Questions about the T
One of the reasons we started this site was to give people from all corners of the queer community a forum for getting to know one another better. We all learned a lot last week from the experiences and opinions shared in the comments on Ms. Cavanaugh's post about whether gay men and lesbians want to hang out with each other. Recently, a post by Jon that briefly mentioned the recent HRC dinner inspired a series of comments stating that we shouldn't support HRC and help them raise funds until they support including transgendered individuals in ENDA. These comments got me thinking about my relationship with trans-folk. Or lack there-of.
Do I support equal rights for all queers including transgendered people? Yes.
Do I understand the trans-experience? No.
Would I like to? Yes.
Do I know how to go about it? Not in the least.
One question I have about trans issues is this: does "trans" have a destination, or is it a life-long journey? "Trans" means "across, through, over, beyond" but do folks who transition ever arrive at the other side? Or once you begin your transition, are you always considered to be in transition even if there is no destination? It would be helpful for me to understand this. How can someone be so brave as to begin a journey with no destination? With no end in sight? To me, that's a very scary prospect.
The thing that makes trans issues so hard for me to wrap my brain around is that, really, the gender variable is completely different from the sexual orientation variable. They are like the X and Y axes on a high-school geometry graph. The value of one isn't necessarily correlated with the other. You can have trans-men who are attracted to men, and trans-women who identify as lesbian. Do same-sex-attracted trans folk start off as gay people and, while changing their gender identity, maintain their gay identity and change who they're attracted to?
What about socializing? What community do trans-folk want to belong to? Do trans-men feel comfortable in straight "meat-markets" looking for potential sexual partners? (Does anyone, really?) Or do they find more success and understanding at lesbian venues? Wouldn't a trans-man dating a lesbian present identity issues for both parties involved?
Perhaps the reason that the HRC is neglecting to support trans issues is because their core membership doesn't understand trans-folk and the type of support they need. I have only had a small series of interactions with trans people. Perhaps trans people need to be more visible and vocal about the rights they are striving to achieve? Or maybe that's antithetical to what they are trying to do: to simply gain acceptance for who they are without having to draw too much attention to what's going on underneath their clothes or their skin.
I, for one, would love to know more about trans-people and their issues. I would love to put some faces and names behind the T in GLBT: faces that many of the Ls and probably most of the Gs out there have never seen. I would love for us to have a trans contributor to TNG who can help bridge the divide between those of us who feel comfortable with the gender we're born into and those of us who don't.
I'm sure that someone out there may be offended by my lack of understanding of trans issues. But honestly, how can I learn about these issues if we can't have a dialog on this topic without getting pissed off? Please consider this my first humble step in getting to know more about the T.
72 comments:
Thanks for being honest and open to learning more. This is NOT meant as an attack at all.
I have an issue with this reasoning though:
"Perhaps the reason that the HRC is neglecting to support trans issues is because their core membership doesn't understand trans-folk and the type of support they need."
In general this could be true and I am sure this is definitely a significant factor in how HRC takes on various issues and responds to them. However, in the context of the ENDA debate, many in the trans community and MANY organizations working on queer issues more broadly made it abundantly clear what they wanted -- to not be excluded from the bill and HRC ignored them. One of HRC's own board members resigned in protest. In this case, trans folks were making it very clear the kind of support they needed and HRC chose not to support them. So, was it a lack of understanding or something else? You don't necessarily need to understand every trans person's personal gender identity to get behind a call for an end to employment discrimination for everyone.
I want to say, I appreciate the honesty and the curiosity. I feel like a lot of LGB people either think they know about the T (and don't), or don't care.
I could give my answer, as a gay transman, to the questions you've posited, but I feel like that would make a massively long, boring comment. Perhaps I will later this evening anyways...
I wish I were interesting enough to volunteer to contribute, but I'm not (and a lousy writer, besides). But if TNG ever wanted to do a Trans Q+A, either via mail-in or an in-person forum thing, I would be more than happy to help out.
Some realities.
1. Most trans people do NOT want to be out in the open. We prefer stealth.
2. We don't like how we are stereotyped, and how our stereotypes are used against us. You know like a transwoman into BDSM as a submissive may not be making a mockery of what she thought was feminity, maybe it is she, like many straight women are bored with vanilla sex and is into something a little more kinky and intense.
3. Some of the most bigoted things I have heard are from gay men especially, but it is not uncommon from lesbian women. Trans men and trans women can cite entire histories, but also their own personal histories how they were outed when it was not their choice, and often used to humiliate them. Want to hear something strange...Bisexuals are often A HELL of alot better on these issues. There is a phrase in the bi community (it does exist) B&T have to stick together.
4. On the enda issue, we face significantly more discrimination then Gay or Lesbian people. ESPECIALLY trans women. You can yell heirarchies of oppression all you like...you are not the ones face with the reality when you have documentation that does not match who you present yourself as, how there is often people a wall a silent discrimination. I am one of the lucky ones who found a job that resulted in an increase in pay...not everybody is lucky as me. But I am also highly educated. To trans people there really is one overwhelming and predominante issue...its the right to be employed and not judged on our identity. The next is documentation, but that bleeds right into the employment issue. So ENDA debacle came off as incredibly insensitive, especially in some parts of the gay press, the actions of HRC, and the actions and words of Barney Frank. We face more discrimination then anybody else in this country, and yes...we can say this as a truth, especially trans people who do not have a college degree, (or even a masters degree or higher). The documentation laws and background checks makes it even more difficult. So what happened with ENDA and HRC went beyond just not understanding, it was an affront to issues we have been YELLING about for years. The actions of HRC are nothing new...if you want to know the people who often know the most about queer history...its not the gays and lesbians folks...its the trans folks who have a history of being thrown under the bus BY gays and lesbians (note how i DO NOT SAY bisexuals, I do this for VERY good reason, which i will go into later).
4. The gay and lesbian community has not exhibited the best behaviors. Like it or not WE ARE in the community, it is just the community often presents us with bigotry that is significantly greater than outside of it. Read Julia Serano if you really want to find out more...the book is a lists a litany of issues, insensitivity, and yes, bigotry, that exists within the L&G community.
I am going to say this, it came out that Off Our Backs has a history of pushing both biphobic and transphobic viewpoints. What I would call a bigoted lesbian perspective is a large part of that publication. ALOT of people pulled out of their fundraiser when this was revealed, including two of its organizers. Some of the people involved in the publication where involved in the transphobic website questioning transgender politics. The lesbian community has a history of transphobia, Janice Raymond, who outed a trans women working in a womens music collective and actively worked to progress transphobia, probably being the catalyst for a series of events, including the exclusionary behavior at the mich fest and their women-born-women policy that is based in transphobia. However, this history...is begining to become just that...history as the lesbian and queer womens community has moved forward. The current reality is with queer, lesbian and feminists, BITCH magazine, and other publications and blogs, which has been trans positive, has become the predominate voice, and trans voices do get to both speak and be heard. Bitch and other publications and blogs have changed the dialog in the lesbian and feminist community, as have many people in the third wave, to their credit, they have realized that it may be one of the biggest victims of misogyny is trans folks, the community as result may have progressed significantly, to being closer to a turn around than in the past. Which gets me to the next point...the gay mens community, which for the most part remains STUCK in the past, at least here in DC.
Which gets me to Gay MEN. OH the things gay men say! They are often the worst, the most guilty of open and often acceptable in their community transphobia, and yes I will say it...bigotry. They have disrespected my trans male brothers by calling them women and using the wrong pronouns, they are most likely to out ANYBODY who is trans without that persons permission. One needs to look no further than Chris Crains or other gay men who were commenting to see the pervasiveness of transphobia, transmisogyny, and just plain regular misogyny to see the level of accepted bigotry within your own community. If you hear somebody say something bigoted, and you really think you are an open minded gay men...SAY SOMETHING. CALL THEM OUT ON IT, because i am sick and tired of doing it myself and defending my gay trans brothers. When you exhibit transphobic and misogynistic behavior, you are no better than those who were homophobic towards you at one point in your life, you have become the same monster as those straight men who were insecure IN THEIR sexuality and who may have harassed, you, and maybe even beat you, or at the very least kept you closeted in fear. The fact is many of the issues with HRC, come from the fact that the gay male community here in DC is still extremely transphobic.
You don't need to say...yes I will sleep with a trans woman, if you are a lesbian, or yes i will sleep with a trans guy, if you are a gay man. We understand it if its just not your thing. What you do need to do is RESPECT us, realize while you may have struggled...the struggle that trans people face is sometimes more difficult, it effects every aspect of our lives, it cuts to our legal documents, and as a result, we can be as assimilated visually as much as possible, and STILL face discrimination when looking for work. In reality, unlike gay people all we want is PRIVACY, to be seen as the gender we identify with at the core of our being, NOT TO BE SEEN AS TRANS. We don't like people outing us, nor do we want to live out and proud all the time. We want to have a good life, were we can find a partner, be seen as who we want to be seen as, be able to get a job without discrimination and live in peace. Is that too much to ask? In reality this is ALL we ask, no more, no less.
If you are wondering...why am I not saying BI (Pansexual and "Queer" identified) community...for a simple reason, from ALL I have encountered, out of everybody they are the MOST accepting of trans individuals, and most likely to understand trans issues. I am not saying they are perfect, but they at least have listened and learned. That...and they often have no problem partnering with a trans person regardless of op status. To them...the person matters more than the parts, it is a valuable lesson the gay and lesbian community often forgets. Plus they have their OWN issue with the gay and lesbian community and persistent problems of bigotry that exist within it.
Like i said, the gay male community is probably the worst of the bunch. Lesbians have improved, and the bisexuals probably have the most understanding and least likely to have these problems.
This is to anybody out there reading this post...look in the mirror and ask yourself, have I committed an act or said something bigoted or misogynistic about a trans person, have I been transphobic...and how can i improve this.
(Firstly, just as kind of a throwaway... does -anyone- like stereotypes that are applied to them?)
Part of the reason I resisted responding directly to any of the questions Michael raised is that the trans perspective is so broad (and generally, so poorly known) that a comment box on a blog post is, I feel, a very poor medium for the kind of discussion that needs to take place.
Just as an example, I would take some issue with Anonymous #2's statement regarding what "we" want as far as stealth and being out. While certainly there are many trans people who do wish to remain stealth, both for reasons of privacy and for reasons of personal safety, that is by no means all of us.
Being "trans" is an important part of who I am. It doesn't negate my gender or invalidate my masculinity. I think it remains very relevant to my experience of my gender; no matter how completely I pass, nothing will change the fact that I was raised as a girl.
I am fairly out, and I know other trans people who are as well, of their own volition. I don't think that it needs to be something shameful and hidden. Certainly, stealth or not, trans people deserve rights, and respect, and employment protection, but I don't think that being stealth is a good way to progress our struggles, or to increase understanding of our experiences and issues.
I am definitely not arguing with Anon2's points; I just want to express that none of us can speak for all of us.
Let me state this..most TRANSSEXUALS prefer stealth, and it goes beyond discrimination and privacy. It is really about being see as the gender they see themselves as without question. Yeah, its not a perspective of all trans people, especailly the transgender identified people, but sometimes people have to remember not all transsexuals are transgender identified, and kind of dislike the umbrella term being applied to them and their issues.
If you want to be out and proud fine, but don't assume that is the case with all trans people. I have run into to many instances where transsexuals where outed by transgender identified individuals when they did not want to be outed. For me being out is selective, a personal and political choice when necessary, but otherwise if you out me or say something that may out me, get ready for me to lash out. It is my choice and my decision when to be out, and whether to be out, no one elses. So if you know a trans person, shut your mouth about them being trans, if you think somebody is trans, don't say anything about it. We don't want to hear it. These things are a deeply personal decision.
I used to believe stealth was counterproductive myself, but as time has gone on, I have seen its benefit, it goes beyond discrimination, its being seen as you want to be seen.
Yeah, some out and proud transgender people may be all for being out, but guess what...I am not transgender, thats not my identity, I am transsexual, and my goal is complete transition COMPLETELY. Not to be seen as trans.
I don't think that being out will help either. Trans people have been out and outspoken for years. STILL parts of the gay community DO NOT listen to us. The same bigoted opinions perpetuate themselves. Why because gay and lesbians fail to call each other when bigoted opinions get expressed, and bigoted actions happen. Yes, we are combative, mad as hell, but the camels back has been broken, the critique is necessary.
The decision whether or not a trans person is out, IS A TRANS PERSONS. AND ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL Trans persons. Most transsexuals DON'T want to be out and DON'T want to be outed by somebody other than themselves.
And it SHOULD NOT be presumed or pressured for trans people to be out, and to expect equal rights and human rights protection. These things should be fundamental to begin with.
To reiterate, I understand the motivations to stay stealth. There are certainly plenty of times where I am quite happy to fly under the radar. It is a personal decision that should be respected, and should in no way impact our treatment and rights.
The point I was trying to expand upon is that being trans(whatever) means different things to different people. I am transsexual*, not transgender (and I do appreciate the difference), and I don't believe that identifying as trans precludes "transitioning COMPLETELY".
*as much as I dislike the term. It was invented to pathologise, and I think it perpetuates the invisibility of female-bodied trans people.
Michael,
These are some thoughtful questions, and I don't think they have easy answers. As the comments on this post have already shown, each time you ask "are trans people like A or like B", there will be trans people who fall on both sides.
In my experience, trans people tend to "clump" in two groups:
Group 1 conceptualizes being trans as an important part of their identity, is open about their trans status, and may be more likely to identify their gender terms that are not purely binary.
Group 2 considers being trans a medical condition, wishes to maintain privacy around their trans status, and probably identifies strongly with a binary gender and feels uncomfortable in communities that aren't compatible with that gender.
I certainly don't think everyone fits neatly into one group or the other. What I'm getting at, though, is that being trans means very different things to different people, and when you interact with someone who is trans, it's possible to really mess up if you assume you know what it means to them, and you don't. When I am interacting with someone who I know to be trans, I try to get an idea of whether being trans is important to them or not, whether they view it positively or negatively, etc, and let that guide whether (and if so, how) trans-related topics play into our interaction.
Trans peoples' ideas about what it means to be trans often change over the time. I used to be fairly open about being trans, but once I was well into transition and able to live day-to-day as a person not perceived to be trans, I started to really regret that in situations where I was openly trans, that one aspect of me often overshadowed my other characteristics and influenced the way people interacted with me in a way that I disliked. Today I maintain a higher degree of privacy. I think many trans people have had a similar experience.
I don't think, however, that by maintaining a higher degree of privacy, individual trans people are failing to advocate for themselves. One does not need to be openly trans to make a difference. Many trans people who are by-and-large not open about their trans status continue to advocate for the community as "allies" and in environments where their privacy is likely to be respected (in trans-only groups, mixed groups with clear rules regarding privacy, online communities, etc).
I also think that allies can make a big difference in the gay and lesbian communities without necessarily having a comprehensive understanding of trans people and their issues. One of the most important things allies can do is to personally demonstrate respect for trans people (use correct pronouns, do not "out" people as trans, do not tell trans jokes -- and apologize if you do any of these things) and, just as importantly, indicate that it's not cool with you when other people fail to act with respect.
Why is trans any more difficult to understand than gay men or lesbians? More to the point, why isn't it clear that being trans is gay 25-50 years ago (depending on how optimistic/pessimistic you are feeling about America at large) with some unique characteristics but the same overarching structure?
It's just adding another variable, albeit one which may not be constant, but variance happens with all humans.
This is certainly an interesting conversation that is making me think about things. But I feel like I can't really and fully consider the points made before understanding one thing:
Does anyone know why the T is even included along with the G, the B, and the L to begin with?
It seems to me that G, B, and L have to do with same sex attraction while T has to do with gender and not necessarily same sex attraction (or at least not dependent upon it in any way whatsoever).
While one can certainly be T AND G, B, or L, they are not necessarily G, B, or L. And the vast majority of G, B, and L people are not T. So I really don't get why they are grouped together - it looks like apples and oranges to me. Can anyone explain this? Or point me to a resource that could explain this?
I would appreciate it.
Beyond Anon2's very correct points regarding the history of LGBT activism... (And that history is so important. Queer people do not usually have the benefit of family to pass down our history to us - we must actively seek it out.) I think there is more to motivate the continued association than shared history.
While there is certainly a distinction that can be drawn between 'LGB' and 'T', gender and sexuality are linked. Both alternate sexualities and alternate gender identities challenge the dichotomy supported by heterosexuality. LGB people, whether as a result of whatever biological quirk predisposes same-sex attraction, or as a result of being freed from the us/them, man/woman definitions imposed by heterosexuality, are more free to express gender variant behaviour. Obviously, there is no requirement that gay men be effeminate, or lesbians masculine, but we are less motivated to define our gender in terms of the being "not" the opposite sex.
Homophobia is strongly rooted in gender roles and male privilege. For both trans and LGB individuals, males are seen as giving up male privilege (thus threatening perceived immutability of other males' privilege), and females are appropriating male privilege. (Many people who suffer violence for "being gay" are not targeted because they are actively engaging in homosexual behaviour, they are more likely violating gender norms.)
T is included to be inclusive. By gathering our numbers, we can make progress. Going off what Copp3rred said, a good example of how T relates to L, G, and B in history is during the women's rights movement. Women's rights groups set aside lesbian issues to get what they wanted. Once they got what they wanted, they left lesbian issues high and dry. If we can work together even with our differences, we can make progress.
I just found good definitions of transgender and transexual.
I really would NOT say all transsexuals are transgender, or identify as such, there are many of us who do not identify with the term transgender as we think it muddles OUR issues and the term is TOO broad.
In our minds we are not changing our mental gender, but rather our primary and secondary sexual characteristics medically. Thus the term transsexual. Transgender implies a change in mental gender, not exactly why I am a fan of the term, especially when imposed on transsexuals.
I do not see myself, nor identify as transgender in the very least, but I am transsexual.
Not everybody is going to agree with this. But the medical nature and deeper identity of transsexuals is what pulls them out of the umbrella group and separates them in my mind. Yes there is common political and safety issues, my drag friends have faced more violence than I ever had. That is why if you know somebody who transitioned medically...it may be a better idea just to call them "Trans" as its a good way to avoid the word "transgender" or any variation of such, not something everybody who is transsexual identifies with or as.
Sorry for the quick explanation, but i feel it was needed. Trans terminology can be very loaded. Some transsexuals do not even like to use the word transsexual or transgender, and use Harry Benjiman Syndrome (HBS). Yeah...all kind of complex. Be aware language can be a minefield. Just stick to the shortened "trans" and you will be safe, as it has multiple meanings that nobody has a problem with.
Oh yeah. Don't EVER use the word Tranny if you yourself are not trans, or refer to a trans woman as a t-girl. Tranny is inherently derogatory (so is shemale btw) and should be avoided. I know this has become popular with gay guys...
By the way...if you hear anybody use this term...CALL THEM OUT ON ITS USE. Because its use is bigoted slang. I mean transgender/transsexual...nobody is going to get that offended, as neither is really offensive, this is largerly an identity thing, but tranny is really offensive.
@anon
if you need to distance yourself from all those wishy-washy transgender people who don't want to "transition COMPLETELY" in order to feel secure, knock yourself out. but realize that your attempt to define "transsexual" as somehow fundamentally different than "transgender" ("a broad term that describes all people who feel that their anatomical sex does not match their gender identity" from michael's link, which i thought was pretty good) is logical jibberish. it's like trying to insist that a whale ceases to be a mammal because it's aquatic.
sry, typing too fast.
"fundamentally different" might be unclear. "transsexual" definitely has implications beyond "transgender", but none that make it not fit under the broader term. cross-dressers are not transsexuals, but both are transgender; dogs are not whales, but both are mammals.
nesting hierarchies ftw.
Why should the T be included with the G, the L, and the B?
Let's imagine a child assigned male at birth based on having a penis. Because of this penis, there will be many expectations set for this person: that he will be attracted to women sexually, that he will express himself in a masculine manner, that he will like his physically masculine body. If he fails to meet any of these sex-based expectations, he's a bit trans, no? In that he diverges from the gender role assigned to him at birth, no?
It's really strange how the lines have been drawn around who is trans. I don't think what one likes to wear and how one feels about his or her genitals are any more closely related to each other than either one is to what gender one wants for sexual partners.
Honestly, I think that pulling sexuality apart from clothes, speech, mannerisms, and body transformation and singling it out as the one thing on this list that is NOT a form of gender variance was politically motivated. Gay rights activists have made some progress with the tack of "we're just normal, masculine guys who happen to like guys", but at a high cost. This line succeeds at the expense of the flamers and queens, the transsexuals, etc, who are pushed yet another level down in the hierarchy of acceptability. I'm really not sure who thought it'd be a good idea to frame homosexuality as *relativeley* normal compared to, say a cross-dresser. It doesn't seem very fair to me. Isn't the goal for all of us to live as live as we best see fit, irrespective of what genitals we were born with, regardless of whether what we want is homo sex or a nice dress?
I totally understand the idea of the LGB community challenging gender expectations (of opposite sex attraction) and so they might be linked or associated with other folks who also challenge gender expectations, including perhaps some folks in the T community as well as folks in the feminist/women's rights communities.
However the T community (or at least a significant portion therein) is based in the notion that that challenging means *changing* (i.e. a man challenges the expectations of his gender assignment by "becoming a woman"). And not by changing the way that culture expects behaviors based on gender, but by making changes to themselves and i think that is a completely different argument - and actually antithetical to the one of the LGB folks (and the feminist folks for that matter).
Becoming male/female in order to match up your body with culturally conditioned gender expectations (either your own or those of others) doesn't have anything to do with the LGB community as far as I can see - even though some T folks may have come out of that community.
I think these communities can surely be allies, but I don't think that makes them the same or means they should share an acronym.
"Becoming male/female in order to match up your body with culturally conditioned gender expectations (either your own or those of others)..."
This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is to be trans. First of all, everyone -male, female, straight, gay, purple- modifies their behaviour and presentation based on culturally conditioned gender expectations.
Secondly, and more importantly, just because I may change how you see me doesn't mean I have changed who I am. I have heard arguments like this one many times before and it is kind of amazing that people can rationalise equating "not lying about yourself" with "caving to and reinforcing gender stereotypes".
Certainly, many trans people participate in gendered behaviours appropriate to their presentation... but so do you (when you do it, it's normal; when we do it, it's lying). The fact is that our culture uses gender extensively in day-to-day interactions, and it is unfair to presume that the burden of standing up to that is somehow the responsibility of trans people.
I see your point, Anderov, regarding the fact that all people participate in gendered behavior - and I think it's a good one.
but i still don't see how this justifies associating the T community with the LGB community - as opposed to any other community that engages in gender-defined or gender-challenging behaviors. which, according to your very argument is "everyone"
I'm not arguing that the T community should not exist and that they are wrong for being who they are - I just really don't get the *association* with the LGB community. For example, black people don't call themselves hispanic even though they both face racial issues. See what I mean?
I don't think everyone necessarily engages in challenging gender, but queers must by definition. The HRC-esque "oh, we're just like straight people, we just sleep with men*" just doesn't hold water, and any attempt to incise neat lines between degrees of gender variance is arbitrary at best, and bigoted at worst.
Susan Stryker wrote a very good article in Salon on exactly this point, which you should read.
*I said "men" deliberately, because lesbians tend to be an afterthought to this view.
Anon, your race analogy is terrible. Black people don't call themselves hispanic just because they're both racial minorities, but they're clearly associated. Likewise, GLB and T are not the *same* but are clearly associated -- not, in this case, by racial variance but rather by divergence from the expectations sex they are assigned at birth.
If you want to continue with that (inappropriate) race analogy, we don't put "blacks" and "hispanics" into non-discrimination statutes. We put race into it, cover everyone. Including LGB but not T is like including black people and hispanics but not asians and claiming it's okay because asians are "less numerous" and "less understood" by the average American.
Engaging in behavior that challenges gender expectations or stereotypes (male or female) is one thing, engaging in a process to change an individual's gender (or gender presentation) from male to female or female to male is an entirely different ball of wax.
I don't think that to point this out is either arbitrary or bigoted.
nonT people, such as feminists, who do not have same-sex sexual partners are not included in the LGB community, nor should they be, yet they challenge gender stereotypes/expectations all the time.
I read the Stryker article and I appreciate the information/history on why the communities are joined together. I still don't think it's logical.
But how many gender stereotypes do you get to challenge before you are "changing your gender presentation"?
Let's take, for example, some unassuming lesbian and start butching her up. If she doesn't wear make-up, is she trans? What if she wears men's t-shirts and jeans? Or cuts her hair short? I know plenty of lesbians who are occationally taken for men based nothing more than those (changing their gender presentation!). Does your distinction necessitate knowing the person's intent?
Is there any way to date as a genderqueer person without being at least little gay? Can someone who is not trans date a genderqueer person and not be a little gay?
You're right, the race argument is a terrible one. It was the first thing that popped into my head and I clearly didn't think it through. In non-discrimination statutes, "race" is a common factor for people (no matter their race) and that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing out my error.
However to use the non-discrimination statute example, I would not argue that gender identity and sexual orientation are the same thing. One does not cover the same ground as the other in the same way that the word "race" does for different races.
Anderov,
If you believe that lesbian is trans but she is actually a female lesbian, does that make her trans? no. Does that make her a woman that does not fit your idea of woman-ness? yes.
I don't think that wearing men's clothing or cutting their hair short makes any woman any more or less of a woman than having long hair and wearing dresses or vice versa.
About the dating... I don't know. I really don't. I thought the whole point of people who were trans was to say that they were the gender that they say they are and that everyone else is supposed to respect that and treat them accordingly - therefore I would think a trans male person in a heterosexual relationship would be with a heterosexual female (trans or not). But I'm not trans and I've never dated a trans person so I really don't know.
re: the Anon who made the race analogy -
You should go read the article I linked, but in the meantime, I'll post a relevant quote:
"Simply put: Real men don't suck cock. Nor do they use the word "fabulous" when describing a pair of women's shoes. Nor do they keep a picture of their husband pinned to the wall of their office cubicle. All of the above violates conventional or stereotypical expectations of proper masculine gender, and as Lambda Legal's preliminary analysis of ENDA makes clear, none would be protected under the rubric of sexual orientation alone." (emphasis mine)
re: the most recent Anon (can you guys number yourselves or something? It gets confusing.)
"Trans" encompasses a wide range of behaviours and identities - it's not just transsexual folks (people who live full time as the other sex, take hormones, and/or have surgery). Genderqueers are trans. Cross-dressers are trans. Some drag kings and queens identify as trans (some do not). Some butch/stone lesbians identify as trans (some do not). Just like sexuality, it's a huge spectrum with as many shades of being as there are people, and that is exactly why drawing lines is inherently arbitrary.
Anderov, I agree with basically everything you've written in this thread. Personally, I think that not only is the discrimination faced by GLB and by T people (non mutually exclusive of course) coming from the same place, but that the same workings are largely responsible for sexism, too.
I think when we're talking about whether LGB and T belong together, it's also important to specify the context of this grouping. I don't think it makes sense to group all Ts with GLBs as in a single social/dating community, but then, I don't think it's clear that Gs, Ls, and Bs should belong to the same social/dating community either. In terms of political community, though, I am adamant that the T is a core part of LGBT.
I would like to hear from the Anons on this blog who feel that T doesn't belong with LGB why it's important to them that they be separated, and in which contexts (some? all?) they'd advocate for the split.
The notion that real men don't suck cock is one that I would say is false. The notion that a man calling a pair of shoes fabulous is also false. Pictures on your walls do not make you any 'more' or 'less' of whatever gender you are.
And i think this is the inherent issue. Trans folk (regardless of where they are on the spectrum) support the notion that there are degrees or variations of gender. I very much disagree.
A man is man whether or not he wears a dress. A man in a dress is no less of an example of what it is to be a man than a man in a three piece suit. This is the point that we need to emphasize, not work against.
The fact that a trans person might say that because they dress or present themselves in a manner that is stereotypically the opposite gender that they either are a member of the opposite gender or somewhere in between is exactly the problem.
It is for this reason that I definitely think that the T should be separate from the GLB, especially politically.
My apologies for the ambiguity; by taking that quote out of the context of the rest of the article it may be less apparent that the author is deliberately using homophobic language for ironic effect. She is not actually saying that gay men are less of men; she is verbalising the logic by which a bigoted employer could justify firing a gay man - not because he is gay, but because he is too girly.
The fact of the matter is the standing definition of what it means to be a man in our (heavily heterosexual) culture is, well, heavily heterosexual. And if you want to change that, if you want "being a real man" to encompass calling shoes fabulous and sucking cock, you're going to have to redefine the gender of "man". (Which sounds an awful lot like what those sneaky, deviant trannies* are doing, doesn't it?)
*more ironic use of bigoted language. Just btw.
I understand that the author was using homophobic language for ironic effect - I just think that the argument is unsuccessful.
I do not think that trans people are redefining the gender of "man" at all. In fact I really think that they are supporting existing definitions of "man" (if only by defining themselves as not fitting the mold). I see this dependence upon traditional notions or stereotypes of gender as doing nothing to expand it's definition.
In my opinion, a man in a dress who states that he is something other than a man (woman, trans, etc) because he doesn't meet the traditional expectations of "man" and is therefore less manly for it, is problematic.
If a man is in a dress then that action is by definition masculine (as much as it is feminine if it is being done by a woman). It is the agent that determines the adjective not the other way around.
So, by your logic, a person can engage in any gendered behaviour he wants, but as long as he's got a penis, that behaviour is manly. How then is a man without a penis (e.g. me) not challenging your definition of "man"? (Whether you accept the validity of my identity or not, I am still challenging your definition.)
If behaviour and personal identity cannot modify gender, if any action perceived as gendered can just as easily called "masculine" as it can be "feminine", then the concept of gender becomes meaningless. You've reduced it all to merely biological sex (which has it's own issues, as intersex people could tell you, but let's overlook that for the moment...), and gender disappears. Now, don't get me wrong; that idea certainly has it's appeals. However, a world with no preconceived notion of gender falls into roughly the same category of Gedankenexperiment as a world where angels descend from the sky and declare me Lord High Emperor Of The Entire Planet(which is to say, it would be pretty cool, but it ain't gonna happen).
Yes, gender is meaningless and yes, a world where this is understood is certainly attainable - but it requires effort. And it also requires that we stop working against ourselves.
I would argue that the effort that people put into trying to convince their culture that one can change their gender would be better spent changing that culture's perceptions/expectations of the gender they've got.
i haven't really been following this thread but saw this last anonymous' comment and just thought no no no no no no no. arguing that gender is meaningless is NOT going to help. it's that same attitude people often hold about all forms of diversity, just ignore the differences between us and we'll all seem the same. gender isn't meaningless, sexuality isn't meaningless, race isn't meaningless, cultural heritage isn't meaningless. no single one of them should determine our entire identity or our status, but they're not meaningless.
Anon, I agree that it's problematic that certain traits are labled "masculine" and "feminine" based on arbitrary and outmoded gender norms.
However, I think your assertion that transsexual* people, as a group, depend upon or propogate "traditional notions or stereotypes of gender", is wrong. Have you met many transsexual people? Have you met any "femme"** trans guys or butch MTFs? It's not like all transsexual people are going around with the goal of fitting gender norms. And generally, those that do neatly fit the gender norms do it because it feels right to them, and that's who they are, not becuause they're striving to be some idealized stereotype of a man or a woman.
True, early in transition, *some* transsexual people are very concerned about "passing" and consciously adopt stereotypical looks or behaviors, but even this is more about comfort than anything else. It's really painful to be reminded by peoples pronoun usage that your body isn't as it ought to be, and if "passing" helps to get you through the day, I'm all for it. And in my experience, many of the people who do adopt stereotypically gendered traits for the sheer sake of "passing" drop them once hormones and/or surgery have enabled them to be correctly perceived as men and women based on physical characteristics alone.
So I get where you're coming from and agree that the commonly accepted definitions of masculine and feminine are pretty messed up, but I really think you're wrong about how trans people fit into it. Go to a trans conference, meet more people in the trans community, and tell me if you still think we're all guilty of propogating gender norms. I would bet, based on my experience at such conferences, you would walk away with a different point of view.
*Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when you say trans, you're thinking specifically of transsexuals.
**I know for you the agent determines the adjective, but I'm not sure how to say it better.
back to the original question - this is exactly why the T should be separate from the LGB.
The LGB folks are expanding the spectrum of "appropriate" behaviors for each gender. By their very definition they are doing this - all of them.
It seems to me T folks are, at best, not *necessarily* doing this - or at least not all of them are - and at worst, reinforcing the narrow range of "appropriate" behaviors that the LGB folks are trying to eradicate.
You may argue that gender should be meaningless, but you cannot argue that gender is meaningless. We have been raised and conditioned with gender, we live in a gendered society, and people who violate those gender conventions do so at risk of their families, their jobs, and their lives.
It is not fair for you to demand that those of us who do not fit into your definitions of "man" and "woman" to be martyrs for the cause until your idealised genderless world manifests, nor for you to imply that we are liars or cowards for refusing to be martyrs.
Samba,
By trans I mean anyone who would define themselves as trans, not only transsexuals, but anyone who would say that a particular element of themselves is not in "alignment" with the gender that is associated with their physical body.
I believe it is a logical impossibility for one's gender to to not be in "alignment" with one's physical body - as gender is defined only by that which it is defining (the agent/adjective thing).
In my understanding, a trans person is saying the opposite.
A lesbian is not less of a woman because she sleeps with women, even if sleeping with women is not a behavior that is traditionally associated with her gender.
No, I don't know many trans people, and I do not think that trans people cannot be L, G, or B. If they are, that's great. What I am saying is that they are not necessarily L, G, or B, their issues and ideologies are different and thus should not share an acronym.
I don't think that my position on that would change by meeting more trans people, but i don't know that for sure and i'm not against meeting them or discussing these issues. I appreciate your responses/explanations to my comments.
From reading this discussion and the linked articles, I'd have to say that I've figured out my working definition of a trans person: A person is trans if they identify as such, or if they identify as the gender that's opposite of their biological one.
This clears up the confusion of whether a "girly" man sucking cock or a butch lesbian with visible facial hair should or could be considered trans by others.
Just because someone behaves differently from the norm for their gender doesn't make them trans. It's when they start to identify as (or transition to) the opposite gender.
Can we all agree on that much?
Anon - ALL people, in their infinite complexity, both support and challenge traditional notions of gender. Yes, GLB people challenge gender norms insofar as they engage in same-sex sex and romance, but that's one thing, and many LGB people enforce restrictive gender norms in other, really bothersome ways. I've met plenty of GLB people who, on the whole, I'd say do a lot more to enforce restrictive gender norms than they do to fight them. It is such a complex issue that saying GLB people are inherently more gender-fucking than T people (or vice versa) is flawed.
I think it's also important to note that for some trans people, being trans has nothing to do with gender norms and everything to do with body. Even if there were no such concept as gender in the world, I would *still* choose to take hormones. The changes they have brought to my body make me really happy, and for your to imply that our desire for a basic level of comfort in our bodies means that we are perpetuating hegemonic gender norms is really unfair, and not an accurate description of the situation.
You say:
I would argue that the effort that people put into trying to convince their culture that one can change their gender would be better spent changing that culture's perceptions/expectations of the gender they've got.
Your solution won't work. Even in a gender free world, there will be people who need to change their bodies. There will ALWAYS be people who need to transition. What say you about them? Do you think they should continue on with bodies they hate for the sake of your anti-gender crusade?
And really, there are so many more productive ways to fight restrictive gender norms than ragging on trans people for their supposed greater "complicity" in the status quo.
"In my understanding, a trans person is saying the opposite."
This is not true. I (nor any other trans person I've talked to, although there are always exceptions) am not saying the opposite... I am not saying that gendered behaviour necessarily defines gender (e.g. I'm am not saying lesbians are not "real women" or anything), I am saying that sex does not imply gender (if that hypothetical lesbian happens not to have a vagina, that doesn't necessarily make her less of a woman, either). Saying that "A does not imply B" is not the same thing as saying "B implies not-A".
Michael, you're almost there... It's just that bit at the end, "It's when they start to identify as (or transition to) the opposite gender". First of all, the word "opposite" is problematic (although I may have used it in my responses... it's hard to have these conversations with our very language is thwarting our efforts at communication), because it implies that "man" and "woman" are fundamentally at odds. You can identify as both or neither, and there are certainly trans people in both those camps.
And Samba? Amen.
GLB people challenge gender norms insofar as they engage in same-sex sex and romance
and by definition, all GLB folks do this, no? regardless of what other things they do which might be problematic (and i fully agree that some of them do problematic things).
I'm just saying that T people don't necessarily do this. That's all.
I just don't think that L, G, B and T folks can be linked together by the fact that their basis is in gender especially when they can have such different conceptions, experiences and ideologies. Many groups are defined by their gender or their behavior in relation to their gender. This doesn't mean they are linked with the L, G, B, or T communities.
I think people can do whatever they want to their bodies - but taking hormones or having surgery has nothing to do with gender aside from stereotypical associations as far as I can tell. Does it?
I'm really not trying to offend people or 'rag' on them. I'm just stating my thoughts and opinions on the T issue. We're probably not going to change each other's minds, nor should we necessarily. I think it's great that we all get to say what we think/feel/know about it since it is clearly an issue for all of us (no matter our perspective). I do really appreciate everyone who has responded to my comments/questions. I think it's great that we have been able to have this conversation without people getting "pissed off" (as Michael). Thank you.
that was supposed to say "as michael said" :)
oops. typing too fast.
Leaving aside whether LGB and T belong together from a conceptual point of view (which I guess we will continue to disagree on), I do think there are a number of political issues (civil unions/marriage, adoption, non-discrimination, hate crimes) shared by the LGB and T communities. I won't expound on marriage and adoption because as far as I'm aware, our communities already work together on these issues without it raising any conflicts of interest.
I do want to delve into non-discrimination and hate crimes though, since ENDA brought out serious tensions over the inclusion of the T. In my opinion, the GLB community has a stake in any legislation that includes "gender expression" because GLB people do often face discrimination on the basis of gender expression. I'm not sure whether "gendery identity" alone is ever interpreted to cover gender expression or how often sexual orientation non-discrimination laws actually serve to protect trans people (eg, trans guys who get harrassed as "lesbians"), although I'm certainly interested in learning more about these complexities. But nevertheless, I think this is a case where including sexual orientation AND gender identity AND gender expression provides a higher level of protection for all of us, L, G, B and T alike (and plenty of folks who are none of them, too).
I wish that LGB people were more active in advocating for inclusion of gender expression in "trans" non-discrimination laws, which often only include gender identity. The trans protections are making their way into the books, slowly but surely (and less and less slowly), and I think LGB people are missing an opportunity to strengthen their own position here. I think trans people would also benefit from a wider base of support for the legislation.
The definition Michael posted of transgender is pretty standard, but in the political sphere the definition is a little different because one protection that matters to GLB people is actually included (or not included, unfortunately) in the T package.
And Anon, this gender expression stuff seems right up your alley. Check it out if you haven't!
Samba, I think you are right - gender expression should be protected by non-discrimination/hate crime legislation - definitely.
Gender identity should, too - but you're right these are not the same thing. And gender expression is not an exclusively trans (or non-trans) issue.
I would very much support the inclusion of gender expression protections for everyone.
Just because I disagree with some trans ideologies and feel that they *sometimes* depend upon or support gender definitions that I find problematic, does not mean that i think trans people shouldn't be afforded the right to to express themselves in any way they feel is appropriate (and call it whatever they want).
"but taking hormones or having surgery has nothing to do with gender aside from stereotypical associations as far as I can tell. Does it?"
In most cases, hormones and surgery do increase the perceived gender conformance of the person receiving them. However, this should not be assumed to be the motivation for obtaining such. Is it impossible for someone to exercise without being motivated to attain a conformist standard of attractiveness?
This is the only other analogy I could think of (and it is still flawed, but work with me here...): The "average" man, the stereotype, is straight. It's just numbers; the overwhelming majority of people are straight. Most men who date women aren't dating women to conform to that stereotype; they date women because they like them. The stereotype does not define reality, it just reflects it.
Similarly, I have not changed my body in order conform to gender stereotypes. I did it because it was consistent with my view of myself (which happens to be, in some respects, "average"). By the same token that I don't tend to consciously do or not do things merely to conform, neither will I do or not do things merely to not conform.
There's nothing inherently disingenuous with being average if you actually are.
the issue that i have is this:
how is it possible for a man to not be male? Even if he does not exhibit characteristics or experience feelings that are traditionally or stereotypically associated with "maleness"?
Saying that he is not male because of this non-conformity is reinforcing the stereotype by existing, by definition, in opposition to it.
In my mind a man can express maleness, does express maleness, while wearing a dress or with breast implants or surgery to remove his penis. He's still a man and therefore very much male.
Changing your body is not an issue - everyone should be able to change their body to make themselves comfortable or happy or for any other reason - saying it's about gender is the issue.
First of all, Anon, you're mixing up vocabulary. If one is making a distinction between gender and sex, "man" would be the gender, and "male" would be the sex. Therefore a male who transitions is, arguably, still male (more on this next) but she is not a man.
Fundamental to the argument that gender is not a concept distinct from sex is the idea that sex biologically clear-cut, when this is not actually the case. What makes a male male? Based on your example, it cannot be his gonads (and therefore also cannot be his capacity to reproduce, nor his hormone levels, both of which could be used to define "sex"). Is it his chromosomes? What then, is someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY chromosomes) - is that person incapable of being a man? Or a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome (XY chromosomes but whose body does not process testosterone normally, and so matures as an infertile female) - can she not be a woman?
If people with uncommon sex chromosomes or hormone reactions can have common genders, why can't a non-androgen insensitive "male" be a woman?
Obviously, what it means to be trans is far outside the experience of most non-trans people - your incomprehension makes illustrates that. And that fine - it's okay to say "I don't understand". What is not okay, however, is disrespect. I am a man who is not male; I assure you, it's very possible. By insisting that my existence is impossible, you are either calling me, and every other trans person, a liar, insane, or stupid.
No, actually, I'm not calling anyone a liar, insane, or stupid. Not at all.
What I am saying is that the assertions of the trans community are antithetical to the belief that gender itself is in any way limiting (or has 'barriers' that need to be crossed or opposed).
Gender stereotypes, yes, need to be expanded or eradicated. But gender itself is not the issue there.
You're right, I did mix up the vocabulary (hey I'm new to this!), but clearly you understood my point. Thanks for clarifying the language bit.
We disagree, that does not mean that I am insulting you. That is not my intention in any way whatsoever. My intention is just to talk about this issue and to allow for both of our positions/perspectives/ideas to be expressed.
T folks are transcending boundaries only to reinforce them. As such I have a difficult time accepting them as part of the L&G community.
Changing sex to reaffirm and perpetuate hetero-normative gender strengthens the very structure used to marginalize lesbians and gay men.
The entire surgical/psychological transition process is controlled by heterosexual physicians and therapists who believe your biological sex must match your gender. If not, it is appropriate, they believe, to enact surgical violence on your body to make you conform.
How is agreement with this hegemonic totem part of the L&G community?
re Anon - "What I am saying is that the assertions of the trans community are antithetical to the belief that gender itself is in any way limiting (or has 'barriers' that need to be crossed or opposed).
Gender stereotypes, yes, need to be expanded or eradicated. But gender itself is not the issue there. "
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here... can you clarify?
If you're going back to your "Saying that he is not male because of this non-conformity is reinforcing the stereotype by existing, by definition, in opposition to it."... Let me straighten this out for you - I'm not saying he's not a man, necessarily. I'm not in his head, I'm not living his life. But I am saying that that person has the freedom to tell me that he is a man, that she is a woman, or that zie is neither man nor woman, and I will respect that. There are females who have done exactly what I have done in transitioning - worn men's clothes, cut their hair short, bound their chests and even taken testosterone - who still identify as women and I am completely fine with that.
To some extent, you are right - it's not about gender. It's about accepting that no one can possibly know someone as well as that person knows themselves, that there are as many ways of being human as there are people.
re your (fake) name here - Your insistence that trans people are reinforcing gender boundaries by sometimes having normative gender identities is like insisting that black people are perpetuating racial boundaries by having dark skin. Is every non-trans person (including LGB people) similarly reinforcing gender boundaries by not living life as androgynes?
Also, the last time you interacted with the trans-related medical community was... when? This might have been the case 20 years ago, and, I'm sure, there are still people who hold that mindset now.
However, there are many professionals who on our side. The psychiatrist I saw for my surgery recommendation is actively working to get gender identity disorder removed from the DSM (which belongs in there exactly as much as "homosexuality" did). The first person to prescribe me hormones was a lesbian working at WWC, and the doctor currently maintaining my hormones is a gay man who also has helped lesbian couples get pregnant (zomg heterosexual medical hegemony!). No one who I have ever interacted with has ever tried to convince me I needed genital surgery (which sucks for transguys, anyways). The system is certainly not perfect, but it's also not some sort of Stepford-esque manly-man/50s-housewife brainwashing-and-surgery factory.
(Almost forgot... my shrink is gay, too =P)
(Sheesh, this is what I get for trying to make a coherent post 5 minutes after I crawl out of bed...)
re your (fake) name here (again) - You are also forgetting all of the trans people who aren't transsexuals, people who never see a psychologist or doctor for anything related to their gender. Genderqueers, bi-gendered people, third-gendered people, drag kings, drag queens, cross-dressers, non-op/h transsexuals - these people make up, in fact, the majority of trans people. Since they are not participating in the heterosexual medical hegemony, on what basis do you exclude them?
"there are as many ways of being human as there are people."
This is exactly my point with regard to gender: There are as many ways of being a woman as there are females. There are as many ways of being a man as there are males. No matter what people call themselves or how others perceive them.
I'm completely fine with whatever people want to call themselves or how they identify themselves. People can, and do, do whatever they want. And I respect that. I just think that the notion of "trans" is antithetical to the statement above and so I disagree with it.
How can you disagree with my identity?
And why is humanity neatly divided gender/sex pairs of man/male woman/female? Like I already pointed out, there is certainly biological grey area (chomosomal abnormalities, hormone conditions, etc). What are those people in your nicely dichotomised world?
If anything, this dichotomy of yours supports the perpetuation of gender segregation. "Oh, as a female, you can be anything you want. You just can't be a man. That's for males only."
Anderov,
Not sure if you are arguing with the same anon person or not, but I think you might be wasting your breath.
"The entire surgical/psychological transition process is controlled by heterosexual physicians and therapists who believe your biological sex must match your gender. If not, it is appropriate, they believe, to enact surgical violence on your body to make you conform."
Okay man, sex change operations are only performed after a pretty lengthy process of informed consent and psychiatric evaluation to ensure that one is competent and mature enough to make such a decision. The idea of informed consent is to ensure that physicians do not "enact surgical violence" upon their patients.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? You say you're all cool with people's gender identities and whatnot, but you describe consenting medical intervention as "violence."
And FWIW, I find your idea that sex change operations are the result of a bigoted heteronormative medical community to be absolutely hysterical!
Aidan, there is a significantly non-zero probability that I am wasting my breath. In my defence, I can only quote this xkcd comic.
Also, though, the charge of sex operations as a means of enforcing heteronormativity has some historical basis. The original sex reassignment clinics had very strict rules about who was and was not qualified to have surgery. They'd only perform on people who they thought would make a "successful" transition - i.e. be straight 50s housewives (and to a lesser extent, manly men, since the medical visibility of transmen lagged). Consequently, transwomen seeking surgery would have to do their very best to conform to gender roles and be the perfect feminine women. And today, I think there are some countries in the middle east that have state sponsored "sex change" surgery, as a "cure" for homosexuality (which carries a death penalty... Dead gay man, or straight woman? What a choice).
my comment/response never posted... hmmm. weird.
anyway, what i said is this:
I DO support gender segregation, semantically and ideologically. This does not mean That because you say it does.
Yes, a female can be/do whatever she wants, but she will always be a woman and she will never be a man. This is not limiting her on the basis of her sex/gender, this is just a fact. A person is not an inanimate object just because he/she identifies as an inanimate object. It's just a logical impossibility.
As far as the chromosomal abnormalities, I don't have any experience or knowledge in that arena, but as far as I am concerned gender corresponds with biological sex. If someone is biologically both male and female then, I would think that they are both man and woman. I'll leave it up to the biologists to define the criteria for sex.
At this point, Anderov, I think Aidan is right: we're probably both wasting our breath. Neither of us is going to "convince" the other of what we know to be "right" (whatever that means). In fact, I don't even think that's the point of the conversation. I think it's good to just get different ideas out there and to discuss them (as we've been doing over the last few days).
Also, FWIW, I don't at all agree with the statements that "fake name" made about "heterosexually-controlled surgical/psychological process" - I don't think that's accurate at all.
I'm not necessarily trying to change your mind, Anon, but you have expressed contradictions and weak logic, and that's what I've been taking aim at.
For example, these two statements:
"I'm completely fine with whatever people want to call themselves or how they identify themselves. ... I respect that."
"a female can be/do whatever she wants, but she will always be a woman and she will never be a man"
These are fundamentally at odds. "I respect your right to self-identify. But you're still wrong." And that second bit? That's the part where you're calling me a liar. Or insane. Or stupid. Which is it?
If you've deciding to rationalise your disrespect, I cannot hope to convince you to abandon that with logic. But at least have the [sex appropriate gonads] to own it.
It's not disrespect, it's disagreement. As a biological female, you can call yourself a man all you want, and I do respect that. A Caucasian person can identify as Asian if they want to or if they believe that to be the case. I just don't think think that makes it true. I don't think it makes you stupid, insane or a liar, it just means that you believe something that I do not believe.
An interesting analogy, and one I rather like, once you actually apply logic to it...
Race (as sketchy a concept as that is) does have physically verifiable features that can be used to define it, much like biological sex. You could, probably, define Asian "race" in such a way so as to include a Caucasian, but you'd have to admit that your definition of "race" is probably just as valid as anyone else's. (Again, same with sex. Is it gonads? Hormones? Reproductive capacity? All have their merits and flaws).
However, if you had a Caucasian individual who had been born and raised, and spent his entire life in Japan, might that individual not rightly consider himself Japanese? Most Japanese are Asian, obviously, and there are probably aspects of Japanese culture where our hypothetical person would have issues navigating by virtue of not appearing Japanese, but being Japanese is not a biological trait, it's cultural. Just like gender - female man is like a Caucasian Japanese.
@ petite flower
Well, cheers for at least not being wishy-washy about it. Three questions:
The vast majority of non-transsexual trans people don't modify their body at all, so how is it they get included in you "mutilation=crazy" category?
Do you consider all other people who get "cosmetic" surgery similarly psychotic?
Also, how is it that I "completely negate ... [my] psychologically developed self" when it's my psyche that's telling me I'm a man?
@ Anderov re: petite flower...
Wow! You get the award for "most level-headed response to an obviously incendiary comment". Please email me at michael@thenewgay.net to receive your prize.
Seriously, though. Andreov, I love your writing. We'd welcome official posts from you sharing your experiences and perspectives on trans issues or our shared queer life in general. Please do email me at michael@thenewgay.net if you'd like to take me up on this offer.
Dude, really. Getting a nose job or some botox is not chopping your dick off.
I'd like to know why transexuals are gender freakshows. I've never met a MTF (pre or post) who didn't think being a woman meant femming out to the point of caricature. I mean being a woman is not running through a field of flowers in a sundress on a warm spring day. I think any biological woman can tell you that being a woman has nothing to do with make-up, clothes and hair, nothing at all to do with the fantasy of "womanhood" marketed so aggressively in this culture as a consumer item.
Similarly, the FTM's I know of butch out to awkward and creepy proportions when the truth is they don't understand how being a man is more than taking hormones and getting tattoos. They don't understand the beautiful and ugly realities that are part real men's lives.
The "trans" industry perpetuates hetero-gender systems meant to control us by coercing our cooperation. The whole thing is like a minstrel show of fem-acting and butch-acting wannabees deluding themselves to the delight of a medical establishment that agrees sex MUST match gender or you're a freak. Those who ask questions are shunned and vilified. The whole thing reeks of a cult.
I'd like to know what's wrong with feminine men and masculine women? What is wrong about being a "man" in the body of a "woman" or vice versa? The one thing I can say about transgender folk is they keep their bodies and insist upon themselves. That is truly changing the boundaries of what we think is "male" or "female". That I respect.
Lipstick on a pig my friends. Lipstick on a pig.
Petite flower, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly have rather limited experience with trans people and trans communities. It's a stereotype that MTFs are very femme. It's another stereotype that FTMs are uber-butch. As a femme-leaning FTM, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate these tired old stereotypes. Me and my butch MTF friends don't like it.
Now, I have written at length about gender diversity in the trans community in previous comments on this post. Please! I beg of you! Go read and educate yourself before you write again.
And one last point - how do you *know* you've never met a MTF who was not extremely femme? Do you have chromosomal x-ray vision so that you can just "tell" what equipment someone was born with. I'm betting not. I bet you have met trans people who don't fit your stereotypes, and I bet you never knew it. I bet lots of us slip under your radar because we're just so...ordinary.
@ Petite Flower,
When you've gone through 4 years of med school and 5 years of a psych residency, I'll be a bit more willing to listen to a lecture from you on the "delightful" attitudes (I'm not really sure what other adjectives you are trying to ascribe to it - at least something in the same family as heteronormative?) of the medical community as regards transexualism.
There's actually no real broad consensus within the profession. Some psychiatrists believe it is a mental illness and that sex change operations, as cooperations in that illness, violate the hypocratic oath. Some obviously feel quite differently. Since psychiatry is in many ways the "voodoo" area of medicine, it's much harder to build a consensus for standards of care in the same way as it is in, say, endocrinology. Hence the neverending DSM wars - which basically no practicing psychiatrists refer to canonically.
Meanwhile, I'd suggest that as a rank amateur in the issues involved, you refrain from calling anyone a freakshow or telling people how much they don't understand the realities that are part of their self identified gender - even if you may hold such opinions privately.
re: Samba
"I bet you have met trans people who don't fit your stereotypes, and I bet you never knew it. I bet lots of us slip under your radar because we're just so...ordinary."
If trans people are so "ordinary" why do they want to be a part of the Lesbian & Gay rights movement at all? Why did HRC's position in the ENDA debate cause such an uproar?
"...how do you *know* you've never met a MTF who was not extremely femme?"
Dude, I know when I'm looking at a transexual. I've met several over the last 20 years. If you honestly think a MTF or a FTM looks legit you are seriously kidding yourself. There is no real comparison between biological and constructed individuals.
_______________________
re: Aidan
"...psychiatry is in many ways the "voodoo" area of medicine"
If psychiatry is the "voodoo area of medicine" how do you explain, then, it's essential place in the Trans-Industrial-Complex?
"how do you explain, then, it's essential place in the Trans-Industrial-Complex?"
Sex change operations are normally done by a plastic surgeon. Surgeons don't normally have the expertise to ensure that they are dealing with a mentally well balanced patient. Given the extreme nature of a sex change operation, they need some outside assurance that their patients are in fact competent to make such a decision.
A psych. professor I'm friends with recently told me about a patient of his who is schizophrenic. He sometimes feels that he is an arch-angel sent to make rap music that will prepare the world for the second coming of Christ. Oftentimes the reality that he is dealing with is that he needs to get on a plane to Rome and ask the Pope for some money to create his music.
Obviously if part of this patient's complex was that he was a "female" angel, if he just walked into a plastic surgeon's office and signed up for a sex change operation, that wouldn't be such a good idea. Hence, the requirement for psychiatric screening.
As far as my "voodoo" comment, what I meant to signify was that it is much more difficult in psychiatry to arrive at hard empirical truths - the phenomena being studied doesn't boil down quite as easily to the hard sciences of chemistry and physics.
@Petite Flower
Dude, I know when I'm looking at a transexual. I've met several over the last 20 years.
That's amazing! How do you do it? Sometimes, I have wondered whether the person I'm looking at is a transsexual, but then I remember that for every observable trait X that I think describes transsexuals, there are some transsexuals that do not exhibit trait X and many non-transsexuals who do. So it can be very hard for me to tell. But maybe I'm just ignorant, having only met a few hundred transsexuals in my young life. If there is a way I can put all this ambiguity behind me and really *know* someone's transsexual status, I would really like to hear it.
Regarding ENDA: Yes, many transsexuals look completely ordinary. That doesn't mean that at some point in their life, they didn't look visually quite gender ambiguous. I don't know a single transsexual who didn't go through an ambiguous stage somewhere along the way. And as I guess you're well aware, people who look visibly gender are quite susceptible to discrimination.
Another big reason why ENDA is so important for trans people is that our legal documentation often reveals that while we may look perfectly ordinary, our history is not perfectly ordinary. In some places, the law makes it very difficult or impossible to change our gender markers on our legal documents, so every time we have to show an ID, a birth certificate, a passport, or whatever, our private medical history is made known, and whatever benefit we may or may not have received from appearing ordinary is lost.
I would encourage you to read more "Trans 101" type materials to learn about some of these basic issues. Many of your remarks seem to be based on either stereotypes or really outdated information, and I think we could have a more productive conversation if we shared a common foundation.
re: Samba
Ok. Those are some pretty good suggestions. I'll do some more reading then.
I came across a great video today that I think contributes to this conversation.
http://current.com/items/89405000_i_m_80_girl_20_boy
Intersex and transgenedered can cover different particulars, but they're undeniably tied into the larger discussion around gender social norms, variation, and biology.
Though I don't have enough of my own understanding to really draw those intersections out and build on this dialog, I'd love to hear your thoughts Anderov.
Post a Comment