Ti V Glbq

[Guest Kade]

Where to you stand on Trans and intersex issues being included, or not, with the Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Queer/Questioning groups?

I've heard plenty of Trans people talk about how they wish the T and I were separated from the others as our issues are gender, not sexuality related.

Personally I swing the opposite way and wish they were more included. I get disheartened with the GLB community has events that all but exclude Trans and Intersex issues.

Where do you stand and why?

[Guest Evan_J]

I don't know.

On one hand, when I attend ...well anything....and glb people are present I don't feel like I fit amongst them. I know that I'm "recognized" (literally as in by sight, and in terms of having knowledge about "what is a trans person") better by them due to the history but past that there's not "commonality" since typically the ground they stand on to find sameness with one another revolves around sexual attractions with their same genders. I don't have that . I personally am a straight man and so really it quickly feels like "you don't want us" from the gay males and "we don't want you " from the lesbian women and in 3.3 seconds I'm thinking "They're right, what the hell am I doing here". That lack of dynamic then feeds the separation argument.

The argument to the contrary is based on the idea that if we are all marginalized then why not increase our strength by increasing our numbers . However , taking the separation scenario and extending its crux, this arguement also would be validated with the idea that blacks, arabs, and the handicapped should also band with the glb since they too are marginalized and about as experiencing commonality as whole groups with the glb as many trans people.

Cis media and consciousness does "clump" transpeople in with glb people . But, arguably, do they not also clump them in with "all manner of sexual deviants" by their definitions? And I don't hear anyone trying to figure out if trans folk should band with bdsm folk or people who practice sex based religion , and honestly cis media clumps them almost alongside glb as a concept also.

[Guest Kade]

I personally am a straight man and so really it quickly feels like "you don't want us" from the gay males and "we don't want you " from the lesbian women and in 3.3 seconds I'm thinking "They're right, what the hell am I doing here". That lack of dynamic then feeds the separation argument.

I guess how greatly the experience/interaction varies depends a fair amount on sexuality.

As someone who identifies as queer with a strong interest in men over women I'd also fall under the "G" to a degree so I do feel a small sense of belonging in that environment, even though my transness puts me squarely, and rightly, under the T category. "Strength in numbers" aside, do those who identify as straight even want to be included to begin with?

[Guest Patsy]

I tend to agree with Evan, though I can't speak for the US, of course.

Personally, I've never felt any great affiliation with the GLB community here...and in my

experience, its always been pretty much mutual. I think we've always been "Beggars at the Banquet",

in a sense.

Post-Stonewall, the GLB community world wide has been brilliantly organised & highly effective,politically, & I guess

the theory was that we'd benefit from the "Trickle down" effect...I don't think we have, nor do I think we ever shall.

Understandable here, really, with a population of only around 20 million, but in the US or Europe, I can't help feeling

our cause would perhaps be better served by independent action/organisation.

But then, I suppose we're nowhere near as homogeneous a group as the GLB....a further obstacle.

Certainly, a complex question.

Patsy

[Guest Natalie92]

I'm for it. When the GLB organization merged with the transgender organization at my school to create a new GLBTQI organization, the administration at the college started listening to us more. Honestly I doubt that we could've gotten the 4 gender neutral bathrooms installed in the university (and they plan on adding 6 more in the near future) without the backing of the GLB part of the organization. We need numbers. And at least on a college level, or from what I've seen on a college level anyway, as long as we make all GLBTQI fights ours the GLB people are willing to lend their support.

Natalie

[Guest Donna Jean]

.

Evan hammers it again...

Now, the whole purpose of being added to the tail end of GLB is for the "strength in numbers" issue..

It's not hard to see that they really don't want us there, but as Natalie said it helps get things done for us....

The big problem is that when legislation is being argued, sometimes the "T" on the end is the key of getting something passed so the GLB are not adverse to throwing us under the bus to get their own portion passed. But when it comes to fund raising or other advantageous thing, the GLB want our participation...

There is not enough of us alone to get much done and it's an unfortunate relationship...

Donna Jean

[JJ]

It seems to me that we don't have enough numbers to generate protective legislation on our own. We have had no real voice. If alignining with the LGB community will result in greater opportunities and inclusion in any legislation to protect rights then it is worth it. Whether those rights are as simple as having gender neutral bathrooms or as fundamentally imperative as anti-discrimination legislation. And when we are included-even by default-awareness of us is heightened. The message that we do have rights is reinforced.

So whether I personally feel comfortable with others in the LGB community or not, kinship or not, as long as the community can benefit from such an alliance I am in favor of it

JJ

[Guest Evan_J]

But then, I suppose we're nowhere near as homogeneous a group as the GLB....a further obstacle.

A very influencing point I think.

I dunno. For me, I think I'm optimally more eager to actually see alignments with more than just the glbq . What I mean is, and it does maybe apply more to the U.S. ,if we took the population as a whole and then honestly pulled out all the segments that in some way met the criterion for being "variant" against this [ficticious] ideal of "the preferred American citizen" (meaning you would have to be ALL of the following simultaneously: white, native-born, economically advantaged, educated, heterosexual, non-sexual-fetish-possesing, christian, cis-gendered, handicap-free, appropriately weighted, unpierced, tattoo free, and otherwise "standard" garmented people, in the end we'd have what, 5 people who truthfully met that? Because all that's happening now is that the wiley "5" convince citizen "x" to vote with them against citizen "a" today only to vote against citizen "x" tomorrow. Realization that it is LESS about individual issues and in truth about marginalization of any group is the ultimate solution.

Not that I won't take assistance where I can get it in the meantime . I'm just saying, this is my ultimate feeling.

[Guest Evan_J]

And if "strength in numbers" is what we're gonna go for, why NOT just create a real umbrella term -not just one associated with orientation like "queer" is- that ALL people who feel "not quite the norm" (excessiviely overweighted, goths, people who need to consult their daily magic-8-ball reading.....) could put themselves under.

God knows it'd be less annoying than "glbqii987lmnop"

[Guest Opal]

Perhaps I am missing the key point here, but as I see it, GLBT groups are an alliance, and the purpose of the alliance is to gain political strength in numbers. Each retains its own identity and structure. There will be different objectives and goals, yet through the strength in numbers at least some some of those goals can be met.

In the greater urban areas, the sheer numbers of each element of the GLBT alliance are such that perhaps there is less need for an alliance, but for areas of lower population density, an alliance is usually needed for simple survival.

For such things that can be handled over the Internet, we can focus more upon our own particular needs and issues. From my viewpoint, we are more readily accepted within the GLBT world than we are with the population as a whole. However, there are Trans-people who 'pass' so well within their true gender, that by being identified as part of the GLBT community they feel impacts their ability to 'pass'.

Having just recently participated in a Pride event, I am thankful that we are the 'T' in GLBT.

I agree with Evan in if there are other groups that could become part of the GLBT alliance without badly fragmenting it, even greater political strength in numbers!

Huggs,

Opal

[Guest Maria (Hilda)]

And if "strength in numbers" is what we're gonna go for, why NOT just create a real umbrella term -not just one associated with orientation like "queer" is- that ALL people who feel "not quite the norm" (excessiviely overweighted, goths, people who need to consult their daily magic-8-ball reading.....) could put themselves under.

God knows it'd be less annoying than "glbqii987lmnop"

Simple answer:

Society needs someone to Rag on, or the media would die out and people would be peaceful. But how would you sell fear into people? Anti Trans spray! Spray it on your windows so you don't get attacked by a Transsexual in your sleep! I'm a researching (as far as you know) and 95% of deaths occur due to Trans invasions. Or transvasions.

(Anyone get what I'm hitting at here?)

Long Answer:

Because having an alphabet of terminologies is so much more fun. Gglbqqursttmaalomooab Unite!

[Guest nelo]

And if "strength in numbers" is what we're gonna go for, why NOT just create a real umbrella term -not just one associated with orientation like "queer" is- that ALL people who feel "not quite the norm" (excessiviely overweighted, goths, people who need to consult their daily magic-8-ball reading.....) could put themselves under.

God knows it'd be less annoying than "glbqii987lmnop"

I would like that. LGBTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) is long, but I can't figure out how to shorten it. Because I'm so disappointed when I see LGBTQIA, and the Q is only Questioning and the A is only Ally.

But its soooo long.

I always feel like Queer covers a lot, but maybe I only see it as such because I see "genderqueer" as covering the differently gendered (or sometimes I see it applied to anyone other than the cisgendered), but I know not everyone sees it as such.

And as for the original poster's question, I like T being with the LGB, and that longer acronym in general, because otherwise I feel like I wouldn't find anyone even similar to myself. But I'm not a straight FTM or MTF. But I've looked up transgender groups in my area, and there's maybe one support group with very few people. I'd rather go to my college "Pride" or "LGBT Affairs" group, because it'd be nice to be with people my age who know about "queer" issues in general. Even if there isn't anyone quite the same as myself, I feel like they could at least empathize. Or I'm hoping so, as I haven't been to any events yet (going to try to attend one Aug 30th) because, unfortunately, I know that just because you're part of a minority doesn't mean you can't be a bigot (I've seen so much anti-bi, anti-trans, anti-ace, etc).

[Guest KimberlyF]

I like the Lgb thing attached to my health care choice because I figure they'll be more understanding when I'm most vulnerable. See hospital in Indy Chicago trib story posted here today as a sampling of what's out there.

But interestingly, I've written to the heads of two local LBT fem only orgs including one out of my health center with the emails posted as contact emails for T questions on when I as a MtF now presenting male would be welcome under their umbrella, and I have yet to get a response back from either.

Kim

[Guest ricka]

You all make some very good points and there is no simple yes or no answer

to the issue IMO. While there have been some organizations who have kicked

trans/intersexed people under the bus to get legislation passed, and while,

yes many post-Stonewall gay men reject transpeople--especially heterosexual

transwomen there is a certain solidarity in many organizations and I would

not belong to one where this did not exist. That said transpeople do

experience a feeling of exclusion at Pride and other gay social events.

I do believe it is about time we begin organizing ourselves and then work

together with other groups as allies.

Miss Ricka

[Guest Katrina_Carter]

Just adding my two cents in case anyone hasn't skipped past my post yet

I look at it "politically". We will one day need to stand on our own, being transgendered has nothing to do with sex. There are some of us who are straight, some who are gay, and some who are bi, but sexual preference is not what defines us as transgendered individuals. That being said, there is a lot of discrimination and hatred out in the world, and as we have seen through our history with women's rights, the black power movement, and so on, it takes decades, and possibly even centuries to be treated as an equal human being in the eyes of the majority. The TG community is just now beginning to step up and be recognized. We are just now getting anti-discrimination laws passed to protect us. The LGB community has a head start and have been fighting for several decades now, they are willing to take us in and give us a place we can call home for now. It is only logical for our own sake and our own survival to stay attached to the LGB and take what help they offer. Even if it is simply experience and protection from the law, it is still more than we would have if we were to try and stand on our own right now.

I read somewhere once that we are like the mixed children in the 60s, neither side wants us nor do we fit in to either. We at least are offered a home with the LGB for now. So even if it doesn't fit us perfectly, it is our metaphoric shelter from the storm.