Recently in Transgender Issues Category

Book Review: Julia Serano's Whipping Girl

So with all the recent posts about transgender and transsexuality (And it's Transgender Awareness Week!), I finally got myself motivated to search out other reading materials to bring me up to speed about these issues.

I had no idea which book would answer my questions, but someone mentioned Whipping Girl by Julia Serano and that was the first book that popped up under the search "transsexual" at my library. I thought that might be a good place start---and it was!

Julia talks about a wide range of subjects---it was a lot to take in, but I'll try to sum up what I learned.

Dear Feministing Folk,

While I understand that, given the sensitive nature of the subject we have been having a discussion on, significant moderation of comments is probably necessary, I think there comes a time when moderation might actually be getting in the way of coming to a compromise. For some reason, those cis-gendered people who hold more extreme views than my own (i.e., don't sleep with someone who hates you, duh) were not moderated, while my own comments were moderated.

I myself was replying to a comment in which user gudbuytjane said:

I'm thinking that a lot of the commenters here at Feministing, and cis* queer women in general would prefer if trans women just erred on the side of caution and never had sex at all (and then moved away to an island, as to never run the risk of having a cis* person accidentally be attracted to us). This trick of talking about this in the extreme (silly trans women, you shouldn't date KNOWN KILLERS!!!!!!!) is just more bigotry disguised as concern. It blames the victim as it denies blaming the victim. Ugh.

Later in the thread, she also said this:

I think the only things I am going to ask potential hookups from now on is:

1. Are you cis*?2. Are you a regular reader of Feministing?

Cuz, really, the violence in the words folks have for trans women here are as good an indicator as any that; they're a potential threat.

I agree that the general attitude taken by many here towards trans people has been profoundly condescending. As if it weren't obvious that none of us actively seeks out a sexual relationship with someone who hates us for discriminatory, patriarchal reasons. And yet, I find it a pretty extreme leap to say, based on the fact that I am a cis queer woman, I am a potential threat for physical violence against a trans woman. That's a pretty serious accusation. It's pretty alienating, and I don't think it's politically expedient to fight fire with fire. And yet, that post was allowed to be posted, while only part of what I had written was -- which, out of context, didn't even allow me to add to the debate, but was simply confusing. The rest of my response, which was held from being printed, is reprinted below:

This is my third post on transphobia in what may become a series. See posts one and two

At the time of this writing, my previous post regarding having sex while stealth has 273 comments, many of which are incredibly transphobic. Comments included accusations that trans people are being deceptive, that for a trans person to have sex without disclosing disrespects the sexual orientation of their partner, comparisons between trans people and sexually transmitted diseases, comparisons between trans people and the KKK, and statements that it is trans peoples responsibility to subjugate themselves for the comfort of transphobic people.

This is too much to cover in one post, but I would like to focus on one particularly hypocritical form of transphobia. A reoccurring theme in the comment threads was that transgender people shouldn't enter relationships or have sex with people they think may be dangerous. This idea was expressed in a number of different ways:

A recent Feministing post on transgender people having sex with cisgender people attracted many negative comments focusing on the "dishonesty" of transgender people.

First of I'd like to say that I completely agree that it is dishonest for a transgender person and a cisgender person to have sex, full-stop.  We live in a world where notions of sexual orientation and gender are defined from a cisgender persective.  Since transgender people don't fit neatly into these cisgender definitions, we are always going to be viewed as dishonest from a cis-only perspective.

The whole notion of gender is commonly defined in terms of "biological sex".  Interestingly very few people seem to see any need to decide what "biological sex" actually is, given that it has about a million different scientific meanings.  Transgender people don't fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always.  I can't say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex.  And I can't say I'm male, because that isn't my gender identity nor is how I'm usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well.  And I certainly couldn't say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don't even exist in a lot of people's eyes.  So yes I am completely dishonest, because I can't even give an honest (cisgender) answer to what my gender is.

Thankfully comments along the above lines have become rarer at Feministing, and transgender people are less often accused of being dishonest about their gender.

But now with this recent post, there was a lot of people making comments based on similar thinking.  That transgender people should reveal their transgender status, because it's something a partner needs to know.  Yet the reason usually given is that its relevant to the sexual orientation of the cisgender person.

I'm following up on these two posts about coming out as transgender to romantic partners.

In both threads, there were people who not only argued that trans people have an ethical obligation to come out to their partners, but a few people were even arguing that having sex while stealth is sexual assault. That is, they were arguing that transphobic people can't consent to sex without knowing their partner's trans status, as such knowledge would effect their decision making. Thus, they argued, trans people must either come out to their partners or be celibate.

This line of thinking is deeply disturbing for several reasons.

Before getting started, I'll point out that most of this discussion applies only to post-operative trans people who are indistinguishable from cisgender people. For other trans people, having sex without their partners finding out simply isn't an option, at least not most of the time.

(possible trigger warning)

My college, Vassar, offers a sexual assault prevention education program through http://www.rad-systems.com/index.html which is "women-only." I emailed the sign-up list less than an hour after it was presented, and didn't receive a reply on it until 8am the day of the class, when I finally demanded a response. As I'd feared, the Security officer who ran the program had decided to exclude me, and had obviously been intending not to inform me. I'm a transwoman, and because our campus email service lists our legal names in our emails, I was forced to out myself to him. NY state law and college policy prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender, and gender identity/expression, but the officer is claiming that Title IX allows them to exclude me because I'm not, as RAD states, a "woman."

I'm not sure if that's illegal, since "woman" is a gender identity/expression, not a sex. But I don't think it should matter whether it's illegal, because Vassar has recently been touting itself as a place where gender is fluid, and this is really not in line with that. Likewise, an organization like RAD that claims to exist to protect people should seriously consider the implications of excluding transwomen, who are statistically at a ridiculously higher risk for sexual violence than ciswomen. Apparently, my campus security doesn't mind if I'm raped. The officer who teaches the course made the following remarks as I presented my case:

"Do you have male appendages?"

"If you're female-identified, why did you name yourself '(my male name)' at the top of all these emails?" (it's common knowledge that the system puts those names there, we don't have a choice)

"Look, is this all just a Halloween costume or something?" (the course started today, November 1st)

This is in a long line of issues I'm having with my campus claiming to be a lot more accessible than it really is. We don't have a disablist or working-class students' org (I'm in the process of founding the former). Most people have only the most basic grasp of intersectionality--It's rare that people understand that my working-class background, paragraph-long list of disabilities, queer sexuality, and transgender status all work together to make even the most basic aspects of college life extremely hard to work around. Has anybody else dealt with college-centered institutionalized patriarchy? Any advice on how I approach this problem with RAD?

A few days ago there was a post about a Seventeen Magazine article regarding a woman who dated an abusive trans man who was outed when she called the police. He later explained that he was scared that she would break up with him if she knew. In the article she says "The thing is, I would have stayed with him if he'd been honest. I loved him that much... But it was Derek's lies that really broke my heart."

The title of the article was "My Boyfriend Turned Out to be a Girl." The poster was arguing that while the title was transphobic, the content of the article was not.

The fact that he was abusive was not the point of the article or the poster's argument.

This sparked a long discussion which I believe merits its own post, so I am creating a new one here.

It's not just the title of the article that was transphobic, it was the entire premise. It assumes that transgender people are obligated to come out to their romantic partners, and that if they don't they're liars. This is a highly transphobic position to take.

Trans men are real men, as are cisgender men. The only difference is that trans men are born with bodies that are incongruent with their internal sense of self, and as a result are socialized by society into the female role. In other words, who they are on the inside doesn't match how they appear on the outside, and so they are raised as girls.

A trans man's perception of himself as male, and identity as male, is just as real and valid as a cisgender mans identity and sense of self. When a trans man transitions he isn't being deceptive - just the opposite. He is being himself, despite everything he was socialized to believe about who he is.

Seventeen has gone downhill fast the past few months. I already decided I'm going to stop reading it when my subscription runs out. This month's issue features an article "My Boyfriend Turned Out to be a Girl." My first reaction was that this was going to be very transphobic and that I should read it to write this blog. Boy, was I surprised.

The story is that Sheri received a text message from a number she didn't recognize. She responded asking who it was. He said his name was Derek and he attended a high school an hour away from her. They started chatting through text and then on the phone. Finally they met in person and went on their first date. "I had dated other guys, but for the first time, I knew I was in love." Derek and Sheri then dated throughout the rest of the school year and that summer. He told her he wore chest bandages due to a baseball injury and didn't want her to touch him below the belt because he wanted to take things slow. He went to college and they talked on the phone and saw each other once a month. But during Christmas break he broke up with her because he heard that she cheated on him.

She later found out he was the one that cheated and the girl persuaded him to break up with her. Derek and his new girlfriend came to Sheri's house to pick up his things. She threatened the new girlfriend to get out of her house and Derek threw her on the couch. Sheri went to the neighbors to call the police and they came to the house. They asked her to identify him and they said "No, that person is Dana Smith. You may know her as Derek, but her driver's license and social security number belong to Dana, female."

National Equality March was far more amazing than anybody I know had expected--I spent the whole day thinking that, when my rights as a pansexual transwoman are finally made equal with those of the straight, white, rich, able-bodied, and otherwise privileged cismen, I will look back on yesterday as the day that dream became a demand, rather than an ideal. Unlike many of the other students of my college who were lucky enough to get a seat on one of our two buses from upstate New York, I did not look at the list of speakers in advance, and I think Staceyann Chin, Kate Clinton, and all the rest of the speakers who really hit the notes, were that much better because I hadn't been expecting them.

This is not to say that my fellow students didn't talk constantly about the guest list, because they did. Unfortunately, the only member of the guest list that I was aware of because of this was Lady Gaga. This really didn't excite me--while the Bi-identified artist certainly has helped what she calls the "gay" movement, I wasn't expecting much out of her speech, since she's given misguided answers in the past to such questions as "are you a feminist."

While most of the transpeople I asked about it at the event agreed that her speech was better than they expected, we also agreed that, while every other speech at least acknowledged that there is a "T" in "LGBTIQ," and many acknowledged the "I" as well, Lady Gaga's speech completely ignored the Transgender and Intersex communities.

That certainly isn't the only thing that stung my opinion of her speech--while she may feel that "gay" should include lesbian, bisexual, and possibly queer identities as well, that's the sort of male-default language that the LGBTIQ and feminist movements have been fighting for decades. The important thing, however, is that the NEM, which was otherwise very good about all-inclusive solidarity, had many more appropriate options for a speaker from the music industry. The mood of solidarity would have been much better served if all my gay and lesbian allies had raved incessantly about Peaches.

I'm not saying that the Transgender and Intersex communities should demand the removal of Gaga from the list of LGBTIQ representatives. After all, every letter in the Queer movement needs all the help it can get. Instead, I think the sex- and gender-variant communities should call for Gaga to make a stronger attempt at all-inclusiveness than the phrase "equality for all."

Ma Vie en Rose
Trailer:

Relevant Clip: 

1. I found this movie, like XXY, to be surprisingly heteronormative. It is sexist in spite of, and not because of, its positive portrayal of a gender-variant character. The film could have been reworked, albeit quite thoroughly, to accommodate a space for thinking about the intersections of all sexism, and not merely transmisogyny. It could have taken an emancipatory theme forall women, and not only transwomen. If a more general and affirmative concept of womanhood, one that includes both transgendered and cisgendered women, isn't articulated in this film or any film with female protagonists, this doesn't merely disadvantage ciswomen. It also leaves transwomen vulnerable to the attack one finds in patriarchal transphobia-- the reading that a transwoman is simply an extreme incarnation of an effeminate homosexual male.

I've been following Pundit Kitchen for a few months now.  If you are familiar with I Can Has Cheezburger or FAILBlog, PK follows the same basic format, only the pictures are generally of political figures and pundits.  Frequently, the captions have a very strong political slant, and it generally takes a liberal slant to it.  But then you get images like this.

Look, I think she says some pretty horrible things, but I'm not going to dump on the transgender community in the process of attacking her.

Of course, the comment section is filled with people dumping on her appearance and her "coldness."  Only a few people condemned the image, and they were ignored.  It bugs me that a lot of these commentators would react more negatively if the website described something as "gay," yet they can't even consider the connection between homophobia and transphobia.  I just wish there was some way I could make them see it.

Why?

Because of the tirade of Hate mail I've received over the last couple of days, which apparently is a response to an earlier post I made about the difficulties of being trans and feeling like I'll never be treated like a woman.

Here's a few gems from the waterfall of bullshit that poured into my inbox:

"You look like an average gay boy who decided a play dressup, dude

You're just mad you're not passing enough... :)"

"Transwoman? You sound more like a dude jacked up on testosterone injections... you have to lay off those steroids.
I could say a lot more wat I really think about yer looks.. but don't want to hurt you too bad..."

"What a piece of trashy tranny... lol
You can't even make 2 bucks with yer looks, don't you?"

"You're trying to be bitchy... but still you come off as 'cocky'."

"Grow long hair dumbo, to cover up yer wide shoulders"

I wish I could just brush this all off, but one of the things about being trans is, well, being horribly insecure about how you look. So of course, while making brave replies which looked all the world like I was calm and in control, I sobbed my fucking heart out and cursed ever posting on Feministing on the first place and inviting this torrent of shit into my rather fragile world.

So you achieved your goal, whomever you might be. You made me upset. You made me angry, you made me even more insecure than before.

Congrats; you did something very easy to an incredibly vulverable person.

Clearly I'm not tough enough to take the flak from posting on the internets.

I'm sure that makes you ecstatic.

I've come to that horrible realisation that in my lifetime, I will never be treated as a woman by society.

Not only that, but I will never be treated as - or seen as - a woman, by many of the people I interact with on a daily basis.

This revelation (or more accurately, allowing myself to think about it) really, really hurts. It hurts to the core of my being and when I think too hard about it, the tears come.

It goes beyond the regular facets of being unable to go stealth, which could be possible in the future, with many sacrifices (cutting off friends, family, moving countries, etc).

It's the realisation that, lacking a uterus and ovaries, I will never have children.

It's the lack of the correctly gendered childhood, which means that I'd have to make up lies - lies which could be investigated for their validity and ultimately out me.

It's the fact that I'll have to regularly stick a series of graduated plastic dildo up myself to keep my surgically created vagina from closing up and making me a new kind of freak.

It's the people who tell crass jokes and regale you with disgusting anecdotes about their buddy taking a tranny home, all the while professing to be totally cool with you.

It's the people whom you have to force, via the intervention of HR and management, to call you the correct pronouns and cease referring to you as a 'gentleman'.

A transwoman who is in prison in the UK for manslaughter and attempted rape committed when she identified as male is going to be transferred to a women's prison. She wants gender reassignment surgery, but cannot have it since she is prison.

I have to admit that my joy at knowing that a transwoman's rights were being respected sank slightly when I read she was a sex offender. It is easy to think of rapists and have the attitude that they deserve all the discomfort and isolation they get in prison. But then again, there is the issue of equality, and cis females who rape other females both in prison and outside of it are imprisoned around other female prisoners. The same goes for men who rape their own gender. On a more general note, the fact that they will acknowledge this human right - even to a sex offender - indicates that it will be easier from now on for transpeople to be placed in the correct prison, and that the severity of the crime will not be an obstacle to their rights being respected. Still, it interests me to know what others make of this.

vocab
cisgender: another word for gender conforming, or a person whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.
transgender: umbrella term for anyone whose gender expression or gender identity is not the same as the sex they were assigned at birth
transphobia: fear, hatred, or discomfort with people who are or appear to be transgender
trans man: a person who was assigned female sex at birth but feels more comfortable as a male
trans woman: a person who was assigned male sex at birth, but feels more comfortable as a female
genderqueer: a gender varient person whose gender identity is neither male or female, between genders, or some combination of genders

It was absolutely idiotic for Salon, a mainstream feminist-lite website, to post an article entitled 'The trans bathroom debate'. This 'debate' was manufactured by transphobic people and institutions who saw creating a panic about "men in women's bathrooms" as the best way to keep transgender people from being protected under hate crime and discrimination laws.

The fear tactic relies on the incorrect belief that trans women are men in disguise (correct belief: trans women are women) and giving trans people equal protection will allow these "men in disguise" to use women's restrooms. It often includes some lies about trans people being mentally unstable, sex offenders, or child molesters as well (the same rhetoric used to justify the persecution of gays and lesbians). Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that while trans women are not actually a risk to women, many cisgender men pose a very serious, even life threatening, risk to trans people. While I don't know any trans people who are sex offenders, I know a few guys who might punch a girl if they found out she was transgendered.

Instead of offering any sort of valuable critique or pointing out that basic rights ought not be debated, the article asks readers (most of whom are probably unfamiliar with what it means to be transgender) what they think about this issue (which impacts the transgendered people the readers probably don't know anything about). The question is framed: Are single-sex bathrooms prudish, antiquated and insensitive to trans people? Or are these spaces still necessary to protect the privacy of both genders? This is pretty stupid, considering we could just keep two bathrooms and make them inclusive and safe for trans people. Or, we could have all three- male, female, and gender neutral bathrooms. This isn't, and doesn't need to be a one-or-the-other, two genders or no genders situation. Salon fails by portraying it like this. And, Salon fails by talking about "both genders" (read: two. male and female.) in an article about issues surrounding other forms (read: could be more than two!) of gender expression.

This is a brief series of common questions asked of trans people, with (what I hope are) the relevant answers. It is strongly biased towards trans women, because I am a trans woman. However, the majority of the questions and answers are relevant to trans men as well.

Q: What is a transsexual?

A: A person who’s birth gender is different to their mental gender. For example, someone who is born female, but identifies as male.

Q: What is the difference between a transvestite, a drag queen, a cross dresser, a transgender and a transsexual?

A: Firstly, someone isn’t “a transgender”. They are transgendered. The terms trangendered and transsexual are interchangeable. A transvestite is a male who enjoys dressing up in female clothing, often for sexual reasons. Drag queens are almost exclusively homosexual men who dress up as caricatures of females for the purpose of entertainment. “Cross dresser” is interchangeable with transvestite.

There are also drag kings, who are the female equivalent of drag queens.

Q: Aren’t transsexuals the ones who have had genital surgery?

A: It is generally accepted that a person can be ‘transsexual’ regardless of surgeries.

Q: What about reverse transsexuals?

A: There is no such thing, though the term has been used to refer to Female to Male transsexuals. This is due to the stereotype that transsexuals are exclusively Male to Female.

Crossposted at Choice Words .

Last week the Maine Human Rights Commission ruled in favor of a transgender girl’s right to use the girls bathroom at school. Asa Adams School allowed the girl to use the restroom that matched her gender identity until a boy, who it seems was encouraged by his grandfather, harassed her and followed her into the bathroom. School officials then told the girl she had to use the single-stall faculty bathroom.

The state’s ruling corrects a decision that smacks of victim blaming - the girl was forced to use a separate bathroom on the other side of the school because she was the target of harassment. But this story also speaks to the larger problem of the prevalence of gender segregated restrooms. If students at the school (and their guardians) were not trained from a young age that people fit into one of two gender boxes, clearly represented by the places we pee, the girl’s bathroom use would not have been an issue, and her transgender identity would not be a reason to segregate her away from her fellow students.

A friend of mine says he identifies as feminist, and then says this:

"You can, in no way, say with surgery or whatever, ever be a dude or vice versa.

As for your transgender comment, no amount of anything will make you the gender you wish to be.

I don't discriminate transgenders or people who recognize themselves as the opposite gender but in my mind i see you as the gender you were born as."

We were having a 'debate' (I get much too heated when people question my beliefs sometimes, especially when it involves discrimination against others) about gender identity. 

He kept repeating the phrase: "You are what you are."
Yes. We are what we are. One who identifies opposite of their anatomical parts are what they are.

I think my best point in the whole discussion was
"Gender is a label created by society to determine what people with ovaries do and what people with testes are."

Anatomically, a person has a sex organ. It can be a uterus or testicles, or both.

But that is a sex organ, not a person's gender.

How are people who identify as feminists going about believing this kind of tripe?

< / rant >

*** Cross Posted at FeminismFriday - The Blog ***

I am the niece of a trans man. My new uncle has given me permission to share his story with whom ever I choose, he is not ashamed of his life or decisions. Quite frankly, neither am I. I could not be more happy, and have felt this way from the moment I was informed that this change would be going on. I was excited because I had seen some of the stuggles this person had gone through in their life and things sort of made sense now. I was instantly overwhelmed with the feeling that things would go much better for them now.

My uncle had books and pictures for the family to check out if they were interested, some were a bit graphic for my grandmother but nothing really shocked me. At the time, I was a student in a feminist/anti-oppression college program and I had also been spending a fair amount of time in the LGBTQ community. I was a bit concerned for how my uncle would be accepted by others as he lives with his two children in a small town and is also a long-time member of the Canadian military.

I was really excited when I saw this in the Sunday Omaha World Herald. The online version is really skimpy, but the print edition was beautiful: huge article, front page of the paper, headline above the fold. It's a detailed account of 8-year old "Ben" who will transition this summer, and begin next school year as "Kate." The story detailed the entire family's experience as well as the views of psychiatrists on both sides of the issue ("allowing/not allowing a child to transition is child abuse.")  The one part of the story I found really sad is that Ben was attending Catholic school, as his parents had before him. Even after an appeal to the bishop of the diocese, Kate won't be allowed to attend any Catholic schools (though she can come as "Ben") so she will start public school in the fall.

I wanted to mention this article because I know Mid-West American frequently gets stamped as "closed minded," especially on issues of GLBT rights, and gender equaltiy/identity. (I should know, when I moved here from Washington, DC five years ago, that was totally MY assumption.)  Bu the way the World Herald's treatment of Kate's story is an example of why I'm proud of my new home and truly hopeful about our country's future.

Only today did I come across Jennifer Finney Boylan's 5/11 piece in the NYTimes, "Is My Marriage Gay?"

What I liked about it: how she put into laypeople's terms the problem with trying to legally code for our [socially constructed] binary system of gender.

What do you all think?

hey folks, just so you know, i'm crossposting this from my blog .

A central question that I have as I delve into theory is the concept of “academic language.” As I mentioned in my previous two posts, academic language is divisive and convoluted. But I think there is another piece of the puzzle into which I really want to dig deeper—what does it mean to write a theorist, a branch of theory, or a whole community off as being too academic?

A few weeks ago, queenemily over at Questioning Transphobia wrote two great posts about how “cisgender” is dismissed as an academic term, rendering the calling out of cisgender privilege easily deflectable. queenemily noted that “cis” comes from internet listservs and discussion boards from the 90s. The folks in my community who I talked about it with have said that it comes out of a chemistry term, cis-trans isomerism which I can’t verify but is a neat connection. Here’s the wikipedia article on cisgender as well.

I think it’s important to note that cisgender didn’t necessarily come straight from the academy, or from the pages of Judith Butler. I don’t think that doesn’t mean there isn’t some sort of academic connection to it, though—internet access in the 90s was still scarce, so the folks who may have been actively creating cis might have been academics after all, or at least folks privileged enough to have consistent enough internet access to create online communities. I wish there was a clear citation or link back or path to the origins of cisgender!

queenemily also brings up probably the most important point to me that seems to be forgotten particularly in feminist discussions of trans issues—words that start with cis may seem esoteric, but how many times are words like “sexism” and “heterosexism” thrown back at groups who work to end oppression as too academic? queenemily puts it as the following:

April 30, 2009

This month has seen two first-time events in the history of hate crime law. In Greeley, Colorado on April 22, Allen Andrade was convicted of first degree murder and bias-motivated crime in the killing of Angie Zapata, a transgender woman of color. The verdict marked the first time the murder of a trans person has been legally designated as a “hate crime.” Earlier this month, HR 1913, the first federal hate crime law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, passed the House on its way through Congress.

During the trial, we as members of the local trans and queer communities and allies were asked to support Angie’s family. Solidarity meant attending the trial and bearing witness to the guilty verdict.  We responded to the call for solidarity by sitting in that courtroom and hearing the details of Angie’s murder.  We heard the way she and all trans folks were disparaged by the language of the legal system and the hate speech of a murderer. We then watched Andrade get sentenced to a life behind bars.

We understand the joy that many trans people and allies may feel in this verdict. This is one of the first times that a court in the United States has recognized a trans person’s life as valuable and fully human. While this could be considered a small victory, in many ways it actually underscores to what extent the “justice” system is profoundly and fundamentally violent and unjust in its treatment of trans people.

Local organizations did an amazing job supporting the family, calling the queer and trans community together for healing, and taking on the daunting task of educating the media on trans issues. And it is important to note that the amount of attention given to this case by mainstream LGBT organizations has made violence against trans people of color a national issue.

A while ago there was some discussion about sex-segregation in public restrooms. Some clever folk at my school put up these two signs:

These were put up at the entrance to the library bathrooms, which for most of the year had been unmarked.

1. Reacting to the tone of the OP is not constructive. We all write posts when we’re really happy, others when we’re concerned, and still others when we’re angry or upset. The emotional tone of the writing doesn’t preclude us from reading and thinking about the ideas expressed in the post. I, for one, like to hear other feminist’s ideas, no matter their mood.

2.    Related to this, the ability to ignore someone is a sign of privilege. When people are humiliated in areas where they lack privilege, they can’t ignore it because they don’t have the power. If a bi-girl hears a lesbian woman say she “would never date someone bi, because they’ll always leave you for a guy,” the bi-girl is going to remember that, because she has less power as someone attracted to more than one sex. If a lesbian woman hears a bi-girl say she “doesn’t get why gay marriage matters so much,” the lesbian woman would probably be offended. When someone looks at you and says, “I’m ignoring you, for this reason” they are saying that they’re in power and therefore don’t have to listen. Use your power wisely- ignore those who are hurtful, not those who are hurting.

3.    Don’t automatically assume you can’t ask questions anymore. Instead, think about your question before you ask it. Consider whether your question will benefit the entire audience on the post or just you. If it’s a personal question, think about whether it makes sense to ask it in a more personal venue. Consider whether your question is relevant to the topic. If not, look elsewhere for an answer (we are on the internet right ;-) ?). Consider how you would feel if someone asked you that question. And, consider how you would fell if someone asked you that question for the millionth time, just in case.

4.    Respect how people self identify. If someone says they’re a feminist, don’t tell them they’re not. If someone says they’re Jewish but their mom is a Catholic, don’t inform them that they “aren’t really Jewish”. If someone identifies as a Trans woman, don’t call her a man who likes to dress, talk and act like a woman.

5.    Know the power of apologies. I don’t see apologies often on community feministing. Maybe we’re all busy rebelling against the fact we’ve been socialized to apologize more because we’re women. But sometimes, like when you slip up, an apology is a good thing. It acknowledges where the mistake was, which helps other people learn and it enables the discussion to continue. I know I have a few apologies waiting for the brilliant commenters who point out the flows in this post.

In case it’s not clear, I wrote this because I am really upset and disappointed by some of the reactions to recent posts about Trans people and because I think we are totally capable of reacting more appropriately and constructively.

I know trying to talk to us can be scary.  We have, like, all of these opinions and sometimes we call you on your privilege.  Frightening, I know.  But it’s okay, I’m willing to give you some tips on how to talk to us, or about us:

1. In a discussion about trans people or trans issues, we want to talk about trans people and trans issues. Stop centering the discussion on cis issues.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a post on a major blog about trans issues be derailed into a discussion of birth control, BDSM, or other unrelated topic.  Cis people, sometimes the discussion isn’t about you.  Stop forcing everything to be framed by your perspective.  That is privilege at work.

2. Do your homework.  Don’t know what cis means?  Look it up.  The burden of education is on you, not on us.  If you want to engage with us, don’t expect us to teach you everything we know.  You’re going to actually have to put effort into being an ally.  You’re actually going to have to self-educate and self-reflect.

3. Trans man, trans woman.  Not transman, transwoman.  Put the space in.  Seriously.  Just do it.  I believe in you.

4. Don’t belittle us.  We’re not here as objects for you to use.  If you learn while talking to us, that’s wonderful.  But we don’t want to see self-congratulatory posts later about how your time among the (oppressed class, in this case trans people) has made you a better person.  If you’re frustrated with other people who are hateful to us, wonderful.  But don’t use us as a group or your ally status as a bludgeoning weapon to attack other people with.  Both times, you center the discussion and the concerns of cis people and you assert your privilege.

5. Finally, DO participate!  I’ve seen too many cis people give weak “what do I have to say about it?” responses.  We need your engagement.  If you can set aside your cis concerns for a moment, we can even have a productive conversation!

The recent bout of cis-centric/transphobic commenting on some of the bigger feminist blogs highlights a problem that exists throughout the feminist community. There are very good reasons for solidarity between the transgender community, that is people whose gender identity is self-identified as different from that assigned to them at birth, and cisgender feminists (by cisgender I mean people who identify with the gender identity they were assigned at birth). However, a binary view of gender and lack of understanding of trans life experiences often leads to the exclusion of gender non-conformists from feminist analysis and to transphobic attitudes within feminist circles.

In patriarchal cultures the oppression of women through exclusion, marginalization, and violence is oppression of people who have failed to be men . When power has been deliberately concentrated in male hands and men have positioned themselves as the norm, women experience violence because they are treated as an other, as less than. Less worthy of life, less worthy of choice, less worthy of bodily autonomy. Women’s consent is deemed unnecessary because they are seen as less than human.

There are many people, including too many women, who experience marginalization, oppression, and violence because of their failure to be men but who also fail to fit a definition of woman rigidly defined as those who were identified female at birth, self-identity as female and also dress a certain way, speak a certain way, move a certain way, desire a certain way. In fact, failure to fit perfectly into the woman box is also an excuse for oppression.

I'm a trans woman and today I finally decided to make my page on myspace public.   Why am I becoming a friends-only person?  As I get further and further away from transition (1 year 4 months) the more people there are in my life who know me as just a girl.  Between new coworkers, members of clubs I have joined (like an awesome juggling group), a guitar teacher, an inservice events I do for teachers and librarians about new kids and teen literature, and now the new kids and parents book club I've been asked to oversee for a group of homeschooling moms.  Not to mention I'm beginning to apply for new jobs, espcially in children's deptartments at libraries and while I don't exactly plan on hiding my status, I don't really see why it needs to be a part of the interview process... so I guess I'm giving it up so I can have some control over other parts of my life.

It's sad.  Not only did it provide me a way to reintroduce myself to friends that I hadn't seen in awhile, but a chance to be found by members of others, whether they knew me or not and i got a lot of nice notes about what I wrote from complete strangers. I have a really great coming out letter, if I do say so my self.  It has a funny story about Dave Chappelle sitting down in the booth directly behind my parents in middle of my coming out talk with my parents - how many coming out stories have celebrity guest cameos - but I put a lot of thought, feeling, and hopefully some depth in to it too.... at least that was what I was going for and I really did like getting to share that with other people.  On top of this i've also had to create a public and a private email (and never the twain shall meet... except that one time) and I feel like there are more choices like this in my future.

Any other trans people on here have experiences like this?  I suppose lots of people have to hide somethings and they might be able to relate some...  Or do are there trans people who advocate for being out all the time to everyone.  I thought I would be like that, actually I feared and dread things would have to be that way, but now that they aren't...   I don't know.

Any thoughts or comments... I'd espcially like people's own stories in dealing with this.

Yesterday I was glad to see a new issue of Bitch Magazine on the shelves at my work and happy to get to read it on my break.  However, I wasn't so happy with everything inside as it turned out.  I don't know, its just one small article, but it really got to me.  I now forget what its called, "Dudes in dresses" or something to that effect, but it was about how stylish being queer was becoming and while mentioning male celebrities in dresses it also offered as evidence the use of trans women in fashion in 2008.  There was a big full body picture of Isis next to the text as well as smaller shots of guys in drag and another transsexual, again under the heading of "Dudes in dresses" or whatever it was.  I remember that “dudes” was definitely there.

I guess there are two things that annoy me the most about this article, the first being that it did not distinguish between the differences of a trans woman's own identity and those who use trans people and their identities as a fashionable accessories. Should the presence of a trans woman on a reality show about female models be seen as inclusion and acceptance of a trans woman's identity or a fashion statement?  Both answers might be true, but I think it's the phrasing in the piece that really gets me.

This brings me to my second problem, which is that the author only referred to the trans women as m2f's. This a phrase that is none to popular with me, but its the lack of female pronouns or even words like women in reference to those mentioned in an article with the word "dudes" in the title that just makes me a wee bit suspicious of the author's feelings about trans women and a little annoyed that Bitch Magazine would put something like this out, either in not realizing its implication or not caring.

Okay, maybe I read it wrong.  Has anybody else seen this and had similar thoughts/different thoughts/little thought?  Was I right about the pronoun thing (maybe I didn’t look closely enough)?  I didn't buy it and instead waited to further inspect the piece on my next shift, but if anyone can back me up or set me straight I'd really appreciate it.

This has been tickling my brain for a while and I haven't been able to find any satisfactory discussion about this issue with the specific questions I have in mind, so I thought I would ask if anyone here could give me more insight into this problem.

Let me start by outlining a few assumptions.

1.  There are no inherent differences in the way male and female children think or feel.  The differences we tend to recognize as gendered are basically culture induced.

2. Even if there were such inherent differences, we couldn't possibly know anything other than our own experiences.  This is simlar to the philosophical problem of color.  Basically, you might see red the way I see green, and vice versa, but since we're not in each others heads, we can't possibly know.

If either of these are the case, particularly if number 1 is the case, I don't see how someone can consistently claim to be transgendered.  If there is no difference in the way men and women typically feel, and gender notions are basically a culture construct, how can someone think that they should be a member of the opposite sex?  What defines sex at that point other than genetics?

Where to begin?  Especially in light of the TDoR...

Forums can be such catalysts for thoughtful articulations! Arguing with people has always been much more fruitful for my brain than analyzing by myself. Recently, as in, over the last two or three days, there has been a conversation going regarding the murder of Angie Zapata.

Now, any feminist who's been around the block has seen this exact same rationale leveled at women who are raped, "well if she didn't [whatever she did] then [that] wouldn't have happened to her!" And we call this rape apology.

I don't know if there is a term for this that I simply haven't come across yet, but there should be a term for the blame I see leveled at trans people for "getting themselves murdered" which is basically what I have been dealing with. In contemplating all the overlapping issues I could think of, I came up with a few things, which I'd like to share with y'all.

There seemed to be a few different concepts underlying people's responses to Angie's murder. The most prominent, which I have seen just about every time this topic comes up anywhere, is that she was "lying", she "deceived" the man she slept with, and don't we all get angry when we're lied to?!

Okay, I love the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but I'm tired of the tranny jokes on both shows. I realize that they make fun of a lot of different people and that's great (or whatever), but I believe that there is a difference between the way that they use other identities in funny ways and transsexuals. The segment I'm posting below is a great example of this

I'm posted this segment because it includes all the worst parts of the jokes made about transsexuals.

1. While "pre-op tranny" was in good company on the list of people found in fake America, there has never once (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) been any other reference or example of transsexuals other than the stereotypes they present when they use transsexuals as the butt of their jokes. They've had feminists, gays, Jews, and Muslims on to their show and their jokes more often than not are played out to make negative views or actions against these identities look lame and stupid. However transsexuals receive on very little positive treatment on either shows, there never having been a transsexual guest on, nor do they ever really (correct me if I'm wrong) present a positive image of transsexuals or in any way more than a two-dimensional stereotype. On the Daily Show and the Colbert Report we're just a joke.

2. Another majore problem is that these jokes typically ignore the existence of trans men. If these jokes included anything more at their core than the "men in dresses is funny" joke and opened the terms like transsexual or slang like tranny to a wider and more accurate definition in a joke they would become much more complicated and more difficult to use. At the end of the fake America segment I paused and had to ask myself whether or not the joke was that he was a trans woman who had yet to begin transition or whether he was a trans guy who had begun hormones but had not had mastectomy and/or a hysterectomy. I'm sure most people didn't have to ask themselves this or else they would not have found it as funny. The term tranny and transsexual on this show are being used specifically in reference to trans women, continuing the trend of trans women are something to ridicule, trans men are something to be ignored.

3. The use of "Pre-op" in the joke directs the humor away from the identity of being a transsexual towards the state of our genitals. This extends the "men in dresses" joke (since I don't think they were referring to trans me here in any way) to "men in dresses who have their penises cut off". Transsexuals are not defined by their identity or what they feel, but instead by what they do to their body. There is a whole long life that transsexuals have before and after surgery, but other aspects of ourselves is obscured by terms like "pre-op" and "post-op".

4. This is just a lazy joke. This is something that requires no skill and is widely used. In making this joke they share the company of all those bigoted jerks on the radio, TV, or just in communities across the United States who think "pre-op trannys" are pretty funny too (we are both equally ridiculed in real America and the fake one). I'm all for bringing different sides together on common beliefs, but what I really can't stand the lack of effort they put into it. I expect better. If they are going to tell a tranny joke I want it to be a good one and stead of the bullshit above.

Ideas for the daily show to begin working on this problem... First, make a better, smarter joke. If you want to make fun of us, go right ahead, but make sure that some where in the joke is a little bit of the actual lives of transsexuals and not just the stereotype. Second, have transsexual guests on the show. I feel like the number of tranny jokes should some how be balanced by the number of guests on the show, but I'll settle for just one guest to be on. Jennifer Finney Boylan is a very funny person, wrote a best-selling autobiography, and is working on a series of op-ed pieces for the New York Times. Her new book didn't sell as well, but when it comes out in paperback they should have her on the show. I would really love to see Julia Serano or Helen Boyd and a lot of other people who write about trans issues on the show, but I'll take what I can get at this point.

Okay. If you want you can write the daily show and Colbert report about this - I know I'm going to and I encourage you to do it too. Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully think about this issue.

Transsexuals are an abomination. They mock God, for we are made in his image and transsexuals pervert this.

If you saw Bones last night, something like this was said by the preacher's wife - the same preacher that became a post-op MtF transsexual in Thailand and was declared dead in order to separate herself from her old life.

Isis is not "America's Next Top Model" this cycle, but I think there is a lot that can be said about her time on the show. The presence of trans women in this competition is groundbreaking and I’m not the kind of person who would say this lightly.  I've never cared about this show before, but I glad that their viewers who are only just becoming introduced to trans women have examples like this to look to.  I live in Ohio and most people at best only know the not so flattering images found in most films or at worst on Jerry Springer.

For the first time in the history of Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, a federal trial court has ruled that a woman-born-man, Diane Schroer, can recover for discrimination, because discrimination against a man transitioning to being a woman is discrimination "based on . . . sex."  (Previoiusly, transgendered persons have had some avenues of recovery under the Price-Waterhouse line of cases, most of which involved cisgendered persons who failed to meet stereotyped expectations regarding gender presentation, i.e., attire, makeup, gestures, hair length, etc.)

Congratulations, Ms. Schroer!

I just came across this video from National Geographic about Indian transpeople, and I felt it was an important consciousness-raiser. In India, transpeople are known as 'eunuchs' and considered a third sex. They are outcast from society and treated almost as a freakshow, with people paying them to dance at parties and bless them with their 'magical powers'. The women interviewed are clearly not happy with this life.

Here's another video, which should illustrate just how much stigma they receive (being called 'The third gender', etc):

My friend just told me that the cycle of America's Next Top Model starting in September is going to have a transgender woman as a contestant. 

After educating my friend that this woman, Isis, is not called a 'transvestite' but a transgender person, we continued to discuss how ANTM would 'handle' this contestant's situation.  She wondered if they would do anything different with nude or lingerie shots (she is 'pre-op' according to Entertainment Tonight).  I just wonder if they are going to be able to not offend the LGBTQ community during the season.  ANTM hasn't always dealt with things in a discrete and respectful way.  What are your thoughts on this?  I think it is great they are including diverse individuals, but am skeptical if they are going to be able to do it the right way (the tv show I mean)

when I think about trying to communicate why my identity as a woman is authentic and valid, my first impulse is to talk about how hard it was growing up and struggling with this.  I'm still reeling from it.  I'm reeling from my transition too - from being identified as male and now female and then times when I have to exist inbetween.  I feel like I'm shaking inside.  There is anxiety and a tenseness and some part of me thinks that if I tell this story about how hard my experience, just over and over again, that at some point it will get through... and while I want to do this I knot that this isn't the way. 

Imagine.

The world as we know it abruptly ends. Thousands of years from now, an alien race of anthropologists sift through the ruins of American Civilization, trying to understand what, and who, we were. Imagine they were to compile a list of what we, culturally, believed to to be The Worst Things Ever.

The first Worst Thing Ever would be easy: Anal Sex.

The second Worst Thing Ever would be Female Orgasms and anything associated with them (ie: vagina's, feminine sexual pleasure/desire, et. al).

The third Worst Thing Ever might take some considering. The aliens would rub their chins if they had them with their fingers if they had them and ponder. Is Communism the third Worst Thing Ever? Maybe Terrorism? Or Liberals? Eventually, though, they'd come to it.

The third Worst Thing Ever is Transgender Folk Using Public Restrooms.

At least that's what I'm given to believe from Kathleen Miller's DC Examiner cover story yesterday.

Probably the most disappointing thing about coming out as a transsexual woman and physically transitioning, has been the sheer nastiness that I've experienced among some members of the trans (woman) community. The issue that I speak of is one that's very familiar to transwomen everywhere, passing.

Quite possibly no aspect of transitioning is harder to accomplish than “passing”-the ability to blend in seamlessly with cis-members of your preferred gender. All too often, I've heard transwomen that pass ridicule those who don't, and I'm sick and tired of it. Lets face it, to a certain degree passing is important-for personal safety, job opportunities, and, lets face it, it obviously helps out with dating and relationships. Some transwomen, though, take pride in ridiculing those in the trans community who don't pass well, for whatever reason.

A group from Montgomery County, Maryland called Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government have launched a campaign called Not in my Shower This campaign is supposed to allow voters to repeal a measure that opposes discrimination based on gender identity. The group's argument against the measure is the concern that "cross-dressing men could use women's restrooms and locker rooms, and possibly assault the women."

Right...

My hometown, Gainesville, Fla., is generally fairly progressive. Recently, our city commission passed an ordinance that, among other things, prevents discriminating against people based on gender identity, including in public restrooms. I guess this had some family values folk trembling, because they launched a petition to change the ordinance.

I didn't even know about this. An arrest has been made but they don't know if it's connected to Angie being trans.