Billy Bragg's 'sexuality' - is 'trans' a sexuality?

[ArabellaScott]

Just thinking about Billy Bragg's song.

How is 'trans' a sexuality? I thought it was an 'identity', but it seems if LGBQ all relate to sexualities, there must be a reason the T is put in with sexualities?

If it's NOT a sexuality, then why aren't other 'identities' added into the LGBTQetc acronym?

It still is sexual. The homophobia that I encounter most as a lesbian is an insistence that I should not make choices about my body that suggest I would reject a male partner on the grounds of their biology. It's all about sex. Those inflicting this homophobia have no interest at all in my feelings about or expression of gender, or my feelings, or personality, or anything else at all, they're merely interested in the biology I'm in possession of, and whether I'm unreasonably depriving a male of access.

Thanks for your answer, abitof. It's interesting, but I think the logic doesn't really make sense.

Homosexuality is not about gender; the clue is in the name. It's about sexual orientation. It's not about gender conformity - lesbians can conform to gender stereotypes or not. Not all lesbians have short hair and wear trousers, you know. The one thing that makes a lesbian a lesbian is desire and attraction for another female. That's it. You can dress any way you please, wear your hair any way you please.

Lesbians can present in a 'masculine' way or a totally 'feminine' way, it doesn't matter nor make any difference to their sexuality.

Come to think of it, if homosexual orientation is by itself and alone a sufficient breaking of gender stereotypes (whatever they are, varied as they are between cultures, time, place etc) - then surely the pressure on me to learn to be more heterosexual and to fulfil my social duty providing sexual access to biologically male people in a properly modern LGBT+ way is about enforcing conformity with gender stereotypes rather than breaking them?

Oof. Artichoke, you're quite correct.

then surely the pressure on me to learn to be more heterosexual and to fulfil my social duty providing sexual access to biologically male people in a properly modern LGBT+ way is aboutenforcingconformity with gender stereotypes rather than breaking them?

Yes. The stereotypes are needed by those who follow gender ideology. They need them to be inforced. To them any non conformity means trans. Butch lesbians show up the nonsense of this.

Artichokeleaves, and Kittenkipper,

I think we disagree less than you think we do! Mind hearing me out a bit?

The question I'm trying to answer is why is the T, a gender orientation category, represented in the LGBT acronym, which at face value seems to also exclusively be made of sexualities.

What I think brings them together is gender non-conformity.

I think what's getting confusing in the above paragraph is the the idea of gender non conformity. When you say that you probably hear non conformity in gender presentation!

What I am saying is, is that, even without any changed gender presentation (a lesbian acting and dressing exactly like other women around her), the simple fact that the person is homosexual (so a woman who likes women) is, in itself, a gender non conforming characteristic. You can be femme, but just you being gay does not conform to prescribed patriarchal gender roles.

Because, by being gay, you're not going to have a romantic relationship with a man, which is a large part of the gender expectation for women.

And I think yours (and my) experiences of sexual harassment at the hands of men come from, rather than simple sexual desire, a place of gender policing and want of control. Just like other forms of sexual violence, it's not about sex, it's about power, and men want to exert their power over lesbians, and trans women, so make both fall in line.

Take your example of those terrible men who made fun of you with the V signs and tried told you to try their dicks. They singled you out with this particular harassment. While some of them probably just wanted sex (so many always do), the majority probably did it to point out and humiliate you for your difference. For your love of women. For you not wanting to be with men. You weren't conforming to the role you were prescribed. By liking women you came out form under their influence, so they harassed you and made you feel lesser and made you feel unsafe in order to shame and bring you back into their control.

Though you might not believe it a lot of similar things happened to me!

I live as a trans woman now but in high school I was a somewhat feminine bisexual boy. Though I was much more often in relationships with women (usually other bisexuals), everyone who didn't know me saw, basically, as a gay guy. I didn't dress partiuclarly femininely, but I put effort into my appearance, and naturally acted in a traditionally feminine way. Throughout I had gender identity issues, didn't like hanging around other men, and mostly had friend groups and friendship relationships with women. I wouldn't jockey on the male hierarchical ladder. I wanted no part of it.

Funny thing was, I never got made fun of for me being attracted to or having romantic relationships with men! It was always the me being feminine part. But, despite the lack of focus on my sexuality, the main way in which I was bullied and policed was through sexual harassment, usually by straight men.

And these men were certainly straight. Not a gay bone in their body. Had relationships with women. Sexually harassed other women. Just weren't gay. Buttttt they would constantly sexually harass me. Whisper about sex in my ear. Grope me. I was once cornered in the locker room. Not because they were particularly attracted to me. But, because I wouldn't play the dude game. I was different, not in their control, and therefore power was exerted over me through sexual harassment.

So, in both cases I understand the root cause of this sexual control exerted by men to not be sexuality per say, but our respective traits of gender role non conformity. For you, being attracted to women as a woman, and for me being feminine as someone who was assigned male at birth.

Abitofadvice

"Funny thing was, I never got made fun of for me being attracted to or having romantic relationships with men! It was always the me being feminine part. But, despite the lack of focus on my sexuality, the main way in which I was bullied and policed was through sexual harassment, usually by straight men.

And these men were certainly straight. Not a gay bone in their body. Had relationships with women. Sexually harassed other women. Just weren't gay. Buttttt they would constantly sexually harass me. Whisper about sex in my ear. Grope me. I was once cornered in the locker room. Not because they were particularly attracted to me. But, because I wouldn't play the dude game. I was different, not in their control, and therefore power was exerted over me through sexual harassment. "

What you describe here is how men treat women. Not lesbians. Not bi women. ALL women. And by not conforming to their expectation and toxic masculinity, you challenged them so thy treated you as they treat us ( us as women- not as lesbians) sadly, what you describe is what most women experience repeatedly regardless of their conforming to stereotypes or not. The abuse we face as lesbians is in addition to and separate from the abuse we get just for being female.

I do agree with you however that it is about control. And I'm so sorry that you experienced it.

I am very sorry you were bullied and harassed like that, it is awful to hear, and sadly it's all too common an experience

However the harassment I encounter now, often, and right here on MN from people who would term themselves as activists and allies, is to push me as a lesbian back towards patriarchal gender norms, which is that as a biological female, biological males regardless of their choice of identity have an entitlement to my body that comes way above my right to a sexual orientation or opinions or feelings of my own, and requires me to be obedient to politics including with my body. I encounter radio broadcasts from respected TW speakers, such as Rachel McKinnon, informing me that I should 'learn to cope' with heterosexual sex as a social duty, and 'overcome my prejudices'. Which implies that as a female I have no right to expect reciprocation or enjoyment in sex, but have a duty to meet male needs and ensure male pleasure.

It does not get much more regressively patriarchal than that! Or much more homophobic, or misogynist. And this is done in the name of LGBT+ including such as Stonewall. I appreciate your polite engagement and your sharing your views, and while I see your point, I find that I have stepped away from LGBT+ organisations such as Stonewall, and have become very wary of being out in public or to people I don't know well exactly because I am wary of homophobia and harassment of those who would say they are pro LGBT+ or are LGBT+ but absolutely do not accept my homosexuality or autonomy and equality to males as a female on a sex based principle (while telling me at the same time that sex doesn't really exist and is assigned at birth) and will attempt to pressure me back towards conformity, obedience, prioritising the needs of males selflessly and recognising male entitlement to my biology, (which I'm not supposed to mention), and move back to heterosexuality like a good girl.

So I'm at this point both confused and somewhat disbelieving that gender stereotypes are any more of a good thing now than they were when I was a child and girls were fighting to be allowed to grow up to be mechanics and soldiers and not just hairdressers and other people's mums.

If the LGBTQIA includes everyone who doesn't conform to gender stereotypes then it includes almost everyone. Any woman with short hair and trousers. Any male nurse, or man who wears a bit of eyeliner. Any one whose mannerisms actions clothing hair or feelings don't conform to a narrow definition of what constitutes masculine or feminine is presumably under the umbrella?

So we are all LGBTQ now, are we?

To put it another way: who isn't gender non conforming? Gender isn't what a person is, it's an abstract idea. Nobody is a gender because gender is a loose collection of variable and arbitrary stereotypes that vary across cultures and time periods.

@abitofadvice1234 I'm really interested in your post. You say "they [trans people] break from their assigned gender roles the most, by choosing to the social and physical role of the other gender. They are going the other way, against societal prescription."
I'm not sure I understand how this is the case. Surely a man who doesn't conform with society's gender expectations but chooses to still live as a man is actually breaking from expected roles more than a trans woman. By deciding to 'live as a woman' they're in effect accepting that only women can be sensitive, feminine (or whatever the female gender stereotype is); and that men can't have that type of personality.

I'm all for breaking free of stereotypes but I don't understand the need to change appearance, ie to try and look like the opposite sex. I'd really like to know more

@ArabellaScott

If the LGBTQIA includes everyone who doesn't conform to gender stereotypes then it includes almost everyone. Any woman with short hair and trousers. Any male nurse, or man who wears a bit of eyeliner. Any one whose mannerisms actions clothing hair or feelings don't conform to a narrow definition of what constitutes masculine or feminine is presumably under the umbrella?

So we are all LGBTQ now, are we?

Reminds me of that highly offensive post from a well known T celebrity this weekend that boiled down to lesbians being TM in denial stuck half way through a transition.

No. Really not.

I'm an adult human female, capable of expressing myself in any way unlimited by the fact of my sex. That sex does not ever change regardless of what I do. And no, I'm quite happy being a female lesbian and really don't want to be jammed in other people's boxes because I'm stressing their personal stereotypical thinking. Very happy for them to live their life and respect their choices; I expect the same courtesy in return.

(Not that I get the right of reply to be as rude in reply to that celebrity as they felt entitled to be in the national press to lesbians.)

Trans ideology enforces stereotypes.

Males who call themselves women aren't celebrating their non conformity as males. They are simply adopting the sex role stereotypes they, as males, think make females 'women', when the only thing all women have in common is being part of the same sex class.

It's just stupid, there's really no evidence that what people call gender identity is the same as sexual orientation. Although there are some interesting ways in which people's feelings about masculinity and femininity relate to sexuality, so maybe it's not so odd that people think of them as connected.

Though there's also not a whole lot of scientific understanding of the idea of sexuality as such, and it's not a concept that is ubiquitous or identical across times and cultures. In fact there was, years ago, an argument made by some that placing emphasis on sexual orientation as a category of identity would result in a multiplication of sexual identities, which at the time I thought seemed crazy but now less so.

'Homophobia has never been about the actual sex acts.
Gay rights was always about sexuality. And about sex acts.'

Why do you think that? How can anyone not know that the men having sex with men, globally and historically, has been the massive issue by a mile?

That's the reason the LGB groups came about.

In the UK there was a specific crime of buggery. Law targeted at male/male.

Around the world still there are plenty of countries with specific laws about men having penetrative anal sex with men.

Around women having sex with women it's just not the focus, or even in the picture.

It was always about male penetrative sex with men being seen as immoral, disgusting, dangerous etc.

I would be really interested to know why you think that you haven't come across this.

Reason T was included is that gay men have long history of cross dressing eg drag. Part of history etc and if man caught cross dressing was evidence of gay and therefore dangerous arrested etc.

Hm, but that wasn't 'T', was it, Cheese? 'T' is supposed to include much more than males crossdressing.

I thought that whilst drag queens where prominently gay men, cross dressers weren't? Isn't that were AGP comes in?

I honestly don't know, Whats. Is cross dressing an indicator of sexual orientation?

I thought cross dressing used to be classed as a paraphilia, not an indicator of orientation?

I think there is a movement to have it regarded as a sexual orientation. Even within the wider gender critical movement, particularly the men.

@CheeseMmmm

Reason T was included is that gay men have long history of cross dressing eg drag. Part of history etc and if man caught cross dressing was evidence of gay and therefore dangerous arrested etc.

I believe in the context of the UK this is correct, but as we know it today the T in the LGBT movement, and the LGBT movement in general, mostly comes from activism and social organization in the United States.

I'm not sure about the exact makeup of the participants of the stonewall Riots but if I remember my history correctly it was actually a mixed crowd between gay men, lesbians, and "trans people" then conceptualized sometimes as transexuals or just plain crossdressers. Basically, the Stonewall Inn (located in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan NYC), was generally a bar for those who did not fit the social roles of society. The cops tried to break it up, everyone fought back, and as the story goes the LGBT movement (with everyone participating) was formed. This also coincided with a general American bent towards liberation and activism sparked by the civil rights movement. So, at the same Time you had the Occupation of Alcatraz by AIM (the American Indian Movement), and a lot of activism around women's rights all coalescing around the same time.

The T in LGBT has always been there, but what the T stands for and how that section of the community has always been somewhat shifting, and only recently has been codified, specifically, as "Transgender," but they've always been members of the community, and self identified as women, but were not seen so by larger society, and had little means to organize with each other to create their own groups.

This can be seen in the documentary film Paris is Burning. It follows the drag/Ball culture of New York City in the 1990s. Notably, though not much distinction is made between Drag Queens and Trans Women, both exist as separate entities both participating, with Venus Xtravaganza being the main trans woman followed (she would, by the end of the documentary, be found murdered under the bed of a motel).

Trans Women were also a large part of the AIDS movement/crisis in the 80s. Many trans women were particularly vulnerable as quite a few resorted to prostitution as no one else would hire them, and therefore were (like gay men) vulnerable to AIDS and died in very very very high numbers.

So, basically, in the American movements Trans people have always played a part in these social movements.

As I understand it, in the UK there was less specific community based organization around LGBT issues, and the acronym is somewhat of an import from the United States. Much of the focus was on Buggery laws for gay men (though I don't know much about how it effected Lesbians in the UK). But, broadly, the UK didn't go through those same social reforms and wasn't subject to the same movements as the United States, so the culture around LGBT is different, but also influenced by, American LGBT movements, causing a bit of a disconnect.

@CheeseMmmm

I'm somewhat of a radical feminist, and I have read/use radical feminist frameworks that places homophobia as an issue inside larger structures of patriarchy.

I'm just trans inclusionary.

The trouble is that the quiet bit of trans inclusionary is often, in the bitter experience of people with female biology, woman exclusionary and lesbian exclusionary and highly homophobic.

That's the problem we'd quite like to straighten out really.

[quote abitofadvice1234]@CheeseMmmm

I'm somewhat of a radical feminist, and I have read/use radical feminist frameworks that places homophobia as an issue inside larger structures of patriarchy.

I'm just trans inclusionary.[/quote]
Trans people, homosexual people and female people do indeed have many things in common due to patriarchy’s construction of them as “other”, “transgressive”, “less” etc. In effect, the culture itself creates common ground.

However, that doesn’t mean those groups have anything intrinsic in common outside the commonalities imposed upon them by the dominant culture.

I am trans-inclusionary in the sense that I entirely support, indeed welcome, gender non-conformity including people’s right to inhabit social gender constructs previously mapped onto the opposite sex.

I do not, however, believe that in some way makes a person equivalent to and interchangeable with the opposite sex, nor do I believe it precludes the right and indeed deep need of female people, historically and even now marginalised and oppressed in their billions, to organise, politicise, associate and have a collective voice that is based on their sex and therefore does not include male people regardless of those males’ gender identity. Because sex is not gender, and therefore asserting ones sex cannot possibly negate anybody’s gender unless there is a politically motivated desire to confuse and conflate the two.

To claim that a trans women IS a woman is to claim that no meaningful difference exists between her internal sense of her own identity, and a lifetime of being subject to the external gender reactions, pressures and constraints of others that female-bodied people experience because of their female body.

I simply cannot see any logical reason why these two entirely different concepts are conflated into somehow being the same group of people, and neither do I see why it has become an article of faith that one must believe they are in order to support trans and other gender non-conforming people’s right to be accepted.