Ta. This is a very refreshing link.

I’ve never understood the umbrella term ”Transgender” which is tacked on to the end of LBGT.

Even when I read a Transgender website like the one below, which gives a clear glossary of all the terms.
http://www.gaycenter.org/gip/transbasics/glossary

”Transgender – Transexual – Gender Non-conforming – Genderqueer – Transition – Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) – Cross-Dressing – Gender Identity Disorder (GID)”

I also don’t know anyone in regular life who would understand all of these categories either. Or automatically agree that they are all on a par with lesbian, gay and bisexual.

@2

I also don’t know anyone in regular life who would understand all of these categories either.

There’s an irregular life?

To vaguely answer your implied question, the fact that you don’t understand Trans, and don’t know many(any?) who do, should clue you into the fact that trans-peeps are in a very very very small minority and as such are very easy targets for persecution.
That the persecution generally comes from the same direction as anti-lgb persecution (violent objection to violating traditional gender roles/boundaries etc) is one of the main reasons why it’s a part of lgbt. Plus trans are generally more accepted within the lgb community than the rest of society, even after taking into account separatist movements and other sources of anti-trans bigotry within the lgb community.

@2 The labels are constantly evolving, so I have sympathy for cispeople struggling to keep up, god knows I struggle to keep up and I’m trans.

“Transgender” is a funny one, it’s under fire from a lot of the internet. I like it, I think it’s vague enough to be inclusive but some people hate it. http://dentedbluemercedes.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-death-of-transgender/

The issue basically is that transexual people want their gender affirmed, and don’t want to get mixed up with genderqueers and people who want their gender to be fluid and not in one of the two boxes. A lot of the argument is quite technical and I’m sure I could provoke flaming if I get it wrong so I’ll leave it there.

“Or automatically agree that they are all on a par with lesbian, gay and bisexual”

All trans people will be victims of homophobia, as they’ll get misgendered and some people will consider them gay even if they’re straight. Plus it all comes from the same stupid world view that we have to get rid of.

(of course I’m genderqueer and have no right to try and save the word since I’m not the one it’s hurting, but I’ll miss the simple terminology.) /covering my arse

Would questioning and dissenting views be welcome at this Trans Community conference? I think that’s where I would place my views on this. As I don’t really get all the politics that has gone into ”LBGT” being presented to the wider public in the way that it is. How did the words in that acronym even get put together like that? I have no idea.
Was it agreed at come conference and voted on or something? That in the english speaking world it world be LBGT? And in French and other languages the same words in the different languages?

Because LBGT is now presented as it’s all ready done and dusted and no one even bothers to explain it, as it is presumed that everyone is already past that basic stage of understanding and acceptance. And the only people who might have a problem with it are the people who need to be either educated, or faced down … because they are bigots.

My only point about saying this is that I seem to have missed the part where this was all discussed and decided. So when people push for ”LBGT week” in schools or present themselves as being from that community or campaign, it leaves so much to be explained.

I know there have been some high profile dissenters like Julie Bindel in the past, and I’ve seen the kind of row that generates on the Guardian website..
But I really don’t understand if Cross-Dressers (for example) need to be given equality rights in all the same way that gay campaigners have been in recent years.
To be able to marry and adopt as Cross-Dressers or Transgender people of what ever type.
Is Cross-Dressing not just someting someone might chose to do at times, and not in the same category as being a lesbian or gay?
And someone who is biologically a man but likes to be genderqueer is still an man isn’t he? For the purposes of using gender specific facilities anyway, like toilets and changing rooms? Or should they be allowed to use either? I’m basicly a heto guy, but if I wanted, could I become Genderqueer? At the weekends only perhaps? Or does it have to be something you have no choice over?
I don’t think you have to be born gay btw. I think you can also chose to experiment with sexuality. I have myself a few times in the past.

This isn’t in any way to knock any of these sub-categories btw. I’ve been in some clubs where there were people in drag, or women impersonators or whatever. Gay clubs, where I don’t think it really matters what anyone does or presents themselves.
But it’s how people present themselves to the ”straight world” that interests me.
If religious parents object to ”LBGT week” in their children’s school, is that OK for them to do so or do they have to be fought against?
Considering the term Transgender isn’t even very specifically defined by people from within that gender classification, it’s asking quite a lot to expect everyone else to just fall in line with the LBGT idea I think.

So my question is, would these kind of questions be welcome at this conference, or would it be deemed hostile. I’m pretty sure some would see it as hostile.

“Or should they be allowed to use either? I’m basicly a heto guy, but if I wanted, could I become Genderqueer? At the weekends only perhaps? Or does it have to be something you have no choice over?”

On the toilets theres campaigns at universities for all gender toilets for gender variant people. You say “allowed”, there’s actually no law about going into the wrong toilets unless you’re causing harassment.

Could you become genderqueer at the weekends? There’s people who identify as bigendered, who literally feel differently gendered in different situations. And yes, I think that legitimate.

If you’re implying that you could call yourself genderqueer to go and sexually harass the opposite gender, then go and find a record of someone crossdressing in order to infiltrate the “other” toilets. You won’t find one.

“Would questioning and dissenting views be welcome at this Trans Community conference? I think that’s where I would place my views on this. As I don’t really get all the politics that has gone into ”LBGT” being presented to the wider public in the way that it is. How did the words in that acronym even get put together like that? I have no idea.”

I’d imagine uneducated opinions wouldn’t be, and you’re still on the “Transgender FAQ” I’m afraid. And if you are just talking about LGB then cool, don’t stick a T on the end if you’re not going to take it seriously. For example, I have no real problem with Stonewall being just LGB*, but I do have a problem with them giving an award to Julie Bindel- even if you consider the T to be unrelated, don’t go and attack an unrelated group, just like you wouldn’t attack homeless people say.

*I think they’re missing a trick by undermining solidarity, and I think they have no right to the name Stonewall since there were a lot of trans* people at that riot, and I think they’re a pretty crap lobby group anyway.

Yes Hodge Podge, that’s probably it – I’ve just got a lot of FAQs about Transgender and LBGT. The thing is though, that I can’t see many places where these questions are frequently asked. Form what I can tell, much of the LBGT ideology just goes past on the nod. As I said, I have no idea how it ever even became to be called that. But the term is used ubiquitously as if that it’s not even open for discussion. And to question it can get people asking what ”the heck” are you doing and being a bit hostile.

I don’t have any problem with any lesbians, gays. bisexuals or trangsgendered people though, and I might just qualify for coming under that label myself, but I do question the politics of it all, as I don’t think that they all fit together under one acronym.
When many gay activists are demanding complete legal equality in all areas, I don’t think the same is really appropriate for cross-dressers and genderqueer people, who I might guess don’t always want to be thrust into the mainstream of everyday normality. As the very point of their chosen gender choice or fetish is that it’s meant to be somewhat private and not for general public consumption. That’s what made it ”queer” in the first place and was part of the attraction.

This idea was written about in a book called ”Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis, 1918-1957”
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/queer-london-by-matt-houlbrook-506170.html

That’s interesting about Stonewall only being about LBG. I never knew.
And the Julie Bindel thing is at least interesting. I’m not sure what the most outrageous thing she is said to have said is, but questioning whether you accept someone born a man, as a full woman, is at least worth debating. And I think that gender realignment surgery is open for discussion with there not being a right or wrong position on it.

And it’s because it’s all such a complicated fusion of ideas and identities that I don’t think LBGT campaigners should go bothering everyone with their views.
Trying to get ”LBGT weeks” in schools and approaching mosques and trying to force them to get their heads around Transgender issues.

@8 To be honest damon you’ve veered WAY off-topic, for a start the conference isn’t actually about lgbt, it’s about the Trans community, and about how they can get their concerns, desires and otherwise raise understanding of their issues by getting the media to present more conciousness-raising view of trans.

As for your not understanding lgbt, it’s not exactly rocket science, the acronym stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans, or to put it bluntly anyone who claims to be seeking equality for lgbt’s is seeking full equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans, regardless of where each group varies in it’s needs from the others. Now the acronym varies depending on how inclusive or exclusive a person wishes to be, as Hodge Podge mentioned, Stonewall now only concerns itself with lgb focussing on gay and lesbian issues with bi’s benefiting indirectly from those efforts (so they are really more of a lg group). The other extreme can be seen as a bit silly, lgbtaiqq (which is actually a fairly short one that excludes two-spirits and pansexuals etc) which is:- lesbian, gay, bi, trans, asexual(or allies or androgynous), intersex, queer and questioning.
The ideology, if you can call it that, at work is little more than inclusiveness and solidarity, ie as a gay man I will help lesbians, bi’s and trans folk obtain their equal rights knowing that’ll they’ll too be there for me.

As for the book review you linked, yes, there are quite a few gay men of a certain age who pine for the old days where things were a bit more risqué, the correct term for them though is “Tossers”.

Cylux, I don’t have a problem with anything you and Hodge Podge have said.
I am wondering though how much dissent/politics and different points of view there can be around something like Transgender. Julie Bindel certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, and I think that’s good if it only stops people being too complacent about things.

From what I understand, there are some feminists who find that female impersonators and male-to-female cross-dressers can be demeaning to women, even if not intentionally.
As they play up the most superficial aspects of being a woman. And that M-to-F genital surgery also makes a mockery of real women’s bodies, as a biological man can not become a woman just by drastic surgery to make the vaguest approximation.

Also in the area of equality, I am glad that this former paratrooper captain has found happiness as a female police officer in Scotland, but it was a lot to ask of the army to just accept that the man was becoming a woman and wanted to continue in the army as a woman after the surgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468469/Captain-Jan-transsexual-Para-sues-Army-unfair-dismissal.html

With the photo in the Mail article, I can see how that image might slightly annoy some feminists, with it’s focus on the physical aspects of lookiing like a woman. Even the way the former rough tough para learned to speak in an approximation of a woman’s volce, by just whispering in a soft way. Not to say she shouldn’t be allowed to have that new life and career, but that it does ask a lot perhaps. There could be a load of different reasons why someone might want to change their sex, or cross-dress, and I don’t think a one-size-fits-all approach works. It could just be a mid-life crisis or some wish to make a new life.

When I typed in ”genderqueer” into youtube, what came up were a bunch of young people talking to camera about themselves, and while I wish them all the best, the first thing that came to mind was that they were just young people with identity issues. Like millions of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89zRG1kQKYw

These could be ‘Emos’ or Goths I thought. Full of teenage angst in their bedrooms wondering why the world doesn’t understand tham.

I just wonder whether a conference on Transgender is open for open wide ranging discussion, with disagreement or skepticism being allowed. If I was in the London area I would have like to have gone to this event.

Funny line about the ”Tossers” btw. But entirely fair?
That was half the fun of it wasn’t it? George Michael seems to think so.

@10 Yes, it’s a very fair description. For a start, any anaylsis of the days before the gay rights movement that trys to claim that “straight working class”* males would routinely have random sex with other guys along with bragging about it, and doesn’t end every rosy-tinted point with “but then again look what happened to Alan Turin and others like him” is seriously flawed. Also being gay is not like being a base jumper, it’s not something done for kicks, it’s what you are or are not. That’s why tiresome bellends who bemoan the fact that every sexual liaison no longer carries the risk of incarceration or bodily harm and as such gay sex is as boring as regular straight sex should be called out as the ungrateful tosspots that they are.

*There’s still plenty of them about today, cept of course they’re only straight to their family, friends, coworkers and their partner, but are bisexual and looking for ‘discreet fun’ as far as Gaydar, Fitlads and grindr are concerned.