Lbgtc

I expect to be corrected if appropriate, but I'm feeling a difference between CD and TG/TS, with a considerable portion of CD'ers being heterosexual enjoying dressing en-femme, and another considerable portion being female in a male body transitioning. I feel the T tends to support the transitioning leaving the CD largely out of the LGBT community, albeit accentuated by the closet-like nature of the CD tribe?

I'm wondering if raising the profile can be powerfully augmented by adding C to the LGBT ... LGBTC? and then differentiating in order that awareness trickles out into public arenas?

I embrace we're a spectrum and there's no clear boundary in the T, myself being a middle-man so to speak, considering orchidectomy but not transitioning. I'm just thinking of the political perspective and impact ... adding more initials will eventually lead to an umbrella title like "gender-diverse" to cover LGBTC... if there are two sides to the coin, we are the edge and its not a thin edge.

any comments?

I think if we keep deviding things we as a group get weaker. More and more I see legal language being written more inclusive of the CD end of the spectrum where the wording is "gender identity and gender expression". We are at the expression end. Just my thoughts.

Kelley

Pamela - there are lots of discussions here about the meanings and definitions of all these terms, and we generally stick to the ones that are in the quick reference sticky in Introductions (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...-Abbreviations) - of course, if we all agreed, where would be the fun in debating things, right...? :p

You may have also come across the term: trans* which is a term intended to group all transgender types and transexual, recognising that we are all part of a very broad and diverse spectrum or mosaic. I like this term and its inclusive nature... I believe the 'T' in LGBT (or whatever order the letters are in - this also varies) generally is taken to be 'transgender' which is the more embracing term than transexual.

Sometimes I think it can help by observing where we all think we are amongst the terminology... for example: I am an occasional crossdresser. I spend less than 5% of my time expressing my lower proportioned feminine side. I have no issues with being male, or any aspect of that. I can't explain why I feel the desire and need to crossdress, nor why it feels so comfortable, but I consider that my nature is just very slightly TG to make me want to do this. I have no desire to transition, take hormones, do anything other than dress or present - but I don't do this completely for fun or sexual arousal, which is why I put this down to a degree of TG-ness.

I could not comprehend that anyone who was considering any sort of 'slice and dice' was not very much towards the TS end of things.. but that's just me. We have a fair number of TS members on the forum, and I'd look to them for a more expert opinion on this as, frankly, my eyes are watering just thinking about it... ;)

I don't think adding a 'C' really benefits the grouping if 'T' already covers most of us. The only outliers you may include would be groups like fetish CDers , or Drag Queens, and others who don't consider themselves TG but do CD. TG or trans* is enough of an umbrella for me, I think. :)

Katey x

The sheer number of crossdressers who profess to be completely heterosexual, but then add in that when 'en femme' they desire to date or even feel sexually attracted to other men, makes it difficult to figure out where they exist on the transgender spectrum. Like a lot of things, trying to separate all of us into 'two sides of the coin with an edge' simply won't work. There are far too many variables, and to what degree, for all of us to be put into specific categories. For example, Kelley's declaration that we are at the expression end, but for some of us, the expression is only to support the self identity that we feel, so we're really expressing it to ourselves. We're a very diverse group.

Remember that this alphabet soup is concocted for political activism. Otherwise they are just identities. There is no objective reality to any of them. What does it mean, for instance, to be "gay." If I perform a thousand fellatios and bend over for the Dallas Cowboys am I still gay if I'd rather have sex with women but never do? A person like this could identify as gay or straight or bi. And there are plenty of people who have only straight sex and fantasize about gay sex. Don't get caught up in the idea that any of these identities are as taxonomically different as say, fishes, birds and mammals. You're a L or B or G or T if you say you are and no one can prove any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katey888

Pamela - there are lots of discussions here about the meanings and definitions of all these terms, and we generally stick to the ones that are in the quick reference sticky in Introductions (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...-Abbreviations) - of course, if we all agreed, where would be the fun in debating things, right...? :p

---

Personally, a lot of these silly arguments and people making up their own off the wall definitions would never happen if people would read the definitions (the thread contains a subset) set forth by the WPATH in their Standards of Care document. I think it should be made mandatory reading.

You are included already so why add another letter?

Adding the "C" would not help us in any way. The reason LGBT are put together is because they have (publicly accepted) reasons for the way they are and their sexual orientations (both in terms of who they find attractive and how they consider themselves internally). As simple cross dressers we do not all fall within that group and the public knows it. If the public where ready to accept us, we would have a friendly term/banner already. But because we are so diverse and have many different goals/reasons/desires we will never get this.

In theory a great idea, in practice not going to happen.

do you know what the difference is between a crossdresser and a tg ??????????????????????? About 5 years.....LOL....thats a joke I heard from a tg friend. Just bringing in some humor . xoxo

The newer one is LGBTQQIA but doesnt get used much

The QQIA is
Queer
Questioning
Intersex
Asexual

I simply tell people that we're all trans. I don't differentiate, at least in terms of validity, between a CD, or someone who does a full medical, social, and legal transition. (We hate the term "transsexual" now, just FYI.) I know people who transition, but are no-hormones, non-op. That's fine with me. I know lots of CDs who'll never consider transition. I don't consider the path someone like me is on as being in any way superior to the path y'all are on. There are differences in who we are and what we do, and the path we take. That's fine.

I do not look down on CDs, gender fluid, two spirit, gender queer, gender ****, neutrois, agender, bigender, drag queens, transsexuals. I don't care if you take hormones or not. I don't care if you are pre-op, post-op, or non-op.

I don't care whether or not you pass as male or female - or if you even attempt to pass - because you may not identify strongly as either one.

I don't care if you are gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, asexual, queer, or pansexual.

I don't care if you are vanilla or kinky, monogamous or poly.

All I really care about is that all of us get the chance to be who we really are - whoever that is. Not what they tell us it's OK for us to be.

I apologize to anyone I left out of those lists - between our bodies, our gender, and our sexual orientations, we cover a lot of area that the cisnormative, heteronormative world doesn't understand *at all*.

They barely understand someone like me - I look like a woman, smell like a woman, act like a woman, I dress like a woman - really almost overdress and mostly sound like a woman. I am a freaking woman - as long as you don't look at one small portion of my anatomy. I'm only moderately less girly than my sister - and she's a girly girl. (And a lot of times, I present in a more feminine way than she does.) This is not a difficult thing to understand - I'm a woman. I'm straight on top of that.

However, lotsa cis people have trouble wrapping their head around who I am - at least if they hear that I'm trans. If they meet me first, and don't know - they just treat me like a woman. So if they have trouble with someone like me - they don't have a chance with anything more exotic. Part of the problem is they don't seem to want to understand us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pamela7

but I'm feeling a difference between CD and TG/TS, with a considerable portion of CD'ers being heterosexual enjoying dressing en-femme, and another considerable portion being female in a male body transitioning. I feel the T tends to support the transitioning leaving the CD largely out of the LGBT community, albeit accentuated by the closet-like nature of the CD tribe?

---

What does your being heterosexual have to do with anything? I'm heterosexual. I really like men - a lot. Honestly, y'all kind of look like lesbians if you are out en femme and your spouse accompanies you. But that's cool too - most of the trans* I know are in same sex relationships, so that's no big deal at all - I'm certainly used to seeing couples that look like that. Really, I don't think labels for your sexual orientation are all that helpful - or maybe I just don't care. If your version of heterosexual involves a man who presents female sometimes with a cis woman, then I'm certainly delighted to count you as a straight couple. As long as you love who you love, and they love you back, that's good enough for me.

(My point in that little aside was to simply say that you are conflating sexual orientation with gender, and the two really don't have much of anything to do with one another. Lots of trans women I know still like women, either cis or trans. Lots of trans men I know end up with other men, either cis or trans. Some of us end up with someone of the opposite gender, either cis or trans.)

The closeted nature of the CD population does tend to make a lot of us not think about you - or at least not willing to fight very hard to carry you along, risk free, while we are literally shot at from time to time. And unfortunately, there is sometimes a kind of elitism in the trans community, where some have a mindset of "I've been on hormones longer than you, and I have had all these surgeries - so I'm better than you." And there is some misunderstanding between the communities - some of us viewing you all as just fetishists. (As if there were anything wrong with that.) But most of it is just that a lot of us don't get to know the CD community - because there virtually is no CD community. A few of you venture out in public, the vast majority do not.

So there are plenty of trans women who don't ever wear women's clothes until they've been in transition for a while. They don't identify with CDs at all. That doesn't help either - some of us get a mindset where we are certain that our experiences with being trans are the only ones that are valid. They don't really get y'all either.

Nevertheless, some of us do get it, and advocate for everyone in the trans spectrum, including CDs. I certainly do this. Some of us did start out as CDs, and some of us know that some of you will transition. And that alone is reason enough for me to advocate for you. But that isn't why I do it. I do it because it's the right thing to do, and because many of you, and others here locally, are my friends, and it just pisses me the hell off to see someone treat my friends badly.

I sometimes go to events that are mixed between CDs and transitioning trans*. I enjoy them. I have local CD friends. I do notice that sometimes it seems like local girls I meet are a little intimidated by me. I'm not sure why. I'm not trying to make everyone transition - and I promise you - you won't catch whatever I got that makes me like this. :p

So please don't give up on those of us who transition. Some of us really do care, and want to help.

Thank you Paula and everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulaQ

What does your being heterosexual have to do with anything?

---

LGB suggest sexual orientation has a lot to do with it. The T ... with the wonderful replies I've had, now I see the T as ell-embracing and covers our C's yes happy with that. What I do wonder tho, is why the T is associated with LGB if there's no matter the orientation, or is that the point?

I'm not giving up on anyone, just looking for ways to raise profile, acceptance and the normality of a man in a dress. By way of example, this afternoon my step-son is coming home, with a female friend and I have to "not cross-dress in front of her in case ...", I mean this screams WRONG to me, a woman in trousers is fine, but a man in a dress and whole worlds fall apart? pleaase!!!!

When I hear transgender I think of a broad spectrum, of where crossdressing fits in somewhere. I identify as transgender in a way (hence my forum name) and I'm fine with that. I guess it's all down to your perception of the categories of LGBT.

In the broadest sense, we (LGBT) fall under the category of Sexual Minorities.

DeeAnn

LBG are sexual distinctions. T is gender (of any sexual persuation). The whole thing is a political tool. The T's are such a tiny number, that only by allying with the LBG do we have ANY political clout at all.
If you care to get active, and political this is an important alliance.
If you're just looking for a label, call yourself whatever you want.

The question of why all crossdressers are considered gay is not going to ever go away, and it's easier to just live with it. You can spend all day trying to explain crossdressing, or just say 'Gay as a picnic', and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pamela7

What I do wonder tho, is why the T is associated with LGB if there's no matter the orientation, or is that the point?

---

When the movement that became LGBT got started up it was fortunate that they were casting about for support from other groups to swell their ranks and make their case. It was important to include everyone who "the straights" considered part of the community, and even if there was infighting between the factions there had to be a united front. As a BT, I'm incredibly thankful that the LG's included us -- we'd be irretrievably marginalized otherwise.

It's interesting that there are frequent attempts to add letters -- Q for questioning or queer, I for intersex, A for asexual, S for supporters. But sooner of later acronym fatigue sets in.

I agree that the "T" is rather an awkward bolt-on to "LGB"; it doesn't really match. I think it was just added on because it seemed like LGB people would be natural allies to T people (which they sometimes are not...)

I also disagree that most crossdressers are not on the "T" spectrum. This opinion may be unpopular, but I truly believe that the vast majority of crossdressers do suffer from some level of gender dysphoria. I think this is true except for fetish dressers and drag queens who only do it for entertainment.

One reason I think this is the occasional thread that asks "If you could magically become a woman, would you?" and most crossdressers say yes. So there is some longing there, though not nearly enough to actually take difficult steps to do anything about it or to jeopardize existing relationships and career prospects. I think it's really a matter of degree rather than kind.

Pamela,
I don't know what I am, I just let others form those opinions.
No time for over thinking or analysis here.

I go by the Popeye Principle -- I yam what I yam.

I agree that the T (gender/gender Identity) doesn't really go with the LGB (Sexual orientation, who you are attracted to). I think this association, to the uninformed, adds confusion. Unless T becomes a concept in and of itself which as others say lessens the overall strength of the numbers it will be as it is.
Adding more letters causes even more confusion and lessens interest. T's of most variety have benefited from the LGBT association and the LGB part may have also benefited by the T association.
We all hate labels but then many of us look for one of our own, there lies the conundrum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennifer8

The newer one is LGBTQQIA but doesnt get used much

---

Got to admit that is probably because it looks as bad as a sounds and reads. LGBT is way easier and sounds nicer - even if our specific sub-group doesn't get a mention.

Great post Paula Q, and I pretty much agree with all of it. One thing I would ponder, and I do not feel any need to add any more letters, but that for those of us who are CDers without a desire to transition, likely because we have a male identity that we wish not to shed, WE can be somewhat even more confusing to the cisgendered. For a person like you, you are in a way cisgendered. It is just that your internal identity is opposite your biologically born physical identity. Those who are TS are basically women trapped in a man's body. I believe that it is an easier concept for those not in the Transgender spectrum to be able to wrap their heads around than a "crossdresser"

The majority of members here are caught somewhere in the middle. I believe that the reason why "CDers" are largely ignored, or just not accounted for in terms of the media is that there is the "normal" side to us. And we CDers can run to safety of our normal male identity. Also because it is just so darn confusing of a concept, wishing to present as female but not wishing to become one. It is such a subjective intangible state, as we CDers are in a gender purgatory of sorts.

Great post also gendermutt,

is it possible, digressing, that the large CD confusion about clothing/closet is because of the "normal" side trying to reconcile the other side?

Possibly Pamela. I think for many of us, why we have it kept so hidden and closeted, and why the denial and repression is because there is the "normal" side. For our own selves, we try to ditch the gender opposite side and just stick with our male side. Of course, not too successfully... I tried for about 30 years to ditch my feminine side. I am stubborn, hard headed and I was determined to beat it. Big waste of 30 years.

Back in the 1980s (there abouts) LG organizations started to become political. They wanted to achieve a lot of what you see happening today. Mostly, it was because so many were getting AIDS and their partner was being denied access to them. In other words, if you came down with AIDS, your parents could deny access to your gay partner. The relationship was not valid. You as a partner, had no rights. Say there were children involved. You want your partner to become the legal guardian should something happen to you. Your family could over rule that decision and not allow your partner to ever see the children again. Say you had a 401k and your partner was the beneficiary if you died. Not happening, your parents got the money instead.

So because of sheer numbers, the B and T movement was rather small but were substantial enough to grow the ranks of the LGBT movement. Instead of reading like the alphabet, T was chosen to include crossdressers, transvestites, Transsexuals etc... As more sub cultures arose they were included under the T designation.

Now while you may think you and your brand of T is special, try going to congress and explaining why all 14 people like you should have your own special rights. You will be laughed off of Capitol Hill.

So that is why and how LG became B and T

Hi Pamela

I wouldnt go so far as to adding another letter but id agree that there is a difference between T and C. I recently found a trans rights group for Ireland but with that said it was for transgendered concerns and less so for the other variations of us, however, CDers have far less concerns than trans people, here in Ireland at least such as changing your gender on birth certs etc. The way I see it for CDers is we, or I would be comfortable with passing in public and thats more or less it. being discriminated against is a crime already and covers everything.

I would say that I wish the trans rights group were a bit more inclusive for the rest of us in the same way on LGBT forums ive noticed a lot of gays want to ditch the T but supporting all of the LGBT in their efforts for equality will trickle down to us too so I see now reason to change LGBT to anything else at the moment.

Gendermutt,
All I can say is "well said". We hide in the closet, only tell "friends" online, use pseudonyms pay for our panties in cash. In short, we are stealth gender blenders and as long as we stay that way, no on will pay any attention to us let alone know we are there. Some of the retailers know our wallets and they tolerate us in their stores but that's about it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Here's the main issue as I see it:

TS's SOMETIMES tend to resent or be embarrassed by us CD's. Yet, I'm never seen any resentment, etc. the other way around. Fix THAT issue if anyone can! We dressers mite all stand together a lot better than we do now!:brolleyes:

Quote from Trans Bodies, Trans Selves: A Resource for the Transgender Community:

Quote:

---

These acronyms can become very long. For example, LGBTT2QQAAIIP stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Two-Spirit, Queer, Questioning , Asexual , Allies, Intersex, Intergender , and Pansexual.

---

From an official source (Merriam-Webster)
": of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth"

So TG does include TV, CD, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by docrobbysherry

TS's SOMETIMES tend to resent or be embarrassed by us CD's. Yet, I'm never seen any resentment, etc. the other way around. Fix THAT issue if anyone can! We dressers mite all stand together a lot better than we do now!:brolleyes:

---

Honey- you know that at times I've duked it out with other trans women on this forum who had the audacity to come over here and talk trash about CDs. And I hang with CDs from time to time out in the real world, too. And while I agree with you that there are trans women who disrespect CDs, it really does go both ways. There are a number of prominent posters here who's homophobia and transphobia is every bit as nasty as some of the BS a few of the TSs here have slung at y'all.

I've really seen this go both ways, that's all I'm saying. Consider that back in the days of tri-ess, trans women were excluded at times.

The desire to be seen as straight men makes some CDs really say horrible things about trans women. Mostly I assume this comes from fear that it could happen to them.

I get angry when I hear trans women denigrate or not take seriously the experiences of CDs. I have called out many trans women who I've heard make disparaging or dismissive comments about CDs.

There is just no place for this stuff in the trans community - we are sisters as far as I'm concerned.

Paula you are absolutely right, but I'd further that point on that there should be no place for certain attitudes in any community. Each of us on this planet are all walking along the same road to the same point, instead of forcing others off the path we should be stopping and reaching out a hand to those who have fallen in the muck and pull them back up.

When I was younger I was quite bigoted, racist and intolerant of a lot, I'm not sure why exactly, perhaps the bigotry was like that saying "most guys who hate on gays usually turn out to be gay" maybe I was using discrimination as a cover for myself, the racism I attribute to being unemployed during the worst of the recession and being annoyed that foreign workers had a job when I did not but I've found as ive grown more accepting of myself that I see others in the same way

I'm still not a humanitarian but I look forward to the day when lgbt is replaced by H: Humanity, and everyone in the world is a member

Pamela,
As many have said the labels are now more or less set in stone officially, the minorities are covered by most of the legislation and adding more is probably not going to happen ! To strengthen our rights we possibly need to amalgamate our groups to be heard, but none of this is going to happen . The majority would prefer to stay out of sight, if they wish to make a point of law most of it is in place now anyway if you have the courage to use it !

After all these years of dressing I believe more now that many cannot say !00% they they don't wish to transition, some doubt rests in my mind knowing that I have a female trait, I have no interest in men and have always had a good relationship with women !
Worrying about acceptance of different labels in society is irrelevant if you don't have acceptance in your own home !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulaQ

There is just no place for this stuff in the trans community - we are sisters as far as I'm concerned.

---

Paula - what you, Sherry and others have related is very relevant and should be summarised the way you have above for all of us... But what you relate about apparent homophobia and the fear that some of us show is also sadly true - and I don't understand it. At. All.

I've worked with gay and lesbian colleagues in the past (no trans* that I know of) - was I ever concerned that I would be 'categorised' with them (or somehow be infected with their gayness...?) - not at all. But the condition we share IS different. While I'm not mixing mind gender with sexual attraction or physical gender, I can't help but believe there is a connection - however loose and variable - between these related things. I can't explain it, but I do think that until most of the hetero CDers can get over it, we'll continue to see these undercurrents.

Coming back to the question of rights, I have to ask again how we think we would differentiate between TS and CD/TG in a legal sense. I know there are some who probably don't want to have the label discussion again, but I think they're missing the point as to how important that is when you are discussing rights and policies for categories of citizens. Yes: they're sometimes arbitrary - but so absolutely necessary. In simple terms, how do our governments determine whether or not you are discriminated against because of your race or ethnicity..??? To accept protection in society you also have to accept that you fall into one or other of these groups. You can't claim discrimination (for example) because of your ethnicity but then assert you are not mixed race if you are! We also have to accept we are under the trans* banner if we want society to accept our behaviour as a valid reflection of what is going on internally, whether we're shopping, living 24/7, transitioning or doing events a couple of times a year. I can understand how some will assert we are not all pre-op TS - I do believe that myself - the trans* condition is not a continuum (as I've seen some folk describe it): I'm beginning to see it as a spectrum but with distinct clusters and gaps... or energy states for the scientists among us.. :) My point being, there may have to be a recognition of those different categories because the legal situation will be different. Simple example again: transitioning TS will need to have a legal recognition of gender change as well as protection in expressing their legal or transitional gender in a workplace by how they dress and behave; CD/TG will not need that gender change but may need the presentation protection.

Is that what we're talking about here? If we are, I don't think we can have the discussion fully without accepting both that we all fall under trans* AND that there will be a need for subdivisions beneath that, but only to address the differences in what constitutes protection of our individual rights.

What was the question again..? :lol:

Katey x

Katey, well said. When protections under the law are given we need to be included and terms or labels become very important. I have noticed in some cases where transgender people have rights under the law but there are distinction made (gender identity and or gender expression). So already you can see a separation in the law In some cases. It is important to have one description that is all inclusive if laws are to protect us all.

Kelley

the trouble is, in a job interview, there are so many subtle reasons why one candidate is chosen. I know i biased my interviews to select the more "different" characters because I valued diversity, all other skills being roughly equal. I can see easily how regardless of legislation a normative-biased interviewer could eliminate candidates from minority groups. I can also see how difficult it is to challenge such things.

IMHO therefore, encouraging, supporting the likes of Selfridges (who made all 3 floors of their london flagship store nongendered), so that dress code loses any norm and just becomes what the person likes. Then we ARE the norm! Get more men in lycra!!!!

Look...it's really as simple as this: if you crossdress, you are transgendered. It's irrelevant if you like girls, boys, or gurls. It's also irrelevant if you want to transition or just like to wear panties under your jeans. What's so hard about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Paula

LBG are sexual distinctions. T is gender (of any sexual persuation). The whole thing is a political tool. The T's are such a tiny number, that only by allying with the LBG do we have ANY political clout at all.

---

We may not be as small as you think. If the LGB population is roughly 10% of the general population, recently I've seen information that puts the T population up as high as 5% of the general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianne S

I agree that the "T" is rather an awkward bolt-on to "LGB"; it doesn't really match. I think it was just added on because it seemed like LGB people would be natural allies to T people (which they sometimes are not...)

---

In the broader sense, I've mentioned the term "sexual minorities". Perhaps the thought process should be that LGBT covers anyone who thinks and behaves outside of the majority constructs of opposite-sex attraction, a binary gender arrangement and expression of the accepted gender roles based on ones sex at birth. Any difference in any of the 3 (and there could be multiples) would signal that you would fall somewhere under L, G, B or T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianne S

IOne reason I think this is the occasional thread that asks "If you could magically become a woman, would you?" and most crossdressers say yes. So there is some longing there, though not nearly enough to actually take difficult steps to do anything about it or to jeopardize existing relationships and career prospects. I think it's really a matter of degree rather than kind.

---

Yes, and to me that help to validate the spectrum view of things: Transgender is a spectrum ranging from Crossdressers at one end and Transsexuals at the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gendermutt

Great post Paula Q, and I pretty much agree with all of it. One thing I would ponder, and I do not feel any need to add any more letters, but that for those of us who are CDers without a desire to transition, likely because we have a male identity that we wish not to shed

---

Yes, that can be, but remember that being a Transsexual relates to a near complete, or complete, mismatch between the gender you believe yourself to be and the sex you are physically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gendermutt

The majority of members here are caught somewhere in the middle. I believe that the reason why "CDers" are largely ignored, or just not accounted for in terms of the media is that there is the "normal" side to us. And we CDers can run to safety of our normal male identity. Also because it is just so darn confusing of a concept, wishing to present as female but not wishing to become one. It is such a subjective intangible state, as we CDers are in a gender purgatory of sorts.

---

This is a direct analog to how lesbians and gays often think of us who are bisexual and I think is the original statement. It is exactly the same arguement and the source of confusion is similar. "You want to have a same-sex lover, but you're not gay (or lesbian)?" would be how the question would be framed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorja

Back in the 1980s (there abouts) LG organizations started to become political. They wanted to achieve a lot of what you see happening today. Mostly, it was because so many were getting AIDS and their partner was being denied access to them. In other words, if you came down with AIDS, your parents could deny access to your gay partner. The relationship was not valid. You as a partner, had no rights. Say there were children involved. You want your partner to become the legal guardian should something happen to you. Your family could over rule that decision and not allow your partner to ever see the children again.

---

The preemptive strike would be dual adoption, but there are still a number of states that do not allow that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarah-RT

I'm still not a humanitarian but I look forward to the day when lgbt is replaced by H: Humanity, and everyone in the world is a member

---

Won't happen or at least, shouldn't. There will ALWAYS be differences between humans based on any number of factors. But, the question is whether you respect that information and use it for positive purposes OR use it for evil purposes as a way to separate, discount and create disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katey888

Coming back to the question of rights, I have to ask again how we think we would differentiate between TS and CD/TG in a legal sense. I know there are some who probably don't want to have the label discussion again, but I think they're missing the point as to how important that is when you are discussing rights and policies for categories of citizens. Yes: they're sometimes arbitrary - but so absolutely necessary. In simple terms, how do our governments determine whether or not you are discriminated against because of your race or ethnicity..??? To accept protection in society you also have to accept that you fall into one or other of these groups. You can't claim discrimination (for example) because of your ethnicity but then assert you are not mixed race if you are! We also have to accept we are under the trans* banner if we want society to accept our behaviour as a valid reflection of what is going on internally, whether we're shopping, living 24/7, transitioning or doing events a couple of times a year. I can understand how some will assert we are not all pre-op TS - I do believe that myself - the trans* condition is not a continuum (as I've seen some folk describe it): I'm beginning to see it as a spectrum but with distinct clusters and gaps... or energy states for the scientists among us.. :) My point being, there may have to be a recognition of those different categories because the legal situation will be different. Simple example again: transitioning TS will need to have a legal recognition of gender change as well as protection in expressing their legal or transitional gender in a workplace by how they dress and behave; CD/TG will not need that gender change but may need the presentation protection.

---

Don't know what it is in the UK, but in the US you will see the abbreviation GENDA: Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act. This is not the law of the land yet; only in some isolated places. I haven't looked in the material in some time, but I think here in New York State it was itended to address things like when there is a mismatch between your identification information and your presentation, being discriminated at work based on gender variance, etc. However, I think it can be a bit difficult to reconcile some things. I remember in my employer's information abut gender issues, thre was some discussion about consistency. In other words, once you present as the opposite gender, you can't flip-flop back and forth. I can see confusion as it becomes a matter of: Who are you today? How should we address you? It can really tough over the phone! Transsexuals wouldn't have that problem as the path is essentially unidirectional.

DeeAnn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelley

I think if we keep deviding things we as a group get weaker.

Kelley

---

I think that the vast majority of people only have three categories of gender "buckets" to put people in: Men, Women, and Gays. Anyone who is not a man or woman, as defined by their understanding of accepted societal norms, is gay.

The B and T covers all of us. We need to be added to the L and G in order to have a category large enough to be noticed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katey888

But what you relate about apparent homophobia and the fear that some of us show is also sadly true - and I don't understand it. At. All.

Coming back to the question of rights, I have to ask again how we think we would differentiate between TS and CD/TG in a legal sense.

---

For the first part, here's some explanations:
1. We sometimes fear what we actually are.
2. Internalized confusion over gender identity/expression vs. sexual orientation
3. Some homophobia is still acceptable in society, and some of us pick up on that and internalize it
4. Some hope to hide their CD better by being homophobic / transphobic, as a way to distract attention from themselves.

For the second part, I don't think there should be any differences in terms of legal rights between a person who transitions and a CD. Realistically, the differences that are likely to crop up are going to be based on medical procedures. I oppose such distinctions, because not all who transition need, want, or are physically able to withstand the medical procedures of trans medicine. What's the difference between a no-hormone / non-op trans woman, and a CD? Gender identity, sometimes - and that is a thing that can't be established in some empirical way. Anyway, the law should treat us the same.

The reality is that some differences are likely because of our gender transition and medical procedures associated with it. I don't agree with that but until people understand us all better, it seems likely.