well, the typical ppl just bunch them together in "others"
2006-12-18 11:19:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
what we do have in common is that we are all victims of descrimination and misunderstanding by the rest of the world..
we should all do our best to reach out to each other and be kind and loving.
i am bisexual and i am a cross dresser. and i have nothing against people who are 100% gay/lesbian, nor do i have anything against transsexuals..
personally, as a guy, i can't imagine changing sexes, but i do love women's lingerie and i love being girly, so i can appreciate that.
i don't know any trans, but i would love to make some friends and get to know them better.
grouping us all together might work for some reasons, but not for others..
bottom line, everyone in this world is uniue.. won't matter how you group people together, you will always find a mixture of similarities and differences in any two people..
2006-12-18 11:29:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah I've been saying the same thing for ages. I'm a gay man, and so I have little in common with you, as far as sexuality/gender identity goes...
But really, I think it just means that anybody that doesn't have the conventional, common orientation (ie heterosexual).
Also I think in the early days of the gay rights movements non-straights were required to team up together, as there's strength in numbers. But I just think now it's kind of a political grouping that's becoming massively archaic....
2006-12-18 12:48:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm a transgendered woman (FTM somewhat). I think people are just ignorant and since we're not straight we should all go under the same categorey. Like the other dude said: Rubbed-stamped GAY
2006-12-18 11:25:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's an odd situation, isn't it? My observation of humans is that we tend to migrate toward those who are "like" us. The LGBT community pulls together (or attempts to pull together) when there is a reason to do so (pride parades and such or when the bigots try to bash us at the ballot box). But, when we're left to our own devices, the boys hang with the boys, the girls hang with the girls, and the bisexuals and trans are left to seek out their own kind. I don't know what you'd do to change that except for individuals to make an attempt on their own to seek friendships with people who aren't "just like" themselves.
2006-12-18 12:23:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by FL LMT 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, they don't belong in the same group at all, just the same as straight men and straight women are not the same. All of these "orientations" have very different identities and cultures. What is the correct term for what I mean when I say "orientations" anyway?
2006-12-18 11:23:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by nicky 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
I only know one m/f trans-sexual and have for years prior to his operation. She seems much more content now. As far as I am concerned, we are all people and deserve the same courtesies as we expect from others. Rose P.
2006-12-18 14:25:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by rose p 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe that they do. Gay males and lesbians are homosexual by definition. A lot of transgendered people are not homosexual. For political reasons I think we were all bunched together.
2006-12-18 11:25:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by TomB 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
LGBT is the miscellaneous bucket. Middle America could care less about the differences. To them it's all rubber stamped GAY.
Change will be a while. Don't hold your breath.
2006-12-18 11:19:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by BiyGuy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We're are all in minority groups being picked on my the OTHERS. It is a darn shame we can't stick together better because we could make a difference. Numbers count!
2006-12-18 11:32:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by reme_1 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
unfortunately for us (the TS/TG/CD) community we have been labeled by society as "others" and put into a "neat little box" called the GLBT community. sad to say, but society got this one wrong...again.
2006-12-18 13:21:58
·
answer #11
·
answered by newmichelle1959 3
·
0⤊
0⤋