Antonia D'orsay

Sexual Orientation And Trans People

Filed By Antonia D'orsay | April 25, 2010 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Transgender & Intersex
Tags: LGBT, Sexual orientation, Trans, Trans Awareness, transgender, transsexual

I often hear said to me when I am out in the community, or read in comments and articles placed before me on blogs and in magazines and newspapers, a comment from some people who think that they have nothing in common with trans people a certain argument that I find somewhat humorous at best.

It breaks down, basically, to the idea that trans people are about one thing, and the LGB is about sexual orientation (although, when it comes to the B, the LGB is really about being gay enough or lesbian enough in practice as we've seen recently).

And with that idea in mind, I'm going to tell ya'll about something you may not realize, so that you might see that trans is, in fact, about sexual orientation.

To start out with, it is often said that sexual orientation, since it affects the kind of people you are interested in, and those people include soul mates and significant others and husbands and wives and partners and so on, is an important and integral part of a person's life.

That sexual orientation is fundamental to one's sense of identity.

SO, as we currently classify it, is divided into a few rough groups: Opposite, Same, Neither, Both, and All Of The Above.

I'll leave out the all of the above part, since a lot of folks don't quite get that one and focus on the other four.

To understand any of those things, you first have to understand what the opposite and the same and both and the none are referring to, and that idea is usually described as sex.

Saying it's sex, though, is a kind of shorthand, and it holds because it is in fact, more than sex, or I'd be attractive and drawing the interest of a gay men still, just as I did before I transitioned. And with the same response on my part, which is likely to be little or none.

But let's take a moment and look at that idea of sex, and we'll only link to my previous article on what it is that determines sex, as opposed to actually posting it here again.

What sex is a trans person? And, since it is most useful to have an example, let's take the Bilerico contributors: Austen, Dr. Weiss, and me. What sex are these three people?

By many accounts of those who are generally considered "trans aware," the three of us are female. Indeed, ask us, and we'll all tell you we are female and you can deal accordingly.

However, that is, and I beg my fellow contributors patience in this matter as I don't mean to insult them but will simply because of the point being made, a sort of social fiction to some degree for those who do not have the sort of advanced education in matters of gender and sex that those three individuals do.

And, often, people will decide, based on something they learned in school ages and ages ago, that chromosomes determine one's sex. Well, most folks are also going to assume that the three of us are XY.

Of course, it absolutely is an assumption, as to know that for certain requires a costly test to be conducted.

But, still functioning on that basis, one would assume that gay men, who, following this same idea of sex as the defining aspect, would be attracted to us, since they would be attracted to the same sex.

However, as an article a while back noted, especially in the comments, gay men generally don't find trans women to be all that interesting since they are women.

This immediately points out a flaw in the very idea that sexual orientation is strictly about sex. The same thing applies if you identify sex by genitals.

And for trans folk, it becomes even more confusing.

An unpleasant part of transition for transsexuals is often the question of "What's my sexual orientation?" It usually strikes at a key point, and it affects a whole lot of things in one's life.

Including those around you. One of the earliest question my wife (eventually will be an ex wife) asked me on the day I came out to her was "Does this make me a lesbian?"

My change forced her to look at her sexual orientation in a way she had never done before.

This is not uncommon, at all, and there are many trans folk who are involved in committed relationships where they have no sexual interest in each other at all -- and sometimes that means they exist in open relationships.

Sexual orientation is also a surprise to some of us, as there are often many many layers that interfere with it before hand.

Most of my life I've only been attracted to women. Then I transitioned, and I'm suddenly very attracted to men, for the first time ever, and finally I realized I was still very much attracted to both, making me bisexual, and leaning more towards guys.

But if I am not a woman and not a man -- as some people have said, most recently Andrea Lafferty with that whole "she male hybrid" bullshit line of hers -- what is my sexual orientation?

SO is tied, inherently, to the sex and gender of a person. In combination and affected by a multitude of factors.

A few moments of thought on this subject, of tracking the real and basic aspects of what it means to be trans, and you'll note that SO is fundamental to trans people -- to a degree that's very much the same as it is for LGB folks. It is a major part of our identity, and for us, we have to struggle with it being perceptually changed in the eyes of others, and the way that it changes things for others as we change.

It is, as I've noted in the past from the other side, just as critical a part of trans folk as it is for LGB folk, just as gender inequity is a critical part of LGB lives and trans lives.


Recent Entries Filed under Transgender & Intersex:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


As a transwoman, I consider myself lesbian, though people like Lafferty would probably want to put me in a box labeled straight.

Sorry, as a transperson, I just don't fit in boxes very well.

Margaretpoa Margaretpoa | April 25, 2010 1:47 PM

I am very straight, though I have had a straight relationship with a woman and a gay relationship with a man. After I became female, I have so far only had hetero relationships, though I don't discount the possibility of ever having a lesbian experience. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears and I use "gay" or "straight" as defined by society at large. When I was male, having sex with a male was, by definition "homosexual" and now it is by definition "heterosexual". Hey, I don't make the rules. I wish I did...

Um… yeah, I’ve thought of this quite a few times.
I’m biologically unique. I have two blood types and two different sets of genes. I’m just female enough to mimic pregnancy to give both me and my doctor at the time some serious worries.
Think about it, gendered as male at birth and raised that way and one day… the doctor tells you he thinks your preggers????
I’ve always wondered what that converasation would have been like with my dad.
So, would that make me unisexual???

From my veiw, there are 6.5 billion people on this planet and there are 6.5 billion genders and 6.5 billion sexualites. Sexuality and gender can be fluid to a certain point during a persons life time.
But, that’s just me and my view.

Uni- means one or single, so I would think that only Autogynephillics could be Unisexual.

I thought to myself perhaps she is Omnisexual. Although that sounds a little...indiscriminate.

So Gina, how about "Omegasexual"? It has the added benefit literally meaning, Great-"O"-Sexual, but can also mean, "multiplicity"... :)

great column toni, as always.
thanks for this.....

Thanks for this. I'm curious as to your thinking on whether or not you (and I, for that matter) have always been bisexual. I was a dyke for 25 years. Had no romantic interest in men whatsoever. Now, I'm bisexual leaning more towards the guys. So do you think that we've simply uncovered that we were bi when we dealt with our gender identity or do you think that sexual orientation CAN be more fluid, depending upon the catalysts in a person's life?

I don't think anyone in Queerdom would want to admit that sexual orientation can change, considering that this is the crux of all the reparative therapy programs. The thing that we forget is that if sexual orientation is indeed fluid, that means at some point, a person could move from heterosexual to gay as well.

I think one of the big challenges with my transition is that when my wife and I are out in the general public, we are seen as your average heterosexual couple when neither of us identifies as straight at ALL.

Hmmm.

This is a fairly serious question and one I intentionally danced around in writing this article, but ya forced me to confront it anyway. Dang it.

I had opportunity when young to "test" myself in a series of occasional experiences with men, to see if I was interested in them. In another aspect that I have no real evidence regarding, and functioning purely on my experience, I suspect that my knowledge that I was rather different and my quest to figure that out gave me opportunity to see if I might be gay or bi or whatever.

There was nothing for me there. Guys held no interest for me at all, not even on a subconscious level, other than as role models for mimicry and adaptation.

Girls on the other hand, oh yeah, I enjoyed women, was attracted to women, and all the rest. Comparatively, there was not even a 1% interest in men -- for me (as with you) it was all about the gals.

I'm likely too close to the issue to view the shift closely, but it was very early on in transition that I discovered this shift happening. It started roughly 4 months into my transition and to a great degree it's still changing, so there's likely some aspect of gender role involved in it, which can make pretty much anyone uncomfortable.

I did (and still do) find it interesting to note the way my body responded to visual stimuli -- commercials were where I saw it first, and it seriously freaked me out as my interest in men began to increase.

The last six months to a year or so it's shifted again -- the once small degree of interest in women has grown, and is now rather considerable, while my interest in men remains the same. After a really strong crush I had, I had to just accept the inevitable, lol.

If I'm right, and there's a factor of gender role involved (as opposed to expression and ID, both gender and sex), then it's a factor of how we see ourselves as lensed through others, which sorta upsets the standard "narrative" structure so many fight for, and points up the dominant power of social heteronormative patterns in our culture.

If not, then bisexuality is a fluid concept, but of the older "M&J" and "Kinsey" variety, where it can change over long periods of time.

Another possibility is that my sense of self as straight (and, thusly, your sense of self as lesbian) overrode the underlying aspects of our bisexuality in youth to such a degree as to be invisible -- if that's the case, then there's more to worry about long after all the ENDAs and DOMAs and so forth, since that, as well, is a factor of the social powers that weigh heavily on us.

It's an area I've had cause to look at closely -- I really did expect to be this incredibly butch dyke when I started transition, and one thing I've learned to do is to just go with the flow from inside, and that's led me to be the diametrically opposed to my former life kind of girl I am.

That situational heterosexuality you note in the the last bit is something that I've always thought was rather frightening in a social impact sense.

In the end, it comes back to the issues surrounding bisexuality and it's damn near invisibility within the broader community. People intentionally ignore it, and don't really look at it, and especially among the LGT circles, bisexuality is viewed as a "stage", as opposed to an actual orientation outside of the scientific circles.

in short, I have no real answer to that as of yet -- mostly because I'm not certain that I'm "locked in" or anything, that it's still very fluid for me.

Hell, for I know, my bisexuality could just be old habits popping back up, lol


um,personally i doubt one can
"change" orientation.

but closeted g's and l's can sleep with het's, and there is supposedly "latency":

wiki:
"In psychoanalysis:
Latency in child sexuality, a psychoanalytic phase, extending from roughly age seven to twelve, during which sexuality is repressed or sublimated (now more commonly called "middle childhood" and "prepubescence"). See also Freud's model of psychosexual development"

i believe this also applies to adults in some psychologists opinion's.

also, bisexuality CAN be latent,
and probably pansexuality.

doubt we should get into suggesting that one can change one's orientation, that is kinda rightwing talk, people...

(!trying to be respectful to cis g's and L's here who don't experiance any of this, and who are sometimes subjected to "ex-gaying"...
and anyone else.....

ya know,
"just saying",
lol

ps:
i have had councillors who are even IN
the glb community presume my orientation will "change"
(as if i was so differant from them!)
really annoying.

and,ya know,
this is one reason GLB's don't "see" us
as gay in the first place,
if you think about it!
we are not people with "orientations",
( to some of them,) in the FIRST place........

so, YOUR results may vary,
but no one knows why.

and until there is a "gay gene" found,
or WE (trans people)are found to be "changable" orientation-wise by science,place no bets...

Well, that immediately begs the question of did my orientation actually change?

I'm not yet convinced it has. I'm also not convinced that the methodology for dealing with SO is accurate, but that's because I'm too close to the field, lol.

The times, they are a changing...

Personally, I'm into guys and always have been. For me, my sexuality has always be very clear. I was open and out at 16, and transitioned at 20/21.

I still define my sexuality as Queer-sexual because I refuse to pander to the homophobia rampant in chaser guys who want me to assure them there is nothing remotely homo about wanting a gal with some bits. I also refuse to erase a very important part of who I am.

It's also one of the reasons I'm so personally out as trans. My guy and I are seen as a hetero couple, and afforded all the benefits of that. I refuse to allow that to pass unchecked and I won't let some guy hide under my skirts while my gay brothers can't hug each other at the bus stop without someone making a comment.

It makes me a pain to date I'm sure...

Ah, but such a wonderful one!

If they can't take the truth, ya don't need them.

Eric Payne | April 25, 2010 6:52 PM

Are you emotionally attracted to persons of both genders? If so, then the appropriate classification for sexual orientation would be "bisexual."

If you are emotionally attracted to persons of only one gender, but enjoy engaging in sexual relations with a person of any gender... I believe the appropriate term would be "sex addict."

Sexual orientation is innate. Persons may believe they've changed from one to the other; what they've actually done is simply repress their true orientation - and that repression is normally done out of an individual's belief their true sexual orientation is not a "societal norm."

"Transsexual" is not a sexual orientation. It is a medical condition, treatable through a combination of both the physical science of medicine and the science of psychology.

While both "fruits" (especially to the fundamentalist christian conservative), it is a comparison of apples and kiwis; such a comparison is not equal from the outset.

Renee Thomas | April 25, 2010 11:06 PM

See the world in shades of black and white do you Eric?

Good Luck with that . . .

Curious.

Pray tell, sir, how it was that my sexual orientation was repressed, then.

Eric Payne | April 26, 2010 1:14 PM

Gee, Ms D'orsay, I don't know. Let's think for a moment shall we? What actions did you take that may have helped alleviate your emotional attraction to someone of your own gender, and subsequently, engaging in sexual relations with persons of your own gender? Hmmm... let's see...

None that I know of.

Indeed, I've never had to alleviate attraction to someone of the same sex and/or gender since I haven't had them until recently -- and I did nothing to "alleviate" them. I embraced them.

So the question still stands, and now, I'm going to add to it the following:

What makes you think I had attractions to someone of the same sex/gender, and what do you think I did to alleviate this?

Eric Payne | April 26, 2010 1:17 PM

That comment is incomplete, and should read:

"... What actions did you take that may have helped alleviate the "guilt" you felt, based on a societal "norm", concerning your emotional attraction to someone of your own gender, and subsequently, engaging in sexual relations with persons of your own gender?"

I took no actions that may have helped alleviate any guilt, as I felt no guilt, and had no emotional attraction to someone of my same gender, nor have I, engaged in any form of sexual relations with someone of my same gender.

Again, it is only recently that I've had any feeling towards someone of the same gender, and I've felt no guilt regarding such, as there's been no need for me to feel any guilt regarding such. (at worst, I was a tad bit shocked and slightly confused, lol)

So, what makes you think I had attractions to someone of the same sex/gender, and what do you think I did to alleviate this?

Eric Payne | April 26, 2010 1:59 PM

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Ah, I have a fairly good idea of what it appears you are talking around.

However, there is the possibility that you are not suggesting what it appears you are suggesting.

I'd simply like to be certain. Hence the question.

Come on, spit it out. Three others have already dogwhistled the same thing in the thread.

Eric Payne | April 27, 2010 6:09 AM

As Evangelina said:

Sorry Toni, I'm not taking the bait. Everyone know's what I think.

Have a nice day, though.

Ditto.

In which case you, like Evangelina, leave open the interpretive stance of your post.

In your case, you just said transsexual women are gay men who can't handle being gay, and you specifically ignored the history and approach of my own experience.

Which is pretty screwed up, Eric, for someone who claims to be a supporter, and is in fact direct evidence of the opposite (hence my attempt to "bait you" by giving you the opportunity to explain your point more clearly).

What's most humorous is that you stating that is actually used as a point of reference by a group of people to which Evangelina is a member.

Which jeans that you are supportive of them, and they are supportive of you, and the comments made by Aria regarding Blanchard et al are actually more accurately reflective of the position that you and they are now supportive of.

I find all of that, well...

Intriguing.

But not all that surprising. Prejudice is prejudice, and tends to support itself.

Still, thank you for your cooperation.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

well, given that's she's in a small, red, wooden box behind me as I write this, I'd say, um, dead.

Like she has been for several years.

And Brian who? Someone from D11?

In any case, you once again failed to actually address the points I made, Eric.

Which is pretty sad. Especially since instead of such, you ask about my dead mother and speak about someone I have no clue who you are talking about, as if to give the impression that you "know who I am" via someone I have in my circle of friends.

Forgetting that my circle of friends is really really shallow on the guy side of things.

Is this someone who knows one of my roommates?


"The times, they are a changing..."
lol!

"I still define my sexuality as Queer-sexual "
i like this.

yeah, "Queer" is happenin'
as a descriptive, it's so inclusive.

('be nice when all these politics are gone and we can all be "people", and sex and orientation are "post" in the sense of not mattering all the damn time.kinda like post Feminism, lol)

(........so,"Dream On".........)
lol

"If you are emotionally attracted to persons of only one gender, but enjoy engaging in sexual relations with a person of any gender... I believe the appropriate term would be "sex addict"

um,is this a humorous comment?

This is the best line:

"SO, as we currently classify it, is divided into a few rough groups: Opposite, Same, Neither, Both, and All Of The Above."

You are the only other person besides myself to looks at sexual orientation in this manner. I grew up always attracted to girls, then women. I found them wonderful to be with. So the world labeled me as being "straight."

Then I became Monica and who I dated determined what label others would give me. I had a stint where I dated men and women, but I don't now, so I say I'm, "Historically Bisexual."

But after two years, I decided I was still attracted to women far more then men, and I only date them. I now have another transsexual as a partner. Because the world sees us as women, and for me, I didn't stop finding women attractive, so the only thing that changed was the label. I'm now a lesbian to those who do the labeling, and I still love women.

Actually, it's the current view of science as a whole that sees it that way -- and has for the last, oh, 120 or so years.

With statistical reinforcement courtesy of Kinsey.

It's an area I'm still working on... and as it's been 5 years since transition, I think it might take a while.

Looking at it clinically, it seems my gender identity did not properly crystallise at the normal time due to lack of socialisation. I had a 25 mile commute to a boys-only school in the city centre, and depending on the traffic, could arrive 1 hour early or two hours late, after the usual changes from bus to train etc. On average, over 5 hours a day were spent commuting, and after schoolwork and homework, there was no time on weekdays for anything else. It was a 2 hour walk to the nearest corner shop too. I had no idea where any of my school friends lived, bar one - 7 hours walk away.

Between age 12 and 17, I would have talked to girls my age for less than 6 hours, over that time period.

Anyway... at age 17, being a "girl with a boy body" didn't seem too bad a fate. I wasn't interested in sex as such, just desperately wanted a family and children. When I did meet someone, and fell in love, a visit to a fertility clinic confirmed that I was undervirilised, not anatomically normal for male. It was emphasised to me that sex was possible, just, one inch is enough for some, they just had to work at it.

Except - I wasn't male. A guy could have made do. I couldn't, not completely.

I wasn't into guys at all. I'd thought about it, but it was cold oatmeal with no salt, the idea didn't appeal. I never tried any experimentation, any more than I've eaten balut or deep fried tarantula.

The phrase "tragically lesbian" from TransAmerica is inaccurate, but closer than any other description of my married life. We loved each other, so the physiological, and in my case, psychological issues weren't a complete barrier, not quite. I was anorgasmic, but that was no big deal. I could please - that was enough.

I wasn't ready for transition in 2005, I'd done none of the psychological workup. What had been something I could live with at 17 was becoming increasingly intolerable at age 47, but I had a life, a career, a marriage, a son. Even if we'd not even attempted sex for a decade (my son's conception took technical help).

I'm omitting my partner's story here, that's for her to tell, not me. Let's just say that neither of us felt hard done by.

Then... mybodystatedchangingandIcouldn'tpassasmalesoIhadtogofulltimeand
transitioninthreemonths HELP!

That took some intellectual flexibility, but I was too busy doing it to worry about it, running from crisis to crisis until suddenly there weren't any more.

Okay... now what? I'd transitioned, that awful stress was gone. I could now relate to people, take part in the usual socialisation that other humans take for granted. I still had a career, a marriage, and a son. Bringing him up while doing a PhD pretty much precludes a social life.

What little I've managed to fit in has shown me that I'm definitely straight. It's something you can't intellectualise, only feel. When a guy kisses me, I melt, I run on instinct and my body knows what to do even if I'm clueless. I have a Libido now, and while it waxes and wanes depending on how well adjusted my hormone balance is - I'm constantly reminded I'm IS not normally TS there - it now all makes sense. I think if I hadn't had surgical reconstruction, I might have had the feelings, but been too anxious to carry through. I has my first O almost accidentally less than a month after surgery, things were in the right place now.

Intellectually, it shouldn't matter what shaped body you're attracted to. I still find it difficult understanding how others feel that that's so goshdarned important. But if a guy takes me into his arms, and I run my fingers through his chest hair, there's nothing intellectual about it, I can feel my body responding animalistically.

I've yet to integrate that into my "self".

I'm not sure my personal narrative has general applicability, so wondered if it was worthwhile telling it, if it wouldn't provide a useful insight to others. But it may do, as I'm one of Nature's more unusual experiments.

You can see the split here - I'm a middle-aged woman, a "soccer mom", a female academic, a fairly normal, even humdrum "Concerned Woman of Australia"... :-) ... who would like a man in her life, and her bed. But I don't have time, and probably won't until my son is grown. And I'm a scientist, a geek, interested in this whole area, and clinically detached. Those two parts need integrating too.

Antonia what you have succeeded in doing is once again pointing out the huge difference between the GLB and the T. The G, L and B each know what they are and what gender they are attracted to. Yes that may be a bit fluid between the G, L and B but never is there a question about what gender the individual is. Now we come to the T. There are some claiming inter-sex, others claiming xxy, others claiming either xy or xx but pre-birth hormonal effects and still others claiming all sorts of variances. None of those people seem to know what gender they really are and so terms like Bi or Lesbian or Gay lose all meaning for them. The G, L and B go away shaking their collective heads saying "when you figure out what your gender really is please let us know".

So, what you have accomplished (IMHO) is not to wrap your arms around the G, L and B and convince them its all one big happy group but rather to point out that there are irreconcilable differences.

I don't see that at all, we know what gender we are so you cant say that we are confused.
I am gendered female no if and or buts about it, I do keep in touch with the masculine side of my gender, so if you wanted to be snippy you could say I claim both genders. The thing is my masculine half is not nearly as strong asn my feminine, so as to not confuse people I say feminine.

This means I am lesbian, unless I get attracted to a man, which I will never say never to, but it is unlikely, then I would be bi.

Like you said - you try not to confuse people. That's nice.

Deena, many butch lesbians question their gender. There are lesbians that also identify as TG Butch, Third Gendered Butch, Butch-as-gender or just genderqueer. But they're still butch lesbians and lesbians date them. Actually there's a whole community around butch/femme lesbian relationships.

Yes, and pray that you never get cornered by one of the old-school lesbians who see everything thru that filter only...

Or possibly, instead of an exclusive social club with membership based on the combination of your own sex and the one you're attracted to, some see this is a civil rights movement with the premise that rights and social acceptance shouldn't be based on things like an individuals sex, gender, or the sex or gender of who they love?

Deena,

Many cis and trans LGB people spend years or even decades sorting out their orientation, thanks to heteronormativity teaching them that same sex attractions are wrong.

Many trans people know what their gender is from an early age. Many do not because cisnormativity teaches them that sex assigned at birth is an overriding reality that one does not ever deviate from.

The idea that trans people are confused about what gender we are is a cissexist construct that fails to take into account the fact that transphobia and cissexism constantly constructs transness as deceptive as wrong, just as the idea that cis and trans LGB people are confused about their same-sex attractions.

These are very similar forces, so it's kind of disappointing that you don't recognize the way you're reinforcing them against trans people while you would (I imagine) object to them being levied against cis LGB people.

Oh Lisa I almost missed this. Please define the "trans GLB people" term you used. I want to make sure I'm not confused about that.

Oh, and I apologize if I opened some festering wound you are nursing. It was not my intention to upset you. My mother always cautioned me that some people are easily upset.

Trans LGB = Trans people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, something I think you're perfectly aware of. Or are you trying to not-so-subtly imply that trans people don't really have orientations like cis people do?

I'm not upset, and you didn't poke at a festering wound. That was unnecessary and patronizing.

Oh you are tender aren't you. Now were you using trans as in transgender or transsexual? I'm sorry I wasn't specific about the point of confusion.

You are unbelievable. Are you ever going to stop whining about trans people?

Lisa I have never whined in my life. Yes I am a Ditz and I'm sure you are much more educated but no I never learned to whine.

Back to basics. My original point (in case you missed it) was that Antonia made an excellent case for why the T should not be aligned with GLB. I thought it was brilliantly done. In fact it was so subtle that I was very impressed.

If you're going to tell me what my reactions are, then I'm not sure what's wrong with telling you what your reactions are.

I think you completely misunderstood Toni's post, but then I think you bring a transparent agenda to every trans discussion.

I don't understand why you say the terms for sexuality lose all meaning. I identify as male and a man. I am attracted to other men. Therefore, I'm gay. It's really very simple.

Once I've physically transitioned (and to a lesser extent now, since I pass already) I can expect to be treated like any other gay man in any situation where I get to keep my pants on. There are additional complications and vulnerabilities that become apparent when the pants come off, but those aren't especially relevant to politics and policy. For all practical purposes, as far as anyone who's not sleeping with me is concerned, I fit neatly in the "G" box. And trans lesbians and bisexuals fit just as neatly in the "L" and "B," or could if they wanted to (some trans lesbians are lucky enough to be able to keep their straight-identified partners post-transition, and thus don't have a strong motivation to claim a queer identity).

Straight trans people are the only ones whose identification could reasonably be seen as problematic for the LGB community. Those who pass have the same "passing privilege" as non-trans bisexuals in heterosexual relationships. There's a legitimate dialogue to be had about how straight, non-queer-identified, passing trans people (especially those who voice some degree of homophobia) fit in queer communities. But they're a small minority whose unique and privileged position shouldn't be used to argue against the non-straight and/or non-passing majority of trans people.

Short answer...We don't.

I don't see how straight trans folk that pass for their gender would be any different than gays and lesbians that pass for straight. Except for when it comes to certain legal privileges depending on state.

Some gay people don't want to be part of the queer community. Some gays and lesbians actually get very upset if you include them in "queer" or use queer instead of gay and lesbian. Also see: g0ys

Without commenting on the situation for better or worse, I think this is how they are different: If you are gay or lesbian,even if you pass as str8 by appearance and mannerisms, you get outed if you mention some romantic situation, if it involves someone taken as the same sex as you. The str8 trans person, tho, who passes in appearance and mannerisms, can talk about crushes, bf/gf, spouse, whatever, and still be seen as non-LGBT.

But can a straight trans person talk about the period of their life before they transitioned without outing themselves?

hmm, good point! :)

nope, i think not...

And that is always an issue, esp for ppl who transition later in life. Ppl often talk about their past, esp with friends, so if you live that way, then you have to contort to at least some degree to avoid it.

Evan, can you respect the desire reality that some cis gay men would not be attracted to you because you have a vagina or a surgically created genitals? This question was asked before and met with hysterics of bigotry. But if all of this is about being truly authentic about sex and gender, how do you deal with that reality and the reality that many gay men enjoy being nude in a sexual environment with other cis penis-bearing males? I presume you support these other expressions of genuine sexual rights which just happen to exclude you and other transmen. Someone later claims that sexual orientation is about attraction to gender -- surely it is about attraction to gender AND sex for many cis males, homo and hetero?

jack - I replied to you below, but it didn't follow the thread. Trying again as a registered user.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 27, 2010 11:34 PM

"how do you deal with that reality and the reality that many gay men enjoy being nude in a sexual environment with other cis penis-bearing males? I presume you support these other expressions of genuine sexual rights which just happen to exclude you and other transmen."

While not Evan I want to answer your questions.

How do i deal with it? I tell those men to be like their fathers and grandfathers when they first had to deal with mixing races in nude environments.. to tough it out and get over it. To be like men who had to deal with women entering their work environments and education environments. To tough it out and get over it.

I don't diusmiss how hard it might be for them, oh no. Because i'm certain it was hard for the racists to share space with other races, for the seists to do so with other sexes of past eras. Antiseptic stings. Fairness can be uncomfortable and even painful at first. But it's whats right.

A persons sexual rights is their rights over themselves not over others. And the right to choose your company is only valid in private places, never public ones or even private ones where any public bussiness is conducted.

Why do you hate the Jews?

My question is as bizarre as your reponse. What does a gay male sexual space have to do with racism other than as a device for you to vent your anger at being excluded sexually from something that has nothing to do with race or anything but genitalia!!! Are genitalia a race? Tell that to black people and see how they respond. Your comment is very sad and very manipulative.

btw where do you come from??? Grandfathers with issues about being nude with men of colour -- are you from the old deep South or South Africa?? Or as I imagine you twist historical anecdotes to make sweeping generalizations to make yourself less angry.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 29, 2010 4:30 AM

"Why do you hate the Jews?"

I do not.

"My question is as bizarre as your reponse."

Only if you had problems comprehending my response.

"What does a gay male sexual space have to do with racism..."

and sexism.. you did get that part of my post didn't you? That the dying of a prejudice and the overcoming of it's discomfort works the same. The pain every person raised with bias suffers when forcved to suffer exposure to fairness is realand dies the same way.

"other than as a device for you to vent your anger at being excluded sexually from something"

I'm not. Cause I'm not actually excluded. But others far more men and far more gay than I am are. Maybe you should be carefull of your assumptions?

"that has nothing to do with race or anything but genitalia!!!"

Except of course that it works on the exact same mechanism.

"Are genitalia a race?"

This bit may blow your mind... Transgender appears to be genetic, an inheritable biological characteristic. So the coerced sterilisation laws of most of the worlds transgender and intersex legislation actually meets the definition of a genocidal practice! Ponder that a while.

"Tell that to black people and see how they respond."

Like my black family members? Strangelky they understand what coerced sterilisation means, just like the Gypsy family members.

"Your comment is very sad and very manipulative."

There is nothing sad nor manipulative in understanding how the unraveling of prejudice works and how prejudices are related. I suggest you broaden your understanding a bit.

"btw where do you come from???"

Australia. Rural NSW in particular.

"Grandfathers with issues about being nude with men of colour"

Look up our Aboriginal Freedom Rides, segregated public swimming pools et al.

"-- are you from the old deep South or South Africa??"

Even a country that undid discrimination by REFERENDUM like mine has still racism problems, diminishing, but not gone yet.

"Or as I imagine you twist historical anecdotes to make sweeping generalizations to make yourself less angry."

Nope. No twisting or sweeping. Sorry if my points went over your head but i'm sure you'll catch on soon. Maybe read my old blogpost http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/2008/10/antiseptic-stings.html and you might start to get my point.

I'm not opposed to the idea that sexual orientation is fluid and can change. I'm just opposed to the idea that fluidity is automatically true for everyone.

I've met more than one bisexual person that insists everyone is bisexual and anyone's sexual orientation can change. Actually there are lesbians that say this as well. All the studies one can cite it'll be 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 10 women reportedly change how they identify over their lifetime. And somehow this is magically transformed into 10 out of 10. I don't know if it's supposed to explain bisexuals or explain late-in-life lesbians (oh god yes, new category). I'm not sure why one's own experience can't explain one's own experience.

Why oh why, must it be all our nothing, one or the other? Isn't that what got us in this mess to begin with? "9 out of 10 people are straight, so everyone must be straight." Variances just happen because life just happens and life doesn't really care about sticking to whatever plans or definitions we make.

I don't want to be a "special kind of lesbian." I am anyway (gold star lesbian), and I think it's kind of silly.

(I'm told I sound ranty and take over discussions like some know it all gay internet god. I'm just...pondering. I swear.)

well, hopefully not also a Lone Star, lol :)

That would depend on what Lone Star means. ;) If it means someone who's only had one lesbian girlfriend, that'd be me.

Before that, I was just a straight girl magnet. The awesomeness of being genderqueer means I just cause other people to question their sexual orientation.

Actually, it's not that awesome...unless one is into toaster collecting.

Lone Star is only ever having had sex with one person, tho perhaps it can apply to dating, too...guess it can be bad or good, depending on your perspective...

i guess when you have a enough toasters, you can open your own bank, maybe? at any rate, in my opinion, it is nice to have someone be attracted, even if it isnt going anywhere for whatever reason, tho i am sure in the circumstances you describe, it has led to lots of frustration...

Carol :)

"... they're a small minority whose unique and privileged position shouldn't be used to argue against the non-straight and/or non-passing majority of trans people." -Evan

It is this small minority whose medical condition and narrative is being used to legitimatized what is considered (by mainstream society), odd or abnormal behavior.

If one would argue that "trans" people should be afforded "special rights" like the right to enter into private spaces reserved for women, because they are "special", then that arguement would stand or fall on its own merits. HOWEVER to argue that a man should be allowed to violate this privacy because he is wearing a wig and a skirt, or is "feeling particularly femme today", is truely, IMHO, a non starter.

Evangelina | April 26, 2010 6:25 AM

You know all this division and sub division based on self diagnostic indivisualistic trivia is actually no one elses business and really as a Primary Transsexual I really don't care about any of it because at the end of the day, Gay, Lesbian, Bi, gender queer, transgender, queen, sissyboy, butch, transbian all means damn all to me. I simply don't care. You can all do what you like, I do not have a dog in this fight.

Just so long as you leave my narrative, my sexual orientation and that of my partner, in my case husband, out of your nonsense, I don't give a flying fig who what or why you are. I just don't care I do not have an interest. But while there are folks writing here that they are "transsexual" even though they retain most of the male sex markers and male genitalia, I and those like me will continue to protest and assert our exclusion from your ridiculaous claims.

This thread with one or two notable exceptions is filled with psuedo intellectual junk, including the initial essay. Just my opinion.

Evengelina,

It would seem as though you do really care, otherwise you would not grace us with your presence enough to comment and your blog further shows you do care.

It also seems you are hypocritical in your denouncement of "so called transexuals" with this comment:

"But while there are folks writing here that they are "transsexual" even though they retain most of the male sex markers and male genitalia,"

Isn't there a member of your hallowed group that has not yet completed her transition and technically still have said male genitalia?

So why is it ok to protect her in your group and yet lash out at others in a similar situation?

How are others, who are in the same boat as your friend, who are working toward correcting their bodies any different? How is the author of this article different?

Actual women of transsexual history, you know, the ones who fixed natures mistakes and have actual female bodies, have sexual orientations that reflect the world in general, in other words, the full range.

Sexual orientation groups based on same sex attractions or bisexual natures have absolutely no direct connection to these women. Your entire essay reads as disjointed, your point muddy as the Mississippi at flood stage at best and self serving to your personal agenda of tying a knot of transness to sexual orientation that won't stay tied. The single "education" point by trans activists that actually stands up is "sexual orientation and gender identity are two entirely different and unrelated things". Now you would join Zucker and Blanchard to claim otherwise? What have you been smoking?

I am a member of the LBG community as a bisexual woman, period. It is more than enough.

Sexual orientation is innate - the contrast/comparison of the gender of the person to whom another person is emotionally drawn in relation to that person's gender. Being emotionally attracted to a person of the same gender is a homosexual orientation. Heterosexual orientation is that of being emotionally attracted to a person of the opposite gender. The bisexually oriented are capable of emotional relationships with persons of either gender.

Though the act of sex does have an emotional component, it is primarily a series of physical responses - when an area of the body is manipulated in a certain way, there is a natural physical response. The heterosexually, homosexually and bisexually oriented can, and do, engage in sexual relations based on that physical response... but that's all it is; an act of physicality.

Patricia Harlow Patricia Harlow | April 26, 2010 2:47 PM

I completely disagree with the statement 'trans is, in fact, about sexual orientation." The rest of the article is good about the confusion and perception of SO fluidity throughout some persons' transition.

Really, the issue is an historic one and a problem with words. 'Hetero' means different, 'homo' means same, and 'bi' means two. You can add 'a' to mean 'no' and 'omni' for everything. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Asexual, and Omnisexual. This pretty much covers all possibilities of sexual attraction.

Of course, this was all designed around the concept of a binary gender system, which we all now know to be completely wrong. Also until recently Sex and Gender were synonymous to the layperson, also wrong. So it makes sense the the public conception of all these terms is probably askew, and will take a longtime to self-correct.

In an effort to separate out the gender from the sex, the terms Gay and Lesbian made their bastions. Each one means the exact same thing sexually, the difference is the gender.

Enter trans people, which introduces the concept gender fluidity and a changing sex over a period of time. All of a sudden, all these terms are worthless in the context of transpersons, largely due to the 'over time' variable. Technically, they are worthless for everyone since there are only a small few that are 100% M/F on the gender spectrum, but that's just a technicality, we aren't ready for that as a culture yet.

This applies to all trans persons. It doesn't matter if you have had your genitals corrected, if someone wants to get down to it you will always have one chromosome to betray you.

I think the best way to refer to a trans persons sexuality is 'Attracted to...". That leaves no room to question as your sexuality becomes defined by your attraction and not by yourself.

So, that's why I disagree that trans is about sexual orientation. Now I can see an argument in that transsexuals can be an object of attraction, independent of gender. Maybe in that sense trans is about SO, but it wouldn't fall with in the Homo-Hetero environment for the reasons listed above.

Karen Collett | April 27, 2010 8:36 AM

There is also the alternate terminology gynosexual and androsexual; from the relevant Wikipedia article:


Later the words "androphilia" and "gynephilia" ("gynaekophilia") become terms to describe one's sex/gender orientation independently of his/her sex/gender; this usage is useful especially for talking about orientation of trans people (regardless of which age range of attraction), as well as for generally studies of attraction to men or attraction to women.

I think the best way to refer to a trans persons sexuality is 'Attracted to...". That leaves no room to question as your sexuality becomes defined by your attraction and not by yourself.

No. I'm a lesbian, a woman attracted to women.

I'm not "gynephilic", a word constructed to describe trans people's attractions while implying that trans people's sexes are problematic and disputable. There's no need to maintain a construct that reinforces that trans people are not really the sex they really are.

Nope. I'm gay. Not "homosexual," which nobody uses but researchers and homophobes. Not "androphilic." Just gay.

My gender identity is an important part of my sexual attraction because I am wired for gay relationships. Not just relationships with men, but relationships with men as a man. That's a critical bit of information, because it defines the type of men I can have successful relationships with: other gay men.

My gender identity isn't fluid. I've never been a woman. I'm constitutionally incapable of a functional straight relationship over the long term because I'm not a woman. My two best relationships in girl-mode were with partners who later came out as gay. No matter what I do with a straight guy, there's no reconciling my need for a symmetrical gay relationship with his need for a complementary, male/female, yin/yang dynamic. My gender matters in defining my sexuality.

It's nice to see this put as articulately as you have. Being trans myself, I've had people ask me if that makes me gay (being a trans woman and all). To which I usually will respond "No, my sexuality does not have any bounds but it's best if I just tell you I'm bisexual leaning towards girls."

I only say bisexual as most people I've talked to (even some in the LGBT community) don't actually understand what a pansexual is. I've tried explaining to people what a pansexual is...but...there isn't enough tylenol for me after that.

Evangelina | April 26, 2010 5:24 PM

Jane If I say anything at all about the person you refer to I would reveal private matters that are not public property and certainly not for me to discuss here.

I've said my piece on this and the views of me and those like me are well known here I will leave it at that. Radicalbitch stated the reality of Classic Transsexuality extremely well. If anyone wishes to understand fully that sexual orientation is irrelevant to which sex you are I suggest you visit her blog.

Jane you are correct I do care but I care only that ridiculous transgender dogma is prevented from further contaminating transsexual narrative.

My narrative is a transsexual narrative, though.

Evangelina | April 26, 2010 8:54 PM

Sorry Toni, I'm not taking the bait. Everyone know's what I think.

Evangelina | April 26, 2010 9:00 PM

Have a nice day though.

Today I am having a nice day. Yesterday, not so much. But thanks for the positive encouragement.

Yeah, we know what you think. You made it clear, above, that you don't think I'm a transsexual, for one.

You made it clear that you don't think many of the other people here are transsexuals.

You also made it clear that you think someone can steal your life experience from you (which, to me, seems sorta odd, since if someone were to steal that life experience from you, you wouldn't have it any longer). Which is a rather silly concept that has no real merit -- a narrative cannot be stolen.

What you mean is that you don't like people who's narrative differs from yours in some ways but has similarities to yours to claim any sort of social equality with you.

Which tells us that you don't support equality for all people.

Yes, Evangelina, we do know what you think. You've said tons, and while many who traipse through the thread might bot be aware of such, some of us are.


Actually, your friend, is quite open on her blog about her situation - so it's not exactly private information.

I wasn't asking to discuss her private information but rather wanting to understand better why you defend and protect her while lashing out at everyone else in transition who are in similar places in transition. Can you answer me this since you side stepped it last time?

Then Evangelina, you are a complete hypocrite in defending your friend while attacking others in the same situation.

Your whole argument lacks any weight when you are a hypocrite.

What you are trying to do is to spark a fight about definitions that you think you can win.

It's pretty simple. Actual transsexualism is a birth condition, it is not defined by process, i.e. someone decides to "transition". While the specifics of what creates a medical transsexual are not defined in psych literature (why would they be?), that is not a call to pretend that it isn't commonly held that transsexuals are born different from other people.

In this, being born transsexual is similar to being born gay; neither "birth condition" is officially acknowledged due to politics, but anyone with a bit of common sense knows it is true. You cannot create a transsexual by changing clothes and having surgery any more than you can turn a straight man gay by employing a similar stereotypical "gender marker" arguments.

Not everyone who claims to be "transsexual" is actually transsexual, and changing the definition to include crossdressers who say they are "surgery tracked" is outrageous. A person born transsexual who hasn't had surgery yet is not the same as a "pre op transsexual" of the pedantic definition. Crossdressers who decide to "go the extra mile" and talk about surgery are not the same as born transsexuals who are on the path to fixing their problem.

Process does not create a relationship between crossdressers and real transsexuals, and it's high time that falsehood is put to rest.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 28, 2010 12:33 AM

The requisite study on a BIOLOGICAL relationship between crossdressers and Transsexuals CAN be done, simply test a representative sample of crossdressors for the same gene, neuron count, neural architecture and neural activity differences found in transsexuals to see if they appear in lesser milder and varient forms in the crossdressers than in the transsexuals but greater than in the cis population. (of course as multiple genes are predicted to be part of the process it may need redoing when more genes are found linked to the phenomena)

This study HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE.

So stop acting like it has. You cannot treat as fact an UNTESTED hypothesis. We have a may-or-may-not-be link in causation which only further science will resolve and we have cultural and historical and human-rights links. Deal with it.

What would a crossdresser know about transsexualism? Thanks for your (outside) opinion.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 29, 2010 4:38 AM

Lol. Your rhetoric cannot make an UNTESTED hypothesis a tested truth.

And i don't need to be transsexual to know that, just to have paid attention in year 7 science class in any single sole science lesson for the next 6 years.

It's the most basic part of scientific literacy.

An UNTESTED hypothesis is not a known truth.

You put forward a mere possibility (not even the theoretical probability, note the Bi-Gender part of Zoe Brains transsexual neurology blogposts and you'll see something you wont like) not anything like a tested proven fact.

TEST the UNTESTED hypothesis and then you'll have something to talk about.

Blah blah blah Aria - you and your ilk are no better than anyone else - your self proclaimed special status as "true" transsexuals is just a way of putting down others so your ego can feel special...

You and evangelina sit and defend one of your kind who is in a similar situation to the author of this article and yet attack others, such as the author - nothing but a bunch of hypocrites

ATG is not in a similar situation to the author of this ridiculous post. That's the whole point.

Even the APA's DSM committee can understand there is a "clear difference", yet the transgender (full time crossdressers) remain willfully ignorant. If you can't see that, then there is little left to say. Carry on I suppose.

You are correct. She has a job.

However, she is no more and no less a transsexual than I am.

And I've had enough of your nonsense. There are a crapload of TOS violations in this thread, and I'm going to do something about it unless I see some major apologies going on.

Now.

Eric Payne | April 28, 2010 8:35 AM

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

battybattybats battybattybats | May 6, 2010 8:39 PM

Except though there's the biologists who say the whole gender spectrum may have biological causation.

jack - I absolutely respect people's anatomy-based preferences.

There are trans men (mostly coming out of the lesbian community, where this sort of assertion is acceptable) who claim that we should be able to expect everyone to find us sexually compatible, regardless of our anatomy. But as a gay man who grew up and was socialized among men, I have to say frankly that, as it relates to the gay male community, that attitude is total BS.

In the gay community (and among men in general, but it's amplified among gay men) physical details matter. And if I don't meet someone's criteria for acceptability as a sexual partner, then they're not going to want to have sex with me. It doesn't mean they see me as less of a man or less of a person, and they may very well want to be friends with me, they just aren't interested in that way.

I get that. I feel the same way about other categories of gay men - bears, for instance, are just a non-starter. But just as there are plenty of gay men who are into bears, there are a respectable number who don't particularly care if their partner has a penis. Enough to go around. And that's all that matters.

Thanks for your honesty and for not going hysterical at the topic. You are correct that many men who label themselves as queer do not care about genitals -- all the cis men who work here on this blog have gone on record on other threads that they have no genital preference, have enjoyed sex with transmen with vaginas and indeed claimed that any men who do not do this are bigots and anti-trans and suppressing something. All the other women and trans people on this blog go further and castigate to the point of hatred any mention that some (most) cis males are genital aroused -- ie, base their attraction on genitals as much as gender. This is a fact but it is hated and attacked as if it were an assault on transpeople. I thought sexual and gender liberation was about everybody getting real -- not people imposing their real on everyone else. Thanks for respecting the reality of most gay men's desire which is a fact and not a personalization -- just the way as a cis gay man I have no personal reaction to the fact that even though I am attracted sexully to all cismen with penises, 90% of them are only attracted to women and vaginas and not penises and men. Just is. I don't need to make this political and rant because of this. Many transmen seem unable to do the same in relation to gay men. You seem more mature and reality based. There is a lot of talk about cis men's sexuality on a blog where 90% of the commenters are not cis men!

jack said:

"All the other women and trans people on this blog go further and castigate to the point of hatred any mention that some (most) cis males are genital aroused -- ie, base their attraction on genitals as much as gender."

all?

really? REALLY?

i guess i must have written *my* post in my sleep...

Why would you find it strange that there is a lot of discussion of male sexuality here by people without penises? That 90% of cis men you spoke about who are not attracted to other men spend a huge amount of time talking about tits, ass and vaginas. As a side note are you statistically aroused by big percentages? You seem to like big ones.

Cis men aren't the only ones who feel that way, jack. In terms of patterns of sexual attraction and arousal, I have far more in common with the men who aren't attracted to me than with those who are.

I'm too new to the site to respond to your generalizations about the people here, but it's not uncommon for female views of sexuality to be taken as the norm in women-dominated spaces. And most spaces that discuss queer theory and gender are women-dominated because of the history of the fields. It can be a little frustrating to be on the defensive, but given that male views of sexuality are the default nearly everywhere else and that women often find themselves having to defend the legitimacy of their sexual experience, I can understand why they might be tired of having to hear about us.

That being said, my experience has been that people can understand both sides, but it's more effective to talk to them rather than complaining about them.

Hmm transsexual is all about sexual orientation. Right. Anyone who says that and claims to be "transsexual" needs to re-examine their priorities.

This debate seems to center around the tensions that come about when personal desire has to engage legal categories (the LGB/T). I agree with what I am inferring from Antonia - that desire does not easily and fluidly embody legal categories (social fictions). Persons, conditioned by individual experiences and specific desires, can be compelled to identify with one category contra others, but this does not require a lifetime commitment to be true. To move forward, queer politics might need to refocus either its political dependence on the categories or its belief in their permanence.

To clarify my point, let me quote from Dyss's blog:

"Well, Leigh, that’s self deception. If you are a transsexual, you cannot be like those others — those cissexuals. Ever. No matter how hard you try and how much effort you put into it."

Now, it may strike the reader as odd that a supporter of "transgender" would lecture someone else on self-deception, but that is routine. Because the average "TG" person does not know what transsexual really means and does not grasp what it is to be born different, they often tell us we are delusional. This, coming from someone who is "living as a woman" somehow but isn't a woman- by their own rhetoric.

The fact that they have no idea what we are talking about when we say we are just men and women who were born with a particular issue and have treated it should let people know the real score here. Who are you going to listen to on this topic- people who claim TS with dubious "tg" redefined "ts" credentials, or people who have actually experienced the problem, lived with it, gone through the treatment process... and moved past it?

There is such a thing as a transsexual condition; it is not defined by actions but by a state of being present at birth. It is entirely different than whatever drives the "transgender", or full time crossdressers, to do what they do. It is highly insulting to be lectured on this topic by someone who has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to our condition. And insult to injury to be called hateful and bigoted for taking back our narrative and our truth.

The anger at the "transgender" pushers was entirely their own doing, yet they projected their culpability onto "transsexual" people. And now they are doing the same thing to gays and lesbians in the main. They have moved beyond tormenting us, and have begun tormenting the larger GLB community by insisting that everyone is "gender variant" due to their supposed failure to conform to standards posited by the "transgender" gender theory.

How long will GLB people accept this redefinition of themselves? How long will false political correctness silence the GLB? There must be vast numbers of GLB people who feel outraged at the idea that they must subordinate their fight for equal rights to the crossdresser movement. How long will they remain silent?

It is entirely different than whatever drives the "transgender", or full time crossdressers, to do what they do.

How do you know it's entirely different if you don't know what drives the transgender or crossdresser to do what they do? I know, but I'm just wondering how you know.

How long will GLB people accept this redefinition of themselves?

The butch dykes, drag queens and flamers are considered to be the stereotypical gays. And they're the stereotype precisely because they were the first ones out and defining themselves.

Lecturing? Pot -> Kettle.

If you have to surgically excise the quote from all context in order to make it support your point, then it doesn't exactly make your argument very convincing.

For a bit more context:


Yet, even with that, I read how you describe yourself as a transsexual, which is inherently different — and it is a lie, be it to yourself or to others, to deny that simple fact, for if you were not different you wouldn’t be a transsexual — and then say that you wanted to be like people who are not transsexuals.

Well, Leigh, that’s self deception. If you are a transsexual, you cannot be like those others — those cissexuals. Ever. No matter how hard you try and how much effort you put into it.

And I’m well aware that you will refuse to see that simple truth, and you will argue it, and you will build arguments and reasons and rationale’s on top of it.

I find it interesting that I was correct, too.

Antonia I in no way support the position of the likes of Radical Bitch and Ariablue but I think it is wrong for you to make claims like that. Maybe you can't be like a cissexual person but who do you think you are to decide what other people can or cannot be? It sounds to me like you are saying that transsexual people can never be 'real' men or women and I think that is a disgusting attitude to take. Do you realize the effect your words can have on someone who may be going through a tough time in their transition?

Furthermore this article of yours is so convoluted that I can't figure out your point. You really need a editor because this is far from the first time you've had this problem which is a shame since when you write clearly your articles are interesting and informative.

Hi Wendy.

In fact, I did not say that they were not real men or women.

I said they can never be cissexual -- which does not mean "real", and the idea that it might mean such -- which is required for the inference you make -- is itself based in the idea that it's possible for trans people to not be real.

What I am saying is that a lot of what those people base their ideas on is the concept that as long as they claim they are "normal" (which is their term for cissexual people, not mine), they are. They say they magically stop being trans, but at the same time they want to retain the title of transsexual for themselves.

if that seems pretty contradictory and sounds as if they are saying that they are "normal" and everyone else is "abnormal", that's because they are saying that.

This is why the context is important. I wasn't about to repost the full comment thread here that was linked to, but when you go over there, you'll see that is part of a complex commentary that goes to their foundational premises, which ultimately are that they are different from everyone else while being the same as everyone else -- the "normal", the standard, and everyone else is just a crazy abnormal scary sort.

to the side point, I agree -- the article is a bit off. I've done much better, and I'm not going to make any excuses other than some days I'm not on the ball, and I've been distracted by the law thing which has me really peeved.

Antonia

Thank you for clearing that up. I understand what you were saying now.

wtf toni ..

why are you posting comments you made on your own blog, on this blog, totally out of context!

Are you that insecure ?

So wait, didn't Ariablue post a comment from Toni's blog out of context in the first place? And didn't Toni try to add context?

Is this the standard tactic where you pretend all provocation doesn't exist and act like a comment you don't like has no context?

What I posted was not out of context at all. The meaning was clear, and Toni tried to add some spin, just like you did just now. You can read the exchange for yourself there if you feel like it.

Toni didn't add spin. She added what Leigh said so that her response would make more sense.

Leigh tried to add spin. You quoted Toni's comment from her own blog out of context and added your own spin to it. Leigh attacked Toni for expanding on your quote, as if it's okay for you to quote comments from Toni's blog, but it's not okay for Toni to quote comments from Toni's blog.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

It was out of context when you decided to quote just enough to make your point, but left out anything that would contradict it.

How is what Toni was replying to when she said that taking things out of context? How is it adding spin? How were you not adding spin when you snipped a tiny bit of text out of an entire blog and used it to demonstrate the entirety of Toni's position and politics? Do you know what a fundamental attribution error is?

Can you brook any disagreement with your dogma without calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid, or calling them crossdressers, or turning "transgender" into a slur? Are you really trying to defend a postage stamp of land you call "true transsexualism" from everyone who doesn't meet your requirements to be transsexual?

Nice try Harney, but that is patently false. Is this the best you can do?

How can it be patently false when you're doing exactly those things in this post? Is that the best you can do?

But you know what? Go ahead. Your war against anyone who doesn't fit your narrow territorial view of who gets to really be transsexual certainly doesn't in any way serve to reinforce institutionalized transphobia, right? It's not as if you really believe that trashing other trans people will somehow buy you greater acceptance on their backs or anything, is it? You're not promoting a toxic, divisive environment intended to create false us vs. them distinctions, right?

You're just being "honest" or whatever it is you tell yourself to justify this crap.

I hope you get over these politics someday. Because right now? You're not helping.

She "thinks" she is helping when in fact it's self delusion.

Yea, it was way out of context.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 28, 2010 12:22 AM

You have NO IDEA what drives a full time crossdresser.

So you CANNOT say that it's unconnected to transsexualism with any kind of truth.

Until biological studies into crossdressers are done to rule out a link then scientific method demands we cannot exclude the possibility, in fact the current-science probability! (what else would a milder case of biological cross-sexed neurology look like than Genderqueer and bi-gender huh? Crossdressing as a mild form of transsexualism is PREDICTED by the existence of cross-sexed neurology! Just as Autism comes in degrees of severity so too do other neurological variations!)

ALL rights needs are subject to the equal rights of ALL others. It's the basis of Rights! If you remove the requirement for equality you ERASE the validity of ANY rights! It becomes an intrinsic hypocracy, valueless, a lie.

Fairness is not unfairness Ariablue!

And till science is done on whether or not there is a biological causation to crossdressing connected to transsexualism in any way (and remember that the gene discoveries for FtM and MtF are DIFFERENT GENES) then it's to lie to claim that no connection exists. Your making a claim on an unproven UNTESTED hypothesis.

Claiming as true an UNTESTED hypothesis? Thats fraud. Please stop making fraudulant unscientific claims about me, my community, my PARTNER! You want to make that claim that theres no causal connection then you get that biological compartive study done first!

We have cultural and historical and shared human rights claims of connection anyway. And till the causation study is done by competant biologists then we have a Maybe on the causation that neither can claim more than till the science is done.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 28, 2010 12:50 AM

Deena crossdressing is in every facet not intrinsicly unethical as it interferes with no-one elses rights for one to crossdress. It's covered by the basic liberty of the right to self-expression as well as a host of cultural rights. Bestiality however involves sexual contact with a being unable to give truly informed and uncoerced consent and so is intrinsicly Unethical.

Just like homosexuality = ok and pedophilia = wrong for the SAME reasons. Or heterosexual consenting adults having sex = right but rape = wrong. Or any choice of religion for the self = right but coerced convertion = wrong. See now? The same rule makes right right and wrong wrong.

Obvious really once you learn about the basic idea. I hope now you see the massive difference.

I'll happily accept your apology for your unthinking extraordinarily offensive and totally baseless comparison now.

I know it's hard sometimes to tell absolute right from absolute wrong when so many people use unthinking rhetoric till it becomes reflexive. The enlightenment was hundreds of years ago true but a lot of people haven't caught up yet and a lot do their darndest to stop us all from understandinbg this pretty simple system.

I'm sure your deeply embarassed now but i bear you no grudge, everyone says something embarassingly stupid sometimes. Still you don't need to run away and hide or dig yourself deeper by trying to defend the indefensible. You can overcome your embarassment by learning and understanding and you'll find a world of sense opens up before you, and you may make friends and allies you would never have dreamed of before.

You are funny. I accept that you have a morality problem with bestiality. I certainly do not feel embarrassed in any way nor did I intend to insult you but if you over react to such a simple quip what can I say. Chill out. Take a few deep breaths and recognize that morality lines are drawn at different places by different people. Neither you nor I have any divine authority to impose our own morality on others. My comment was simply a short hand way of pointing that out but it seems that you read it as something else. Perhaps the next time we interact I will have to be more careful and spell it out to avoid misunderstanding.

By the way, how did you get into this whole cross dressing thing? I know a number of drag queens who do it professionally as a way to earn a living. They are a very mixed group in both personalities and in how they relate to gender. I find the diversity fascinating. They are friends and we refrain from judging each other. Discussing diversity is interesting but I prefer to avoid judgment simply because there are countless ways my own life could be judged by others.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 29, 2010 5:45 AM

I only have time for a short post, but there's a reason i didn't say Morality. It's cause i didn't mean morality.

I spoke of Ethics.

This is getting confusing. Who's on first? Is there a scoreboard? Can we pick new teams? I got confused by the GLBT acronym. I thought it meant Guys, Ladies, Both and Terrorists. I think I need to go back to school. Anybody know of a good online junior high?

battybattybats battybattybats | April 28, 2010 1:04 AM

Try the new acronym. SS&GD. Sexuality, Sex and Gender Diversity. It's more inclusive as it covers GLBTTIQQ and more without privileging any by naming them directly. Especially having the word Diversity in there.

seriously, are you for real or have you just been putting us all on?

battybattybats battybattybats | April 29, 2010 4:44 AM

I'm for real. The acronym is not new. It (specifically the sub-form S&GD or Sex and Gender Diversity) was being used when i first encountered it by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Comission (since renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission) some years ago now.

'Evan, can you respect the desire reality that some cis gay men would not be attracted to you because you have a vagina or

"surgically created genitals? "'
jack | April 26, 2010 2:28 PM

so transwomen post op are not "real" genitals, ftm's post op
(presuming in the future,lol, and "perfected")lol, even,
are also not "real" genitals.....


hey,uphill battles, much........

well, here is the political "hysteria"
lol.

but i guess i'm probably NOT letting this go,
lol.

so evan,
i guess you are waiting for pinocchio's Gepetto to make you into a "real boy"?
no?
well, maybe you should read jack's comment in detail, partner....

(personally, i'm now waiting for jebuss to heal my dick. ...ok maybe the pope....)
lol

so transwomen post op are not "real" genitals

Please show me where this statement appears in my comment. Show me one comment about MFT or transsexual women or their genitals -- WHERE?!?

I could say that your statement implies your inner racism and anti-semitism. Of course that has nothing to do with what you said, but it's my agenda so I'll put words in your mouth and attack you.

You are disturbed.

javier's responding to your comment about "surgically constructed genitals".

It looks like you're saying that a lack of attraction to trans people is perfectly natural and not a transphobic rejection of trans people as valid members of their proper sex.

I think this is incorrect. It is true that many cis people reject trans people, but I think this rejecting is rooted in transphobic rejection of trans people as "real."

so evan, i guess you are waiting for pinocchio's Gepetto to make you into a "real boy"? no? well, maybe you should read jack's comment in detail, partner....
Um, what?

(1) I am a "real boy."
(2) I read jack's comment in detail, and I don't have a problem with it. So he doesn't like what's between my legs. Guess what: neither do I! Not a big deal. He's not interested, so we won't be sleeping together.

If I want to retain my right to turn down overweight men, hairy men, men with penises larger than I can comfortably accommodate, men without functioning penises, older men, men who don't smell right to me, and men with high-pitched voices, then I'd damn well better respect jack's (and other gay men's) right to turn down men without/with very small penises. Even if I'm in that category. And if I had a surgically-constructed penis (a phrase I don't find offensive at all) I'd be cool with him not liking that too.

It's not like I can't get laid. I don't need him, personally (or any particular individual) to find me sexually attractive in order to validate my maleness or my attractiveness. Besides, if he's that focused on his partner's dick, we're probably not compatible in the bedroom anyway, because I am too.

One of the joys of being gay is that gay men as a group are pretty frank about what we do/don't like. It's not socially acceptable (or sensible) for us to be offended because someone is turned off by some characteristic of our body, personality, sexual role, or gender expression. We state our sexual preferences so openly we might as well start tattooing them on our foreheads. It's not rude and it's not transphobic for jack to want a fully functional, flesh, erectile, ejaculation-capable dick in his bed. It's just what he wants, and I get that, because it also happens to be what I want. Which is not hypocritical of me, any more than it's hypocritical for a bear to want a twink or a strict top to want a bottom or a straight man to want a woman; many of us are attracted to people who are different from ourselves.

battybattybats battybattybats | April 27, 2010 10:59 PM

Non-binary and cissexual transgender people do exist. They exist in large numbers. There are large numbers of people validly attracted to them precisely because of their trans-ness.

Therefore trans-attraction is a valid sexual orientation.

I know people, cis men and cis women as well as trans men and trans women and genderqueers crossdressers bi-genders et al who consider themselves Gay, Bi, Lesbian or Straight who are nevertheless trans-attracted.

I totally recognise that for some being attractive to trans-attracted people is unwanted. For others however it's appropriate and desirable to be attractive to the trans-attracted.

The trans-attracted are almost entirely closeted about their sexual orientation, leading to them sating their desires with sex-work etc and shunning open public relationships. This is obviously toxic and leads, like all other internalised oppressions, to self-harm and harm towards others being too common in the trans-attracted population.

Therefore it is neccessary to help bring trans-attraction out of the closet, to combat the shame attached to it and villification of it, to better educate the trans-attracted both on respectful behaviour (to themselves as well as those they are attracted to), to ensure that the minority of cisgender transsexuals and women of transsexual history etc are less beset by unwanted trans-attracted people while ensuring those many who need trans-attracted people to form relationships with are better able to find them and to be able to have public relationships.

It's VITAL to the entire SS&GD/GLBTIQ community that we start addressing the reality of trans-attraction as an age-old valid sexual orientation needing to be brought out into the light. It's rife in every sexuality and sex.

And theres a MASS of transphobia still extant in every community, including trans communities, about trans-attraction. Some of that comes from peoples repressed trans-ness, some from repressed trans-attraction.

I'm a lucky one, i'm in a relationship with a FtM crossdresser whose open about being trans-attracted. But most trans-attracted people i know keep it secret (and most are in relationships with Cis people). And most out trans people i know are single because of that. And most trans people i know are closeted for fear of forever being alone. Fixing any one of each of these problems requires working on all of them.

It's time to stop Transphobia against and villification of the Trans-Attracted!

I Like Sex! Male! Female! Don't matter! As long as i have enough money! Guess that makes me Buy-Sexual?

No, that makes you a Willie Nelson fan.

'Evan, can you respect the desire reality that some cis gay men would not be attracted to you because you have a vagina or

"surgically created genitals? "'
jack | April 26, 2010 2:28 PM

yes, jack,
i am saying, as lisa said above, that you are saying we do not have "real" genitals.
as you wrote.
and we are all trans, you know.
so you are actually saying THE SAMRE THING,
to them.(transwomen)

you have the right to your choice of partners.
you don't have the right to call someone's genitalia "surgically created" as if we didn't HAVE any till surgery.

a cis woman i know just had a double mastectomy,
and is having reconstruction.
are they "created" breasts?
would you say that to a cancer survivor?
no.
they are her "breasts" period.

we have "genitals".
we are not space alians...

so,no one is "disturbed" here.
just setting the record straight.

(and,also,on another point,
batty is right,
people have been attracted to people in many cultures throughout history, who are now understood to be "genderpeople"of differant kinds.(like 2 spirits in native america culture)
it is very valid,
and has indeed been going on since the dawn of time.we need to reclaim that i think as history.

"Are you really trying to defend a postage stamp of land you call "true transsexualism" from everyone who doesn't meet your requirements to be transsexual"


she's right.

and actually,
psych's will make this call, no one can own it,
it is like owning any diagnostic term.
you can't.

people WILL get "diagnosed" as transexual.
you have no say at all here.
doctors do what they want, i have noticed,

notorious for that, they seem....

I'm pissed at this point.

I've got the third biggest troll in Genderlife causing shit just for her personal amusement.

I've got AriaBlue, Evangelina (cassandraspeaks), Cathryn Platine under one of her several names, coming in and misgendering not only me, but other commenters in the threads (I'm kinda sorta fair game, I suppose).

And meanwhile, fascism is taking hold of the state where I live.

The anti-trans trans people might be fascists, but they are the sort who's only power is their words, and who's sole purpose here has been to hurt other people.

They are, in the scheme of things that are important, way the fuck down on the list. And, to some extent, more than one of their crew supports this law.

The lives of trans folk, cis LGB folk, straight folk are being criminalized, and this is what you choose to bitch and fucking whine about instead?

Damn it people, grow the fuck up why don't you.

Evan -- I would never turn down a man with a small penis. Nor would I turn down a man with his penis cut off from accident (he formerly had a penis). I am turned off sexually by vaginas. Are vaginas the same thing now as small penises of amputated penises? Women with vaginas out there do you believe this?

I am glad you are able to separate out sexual desire from transphobia -- the commenter Lisa cannot make that distinction. She like all the transpeople especially transmen I have encountered and all on this blog claim that any sexual non-desire for a transperson is transphobia. I have read those words here many times. This is such a preposterous thing to say and so antithetical to sexual reality. So many people here telling other who and what they should be sexually attracted to -- it sounds like a fundamentlist Christian web site to this cis homo.

I didn't tell you who you should be attracted to. It's an unfortunate reality that many people like to view trans people as inferior to cis people, often because of assumptions about trans people's genitals.

I don't believe anyone who says that strict attraction to cis people as anything but transphobic. It's transphobic. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but you're saying here you consider trans men to be inferior sex partners and are just short of saying they're not really men.

You are a prejudiced bigot. You cannot separate your political stance from sexual freedom and cis male sexual reality. Pity. You are identical to the fundamenalists and you cannot even see it. No where did I say anything about transmen per se -- but humans with vaginas are not attractive sexually to many cis men. This may be not the sugar coated fanatasy kindergarten you want to live in -- but it is a fact. Label it however you have to so you feel superior but it is a fact. Facts scare fundamentalists -- magical thinking and name calling is their forte -- like you're doing.

ps Is there any women trans or cis out there who is not sexually attracted to male genitals -- if so, you are a bigot according to Lisa.

Nice way to twist my words. I never said that everyone who doesn't like particular kinds of genitals. I said the way you were talking about trans men's genitals was transphobic, as well as that sexual orientations that explicitly exclude trans people are transphobic. Yes, I've spoken to several cis men who justify their transphobia by saying "My orientation is only for cis men, cis women, or cis people," as if "This is my orientation!" means it's okay to start talking loudly about how they only want to fuck people who aren't trans.

I don't care if you don't want to have sex with trans men or trans people in general. It's that you keep floating these balloons about how it's only natural to not want to have sex with trans people because they have icky genitals.

You may not have referenced trans men as trans men, but you spent a lot of time saying a lot of things about not wanting to have sex involving a vagina in reference to trans men.

And why on Earth did you feel the need to make any part of this conversation about how you can't stand the idea of having sex with trans men? Does the word "tact" mean anything to you, or do you just say anything nasty that comes to mind? Or do you just say anything nasty about trans people that comes to mind?

Well, FTM parts are a bit more complicated to be boiled down to just "vaginas" - a trans man may or may not still actually have one of those, for one thing, and the external parts may be recognizably a small (not surgically-constructed) dick. Some trans men on hormones can be mistaken for male-assigned intersex people. And the hormones change the smell/taste, hair growth pattern, etc to fairly standard male-type.

Basically, whether or not you're actually into it, it's a little unfair to claim that what transitioned trans men have is the same as what women have. Objectively in many cases it's a lot closer to being intersex with a micropenis. Which, again, I get not being interested in, and I don't think it's transphobic to not like that particular genital setup, but if you're rejecting it because of what you imagine used to be there rather than what actually is, then that might be food for thought.

jack said:

"She like all the transpeople especially transmen I have encountered and all on this blog claim that any sexual non-desire for a transperson is transphobia."

again, jack, really? REALLY? ALL????

there are quite a few ppl here, and on other blogs, and in real life, too, with a narrow, rigid agenda that they relentlessly promote and defend, and dude, you are one of them just the same...you are all the same sort of ppl, just with a different insecurity to defend, kinda like Bush and Saddam Hussien or the pres of Iran--same approach to the world, just fighting for different details...

it amazes me how the ppl on different sides go at each other and never realize (or accept?) that they arent going to change the other ppl's views any more than the other ppl are going to change theirs...

it would be nice to have some actual discussion and see plp get a broader understanding of things rather than just have 90% of the comments being the same ppl arguing the same points against each other, the same old vendetta--it makes it hard to sift thru the threads and pick out the genuine discussion and learning that is taking place, which is frustrating for me, b/c i ahve learned sooo much here ~

and yes, yes, i know, you (and all the others in these arguments) are being persecuted, and the fate of the world as you know it is at stake, and you have no choice but to fight the good fight against the barbarians...

Carol

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Transphobic. You're characterizing trans men as pretenders and telling them to call themselves genderqueers instead.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Evan -- 2 comments

Of course people are attracted to people who are different -- that is a pointless statement. The issue is not blue eyes or curly hair -- the issue is genitals -- and you are frank to know that most cis gay men fought the fundamentalist prudes and church right wing sexphobes to live our sexual lives open and honest and free -- to the point of hanky codes and all kinds of specificity signifyers of a matured sexual desire interface. So thanks for getting that.

You said: "if he's that focused on his partner's dick, we're probably not compatible in the bedroom anyway, because I am too." This does not make sense to me. "Because I am too" -- so is every cis penis-bearing male homo partner I have ever been with (thousands since the 1970s btw) -- so I do not understand your point at all???

On your first point: I really don't think it is that different, and neither do my friends or the guys I have sex with. And I don't generally go for guys who identify as bi or pansexual or queer or anything other than just plain gay, because I don't like how they relate to me or my body, and I don't have much patience for gender theory in the bedroom (I'm really not at all genderqueer or fluid or flexible or any of that, I'm solidly binary-identified and attracted to same). So I assure you I'm talking about just plain ordinary dudes who like to fuck other dudes. All of the analogies that I drew in my previous comments are drawn from things cis gay guys have said to me about sexuality.

And re: the second part, when I do the disclosure thing, some guys lose interest (which is fine, I've actually made some good friends that way) - but others don't mind what's in my pants. Yeah, they appreciate male genitalia, but it's not a requirement to get them hard. The rest of the package is good enough. Which is convenient for me, since I'm much more interested in my partner's genitals than in any attention that could be paid to my own. But it means that I'm likely not going to have much fun with a guy who is similarly focused on his partner's equipment. And that's what I meant in the other comment.

Evan -- thank you for a human and civil interaction. You said something intesting and very true. This blog is women's and trans space -- very female centred as is all feminist, gender theory and all queer theories. The cis males involved are all female centric and female identified. Because cis hetero men are viewed as the enemy of all of these paradigms, it is impossible for gay cis men to dialogue with any of these queer gender women because we must prove a choice: are we aligning with female centrism or are we (by nature) aligning with dirty filthy men. There was once a facinating discourse and culture of cis men who were gay about not being hetero men and not being female centric -- being something else. You might have enjoyed it. Unfortunately it is not permitted in the new real binary: femalecentric queer or heteronormative binary male. There is no other possible space but these two created oppositions. Pity. And ironically so like the fundamentalists who do the same thing.

Also it is funny about bilerico that I can be called a racist for the comments I made which Evan did not find offensive and he is the transman I was talking about -- yet when I call out one of the trans people who attacked me as racist and phobic with a similar epithet, that comment is banned. Very interesting place is the queer gulag.

@ the thread in general.

Antonia wrote about sexual orientation from a "trans" perspective. She made some valid points in my opinion but I found some of the logic bit garbled and as she said that recent Arizona law had her a bit distracted. Then slowly but surely "all hell" started breaking loose.

At this point in history we all sit at an amazing cross road legislatively. ENDA may actually see a vote soon and yet there are forces still wanting to make it non inclusive by removing the sexual identity language. Why? Because of the very set of conflicts being mirrored in this discussion.

We (each of us) can play either a constructive role or a destructive role by the way we approach sensitive topics both in our private lives and in our public lives. In my opinion attacking each other personally is a way to provide great ammunition to our opposition as we try to secure basic human rights.

Personally I don't care if someone attacks me. I am way beyond letting some one else's frame of reference bother me. But I do care about the "face" we present as a diverse group of people to the "opposition". I hope we can all have these wonderful discussions yet at the same time unite as allies when it comes to basic human rights.

I was very sincere when I told Antonia that the video's she posted on youtube should be removed. She took it as criticism and an attempt to tell her to silence her (if I read her statement accurately). I made the statement without elaboration so let me now explain a bit. I viewed it from several perspectives including how it might be used by our "opposition". On a personal level I enjoyed her video's and found much of what she said had both merit and depth. From an opposition viewpoint it was too "campy" and confrontational. From that opposition perspective those video's could be shown and the question asked "is this what you want to face as a business owner"? If you think I am wrong about that then find a few moderate straight Republicans and Democrats and show the video's to them. Enough on that. Please remember that I am not attacking Antonia. I hold her in high esteem even though we have somewhat different perspectives on a number of topics.

I will now use one of Toni's expressions and apologize for the "wall of text". I wish each of you a very wonderful day. Let us all be allies on securing basic human rights for all people.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Oh, please, Cathryn. Your believe isn't required my life. Clearly, my real motivations are opaque to you, possibly because you cannot imagine why anyone would care about widely disseminated hate speech, hate crimes, passage of civil rights, difficulty in changing documentation, lack of access to surgery, having already transitioned.

My blog is not strictly about me. I know you may have trouble with this idea, but maybe, just maybe, aside from my own personal anger at transphobia I'd put up with in the past, I wanted something for trans people to find that wouldn't be filled with hate speech, as "Questioning Transgender Politics" was. When I started my blog, there really wasn't a lot of dedicated response to that kind of thing.

This answer isn't really for you. I don't think you'll understand it, and you'll promote your misunderstanding as proof that your fallacious conclusions are correct.

But you really need to stop with the malicious lies, Cathryn. There are ways to have conversations without trying to discredit everyone who disagrees with you. I know this is the only method of "debate" you're willing to resort to, but I don't think it's winning you any hearts and minds.

Try empathy sometime. Join the rest of the human race.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Eric Payne | April 29, 2010 1:22 AM

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Eric I have no idea where you fall on the spiritual spectrum. Just wanted to let you know that your father will be in my prayers.

Eric Payne | April 29, 2010 4:05 AM

Thank you, Deena. It's appreciated.

Inaccuracies in your comment:

1. I noted in the article referenced that there was another place regarding homosexuality. You have consistently avoided that point, and continued to press me even when I acknowledged the point you raised and noted that it is still homosexuality -- including the fact there was anther point, which you have persistently avoided at all costs.

2. The point you raised as a "possible personal attack" is, in fact, a personal attack, and is a falsehood that is not contained anywhere in my blog -- and no, I haven't changed or deleted anything. I know the *exact* occurrence mentioned, and am well aware of the situation in all cases. In point of fact, in both cases, the point and context of the points raised is that I was specifically noting points regarding my anger issues, and in both cases did not, in fact, do anything. There is one case where there is justification, but it is not a relative.

3. Your statements regarding situational membership being the result of membership defining the conditional situation is ass backwards, and logically fallacious.

4. The comment above was not to lure you into some TOS trap (and I would have insisted the response remain, in fact) but I find it interesting that you think it would be a TOS violation for you to have answered the question. Given that information, it also means that your "talking around it" is also something you are aware of is a TOS violation, meaning that you are at least aware of either the potential falsehood in your points (made manifest by the descriptions of my personal SO experiences) or the potential transphobia inherent in your response.

5. I gave you multiple options to learn about privilege, and was informed, by you, that you already knew what privilege was. When asked what it was, you said you didn't have to answer, and then, later, you proceeded to give a series of explanations of privilege that were entirely wrong, establishing that you did not, in fact, understand or know what privilege is. You have now established that despite a posting that went to great lengths to explain privilege in a very simple format which you commented on (and which I ignored your comment on) and therefore can be presumed to have read the post (unless you are commenting without reading posts, which, given your antipathy for me, is possibly reasonable) you still do not understand what privilege is, and yet you have made statements that pretend to understand privilege and which, if you did know privilege, would have meant that you would know that you did in fact, speak with it and are doing so once more now.

6. I have never said I am writing from Trans privilege. That is a fabrication.

7. As has been noted previously, please be aware of hind ends and doors.

Thanks for participating.

Eric Payne | April 29, 2010 4:10 AM

You're correct, Ms D'orsay; I apologize.

What you actually stated is you were writing from educational privilege.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/02/the_end_of_disorder.php

*That* is accurate. Apology accepted that time.

And, to that point, I absolutely was doing so. Without referencing it myself, I think I also pointed out that you could have used that aspect to argue the point more effectively. Might be wrong on that.

I truly don't mind disagreements, Eric. And I always respond in kind. When people choose to go after me, personally, in terms of some aspect of my being, I will do the same in turn. It's reflex now, not intent, as I've done so for at least 90% of my life.

Needless to say, this thread has seriously challenged my attempts to avoid that begun not too long ago. It should *always* be about the posting, not the poster. That's one of the keys to free speech and free expression. I am not better than other people -- I do not take the high road.

I also mind when people take what I write and create whole cloths about them.

If you see me react "poorly" to something someone has said, odds are they said something that was insulting or offensive or inaccurate.

In a "liberal" space, where one is supposed to be aware of the possible forms and means and ways of oppression, that's hard to do. I admit freely I'm not all that good at it -- so I listen to the people who are directly affected by oppression.

And it makes one more awake of one's self when you do that.

Take Cathryn's statements regarding mental illness earlier. She was relying, heavily, on a stereotype that's incredibly common in our culture -- no one ever portrays someone with ASD just like anyone else; they are always mass murderers and people who cause harm to others. There's none of the struggle with it portrayed, none of the learning involved, none of the awareness that such is due to a neurological variation.

And I'm not talking about it in terms of me, either -- I mean in general. She slaps people with that particular issue down across the board, pulls out a fairly uncommon trait and then uses the stigma of mental illness and that one in particular's stigma of "mass murderer" when those are the exceptions, not the rule.

It's the same sort of thinking that leads to the asinine equation of Gay=pedophile. Or Trans person = threat in the bathroom.

It's just more "socially acceptable" to do it that way -- to demonize those whom are struck by a stigma in society.

I mention that aspect of me as a way to fight that. I provided examples of issues I've had on my blog, and then people show up here and literally lie about them.

Any clue why they'd do that? Especially in an article that's about sexual orientation and trans people? Or the other one's that it was raised in as well?

You asked about my mother, and you later said you did so for a reason related to that point of stigma that she raised. Were it not for that stigma -- were I to have something *more* socially acceptable than that -- you'd never have asked that.

Which is not something I'm faulting you for right now, but something I'm using to illustrate a point.

There are thousands of isms. All of us have heard of at least some of them. Sometimes they have "phobia" attached instead of 'ism', but the end result is still the same. Ableism, sexism, racism -- they are merely three of hundreds, and out culture is so deeply ingrained with them that they fracture into "subtypes" like homophobia, transphobia, fatphobia, ethnocentrism, heteronormativity.

Takes effort on our part as individuals to see through those things -- to recognize those things in our selves, and it is not pleasant. It's not fun to see that things we take for granted are actually hurting other people, oppressing other people.

I'm not a journalist, Eric. Never claimed to be, and have even rather vociferously denied it.

I'm someone working to increase understanding, even when it is uncomfortable. And while a lot of people think I didn't learn anything from my question threads a while back, I did. I learned a lot.

And each time I learn something it goes into the stuff that comes out in the future. Growth does that.

I learn the most when people disagree with me. When they take the time to realize that I'm not sitting here all frowny and angry, I'm usually relaxed and even when my questions are hard and they might actually bring out something nasty, it's not an attack, it's a learning process.

Like the question I asked you earlier in this thread that you said was a trap. It wasn't. I can suspend my personal feelings. I can argue multiple points of view. I've seriously thought of writing a column from the perspective of our opponents for here, just to show that process (nixed the idea because of comment threads like this one).

I didn't ask to trap you. I asked because until a point is made clearly, one is functioning on a guess, Eric. And I was trying hard not to guess about what you wrote. I *hate* guessing. I like to *know*.

Unless its statistics and I'm on the warpath, with greasepaint on...

"1) I am a "real boy."
(2) I read jack's comment in detail, and I don't have a problem with it. So he doesn't like what's between my legs. Guess what: neither do I! Not a big deal. He's not interested, so we won't be sleeping together" -evan
_________________________________________
*ok,one more time, with background singers:*
_______________________________________________
'Evan, can you respect the desire reality that some cis gay men would not be attracted to you because you have a vagina or

"surgically created genitals? "'
jack | April 26, 2010 2:28 PM

__________________________________________________
*as i SAID THE FIRST TIME:*
"yes, jack,
i am saying, as lisa said above, that you are saying we do not have "real" genitals.
as you wrote.
and we are all trans, you know.
so you are actually saying THE SAME THING,
to them.(transwomen)

you have the right to your choice of partners.
you don't have the right to call someone's genitalia "surgically created" as if we didn't HAVE any till surgery.

a cis woman i know just had a double mastectomy,
and is having reconstruction.
are they "created" breasts?
would you say that to a cancer survivor?
no.
they are her "breasts" period.

we have "genitals".
we are not space alians..."
____________________________________________
*so evan,
read it again.i stand by it.
"real boy"=sarcasm.
jack, however MEANS IT.
i don't.
hello....*

*and again*:


you have the right to your choice of partners.

you don't have the right to call someone's genitalia "surgically created" as if we didn't HAVE any till surgery.

jebus!

"Putting my two cents worth in.

I do not consider either Toni or Lisa to be transsexuals. Lisa apparently transitioned a long time ago but never to woman, only tranny. Unlike every woman of history I know, Harney apparently has constant problems with the world being accepted as a woman, otherwise why the entire blog devoted to how everyone cis oppresses her."

this is fucking ridiculous.

yeah i said it. fucking.
ridiculous.
if this is not a tos violation, gandi is the antichrist.get with it.

people CANNOT personally HARASS others.
degendering and "diagnosing" people online
is harrassment!
hello, anyone home?

"You may not post or transmit any message which is harmful, threatening,
abusive or hateful. It is not the Service's intent to discourage you from
taking controversial positions or expressing vigorously what may be
unpopular views; however, Bilerico Media, LLC reserve the right to take such
action as it deems appropriate in cases where the Service is used to
disseminate statements which are deeply and widely offensive and/or harmful."

???


"Trans men and trans women are the same thing -- do others here agree??? Are MTF transsexual genital surgeries the same as FTMs? Hardly. The MTF surgury is far superior to FTM. Most MTF vaginas are indisguishable from cis ones. I have never seen or known of any FTM surgically created male genitals that are anything like cis penises and scrotums. It cannot be done surgically. So why pretend? Be proud of being a genderqueer with a vagina and be out and proud and find sexual partners who are into that and will bone out at who you actually are? Why all the lies?"

sorry,
but i hope you like your new "friend" evan,
'cause THIS is what you are defending.
yeah.
i said it.
read it.

get pissed at the real enemy.
don't vent on me.
you need to wake up here.
and i say that without malice
(to YOU.)

I don't see an "enemy" here, javier - I see a potential ally with some misconceptions, prejudices, and baggage from past bad experiences, with whom I've been having a reasonably polite and constructive discussion despite all that. I don't see anything constructive arising from you two talking past each other and calling each other bigots.

I'm still waiting for the TOS Violation by Cathryn to be addressed. Since I am aware that the one's done so far are via someone not normally charged with such a task behind the scenes due to some difficulties Bil is having and Alex's time off, I'm being patient.

Cathryn's (RaicalBitch/Catkisser) statements are a violation of the TOS and will be dealt with.

Since Bil has deleted two postings due to his observation those postings were a violation of TOS... but RadicalBitch's comment was not one of those deleted postings, your threat of her comment being "dealt with" indicates her posting was, indeed, not a violation of the TOS.

Unless, of course, your intent is to "deal with" it yourself after May 1.

What happens May1?

I don't plan to "deal with" any comments after May 1st, Eric -- it's contributors -- and all I will be doing then is putting in my opinions to a group of people regarding people who apply. And then only for about 6 months.

And your thoughts on the matter regarding her post are incorrect.

But thanks for sharing with us :D


I got it. No one had flagged that one for us. Remember - if you've got a comment you want us to check out, e-mail us edteam@bilerico.com

If the comment comes from someone with a registered account, we don't have to moderate those and don't see each one.

Thanks Bil -- I know the issues, so I didn't mind.

god why bother, but:

"I don't see anything constructive arising from you two talking past each other and calling each other bigots" -evan

a DELEATED comment was made by jack.

i don't see the point of
REPEATING IT here tho,
when it ws REMOVED FOR TOS VIOLATIONS.
god, evan didn't you READ it?

if you want to i will email it to you,
because I SAVED IT.

i am not talking past jack.
god.

the upshot was:
'"FTM'S are not men. their genitals will never be real or male. YOU evan, are a "genderqueer" jesus xmas!

e-mail to toni if you want to see it,
BIL just REMOVED it, he didn't remove yours
and mine for god's sake.

toni'e address is on the link under her name,
i'm sure she'd be willing to send this to you if you want. i will send it to her now.
and read it!
and get with the damn program.

this guy doesn't respect you dude. shit.
he SAYS that.
now,enough.
f-me....

EVAN:
(.......it's still on the damn thread....!)
it'e IN my comment.
9 up.

did you read ANY of jack's stuff?
well read this one.
the guy is insulting. end of story.
let this thread DIE.

"I don't see an "enemy" here, javier - "
you're killing me.
lol


(.....goes back to life.....)

take care.
really.

ps: evan i am trying to defend you,
if you'd just get it.
see ya.