**: American/Canadian-centric OP. The conditions and histories for other regions are not included in this introduction. See discussion.

Mandatory Reading: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Recommended Reading: Aggregated Sample of Articles on LGBTQ Discrimination and Problems

http://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html -- Typical transgender people problems.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tgyts3u1i74snma/transWomenFacts.txt?dl=0 -- Articles on trans women and their problems.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w06x97s724cqpqq/hydra-Autumn_trans_gaming_log.txt?dl=0 -- Shit that happens not just online.

Of Interest: Hard Science
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5s5s9okftooxfsb/lgbtqStudies.txt?dl=0 -- LGBTQ2SIAA problems in general.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nty3egw26siz20y/transMedicalStudies.txt?dl=0 -- Links to relevant studies on various aspects of neuroscience, psychiatry, etc. involved wrt trans people.

Introduction**

Public attention has been growing over the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Two-Spirited, Intersex, Asexual, Agender (LGBTQ2SIAA) community*, and the community itself is growing, in part thanks to the Internet and proliferation of communication. Legal resources are increasing and social contradictions within typically perceived society are becoming more apparent and visible through intensification of social problems at large and due to the efforts of equality, feminist, men's rights, and other groups (whether or not these groups alone are right or wrong on issues they lay claim is separate question,, that although not removed from the issue I will present, are not the focus). Discrimination is revealing itself to be independent of intent: there are contexts in which overt discrimination such as targeted street violence are obviously intentional, but there exist also contexts in which social policy necessarily excludes large portions of specific social groups that may on paper look well-meaning. Thanks to continued advocacy and open-mindedness working together, more and more understanding is achieved.

*: Not all distinguishable groups are included. See discussion.

Gender and Sexuality

Growing evidence presents challenges to traditionally and/or commonly held beliefs about gender and sexuality.

Gender is taken to mean "gender identity" while sexuality is taken to mean "sexual orientation". A basic, colloquial understanding would be that gender is the internal sense of being a man or woman (or, from these distinct points, identify further distinctions a la third gender, genderqueer, etc.). Sexuality would be the overall pattern of physical, emotional, romantic, or some subset, attraction to others.

Sometimes, gender and sexuality are conflated. This is less likely to happen given that people are growing more open to the facts surrounding the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities.

Gender and Sex

A colloquial definition for sex would be bodily patterns of chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, etc. This is also often conflated with gender. One prevailing theory is that gender and gender are two distinct attributes. Another theory is that gender and sex are intertwined but not equivalent -- two distinct variables that are also partially functions of each other.

Problems

Problems arise from the conflation of gender, sex, and sexuality in any subset of at least 2 members, let alone the overt demonization or discrimination of any three of these. There are many myths and jokes that are made at the expense of the LGBTQ community. Many of these or their misbegotten evolutions are used as justifications of both overt and unintentional legal discrimination, such as the "trans panic defence," whereby a man can use in the legal defence against a charge of homicide the excuse that "they were deceived by a trans woman" under the false pretense that the trans woman is actually a man, when under a model that does not conflate gender, sex, and sexuality, there is no defence of such a murder. Such myths prey on people's fears and ignorance to produce many horrible consequences, only one of which is discrimination and harassment in the workplace and in public, performing daily tasks of shopping, traveling, and work.

Societal organization also leads transgender people, particularly trans women, to higher risks of bullying and exclusion at any age, and naturally, predictably, the consistent bullying and harassment that can begin at very early ages depending on how a child expresses their gender often leads to problems in adult life in coping with mental illness, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. This set of relations of bullying and harassment with health and life consequences is similar to that of gay and lesbian people, although not quite under the same bases under the gender, sex, and sexuality model.

Discussion

I'm here to gather thoughts, answer questions, dispel what myths I can, provide what information and links I can, or otherwise nudge people along to understanding. Although I'm not the type of person to follow current events very closely, I have an interest in this subject and would be happy to do what I can to provide news links, journalism, studies, etc.

EDIT: I'll be advocating for LGBTQ rights and social change though.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 26 2014, 10:52 pm by Sand Wraith.

Not really sure what you're trying to achieve with this post. You write out a whole lot of definitions and then with "ask me questions", but you haven't provided any concrete reason why anyone should want to ask you questions on this topic, vs anyone else, or vs just googling.

Also the LGBTQQIP2SAA acronym is stupid. LGB are clearly sexual orientations; lumping T in together is already a little bit of a stretch but no biggie. The rest aren't really sexual orientations but are gender identities. I also don't see why "two spirit" gets some special sort of significance when it comes from one particular culture; I can only assume this is an American-centric term and so they looked to their local indigenous culture to try and be inclusive of them. But what about Thai ladybois, don't they get to be part of the acronym? What about Fa'afafine or guys on the DL, shouldn't they get some special recognition? I think this highlights how stupid that acronym is - it tries to be all-inclusive, but in doing so waters itself down so as to mean almost nothing, and invariably will still leave some group out. Not to mention no-one even knows or agrees what it means - I've seen "Asexual, Allies" whereas you define it as "Asexual, Agender", and you don't include Pansexual whereas my one does, you have an I but didn't define it (Intersex) and didn't include "Questioning".

The goal is to get people's thoughts on this and advocate for legal and social rights and solutions to problems. However, I don't have a particular goal given that I don't even know what people from SEN's thoughts are the topic are. This is part of why I've been undecided whether to put this in Null or Serious Discussion, but since I'm looking for people's actual thoughts on this, I put it in SD.

I have heard of similar criticisms of the acronym. I introduced it because it's a fairly common and structurally gives hints to the problems you suggest: (1) why lump sexual orientations and gender identities together (2) it is an attempt to be all-inclusive but fails to be such.

(1) Given that to be transgender necessarily involves gender identity, it would be a stretch to include it within LGBT anyway. I have heard your thoughts reflected in both LGB and T circles. Usually coming from LGB it sounds like the question is being asked "why are they even with us?" and for some people the question is rooted in transphobia. From what I know, this is both a historical and structural necessity (more on the latter later). The Stonewall riots involved people either non-hetero or non-cis or cross-dressers and sparked the LGBTQ movement (at least in USA and Canada -- I have little to no information for elsewhere). Yes it is American-centric, I will note that. Thank you for reminding me.

(2) Yes, I've heard this position. My thoughts are that it might have been out of historical necessity, particularly for conditions in some Western countries wherein transgender people, and further, trans women, tend to be stigmatized more, whereas gay men and lesbian women tend to be stigmatized less. This is showing through distrust and discontent with the perceived existing LGB movement that continuously excludes transgender people or uses the group as a bargaining tool for themselves (article). I don't think the idea itself of an umbrella organization or name for a movement is stupid -- it was necessary and it did and does (latter arguable) job. Whether it is stupid or not in the present, and for what region, is up for those involved to decide. For USA and Canada, it might be time to clearly distinguish those in the movement, given some of the existing hostilities and ignorance in either camp (although I see it more frequently reported as coming from LG part, and even discrimination toward B).

I need to fix it by including intersex. I won't fix/include the others as case in point for your thoughts, but I'll add in a note. (EDIT: Oh, I already had a note. I've moved it.)

EDIT2: I didn't even know about fa'afafine, so thanks for bringing them up. Who are the guys from DL? (What is DL?) I know of the Thai "ladybois"/"kathoey" in brief. I'm not sure if I like either term though. I don't have any particular research done on the subject. EDIT3: But hey, that's part of why I'm just gathering thoughts. I figured someone would know a thing or two more than I did.

EDIT5: Yes, I was aware of Questioning (I figure this might apply either to sexual orientation or gender identity) and Pansexual. Some others I can think of are third gender, genderfluid, and non-binary. I wouldn't include Allies ever since it seems to sometimes be used as a hook for unnecessary focus, though I have seen it done. The way I think of it is that if there exists a safe space, no material condition would require an ally to use it for the purpose of avoiding stigmatization for their straightness or cisness (this is based on the definition of ally consisting of members that are not the subject of the movement -- only allies).

EDIT6: I've ALSO seen arguments between people who identify as pansexual and bisexual, wherein I hear the former group find some moral high ground in rejection of the binary gender system and the latter reject the claim that they support the binary. I support both in themselves though.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Dec 26 2014, 11:01 pm by Sand Wraith.

Google:

"LGBTQ2SIAA" - 0 results. Did you mean "LGBTQQIP2SAA"?

"LGBTQQIP2SAA" - 3660 results.

Lanthanide wins.

damn, you win

"on the down-low (DL)" = straight male that has sex with men in secret. Often associated with macho men, particular jocks, and also with the black community more-so than white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang)

Did you really just lump all of asexuality into one A? What about distinguishing between heteroromantic, homoromantic, aromantic, and grey-A asexuals?

That's pretty insensitive considering all of the other letters the others get.

It should be LGBTQQIP2SHHAGA.

Umbrella terminology including acronyms are problematic in exactly that they are prone to erasing the distinguishing members within. Do you have any aggregated sample of links or similar?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2014, 11:52 pm by Sand Wraith.

I think the acronym is ridiculous. It refers to pretty much everyone. The inclusion of native religions and the ambiguous "queer" and "allies" ruin it completely.

Also I've noticed pansexuality is a bit of a fad nowadays. It's exactly like claiming to be bipolar (because they get attention or some other reason). It exists but it's very rare.

LGBTQQIP2SAA is okay but LGBTQQIP2SHHAGA isn't? That's pretty discriminatory to say that about asexuals, but not apply the same logic to the groups you want to add.

How would you, outside of the position of a psychiatrist to someone else, or that person themselves, determine for that person whether they are bipolar? Similarly, how do you go about determining someone is pansexual? (do you use this interchangeably with bisexual?)


I was just asking for info if you're interested in asexuality and associated issues.

Well, my boyfriend is mildly bi-polar. But anyway, self-diagnosis is notoriously bad when it comes to mental disorders. I agree with Heinermann, in that true pansexuality is much less common than people who claim to be pansexual.

Would you mind explaining your position? How do you differentiate between pansexuality and bisexuality, and further, differentiate between "true pansexaulity" and whatever else there may be?

What is irksome to me is how you as an individual are able to tell whether someone is truly pansexual or not. How does this affects you, and by what metric you can tell that you aren't experiencing selection bias? Is there any merit to this? Based on what I've read, it's actually become problematic that bi people are being told by others that they aren't "actually straight (implying are just gay, and not bi)" or "actually gay (implying are just straight, and not bi)." Does this extend also to the pansexual community?

On self-diagnosis: Did Heinermann mean only those cases wherein self-diagnosis is involved? I'd always suggest seeing a psych, but there are any number of legitimate reasons why someone can't; age, social stigma, and money being the primary factors I know of to discourage getting medical help. Maybe it's different where you live. Further, I don't see how declaiming against someone self-diagnosing would help someone who does have the condition, either diagnosed or as of yet not diagnosed, given that the declamation might very well increase the perception of social stigma.

I just let it slide. It does basically no harm that wouldn't otherwise occur already, and if a lot of people are self-diagnosing, I'd start looking for structural problems that are preventing people from getting help.

Shoutbox log arranged in order from oldest at the top to most recent at the bottom.

Some notes based on the above and other shouts:

-I typically fall back on the science part of gender where I'm expecting people to uphold scientific findings in some sort of holy grail of morality. Honestly speaking though, there isn't exactly any sort of justification for the marginalization that goes on toward transgender people as a whole. The weakest conservative argument floating around in general is "a man is a man is a man" or "a woman is a woman is a woman" which actually precludes any discussion on the real, social impacts of these ideas (that themselves are effectively arbitrary), and more often I find it coming from religious folk.

For any practical purposes, the exercising and enforcement of gender and sexual norms and stereotypes does no one good. If there was absolutely no scientific truth at all whatsoever to gender as a whole, then people shouldn't get anal over it. And if there is any truth to it, the problems remain that enforcement will and have lead to problems even for people who are technically straight or cis.

-On playing discussion-direction moderator (especially if you claim to be an ally): Unless you're someone who is involved in the community issues, it's a good guideline to leave well enough alone and to remain a listener unless you're really darn into the community as well, or at least offer suggestions in a manner that doesn't speak for an attitude of "I know better," "this discussion gets you nowhere". The umbrella acronym problem is a highly intra-community problem, part of which is cultural centrism (and I'd certainly be open to hearing about the state of affairs in other countries like Australia). In large part, this is because of selection bias. If a group is facing a particular form of discrimination of social experience, non-members aren't guaranteed to be able to have any first-hand or even second-hand knowledge to draw upon.

EDIT:

Some changes in social policy are exemplified by school boards deciding to provide students a washroom strictly for transgender students, or permit them to use staff washrooms. Other school boards may choose to permit the student to use typical boys' or girls' washroom as they prefer. Relegating transgender students to their own segregated washrooms, however, implicitly denies them social status as a boy or girl as appropriate, although the solution is desirable for non-binary students.

What are the reader's thoughts on the issue?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2014, 6:26 am by Sand Wraith.

Obviously this thread is dead, but I figured I'd add something here that I just came across.

Instead of that ridiculous acronym that Sand originally suggested here, instead just LGBT+. The "plus" rather covers everything and doesn't turn it into an unwieldy alphabet soup.

QUILTBAG is better. EDIT: It's also more flexible.
Q: Queer/questioning
U: Undecided
I: Intersex
L: Lesbian
T: Transgender/Transsexual
B: Bisexual
A: Asexual/Alliged/Agender
G: Gay/Genderqueer

http://canadaam.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=558973

Bill C-279 has been hit by an amendment by Senator Donald Plett: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/26/activists-angered-by-change-to-transgender-rights-bill.html

An extremely transphobic, problematic, and bigoted set of amendments using a conservative, outdated, garbage (relative to Canada) construction of gender that has also seemingly inspired some pretty disgusting fear-mongering among cis people has been made by the Senate of Canada.

Some activists claim the bill is now dead. Others continue to push for it but move to strike down the amendments.

I despair but I'm optimistic to see what happens -- however, the delaying tactics have generally pushed the bill into a period when elections will soon start, effectively killing the bill.

Canadian Bar Association released a letter suggesting rejection of controversial amendments of Bill C-279 http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-rights-bar-association-opposes-c-279-bathroom-amendment that would turn a trans rights bill into a human-rights-infringement bill. The letter sounds pretty good, actually.

This is so gross. The genders are split for a multitude of valid reasons. For the comfort and safety of everyone else, NO ONE should EVER be allowed to enter the sacred privileged gender-specific areas that are off limits to them, whether or not they go get a surgery/mental illness/tattoo/automobile/girlfriend/whatever.

These are two very well-defined groups of people. There is no way for members of one group to breach the sanctity of the other group. If you're unsure which group you're part of, check your birth certificate or get a blood test.

Now, that's not to say that transgender people shouldn't be recognized. That's a separate issue entirely; the issue detailed above is that they are being recognized in a way that is reckless and wrong.

It is perfectly okay to split both of the "genetic gender" groups into smaller groups that are individually recognized. What's not okay is to just randomly shuffle the groups together because "lol there can only be two genders!", which is a mentality that's only true if you're using genetics as the sole basis for splitting genders.

You don't get to say "two genders total, maximum!" and simultaneously say that the gender you identify as needs to play a role in how you're classified.

There are plenty of ways to recognize trans people:

1) Give them their own bathrooms/change rooms/etc (4 bathrooms total: men, women, transmen, transwomen). I don't recommend simply adding one "trans bathroom", as that can present some problems as well.

2) Take gender out of the equation by adding single-person unisex bathrooms.

3) Hey, take it a step further and make all bathrooms unisex! Huzzah! Nothing can go wrong!

Of course, every reasonable method has one thing in common: It costs someone money to implement it. How could it not? It's way easier to keep stuffing your fat pockets with the cash that could have been used to recognize trans people, and instead just say "YEAH WE RECOGNIZE TRANS PEOPLE, SO THEY CAN NOW, UH, PICK ONE OF THE ROOMS WE ALREADY HAD BEFORE WE RECOGNIZED THEM! CONGRATZ!!" as the company is greeted by cheers of progressiveness while the middle-aged white heterosexual male CEO kicks back in his throne room and counts the stacks of cash he's earning by not actually doing shit for trans people.

Ah well. People will continue to be fucking stupid, forever and ever. That's just the status quo.

I can't even