I know this has been discussed, cussed and argued to death, but you would think the media would get it right when describing post-transistion women and now girls. And get it right when presenting the history and the perspective of themselves and their transistin. But I also know the media is about the story and more often the sensationalism than the truth and reality.
But there are times you have to shout at them, "What don't you understand?"
My case in point is an article about an interview with Kim Petras, article. The headlines reads, "Gender reassignment: 'I always wanted to be a girl...'", except she, as all transwomen and girls, don't want to "be" a girl, but as in the article, "I always wanted to live as a little girl." Semantics, but big difference.
Transwomen already know they're girls and women, they just want to able to transistion and live as one, to be legally and medically recognized as female. The article fails to convey that point, especially since they've written about other transwomen. But then what can you expect from some male journalist? Ok, kidding, but they're lack of professionalism and understanding is obvious.
The same applies to transmen (female to male transpeople). It's not about what you want to be, that's given. It's about how you want to life. And that's what the transisiton is for, to get through and get on with your life as you know yourself to be. You don't become the other sex/gender, because you already are, you just want to body to match.
While it appears a semantic argument, it's the essential argument in the description because this is where people ask, "So, you were a man (or boy in her case) and you wanted to be a woman (or girl in her case)?" No, not even close because they don't see themselves as a man or a boy, they're simply posing as one to get through life.
It's not about the body as the determining factor, but the mind, how and what it sees the person. It's documented transpeople self-identify as the opposite sex or gender somewhere between 3 and 6 from their interactions with other children. They don't see themselves as their birth sex and gender, but the opposite, and they see the contradiction with their body, and why they want to change the body.
So, if they can get it, why can't the media? Almost every time the media still confuses this issue about the person. And every time they get verbally pummelled by the transcommunity for misidentifying the person and misunderstanding the issue. And every time the media doesn't change except on rare occasion, usually by a journalist writing a different story.
Anyway, it's just a rant at the media. Kim Petras just wants a life and future as a girl and woman, and even if she knows she's the darling of the media for transpeople and doing an excellent job, she deserves that life and future. And without the media keep reminding her of the past and keep screwing it up.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Posing
I'm often reading bits and pieces of people's life story, usually post in a blog, articles, chapters in book, wherever, and like to find interesting nuggets of ideas, for me anyway, to think and write about. I was struck by one recently about a woman who born, raised and lived male for a long time before transistioning.
That's not new as there are more late (post-40) transpeople transistioning than ever, as the publicity about them eases and the medical community is more understanding to help those going through a transistion. There is a higher proportion today for young, even children and teenagers, transistiong as it's better for them then and in their future, and because the medical community finally got smart enough to treat them.
But that's not the point here. I was struck with the biography of one who said she "posed as a man" throughout her adult life. And that's probably the best word to describe it, posing. Because that's what transpeople do in the life before their transistion. They live a lie and they transistion to be true and truthful. True to themselves and truthful to the world.
And all the time before was just posing as their birth sex and gender. They simply passed to get through life. Sometimes they tried hard to live as that sex and gender, as you read in some of the biographies, but always in the end found it too much to live a lie. They transistioned into themselves.
And that is what's often not understood. Many ask a transwoman, "So you were a man and you switched sex (or gender) to live as a woman?" Well, that's the wrong question because they never really were a man, but only posed as one. It's the wrong question because they never saw themselves let alone believed themselves to be a man.
They simply posed as one. They acted it out, maybe partly to try to convince themselves they're not a transperson, but mostly to hide themselves from the world. They didn't want the world to see and know, so they posed. Until it overwhelmed them. The posing, the charade becomes a weight so much if crushes them mentally and emotionally.
The posing slowly kills their heart, soul and spirit. And when they shed the identity under the posing, they find their freedom, to be themselves, no posing, no acts, nothing but themselves. So don't judge a transperson from their past, judge by their present, because before it was all just posing.
That's not new as there are more late (post-40) transpeople transistioning than ever, as the publicity about them eases and the medical community is more understanding to help those going through a transistion. There is a higher proportion today for young, even children and teenagers, transistiong as it's better for them then and in their future, and because the medical community finally got smart enough to treat them.
But that's not the point here. I was struck with the biography of one who said she "posed as a man" throughout her adult life. And that's probably the best word to describe it, posing. Because that's what transpeople do in the life before their transistion. They live a lie and they transistion to be true and truthful. True to themselves and truthful to the world.
And all the time before was just posing as their birth sex and gender. They simply passed to get through life. Sometimes they tried hard to live as that sex and gender, as you read in some of the biographies, but always in the end found it too much to live a lie. They transistioned into themselves.
And that is what's often not understood. Many ask a transwoman, "So you were a man and you switched sex (or gender) to live as a woman?" Well, that's the wrong question because they never really were a man, but only posed as one. It's the wrong question because they never saw themselves let alone believed themselves to be a man.
They simply posed as one. They acted it out, maybe partly to try to convince themselves they're not a transperson, but mostly to hide themselves from the world. They didn't want the world to see and know, so they posed. Until it overwhelmed them. The posing, the charade becomes a weight so much if crushes them mentally and emotionally.
The posing slowly kills their heart, soul and spirit. And when they shed the identity under the posing, they find their freedom, to be themselves, no posing, no acts, nothing but themselves. So don't judge a transperson from their past, judge by their present, because before it was all just posing.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Double Standard
I was reading the case in Australia where two transmen (men born female) won the right for legal recognition as male despite not complying with the law to have hysterectomies, see article. The Gender Reassignment Act requires transwomen (male to female) to have sex reassignment surgery and transmen to have a hysterectomy to ensure they don't have the reproductive organs of their birth sex.
The judge granted their legal recognition in violation of the law and the Attorney General there is fighting the court order. While that seems a fair standard, here in the United States, we have a double standard. Transwomen have the same requirements for legal recogntion, meaning getting your birth certificate changed, which is sex reassignment surgery, rarely covered by insurance and costs $15-20K.
The difference here is transmen only have to have hrt and "therapy" for one year to certify they're being and living as men. No surgery required even though almost all have a double mastectomy to get the male feeling of their chest without breasts. Only a very few have hysterectomies, and mostly to remove the possible of cancer later in life. And even fewer transmen go for sex reassignment surgery, which is problematic and expensive.
This means transwomen take 3-5 years to transision, although it can be done in a year or so if you pass, have money and very motivated with a good therapist and physician, while transmen usually transistion in 1-2 years, often about a year as male hrt is quick and very effective after a few months. Transmen usually fully assimilate into life as men before the one year period.
Transistions for transwomen often costs $30-50K with minimal surgeries and other expenses and can cost $50-100K with the suite of surgeries. Younger transwomen transistion for $20-25K because they easily pass and integrate easier into society. Ah, the advantages of youth and the reason the rate of young transwomen is growing. Do it young and have a life as a woman.
Transistion for transmen often only costs about half the common costs for transwomen since surgery isn't a necessity and sometimes mastectomies can be covered by insurance for health reasons. This means it's cheaper and quicker to transistion from female to male than the reverse.
So the problem? The standard. As we saw in the case of the Oregon transman who kept his female reproductive organs to have a baby when his wife couldn't, there's a disconnect between what's male and being a man than what's female and being a woman. The double standard for women apply more so to transwomen, a double standard on an already existing double standard.
But my point is about the surgeries. And while the transcommunity will argue it's not about the surgery because being a man or a woman is more mental than physical, it is about both. And it's unfair to make transwomen go down a different legal path than transmen. You can't give a woman a penis, although surgeons have made strides through grafts and/or artificial means, but you can give a man a vagina sans the reproductiive parts.
And so the standard sits for legal recognition, transmen can keep their female anatomy as men, but transwomen can't keep the male anatomy. I can understand the latter because no woman wants a penis and testicles. I can't understand the former, why a man wants to keep his ovaries and womb to get and be pregnant. While these will atrophy with hrt (Oregon man stopped hrt to become pregnant), it's the logic of it.
I agree with the Gender Reassignment Act in Australia. It clearly and fairly levels the standards between and for transpeople. It's fair and reasonable. And I hope he wins the day. I'm sorry for the two transmen, but they knew the standards and they decided not to comply. They should be held accountable and do what the rest of transpeople have to do. That's also a fair standard.
The judge granted their legal recognition in violation of the law and the Attorney General there is fighting the court order. While that seems a fair standard, here in the United States, we have a double standard. Transwomen have the same requirements for legal recogntion, meaning getting your birth certificate changed, which is sex reassignment surgery, rarely covered by insurance and costs $15-20K.
The difference here is transmen only have to have hrt and "therapy" for one year to certify they're being and living as men. No surgery required even though almost all have a double mastectomy to get the male feeling of their chest without breasts. Only a very few have hysterectomies, and mostly to remove the possible of cancer later in life. And even fewer transmen go for sex reassignment surgery, which is problematic and expensive.
This means transwomen take 3-5 years to transision, although it can be done in a year or so if you pass, have money and very motivated with a good therapist and physician, while transmen usually transistion in 1-2 years, often about a year as male hrt is quick and very effective after a few months. Transmen usually fully assimilate into life as men before the one year period.
Transistions for transwomen often costs $30-50K with minimal surgeries and other expenses and can cost $50-100K with the suite of surgeries. Younger transwomen transistion for $20-25K because they easily pass and integrate easier into society. Ah, the advantages of youth and the reason the rate of young transwomen is growing. Do it young and have a life as a woman.
Transistion for transmen often only costs about half the common costs for transwomen since surgery isn't a necessity and sometimes mastectomies can be covered by insurance for health reasons. This means it's cheaper and quicker to transistion from female to male than the reverse.
So the problem? The standard. As we saw in the case of the Oregon transman who kept his female reproductive organs to have a baby when his wife couldn't, there's a disconnect between what's male and being a man than what's female and being a woman. The double standard for women apply more so to transwomen, a double standard on an already existing double standard.
But my point is about the surgeries. And while the transcommunity will argue it's not about the surgery because being a man or a woman is more mental than physical, it is about both. And it's unfair to make transwomen go down a different legal path than transmen. You can't give a woman a penis, although surgeons have made strides through grafts and/or artificial means, but you can give a man a vagina sans the reproductiive parts.
And so the standard sits for legal recognition, transmen can keep their female anatomy as men, but transwomen can't keep the male anatomy. I can understand the latter because no woman wants a penis and testicles. I can't understand the former, why a man wants to keep his ovaries and womb to get and be pregnant. While these will atrophy with hrt (Oregon man stopped hrt to become pregnant), it's the logic of it.
I agree with the Gender Reassignment Act in Australia. It clearly and fairly levels the standards between and for transpeople. It's fair and reasonable. And I hope he wins the day. I'm sorry for the two transmen, but they knew the standards and they decided not to comply. They should be held accountable and do what the rest of transpeople have to do. That's also a fair standard.
Update to letter
I wrote a "Dear President" letter, here, and I need to update it from additional information. I read that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is obligated to defend all lawsuits against the government, no matter how much they think the lawsuit is right and the law wrong. It's the law and their agency responsibility. And I ragged on the President about doing this.
And I later learned what the DOJ did to defend the law which, while still making me question the President's real view on this issue, makes it more acceptable. I learned the DOJ only challenged the law on some absurb aspect of the law which any good judge will throw out and allow the lawsuit to continue. I also learned, however, that the LGBT community, specifically the gay (men) community, want the judge to throw the lawsuit out.
It seems the challenge itself doesn't really challenge DOMA but the application of it to the couple in California where the application of DOMA doesn't apply to their case. In their view, it's a bad case to challenge DOMA. So while the President and the Attorney General are trying to put a good face and spin on a no win situation for them, the other side is hoping the case loses.
Kinda' reverse logic at work. So why not drop the lawsuit and find a better case? Or better yet, the President do what he promised, ask Congress to repeal DOMA? But that we know he won't because Congress won't, not with 2010 elections a year away and many of them up for re-election and facing the voters over marriage issues.
But still Congress should repleal DOMA. It's a dumb, politically minded and intented law, and has no value for real human rights.
And I later learned what the DOJ did to defend the law which, while still making me question the President's real view on this issue, makes it more acceptable. I learned the DOJ only challenged the law on some absurb aspect of the law which any good judge will throw out and allow the lawsuit to continue. I also learned, however, that the LGBT community, specifically the gay (men) community, want the judge to throw the lawsuit out.
It seems the challenge itself doesn't really challenge DOMA but the application of it to the couple in California where the application of DOMA doesn't apply to their case. In their view, it's a bad case to challenge DOMA. So while the President and the Attorney General are trying to put a good face and spin on a no win situation for them, the other side is hoping the case loses.
Kinda' reverse logic at work. So why not drop the lawsuit and find a better case? Or better yet, the President do what he promised, ask Congress to repeal DOMA? But that we know he won't because Congress won't, not with 2010 elections a year away and many of them up for re-election and facing the voters over marriage issues.
But still Congress should repleal DOMA. It's a dumb, politically minded and intented law, and has no value for real human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
