i came across this post on towleroad, in which the comments perfectly exemplifies the “gay vs trans” argument.
mcnnyc points out:
When the movement first started it was just gay. The only reason lesbians got listed separately was because of feminism and, as Derrick noted, all the work they’ve done.
right mcnnyc, and then the trans people were listed separately because some gays don’t want to be associated with “those people”. because, well, gays are “more equal” than trans.
then ipodius perfectly expresses the issue:
I have listened to this debate until I just can’t stand it anymore. I’m also sorry to be politically incorrect here, but I don’t see what gender identity has to do with being gay. To wit: a male has sex reassignment and becomes female and has a male partner. She is straight. She goes through the process, is now legally a female and can marry her male partner. Now she gets all benefits as someone’s wife.
apparently, ipodius is unfamiliar with the littleton vs. prange case in which a trans woman was judged as “male”, dissolving her marriage. and this is only but one example in which a trans person’s gender was deemed legally invalid. and you know, people still seem to be confused when it comes to trans genders.
sorry, but “gender identity” has everything to do with sexual orientation - you can’t have one without the other. sexual orientation is defined in the context of gender identity, and gender identity is necessary in order to have a sexual orientation.
in many people’s minds, i am merely an effeminate gay man in an illegal marriage with another gay man.
and that’s why we are equal, despite your belief that you are more equal than me.
Apparently, toweleroad is more equal than Pam’s house blend.
And light skinned black people are more equal than drk skinned black people.
And American Indians are more equal than asian americans
And assiilationist blankety blank blank blankers are more equal than anyone.
But, in the end, hey, whatcha know
It was a bill about special rights, after all…
Comment by Toni D — November 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
od course, it much depends on who is handing out the equality.
Comment by nexy — November 10, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
John Aravosis made a smartass comment about how trans people are selfishly getting married when he can’t. Apparently, like the at-least-two cases of heterosexual women getting fired for gender noncomformity and taking it to court, he’s not aware of how easily trans people’s marriages get annulled.
I’ve lost track of how many plain ignorant comments I’ve seen white gay men make about trans people lately. Thank you Crain and Aravosis for spawning more transphobia! Bastards.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 10, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
fanatic fundamentalists all sound the same, whether they are of the religious variety or not. they’re cut from the same cloth, and spew the same ignorant hatred.
Comment by nexy — November 11, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Sunday Blogwhoring: Armistice Anxiety…
by matttbastard
Desperately need a personal assistant to keep up with my rapidly expanding agenda. Rest assured I’d never be so intemperate an employer as the late Linda Stein, former manager of the Ramones, who was recently bludgeoned to death b…
Trackback by bastard.logic — November 11, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Totally.
I posted this to another blog, and I think it cuts right to where GLB and T civil rights are inseparable:
Oh, yeah, definitely. When someone loudly asks “Is that a he or a she?” I don’t think “Wow, I just transgressed and fucked his world over!” I think “Are there any witnesses here just in case he decides I have to die to prove he’s straight?”
I haven’t had this happen to me in years, but we’re dealing with the same hate.
Well, not guys like Sullivan or Aravosis, for whom money can overcome the “pain” of being gay in a straight society.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 11, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
“ When someone loudly asks “Is that a he or a she?”… ”
i find that they usually ask “is it a he or a she”. but yes, i agree.
Comment by nexy — November 11, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
With regard to the Littleton case, I suspect few have NOT heard of it. The fact of the matter is that other states fully recognize and sanction marriage involving a post op. Louisiana has since 1968. Texas is one of the few states that does not recognize post op marriage nor even sanction the changing of the birth certificate.
The interesting part is that the trans blogs and activists rather than advocate for the rights of post ops and those issues that uniquely affect us, instead rally around the homosexual movement thus putting rights that post ops already have at risk by some how associating same-sex marriage (between homosexuals) with heterosexual marriage involving a post op. Instead of championing a position that clearly defines, if not EXPLAINS, a postop in terms of their legal post operative gender, they march behind a GLB movement that has turned post op MtoF and FtoM into defacto gay men and women, respectively.
If one buys into the premise that gender, sexual orientation, and gender dysphoria are all related, then they buy into Bailey’s concept that transsexuals are no more than homosexual men. Gender and sexual orientation are not related. To define them as synonymous only further deligitimizes the gender of post ops. Putting forth the concept that gender and sexual orientation are related doesn’t change the fact that they are not, it only furthers the misconception that homosexuality and transsexuality are one and the same.
Comment by Susan — November 12, 2007 @ 4:48 am
Yeah, I hate using “it” in that context so much I just reflexively pick different wording. I didn’t even realize I was doing it until just now.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 12, 2007 @ 5:13 am
Susan,
Everything can be contested in court. The fact that trans people were born one sex means that even if trans woman who’s had surgery is married, that marriage can be annulled with a single court decision. We don’t have any special protection in that regard.
I don’t think there’s any particular use in focusing on what post-op trans women need in trans activism. The majority of trans women in the United States simply can’t afford SRS, and making sure that post-op trans women are protected in every part of their lives does nothing to make life easier and more tolerable for everyone else. Your assertion is naked classism.
Also, trans activists aren’t associating trans people’s marriages with same-sex marriage. The cases that have come up (and there’s more than just the Littleton case) came up before same-sex marriage became such a political hot issue in 2004, in fact.
Also, I’m not conflating sexual orientation with gender and gender dysphoria. I simply pointed out that transmisogyny and homophobia have a common root. If they’re not siblings, they’re very close cousins.
Seriously, you sound like you’re way out of touch with the realities of trans life and politics these days. Read up a bit.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 12, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Some stuff that really needs to be addressed for trans men and women who haven’t had surgery:
* Social Security will out you. Yes, as an “counter-terrorist measure” if you’re in an employer’s records as female, and SS has you as male, they’ll send a no-match notice, outing you to your employer.
Fortunately, that won’t be an issue after 2009, because of the
* Real ID act which forces a standarized identification system across all 50 states, and will force those trans people who currently live in states that allow them to have their preferred sex on their ID cards to have their “current” sex, forcibly outing everyone who hasn’t had surgery yet, but at least has gender-congruent ID.
And of course there’s
* ENDA, and the need to protect trans people - regardless of operative status - from job discrimination.
Trans people who can afford SRS are in the best shape, and don’t need to be the focus of any activism, nor do we need to blame people for pointing out the legal realities of the day. You may believe that the laws against same-sex marriage wouldn’t have any affect on heterosexual couples with at least one trans person, but it has been shown that when these marriages are challenged, it’s not just Texas, and they can be challenged.
Now, Michael Kantaras was lucky, in that he got a judge who was sympathetic, or didn’t want to make a decision that would allow trans men to marry cis men, I don’t know…but he had to take it to appeal.
The Littleton case isn’t the only time this has happened, and if same-sex marriage is legal, even though trans people should be legally treated as a member of their preferred gender, laws against same-sex marriage can’t be used to annull marriages or affect divorce proceedings.
What we need is something like the UK’s gender recognition act, which protects trans people’s privacy by allowing us to alter our birth certificates and other identification without the requirement to have surgery first. Right to privacy alone should make that a priority.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 13, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Lisa,
I’m well aware that a single court decision can set precedence with regard to a post-op’s, or anyone’s, rights. In the Fall of 2004 multiple states (17 states as I recall, but don’t hold me to that) slammed the GLB’s same-sex marriage legislation across the board in multiple states. Same-sex marriage certainly did not all of a sudden become a hot issue in that year; it has been at the top of their agenda for years.
You are right, however, my assertion is naked classim. I concede that the majority agree with you, i.e., trans activism does not focus on what post-op trans women need. On the contrary, trans activism continues to dilute the legitimacy of post-ops by lumping everyone under the GLB transgender construct.
I believe I could debate the hitory of trans activism with anyone, Lisa. Certainly I have not lost touch with the realities of trans politics now days. The issue is that I don’t agree with the “focus” of it, to use your word. Many of us who were transsexual and now post-op, object to being associated with the GLB and lumped into an umbrella group that includes crossdressers and others who present an alternative “gender expression”. Your premise that my opinion was formed because I am have not read up on these issue and have lost contact with the realites of trans politics is flawed; it’s BECAUSE of my knowledge of current and past trans activism that I am concerned.
I’m sure any response will become more and more personal. Not to worry. There is no delusion on my part. I fully realize nothing will change in the trans advocate arena.
Comment by Susan — November 13, 2007 @ 4:26 am
Lisa,
I’m well aware that a single court decision can set precedence with regard to a post-op’s, or anyone’s, rights. In the Fall of 2004 multiple states (17 states as I recall, but don’t hold me to that) slammed the GLB’s same-sex marriage legislation across the board in multiple states. Same-sex marriage certainly did not all of a sudden become a hot issue in that year; it has been at the top of their agenda for years.
You are right, however, my assertion is naked classim. I concede that the majority agree with you, i.e., trans activism does not focus on what post-op trans women need. On the contrary, trans activism continues to dilute the legitimacy of post-ops by lumping everyone under the GLB transgender construct.
I believe I could debate the hitory of trans activism with anyone, Lisa. Certainly I have not lost touch with the realities of trans politics now days. The issue is that I don’t agree with the “focus” of it, to use your word. Many of us who were transsexual and now post-op, object to being associated with the GLB and lumped into an umbrella group that includes crossdressers and others who present an alternative “gender expression”. Your premise that my opinion was formed because I am have not read up on these issue and have lost contact with the realites of trans politics is flawed; it’s BECAUSE of my knowledge of current and past trans activism that I am concerned.
I’m sure any response will become more and more personal. Not to worry. There is no delusion on my part. I fully realize nothing will change in the trans advocate arena.
Comment by Susan — November 13, 2007 @ 4:26 am
Having surgery doesn’t grant you additional legitimacy when you’re dealing with prejudice - often violent prejudice. It might protect you from being murdered, but in general, trans women who have had vaginoplasty are in a place of privilege relative to other trans people, and everyone else has to deal with being delegitimized every day because of involuntary outing thanks to ID or social security. Trans women have to turn to survival prostitution because of the relative difficulty of getting employment. Just being trans means you’re far more likely to be murdered than anyone else.
Yeah, with stuff like that to worry about, the fear that associating T with the GLB movement delegitimizes trans women with vaginoplasties strikes me as pretty minor and out of touch. It’s not all about the surgery - it can’t be all about the surgery.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
“It’s not all about the surgery - it can’t be all about the surgery.”
yeah, i’d hate to think that my entire personhood is based on my once having had the ability to borrow $10,000 for a surgical procedure.
susan’s sentiment is quite common in the mainstream however. reading through the comments related to on-line news stories regarding trans people, commenters often define ones sex (or status) based on genitals. i can’t count the number of times i’ve read comments that suggest a trans person should only be able to use the ladies restroom after surgery - then we’re “transsexuals”, as opposed to mere “transgenders”. i hate to think of the trans man’s plight, in which surgical technology is nowhere near the technology available to trans women. and way more expensive.
it also reminds me of a conversation i had with a guy, with whom i had a brief intimate encounter. i was recently post-op, and he was asking me about my then boyfriend, who i’d been dating before and after my surgery. he asked if my boyfriend was gay, since he was dating me before surgery. of course, the guy didn’t consider himself gay, since i was post op at the time. it struck me as quite incongruent that my boyfriend’s sexual orientation would change simply by *me* having surgery. that somehow doesn’t work for me.
so no, it can’t be about the surgery.
Comment by nexy — November 14, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I think some guys have this weird causation thing about sexuality anyway - like, if a man has sex with another man, that it turns them gay, and then there’s the “doesn’t accept your gender as valid because no surgery” thing, which seems more like ignorance than anything in that example.
And yeah, it is common in the mainstream. I wish it weren’t, but society’s pretty essentialist by default.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 16, 2007 @ 4:25 am
I’m pretty essentialist by default, lol.
I just think of my self as a lot more essentialist than most folks
Could be why I say the ENDA that passed really is just special rights…
Comment by Dyssonance — November 16, 2007 @ 8:34 am
I do think essentialist too often becomes a dirty word for discrediting people.
I know I use it that way when talking to radical feminists who tell me I can’t ever be a woman, or that trans women have “male energy.” That’s about the only time, though.
Comment by Lisa Harney — November 16, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
I generally find that essentialism is frowned on becuase its been the basis of many antifeminist arguments.
And that’s an injustice.
Some things *are* essentialist. Like being gay. Or being trans. Or being of a particular skin color.
We are biological creatures — everything is the result of biochemical reactions generated in a form developed by biochemical processes.
Some things simply are, lol.
but *social concepts* shouldn’t be essentialist — your “male energy” example ( a social construct if ever I saw one).
Masculinity, femininity, blah blah blah…
Manifestion is physiological, expression is social.
That is, the fact we are trans is physiological. It has to be — the standard idea is that gender identity (or Sex identity) is inherent.
The way we express it it social — language is social, the concepts of male and female, at their core, are based in language — they are the social conventions we’ve assigned to the essentialist idea behind being trans.
(and pardon me, I am drunk as all hell halfway through my second Sam adams beer tonight as I’ve been handed an eviction notice)
The reimer case was the most public proof — but there were studies saying the same thing as the actual outcome of that for years before the truth came out.
Aas for the surgery aspect, well, I just think to the idea of non trans privilege:
1) Strangers don’t assume they can ask me what my genitals look like and how I have sex.
2) My validity as a man/woman/human is not based upon how much surgery I’ve had or how well I pass as a non-Trans person.
3) When initiating sex with someone, I do not have to worry that they won’t be able to deal with my parts or that having sex with me will cause my partner to question his or her own sexual orientation.
Comment by Dyssonance — November 16, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
i see an inherent problem with labeling things *either* essentialist *or* social. we are social creatures, and everything we experience is through that lens. while it’s true that there are biological realities that make up a part of our lives, we can only experience and process our experiences of that biology through the social lens that we have developed.
there is no “nurture vs nature” - they are one in the same, two sides of the same coin.
the further back i focus my lens, the more alike we are.
Comment by nexy — November 16, 2007 @ 11:33 pm