[RD] I'm transitioning. If you've ever been confused about the T in LGBT, ask me anything

[gay_Aleks]

Because crossdressers REMAIN cis, and that the act of crossdressing is merely one of performance. They can switch off being a woman or a man. Trans people do not have this privilege. Trans people can't just wave away being trans, or rather, society itself makes it very difficult, as it constantly puts restraints upon their lives. This is, once more, about whether there is a trans essence, a checklist that trans people can check off and then they're Trans and they're accepted. And again, I am telling you: there is no such thing! And even if there is, trans people under no circumstance should let cis people decide that, because then their acceptance will be inevitably bound to them (even further than it already is...). So, if a trans person tells you they're trans, you better believe them, otherwise, you're just showing grave disres[ect.

 

[Gorbles]

I can accept that, of course, yet vagueness can be an issue regarding general acceptance of TG.
For example, if not all (or any?...) somatic aspects need to be changed, or need to be part of an aspiration for change, what exactly prevents other known categories like (eg) crossdressing* from being TG?
Cause, imo, it makes little sense to say they are TG, and will make TG identity vaguer than it needs to be.

*Not that all crossdressers are like that, but to use a known example, Eddie Izzard neither looks nor seems to be of the view he can look like a woman. How realistic would it be to term him as TG?

The simplest point is that we (you, me, anybody who isn't the person themselves) shouldn't be describing anyone, or terming them, as such. It's the person's choice, not yours. Notably, Izzard's own personal views do not explicitly place him as cis (as per Wikipedia).

There are two separate points here. One is outside acceptance of trans or other LGTBQ minorities. The other is you attempting to put a label, or written / argued criteria, onto such a thing, I'm guessing so you can try and make sense of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Us accepting trans folk (or anybody else) for being who they say they are is our problem. It's not their problem. Through discrimination we (generic we, not you and I necessarily) cause them problems, but the acceptance should be on us to rationalise to ourselves.

We're not arguing legality here, right? We're arguing social / cultural acceptance. We can be helped, we can be informed, but the decision rests with us (cis folk), ultimately. Which is why a lot of it (and a lot of this thread, and every other relevance thread on trans rights or similar areas) has come down to the binary "do you accept vs. do not you not accept". It's an unfortunate but necessary presentation, because the amount of nuance - the number of case-by-case examples we could go through - are dependent on you (the generic you) accepting the person as who they say they are in the first place. If you (generic, sorry for the repetition) don't accept the person is who they say they are, then there's very little discussion to be had (as I'm sure you've seen throughout the thread(s)).

 

[Kyriakos]

Because crossdressers REMAIN cis, and that the act of crossdressing is merely one of performance.

The simplest point is that we (you, me, anybody who isn't the person themselves) shouldn't be describing anyone, or terming them, as such. It's the person's choice, not yours. Notably, Izzard's own personal views do not explicitly place him as cis (as per Wikipedia).

There are two separate points here. One is outside acceptance of trans or other LGTBQ minorities. The other is you attempting to put a label, or written / argued criteria, onto such a thing, I'm guessing so you can try and make sense of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Us accepting trans folk (or anybody else) for being who they say they are is our problem. It's not their problem. Through discrimination we (generic we, not you and I necessarily) cause them problems, but the acceptance should be on us to rationalise to ourselves.

We're not arguing legality here, right? We're arguing social / cultural acceptance. We can be helped, we can be informed, but the decision rests with us (cis folk), ultimately. Which is why a lot of it (and a lot of this thread, and every other relevance thread on trans rights or similar areas) has come down to the binary "do you accept vs. do not you not accept". It's an unfortunate but necessary presentation, because the amount of nuance - the number of case-by-case examples we could go through - are dependent on you (the generic you) accepting the person as who they say they are in the first place. If you (generic, sorry for the repetition) don't accept the person is who they say they are, then there's very little discussion to be had (as I'm sure you've seen throughout the thread(s)).

I don't have an issue with what anyone self-identifies as. However if it is not distinct in the slightest, it will create further problems (you alluded to legal standing...). If one says a crossdresser isn't TG (as Tolina did), yet Izzard can be non-cis, isn't this a bit vague?

(the legal issues stemming from such vagueness are obvious, of course. Borges was fluent in English, and an anglophile. If he wanted to he could pose as an english person, and privately it would be ok, in fact he'd possibly pass as one - but clearly he couldn't aspire to get a pension from Britain).

 

[Gorbles]

I don't have an issue with what anyone self-identifies as. However if it is not distinct in the slightest, it will create further problems (you alluded to legal standing...). If one says a crossdresser isn't TG (as Tolina did), yet Izzard can be non-cis, isn't this a bit vague?

(the legal issues stemming from such vagueness are obvious, of course. Borges was fluent in English, and an anglophile. If he wanted to he could pose as an english person, and privately it would be he right and possibly he'd pass as one - but clearly he couldn't aspire to get a pension from Britain).

Izzard isn't just a crossdresser, though it's something I had to look up to reference. Your statement was taken to mean crossdressers, and it was taken by Tolina at face value.

You're mixing arguments again. We're not discussing legality. Legality is a whole other argument. Language is a whole other argument. You need to stop with these equivalences, because they don't relate in the way you think they do. Someone fluent in a language has no legal precedent to claim English benefits (for starters), and secondly being proficient in a language has no relation at all to gender identity. It's these kinds of things that get peoples' backs up - because the comparison is so shallow that people either assume you're out of your depth, or being willfully obtuse. I'm not calling you the latter, I believe there's a bit of (both understandable and minor, semantic r.e. translated phrases) language difficulties in the mix, but I do believe this is something you're not necessarily familiar with, because it shows. I'm trying to explain why the things you're saying are poor comparisons, and therefore potentially offensive. I do this in the hope this leads to a better conversation, is all.

EDIT

To that end, I'm bowing out for a bit. I forgot (again) this is an Ask thread, not a general debate thread. My bad. @Kyriakos - if you want to continue, or have a problem with the above, please do PM me.

 

[Kyriakos]

Izzard isn't just a crossdresser, though it's something I had to look up to reference. Your statement was taken to mean crossdressers, and it was taken by Tolina at face value.

You're mixing arguments again. We're not discussing legality. Legality is a whole other argument. Language is a whole other argument. You need to stop with these equivalences, because they don't relate in the way you think they do. Someone fluent in a language has no legal precedent to claim English benefits (for starters), and secondly being proficient in a language has no relation at all to gender identity. It's these kinds of things that get peoples' backs up - because the comparison is so shallow that people either assume you're out of your depth, or being willfully obtuse. I'm not calling you the latter, I believe there's a bit of (both understandable and minor, semantic r.e. translated phrases) language difficulties in the mix, but I do believe this is something you're not necessarily familiar with, because it shows. I'm trying to explain why the things you're saying are poor comparisons, and therefore potentially offensive. I do this in the hope this leads to a better conversation, is all.

It wasn't meant as you thought it was, the comparison was to highlight that TG people wishing to have legal standing as TG (eg recall that public toilet issue?) would have to fit some specific criteria, much like not all argentinians can apply for a pension from Britain (yet some can- eg if they have worked there). That they have to identify with Britain in some way is a given, but not a practical criterion by itself - was what the parallelism meant.

Furthermore, I am personally not seeing why you think it is clear that a "regular" crossdresser isn't TG. What if such a person identifies to some degree with TG? It is a bit vague, no?

@Gorbles I don't have a problem with you bowing out of the debate. I am pretty sure the Kremlin will still pay me 5 rubles for the impression I won the argument or showed there's reasonable doubt.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Cross dressers aren't trans because they don't want to be the gender they sometimes dress up as.

I'm telling you @Kyriakos that you're in very murky water here and I don't appreciate the comparisons with cross dressers when that term has historically been used to attack, denigrate and marginalize trans people.

Be very careful here because there's three ways a trans person could read such a comparison;

1. That you're totally ignorant of the connotations and history of the comparison you're making.

Or

2. That you don't care enough to distinguish between the two even when both communities see each other as being seperate entities.

Or

3. You are making the comparison out of a desire to attack trans people.

So which is it? I'll accept ignorance but remember that you can only use that reason once before it ceases to be valid

 

[IglooDame]

Cross dressers aren't trans because they don't want to be the gender they sometimes dress up as.

I'm telling you @Kyriakos that you're in very murky water here and I don't appreciate the comparisons with cross dressers when that term has historically been used to attack, denigrate and marginalize trans people.

For decades I referred to myself as a crossdresser and certainly wasn't expressing any negativity toward transfolk. I know, anecdote vs data, but, in the BDSM community in the 2000s (which as near as I can tell was/is very LGBTQ-aware/friendly) everything I've seen is that crossdresser is a fairly intent-neutral label.

As far as whether a... what do I call them? Is 'transvestite' inoffensive? As far as legal status, if for example which of the two public restrooms one is allowed to use is based on original birth certificate, then of course the M restroom will have a lot of people in it that some more socially conservative males will object to, and certainly they will not be differentiating between transvestites and transgenders and non-binary and etc, which is its own sucktastic circumstance.

 

[cardgame]

For decades I referred to myself as a crossdresser and certainly wasn't expressing any negativity toward transfolk. I know, anecdote vs data, but, in the BDSM community in the 2000s (which as near as I can tell was/is very LGBTQ-aware/friendly) everything I've seen is that crossdresser is a fairly intent-neutral label.

As far as whether a... what do I call them? Is 'transvestite' inoffensive? As far as legal status, if for example which of the two public restrooms one is allowed to use is based on original birth certificate, then of course the M restroom will have a lot of people in it that some more socially conservative males will object to, and certainly they will not be differentiating between transvestites and transgenders and non-binary and etc, which is its own sucktastic circumstance.

I believe the point Cloud was making is not that crossdresser is a negative term so much as the right-wing and transphobes in general would use it to deny trans people any legitimacy. There's nothing wrong with crossdressing in and of itself.

 

[Kyriakos]

So how was anything in my posts against cross-dressers? Also, it's not exactly nice to feel offended as a TG by the mere suggestion, itself part of a question, that a cross-dresser may identify as TG.
This is an "ask a" thread, and I asked a very specific question, which was if anything is specific about who is TG and who is not, giving an example of a cross-dresser and asking if they are possibly TG. I never claimed to be an expert on TG.

If who is and who isn't TG is entirely vague, then it is equally theoretic who is in favour of TG or not. And while for individuals that is fine, for legal standing it obviously is not - so issues like use of public bathrooms cannot get a definitive answer from a civil rights/state.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Worth reiterating the OP:

Do not worry about asking an awkward or rude question. I do not expect everyone to know boundaries and etiquette. With the exception of blatant trolling, I will assume all questions are asked innocently.

Not that Cloud is bound by emzie's standards of course, but it's still worth bearing in mind that this was nevertheless the standard laid out in the OP.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So how was anything in my posts against cross-dressers? Also, it's not exactly nice to feel offended as a TG by the mere suggestion, itself part of a question, that a cross-dresser may identify as TG.

The problem with this is that the largest difference between a cross-dresser and someone who is trans is that the cross-dresser may occasionally present as a different gender then that of what they were assigned at birth as, but they're not actually living it nor are they trying to transition both legally and socially.

This is an "ask a" thread, and I asked a very specific question, which was if anything is specific about who is TG and who is not, giving an example of a cross-dresser and asking if they are possibly TG. I never claimed to be an expert on TG.

I take issue with the comparison because, in the US at least, trans people have been dismissed as being fetishist, cross-dressing oddities to laugh and gawk at and that's still a narrative that holds strong to this very day, so Yes i am going to be quite sensitive to the comparison when i've personally had it used to attack my existence as well as to label me a freak.

People seem to forget that the more positive cultural views of trans people is an incredibly recent thing, not something that's been established or happening for decades. I don't need to go back that far (early 2010's) to see some pretty bad depictions of transpeople, infact they still happen today.

If who is and who isn't TG is entirely vague, then it is equally theoretic who is in favour of TG or not. And while for individuals that is fine, for legal standing it obviously is not - so issues like use of public bathrooms cannot get a definitive answer from a civil rights/state.

Okay but how is the difference between a trans person and a cross-dresser "vague" when one seeks to transition, entirely, to a differing gender and the other occasionally dabbles in presenting as a differing gender, regardless of their reasoning for doing so? The key difference is what does the person identify as and whilst people in drag might adopt a differing persona, they usually don't seek to be that person or to be that gender outside of when they wear it.

What you need do is to seek out the trans community, go to their spaces and read their responses and replies. /Asktransgender on reddit might help, provided you ask in a respectful way.

 

[Kyriakos]

Okay but how is the difference between a trans person and a cross-dresser "vague" when one seeks to transition, entirely, to a differing gender and the other occasionally dabbles in presenting as a differing gender, regardless of their reasoning for doing so? The key difference is what does the person identify as and whilst people in drag might adopt a differing persona, they usually don't seek to be that person or to be that gender outside of when they wear it.

^The issue there is that in the thread some TG have claimed a TG does not need to wish to transition "entirely". Hence I pursued to ask more on this, given in theory a cross-dresser may identify as TG at times but obviously - as you said - has no intention of transitioning "entirely".

And while, as I said already, this makes no difference regarding individual views and stances, a state legislature will always need some specific criteria.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

^The issue there is that in the thread some TG have claimed a TG does not need to wish to transition "entirely". Hence I pursued to ask more on this, given in theory a cross-dresser may identify as TG at times but obviously - as you said - has no intention of transitioning "entirely".

It's a difficult conversation to be had for both cis and trans people, i think it is entirely possible (and probable) that a cross-dresser can identify as trans or even discover they are trans by feeling gender euphoria when cross-dressing but this comparison is problematic and it's going to be taken in different ways by different trans people.

The history of the comparison is what it is and it's going to be a difficult topic to discuss without making trans people uncomfortable or getting their back up, that's why I recommended going into the trans community, not necessarily on this forum, but where we congregrate in appointed safe-spaces and respectfully asking the question.

I think you mistakenly assume that when a cross-dresser presents in a different gender's clothing/appearance that they are "transitioning" albeit temporarily, but transitioning is more than just wearing the clothes, it's about changing who you are as a person and not just temporarily.

A person who is transitioning wakes up, lives their life and goes to bed as the gender they are transitioning to, not so much with cross-dressers, the issue becomes blurred when cross-dressers are doing so 24/7.

 

[HEF]

...this makes no difference regarding individual views and stances, a state legislature will always need some specific criteria.

Yep.

Ultimately, that's what the relevant LGBTQ issue(s) is going to come down to.

 

[Synobun]

Yep.

Ultimately, that's what the relevant LGBTQ issue(s) is going to come down to.

Unless the state is going to start qualifying cis men and women on forms and making them verify their gender, I see no reason why such an expectation should be put upon trans individuals. Needing to meet some standard in order to be a "real" transgender person is icky.

 

[JohannaK]

If who is and who isn't TG is entirely vague, then it is equally theoretic who is in favour of TG or not. And while for individuals that is fine, for legal standing it obviously is not - so issues like use of public bathrooms cannot get a definitive answer from a civil rights/state.

I just want to reiterate the oft-repeated point that public restrooms are, in fact, not a legal issue inasmuch as there is no law that demands or enforces the segregation of toilets by gender, and to use the existence of trans people as an excuse to put forth any such legislation is farcical.

 

[Socrates99]

I'm thankful for this thread. I want to be an ally but theres a lot I dont understand and this helps a lot.

 

[Kyriakos]

I just want to reiterate the oft-repeated point that public restrooms are, in fact, not a legal issue inasmuch as there is no law that demands or enforces the segregation of toilets by gender, and to use the existence of trans people as an excuse to put forth any such legislation is farcical.

Unless the state is going to start qualifying cis men and women on forms and making them verify their gender, I see no reason why such an expectation should be put upon trans individuals. Needing to meet some standard in order to be a "real" transgender person is icky.

The problem is that if one combines the two above, we get:
-no one has to verify their gender
-public bathrooms don't need a law

Which begs the question why a cis-male can't use the female public bathroom? I mean they can always claim they identify as female (without it being true, and with zero struggle in their life to transition).

Laws are needed to afford protection and secure rights where needed - so if any random person can claim x without any criteria there, in effect those who actually need x won't get it.

 

[JohannaK]

Have you ever had to show your Man Card to enter a public restroom?

Have you never gone into the ladies' toilet at a bar because the men's was our of order?

People will go into the 'wrong' gendered toilets all the time if it is the more convenient option, and people don't make a fuss of it unless they're a creep, or trans. So bigots justify themselves saying either that trans people are creeps or that creeps will pretend to be trans. Creeps have never needed to pretend anything to get into the toilets that interest them. This entire argument is one big canard.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Which begs the question why a cis-male can't use the female public bathroom? I mean they can always claim they identify as female (without it being true, and with zero struggle in their life to transition).

Effectively the argument you are making is that trans people are to be punished for the sins of a hypothetical cis person abusing it.

This isn't an argument I'm willing to entertain.

I'm telling you it's not a good idea to go down this route unless you're okay with checking on people's genitals or chromosomes