What's new
By:

Serious LGBT question - Keep it Nice!

AlaskanAssassin

AlaskanAssassin

Well-Known Member
Recently I watched the viral video titled "Ryland's Story" which depicts a young girl struggling with her gender identity and choosing to live life as a boy (through the help of her parents). Here is the video if you haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAHCqnux2fk


I had a discussion with a friend at work, and I posed the question regarding why the transgender community elected to attach themselves to the LGB community.

It seems odd to me that the transgender community would attach themselves to this group, as it seems to confuse those who still don't know or understand what it means to be transgender. My friend (I use this term lightly) was under the impression that transgender people are simply gay people that elect to live as the opposite gender to make life easier. We had somewhat of a heated debate, but I still left wondering why the connection exists.

By my limited understanding, transgender people can be either gay, straight, or bisexual. Being transgender has no effect on your sexual orientation, which is exactly what the LGB community is based on.

Does anyone have any understanding as to why these two communities decided to join together? Am I missing something here?
 
So they can gain more support and people. Political interest groups do similar things. The groups may not be identical but they are similar enough by social standards so that they can combine and create a larger and more powerful group
 
LazyD said:
but they are similar enough by social standards so that they can combine
Click to expand...

"Similar enough by social standards" just confuses people. They are not similar AT ALL! They might as well have joined with the NAACP. Is there one characteristic that joins these two groups together? Is there one? I don't think so. It just seems like these two groups uniting has confused a lot of people out there.
 
Well, like you, I understand being gay and transgendered as very different things. One has to do with who you're attracted to, and the other one has to do with your own body. You can be a gay guy attracted to other dudes, and not feel any urge to become a woman.

I think that part of the reason that the two communities tend to support each other is they're both dealing with gender issues/gender bias. A lot of more conservative folks believe that males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. Both homosexual and transgendered people upset those conventions; they make people uncomfortable because they're reminders that our ideas about gender roles are social constructions.

A gay couple, for instance -- by the very fact that they are the same biological sex -- necessarily need to split up domestic tasks in a non-traditional way... there's no automatic assumption of "the guy's the breadwinner, the gal's the homemaker." Just by being together, they show that the traditional gender roles just aren't necessary. And the transgendered person, of course, does the same thing by simply showing that sex and gender identity of any individual person are both a choice. To people who are comfortable with, and even cherish, the "traditional" gender roles, these are very frightening truths to face. Some of those people, in an effort to protect these roles, argue for their absolute necessity, or that their maintenance is a divine command. Because of that, gays and transgendered people end up facing a lot of the same opposition, even though they're quite different things.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
"Similar enough by social standards" just confuses people. They are not similar AT ALL! They might as well have joined with the NAACP. Is there one characteristic that joins these two groups together? Is there one? I don't think so. It just seems like these two groups uniting has confused a lot of people out there.
Click to expand...

But to the general public they are similar.

Also their goals are similar.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
I think that part of the reason that the two communities tend to support each other is they're both dealing with gender issues/gender bias. A lot of more conservative folks believe that males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. Both homosexual and transgendered people upset those conventions; they make people uncomfortable because they're reminders that our ideas about gender roles are social constructions.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Didn't think of it that way. Thanks!
 
AtheistPreacher said:
Well, like you, I understand being gay and transgendered as very different things. One has to do with who you're attracted to, and the other one has to do with your own body. You can be a gay guy attracted to other dudes, and not feel any urge to become a woman.

I think that part of the reason that the two communities tend to support each other is they're both dealing with gender issues/gender bias. A lot of more conservative folks believe that males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. Both homosexual and transgendered people upset those conventions; they make people uncomfortable because they're reminders that our ideas about gender roles are social constructions.

A gay couple, for instance -- by the very fact that they are the same biological sex -- necessarily need to split up domestic tasks in a non-traditional way... there's no automatic assumption of "the guy's the breadwinner, the gal's the homemaker." Just by being together, they show that the traditional gender roles just aren't necessary. And the transgendered person, of course, does the same thing by simply showing that sex and gender identity of any individual person are both a choice. To people who are comfortable with, and even cherish, the "traditional" gender roles, these are very frightening truths to face. Some of those people, in an effort to protect these roles, argue for their absolute necessity, or that their maintenance is a divine command. Because of that, gays and transgendered people end up facing a lot of the same opposition, even though they're quite different things.
Click to expand...

This response illustrates how advocates try to have the issue of gender/sexuality both ways.
They say you are born with your sexuality (who you are attracted to) but that gender is merely a social construct.
Even in homosexual relationships the partners take on gender roles...one Lesbian usually likes to "wear the pants" literally and figuratively.
The homosexual males with feminine traits tend to take on the feminine roles.

Gender is psychobiological and can be messed with before the child is even born.
The sex hormones influence the brain development so if you flood the womb with hormones (the pill) during development you change everything.

Color preference is inconsequential.
The interests/hobbies of the sexes don't matter to me as a conservative, career choice only in few cases where it effects job performance...effects those they serve in a negative way.
Though, you'll never be able to convince me that children don't need a married mother and a father. They need what they each have to offer.
 
dalamon said:
Fortunately, America won't need to :)
Click to expand...

May take heat for it but I see the parenting issue this way.

Mother and Father
Two fathers/Two mothers
Single Parent (mother or father)

Effective in that order and generally speaking. I am sure we all know examples that throw that order into disarray. I do not think "married" is necessary but preffered.
 
What about butch lesbians that then turn into "transgender"? That happens all the time.

If Ellen came out and said she was going to grow a penis I don't think anyone would be shocked.
 
PearlWatson said:
This response illustrates how advocates try to have the issue of gender/sexuality both ways.
They say you are born with your sexuality (who you are attracted to) but that gender is merely a social construct.
Click to expand...

You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
Click to expand...

Color preference has nothing to do with the defining traits of males and females. We are talking abilities and brain differences such as spacial/math, language, IQ, information processing, emotions, aggression, etc.

I don't know how to say, "You pulled 90% out of your ***," in a nice way.
There are obvious biological reasons for boys to be attracted to army toys, and girls to baby dolls, but toy preference is only part of the difference. The way in which the toys are played with is the other part.
That being said there are obvious social reasons to support these innate differences, as well as allow room for variation without rejection/punishment.

What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay.
Click to expand...

I'm not informed about what you are talking about, but you are wrong about the ability to change.

Why should someone who has been molested be denied the opportunity to change their conditioned attraction.
Why should they be punished a second time by being told they must accept the "orientation" foisted upon them?
 
AtheistPreacher said:
You say this as though it is clearly a contradiction, when in fact there's no clear-cut relation between the two. Certainly there is some relation, but it's very complicated, and generally speaking the two concepts can be quite easily distinguished.

As far as who you are sexually attracted to, clearly society does have an impact, especially over what sort of body types we find attractive, but there is a more important basis to sexual attraction in biology. For instance, there is no compelling reason to find rail-thin people attractive, but many people do, because rail-thin models are generally the people held up as being the most sexually desirable. But then, obviously procreation is the more compelling factor in sexual attraction, and indeed, most people in the world are hetero. As far as sexual orientation goes, I am not completely sold on the idea that it's all genetic/biological. Twin studies where one is gay and one isn't suggest otherwise (probably it is some combination of both biological and social factors). What I do know is that it's not something that can be changed (so-called ex-gay movements have never been successful, contrary to what some people would have you believe), and there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful in being gay. Hey, the world is overpopulated anyway (don't get me started on this issue), and gay people aren't hurting anyone by just existing.

But as far as gender goes, that is almost completely a societal construction. The most that can be said about a biological basis is very general characteristics, such as levels of aggressiveness -- and even then there are always variances, exceptions, outliers. Ninety percent of our ideas about gender have nothing to do with biology. To cite my earlier archetypical examples, there is no biological reason why males should like the color blue and big trucks and army soldiers, while women should like the color pink and barbie dolls and cooking. We teach kids that that's how it is and should be. But there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered with a person who is biologically one sex, but identifies more with the societally constructed gender of the other sex, because most of that construction is arbitrary anyway.
Click to expand...

The Meat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top