Some members have expressed an interest in reopening the discussion concerning the inclusion of TS people under the general category of “transgender.” I do have some ideas I’d like to share on this issue, but before I do, I’d like to appeal to any and all participants in this thread to maintain the appropriate decorum while sharing their views. This is quite obviously a sensitive issue, about which some members feel quite strongly. I would admonish all participants to please present their ideas in such a way as to avoid directly addressing another participant. Should you disagree with an idea that has been expressed, please address the idea, not the person who expressed it, and let’s all make an effort to discuss these ideas in an academic and intellectual manner. Please be warned that any posts in this thread that are inconsistent with such an approach will be hidden until it is determined whether they should be deleted. Remember, though we may disagree, we are all friends here, so let’s behave accordingly.

That being said, I’d like to begin this discussion with an appeal for tolerance. I would, again, observe that similar diversity of race, religion and socioeconomic status exists among transgender people as does among “ordinary” society, and as such, each individual approaches their issues of gender identity in their own way. Because of lack of information, and the marginalization of trans people resulting from ignorance, the majority of trans people are understandably reluctant to actively pursue gender transition. Whether through denial, fear or a general misunderstanding of their condition, many trans people pursue other paths in their lives that do not necessarily include gender transition.

Some, in the hope that this condition might go away if it is suppressed for long enough, establish marriage and family relationships or assume other similar obligations, professional or otherwise, which they take very seriously, and possibly rightly so, as an abrupt announcement that mommy or daddy is about to pursue gender transition can prove very disruptive to a family, and could be unfair to any offspring that might have resulted from said marriage relationship. People in this situation made a conscious decision to deny their gender identity, and have a real obligation to accept the consequences of this decision.

Similarly, a person who lives in denial due to professional concerns has made a conscious decision to suppress their trans tendency purely in the interest of survival. Again, this is a conscious decision, the consequences of which must be accepted by that person, most times at the cost of their identity expression. But what could be the cost of the active pursuit of expression? Over the years, I have been closely associated with numerous people who dove into fulltime transition, whether by choice or otherwise, and suffered the dire consequences of social marginalization, forcing them into situations in the effort toward basic survival that have resulted in their eventual demise through the contraction of HIV, or have succumbed to the scourge of substance abuse so common among the trans community. Easily 90% of these people I have known are dead today. Is it any wonder that so many choose not to go down this path simply out of fear?

We all agree that to be transsexual is not a matter of personal choice. We should recognize, though, that how we choose to deal with it is entirely an individual decision. More often than not, this decision results in an individual’s pursuit of some alternative expression of their gender identity. That an individual is caused by circumstance, whether or not of their own making, to pursue a form of gender expression that does not include transition does not change who they are. The distinct possibility that the majority of those people who might fall under some other descriptive subcategory of transgenderism might be decidedly transsexual in the diagnostic sense definitely exists. That such an individual has chosen to express this aspect of self in some other manner in no way renders their manner of gender expression less valid. It is too often due to other circumstances that individuals are forced to pursue these forms of identity expression, and to draw a broad and general cut and dried judgment without considering the individual circumstance is just unfair.

When considering the marginalizing of transgender people in the greater social context, I think we are all in agreement, and united in an appeal for tolerance of gender variance from “ordinary” society. It is my view, then, that it is incumbent upon us, of all people to practice tolerance within our own community, and to advance a spirit of inclusiveness and recognition of diversity that should be exemplary to those from whom we hope to gain such tolerance. Certainly each segment of the transgender community has its own needs, medically, socially and otherwise, but in relation to society at large, the greater need for tolerance of all transgender people is paramount, and can only be achieved through unity. Thus, the preoccupation with semantic minutiae that emphasizes our differences draws attention away from the overall common goal.

Of course, this is a purely editorial essay, and the opinions expressed herein are those of its writer, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of Trannyweb or its parent company. Rational expression of opposing viewpoints is welcome, but once again, I would remind all participants to remain civil and detached in addressing the ideas contained in these posts, and not the writers of said posts. Any posts inconsistent with this appeal will be dealt with accordingly.

Back in the 90's, there was an "activist" group called "Transsexual Menace" whose approach to T activism was similar to the negative reactionary approach of the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." TS Menace did much to decry the deplorable atmoshere of ignorance toward T issues in America, but never proposed constructive solutions. Eventually, because of this perpetually negative approach, they were ignored by the more constructive activist and advocacy groups, and have degenerated to the extent that they only exist now in the form of a tiny Yahoo message board, where a few bitter and unhappy people spend their days heaping derision upon any and all who would dare disagree even slightly with their rigid and narrow view. They are a poor reflection, indeed, upon the community at large, and it's easy to see where such a negative and isolationist approach has gotten them. ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

Anyone interested in learning more about them, or who feels they might fit in with such a sour and embittered group might find them at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/g[...]e_Intl/

Hm... with some fear of being accused of being a hijacker... (well, not really.)

That an individual is caused by circumstance, whether or not of their own making, to pursue a form of gender expression that does not include transition does not change who they are. The distinct possibility remains that the majority of those people who might fall under some other descriptive subcategory of transgenderism might be decidedly transsexual in the diagnostic sense definitely exists. That such an individual has chosen to express this aspect of self in some other manner in no way renders their manner of gender expression less valid.

Recognition of our differing circumstances, surely must be a more important question than any labelling issue. I have no doubt there are TSs staying in the closet their whole life - some because of a restricted set of possible choices, others hardly knowing they're locked up. The political issue must be to help them out in a constructive way ? And that should mean discussing individual cases as well as raising general awareness and respect. And then of course, even with an accepting environment the question of choice remains. The health issue alone means some TSs really ought to think twice or make some compromises.

As for the labelling... i do think labels matter. Like 'gay' - it seems to me it has some similar function as 'transgender'. If i'm right, 'homosexual' was the "neutral" alternative, at least in english speaking countries ? And it really meant reducing the possibility of love to a question of sex. This similarity is even more obvious in my country. The preferred term here is 'homophile', not "gay" or anything like it. The use of the 'homophile' term is more or less expected, as a sign of respect. A similar problem does of course exist with the word 'transsexual'. But then we do have this major sex/body problem. Which may be why the replacement of 'sex' with 'gender' can feel wrong. My guess though is that our reaction to this semantic question is very much related to our personal life stories, and in a particular way: If we have had to put up with a highly repressive environment any perceived or imagined attempt to suppress our most troubling issue makes our alarm go off... right or wrong...

Well, like Robyn said:

Should you disagree with an idea that has been expressed, please address the idea, not the person who expressed it, and let’s all make an effort to discuss these ideas in an academic and intellectual manner. Please be warned that any posts in this thread that are inconsistent with such an approach will be hidden until it is determined whether they should be deleted. Remember, though we may disagree, we are all friends here, so let’s behave accordingly.

And i was actually thinking of other people, less fortunate than myself - i.e. those locked up in some closet for whatever reasons.

The way i see it there's no necessary contradiction between general political work and trying to learn whatever we can from the experience of individuals. It's a question of striking a balance. The great thing about this place when i signed in here the first time was the variety of life stories, all of them to be learnt something from, and some general conclusions to be drawn from them too.

In practical terms: As with any kind of union work i think we should start with supporting our local, be that by paying for our membership here at TW and/or joining our national TG organisations - regardless of whether we personally approve of the overall policy or not. In this sense i do agree that a unison voice is of decisive importance. And then there should be room for dissension if there are to be any longterm realistic policy.

Very well put Trisha - I agree whole heartedly with what you say, we are all as different as any other section of society, you will find as much variation amongst TS/CD/TVs etc as say you will in people who wear jeans. We are all individuals and that is a wonderful thing. Some of us are happy with where we are, others are not, some are still trying to find their way, but that is just how it is and in no way negative. Let us celebrate the differences rather than trying to hang labels on them

Transitioning IS a choice, of course it is a choice. It’s a very difficult decision one has to make and should not be taken lightly. I expect all transsexuals want to transition, but some feel they are shackled by social restrictions and/or their own situation. I know people like that, in fact I myself have spent most of my life like that.
Brina: If transition is not a choice then why have you spent so many years living in the “wrong” role, just like I, and so many of us have. It took me a while to make the decision that I actually COULD transition, but me and you, Brina, were never TV/CD/drag queen, we were always TS, and there are plenty of others just like us NOT in transition. Maybe they will be one day, maybe they won’t. Your (rhetorical) question, “How dare you make claims that those who are crossdressers,Transvestites,Drag Queens/Kings and those other members are in fact actuially transexuals…” would seem to be one of your pet hates – putting words into another’s mouth. Robyn didn’t use any of those words which you seemingly utter with such contempt. Seemingly. If you don’t feel contempt for TV’s/CD’s or whatever then perhaps you should ask yourself why people keep thinking you do. By posing your question in this way you’re implying that anyone not in transition can not be transsexual, does that mean you were once a transvestite? I don’t think it does.
Transgender isn’t a bad word though, as far as labels go…!
xx

Lucy, your latest posting here is one of the reasons why I admire you so much. As Meat Loaf once sung, "You took the words right out of my mouth."

Please be well, all of you. No matter what designation you assign yourself.

There was a time, in the United States, when millions of our citizens were referred to as "niggers" or, if fortunate, "colored". In more recent times the accepted /preferred terms were "black" and "African American". The children of those who once insisted that they be called "black" now insist on "African American" with a vehemence that can, for a few, approach that of the "transgendered/transsexual" issue. My point here is simple. This group FIRST fought for it's power and entitlement. When they had this power and a recognized (PC?) voice they THEN argued over differences in terminology Why? Because as individuals they were abused, tormented, threatened, injured or killed. Sound familiar? They once hung "niggers"....nobody today hangs an "African American", who is part of a power GROUP. In 1950 they would have hung an "African American" twice as fast as a "nigger". The difference is POWER! Get your power first (Declaration of Independence and "Revolution" for example), THEN sit down and work out the Bill of Rights.

I have intentionally kept this comparison simple. Please don't distract from the point by contesting minutia of the Civil Rights and Colonial uprising. The point is that it is far more effective to get your power FIRST and THEN exert it to demand "truth in labelling". It could well be the difference between living free as "transgendered" or dying as "transsexual". Get your priorities sorted people. I intend to wait until I can sit openly in a street cafe before I fight to be labelled "Two Spirit" rather than "transgendered", terms that come from two TOTALLY different viewpoints and which share less in common than transgendered/transsexual.

The problem with labels right now is that we're the only ones that realy understand them. The public doesn't know the difference & doesn't realy care.
In the movie Transamerica her sister ask her if she wanted to try on an outfit that was a bit outlandish. Her answer was "please I'm a TS not a TV". When I started laughing my sister looked at me like I was stupid. As far as she's concerned there is no difference.
So this whole thing about labels is just among us.

I think that being grouped under the TG banner is bad for me as a transsexual but I am willing to change my oppinion.

As a transsexual I may have problems with how NHS handles transsexuality. This is a problem I don't share with TV's, CD's or drag queens since they aren't transsexuals.

I may have a problem with things like the naming law but, again, I don't share this problem with TV's, CD's or drag queens since they are unlikely to want to change their names.

I don't know what problems a transvestite is really facing except for personal ones.

I am simply not able to find any common ground where I feel the need for the TG banner and all I feel is that it is including me in a hostile way making my condition look like som kind of fetish or lifestyle.
I'd really like some common ground before I feel comfortable under the TG banner and I'd like suggestions of issues that crave the need for such a banner. Before anyone suggests what the TG group is really fighting for and why I should feel part of it, these are some of my oppinions that may matter:

I believe that respect is earned, not given, on a personal basis.

I believe that acceptance comes from people understanding you, your backgound and your problems and that grouping transsexuals along with drag queens isn't helping.

I don't have a problem with the "two gender system".

I am not in favour of gay marriage.

I think that the term "hate crime" should be abandoned. (An assault is always an assault, no matter the reason)

I think that people are already allowed to wear whatever clothes they like but I reserve my and everyone elses right to give someone dressed as a bunny, in rubber clothes, wearing pink hair, walking around naked, and so on an extra look. It is natural to study things that are out of the ordinary.

So, my question to all of you is this:
If the TG banner is needed to provide "us" with "one voice" then what are "we" really fighting for?