“Marriage equality” versus same sex marriage (for transgenders)

One of the latest trends among those who shove the transgender religion down our throats is this mysterious notion that the phrase “marriage equality” is somehow different than the slightly older term “same sex marriage”.  This represents not only an affront to all post-corrected transsexual people, but is a reinterpretation of the political phrase itself as envisioned by the gay and lesbian political groups who coined it.

The chief proponent of this new interpretation of “marriage equality” is of course Autumn Sandeen.  In fact, I am not sure if anyone else currently has the temerity to reinterpret this central issue of gay politics without consulting anyone involved, but if there is one person who feels entitled to do so it would be Ms Sandeen.

This is the issue:  Transsexual people, by and large, do not feel that the same sex marriage debate  is our fight.  We argue that our current sex as reflected by genitals and other somatic criteria should be the standard by which we are judged.  The balance of traits that we posses is that of the sex to which we transitioned, and this obviates the need for our involvement with the gay and lesbian cause on this point.  There is of course much more to reticence of the 50,ooo+ post operative transsexuals who decline to engage or publicly accept this GLBT activism, but that is the basic premise.

The attack upon the status and lives of transsexual people takes the following basic form:  You are transgender regardless of what you think.  Therefore anyone who rises up in the activist ranks of the GLBT has the right and duty to speak for you.  Because *I* (the activist) view all things as a form of gender transgression, and I also take (tacit) the essentialist position that a person is their genitals at birth, you are not really the sex you say you are.  Therefore all your marriages are same sex by default, and fair game for my politics.  Pursuant to the need to continue the imprisonment of transsexuals in the gay ghetto, I the transgender activist will create a new category out of the existing terminology.  “Marriage equality” is not another name for the former “same sex marriage”; it is a term that encompasses same sex marriage as well as transgender marriages.

This would be quite a leap for anyone outside of the trans* ghetto, but it is par for the course within.  The chief proponent of this latest propaganda, in the transgender world, is Ms Sandeen, though the sentiment is widely held among the transgender who believe they are transsexual. (That last is an important point that needs to be discussed soon, blog posts will follow)  It all boils down to the notion that transsexual is part of transgender, and transgender is a form of being gay.  In essence, the only difference between gay and transgender is the clothes.  That may be the real problem here;  the TG/trans* activists hold the same bigoted views about sex as the people they claim to be fighting against.  Here is what Ms. Sandeen has to say on the topic:

“Marriage equality is the header that the LGBTQ community has for our community issues related to marriage. The solution to those common and related problems involve solutions that provide the results of the freedom to marry whomever one loves to all LGBTQ people, which includes the recognition of the gender identities of transgender people, transsexual people, and people who identify as both transgender and transsexual.”

“I know I say this over and over again: marriage equality is very much an issue for transgender people, transsexual people, and people who identify as both transgender and transsexual. The reasons why marriage equality is an issue for trans people are often very unalike from the reasons why marriage equality is an issue for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. But, the commonality of experience — where trans, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people don’t have the freedom to marry whomever they love — is why marriage equality is an issue for all of these minority populations.”

From www.marriageequality.org‘s get the facts page:

Canadian same-sex unions growing at five times that rate of heterosexual ones: census…

Same-sex unions are growing at five times the rate of opposite-sex ones according to census numbers that also reveal, for the first time, the number of homosexual marriages in Canada.

The historic Statistics Canada query on same-sex marriage, coming in the wake of Parliament legalizing such unions in 2005, revealed 7,465 homosexual marriages.

Clarence Lochhead of the Vanier Institute for the Family says the homosexual community’s successful fight for marriage reflects the desire to be accepted in the larger community.

And on and on.  click on the link and look at the number of times the term same sex marriage is used in just that first segment alone.  Next, from Marriage Equality New York:

Marriage Equality New York is an all-inclusive organization whose mission is to educate the public by raising awareness of the important right of all persons to enter into legally recognized gender neutral civil marriage with all the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Without marriage, committed same-sex couples are denied over 1,138 federal rights and obligations including social security, hospital visitation, co-parenting rights, estate tax, and immigration, just to name a few.

They at least mention the word gender (lol), but not in a context that supports the idea that Marriage Equality is about transgenders as a separate group from gays under this view of marriage.  Last and definitely least, let’s look at the wikipedia entry for Marriage Equality USA to get the official activists’ view of the subject, since WP pages seem to be owned by nutjobs of varying sorts with a political ax to grind:

Marriage Equality USA (Marriage Equality, or MEUSA) is a national organization fighting to secure the legal recognition of same-sex marriage through education and outreach in the United States. Officially founded in 2000, its mission statement is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state levels, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation.

I could spend all day citing the facts here, but let’s take my word on this obvious truth and move on.  The only way that “Marriage Equality” encompasses post op transsexuals is if post op transsexuals are considered gay.  And that is exactly what Autumn Sandeen is saying.  I would expect to hear this from a certain number of uninformed people and a rather large number of gay men.  But I definitely do not expect to hear this hateful and bigoted view from people who claim to represent my interests.

Labeling us gay using this underhanded tactic is reprehensible, and clearly the action of an enemy.  Anyone who thinks that transsexual has something to do with being gay, or something to do with crossdressing in any way is completely ignorant of the truth of the condition and should not be considered a credible source when outlining our interests.  Such a person has demonstrated their complete ignorance of the subject, and therefore is not transsexual.  Anyone who has experienced this condition would never speak that way about themselves.


5 Responses to “Marriage equality” versus same sex marriage (for transgenders)

  1. jennisuzan says:

    You raise two excellent points…

    I too have noticed Sandeen’s silly attempts to drag women with a transsexual history under the LGBT label. I also have notice that Sandeen now claims to be a “transsexual who identifies as transgender.” Oh well…I know some of whom that might be true, but…I don’t buy it in this case. If I ever get married, I know I don’t want to be seen as part of “same sex marriage,” even if it is dressed up as “marriage equality.” I have nothing against same-sex marriage. I have friends who are gay and lesbian, and who are legally married. But it is not an issue that impacts me directly.

    And I long ago realized that there are some who simply cannot see past their own hatred. Ultimately, the likes of Roberts and Spaulding is no different from the most hard core of the Klan. They all have excuses for their hatred and refuse to see any fault in themselves.

    • Aria Blue says:

      Add into that a healthy dose of “enlightened self interest” in the form of shameless self promotion and you have your average new media activist these days on any given side of an issue.

      But to me these kinds of people represent the hangers on, the dregs of an old system collapsing rather than the modern day descendents of the activists who cared about issues of the past. It’s a bastardization of what was, not a sign of what is to come.

      It’s basically people making hay for themselves with the problems of others.

  2. Kathryn says:

    Exactly… some of the worst racists are non-white ( we have a few here in NZ)…One wonders what sort of world they would create if/when they are the majority. I hope I am not alive to see it in the western hemisphere….The indicators that we have from Africa, for instance, do not bode well for humanity of any colour if/when such as those about whom you speak come to power.

    On the marriage question……
    It really all hinges on the religious content, IMHO…..
    Eliminate that and you end up with laws like those in New Zealand where all forms of legal union have equal status in law.
    There is equal status between a church or “civil” wedding (usually heterosexual, and not necessarily Christian) or a Civil Union, which can be between any two human beings unless the religious organisation chosen to conduct the ceremony says “heterosexuals only”….which is of course their privilege (no matter who disagrees with them).

    The prime functions of a marriage ceremony are to socially/legally/spiritually recognise the union of two people and, most importantly, to establish “next-of-kin-ship” between the couple.
    We have laws and options here that do that for any two people, regardless of race/sex/orientation, and the mere existence of those laws rather takes the wind out of the sails of the likes of Sandeen, on this issue at least…..

    Like you, if I ever marry again it will likely be to someone not of my legal sex (female), but should I choose a female life partner, I can do that too…..which is exactly how it should be.

    As I said at the beginning, the “fly in the ointment” here is the religious element, even if those making the arguments are unaware of it. It was the mores of the Christian faith (the core message of which I do not disagree with, although I do not follow that path), or rather the dogma promulgated by powerful churches of the past, which have led to the present attitudes about who sleeps with whom and to whom one may get married.
    Provide an option or options with equal legal status outside of that paradigm and the “problem” ceases to be one.
    At that point, “marriage equality” cannot be conflated with issues of sexual preference or sexual identity, and therefore cannot be used in the argument that tries to make transgenderism the same as HBS/TS.

    • Aria Blue says:

      I totally agree that legal/civil marriage should be separate from religion but my country is far too steeped in its Calvinist tradition to let it go that easily. It would solve everything and deprive too many people of the fight they love so much.

      And that’s really what I was getting at with the race issue too. I don’t fear an Africa like situation or any of the ethnic wars you see in Europe from time to time. What bothers me is that we were getting OVER this damn problem here decades ago, and certain people see profit for themselves in opening old wounds to prevent them from healing.

      These kinds of people are the jerks who are holding up our political process and crowding the more reasonable minds that can work together. Every time decent people try to get together and talk, these pot-stirrers show up misusing political correctness or religion or any number of things they have forged into weapons for themselves, and then they use them to get everyone angry at each other over nothing.

      It’s time to disarm the idiots and return control of this country to adult hands. These scheming children and their myriad selfish me-first agendas have derailed far too much already. This TG/trans* thing is just one of many symptoms of the disease your culture gets when you elevate mental midgets and petulant children to positions of respect they don’t deserve.

  3. jennisuzan says:

    Yes, I saw the posting about “Jesus.” One of the articles said that he sometimes dresses as a woman, according to his mood. And that supposedly makes him a transsexual? That strikes me as a deliberate provocation.