Surfing the net, one can find all kinds of advocacy for transgender related issues. Of course, the advocates for these transgender related issues are gay, lesbian, and bisexual transgender activists. To the best of my knowledge, there is not one prominent out and proud trans activist whose advocacy is centered strictly on heterosexual classic/true transsexual issues…not one. If anyone knows of a prominent or even obscure trans activist whose advocacy is centered on heterosexual classic/true transsexual issues please let me know. There may be one, but after years on the net I have never come across him or her.
It should not be surprising that the homosexual/bisexual trans activist advocate for issues under the banner of the GLBT. And, that advocacy invariably revolves around just two issues, both of which are GLB related. Those two issues are discrimination and same-sex marriage. Though discrimination is somewhat of a concern to some heterosexual classic/true transsexuals, for the most part the tens and tens of thousands of heterosexual, post operative, classic/true transsexuals have their surgery and disappear into the mainstream generally not affected. Heterosexual, post operative, classic/true transsexuals, by definition, are not involved in same-sex relationships so for us, whether we support same-sex marriage or not, that issue is not at the top of our list either…if it’s on it at all.
“But same sex marriage isn’t really same sex marriage. What it does is make marriage available to any two adults no matter what their sex and by doing so automatically protects the marriage of a WBT to a man.”
You know what I say? What in living hell is wrong with you people!
The GLBT’s premise is that for no other reason than less than a handful of States have ruled a heterosexual marriage involving a classic/true post operative transsexual is not valid is the reason to support same-sex marriage, as a strategy. That is simply horse dung. Why should classic/true post operative transsexuals surrender rights we already have, essentially throwing in the towel on our heterosexuality and legitimacy by supporting same-sex marriage as a strategy? Saying stupid and ignorant things like “…same sex marriage isn’t really same sex marriage” as a way to rationalize one’s homosexual involvement is fine with me, but I’m not homosexual. Entering into a marriage under some asinine GLBT same-sex loophole is no marriage at all to me. I refuse to go backwards. Homosexual trans activists are hell bent on deconstructing gender, what with their men can become pregnant and females can have penises lunacy. So now, they want to deconstruct marriage as well, under the guise of “it’s best for all of us” if all of us support same-sex marriage. NEWS FLASH: It’s Not Best For Me… I believe in traditional values. And, regardless of what the courts may decide, regardless of what one’s position is, and regardless of what legislation is passed, marriage will always be defined in my mind as the legal union between a man and a woman. I want a traditional marriage; I do not want a same-sex union in which the contemporary judicial system has said can now be called a marriage. I do not want a marriage that is just like a heterosexual traditional marriage…I want a marriage that is a heterosexual traditional marriage.
The issues of discrimination and marriage could be addressed in one fell swoop if the trans activist would lobby for Federal Gender Recognition Legislation. The legislation could be one sentence long:
“Any citizen, upon presenting clear, unambiguous, and positive proof they have undergone gender reassignment surgery will be legally recognized by the United States of America as their target gender and shall fully have, and enjoy, the same protections and civil rights afforded to their naturally born natal counterparts.”
Such legislation would assure legal protection from all discrimination for those of us who occasionally encounter it, and put to rest once and for all any concerns classic/true post operative transsexuals have over the legitimacy of their marriage. Legislation along these lines would simply, on a federal level, legitimize our gender and simultaneously cover classic/true post operative transsexuals under the existing sexual discrimination laws…the same as it does any other natal female/male. As a federal law, this legislation would supercede any state legislation attempting to invalidate our legitimacy.
Have any of you seen such legislation discussed? If you have, please link me to it, for I have never seen such discussion. Why? Because the concerns of heterosexual classic/true post operative transsexuals are tied and joined at the hip to the GLB and homosexual T …such legislation would not facilitate their agenda.
Over at Bilerico their was a comment made by someone whose user name is cristophe…he says HERE, emphasis mine:
“I feel that delving into Transgender people is going to push the envelope TOO FAR. Straight americans are going to start assuming that all gay people are or have transgender issues, when most do not.”
I had to respond, and did…HERE:
“Awwwwwwww…that would be too bad, huh? The GLB would be put out if straight Americans thought they were all transgender. I’d even expect the GLB would like to assume the transgender would set society straight on the issue too. Then again, classic/true transsexuals, as well as the transgender, are first and foremost thought by society to be gay or lesbian…when most of us are not. Post operative MtoFs, most of which are straight, are seen by most of society as nothing more than homosexual men who’ve gone to an extreme by having gender reassignment surgery.
And what does the GLB do to dispel this sterotype?
Absolutely nothing…never have, never will.”
My comment ended the thread…no one had a thing to say after that.
No, the GLB don’t want society to think that “…all gay people are or have transgender issues…” but they aren’t going to lift even one little finger to point out or clarify that not everyone under the transgender umbrella is homosexual, or even supports everything the GLB stands for. And, though the GLB expects the support of everyone under the transgender umbrella, it will be a cold day in hell before they would even consider discussion on federal legislation such as I’ve suggested, much less support it. Nope, the GLBT has hijacked and colonized classic/true transsexuals and they are not about to give us up, particularly to support federal legislation that would legally recognize our target gender, protect our heterosexual marriages in every state, and, in the process, afford us the same discrimination protections as our natal counterparts.
Sign THE PETITION…
32 Comments
Lesbians and gays should be given the same rights and benefits as others.
I have had this argument a thousand times with ill-informed people who sight Littleton vs Prange.
Littleton had an amended birth certificate. Her history was plastered all over that document.
Anybody with an amended birth certificate will run into this problem ether in a divorce or if a will is contested.
I can marry in Texas legally and without contest because I nave a new birth certificate and the old one is sealed.
Many states give you the option to do this; a few will destroy the old birth certificate. Given that I can marry in every state in the union, so can anyone who was borne in California.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, I voted for Proposition Eight here in California.
Most of the people who comment on this issue know less about that aspect of transition than they do about their surgeon’s technique of choice.
In regard to this;
“Any citizen, upon presenting clear, unambiguous, and positive proof they have undergone gender reassignment surgery will be legally recognized by the United States of America as their target gender and shall fully have, and enjoy, the same protections and civil rights afforded to their naturally born natal counterparts.”
The fourteenth Amendment should uphold such a law there should be no question as to the constitutionality of this proposed law.
I have always made it perfectly clear in the past that my sexual orientation is a private matter and as such is practiced in private. The homosexual and homosexual transsexual communities seem to be obsessed with making what they do in the bedroom a public and political issue. Such exhibitionism is both childish and a sign of a lack of self-control under the guise of freedom of expression.
Sigh………………
S
Oh, I’m informed, Sue…I live in Texas, though not born here. The fact still remains that in Texas the Courts have held that a MtoF who has undergone GRS is not legally a female…at least in Texas. And, regardless if one is issued a new birth certificate and the original archived to oblivion, or an amended one, should the marriage be contested on the grounds that the person is female by way of GRS, and it can be proven, the courts will invalidate the marriage. Being able to side step a law doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t still apply.
You certainly are informed;
It was not my intention to suggest otherwise.
The Key Word is “Prove”
As for being in Texas, I wish I was there, I love it there and hate California with a passion.
Texas is a nice place to visit and live.
Take care
S
What I read in the Littleton case was that Littleton and her lawyer put for the “GID” argument, and the judge agreed with them that Littleton was a mentally ill man as defined under Littleton’s own premise. That is one big reason that real transsexuals need to get away from the psych community, and avoid translawyering.
The last thing we need is a bunch of hidden queers in the APA defining us… or people chipping away at our legitimacy to advance their agenda. GID is nothing more than a smear campaign, and transactivism is worse than useless to a real transsexual. It’s destructive.
We are freaks, and will always be freaks to the straight world. We are freaks and an annoyance threat to the militant gay and GLBt in general, and will always be a threat to their politically correct ideology and censorship.
It was not mentioned that as a conservative heterosexual male, I should now, after Transition and SRS, some how now be attracted to men; where as, I was before attracted to women. Not only cannot the heterosexual “Normal” world wrap their head around what Transition means, but seldom can a Transsexual. I really have no understanding of what gay really means. Where do I fit? Who am I really allowed to love and share a life with? And who has the authority to give me sanction, permission, or the peace of mind to be happily engaged in a loving and sexual relationship?
The whole set of terms and socially acceptable structure is bogus and simply discrimination from beginning to end. As a freak, I am not allowed the most basic of human experience. I never have, nor will ever be allowed to have that experience. I am a freak in anyone’s court and am not allowed to enter into acceptance.
As a Transsexual who is fully Transitioned and has successfully changed all of her relevant documentation to meet the apparent requirements, I am still a freak denied the human experience and equality under law. I am not even afforded equal protection under law, because I am a freak.
Even though I “pass”, the premise of equality is superfluous. I have to “pass” to be accepted and hide that I am a freak. In every sense of the word I am a freak and no law or social education will change that, for human nature would then have to change. I will always be a freak! Only God knows and has the capacity to reconcile us. And we know what this world thinks of God.
erleclaire;
You said….
“We are freaks, and will always be freaks to the straight world. We are freaks and an annoyance threat to the militant gay and GLBt in general, and will always be a threat to their politically correct ideology and censorship.”
Sorry you might think that way, my experience says otherwise. Since when does day to day life require us to discuss our medical history to anybody other than a doctor? People who make the comment you did are the out and proud types I have mentioned in an earlier post.
What ever happened to keeping your private parts private?
Who you love is your own business. If you choose to do it in public you are subject to public reaction, get use to it.
If you talked to a therapist at one time or another in your pre-operative stage in transition I am surprised this never came up. Part of transition is learning the implications of our decision to transition.
In many parts of the US and in other countries public displays of affection are frowned upon, and seen as immature. I might add it’s not the job of the rest of the world to understand transition; it is the job of the person transitioning to fit in.
If you see yourself as some kind of “freak” (your word not my word) perhaps you should detransition, maybe you transitioned for the wrong reason.
This isn’t about passing it’s about being. to pass as a woman means you are not really a woman, your a fake.
Passing is what you do with counterfeit $20.00 bills.
Passing is what you do to get into a space you really don’t belong in.
Passing is what a vice cop does when he poses as a John in order to bust a hooker, the reverse is also passing.
Crossdressers pass because they are part time and have a “day life”.
Post-transition women DON’T PASS, THEY ARE.
Ariablue;
That is a very good point.
Take Care all….
S
I response:
I am happy to be who I am. I am happy to be in a loving relationship. I am also happy in telling the greater GLBt to stay out of my life. I am happy to be free to express myself despite the Politically Correct Censorsip that others would impose. I am happy to not care that the world sees me as a “FREAK” and not human. I have learned to not be needy or base my being on others for validity and some sense of vindication. I am what I am, have always been, and share it with those who are appreciative. Others, well, they are what they are and I do not really have room in my life for their hate or agenda.
Even so, there are those who persist in exposing my status and outing me when I least expect it. And others who are reactive to my status and impose their authority. It was to that, which I was speaking.
(Side note: Why would one detransition when what they were didn’t work in the first place. I hated the gender I was forced to live, and decided this would work or I would cease to exist. That is still my attitude and strength. It’s working!)
As much as I disagree with most of the rhetoric, and the legal analysis, here, I definitely would support federal legislation that requires recognition of our post-transition, i.e., “target,” sex. That’s an issue that affects all of us, whether we are considered to be “classic” or “true” transsexuals, or “homosexual/bisexual trans activists,” and would still be important, whether or not same sex/gender free marriage is made legal. Such legislation would, however, have little to no impact on the right of any of us to protection under state or federal anti-discrimination laws, since the issue there is not which sex you are, but whether you have been treated differently because of your sex or sex-related characteristics. You can read my discussion of why this is so in my comment on the same Bilerico post you linked to: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/03/the_law_of_gender_identity_and_the_law_o.php#comment-179845.
SA-ET disagree on same sex marriage. I’m bisexual oriented mainly towards men with a lot of lesbian friends. To me, marriage equality is just that, marriage equality. I’m sure she and I would disagree on other things as well…..that lessens not one bit the respect I have for her.
We WBT, WTH, whatever have one thing in common, we were born with a neurological birth condition and we corrected it. On the “freak” thing, that word has a different flavour to me having come of age as an activist in the sixties, we wore that title proudly. Am I a “freak” today?, only in that sixties sense as I move through the world as what I am, an older woman with a number of eccentricities. I take a lot more flack for being a Pagan Goddess theologian and a very very committed feminist than I ever did for the gender I was assigned at birth. In fact the only time that pretty much comes up at all is on the internet, some necessiary medical context or once in a great while, an interaction with some nosey government clone. Day to day it simply is not part of my life.
Ten years ago it would have been fairly simple to get a law such as SA-ET talked about passed. It would have simply required about 10-15 of us lobbying intensely for a short amount of time out of sight of the TGs. Today, thanks to the TGs eroding the basic public understanding of who we are and our situation we are pretty much screwed. So are the TGs btw, since they forget that their beloved ENDA only covers employment. It does not cover housing, public accomodations, medical access, insurance or anything else.
Today’s trans everything is embracing “I’m a victim” mentality. This will lead to failure to launch as women, self-ghettoization, refusal to improve their lot and eventual third gender category for all of them.
erleclaire;
Thank you for clarifying that. There is little we can do regarding those who treat woman of operative experience badly, all you can do is move on and know in your heart they are the ones with the problem not you.
————————-
Abby;
Based on my experience successfully working past another birth condition; I can speak from experience that laws that set up protected classes have a negative side effect on the class being protected. Those laws make that class appear less able to cope in mainstream life than classes of people who do not have such protection.
I personally would prefer no laws at all, let everyone stand on their abilities and resources.
Take Care All;
S
I am a bit disappointed to see the “heterosexist normative” positions here, as well as the opposition to SSM given the existence of Lesbians of Operative History, a few of whom I know personally. To the Lesbian groups that I am part of, they are simply Lesbians; their operative history is a footnote to who they are not a definition of who they are.
They are living as the women that you demand to be permitted live as. In opposing SSM you are denying them their rights, just as you claim that others deny you yours.
Just a thought.
Maura;
I can’t speak for others here just my own view on the issue.
Historically marriage has a specific definition, with that said a civil union is the best answer to keeping both camps happy. What you call it is not important. To me having the term marriage apply to something other than the union between a man and a woman is like redefining the color green. What I find is an affront to the whole issue nobody is addressing, that being the fact you have to get a license to marry. Obtaining a license for anything changes that activity from a right to a privilege. Marriage licenses are a byproduct of the eugenics and racial purity movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In a free society you should not have to ask permission from the state in order to enter into a binding agreement with another person to share your life and with. I also find it an affront that civil unions are only binary relationships, why there is a prohibition on civil unions involving more than two people is not only outmoded and backward but in this day and age it makes no sense considering the economics of binary civil unions.
Even the homosexual communities are trapped in the 19th century.
Take care
S
“disappointed to see the “heterosexist normative” positions here”…
Is it just me …. ?
Are people just reading this blog and only getting half the picture?
Are we not being clear enough ?
Let me make it perfectly clear for you Ms Hennessey…
HETEROSEXUALS OFTEN HAVE A HETEROSEXIST POSITION…
I realize its really really hard for anyone, and I mean ANYONE… gay, lesbian, straight, bi, black, asian or australian to get their head around someone of “operative sexual history” not falling all over themselves to embrace same sex marriage and the gay agenda, but hey there it is.
Sometimes, Maura Hennesey, you make me want to throw up.
No wait ..
I have read and re-read Maura Hennessey’s statement .. there is more..
So what that there are lesbians of operative history? Most women of operative history have been lesbians at one time or another. In fact, one could argue they are simply extending their female sexual preference from their former roles as males. It is no big secret that males embrace sexual fetishism about lesbian sex.
Whoa! .. We demand no such thing. We are not asking or expecting anyone to allow us to live our lives as anything. We live our lives .. period.
Eh … just a minute there .. in point of fact since most states dissallow the marriage of a post operative woman to a genetic male, that gives those post operative lesbian women that have genetic female lovers the same right to be able to marry their female counterpart as they would have any other female if they had so desired. Yes I know that is also frowned upon but legally speaking they could already marry their lesbian lover.
Where have we ever said that we are being denied our rights?
That is the Transgender department, down the hall and across the parking lot. You know the place.. you live there!
What we do say, over and over is that the GLBT are pushing for rights that RESCIND and CHANGE the rights we already had! That is not the same thing as saying that others are denying us our rights. We are NOT victims! We have no need to be “specialed” out as such.
“I am a bit disappointed to see the “heterosexist normative” positions here, as well as the opposition to SSM given the existence of Lesbians of Operative History”
More of that silly transgender dogma, sorry I don’t drink that Kool-Aid.
There are far more important things to worry over.
S
good god! …
I just watched the Autumn Sandeen video over at PHB .. charicatures of women
… these are the leaders and role models of the Transgender Summit ? Oh Lord !
who appoints these fucks ?
… we are all in a world of shit!
Leigh;
They appoint themselves.
It’s a male privilege thing i guess.
I saw it also, Autumn shouldn’t strain so much, it’s not good for the vocal cords and it sounds fake.
Both of them are straining. They sound like drag queens instead of women.
When are they going to learn that the best path, the path of least resistance is to just be women and not be trannys. And if they cannot be women than just give up.
I know Autumn and Vicie reads posts here.
Message to the both of you.
Ask yourself;
Why did you transition in the first place?
What did you want to be, a tranny or a woman?
Do you want to spend the rest of your life in a GLBT Ghetto or do you want to live in the mainstream with the rest of us?
They don’t have to post their answers, they just have to be honest with their answers to the person in the mirror.
S
With regard to the slam shots taken at Ms. Hennessey, they are unwarranted. I have said it before and will again, there is no room on this blog for diatribe, personal insults, or subtle, veiled kiss-my-ass-fuck-you comments…or anything but reasonable debate. Not that I need to defend her for she is quite capable of doing that herself, Maura is not a radical transgender activist but a feminist who on countless occasions on countless blogs has questioned much of the transgender agenda, in much the same way, as we have here on Enough Non-Sense. Maura is welcome to post here anytime, on any issue; I value her comments and seek them out on other blogs. Though I don’t agree with her position on some issues, she is respectful to mine and always willing to consider it. Again, if someone comments here, address what they say and leave the insults at home.
Maura, let me address your comment:
Though I personally may not support same-sex marriage, this blog has not concentrated on formal opposition to it. In my last essay, The GLB’s Sexualization of Transsexualism and Intersexuality, I say:
Now, granted that is not support of same-sex marriage, but at the same time, I’m not going to be ranting on and on in my blog against it, lobbying my legislators against it, protesting against it, etc. The truth is same-sex marriage doesn’t affect me and I really don’t care one way or the other. Like most of the rest of the populace, when I get in the voting booth, I will cast my vote…whatever the outcome I will gladly live with the majority’s decision. I firmly believe that same-sex marriage will one day be the order of the day. As it turns out, it’s the “…same-sex marriage doesn’t affect me…” part that’s the rub.
The GLBT’s position is that it does affect me because, as of now, a few states (not most as Leigh says, but only five I believe, Texas, Florida, Kansas, and maybe Ohio and Iowa) have ruled essentially that marriage involving a post operative TS to a natal male/female is invalid; same-sex marriage would make that problem go away if it were legalized. Perhaps a few more states have made a ruling on the issue against post ops, either way, the overwhelming majority of the 50 states in the Union either specifically recognize the marriage rights of post ops, or have not specifically ruled against them. There are currently two states that recognize same-sex marriage with many more having constitutional amendments prohibiting them. The question of why post operative transsexuals shouldn’t unilaterally throw our marriage rights towel in with the GLB when we already have those rights in most of the States seems obvious.
In my essay above, I made these statements, complete with the italicized emphasis just as it is written:
…and:
The key phrase, just as it is written in both of those sentences above which are located in the same paragraph is:
Two questions the GLBT will not answer, but I will:
1. Why, as a strategy to secure my own marriage rights, as a heterosexual female, albeit one via gender reassignment surgery, should I unilaterally support same-sex marriage when my marriage rights are secured in the overwhelming majority of the States already, in spite of having GRS?
2. Why isn’t the GLBT, if it represents me under the transgender umbrella as it claims, fighting to consolidate my marriage rights in the few states that do not recognize my gender as valid?
To answer the first question, we shouldn’t, as a strategy to secure our own marriage rights, necessarily support the concept unless we support same-sex marriage regardless. As heterosexual females, we should have and demand the same rights as any other heterosexual female. In most of the states we, in fact, do have those same rights. We should drive forward to secure the rights we don’t have in the few states that do not recognize our target gender, not ride in on the skirts of the GLB who are far behind us. Unless post op TSs support same-sex marriage regardless, there is no reason to relinquish or compromise rights we already have in most of the States in the hopes that same-sex marriage, which is only legal in two States, will one day in the future secure those rights for us once again.
And to the second question, the GLBT isn’t even interested in discussing the wishes of heterosexual post operative classic/true transsexuals, much less lobbying for them. They barely allow us on their websites, much less pay any serious attention to what we have to say, yet cry community and unity when we voice a different perspective or try to express our concerns. Any debate is centered on such ludicrous concepts as gender expression, pregnant men, non-op, genitals don’t define sex, etc. Classic/true transsexuals are left completely out of the debate, we are not even recognized for what we are; instead, our identities have been hijacked and colonized by the transgender.
Maura, I’ve watched you post and on many issues you are quite correct in your understanding of the gender debate. But there are two things I’m not sure you quite understand, and they are quite basic. First, in spite of the huge number of lesbian and gay post operative transsexuals in the advocacy movement (which I attribute to AGP, the dirty secret the transgender don’t want to admit), there are, depending on what statistics you want to believe, over 60,000 post operative classic/true transsexuals in the United States alone…you never hear from them, they are successful, they are married or in heterosexual relationships, they don’t advocate, they have nothing but nothing for or against the GLBT, they aren’t discriminated against, they are overwhelmingly, to use your term, heterosexist normative. The other thing I’m not sure you fully understand is that one who is a classic/true transsexual has no propensity, just because they are a classic/true transsexual, to be associated with the GLBT. There is no automatic GLBT support built in to those who are classic/true transsexuals. There is no reason whatsoever for all classic/true transsexuals to unilaterally embrace issues that are important to the GLBT just because we are classic/true transsexuals. Gays and lesbians have this skewed mindset that anyone who is classic/true transsexual is first and foremost, in some deep down peripheral way, gay or lesbian themselves when the fact is that couldn’t be further from the truth. Classic/true transsexuals follow the general populace in our way of thinking. Please read that again: classic/true transsexuals follow the general populace in our way of thinking. The only thing that differentiates a classic/true transsexual from the rest of the planet is that we were, as a short definition, born in the wrong body…period. We are not first and foremost gay or lesbian. That’s the way it is. Our brains are not wired to some subconscious allegiance to all issues GLB or transgender anymore than those in the general populace are. Though the GLBT has succeeded in colonizing the identity of heterosexual classic/true transsexuals and we seem to be able to do little to remove ourselves from the them, it is unrealistic to assume and the GLB is sadly mistaken if they think they have even a slight chance of colonizing what we think as well. The day that the GLBT acknowledge what I just wrote is the day I and many heterosexual classic/true transsexuals will be way more sympathetic to their cause than we are now. I’m not holding my breath for day to come.
Same-sex marriage, as a strategy to secure my own marriage rights, is not something I support and will speak out against it as long as it is being force fed to me as though just because I’m a post operative classic/true transsexual there is some inherent reason I should. I’m a heterosexual female, not a transgender; the issue that concern me is consolidating my rights as a female necessitated by the fact that I arrived there by way of GRS.
yep .. what I said .. just nicer
The problem of transsexuals being included with the GLBT begins with those people of operative history who feel solidarity with the GLBT, and enforce it on behalf of all people with our birth condition. With the “collaborators”, non-trans people may freely appropriate whatever they wish from us.
A good example of this can be seen on Dyssonance’s blog, where she makes the bold claim that the vast majority of “trans” people are gay and lesbian or otherwise queer.
This is obviously a case of sample bias. Queer is going to stand out no matter what, while the majority of operative types are going to be invisible. I’m not sure how this myth got started but it’s very damaging. Operating under false assumptions will produce nothing of worth to us, but definitely serves the purposes of others.
The problem is that often the goals of these other people are at cross purposes to what would be good for us. That is one reason I dislike the whole “get gay marriage passed so I can have rights I already have”.
In the public discourse, we will be thought of as gay through and through, and forever be labelled as something we aren’t because we’ve signed on to that agenda. Those that can’t see this have spent too long outside the mainstream and don’t see how the majority really thinks anymore.
Those who advocate with a misunderstanding of the people they are trying to represent are, to put it nicely, less than helpful. It is clearly overreaching to claim everyone is gay.
Also in this camp are people like Mercedes who say that although she may not think that every trans person is queer in that fashion, she feels it behooves us to pursue these rights for other people basically because it is the right thing to do. That strikes me as rationalization rather than justification.
But I think these sorts of views can come around after awhile. This is the sort of thing that happens when people to close to their transition are being advocates and educators.
In a few years, the world may be a very different place for those who currently hold these views. That’s why it is important not to shut doors and burn bridges between people no matter how vast the chasm between us.
Okay, I agree with most of what you say. I, personally, have no problems with same-sex marriage, but I do agree that I want any marriage that I engage in to be a traditional marriage. That is, I have friends and co-workers who happen to be gay or lesbian. In fact, one of my co-workers was a plaintiff in the California same-sex marriage case. But, I also do not want any marriage I enter into to be considered a “same sex marriage.”
Now, I do want to clarify, I believe one can be a true, classic transsexual, and also be attracted to women (or men in the case of an FTM). To say otherwise is to play into the hands of those like Bailey and Blanchard, who use this idea to discredit all transsexuals. After all, women born female are sometimes lesbians. In fact, women born female tend to be more bisexual than males. By creating terms like “homosexual transsexual” Blanchard attempts to create the idea that it is really all about sex, and thus discredit any claim of actually being a woman.
I agree that classic/true transsexuals can be lesbian. Theoretically, a classic/true transsexual should have a rate of homosexuality comparable to that of natal males/females. However, though there has been no definitive study that I know of and please point me to one if it exists, it appears that is not the case. Not that it counts for anything, but it seems that I am the only heterosexual classic/true transsexual on the net who blogs on behalf of heterosexual classic/true transsexuals. I find that odd…very odd.
I read somewhere a quote by one making a comment on another blog that 63% of the MtoF transgender lesbian identify. Though there are those who state they are bisexual, invariably it turns out they are in a “lesbian” relationship. Considering the vast majority of post operative MtoF classic/true transsexuals don’t participate in the debate at all, it is hard to say where they come down on sexual orientation.
One thing is certain, the percentage of transgender and classic/true transsexuals that do take part in the gender debate is much, much, much higher than the natal population. Further, invariably these “girls” are involved with another MtoF transgender or someone claiming to be a classic/true transsexual…there is more going on there than meets the eye. Jennifer, something is way wrong with that picture.
It is an interesting question… I have pondered the concept of percentages, and while I agree that, ideally, the rate of lesbianism among true transsexuals should be the same as that of the natal female population, it may well be different. IF, for example, homosexuality is actually congenital, then that might well lead to different rates. And, if it is strictly environmental, that could also be affected by the fact that one is transsexual. I do know that studies seem to show that females, in general, tend to be more fluid with regards to sexual orientation than males. When I began transition, I assumed I would be lesbian, but I found myself attracted to men. Before I transitioned, I was mistreated by men, and had no interest at all. But, once men began to relate to me as a woman, my outlook quickly changed. This puzzled me until I learned more about female sexuality, and then I realized that my reaction was perfectly normal. I am now exclusively heterosexual. Ironically, I was never that strongly attracted to women.
But, on the other hand, I have observed that men tend to be either strongly heterosexual or strongly homosexual. Bisexuality is rare, though not unheard of, in men. I knew one man who seemed to come close to true bisexuality. Granted, he often joked that he was “trisexual.” That is, he would try anything.
And that does seem to play a role, as most transsexuals I have met who are “lesbian” are strongly lesbian. That is often true, I will grant, of some natal lesbians (could they have a more male-like sexuality?) but for me, it does raise some troubling questions.
I know that Bailey seems to point out that many “lesbian” transsexuals seem to be with other “lesbian” transsexuals, rather than natal women.
But, I believe the number of true transsexuals (though I prefer HBS) is actually relatively small. I think there is an increasing number of people seeking SRS who are not transsexual at all. And that also is troubling.
This is a good discussion I have been observing. I’ve always considered sexual orientation and preference to be far down the list of important issues, along with that gender stuff…
I can safely assume that most everyone here knows who they are and who they like to sleep with.
One comment on Queerness….
It could just be me but I see the whole queer culture as being inherently anti-social. Why do people have to turn their lifestyle into a political statement in the first place?
I do get feminism and it’s political linkage, being what I would call a moderate conservative feminist I can see the political ties.
Take Care
S
I’ve read more than a few disgusting things in this thread, but what I find most offensive is this notions of a “heterosexual classic/true” transsexual. Jesus Christ, the elitism is no less disgusting to me that Janice Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire.” It’s the same selfish, egotistical, separatist crap dressed up in different clothes. But reading it make the “What Women Know” thread make a whole lot more sense to me. So sad.
Well, no, not all classic or true transsexuals are “straight women.” I have met some who are lesbian, or even technically bisexual. But it is obvious to anyone who is honest that there is a clear difference between those who are classic transsexuals who have known from early childhood that their was something wrong, and those who suddenly decide, after puberty (and sometimes very late in life) that they want to change their lifestyle.
From a comment I made at PHB:
I identify as (formerly) Transsexual, but Transsexual is close enough.
I identify as an Intersexed woman, but Intersexed is close enough.
I don’t identify as Transgendered. However, my opinion matters little, most people would say I am.
I don’t identify as either Gay or Lesbian, though others have told me at various times I’m one or the other.
I identify as a woman, though that’s been denied too.
I used to be a supporter – rather than an activist of any kind – just for transsexual rights and intersexed rights. Not that I was against Transgendered people, or Gays or Lesbians or Bisexuals, but they weren’t “my team” as it were. I did however defend them, with lukewarm enthusiasm, against sometimes quite nasty attacks by those on “my team”.
Note the past tense. Because it was by becoming exposed to “the other”, to transgendered (not transsexual) people, and to GLBs, that I came to see that I couldn’t in all conscience fight for “my teams” rights, and not theirs too.
Zoe,
That is interesting. I identify as a woman, though I will also accept survivor of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. And not, tht is woman without qualifications. I am not a “trans woman.” I believe that the condition we call “classic transsexualism” can be viewed as intersex, though not everyone agrees.
Anyone who tries to attach the label “transgender” to me is asking for a fight.
I have friends who are gay and lesbian, but beyond that I have nothing in common with them.
As to fighting for rights for gays and lesbians, I generally support them. I do not, however, support the transgender agenda, particularly the extremes to which it is being taken. I do not support the idea that sex is just a state of mind. I do not support the idea that someone should be able to change their birth certificate without SRS. I do not agree with the idea of “deconsructing gender.” I do not support the idea that a person should be free to crossdress at work based on how they feel. I do believe that no one should be denied a job based on any reason that is not directly related to their qualifications and abilities to do the job. But I do believe employers have a right to set reasonable limits on employee behavior on the job. I believe that there are sufficient differences between those who are truly transsexual and those who are transgender to justify different approaches to how they are treated.
Well Zoe, I started out defending and fighting for their (TG) rights. After a decade of abuse from them, I don’t think I’d cross the street to throw a bucket of piss on one on fire.
Just Jennifer – re BCs and SRS – it’s because I’m Intersexed not just Transsexual that I can’t get my BC changed, even after genital reconstruction. UK passport yes, UK birth certificate, no.
For those to whom surgery is medically contra-indicated, and have evidence to that effect, I think they should be able to have their documentation changed.
Re crossdressing at work – I’d put it on a par with wearing a Furry costume. Should that be forbidden by law? Allowed? Discouraged?
Apart from those two minor details, I could have written your post. We do have differences, but they’re not huge compared with the similarities.
Catkisser – I’d do that even for Fred Phelps. I guess my problem is that I don’t see them as “a TG” or “a Foetid Bigot”, but as “a human being”.
There have been times though when I can understand anyone sharing your attitude.
Zoe, that seems a bit odd. It should not matter that if someone is intersexed. I would be curious to know what that is supposed to be based on.
I’m sorry. I have to disagree. First off, any such exemption would be abused. Even under the current rules, there are too many doctors who will write letters that falsely imply that people have had SRS when, at most, they have been castrated or have even only received breast augmentation. The doctor is committing fraud, and if caught, should be prosecuted along with the person actually perpetuating the fraud.
And I think any decision concerning crossdressing at work by those who are not documented transsexuals in transition should be left up to the employer. If the employer wishes to allow it, that is one thing. Forcing an employer to accept it is another. The same would apply to any dress code.
And I will defend anyone’s free speech rights. But I also reserve the right to disagree with them. But, I will also admit, people like Fred Phelps do anger me. Ironically, I would put some of the worst of the gender fascists into the same basic category as old Fred. It is not so much a matter of beliefs as it is extremism.