Crossdressers aren't trans

I ran across, visually of course, an editorial by Brian McNaught suggesting crossdressers should be in the LGBT definiton as transgender, see article. Well, in his opinion, but not in reality. Crossdressers, as he rightfully says, outnumber transwomen and transmen, those in transistion, and probably by an order of magnitude.

After all, while the entertainers, often called female illusionists or impersonators now, are mostly gay men who like pretending and getting attention as women, the vast majority of the rest are heterosexual men, often married with families. They're not gay and while many do go through facial hair removal to help, they don't go through any medical care to transistion. They don't want to transistion.

In short, they like their dicks and they like to play dressup. That's not transgender. It's not in the DSM-IVTR or will be in the DSM-V, although there are some suggestions to find something there for them to be medical and therefore protected as a condition. Yeah, right. weekdays they're ordinary men and weekends, pretend women. Gee, that's a psychological disorder?

Not according to psychiatrists and psychologists who call crossdressing a hobby at best and a fetish, transvestism, at worst. But when they don't need or want therapy, don't need medical professional help tor transistion, don't want surgeries to become women and don't want to change their birth certificate and records, they don't face discrimination just being who they are in life and work.

Mr. McNaught missed the point that in many fights for equality for LGB and then LGBT folks, crossdressers have been the problem, allowing opponents to use them as an example for all, the proverbial "men in dresses in the bathroom" argument. And after LGB people are protected, transpeople get shuffled aside as something later for fear of being identified with crossdressers.

This happened in Tacoma when it took three votes of the council and the failure of the third voter referendum to reverse the council's vote to add transpeople to anti-discrimination in housing, jobs and other activities of life. And even then the third time almost passed allowing discrimination when they used crossdressers as the poster child for transpeople.

This has also happened in organizations where crossdressers formed their own organization from LGBT organizations because they (CD'ers) outnumbered and dominated the political agenda of the organization before the transpeople jettisoned them to get some real progress. The CD'ers only wanted protections for them and wasn't interested in transpeople.

Any wonder why the LGB people hate the T (transpeople) and the transpeople hate crossdressers? I won't argue some crossdressers eventually transistion, but the percentage is small (<~2%) and those leave the crossdressing community for the transcommunity and eventually as men and women.

In the end, crossdressers aren't anything like bisexual people, and aren't transgender by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to escape his imagination for the sake of an arugment. Maybe he should ask the professionals, or better yet, ask some real transpeople.

Being Thoughtless

There has been some recent jokes or skits about transgender people. It started with Saturday Night Live (SNL) and the skit portraying transgender women as men in dresses. It was clearly and obviously beyond even SNL's standards of taste, which isn't very high anyway (I stopped watching it years ago after watching it from the beginning).

They didn't just ridicule transgender people, they trashed them, needlessly. They should have apologized but I doubt any apology would change anything. They couldn't put all of their stupidity back in the tube and forget they even thought about the skit let alone write it and then perform it.

It's one thing to joke about a class or group of people, but the skit wasn't a joke. It was very bonehead of them from the idea. Transgender people have to struggle throughout their life to live as they know they are in the world today. It's full of all sorts of anger and hate from people, they don't need it from SNL or any TV show.

But SNL isn't the first to ridicule transgender people. It's been done for decades and almost always badly. Transgender people are just as normal and ordinary as everyone else. This seems to be lost on people, wanting to isolate them as abnormal and then ridicule them in extreme ways. It's not fair or right.

And following that David Letterman and Craig Ferguson not only made jokes about transgender people, they invited people on to further ridicule people. Craig Ferguson is known for pushing extreme without any sense of decency, and late night TV is known for this kind of abuse against classes or groups of people.

It's discrimination disguised as humor, really bad humor. David Letterman should have known and done better, but he hasn't in the past, so this new one with Adam Sandler isn't surprising. And Adam Sandler has no decency either, at least in the media and in his movies. Why would we expect anything different from him either?

In the end, it's time to stop attacking transgender people through the media. There are many successful post-transistion men and women and there are many more in transistion who deserve respect not ridicule. But considering the powers in the media support those who ridicule transgender people, why would I expect change?

I don't but then maybe we should turn the joke around to them to the extreme. How would they feel then?

John Muir Moments

I've read a number of the books by John Muir, his walk to the Gulf, his travels in the Sierra Mountains of California, and other adventures. And while I have long forgotten much of his writings, one story sticks in my mind about moments we often face in life and have to decide whether the past, known as it is, or the future, the gamble it is, is better.

It's about being stuck. A moment when going forward or going back freezes the person. The story John Muir told was about a canyon he was exploring in the Sierra Mountains. He started up a creek following the bed to the headwaters where he stood before a cliff to the higher plateau above the basin.

He faced the choice to go back downstream and into another canyon or find a route up the cliff to the higher elevations which was he real goal. He choose the latter when he found a crack in the cliff face he could climb. So he started up the cliff face and then climbed into the crack and climbed higher.

The crack, however, slowly widened as he climbed until he was using he feet and back to slowly inch his way up. The crack appeared to widen more where it was clear he might not be tall enough to reach across it and still climb higher, and so he stopped and rested. He faced a moment he had to choose.

He had to choose to go back down, however dangerous that would be with the likelihood he would fall from being tired and sore. Or he could risk going up, and hope the crack didn't widen beyond hold and climbing with the top of his back and neck and the ball of his feet and toes. He stayed there quite a while until he didn't to go up.

And sure enough the crack didn't widen at all and he reached the top, climbed over the ledge and stood on the top of the plateau over looking the creek below with the Sierra mountains above him, an easier climb anywhere he wanted to go. And he did.

I call these John Muir moments when and where we're stuck. Sometimes the transistion of someone will reach a moment like this where you know going back isn't the answer but you don't like the immediate prospects of the future. You're stuck in time between who you were and who you want to become.

These often occur when events, circumstances or situations put us where there aren't any easy or good answers or directions. In a transistion, which could be from or about a host of things, people or whatever making us feel nothing will help, going back or forward and we feel standing still is worse than the choices.

Often it's one of those moments the whole world around us sucks and we're at the center of it, the vortex being spun around with nothing clear, just a whirl of things we can't decide where to go. Except we know going back isn't the answer and going forward holds nothing good. At least at the moment.

We know beyond the moment we'll be ok, or we hope, because that's the unknown, will things widen and we fall all the way down with no chance to go back to who we were and find it harder to go forward. That's the problem, the future holds not assurances, only our hope and our willingness to try.

And we know the reality of transistions of transgender people, the reality isn't all that good. The majority of transistions don't go well and many fail, and only some will succeed. The stories of the folks who succeed are always good to know, but all carry the one caveat we can't lose or erase, who we were.

We all carry that one thing we can never erase from our history, our birth. Everything else changes, except that and it's always that which allows people to add that one word we hate after the transistion, "transgender" or "transsexual." The undeniable reality. And facing that will also be a John Muir moment, to let it drift by as the wind or hate it with the label someone sticks on us.

It's unfair and not right, but it is reality of our times. All the other John Muir moments can be overcome, save the one we always have inside us. And all the freedom reaching the top won't change it. We can simply leave it as our history and get on with our life, knowing we succeeded even over this.

I Don't Agree

I've been reading about the transgender veterans who are arguing for care for their transistion under the Veterans Administration. This is promoted by the Transgender Americans Veterans Association with their most vocal spokesperson Autumn Sandeem. I'd say spokesman since her legal documents, which she acknowledges, says she male.

I don't agree any care or treatments should be available to transgender veterans for their transisiton. It's not a condition that's releated to their service, not related to any injury they incurred or disease they acquired during their service, and it's not life threatening requiring medical interventon. It's not warranted.

Now, I won't say that being transgender people don't deserve care or treatment. I'm an advocate for it to be covered by the health insurance companies as it's an identified mental and physical condition treatable under the WPATH Standards of Care. All non-costmetic care should be covered, including physician's care, drugs, therapy, and sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

It's the right thing to do. While the APA's have "recommended" it be covered, since they identify it as a mental condition worthy of intervention and with a course of treatment, they haven't pushed for it as mandatory. This is because it's a moral issue to them, but the studies of the employer-funded treatment, including SRS, have shown it's cheap.

But it's not something which should be covered by the VA under veterans care. It's a waste of funds better suited to injured veterans. I can say this because I served and haven't used any VA care. I have health insurance which covers most of what I want in life for health or emergency care. And should I be transgendered, it's not covered under my health insurance, so I would expect to pay for it out of my own pocket.

And this is only fair for transgendered veterans. They should find an employer or health insurance which covers it with other health and emergency care, or as they say, get out your checkbook as the vast majority of those who are transistioning or have transistioned. I just don't agree it's a necessity of the VA to provide it at taxpayer expense.

I would support the TAVA's effort to expand DADT to transgendered veterans to serve openly, but I wouldn't necessarily support the military fund the care and treatment for their transistion. The military should allow their transistion, just not pay for it. I've expressed this view and I have had my issue with when Ms. Sandeem spoke out and even went so far to be one of those who chained themselves to the White House fence.

I thought her complaint about her treatment during her arrest was unwarranted as she presented her documents to show she was legally male (at least the news stories I read stated). As I've said before I don't consider presenting yourself as female in public mean your transgender and in transistion. If she was serious, why hasn't she had some of her documents changed? I would as all those in transistion do, when they make the decision to be full-time and public.

But that's outside the point here. While I agree with the transcommunity on most issues, I can't agree on this one, nor with those who express the right to it. I will continue to say it's a good way to provide ammunition against transpeople by asserting the expenditure of taxpayers', and especially VA, money for care better paid by private insurance.

Being Abandoned

Now that the 17-year old Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) law has been replealed and will undergo an implementation period, it will be interesting if anything really changes in the military, for the "boots on the ground", for the officers supervising enlisted troops and more so for recruiters. Does the LGB community really think reality will change?

Or will they see a backlash within the forces against openly lesbian and gay troops? All the surveys supported repealing the law. And many of the survey said the troops don't mind, but none of that accommodates the reality of an an openly lesbian or gay person being near, or more so next to, you when not in combat and when and where many people react. It's human nature, something a law can't change or undo, only the person and that's not likely.

But that's not my point here. While I applaud the passage to repleal DADT, I wonder if the LGB community will see another reason to jettison the issues relating to transgender members in their organizations or the transgender community. The LGB community has seen a real major success, but nothing changes for transpeople in the military. They're still ostracised and discharged should they come out.

And we still have DOMA awaiting repeal and ENDA up for LGBT people awaiting passage. Will the LGB community, as we saw Representative Barney Franks did several times for ENDA, remove transpeople from the bill because it wasn't the right time for their incluson. In truth, he never meant to include transpeople.

And we know Joe Salmonese promised inclusion and then sponsored and supported exclusion of transpeople. The simple truth is that the LGB community as a whole doesn't have the interest for transpeople and many in the community are covertly and privately transphobic. And sometimes overtly and vocal.

This is the opportunity for them to jettison the transpeople from their political agenda and focus on what they've always wanted, just lesbian and gay rights. Some will express support and even demand support for transpeople, but they're in the minority and often politically shouted down and into silence.

And that will leave transpeople, where they are in many political and legal areas, standing alone with few supporters outside themselves. The recent change will only worsen that and increase the distance between the LGB and T parts of the community. It's a real possible reality that in a few years LGB people focusing on state marriage laws, DOMA and ENDA will not include transpeople.

Success breeds the interest for more where it's not, and the LGB people will see that, to them, the T is an anchor in the political and legal world for their rights. And the T will be more isolated than before, and have to continue what some have done for the last decade or so, stand and fight alone.

The question is if that will prompt cooperaton to be focused on all trangender people or only the subgroups, or as some use subclasses, of transpeople, meaning the transistion focused transwomen and men will do what they've wanted, and recent court cases have decided, focus on inclusion as women and men, exclusive of the "trans" identity.

And they too can leave the rest of the transgender community behind. That's been their goal and will be their goal as they are almost there for post-transistion women and men and will be there for in-transistion women and men. They will do what the LGB people did to them, leave the rest behind, left to their own political and legal devices.

And then, as many post-transistion women and men do private, sit on their hands when asked for a show of who's for the others. It's what they've done and will do. The question is if in-transistion women and men will do likewise in public as they do in private, become invisible.

Being abandoned teaches survival, which the transcommunity has long learned, but it also teaches success on your own terms, something the transcommunity has also long learned. And after being abadoned, they too will abandon those left who are not like them. That's their reality.