A question for CD's, from a friend of CJ's...

[CJ]

Hi all,

Thanks so much for your replies. I'll be sure to pass them on to Carole.

I think that part of the confusion, for me, lies in the double nature of sexual orientation, i.e., its subjective aspect (where personal feelings are concerned) and its more "objective" social aspect (where others will label us according to our sexual behaviours).

Delving back into Bornstein's Gender Outlaw while searching for a quotable nugget for another thread, I came upon her discussion of the difference between gays and transsexuals. She maintains that sexual orientation is a matter of whom we choose to relate to, whereas gender identity is a matter of how we choose to relate to ourselves. Although, on the face of it, I would tend to agree, when I ask myself if a gay person stranded on a deserted island would still be gay in the same way a gender-variant person would be gender-variant, I have to answer "yes." So, I have to believe there's a large element of identity in both sexual orientation as well as in gender identity and there's a large element of "relational politics" in both sexual orientation as well as in gender identity. It just ain't that clear.

I tend to view the matter at hand as does Lydia; I'm a biological male who's attracted to biological females, ergo, I'm heterosexual. If I only very slightly modify the definition to say that I'm a "social male" attracted to "social females," (or vice versa, or any possible combination to be found in Lydia's logic table, above), well, then, things get a little, uh, hairier, so to speak. Why? Because, as we well know, "social males" can be either biological males or biological females, and the same goes for "social females." Then, sexual orientation (even an allegedly "asexual" one) almost becomes a game of finding the bean under the nutshells. Ultimately, when people don't know under which nutshell they'll find the bean, they'll say, "I refuse to be labeled" or even, "I refuse to label others." I guess queers and genderqueers (such as Kate Bornstein) simply refuse to, uh, play with other people's nuts.

Love,
CJ

[Lydia]

Talk of confusion ! We are a confused, mixed, variable, undefinable, enigmatic group.

As a former taxonomist, I tried to set up some sort of classification scheme a few posts ago, and I think I failed miserably - through gross oversimplification. I even thought of generating a poll listing all the combinations and permutations, but that quickly got out of hand. Just consider a middle of the road male CD. Does he (she?) dress for pleasure, relaxation, necessity, need, obsession, compulsion? Is there a feeling of gender change when dressed? Is there a change in behavior? Is there a change in sexual preference? When you combine these variables with the broad spectrum of transgender (in the broadest sense), any attempt to classify or label becomes an exercise in arbitrary semantics.

We are what we are as individuals. Each of us has to find and define one’s own niche, and try to develop happiness in that niche. Guilt and shame have no place here, but, unfortunately, societal restrictions place limits on how we can exhibit our niche in public. For the sake of our personal relationships (spouses, children, etc.), we have to compromise - some more than others.

In the end, it is forums and chatrooms like this that enable us to express our feelings and situations. For me, this group has become an essential part of my life.

Love and Hugs,

Lydia

[Tekla]

I think Kate Bornstein is the best TG writer. She has a warmth and humor about her, and, unlike many people who write on TG issues, she is TG.

[Caith]

I guess queers and genderqueers (such as Kate Bornstein) simply refuse to, uh, play with other people's nuts.

Ah, dear CJ, you have totally cracked me up with this one.... Thank you!

[Virginia]

CJ,

I don't know that we answered Carole's question(s)? We replied to them, but answer? I don't think so. In addition, it is not likely that she would know the answer(s) were right/wrong, even if one of us hit the proverbial nail on the head!

As Lydia says, it is impossible to define each and everyone of us as we all bring something different to the table. The good thing is is that we are at the table and as long as no one yells, "food fight" we can learn from one another. As you know there are some of us here who more closely identify with others here than some others here. What I mean is based on who they say they are, we either say: yes, that's me too; or we say no, I don't ride that bull; or, toss that bull --- whatever.

I am sure we would be very interested in Carole's reaction to whatever she gleans from our "ramblings" here. She has got to know that there just is no black/white, right/wrong answer. As has been said over and over, we are who we are, we may not understand it but for most of us "it works for us!" and off we go on our "Magical Mystery Tour!"

Love ya,

Virginia

[CJ]

Hi all,

Virginia,

What you say is all too true. I'm sure that, Carole, of all people, is very well aware of the range of possible behaviours and motivations in a given individual and of the very real differences between this person and that regarding same--whether transgenderedness comes into play or not.

As Lydia has already so well pointed out, Carole's may be merely a logical (or semantic) confusion. I think she may be labouring under the widespread misconceptions that, first, people are always well aware of what their own desires and motivations are and, second, that their behaviours are always a faithful reflection of their inner, psychological states. But I beg to differ. Contrary to that popular dictum, that something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, in no way means that it always is a duck. Sometimes, it's a swan. Or a toad. In camo gear.

Carole is still on vacation right now, so I'll give this thread a few more days to grow before I print this out for her. Thanks, all of you, for your sensible input.

Love,
CJ

[Stephanie W]

CJ

Why do you--a man wanting to be or to dress as or to pass for a woman (even if you rarely do so in actual fact)--call yourself heterosexual rather than homosexual in regards to your love for women?

An excellent question, but as you can glean from the various comments here, there are no easy answers. Pretty much everything I was going to say has been covered in the various repiles, but I will add, that for me, I have to agree with those who said that regardless of our outward presentation, like it or not, we remain biologically male. Obviously, from a psychological standpoint, there are many other things going on in our heads that may not always conform to the male side of our psyche. Whether we're bi-gendered or transgendered, we are who we are, but as long as we're biologically male attracted to females, we are by definition, heterosexual.

Others may perceive differently and that's their (albeit uninformed) prerogative. That said, if we take a literal view in that if we're dressed as a female and we're attracted to another female, then yes, technically, we could be perceived as being lesbian (gay). I personally have no problem if people equate this as such but that's where it ends. As Donna said, as a male, I'm just not attracted to males so that nullifies the gay 'tag'. (no offence to gays implied btw).

Whether this has anything to do with it or not, I think most heterosexual men, regardless of whether they're crossdressers or not, would shudder at the very notion of anyone perceiving them as gay, so perhaps that may be a reason we, as transgendered persons, don't ever think about what we do in terms of being lesbian, homosexual or whatever. An interesting discussion nonetheless.

Stephanie

[Elizabeth]

Hey CJ,

Not sure how I missed this thread, but I would like to add my two cents worth. First, identifying as trassexual and attracted to females, when asked I refer to myself as a lesbian transwoman. And regardless of how Raven(SO) views her affection for me, by definition, it makes her a lesbian too.

There is however some wiggle room here. One of the things not discussed, and I won't be too descriptive here, is the manner in which one has sex. The roles we take while having sex and the sexual acts themselves. If I have sex with my wife, using my male sexual organs in the traditional male/female way, is this really homosexual sex?

On the other hand, if we were to ignore my male parts and have sex as two women would, that would be a totally different thing. So I am not so sure these labels can be attached simply within the definition of the relationship itself.

I believe this is the case with most CDers. Despite their personal feelings about their own gender identity, they engage their spouses or SO's in "normal" heterosexual relations. Having said that, I realize that many couples do experiment and even prefer a more "lesbian" approach. There are sex toys and strap on devices that allow one or both partners to be the penetrator, as it would be if there were actually two women.

This is why most CDers don't call themselves lesbians. They are not. While they may have a need to express their feminine side, their sexuality is all male and they prefer being the aggressor. In the end, our gender identity and our sexual preference really are two different things that seem to be unrelated to each other.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Virginia]

Not wishing to coop the thread, but what the hell?!

Up jumps the devil - again!

Stephanie, remember my question (on more than one occasion) about, if "one" of "us" i.e., a crossdresser were attending a party, dinner/dance; formal affair with or without our SO, and a "gentleman" were to ask one to dance - reaction???????

Does saying "no" make us anti-gay? What if the guy just did not "read" us but saw a pretty girl and wanted to dance? What if, well in my case, the guys were gay, and they asked me to dance and I did dance. Does that make me gay, or was I just being sociable. You know they read me, I mean, these guys are not only smart but remember what I said too, "these gay guys can charm your panties off!" and I don't mean literally, but they are smooth as they come and they were also perfect gentlemen. Leading me to the dance floor, keeping their hands in appropriate places and leading me back to my table and holding my chair for me. Does that make me gay? I was presenting as a woman and I was treated as such. Remember what has been previously stated, that you will find few, if any, gays who will dress as women.

Carry it a step further, what if it were a woman that asked you to dance? Or for that matter dancing with your SO in public. How is that perceived? A crossdresser dancing with "his" SO or two lesbians dancing together.

You know how I feel --"frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" at least what others think if Virginia is dancing with a guy or with a girl! If "she" is conducting herself as a lady should, then it is really no one else's business.

Yet another thing for Carole to consider, I guess.

Love,

Virginia

[Sally]

Speaking as a TS, my belief is that no matter how much I’ve wished all my life that I had been born fully female, and no matter how many hormones I take or how much surgery I have, the male part of my brain and genetic make up can never be wholly changed, and that male part of me has always, and still is attracted to the female sex. All my life, since early childhood, something inside me said that the ‘set up’ was wrong, but even though the physical self didn’t align with the psyche, there is no getting away from the fact that the male side of me can only be repressed so much by medication or cosmetic surgery. It’s something we don’t have control over, we’re born with a natural attraction to one sex or the other, (or in some cases a combination of both), and there are some things medical science cannot ever change, whether we’re dressed in men’s trousers or a dress.

I believe that I was born with the physical attributes of a male but with a female psyche. Some things can never be changed no matter how much medical science tries. I’ve found that female hormones have indeed changed many things about me, both physically and in a psychological sense, but the fact remains that the physical changes are only cosmetic and the ‘male blueprint’ remains, maybe now in a reduced degree and form, but nevertheless it’s still ‘filed’ forever. Opposite sex hormones can only achieve so much, and they certainly haven’t made any changes to my preference and sexual attraction to females. I can say in all honesty that after years of taking female hormones my love and desire for my wife has not changed one iota, in fact I may say it’s quite the opposite, and I don’t equate this to any form of lesbianism, I see it as just a natural occurrence for that part of me which is male. I may (and I do) dislike anything male about myself, but some things we have to admit to, accept and get on with it as best we can, because life’s too short and too good to try and complicate the issue any further.

I believe that we’re born with a genetic imprinted attraction, which emerges during puberty, to either the opposite sex, same sex or a combination of both, and it’s something which doesn’t change during our life, whether we’re men choosing to wear male clothes or dresses. I believe that a persons sexual preference may change during their life not because of something they suddenly decide to intentionally put into practice, but more that’s it’s something latent which comes to the surface during their life due to altered circumstances or availability in their life style etc. I’ve said this before and I say again, I believe that the percentage of people born bi-sexual is greater than that of those born heterosexual or homosexual, and some people will not readily admit to their bi-sexuality for all the usual reasons why some people keep secret their gay side, or their CD or TG side or anything more sinister.

Kind Regards,

Sally.

[Stephanie W]

Virginia

Stephanie, remember my question (on more than one occasion) about, if "one" of "us" i.e., a crossdresser were attending a party, dinner/dance; formal affair with or without our SO, and a "gentleman" were to ask one to dance - reaction???????

Yes V, I remember that discussion. I think in this case, I would agree that we shouldn't be worrying about what others are thinking. Like you, I would probably do the same in that 'formal' situation and not concern myself about what others think. While those people who don't know me might assume I (we) were gay, that is their lookout, not mine. As I alluded to in my previous post, I know who I am, as does my spouse, so that's all that should matter to both of us. In your scenario, half may see a crossdresser dancing with a female while the other half sees two females together. When all is said and done, EVERYONE in that room will see two people dancing together (and having a 'gay' old time). Perhaps getting too hung up on labels is IMHO, more akin to an exercise in semantics.

Stephanie

[Hope]

Hmmm....here we go still?

So....those women out there who wear pants, and work at typically male occupations....are they then gay because they dress and work as would a male?

Shoot people....we're just all different that's all. No, I dont consider myself gay. I'm not trapped in a male body (except of course when I have a stong desire to try on that lovely little dress in the window and can't because it's not generally accepted), and I love women.

Ain't gonna be answered here me thinks.

Sigh?

[Lydia]

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master-- that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them-- particularly verbs, they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?'
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

************************
Hugs,
Lydia

[CJ]

Hi all,

Stephanie, Elizabeth, Sally, Hope,

Thanks for chiming in, gals. Additional input is always welcome. Some of you have questioned whether such a discussion even has any merit, on the basis that it looks like another attempt to pigeonhole the "unpigeonholeable." But I think Carole's motives (as a non-gender-variant individual) are more prosaic; I may be assuming too much, here, without any direct input from Carole herself, but I think she's relating what she sees as a fairly straightforward correspondence between one's gender and one's sex with one's sexual orientation. Such a relation, as we know, has no necessary component to it.

If I can summarize, in point form, the discussion so far, it may look something like this (and please correct me if I've strayed):

Question: Why do you call yourself heterosexual if you feel you are a woman (regardless of biological sex) attracted to other women?

Elements of an answer:

1. Sexual orientation is, by definition, a matter of biological sex; you cannot extract the issue of biological sex from the equation, regardless of your gender identity.

2. The question is a result of semantic confusion; subjective feelings (attractions, desires, feelings, personal identities... how we feel about ourselves while having--or wanting to have--sex with another person) and objective reality (physiologies, social identities... how others feel about our choices as we have sex--or are sexually drawn--to other persons) are two very different considerations.

3. The question presupposes the existence of only a very few valid "points and positions" along the spectra of gender identity and sexual orientation; these spectra are not "quantic" (i.e., they're not measurable along discrete, separate points) but are, rather, fluid and continuous, so that no two human beings can have exactly the same experience of gender and sexual orientation.

4. The question is mired in the bogs of a traditional need to label and quantify, at the expense of particularity. As such, it signals the very antithesis of the celebration of individuality.

5. Just get on the floor and dance, m**********r, dance!

Heh. Well, again, thanks to all who responded. It would be fun to see what some of the other SO's (thanks, Georgia!) think about all this. I'll give the thread another two days before I print it out (or, as the thread is getting long) I might just point Carole to the appropriate web page on the forum.

Love,
CJ

[CJ]

Oh, I almost forgot. Another ingredient that can be added to the mix in search of an answer to Carole's question: what about the heterosexual, single-gendered, biological male who's sexually attracted to a MtF transperson? To the best of my knowledge, there's a large community of men out there who "admire" MtF crossdressers and transsexuals and yet will never consider themselves homosexual. Is their calling themselves "admirers" (rather than, say, "lovers") simply a ploy to focus their (and our) attention away from their "less-than-solid" heterosexuality or their latent homosexuality? Again, who the hell knows?

And what of heterosexual, single-gendered, biological females sexually attracted to MtF TG's? While, in comparison to that of men, the community of such women is microscopic, to say the least, they are nevertheless out there, too. As Anita pointed out above, men generally don't crossdress in order to attract women because women--heterosexual women, that is--usually aren't attracted to a person who presents as female, regardless of that person's biological sex. Or am I way off base, here? Contrary to male "admirers," whose "homosexuality" would remain in the shadows should they be seen publicly with a passable MtF crossdresser on their arm, a female "admirer's" apparent "homosexuality" would be brought out into the light--even though, should only biology be considered, she remained resolutely heterosexual.

Oy! Now I have a headache. Blame it on impenetrability!

Love,
CJ