Gender vs Sex

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Michele Todd
----------

I understand the connection that trans people have with the gay community,
however, am I totally off base here in saying that being trans is a gender
issue while being gay, lesbian or bisexual is a sexual issue. I am a woman
albeit a trans woman. Occasionally someone openly questions my gender in
which case I will explain to them about me. But I do not promote myself as
being transgender. On the other hand I consider myself a lesbian, which is
my sexual preference.

~~ Michele

----------
(This posting was entered by Michele Todd, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Gabi
----------

I think you are correct the other three are sexual issues. When I first
was coming to terms with who I am I remember saying to a lesbian friend
that I thought being trans and being lesbian were somewhat the same.

My friend responded by saying being lesbian or gay had to do with which
gender you were attracted to. Being trans was all internal. I've
simplified that to my friends by saying sex is between the legs and
gender is between the ears.

----------
(This posting was entered by Gabi, an external user of MyDLV.)

[bobbiemlv]

Think about it logically, which is the way most people don't want to. They want to only think of Male & Female as the only genders there are. We are changing things and change takes time. Being Trans-gendered ie. m-f or f-m means that now there is a third choice to m or f: tg, and as with m and f comes the multiple choices of what sexual preference is and how those sexual preferences is defined can be very confusing. One example as I understand it: If you are a pre or non-op hetrosexual male to female and enjoy the sexual company of genetic females, you consider yourself lesbians. If these same people also enjoy the sexual company of other tg's, they may want to still be considered lesbians, but they are really bisexual. If you are a m to f tg and enjoy the company of men, then does that necessarily make you gay or normal because it IS, in the world normal for a woman to be with a man. People outside our lifestyle seem to forget that we, just like them have genitals and a brain. If you think with your genitals, then sexual and gender identity always gets mixed up. If you think with your brain then at least there are viable choices.

as a very insightful person once said(me)> It's not what's between your legs that should count. It's what's between your ears.

[annie]

>They want to only think of Male & Female as the only genders there are.

I believe this whole sex/gender thing is a complex multidimensional spectrum, with some of the dimensions being what we call genetic sex, external anatomic sex, gender identity, sexual preference, and several others.

While some of these dimensions may not be true continua, they do contain more than the discrete binary values we've been taught to believe. We now know that there are many more genetic karyotypes than the 46,XX and 46,XY which we learned in HS biology, for example.

Likewise, there are many variants of anatomic sex, and sexual preference does not always fall into those clearly-defined little boxes of Straight/Gay/Bi.

As for subjective gender identity, it ain't always clearly Cis or Trans. Gender identity and gender expression are also two different things.

We, collectively, have come up with more of these little boxes, such as Intersex and Genderqueer, but many individuals still do not fit cleanly into any of the boxes.

> as a very insightful person once said(me) It's not what's between your legs that
> should count. It's what's between your ears.

The quote, which has many attributions and variations, along this line is "Sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears" and is used to illustrate the difference between anatomic sex and gender identity. "Anatomy is not identity." is another.

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Cynthia Phillips
----------

I'm confused, no wait, now I'm more confused; I think it depends on who
you're having sex with and what gender they are. I mean like, I've had
some pretty good sex between the ears and some really good genders
between the legs too !!

Seriously and all kidding aside, I think we we need to completely do
away with the term 'homosexuality', it has thrown the whole debate off
track from day one. Freud first used the term 'homoerotic' in his
original work on the subject about 1900, in his three treatis' on
sexuality. This originally completely eliminated sex from the issue and
left the door open for consideration of all alternate lifestyles without
the bias of sex. The media then stepped in and exploited the term, of
course, calling homoeroticism homosexuality, thereby making a homoerotic
a homosexual, or worse, gauranteeing that the issue would never be
settled. New denominations and factions of us are formed everyday as we
continue to agree less and less that we are all the same.

----------
(This posting was entered by Cynthia Phillips, an external user of MyDLV.)

[annie]

> Seriously and all kidding aside, I think we we need to completely do
> away with the term 'homosexuality', it has thrown the whole debate off
> track from day one.

If we look at human sexuality, particularly what's been traditionally called "sexual preference", from the perspective of variable gender identity, the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" become overloaded and meaningless.

The late Lee Brewster used to say "I am a heterosexual transvestite. When I'm dressed as a woman, I make love to men. That's about as heterosexual as you can get."

Lee's remark was partly in response to one well-known group's requirement that members be "heterosexual transvestites only", and I might note that this particular terminology was the usual and customary vernacular of the time.

> New denominations and factions of us are formed everyday as we
> continue to agree less and less that we are all the same.

But we aren't the same! Very few of us fit cleanly into those little boxes which society (and the TG community) says we should fit.

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Cynthia Phillips
----------

OK, OK, you win, I'm not going to split hairs over this and get my nips
in a tizzy. I think Brewster was off base though, he was gay as a
$5.00 bill, and putting on a dress didn't make him hetero. I think his
remark was only political and aimed at a political group who liked to
cross dress but preferred a mainstream "heteroerotic" lifestyle when not
in drag. I could cite a national group here, but I won't, but I
wouldn't hold that "sexual preference" against them, and I would hope
they wouldn't hold my alternative gay "homoerotic" lifestyle against me.
The last I heard, they were loosening up and admitting single gay CDers
to the club. I'm shooting at the same target as you are; we're not
all the same and as the gay community continues to gain acceptance
within mainstream society, the CDTG faction continues to lag behind the
gay parade. We seem to be the last to benefit from any progressive
social changes. Personally, I've come too far to reverse course now;
I'm two years into CDTGing and totally addicted to it, and getting
braver everyday. My biggest problem is that I don't know where I'm
going. I do know there's safety in numbers and I can't do it alone.

----------
(This posting was entered by Cynthia Phillips, an external user of MyDLV.)

[bobbiemlv]

This is in reply to Cynthia's last comment. Firstly "gay as a $5.00 bill" doesn't really make sense because there is a five dollar bill. Gay as a $3.00 bill would make more sense. Do you even know who Lee Brewster was? Yes he owned Lee's Mardi Gras, which was a store for tg's, one of the first of it's kind. Yes, he was gay, and preferred to be addressed to as sir, mr. and why I use male pronouns. Google him and you will see one of the most beautiful males ever. He was not the stereotypical drag queen.
As far as I'm concerned if you are a female who likes the company of a male, you are heterosexual and this is the thinking of many people. You bring us down to the homophobes level when you say you are alternative gay. The main reason why we lag behind is because we don't put up a strong, united front. There are too many differences within our own community. We have to learn from the gay & lesbian to put our differences aside and band together as sisters and brothers. It took a long time for us to be recognized. Let's keep our internal bickering, internal and represent ourselves to the masses as a force to be reckoned with. Until the time that we can stand on our own, we WILL have to cling to the tail of the gay community, and the key word there is TIME.
The new laws that go into effect Oct. 1, 2011, as far as I know, are the first passed solely for the TG community.
Let's not let the Nevada lawmakers down by misusing them.

[annie]

> OK, OK, you win, I'm not going to split hairs over this and get my nips
> in a tizzy.

I'm not trying to fight over anything here. I'm just trying to think critically and question some of our ostensibly-established terms and concepts.

In particular I'm questioning whether such concepts as "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" are truly relevant here in the 21st. century.

>I could cite a national group here, but I won't,

I'll name names, and I can personally attest that Lee Brewster and Virginia Prince were good friends. I was acquainted with both back in the days, not to admit my real age.

Both of them did quite a bit to advance the TG community, although in different ways.

> The last I heard, they were loosening up and admitting single gay CDers
> to the club.

LOL, they've been admitting gay/bi people as long as I've been aware of the group.

In Omaha, our very own RCGA (http://www.rcga.us/) began as a spinoff of a short-lived Tri-Ess chapter. Among other reasons for the split was the bias against those who were not avowedly het, and against those who admitted to being on the transition track.

> the CDTG faction continues to lag behind the gay parade. We seem to
> be the last to benefit from any progressive social changes.

Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, I do admit that we (T people) were the red-headed stepchild of the GLB movement, but since then we've moved into a place of inclusion. ("No equaliTy without the T!")

For the past few years, most (not all) regulations and legislation have been TG-inclusive and accurate and explicit in their wording. The talking heads now very seldom omit the T.

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Cynthia Phillips
----------

WHEW !! I'm glad you're on top of all this, you've been in it a lot
longer than me. It's back to page one for me

> "I'm confused, no wait, now I'm more confused."

Anyway, thanks for the help. I'm just going to settle for the term: "T
- person". Quite honestly, I'm happy just being one of the T-people,
and keeping it simple.How happy? I'm happier than a $5.00 bill in a
tornado.

Very truly yours,

Diva Cynthia

----------
(This posting was entered by Cynthia Phillips, an external user of MyDLV.)