DiscussionHow should LGB actually go about dropping the T(Q+)?

submitted by PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust from (self.LGBDropTheT)

While I have of course read the sidebar here, I'm wondering if, in order to live up to this sub's name, we may need more than just the goal of separating from TQ+: namely, a specific strategy for doing so.

This seems particularly important given the potential pitfalls of being perceived as merely anti-TQ+. First, that obviously plays right into TRA hands ("You're just mean ole bigots who hate trans people & want 'em to DIE/Literal ViolenceTM /REEEEEEE"), and they really need no encouragement to keep crybullying us. Second, just from an effectiveness standpoint, I'm not sure how well simply being "anti" something ever works.

Building on this sub's sidebar, then, I think that our thrust should perhaps be opposition to gender-- or maybe (what with my reservations about the "anti" approach) advocacy of achieving freedom from gender. Championing the ideal of liberating everyone from these sex-based stereotypes (with an emphasis on the fact that they're no better than racial/ethnic stereotypes), so we can all just be who we really are. And applying this as much to "new" Tumblr-style genders as the traditional kind, since no matter how ostensibly-fun/innovative/special-snowflake they may be, such things can't help but keep the whole IDEA of gender alive. How about, rather than continuing to invent gussied-up straitjackets, we all just quit wearing straitjackets entirely?

Having said all that, though: is this too much like a specific political stance (such as GC) for a sub that officially doesn't take one? While it seems that, since traditional (male and female) gender roles prohibit same-sex attraction, we as LGB people should all be comfortable supporting this gender-free approach... I dunno.

But enough about what I think; what do you guys think?

(And if I somehow managed to screw up here, please forgive me-- this is pretty much baby's first post!)

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JulienMayfair 44 insightful - 2 fun44 insightful - 1 fun45 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I agree, but I think this group has always been political.

I would like the LGB to oppose things like 1) Unrestricted Self-ID, 2) Tracking children into transition, and 3) Transwomen in women's sports.

In terms of gender, yes, we spent the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s trying to loosen the bonds of gender roles. Then, strangely, people started wanted to put themselves back into boxes. We may need to understand why people want to put themselves back into gender boxes, even if they are new ones, rather than do without them. Has the postmodern ethos left people with such a lack of a sense of stable identity that people are returning to gender roles for a sense of stability?

[–]CleverNickName 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's a huge part of why I am just so lost and sad about the whole thing - growing up every progressive thing, from children's shows, to music, comedy, and occasionally real life too, it was all about how we're all valid the way we are, be it because of sex, ethnicity or the things we like and dislike (coffee, alcohol, clothing styles, sports, whatever).

Then it suddenly stopped, and then it flipped. I really think we need to get back to that. It was better, for everyone. Women would not be CEOs without decades of erosion of gendered bullshit. Same-sex marriage would not have been passed in most places if gender theory was taken as fact by the powers that be.
All it really achieved was a lot of in-fighting, and obviously I have no idea how to stop that. In fact, that may have largely been the point in the first place.

[–]Quixoticfutz 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Has the postmodern ethos left people with such a lack of a sense of stable identity that people are returning to gender roles for a sense of stability?

Yes, have theorised and spoken (on reddit actually) about this before and that's exactly the conclusion I arrived at. People are scrambling, the internet has simultaneously shown everyone they're not that special or different while giving undue weight to our identities. We're all scrambling for meaning.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, we all need our own Maps of Meaning..

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this group has ever been non-political. Only that, in order to accommodate a wide range of LGB people, it keeps those politics relatively neutral, affiliation-wise. And that my proposal could potentially conflict with this by verging too much on GC.

Interesting stuff that you bring up about the viability of gender-abolition as a selling point. Really made me think! How, after gender being on the wane from the 1960s-1990s, did we end up... here? With people seemingly going so far in the opposite direction as to not only enforce the old versions via surgery (on CHILDREN, yet!), but also obsessively inventing NEW ones every five minutes? Does this mean that, at least in this postmodern era, we must WANT gender roles, for whatever reason?

Sure, could be... but I suspect that the opposite is also possible.

I say this because the apparent popular embrace of gender seems contingent on a fundamental misunderstanding of what gender actually is. To the point, indeed, of painting "gender" as its opposite.

After all, how is "gender" currently presented? As a means of personal expression and fulfillment. Communicating our individual essence. A vehicle for creativity and whimsy, fun, liberation. FREEDOM.

When in fact gender is a social role in the form of sex-based stereotypes. Thus, it is socially-defined and socially-imposed (not tailored to, or chosen by, the individual). It tells people who they must, and must not, be... and (perhaps most importantly) who they must not ACKNOWLEDGE being.

So: utterly impersonal. Defined and assigned from the outside. Devoted to papering over one's real personality with a set of stereotypes: forcing you to live a lie.

Which suggests to me that what people actually value is everything that gender ain't. And that, if they knew what gender really was, they'd reject it.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Still, gender's success does kinda look less like a matter of inherent appeal than deceptive marketing, wouldn't you say?

[–]artetolife 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I agree with you. Most aspects of gender are useless and could easily be done away with, this was a focus for LGB people until the current wave of trans people came along and decided that gender roles were cool again. Even the "enbies" who think they're breaking sex-based stereotypes are actually perpetuating them, because there's no such thing as non-binary unless you assume that everyone else fits neatly into the binary (which they don't). But this group is a broad church, there are a lot of people arguing from the "traditional conservative values" perspective who probably balk at the idea of gender abolitionism.

[–]zeusdx1118 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most aspects of gender are useless and could easily be done away with, this was a focus for LGB people until the current wave of trans people came along and decided that gender roles were cool again. Even the "enbies" who think they're breaking sex-based stereotypes are actually perpetuating them

That's exactly what's happening. I'm so glad there are other people who see this though. I came here because I'm sick of the crowds of people I know who mindlessly feed into it out of a personal bias to do so, who don't see the flaws and what's wrong with it. I think there's an order to things though, and the priority #1 (Separating ourselves) should always be the first objective. even though we often discuss things which occur around that subject.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But this group is a broad church, there are a lot of people arguing from the "traditional conservative values" perspective who probably balk at the idea of gender abolitionism.

Yes, this is exactly my concern about just going full-steam-ahead on the gender-free approach.

So I've been thinking... perhaps, rather than serving as the foundation of LGB's argument, gender-abolition should figure in more as a logical implication thereof. Like this:

The foundation: asserting our identity. Who we are: what makes us LGB in the first place. And that's same-sex attraction. Meaning: our own biological sex + the biological sex of those to whom we are attracted = LGB. Thus, being LGB is inherently ABOUT biological sex; the two are inextricably linked.

It follows, then, that, with respect to LGB, "gender" is: A.] at best irrelevant; B.] at worst actively homophobic/biphobic, insofar as it undermines the very concept of biological sex.

So, by logical deduction: 1.] TQ+ doesn't belong in LGB; 2.] gender itself is often antithetical to very existence of LGB.

Constructing our strategy in this way has the virtue of retaining the opposition to gender, but making that conditional on a premise with which I think we can all agree.

How does this reformulation sound?

[–]zeusdx1118 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How should LGB actually go about dropping the T(Q+)?

Just by cutting ties completely.

I suppose if there were situations in which there's a need for formality, I think it should be stated in a way such a this. "While the LGB community expresses support for all victims of prejudice cruelty, we acknowledge our needs, interests, identities, etc, as separate and hereby distance ourselves and our involvement with others, suitably, and to provide clarity for our intentions and our presence. We define ourselves as individual and act to promote that message."

This would be a very neutral message which underlines and explains the basic point. After that, sure, posts themselves could discuss flaws in "gender theory" and why some might not like it, along with other things, and etc.

[–]midgetmetalhead19 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Personally, I like the sound of that. It sounds quite GC but that’s probably why I like it- I’m a gender critical bi woman.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Whole LGBT was about same-sex attraction. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and homosexual Transsexuals. Everyone new who is now in LGBTQ+ are in "Q" part, including transgenders, they are hijacked "T", while being "Q" in reality. It was always about removing gender roles, gender specific cloths, about acceptance, and against discrimination. It was always about "we are humans too, we are equal to you, people can be different, no need of stereotypes". To be accepted within society without discrimination and as equals.

While current TQ+ movement is mostly going against Feminism. They are not asking about being accepted, they are demanding for the world to be changed as they wish. They are demanding their own spaces in toilets and in sports, they are demanding to be able to infiltrate both women and men spaces at same time, and so on. And they are trying to return back gender stereotypes and gender roles.

I am not sure how to fight against this plague, but we must resist this neo-conversion therapy, resist Self-ID, and fight to make sure that their actions about minors/kids are actually punished (because they are doing stuff against the law, abusing and indoctrinating their children, many reasons why kids are going to "transition" is their parents being homophobes, but it is not considered as child abuse for some reason).

And because TQ+ are mostly aimed against Feminism - most Feminists (who are not neo-liberal ones, but more gender critical or radical) are actually our allies in this fight, even thought our interests are lying in different fields.

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Great idea! Have you read Gender Hurts, by Sheila Jeffreys? She's outstanding.

[–]Jamiethiel2018 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would take an enormous amount of work, but providing an alternative to HRC is a desirable long term goal.

UK has the right idea, and women there are far more organized. There are positive signs they're (all the Women's orgs & LGBAlliance) making themselves heard.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have! (& totally agree w. your assessment)

So much, in fact, that even after reading it cover-to-cover for free via my local public library, I still had to buy my own copy!

Not only for personal reference, and to support Jeffreys's work... but kind of as evidence. 'Cause how many other books are there which dare question, much less critique, the Church of Trans's sacred dogma? (And I'm NOT being rhetorical here-- genuinely asking!)

Honestly, the only other ones that I've been able to find are "When Harry Became Sally" by Ryan T. Anderson, "Galileo's Middle Finger" by Alice Dreger, and "The Madness of Crowds" by Douglas Murray. None of which really compare to "Gender Hurts", unfortunately. (The latter two aren't even about trans specifically, the former is from a conservative Catholic POV [and its second half somehow manages to undo whatever was good about its first half], and Dreger does a dismaying amount of kissing-up to the ladyfeelz-dudes [despite recounting their vile behavior towards her & others, of the type that we here are all too familiar with]).

Have you read any of these other titles, BTW? And if so, what did you think?

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I haven't read those titles, no, but Janice Raymond's "The Transexual Empire" is available for free online reading here: https://janiceraymond.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/The%20Transsexual%20Empire.pdf

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This isn't specifically a strategy for this sub, but it is an overall strategy for getting rid of the TQ+. We need to show the world how screwed up the TQ+ actually is, and what we as LGB people stand for. The attention span of today's society is remarkably short and we are glued to images. We need to see an image that boils down the whole TQ+ movement to what it truly is - an erratic, mentally ill, and unstable group of people.

[–]PainfulTruthsMatter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Personally, I think the best way to frame it is calling it out as homophobia. Lots of trans messaging is deeply homophobic. It is absolutely homophobia to shame lesbians for not wanting to fuck a heterosexual male with personal identity issues, so let's get the word out and call it for what it is.

[–]goatmeal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

bolster and strengthen homosexual communities online and offline that are at risk of being taken over by gender extremists. list and promote charities and interest groups intended to help homosexuals without pushing gender extremism. give representation to homosexuals who do not believe in gender extremism.

[–]GayNotQueer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the LGB Alliance writings -- they are very careful and astute in the way they frame their positions -- they are not against trans rights, they are FOR lesbigay spaces, because we are not transsexuals. We are homosexuals and we deserve our own spaces, too. Otherwise, that is unfairness.

[–]GayNotQueer 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They will implode to some degree based on their tactics and actions.

Gay men, in particular, have led a charm offensive, and that was very important in getting the straights who had power to support us -- we won them over.

The TRAs have no charm offensive, just offensive. They attack almost everyone, and when the straight masses realize they are being told they are transphobic and are genital fetishists because they won't sleep with transsexuals, the shit will hit the fan.