Politics and us – have we a voice ?

[JaneS]

Pamela’s post, and subsequent posts, highlights to me one of the ‘problems’ of this whole debate, that being “If we did have a voice what do we want it to say?”

It is a simple fact that no organisation can wholly represent the views of all members for each member in their own way has different attitudes to issues. Whilst individually we can put forward our own views and champion a greater cause it is hazardous to too frequently declare “we” in any argument when what is being stated may just be a personal attitude. If there is consensus in discussions between members of a group, such as the questions being raised in this thread, then a ‘we’ position can be taken in advancing an argument. Without such consensus though there is a real risk of individuals actually contradicting each other (an example of which has been mentioned) and so weakening a cause.

I am all for individual action and often take such action myself but I am always careful to phrase my comments to indicate a personal attitude, belief or understanding. It is not for me to speak for others without their consent or cooperation.

Perhaps, for those of us inclined to take individual action (and by such actions possibly helping the cause but preserving a personal situation) we need some sort of guideline. I would suggest that as a minimum when ‘we’ put forward views and comments, especially to those outside our community, we highlight the fact that we are speaking as indivuals. Like any other force of numbers, if enough individuals convey the same messages then strength in a movement (or cause) is observed. If individuals do not convey the same message then perhaps there is no cause.

I would like to point out, though, that my comments are in no way meant as a criticism of anyone who has already taken individual action, be it in writing or in personal interaction, for they have at least taken a stand.

[Anonymous]

Catherine, could you please clarify your point a) (below)

Catherine you said;

Quote:

a) If I’m to be drawn into the “royal ‘We,'” I wish to have no association with the Transgender/Transexual community in any way, shape or form

I am not totally clear why you feel this way, could you please explain this further? I don’t want to guess & possibly misunderstand your position.

Jane wrote;

Quote:

It is a simple fact that no organisation can wholly represent the views of all members for each member in their own way has different attitudes to issues.

On this I definitely agree & therefore my next comments are not in any way a challenge.

Catherine wrote;

Quote:

b) The comment with respects to, no known cure, stands in contradiction to a topic started here some time ago, requesting Medicare recognition of GID in its many forms. Again at a Federal level. (Somewhat counter productive to presenting a “United Front” on the issue)

c) and further to point (b), you are in grave danger of alienating a respectable portion of the community, that are spending an inordinate amount of time, money, resources and effort in seeking well proven forms of remediation for GID. Some of which place the individual well within the spectrum of the law with respects to marriage.

It is not my intention to discuss here (but I will elsewhere) my own position on GID as a diagnosis (for all gender diverse people) but Catherine’s quote clearly shows a difference in how some of us would explain ourselves.

I’d be very surprised if it hasn’t been said before but on the points that Catherine is alluding to, I wonder if we can have a united front. Our needs & issues clearly overlap, whether they sit side by side though is unclear.

Catherine also wrote;

Quote:

d) To suggest “we are happy living between two worlds” further compromises and undermines the respectable effort referred to in point (b) and I would strongly disagree that the state of supposed ‘happiness,’ could exist, in an environment of personal, and sometimes profound compromise.

This statement is one I can comment on. It also shows up this difficulty that Jane has written of.

Quote:

Without such consensus though there is a real risk of individuals actually contradicting each other (an example of which has been mentioned) and so weakening a cause.

Catherine’s (totally legitimate) position made in her point d) is in contradiction to my personal gender position. I am not challenging it because I understand her intent but it is at odds with my relative comfort as a gender diverse person who according to medical/psychological diagnosis is not transexual & also not intending to present (totally) as one or the other of the binary genders.
To explain, I here interpret ‘compromise’ as relating to the issue of swapping from one accepted gender pole to the other. Because I fundamentally hold a different view for myself, I am at odds with Catherine’s view. I don’t believe it is necessary to determine if one or both are right or wrong but it does pose a problem with the ‘united front’

I echoe Jane’s words & extend them to this conversation;

Quote:

I would like to point out, though, that my comments are in no way meant as a criticism of anyone who has already taken individual action, be it in writing or in personal interaction, for they have at least taken a stand.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to sound too naive, but it would seem to me that if the law wasn’t a problem for any individual in this group, then the cause which we have been discussing and any subsequent actions would have no relevance to those individuals either.

I am merely including anyone who genuinely wants the law changed because of their needs. Obviously Transsexuals don’t need the law changed because they fit the criteria outlined by it. But anyone else who is comfortable just being Transgendered and living within these two worlds is adversely affected by the law, these are the people encompassed by the “Royal we”.

It seems odd to me that anyone who has no need of this type of action would want to include themselves in the debate at all. It seems so counter productive too include yourself, when you feel as though you don’t need to be a part of it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I don’t want to sound too naive, but it would seem to me that if the law wasn’t a problem for any individual in this group, then the cause which we have been discussing and any subsequent actions would have no relevance to those individuals either.

A couple of points come to mind;

1. If by ’cause’ you mean same sex marriage then;

a) posting on that subject should be in that thread to avoid confusion.

b) If my point 1. is correct then I think we are getting to a point of crossed purposes. e.g. my idea of a ‘voice’ would include the needs of those finding themselves already in or wanting to be in same sex marriages but to me the ‘voice’ encompasses much broader issues than just same sex marriage.

c) Further to point b), based on the TgR survey results, the majority of people here have no need for same sex marriage rights. I am not dismissing the subject but if it is important to individuals then it would probably be better addressed independently of this particular conversation. It is a subject that does not directly impact on the majority of gender diverse people (as things are currently are understood).

Quote:

Obviously Transsexuals don’t need the law changed because they fit the criteria outlined by it

I think it would be fruitful to discuss this point further but imagine that (admin) would prefer it to happen in the same sex marriage thread. There appears to be misunderstanding of the circumstances for TS people in regards to this subject.

Quote:

It seems odd to me that anyone who has no need of this type of action would want to include themselves in the debate at all.

I think this point also needs some discussion (again in the appropriate thread) as it again suggests some misunderstanding amongst us.

Another subject that maybe should be touched on again, definitely in another thread is the issue pertaining to this particular comment;

Quote:

Some Transgendered people go on to become Transsexuals

I think before any of us write to the ‘powers that be’, we should clearly understand the various positions held on subjects where contentious views exist. The comment above is one such subject.

[Anonymous]

First point I would say actions taken individually will irrespective of there content be viewed as individual comments by most but in the wrong hand difference and contradictions can be used as a reason to disregard the discussed matter completely.

We the people who are gender diverse often endeavor to own a definition of who we are , likely stemming from years of feeling ill defined. The truth is it really does not matter to define every last details of who we are and how we fit in. If we dwell on our understanding of our selves in comparison with everyone else we will be wallowing in our differences for ever.

What this does is prevent us from developing our community voice . If we set aside that which is different and focus on the common threads that bind us we will find community and we will develop a strong and coherent VOICE . The problem remains .

If we were all if you like singing from the same song book our requirements will be better understood and then likely addressed. So as I have said previously we need to organise. For any reading here who have not followed the whole thread go back and read the A GENDER AGENDA post some pages back it shows how things can be achieved with an organised efforts . It also shows how a lack of community still exists in Australia, things will happen wether you like it or not , to be heard you need to have a voice.

[Anonymous]

The law that I was referring to actually deprives a person born Transgendered of the right to call themselves Transgendered in any legal sense. I believe that it is our birthright to be able at least to call ourselves by a name that properly describes us, but we are denied this in any legal meaning of the word.

The only way you can legally call yourself Transgendered appears to be after you have undergone GRS etc. No I’m not going into details you all know what I mean.

This also means that as Transgendered people with no legal right to call ourselves by that name, we are not covered by the anti discrimination laws, EEO, medical facilities or anything else which may arise in a legal sense if we want to describe ourselves as Transgendered.

This is why I feel that we need to address this shortcoming in our legal system and very soon as we are in an election year, and may be able to get something done if we can organise ourselves quickly, and develop a loud voice to put forward our views.

[Catherine]

Thank you Pamela for pointing out the specific law that causes the concern. I was unaware of its existance.

It’s quite an interesting and valid point you raise, and by which certainly needs to be addressed.

From my own personal standpoint it bears little consequence. I have always viewed my GID to be temporary and correctable. Hence I’ve put into action, all the requirements of law to be legally defined as a female. By the end of 2013, I will have satisfied all prerequisites and be eternally happy to live the rest of my life as a woman. Female by gender and law, but not genetics. A minor imposition.

But that is my own personal opinion and plan.

Huggs
Catherine

[Anonymous]

Well I attended a meeting this evening at South Australias parliament house . Wednesday evening and found it well represented by our local transgender community. After listening to the discussion and popping in a comment here and there it was apparent that the very notion of a missing community voice was as present as ever. The voices were of value and points were well presented but it was obvious there was no structure to the hole thing. It was definitely a worthy exercise and worth repeating how ever it was the lack of community communications that prevented discussion being focused and poinient to the issue of transgender law reform.
It is clear to me that this lack of a coherent voice is something that will severely limit the effect of pressure for change as all to often the subject was neglected for other comment. I did indeed bring this point to the attention of the meeting and the member of parliament to which Tammy Franks agreed and said the loudest squeak gets the grease. What was also clear is that there is a lot of education required in our community, in the medical fraternity, in bureaucracy and the community at large.
So the voice needs coherence to squeak loudest.

[Anonymous]

I’ve just had another serendipitous encounter…
I have just consulted to a client who having listened to my comments pertaining to the issues facing Tg people, advised me that they are an executive producer for Ben Fordham of the Sydney Live program on 2GB. Apparently Ben Fordham is a very strong supporter of, in particular, Gay rights, marriage equality etc. My client feels quite confident that Ben would be very interested in discussing Tg issues in a supportive way.

Yet another lead to be pursued.
There are many opportunities for understanding, acceptance, education etc but only if people know that we exist & what our needs are. If you don’t tell them, they certainly aren’t going to be able to help.

[Anonymous]

I am a little perplexed. Though there have been many veiws of this subject there is a definite lack of interest in speeking on the matter. I fear this bone I chew that has been chewed before I suspect is going to continue to lay still until it is fossilised.
It is true that there are those among us who are activists and those who are passive but in order for this wheel to squeek it needs to have a deeper resonance to heard at the highest levels.

Now changing the world will not occur on the forums, but the voices of the many will give guidance to the activists amongst us and then the actions will better reflect our community as a whole. It is ok for us to say what we will or what we may do but with out clear community support for any particular direction it will be like flying blind.

There is an inherent lack of spirit I feel in the greater gender diverse community it has produced a circumstance where by the we can be ignored. We are ignored by medicare when it comes to necessary surgeries and in the mental health systems when we need psychological support. Our community groups are not generally funded, so as small self supporting organisations are all but powerless. I’m fairly sure it is a result of general ignorance in the greater community that has lead us to bend ourselves to fit the stereotypical lives others believe are right , so with years of preconditioning we learned to keep our difference to ourselves. Then we come out and we are to be seen and not heard.

Although everyone has their own problems and a lot of us are still hidden it is is still our obligation to our own future to take opportunities to improve our own futures. If it is solely the domain of activists the the results may fail the community as a whole.

The recent round table discussion I attended was and unfortunate demonstration of how the lack of communication in the community dilutes a coherent message. It would be near impossible to get support for ourselves as the community exists in so many little groups whom have limited contact if any. I have posted on the Facebook page of the round table meeting calling for greater communication to foster a stronger community and the response is lets admit underwhelming.

It is often difficult to organise small groups over great distance but if the efforts are made the effect could be staggering. A unification of our voices will give us the volume to be heard. The input of the many to the few can give credibility and clarity to the the requests and arguments put to the powers that be.

Are you hearing me? Are you with me? I want to hear you!

Many have gone before and many have failed to carry the banner alone, let us succeed where the past has failed , let us as a community carry OUR banner to the hill.

Hang on I’ll just get off this high horse lol.

[Anonymous]

I initially raised the question as to if we in this community have a voice, the interest was there in the discussion which indicated we have something to say. All to quickly the fire faded , the embers likely still glow but there is barely a puff of smoke to indicate continued interest.

It would seem that the voice has no real stamina there by little chance of making any difference. Opportunities fade very quickly in this world and my lament is that when there is a chance to get action in the political sphere, when there’s a compliant political atmosphere we will be unprepared as a community to make best use of it. The sad fact is we may not get to many chances to have a real say in our future.

I know there are individuals and small groups active in pursuing matters of relevance but the fact is they don’t present a unified front and therefore our community doesn’t push with the weight it likely could. We I guess only have ourselves to blame if we miss out.

[Anonymous]

I have recieved a reply to letter to the Federal MP, and it came through a phone call from the LGBTI. My MP has asked them to research the matter for him as he was not really adequately informed on the subject to give me a suitable response. I explained MY position to them with regard to the Anti Discrimination Laws, and that I felt that the best alternative was to approach the problem at a Federal level, rather than try to fix all the different State Laws.

I am hoping that this is a serious attempt to rectify the laws as they stand and not just an elaborate way to fob me off, and hopefully this means that we can have a voice if we keep trying.

[Anonymous]

In a currently active thread about ‘coming out- who to tell’, an apparent divide has become obvious, those who would come out & those who emphatically state they wouldn’t.

Those who would come out are obviously in the minority.
I would posit a theory that this thread about our ‘community voice’ may have made little ground due to the above mentioned outcome.

If the majority of people don’t believe they would ever live their transgender fulltime, then they would have less motivation to care about a community voice or be politically motivated.

[Adrian]

Quote:

…
Those who would come out are obviously in the minority.

I’m not sure why you think it is obvious. In the TgR Survey only 13% have told no-one else. Which I guess somewhat undermines the theory.

Interesting that a relatively large group of people is out enough to come to Katoomba this weekend and discuss as a group the issues facing transgender people. But the overlap with those who discuss the issue in the relative safety of the forums is very small. Read into that just what you will – another apparent divide perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m not sure why you think it is obvious. In the TgR Survey only 13% have told no-one else. Which I guess somewhat undermines the theory.

Incorrect (or maybe incomplete) wording on my part & I stand corrected. I was in fact thinking (but as stated, got it wrong) more about those that would come out & live that way ie; social transition.

I am not suggesting I am right in my understanding/definition of ‘coming out’, it is likely a consequence of my coming out & transitioning being one & the same exercise.
All I was constructively suggesting was & I quote myself;

Quote:

If the majority of people don’t believe they would ever live their transgender fulltime, then they would have less motivation to care about a community voice or be politically motivated.

It was just a thought – I’m sorry I bothered.