Why TQI+ belong with LGB

In a recent opinion piece published in Lesbian and Gay News, Lynn Alderson wrote “Why LGBTQI+ is not a thing.” In this article I intend to put a counter argument and explain why particularly transgender people absolutely should be included. Please note: this was published in May 2021 but I had not seen it until September to be able to respond.

First off, Lesbian and Gay News, and I assume Lynn Alderson, want to be seen as serious commentators on the subject of issues affecting lesbians and gay men, so why the click bait tabloidism in the headline? “The Alphabet Soup” sets out a bias not only against the term but sets out that it is intended to vilify and ridicule the inclusive term before the piece even begins. So often supporters of L&G News and allied organisation will say “we don’t vilify anyone”, yet the language in the headline here is clearly intended to do just that.

The article then begins with the anetdote that “someone on Facebook has circulated a notice to elementary teachers in Ontario, Canada, offering training on inclusivity in relation to LGGBDTTTIQQAAP” and goes on to explain this refers to “Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous”.

Now broadly speaking (and this is my interpretation) these terms can be split into three categories (definitions in italics from lexico.com English dictionary or Stonewall Glossary:

Sexual orientation: generally considered to refer to if someone is attracted to people of the opposite sex/gender, to people of the same sex/gender, or people of both their own, and other sex/genders. The terms from the list which refer to sexual orientation are lesbian, gay and bisexual but also include people who consider themselves queer: a sexual identity that does not correspond to established ideas of sexuality and gender, especially heterosexual norms; questioning: referring to the process of, and people who are exploring your own sexual orientation and/or gender identity or asexual: a person who does not experience sexual attraction; and pansexual: a person whose romantic and/or sexual attraction towards others is not limited by sex or gender.

Gender (or sex) identity: primarily transgender/transexual but also genderqueer: a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female gender also referred to as non-binary; and Two-spirit(ed): a member of an indigenous North American people who is transgender. Perhaps somewhat controversially I will add intersex into this category too while recognising that intersex refers to a medical condition, however there is an intersection between people wishing to be able to define their own gender identity and the calls from intersex people to be able to define their own existence. This is likely the only comment I will make about intersex as I feel unable to speak for other people.

The third category is harder to give a name to, but are terms used to describe not who someone has sexual attraction to, but describes the way they experience attraction. These terms may be used in combination with terms such as gay, bi, lesbian, straight and queer. From the acronym above comes demisexual: a term used to describe people who may only feel sexually or romantically attracted to people with whom they have formed an emotional bond; and polyamorous: the practice of engaging multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.

Now, you can argue that these three groups, and even people within these groups are disparate and have different needs and rights in society. And yes you are right: everyone covered by these terms is an individual. But there is also a common factor in that everyone under the LGBT+ “umbrella” has: they are seen as different, or other, by a society which is primarily concerned with the rights of cis-hetrosexual individuals and almost without exception everyone one of these groups has been characterised at one point in time or another as being “mentally ill” because of who they are attracted to, their gender identity, or because of the way they form relationships.

Lynn Alderson sets out her philosophy in the next paragraph while (imo) rather confuses herself and everyone by introducing contradictions in what she is saying…

Identity politics are currently highly contested across all parts of the political spectrum. Part of the problem in understanding and working through these ‘debates’ is the language used and the failure to agree terms; the frequent merging and confusion around the terms sex and gender, for example, being particularly vexatious. Confusion also arises because many wildly different things are in fact being addressed collectively and, far from articulating a clear agenda, the aggregation of letters representing an ever-increasing range of life choices, preferences, orientations, sexual practices and performative gender roles is confusing and self-defeating. Indeed, as is shown above, the number of letters appears to increase at an alarming rate, and the uncritical liberal agenda is to accept it all as somehow an expansion of cool lesbian and gay rights (‘it’s all just like Section 28’), without much thought. Underpinning that acceptance is the notion that there is a much wider definition of sex, sexuality and gender than we have previously been led to believe and that anyone who doesn’t get with it is an old-fashioned bigot.

So yes… this is about “identity politics” — something that I’ve found that those opposed to rights tend to think about much more than those campaigning for rights do. (But thats a subject for another time).

In this same paragraph, we discover the root of her problem: “the frequent merging and confusion around the terms sex and gender, for example, being particularly vexatious”. In other words trans people. There is no other meaning to this statement. The reality is that sex and gender have been used to mean multiple things, sometimes interchangeable, sometimes disparate for the whole of my life time and I’m sure much longer. The “letters representing an ever-increasing range of life choices, preferences, orientations, sexual practices and performative gender roles” continues her pushing ideology to the exclusion of reality. Who is she to state the being queer or transgender or polyamorous is any more a “life choice” than her sexual orientation is?

She ironically complains that “the number of letters appears to increase at an alarming rate” while simultaneously complains that different groups have different needs. She then goes on “somehow an expansion of cool lesbian and gay rights” and finishes with criticising the “notion that there is a much wider definition of sex, sexuality and gender than we have previously been led to believe.” Does anyone who isn’t pushing an ideology really think “sex” is really as simple as if your reproductive system produces large or small gametes; “sexuality” is explained solely by if you are attracted to the fact someone produces large and small gametes; and that “gender” is just about the clothes you wear and the job you do? Its not “an expansion of cool lesbian and gay rights” as a recognition that society and the human condition is much more complex than the patriarchal systems of the victorians (and before) allowed for. As I alluded to above, it was less than 70 years ago that homosexual was regarded as a (mental) disease, it was only 20 years ago that the age of consent was equalised and since then the law has allowed same-sex couples to adopt, introduced civil partnerships and latter allowed marriage between same sex couples, recognised that the ban on ‘promoting’ homosexuality in schools was wrong; is it really surprising we are still expanding our views on what constitutes normal relationships and acceptable identities in society?

So, let’s take a look at LGBTQI+ — what does that mean? Firstly, the first two letters represent lesbians and gay men, two distinctly different groups with different agendas, cultural manifestations and histories right there.

Bi people encompass both aspects of sexuality, same-sex and straight. Their relationship with both the lesbian and gay men’s communities has been fraught over the years with frequent accusations of hostility, mistrust and of not being accepted by either community.

So already I’m a little confused… is Ms Alderson saying that we should get rid all organisations who encompass more than simply gay, or lesbian, or bisexual? That each of those sexual orientations are so different (involving men, or women, or both) that there is no point even working together at all?

She recognises that bisexual people and organisations relationship with gay and lesbian organisations has been fraught. But the answer to that is not to separate but to come closer. Lets see that no one has anything to fear from anyone else. Bi-sexual people are no more likely to cheat on a lesbian with a man, as any lesbian is likely to cheat. These are all just tropes which divide us and further the “hostility and mistrust” (which no isn’t just accused but still exists today especially from organisations who are opposed to the wider inclusion of LGBTQ+ groups). Just as there is a forced division being created by some people between those who accept trans women as part of lesbian relationships and trans men as part of gay relationships; the same people tend to push the idea that someone is only bisexual while single. The way they sneer (and you can see it in L&G News) at a bisexual woman who currently has a boyfriend commenting on LGB issues. People who talk about bisexual people as “lesbian tourists” or push the “not yet made their mind up yet”. If individuals choose not to date someone (for whatever reason) and they keep it to themselves, then no more should be said: but if they come out with divisive and bigoted comments, then they should expect to be called out on them.

But the picture painted by Ms Alderson of acceptance by society is a rather rose tinted one. There is no recognition here of the higher than average levels of suicide ideation amongst LGB people, no recognition that there still exists therapy designed to encourage LGB people to convert to heterosexuality. No recognition of the increasing levels of hate crimes motivated by homophobia. While laws may be in place to protect LGB people; society it appears does not always agree.

So yes … LGB belong together.

Then we come to the T. Transgender identity is not about sexuality at all. It does not speak to sexuality — a transgender person may identify as gay, straight or in any other way they chose in relation to their sexuality. Transgender is what it says on the tin, however, essentially about gender expression, and defined as a condition in which the person’s gender identity (which many see as somehow innate) is different from their natal sex.

Both lesbian and gay men have always challenged those stereotypes by their very existence, making it evident that one can be a ‘feminine’ man or a ‘masculine’ woman. And by the way, in this piece I am using the common definitions of man and woman as meaning man and woman.

So much to unpick in these couple of quotes. First off, there is no meaningful difference between transsexual and transgender. Oh there are certain people who will use statements like “of course I’m transsexual” trying to separate themselves from … well you’ll have to ask them who they are trying to separate themselves from … but there is essentially no difference. Being transgender is NOT about gender expression; being non-binary is NOT the same as being androgynous or gender non-conforming. This is a common misconception pushed either through ignorance or malice by those campaigning against transgender inclusion.

A trans woman is NOT the same as a feminine man.

A trans man is NOT the same as a masculine women.

Indeed the whole concept of looking “feminine” or “masculine” and that lesbian and gay men challenge sex stereotype is both sexists and (imo) homophobic, in that it plays into the idea that in a “homosexual” relationship one partner is the “man” and one the “woman”.

Transsexuals (people who have usually undergone surgical and chemical transition), however, are not currently included in the Stonewall list of letters, and indeed are often despised by adherents of gender ideology and trans rights activists because many transsexuals have made it clear that they do not agree with the current preoccupations and ambitions of the gender identity lobby.

Many also resent the current wide definition of trans in which they are supposedly included alongside cross-dressers and those who chose to go through no form of transition — many transsexuals feel that that demeans and misrepresents their experience. So even the T is referring to very different viewpoints, practices and identities.

First off, to be “transsexual” you do not have to have undergone surgical and chemical transition. Indeed using a legal definition (from the Equality Act 2010) a transsexual is anyone who “is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” This was an explicit change from the previous 1999 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act which required someone to be under medical care before they were protected.

Transsexual people ARE included under the Stonewall “list of letters” because that list includes ‘trans’ which Stonewall states includes ‘transsexuals’. They may chose to reject the rights campaigning which the vast majority of transsexual (to use your own definition) people support: but that is there choice if they feel they are excluded.

You state that some reject “gender ideology” but actually that’s nonsense: for someone to have a diagnosis that they are transsexual, they HAVE to have a gender identity. Literally the diagnosis (in ICD10 and 11 as well as DSM-IV and DSM-5) state that someone is transsexual – specifically suffers from Gender Dysphoria (DSM-5); Gender Identity Disorder (DSM-IV and ICD10); or Gender Incongruity (ICD11) – requires that there is a conflict between you gender identity (experience gender in ICD11) and you assigned/natal sex.

You know what: everyone has a gender identity. A gender identity is just an inherent knowledge of your sex, independent of your physiology. Most people are completely at ease with their physiology, however trans people are not. That is why they make changes.

Now I actually agree that Stonewall’s definition could be worded better/more clearly, however they do NOT state that crossdressers (people who occasionally wear the ‘clothes of the opposite sex’ – yes clothes do n0t have a gender) should be included under the trans umbrella. They say that people under the trans umbrella *may* call themselves crossdressers:

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

Trans women are women; trans men are men does not mean that people think there are no biological differences. Trans people — ALL trans people — are acutely aware of the biological differences. But trans people struggle for acceptance in a society which rejects them, just as it rejected and much of society, if not legally, still rejects

The images that are often used to represent the T in the media are of fey young people, so frail that they may commit suicide if not allowed to go onto drugs, hormones and possibly surgery. Pictures rarely used, however, are the predatory looking middle-aged men who are self-identifying as women in prison, or haunting lesbian dating sites.

I was going to ignore this… but really I can’t. I’m sure Ms Alderson would say she’s not transphobic, but how does she square this with the above? First off, almost every article about trans people in the last 5 years in the press has either involved pushing the notion that health care for trans youths is “conversion therapy” or has been highlighting one of half a dozen cases of trans women who are criminals. The truth is that amongst trans women (and men), like all groups, have some people who are criminals and yes, some have committed sexual assaults or worse – no one either ignores that nor excuses them. But to refer to these two stereotypes of trans people is vilification of trans people.

So do transsexual/transgender people belong under an “umbrella” with sexuality? To answer that I am going to return to something Ms Alderson said a little earlier in her piece. While talking about gay men and lesbians she wrote:

many lesbians and gay men have been infuriated by Stonewall’s autocratic dictat that homosexuality is no longer a valid concept, but must be replaced by same-gender attraction. As a consequence, we have seen the founding of many new LGB and lesbian organisations both here and abroad, based on same-sex attraction, and a bitterly fought rejection of such notions as the ‘female penis’ or that ‘men can be lesbians’ and must be accepted into lesbian spaces and their sexual practices.

“many” doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

First off, Stonewall’s glossary is not an “autocratic dictat” … it is a glossary which reflects how Stonewall believes words are typically used. A lot has been said about this, but a few things: while the word is “homosexual”, and so many people consider it refers exclusively to sex with people of the same biological sex, it was coined in a time when the concept of gender separate from sex simply did not exist. The first known use of the term was in 1892, in C. Chaddock’s translatio of Krafft-Ebbing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis”. Around the same time alternatives were suggested such as “homogenic” and the term homosexual replaced a previous clinical term “sexual inversion”). It wasn’t until the mid 1960s that John Money came along and proposed the idea of gender being separate from sex. So if Krafft-Ebbing came across a trans man in a relationship with a trans man would he have considered him homosexual? Who really knows. What can be said is that the late 19th century was a very different place from the early 21st century where we are currently discussing this; so is exactly what Krafft-Ebbing and clinicians before him thought (and note these were terms explicitly used in the pathologising homosexuality which for much of the 19th century and the century before had be referred to as “unnatural love” alongside pederasty and incest) really of anything more than academic interest.

So we return to the glossary and its purpose: to describe the usual meaning of words in todays society: I believe that trans people have generally been included in LGB ‘spaces’ and organisations *as* their gender identity for the 25+ years I have been involved in LGBTQ+ communities. Trans women have generally been accepted as women and lesbian; trans men have generally been accept as men and gay. The people (IMO) who are trying to redefine terms are those who have in the last 5 or so years started to rely on a “same-sex attraction” definition – a term *no one* used in LGB communities before then. While there has been the founding of *some* new groups in the U.K. and around the world purporting to be “LGB” and “lesbian” focused, the reality is that many of them feature the same people or are simply Twitter and Facebook accounts with perhaps a Wordpress based website. How many people support these organisations is also an unknown quantity? And how many of those who do support them are actually LGB? These groups have done very little to actually focus on LGB or lesbian issues either; they are all focused on the rejection of gender identity and the claim that gender identity and the acceptance of trans women as lesbians and trans men as gay is “homophobic”.

Can trans women be lesbian? Absolutely.

Can trans men be gay? Absolutely.

That’s all Stonewall say. No one should be called transphobic because they have no interest in dating trans people, but to assert that because of your sexuality trans people should be excluded is transphobic.

So back to the question: should trans* be included under the banner, even without considering that somewhere around 95% of trans people also identify as LGB (or another minority sexual orientation) – meaning trans women attracted to other women, trans men attracted to other men – yes. As Ms Alderson has shown here, there is a lot of stigma over trans people’s sexual orientation. This aligns and allies trans people with other LGB people in the fight against enforced “normality”. The irony is that in trying to separate LGB from T, organisations have actually shown why trans rights and sexual orientation rights are as intertwined as ever.

This denial of homosexual rights, the right to define and determine our own lives, has been a step too far for many. The irony of Stonewall’s origins in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights is not lost on us.

The real irony is that, in claiming Stonewall is seeking to “deny homosexual rights, the right to define and determine our own lives” they are doing to other people what they claim (erroneously) others are doing to them. They are seeking to define other people’s sexual orientation on the narrow terms they use for themselves, rather than accepting that the wider definition includes them already. Stonewall’s origins were not narrowly in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights, but the right for all LGBTQ+ people to live their lives free from prosecution and persecution, a struggle which involved not only gay men and lesbians, but trans people too. Stonewall hasn’t betrayed people like Ms Alderson, Ms Alderson has betrayed Stonewall.

Non binaries, as I understand it, reject the binary of male and female gender stereotypes. Again, this is about gender non-conformity, is closely akin to what used to be called androgyny, which again is not about sexuality or sex, but the expression of a, possibly fluid or changing, social identity.

Well, you’ve totally misunderstood non-binary, Ms Alderson.

And then we come to Q which sometimes represents queer, and sometimes questioning. Does ‘questioning’ just mean people who are thinking about things, sex, gender, sexuality, whatever? Those who haven’t made up their minds yet?

Inclusion in this list suggests that the right to be allowed to question and change is a right that is lacking. Don’t all young people question their identities? In what ways do they not have this right? Or does it just mean that whoever you are, you can be included in the list of special people?

It does: and surely it’s important that those who are questioning have a space to come and explore and ask questions in a non-judgemental environment.

And yes, absolutely at times the right to be allowed to question is lacking: perhaps you heard of something colloquially known as Section 28. Yes it’s ended, but groups that I suspect you support and perhaps even are directly involved in are campaigning to stop LGBT inclusive PSHE.

So again: definitely included.

The umbrella term often used to identify the whole community is ‘queerness’ which currently. seems to mean, not necessarily being lesbian or gay, but anyone who doesn’t see themselves as ‘straight’.

This is another form of fuckwittery given that the origins of the term lie in the abuse of lesbians and gay men.

Have you ever listened to yourself “another form of fuckwittery”. Are you, and this publication, really expecting to be taken seriously.

Yes, queer (which does generally mean someone who is not heterosexual but doesn’t want caught up in having to use the terms dictated to them) does have its roots in abuse of lesbian and gay men: but then homosexual has its roots in the pathologising of being gay as mentally ill; gay itself has often been used as a term of abuse (in the 1980s it was always the term of abuse used). It’s not however (as you call it) an umbrella term in that it applies to everyone who is LGBTQ+. Yes, I get that YOU don’t want to be referred to as queer, but many gay men, lesbians, bi sexual people, etc. do feel it’s a term they wish to use. The more I read, the more your arguments are simply “I don’t approve”.

I’m not sure where your “There are for example, male and female couples who describe themselves as queer because they don’t think they conform to gender stereotypes.” comes from; but what does it harm you if a couple who publicly appear heterosexual wish to describe themselves as queer?

This broad use of the term also depends on a denial of biological or material reality. A male and female in a sexual relationship are, of course, heterosexual, and we all know which one will get pregnant if they don’t use birth control – no matter who is wearing the nail varnish or who is on the bottom. Indeed, we could also ask ‘how straight is straight?’ Men and women’s experiences of being heterosexual are markedly different and can’t be usefully addressed as a simple or singular thing.

A denial of biological reality: another of those meaningless dog whistles. A male and female in a sexual relationship may be heterosexual, however they may be bisexual. Forming a monogamous relationship doesn’t stop a bisexual person being bisexual. Relationships however are not simply about “who will get pregnant”… most adults are able to deal with that question separate from “who do I love”.

But all through the article Ms Alderson talked about allowing lesbian and gay men to define their own sexuality, while simultaneously seeking to deny other people the right to define their own sexuality.

On intersex people: yes, intersex generally refers to medical condition and is only an adjunct to gender identity. But many of the calls of the transgender community echo or are echoed by members of the intersex community. Some people with intersex conditions may decide they do not feel represented or even want to be included under LGBTQ+; but equally many more do.

Polyamory, demisexual and asexual: people who identify as polyamorous, as demisexual or asexual again are bucking the cis-heterosexual normality of society. For example almost all polyamorous relationships will include an element of same sex contact even if it’s two men who are interacting with one women but not with each other. The point is that the LGBTQ+ moniker supports any form relationship so long as it is consensual and non-abusive.

Lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, transgender people, queers, and everyone else under the LGBTQ+ umbrella has much more in common than divides us. Our needs are not identical: just as the needs of a “lesbian feminist activist […] currently involved with Labour Women’s Declaration and Lesbian Labour [who] doesn’t have any cats” has very little in common with a 17 year old lesbian who was beaten black and blue by her mother and kicked out of home after being caught kissing her girlfriend. The point is, that we ally ourselves against the cis-hetro normality forced on us by society. We have our own issues, but we should be able to empathise with each other, we shouldn’t be at each other’s throats.

You can join the alliance, help fight and improve rights for all – LGB; trans; women – or you can join with the patriarchy in resisting trans rights, and give them the power to strike at LGB and women’s rights.