Letters to the Editor
-
reality check
I am not apart of the community you speak of, but I wonder what percentage of the US population actually considers themselves "transgendered"; and of those, how many look to be "transgendered"?
I would be shocked if the numbers weren't on the order of 1/10th of one percent.
In short I agree with you. There should be a bill passed like the one that Barney Frank advocates. Forget about the "T".
I could be mistaken but I don't think that discrimination against "transgendered" people is even illegal in New York City or State. but that bill is going to pass the US Congress.
It will never happen.
an additional problem comes in how one even defines "transgenedered" people. If I wear a dress once in a while am I all of a sudden transgendered?
The stigma that you talk about in the LGBT community when discussing this issue is a great example of ID politics correctness gone haywire. reminds me of liberal arts college in the early 90's.
a great example of this absurd attitude taking over was when a "height challenged" (i.e. a dwarf or midget) complained that his professor had place the envelope to hand in papers too high for him to reach (I guess he couldn't put it underneath the door). needless to say the super PC professor was beside herself with guilt and let everyone know about it.
the realistic goal that would help 5% or 10% of the population should not be sacrificed for the 1 in 1000 that has no specific gender.
-
Easy to say for those not left behind
I don't know that I see a logical reason that the T joined the LGB, and I've found some in the LGB community that have about as much understanding of T issues as James Dobson. What is disappointing is that the T community has supported the rest of the LGB community for so long, to be told, for a bill that will not be passed anyway, that we are holding you back is insulting and, frankly, selfish. So in order to get less far from being able to overturn a presidential veto, the T's got tossed under the bus. "Thanks for the help, but you're holding us back now. But trust us, we'll be back to help you... One of these days... Freaks." It's easy for you to say John, because you aren't the one being sacrificed.
-
Aravosis "conveniently" forgets some important gay history...
To say that acknowledging transpeople in the GLBT community is some sort of modern quixotic big-tent innovation is absurd. Transgendered people were present from the beginning and played a key part in the infamous 1969 Stonewall Riots, the event that is considered to have touched off the modern gay liberation movement. If Aravosis is unfamiliar with this event, perhaps he could look it up.
Second, Aravosis confuses the issue by flailing about wondering what he and someone trans have in common. If we're going to sit around sticking our thumbs up our asses and navel-gazing about our differences, I sure as hell don't have a lot in common with Aravosis. He's a gay male Washington insider and I'm a small-town dyke. However, the same people beat us up and for the same reasons. It's that simple and there's his answer as to what he has in common with transpeople.
Last but not least, he is confusing the issue by presenting it as only protecting the rights of the transgendered. What is being discussed are protections are for people who *do not follow gender norms* but are not necessarily transgendered or even gay.
As to why this should concern him, since apparently he does not give a flying fuck for anything that doesn't directly concern him, gay people are particularly subject to harassment if they do not follow gender norms. However, every effeminate man or masculine woman benefits from these protections. And trust me, this IS an issue. Talk to anyone who doesn't entirely fit the societies expectations and they'll tell you stories.
Last but not least, this bill is not going to pass. Because Bush is going to veto it. So the choice is between presenting an unpassable good bill that brings the LGBT community together or presenting an unpassable bad bill that proves to the rest of us that a certain "expedient" segment of the LGBT community are a bunch of assholes.
-
Great piece
THAT is one of the most thoughtful articles I've ever seen in Salon, especially the part about how conservatives have managed to win so many cultural battles.
As a middle-aged, straight white male, who admittedly knows nothing about transexual issues (but strongly favors full rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals), I can tell you that there's always been something a bit unsettling to me about including the transgendered with those other orientations. It never really crystallized for me until I read this.
It seems, from my limited knowledge of transsexuals, that they really don't fit in with the other groups without some serious shoehorning.
And even if a conservative can suspend disbelief long enough to believe that gays and lesbians are actually people deserving of protection, I think there's something about transsexuals that just doesn't fit for them. I mean, you might be able to convince a married, straight conservative that a gay man can feel the same thing for another man that a straight feels for his wife. It's a much harder sell, though, to convince a straight person that some guys will only feel whole after their penis has been lopped off. That's inelegantly put, but that's the way a lot of conservative straights will think of it.
-
other than the haircut
how are lesbians like gays? there are HUGE fights in the taxonomy community between the "splitters" and the "lumpers" - that is those who want to put as many individuals as possible into a species and those who wish to separate them. in politics too, the left were notorious splitters while the right were lumpers. some like to think we are all different individuals while others prefer to think humanity is the prime category. it's a fundamental division. i have a solution. why don't you consider yourselves falling under the "Americans for Disabilities Act?" - after all, not being able to reproduce normally is a psychosexual disability? no?