interested in forming a political/social activist group for trans people here in Austin. I just need to make sure there isn't one already that I should join.
Thanks for this plain statement. We are indeed a part of the "T" in "LGBT" (or LGBTQ or LGBGTQQ or whatever new slice someone wants to posit). My historical favorite was LBGT, which stood for Lesbigators. That pretty much floats my boat. Certainly a more useful and endearing species in general than legislators...
I read a book (I think about 15 years ago) that examined the utility of non-discrimination statutes vis-á-vis larger societal remedies such as marriage and military equality. It made a compelling argument that laws forbidding discrimination had less effect than opening doors in the more fundamental institutions of equality in a society. In other words, making it illegal to discriminate in employment and housing matters less than normalizing participation of minorities in civil marriage and military service, both of which command inherent respect. I think it's a good argument, and it's been gratifying to see this larger equality emerge over the years. The more equal we are all seen by each other, the less need there will be for mandatory corrective regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
So, rejoice in marriage equality in New York, as we do here in California. Rejoice in the end of DADT, even if a TG bias remains to be dealt with (I knew a post-op TS who remained in the military in the 1980s, before DADT, and served ably). For these will do us more good in the long run than all the nondiscrimination rules we can pass.
Not to throw cold water, but my impression is that more often than not, when a state, county, town, village, or municipality is considering some new protection of rights statute, rule, etc. for the GLBTQ? community, the "T" gets thrown under the bus as a compromise to get the law passed to protect the 'overall' community, "Ts" be damned. YMMD.
Rhonda
Indeed, what you say suggests that those of us who are married to supportive spouses should be out publicly so we can help change attitudes just by being. For every person who gets away with a comment like "What kind of woman would want to be with THAT?" there's probably at least one who says that to his wife and she says "There's no questioning love, and I think it's great that they're together."Quote:
Originally Posted by Acastina
On that last --- couldn't agree more. TELL THE GLB community that!Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
RD
Greenie, you've nailed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenie
I was in Florida on business earlier this year and Rhonda went along (actually, traveled en femme the whole way - first time ever). Rhonda was itching to get out in the evening and, being in a less than liberal part of the state, went on line and found what appeared as the only GLB bar in town. Went in and was initially ignored by the wait staff until Andrew, the owner came up, intro'd himself and we struck up a conversation. I closed the place at 3:30 am after hours of explaining CD and TS to a huge GLB group. They had no idea, no prior comprehension or understanding -- nothing -- about us. I think I changed some attitudes that night, but that same work needs to be done throughout the GLB communities.
Ladies, get going!!
RD
Tina is so right -- to a point. The Stonewall riots in NYC involved transvestites - the gay crossdressers of the time. Not show people, but gays who portrayed as women in clubs, bars etc. now it is difficult to find anyone under 50 in the LGBT community who know the history, or who care. The outcome (long term) of Stonewall was the long slugfest battle for LGB rights a "war" they have won in many places, and are wining in most other places. The hetero trans and CD is suckling hind teat on that front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina B.
RD
Indeed, for anybody who doesn't know, the Stonewall Riots essentially birthed the modern LGBT movement. Oddly enough, those riots directly correspond to Rosa Parks wanting to sit in the front of the bus, in that the riots did for the LGBT world what Rosa Park's passive defiance did to the civil rights movement.
I always wonder why the civil rights movement didn't include LGBTs until recently. Even feminism is only just now realizing that women's rights depend on LGBT rights, because among the reasons LGBTs are persecuted is because they are seen to be women. Even so, there's at least one feminist organization that explicitly excludes TG rights on the basis that we crossdressers try to have it both ways. We get male privilege when we want it, and female privilege when we want that, but we never have to suffer the way women do.
Rianna, I'll try this again... my post #95 quoting your post #81:
That was your inference, not what I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
My intention was for you to re-read the opening post. As I've pointed out, your inference was mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
Now, on to your post #104:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
Not all crossdressers are transgender or transsexuals. Just wearing the clothing of a gender other than your own doesn't make you T, unless your definition is much broader than mine... maybe that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
And I feel you're being overly confrontational in asking, "What is your purpose?" with such a challenging presentation.
My purpose is not to separate, but to include, crossdressing under the LGBT umbrella. Nothing underlying or sinister, I can assure you.
Once again, your post #81 quoted in my post #95:
That's all I quoted, not what you've indicated in your post #104:Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
Rianna, your response was a total misrepresentation, and completely erroneous. I think you might want to go back in and set the record straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna Humble
My intention is to stimulate conversation and discussion in an area of interest to the community at-large... rather, I think it is you who may be more interested in creating conflict.
I'm just looking for people's thoughts on the subject at hand. :)
@RebeccaLynne...The T covers the crossdressing community as they give a "transgender presentation" while being "crossdressed". The Q is also important to add as it covers those that choose to present to the world in a "half baked" fashion..partially dressed as either gender..If we think of the word "queer" to mean odd,then we can have inclusion for those that choose to prance around their living rooms in a "tutu"..that is if we use "Q" to describe "odd". My opinion is that people need to see AND STAND UP FOR the bigger picture..which is acceptance of individual rights..
Precisely yoou took my words out of context in order to pretend that they were addressed to you. Once again you have deliberately removed what I was telling Brianna to reread.Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
Not misrepresentation at all Cross-dressers are crossing the gender divide which is the definition of Transgender.Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
You reject any that don't coincide with your agendaQuote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaLynne
To answer the original question.
Rebecca you are as a CDer already included. You are part of the "T" in LGBT. No transitioning is required.
It really is that simple.
I'm an out and about CD'er. I do wear dresses and womens' clothes in public.
I have not done HRT, but I have shoulder length hair and about over a year and a half's worth of laser and electrolysis to rid my facial hair.
I like my guy self....I also like my girl self.
I don't know what I am. Do I qualify as T in LGBT? I don't know.
Do I care? No.
Maybe this will answer the question once and for all: We are all correct! Taken from UC Berkeley's Gender Resource Center:
Transgender
Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self ("gender identity") differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. To understand this, one must understand the difference between biological sex, which is one's body (genitals, chromosomes, ect.), and social gender, which refers to levels of masculinity and femininity. Often, society conflates sex and gender, viewing them as the same thing. But, gender and sex are not the same thing.Transgender people are those whose psychological self ("gender identity") differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. For example, a female with a masculine gender identity or who identifies as a man.
An umbrella term for transsexuals, cross-dressers (transvestites), transgenderists, gender queers, and people who identify as neither female nor male and/or as neither a man or as a woman. Transgender is not a sexual orientation;transgender people may have any sexual orientation. It is important to acknowledge that while some people may fit under this definition of transgender, they may not identify as such.
I bolded the last part on purpose, there is a subjective component to the second definition. And I expect that a lot of others will bold other parts to support their arguments or POV/ :)
If by identifying as transgender, you could make a positive difference in the world, would you go ahead and accept the label?Quote:
Originally Posted by NathalieX66
The definition is pretty clear but the bolded part is not part of the definition. It is simply explaining that some who are transgendered do not identify as such. Doesn't change the fact they are.
and Nathalie ...yes you do.
No, the entire paragraph is part of the definition. You could read it as two separate definitions ( It may not read as easily here as it does on the original site, but there are two separate paragraphs) but you can't read a subjective element into the first paragraph (gender identity) and not into the second. Bottom line as I see it is if you identify with the LGBTQ movement, you're a part of it. If you don't, you're not.
I think the problem here is the broadness of that one letter...T. We have a lot of trouble just defining ourselves, so how are we to define our place in the LGBT community? I know that the term "transgender" refers to those of us who have been born in the wrong type of body, but when I think of the word, I think "trans" + "gender." That is, anyone who transcends traditional gender roles or breaks the rules, so to speak, should be included. But that's semantics. Define T however you like. It is different for everyone (though there are common characteristics we all share).
In any case, it's not just LGBT anymore. The latest form I know of (it's hard to keep track of all those letters! haha) is LGBTQQIAAP: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies, and pansexual. Whew. I think all of us probably fall under at least two of these, with many of us belonging to more. I think Queer is all-encompassing though. Be proud!
sure, no problem. I embrace it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leona
Am I gender non-conformist? Absolutely. Am I transsexual?.....not really .
One is transsexual, not A transsexual......does that make sense?
Yes. Luckily transgender doesn't imply transsexual, no matter what the stereotypes the muggles may use.
I feel like the fundamental question in this thread is one of rights, and how best to approach claiming ours as crossdressers in particular. We need societal acceptance, if only so we can go out dressed up and not passing and be treated with respect and dignity, and not beat up.
So, to me, it's a political question. I don't identify as transgender either, but I'll proudly claim the label as my own for the sake of all my sisters and brothers that feel they live in some form of bondage. If I can make it easier for them to come out and be who they are, I will do it.
That's why I'm the mix-gender freak at the grocery store. Well that and it feels really interesting to have freshly shaved legs and a skirt in the frozen food aisle. That was weird. Cool, well, downright cold, but new to me.
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans have been thrown under the bus by straight people throughout history. What what finally turned things around for our brothers and sisters was coming out and refusing to be invisibile. The transgender community is decades behind in this struggle. We should be upset about being treated poorly, but we should also be the first ones to make waves about it. For too long we've been content to stay in the closet or live a life of stealth. We are finally making headway by being visible and our allies do notice. Organizations like HRC that have a poor history of trans inclusion have a bad reputation with LGBT activists as a result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhonda Darling
During my lifetime we've come a very long way. Growing up I didn't even know trans folk existed and gay folk were invariably shunned. Now I'm able to live a proud, productive life married to another woman. That's thanks in large part to the work of activists who have allied with the transgender community.
No it is not. The part you placed in bold is a note about the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacqueline Winona
Hmm, if they had used the word note or "for example" like they did in the first paragraph that would be fair conclusion, but they didn't, thus the fair reading is to include all the language. But I really don't want to argue about interpreting a definition. I respect everyone's right to freedom of association, thus if you believe you're part of the group, that's good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by almostalady
What that suggests is a willingness to sacrifice those who are or will be negatively impacted "in the long run", however long that is (measured in years, but more likely decades I would think). I think that has the effect of compounding the original injustice to the point that the lost ground can never be made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acastina
It's very easy to offer the original opinion (and I've not heard of this particular book) if one is not negatively impacted by the lack of policy. It still remains true that justice delayed is justice denied.
Whats all the bru-haa-haa. I hate labels. Just put on a dress and go for it. Daviolin
In this day and age when people can't tell the difference between to, too and two, or there, their and they're, is it any wonder that they have no idea what the difference is between sex and gender, or what the word transgender really means? Gender is a noun, and transgender can be either an adjective or a noun depending upon the application. i.e. a transgender law (adj) or he is a transgender (noun). Crossdress is a verb, and depending on the suffix can become an adjective or a noun, or its tense can be past or present. Transgender tends to describe what a person is because of its basic origin as a noun, whereas crossdresser tends to describe what a person does because of its origin as a verb. Most definitions of transgender relate the meaning to the subjective self-identification of one's "gender" as being other than their assigned birth "sex", or that their "gender expression" would lead others to make that assumption about their gender identity.
Much of the opposition by some crossdressers to the use of transgender stems from this definition and the fact that it does not apply to them or to what they do. They identify as male (sex) and masculine (gender) regardless of how they are dressed. How they express themselves does not change that, as it is simply clothing. Being a woman, or feeling that you are a woman, at least in part, is much more and far deeper than simply how you are dressed. Notwithstanding all the attempts to make TG an "umbrella" term, a male identifying crossdresser is not being true to himself by self-identifying with that term.
There are fundamental human rights in most advanced civilizations, that are either enshrined in their constitutions or a part of their legislated or common laws. I agree with those who feel that enacting rights for specific groups does little to advance their cause, since their rights already exist. More can be achieved through education which does not create hostilities. Every right that is given to one group, often impinges upon the rights of others in some way. For example, it is often argued that all TG people have a right to use the women's restroom, because of how they are presenting. However, if you are including CD's in the TG umbrella, then all CD's are also entitled to use the same facility. But what about the discomfort of the genetic females who are having their privacy invaded? All CD's and TG's are not necessarily completely passable, and even if they are it would be somewhat discomforting for many women to later find out they had been duped. Co-ed washrooms are not everybody's cup of tea. My wife, who is accepting of my crossdressing and has attended a number of CD events with me, is never-the-less somewhat offended at the idea of a crossdressed man entering the ladies facility when she is in there. It is an intensely personal thing.
When you align yourself with a group that is primarily LGB, then by association the public perception is that you are also of that persuasion, both individually and as a group. If you add a T, and the public concept of T is primarily TS or very nearly TS, then by association you will also be seen as being their definition of T. It has nothing to do with homophobia or transphobia on the part of anyone. While I ultimately have no control over what others may think of me, I don't go out of my way to mislead them, and such misunderstandings can have a negative impact on my personal relatonships.
Veronica
Hi Becky, We are the Red headed stepchild !!
That has happened in the past, but it usually wasn't a community action, it was done by a small group of activists and/or rights organizations. I remember some of my gay and lesbian acquaintances being quite angry when that happened. At times, part of the larger gay community has expressed dislike for gay guys who occasionally do drag, so it isn't surprising that they would also be willing to use the "T" as a bargaining chip, especially several years back when the LGBT movement didn't have much support from the straight/cisgendered community. More recently, they've been less likely to throw us out when they want to get legislation for LGBT rights passed. Things are improving in that regard, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhonda Darling
Carol
Exactly right! One of us meets and interacts with a "normal" person as someone who is polite, well behaved, decent and thoroughly ordinary. That person will not be "recruited," but likely will mention to a few others that he/she met a CD who was a pleasant, interesting and like able person, unusual attire notwithstanding. Those 2 or 3 repeat the story when the topic comes up. The downside, of course, is that unfortunate behavior attracts a lot more notice and attention, and pretty much guarantees breathless, proactive gossip, by definition negative. Akin to "100 attaboys are wiped out by just one "aws**t."Quote:
Originally Posted by arbon
If you are to be out as a "T",you just have to have a thick skin...There really is no damage from gossip that isn't overcome by truth..
I think it is a case of being able to separate fiction from reality. A number of people in the community often get upset by drag queens because they believe that it doesn't give the "proper" image and that it draws a lot of negative attention. Unfortunately society at large doesn't understand that most of what drag queens do is for show, whether they entertain or not. It really isn't to be taken seriously and it isn't really representative of anything EXCEPT drag queens. However, it's very easy for society to point fingers and use them as a reason (however weak) to discount the whole community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julogden
I don't disagree. I just thought it was an interesting take on the larger struggle for equality, one that hadn't occurred to me before reading the book (I think it was called The Invention of Heterosexuality, or something like that). I'm for nondiscrimination policies and statutes, as necessary remedies, but I saw that the arc of history on this subject was vindicating that author's premise, that marriage and military equality was outpacing nondiscrimination law, and that it might make such law less crucial than it would otherwise have been. There has always been the the tragedy of being the last one to die in a war that's nearly over...Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
I can't understand that because marriage and military equality have come about due to changes in laws (perhaps stated policy in terms of the military). That's not making sense.
Things get changed because people actively advocate for them. I can't think of any situation where that wasn't true. In order for the original premise to be true, you would have to belive that things change faster if you don't do anything. To me, that's like saying you heal faster from a broken leg if you don't do anything. I don't see how that would work.