How do you prove you're transgender?

[Saikotsu]

How do you prove what you're thinking? How you're feeling? Gender identity is internal, it's entirely subjective.

[NicoleScott]

I do not wish to be disrespectful, however, I feel cisgender individuals have no right to speak for transgender people on these matters.

Do we have to prove we're transgender before being allowed to comment on transgender matters?

[Babbs]

be seen at the meetings fully dressed and made up a few times

[PaulaQ]

Do we have to prove we're transgender before being allowed to comment on transgender matters?

All but one of the participants in this thread are gender variant or trans.

[Pat]

The idea that a forum full of people who are, for the most part, terrified of showing themselves in public are somehow NOT the targets of discrimination is absurd, frankly.

I totally love that quote. I feel like I should have it needlepointed onto a couch cushion or something.

I do understand Reine's viewpoint and I understand the thought that trans people can "drop back" to the gender they're most practiced in when it suits them. I don't believe it's correct, but I understand why it looks reasonable from the outside. But when you're transgender you're transgender all day, every day no matter how you're presenting, no matter if you've come to terms with it or not. In this forum we often get testimony from people who have just realized that something had been wrong all of a very long life and they only just found out what it is. To me, that argues that they've never been their "birth gender" they just didn't have the words / information / role model to understand the problem.

I'm all for Australia's "X" on passports, Nepal's "O" or passports or my personal fantasy of "T" on my driver's license. I think it would be awesome if it was possible for anyone of legal age to stand up and say, "I know the obstetrician made his best guess when I was born, and I understand it was nobody's fault that they were wrong, but now able to speak for myself, I'm telling you what my gender is." And I'd love for one of those choices to be transgender / gender-X / other. I'm happy to see that we're trending that way. I'm sad it probably won't happen in my lifetime. But I have hope it will happen someday.

[flatlander_48]

I do understand Reine's viewpoint and I understand the thought that trans people can "drop back" to the gender they're most practiced in when it suits them.

That's also been said about bisexuals probably since coherent speech was discovered. SS-DD. The problem is that there is no allowance for how people wish to be. It suggests that the reason for the state that people are in at any given point is fear-based in some way. I don't believe that is ever going to be true and clearly from what we see on this site is that, in MANY cases, we are able to put our fears into perspective.

So, my problem with the original statement is not only the content, but also the suggestion that it is absolute.

DeeAnn

[PaulaQ]

I do understand Reine's viewpoint and I understand the thought that trans people can "drop back" to the gender they're most practiced in when it suits them. I don't believe it's correct, but I understand why it looks reasonable from the outside.

I don't understand how anyone who claims to have a gender fluid, no hormones, non op trans spouse could possibly support the ideas that medical treatment is needed, otherwise people who are like her spouse have no claim to minority status. I find that frankly shocking, and I am hopeful that she simply misspoke. Because approving of second class citizen status for her spouse, believing everything is ok for them because they can hide who they really are, seems just incredibly toxic to me. No real ally of trans people could feel that way, surely.

But when you're transgender you're transgender all day, every day no matter how you're presenting, no matter if you've come to terms with it or not. In this forum we often get testimony from people who have just realized that something had been wrong all of a very long life and they only just found out what it is. To me, that argues that they've never been their "birth gender" they just didn't have the words / information / role model to understand the problem.

Spot on, on all points. Thank you. Correct and succinctly put.

[Stephanie47]

Tell the Chamber of Commerce to log in to this site, and, tell them to read the posts in the section open to visitors. You have sufficient posts to prove it to me.

[heatherdress]

Other nations are beginning to recognize a third gender, and give it legal status, something along the lines of M-F-X. Why not the US? For example:
Third sex official Australian passports gender options - male-female-x


There are gender fluid trans people. Restricting the definition of transgender based on some medical definition is highly discriminatory to these people. Your identity SHOULD be based on your say so. If it were, and had always been so, this forum would likely not exist. There'd be no need for it.

Basing someone's identity on medical procedures is a genuinely sick idea. I realize many places do this - in theory the place I live does this. (Although not in practice. Here it's up to the judge. You either get one of the handful who'll say "yes", basically as long as your doctor says "yup, they are the opposite gender now", or you get one of the several hundred who'll say "no" regardless of what procedures you've undergone.) It is a horrible idea, and it forces people down a path towards medical and surgical treatments that they may not need at all in order to be able to live their lives. Please understand that I feel this way, and I make this point, despite having had quite a lot of gender related medical and surgical procedures. Those of us who need such procedures should absolutely be able to get them, but those who do not should likewise not be forced into them to allow their paperwork to be put into order.

The idea that humans are binary in any way, shape, or form is a fiction. Everything, from sex to gender, to any other characteristic a person might have exists on a spectrum. The irony about what I quoted is that the reason gender has historically been such a big deal in our society is that having different rules for men and women has been a primary way women have been oppressed historically. As a woman, I've certainly observed this throughout my life.

One of the very serious problems with forcing a legal gender binary is that it forces people who really DO NOT identify as either male or female, and in fact who have SIGNIFICANT gender dysphoria related to being identified as either, to choose a gender that doesn't fit them, but is hopefully less painful to them than their assigned at birth gender. I know people like this - some of them, contrary to what you might think, have had significant medical treatment so that they DO NOT PASS consistently as either male or female. Being forced into a binary gender for ID purposes is hurtful to these people.

There is a tendency to view people with non-binary identities like this as somehow LESS than the identities of someone like me, a trans woman, or those of a cis man or woman. I view that as being highly discrimantory. I disagree with such views in the strongest possible way. These people suffer too - perhaps not in precisely the same way or to the same extent as I have, but nevertheless, their pain is real. I have seen the evidence of it.

Further, I want to clarify one other thing - the idea that CDs or other gender fluid identities, have some sort of "privilege" for being able to suit up in boy mode to get the hard stuff done is also a highly unfair and discriminatory idea. There is no privilege in needing to hide who you are. The idea that a forum full of people who are, for the most part, terrified of showing themselves in public are somehow NOT the targets of discrimination is absurd, frankly.

Lest you think the above is some sort of off-topic aside - I assert that this is EXACTLY the issue that Jennie-cd is facing. And I believe it is wrong that she faces it.

I do not wish to be disrespectful, however, I feel cisgender individuals have no right to speak for transgender people on these matters.

Paula - You are disrespectful. You belittle crossdressers with a "know-it-all" hubris.

Jennie is facing the challenge all minority business owners face when they must prove their qualifications to compete for the competitive advantages in the $4B world of Massachusetts suppliers. There unfortunately needs to be some legitimate standards of proof beyond someone's word to prevent fraud, which is not uncommon in government contracting. What would prevent all business owners from claiming they are a veteran, or disabled or transsexual if no proof was required? How could a legitimate minority business owner like Jennie have a chance to get a contract if the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office was buried with fraudulent applications?

You also use the word "discrimination" inappropriately when you claim "The idea that a forum full of people who are, for the most part, terrified of showing themselves in public are somehow NOT the targets of discrimination is absurd, frankly." Most crossdressers who are cautious or unwilling to go out in public hardly stay indoors because of "discrimination". They stay indoors for a myriad of reasons such as: personal embarrassment because they feel they look silly; or maybe they don't want their family to discover they crossdress; or maybe they have professional careers which would be threatened by discovery. You consistently belittle simple crossdressers - and then suggest they have no right to speak and voice their opinions.

[PaulaQ]

Paula - You are disrespectful. You belittle crossdressers with a "know-it-all" hubris.

Well, I intend no disrespect, and I'm sincerely sorry if what I have written seems disrespectful to you, or other crossdressers, or any other gender variant people.

I don't really understand how you'd see what I wrote as disrespectful. Arrogant maybe, and thus obnoxious, sure. If you feel I don't have a right to say anything about cross dressers because I'm a transsexual, then I suppose we are going to have to agree to disagree, particularly when I think I'm being an ally. I did formerly identify as a crossdresser, before my transition, so I would hope my perspective on those timea gives me some standing to comment on such matters.

In any case, if I offended you, then that certainly was not my intention, and so I do apologize.

What would prevent all business owners from claiming they are a veteran, or disabled or transsexual if no proof was required? How could a legitimate minority business owner like Jennie have a chance to get a contract if the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office was buried with fraudulent applications?

Jennie isn't transsexual, though, and the issue was the proof of entry required for the lgbt chamber of commerce seemed to exclude both trans people like her (a CD), as well as bisexuals who are in opposite gender relationships. I think that requiring medical proof that someone is trans is grotesque. Most of you on this forum couldn't supply that, and I think that is wrong.

I would suspect very few people would fraudulently claim to be trans. In public opinion polls, generally we favor somewhat better than IV drug users.

You'll have to pardon my skepticism of institutions that want "proof" that someone is trans. Gatekeepers have long been used to deny trans people needed medical care because the trans person in question couldn't prove they were trans enough. It's a very bad legacy.

You also use the word "discrimination" inappropriately when you claim "The idea that a forum full of people who are, for the most part, terrified of showing themselves in public are somehow NOT the targets of discrimination is absurd, frankly." Most crossdressers who are cautious or unwilling to go out in public hardly stay indoors because of "discrimination". They stay indoors for a myriad of reasons such as: personal embarrassment because they feel they look silly; or maybe they don't want their family to discover they crossdress; or maybe they have professional careers which would be threatened by discovery.

OK I am going to have to ask for an explanation here - in my opinion, all the things you listed are examples of discrimination! For example, there are campaigns going on around the country to deal with the fact you can be fired for being gay or trans.

Is it that you feel it's absurd that you personallycould become a target of discrimination?

You consistently belittle simple crossdressers - and then suggest they have no right to speak and voice their opinions.

I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you for some examples of this. I don't believe I've done either of those things, certainly not in this thread.

I can tell you I have no desire to belittle crossdressers. CDs are welcome to attend the support group I host, and in fact some do. I have great sympathy for the plight of CDs, I've known many who have difficult lives and seem to suffer great emotional pain because they are gender variant. When I lobby on trans issues, I always include issues CDs face, as best I can represent them. I acknowledge that this is less than ideal, but very few CDs seem to be politically active and out, and I would hate for your very legitimate concerns to go unheard. If I am making an error in this regard, please bring it to my attention, because I'd certainly like to correct it if so.

I absolutely think CDs have every right to express their opinions, particularly on matters of public policy that affect them. I have no problem with CDs expressing their opinions in this thread. I may disagree with some opinions, but that is just the nature of discussion. You are certainly entitled to express it regardless of whatever I might think.

I took exception to input from exactly one person in this thread, who is, as far as I know, a cisgender, heterosexual ally and spouse of a CD, who seemed, if I understood her, to believe it was OK that seemingly in the situation at hand, CDs have little or no claim to minority status, largely because most don't undergo medical transition. I found that opinion to be pretty unsupportive, and not really befitting an ally.

I'm not sure how feeling that y'all have as much right to minority status as I feel I do is belittling to you. I guess maybe you think somehow you are better than someone like me, and so my sympathy and feeling of solidarity would actually be insulting because it implies you are worse somehow than you actually are?

If feeling that society mistreats CDs, and that this is wrong, is belittling to you, then I'm very sorry, but I'm probably going to continue doing that, because I care an awful lot about my friends who are CDs.

[summerbunny]

a transgender can be a CD,Transsexual, post op transsexual or even a drag queen.
so we all hear can give you 100 signatures saying we know you as a crossdresser which is a transgender.

What is a transgender, photo explanation.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...KON0b6CLkYEzz7

 weICghGhwlHxgYIjIhJSkrLi4wHyAzODYsNyoxLisBCgoKDg0O GxAQGiwkHyQsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLC wsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLCwsLP/AABEIAMIBAwMBIgACEQEDEQH/

[flatlander_48]

I can tell you I have no desire to belittle crossdressers. CDs are welcome to attend the support group I host, and in fact some do. I have great sympathy for the plight of CDs, I've known many who have difficult lives and seem to suffer great emotional pain because they are gender variant. When I lobby on trans issues, I always include issues CDs face, as best I can represent them. I acknowledge that this is less than ideal, but very few CDs seem to be politically active and out, and I would hate for your very legitimate concerns to go unheard. If I am making an error in this regard, please bring it to my attention, because I'd certainly like to correct it if so.

I think the real value of this is that it helps to pull everything together. For a public that is stuck on Transgender = Caitlyn Jenner, there is a lot of erroneous information rolled up in there that somehow must be corrected. Any opportunity that provides a platform to explain the reality must be taken.

DeeAnn

[PaulaQ]

@flatlander_48 - there is a fine line between having an umbrella term, like transgender, and erasing identities. For example, it's a whole lot easier for the general public if a gay man identifies himself as, well, a gay man, as opposed to something more precise, like a masc top leather daddy. On the other hand, the umbrella "LGBT" really has been abused - gay or lesbian groups have just taken to changing the word "gay" in writing to "LGBT" - even when the issues they talk about are not related or inclusive of bisexual or transgender people at all. Using an inclusive umbrella term doesn't make something magically inclusive - you really need to BE inclusive and talk about the differences in the sub-groups when they matter. A lot of us who use "transgender" are trying to avoid this problem, but it's hard. There are plenty of trans people who would LOVE to make "transgender" refer only to highly binary aligned transsexuals who've undergone or are undergoing medical transition, or at least only address the issues those folks have.

[flatlander_48]

PQ:

Unfortunately Gender Identity issues have only recently begun to come under the public spotlight and the population has a lot of things to catch up on. That was the basis of my "Transgender = Caitlyn Jenner" statement; that very narrow view of things. I would hope that there would be fewer stupid comments from the general populace if people had a better understanding of what's going on and why people must do what they do.

However, I would disagree with the substance of your last sentence. The problem is that it would take a very general and broad term, Transgender (meaning crossing gender boundaries), and assign it a very narrow focus. It would be much like taking a very general term, such as Sky, and assigning a specific Pantone shade to it.

Personally, what I would wonder about is what would I call myself? In Between? In Between what? It becomes very indistinct and confusing, to say nothing of the fact that it just sounds silly. I suspect that the driver underneath all this is the fact that some people have not made peace with the term Transsexual. That being the case, folks need to develop a comprehensive set of terms (for which we already have definitions) instead of cutting and fitting existing ones. All that does is create more confusion.

Funny thing about erasing identities. Often the most vocal concerning that issue here also say that want to live their lives as their target gender and distance themselves from the community of Trans people. I understand the concept of being concerned about erasing identities. I understand the desire to detach from the community and live ones live. While I don't think that is right, people have to do what they feel is best. However, what I can't understand holding both those views at the same time. At best, I can only characterize it as odd.

At a time when we should be coming together and closing ranks to insure employment, housing and other protections for all LGBT folks, we seem to be trying to separate ourselves. In the long run, I don't believe that is helpful.

DeeAnn

[Krisi]

............. I do not wish to be disrespectful, however, I feel cisgender individuals have no right to speak for transgender people on these matters.

That's pretty disrespectful.

This is a web forum and this section is (as I understand it) open to all members.

[Deedee Skyblue]

One should not have to go to a counselor or psychiatrist to 'prove' her gender identity. We are supposed to address people as they want to be addressed - if I want to be "she" (sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, but here - heck yes!) than that is how others should address me. And if I make a flat-out statement that I am trans whose business is it to doubt it? We certainly shouldn't have to spend money to prove it, when if I said "I'm male and straight" I wouldn't have to prove it to anyone.

I can understand the issue, though. There are people who take advantage of an opportunity designed for a specific group when not part of that group, which is unfortunate. I don't know the answer.

Deedee

[pamela7]

actually I agree with Paula: no non-TG person can say what "proves" someone is TG. It's like blind people saying who is sighted, or like psychopaths running the country - oh, they do. Hmmn, well it's wrong, anyway.

[Krisi]

The real question is, why would a government give special consideration to one or more groups of people while discriminating against the rest? How fair is that? The government should be spending the taxpayer's dollars wisely and awarding a contract to someone other than the lowest qualified bidder is not spending the taxpayer's money wisely. Years ago, when the government started giving preference to "minority" contractors, the ones I knew just put 51% of the business in their wife's name and kept on bidding.

[pamela7]

corruption Krisi unfortunately exists everwhere at every level, and having worked over 20 years contracting to governments i can say that the lowest price is rarely the best value delivered; the best value comes from exceeding requirement specifications/service conditions. I agree reverse-discrimination rights no wrongs, what we need is moral governance though, not financial/sociopathic governance, if this concept can even be understood in most countries.

[Krisi]

Yep, the second lowest bid is probably the best value.

[mykell]

That's pretty disrespectful.

This is a web forum and this section is (as I understand it) open to all members.

paula q is very knowledgeable of LGBT issues and pretty respectful of members krisi, pulling one part of a sentence is not fair to use to make a judgement on her character, especially after some of the toxic disrespectful remarks youve made.... did you even read the whole post ?

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...t=#post3911915

[Lorileah]

Everyone who is a member here has the right to post in this section. Your opinion of other members and their "status" are not up for debate. So now, we should get back to the OP. How does she get the LGBT group to see that she is a TG? I don't like the idea that the LGBT group only wants LGBT members (PFLAGG is a great example of how you don't have to be to support us). Personally, I would have told the committee who I was and if they didn't like it I would just not use them. There is NOTHING that says you can't put "LGBT friendly" on your ads or business cards

[ReineD]

no non-TG person can say what "proves" someone is TG.

You misunderstand.

I was referring to proof as it applies to what is recognized by law. If special consideration is made to secure a portion of government contracts by LGBTs, then they must prove they are LGBTs in order to avail themselves of the opportunities offered under the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Program. Else anyone can say they are LGBT and secure the contract. This is what Jennie-cd was told and which makes sense to Jennie (see the first post).

Proof is the establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. What evidence is there that a person is transitioning? Legal name change and transition letters (see Jennie’s first post).

If wearing female clothing occasionally or painting one’s fingernails constituted proof for the purpose of financial gain, anyone could do this. Then how would transitioners benefit?

I don't understand why you believe that only TGs can know what is legal proof of their transitions.

[flatlander_48]

The real question is, why would a government give special consideration to one or more groups of people while discriminating against the rest? How fair is that? The government should be spending the taxpayer's dollars wisely and awarding a contract to someone other than the lowest qualified bidder is not spending the taxpayer's money wisely. Years ago, when the government started giving preference to "minority" contractors, the ones I knew just put 51% of the business in their wife's name and kept on bidding.

As I stated previously, THIS is the reason:

The idea is to encourage businesses to broaden out their supply chain. Let to your own devices, you might not choose an LGBT, minority or woman-owned firm. There are incentives (perhaps tax-based) to go beyond:

"If you do what you always did,
You'll get what you always got."

Otherwise people my never go beyond companies that look like they do.

DeeAnn

It is demonstrated fact that people, in general, tend to hire, contract with, etc. others who look like themselves. The question then becomes how do you encourage inclusion when it tends not to happen naturally? That is what this is designed to do; cast a broader net. And, flip your question around. How is this unconscious (and perhaps conscious for some) exclusion fair?

However, when it comes to sexual minorities, how do you demonstrate fitness? For women, it is obvious. For ethnic minorities, it is obvious. But, that doesn't work for LGBT people. Since it isn't obvious, it would seem that the only way is to built a circumstantial case as not everyone has felt the need to seek professional counseling. What comes to mind, and some of these have been mentioned, would be to document membership in groups that are focused on the particular constituency, playing an active roll in such a group (holding an office, being part of an event planning team, etc.), attending community related events (such as something like Femme Fever, etc.) and active participation in forums such as this one. I guess it goes without saying that one cannot be closeted and do the above.

In thinking about it, what would I do if I had to demonstrate that I was a motorsports fan for purposes of a contest or giveaway? It would seem to be a similar approach. I could chronicle various involvements that I've had, my library of books many of which are signed by famous people in the business, magazine subscriptions, forum participation and memorabilia. It would answer the question: What interests would lead a person to these activities?

DeeAnn

[Rianna Humble]

I do not wish to be disrespectful, however, I feel cisgender individuals have no right to speak for transgender people on these matters.

So how would you go about getting laws, protection etc. for trans people if you won't let cis people speak for us?