Why Should GL Be Lumped With BT?

[ruggerson]

Not to start a flamewar, but I've been thinking about this for a long time. Do we do a political disservice to gays and lesbians by lumping their issues in with the transgendered and, conversely, do we do a political disservice to transgendered people by lumping their issues in with gays and lesbians?

Does the fact that all of this has been thrown under the heading GLBT do more to confuse heterosexuals about all of our issues and our lives than to clarify them?

[Atman]

1. What about the B's?

Can we post in either new forum?

;)

[ruggerson]

2. I'm actually speaking in general

not just about DU.

[Atman]

4. Gotcha

I always thought it was a rather strange term myself.

[William769]

3. We love everybody!

Nuff said.

[Cornus]

5. And on a related note...

...why is L even needed? Most of my lesbian friends prefer being referred to as gay (an all-encompassing term for both genders) rather than lesbian. Just another thought to further confuse the issue.... ;~)

[Jamastiene]

7. I prefer to be called gay instead of lesbian too.

Technically, though, I am a lesbian even though I do not hail from any Greek islands nor do I have any Greek heritage that I am aware of. :wtf: :shrug:

That would be about the only heritage I don't have at least a little of, fwiw.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

11. Where as I prefer to be considered "queer" rather than bisexual.

I guess it's more my politics- less about the gender of the person... 'cause while I'm married to a wonderful man, Men in general just don't do it for me... I used to self identify as a lesbian. i dated a bi girl- or rather, i was used by a bi-curious girl. I'm ashamed to admit that i was biphobic myself for a time.
And then as I became an out lesbian, found a circle of friends at college, became an activist and was still single, I advocated for everyone's rights, and thought that those around me were doing the same. But I was wrong.

One weekend, I met HIM. And I knew that someone very special had come into my life. I was scared- what did this mean for me. Was I no longer a lesbian? Was I the dreaded "B" that I had seen as a less positive/pure community member? I had to figure it out for myself, but I don't think I really gave myself the time to self-reflect...And that was good, I guess...'cause I got to see how other people changed their opinions of me, and use that to deepen my understanding of why I could be a strong queer activist AND dating a boy. After we dated for a while, and I was starting to play the "pronoun game", I decided it wasn't worth it anymore... so I started to use the correct pronoun for the person I was seeing. I was asked why I bothered to keep doing the gay rights stuff- it didn't pertain to me anymore. (WTF?) Sure it does. Just because my partner is male, it makes me no less queer than I was before I stopped playing the pronoun game. I still show up for marches, donate to causes, work for queer candidates for local office, etc...

So, I'll take a Q. Or a B, whatever you choose for me- it matters not- 'cause I'm still the same person, no matter what the label attached to my sexuality.

[Jamastiene]

13. That about sums it up.

I think different ones of us have different ideas of what we'd like to be called, but ultimately we like to be called human beings just like any straight people, I am sure. :thumbsup:

[idgiehkt]

42. wow.

sme here

I saw queer almost all the time now...I just prefer it. But then I've always preferred it, so I don't know...

I feel as a bi in the gay community kind of how I felt like as a queer in straight-people-ville...

[readmoreoften]

47. It's been a long time since I met someone in the community who IDs as Bi

and not just queer. Most people in the LGBT community who aren't G or L are simply "Q". I don't know many "bisexuals" within the queer community who, as a matter of principle, stick strictly to genetic men and women, and categorically rule out transgendered or transsexual people.

I think that some of the biphobia in the LGBT community has the same root as transphobia (the threatening middleground.) However, I think that another root of bi-uncomfortability among queer communities who are engaged with trans issues is that the "bi" in bisexual reasserts a binary that many people in the queer community don't exactly adhere to. For that reason, I think that a married woman with a lesbian past who identifies as "queer" is accepted, but a married woman who IDs as "bisexual" is assumed to a "straight-identified" person cruising lesbian bars to "spice up" the ol' marriage. "Queer" then, is an identification with the community while "Bi" would be with a sexual practice.

Just an observation. It's been a long time since I've met someone in the queer community who identifies as bisexual.

[Jamastiene]

6. Few of us are lucky enough to have such a place as GLBT

on Du where we can recuperate and share horror stories and opinions with each other. I would prefer to be lumped with the BT's to be honest. Not trying to be snarky, just saying that I think we have safety in numbers.

Aren't we free to start a thread and define some terms and ask that it be pinned? I have wondered about that before. It would be a good idea for some people if we sort of got together on some definitions. I still think many people see the words, "gay" or "lesbian" and assume there is choice involved. Also, I see many poeple who do not get the whole bisexual thing at all because they tend to see in terms of black and white only. That does more of a disservice to us than anything. We haven't coherently defined some terms so that we can educate people.

Unfortunately, I have recently had a real run-in with one of the "choice" claimers right here on DU and it was nasty. They refused to apologize for several derogatory comments. For that reason, among others, I'd rather we (GLBT) all stick together in this forum.

[Tyler Durden]

8. As a straight guy...

I think it's more because you've all been traumatized and stigmatized as "Not Normal" for so long.

Normal pretty much sucks, by the way. In fact, if you do math like I have, you realize that "normal to the curve" is just one point that's tangental to said curve. And a point is a singularity: it is by no means in the majority.

I love the paraphrase from the Q'ran in "Robin Hood": Allah delights in infinite diversity. One day, we will all be brown and vaguely Asian looking, if the race survives that long: perhaps we should learn to delight in our infinite diversity while it still exists.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. Actually I am glad your brought this up as I have never really

understood this either.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. Lumped?

We are your allies, and we are all fighting the same fight for the same rights.

Wow. Now I feel really shitty. I didn't think your comment would affect me personally, but as I was writing this, I realized it did. :(

[ruggerson]

12. No, we're not fighting the same fight.

They are equal fights in their worthiness and value, but they are two entirely different fights addressing two entirely different issues.

Sorry you feel shitty, you shouldn't, the OP is meant merely as a springboard for discussion.

[bicentennial_baby]

14. Explain please

"They are equal fights in their worthiness and value, but they are two entirely different fights addressing two entirely different issues."

[ruggerson]

18. Well, the obvious distinction

is that gays and lesbians deal primarily with issues of physical and affectional orientation, while transgendered people deal with issues of gender identity.

We understand the similarity in struggle, because we have both been marginalized by society, but the great masses out there are not as well versed with our lives as we are.

And the masses are whom we must influence and educate if we are all to gain equality.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

20. Well you still haven't explained why "B"s shouldn't be in with GL?

Also, what about lesbian transgendered women or gay transmen?

We are all fighting the same fight.

[bicentennial_baby]

28. that's what i'm wondering...

:hug:

[mongo]

29. Dont we all deal with issues

of discrimination, hatred and exposure to violence based on identity/orientation?

If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang apart.

[nealmhughes]

15. I'd wager a guess that Falwell and ilk are as ready to stone a G as they

are a L, a B or a T.

Stupid Lacan stuff in college and a desire to be "inclusive".

I dunno, how about Freds, Ethels, Lucys and Rickys?

[cboy4]

16. I've always accepted LGBT's encompassed as one class of oppressed people

because all of our sexual identities differ from the classic/conventional expectations of straight society.

If you ask me, that's a good way to explain it to those who don't understand the umbrella grouping.

Now, :popcorn: JUUUST kidding ;)

[ruggerson]

17. But isn't one about a sexual and affectional orientation

and the other about gender identity?

Two entirely different issues, imho.

[cboy4]

19. Two different issues? Well, transgender people aren't gay, true....but

if you want to get technical (and maybe I'm wrong because I'm not a transgender person or an expert in the field) --- even if a male were to get the "operation," lose his junk, lose his deep voice and body hair as a result of hormones, grow breasts.....biologically, the person is still technically a male, no?

So when this person has sex with a man, it's technically two males having sex.

Therefore, technically a gay act, and not conforming to traditional expectations regarding sexuality.

What do you think?

[ruggerson]

21. I think you would find

a male to female transsexual who then has relationships with men considers herself heterosexual. Complicated, maybe, to non transgendered folk, yes, but it is perfectly simple and understandable to the transgendered.

But this brings up the larger point. These are issues of gender identity, which is a complicated subject in and of itself.

If we accept the premise that straight society needs to be *educated* about all of us, in order to understand who we are, and that education will eventually result in achievements in the political arena, are we not confusing the very people we are trying to educate by mixing these two very different issues together?

For example, the religious right's big lie about gay people is that they can be "fixed." Every gay person alive knows that is a lie. It also implies that there is something profoundly wrong with being gay. Conversely, one could argue, that transgendered folks CAN indeed be "fixed" through reassignment surgery. For many transgendered people, surgery is a heaven sent answer to their prayers. Thus, solely in terms of educating people, isn't there a big confusion here if you want people to understand the issues surrounding gender identity and the issues surrounding physical and sexual orientation? If you combine the two causes, seems to me, you are doing nothing but confusing the very people we are trying to educate.

[cboy4]

22. Well lets hypothetically say we disassociate ourselves with the BT people,

and become a LG class.

How many homophobes (or just plain confused straight people) do you really think are going to say, "Oh, you guys have nothing to do with transgendered people......I'm not longer as confused and I can understand why you have sex with the same gender......and now I can accept you, or begin to accept you?)

Does that make sense?

What do you think would be accomplished?

[ruggerson]

23. Well you're assuming that by separating the two

that the hope would be that gays and lesbians would fare better from homophobes to the detriment of the transgendered.

My point is that BOTH gays AND the transgendered might fare better, since separating out the two issues will make for greater understanding amongst the people who are now utterly clueless.

People would hopefully beging to understand gay and lesbian specific issues and also understand transgendered issues. And I am positing that this might result in more significant political achievements, again, if we accept the premise that knowledge and enlightenment leads to political advancement.

[cboy4]

24. Ruggerson, I understand that people are confused, but what is the major

harm?

My point is straight people, who are anti-gay, are not going to start cutting us a break because we disassociate ourselves.

I don't believe both gays and the transgendered will fare better.

And what important issue will someone begin to understand that will help us?

[mockmonkey]

27. My F2M Partner

considers himself to be a gay male. We are legally married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage. Doesn't this help the cause because now it can be pointed out that two males are ALREADY married in this state and civilization hasn't ended. Isn't it ALL about being able to LOVE whomever you want without the state saying its wrong? I'm not surprised at that way Bisexual and the Transgendered are looked down upon by the very same people WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Transgendered people are GAY, Straight and Bi.

One last thing. Homeland Security is outing the Transgendered to their Employers by not allowing the change in the gender. Shouldn't this be a concern to everyone? Gender change = Possible Terrorist.

[ruggerson]

33. I haven't seen many

instances here of bisexuals and transgendered being "looked down on." That is certainly not the discussion we are having in this thread.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

48. If you haven't seen a good amount of transphobia on this board then

you obviously haven't been reading it enough. There have been large flamewars over trans issues in GD.

[ruggerson]

53. If so

I think it's sad that gay people, who grew up with tremendous discrimination, would not feel an innate bond with people dealing with gender identity, who suffer even more discrimination, imho.

As a little kid, I liked being a boy. I always felt very comfortable in my skin. On a scale of 1 to 10, my gender identity issue quotient is probably a 1. I am quite sure that I am the gender I am supposed to be and always have been. However, on an hardwired orientation scale, I'm probably a 10. I have absoutely no romantic or sexual interest in the opposite sex whatsoever. My being gay, however, enabled me to more readily understand and empathize with what transsexuals must experience and live through, both as little children, adolescents and on into adulthood. Knowing what it is like to feel displaced, I can imagine the pain and confusion that gender identity issues must engender. My fervent hope for all trans folk is that they find peace and happiness in whatever gender, and that they live their lives proudly and openly, with the full measure of the legal system there to protect them from bigotry, hate and cruelty.

I would imagine I'm not alone in feeling the bond (which I felt as long back as in adolescence) with transsexuals, even though I cannot pretend to know what experiencing gender identity issues feels like on a first hand basis.

Again, my point is that as a movement, we all want what is most effective and most productive for both groups and both sets of issues. Hence the OP.

[readmoreoften]

46. thank you! not all transmen are straight.

And almost all the transmen I know are involved with other transmen. That's pretty gay.

These issues are more complex than simple dichotomies of gay and lesbian, transgendered and non.

[readmoreoften]

43. Transgendered people are not gay???

A transgendered person is someone who is gender variant, but not necessarily transsexual. Like, for example, transgendered butch dykes who are a huge part of the queer community.

[cboy4]

49. You're correct. I should have said some transgendered people do consider

themselves gay.

I just got all caught up in responding to the idiotic (and selfish I might add) notion that bisexual and transgendered people should be segregated from gays and lesbians.

My position is it should remain LGBT as well as Q.

Our goals are all the same.

[ruggerson]

51. Who said anything about "segregating" anyone?

The OP clearly uses the word "issues" in provoking discussion about the specifics of political strategizing and clarity about goals and agenda.

I would hope it would be possible to have a rational discourse about this, and judging by some of the responses here, I think that hope is not misplaced.

The sad thing is that I received private posts about this subject from people, fairly passionate about this, but unwilling to discuss this openly.

I assume they were worried that they would be called "idiotic" and "selfish" for initiating or participating in a perfectly valid discussion.

[readmoreoften]

54. But what you are suggesting has already caused segregation.

You can't "delump" G/L from T without segregation. Lesbian history is full of it:

(1)Look at the Michigan Womyn's Festival, a lesbian event that will only admit "womyn-born-womyn". So even if you spent 25 years in the lesbian music community, once you cross an arbitrary threshhold of presenting with a certain amount of masculinity, you are not permitted into festival. If you are a transsexual MTF lesbian, you are also not permitted.

(2) This year at the Dyke March in NYC, transmen-- even if they lived their entire lives in the lesbian community, and even if their girlfriends still ID'd as lesbian-- were not permitted to march. After the huffing and puffing of an initial few, lesbian identified transwomen were permitted to march.

(3) In the 1970s, Olivia Records (the first lesbian music recording company) basically folded because the company hired Sandy Stone as their primary sound engineer. Sandy had previously been Jimi Hendrix's sound engineer, but the majority of Olivia's listeners fairly rioted because Sandy was an MTF lesbian. They said that she was really a "man" usurping women's power, not a lesbian.

I could go on.

[cboy4]

57. This is the sort of discussion I would expect to find on some straight

board. That's straight up.

Again, whether L,G,B, or T......our sexual identities differ from the classic/conventional expectations of straight society - therefore we are ridiculed, oppressed, chastised....whatever adjective you want to use...and we should stick together and work toward achieving the same goal of acceptance.

Principle is more noble than trying to appease straight people.

I tried to discuss this with you in an earlier exchange and you made the decision of proverbially hanging the phone up on me.

As for people needing to P.M. you (:wtf: )....there are others who agree with you publicly in this thread (that maybe B's and T's should be cut off) and I haven't called any of them idiots or any other names.

Listen, if you post something controversial about a LGBT issue, you better be prepared to fight me and not get all pissy and defensive.

That's the bottom line.

Sorry if your feelings are hurt.

[ruggerson]

58. I truly doubt you would find anything remotely like this

on a straight site. An in depth discussion of trans/gay issues?

Don't worry, no one got their feelings hurt. It would take a bit more than some rantings on a discussion board.

That is, if I had feelings to begin with.

[Der Blaue Engel]

30. You still haven't addressed why you don't want B in with GL

I disagree that it would be better for transfolk to be on their own; after all, why have they fought for the right to be included in the GLBT if it's detrimental to their struggle to "lump" us all together?

But TG issues and gender identiy aside, bisexuality is about affectional orientation, so can you explain what your exception to the B is? It doesn't seem to follow the rest of your argument.

Thanks.

[ruggerson]

32. I am not suggesting

that they be "on their own." I think both groups can be strong allies. But to stick both issues together under one moniker greatly confuses the issue, and since clarity is what we are after, I think it's self defeating. As far as bisexuals are concerned, their fight for rights concerns orientation, so they essentially are one and the same with the gay movement. The only way they are institutionally discriminated against, as far as I can see, is when they express the gay side of their bisexuality.

[NMMNG]

25. I think it's good for us to band together

The more support we can give each other, IMO, the better. There is strength in numbers. The heterosexuals who genuinely want to learn more about our issues will ask and learn. Those who don't care or want to learn don't matter anyway (in that they aren't going to be of any assistance to us).

[sui generis]

26. we really don't have any issues that aren't their doing

Everything they presume about us is an abstract.

We presume that straight people have sex a particular way but we don't ever make them prove they're straight.

Likewise, they (the ones so inclined) act out on us on the presumption of something they'll never have evidence of.

The issues aren't G or L or B or T. The issue is not being Ozzie and Harriet married with two point five children going to church three times a week.

You can't discriminate against anyone for "being gay". Nowhere in law is "gay" mentioned. "sexual" orientation is mentioned a lot, which is an abstract. Affectional orientation; gosh, that needs a pretty critical definition too.

So yes, anybody who wants to make their own choices about their lives based on what they know is right for themselves needs to be together; our "issues" are everyone's issues when it comes to not having to worry about what somebody presumes or whether they have a right to judge or make decisions about anyone's life but their own.

[readmoreoften]

50. excellent point. /nt

[UncleSepp]

55. I think I love you. :-)

We're all in this together. It's about liberty, not about what a person chooses to do with that liberty.

[justin899]

31. Yes, the 'B' does

but the 'T' part is a completely separate issue.

[ruggerson]

34. I agree

But don't see the need for the "B", in terms of political activism. Getting full equality for the "G" and "l"'s covers the "B" entirely, since they are only institutionally discriminated against when they are expressing the "G" and "L" side of their makeup.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

36. Their issue is our issue and we have all been fighting for equal rights

since the beginning of the movement.

Cynthia Riviera, a transwoman, was the first person to rebel against the police during their raid of the Stonewall bar. It has been our fight TOGETHER from the beginning.

By the way, there are also gay transgendered people out there. I know them.

[readmoreoften]

45. a completely separate issue for gay men. /nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Not to channel "Fiddler On The Roof," but... TRADITION!

Flippant answer aside, gender identity and sexual orientation are parallel continuums. There are many lesbians who strongly identify with male dress, mannerism and social customs; there are many gay men who strongly identify with female dress, mannerism and social customs. Nowadays, the distinction between these people and trans-folks is whether or not they are willing to undergo medical procedures to bring harmony to outer and inner gender. Remember, though, that these procedures have existed for less than a century, and have become widely available only in the last two or three decades. Before that, options were limited.

The North American men who took up the clothing, speech and place in society of women as berdache from early life until they died... were they actually gay men, or were they trans? The Amazons who distained the place of women in ancient Achaean culture to hunt and make war with the men and who (if legends are to be believed) took their share of women to become slaves and concubines... were they lesbians, or biological females who identified as men?

Today, the distinction between gay and transgender is fairly sharp. Two generations ago, and for thousands of years before that, the distinction didn't exist in any meaningful way. In religious persecutions over the centuries, in cultural condemnation, in rejecting society's rules, both groups have dealt with the exact same issues. And so, by very long standing tradition and an ancient history of common cause, we and they form a common "us."

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. I have nothing to add except GREAT POST!

:thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

38. I prefer to use the all inclusive "sexual minorities"....

( where the term applies)... as opposed to the bizarre alphabet soup that has evolved over the last couple of decades.

If the aim is to de-confuse heterosexuals, I'd focus on this. To me , most gay, bi, les, trans, issues can be traced to the majority's insistence on *conformity* and *uniformity* in an aspect of life where nature has insisted on *diversity* instead.

Having said that, you have artfully and tactfully posed a profound series of questions to which there are no simple answers.

My short answer to the first two questions are " I'm not sure".

To the third: 'probably yes.'

[Meeker Morgan]

39. I can't justify the inclusion as some kind of ...

... absolute category. But that's not the point.

We are all opposed by the same bigots and must fight together.

In a world without bigotry there wouldn't be any need for an alliance between gay men, lesbians, etc.

[HeavensHell]

40. I don't believe

it does gays/lesbians a disservice. Our rights are your rights and vice versa, we're all fighting for the same thing, equality. No matter what kind of infighting goes on, the front lines of the "war" never change. It's still us vs them. In general I think heterosexuals are highly confused about our issues, blinded by religion and personal hatred, I doubt they really care. Not all heterosexuals are like this, just the ones on the far right. In their eyes we're all sexual deviants. Also, if we don't fight for each others rights, who will fight for us? Who will defend us? Hypothetically; GL or BT can't be taken down by the religious right, its GLBT or nothing. It's all about expression of ones self and being happy, or at least trying to be. Let's take this little gem I just found on another forum as an example of the people who vote for the current leadership in power; "Well I for one do HATE Queers, they are scum, Low Life predators,they should be treated like ALL predators and Eliminated. Does THAT answer you whinny little Comment. And POWER exsits with the Person that Will use it, not some purse carrying Sissy Boy. Get the Message." I think we should stick together fightin the good fight......

[liontamer]

41. The issues are all the same

and fit with feminism as well. Any time society says that because of your physical sex you must conform to a set pattern of behavior there is a problem.

[readmoreoften]

44. Sorry, this is a sexist post based on the experience of the gay men.

Yes, there are many transwomen who come from the straight male world and move into the transcommunity. But transmen OFTEN (not always, but OFTEN ENOUGH) emerge from the dyke community and have spent much of their lives as butches before transitioning. Not to mention that passable, hard butches who do not identify as male or female have also come up through the LGBT community and often spend their lives in the gay community. Not all trans people desire to live as "stealth" straights. Many transpeople aren't even straight.

So are you saying that someone who lived their lives in the lesbian community for 20 years doesn't belong in the gay community anymore because s/he goes on T or gets top surgery? What about their partners? I've been an out lesbian my whole adult life, but my partner wants to get top surgery. When s/he does am I suddenly a straight women? Or do we become a straight couple when s/he takes T?

If you cut the B and the T from GLBT then you cut out a good part of gay history, and an enormous part of lesbian history-- particularly the histories of lesbians of color.



Edited to add "adult" to "whole life." I wasn't born with a rainbow flag tattooed on my ass. :)
Edited to add that my accusation of "sexist" does not apply to you *in general*, ruggerson, but only to this particular post. :)

[ruggerson]

52. Can't agree

Nowhere did I suggest that a lesbian who then becomes transsexual "doesn't belong in the gay community." Those are your words and your thoughts, which you are falsely ascribing to me. If this hypothetical woman was a lesbian and then goes on to become a transsexual, he/she would obviously, in the context of this discussion, be a part of both sets of issues: gender identity and hardwired affectional orientation. I don't think your allegation of sexism holds any water here whatsoever. I am sure there are times in my life when I have written or said sexist things. This ain't one of them.

The OP suggests that by combining the two issues: gender identity and orientation, we are doing more to confuse the rest of the world than to clarify and enlighten. That does not mean both issues are not worthy of equal respect and equal commitment. I'm sure there are many, many gay men and women who would fervently and diligently work for the rights of the trans population and vice versa.

If the response is "well, the straight world sees us all as perverts anyway", my question is, in this age of instant communication and media omnipresence, who's fault is that?

[readmoreoften]

56. Okay, ruggerson, let's work this out.

The reason why I said that the post is sexist-- which is admittedly too strong-- is because your proposal is ignorant of lesbian history. It might be better to say that your post is "gaymalecentric" rather than sexist. Since feminism, lesbian history has been marked by the 1970s movement of largely middle class, largely white "women-loving-women" trying to push hard butches, femmes, and transmen out of the community for being women-hating gender traitors. The butches were viewed as abusive he-shes, the femmes were seen as anti-feminist quasi-straight dolts, and transmen were seen as sick freaks of nature. Many of the butches, femmes, and transmen were working class and/or people of color. The reason these lesbians gave for "not wanting to be lumped" from these people was often that "they had nothing in common." For that reason, some butches and femmes do not identify as "lesbian", feeling that it connotes a very particularly type of sexuality that they don't relate to. By the way, these "women-loving-women" didn't want to be "lumped" with gay men either because they "were perverts". And, by the way, there are still lesbians today that do not want to be "lumped" with gay men.

For that matter, while the straight world has always looked at gay men's existence as a sexual perversion, they have often looked at lesbian existence as a gender perversion. It's not the lesbian sex that the gay bashers object to, it's the usurping of the straight man's role as possessor of women. I have never been beaten up for being a sexual pervert-- and I am a high femme-- but I have been punched because "if she's going to act like a guy, I'm punch her like a guy." I have known too many transgendered lesbian butches who were beaten up because gangs of men were outraged because they couldn't figure out whether they were a boy or a girl, not because they were lesbian. If my girlfriend, who can pass for a man but still also looks like a woman, was attacked for being masculine, which center would she go to to get bandaged-- the one that deals with Gay and Lesbian issues, but not Trans issues? Or the one that deals with trans issues and not gay and lesbian issues? This de-lumping would turn into specific policy.

The "T" in LGBT stands for "transgender" not "transsexual". Many transsexuals who did not come up through the gay community, don't identify with it or belong to it anyway. And the transsexual community is not necessarily keen on transgendered people either. Transmen who want to pass, often dis-identify with butches rather harshly. They study how to *not dress* like them. Many also think that they are just "confused" people who are "afraid" to transition and "really be themselves."

I'm not talking about "hypothetical" people here; I'm talking about my own experience, my partner's experience, and the experience of many of my friends and many of their friends. Sexual orientation and gender identity are erotically, affectionally, and historically linked. They can't be extricated for the benefit of presenting a easily consumable worldview to straight people. We can't forget about our histories and the histories of other members of the community. The decoupling of sexual orientation and gender identity is a 20th century phenomenon. It's the decoupling that confuses people, and further "delumping" will not clarify the issue, but just create a class of queers who don't know where they should go to get the help they need.

[ruggerson]

59. That's reasonable

I plead guilty to being "Gaymalecentric" :). What I posted about originally was a discussion of strategy. Some folks broadened that, as it is a hot button apparently for some, to maintain that it was an argument for "segregating" populations one from another, which of course is ridiculous. I'm still not convinced that a broad alliance, with specific campaigns relating to specific objectives is not a smarter political move in order to clarify the issues for those that are not as intimately familiar with them as we are. While I find your history of the internecine lesbian/trans infighting to be fascinating, I would posit that the average straight person would not care and would probably find it bizarre and alienating. They just need simple facts laid out for them very directly in order for them to understand who we are and why we are worthy of support. I understand and appreciate the points you are making, especially in the historical context of where we are coming from as a political movement, but movements need to grow and mature and change and adapt, if they are to survive and be effective. If we all stay committed to an overarching, general alliance and fealty to one another's needs, I think it is healthy if we explore various avenues to try to garner and broaden support for all of us amongst the general public. Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic, where we all, by and large, live and die by the sword of who can get the most votes.

[readmoreoften]

60. I think that the problem with developing a "talking points" strategy

for LGBT people that "dumbs down" the histories and the realities of queers, so that straights can "get it" is that it will also end up confusing-- or worse, providing a false simplicity-- to young and/or questioning LGBT people. I think that the best way to explain it is that there are some people who are homosexual, some people who are born bi/polysexual-- who are innately either biologically attracted to all sexes or to no particular sex at all, some people are born with "gender identity disorder"-- meaning that they are born with a neurological mental map of their bodies that does not match the physical body itself-- which usually leads to transsexual surgery, before/during/after which they may be heterosexual, homosexual, bi/polysexual. And some people are transgendered, meaning that their innate gender expression diverges so sharply with the proscribed social roles that their bodies and lives are shaped by this change. What we want as a community is to stop discrimination based on sexual/affectional orientation and gender expression. This means.

*Marriage for all adults of legal age to any other adult of legal age, regardless of age, race, sex, gender presentation, or sexual/affectional orientation. If a man can marry after prostate or testicular cancer or impotence (has no testicles, can have no children) then certainly a gay couple or a transsexual man or woman can marry another person. Marriage is about partnership, not sex.

*Workplace non-discrimination in hiring/firing. The workplace should be based on performance not age, race, sex, gender presentation, or sexual/affecational orientation.

*The right for all Americans to create their own families without government intrustion. Scientific studies have shown that children with gay parents (regardless of gender) are just as healthy as children with straight ones. We need another study that says that gender varient citizens are just as good parents as non-gender varient parents (both gay and straight.) Then, when, our whole community is protected, we can demand access to adoption and foster parenting, as well as protections on our natural born children.

I think the problem isn't that we haven't adequately separated out the identities and issues of the members of the community. I think the problem is that we aren't thinking broad enough. BROADER protections, that protect everyone, are what we need to strive for in order to reach our goals. If not, we'll atomize ourselves to death.

We don't need a clearer queer platform. We need less goddamn fundies in America.

/endrant