WilliamTheTraveler

Posts: 54
From: San Diego - UA Premier Exec
Registered: Nov 2001
posted 03-22-2002 07:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't take this as a flame or anything, but how did the "transgendered" community (historically) become associated with gay/lesbian/same sex issues?
I don't see the connection (and believe me, maybe I am blind to the association).

I just don't see the connection. Maybe someone could direct me to a website or two that would help me understand how transgendered people (who I respect 100%) are associated with gay/lesbians (who are people who are attracted to the same sex).

I respect people of all race, creed, religion, background and/or sexual orientation. I just need a little educating and I hope someone can help. Thanks .

Again, this post is made in the MOST postive and understanding way!


IP: Logged

SFO2AMS

Posts: 27
From: San Francisco (UA PremExec, AA Plat, HH Gold)
Registered: Sep 2001
posted 03-23-2002 12:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WilliamTheTraveler:
Please don't take this as a flame or anything, but how did the "transgendered" community (historically) become associated with gay/lesbian/same sex issues?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homophobia is basically an issue of gender -- as in, homophobes think you are having sex with the wrong one.

Imagine then how subversive it must seem that someone might change their gender. Obviously we share a common enemy and thus have a common interest.

Also, since, in my limited observation, transgendered people usually don't change their affectional preference, this usually means that they have homosexual relationships, either ''before,'' or ''after.''

IP: Logged

wharvey

Posts: 1112
From: West Henrietta, NY, USA (suburb of Rochester)
Registered: Jul 2000
posted 03-23-2002 06:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William,
Great question... can I make a suggestion?

Can you make that question a separate topic in this forum? That way, this thread remains a discussion of Sarah and her issue with the airlines?

William

IP: Logged

EDIT: Brought over all poster info as well as content

[This message has been edited by robb (edited 03-23-2002).]

This thread is not on-topic as it doesn't relate to travel, but it also doesn't make sense to send it to OMNI.

I'm eager to maintain a discussion forum that is primarily focused on travel, but just like the United Mileage Plus forum, will digress into all sorts of things common to our group as a secondary purpose.

This thread is an excellent opportunity to educate and does belong here, but technically it falls into the category of secondary content. So, lets by all means discuss it, but make sure that the forum as whole has lots of primary content to keep it in perspective. (Keep a high signal-to-noise ratio).

Thanks

Well done Robb.

This is definetly not meant to be the start of anything flammed based.....

but my heart always sinks when I see folk get really worked up about whether something is on topic or off topic.

If a thread bores me (as some do) I dont read it.

If I ruled the world (now, there is an idea) moderation would be done only in exceptional circumstances.

Just a view...no more ...no less.

Stephen

PS Typing in BSL and finding the keys are in different place on a Swiss keyboard.

Please don't misunderstand my post - I wasn't applauding Robb for pointing out that the thread is technically off-topic, but rather for NOT burying the thread. Primarily I applaud him for the very professional manner in which he made his point. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The history of transgender association with gays in a nutshell. It all started at Stonewall. The term transgender covers a lot of ground. Just as gender is not a stagnant term, neither is transgender. It runs the gamut from effeminate men and butch women to drag queens, gender dysphoria, and everything in between. For more information you can check out:

www.transhistory.org (http://www.transhistory.org)

or do a search at:

www.advocate.com (http://www.advocate.com)

I think there are some reasons to lump transgender in with homosexual, but not too many.

Transgenders face the same issues that gays do as far as discrimination, perhaps even more so than "regular" gays.

But on the other side, transgenders also face significantly different issues as far as gender identity. I don't have any issues with my gender or sexuality, I am a man, that's what I want to be, that's what I am. Transgenders, on the other hand, face the issue of identifying with a gender other than the one of which they have the physical aspects. In my experience, gays don't face that issue (that's my opinion, I could be wrong).

I think we (as a society) do somewhat of a disservice to ourselves (everyone) by basically lumping everyone into the "normal" (hetero) group and the "deviant" (gay, lesbian, bi, transgender) groups.

Yes, some of the issues are the same, but a lot are not. I have rarely seen this happen in other parts of society, like college or civic groups. Usually you'll have an African American group, an Asian American group, Latino group, etc. But I can't recall any "minority" groups, where they lump everyone who's not white into the same category.

While it may be practical to put everyone under one roof to facilitate a support group, I think in the future we'd be better off it we expanded from the two group system ("normal" and "not-normal").

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
I think there are some reasons to lump transgender in with homosexual, but not too many.
I think we (as a society) do somewhat of a disservice to ourselves (everyone) by basically lumping everyone into the "normal" (hetero) group and the "deviant" (gay, lesbian, bi, transgender) groups.

While it may be practical to put everyone under one roof to facilitate a support group, I think in the future we'd be better off it we expanded from the two group system ("normal" and "not-normal").

d</font>


Transgender does not mean that you always identify with the opposite sex. Gender is an extremely fluid term. There is no such thing as a stereotypical male. Male is everything from machismo to effeminate. The same goes for female. People are born male, female, they are born one sex physically but feel that they really should have been born the opposite sex. People are also born intersexed. The fight for equal protection under the law is everyone's fight. Regardless of gender or orientation.

Just my 2 cents

Well, here's the problem. No Asian person ever cried into the night wondering if he was black. The boy who knew he felt more comfortable with everything feminine did wonder if he was gay.

It is a very uncertain issue, though, see the Advocate's poll from May 1999 (http://www.advocate.com/html/poll/results.trans051199.asp) in which it's almost perfectly evenly split at 47%/47% (with the rest undecided).

And, in this week's issue (http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/859/859_gayvstran.asp), the debate rages over the inclusion of transgender language in New York Anti-Discrimination legislation.

So, it's not a "flaming" kind of issue (I can't believe no one was picking up this pun http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif ) by any means. It's a valid question.

I'm not transgendered. Like Doppy, I'm a guy and there's not a single second of my life that I would ever want to be anything but, so I can only offer the reasons why I accept the transgendered as part of the community.

First of all, to the outside world, there's little difference. They'll call Sarah a fag just as quickly as they'll call me one (Actually, faster - I'm 6'5" and 230 lbs - They tend to not call me fag http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif ). Not true of racial groups.

Secondly, as many have pointed out, gender is a very fluid thing. Where do you draw the line between a drag queen and a trannie? There absolutely exists a line, but I defy anyone close to the line to wake up at 13 and know on which side they fall. Not true of racial groups.

Thirdly, and most pragmatically, exactly where do you think transsexuals can turn to for mates? If you are a heterosexual, male-to-female transsexual, then you idenitfy as a heterosexual woman (and therefore attracted to guys). Exactly which guys do you think are attracted to you? Gay Guys. Not Applicable to racial groups.

No, I don't invite every sexual minority into our fold, but there's something very similar going on in our two groups. We're wired in a way that gender doesn't work the same way for us as it does for the majority. We may be butch or femme or nelly or straight-acting or whatever, and the transgendered exist at one extreme of that continuum.

Differences absolutely exist, but not extreme enough to say "fend for yourself."

I'm not arguing that transgenders should be on their own or not part of a rights movement. Everyone should be part of a rights movement, regardless of their sexual or gender orientation.

But what I am saying is that we shouldn't be advocating a system where we put all of us into a "deviant" category. That suggests to a lot of people (particularly closed minded straights) that there are two categories of people - normal and abnormal, rather than many different groups of people, all of whom deserve the same rights.

People like things to be binary, black and white, one or zero. When you create two groups, heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals, it's too easy for closed minded people to make it a binary argument of one group is right, the other group is wrong.

We all face different issues and should have our own identities as individual groups. There are plenty of times where it makes sense for everyone to work together, but there are also a lot of situations where it makes sense to be separate groups.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
People like things to be binary, black and white, one or zero. When you create two groups, heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals, it's too easy for closed minded people to make it a binary argument of one group is right, the other group is wrong.</font>

Actually, you're exactly right about people liking things binary, which is why leaving out a smaller group is tantamount to "fend for yourself". Our society (particularly the U.S.) isn't set up to deal with a lot of nuance, and it's much easier to bring all of us together than to separate our views further.

And, in case, you hadn't noticed, the closed-minded already think one group is right andone group is wrong. You think it will change anything if they were to have 3 groups from which to choose?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
But what I am saying is that we shouldn't be advocating a system where we put all of us into a "deviant" category.
d</font>

AH, there you go. You are saying that we "GLBT" are deviant. The point that GLBT rights makes, is that it we are normal.

You know I can't beleive I missed this in the earlier discussion, but I actually think that there are about as many differences between the needs of gay men and lesbians as there are between gay men and the transgendered.

Lesbians would probably be able to secure more rights and advance more issues important to them if they weren't saddled by the burden of gay men.

If not for us, do you really think that promiscuity, drugs, and AIDS could be used against them to great effect? These are gay men's issues, not lesbian's.

Yet, we work together because we face similar enough issues and we're stronger for the partnership.

Just an additional thought.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by slumgoddess:
AH, there you go. You are saying that we "GLBT" are deviant. The point that GLBT rights makes, is that it we are normal. </font>

I use the word "deviant" not because I believe it, but because I believe that the binary mind will assign that status to the GLBT group. I think we can see this with ethnic minorities.

A lot of people don't like one minority, but like or are indifferent to others. Look at Muslims these days - there are a lot of Americans who hate all of them. Meanwhile, women still face discrimination, but it has gotten better over the last 50 years or so. I think if women and Muslims decided to join forces and turn themselves into one group, the women would lose out. If somehow women and Muslims were to make themselves indistinguishable as individuals, like everyone under the GLBT heading is to close minded Americans, the women's rights movement would be stopped dead.

I also think that people have a point when they say that if the groups were to split up, they might be able to make headway on different issues.

This is all anecdotal evidence, but lesbians seem to be a lot more accepted than gay men. They'd probably have a better time getting certain rights than gay men. The straights always bring out the "gay men have AIDS" argument, but I haven't heard that about lesbians, for instance.

Furthermore, the issues for the three main groups (bisexuals don't have much of movement going, as far as I know) can make the debate confusing or unfocused. The major movements in the past, civil rights and women's rights, were fought and won independently.

Maybe it would make things better to fight separately, maybe it wouldn't, maybe a combination of both would be best. I really don't know, but I don't think it serves us to just assume the status quo is the ideal strategy.

d

Read Brendan Lemon's editorial in this month's issue of OUT.

http://www.out.com/editorcolm.asp

The point of his column is that it is the cohesiveness of everyone's efforts that produce the gains that have been made. If each group were to separate there would only be setbacks.

By the bi, they do have their own issues as well. The major one being accepted by gays and lesbians. Many people look on them as fence sitters.

(edited to correct spelling of Brendan's name)

[This message has been edited by slumgoddess (edited 03-24-2002).]

"Even as AIDS has become more treatable ... I have never heard a lesbian say that it’s time to back-burner the epidemic."

What is this supposed to mean?

And I don't understand why homosexuals are always bringing the AIDS discussion into the mix.

Yes, AIDS is a big problem, but it's not a gay problem, it's an everyone problem. If we believe that having one big group is better than having small groups, the gays should give up the AIDS cause (within the GLBT community) and take it up with a larger group of people (i.e. everyone, straights and gays against AIDS, not gays having their own anti-AIDS group).

Again, this is my own personal view, but I think gays do a disservice to themselves when they continually force the issue on AIDS, almost supporting the notion from the '80s that only homosexuals get AIDS. There are a lot of people who still believe that, and a lot of people who are glad to see gays get AIDS. If the GLBT community would give up their AIDS fight and instead join a coalition of just people against AIDS, I think more progress would be made in terms of gay rights and respect within society and against AIDS.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:

Transgenders, on the other hand, face the issue of identifying with a gender other than the one of which they have the physical aspects. In my experience, gays don't face that issue (that's my opinion, I could be wrong).</font>

hmm, doppy, i was with you until you said that. frankly, it's not that easy as "physical aspects." i hate to be touchy, but this is how we get to the stereotype of "men in dresses" and all that rot. mayhaps do you mean certain "sex characteristics"?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Yes, some of the issues are the same, but a lot are not. I have rarely seen this happen in other parts of society, like college or civic groups. Usually you'll have an African American group, an Asian American group, Latino group, etc. But I can't recall any "minority" groups, where they lump everyone who's not white into the same category.
</font>

there sort of is. if you're of mixed racial heritage and not in a state that has what we call "sixteenths laws" (prevalent in the South, but also NJ, PA, OH, and a few others), you often get lumped into "other." i'm lily-white, perhaps even pale enough that i've had people think me dead, but the state of New Jersey says i'm black because mah gramma is. in other states, though, usually, i get pushed into "other."

now, do we form social groups around it? of course not! it's a convenient categorization. and thus, i note in the same breath that that's how queers of all sorts got mushed together.

plus, some of us are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, too. i suppose that's going for a tenuous linkage, but i've been in class for three hours, so flawed logic looks attractive. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif