What does trans+ mean?

[NextRinny]

What is trans+?

I've seen it quite a few times today.
I thought it was all one umbrella? What doesn't fit into the umbrella which now needs to be +?

Is this a stealth transition from lgbtq+ to trans+ lingo?

It's a swerve, they're changing the narrative again. 😤

I always assumed that ‘gender non-conforming’ meant you just didn’t conform to the expected gender, I.e a
man calling themselves a trans woman or non binary - not that you don’t recognise genders at all (GC)

If it is a swerve by Stonewall, it may not be a very bright one. If trans+ is so wide ranging then it becomes an unmanageable way to, say, decide which toilets someone should use. What we need is an easier, binary system, like sex. Oh…

ETA it occurred to me that Stonewall may be using this term to pivot to a call for more unisex or third spaces, to accommodate all the rainbow. It will not have crossed their minds that if they just campaigned for third spaces in the first place they could have avoided a whole lot of hassle.

I seem to somehow manage to be gender non-conforming AND GC
I retain an understanding of gender as a set of socially-constructed expectations of how one should look, act, dress, work etc based on your biological sex.

I think these gender stereotypes exist, because I've been escaping and avoiding them all my life.

I am critical of their imposition on the basis of sex - rats and snails vs. sugar and spice - because they put a limit on a child's potential to develop freely and fully into whatever kind of man or woman they want to be.

I am critical of their use to overrule biological sex in gender/transgender ideology.

It would be good if 'gender' didn't exist at all, but it keeps coming back, doesn't it? Gender stereotypes obviously have a function in keeping women 'in their place' in sexist society, so they'll be hard to eliminate.

In the meantime, I reject them, I critique them therefore I'm GC, and I even enjoy playing around with them in how I dress.😎

To that extent, 'gender' does have a meaning for me, but a limited socially-constructed one, definitely not an inner essence like an eternal soul that is more important than biological sex.

Not everyone agrees with that, I accept.

It relates to gender identity, so transsexual, non-binary, agender, genderfluid, and gender non-conforming, etc.

I think it makes more sense than bundling it together with sexual preference which was the original part of LGB.

Well, Stonewall are very good at rewriting history, so we may start hearing from them that they have always been planning to campaign for universal or 3rd/4th spaces!

And it was always going to be about the Trans+

Exactly, so this an attempt to widen the net to ensure that ANYONE, especially any man, who wishes to enter single-sex spaces and take opportunities meant for the opposite sex are entitled to do so. It's not enough to for a man who says he's a "transwoman" to feel entitled to women's spaces and opportunities, now a man simply has to say he's "trans+" and viola!, he gets to "benefit" from all the same rights TIMs are demanding without even having to put on a wig and lipstick!

Thanks for giving a name to the slippery slope the rest of us have been pointing out as the real goal of the trans movement from day 1.

So if I, as a married woman, come out as non-binary, does my husband (no longer married to a woman) become a Plus, and will Stonewall tell him he is entitled to use the Ladies'?

To answer it seriously: no, not generally. Gender is not transitive so your husband will continue to be 'CIS' even if you're not. This is actually an important ideological point.

However your husband may become some variety of LGBTQIA+ transitively. But (also an important ideological point) identity is chosen so it's up to him whether the fact that you've become non-binary or a transman makes him bisexual, gay or 'queer', and he's free to continue to identify as heterosexual and non-lgbtqia+.

Trans-Adjacent
(adjective)
A way of referring to people who may not be categorically trans, but who may have experiences relative to the trans community such as people questioning their gender, crossdressers/transvestites, drag performers, and GNC cisgender people. The term also refers to parents, close relatives, and close friends of trans people who might be actively engaged in the movement for trans liberation. These lists are by no means exhaustive.

So possibly a way to differentiate the tru-trans from the cross-dressers? Prior to cutting them loose, perhaps?

https://translanguageprimer.com/trans-adjacent/

Hmmm...the url I copied was for 'trans-adjacent', but the link says 'crossdresser' 🤔

But they just added the crossdressers back in, recently, didn't they?

So it looks as though trans-adjacent can mean anyone who doesn't disagree with them...?

I am confused.

Apologies for running off to the rest of my day after asking!

But honestly this is 60 posts in and I have absolutely no clue what trans+ is.

Some of the posts are gunning for trans-adjacent which i take to mean trans and cis allies since all the agender and others are all under the trans umbrella already (or is there no more trans umbrella). How in the world can people be adjacent to each other???

Some others seem to say it is focusing only on gender related people - so are we ok to say LGB again? Are we alright to have lgb events and separate trans+ events or is this going to be like what they did to women and we can only do lgbt and trans+ events and trans is every where all the time, gender related or not... whatever gender is.

Or the last one I picked up on which is basically a fancy way of highlighting trans is not a minority anymore. What it is though I couldn't quite catch.

So I've decided it is wort salat targeting a rebrand of trans world wide so a flag should come soon but the demands, ways of working and effects on women will be exactly the same. I imagine it has to unyoke from lgb but it is looking for something to latch on to. I think it's going to be the greens worldwide.

Someone mentioned being offended. I'm not. I was just curious. I think nothing apart from whichever cause they are attached to will change.

Thanks for confirming that all this identity crap is about choice and self-administered and not some innate immutable thing trans activists have been trying to make everyone believe.

I would have assumed a male who is married to a female who then starts "identifying" as a man makes the male pansexual. But good to be reminded that all this stuff is really just meaningless nonsense.

Yes, I agree, I think we should expect news of a shift in focus to a new cause that will make sense for some people for a while. More money and rebranding for Stonewall perhaps? I mean why do it if you can't make it pay and get a shiny new flag out of it to boot?

As long as men stay out of women's spaces, I am quite happy to watch this unfold as an interesting academic exercise.

Schools and other children's and "inclusion" charities will have to be watched very carefully, however.

Oh well, at this rate if you're "cisheteronormative" (or whatever the current fashionable label is), you're going to be the new "tiny, marginalised minority", and being Notqueer will be stunning and brave. You might even get a flag!

Trans minus