Thank you for saying this

even on the day of your hardest won victories, at the finish line, you break down in tears not because the struggle is over but because the struggle is yours forever

it quite resonated with me--and no one has ever said such a thing.

Having said this, I have deep concerns about your visioning of the future. While I understand how it is that we see in the world what we know from our lives, I am not yet convinced of the notion of family you advocate. I do appreciate the difference between difference and diversity, but there is an enormous gulf of history to be spanned--and that gulf was recently made larger.

However, it is where you write

a happy Cole Porterish "Anything Goes" era in which it will be impossible to be trans-anything because all categories and labels will have evaporated

that I have more concerns.

If I remember history, the Gay Liberation Front advocated for the end of gay and the transformation of society so that, as you put it, "a happy Cole Porterish "Anything Goes" era. . .because all categories and labels will have evaporated" where there will be no more gay people, no more straight people and everyone will be bisexual together.

Diversity, but no difference.

But this utopia never came to be.

Why?

As I understand history, a group of gay people split off from the Gay Liberation Front and became the Gay Advocates Alliance. With this change, the civil rights model was adopted, that is, gay people decided they were an oppressed minority, not the vanguard of society.

And this determination decided gay people would not disappear that "all categories and labels will [not] have evaporated."

This split signified the triumph of those who adhere to assimilationism among gay people over those who adhere to liberationism. The ultimate goal of this new movement was gay marriage. In Canada, where this has been achieved, even the liberationists who remain active are not interested in changing society; it seems they are more interested in discovering possibilities in themselves. It does seem clear they are not interested in having "all categories and labels. . .evaporated."

This is precisely the concern expressed in the structural analysis Tobi has made.

As a gay man, apparently a compassionate gay man, nevertheless you're proposing for transgender and transsexual people something you seem unable to conceive of for gay and lesbian people and would never ask of them.

To put the metaphorical shoe on the other foot, how would it sound if I called for the end of gay in a world where "all categories and labels will have evaporated"? But never called for the same of transgender and transsexual people.

I thought it was very well said and may I add, you certainly have a talent for metaphor.

On a lighter note ...

... Gay men on Uranus ...

Thank you, Father Tony. I just made a "butt-crack" joke on another thread, and now I don't have to feel quite so guilty about it.

(As every shepherd boy knows as he watches over his flocks by night, no Christmas sermon is complete without an embedded butt-hole joke.)

So. Before I get too deeply into my position, I need to explain something. I am so far down in the minority-of-minorities chain that on a good day I can remember the dream of thinking one day I might be included by accident. I'm a bisexual, transsexual, transhumanist, polyamorous, atheist, spiritual totemist, European socialist, social libertarian, high-functioning autist, and NORML supporter. If I were black and left-handed, I could call Bingo.

Recognizing my position is a little... odd... I still have to say no. We're starting from an exclusive cultural model of distinct in-groups and out-groups, and we're fighting for inclusion one subgroup at a time, co-opting the language of the majority to claim membership and sewing the seeds of the next battle in our wake. The fight for recognition that gay people face today is already morphing into the bathroom-predator meme for the trans fight in five to ten years. The "same-sex marriage won't lead to polyamory" argument is only slamming the door in the polyamorists' faces who are asking, "why shouldn't it?" The "God made me this way" argument is only hurting the people who don't believe in a god for the chance to be normal.

A hundred years ago, the Catholics were outsiders. Twenty years ago, it was the Mormons. Two hundred, it was the blacks and Chinese. Each community, as it has become accepted into the mainstream, has secured its newfound status as "accepted" by slamming the door shut in the face of the next group in line to justify the struggle to become part of this exclusive club. I imagine in fifty years, the AIs and the transgenics and the animal uplifts will be cursing the "Human Rights Campaign" as exclusive of non-human people.

What we should be doing—what we should have been doing all along, really—is rejecting the idea of an exclusive model of society entirely. We should be putting forth a person-based cultural model centered on the idea that, as a sapient, self-aware being, you are possessed of inherent and inalienable rights such as the right to be who you want to be, love who you want to love, look how you want to look, live how you want to live, and think how you want to think, provided you afford the same rights to others. We should have been forming our own societies and inviting others to join us, instead of begging to be given the privilege of joining them. We should have been demanding our rights and casting the excluders as hypocritical, not asking for permission to be ourselves and then shrugging and saying we can afford to wait and outlive our oppressors.

To be sure, I don't think I'll ever feel "included" by the mainstream in my lifetime. The best I hope for, and what I've learned mostly to be happy with, is finding a very small community of people as odd as I am and contenting myself there. Most of these struggles, as a result, are fairly academic to me. I don't see any path to my own membership in the mainstream, and the fact that the gays and lesbians can't even get trans inclusion right (see Michfest, Ron Gold, and a hundred other examples) tells me that it's just not worth the effort.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait. We could be "one family", but it would take changing the nature of our fight to one that would drag everyone onto unfamiliar ground and force a lot of strange bedfellows that I don't think most people are comfortable associating with. In short, we're all just too damn human to be "one family."

Back in the day a tax collector said there is no male or female, greek or roman. Followers of a guy who spent a lot of time under a tree say that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. These things are true to the extent that one accepts a connection between people on an order higher than self.

If we fail to aim high and look deep, the family you seek can never be found.

I think we can come together as a family, Father Tony. I loved your sermon. We need sermons. I know that not everyone will want to be in such a family, and that is okay too. Families also fight and squabble, and stop talking for years. But I love gay men, and lesbian women, and bisexual men and women, as well as my trans brothers and sisters. And straight allies. Even when they don't love me, I love my family.

To answer the question in the title, whether we like it or not, we are family. Maybe not a Happy family all the time, but we all share the same "stigma" in a society that likes to tell people how to live, despite our supposedly democratic leanings.

That LGBT people do not fit the gender and sexual norm of our society forms a bond that makes us kin whether we like it or not. Even families have infighting and differences of opinion.

Of course the answer is true also that we are all of us of the family of humanity, within all the diversity and differences, we are all human and thus all one of the greater whole.
(though I sometimes wonder about fanatics of all stripes who seem to trade in their humanity for a percieved moral superiority.)

I have a question (which will probably become retorical.) Did YOU personally learn anything from all of this? I ask this because I remember reading on you blog last year that you didn't think trans people should be included in ENDA. I would pray that you've had a change of heart.

I have my doubts that we will ever ALL be one big happy family. Perhaps a big squabbling family trying to keep quiet for 10 seconds for the family photo. But that's not because the difference between cis and trans is too big to gap, it's because some segments of our community are structured to ideologically oppose others and other segments of our community and heavily invested in privilege which causes harm to other segments of our community.

The model I have for what I'd like to see is my own offline community that I spend my time with. It's at least half trans, but certainly not all. Almost everyone, but not everyone, is queer in some way. No one considers being trans a reason not to date someone. There's a strong current of sex-positivity. The cis folks present have felt the sting of transphobia, either through their own gender non-conformity or through their partners or family members, sometimes both. Their actions lead me to see them as part of the trans community even though they are not trans themselves, and I trust them to be understanding of trans issues to the same degree I'd trust a random trans person. I have no doubts that my gender is recognized and even understood. Additionally, just as there is an expectation that the cis members of the community should understand and support the trans members, the same expectation is also set up along issues of race, disability, class, gender, and many more. It's a part of the expectation that we are here to support each other, and that a big part of that is facing the institutional systems that seek to harm our other community members. Conflicts do happen, and can sometimes do major damage to the community, but are often resolved.

I'd love to see that kind of community expanded. I can't tell you what makes the difference between that and the conflict ridden community I encounter online and when I venture into more mainstream spaces that do not have a similar value of recognizing the intersectionality of oppression. But I can tell you that the difference between being trans and being cis is not the largest barrier.

Tony,

You've asked, quite well, the one question that needed to be asked; one, I wish, can be answered without that question becoming self-fulfilling:

... (T)hat leads me to an equally serious question. Are we destined to be one inclusive family, or are we on a fool's errand and destined to split apart, exhausted by our efforts to get along, and finally retreating into separate corners, the gay men here, the lesbians there, and the trans folks over there. And the bisexuals and pansexuals wandering through endless deserts and into our oases for temporary respite from isolation.../quote)

If nothing else, last week's brouhaha illustrated that not only do a significant number of gay men have difficulty addressing/understanding the "trans" issues, but it seems the "trans" themselves have difficulty understanding/addressing the issues within their own subset of the community. I've been involved in equal rights advocacy for decades, yet I'll admit to seeing some terms for the first time in some of the responses posted at Bilerico last week.

(Oh, and a side note here concerning those postings: I truly appreciate those posters who attempted to educate in their postings. Unfortunately, those postings were few and far between - the vitriol that was spewed last week was, simply, stunning to witness. I, personally, believe a call-to-action went out via emails, drawing many people to this site for the sole purpose of allowing them to get their "bitch on.")

Unfortunately, in the "gay and lesbian" community, we have our own subsets marked not just by the composition of their own cadre, but by their disdain/dislike for other subgroups and, crazily enough, each other. Twinks dislike Bears, unless the individual Bear is also a Sugardaddy and not just a Daddy. Gymbois dislike twinks because others tend to lump them together into the same grouping, yet Gymbois feel their masculinity is questioned by that grouping - to Gymbois, most Twinks are just a shade or two away from being a full blown Queen. Queens dislike... well... EVERYBODY... because that's just the way queens are (that's a little joke, by the way).

It's just my personal belief, but I think this stratification occurs simply because for so long gay men were not defined as a "community," but, instead, were defined by society as a whole as simply being sexual in nature. We weren't believed to be people who shared the emotional experiences of our heterosexual counterparts but, instead, simply followed our erect penises (penii?) from bar to bar, bush to bush, and bathroom to bathroom in an endless search for the semi-perfect orgasm. Lawmakers, law enforcement and psychology were allowed to publicly depict us as nothing but horned up beasts, only one or two evolutionary rungs above a chimpanzee.

Unfortunately, in most communities and states, that's still the perception voters have of us whenever a "gay issue" makes it to a ballot.

I think even the most academic sociologist, though, would have trouble following a thread that wove through so many various communities; I know, first hand, how perplexed political strategists are when so many seemingly disparate voices become a harmonious choir when the LGBT "community" (or any one part of that community) is thought to be attacked.

As I've said in other postings, and explained my belief in those postings, it's my own opinion the gay and lesbian "power structures" should not be at the forefront, taking things as an all-inclusive LGBT battle, but, instead, looking to put in place an ENDA that best protects gays and lesbians. Barney Frank wants to omit reference to "trans"? Fine... let him.

Since the majority of lawmakers, and law enforcement, have the belief ALL gays and lesbians are also "trans" or "bis," then any such bill is going to automatically include protections for those two groups, as well. If, for some reason, an ENDA would be put in place that would specifically OMIT the bisexually oriented, or those with gender identity concerns, then it would be time to assist those two communities in obtaining inclusion.

For me, I actually think it's selfish of some persons to ask me to be part of the group that leads the fight to have gender changed on a birth certificate, so that they can then legally their opposite-gender partner, when, even if what seems to be something so simple as changing an "x" in a box of some document, should that happen, I would still be legally barred from marrying my partner.

Daily, as a group, we are all hated. We are all ostracized. But I'd like to ask the "T" among us one question:

When being harassed... when being taunted... when being physically assaulted... what are those who are committing these crimes against you screaming? Are they yelling at you?

"Goddmaned trannie bitch slut (insert gender here) wannabe!!!!"

Or...

"Fuckin' faggot!"

As I am gay and trans, I can't really be against that family, can I ? ;)

About the deep hurt that never stops - I dunno how it is in the US, but I know several older *gay* people who have been through similar stuff as the transpeople here have described, and often for similar reasons (neither the nazis nor the psychiatrists really cared if someone was a drag queen, gay, or transgender). I wonder why there seems to be so little compassion anymore with regards to that shared history, and why people seem to say that we are so so different and experience so so different things. Because we don't.

That said, I'm about to forgive everything because you quoted Samwise.

People are going to get the wrong impression of me for saying this. Quoting biblical scripture is not something normally found at Bilerico, and with good reason.

But what I'm saying is important, vitally important, in a very practical sense, not just some airy-fairy philosophical PC "kumbaya" one.

In order to be a decent man, woman, gay, lesbian, whatever, one must first and foremost be a decent human being.

Get that right first. And keep it right. If in whatever endeavours you attempt, you find yourself failing in it, you're doing it wrong.

Now the Bible-bashing. Matthew 22:35-40. I'll use the KJV version as I like the language:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If in implementing the rest of the laws, and the commandments, and everything else, you end up being Unkind... you've lost the plot.

So.. if in your gay advocacy, or your trans-advocacy, or your straight advocacy, in your neo-con advocacy or progressive advocacy, you end up being cruel to people... you're doing it wrong.

After you've got that bit down right though, the rest tends to fall into place naturally. Differences and disagreements can remain - after all, I self-identify as a conservative, straight woman, not so very far away (in theory anyway) from the "Concerned Women of America" and even "Focus on the Family". Except they lost the plot a long time ago, becoming sad caricatures of the values they're supposed to represent. They got side-tracked into minor doctrinal issues, fought with great bitterness, and so now nothing but cruelty and doctrinaire bigotry remains. Where is their "Concern" for the way gays are mistreated in America? Where is the "Focus" on giving gay families the right to be with their loved ones when they're on their death-bed?

Let's not be like them, Ok?

p.s.
Um... maybe I missed my calling, Father T. I think my comment here is a sermon too. Even a traditional Christian one, though I could have substituted the following:

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary." - Rabbi Hillel Ha-Babli, Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Jesus was a Talmudaic scholar, and he, er, "borrowed" the concept, to answer a Pharisee with a quote from one of the great Pharisaic Rabbis. One heck of a smart cookie, as well as an activist.

I'm getting rather concerned the use of the term trans is now so elastic everyone who comes to this site is trans.

Maybe, this is the way family in some sense is effected, however, it is not effective in identifying health needs, human rights and hate crimes protections, other struggles.

The whole point of diversity is, I would have thought, to recognize and respect the differences--and to see that all different needs are met.

By homogenizing into LGBT suddenly it is only the needs of the majority, or those who have privilege, that are met.

That is the problem with family.

Too many LGBT people have not pleasant experiences with families. Yes, we now talk about intended families and it is a nice thought--but until diversity is honoured at least to the degree of recognizing the way people wish to be described, family is a long way off.

Thank you, Father Tony.

I learned through the process of transition, and my subsequent exclusion from certain groups I once belonged to, not to seek understanding. I tried. I really tried. My internal experience as a trans person seems far too foreign or alien for some people to handle. Unless, of course, they have shared something similar. I don't expect understanding, I only ask for acceptance and respect. The acceptance that says, "Even though I don't understand, I respect you as a valuable member of this group/family. I accept you." If someone wishes to hear my story and a little of what I've experienced, I'm more than willing to share that. In turn I offer the same respect and acceptance even though I may not understand either. To me that is the essence of family. That's what you do.

Sexual oppression is no respecter of individuals. As a group, we are PASO (people against sexual oppression). That's what we're up against and to ignore that simple fact is what will cause us to fail. We all need all the allies we can get to win this one.

Valerie

Relax. Breathe Deep. Let it out slow.

Isn't it a beautiful day today? I love the way atmosphere and celestial bodies create a canopy of amazing colors and shapes in completely unique arrangements every day and night. Nature changes and change is natural. It is how things work and it is beautiful.

When we get caught up in consistency we become annoyed and irritated at the stagnant repetition... like a scratched vinyl record, skipping back and repeating the same thing every time.

You wonder about fluidity and connectedness, it's all around us, all the time, everywhere. Perhaps not all the time with all the same people in the same situations... but that is natural and purposeful.

Humans are, among other things, pattern recognition machines. Ascribing purpose, reason and meaning to those patterns is part of our nature. When those patterns change or disappear altogether, we are either delighted or mournful based on how meaningful and personally fulfilling the pattern was in our own lives. Seeing past that and viewing the fluidity is seeing the greater good. It's being able to see that if your hands are filled with one thing, you will have no room to accept the gifts coming your way without dropping something you didn't REALLY want in the first place... or something that no longer meant as much as it did. One step further than that is realizing that holding on even for a moment is just as futile.

We can cling to the one with closed fist... or experience the infinite with an open hand.

So relax and let the fluidity you seek wash over you, around you and experience it all without judgment, meaning or requirement. Surround yourself with people willing and desiring to experience life the same way. Entreat others to join you as well, without reproach if they choose to go back to being clingy... for that is the nature of change too.

Peace,
Jenna

"even on the day of your hardest won victories, at the finish line, you break down in tears not because the struggle is over but because the struggle is yours forever"

thank you, this is perfect. absolutely perfect.

for a lot of us, the hardest struggle will always be against ourselves. sue mentioned that ron gold dragged one of our primal fears out into the light and gave it substance and validity: "you're crazy, and you'll never be anything but a freak, a fake, and a fraud."

i cannot tell you how many times i have said such words to myself; for how many years i believed that they were true; and how many times i tried to end my own life because of them.

there are days i still believe them. and those are the days i realize, that even though i have mostly made it, that i will never really be there...and all the old feelings of self-loathing and tears come flooding back.

i think that's why so many of us got so angry.

i know it's why i did.

and when we expected our other brothers and sisters to get angry right along with us...there seemed to be an awful lot of silence. i felt like a kid getting beat up in my own yard and my big brother just standing there, watching.

i think that's why so many of us felt betrayed.

i know it's why i did.

much has been made of TBP not being a safe place, or that it shouldn't be because "it's the internet."

bullshit.

it *must* be a safe place for all of us or it's a safe place for none of us, and who wants to open themselves up ... or even contribute ... in an atmosphere like that? this isn't USENET, it's possible if we want it to be.

do we?

to me that's the core principle of the notion of family: "we might not understand each other very much, and sometimes we don't even like one another a whole lot, but by god if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us."

that day in my yard, my big brother didn't just stand there watching. and while to this day he doesn't understand what being trans is all about -- he still has my back.

that's family.

We ARE and have always been one family (See: Stonewall, Compton Riots and earlier). If not always in agreement on policy, than at least respecting of BASIC identity.

But you can't reply: "I wonder if, in the distant future, after the smoke clears, when our history is written, he may not be proven right." to a post titled "'No' to the Notion of Transgender" and expect gentle, loving teachable moment from tranfolk. The comment coming from a member of the Bilerico Ed Team (and someone with the title Father) was particularly galling.

If you want to be a part of this family Father, may this heartfelt post be the start of some personal education on your part around gender oppression. Read some Leslie Feinberg over the holidays; volunteer time at a trans-serving organization; donate money to NCTE. Asking rhetoricals about whether or not time will bear out that Trans people don't really or shouldn't exist tells me you have growing to do.

Bilerico Project, it was truly disappointing to see the original post slip thru the cracks. I know you to be strong allies. The additional insult-to-injury comment from a member of the Ed Team...well, a trip to the educational woodshed is in order...or perhaps that's what got us this sugary sermon.

Would have liked to have read the words, "I'm sorry" in this post.

Tony,

Hmmm. Okay...

I'm merely suggesting some educational and solidarity opportunities for you (cuz you have demonstrated a big blind spot in your LGB(T) politics).

Sounds like you don't like learning harder lessons to me and rather play the "can't we all get along card" with this post instead of acknowledging your misstep and offering a direct apology for an insult you posted.

Don't worry. The rest of the family will continue to do the work, and we'll organize around cis gay dudes who don't want to learn anything other than the address to the next HRC fundraiser.

It would be great if you could address the substance of my comment rather than deflecting with personal attacks.

I am not "imagining" that you wrote: "I wonder if, in the distant future, after the smoke clears, when our history is written, he may not be proven right."

Could you explain your above quoted comment, or apologize for it if you now realize that it isn't okay to agree with statements that invalidate the very existence of transgender people?