Why is the T in LGBT?
Few appear to question why Transgender has been accepted as part of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual movement. But that isn't the end of it, of course. The definition of transgender itself is evolving. And with it the acronym for queer and trans rights. LGBT is often now referred to as LGBTQ or GLBTQ or LGBTQQ or LGTBTI or LGBTU or LGBT+, the most common now so that it's inclusive of gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, gender questioning, intersex, or just "unsure."
But that's not the end of the definitions. As ever, fortunately, Pink News clarifies why the T is in LGBT by pointing out that it probably should be LGBTQQIAAP; Asexual and Ally, Pansexual (though they omit polysexual and omnisexual), Curious, Transvestite, 2s Two spirited and O for Other, "anyone else on the spectrum of gender and sexuality."
The New York Times helpfully complicate things by adding Gender Neutral, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Gender Non-Conforming (GNC), Demisexual, Graysexual, and the now very popular, M.A.A.B./F.A.A.B./U.A.A.B. Male-assigned at birth/female-assigned at birth/unassigned at birth.
LGBTQQIAAP2SOCOPGNGFGQGNCDGMAABFAABUAAB
And, as language in subcultures tends to do, this is evolving all the time. In fact by the time I've finished this blog a new letter is guaranteed to have been created for some sort of sexual or gender orientation.
But that's just linguistics, right? So why do TERFs, like myself, hate the idea of LGB-T inclusivity? I mean, we all want the same thing, right? EQUALITY (not an accronym).
Except, as John Aravosis, gay rights activist, wrote in Salon back in the pre-social media saturation age of 2007:
"In simpler times we were all gay. But then the word "gay" started to mean "gay men" more than women, so we switched to the more inclusive "gay and lesbian." Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest), and by the early 1990s we were the lesbian, gay and bisexual, or LGB community. Sometime in the late '90s, a few gay rights groups and activists started using a new acronym, LGBT -- adding T for transgender/transsexual. And that's when today's trouble started."
The "trouble" is that no one, except right wing religious crazies, has any issue with equality for queer people (I use this as short hand for lesbian, gay and bisexual) because equality for queer people has no impact on the lives of straight people. Equality acts, in the forms of queer marriage or making it illegal to fire someone for being queer, literally has no material impact on anyone. Clearly religious people think it impinges on their religious belief because they believe everyone should believe the same as them. But importantly, this is merely psychological. And even if queer equality causes psychological distress to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim or Jew that distress is a personal response to change, not a material response. Two men fucking might make God angry but it literally has no material effect on the lives of a fundamentalist in this material world.
That's a very longwinded way of saying that sexuality is a personal difference that has no impact on anyone (which is why the legalizing of homosexuality was so smooth, the legalization, not the homophobia that has roots in religion and patriarchy). Conversely, transgender and its variants can have a profound affect on policy (equality, equality data, safety, etc.) and on other's needs and requirements. We all know by now that a divisive argument (not unlike Brexit in some ways) is happening between Transgender activists (often referred to as gender radicals) and radical feminists (disparagingly termed TERFS by gender radicals). The issues revolve primarily around women's rights; safe spaces, the mental health of young women, etc..
So why is such a divisive idea, that you can choose not only your gender but also your sex, included within the queer umbrella?
What do Trans and Queer people have in common?
Peter Tatchell, famed Gay Rights activist and all round nice guy, argues "I always stand with the oppressed. Trans women and men are certainly some of the most vulnerable and oppressed people. They deserve our support..."
But if oppressed minorities is the only factor for getting yourself an initial in the queer rights movement then why not disabled people? People with mental illness (I mean other than Trans people)? Surveys show a marked increase in attacks and hate speech aimed at them since our lovely government began a campaign to demonize them under the cover of austerity. How about Muslims? Or indeed any religion? Christians are a minority now and they're always moaning about being marginalised. What about us vegans, god we get so much abuse, even get celebrity cookery writers saying we should be killed. Cyclists? Pedestrians? Atheists? Poor old Richard Dawkins, who I don't particularly like, gets loads of abuse for spouting facts and stuff. Old people? Why don't we all get a letter?
Transgender literally has nothing to do with sexuality so why is it given that special privilege?
In fact, it's a bizarre reality that you can be trans and homophobic. Caitlyn Jenner is an obvious example but there is no set in stone reason why a trans person would not be a homophobe. Which is a bit weird isn't it?
Stonewall, the LGBT advocacy organization helpfully defines Transgender themselves as:
"An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois." Stonewall Glossary
And even more helpfully in The Truth about Trans ask "Can you be trans and gay?" They clarify that:
Sexual orientation (who you are attracted to) is completely unrelated to gender identity (who you are). You can be trans and gay, trans and straight, trans and bi, asexual, or anything else – just as a cis person can be. Simple.
Huh? Then why have the T in LGBT then? This is Stonewall saying this. The organization that is so proactive in pushing trans equality.
Helpfully, in six easy stages the Cambridge University Students Union explain just why that T is there in LGBT. I shall guide you through the logic and hopefully we'll all come out the other end knowing just why the T sits proudly by its alphabetic sisters.
1. "Many trans people are gay, lesbian or bisexual and conversely many gay, lesbian or bisexual people are trans. Non-binary gender identities render heterosexuality nonsensical."
Well, it makes almost everything nonsensical; sex, sexuality, trans, cis, every concept invented by the gender radicals. Of course, if you self identify as a different gender then yes, you might be technically gay/lesbian or perhaps not. Actually, I'm confused. If I, a hetero male, self defined as a woman am I still heterosexual? No wait, I'm a lesbian. If my female hetero partner self identifies as a man then we're gay. If I identify as Curious and my partner identifies as Asexual then my curiosity will be dashed.
I see, yes, it does make a nonsense of heterosexuality. In fact, why bother define ourselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual? Why bother with LGBT if sexuality is all nonsense now we have this wonderful world in which we have complete control in the decision of who we are? Why not just change it to T? Can you still be homophobic if heterosexuality is nonsensical? Can we all define ourselves in any way we wish in any context at any time? Can this change? If everything is fluid what is the purpose of biological terms like homosexuality (it has its root in biology) or female and male? What then is the purpose of an Equality Act if anyone can identify at any time in any number of forms?
It renders reality nonsensical.
Many atheists are queer. Many queer people are atheist. See, you can do it for any grouping.
Secondly, CUSU suggest "Trans people have always been present in the LGB community."
What this argument fails to address is the fact that Trans people have historically (until the gender radical explosion of 2010/11) been around the LGB community precisely because they were LGB.
Owen Jones recently wrote about how the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 were lead by trans people. What he fails to mention is that those trans people were involved because they were queer. The queens, drag queens and trannies of that period were involved in the movement because of their sexuality rather than their "gender orientation." Stonewall wasn't about being trans, it was about homosexuality (explicitly, as opposed to LGB).
The drag queens that I grew up with in the 1960s, from popular light entertainers like Danny La Rue through to Andy Warhol acolyte, Candy Darling, were queer.
Good point, we'll leave it there, they clearly aren't comparable...oh, there's more...
"...many LGB people consider themselves non-gender-normative, ranging from “butch” lesbians and “femme” gay men, to drag kings and queens who are often non-heterosexual, through to those who more radically question societal assumptions around gender."
Ah, the old spectrum argument. So, a repeat of the first point essentially, we're all LGBT as long as you aren't rigidly conforming to hetero and gender norms in some vague way. It makes the concept of being queer irrelevant then. Butch lesbians aren't comparable though to trans men are they? I mean one digs chicks and one believes they are the wrongly assigned sex. Completely incomparable.
With the mushrooming terms of transgender it's not inconceivable to see the LGBT movement effectively being a movement primarily interested in gender roles rather than sexuality. I know there have been tensions in the movement (for instance, between Pride and Stonewall) but this could grow. Back in 2007 Aravosis suggested that:
"I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman."
Even here, Aravosis immediately adds the caveat: "I'm not passing judgement, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?"
Imagine the abuse he would collect now for such a stance. Excommunication methinks.
CUSU continue: "Historically, at the birth of western LGB rights activism, there was very little to no understanding of trans identities...."
That's because the internet hadn't been invented. Blame Tim Berners-Lee for holding this back by not inventing the internet sooner. Imagine if we had had the internet when Oscar Wilde was strutting about London with young Bosie then nonsensically everyone would be dressing up as women or something. Except women, of course. And we'd all fondly remember Oscar Wilde as that famous 19th Century gender curious pansexual two spirited bisexual lesbian genderqueer guy wot wrote The Importance of Being Ernest.
"...and no distinction was drawn between gay people and trans people."
Huh? If there was little understanding of trans identities then how can we know that there was no distinction drawn between gay and trans people? Why were the trans people involved in the early gay rights struggles gay? But now anyone and everyone is LGBT+. When I was young transvestitism was common among men in the media and everyone knew someone whose dad liked to put a dress on in the privacy of their home but that's a long long way from men claiming they're biological females and should be legally recognized as such.
"Consequently trans people were subjected to the same injustices as LGB and so were included in the communities at the time."
Huh? This makes no sense. Trans were included in early LGB communities? Really? If no one knew anything about trans how could they be included in the community? Woo Woo.
There were plenty of queer men and women who crossed dressed...
...but it's important to remember that all these icons were queer, not straight but feeling like the other gender. This is a radical new departure. And there's no evidence to suggest trans has always been here (without being queer). Like the cultural appropriation of Indian two spirited, two spirited people were traditionally gay, worked with the women and cross dressed, not transgender (I first read of this in Thomas Berger's excellent 1960s novel, Little Big Man).
" LGB people often challenge gender boundaries in their social behaviour and may even be targeted because of their gender presentation." according to CUSU in their third point.
This is the same point as above in one sense. However, there's a big difference between a queer man who cross dresses and a hetero man who believes he's a biological woman. And more importantly the CUSU argument runs:
"Similarly, much of the prejudice facing both LGB and transgender people results from assumptions around what is considered to be gender-appropriate behaviour – that there are certain ways one is ‘supposed’ to act as a member of a particular gender, including being attracted to those of the ‘opposite’ sex."
So homosexuality is a gender orientation not a neurological difference to heterosexuality? I'm trying to get my head around the argument that sexuality is merely a gender assumption. That I, as a hetero man, only find women attractive because of socialized roles (gender). I could just laugh at the audacity of such a nonsensical argument but taking it seriously, one word; reproduction.
The sole purpose of our existence is to reproduce. That isn't a moral statement suggesting that queer people aren't functioning correctly but, technically, they aren't. Neither am I, a hetero person who chooses not to reproduce. I'm choosing not to fulfil my purpose, queer people are neurologically wired that way. Gender is the way that we are socialized into roles that fit what are considered normal modes of behaviour. Women wear dresses, men wear ties, etc. Some socialized roles have a biological underpinning (men are stronger and faster, for instance). Fundamentally, there's no reason why women are called Daphne and not Greg, like romcoms and not action movies, etc. these are learned behaviours. However, Daphne can reproduce and Greg cannot and that is the fundamental biological difference between males and females. Sexuality isn't about challenging gender assumptions, it's a biological preference, sigh.
The point made by CUSU has the underlying assumption though, that being Trans you are challenging gender boundaries. This, of course, is nonsense. The underlying ideology of the transgender movement (it's in the name) is to act and appear like the opposite gender. Much of the ideological underpinning of the (at least modern) trans movement is to promote an acceptance of young people who exhibit the appearance and qualities of the opposite gender. The trans movement's whole rationale is to reinforce gender boundaries whilst ridiculously using terms like fluid. Even the children's teaching aids used in LGBT classes (there's a big debate about this in the UK right now) don't have picture books with boys or girls refusing gender ideologies but rather...
"Much of the discrimination against transgender people is also likely to be familiar to LGB people (particularly older persons) and come from similar quarters – many are disowned by their family, and are subject to verbal, sexual and physical assault," argues CUSU.
I'm not sure what discrimination they mean. Queer people don't get discriminated over their bathroom of choice, over domestic violence shelters, over prisons or other safe female spaces, right?
I'm not sure who the similar quarters are. Yes, right wing religious nuts hate everyone who aren't right wing religious nuts. But feminism and queer rights have a long history of co-operation. They share similar ends and face similar difficulties. Yeah, why aren't females in this LGBT club?
The idea that trans and queer people experience similar discrimination within the family and social groups appears to be the cornerstone of the argument (even though you can say this about numerous minorities or anyone who challenges family assumptions or societal expectations). And this feeds into point four....
"4. Learning to accept your trans identity can be in some ways similar to the process that some LGB people experience in recognizing and accepting their sexuality."
"LGB and trans people have to face similar issues as they come to terms with the sexuality and gender identity respectively. These include the common processes of disclosure and coming-out, adjusting and adapting or choosing not to adapt to social pressures to conform to the norm, and fear of loss (or indeed actual loss) of relationships."
This point makes sense, however, it is based on the assumption that sexuality and transgender are fundamentally similar at source (despite the CUSU piece previously saying the two are "incomparable"). Yet one is definitely not a lifestyle choice. The other might well also not be a lifestyle choice but it involves an element of faith. One has to believe someone feels these things, feels the need to disclose, come out, adjust, adapt (I'm talking about trans here). A queer person could theoretically come out as queer but have no sexual relationships but then what would be the point and what would it entail?
This is the most coherent argument but then a similar argument might be used for religious belief; Judaism and Catholicism being comparable. They both face a similar set of coming of age rituals, similar belief, similar rituals in adult life, similar history of discrimination. Yet to be Jewish is very different to being Catholic. The latter is a belief, the former is rooted in an ethnicity.
To look at trans and queer through the wrong end of the telescope it appears like the 'process' of coming out or 'coming to terms with' are very similar, however, sexuality is something rooted in biology (it's not a psychological condition) whereas transgender has no basis in biology, in fact its whole rationale is bypassing biology in favour of gender identity.
Relationships are also a key difference between trans and queer. To be queer is to favour your own sex sexually and to pursue relationships with those of your own sex (assuming you have relationships). Trans people aren't necessarily queer, perhaps often they aren't, hence the problematic nature of the terms lesbian and gay when people transition and thus change their sexuality too.
Relationships are affected from the outside, that is, it's the response of others to queer individuals which changes. Queer people themselves do not change their personality or persona in coming out as queer, it's their family or partners or friends who react to their coming out. With trans individuals the relationships fundamentally change from both angles. Mothers and daughters become mothers and sons or daughters and fathers. A husband can become a wife. There are fundamental shifts in the relationship that one might consider out of the control of those having to accept the trans person.
5: Many identities within the ‘+’ have strong links to trans identities and may have broader notions of sexual orientation.
Huh? Oh, I think we're talking those other terms that blur everything. Gender non conforming lesbian curious or something.
"The ‘+’ at the end of LGBT+ is an attempt at creating a broader and more inclusive community and some of the identities covered by it fall outside the traditional areas covered by LGB. For example polyamorous or asexual identities can be held at the same time as LGB ones, creating a fuller picture of what it means to be LGB. Some identities, such as pansexual, are sexual orientations that include non-binary gender identities or may not be based upon gender identity at all, something that traditional views of LGB identities fail to include. Intersex people are frequently included within the ‘+’, which again falls outside the remit of sexual orientations. When creating an inclusive community it would be illogical to exclude any related identity."
I wondered when the old Intersex chestnut would be thrown into the fire. In fact, as intersex is a biological anomaly (in the sense that it's a biological rarity where someone is born with sex variations) and we, presumably, all accept that sexuality is biological (in the sense of neurological or genetic) then they do have something in common. Though intersex has been dragged into the argument by gender radicals to try and put a spoke in essentialist male/female sex dynamics. It has absolutely nothing to do with transgender (which is when someone "feels" they aren't the sex they were born as).
The big, and very, very, obvious problem with the notion of a spectrum of sexuality/gender is not with the former. Effectively you can define yourself as any sexuality, pan, bi, hetero, whatever and it has no effect on anyone except yourself and your partner (and they have a choice in the matter). However, if we believe that anyone can choose their gender then our whole society becomes nonsensical. What's the purpose then of gender segregation in safe spaces? Stonewall argue in their School Report 2017 that schoolchildren should be able to use changing rooms and bathrooms that they individually feel fits their own gender identity. What of safe spaces for post (or indeed pre) pubescent girls? At present, as I understand the law in the UK children over the age of 8 must use gendered changing and bathrooms. The logic being that menstruating females need a safe space away from males who do not menstruate. Pesky sex differences do keep getting in the way of the transgender utopia where anyone can choose their gender identity. Anyone who believes you can define your own sex is denying science, you might as well say you can define your own race.
"When creating an inclusive community it would be illogical to exclude any related identity." But a queer person of any 'stripe', be that gay, lesbian, bi, pan, whatever, has no related identity to someone who self defines their gender identity. Just because that person self defines as, say, a woman when they are male and happens to be homosexual it does not mean the two are symbiotic. You might as well say a gay man who is atheist is included in the community thus atheists must be included.
It makes no logical sense.
6: We’re stronger together.
No, no no. There's more of us, yes. But the adding of the T to the LGB has been incredibly divisive. Who, other than those crazy right wing fundamentalists and misogynists, pick any fight with queer people now? No one cares anymore. That isn't to say that homophobia isn't still rife. It certainly is but it's still rooted in the same thing that it was back in 1967 in the UK when homosexuality was legalized. But it's irrational. Have you ever read a rational homophobic argument? What would that look like? I have no idea.
However, trans has both created a divide within the LGB community and without, from radical feminists, who object to both the loss of hard fought equality legislation and the dangers that trans equality pose to women and safe spaces, and to the growing number of young women with mental health conditions finding solutions to being women in a misogynistic society by transitioning into men (including the archaic practice of binding).
There's no strength in division. And as the trans lobby has grown and almost effectively taken over the LGBT community the divisions will grow.
CUSU argue that: " The transgender community is relatively small compared to the LGB community; although most statistics are based upon those accessing public healthcare, it is estimated that somewhere between 1 in 500 and 1 in 125,000 people are transgender. These figures are of course based on western notions of trans people and in some countries, where different ideas are prevalent and there is much greater acceptance, anything up to 4% of people may identify as trans."
There's no evidence that there has been a growth in the gay population. In fact censuses in the UK show a steady number of queer people in the UK (around 2%) but the number of people self identifying as transgender (in its myriad forms) is growing exponentially. The number of child referrals in the UK has doubled year on year for the last four years (Tavistock Clinic data). Assuming this will continue then the trans community will soon outnumber the queer community, or, indeed as CUSU suggest, they already do, and that might be why LGBT organizations like Stonewall are becoming more militant in their aspirations.
CUSU conclude with: "Because of the relatively small numbers of trans* people in this country, ensuring a safe environment may require advocacy from the non-”T” elements of LGBT+."
Oh yes, we are definitely seeing this. No piece about homophobia in the media dare leave out trans people. But this is the crux of the reason why trans should not be included in the LGB community. Ensuring safe spaces for trans people directly conflicts with the need for safe spaces for women.
One has to lose their rights and astonishingly, it appears to be women that are losing and the trans movement are reinforcing the domination of patriarchy, something that the LGB community, inclusive of lesbian and bi individuals, should be campaigning against. There is a fundamental paradox in the movement, as there is a fundamental paradox in wider society. Ensuring the safety of trans people should not mean the erosion of safe spaces for natal women.
CUSU hasn't convinced me in the least but then it wouldn't because I'm an entrenched transphobic exclusionary radical feminist. And anyone who disagrees with the T in LGBT rights must be transphobic. It's no coincidence that LGB rights grew at the same point in history as black rights and as women's rights (in the UK the Race Relations Act was passed in 1965, homosexuality was legalized in 1967, The Abortion Act was passed in 1967 giving women control over reproduction symbolically). I don't think it's any coincidence that trans rights has grown at the same point in history when we've seen a massive rise in nationalism (Brexit, Trump, the shift to the right in Europe) and a return to religious fundamentalism. LGB was a liberation movement, one of many liberation movements. Gender radicalism is a restrictive movement, one of many restrictive movements. The LGB movement grew out of intolerance and fought for the right, not only to recognize equality for queer people, but was also synonymous with the growth of free speech in the western world. Gender radicalism shuts down debate through no platforming and linguistic control (misgendering, deadnaming, etc.). They have almost nothing in common.
Few appear to question why Transgender has been accepted as part of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual movement. But that isn't the end of it, of course. The definition of transgender itself is evolving. And with it the acronym for queer and trans rights. LGBT is often now referred to as LGBTQ or GLBTQ or LGBTQQ or LGTBTI or LGBTU or LGBT+, the most common now so that it's inclusive of gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, gender questioning, intersex, or just "unsure."
But that's not the end of the definitions. As ever, fortunately, Pink News clarifies why the T is in LGBT by pointing out that it probably should be LGBTQQIAAP; Asexual and Ally, Pansexual (though they omit polysexual and omnisexual), Curious, Transvestite, 2s Two spirited and O for Other, "anyone else on the spectrum of gender and sexuality."
The New York Times helpfully complicate things by adding Gender Neutral, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Gender Non-Conforming (GNC), Demisexual, Graysexual, and the now very popular, M.A.A.B./F.A.A.B./U.A.A.B. Male-assigned at birth/female-assigned at birth/unassigned at birth.
LGBTQQIAAP2SOCOPGNGFGQGNCDGMAABFAABUAAB
And, as language in subcultures tends to do, this is evolving all the time. In fact by the time I've finished this blog a new letter is guaranteed to have been created for some sort of sexual or gender orientation.
But that's just linguistics, right? So why do TERFs, like myself, hate the idea of LGB-T inclusivity? I mean, we all want the same thing, right? EQUALITY (not an accronym).
Except, as John Aravosis, gay rights activist, wrote in Salon back in the pre-social media saturation age of 2007:
"In simpler times we were all gay. But then the word "gay" started to mean "gay men" more than women, so we switched to the more inclusive "gay and lesbian." Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest), and by the early 1990s we were the lesbian, gay and bisexual, or LGB community. Sometime in the late '90s, a few gay rights groups and activists started using a new acronym, LGBT -- adding T for transgender/transsexual. And that's when today's trouble started."
The "trouble" is that no one, except right wing religious crazies, has any issue with equality for queer people (I use this as short hand for lesbian, gay and bisexual) because equality for queer people has no impact on the lives of straight people. Equality acts, in the forms of queer marriage or making it illegal to fire someone for being queer, literally has no material impact on anyone. Clearly religious people think it impinges on their religious belief because they believe everyone should believe the same as them. But importantly, this is merely psychological. And even if queer equality causes psychological distress to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim or Jew that distress is a personal response to change, not a material response. Two men fucking might make God angry but it literally has no material effect on the lives of a fundamentalist in this material world.
That's a very longwinded way of saying that sexuality is a personal difference that has no impact on anyone (which is why the legalizing of homosexuality was so smooth, the legalization, not the homophobia that has roots in religion and patriarchy). Conversely, transgender and its variants can have a profound affect on policy (equality, equality data, safety, etc.) and on other's needs and requirements. We all know by now that a divisive argument (not unlike Brexit in some ways) is happening between Transgender activists (often referred to as gender radicals) and radical feminists (disparagingly termed TERFS by gender radicals). The issues revolve primarily around women's rights; safe spaces, the mental health of young women, etc..
So why is such a divisive idea, that you can choose not only your gender but also your sex, included within the queer umbrella?
What do Trans and Queer people have in common?
Peter Tatchell, famed Gay Rights activist and all round nice guy, argues "I always stand with the oppressed. Trans women and men are certainly some of the most vulnerable and oppressed people. They deserve our support..."
But if oppressed minorities is the only factor for getting yourself an initial in the queer rights movement then why not disabled people? People with mental illness (I mean other than Trans people)? Surveys show a marked increase in attacks and hate speech aimed at them since our lovely government began a campaign to demonize them under the cover of austerity. How about Muslims? Or indeed any religion? Christians are a minority now and they're always moaning about being marginalised. What about us vegans, god we get so much abuse, even get celebrity cookery writers saying we should be killed. Cyclists? Pedestrians? Atheists? Poor old Richard Dawkins, who I don't particularly like, gets loads of abuse for spouting facts and stuff. Old people? Why don't we all get a letter?
Transgender literally has nothing to do with sexuality so why is it given that special privilege?
In fact, it's a bizarre reality that you can be trans and homophobic. Caitlyn Jenner is an obvious example but there is no set in stone reason why a trans person would not be a homophobe. Which is a bit weird isn't it?
Stonewall, the LGBT advocacy organization helpfully defines Transgender themselves as:
"An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois." Stonewall Glossary
And even more helpfully in The Truth about Trans ask "Can you be trans and gay?" They clarify that:
Sexual orientation (who you are attracted to) is completely unrelated to gender identity (who you are). You can be trans and gay, trans and straight, trans and bi, asexual, or anything else – just as a cis person can be. Simple.
Huh? Then why have the T in LGBT then? This is Stonewall saying this. The organization that is so proactive in pushing trans equality.
Helpfully, in six easy stages the Cambridge University Students Union explain just why that T is there in LGBT. I shall guide you through the logic and hopefully we'll all come out the other end knowing just why the T sits proudly by its alphabetic sisters.
1. "Many trans people are gay, lesbian or bisexual and conversely many gay, lesbian or bisexual people are trans. Non-binary gender identities render heterosexuality nonsensical."
Well, it makes almost everything nonsensical; sex, sexuality, trans, cis, every concept invented by the gender radicals. Of course, if you self identify as a different gender then yes, you might be technically gay/lesbian or perhaps not. Actually, I'm confused. If I, a hetero male, self defined as a woman am I still heterosexual? No wait, I'm a lesbian. If my female hetero partner self identifies as a man then we're gay. If I identify as Curious and my partner identifies as Asexual then my curiosity will be dashed.
I see, yes, it does make a nonsense of heterosexuality. In fact, why bother define ourselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual? Why bother with LGBT if sexuality is all nonsense now we have this wonderful world in which we have complete control in the decision of who we are? Why not just change it to T? Can you still be homophobic if heterosexuality is nonsensical? Can we all define ourselves in any way we wish in any context at any time? Can this change? If everything is fluid what is the purpose of biological terms like homosexuality (it has its root in biology) or female and male? What then is the purpose of an Equality Act if anyone can identify at any time in any number of forms?
It renders reality nonsensical.
Many atheists are queer. Many queer people are atheist. See, you can do it for any grouping.
Secondly, CUSU suggest "Trans people have always been present in the LGB community."
What this argument fails to address is the fact that Trans people have historically (until the gender radical explosion of 2010/11) been around the LGB community precisely because they were LGB.
Owen Jones recently wrote about how the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 were lead by trans people. What he fails to mention is that those trans people were involved because they were queer. The queens, drag queens and trannies of that period were involved in the movement because of their sexuality rather than their "gender orientation." Stonewall wasn't about being trans, it was about homosexuality (explicitly, as opposed to LGB).
The drag queens that I grew up with in the 1960s, from popular light entertainers like Danny La Rue through to Andy Warhol acolyte, Candy Darling, were queer.
The face of British light entertainment in the 1960s was a queer Irish drag queen
Candy Darling with Andy Warhol (Andy's the one in the wig...uh, left)
The CUSU piece continues: "LGB communities have long held ties with those with transgender identities. Although gender identity and sexual orientation are not comparable..."
Good point, we'll leave it there, they clearly aren't comparable...oh, there's more...
"...many LGB people consider themselves non-gender-normative, ranging from “butch” lesbians and “femme” gay men, to drag kings and queens who are often non-heterosexual, through to those who more radically question societal assumptions around gender."
Ah, the old spectrum argument. So, a repeat of the first point essentially, we're all LGBT as long as you aren't rigidly conforming to hetero and gender norms in some vague way. It makes the concept of being queer irrelevant then. Butch lesbians aren't comparable though to trans men are they? I mean one digs chicks and one believes they are the wrongly assigned sex. Completely incomparable.
With the mushrooming terms of transgender it's not inconceivable to see the LGBT movement effectively being a movement primarily interested in gender roles rather than sexuality. I know there have been tensions in the movement (for instance, between Pride and Stonewall) but this could grow. Back in 2007 Aravosis suggested that:
"I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman."
Even here, Aravosis immediately adds the caveat: "I'm not passing judgement, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?"
Imagine the abuse he would collect now for such a stance. Excommunication methinks.
CUSU continue: "Historically, at the birth of western LGB rights activism, there was very little to no understanding of trans identities...."
That's because the internet hadn't been invented. Blame Tim Berners-Lee for holding this back by not inventing the internet sooner. Imagine if we had had the internet when Oscar Wilde was strutting about London with young Bosie then nonsensically everyone would be dressing up as women or something. Except women, of course. And we'd all fondly remember Oscar Wilde as that famous 19th Century gender curious pansexual two spirited bisexual lesbian genderqueer guy wot wrote The Importance of Being Ernest.
"...and no distinction was drawn between gay people and trans people."
Huh? If there was little understanding of trans identities then how can we know that there was no distinction drawn between gay and trans people? Why were the trans people involved in the early gay rights struggles gay? But now anyone and everyone is LGBT+. When I was young transvestitism was common among men in the media and everyone knew someone whose dad liked to put a dress on in the privacy of their home but that's a long long way from men claiming they're biological females and should be legally recognized as such.
"Consequently trans people were subjected to the same injustices as LGB and so were included in the communities at the time."
Huh? This makes no sense. Trans were included in early LGB communities? Really? If no one knew anything about trans how could they be included in the community? Woo Woo.
There were plenty of queer men and women who crossed dressed...
Quentin Crisp was a famous cross dressing gay icon. He was very witty too.
Carson McCullers was a queer writer (typically, I find her hot). She hung out with other queer writers, Truman Capote and Tennessee Williams. There was a whole radical queer subsect of artists, writers and filmmakers in the 30s through the 40s, 50s and into the 60s. Would they identify as LGBT now? That's rhetorical.
...but it's important to remember that all these icons were queer, not straight but feeling like the other gender. This is a radical new departure. And there's no evidence to suggest trans has always been here (without being queer). Like the cultural appropriation of Indian two spirited, two spirited people were traditionally gay, worked with the women and cross dressed, not transgender (I first read of this in Thomas Berger's excellent 1960s novel, Little Big Man).
" LGB people often challenge gender boundaries in their social behaviour and may even be targeted because of their gender presentation." according to CUSU in their third point.
This is the same point as above in one sense. However, there's a big difference between a queer man who cross dresses and a hetero man who believes he's a biological woman. And more importantly the CUSU argument runs:
"Similarly, much of the prejudice facing both LGB and transgender people results from assumptions around what is considered to be gender-appropriate behaviour – that there are certain ways one is ‘supposed’ to act as a member of a particular gender, including being attracted to those of the ‘opposite’ sex."
So homosexuality is a gender orientation not a neurological difference to heterosexuality? I'm trying to get my head around the argument that sexuality is merely a gender assumption. That I, as a hetero man, only find women attractive because of socialized roles (gender). I could just laugh at the audacity of such a nonsensical argument but taking it seriously, one word; reproduction.
The sole purpose of our existence is to reproduce. That isn't a moral statement suggesting that queer people aren't functioning correctly but, technically, they aren't. Neither am I, a hetero person who chooses not to reproduce. I'm choosing not to fulfil my purpose, queer people are neurologically wired that way. Gender is the way that we are socialized into roles that fit what are considered normal modes of behaviour. Women wear dresses, men wear ties, etc. Some socialized roles have a biological underpinning (men are stronger and faster, for instance). Fundamentally, there's no reason why women are called Daphne and not Greg, like romcoms and not action movies, etc. these are learned behaviours. However, Daphne can reproduce and Greg cannot and that is the fundamental biological difference between males and females. Sexuality isn't about challenging gender assumptions, it's a biological preference, sigh.
The point made by CUSU has the underlying assumption though, that being Trans you are challenging gender boundaries. This, of course, is nonsense. The underlying ideology of the transgender movement (it's in the name) is to act and appear like the opposite gender. Much of the ideological underpinning of the (at least modern) trans movement is to promote an acceptance of young people who exhibit the appearance and qualities of the opposite gender. The trans movement's whole rationale is to reinforce gender boundaries whilst ridiculously using terms like fluid. Even the children's teaching aids used in LGBT classes (there's a big debate about this in the UK right now) don't have picture books with boys or girls refusing gender ideologies but rather...
Imagine the feminist uproar if we were teaching young girls to learn its great to be little princesses...to be honest, I don't know how this affects small children but it terrified me. Being trans means you lose your face and it's replaced by an acorn...scary.
How pretty you look in your dress, twirl for me...it's OK, it's not creepy. I assume dad is trans too as his face has been replaced by the acorn...I guess it could be worse...those Japanese trans teaching aid books...
Twirl little princess.
"Much of the discrimination against transgender people is also likely to be familiar to LGB people (particularly older persons) and come from similar quarters – many are disowned by their family, and are subject to verbal, sexual and physical assault," argues CUSU.
I'm not sure what discrimination they mean. Queer people don't get discriminated over their bathroom of choice, over domestic violence shelters, over prisons or other safe female spaces, right?
I'm not sure who the similar quarters are. Yes, right wing religious nuts hate everyone who aren't right wing religious nuts. But feminism and queer rights have a long history of co-operation. They share similar ends and face similar difficulties. Yeah, why aren't females in this LGBT club?
The idea that trans and queer people experience similar discrimination within the family and social groups appears to be the cornerstone of the argument (even though you can say this about numerous minorities or anyone who challenges family assumptions or societal expectations). And this feeds into point four....
"4. Learning to accept your trans identity can be in some ways similar to the process that some LGB people experience in recognizing and accepting their sexuality."
"LGB and trans people have to face similar issues as they come to terms with the sexuality and gender identity respectively. These include the common processes of disclosure and coming-out, adjusting and adapting or choosing not to adapt to social pressures to conform to the norm, and fear of loss (or indeed actual loss) of relationships."
This point makes sense, however, it is based on the assumption that sexuality and transgender are fundamentally similar at source (despite the CUSU piece previously saying the two are "incomparable"). Yet one is definitely not a lifestyle choice. The other might well also not be a lifestyle choice but it involves an element of faith. One has to believe someone feels these things, feels the need to disclose, come out, adjust, adapt (I'm talking about trans here). A queer person could theoretically come out as queer but have no sexual relationships but then what would be the point and what would it entail?
This is the most coherent argument but then a similar argument might be used for religious belief; Judaism and Catholicism being comparable. They both face a similar set of coming of age rituals, similar belief, similar rituals in adult life, similar history of discrimination. Yet to be Jewish is very different to being Catholic. The latter is a belief, the former is rooted in an ethnicity.
To look at trans and queer through the wrong end of the telescope it appears like the 'process' of coming out or 'coming to terms with' are very similar, however, sexuality is something rooted in biology (it's not a psychological condition) whereas transgender has no basis in biology, in fact its whole rationale is bypassing biology in favour of gender identity.
Relationships are also a key difference between trans and queer. To be queer is to favour your own sex sexually and to pursue relationships with those of your own sex (assuming you have relationships). Trans people aren't necessarily queer, perhaps often they aren't, hence the problematic nature of the terms lesbian and gay when people transition and thus change their sexuality too.
Relationships are affected from the outside, that is, it's the response of others to queer individuals which changes. Queer people themselves do not change their personality or persona in coming out as queer, it's their family or partners or friends who react to their coming out. With trans individuals the relationships fundamentally change from both angles. Mothers and daughters become mothers and sons or daughters and fathers. A husband can become a wife. There are fundamental shifts in the relationship that one might consider out of the control of those having to accept the trans person.
5: Many identities within the ‘+’ have strong links to trans identities and may have broader notions of sexual orientation.
Huh? Oh, I think we're talking those other terms that blur everything. Gender non conforming lesbian curious or something.
"The ‘+’ at the end of LGBT+ is an attempt at creating a broader and more inclusive community and some of the identities covered by it fall outside the traditional areas covered by LGB. For example polyamorous or asexual identities can be held at the same time as LGB ones, creating a fuller picture of what it means to be LGB. Some identities, such as pansexual, are sexual orientations that include non-binary gender identities or may not be based upon gender identity at all, something that traditional views of LGB identities fail to include. Intersex people are frequently included within the ‘+’, which again falls outside the remit of sexual orientations. When creating an inclusive community it would be illogical to exclude any related identity."
I wondered when the old Intersex chestnut would be thrown into the fire. In fact, as intersex is a biological anomaly (in the sense that it's a biological rarity where someone is born with sex variations) and we, presumably, all accept that sexuality is biological (in the sense of neurological or genetic) then they do have something in common. Though intersex has been dragged into the argument by gender radicals to try and put a spoke in essentialist male/female sex dynamics. It has absolutely nothing to do with transgender (which is when someone "feels" they aren't the sex they were born as).
The big, and very, very, obvious problem with the notion of a spectrum of sexuality/gender is not with the former. Effectively you can define yourself as any sexuality, pan, bi, hetero, whatever and it has no effect on anyone except yourself and your partner (and they have a choice in the matter). However, if we believe that anyone can choose their gender then our whole society becomes nonsensical. What's the purpose then of gender segregation in safe spaces? Stonewall argue in their School Report 2017 that schoolchildren should be able to use changing rooms and bathrooms that they individually feel fits their own gender identity. What of safe spaces for post (or indeed pre) pubescent girls? At present, as I understand the law in the UK children over the age of 8 must use gendered changing and bathrooms. The logic being that menstruating females need a safe space away from males who do not menstruate. Pesky sex differences do keep getting in the way of the transgender utopia where anyone can choose their gender identity. Anyone who believes you can define your own sex is denying science, you might as well say you can define your own race.
"When creating an inclusive community it would be illogical to exclude any related identity." But a queer person of any 'stripe', be that gay, lesbian, bi, pan, whatever, has no related identity to someone who self defines their gender identity. Just because that person self defines as, say, a woman when they are male and happens to be homosexual it does not mean the two are symbiotic. You might as well say a gay man who is atheist is included in the community thus atheists must be included.
It makes no logical sense.
6: We’re stronger together.
No, no no. There's more of us, yes. But the adding of the T to the LGB has been incredibly divisive. Who, other than those crazy right wing fundamentalists and misogynists, pick any fight with queer people now? No one cares anymore. That isn't to say that homophobia isn't still rife. It certainly is but it's still rooted in the same thing that it was back in 1967 in the UK when homosexuality was legalized. But it's irrational. Have you ever read a rational homophobic argument? What would that look like? I have no idea.
However, trans has both created a divide within the LGB community and without, from radical feminists, who object to both the loss of hard fought equality legislation and the dangers that trans equality pose to women and safe spaces, and to the growing number of young women with mental health conditions finding solutions to being women in a misogynistic society by transitioning into men (including the archaic practice of binding).
There's no strength in division. And as the trans lobby has grown and almost effectively taken over the LGBT community the divisions will grow.
CUSU argue that: " The transgender community is relatively small compared to the LGB community; although most statistics are based upon those accessing public healthcare, it is estimated that somewhere between 1 in 500 and 1 in 125,000 people are transgender. These figures are of course based on western notions of trans people and in some countries, where different ideas are prevalent and there is much greater acceptance, anything up to 4% of people may identify as trans."
There's no evidence that there has been a growth in the gay population. In fact censuses in the UK show a steady number of queer people in the UK (around 2%) but the number of people self identifying as transgender (in its myriad forms) is growing exponentially. The number of child referrals in the UK has doubled year on year for the last four years (Tavistock Clinic data). Assuming this will continue then the trans community will soon outnumber the queer community, or, indeed as CUSU suggest, they already do, and that might be why LGBT organizations like Stonewall are becoming more militant in their aspirations.
CUSU conclude with: "Because of the relatively small numbers of trans* people in this country, ensuring a safe environment may require advocacy from the non-”T” elements of LGBT+."
Oh yes, we are definitely seeing this. No piece about homophobia in the media dare leave out trans people. But this is the crux of the reason why trans should not be included in the LGB community. Ensuring safe spaces for trans people directly conflicts with the need for safe spaces for women.
One has to lose their rights and astonishingly, it appears to be women that are losing and the trans movement are reinforcing the domination of patriarchy, something that the LGB community, inclusive of lesbian and bi individuals, should be campaigning against. There is a fundamental paradox in the movement, as there is a fundamental paradox in wider society. Ensuring the safety of trans people should not mean the erosion of safe spaces for natal women.
CUSU hasn't convinced me in the least but then it wouldn't because I'm an entrenched transphobic exclusionary radical feminist. And anyone who disagrees with the T in LGBT rights must be transphobic. It's no coincidence that LGB rights grew at the same point in history as black rights and as women's rights (in the UK the Race Relations Act was passed in 1965, homosexuality was legalized in 1967, The Abortion Act was passed in 1967 giving women control over reproduction symbolically). I don't think it's any coincidence that trans rights has grown at the same point in history when we've seen a massive rise in nationalism (Brexit, Trump, the shift to the right in Europe) and a return to religious fundamentalism. LGB was a liberation movement, one of many liberation movements. Gender radicalism is a restrictive movement, one of many restrictive movements. The LGB movement grew out of intolerance and fought for the right, not only to recognize equality for queer people, but was also synonymous with the growth of free speech in the western world. Gender radicalism shuts down debate through no platforming and linguistic control (misgendering, deadnaming, etc.). They have almost nothing in common.
Comments
Post a Comment