Why is it a sad day for women's international track and field sports? It was announced that the test resutls for Caster Sememya won't be released to the public, but she will get to keep the title to the races and title she won in Berlin in August. Why does this smell of politics between the South African sports union and the international sports federation? And under the table deal to keep from going public with the obvious?
So, what about all those tests, some of which were leaked and some of which prompted the doctors in South Africa to recommend she not go and compete in Berlin? Did they lie? Hardly. And what if in time, it is proven she is not female by birth and has not gone through a transistion required of transathletes, and in truth is an underdeveloped boy? And maybe the testes woke up to start working, which may explain the sudden burst in her times in less than two years.
I'm sorry for her, but being raised female doesn't make you physically female if the genes and resultant developement isn't there. The earlier repots cited she didn't have a female reproductive system - meaning no ovaries or uterus, she had undedescended testes, and she had elevated level of testosterone, even higher than normal female athletes. A girl she may be, but a female she is not.
I'm sorry for all the women athletes who were cheated of the truth and cheated of fair competition. In order to save face, organizers decided one person was above the rest. That's discrimination at best, and whatever you want to call it at worse. I think, all apologies aside to Caster, the truth should be revealed. It has in the past for female athletes, so why is this case different?
Everyone should have been up front about this. She put herself on center stage in Berlin. She should accept the consequences of that and the decisions what's fair for the sport, not herself, which seems what is happening. And the leaders are simply exercising gender politics as usual.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
It escapes me
The studies show the first thing people look at and check when meeting someone new, or just watchiing people for that matter, is the face, followed by their facial expressions. The second, if they can, is the voice. And the rest are the overall person or body, their presentation, their expressions and behavior, and so on down the line.
It's human nature, and in spite of what we eventually like about them, we all follow this general pattern when we look at people. And as the studies have shown, it's down quickly and almost conclusively where it's difficult to change their initial impression. Hard as we may try, it's already done and the best we can do is make them rethink it.
So, do transwomen (I'll use this to dentote those in transistion), and post-transistion women (for legally recognized women who have finished and have had SRS and their documents changed) not know this? How many times have you seen one (either) and knew instantly they weren't female (by birth)? And how long did it take you to then identify them as former trans or post-trans (since you can't tell the difference from the outside)?
This is the argument the transcommunity makes about passing and the old issue, those who pass disappear into society away from the transcommunity, except those publically out or known. Those who don't are stuck. But they don't have to be stuck in some ways. It's called cosmetic facial surgery and there are quite a number of surgeons who will change the masculine facial feature to feminine features.
It's why some in the transcommunity will tell any transwoman and especially all post-transistion women, to get the facial surgery first if you can afford. It's about the impression and passing. You can and will get SRS later. Pretty straight-forward and good advice. So why do so many don't heed it when they can afford it?
This is what escapes me. When you're obvious, all the makeup, hair and clothes won't hide it. You can't do much about the voice, only good voice therapy works if at all, but you can do a lot about the face. I'm not talking pretty or better, but at least something plain or ordinary.
I know the answer. All transwomen want to get to their SRS and get their documents changed to be officiallly "female" and get on with their life. Except when they don't pass enough to get past the first impression, what good is it? Yes, I know they want to be and live as women, and they get there. But if it makes life harder because people see you differently as you present yourself, what's so good about it?
Even some of famous post-transistion women will tell you about your transistion, "Get facial surgery!" It overcomes 90% of the initial problems in life. If they see the face, they'll pretty much be more receptive and accepting of you as a woman than seeing a male face in female attire. That's the proverbial "man in a dress" they constantly argue about and what the public sees.
And that hurts other transwomen and post-transition women who don't pass enough. And it's why 90% of the post-transistion women, those who pass, run away from the term trans-anything and the transcommunity as fast as they can. They are and live as women, nothing else. They've long earned and deserve it.
So, it's always a "Duh?" moment when I see a transwoman and especially a post-transistion woman with a male or male-like face. They were rich enough to get through their transistion (since few health insurance plans cover much if anything with one), why didn't they spend $10-15K for facial surgery to help? It escapes me.
It's almost like they want to be separate from women, they don't want to disappear from the identity, and they want the label transwoman. I know it's not true, but it certainly appears either that way to me, that they're not being honest with themselves about their looks or their being blind about it. Overly critical, yes, I know, but I just don't see it.
And it's why it always escapes me.
It's human nature, and in spite of what we eventually like about them, we all follow this general pattern when we look at people. And as the studies have shown, it's down quickly and almost conclusively where it's difficult to change their initial impression. Hard as we may try, it's already done and the best we can do is make them rethink it.
So, do transwomen (I'll use this to dentote those in transistion), and post-transistion women (for legally recognized women who have finished and have had SRS and their documents changed) not know this? How many times have you seen one (either) and knew instantly they weren't female (by birth)? And how long did it take you to then identify them as former trans or post-trans (since you can't tell the difference from the outside)?
This is the argument the transcommunity makes about passing and the old issue, those who pass disappear into society away from the transcommunity, except those publically out or known. Those who don't are stuck. But they don't have to be stuck in some ways. It's called cosmetic facial surgery and there are quite a number of surgeons who will change the masculine facial feature to feminine features.
It's why some in the transcommunity will tell any transwoman and especially all post-transistion women, to get the facial surgery first if you can afford. It's about the impression and passing. You can and will get SRS later. Pretty straight-forward and good advice. So why do so many don't heed it when they can afford it?
This is what escapes me. When you're obvious, all the makeup, hair and clothes won't hide it. You can't do much about the voice, only good voice therapy works if at all, but you can do a lot about the face. I'm not talking pretty or better, but at least something plain or ordinary.
I know the answer. All transwomen want to get to their SRS and get their documents changed to be officiallly "female" and get on with their life. Except when they don't pass enough to get past the first impression, what good is it? Yes, I know they want to be and live as women, and they get there. But if it makes life harder because people see you differently as you present yourself, what's so good about it?
Even some of famous post-transistion women will tell you about your transistion, "Get facial surgery!" It overcomes 90% of the initial problems in life. If they see the face, they'll pretty much be more receptive and accepting of you as a woman than seeing a male face in female attire. That's the proverbial "man in a dress" they constantly argue about and what the public sees.
And that hurts other transwomen and post-transition women who don't pass enough. And it's why 90% of the post-transistion women, those who pass, run away from the term trans-anything and the transcommunity as fast as they can. They are and live as women, nothing else. They've long earned and deserve it.
So, it's always a "Duh?" moment when I see a transwoman and especially a post-transistion woman with a male or male-like face. They were rich enough to get through their transistion (since few health insurance plans cover much if anything with one), why didn't they spend $10-15K for facial surgery to help? It escapes me.
It's almost like they want to be separate from women, they don't want to disappear from the identity, and they want the label transwoman. I know it's not true, but it certainly appears either that way to me, that they're not being honest with themselves about their looks or their being blind about it. Overly critical, yes, I know, but I just don't see it.
And it's why it always escapes me.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Not even on-line
China has started to ban people in on-line games to be different. I don't mean a different characters, but a different gender. This was reported (article) that they've hired a company to use facial recognition software of the person Webcam image to determine if they're male or female.
And then you're allowed to create only names and characters under that gender. The commens are interesting, but the whole thing misses the real issue. Not only are they forciing the gender binary, they're forcing people into only those of the birth sex. Talk about killing the interest and creativity.
And this isn't not for what they say, the safety of women, but to actual make it worse for women, but establishing themselves as women so everyone will know. They can't play being male characters, so they're already at a disadvantage when the boys know they're girls.
Talk about a really bad idea. And if a boy is mistaken for a girl or a girl for a boy? What then? They have to provide a birth certificate they're really who they say they are? Yes, Mr. Chinese leader, there are people who want to be other people, even other genders on-line, just for fun.
It's just fun folks, don't make it worse.
And then you're allowed to create only names and characters under that gender. The commens are interesting, but the whole thing misses the real issue. Not only are they forciing the gender binary, they're forcing people into only those of the birth sex. Talk about killing the interest and creativity.
And this isn't not for what they say, the safety of women, but to actual make it worse for women, but establishing themselves as women so everyone will know. They can't play being male characters, so they're already at a disadvantage when the boys know they're girls.
Talk about a really bad idea. And if a boy is mistaken for a girl or a girl for a boy? What then? They have to provide a birth certificate they're really who they say they are? Yes, Mr. Chinese leader, there are people who want to be other people, even other genders on-line, just for fun.
It's just fun folks, don't make it worse.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sorta being out
I was wandering the Internet, looking at Websites with alternative views of issues (not all alternative, some are too much or too extreme to bother with trying to understand them or worse have a discussion with the). Anyway I ran across the Feministing blog site. I won't argue that I'm more a (male) feminist than not. I hate all the rules, laws, and crap men, society, employers, etal. give women.
Anyway, on the blog is a post by a sorta, or pseudo, stealth transwoman, which is a contradiction in itself. As much as transwomen try to live stealth and completely deny or hide their past identity and status, it's impossible. That's an issue in the transcommunity argued to no end, especially by transwomen saying they're stealth, but really not because some people know and some of their past records haven't been changed.
But that's not the point here, which by the way a simple blood test will out any transperson and you're faced with the question by the doctor, "So, there's seems to be a difference between your blood results (genetic sex) and your documents, can you explain?" And so that argument goes. But it's another issues that confusing.
It's these transwomen who are sorta' out because the Internet allows you to hide your identity through pseudoname(s) and identities, which is excactly what at least one on this blog site (that I read and probably more) said she is, in between being stealth and being public. The latter through her on-line name.
But what bothers me the me the most is their hypocracy. They argue for a position or view on some issue, they stand up and speak, but then hide behind a false name and no identity. If you believe what you say, and you want people to believe what you say, then stand up for yourself as yourself. I do that here and will always do that. That doesn't make me better or smarter, just there.
More importantly, it does make me honest. If we want to believe you then put a name and face to the voice and words. Otherwise, you're no worse than a false prophet, because we don't know who you are. And you are what this writer wrote in the entry, you're dishonest at best and I don't know yet at worst. I may agree with your words but until I know who you are, I won't agree with you.
That takes a real name and face. And sorry, using being a transwoman and stealth a necessity isn't a reason, it's a cope-out. I know transwomen are the victims of many people who hate them, want to deny them rights and protections, or simply don't want to know they're living and working in this country. Transphobia against several hundred thousand people is discrimination.
That's why it's understandable maybe as much as 90% of legally recognized (post-transistion) women live pseudo-stealth life and world where only a few people know and most of their documents are correct. It's their safety and security to be stealth. But then you can't be publically vocal, that's dishonest and lying. I won't say anything with my Website or blogs that I wouldn't say in a public place.
And I am there name, face and voice. Anything less is dishonest.
Anyway, on the blog is a post by a sorta, or pseudo, stealth transwoman, which is a contradiction in itself. As much as transwomen try to live stealth and completely deny or hide their past identity and status, it's impossible. That's an issue in the transcommunity argued to no end, especially by transwomen saying they're stealth, but really not because some people know and some of their past records haven't been changed.
But that's not the point here, which by the way a simple blood test will out any transperson and you're faced with the question by the doctor, "So, there's seems to be a difference between your blood results (genetic sex) and your documents, can you explain?" And so that argument goes. But it's another issues that confusing.
It's these transwomen who are sorta' out because the Internet allows you to hide your identity through pseudoname(s) and identities, which is excactly what at least one on this blog site (that I read and probably more) said she is, in between being stealth and being public. The latter through her on-line name.
But what bothers me the me the most is their hypocracy. They argue for a position or view on some issue, they stand up and speak, but then hide behind a false name and no identity. If you believe what you say, and you want people to believe what you say, then stand up for yourself as yourself. I do that here and will always do that. That doesn't make me better or smarter, just there.
More importantly, it does make me honest. If we want to believe you then put a name and face to the voice and words. Otherwise, you're no worse than a false prophet, because we don't know who you are. And you are what this writer wrote in the entry, you're dishonest at best and I don't know yet at worst. I may agree with your words but until I know who you are, I won't agree with you.
That takes a real name and face. And sorry, using being a transwoman and stealth a necessity isn't a reason, it's a cope-out. I know transwomen are the victims of many people who hate them, want to deny them rights and protections, or simply don't want to know they're living and working in this country. Transphobia against several hundred thousand people is discrimination.
That's why it's understandable maybe as much as 90% of legally recognized (post-transistion) women live pseudo-stealth life and world where only a few people know and most of their documents are correct. It's their safety and security to be stealth. But then you can't be publically vocal, that's dishonest and lying. I won't say anything with my Website or blogs that I wouldn't say in a public place.
And I am there name, face and voice. Anything less is dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
