Serious question - why the T in LGBT?

Mr. Loverman

Hi all

Firstly, let me say I don't care if someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I didn't choose to be straight, you didn't choose to be gay. It's natural and a non-issue.

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, it really isn't my intention, but I don't understand why transgenders are a part of the gay movement. Is it because most transgenders are gay? Is it a "let's pool our resources" sort of thing?

[controversial] I also think this damages the gay movement. Like it or not, most people probably think transgenders are a bit strange. They think they might have psychological problems. They think it is unnatural. This is obviously not very nice, but I think it's the reality. Because transgenders are included in the gay movement or at least they're associated with the LGBT tag, I think it causes some people to associate "unnatural" and "psychological problems" with being gay. Like they're all sort of the same thing, it's some sort of perversion. [/controversial]

I want everyone to be happy and I try not to judge people. I'm the last person who should be judging people. I don't have an issue with transgenders and I hope they find happiness. My only point is I don't understand why it's not just LGB.

Any thoughts appreciated, and please take the above in a glass half full way as I really am not an enemy of transgenders. Cheers.

Uncle Ruckus

It's for historical politcal reasons which stem from the Stonewall riots. The mainstream lumped all forms of transgenderism as "queer" so it made sense to have them all polically alligned. Also the gay community was one of the few places where teans people were accepted. There's other reasons I'm sure but I assume people will reply to you who have better knowledge than myself.

There's also just as much, if not more, evidence for gender dysphoria being innate as there is for homosexuality.

Chunners

It's probably because years ago around and before the stonewall riots gay and trans people were forced to congregate in the same underground bars and such so at the time of the riots they all fought together, after that all pride parades were open to gays and trans alike. You have to remember that at the time people were very close minded so the stereotype was that all gays were trans and all trans were gay so as two separate groups we shared common stereotypes and also common discrimination. I agree now it seems to make no sense since one is about sexuality and the other is about gender and society is more aware of that now than it was in the past (all praise the internet) but still for the most part we are linked in one way or another in the minds of a lot of people who still can't tell the difference so it's more convenient for us to be working together for a common goal than separate and just looking out for number one.

Well either that or because LGB rhymes a hell of a lot better with the T on the end

Mr. Loverman

Chunners wrote: »

one is about sexuality and the other is about gender

Yes, this is what confuses me.

Thanks for the replies guys, the shared history is interesting.

Chunners

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Yes, this is what confuses me.

Thanks for the replies guys, the shared history is interesting.

See the problem is that, even now a days, a lot of people still don't understand that key difference so although you obviously do others wouldn't be able to make that dinstinction.

As for the history here ya go, interesting reading if you are curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Thats pretty much what was the spark for Pride parades and discrimination laws we have now a days

Aard

Cos people get up in arms if you leave the T out. We're INclusive, remember?!

Chunners

Aard wrote: »

Cos people get up in arms if you leave the T out. We're INclusive, remember?!

So what is it you want then to be EXclusive?

Ambersky

Havent got the energy for a long post but for those of you asking this question there is loads of stuff on the internet to help you along if you want answers or to find out more on the subject.
Heres a couple of links to more info, reasons, history and stuff.

Now here’s the rub — but it requires another of those fancy words my academic colleagues and I like to throw around: heteronormativity, the idea that whatever straight people do is really what’s what, and that whatever anybody else does is deviant to some degree. To want to have sex with somebody of the same gender violates heteronormative expectations of gender behavior as much as it does heteronormative expectations of sexual behavior.

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/11/transgender_2/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FD59zhpOgE

floggg

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Hi all

Firstly, let me say I don't care if someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I didn't choose to be straight, you didn't choose to be gay. It's natural and a non-issue.

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, it really isn't my intention, but I don't understand why transgenders are a part of the gay movement. Is it because most transgenders are gay? Is it a "let's pool our resources" sort of thing?

[controversial] I also think this damages the gay movement. Like it or not, most people probably think transgenders are a bit strange. They think they might have psychological problems. They think it is unnatural. This is obviously not very nice, but I think it's the reality. Because transgenders are included in the gay movement or at least they're associated with the LGBT tag, I think it causes some people to associate "unnatural" and "psychological problems" with being gay. Like they're all sort of the same thing, it's some sort of perversion. [/controversial]

I want everyone to be happy and I try not to judge people. I'm the last person who should be judging people. I don't have an issue with transgenders and I hope they find happiness. My only point is I don't understand why it's not just LGB.

Any thoughts appreciated, and please take the above in a glass half full way as I really am not an enemy of transgenders. Cheers.

I would previously agreed with you in arguing lgb and t shouldn't be grouped as such as I think their issues are too different.

I disagree that it harms the lgb side of things, and if anything it does a disservice to the trans community in that they have become a minority within a minority and feel underrepresented because their interests don't align with the majority of the lgbt community.

But seeing your comments, I know exactly why - because all that nonsense you said about mental issues was levelled equally at L G B and T until recently, and any non-conformance with gender norms was viewed the same.

Seeing it put in such terms is the first time I've actually felt the lgb community has failed the trans community.

We've managed to change society's perception of ourselves but we have completely forgotten about the most vulnerable members of the alliance.

da_shivsta

It's just a 'let's be different together' thing I guess. Like how the Independents in opposition in the Dáil all gang up on Enda Kenny! :P

It kinda does make sense. because at the end of the day the whole movement is about embracing diversity, so embracing everyone in to one group is really what it's about. A community spirit type job like.

Chunners

floggg wrote: »

I would previously agreed with you in arguing lgb and t shouldn't be grouped as such as I think their issues are too different.

I disagree that it harms the lgb side of things, and if anything it does a disservice to the trans community in that they have become a minority within a minority and feel underrepresented because their interests don't align with the majority of the lgbt community.

But seeing your comments, I know exactly why - because all that nonsense you said about mental issues was levelled equally at L G B and T until recently, and any non-conformance with gender norms was viewed the same.

Seeing it put in such terms is the first time I've actually felt the lgb community has failed the trans community.

We've managed to change society's perception of ourselves but we have completely forgotten about the most vulnerable members of the alliance.

You really presume too much if you presume we are "vulnerable", Transsexuals stopped being vulnerable about 15 years ago lol

floggg

Chunners wrote: »

You really presume too much if you presume we are "vulnerable", Transsexuals stopped being vulnerable about 15 years ago lol

I think trans people are more vulnerable than lesbians, gays or bisexual. I have seen plenty of trans advocates make that point, so any presumptions are on their part as much as mine.

trans posters here have also regularly arrested to additional challenges they face. And there are plenty of bad news stories reported too of discrimination, abuse and violence.

Indeed the fact that the OP here is saying being simply associated with trans people makes it harder on gay people I thought evidenced the attitude problem. Im surprised therefore it was my comment you jumped on.

That doesn't mean trans people are all victims - just that trans acceptance hasn't progressed at the same rate as lgbt acceptance.

While I don't know of any Irish stats, I know the trans violence and murder stats in the US would agree.

I'm not saying that all trans people are vulnerable and in need of protection mind. And I'm not training to needlessly paint trans people as victims.

I was just commenting on what I thought was the general consensus that as a society we haven't progressed fast enough on trans rights.

If you think the job is done though, then fair play.

Meesared

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Hi all

Firstly, let me say I don't care if someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I didn't choose to be straight, you didn't choose to be gay. It's natural and a non-issue.

Is that implying that being Trans is not natural? Its a "born this way" thing for trans people too you know

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, it really isn't my intention, but I don't understand why transgenders are a part of the gay movement. Is it because most transgenders are gay? Is it a "let's pool our resources" sort of thing?

Nope, completely untrue, in fact the opposite is true

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

[controversial] I also think this damages the gay movement. Like it or not, most people probably think transgenders are a bit strange. They think they might have psychological problems. They think it is unnatural. This is obviously not very nice, but I think it's the reality. Because transgenders are included in the gay movement or at least they're associated with the LGBT tag, I think it causes some people to associate "unnatural" and "psychological problems" with being gay. Like they're all sort of the same thing, it's some sort of perversion. [/controversial]

Woooooooooow I have no words for this

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I want everyone to be happy and I try not to judge people. I'm the last person who should be judging people. I don't have an issue with transgenders and I hope they find happiness. My only point is I don't understand why it's not just LGB.

Not judge people except trans people, right?

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Any thoughts appreciated, and please take the above in a glass half full way as I really am not an enemy of transgenders. Cheers.

Could have fooled me

Annasopra

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Hi all

Firstly, let me say I don't care if someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I didn't choose to be straight, you didn't choose to be gay. It's natural and a non-issue.

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, it really isn't my intention, but I don't understand why transgenders are a part of the gay movement. Is it because most transgenders are gay? Is it a "let's pool our resources" sort of thing?

[controversial] I also think this damages the gay movement. Like it or not, most people probably think transgenders are a bit strange. They think they might have psychological problems. They think it is unnatural. This is obviously not very nice, but I think it's the reality. Because transgenders are included in the gay movement or at least they're associated with the LGBT tag, I think it causes some people to associate "unnatural" and "psychological problems" with being gay. Like they're all sort of the same thing, it's some sort of perversion. [/controversial]

I want everyone to be happy and I try not to judge people. I'm the last person who should be judging people. I don't have an issue with transgenders and I hope they find happiness. My only point is I don't understand why it's not just LGB.

Any thoughts appreciated, and please take the above in a glass half full way as I really am not an enemy of transgenders. Cheers.

Ok. Firstly a transgender person is a person. Not a "transgender" - I think your question why the T is included in lgbt is explained quite well above but just to point out trans peoples sexual orientation and gender identity are separate so there are trans women who are lesbian and trans women who are straight and bi.

Regarding your generalisations about trans people, of course some people believe those things. I used to think to them to some extent but I know now they are completely untrue. In the media I have amazing trans advocates like Rebecca de Havalland, Lydia Foy, Sara Philips, Broden Giambrone, Louise Hannon and Sam Blanckensee. All of these people are in my view sane and psychologically stable. They completely tear down in my view the misrepresentations about trans people. They come across as human. I dont mean this to sound in amy way nasty or personal but your post is a sense dehumanising trans people. Does the T damage the LGBT. Perhaps it does amongst a minority but the solution is to educate these people not to shed the T because of perceived populism and political expediency.

Mr. Loverman

Meesared, I think you've read my post in the most negative way possible. I didn't say anything bad about trans people. You're trying to find attacks where there are none.

The reason I didn't explicitly say "you're born trans" is because your sexuality is established and complete from the day you're born, whereas the trans process is incomplete (legally changing gender, taking hormones, changing the way you dress, etc.). On a basic level, your birth cert doesn't say gay/straight whereas your birth cert does say male/female. There is no trans option so it's not as clear cut as your sexuality. The "conversion" process happens later in life. Maybe my choice of words offended you, but I think you read my post from a defensive perspective so were ready to take offence.

Being trans is definitely a more complex issue than sexuality hence why I question why LGBT contains a T. It seems to be a separate issue, but I am 100% open to all your opinions on this matter.

For the record, I'm sure no one chooses to be trans so based on my limited knowledge I'd have the opinion that it's natural and needs to be handled better by society.

Mr. Loverman

Joeytheparrot, I never gave my opinion on trans people in my first post. I gave the opinion of the general public. I understand this is a sensitive topic but I would ask you to please not read between the lines looking for attacks. I'm not attacking anyone and actually I couldn't give a fiddle what people do with their life as long as they're happy (and obviously not hurting others). I am not an expert on gender issues so I'm not willing to give a black and white opinion on trans issues, but I'd guess trans people are born trans, but it's much more complex and totally different to sexuality.

Annasopra

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Joeytheparrot, I never gave my opinion on trans people in my first post. I gave the opinion of the general public. I understand this is a sensitive topic but I would ask you to please not read between the lines looking for attacks. I'm not attacking anyone and actually I couldn't give a fiddle what people do with their life as long as they're happy (and obviously not hurting others). I am not an expert on gender issues so I'm not willing to give a black and white opinion on trans issues, but I'd guess trans people are born trans, but it's much more complex and totally different to sexuality.

I'm answering your post. I'm not attacking you. If you feel there are personal attacks report the post and ask another moderator to review it.

Mr. Loverman

No, I'm just saying can we assume I'm not a trans hater (or in any way anti-trans or anti-gay), draw a line and move forward without being defensive or derailing the topic into a "Mr. Loverman hates trans" tangent. Thanks.

Hamhide

Its common for the trans community to get lumped into the gay community. I myself almost never go to pride or gay bars but I'm always asked, I guess its a good thing to be included but sometimes I, myself personally, don't like being grouped with the gays. Being trans,gay,lesbian, or bisexual doesn't mean your instantly accepted in the community and have to participate, you can easily have a quiet normal life and not be in the closet. Honestly, It might not be good idea to have the T in lgbt but it certainly feels a lot better having allies.

Ambersky

Mr Loverman I dont think its safe to assume you are not trans phobic.
Hell I dont think its safe to assume Im not trans phobic.
Asking us to make that assumption and accusing those addressing the anti trans sentiments posted of attacking you or derailing the thread dosent sound very reasonable.

You do state a definite opinion

Being trans is definitely a more complex issue than sexuality hence why I question why LGBT contains a T.

In your first post you make a statement saying

I also think this damages the gay movement.

In the OP you say "I hope I dont offend anybody with this." BUT...............

Hmm I think a lot of us have heard that line before
"Im not homophobic."....BUT
The line "IM not ____" is almost always followed by a load of phobic sentiment which the speaker thinks they can safely say because they have said they are not anti ____, or I hope I dont offend anybody but....... .Its a cliche at this stage.

You dont claim those sentiments of trans people yourself with them being unnatural with psychological problems and tainting LGB people with their bad reputation . Other people think these things you say. You are just putting other peoples ideas out there.

Then after you have said you think the presence of the T damages the gay movement and told us how badly others ( not you) regard trans people and suggested that we may be allowing that bad feeling to rub off on us by association ..You ask us to give you our thoughts on the issue.

I think you are setting us up in this thread to justify to you the presence of the T in LGBT something which you have not only said you dont understand but have also said damages the gay movement and may get us into trouble by association.

The surprise for me was in floggs initial post where he said

But seeing your comments, I know exactly why - because all that nonsense you said about mental issues was levelled equally at L G B and T until recently, and any non-conformance with gender norms was viewed the same.

Seeing it put in such terms is the first time I've actually felt the lgb community has failed the trans community.

We've managed to change society's perception of ourselves but we have completely forgotten about the most vulnerable members of the alliance.

clap hands smilie. Well said flogg.
Maybe good can come out of posts like the OP after all.

Mr. Loverman

I'm not trans-phobic.

The quote about the "T" in LGBT damaging the gay movement is valid as, like it or not, the average Irish person doesn't think a trans person is an average Irish person. They tend to have a negative opinion about trans. Have you never heard of damage by association? Obviously this is terrible but I believe it is reality.

I've stated many times I don't think this way. I can appreciate being a transsexual must be extremely difficult compared to my non-issue heterosexuality.

I think you and some others are being too defensive and want to assume I must have an agenda, when actually I just want a mature conversation and to be educated. I've tried to be sensitive. I don't know how many times I can state I am not anti-gay or anti-trans.

You're making me feel very unwelcome here, so I'll leave this conversation now.

Ambersky

People like to think that they arent homophobic or transphobic and often dont realise they actually are untill what they are saying or doing is reflected back to them.
I was out when a lot of the Irish population had a negative association with people who were gay lesbian or bisexual. They usually referred to us as homosexuals and said that although they had compassion for us and werent against us or anything it was still illegal to be gay.

So now that laws have changed Im not going to turn around and disassociate myself from my brothers and sisters who are Trans simply because some people still have the same negative associations towards them that they use to about me. That would be very cowardly wouldn't it and lacking in moral character so that doesnt frighten me.

I think if you want an answer to your question why the T in LGBT you can find out a lot by reading rather than by asking people to come up with answers to the challenge you are putting before us. Have a read of the link I posted and watch the video. Google your question and maybe continue to read here.

wonderfulname

Mr. Loverman, on the off chance you're still reading I'm going to weigh in on this conversation. Whether or not you truely know it, you have asked a highly controversial question, one that trans people and LGBT advocates come across time and time again, and unfortunately come against time and time again.

You are right that there are people who do not see trans people in a positive light, some of those people fall within the 'LGB' grouping and some of those have expressed a wish to 'drop the T' in order to further their cause for their particular breed of equality. There is nothing positive that can be said for this viewpoint in my opinion, and I do not believe peoples misguided sensibilities should be pandered to, an equality movement by it's very nature cannot leave anyone by the wayside. It's only equality when it's everyone's.

You asked why gender and sexuality are grouped together in this manner, then you referred to yourself as heterosexual as opposed to transgender, accidentally providing one answer to your question. Hetrosexuality and transgenderism are not mutually exclusive, cisgender is transgenders opposite as straight is gay's, and an individual can be any combination of these things as well as a multitude of other things in between. Whilst gender and sexuality are seperate issues for the individual to society they are two sides of the same coin, boys are born with penises which are awoken by girls with breasts who are approving of said penises. Although short term legaslitive goals for non straight and trans people may be different - same sex marriage or gender recognition for example - the long term hope, which is to live in a society open to and accepting of all gender identities, presentations and sexualities, is the same, and given that we are breaking the same rules and expectations for what it means to be pronounced male or female at birth it makes sense we do it together.

On the transphobic topic, I'm transphobic, I'm homophobic, I can be conscious of my own behaviour and presentation and silently critical of others, it's a knee jerk reaction, it gets less and less every year but there's no point pretending it's not there. It's not important that someone feels such things, we're raised to, what's important is doing good by others, being respectful, and educating yourself to be better in future, which I am going to believe was the OPs intent.

floggg

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I'm not trans-phobic.

The quote about the "T" in LGBT damaging the gay movement is valid as, like it or not, the average Irish person doesn't think a trans person is an average Irish person. They tend to have a negative opinion about trans. Have you never heard of damage by association? Obviously this is terrible but I believe it is reality.

I've stated many times I don't think this way. I can appreciate being a transsexual must be extremely difficult compared to my non-issue heterosexuality.

I think you and some others are being too defensive and want to assume I must have an agenda, when actually I just want a mature conversation and to be educated. I've tried to be sensitive. I don't know how many times I can state I am not anti-gay or anti-trans.

You're making me feel very unwelcome here, so I'll leave this conversation now.

Firstly, grow a pair.

If you are going to knowingly start a debate on a sensitive issue and make some obviously controversial statements, then you should accept any negative feedback you receive and not run away scared because people didn't like what you said.

Secondly, If a white kid was getting stick for hanging around with his black friend, you would hardly suggest that distancing himself from the black kid would be the solution.

If you are as accepting and understanding of trans people as you say, you would realise that any "damage" done to the gay community isn't as a result of being associated with the trans community but as a result of prejudice, ignorance and discrimination.

So rather than suggest we distance ourselves, wouldn't it be better if we tackled the ignorance and bigotry.

Thirdly, I know have Shabba Ranks stuck in my head, so thanks for that.

Chunners

floggg wrote: »

Firstly, grow a pair.

If you are going to knowingly start a debate on a sensitive issue and make some obviously controversial statements, then you should accept any negative feedback you receive and not run away scared because people didn't like what you said.

Secondly, If a white kid was getting stick for hanging around with his black friend, you would hardly suggest that distancing himself from the black kid would be the solution.

If you are as accepting and understanding of trans people as you say, you would realise that any "damage" done to the gay community isn't as a result of being associated with the trans community but as a result of prejudice, ignorance and discrimination.

So rather than suggest we distance ourselves, wouldn't it be better if we tackled the ignorance and bigotry.

Thirdly, I know have Shabba Ranks stuck in my head, so thanks for that.

Jesus wept give the guy a break the lot of you, he asked a question and so what if he asked it in a manner that wasn't "PC" he wasn't exactly being intentionally rude either whereas you just told a guy to "grow a pair" which, if we get to the nub of that comment, was you just telling him he is not man enough. Well done, you managed to both argue trans rights while at the same time emasculate him. Any chance I can get a link to your blog? because really I'd say it is just riveting reading.

Like what right do you have to emasculate another male? and how dare you do it on a thread about transsexuals and act like you are the magnanimous one who disagrees with "ignorance and bigotry" while totally ignoring your own.

floggg

Chunners wrote: »

Jesus wept give the guy a break the lot of you, he asked a question and so what if he asked it in a manner that wasn't "PC" he wasn't exactly being intentionally rude either whereas you just told a guy to "grow a pair" which, if we get to the nub of that comment, was you just telling him he is not man enough. Well done, you managed to both argue trans rights while at the same time emasculate him. Any chance I can get a link to your blog? because really I'd say it is just riveting reading.

Like what right do you have to emasculate another male? and how dare you do it on a thread about transsexuals and act like you are the magnanimous one who disagrees with "ignorance and bigotry" while totally ignoring your own.

If you want to analyse the saying that way, fine.

Colloquially though, it means have some courage but perhaps I could have chosen a better phrase in the context.

However, I stand by the sentiment - you have no business starting threads on discussion boards and engaging in debate if you are unwilling to accept any criticism of your view points.

Nobody personally attacked the OP up to that point, they just criticised the statements he made. If is not willing to face any criticism of his statements, then he shouldn't make any.

baby and crumble

Firstly, can we please all stop using the phrase "transsexuals"? It's actually really poor form. It'd be like someone coming in and using the phrase "poofters" or "queers".

Secondly, whether you like it or not, advocating either directly or indirectly for the exclusion of a minority is phobic. Whether that be transphobic or homophobic. I think most of us agree with Pantis comments from a few months back- arguing for the denial of someones rights or their exclusion IS Phobic. It doesn't mean you're behind the couch screaming "GOD HELP ME THEY'RE COMING FOR ME!!!" or roaming the streets looking for people to beat up.

Thirdly, there are historical reasons- outlined in posts above so I won't get into it- for the inclusion of trans rights in the LGBT movement. If you look back it was primarily the gender non-conformists in the community who fought back first in the likes of Stonewall. So we, as gay people, owe our freedom and rights to those members of the trans community.

Fourthly, I think it's incredibly naive to think that gender and sexuality are separate from each other. You define yourself as whatever sexuality you are by your gender. By coming out as a gay man you say "I am a man who is attracted to men". There are TWO uses of a gender in that sentence. How can they not be linked?

My gender ties into my sexuality in a huge way. I am not trans but as I identify as a butch woman, I get a small idea of what being trans might be like by the way people react to me. Just yesterday I utterly confused a woman when I was standing doing my hair in a ladies toilet. I very much identify as female, but people don't understand the kind of female I identify as. I have been yelled at to get out of public toilets, screamed at to leave female dressing rooms, I get called "Sir" multiple times a day... It used to bother me a lot more but occasionally it still gets to me. And I don't get half the abuse that trans people get. Not even a quarter.

What should we do then? Abandon the very group of people who started the push for the recognition of our rights? Tell them they're on their own because we got sorted? The accusations that trans people get every day- not normal, it's weird, they're damaging us- used to be EXACTLY what gay people were accused of until not very long ago, and let's face it, still are in many places (even our own country). So since people generally keep their negative thoughts and opinions about gay people to themselves it's ok for them to **** all over trans people?

That's lovely.

Ambersky

Chunners it seems you are telling previous posters to "give the guy a break" because you dont think that the reasons they have been upset by his posts were good enough.
You said "so what if he asked his questions in a manner that wasnt politically correct" and then went on to tell us where the correct line for getting upset is. The reason you seem to give and think is ok for getting upset is when someone is being intentionally rude.

So those of us who are upset by the behavior of someone whos not yet aware of their own bias but is saying very insulting things about a whole group of people are not justified in reacting according to that rule and I dont accept that rule.
A lot of very hurtful damaging and downright evil things have been done by people with the best intentions or who were not aware of the damage they were doing.

Links234

Chunners wrote: »

he asked a question and so what if he asked it in a manner that wasn't "PC" he wasn't exactly being intentionally rude either

Not at all. Questions can be asked in loaded or leading ways, someone can pose a question in bad faith, questions are not all neutral. Have you stopped beating your wife? The OP not only presupposes that transgender inclusion damages the wider LGBT movement, but there's also suggestions of transgender people (refered to just as 'transgenders') being unnatural, mentally ill and a suggestion of 'perversion' in there for good measure too.

The OP didn't even try to make a pretense of asking their question in a neutral or non-loaded manner. Too right people criticized them for it.

baby and crumble wrote: »

Firstly, can we please all stop using the phrase "transsexuals"? It's actually really poor form. It'd be like someone coming in and using the phrase "poofters" or "queers".

Not really, it's a perfectly legitimate word, some even prefer it to transgender, though it does sound much more clinical. It'd be more like someone coming in and saying "homosexuals" in lieu of gay people.

baby and crumble

Links234 wrote: »

Not really, it's a perfectly legitimate word, some even prefer it to transgender, though it does sound much more clinical. It'd be more like someone coming in and saying "homosexuals" in lieu of gay people.

I was under the impression from most of my friends that it was an offensive term. I guess it goes to show the nuances.

Links234

baby and crumble wrote: »

I was under the impression from most of my friends that it was an offensive term. I guess it goes to show the nuances.

It's not something I'd generally like to be referred to in general, but it's an accurate, legitimate term. But just as I know plenty of gay people who wouldn't like to be refered to as homosexuals, it does have that kind of feeling to it.

Chunners

floggg wrote: »

If you want to analyse the saying that way, fine.

Colloquially though, it means have some courage but perhaps I could have chosen a better phrase in the context.

However, I stand by the sentiment - you have no business starting threads on discussion boards and engaging in debate if you are unwilling to accept any criticism of your view points.

Nobody personally attacked the OP up to that point, they just criticised the statements he made. If is not willing to face any criticism of his statements, then he shouldn't make any.

And it's that kind of attitude that probably gives this forum such low traffic, I mean people are probably afraid to ask questions in case they inadvertently use a "bad word" and get shot down or are accused of being discriminatory about it. Myself and Uncle Ruckus were the first to answer, both of us are Transsexuals and yet somehow we both managed to give correct answers without taking offense to the question and also managed to do it without questioning his manhood. I mean really you come on a thread asking about Transsexuals and tell the OP to "Grow a pair", "Thats so gay" is also a colloquial term that means that something is unpleasant or unwanted so would it be acceptable to use that as a reply just because it is also colloquial?

As I said give the guy a break, his only crime was wording his question wrong, to assume all questions asked are a deliberate attempt to judge is not helpful to anyone, he is not the first to ask that question and he won't be the last either and abusing people for asking only causes damage.

Chunners

baby and crumble wrote: »

I was under the impression from most of my friends that it was an offensive term. I guess it goes to show the nuances.

As a word it probably describes us best in the eyes of others, it is the word that distinguishes us from Transvestites and Crossdressers. For most people it is the word that makes them think "She dresses like a woman because she is one" as opposed to "He dresses like a woman because he has a sexual fetish". Personally the word doesn't bother me at all, it's been used for years now and most people know now that it means someone who has intentions of getting gender reassignment

floggg

Chunners wrote: »

And it's that kind of attitude that probably gives this forum such low traffic, I mean people are probably afraid to ask questions in case they inadvertently use a "bad word" and get shot down or are accused of being discriminatory about it. Myself and Uncle Ruckus were the first to answer, both of us are Transsexuals and yet somehow we both managed to give correct answers without taking offense to the question and also managed to do it without questioning his manhood. I mean really you come on a thread asking about Transsexuals and tell the OP to "Grow a pair", "Thats so gay" is also a colloquial term that means that something is unpleasant or unwanted so would it be acceptable to use that as a reply just because it is also colloquial?

As I said give the guy a break, his only crime was wording his question wrong, to assume all questions asked are a deliberate attempt to judge is not helpful to anyone, he is not the first to ask that question and he won't be the last either and abusing people for asking only causes damage.

Sorry, but the problem wasn't the wording of the question. Not for one second.

As I said originally, I used to agree with the idea that they shouldn't be grouped together - but for different reasons than the OP.

The problem was when he started suggested that being associated with trans people was harmful to lesbians, gays and bisexual.

That wasn't a phrasing issue, it was the very clear inference that there was something wrong with trans people and that they we (gay people) were lowered by association with them.

In fact, when the OP put it in the term he did, I changed my mind on the issue because I saw the very clear parallels in terms of the prejudice all groups face or faced.

And I didn't critics the OP for asking the question - I criticised him for throwing his toys out of the pram when he didn't like the responses he got.

As I said, if people aren't willing to accept any critical consideration of their viewpoints, they would be better off not expressing them.

Aard

floggg wrote: »

As I said, if people aren't willing to accept any critical consideration of their viewpoints, they would be better off not expressing them.

One man's criticism is another man's infractable offence.

Mr. Loverman

floggg wrote: »

That wasn't a phrasing issue, it was the very clear inference that there was something wrong with trans people and that they we (gay people) were lowered by association with them.

You and many others are really twisting what I said and trying to find offence.

I said many "average joe" types have a negative attitude towards transsexuals (I think it's fair to say they don't understand transsexuals at all and are probably quite prejudiced), I never said I think there's anything wrong with transsexuals and in fact I repeatedly stated I have no issue with transsexuals and believe they're probably born that way, so it's natural.

I said the gay movement is probably being damaged somewhat by being LGBT because the average joe, who is finally beginning to accept gay as normal, may get confused because he (wrongly) thinks trans is perverted or weird and may project those feelings onto LGB. Also, he will very easily think transsexual is some form of sexual preference because frankly it's confusing why T is a part of LGB. As was stated earlier, one is a gender issue and the other is a sexuality issue. These are totally different things and even I am was confused why they are together.

You are not being victimised by me, I don't have any issue with gay or trans or hetero or dwarfs or whatever genetic makeup someone has.

I simply was curious why there is a T in LGBT as there seems to be little in common, apart from oppression/prejudice/etc.

Believe me if there was a forum here called "Cooking & Shopping" I'd be asking a similar question.

I understand you've been hurt by people and you're used to people judging you and you're defensive and growing up gay or transsexual in Ireland must be extremely difficult and is something I will never fully understand, but not every straight guy is out to get you or has a secret agenda. As I said, I'd be asking a similar question about a "Cooking & Shopping" forum and it's not because I think shopping is perverted or whatever you want to believe I think, but because cooking and shopping are separate issues.

If it helps you understand me, I'm not an average joe, I'm very open minded, and in fact if you googled me you'd find a number of newspaper articles / radio interviews about me fighting conservative Ireland. I even took legal action against the government. I find it sad that you've made me feel so unwelcome here, tried so hard to twist me into anti transsexual, when in fact I'm a friend of all the rights you are fighting for.

Ash885

I try to avoid any of the drama on this forum (when I'm not the one creating it...) but I was in a similiar position to the OP wondering why the T was included. Reading some posts really has opened my eyes to it. Whether the gay community, bi or trans suffer from being matched together depends on each individuals opinion.

If someone judged me based on their experience of another gay, bi or trans person simply because of the term LGBT then that's a person I'm willing to let go in my life. All different and should be seen as such. However without unity the community probably would have achieved only a fraction of what has been.

My two cents.

Aard

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I find it sad that you've made me feel so unwelcome here, tried so hard to twist me into anti transsexual, when in fact I'm a friend of all the rights you are fighting for.

Welcome to the Boards.ie LGBT forum, where you have to be fully informed and well-read before you're allowed open your gob.

Meesared

Aard wrote: »

Welcome to the Boards.ie LGBT forum, where you have to be fully informed and well-read before you're allowed open your gob.

Oh would you stop with the "poor me" carry on

OP said stuff that was offensive, got his back up when pulled on it

Aard

Nasty vibe towards the OP. He's just trying to inform himself. But yeah, let's berate a potential ally cos he didn't mind every last P and Q.

Annasopra

If you feel there are personal attacks in this post report them.

floggg

Chunners wrote: »

Know what I got an infraction for my reply to you there for "back seat moderating", like what the **** is that? how could you even know what is acceptable to ask of a transsexual? I'm willing to bet you got no warning for your "Grow a pair" comment. Who do you ****ing think you are that qualifies you to say what is and isn't acceptable to ask a transsexual? you are nothing but a gay guy, you will always be nothing but a gay guy. You have no idea what it is like to be transsexual and never will so all those little assumptions you have about us being weak, or about us being vulnerable please keep to yourself because really when you spout **** like that it just goes to show you are just as ignorant as the OP, the only difference is he was ignorant because he didn't know better whereas you are the type of ignorance that comes with several years of having your head shoved firmly up your ass because you believe no one is right unless they agree with you . I can see now why this forum gets little traffic and why the Transgender hidden forum is all but dead. It's no wonder no one wants to post on here anymore because you do nothing but chase people away with your bull****.

mod note - 1 day ban for personal attack

I never presumed to speak for anybody. I stated my reasons in my first post.

As for the vulnerability, I said the trans community was the most vulnerable. I never said trans people were vulnerable by nature.

Every trans advocate I have ever read has made comments to that effect. that vulnerability isn't any inherent part of the trans community - rather it's the fault of the rest or society for falling to properly accept them. While society has moved rapidly in lgb issues, it's a fact that they have moved much slower on trans issues.

Personally, as somebody who was deeply closets until my mid-20s, i think any trans person who lives openly and proudly has far more strength than I ever will have.

If my language was offensive, please report it. I realise I chose it extremely poorly in the context so I'll accept what ever infraction I get.

floggg

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

You and many others are really twisting what I said and trying to find offence.

I said many "average joe" types have a negative attitude towards transsexuals (I think it's fair to say they don't understand transsexuals at all and are probably quite prejudiced), I never said I think there's anything wrong with transsexuals and in fact I repeatedly stated I have no issue with transsexuals and believe they're probably born that way, so it's natural.

I said the gay movement is probably being damaged somewhat by being LGBT because the average joe, who is finally beginning to accept gay as normal, may get confused because he (wrongly) thinks trans is perverted or weird and may project those feelings onto LGB. Also, he will very easily think transsexual is some form of sexual preference because frankly it's confusing why T is a part of LGB. As was stated earlier, one is a gender issue and the other is a sexuality issue. These are totally different things and even I am was confused why they are together.

You are not being victimised by me, I don't have any issue with gay or trans or hetero or dwarfs or whatever genetic makeup someone has.

I simply was curious why there is a T in LGBT as there seems to be little in common, apart from oppression/prejudice/etc.

Believe me if there was a forum here called "Cooking & Shopping" I'd be asking a similar question.

I understand you've been hurt by people and you're used to people judging you and you're defensive and growing up gay or transsexual in Ireland must be extremely difficult and is something I will never fully understand, but not every straight guy is out to get you or has a secret agenda. As I said, I'd be asking a similar question about a "Cooking & Shopping" forum and it's not because I think shopping is perverted or whatever you want to believe I think, but because cooking and shopping are separate issues.

If it helps you understand me, I'm not an average joe, I'm very open minded, and in fact if you googled me you'd find a number of newspaper articles / radio interviews about me fighting conservative Ireland. I even took legal action against the government. I find it sad that you've made me feel so unwelcome here, tried so hard to twist me into anti transsexual, when in fact I'm a friend of all the rights you are fighting for.

I haven't been hurt unduly at all. I just felt the sentiment from your original post was very unsettling.

You can say that you were only expressing others opinions, not your own, but the implication seems to be that you think gay people would be better of disassociating themselves from trans people.

There's either a judgment in there, or else you are further victimising and isolating somebody rather than stand for what's right. Neither reflect positively.

My main issue was the "I dont like the response I'm getting so I'm not listening any more."

That type of attitude personally irks me, so u probably reacted overly abrasively. Im glad you came back.

Lastly, I Googled you but all I got was your song. Sorry Shabba

Mr. Loverman

floggg wrote: »

You can say that you were only expressing others opinions, not your own, but the implication seems to be that you think gay people would be better of disassociating themselves from trans people.

There's either a judgment in there, or else you are further victimising and isolating somebody rather than stand for what's right. Neither reflect positively.

It's not about judgement. I can see this is something you want to believe so I am probably being silly trying to convince you otherwise.

I was simply stating:

1) I don't see how T is related to LGB.
1) a) There have been some good responses, so I now understand why they continue to be grouped together.

2) The average joe has a negative opinion of transsexuals. It is simply being realistic to say this negative opinion probably damages the LGB movement, as many conservative backward types (of which there are many in Ireland) will get confused and associate this negative opinion with LGB.
Don't you remember when you were in school, if you were friends with someone who was unpopular, this unpopularity would rub off on you too? Obviously this is wrong but it's what humans do.
2) b) Someone (maybe you) pointed out the T movement would struggle without the support and numbers of the LGB movement, and the LGB movement understands what oppression is, so it probably does make sense, at least on a humanitarian level, to keep the T in LGB.

I came here to be educated, and I was educated. I'm just amazed I was attacked for doing so. I can appreciate I'm an outsider but I would have thought you guys in particular would be a bit more sensitive to that. I don't think I will come to this forum again.

Thank you everyone who defended me and didn't assume I'm a hater.

wonderfulname

In my experience Ireland isn't all that conservative and backward, my average irish joes wouldn't be as negatively portrayed as yours, I am not aware of any statistics on trans acceptance in Ireland, so maybe you shouldn't be making such assumptions when you have nothing concrete to base them on?

Annasopra

MOD NOTE TO ALL POSTERS - DISCUSS THE ISSUE - NOT ATTACKS OR PERCEIVED ATTACKS. THATS JUST DERAILING THE TOPIC.

floggg

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

It's not about judgement. I can see this is something you want to believe so I am probably being silly trying to convince you otherwise.

I was simply stating:

1) I don't see how T is related to LGB.
1) a) There have been some good responses, so I now understand why they continue to be grouped together.

2) The average joe has a negative opinion of transsexuals. It is simply being realistic to say this negative opinion probably damages the LGB movement, as many conservative backward types (of which there are many in Ireland) will get confused and associate this negative opinion with LGB.
Don't you remember when you were in school, if you were friends with someone who was unpopular, this unpopularity would rub off on you too? Obviously this is wrong but it's what humans do.
2) b) Someone (maybe you) pointed out the T movement would struggle without the support and numbers of the LGB movement, and the LGB movement understands what oppression is, so it probably does make sense, at least on a humanitarian level, to keep the T in LGB.

I came here to be educated, and I was educated. I'm just amazed I was attacked for doing so. I can appreciate I'm an outsider but I would have thought you guys in particular would be a bit more sensitive to that. I don't think I will come to this forum again.

Thank you everyone who defended me and didn't assume I'm a hater.

as I said, if your kid was getting bullied for hanging around with a black kid, would you tell him to stop being friends with him?


Being associated with trans people isn't harmful to anybody - discrimination and bigotry is though.

If you think somebody is being harmed as a result of the discrimination against trans people, then the question should be how do we combat it. Not whether we should still associate with them.

And you weren't attacked for your views or comments on trans people - but the ideas and statements you made were being challenged. There is a key difference.

Mr. Loverman

wonderfulname wrote: »

I am not aware of any statistics on trans acceptance in Ireland, so maybe you shouldn't be making such assumptions when you have nothing concrete to base them on?

If you google "transsexual prejudice ireland" you will get a large amount of information. The first result is about a recent Amnesty International report which states "those wishing to change their legal gender faced discrimination, inhumane and degrading treatment, as well as having their rights violated."

Mr. Loverman

floggg wrote: »

as I said, if your kid was getting bullied for hanging around with a black kid, would you tell him to stop being friends with him?

That's not a fair comparison, as the white kid is already in a position of power. Change it to this:

If a gay kid was hanging around with a black kid in a society which is somewhat prejudiced against gays and very prejudiced against blacks, is the gay kid more likely to get bullied? The answer is probably.

BTW I never said LBG should not have T. I was just seeking your opinions on the matter. I am puzzled you cannot make that distinction.

I'm tired of defending myself. It's very clear you want to believe whatever you want to believe, so let's leave it at that.

wonderfulname

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

If you google "transsexual prejudice ireland" you will get a large amount of information. The first result is about a recent Amnesty International report which states "those wishing to change their legal gender faced discrimination, inhumane and degrading treatment, as well as having their rights violated."

Yes but that refers to the state not the people in it, as far as I am aware no stats exist to back up or refute your assumptions, and they're not something you can make from life experience.

You said you were here to have an educated conversation, not a debate, fitting information to a premise and not the other way around are debating tactics, not learning tactics.

Mr. Loverman

wonderfulname wrote: »

Yes but that refers to the state not the people in it, as far as I am aware no stats exist to back up or refute your assumptions, and they're not something you can make from life experience.

You said you were here to have an educated conversation, not a debate, fitting information to a premise and not the other way around are debating tactics, not learning tactics.

You honestly believe the average joe has a positive or neutral opinion of transsexuals?

I know you don't believe that.

Why are you trying to argue against this basic fact?
What is the purpose apart from derailing the thread?