Since my last post on this issue, I’ve met a few really cool folks in the “TS-not-TG” camp. I was fortunate enough to meet one transsexual named Zoe. We messaged back and forth for some time over FaceBook and she really helped me to better understand where she’s coming from. And you know what, I 100% support her decision to self-identify herself as transsexual and not as transgender. The thing that seems to separate Zoe from the seeming majority of those in the TS-not-TG camp is that she’s not a hypocrite, she likes facts and she speaks for herself instead of presuming to speak for all other transsexuals.
TS people don’t identify as TG anymore
A big problem with the idea that TS people no longer identify as TG is that it’s a demonstrably fallacious idea. NGLTF recently published the largest American trans study ever with over 6,000 respondents. In this study, they actually asked how we self-indentify. Care to guess how many self-identified with the term “transgender”? Ninety percent. Yup; as in almost everyone but a small minority.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
Double standards are fun
Also, I’ve not yet seen the TS-not-TG group address a double standard I regularly observe:
-
Most in the TS-not-TG group will regularly group TS and IS people together when talking about themselves because, they claim, being grouped together with other types of trans folk is offensive to them.
-
However, most in the TS-not-TG group seem to have a blind-spot when it comes to acknowledging that in many regions of America, intersex people are offended when they are grouped with transsexuals.
-
So, it’s somehow okay to demand that all transsexual people stop being referred to as transgender because the very idea is seemingly too offensive to contemplate, but it doesn’t matter that grouping themselves with IS people is incredibly offensive to some IS people. That double standard is what I think most might view as being hypocritical.
Grouping us together is something new that was done to us
I’ve also noticed that many of the TS-not-TG people feel that they were grouped with other types of trans folk only very recently. Perhaps where they come from, this is absolutely true. However, it’s demonstrably incorrect to make that claim for all transsexuals. In Houston, Texas (for example) our community purposefully began working to create one unified community that encompassed all types of trans people in the mid 1970s.
Houston, 1976. Note that even then, we were one politically active community.
What about civil rights?
Another thing that irks me is the demonstrably false notion that if all non-cisgender are grouped together, that we transsexuals won’t get our civil rights. If that’s so, why then is it that in Houston (Bush-land) TEXAS, a deep-south RED State we have…
-
The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – into politics.
-
The 2nd openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.
-
Houston becoming is home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.
-
An Executive Order protecting TRANSGENDER people from discrimination.
-
The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.
-
Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.
We did all of that in one of the Reddest states in the Union by becoming one active and unified community back in 1975 when HPD could and would get away with literally murdering people like us.
Houston Mayor and 2 judges perform a ceremonial swearing-in of openly transgender judge, Phyllis Frye at the Transgender Unity Banquet, 2011.
It’s a demonstrably false notion that presenting a united trans community somehow slows the march towards transsexual civil rights or somehow retards the quality of life transsexual people might hope to enjoy.
It’s called a dictionary
Regardless of what definition one chooses to confer upon the term “transgender” or how you personally feel about the term, all non-cisgender people are part of a group that the English language defines as being “transgender“. Look up the word in an English language dictionary. Just because someone somewhere uses the word in a manner consistent with the English language and in a way that the majority of the population in question would agree on and self-identity with, it’s (IMHO) a little unreasonable for a TS-not-TG person go around claiming that they’ve been somehow personally wronged when someone somewhere refers to the non-cis community as the transgender community.
The drama of elitism
Ashley Love: Being called transgender is assault and sexual objectification.
And the above gem brings me to the whole concept of trans elitism. Claiming that merely having an English language term to talk about non-cis people as a group is even in the same ballpark as assault and sexual objectification is, I think, a little over the top.
Some in the TS-not-TG group have what they call, “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” (HBS). HBS is an effort to rebrand the term, “transsexual”. HBS people, like the ‘we’re not TG, we’re all TS/IS’ group are hoping to link the idea of transsexualism to intersex conditions in a worthy, but largely misguided effort to destigmatize the plight of transsexuals.
What’s the stigma that some in the TS-not-TG/HBS camp are trying to overcome you might ask? Well, that stigma would be all the other types of trans human beings. A world view that blames our non-cis brothers and sisters for our plight instead of focusing on our real oppressors is lame IMHO. Also, you know what else I think is lame?
Check out what Harry Benjamin thought about transsexual people who transition – from Sexology, 1963
The man that HBS people have rebranded transsexualism after believed that a non-cis male who transitions to female is still male. Yup. They named their syndrome after someone who believed the exact opposite of what they espouse.
And, the wrap-up
Don’t get me wrong, I think that in all likelihood, transsexualism is an intersex condition (at least, according to the growing mountain of studies looking at brain morphology). If you don’t want me to call you transgender, then I won’t. If you claim to speak for yourself and your own experience, I won’t take issue when you talk about your own experience. To be clear: If you’re someone who doesn’t prefer to be called transgender and instead prefers to be referred to as transsexual, I think that’s fine.
However, when you presume to speak for all transsexuals, when you blame-shift our plight onto the backs of our non-cis brothers and sisters, when you make demonstrably false claims, make up ironically laughable syndromes and refuse to acknowledge your own hypocrisy, then I’ve got a problem that I’ll probably continue to blog about and lampoon from time to time. I also think that if you don’t want to upset yourself every time someone else refers to your non-cis experience, you’ll probably need to make allowances for the current English language terms that the majority of transsexuals use by not claiming that someone assaulted you (*cough-Ashley-Love-cough*) should they refer to you as being part of the non-cis community.
Tags: TG Archive
I think you've got to respect a person's boundaries – if a person wishes not to identify as 'transgender' because as they have seen it, they've moved beyond that term into a new phase/identity, then you must respect it. It's like at some point, a girl wants to be known as a woman – in someways there is a metamorphosis that incorporates new elements – such as biology, real physical change. Language should describe this, whether or not 'transsexual' is best term is arguable – When a person chooses to transition, there is no turning back, ideally that person is no longer transgendered, because their gender is relatively constant – Ideally they would freely identify with their new gender – the stipulation of being trans, only volunteered by the person involved. I'm a woman – who is also trans, rather than cis, Instead of I'm trans who identifies as a woman, rather than as a man.
Well, I mostly agree with everything that you've written. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Excellent! Thanks, Cristan, for stating so clearly many of my own thoughts on this issue.
Thanks Abby!
Hi Cristan,
I've known Zoe thru a couple of other groups. I agree that she speaks for herself and has excellent logic in her arguements. I am in her camp in the sense that I have never applied transgender/transgendered regarding myself. I have always ID'd as either transsexual or as woman born transsexual (WBT). I am not against anyone using whatever term that they wish to call themselves. I am against anyone making statements which start off with ALL_ _ _ _ _ !
Yup!
When someone asks me (usually in the context of talking to a group of university students) how I identify, I say that I'm a transsexual woman. However, I've never gotten myself upset when someone refers to non-cis people as a whole as being transgender. I've never felt that someone was trying to "assault" me or steal away my "self"-ness just because they used that word ^_^
Thank you Cristin, you put words to what a lot of us have been thinking on this issue.
^_^ Thanks!
Saying that a transsexual person is not transgender is like saying that a human being is not an Eukaryote. By the fundamentals of taxonomy and ontology according to the categorization of species, we are Eukaryotes because we are "organism[s] whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes." Species are categorized in the Biological taxonomy according to how many traits that they share with other species. It's the same with the transgender community, as we share a number of common goals and concerns and working towards them helps to solve issues to make life better for everyone else in the community.
The activities of these H-BullShit people are an insult towards transsexual women, since they presume that all transsexual women want that separation from transgender people when that is simply not the case. HBS is simply transphobia wrapped in a pseudoscientific cloak, you'd hear the same bullshit going to an anti-LGBT "ministry" like Exodus International so why tolerate it in our own community?
LOL! Yah, I agree with you girl!
I think the word "transgender" is problematic as an umbrella term. Speaking for myself personally, there's nothing trans about my gender expression or identity; it corresponds in a perfectly unremarkable way to my sex identity. The problem is that my sex doesn't match my sex identity.
That doesn't mean I don't think there ought to *be* an umbrella term. I do. There are common threads of experience that connect all of us whose gender and sex identities and expressions conflict with society's expectations of people with our genital configuration. I just don't think that "transgender" is a good term because, dictionary definitions aside, it gives the wrong impression. It implies, for instance, to feminists that I as a trans male am physically transitioning because of oppressive gender constructs.
I also think it's a problematic term for some other subcommunities of the trans* community, especially since the dictionary definitions are built to try and include those of us on the transsexual end. For instance, are drag queens really transgender? Some may be, but I don't think there's anything inherent in drag performance that requires a non-conforming gender identity.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is the type of dialogue that I can really get behind!
While I absolutely disagree with almost everything Kyril shared, it doesn't mean that Kyril is sexually objectifying me or assaulting me.
I appreciate that you took the time to comment!
As you seem to like the word, so demonstrably explain to me how any of these things you listed are even an example of how the transgender are acquiring civil right, much less substantiating your claim they are proof of it. Nothing detailed, just a demonstrably short explanation.
•Houston City Council members sponsoring a TRANSGENDER events
•The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – into politics.
•The 2nd openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.
•Houston becoming is home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.
•The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.
•Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.
Do you really think being appointed a judge is an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right, or having someone sponsor a TG event, or having the ability to run for office, or supporting someone for office, or even someone attending a TG function…do you really believe that these bulleted items you mention and the picture of Phyllis Frye are examples of civil rights having been, or being, acquired?
I don’t think they are examples at all…not even bad examples…of anyone acquiring anything, particularly civil rights here in “Houston (Bush-land) TEXAS, a deep-south RED State…”
Because someone recognizes another, doesn’t mean they support them, much less is willing to support granting them a civil right due to their status.
This whole post is weak, bordering on lame, only serving to push your specific transgender agenda and further polarizing transsexuals and those who are not.
Hrm, let me make sure that I'm understanding your argument before I address it. I think you're trying to claim that all of the things I've listed are things that happen when non-cis people DO NOT have civil rights. Correct? In other words, the equality indicators (protections, holding office, political figures choosing to openly associate with all trans people, etc) are not, in fact, equality indicators; they're actually inequality indicators.
If I'm misunderstanding your premise, please expound on it more.
Also, what do you mean when you write, "Because someone recognizes another, doesn’t mean they support them, much less is willing to support granting them a civil right due to their status."? Do you mean that just because someone recognizes that we exist, that a mere recognition does not equal civil rights? If that's your meaning, then I'd absolutely agree. If, on the other hand, you're attempting to make the argument that the equality indicators (protections, holding office, political figures choosing to associate with all trans people, etc.) are nothing more than mere recognition of our existence, then I'd have to absolutely disagree.
Now, if SA-TA is able to offer an example of a community of transsexual who have, all by themselves and without the aid of other trans folk, accomplished what the Houston trans community has, then I may revise my conclusion that working together for common purpose is more productive than working alone.
I'm not sure how you could not understand what I wrote unless you choose not to. But, to make it clear, you list a series of events that you imply is proof that all of the so-called "trans" groups, or transgender, can acquire civil rights. And, I assert that none of the examples you give are even an example of a civil right, much less a substantiation that the transgender acquired them. Even clearer:
•Houston City Council members sponsoring a TRANSGENDER events
The Houston City Council sponsoring a transgender event is no more an example of the transgender acquiring civil rights than the Kiwanis Club sponsoring a crawfish boil.
•The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – into politics.
This is NOT an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.
•The 2nd openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.
This is NOT an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.
•Houston becoming is home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.
This is NOT an example of a civil right being acquired.
•The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.
This is not an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.
•Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.
This is not an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.
All of the things you list are quite admirable and I congratulate you and your Houston community for building the bridges that you have…but the items you list are not examples of civil rights be acquired. Anyone can be appointed to position, always has been that way…anyone can support the candidate of their choice, always has been that way, anyone is free to attend a function, or not, if they are invited, always has been that way. The examples you give are strictly related to being recognized. Does Texas allow post ops to marry…maybe so with the 2009 Family Code, then again, maybe not; they haven't upheld a case yet. Does Texas have legislation on the books that routinely allow the changing of a birth certificate of post ops upon presenting proof of the change, without having the right attorney and the right judge in place…I don't think so. Those are examples of civil rights, not an official attending a function.
As for as presenting you with the example you requested…feel free to go to this web post of a Deacon Law Review article when a civil right was acquired in Louisiana more than 40 years ago to accomplish both of the examples above.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol9…
When the issues of post op transsexuals are merged with the issues of the other "gender variant" groups, the TSs get screwed, every time. The Nikki Araguz case was and is an example. You said that the Araguz case would define same sex marriage in Texas when, in reality, this case had, and has, nothing to do with same sex marriage, the GLB, or the transgender. It got so bad that Ms. Araguz had to specifically ask the GLBT to simply leave her out of their agenda completely…unfortunately, way too little, way too late. I'm not saying that the GLBT support of her is what caused her to lose her case, to date. But, in the court of public opinion, the GLBT, you, and others did way more harm than good in your attempt to make the Araguz case into a GLBT issue rather than one of a heterosexual post op female having their sex recognized. I hoped like hell that Nikki would have prevailed, but even if she had, based on her sex change, it wouldn't have made one iota of difference in the same-sex marriage debate. Louisiana has a constitutional amendment that prohibits same sex marriage, yet completely recognize the legitimacy of a post operative female, as well as their right to enter into a heterosexual marriage…and, yes, this has been upheld in court.
Thank you for taking the time to respond!
Now, from the onset, I must admit that I think that you’re operating from a place of belief. You’re world view seems to be a certain way. I currently hold this opinion because when I dialogue with you it seems as if I’m debating a belief system instead of any set of objective metrics. Additionally, you’ve never shown any signs of amending your initial premise. You’re stating as fact the same things you’ve been saying for a couple of years now.
Note that I begin and end my commentary with an amended assessment of the “TS-not-TG” group. Note that I’ve stated that I now agree that if someone wants to be referred to as transsexual instead of transgender, that I support that self-identity. By contrast, you seem to still insist that it is an affront to you if any transsexual is referred to as being transgender. If I’m incorrect in my assessment of your current stance (the previous sentence), please correct me. Learning that I'm incorrect in my assessment, would bring me joy. It don't bring me joy to think that another transsexual sister would be that closed minded.
In your response, you seem to make 2 primary points:
1.) You’ve answered my challenge
2.) The items I’ve listed are not civil rights
– My Rebuttal: You’ve answered my challenge –
I find it ironic that you used the work of Katrina Rose to answer my challenge:
Kat is from Houston. She also self-identifies as being part of the transgender community. In the article you cite as being the answer to my challenge, she states:
She laid the reversal of our rights at the feet of anti-trans gay activists and religious fundies. I agree with Kat on all points.
I asked you to provide an example of a transsexual community that had – on its own – accomplished what the Houston Trans community has accomplished by working together. Instead, you’ve given me a history of how transsexual rights were crushed by religious idiots and gay activists who viewed transsexual people as being problematic to their own goals. You didn’t give me an example of where, in what is arguably one of the most discriminatory places in the nation to live if you are transsexual, transsexuals – working alone – have accomplished what Houston transsexuals, working together with other non-cis people, have accomplished. If you cannot or will not provide me an apples-to-apples example, then I must conclude that you have no credible answer to my challenge.
– My Rebuttal: The items I’ve listed are not civil rights –
You’ve set up a surprising strawman argument here. I never said that fact that, for example, elected officials in the deep-south hanging out with all types of non-cis people is a literal civil right.
Here’s my argument: My examples are indicators of a community’s civil rights status. Instead of arguing that each is not, in and of itself, a literal legislative civil right, please deal with my actual premise. If you cannot or will not address my actual argument, then I must conclude that you have no credible response.
If you’re having trouble with the idea of dealing with metrics when looking at a specific community’s civil rights standing, let me give you an apples-to-apples example of fair civil rights metrics:
In the context of racial civil rights issues; that is, the racial context of the pre-Civil Rights Act of 1968 Deep South, how common would the following be?
• White Houston City Council members sponsoring a black events.
• The Houston Mayor appointing the 2nd black judge in the nation.
• Houston becoming home to the only African-American Center and Archive in the nation.
• The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event the black community puts on.
• Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meets with Houston black leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-white people.
If the above were true in the Deep South of 1967, it would be a bit difficult to argue that blacks were so discriminated against that they needed a Federal law explicitly protecting the civil rights of all people regardless of race. Why you might ask? That’s because the above are indicators of the overall health of a community’s civil rights. If you cannot or will not concede that the above are indicators of a community’s civil rights status, I must conclude that your world-view belief system will not allow you to work with objective facts in a meaningful way regarding this one single issue.
You’ve stated that in the Deep South, that:
I have to say that it is my opinion that this statement alone explicitly demonstrates that you are currently lacking an ability to deal with the TS-not-TG dialogue in a rational manner. You’ve basically applied the following logic: A baseball is round, an orange is round; therefore, you can eat a baseball. Yes, in both instances someone is sponsoring something. However, to then conclude that a non-trans politician in the Deep South sponsoring a transgender social is exactly the same thing as the “Kiwanis Club sponsoring a crawfish boil” is nothing more than a fallacious conflation of two tangentially linked occurrences (sponsorship). Just because there are two sponsorships (political sponsorship of the transgender community and the Kiwanis Club sponsorship of a crawfish boil) it does not follow that they are both exactly alike in meaning. If you cannot or will not grasp this simple fact, then I must conclude that your world-view belief system will not allow you to work with objective facts in a meaningful way regarding this one single issue.
– The Wrap-Up: Your last paragraph –
Lastly, you seem to try to muddy the waters about the Houston Transgender Community with arguments about things that are happening outside of the Houston Transgender Community. Of course, this is merely my interpretation of what you wrote and is certainly not infallible.
You brought up the Nikki Araguz case an claimed that I said that this a about same-sex marriage rights. Again, I think you are making a strawman argument. What I said over and over again was that the Texas Attorney General said that he was waiting on the Wharton case to get over with in order to issue an opinion about if the State will recognize the transitioned status of people like Nikki. The suit claimed that Nikki’s marriage was invalid because she, they claim, is male. This case is not about same-sex marriage rights (though, the very nature of the case does raise the issue); this case is about whether or not Nikki (and people like you and I) are our transitioned sex or the sex that was indicated on our original medical certificate of live birth.
Fortunately, the case is being appealed to the 13th circuit court of appeals, a Democrat-stacked court. To me, it’s not surprising that a small-town Republican judge ruled in a manner consistent with the stated goals and aims of the organization he counts on to help him keep his job when it comes time for re-election. I think Nikki has a very good chance at winning now.
You also claimed (without any supporting evidence) that GLBT support harmed Nikki in the court of public opinion. Would you please provide some objective facts to support your premise?
(Sidebar: And before you cite the Ashley Love edited statement Love talked Nikki into posting, you need to balance that with the fact that Nikki herself was marching, speaking, lobbying for GLBT equality in the No H8 march on Austin, Texas just a couple of weeks ago.)
I appreciate the fact that you are putting your views out in the public arena for review. I appreciate that you feel strongly about supporting transsexual rights. I also support you in referring to yourself as transsexual instead of transgender.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond!
With regard to the first two paragraphs of your treatise…the first one makes no sense to me, I am stating what I believe and/or have experienced. It’s not very often I’m asked to refer to myself, in fact, I can’t remember the last time…perhaps on a contract I might have accepted…but it’s never transsexual, much less transgender, simply female.
Try reading the whole essay, Cristan…particularly the part of Katrina Rose’s essay regarding to the Laws of Louisiana being changed to allow post ops to change their birth certificates and enter into heterosexual marriages.
“You’ve set up a surprising strawman argument here. I never said that fact that, for example, elected officials in the deep-south hanging out with all types of non-cis people is a literal civil right.”
No, you didn’t “literally” say that, but you certainly strongly and emphatically implied it by saying:
“Another thing that irks me is the demonstrably false notion that if all non-cisgender are grouped together, that we transsexuals won’t get our civil rights. If that’s so, why then is it that in Houston…”
And, then you list the examples used to substantiate what “irks” you.
If you want to play words games, I’m not interested.
Now, this is funny. You take each of the examples you give to substantiate the transgender acquiring civil rights and insert black person, judge, etc in place of transgender. And, then you say:
“If the above were true in the Deep South of 1967, it would be a bit difficult to argue that blacks were so discriminated against that they needed a Federal law explicitly protecting the civil rights of all people regardless of race.”
Oh, really. Then, being as this is your example, by your logic, if your examples are indeed indicative of the transgender acquiring their civil rights then…” it would be a bit difficult to argue that transgender in Houston are so discriminated against that they need a Federal law explicitly protecting the civil rights of all transgender regardless of category.
You say that your race example is absolutely an “apples for apples example of fair civil rights metrics.”
The fact is, that we both know that both examples are ludicrous. The Civil Rights Act was a necessity, just as ENDA is.
I fully understand your position with regards to the bridges that have been built by the transgender community here in Houston, and acknowledged how admirable that was in my previous reply. Nonetheless, though they are indeed indicators of acceptance and the “overall quality of health” of the Houston transgender community, which I applaud, the examples you give are not proof that the transgender are acquiring civil rights…simply that they are more accepted.
You conclude whatever it is that you want about my “world –view belief.”
So what if Nikki marched, spoke, or lobbied for GLBT equality in Austin. I don’t care. But, who are you to disallow me to use her own words as proof that her case was being harmed. Was she lying…again? But, as further proof, you and other GLBT advocates at every turn used this as a shirt tail for the GLBT to hang onto…and simply furthered the perception of the mainstream that this was a case of same-sex marriage…a gay issue…a transgender issue…when it was not. You can check out the commentary and comments on the numerous film clip scattered through-out the internet for proof.
You say this:
“You brought up the Nikki Araguz case an claimed that I said that this a about same-sex marriage rights. Again, I think you are making a strawman argument. What I said over and over again was that the Texas Attorney General said that he was waiting on the Wharton case to get over with in order to issue an opinion about if the State will recognize the transitioned status of people like Nikki.”
No, actually, what you said, was what I said you said and that was that the Araguz case would define same sex marriage in Texas…specifically, you said this:
http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/22/nikki/
“This will be a landmark case. We face a long legal battle which will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court and will define future law on transgender recognition and same-sex marriage.”
I will tell you again, Cristan, the Nikki Araguz case has nothing to do with transgender, the GLBT, or same sex marriage…it had and has to do with what you are NOW saying, i.e., will Texas recognize the transitioned, post operative status of Nikki Araguz, and by implication and association, post operative transsexuals.
I have a passing acquaintance with Ashley Love, and to the best of my knowledge she didn’t talk Nikki into posting her disavowal of the GLBT…I do know that it was I who first informed her of Nikki’s post. In the comments of Nikki’s post, it appeared that Meghan Stabler did the coaching. Perhaps you have better insight.
I don’t refer to myself as transsexual, like I said, if I have to refer to myself at all, it’s simply female.
I’ll tell you this, Cristan, I really don’t appreciate debating transgender advocates who either conclude or preface their debate points with such statements as these:
“If you cannot or will not provide me an apples-to-apples example, then I must conclude that you have no credible answer to my challenge.”
“If you cannot or will not provide me an apples-to-apples example, then I must conclude that you have no credible answer to my challenge.”
“If you cannot or will not address my actual argument, then I must conclude that you have no credible response.”
“If you’re having trouble with the idea of dealing with metrics when looking at a specific community’s civil rights standing…”
“I have to say that it is my opinion that this statement alone explicitly demonstrates that you are currently lacking an ability to deal with the TS-not-TG dialogue in a rational manner.”
“If you cannot or will not grasp this simple fact, then I must conclude that your world-view belief system will not allow you to work with objective facts in a meaningful way regarding this one single issue.”
Cristan, you don’t have the intellectual reserve to come at me and I don’t appreciate the condescending statements you make. I’m not inclined to continue. You continue “identifying” as transgender…or transgender and transsexual, or as transgender, transsexual, and female…or any combination of any of them. Hell, you can even claim “victory” like you did with the television debate you had. The point is your life seems to be absolutely absorbed, revolving around any and everything “transgender”…mine is not.
Sorry for putting my reply on the back burner. I've not forgotten. I've been busy with a family illness issue.
Anyway, I did want to get back with you about a couple of misconceptions.
As I said in the beginning of my post, I'm not talking about all "TS-not-TG" people; rather, I'm talking about the ones who are over the top. If you don't fit who I describe in my last paragraph, then this post isn't commenting on you, your identity or your position:
If the above isn't you, then I'm not sure what reasonable problem you could claim to have with my blog post.
You wrote:
This makes it sound as if this is suddenly my position. If you check my YouTube channel, you will find a number of videos (beginning 8/2010) in which I make this same argument. Here's a link to one from August of 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYY0GTmh7WY .
If you want my view on a subject, go here or go to my YouTube channel. The TG Center is run by a Board of Directors. The press release you claim that I wrote was actually written by a Board member. While I do think this raises some same-sex questions since this is what the other side is claiming (that this is a same-sex marriage), I've been fairly vocal about my personal views.
I will probably continue self-identifying as a transsexual woman who is part of the transgender community since that's part of the Houston culture and that seems to work fairly well for us (considering where we live). I absolutely support you in self-identifying in whatever way you wish as well. Additionally, I support your town having whatever type of culture it wants to have – even if the culture your area chooses to have is no culture. I don't have a problem with how anyone self-identifies. My problem comes from people like Love, HBers and the like presumes to speak for all transsexuals while consistently making breathtakingly silly claims (transgender = assault, sexual objectification, slavery, etc).
As for me personally, neither myself nor even one other TS I either know or have met wants to deny the myriad groups under the TG their civil rights, however, the issues of post op transsexuals and pre operative surgery tracked transsexuals are not the same as those of others under the transgender umbrellas…it's not a matter of exclusionism, elitism, etc…it's just the way it is.
This is my opinion, whether you change yours or not is entirely up to you.
Just as a side note, a blog post I wrote a couple of days ago on my blog addresses the broad brush stroke of what you call the "double standard" with regards to TSs wanting to group themselves with the intersex…rather than have one wade through the post, here is what I said…in partial AGREEMENT with you:
"I agree with you, to some extent, but wholeheartedly disagree with you that the TS-not-TG group, as you call us, makes that correlation on a grand scale. Yes, I’ve seen comments and blog entries in which some TS claims, as fact, that transsexualism is an intersex condition, but rarely, except for the die-hard HBSers. There is some evidence this might be true, some might even say more than a little evidence of the fact, but transsexualism being considered an intersex condition is anything but a definitively proven hypothesis. I’m also well aware that the intersex as a whole want to maintain there autonomy and resent being grouped with the TS. Speaking for myself, to the best of my knowledge, I am not intersex; I have never grouped myself with them…in fact, I’ve posted on my blog in defense of them being colonized or sexualized by any group, particularly the GLBT, which is trying their damnedest to do just that. On the other hand, when I read about someone who has normal genitalia and has fathered children before then suffering a spontaneous sex change or realizing they were transsexual after a bee sting all I can do is just shake my head in disgust. The same goes for all those who claim they are intersex, though everything else is perfectly normal, because they find out they have a chromosomal anomaly. Most intersex people are not transsexual; most transsexual people are not intersex…that is simply the truth of the matter. There are enough links in this blog, much less on the internet, to prove that beyond doubt. So, don’t group all of us in the same boat, Cristan. Just as the transgender have their severely wacko subset, so do we. I assure you, I don’t care for them any more than you do."
"As for me personally, neither myself nor even one other TS I either know or have met wants to deny the myriad groups under the TG their civil rights, however, the issues of post op transsexuals and pre operative surgery tracked transsexuals are not the same as those of others under the transgender umbrellas…"
Yes, I 100% agree. We are not the same in the same way drag queens are not the same as cross dressers and effeminate men are not intersex. Those of us who face discrimination due to our perceived violation of cultural gender stereotypes – in Houston, at least – band together to make our Houston community a better place for us all. Doing this has never stripped me of my self-identity.
"I agree with you, to some extent, but wholeheartedly disagree with you that the TS-not-TG group, as you call us, makes that correlation on a grand scale. "
Yes, we are in agreement. In my first and last paragraph I make it clear that I'm not talking everyone in the TS-not-TG group. Having said that, your response to this assertion is the first I've seen and as such, I really appreciate it.
Science moves on. I hope we do get early-childhood gender-screening technology. No transperson should have to go through the wrong puberty. On the other-hand nobody should be playing gatekeeper/god with other people's lives and bodies. If someone thinks that taking hormones & obtaining cosmetic surgeries will make them happy they should have every right to, regardless of diagnosis.
You pass, you get your 'mones & surgery on insurance.
You fail, you buy them yourself.
I don't think the TS-not-TG people really hate TG-identified people, they just want special recognition. This way they get that recognition in the form of a diagnostic imaging report.
When somebody transitions on a whim in a year without following standards of care AND a positive imaging result for brain cross-sexing and then decides it was all a mistake and to detransition we can point and say they didn't have the communities support to start with so don't look at us.
Of course all of this is only possible in a world that people the freedom to do as they wish with their own lives…
even to call themselves whatever they want..
even if you don't like SOMEONE ELSE applying a word to THEMSELVES that YOU? don't like.
–Some Tranny.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The intersexed are embarrassed by the transsexuals.
The transsexuals are embarrassed by the crossdressers.
The crossdressers are embarrassed by the gay men.
The gay men are embarrassed by the feminine androphilic transwomen.
The "feminine" androphilic transwomen are embarrassed by the "masculine" gynephilic transwomen.
The gynephilic transwomen are embarrassed by the androphilic tranwomen because "they are gay men".
The HBS' are embarrassed by the classic transsexuals because they are not able to hold their hand bags in the right way.
The classic transsexuals are embarrassed by the transkids, because they are "male prostitutes in bed with Blanchard".
The transkids are embarrassed by the autogynephiliacs, because they risk being associated with unfeminine crossdressers.
The crossdreamers and the "autogynephiliacs" are just embarrassed.
The post-ops are embarrassed by the non-ops,
and the non-op Virginia Price would rather not be associated with the silly transsexuals.
The lesbian are embarrassed by the "treason" of the F2M transmen.
The F2M transmen, however, seem to be at ease with everybody.
Could it be that the transmen are the only ones not afraid of being called a perverted sissy? Is this what it is: Are we all misogynists?
although I don't follow how lesbians "embarrassed by the 'treason' of the F2M transmen" constitutes misogyny, I liked the lyricism of your escalating thought here. kudos to you.
The "trans men are traitors" meme is tied strongly to the misogynistic motives certain feminists ascribe to our transitions; while not all of the claims are necessarily misogynistic, ongoing conversations about trans men can be very revealing.
Thank you so much for your blog post *Transgender VS Transsexual, Round 2: FIGHT!" – I agree totally! I have had several incidents lately, particularly on Facebook, with some girls who seem to believe just the opposite! I believe dictionary definitions take precedence in this case over personal feelings.
I look forward to reading all your blog posts, as well as following you on Facebook and Twitter. Happy to learn of your online presence!
Brenda Stewart http://www.thesecondrepublic.com
facebook/brenda2481
Twitter – brenda34748
brenda2481@gmail.com
Thank you for this post. Very interesting reading, for sure.
What a wonderful post! I thoroughly enjoyed it. I recommend this for your consideration:
http://practicalandrogyny.com/2011/04/28/transgen…
I like the historical documents, thanks for sharing.
The 10% have come out to play…..Love this post Cristan…