My wife and were watching a series of shows on trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons in various stages of their development. We talked a bit about the literal closet of flesh and bone that people of this sexual identity experience day-to-day. This got me to thinking how casually even gay and lesbian people add the "B" to the community acronym. More than that, I began to question how well even gay and lesbian people understand the social, biological, and psychological differences between those who are part of the "T" as compared to the other groups.
Is it really fair to lump all non-normative sexual identities in the same group? While all share some similarities in their social and political ostracism and isolation as illegitimate sexual identities who have illegitimate sexual relationships, those in the "T" group have a different set of concerns that are even more radical and different than the others. Many might think that trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons are "gay" people trapped in the "wrong" body. This is not the case. The best explanation is that you have a female or a male mind encased in the opposite sexed body. This is radically different.
Having a dual sexual preference or the experience of being a gender that the physical body does not match is very different from the experience of those who have an exclusive preference for a particular gender. Now while even this is a rough kind of conceptual characterization since, according at least to the Kinsey studies, all humans have more fluid sexual identities and preferences than society dictates one ought to have, it is a sound functional differentiation between rather different sexual identities. Even a bi-sexual has a different set of characteristics than gay, lesbian, or straight. But a trans-gendered or trans-sexual person has quite a different set of social issues and characteristics that are quite unique. The issue of embodiment for these two groups of people is far more radical than for anyone else. It is perhaps even more pronounced among Samoan fa'afafine, for instance, who are born male, but socially constructed to be females in order to meet social roles. In cultures such as these the freedom of the individual is subsumed and conditioned by the needs of the social network. Ironically, the fa'afafine therefore provide a certain degree of network closure in that society.
I wonder if we sort of lack a clear acknowledgment of the "T" in the acronym because we casually refer to them this way. It is not the case that just because that "T" is there that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or straight friends of any of these groups of people will automatically accept trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons into their various communities. While we are in a set of pivotal and heated debates in theology and polity in the church to find ways to conditionally include, fully include, or systematically reject gays and lesbians from religious communities, I wonder how much discussion has been given to attend to the needs of trans-gendered and trans-sexuals.
To say that there is not a social stigma of taboo with these groups of people even where gays and lesbians are welcomed and accepted seems to miss quite a bit. It is perhaps a further sterilization especially in religious groups of the nature of sexual identity. While the focus of supporters of gays and lesbians to welcome and affirm their sexual identities focuses on human love and bonding, a wise discussion to be sure, we ought not sterilize it by removing the very real sexual relationships that people have with each other. Lesbians and gays have sex with each other in a lot of different ways as straight people do. Trans-gendered and trans-sexual people also have sex and often with straight people since they are not and have never been gay or lesbian. I wonder if there is a level of dishonesty here. That is to say, if you support and welcome the LG community, by including BT, do you know what you are saying? How well do your actions support trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons even if you are a full supporter of gay and lesbian inclusion and affirmation in your community?
Related posts:
Just today I've been rereading Judith Butler's Undoing Gender, which touches on a lot of the issues you've raised. I think from her perspective, all of the LGBT categories have in common that people who fall into any one of them are excluded from recognition by mainstream society because of the way they transgress boundaries of gender and heterosexuality, which Butler sees as very much connected. She's concerned with all of them, because what she's primarily interested is the way that when people don't fit into existing categories of gender and sexuality, they're treated as if they're not fully human; though she discusses elsewhere the fact that people of different race and class etc can also be pushed to the margins of society, so no group fighting for recognition for any of these people can act as if their issue is the only one that matters, or even the only one affecting members of their group.
From what Butler says, there's been a fair amount of debate
[...] Tatusko, continuing to stir things on the sexuality front wonders about the appropriateness of lumping LGBT people all together in a [...]
these are all great points. i actually do trans education here at my university and nope – the church as a whole is not grappling with the T in LGBT. in discussions at my church about joining PCUSA's covenant network and discussions about the amendment that the presbyteries had to vote on this was the point i felt like i had to say over and over and over and over again. none of the discussion currently, at least in the PCUSA as far as i can tell, is touching on gender identity. thus, as far as i read documents on ordination, someone who is trans and who is either single or in an opposite gender relationship (re: someone who is FTM in a relationship with a woman) could be ordained. now, i suspect that if someone who is trans tries to be ordained and it becomes known denomination wide or once there are more T folks who want to be ordained (isn't there someone who is trans trying to get ordained? i think i read that somewhere) then the discussion will really begin. until then i believe that it is the duty of those who know that that the T is different, and how, to educate those who don't know.
these are all great points. i actually do trans education here at my university and nope – the church as a whole is not grappling with the T in LGBT. in discussions at my church about joining PCUSA's covenant network and discussions about the amendment that the presbyteries had to vote on this was the point i felt like i had to say over and over and over and over again. none of the discussion currently, at least in the PCUSA as far as i can tell, is touching on gender identity. thus, as far as i read documents on ordination, someone who is trans and who is either single or in an opposite gender relationship (re: someone who is FTM in a relationship with a woman) could be ordained. now, i suspect that if someone who is trans tries to be ordained and it becomes known denomination wide or once there are more T folks who want to be ordained (isn't there someone who is trans trying to get ordained? i think i read that somewhere) then the discussion will really begin. until then i believe that it is the duty of those who know that that the T is different, and how, to educate those who don't know.