Funnily enough (or not), what you are doing right here is imposing situational cis status on the people you are describing, and based on that status assuming that they do not have personal knowledge or real say on trans issues. In essence, you are denying their trans privilege, in a context where such a privilege does in fact exist.

Yes, on the one hand Internet makes it possible for a cis person to pretend they are trans, or vice versa. So what? Is this a problem? As the saying goes, on the Internet nobody knows you are a dog. Everything here should be taken with a grain of salt; the cis or trans status of anonymous or semi-anonymous posters like us is no different.

All this reminds me of Chally's recent Feministe blog post on invisible identities. She was talking about race and disabilities, but much of what she wrote can be equally well applied to non-cis people who are not trans enough for others to notice in everyday situations. It's a good post, please go read it if you haven't already.

This could have been written by me, Kian.

Wow. Thank you, Radical Bitch. You were much more succinct than I had been in my (upon re-reading it) rather rambling post.

Seconded, Radical B. It's amusing that trans-theorists think they really know what's going on inside other people. As if to say, "You may look like a woman and others may think you are a woman- but on the inside you are trans".

Nonsense.

Michelle, you asked a question that I'd like to take a shot at answering. I apologize in advance if my answer meanders a bit... but as I've said in an earlier post, I've been experiencing some serious sleep deprivation in the last week.

You asked:

And I have to ask - what's so terrible about being defined as trans* in some way (gender-nonconforming, for most people who are objecting)? Really, honestly, what is the difference if you fall into the category of trans* or not? It's not changing anything about you, it's not forcing you to run down the streets screaming "Look at me, I'm trans!" What reason could you, or Father Tony, or anyone else have for objecting to falling under the definition of trans*?

The answer is pretty simple, at least for me.

Comfort.

I was born male; I am male, and my emotional, romantic attractions are to other males.

I do not even attempt to hide my ignorance concerning the issues of "trans" persons, nor the different strata of "trans."

My knowledge of "trans"?

Heterosexual persons who receive some sort of satisfaction/gratification by dressing in clothing identified by "society" as "belonging" to the opposite gender are cross-dressers.

Homosexual persons who drape themselves in the attire of their opposite gender are transvestites; they enjoy the illusion of "changing genders," without actually believing their natural gender is a "mistake." Nor do they have the desire to change their gender.

Persons whose deep-rooted sense of self is one of actually being of the opposite gender - that the physicality of the gender in which they are born is some sort of birth defect - are transsexuals.

The majority of cross-dressers do not consider themselves to be transvestites, and they use their heterosexual orientation as "proof" they are not transvestites. Nor do the majority of transvestites consider themselves transsexuals; again using the shield of their sexual orientation as a shield from being labeled transsexuals.

And, of course, transsexuals are looked upon (oh, God, is this statement going to bring in the nasty replies... yet, I've got to state it) as suffering from a mental defect/illness in which a necessary component of treating that defect/illness is some sort of morphing from birth-gender to perceived-gender.

(And, NO, I'm not stating all transsexuals are defined by actual gender re-identification surgeries. In my view, "morphing" includes those transsexuals who are content and comforted simply by living, full time, as a member of their perceived gender.)

I'm fifty years old. I was raised in suburban and rural Pennsylvania. I'm fairly well educated. I'm a gay man who made a living disseminating information through the most difficult media in which to have information understood - the written word. Believe it or not, I was quite successful in achieving that goal. For over 20 of the last 25 years, I was immersed in the center of the "LGBT" world, the San Francisco Bay Area.

Yet, if I am of the perception there's a "mental defect/illness" component associated with transsexualism, I can guarantee the majority of citizens of Lickdale, Pennsylvania, or Dacula, Georgia, or Twin Branch, West Virginia, or Socorro, New Mexico, etc., don't even give the question "What is Trans?" much thought. For them, being "trans" is nothing more than "being wrong in the head."

The country - hell, the world, itself - is not composed of the "enlightened" citizenry of a New York City, or a Los Angeles or a San Francisco. It is a collection of Lickdales, Daculas, Twin Branches and Socorros.

So, if Antonia's definition of gender identity, as opposed to sexual orientation, is the model that should be followed, then I must willingly accept the "situational membership" of being "wrong in the head."

Bullshit.

What problem Michele?

First the standard most "trans" people revert to is transgender. They are quite militant in fact about that. Calling a woman (corrected or natal) trans anything places her gender in a third category and as Eric pointed out, adds a further stigma of mental illness (in opposition to ALL the legitmate scientific research, also denied by TG id'ed people) In other words, when you insist you have some right by definition (which the TGs change at the drop of a hat) to define a woman as transgender, you are essentially denying her womanhood or at least making it conditional. If you cannot see why this would piss someone off, you are hopeless.

Those born with transsexuality never trans their gender.....it is that gender identity that is the problem that only can be "fixed" by fixing the body. That's what transsexuality was always considered prior to the TG revolutionary guard.

Further, in my own case, you invoking a male state at birth is absolutely incorrect. In fact, I was born intersexed, a specific type that resulted in half my genetics being XX, half XY so the "transgressing" gender argument TGs revert to in the face of the trans-ing gender one still fails. The gender transgression in my case (and I'd argue in the cases of classic transsexuals as well) was imposed from the outside and simply corrected by the individual.

But the final point is simply this. It is arrogant and entitled and offensive in the extreme to feel you have the right to define others against their expressed wishes.

I'd add this.....
I am a natural redhead. Calling me a blonde when I've never coloured my hair is just plain wrong, my objecting to someone labeling me a blonde is not an attack on blondes, blonde-phobic or me being "self-loathing" about my internal blondeness (which simply doesn't exist) If you persist on insisting I'm a blonde in denial, eventually you will piss me off to the point I might even take action against you. What will certainly happen is I will see you as an offensive idiot and ignore pretty much anything else you have to say based on that observation.

If you decide you can change the meaning of blonde to include redheads, you will be seen by me and others as an arrogant idiot as well. Your being a blonde does not give you license to call non-blondes blondes.

Dyss, I read it, I disagree with it. I did not appoint you in a position to discuss my life and certainly deny you any right to define me in any fashion other than that which I define (and live my life as and others see me as in 3-d as opposed to the internut) myself.

I am a feminist woman, a Pagan woman, a bi-sexual woman. I am not trans anything.

sorry double post.

Kian writes:

"You are avoiding the stigma attached to being trans by speaking out against it, which you have every right to do. But one question: when people think you are straight, do you speak out against heterosexuality?"

I just got done posting a response to RadicalBitch in which I admit to lusting after her... writing skills and why some of my postings tend toward verbosity in an attempt to instill an understanding of a concept to the maximum number of people.

Apparently, Kian, I failed.

I am not "avoiding the stigma attached to being trans by speaking out against it."

I am speaking out against my being unwillingly labeled as "trans" simply because of my homosexual orientation.

Why am I so vociferous in denying someone, supposedly from within my own "community", the right to impose that label upon me?

I am a male who is romantically/emotionally attracted to other males, a fact of which I've been aware, easily, since I was 7 or 8 years old. I have never had the desire to create a public image of myself that was anything but that of a how the public perceives a male. One year, on October 31, when my mother discovered my Halloween costume's seams hadn't been sealed properly - remember the old, plastic Halloween costumes that were, essentially, a plastic garbage bag with some design printed on them? - and the sides were completely open, she decided an easy costume was to plop her wig on my head and dress me in one of my older sister's sundresses. I objected (I guess I was about 9), strongly. So adamant was I, even then, about not being perceived "as a girl," I stayed home that night and did not go trick-or-treating.

Most of the homosexually oriented men and women I know want one thing about their sexual orientation to be understood by the general public: our sexual orientation is innate. We have not made a conscious choice to be homosexual; there is as much need of a "cure" for homosexuality as there is for heterosexuality.

The Great White They out there, however, find it difficult-to-impossible to reconcile that reality with their perception of reality. They simply do not grasp how anyone can, naturally, be romantically/emotionally attracted to anyone not of the opposite gender. Lots of "gay friendly" advocates play lip service but, even there, the continuous questioning of "when did you know you were gay?" belies the fact they believe, at some early age, we made some conscious choice (in many cases, even before we had any awareness of the physicalities of any sexual acts... the "what goes where" of sex) to live our lives outside societal norms... but that, even so, it's our right to do that.

We've gotten so used to simply shutting out the majority of society we've neglected to rise to challenges society has placed in our path with those challenges all based on the act of homosexual sex and a general distaste toward people who can't quite "get" the whole dick/pussy norm. As a consequence, we've let the electorate of two states potentially strip us of some basic human rights. It's their shame they believe any group of citizenry can have their societal rights defined by ballot; it's our shame we allowed it to happen.

And, yes, I have spoken against heterosexuality when in situations where I was perceived to be heterosexual.

Bill's a shy, retiring type of person who has simply never seen fit to go outside his home and do something simple as "meet the neighbors."

I'm kind of outgoing, in case no one's noticed.

When we moved to Glendale, AZ, I made it a point of going around the neighborhood and meeting the people. In the subset of "our block" in the neighborhood, an essential component of social interaction was, on Friday night, a contingent of 10 or 12 persons would gather at one of those persons' homes around sunset, bring our lawnchairs and our coolers, and just sit around talking/socializing for a few hours. No one ever asked about my sexual orientation; I didn't volunteer it. When, initially, asked about my marital status, I said I was married, but my "spouse" had chosen to remain home.

Over the course of a few months, someone finally asked if I was gay - picking up on my use of the non-gender specific pronoun "spouse." Instead of suddenly being ostracized, I was, essentially, scolded by everyone there for not being forthright from the get-go. They all wanted to meet Bill, and the next Friday night, Bill joined me. Everyone generally liked Bill, in the weeks to come (Bill joining, sporadically), everyone confessed to having changed/softened their perception of "what gay is." We were just another couple on the block.

It was wonderful and, like anything wonderful, it couldn't be sustained.

Five years ago, now, the conservatives of Arizona put forth a DOMA ballot initiative. On one Friday night, the host passed among the guests the "signature collection" forms to support the proposed initiative. That clipboard was even passed to me. The simple expectation being, apparently, that I would also "sign on to the cause."

In just a few moments my sense of Bill's and my inclusion in our own neighborhood was simply... gone. From the group, when I protested, the overall response was: "We really like you and Bill, but marriage is different because" of the ability to procreate.

Even though two of the couples there were married past child-bearing years.

One of the biggest slams came from the host of that Friday's gathering, simply because of the actuality, and legality, of his marriage. He was an African-American male married to a Caucasian female. Though he was also in his 40s, he simply called me a liar when I referenced the illegality of his marriage, in most states, prior to 1967.

That was my last Friday night gathering.

The ballot initiative was defeated, thankfully, because the opposing forces mounted an effective campaign based on one aspect of the initiative - that no "union" but marriage would be considered an actual union. From that, the ad campaign dealt with the thousands of Sun City retirees who would lose any status in the law unless they married and, if they married, the subsequent loss of income in their Social Security would create a financial hardship for these couples.

The day after the initiative lost, I stated, in a letter-to-the-editor of the local paper, that I was elated the initiative had failed, but that I was also certain the initiative would be reworded to make clear: "Hey, we just meant the fags!"

A year later, I was proved to be correct, and Arizona redefined their state Constitution.

And all that is just another reason I would, and do, rebel against a "situational membership" in any group.

I am gay male. I am not a cross-dresser. Nor am I a transvestite. I do not view the physical appendages of my gender as some sort of birth defect. I do not believe myself to be a straight woman.

I am gay. I am not a child molester; given the opportunity, I would use a melon-baller that's been soaking in the urine of a mad-cow-disease infected heifer to remove the testicles of child molesters, sans anesthetic. I am not some horned-up sex addict who jumps from bedroom to bedroom, person to person, in a never-ending quest for my next orgasm.

I am gay. Sixteen years ago, thanks to a fledgling company called Match.com, I was introduced, electronically, to a man with whom I exchanged daily e-mails for months before we met. Finally meeting for a luncheon date - lunch because it was "safe" if we didn't click - "hey, look at the time, I've got things I've got to get back to! Call me! - we were still sitting at our table, simply talking, until after 5:00 PM. Our lunch turned in to dinner. It did not, by mutual agreement, turn into a "lets jump each other's bones" evening. We both recognized, at some primal level, the introduction of the physical aspects of sex could, at that time, destroy those emotional connections we were making.

Three weeks later, I left my apartment in Redwood City, CA, to go to Bill's house in Livermore, CA, for a dinner date.

Three months after that, Bill asked me to move in with him. Outside of one three-month period, two years into our relationship, we've been together ever since - and we both view that three-month blip as nothing more serious than those heterosexual couples who go through a "trial separation" and reconcile.

I am gay. It's a party of my self-identity, but it is not the entirety of my self-identity. I do not live within the constraints of the societal perception/definition of "gay man." I simply live as me.

And a big part of me is to speak out against the attempt of anyone else to label me in a manner more comfortable to them.

Antonia,

Without pulling in paragraphs to directly rebut (can you imagine the length of such a posting?), I'd make the same suggestion to you that you made to me.

I did not state I believed trans were "wrong in the head." I stated that to The Great White Way out there, the overriding belief was to be "trans" was to have some sort of mental disorder/affliction and that, given your definition of situational membership, I would then have to willingly accept the same label... of having something "wrong in the head."

Perhaps it's just me, or the way I was raised.

I have never been afraid, even as a child, to confront anyone at anytime (as my Mom used to put it) "over their words." I have never, ever accepted other people's labels, or attempted forced inclusion into those easily labeled preconceptions.

I knew, early on, because of the birth defects that if someone just hauled off on me, they'd be roundly criticized for doing that. I knew, early on, when it came to intelligence, there were very few persons who could "speak around" me. And, from an early age, because of the birth defects, I was comfortable being completely alone in social constructs.

I realize that complete independence from peer-to-peer social constructs is not the norm, and that others need interaction with those social constructs, even if it's the negative interaction of assuming "membership" of some ostracized group simply due to the inherent limitations of the social construct.

To me, that's bullshit. To expand upon another poster's analogy:

I'm a redheaded leftie, and no amount of labeling me as a member ("situational" or otherwise) as a right-handed blonde is going to change that... but especially if they desire me to be a right-handed blondie simply because it makes them easier to simply dismiss me.

(Oh, and by the way... in reality, I am right handed, and I am blondish - but both of those can change with either handwriting practice or henna.)

Michelle, you fail to understand because you fail to grasp that the transgender umbrella was a false construct imposed by force in the past 15 or so years.

Transgender had a specific meaning. It was those gender variant people who were not transsexuals. It was defined originally in that fashion as an act of transsexual phobia by a transsexual phobic full time crossdresser, Charlie Prince.

Transsexual also had a specific meaning. It meant someone driven to put their mind and body into congruence to the maximum amount possible. That means there are no non-op transsexuals by choice, only by circumstances. And once someone born with the neurological intersexed condition called transsexuality corrected their bodies, they have zero interest in deconstruction of their "gender", being labeled less than by transgenders. Their sexual orientation, politics, religious beliefs are not a factor, just correct what was wrong and then proceed with life on a somewhat even playing field with everyone else. Think I'm making it up? 12 years ago if you entered "transsexual" into an internet search engine, that defintion of transsexual was in the top five.......on my own webpage. Now all you get is chick with a dick porn.

You asked about harm. 15 years of "education" that relied on mental slight of hand regarding the womanhood of pre-operative transsexuals gave us the non op, the, to put it in the crudest terms because it gets used and is actually totally accurate, chick with a dick that now is the public's default upon learning someone is transsexual. Just 12 years ago it was different, teh default was you had corrective surgery or were going to do so. I experienced that change in public perception first hand so do not presume to deny it. To someone who gave up almost everything they held dear in the world to be real, that change is harm. Real, nasty, evil, harm. When it has been combined with terrorist tactics to keep those who objected to this redefinition by force, that is evil personified.

Ooh, you know what I did? I totally combined my thoughts from reading: Solidarity: "Transmisogyny" & "Faggots" with this one 'cause I had them both open along with other things.

I'm reading too much at once.