Thursday, March 30, 2023

LGB Without T?


I'm not saying I'm on board with the so-called LGB Without the T sentiment that is currently trending on Twitter. But as someone who has edited a lot of business copy, I've learned that many companies that become too bloated do indeed blossom when they split in two, allowing them become more focused and better-equipped when they specialize in what they're doing. 

Of course, this will never go anywhere because it's mainly fueled by strange (read: ugly, name-calling) bedfellows I don't want anything to do with: No, the trans community is not "sexualizing children," "mutilating minors" or "betraying the gay community." 

Read why a transgender power-lifter wasn't too happy when a self-identified woman went up against her in Alberta HERE

But sexuality and gender identity are two entirely different things. And biology is real, which is why I find it baldly disingenuous that so many smart people who beg everyone to "believe in science" seem to say otherwise here. Ultimately, though, being a gay man or lesbian woman has nothing to do with people who are neither genders (or both) and/or people who desperately need medical intervention to be their authentic selves. So it's unfortunate that we can't get gender-diverse people the specialized medical and political allies they need, stat. 


Bill M. said...

Doesn't your identifying/defining yourself as a cis-gender gay male tell you that there is a broad gender spectrum for homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals? (Also for straights.) It is those who don't conform to the prevailing norms who are most at risk. Trans, non-binary, and others who are the TQIA2S are generally the most visible gender outliers and therefore the most vulnerable and at risk.

Where you see a clear distinction between two groups (LGB, TQIA2S,) most do not. Especially not those trying to outlaw trans and gay rights (and ultimately trans and gay people.) And while it would be ideal that there are enough resources that the LGB and TQIA2S communities could have enough allies and support on their own to focus on those issues most affecting them, this is nowhere near the reality. We are caught up together fighting ignorance and aggressive legislation. We, all of us. Right down to the white, urban, middle class, cis-gender, married gay man.

I generally love your posts and have been reading your blog daily for over a dozen years. But this take seems out of touch and dangerous, the start of a slippery slope toward who gets to be part of a community, whose issues matter enough. If anyone can provide more nuance to support my stand, please do.

Bill M.

Kenneth M. Walsh said...

@Bill M: The fact that you're, I don't know, put off(?) by my saying I DON'T agree with the motivation of this movement (hateful) -- I blog about things happening in the LGBT community and noticed it was trending so thought I would address -- and that I WISH gender-variant people had BETTER resources seems out of touch and dangerous, the start of a slippery slope toward paranoia.

(Please don't write back. I have a busy workday and don't have time for this silliness.)

Sandy said...

Kenny dear. when are you going to learn that any deviance from the orthodoxy - even perceived - gets the Virtue Signaling crowd out in full force? lol

Unknown said...

As far as I can tell, Ken, you didn't identify/define "yourself as a cis-gender gay male" -- Bill M. did so. Which is part of the problem in this discussion -- "cis" is an invented term created so there can be a complementary "other" for "trans." Previously, "cis" is what was once known as the "normal" standard at birth. But what was once normal is now an imposed identity from those who declared (and made themselves) apart. It's all very curious (and somewhat infuriating).