my bad, TransGender or TransSexual every time you see them first thing to mind is images of the repoductive parts, and all to often the trans part isn't very helpful in keeping the details of there differences in check so people don't confuse the two. its not just me that makes this mistake from time.
No problem. It reminds me of how, when someone says the word "homosexual", the first thing they think of is sex or lust or some such thing. It's really unfortunate, because the people who hold that identity are not usually constrained in such a way. Being a gay person, holding that identity, isn't just about sex, just like identifying as trans isn't just about what you have in your pants.
but it should be considered, either one changing its name to keep it distinctly clear and different from the other.
Oftentimes the "trans" shortcut is used because the distinctions between transgender and transsexual are blurry, as Teia suggested. It's more about your attitude and your outward presentation to the world than anything else. I don't know if I've ever met someone who identifies as transsexual without being, in a sense, transgender as well (i.e. XY chromosome, has sex reassignment surgery for a ****** or some such thing, still identifies as male). So usually, the "trans" shortcut focuses more on gender in that respect.
I honestly think that his argument could have been worded a LOT better than it was. I feel that his argument was - 'it's wrong for one side to have their voices heard, but the other to be silenced'.
But it's not just any two sides. It's emphasizing the fact that the victims are our children, and the people who are being protected are godless sodomites. It wouldn't be so bad if it were the other way around (see: fact that no one was complaining about how it was the opposite way 60 years ago or so).
There are some exceptions, such as with the Clinton/Obama contest, but generally speaking the media coverage I see doesn't pique its interest in foreign elections until the final candidates are actually chosen. For the benefit of those of us who aren't in the US - just how seriously should we take this guy? Is there actually a chance of him running for president or is he a bit of a no-hoper? At first glance I'd say the latter, but then Palin was genuinely a Vice-Presidential candidate so who the hell knows.
He was the governor of Texas for three terms, since Bush Jr. left in 2000. Those people elected him three times. Yes, he absolutely should be taken seriously.
its not very surprising that it is more Men to females because, (and i'm basing this off some radio thing i remember hearing some time back) is female to male surgury isn't perfect when it comes to making a reliable functional male part. the random radio thing i heard was boasting a length of 4 inches.
length aside, the risk of it not functioning properly all the time, probably makes people hesitate more for under going female to male. thus you have male to female being more common.
That's not what transgender means. You do not need to undergo sex reassignment surgery to identify as trans. That's akin to saying you have to have lost your virginity to identify as straight. Except even that's flawed because it suggests that you eventually would want surgery, which not all trans folk do, partly due to the reasons you listed.
Makes sense, in combination with the facial reconstructive surgery for men and getting debreasted for women can cost a bit.
Not to mention the fact that the surgeries aren't perfect, and some people don't want to mess with their body parts. If it works, physiologically, don't risk it with such a difficult and imperfect surgery, right? Some perceive these anticipated negative consequences as being significantly less than possible pros.
1) If you're just trying to make friends then why does it matter what they look like?
I like to know who people are, and appearance helps me create a mental image of them, a face to the name so to speak.
2) When someone tries to talk to you and they're not appealing to you sexually what is your reaction (specifically they COULD be attracted to you but you don't really know why they're talking to you. Let's assume that they are neither interesting/banal or threatening/creepy.)
Depends on my mood. If I'm at a bar or some such thing I'll talk to them, assuming they're not harassing me (though I've never had that problem before). If I'm busy then I'll say so, if I feel awkward then I'll say so.
The whole grindr thing doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, I understand why people use it, but I just don't get the same kick out of it that some people do, apparently. *shrug*
3) Would it bother you if a gay guy said, "I hate gay culture. Gays are annoying and catty. No wonder people won't let gays get married all over." (why/why not?)
Uh, yeah. That would bother me. It's that kind of straighter-than-thou, I'm-too-good-for-this bull**** that drives me up the wall about the LGBT community, even moreso than any actual or perceived "cattiness". Queer people are people, with different personalities, differing degrees of masculinity and effeminacy, differing degrees of involvement in the community, different passions and careers, different cultures, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different religious faiths. I know many more masculine queer men who otherwise would be involved in the queer community but they don't want to "look bad" if they hang out with a flamer. Why? Does it threaten your pathetic, fragile sense of masculinity? Are you afraid people might think you're *gasp* gay? WHO CARES. As far as I'm concerned, you distancing yourself from the community because you don't fit into a perceived stereotype only serves to perpetuate that goddamned stereotype you hate so goddamn much.
****!
/rant
4) If you perceive there are problems in the gay world do you believe you can make a difference? Would you want to/have you tried?
Yep. I'm actually going to be at the Creating Change conference next month in Baltimore. It's an LGBT social justice conference. As a white, middle-class, able-bodied, cisgender queer man, I realized that if I'm going to fight for equality and justice in the queer community, I need to understand what everyone else's needs are. A trans person of color, or a gay man of the Muslim faith, or a disabled lesbian will all have different needs and different perspectives and thoughts about what their queer identity means to them. I can't just fight for what I perceive they need.
If you mean in terms of social things like cattiness, I consider simply being an out and involved member of the community to be the best anyone can do in that regard. i.e. not withdrawing, see above rant.
5) In your culture (this came up because of my hispanic gay friends) is it difficult for you to be gay/come out? I know it can be difficult for anyone, but I know there's a level of expected machismo for my Mexican American friends specifically that makes it especially difficult to come out to their families.
It's been fairly easy compared to some people I know, although the Roman Catholicism has made it difficult for some people in my family to accept. It's OK though, because I'm probably not going to be coming anywhere near home for grad school, so no worries.
Perfection, my dear Micah, is in the eye of the beholder. Hell, I don't have abs of steel myself, but I still strut like I'm hot ****. Why? Because you don't need abs of steel to be hot ****. Best lesson I ever learned was how to be happy with myself.
I did that, and then I gained ten pounds this semester.
Do you understand what I mean by sexual tension?I think so.
How do you define sexual tension/how would you word what I'm talking about?The line between friendship and romantic partnership is very blurred. Your friend pool IS your dating pool. Not an optimal situation at all.
Do you experience sexual tension(/your definition)? (Not to be insensitive here, but I am not interested in emo answers that you don't have any interaction with gay people at all. I'm lonely too but that's not what this is about)Lol yeah, all the time. Mostly because the people in my friend group who I am interested in are rarely interested in me as well. The problem of lack of tension you spoke about only applies for people who actually want to ****.
Do you think sexual tension is a good/bad thing? Why or why not?
Skip.
Do you use gay social media/sex apps?
No way. I'm not interested, thank you.
If not, how do you meet gay people (for the people who are looking for a relationship/more than a booty call)
Mostly through college events. I don't know how I am going to after I graduate.
Describe your perfect first date (let's say this is a hypothetical first date don't specify if you've had one or not)Honestly, I don't really know. I can give it a shot though:
Dinner or coffee. We talk about ourselves, our experiences. Politics, science maybe (for me at least, that'd be awesome). I want to know how he operates. Making the beach involved would be a huge plus.
Describe your perfect kiss (again hypothetical with no mention of whether it has happened or not)Couldn't do that. I just have to experience it....
Do you believe you will get your perfect kiss/perfect first date? Or if not perfect, something like it? (I'm interested regardless of if you answered those questions. I have my reasons for wanting to know this)
Maybe. I tend to be more optimistic than not, but sometimes if I'm feeling cynical I think I'm the only one. This is a nice exercise to see I'm not.
And this last question is because it's something I often wonder if people have a good answer for, or even realize they do:
If you were in a relationship, what are three things you WISH the other person would ask you about/cared about (not necessarily things you wish you had in common, but things you wish they would ask about because you care about them)
I honestly don't spend much time thinking about things like this.
Same. I know two trans folk and they both identify as transmen.
Also as a side note, sex reassignment surgery is not a prerequisite for identifying as transgender. Remember the difference between gender and sex? That same rule applies to the difference between transgender and transsexual. Sex reassignment surgery is also not something that all transgender folk necessarily want (or have the financial means) to go through with.
not at all. if you are not in a same sex relationship then you are obviously not gay.
whether you have sex or not is irrelevent. it is a preference of male or female that puts you in a catagory.
Those two lines are contradictory. One says you must be in a relationship to be gay, the other says you only need a preference. The latter is correct, the former is not.
"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.""
Notice all of the "or's" in there. A young man can identify as gay if he is attracted to other men and maintains that social identity of membership within a "gay community", even prior to any sexual or romantic contact with any particular individual.
pretty simple one actually and the one that most private clubs have. they want to associate with a specific type of people in general.
And I'm wondering why bisexual people aren't part of the "specific type of people" they want to hang out with. I said earlier that much of the reason why queer people group together is because of the shared experience of coming out. That's something that bisexual and gay people share. So obviously there's some other criterion they're using, and I just don't really know what it is.
I'm curious more than anything, really.
Nope simply saying that i don't have to go around morally considering every right and wrong in the world.
Except this is, you know, the debate forum. This isn't the dinner table. Issues are brought up here with the explicit purpose of discussion.
Doesn't matter. the organizational requirement is that one be gay. that usually means a same sex relationship.
Again, no. You're showing your ignorance here. People can, in fact, identify as gay without being in a same-sex relationship. Virgins still have sexual orientation.
bisexual does not fit that requirement. hence they cannot be members.
I've already said that I understand that being gay-identified is a requirement. I'm not refuting that, obviously. I'm simply questioning why being gay-identified is requirement. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see why I understand the purpose behind a general LGBTQ group, but not behind a "gay"-specific one.
To make myself absolutely clear, I'm not questioning whether they have the right to have that as a requirement, but why they chose to make that requirement.
don't have to question anything as long as they are not doing anything illegal.
Wait, what? Seriously, what? So everything that's legal in any capacity is inherently moral to you?
Same thing that excludes women from joining all men clubs. yes those clubs have been sued and the people that have filed the suit have lost.
Private clubs have the right to exclude people from joining if they do not meet the criteria.
this is more or less a private league not an open league. you have to be a certain sexual orientation to join.
...
even if you don't like how it works out that is how it works for every other private group. you can't just change the rules for one and not the others.
you simply can't break the rules for one group without having to break them for all the others.
I understand, and do not disagree with, the idea that private groups can define criteria for membership. That's not what I asked. Of course they have this right, but you can still question whether something is morally right even if they have a legal right to pull through with it.
bi-sexual is more or less not totally gay.
which is one of the criteria for joining.
No. Bisexuality is not a kind of gay identity. It's not half-gay. It is an independent identity within the queer community. This is why I had this to say earlier:
The pertinent question I think, which had been alluded to already, is what exactly are they trying to gain by having a "gay softball team"? Is it as opposed to a straight softball team, or as opposed to a non-homosexual softball team (the two being different in the treatment of bisexuals)? What does it have to say about trans folk, is the assumption that it's only for cisgendered gay men? Why?
If I had to venture a guess, I would say it has to do with the purpose of most "unrelated minority group" ventures; creating a space for individuals who are traditionally underrepresented or marginalized in a particular setting for similar reasons. This then brings us back to the question of what brings the LGBTQ community together. I believe that LGBTQ folk share the common experience of "coming out" and defying the cisgendered heteronormative narrative of society in different ways (If you have a *****, you are a man and will grow up to marry a woman, opposite for vaginas). Thus, in that sense if you think this is the reason for which LGBTQ people are marginalized in softball, it makes sense to include all LGBTQ people in your "gay softball group". What that group really represents, then, is the statement that people who don't fall into that narrative can still take part in this sport. If you think bi folk shouldn't be a part of your group, then you should be willing to demonstrate what it is that defines your group and why it isn't relevant for bi folk as well.
Private clubs have the right to pick and choose their members.
so for me it goes both ways. i think it is a fundemental thing that is important to protect.
i don't want just anyone being able to join my club and have no say so in who gets in or doesn't.
while some might view that as discrimination. i am sure that the gay softball team doesn't want a bunch of red necks joining it which would happen if they were not allowed to be selective in who can play.
that is like hooters is a brand name. you have to be a women to be a waitress. they do not allow men to do it. men can work in the kitchen or on clean up, but not as a waitress.
just like you have to be a women to work at victoria secret. they will not hire men to work there.
i don't have issues with that.
Except we have to wonder what this says about the purpose behind the softball team. That's what gets me. The purpose behind excluding men from Hooters is clear; it appeals largely to a heterosexual male clientele. What's the purpose behind excluding bi men from this softball team?
Just out of curiosity, how does she feel about Jake Gyllenhaal?
Oftentimes the "trans" shortcut is used because the distinctions between transgender and transsexual are blurry, as Teia suggested. It's more about your attitude and your outward presentation to the world than anything else. I don't know if I've ever met someone who identifies as transsexual without being, in a sense, transgender as well (i.e. XY chromosome, has sex reassignment surgery for a ****** or some such thing, still identifies as male). So usually, the "trans" shortcut focuses more on gender in that respect.
But it's not just any two sides. It's emphasizing the fact that the victims are our children, and the people who are being protected are godless sodomites. It wouldn't be so bad if it were the other way around (see: fact that no one was complaining about how it was the opposite way 60 years ago or so).
He was the governor of Texas for three terms, since Bush Jr. left in 2000. Those people elected him three times. Yes, he absolutely should be taken seriously.
That's not what transgender means. You do not need to undergo sex reassignment surgery to identify as trans. That's akin to saying you have to have lost your virginity to identify as straight. Except even that's flawed because it suggests that you eventually would want surgery, which not all trans folk do, partly due to the reasons you listed.
Beyond that, surprisingly I don't really have a particular guy I can think of. At least, not anyone anyone here would know or recognize.
Not to mention the fact that the surgeries aren't perfect, and some people don't want to mess with their body parts. If it works, physiologically, don't risk it with such a difficult and imperfect surgery, right? Some perceive these anticipated negative consequences as being significantly less than possible pros.
I like to know who people are, and appearance helps me create a mental image of them, a face to the name so to speak.
2) When someone tries to talk to you and they're not appealing to you sexually what is your reaction (specifically they COULD be attracted to you but you don't really know why they're talking to you. Let's assume that they are neither interesting/banal or threatening/creepy.)
Depends on my mood. If I'm at a bar or some such thing I'll talk to them, assuming they're not harassing me (though I've never had that problem before). If I'm busy then I'll say so, if I feel awkward then I'll say so.
The whole grindr thing doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, I understand why people use it, but I just don't get the same kick out of it that some people do, apparently. *shrug*
3) Would it bother you if a gay guy said, "I hate gay culture. Gays are annoying and catty. No wonder people won't let gays get married all over." (why/why not?)
Uh, yeah. That would bother me. It's that kind of straighter-than-thou, I'm-too-good-for-this bull**** that drives me up the wall about the LGBT community, even moreso than any actual or perceived "cattiness". Queer people are people, with different personalities, differing degrees of masculinity and effeminacy, differing degrees of involvement in the community, different passions and careers, different cultures, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different religious faiths. I know many more masculine queer men who otherwise would be involved in the queer community but they don't want to "look bad" if they hang out with a flamer. Why? Does it threaten your pathetic, fragile sense of masculinity? Are you afraid people might think you're *gasp* gay? WHO CARES. As far as I'm concerned, you distancing yourself from the community because you don't fit into a perceived stereotype only serves to perpetuate that goddamned stereotype you hate so goddamn much.
****!
/rant
4) If you perceive there are problems in the gay world do you believe you can make a difference? Would you want to/have you tried?
Yep. I'm actually going to be at the Creating Change conference next month in Baltimore. It's an LGBT social justice conference. As a white, middle-class, able-bodied, cisgender queer man, I realized that if I'm going to fight for equality and justice in the queer community, I need to understand what everyone else's needs are. A trans person of color, or a gay man of the Muslim faith, or a disabled lesbian will all have different needs and different perspectives and thoughts about what their queer identity means to them. I can't just fight for what I perceive they need.
If you mean in terms of social things like cattiness, I consider simply being an out and involved member of the community to be the best anyone can do in that regard. i.e. not withdrawing, see above rant.
5) In your culture (this came up because of my hispanic gay friends) is it difficult for you to be gay/come out? I know it can be difficult for anyone, but I know there's a level of expected machismo for my Mexican American friends specifically that makes it especially difficult to come out to their families.
It's been fairly easy compared to some people I know, although the Roman Catholicism has made it difficult for some people in my family to accept. It's OK though, because I'm probably not going to be coming anywhere near home for grad school, so no worries.
I did that, and then I gained ten pounds this semester.
Answers in red
Same. I know two trans folk and they both identify as transmen.
Also as a side note, sex reassignment surgery is not a prerequisite for identifying as transgender. Remember the difference between gender and sex? That same rule applies to the difference between transgender and transsexual. Sex reassignment surgery is also not something that all transgender folk necessarily want (or have the financial means) to go through with.
Those two lines are contradictory. One says you must be in a relationship to be gay, the other says you only need a preference. The latter is correct, the former is not.
Homosexuality
"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.""
Notice all of the "or's" in there. A young man can identify as gay if he is attracted to other men and maintains that social identity of membership within a "gay community", even prior to any sexual or romantic contact with any particular individual.
And I'm wondering why bisexual people aren't part of the "specific type of people" they want to hang out with. I said earlier that much of the reason why queer people group together is because of the shared experience of coming out. That's something that bisexual and gay people share. So obviously there's some other criterion they're using, and I just don't really know what it is.
I'm curious more than anything, really.
Except this is, you know, the debate forum. This isn't the dinner table. Issues are brought up here with the explicit purpose of discussion.
I've already said that I understand that being gay-identified is a requirement. I'm not refuting that, obviously. I'm simply questioning why being gay-identified is requirement. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see why I understand the purpose behind a general LGBTQ group, but not behind a "gay"-specific one.
To make myself absolutely clear, I'm not questioning whether they have the right to have that as a requirement, but why they chose to make that requirement.
Wait, what? Seriously, what? So everything that's legal in any capacity is inherently moral to you?
I'm sure Jesus couldn't have thought of a better birthday present.
Abso****inglutely. In approximately one week, after finals.
No. Bisexuality is not a kind of gay identity. It's not half-gay. It is an independent identity within the queer community. This is why I had this to say earlier:
Except we have to wonder what this says about the purpose behind the softball team. That's what gets me. The purpose behind excluding men from Hooters is clear; it appeals largely to a heterosexual male clientele. What's the purpose behind excluding bi men from this softball team?