Some labels do not include trans in the definition

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Linus

Fair enough in Grant using trans in his definition (I did miss it when I read through the thread a few times). And I saw the apology (it took me a while to forge this thread so I think it's a timing thing) you posted after I finished this. I do apologize for not seeing that "trans" in the first post. I can definitely see how that could be confusing.

It's not meant to be an affront but rather a starting point for everyone. It is something that I've seen some men and women go through. I've talked with some who are really upset at being even slightly referenced as trans and I think it is something that is valid to discuss. Even for some trans individuals (myself included) we do this. We get wrapped in the idea that if you are changing the external then you must be trans. And that isn't always a valid way of looking at things.

I appreciate that you weren't trying to be disrespectful. And I recognize that not everyone has been part of the groups I have been, which is why I think it's worthwhile to discuss these things. We had those very discussions in those groups. Do you not think that it would be worthwhile?

And perhaps it is my issue that is at the forefront but I do not believe that it diminishes the importance of having the discussion.

What if they don't list it? What if they don't identify specifically? Do you (I mean general you of everyone here at BFP) think "trans" first and then woman/man?

Linus, thank you sincerely for taking the time to look over what transpired. I very much appreciate it.

I think it is an important topic and actually the above interaction only illustrates how much so.

For myself having been a butch lesbian queer dyke my whole life who has questioned almost daily whether or not I was mis-assigned or am "trans" this has been a very hard issue to wrap my head around.

I have gone through every possible scenario in my head of what it would mean for me to transition and it makes my head seriously want to explode. One on hand, having been "me" and been a part of the dyke community all of my life ( saving early childhood), it would feel like I am no longer a part "of" the hugely dysfunctional but familiar "family" I have always known. For me, it is still difficult to understand where "trans" ends and "man" starts in regard to how I would view myself in the queer community.

I view the men I know who were born in the wrong body and transitioned to the "correct" one, very clearly as MEN. I don't even understand the use of "trans" in descriptor unless it is early stage transitioning OR in the more ethereal sense of "transcendent" , meaning they are biologically one but not seeking to physically alter. "Trans" in this latter sense, meaning androgynous.. or having both aspects or neither. Does that make sense?

When I attempt to place myself in the shoes of the men who have transitioned I am awed, humbled, confused and often pained at what they may have had to endure to reach their decision to just "be".

I think it is very difficult for some of us ( self included) to understand where in the b-f dynamic "men" fit. I think sometimes that is why so many of the "gender" arguments come about. For me, I have always defined b-f as butch and femme females. I guess I naively think that once someone transitions to male, they don't really fit "b-f", because.. well... they are a man... This does not exclude them from the LGBT community, but in my tiny little brain, it just doesn't fit butch-femme. It is a different dynamic. It is man-woman or man-man or what have you. Not many men need to be described as butch, I guess.

I don't know if any of that makes any sense, but please know I am attempting to have an authentic heartfelt discussion about this. I don't know how to make all of the choices or preferences make sense. I am just trying.

Thanks again, it IS indeed a very worthy topic.