Is Transgender a sexuality?

[ScrollingLeaves]

A local school describes “Transgender” and “Questioning” as “sexuality” in the wording of their inclusivity policy. I can can see questioning might be seen as a sexuality but as it is from Q in LGBTQ, I had thought that meant Queer, and I thought transgender was to do with identity not sexuality.

Could anyone explain?

The policy says that no one must be discriminated against because of

“Differences of………

o sexuality (e.g. Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender, Questioning - LBGTQ)”

I will never be defined by someone else's questionable views and labels. Shocked you're comfortable to go along with it.

Scrolling leaves
In your first screenshot, "transgender" is listed twice isn't it.

They've listed "Transgender" under "Gender" and then again under "Sexuality".
It rather looks like transgender is twice as protected as the other characteristics....

Basically it doesn't belong under Sexuality, it belongs under gender/gender identity/gender reassignment, which is fine so long as "sex" is also still protected.

"Debbie (who is agp and trans) talks about how they consider agp to be a sexuality* 🤣 Yes, people often do this with their paraphilias. I think the argument re AGP is that "being sexually attracted to yourself should be valid" or some such nonsense.
There are enormous efforts wasted, lengthy papers written on (frankly) men's sexual perversions and how they should be normalised.

There are always campaigns to consider "the big P" paraphilia a normal sexuality.

It's not going to happen.

@Samoyeddad

Oh I see. That’s really weird as cross dressers are not transgender 🤔

Stonewall says they are.

“Scrolling leaves
In your first screenshot, "transgender" is listed twice isn't it.

They've listed "Transgender" under "Gender" and then again under "Sexuality".
It rather looks like transgender is twice as protected as the other characteristics....

Basically it doesn't belong under Sexuality, it belongs under gender/gender identity/gender reassignment, which is fine so long as "sex" is also still protected.“

Yes, exactly @Linguini “transgender” is listed twice first under “Gender”
then again under “Sexuality”.

That’s what I found confusing and why I posted the question.

I do wonder whether that was a mistake, and confusion on the schools part?

Or, some sort of sophistry, on purpose, on the grounds that in the end some aspects of sexuality may be involved ( agp, transvestism, believing you are a lesbian if you are a transsexual heterosexual man etc) as discussed on this thread?

“Gingercake2018

In the recent 'gender a wider lens' podcast with Debbie Hayton. Debbie (who is agp and trans) talks about how they consider agp to be a sexuality.“

So, where AGP (sexuality) leads to transgender (gender) that might be an example of how they cross over and why ‘transgender’ was mentioned for a second time, in the “Sexuality” list in the school’s Diversity Policy.

I read though that it is taboo to talk about autogynephilia.
Philias have stigma attached. So Debbie Hayton’s view may not be representative of other trans people’s.

But it is also true that Stonewall has or does include cross dressers under the trans umbrella. Which was always straightforwardly daft, but presumably recognises that a proportion of cross dressers become trans. What defines the crossover moment isn't for me to say.

Something else is needed here. If including crossdressers under trans is merely a recognition that "a proportion of cross dressers become trans" then anyone can be included in the definition, be it Asian people, MPs, men, women, engineers, 50 year olds, skateboarders. The inclusion of crossdressers is an acknowledgement that there's some causal link between crossdressing and trans. As transwidows will sometimes reflect:

What's the difference between crossdressing and trans? About 2 years.

@ScrollingLeaves

“Gingercake2018

In the recent 'gender a wider lens' podcast with Debbie Hayton. Debbie (who is agp and trans) talks about how they consider agp to be a sexuality.“

So, where AGP (sexuality) leads to transgender (gender) that might be an example of how they cross over and why ‘transgender’ was mentioned for a second time, in the “Sexuality” list in the school’s Diversity Policy.

I read though that it is taboo to talk about autogynephilia.
Philias have stigma attached. So Debbie Hayton’s view may not be representative of other trans people’s.

Debbie Hayton is on the "wrong side of history" along with most of us on here, in that they believe in biological sex. The podcast was a really interesting listen even if I didn't agree with absolutely everything said.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. You can be trans and a cross dresser, yes, but most Crossdressers are born male and identify as male, they are not transgender.
Doing makeup and wearing a wig to look like the opposite gender for a few hours doesn’t make you trans

@Samoyeddad

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. You can be trans and a cross dresser, yes, but most Crossdressers are born male and identify as male, they are not transgender. Doing makeup and wearing a wig to look like the opposite gender for a few hours doesn’t make you trans

Essentially; the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but being a Crossdresser doesn’t equal being trans

Well, maybe someone should tell Stonewall?

Plenty of males who cross dress identify as trans.

Doing makeup and wearing a wig to look like the opposite gender for a few hours doesn’t make you trans

No? So what does?

There's no such thing as an 'opposite' gender, gender is an arbitrary collection of stereotypes.

“Samoyeddad

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. You can be trans and a cross dresser, yes, but most Crossdressers are born male and identify as male, they are not transgender.
Doing makeup and wearing a wig to look like the opposite gender for a few hours doesn’t make you trans“

Granted, but I thought a reason for some heterosexual men, cross dressing as a woman is AGP, once called transvestite fetishism, and a further development of that can be wanting to transition.

@Samoyeddad

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. You can be trans and a cross dresser, yes, but most Crossdressers are born male and identify as male, they are not transgender. Doing makeup and wearing a wig to look like the opposite gender for a few hours doesn’t make you trans

Yeah, women have been trying to drum this into the trans lobby for a long while.

Unfortunately they won't listen because "transvestites are transwomen" according to Stonewall et al, and "transwomen are women".
So men with a sexual penchant for lacey knickers ARE women according to gender extremists.

Pippa/Phil Bunce is a part time cross dresser. Identifies as a laydee one day then as banker Phil the rest of the time. Famously won a "woman in finance" award at credit Suisse. Because being a part time cross dresser makes him a woman at Credit Suisse. Look it up.

You need to recognise that for certain men, being seen as a woman provides the boner to end all boners, and being able to do it full time is too much of an orgasmatron to miss out on.

The sexual thrill of cross dressing/AGP/being seen as a woman, is the one and only motivation to transitioning for some male transitioners. Don't forget you can transition with absolutely no medical intervention whatsoever.
These "transwomen" very much love being attached to their testosterone and their penis.

Descriptions of the "trans orgasm train" are all over forums all over the internet if you care to look. Snapshots will peak trans anyone.

In the end there's no point trying to make sense of it all, because it doesn't make any sense.

It's a totally waste of time.

Meanings of words, rationales, fundamental assertions change, in reaction to events or when it seems too many people start saying hold on this is drivel.

All those things are not important.
They are a means to an end.

In this case the end result is what matters. What is wanted.

The justifications, arguments, fundamental reasons why the things are needed, they are all obvious bollocks. Changing them to other bollocks when seen as necessary. No problem.

This is the total opposite of pretty much everything we're used to.

With rights groups the reasons do not change. These are the issues. This is why. We deserve better because xyz. Etc.

Then there's sides and big row and the arguments are sound so improvement comes sometimes and not easily.

Naturally everyone tries to get head round a pile of incoherent nonsense. And if get somewhere it's replaced with different incoherent nonsense. Previous nonsense, act as never existed.

And round again.

I don't say this lightly. But they have been studying their Orwell incredibly carefully.

It's all about sex. And men.

I've read a lot of stuff from big orgs to individuals.

IMO don't give a fuck about trans people in general at all.

Never actually do anything to help on ground.

Say the common stuff to guilt people into shutting up about real life.

Children, self harm, suicide.
Murders (forget to mention not here).
Homelessness.
Often being paid for sex.
MH issues.

I'd expect big push to address these things.
Trans centres, MH support trans specific, action around outreach for those selling sex to get by, linking with orgs in Brazil to channel money resource etc what asked for to help with murders.

As priority, and publicity around what doing.

Nope.

IMO and it's pretty obvious,

It's a men's sexual rights movement. Leveraging those genuinly vulnerable to help reach their goals.

@CheeseMmmm

In the end there's no point trying to make sense of it all, because it doesn't make any sense.

It's a totally waste of time.

Meanings of words, rationales, fundamental assertions change, in reaction to events or when it seems too many people start saying hold on this is drivel.

All those things are not important.
They are a means to an end.

In this case the end result is what matters. What is wanted.

The justifications, arguments, fundamental reasons why the things are needed, they are all obvious bollocks. Changing them to other bollocks when seen as necessary. No problem.

This is the total opposite of pretty much everything we're used to.

With rights groups the reasons do not change. These are the issues. This is why. We deserve better because xyz. Etc.

Then there's sides and big row and the arguments are sound so improvement comes sometimes and not easily.

Naturally everyone tries to get head round a pile of incoherent nonsense. And if get somewhere it's replaced with different incoherent nonsense. Previous nonsense, act as never existed.

And round again.

I don't say this lightly. But they have been studying their Orwell incredibly carefully.

Excellent post. Well said.

No but it does make them super interesting and special.

Thanks Francesca!

And this point is by far the most important issue of all.

That there are two totally different approaches.
-
One side puts forward obvious facts that everyone knows and has for millennia. Evidence. Credible statistics. Rational arguments. Keeps on the point. Puts forward more and more valid info to make a point that is being challenged. Carefully reads challenges to understand challenge and respond to the specifics raised. That general approach.

The other side focuses on the final outcome desired. There is no interest in coherent persuasive reasons why it should happen. Challenges get in the way. There will be no compromises, no recognition that anything that challenges might have a point, no genuine engagement, no accomodations. Anything that is not useful to desired outcome is irrelevant. Just shut it down.
It's about belief. Belief in the fact that end point must be outcome. Nothing else is important.
Approach is broadly. Use anything useful. Doesn't matter if correct, makes sense, is ethical to use, is relevant, is anything to do with it, is crass, is condictory to other points argued.
If something becomes widely questioned, just change for a new one. Pretend the old one never existed.
Use individual rather than group level a lot. Invoke emotions.
That sort of thing.

These two can NEVER result in anything productive. Any compromises. Anything. At all.

I do not know how we can make impact against the latter.