That some gay men date transmen to feel more heteronormative or "normal".

We share a common goal there, Jessica :D

I would assert, however, that identity is part of being, not separate from it.

Good thoughts, all.

Let's be a tad more accurate, shall we?

Both matter.

You are attracted to someone because of the way they are (masculine or feminine) in addition to the sex they are (male, female).

And, indeed, the connection is that a trans man is a man. Who often has a vagina, in the usual thought of such things (although that's not always the case).

If he's gay, he likes men -- who like other men. For them to like him, they are going to have to see him as a man. For them to be attracted to him, they are going to have to see him as a man.

If the absence of a penis makes him not a man, then why would they want anything to do with him?

Is being with him, sexually, something that would make them straight, even though they are both men?

Or would it make just one of them straight and the other gay?

Or would they both be gay?

All serious questions -- these are not merely hypothetical and decidedly not rhetorical -- I'd like to hear your answer.

Transfolk have the same questions about themselves everyday (usually different people) -- and there is a great deal of significance for one's sense of self in the answers.

The same applies to a non-op trans woman, in reverse, with a lesbian. In order to be attracted to her she needs to be a woman, but does having a penis, in and of itself, stop her from being so?

Answering both often leads to some interesting revelations about sexism.

"Is the concept that we don't want males in lesbian spaces just too simple and obvious?"

Why then, are trans men often allowed into these spaces? If the distinction is one of sex (having a penis or a vagina), then how come most of these spaces are unwilling to allow trans women even if they are post-op? While continuing to allow trans men, and allowing other phallic objects like sex toys?

"Have any actual lesbians confirmed this paranoia as a personal reason?"

Yes, repeatedly. Do you know the history of the Michigan Women's Music Festival? That is one example of many.

"while the paranoia of many lesbians, who grew up dealing with a lot of unwanted, often insistent advances from men, causes them to view transwomen as predators trying to covertly violate their 'sacred space.'"

'Are you joking? Is the concept that we
don't want males in lesbian spaces just too
simple and obvious? Have any actual lesbians
confirmed this paranoia as a personal
reason?'

i'm confused, are you saying that you consider MTF transwomen to be males?

Hi Eric,

I'd like to ask you the same questions I just asked iconoclass:

If the absence of a penis makes someone not a man, then why would they want anything to do with him?

Is being with him, sexually, something that would make them straight, even though they are both men?

Or would it make just one of them straight and the other gay?

Or would they both be gay?

All serious questions -- these are not merely hypothetical and decidedly not rhetorical -- I'd like to hear your answer.

The same applies to a non-op trans woman, in reverse, with a lesbian. In order to be attracted to her she needs to be a woman, but does having a penis, in and of itself, stop her from being so?

I look forward to your answers, truly. I'm always interested in such things. Which is probably why I ask questions, which then end up, after a while, in something I write.

Sometimes the questions of others are even more important than my own, as well. Learning is odd that way...

Thanks Toni.

if there is any lesson that can be applied from the fight that health care reform is creating, it's that enda will be at least as tough, and maybe tougher.

a community that's not necessarily in lockstep, but at least acting with common purpose, will be much better positioned to help move the bill along, and let's hope everyone here can stay on good terms as this process begins to get underway.

I have NEVER met a gay man who is NOT into cock. The men who are not into it, are not gay -- they are often confused and not sure of their sexual desire. They are very few in number. Any gay men out there not into cocks? If you are not, you should explore another label/identity.

The gay men I have known who have dated trans men are plenty gay. They're not bi or queer or whatever other term you want to use - they're gay.

And, really, it's not up to you to tell them that they aren't.

This may be a generational divide, with the older generation telling us younger gay men what we should do with our bodies and who we're allowed to date and fuck. There is something to saying that people get more authoritarian as they get older, or at least learn to love to tell other people what to do. Personally, I'll choose not to believe that it's a generational divide until I see further proof.

Personally, I'm not just attracted to cock. If there was a cock on the floor, severed from the body it was attached to, my first response wouldn't be sexual desire. I'm into the whole package, the entire person, with gender being an important issue as I have no attraction to women, trans or cis.

I'm sure I'm not in the minority of gay men because of that.

David Wrote: "But this entire post contradicts the forced inclusion of so much of trans sexuality where any lack of desire for anyone is seen as a political hate response and not merely a lack of a boner. This is problematic and another instance of gay and trans peoples being light years apart.

Wow!! - Perfect example of missing the point entirely.

"A label free for all is YOUR utopia. It is not mine. As a gay man who loves men and penises, I love the gender binary. Your utopia is my hell. Speak for yourself please."

Good for you - But until you recognize that this divisive attitude if symptomatic of oppression of the Trans community by the Gay community - as well as symptomatic of the oppression of the entire queer community by the straight community, we will be unable to have a meaningful dialog.

By stating that "my Utopia is your hell," you are exposing your ignorance and intolerance. Just because YOU don't like pussy, doesn't mean that there aren't other men, who define themselves as 'gay,' that do.

You are in fact trying to re-label them, not the other way around. Really, how do they diminish your gay experience? They don't - but by insisting that they are 'not gay' you are attempting to diminish theirs.

At the same time you say that MOST gay men do not respond to Buck Angel - you are not saying that ALL gay men are this way. This acknowledges that there are SOME gay men who might, which invalidates your whole point.

"WHY in 2010 must gay men have to defend our right to sexual response with only men with penises and not sexual response to transmen without penises?"

You're missing the point entirely - again!

You gotta ask yourself WHY does trans inclusiveness diminish the gay rights movement?

And it seems to all come back to gender and transgressing conventionally held gender traditions. Something we ALL have in common.

GAY people that try to distance themselves because they don't want to be associated with trans people, when we do in fact have a common issue, and seem generally too myopic to see how restrictive heteronormative gender roles also hurt them.

You seem to be a perfect example of this.

I was speaking for myself, and from my viewpoint along - I personally feel that trans inclusion does not subtract from the G/L liberation movement, but enhances it. A view not held by many.

Kind of similar to arguments for/against Gay Marriage, isn't it?

Until you can see the Binary Gender system for what it is, a social construct created to facilitate breeding while imposing controls on rights of reproduction and social expression - then having a dialog about this is a moot point.

Just like religious fanaticism closes the eyes to the validity of other life experiences, your vehement defense of your identity, while denying the validity of other forms of gay experiences, closes your eyes the the root cause of the whole issue.

Please open your eyes and see gender oppression for what it is - something that every person in our community (GLBTQ or straight) has had to deal with at one time or another.

Maybe then, you will stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution. Otherwise the bridge will never be built because we are too busy arguing over which type of wood to use.

If you don't like vaginas, bully for you -but please don't use it as a reason to deny the validity of relationships which don't exactly match yours. Otherwise you are just as responsible for perpetuating gender oppression as 'focus on family' or many other conservative hate groups.

David,

I'm on the verge of agreeing with your decision concerning Bilerico. In the last few weeks, I've felt more excluded by the opinion postings (both of the editorial and personal variety) than included - and am disheartened by the seeming lack of interest in some commenters to acknowledge any comment/belief but their own as being valid - up to, and including, this little bon mot from "Rachel":

"Eric - the gender of the person you kiss may not be an issue for you, but it probably is for someone you know, or have associated with in the past. You might have even dealt with discrimination, violence or verbal abuse because of it. You may have strained relations with your family because of it.

I refuse to believe that you are so unaware of the world around you that you are not aware of these issues - which were the genesis for this very forum.

But how strongly you are trying to differentiate yourself from me, tells me that you yourself may be uncomfortable with certain aspects of your identity in relation to transgressing constrictive heteronormative binary gender expectations.

I don't know your situation, but if you can recognize that the cause for any sanctions you may have received might be caused, at least in part, by the gender transgressing nature of a gay relationship, then maybe we can open a real dialog, because you fully comprehend my message."

Rachel manages to hit several different plateaus with her comment, not the least of which is an underlying negativity concerning my "attempting to distance (myself) from (her)." It is an opinion not based on fact, but from a simple differentiation of viewpoint - for her, gender roles and the labeling of such gender roles are important in her continuing to weave through some nebulous pattern imposed by society.

To me, those patterns are not important.

But for me, she really crosses a line when she supposes that I am "uncomfortable with certain aspects of (my) identity in relation to transgressing constrictive heteronormative binary gender expectations."

The actuality is I simply don't give a damn about any "constrictive heteronormative binary gender expectations."

She may "paint-it-up with purty words," as most of my parents' siblings would put it, born, bred and based in the hills of West Virginia, but her words, stripped of the "purtiness," are still a negative attack on me because she and I have different viewpoints and expectations out of some societal norm. I'm absolutely certain, in a by-gone time, I would have been one of the first put to the flames in some heretical purge.

Since Mr. Gold's opinion piece was electronically published, such responses have been the norm for those who question electronically published opinions concerning "trans issues are issues that affect us all!"

My one hope concerning Bilerico is the editors of the site do not let the restrictions that are, apparently, attempting to be put in place by a majority of those commenting on the recent spate of "trans issues postings" - comments that, when stripped to the core, essentially say: If you don't agree with us, you're a hater, and haters have no place here... it's a safe place! - become part of the parameters within which they extend invitations for someone to submit their opinions for publication.

That would be a shame.

I fail to see how I am trivializing ANYONE by taking an inclusive view of the larger queer community.

Just because I'm trying to make people aware of the problems and dangers caused by a constrictive heteronormative binary gender system - Problems that many in our own queer community may not be aware of, because they have not had to look at that part of themselves as deeply as I have.

Just because I choose to focus only on one facet of the queer experience, does not mean that I am choosing to ignore and invalidate other aspects of queer experience.

But addressing them in my article would only have confused the issue. As your posts, which seem overly involved, and somewhat confusing.

By trying to strip away the veneer of Binary Gender I am trying to examine a system of oppression that is invisible to most people.

I see the difference - but I'm addressing our similarities, and trying to define WHAT those similarities are.

Until you can agree that there ARE similarities in our oppression, any further discussion with you will be a non-starter.

I'm striving for inclusiveness. What are you doing?

The problem with those like you who are universal gender deconstuctionists is you absolutely refuse the reality that for 99% of the world the binary works just fine gay or straight.

Does it really work fine for them?

I would have to disagree here. If it did, there would be no need for feminism (let alone trans-feminism.)

The discrimination and violence that cis-women face is also symptomatic of the fact that the current system has problems.

Until all women truly have equal rights - such as equal pay for equal work, and no glass ceiling to their career advancement, and no sanctions or restrictions on reproductive rights - then the binary gender system can not be considered to be 'working just fine for 99% of people.'

As far as I can see, the current gender system only truly works fine for less than 50% of the population - the heterosexual male segment of the population.

As I said repeatedly, the problems with the current gender system apply to EVERYONE - not just the LGBT.

But it is true that this probably won't be changing any time soon, because of 'social inertia.'

I suspect that if it does, it will be far more likely to come as a result of biological discoveries about our genome and physiology than because of any political, sociological or ideological discourse.

because it is fact.....

The definition of transsexual is someone driven to put mind and body in congruence to the maximum amount possible........

Yes, crossdressering has been around a long time too, just not recorded as much and not as far back and more dependent on gender roles in any given society...consider Maoist China for an example, pretty hard to crossdress when men and women wore the exact same clothes and yet they still felt they were either men or women, imagine that!

None of which has to do what I was addressing which is that gender deconstructionism is the tie that binds radical lesbian separatists, Ron Gold and TGs.

I have heard and had directed at me the most out and out mysogynistic and gynophobic garbage you can imagine and most of it came, not from the religious right, not from macho homophobic men but transgenders. So much so I coined a word for it, neogynophobia.

And before you launch into calling me a post op nazi or such:

A pre-op transsexual woman is as much a woman as a post op one.

A post-op transgender is no more a woman than a non-op transgender.

Surgery is something that those born with transsexuality do to correct their bodies to get on with life, sometimes crossdressers do it as well for some percieved legitimacy, we call them "regretors" or dead all too often.

And lest anyone hasn't figured it out yet...in addition to classic transsexuals proving the binary, so do gay men and lesbian women because if the gender binary was a false construct, who they were attracted to wouldn't matter, they'd all be bisexuals as would everyone else.

Dieks,

My apologies for speaking from an uninformed perspective with regards to the B/F paradigm. I was only trying to give my theory (and it is only a theory) a broader context by basing it upon observations and discussions with members of that community

"The absolute sexual shaming and DAMAGE this type propaganda has made on B/F Lesbians is catastrophic."

As is the propaganda towards trans women - and in neither case is is right.

I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences within this community in order to broaden my understanding. Please feel free to contact me off list, so as to avoid any further incendiary posts.

Thank you for understanding.

David,

The genderqueer paradigm doesn't include explicit sexual sharing in and of itself because it's not really about sex and sexuality, but about gender. That's not to say there aren't genderqueer folks engaged in sexual liberation movements, just that it's kinda a different topic.

As far as missing it from the younger gay/queer/LGBT generation in general, I can see your point. Although, you might want to peek around a bit more. There are sex-positive communities that very much do just what you're talking about.

The difficulty you're encountering around the politicization of certain patterns of sexual desire is a really difficult subject to pick apart. On one hand, these patterns have been politicized long before anyone here pointed them out. What turns us on and off has always been very political. If someone told you how they were really turned on talking to someone on the phone and once they found out the person they were talking to was black suddenly their erection went away and they were 100% turned off, would you interpret that as solely personal taste and nothing to do with racial prejudice?

On the other hand, just because it overlaps with systemic oppression doesn't mean we can tell people what to do. It's like the feminist issue of women who want to wash dishes and be a housewife. Perhaps it's a desire influenced by patriarchy, but that doesn't mean it's okay to tell her that she would be a bad person for following her desires.

Part of the difficulty here is that trans people are routinely shoved into sexual extremes -- exotified as novelties or rejected as sick freaks. When you encounter person after person after person who sees you as incredibly hot but still unfuckable -- not just you but anyone like you -- it becomes a pattern that you can't ignore. You don't ever know any one individual's motivations or influences, but it's clearly not a coincidence. Societal influences are definitely a part of creating the larger situation.

Additionally, there's a big reason why people care so much about this. Gay/queer communities have been and are based upon sexuality. Even the folks who don't do the explicit sexual sharing you do have their own ways of expressing and sharing sexuality. And in a community where you can't through a cat without hitting an ex, being unfuckable is a big deal. When half the community is based on hookups, who's dating who, and networks of ex's, then being unfuckable means that you're not really a part of the community.

I'm only 30, so please bear with me.

Why must gay sex be about liberation? Do you define yourself primarily by who you have sex with? Is there a magical quality about two men with all the accoutrements having sex that I am missing? If you had sex with someone who you saw as a man but was really a pre-op transwomen, would you no longer by gay (in your own mind)?

__________________________________________

Being gay is not radical. Being open about being gay is radical. There is a big difference.
Its just sex. I seriously don't get where you are coming from. There is nothing special about two men having sex. Its just sex. Period.

And I'll repeat what others have already said. No one is forcing you to have sex with a trans person. So why are you acting as if someone is forcing your head into a vagina, screaming as you are swallowed whole?

I meant that their gender expression was extremely masculine - but their IDENTITY was completely FEMALE.

Apologies for my vague wording.

I was trying to illustrate the difference between Gender Identity, and Gender Expression being as separate Gender Idenitiy and physical sex.

I guess I did a poor job of it.

Isn't it amazing that the only piece of "evidence" supporting the malleability of gender "identity", John Money's John/Joan case has been totally discredited as false and a fraud for over a decade, is still the dominate one in gender circles and yet 300+ studies (not just the Danish BSTc one) confirming the neurological intersexed nature of classic transsexuality continue to be ignored or denied?

The transgender world concept is dogma absolutely similar to the dogma of creation "scientists" now repackaged as "intelligent design" and evolution.

Established to the level of practical fact vs faith without support. Challenge either transgender dogma or creationism and the response is identical....

Thank you Ronan for understanding what I was trying to do.

By viewing our common oppression through the lens of Gender, I was hoping to build consensus, not exacerbate divisions.

It was my hope to promote the idea that trans-inclusiveness could be an seen asset to the gay rights movement, instead of a liability.

By doing so, I was not ignoring these divisions, but rather trying to focus on common oppressions through a different lens.

When someone is subjected to violence and discrimination for not being a 'real man' or a 'real woman' for whatever trivial reason - it's a gender issue - regardless of your age or individual identity.

No one has yet to disagree with this one point.... The main point of my original posting.

David, Alex is on vacation now for the holidays. It's not a personal slight.

your analogy of the phone and a black person is not accurate to what I was saying. There is no hate or human emotion involved in sexual response to body parts -- it just IS.

But that was exactly the point of my analogy. And you could just as easily put in just about any stigmatized minority. But the point is that the person in my analogy would also honestly say that there is no hate or human emotion, just physiological response. And my point is that physiological response is not necessarily free from societal influence. It might not be conscious, it might not be malicious, there might be no flood of emotion, but still it is hard to hear this example and not imagine it's at least influenced by societal messages about race. Similarly, it's hard to hear dozens and dozens of people describe similar responses to trans people and not believe that societal messages about trans people aren't playing an influence.

It certainly doesn't help that the vast majority of people who claim not to be attracted to trans people also have very little contact with trans people, perhaps having met 5 or 6 trans folks and never getting to know any on a meaningful level. Half the time what they are saying they are not attracted to is a stereotypical image. I've known dykes who say they aren't attracted to trans women because they aren't attracted to femmes (an awkward issue in itself), while completely ignorant of the fact that not all trans women are femme and some are butch.

Those instances are very different from yours, but they are a part of the overall community dynamic that leads to people complaining about the people who say they are not attracted to trans people. Lots of folks here are challenging you, but half of what they are frustrated with are these dynamics which apparently don't apply to your behavior.

"Note: y'all may need more outside hobbies."

i lol'ed!

Since you did not respond to me earlier I am going to try one more time.

I think, and I am just guessing, that the issue the people you label TG's problem with you comes from things like this "When you meet a woman, if you are a woman, you know it. TGs will not accept this." and "they vibe male male male.. Most women, like myself are polite and keep this to themselves. It has almost nothing to do with presentation or any of the trans wisdom of 'passing'". Not because they are your opinions, but because you state them like fact.

I am at a loss to understand how you cannot see that as denying another their identity and it smacks of Superiority as well.

Honestly, it is, as I see it a masculine trait to lay down strict borders, but that is just my feeling my perception of the binary which is of necessity flawed.

The idea of one type of person wanting to draw lines so as to not be associated with another type of person who they feel is not their own, is both natural and useful. I encourage everyone, build your tribe, your small group of people with their own ideas and ideals and more importantly agreed upon lexicon. But for the sake of The Goddesses please do not assume that you are right.

You are not.

Not because you are wrong, because you are not wrong.

But because your lexicon is not more right than anyone elses.

That is the tricky part about spaces like this. Where ideas come together. Everyone starts off in a place of fear that their ideas will not only be challenged but their identity. I have never seen more "Other"ing than in queer spaces. Never.

I just hope you can keep that in mind. Keep an open mind that what you consider "Classic" is just a type, and when you use words with strong meanings.

Classic is Defined as according to Merriam-Webster:

1 a : serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value b : traditional, enduring c : characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year
2 : of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans or their culture : classical
3 a : historically memorable b : noted because of special literary or historical associations
4 a : authentic, authoritative b : typical
5 capitalized : of or relating to the period of highest development of Mesoamerican and especially Mayan culture about a.d. 300–900

The TG's you seem to have problems with probably feel you are saying a "Classic Transsexual" within the context of the first definition. This implies a sense of superiority which as we all know chaffs. To your credit I am going to continue to believe when I hear that term that it leands more to number three. "Historically Memorable" I like the sound of that.

"Historically Memorable Transsexual". Me, my personal identity? I am a woman, born with a weird body, loved by people. Called Transsexual, lovingly called Tranny by my best friend when she wants me to kick her. Happy to be named Tara, queer, and above all, a flawed talking monkey.

Why would you expect the final word on a blog entry open to comments?

Some points to ponder. If you go to women's space as something other than a woman, why would you expect they would not have a problem with that? My personal experience and that of many women like myself is that if you go to women's space as a woman you almost all the time welcome.

If you insist on deconstructing gender haven't you actually given up a claim to a place in the binary? When you deconstruct your own gender, you have created a third category for your membership, one that arguably has no claim on women's space as a result.

The women's space issue usually revolves around two issues, those who come as trans something try to sidetrack everything to trans issues and thus violate the spirit of having women's space by this alone. The other issue is that all too often this insistence of membership in women's space is not because of an interest in women's issues as much as it is seeking validation. Actual women do not need their womanhood validated, I certainly don't. If a separatist group defines me out of their space, I accept that and do not try to invade it. Amazingly enough that alone usually results in an "exception" being made for me. Funny how mutual respect works isn't it? The most vocal of the TG crowd don't even respect the womanhood of those they insist are part of their artifical construct, women of corrected history. This has been on open display here at Bilerico for years now.

Since it seems that the more extreme among us are vehemently defending their opinion by viciously attacking mine, I would have to say that it feels like a form of censorship

How could any argument I, or any commenter make be censorship of you? You're the one who has a post on TBP; I'm, what was it you called me, "the more extreme among us."

The examination of gender is something I do quite frequently, its just that I don't start from the premise you do: that transsexual people--in particular women of corrective history--are, or should, by our very nature, be deconstructing gender.

If you wish to claim you're doing this, fine, but when you include me, other women of history, and, as demonstrated by the gay men who have posted comments to this thread, also them, then you have gone beyond simple observations about your own life, to

a system of control - divide and conquer

all the separatist vitriol

When you stoop to this kind of name-calling, in lieu of your call for examination you have become what you accuse me of.

There are ways of opening dialogue and there are ways; when you require, a priori, the exclusion of the very gender examination you call for--the way gender privilege affects those of us who transition male to female, just as it does cis females (you called this a quagmire)--what is actually left for you to claim examination of?

David, I think you misread my statement. All I'm trying to say is that if everything ELSE is there, why let a vagina stop you from having a good time? I think it's closed minded to find someone attractive, but that attraction completely dies when you find out that they have a vagina. It seems so arbitrary and shallow to me.

Yes, you have a right to your desires and preferences. No one is arguing that.

I'm just saying you're discounting someone's sexuality because of the flesh between their legs. That's NOT all that's sexy about a person and shouldn't be THE determining factor between sex or no sex.

The rest of your response is so ridiculously outside of what I was saying, I'm not going to dignify it.

You said:

"...this whole topic is INSANE"

"Gender Queer LIES about desire because desire never fits politics. Some people will always be left out. Why can you not accept that reality?"

--

Not at all. You are completely entitled to label yourself a gay man, and state with absolute certainty - "That doesn't turn me on."

What the gender-queer politics is stating is that an F2M who does not have a penis, but is exclusively attracted to men is ALSO a gay male because their identity is not based on your desire.

But desire can be separate from identity, and I think that this is one of the sources of the rift between Gay/Lez and trans.

It seems to me that many G/L people base their identity on the object desire, but that is only half of the equation, their own gender is the other half of the equation.

I think this is at the heart of the primary rift between the GLB and T communities, because many can not see gender disconnected from genitalia.

And understandably so, because they seem to arrive at their identity through a path of "i am male because I have a penis, and I am attracted someone else who is male because they have a penis, so I must be GAY."

Throughout this, your own gender is never put in question, and why should it be? You are dealing an issue of attraction.

My identity (male) + your identity (male) = gay.
My identity (male) + your identity (female) = straight.

but it gets messy when dealing with trans people - especially if you are using their genitalia as the sole determinator of their gender and identity.

My identity (male) + your identity (trans) = ??????

Focusing solely on genitalia to determine identity is to miss the whole point of gender politics, which is more about what's between your ears than what's between your legs.

Gender politics is trying to enable people to see that the formation of identity may not be related to genitalia at all.

If you state absolutely that "this does not turn me on," then that's totally cool. It is understandable how you can be hot for a guy, but completely turned off by their possessing a vagina - and you are totally allowed to feel that way.

Just like you might be hot for a guy, and completely turned off by the fact that he is a Meth addict.

The problem comes in when someone says that the object of their attraction 'cant be a gay guy' because they possess a vagina - or do not posses a penis.

Because they can be a gay guy, and they have every right to define themselves as such. To suggest otherwise disregards the identity of the other person, and imposes your values and beliefs on them - which is a form of oppression.

I'm not slamming you because you desire your partner to have a penis - no one should. I doubt that you would be attracted to me, even though I have a penis, maybe because you are not attracted to breasts, or you like your partners to be hairy and muscular.

Trans theory and politics is more about trying to uncouple desire and genitalia from the formation of identity.

If you are able to do this, then things get a whole lot simpler:

A man is a man whether or not he has a penis - (same goes for women) because that is how he identifies.

This same man is gay or straight based on who he is attracted to (men or women) regardless of his genital configuration.

Whether you are attracted to them is a completely different matter. But it still does not impact their identity.

...although if this man has a non-standard genital configuration - it may cause you to ask some uncomfortable questions about the nature of your attraction, but it still does not automatically invalidate your identity as a 'gay male.'

That is why I identify as a 'trans-lesbian.' My attraction to women does not define my womanhood, it only contributes to defining my lesbianism.

Just as your attraction does not define your identity as a male, although it contributes to your identification as 'gay.'

I sincerely hope I helped clarify this. This is exactly the dialog I had hoped to start when I wrote my original post.

I think you are being too sensitive and a bit too narrow as well. I'm not talking about women as that's not what this discussion is about. Specifically, I'm talking about transmen - you know, men who happen to have vaginas.

My point, as I've said above to another person, is that if all other things are attractive - you like his face, he has great hair, you like his arms, his legs and you think he's cute - why on earth would the flesh between his legs stop you in your tracks.

A penis is not the determining factor of whether or not someone is a man. A penis is not necessary to have a good time sexually.

That is all.

Not at all.

GenderQueer paradigms try to establish identity independent of genitals and desire.

Who I am is different from who I like.

This component of identity is only looking at "am I male or am I female,"

Once you establish that, then you can determine "am I gay or straight," by looking at attraction.

Many cis-gendered people have a hard time understanding this because they have never questioned their own gender - or needed to - and therefore only look at their desire in relation to their partner's genital configuration.

Even Jeramie misses the point a bit, although he does seem to be fluid enough to go for an F2M - but that does not make him 'less gay.' That just means that for him, identity is a more important component to a partner than the possession of a penis.

If we look at this solely from the perspective of desire, then what if you desire to be a "woman who is attracted to women" even though you posses a penis, and others have already defined you as male?

(I know the doctor that birthed me didn't consider my desires when I was labeled 'male.')

For a more detailed explanation, please refer to a much longer comment I made on your previous thread.

Jessica,

Frankly, it is my right to deconstruct gender if I want to, just as it is my right to form an identity that I am comfortable with.

You were using faulty logic in your reasoning, and I demonstrated specifically why it was faulty. Before you condemn my comments, you should re-read some of your posts.

Just because you can not come up with a compelling argument and force me to change my tune, does not mean that my premise or subsequent comments are completely flawed.

I knocked holes in your arguments, so now as a last resort, you are simply resorting to a sweeping condemnation, and labeling me evil.

I assert that my deconstruction of gender in no way diminishes your identity or state of being.

Frankly, I can admit when I am wrong, and I have done so repeatedly in various threads in this same discussion, when presented with a sound, solid argument as to why I was incorrect.

You have not provided me with one. You have attacked me repeatedly with many comments that I did not feel even warranted an answer.

And now that I have specifically proved WHY your logic was faulty - repeatedly - you feel that being in the same group as me (LGBT) somehow redefines and diminishes your identity.

(...good thing we're not in the same room, since then my mere existence would surely be a grave threat to you.)

You basically want to control and refuse to allow me to deconstruct gender. Something I feel needs to be done, because it will make me a more informed person and I have the right to do that.

Yet you label me EVIL for it?? Sounds like your running out of arguments.

It seems to me your own Hubris and Audacity far outshine mine.

So don't talk to me about privilege while your dogma is squishing my karma.

Merry Christmas.

As for the argument I didn't answer - which I did - about your "path 1 and Path 2."

I will answer it again for your convenience, since you were unable to figure this out from the original post:

They both transgress gender, and they both suffer consequences for it, maybe not to the same degree - but it is still there.

Many crossdressers lose their wives, jobs and other relationships upon discovery - maybe it's just a subtle, disapproving look amybe it's more 'severe.'.

It's still gender bias - no matter how you slice it.

My main premise was that Gay and Lesbians face gender bias as well - and it has little to do with women of operative history.

So I viewed many of your comments as an attempt to hijack the discussion into more trans infighting. Something you managed to do very effectively.

So until you are ready to grow and expand your perception, the it will only be the same old, same old around here - at least for any discussion you are involved in.

Thanks Sophie,

The mere existence of Intersex people such as yourself call into question the very notion of the binary gender system.

I don't have to deconstruct it, there are several biological disciplines that are currently in the process of doing it.

And without the gender politics.

India and Pakistan have also recently officially recognized their gender variant communities as a "Third Sex" (Their words, not mine.)

So it is happening regardless of what I say.

As Will Rogers once said, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just stand there."

Gee Jillian,

While you weren't looking, a whole new generation of rad-les-separatists has sprung up. Judging by the blogs there are more of them than the originals.

Sorry to tell you this.

Coalitions require the mutual respect of each other's realities and lives.

Timberwralth, you seem utterly immune to understanding this rather simple concept. Invoking common enemies who aren't as cruel as alleged allies is never ever ever going to cut the mustard. Not when invoking it always comes with "if you would only jettison your identity, your sexual responses, your orientation, your gender to embrace my world view and mine alone. Those who embrace the transgender religion are among the worst here and we have witnessed on this thread and others gay men protesting the exact same appropriation under an umbrella as this crowd has done to transsexual women for a decade. Lesbian women have also objected on the same grounds....it is not us who are blowing apart alliances, it is those who insist it's my way or you're a bigot, transphobe, self loathing and all the other assorted nonsense that greets any attempt to challeng the religion of transgender.

Perhaps after 15 years of trying to communicate this simple observation, some of the G's, L's and B's are now getting this. I hold out no hope the T's ever will.....

My point exactly.

i think there is a difference between fighting a common enemy and being co-opted for the causes of others.

Agreed.

Personally, I've tried to steered clear of making arguments that lump intersex people with trans people, as I know that's a point of contention between the two groups. Each group of people faces differing responses from society and each group has differing needs. I know that there are transgender people who gloss over the differences and lump intersex and transgender issues together and that's a problem.

Can I as an intersex individual write an article here? Or is it just "The right sort of people". I don't hate anyone nor do I fell the need to attack others, but I do feel at time the Bilerico project has others speaking about my issues and I feel unable to say anything about it.

I agree that the voices of intersex people are currently unrepresented at venues such as The Bilerico Project and that this needs to be rectified. This oversight is reflected by the common usage of the four-letter moniker, "LGBT"—a problem which I am also quite guilty of. I think that yours is a perfectly ligitimate complaint and needs to be openly explored and corrected.

When I posted my call for a ceasefire, what I am responding to is a sentiment that I've seen pop up over and over again and can be summarized as:

You are far too different from me. Your very being is alien in nature and incompatible with my identity/politics/world view. Your association with my people makes me look bad. Now, please get away from me and my corner of society. Your continued presense is an offence and ultimately represents a source of oppression.

My post was actually a response to reading days upon days of anger-filled exchanges at Bilerico, some of which I've participated in. On some level, anyone in the alphabet can say this to someone else who is in another part of the alphabet. I've seen this happen between the L and the G, the LG and the B, and the LGB and the T. To a lesser extent, I've seen it happen between the I and the LGBT. (I'm guessing that I've seen it happen far less because the LGBT largely ignores issues faced by the I and it's also a part of my privilege as a person who is not intersex to ignore these issues.)

When this happens in a very public way—such as the Ronald Gold article and the associated fall-out—the resulting anger can drive wedges between even the most well meaning of allies. I'm hoping that we can move past this, as the fighting has gone on for so long.

Even so, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you don't have a right to be angry. We largely give lip service to intersex issues, if we speak of them at all.

For your convenience, the definition of gender from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GENDER

I'm using it in the context of definition 2b.

--

Main Entry: 1gen·der
Pronunciation: \?jen-d?r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin
Date: 14th century
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2 a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Your original premise was more along the lines of transgender and transsexual people transgress gender. More than that, they must transgress gender.

You can see no difference between a MTF transgender person and a MTF transsexual person. You refuse to acknowledge there could possibly be a difference between what I earlier termed path 1) and path 2).

Your argument has been so faulty you have had to restate it several times. Your erasure of transsexual people, especially transsexual women has been complete.

You claim the most vile things have been done to you; I would argue little can compete in vileness with the erasure of the lives, struggles, needs and even existence of persons--which you so blithely do.

As long as you attempt to co-opt those who do not share your life, struggle, needs your argument will fail.

Until you recognize the separate existence of those who do not share your life and needs, common ground is nothing more than the same old imposition of identity.

Sophia,

I appreciate your sentiments, but a miscommunication in here is demonstrating to me why this conversation isn't being productive. I was the one that brought up race, but not as a way to say David's behavior is "racist like." I wrote a comment above clarifying that, search for "like being racist" to see the context. Searching for racism and racist I don't see any other references to David except the ones he makes himself

I have the feeling that people are so wrapped up in their own defensiveness, that several folks are skimming the comments, seeing a few words that appear to represent their fears, and then responding to those fears without checking gleaning the actual meaning of those words.

The fact that David is still clinging to having been "accused" of "racist like bigotry" after my explanation and has stopped engaging with me makes me very pessimistic about any further productive conversation, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's representative of the pattern this entire conversation has taken.

It's also quite frustrating to spend half an hour on a rational response, logically detailing the issue, then see the person I was addressing respond to the two or three inflammatory commenters without addressing me or my argument. It's like folks are pushing for a fight and don't want to actually discuss the issues.

Well, I suppose that depends on what circles you travel in. The bulk of the people who I've seen use the word transgender as an umbrella term are transsexuals—myself included. From what I've seen, if any group has a right to claim that their cause has been co-opted, it's cross dressers. I say that because, in my experience, the loudest, most open voices representing the moniker transgender seem to be transsexuals.

Again, it depends on what circles you run in, because our perceptions are obviously quite different.

Besides that, there's an unspoken matter that folks seem to be ignoring: there is no solid border dividing transsexuals from cross dressers. Many transsexuals start out identifying as CD and then move on to identify as transsexual. Hence, there is an intersection between the two groups of people. I know that makes some people uncomfortable as hell, but that's reality, like it or not.

How far do we take this, I wonder? The L, G, and B all have their own needs and yet, they all get crunched together under an acronym "LGB" and the moniker "queer." Even so, there are a whole lot of folk to don't neatly fit into those three letters. For instance, I can't count the number of self-identified lesbians I've known who wound up dating men later in their lives (including myself). So much for the surgical precision of labels.

That's the craptastic drawback to devising categories to represent people. Human beings are a messy lot. The boarders of those categories will inevitably run through the middle of someone's life. As the old adage goes, life usually comes in shades of gray rather than black and white. Categories are an artificial linguistic construct that human beings use to approximate the real world, but at the end of the day, the real world can never be fully contained by these constructs. Never.

Categories aren't real. People are. That's a big reason behind why I err on the side of inclusiveness rather than separatism. Plus, it really sucks to be stuck in the borderlands between two groups of people, while having both groups tell you that you're an impostor and you don't belong. Not fun at all.

Jessica said:

"When people, like Rachel, use the conflating term transgendered they give the impression they are talking about a man who wears dresses, not someone who has a medical condition called transsexuality."

If I apply the same absolutism you did, you are essentially calling me a "Man in a Dress" because I have not had surgery, and to this I say SCREW YOU.

Who are you to define my identity as a TG!! YOU don't identify as TG, and therefore have no right to define ME.

Here again you fail to see the vast grey area between cross-dressers and women of post-op experience. So really, who is erasing lives in their rhetoric?

--

Did you guys ever hear of the theory of "crabs in a barrel?"

I just heard it last night, and I believe it is extremely relevant to this discussion:

The LGBTQI..ETC community is like a barrel full of crabs.

We did not put ourselves in the barrel, someone else did.

But we are in the barrel none the less.

Instead of working together to free ourselves from the barrel, we are climbing all over ourselves to get out, in our individual attempts at freedom.

By doing so, we prevent each other from making ANY progress in our escape because we keep pulling each other off the walls of the barrel.

The fisherman doesn't even have to put a lid on the barrel, because the crabs to his work for him.

We are all in the same barrel, but rather than talk about the barrel, and how to free ourselves from it, or even the nature of the fisherman who put us there, we are cutting each other down in our individual bids for freedom.

--

And of course, I fully expect Jessica to harp on how I used "guys" as an objectionable umbrella term in my opening sentence, while ignoring the real meat of the issue.

Naturally, it is her right to deconstruct this colloquialism, but does it help accomplish main objective of escaping from the barrel, or is it used as another divisive tool to secure her own individual freedom, at the expense of those around her?

If you want to talk about a binary, then how about this one:

There are two types of people - those who say "it can be done," and who eventually do it, and those who say "it can't be done," and who cut down everyone who tries.

(Naturally we are ignoring everyone who's reality does not fit either of these two paradigms - but seems standard operating procedure around here.)

I think it's clear which side of this particular binary system I fall on. And I'm pretty clear which side that Jessica falls on. I agree that there is a big difference between us Jessica; one that has nothing at all to do with gender or being a CD, TG, TS, IS, GLB, Queer or even "op-status."

--

I knew by posting my original piece that I wasn't going to please everyone - I said so in my opening paragraph.

But I guess for some, having an argument is far more important that actually accomplishing anything.

I wish to express my deepest appreciation to who expressed their support for my arguments, both publicly and privately.

At least I can take some small comfort that I have reached a few people with my ideas, and not everyone has been alienated by the vitriol.

I wish I could say the same for myself.

Y'all have a nice life. I have to get back to mine now.

Happy Holidays.

Trying to talk someone into your world view is not "dialogue". It is evangelism.

This, I believe is a matter of degree. Any dialog containing differing view points is bound to contain arguments intended to convince.

Each post and comment on TBP is an attempt to convince someone of something.

But you are right, this thread has deteriorated into evangelism at points, and it's probably too late for me to pull it back.

And I consider it my own fault for failing to properly communicate with my critics.

For what It's worth, I actually agreed with some (not all) of Ron Gold's ideas in his original post, though I can see why his way of expressing them caused an uproar.

As far as 'othered viewpoint' goes - my central point from the beginning was that we have all been 'othered' by the non-queer Heterosexual community.

I was repeatedly trying to focus on that, rather than how we 'other' each other.

But I was unable to maintain that focus, and that is my own failure.

David said;

"Tobi, you are very passionate about your cause. But you also seem very young. Perhaps more life experience with a far wider range of possible peoples might mitigate the zeal and personalization of rejection of your queer evangelism. Many of the others here are lost causes I fear."

We might be here today, but they young are the future of our movement, and their passion, it's fuel.

We can either help to steer them onto the right track, or we can ignore them and let them fend for themselves.

In which case, we deserve what we get in our old age.

Would it be fair if I dismissed Ronald Gold as being past his prime and consequently, clinging to antiquated ideas that should have faded away decades ago? That would seem to be an attempt to dismiss a person's opinion based purely upon ageism, would it not?

I guarantee that there are a range of ages at TBP who fall on many different sides of the same issue. I'm 41 and rarely find myself in disagreement with Tobi's words and I've read her writing for quite a while now. I'm neither old, nor young. I suppose that you could say that I'm a sad, immature woman stuck in the idealism of her youth... but again, that would be dismissing my ideas based upon age rather than addressing my ideas.

I remember being the youngest in a family full of people who were racist, antisemitic, anti-gay, and anti anyone who wasn't a member of white bread America. When I was in my late teens, I challenged them on their prejudices and I was informed that I was too young and inexperienced to understand their positions. I knew they were dead wrong and consequently, I learned an important lesson: wisdom has no age.

So, can we keep age out of this, and simply address the ideas in question? I'm sure we've all got tidbits of wisdom to share and blind spots as well, regardless of when we were born.

David,

Again you are responding to what you fear I am saying rather then what I'm actually saying. I won't dismiss the possibility of that text only communication without emotional tones may contribute to this.

I'm not trying to convert you and have no zeal on that part. The one thing that got me a bit riled was your continued insistence to misinterpret my words and your refusal to acknowledge my clarifications.

I'm not feeling attacked or "crucified." I don't care if you don't adopt my "dogma," and I appreciate having it challenged so I can rethink the values I hold.

But I don't appreciate this kind of half-engagement where you cease addressing anything I bring up, pretend I said things that I didn't, ignore my protestations and attempts to clarify what I said, and finally dismiss me on account of my age as if my input has no value. I'll have you know that I have more experience on LGBT issues than many folks twice my age and I'd ask that you judge me based on my experience and how I engage you rather then the experience you are guessing I might or might not have.

We are all trying to rise above our individual biases here.

How exactly is this comment germane to this discussion?

Oh - because one of my source pieces clued me into the reality of violence and abuse towards children who would one day grow up to identify as Gay men?

If you can look at the content, rather than the very flawed title of the "faggots" piece (or my own), you may be able to relate to the discussion we are trying to open on these threads.

The language is not perfect, and I am guilty of expressing my own biases in flawed examples of my theory about universal gender bias, but we're trying.

Sophia, part of the problem communicating with some here who claim most transsexuals have no problem with transgender as an umbrella is those saying this are using the re-defined version of transsexual which apparently to them means anyone who transitioned socially rather than the precise meaning that required new prefixes like "classic" or such...just to reclaim the actual meaning.

For them I would suggest, using their logic, that the word that best fits anyone who lives as the gender opposite their physical sex with no intention to correct their physical sex is ......

transvestite,. It's precise meaning fits them perfectly......physical males who dress and act like women and if they object given this, they are bigots, transphobic and suffer degrees of internal self-loathing not to mention elitists who think they are better than the average Tri-Ess member.

I'll bet some will now scream bloody blue murder.

The fact is, I've been around a while and in face to face conversations with well over 200 post corrected women, every single one without exception found the transgender umbrella personally offensive, every single one. I suspect the post corrected part makes the difference.

"As an intersex activist I have to deal with specifics, like 20 or so conditions that result in being diagnosed as "intersex" (Which is actually a less than helpful umbrella term itself along with DSD and Hermaphrodite). I am OK using intersex as a term but I have to be specific."

I agree with you on what you said.

From my individual perspective, I would contend that 'intersex' would be a far better umbrella term for transgender or ts.

Since the term 'intersex' already covers 20 or so conditions, why not include two or three more - TG/TS/TV.

Recent discoveries in the disciplines of several biological sciences seems to indicate that this would not be entirely inaccurate.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about my trying to co-opt the 'intersex' movement, I do very clearly realize that being diagnosed with an specific intersex condition at birth has all kinds of ramifications that are quite different from those who are diagnosed as TS later in life.

But if two TG and TS were two distinct categories under the intersex unbrella, along with Alpha-5 reductase, Mosaicism, Turner's Syndrome, and a host of other conditions, it seems to me like it would be less stigmatizing, and certainly less polarizing within the TG/TS community.

The big problem with the term 'transgender,' is that it's meaning changed in the early to mid '90s and was co-opted and used as an umbrella term by a community outside of the trans-community.

Those of us old enough to remember the original meaning get very offended by this, while those younger members of the community who grew up without the historical context of the word, ask 'what's the big deal?'

And this is where the problem starts...

I would say that IF the entire T spectrum gets unwillingly thrown under the intersex umbrella by Biological science or some other entity, we will have to work very hard to maintain objectivity while undergoing such a transformation.

DSD, is another matter entirely. This is a very dangerous concept, steeped in the gender binary, that has the ability to encompass every letter of the LGBTQI community, label it as a disorder, and force treatment.

For those of you who missed it - this would include Gay/Lesbian people as well.

From a strictly heterosexual standpoint, G/L behaviour could easily be viewed as a 'disorder of sexual development,' and could subject many to 'reparative therapy,' or other subtle forms of eugenics, in order to eliminate any variation in the binary gender system..

In the context of universal gender bias, this is really where the danger of the gender binary exists.

It will be very interesting to see what the consequences will be of India and Pakistan's official recognition of a 'third sex,' and if it will be as dangerous as Jessica claims.

I contend that it is no more dangerous than the current system, which resulted in over 200 murders, based on gender bias, this year.

Actually RB, you are mistaken in the assumption that I want to keep male genitals.

I have a distinctly different relationship to my genitalia than most other people I know.

Because I've had to deeply examine my psyche, much of it from a transexual (not transgendered) space, I almost view the tissue down their as source material for it's ultimate configuration.

And my understanding of self has evolved through the process of transition.

I actually agree 1000% about gender being hardwired.

As far as my understanding of my biology goes, there is a fundamental mismatch between the map of my body that resides in my somatosensory cortex, and the physical structures of my external genitalia.

I find this to be as accurate a description as I have seen, and is extremely consistent with my actual experience with my physical body.

History of Rachel 101:

From my earliest memories I felt that I was a girl, I closely identified with the girls around me, and that is how I thought I was going to grow up.

When I was around 10 or eleven, I finally found out that girls had a different genital construction that I did, and I was completely crushed to realize I was not going to be female as an adult.

Then I saw a photo of a naked TS and it was a revelation. My first thought was - "so there is hope for me." This was at least 10 years before the internet was up and running, so information was scarce.

I read every word on the subject in my local and college library.

Within a year of graduation, living in New York, at age 22, I was pursuing transition, I was a regular at Edelweiss and we asking the women there to recommend a good doctor so I could start HRT.

Than a once in a lifetime career opportunity came my way, coupled with the realization that I would have a more successful transition if I were financially independent, I took the business opportunity, delayed my transition, and moved to England.

All the while going through the splurge and purge cycles of a closeted trans person, while socially insulating myself and self medicating with pot.

Then I met a special woman - I have always been deeply attracted to women - and if guys 'did it' for me, I would have known about it.

I was under the mistaken belief that the GID was as a result of loneliness - but it turned out the reverse was true the loneliness was due to my social isolation to hide my GID.

We married, (Early '90s, and I came out to her beforehand) and she forced me to stop self medicating. Three years later, I had to deal with my issue, and got help at the LA Gender Center.

My marriage ended when I went full time, but we're still like sisters.

All of this time, I subscribed to the binary gender paradigm. I knew I was not male, and that left one other choice in that rigid system.

When I went through therapy to prepare to start HRT and come out to everyone, I was told that transition is a process, not an event, and to focus on my social transition before I worry about SRS.

As a result, I decided to take an incremental and minimally invasive approach to my therapy and treatment. I decided that I would only go as far as I had to, in order to quell the dysphoria relating to my gender.

Then something funny happened on the way to womanhood.

I had a VERY volatile and somewhat abusive relationship with a lesbian woman - maybe technically bi because she had dated a guy or two more than 20 years before she met me, but she had dated women exclusively for a very long time before we got together.

During one of our knock-down-drag-outs, she made it harshly clear that I could never be completely female because of my history.

Not because of my genitals, but because of my personality, and the training I had received early in life.

I realized at that point that it would be impossible to figure out which parts of me are male and which are female, because the nature/nurture dichotomy was so mixed up.

I also realized around this time, that no matter what operations I chose to have, my history would always betray me, and prevent me from being seen as completely female.

The only people who see me as 100% female are new acquaintances. Sometimes even close friends forget that I have a trans history, but once I tell people, I do sense a shift in their perception and behaviour.

It was about this time that I was reading about advances in biological research and tried to figure out how it impacted my transition in order to determine what I really wanted out of life.

My initial determination was that I love women, they do it for me, and since I don't need to accommodate a male, why should I reconfigure my genitalia.

I figured that presentation was what you did to affect how others saw and treated you, but SRS was something you did for yourself, and how you saw yourself.

So as my dysphoria increased again, I decided to take an incremental approach to SRS, as I did with transition, and tried to figure out which parts of my mental map were screwed up, and which were not.

I determined that most of my discomfort came from lack of a vagina, not from possessing the equivalent of a really big clit - and I always hated having a scrotum, and the tissue could be incorporated into the.

Besides, I figured that giant clitoris would not be that be a big drawback as a lesbian.

So I approached my therapist about having a neo-vagina created without altering my giant clit.

She said it sounded reasonable, and would write me a letter if I could find a willing surgeon.

And that's where I'm at right now. I've only approached a few surgeons, but they were so invested in binary gender, (or afraid of lawsuits) that they either freaked at the notion, or insisted that I would be happier with full SRS.

Kind of ironic that if I walked into my doctor, and asked him to remove a leg mostly to conform to a social norm, even though I would need a prostheic, odds are I would be refused - yet this is exactly what they are telling me to do about my 'big clit,' Have it removed (converted) and use a prosthetic (dildo).

Maybe they're right - I wouldn't have to worry about 'penile dysfunction,' but I'm sure that there are other side effects, like frequent Urinary Tract Infections that some of my post-op friends have suffered from.

But I'm in a catch-22 situation because I haven't even been able to get a straight answer with regards to what is even possible surgically, and I'm afraid of alienating the remaining handful of surgeons who I feel are qualified to do the job.

My next step is to go back to my therapist, and ask her to make contact for me, if she's willing. I'm going to get some form of corrective surgery, regardless of where I have to go to get it.

So I have come to the realization that no matter how I identify, I will always be identified as something other than male or female.

So I don't know what that makes me, but trying to describe it with with a mix and match approach within a binary gender system is problematic for me, because I find the language inadequate to describe my experience.

And I find being socially dissected (in order to determine which parts of me are male and which are female) to be extremely distasteful and humiliating.

You are right - I don't identify as a woman anymore, but I don't Identify as a male either - I consider myself a mix of both.

Maybe I will be labeled an Autogynophile by some, but I reject and despise that paradigm.

And I certainly don't see myself as a non-op anymore, since I'm currently deeply considering some form of corrective genital surgery. (Despite the fact that I did call myself non-op, out of convenience and habit, at the start of these threads, it is really an out-dated self definition )

So I'm pre-op, but a pre-op what? I don't know. It probably puts me in the TS camp - though I'll bet there are quite a few that would be offended by my inclusion.

But I hope it explains my problem with tiny boxes - because others keep trying to stuff me back into the 'male' one, which is something I know that I am not.

A male is very unlikely to consider any kind of genital surgery for a second, let alone contemplate the type of surgery that I am for as long as I have, or go through genital electrolysis, as I have started to do.

If I ultimately can't get the surgery I want, I've pretty much decided to go for full SRS.

I don't truly know what the drawbacks would be for a multi - gendered system I'm trying to figure that out -but would hope that I would not be consistently defined by others as 'male.'

All I know for sure is that I don't fit to well in a world with only two genders - but that's the way it is.

"Having transsexual corrective surgery does not "make" one a transsexual any more than putting a cast on a non broken limb makes you a victim of a broken limb."

Very true - but there are some breaks which are not as obvious, and only require a splint - but they are broken bones, none the less, and need to heal in the same manner.

It's no secret that RB and J define me as 'male' due only to my genitalia, and my disregard my actual identity is disregarded, because it doesn't easily fit their paradigm.

Binary gender by it's nature disenfranchises whole populations of people, and it appears, parts of people as well. Although I have to live with it, I really don't have to let it define me.

I'm sure I'll take heat for this - or accused of changing round the goalposts - but I'm not moving them far - one of my earliest comments stated:

"Frankly, if I could have surgery to have both a penis and a cooch, then I would. ( Still looking for an agreeable surgeon.)"

However, what I just described in this comment is as accurate as possible of a description of my GID experience, and I don't care whether that makes me a TG or a TS.

All I know for certain is that it does not make me a 'male,' and I refuse to be labeled as such.

Right on!

Actually, I was looking at the privilege exhibited when one adopts a term like 'classic anything,' since it implies that those who are 'not classic' are somehow inferior.

"Related conditions"

Now there is a term that should be used more when discussing gender politics.

TS and TG are "Related conditions."

"The problem seems to be the intense stigma attached to transsexualism."

Exactly!! That is part of what I was trying to illustrate in my original post - the different ways the larger LGBQI try to distance themselves from the T.

In a microcosm within the T umbrella, there seems to be more of a stigma attached to those who do not conform, as opposed to those that do through SRS.

What has been exhibited clearly in these threads is the intense effort for the 'conformists' to distance themselves from the stigma of the 'non-conformists.'

It seems that this happens because although they are 'related conditions,' those outside of the T will lump everyone together for convenience - even though there will be a big difference in the experience of the different fragments of that community.

But it all has to do with gender bias, and forced conformity to rigid expectations of gender behaviour.

I will keep coming back to this point.

As has been demonstrated, umbrella terms are very flawed, but there is one that might work regardless of the number of genders in the system:

"Victims of Gender Bias."

The only way that this will not be an issue is in a mono-gendered system ( only one sex/gender), but how likely is that to occur?

Until then, I would hope that acceptance of gender/sex variations as a natural part of the biological process, would also help to reduce the stigma of gender/sex 'non-conformity.'

You are perfectly entitled to view it in this way, Rachel.

However, the struggle for power, the Master-Slave dialectic--at the basis of oppression theory--is a much more basic formulation.

Between mainstream society--which is, however, not as monolithic as that term suggests--and those who represent it, say, white, middle-class, middle age men, seek to dominate, even oppress those whom you describe as "non-conformist." I notice you include the "I" much against the wishes of Sophie and other Intersex people.

However, it does not end quite there.

Within populations--I do not believe there are "community(ies)" in the way so many LGBT people suggest--of LGBT people this struggle for dominance continues.

In fact, as Serano has pointed out, something quite interesting happens, "non-conformity" even "transgression" takes the place of the dominant conformity.

And this is the perspective you speak for.

Curiously, in this reversal, those of us do do not share your dominant conformity are subject to the oppression of your perspective; in fact, we are needed to validate your perspective, as has been made clear throughout. You are not the only one who speaks for it. By the way these things work, it has become oppressive of so many, as we have seen throughout these comments.

You are perfectly entitled to describe yourself as "non-conformist" and some of us as "conformist." But, as usual, you haven't taken your argument through to its logical conclusion.

A place like Los Angeles, even Toronto, is quite large enough so that you never have to even contact those who don't pay homage to the ideals you espouse. You should be wary these ideals aren't more than just your delusions.

Hello Rachel

unless you are a religious historian the term "non conformists" is again stigmatizing. I am not a non conformist in this sense I am an individual human being. If the Bilerico project want to list and lump forms of "non conformism" then they have the means to do that. But the "Transgender and intersex" heading that this discussion and article appears under illustrates one point, it is hierarchical and arrogant. Some posters like Iconoclass can appear and start telling those lower down in the LGBTIQ caste system (which is what it really is) what their place is.

I mention religious history for a reason, there were during the 19th and 20th centures a large number of "non conformist" religious traditions within mainly protestant christianity, they came about because often people would walk away from the hierarchical structures of their parent churches and found new ones.

You are probably witnessing the same here, the LGBTIQ movement is incredibly hierarchical and people are saying "Enough is enough" and going their separate ways. In that sense I am a non conformist, and proud of it. Why? well I will not have anyone from any LGBTIQ coalition telling me how to run my life or what they decide I am over an accident of birth.

In exactly the same way I will not be told by some dominant preacher that I was born an abomination due to some generational curse. When a creed or belief system becomes corrupt to the point of branding people things they are not. Then it is time to walk on. I am just a woman with 5 alpha nothing more and nothing less.

You're talking to a brick wall, Florence. People who are invested in convincing themselves or others that men are women will pull all kinds of nonsense out of the air, and defend it until their last breath.