Issues of ignorance: sex reassignment and transgender

[3113]

I was shunned, ridiculed and frozen out by large parts of the gay circles I used to belong to, when I discovered I also like women, and got a girlfriend.

You whore, you!

Btw, I'm out of the loop. Who added the "I" and what does it stand for?

You and me both....

Intersex.

Okay. Looked it up and got:

Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as either male or female. Intersexuality is also the word adopted by the identity-political movement, to criticize medical protocols in sex assignment and to claim the right to be heard in the construction of a new one.

Got it.

 

[CharleyH]

I will TRY to reel this issue in tomorrow. Sorry, it is late for me tonight. Sweet dreams all. Keep talking.

 

[3113]

Got it.

Or maybe I don't. I didn't think it applied to transexuals like Chaz there. From the definition, it seems to apply to people born (note the "biological traits" part) with both or ambiguous sexual characteristics and their right to decide which sex they want to be--or maybe not either--as compared to allowing their parents and/or the medical establishment to decide for them in childhood.

I do remember seeing a documentary on such people and how they had started to be more political because society and doctors were pressuring them to have operations to make themselves more male/female, and these were often as not neutering them and making their lives more miserable. Their preference was to stay either gender ambiguous or decide for themselves. .

 

[Liar]

You whore, you!

Bingo, THAT'S my sexual identity.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Liar has an excellent point. Heterosexuals don't consider their sexuality the entirety of their existence.

But many heterosexuals consider gay sexuality to be the entirety of LGBT existence.

Coming from you, that's the best joke on the forum for the day, Stella.

If I argue a point, it's because I feel pretty deeply about it. Otherwise, I don't.

And it's obvious that you do feel pretty deeply about exposing children to politics, which is laudable IMO.

 

[Liar]

But many heterosexuals consider gay sexuality to be the entirety of LGBT existence.

Which makes them different from the LGBT crowd how exactly? Many of the LGBT persuasion seem to consider exactly the same thing. Which only fuel the prejudice on the other side, which seems to re-affirm it back and forth. Maybe there's a factor to this equation that I miss, but it seems like a feedback loop to me.

Anyway, my experience is that the majority on either "side" might just as well not give a crap, and would not think in those terms if they weren't constantly reminded of it. But that's not the narrative they're being fed.

Of course, I'm doing major sociology meanderings here, so I might be missing data.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, there's a factor or three you're missing. I'm kinda surprised, actually.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actjually, Chaz or Chas Bono never has been that much of a private person. Chastity, to use his previous name, has been an entertainer and author and a spokeswoman for most of her life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_Bono

Admittedly, he will probably always be better known as the son, formerly daughter, of Sonny and Cher.

 

[3113]

Many of the LGBT persuasion seem to consider exactly the same thing.

I'm confused. There is that "B" in the list of letters there. Are you saying that no bisexuals paticipate in LGBTI politics? If so, shouldn't it be LGTI? Or how about GLIT. That actually spells something

 

[sr71plt]

I'm confused. There is that "B" in the list of letters there. Are you saying that no bisexuals paticipate in LGBTI politics? If so, shouldn't it be LGTI? Or how about GLIT. That actually spells something

It's true, bi's don't participate much. It's the loudest mouths who control the show--and that would be the "L" followed at some distance by the "G," with both assuming they speak for the "B." I haven't come to grips where the "I" fits in as a well-defined group either.

 

[sr71plt]

Admittedly, he will probably always be better known as the son, formerly daughter, of Sunny and Cher.

I'd think that Sonny would have something to say about that.

(If he hadn't wrapped himself around a tree, of course.)

 

[sr71plt]

This is all making me hungry for a BLT on toast.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is all making me hungry for a BLT on toast.

yes, it's a mouth-watering acronym...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

yes, it's a mouth-watering acronym...

But it really, really needs avocado, at least in California.

 

[3113]

But it really, really needs avocado, at least in California.

Absolutely. BLAT. Yum.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Absolutely. BLAT. Yum.

Yum-yum. That's what I had for lunch today . . . onna French roll.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yum-yum. That's what I had for lunch today . . . onna French roll.

A French roll is good, but I think I would prefer WW toast.

 

[Liar]

yeah, there's a factor or three you're missing. I'm kinda surprised, actually.

Mkay. Stella is surprised. Duly noted.

Care to specify?

 

[Liar]

I'm confused. There is that "B" in the list of letters there. Are you saying that no bisexuals paticipate in LGBTI politics?

Uuh. No. I said nothing about LGBTI politics. Stella said that many heterosexuals consider gay sexuality to be the entirety of LGBT existence. I pointed out that many LGBT (and I, should be added), do exactly the same thing.

Which brings me to my question: Why is that? Is it because they let the "many heterosexual" people referred to define who they are?

 

[3113]

Which brings me to my question: Why is that? Is it because they let the "many heterosexual" people referred to define who they are?

AH! Okay. From a straight white female analysis (I'm rolling my eyes at myself there ) I think you're right. The root organization which, obviously, was the gay rights movement, allowed the heterosexual majority to define who they were and that has stuck. When a movement, any movement, starts up it often wants to be taken seriously by the majority, as a cohesive, homogeneous (you'll forgive the word) unit. Everyone looking the same and after the same thing. The feeling is that if it doesn't look that way, the majority won't take it seriously--and, of course, it won't have as much punch. And sometimes, ironically, the homogeneous look is one that incorporates the same prejudices from the same majority that this group is trying to overcome.

At the time when gay rights started bi and transgendered were lumped in with being gay. A man who wanted to wear a dress and insisted he was a girl was gay. A person who sometimes slept with their own sex was also gay. That's how heterosexuals saw it, and there was no reason at the time for gays, raised in heterosexual homes with those heterosexual prejudices to overcome, to see it any other way themselves. Wanting the world to take them seriously, and avoid what they saw as heterosexual stereotypes, they pretty much insisted that their members not to dress in drag--which was as close to being the other sex as most transgendered could get at the time.

Likewise, I don't think they wanted the "bi" folk in there to muddy the waters by saying that they slept with both sexes, as heterosexuals tended to believe (and still do), "See, all you have to do is try the other sex and you'll be back to normal!"

I think that's pretty much the why here. The root organization's emphasis on everyone having the same message, that being gay rights, is still in power. They are still the majority of the LGBTI community, after all. Which leaves the other three between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they don't stand out. Heterosexuals lumped them together as "gay" and that's the way the group may still look, inside and out. On the other hand, breaking off into their own groups is problematic, as this is a large group. If they create their own movement, it will be very small and can be ignored.

That sound about right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Struggles arent won by who has the most members, theyre won by who has the most power. In the American Revolution the Patriots never attracted more than 1/3rd of the colonists. Fully 1/3 was Loyal and the other third was neutral. There was literally nothing to be gained by revolution for 2/3rds of Americans. The best the British could offer them was status quo antebellum. The Patriots, on the other hand, stood to gain everything the Loyalists owned, and they used this incentive to entice help from the neutrals.

In the present struggle for Gay civil rights, gays have nothing to offer the opposition or the neutrals. There is nothing in it for anyone but Gays. Obama is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall and senses that supporting Gays gets him nothing he doesnt already have. So he's supporting DOMA and DONT ASK, DONT TELL because it makes points with the Hispanic Catholics. He knows how to count.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Mkay. Stella is surprised. Duly noted.

Care to specify?

Hmm. I am almost positive you already know this stuff. For one thing, you said it yourself;

Yeah lucky me. I lost a whole bunch of pepole I considered my friends, because I had to go cld turkey on a community and lifestyle that chafed against every part of me. Awesome.

Did you come out to your family, how was that? Some of us are lucky, I was. But for most gays who come out of the closet-- suddenly they lose their entire identity in the eyes of their society, and it's replaced with "faggot."

It's not only friends, but parents, siblings, bosses, coworkers. It's really not too surprising that people who have experienced this-- as you did in the other direction-- will cling to the identity, as a matter of personal pride and need, especially since that's the identity that has cost them their previous life. And it's not too surprising that those people who have lost their childhoods, their young adulthoods, thier families, will be resentful of someone who (in their perception) has the ability to reclaim that; "oh, I was just kidding, I'm going to marry a woman and see my family on holidays just like i used to."

You must have read more than one news item of how straight men have defined someone solely by their sexuality and beaten him to death. Or raped and beaten a lesbian-- sometimes to death. There's another little difference. The majority has the power to enforce their definition.

It's a power imbalance that encourages members of a group to cleave tightly to the group. We all need identity. We'll very often take what's given us.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Everyone catches hell when they take a different path. It's not a gay-only problem.

 

[Safe_Bet]

...Did you come out to your family, how was that? Some of us are lucky, I was. But for most gays who come out of the closet-- suddenly they lose their entire identity in the eyes of their society, and it's replaced with "faggot."...

Pretty much sums it up for me. Amy and I had been living openly gay for several years, but I guess my family still "hoped" that I'd change my "evil ways." They would have thrown a party if they had thought I was "only" bi.

The final straw was when Amy and I got LEGALLY married in August. The Sunday following our wedding, my entire family got up in front of their church's congregation and disowned all four of us; amongst declarations about Jezebels and Whores of Babelon... not to mention calling my two sweet daughters "abominations".

So yeah... You cling to what little you can. I don't have a "home" or "family" now except for the one I've made here with Amy, my children and a few "like minded" friends. After a point, you get WAY defensive when somebody, whom you thought you could rely upon, "wavers"...

Liar: I'm not saying they were right, but I sure can understand how they felt... It's hard to be accepting when you have people spitting on and calling you names every day.

~~~~~~~~

As for how this applies to TG / I peeps... I can only guess that it is several times worse. Not only do they have to acknowledge to themselves and others what they truly "are" on the inside, but must also go through unbelievable physical and emotional trauma to become what they truly "are" on the outside.

That why people like Chaz Bono and our own Gianna garner so damn much of my admiration.

 

[Liar]

Hmm. I am almost positive you already know this stuff.

Oh, I know lots of stuff. But when you say "Oh, you know..." and leave it at that, I have no ides which of the stuff aplenty you are thinking of right then. Because there's not one aspect, as well you know. There are hundreds.

Lots to chew on in the rest of your reply. I'll be back.