This is a response to recent columns and blogs about the new ABC comedy "Working It", such as this one from Lance Bass, to show how stupid people can be (regardless of their sexual orientation).
A lot has been written and said about the "T-word", aka, "Tranny" for transsexual, or really a demeaning or derogatory word for a transgender person or someone thought to be or have been a transgender person (post-transition men or women aren't trans-anything, just men or women, albeit with a different history). And many in the gay community have argued it's part of the lexicon with the LGBT community.
It's not and shouldn't be used at all except in private conversationa between friends, definitely not in public and more so said about someone they don't personally know, whether a celebrity, public figure or whomever. It's unnecessary and only opens the door to call gay men the F-word, you know faggot. It's the same thing for different people.
This has come up with the new ABC comedy "Working It" which has to be one of the worst comedies in ABC's history. At least in my book just judging the description, seeing the trailors and photos. I'm not sorry to say it should never be aired for it's portraying crossdressers as transpeople similar to what black-face comedy did to black people, similar to what the early depictions of gay people.
When the gays protested those portrayals the anger was loud, but they have long continued to call any transperson a tranny, whether or not it's abouty the drag queens, female impersonators or crossdressers or about transitioning men and women. They know the difference but the reality is gays don't really like real transpeople and especially post-transition women, so they use the word to denigrate them.
And they've never strayed from defending this stupid word, its meaning and its use, but it's time they were held accountable, change or face the music again being called what you hate and transpeople will be silent in your defense. It's the same effect. Hurts doesn't it? Now you know and understand. So change and defend transpeople or not. Your choice.
And sorry, apologies don't work anymore. After all these years you can't play stupid. You're arrogant and ignorant about it. Grow up. You've always put transpeople at the back of the line, back of the bus and back of the political platform. And now they've shown they don't need you to get respect and progres, and they've shown they will speak up and voice their anger at you.
As for your last comment Mr. Bass, "Again, to be clear, I have no problem apologizing.", that only shows me you don't think very far or very well the effect or impact of your words, and you speak faster than you think. I've met too many people who use those words to dismiss being caught and then continue to use them when the proverbial dust settles.
I's just a cursory statement to deflect the argument and justify yours and being caught saying something carelessly stupid. You've always known better and you didn't change. And we don't expect you to change now just because you got caught. It's obvious in the tone and tune of your words.
I've heard it all too often from f..., er gays, like you. Sorry, bad choice of words there? Oh, I apologize. Like, really, I mean it. Sound familar?
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Says It All
This photo of two Navy petty officers says it all about the repeal of DADT, just two people who love each other and are family. That's what our country is about, equality. Good luck to them and all our military personnel.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Say Goodnight Barney
Say goodbye and goodnight Barney Franks. Sorry, I won't miss you or regret your absence in Congress. You're a political hypocrit who will and often have sacrificed others for your own views, agenda and career. You betrayed transgender people while you were lying to their faces. You used them for your own lesbian and gay gains, jettisoning transpeople quickly when it was politically expedient.
For that, and other issues, you haven't earned my respect for anything, and I while wish you good luck in life, don't expect praise from me. You never earned it. Just leave and let someone better get elected and get things done.
For that, and other issues, you haven't earned my respect for anything, and I while wish you good luck in life, don't expect praise from me. You never earned it. Just leave and let someone better get elected and get things done.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Would You
Question for those women in transition. What if you discovered after starting, or maybe a few years in, that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) you're taking is crashing your mind and body, literally. The purpose of HRT (meaning for male to female transitions) is to lower male hormones (with Spironolactone) and to raise female hormones (estradoil or something similar).
Some people, however, are sensitive to changes in their hormones, namely lowering your testosterone level to where it's in the normal level of women, but that your body needs at least the minimum level of male hormones and reducing it induces major changes in the body, metabolism and brain
Not possible? Really possible because some people are that sensitive to changes. Your, and every, body needs all your hormones to work. They're not just there for sex or gender but your whole body and mind. Almost everyone is born with both, all males have some levels of female hormones and only a rare few females have no male hormones (like one in a million).
Back to the question. HRT is the second step in one's transition, right after therapy since all physicians require letters of recommendation before prescribing HRT to ensure the diagnosis is right to prescribe them. HRT changes the body, stopping the normal aging and changes of male traits and to some degree creating female physical traits, eg. breasts.
Most transitioning women usually take HRT for 2-5 years before getting their final Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS) depending on your family, life career and finances. They often begin living as women from part-time and often fulltime before but always after starting HRT, but that also is a personal decision on the same factors.
All of this depends on HRT for its effects and changes. And if you can't take it? And if it means post-GCS you'll probaby have to take both some HRT to keep staying female but also take testosterone to keep your body normal, even as a woman?
Would you still transition? Or is the answer obvious because you know it's who you are and want to be? The question doesn't become if but how and when.
I ask this because it's like a fence when you start and are on HRT. Almost everyone finds the physical and mental changes for the good and are happy. But for some evidence (mostly anecdotal) shows some people get the physical changes but experience worsening effects and changes in their metabolism and mind.
The mind part is where the individual is susceptible to depression. HRT can, and often does, exacerbate their depression, and with the worsening health and/or fitness, the depression gets even worse, and the transition seems so distant and successful, the individual has to think about their goals with their transition.
If you continue your transition, how will you do it? Staying physically male but living as female? Trying to pass as a woman while being physically male? How long? What choices do you consider? Not getting GCS despite you want it to be a whole woman? Or getting GCS and taking both male and female hormones?
Just a question. But one many women in transition face with their body and mind.
Some people, however, are sensitive to changes in their hormones, namely lowering your testosterone level to where it's in the normal level of women, but that your body needs at least the minimum level of male hormones and reducing it induces major changes in the body, metabolism and brain
Not possible? Really possible because some people are that sensitive to changes. Your, and every, body needs all your hormones to work. They're not just there for sex or gender but your whole body and mind. Almost everyone is born with both, all males have some levels of female hormones and only a rare few females have no male hormones (like one in a million).
Back to the question. HRT is the second step in one's transition, right after therapy since all physicians require letters of recommendation before prescribing HRT to ensure the diagnosis is right to prescribe them. HRT changes the body, stopping the normal aging and changes of male traits and to some degree creating female physical traits, eg. breasts.
Most transitioning women usually take HRT for 2-5 years before getting their final Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS) depending on your family, life career and finances. They often begin living as women from part-time and often fulltime before but always after starting HRT, but that also is a personal decision on the same factors.
All of this depends on HRT for its effects and changes. And if you can't take it? And if it means post-GCS you'll probaby have to take both some HRT to keep staying female but also take testosterone to keep your body normal, even as a woman?
Would you still transition? Or is the answer obvious because you know it's who you are and want to be? The question doesn't become if but how and when.
I ask this because it's like a fence when you start and are on HRT. Almost everyone finds the physical and mental changes for the good and are happy. But for some evidence (mostly anecdotal) shows some people get the physical changes but experience worsening effects and changes in their metabolism and mind.
The mind part is where the individual is susceptible to depression. HRT can, and often does, exacerbate their depression, and with the worsening health and/or fitness, the depression gets even worse, and the transition seems so distant and successful, the individual has to think about their goals with their transition.
If you continue your transition, how will you do it? Staying physically male but living as female? Trying to pass as a woman while being physically male? How long? What choices do you consider? Not getting GCS despite you want it to be a whole woman? Or getting GCS and taking both male and female hormones?
Just a question. But one many women in transition face with their body and mind.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thought in passing
About the new definition of Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), which I prefer to call after someone mentioned it, Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS), where a few states (Washington recently) will allow transwomen to become legally female with just a letter from a physician attesting to the fact the patient has completed the transition to the new sex (namely male to female). That's it. No surgery, and orchidectomy optional. Just live as a women and you're done.
And exactly why would a woman want to have a penis? Ok, beyond porn star she-males who make it financially worthwhile?
If there was a case where the traditional post-transition women have a case to make it a national standard for GCS to be the requirement to change birth certificates, and legalize the change in all states (two currently don't, Ohio and Tennessee), this is it. As the physicist noted, "There is nothing worse than a clear view of a fuzzy definition."
The State of Washington does not have a legal definition of the requirements to change the sex marker on birth certificates. It's a policy decision of the Department of Health Vital Records Office, and it's changed its policy as the Department of License has changed the same change for one's driver's license. It's all a matter of timing on your status and condition if you get the change.
Presently the DOH only requires a letter from the physician the individual has completed their transition to their new sex/gender. No surgery, but an orchidectomy is expected as a minimum, just living. That's the WPATH standard for the Real Life Experience (RLE) for 1-2 years before GCS. The state is pre-empting the medical community for now saying presentation trumps reality.
But this still doesn't answer the question, exactly why would a woman want a penis? Like she's going be treated as one once discovered? And we should be angry, or even outraged, when she's discovered about the treatment of a "woman" who is physically male (penis)? What's the answer about the double positive being a negative? Yeah, right.
Yes, I know the reality of many transpeople who can't afford to get GCS, but it doesn't change the reality of our society and laws governing the distinction between men and women. To many it is what's between the legs, and they don't care what or you think or feel you are. It's been our history and culture. Yes, it's changing, but still many fear and hate a woman with a penis.
So that's the thought and question. To all those woman with a penis, good luck and don't expect sympathy from me since you know the obvious and consequences of it. A better answer is to fight for change to get surgery affordable and available for transwomen. It's what I would do.
And exactly why would a woman want to have a penis? Ok, beyond porn star she-males who make it financially worthwhile?
If there was a case where the traditional post-transition women have a case to make it a national standard for GCS to be the requirement to change birth certificates, and legalize the change in all states (two currently don't, Ohio and Tennessee), this is it. As the physicist noted, "There is nothing worse than a clear view of a fuzzy definition."
The State of Washington does not have a legal definition of the requirements to change the sex marker on birth certificates. It's a policy decision of the Department of Health Vital Records Office, and it's changed its policy as the Department of License has changed the same change for one's driver's license. It's all a matter of timing on your status and condition if you get the change.
Presently the DOH only requires a letter from the physician the individual has completed their transition to their new sex/gender. No surgery, but an orchidectomy is expected as a minimum, just living. That's the WPATH standard for the Real Life Experience (RLE) for 1-2 years before GCS. The state is pre-empting the medical community for now saying presentation trumps reality.
But this still doesn't answer the question, exactly why would a woman want a penis? Like she's going be treated as one once discovered? And we should be angry, or even outraged, when she's discovered about the treatment of a "woman" who is physically male (penis)? What's the answer about the double positive being a negative? Yeah, right.
Yes, I know the reality of many transpeople who can't afford to get GCS, but it doesn't change the reality of our society and laws governing the distinction between men and women. To many it is what's between the legs, and they don't care what or you think or feel you are. It's been our history and culture. Yes, it's changing, but still many fear and hate a woman with a penis.
So that's the thought and question. To all those woman with a penis, good luck and don't expect sympathy from me since you know the obvious and consequences of it. A better answer is to fight for change to get surgery affordable and available for transwomen. It's what I would do.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Stealing the Spotlight
Update.--I have since learned that a few states have redefined the requirements for changes for Birth Certificate (BC) where SRS is not necessary, but only a letter from an appropriate physician or specialist (gender issues) certifying the individual has completed their transition to the new sex. This allows the BC to be amended to "Female" for the individual. This is how Autumn Sandeem can say what was said but it does not change my view.
One problem with the transgender community, and it has a lot of them, is that some individuals in the community like the spotlight, but unlike Chaz who is a reasonably good example for transmen, there are some who are not good examples of anyone let alone the community. One of those was written about in an article (found here) about DADT which includes a short description of Autumn Sandeem.
And that's the problem, or rather Autumn is the problem. Autumn has commented here on this blog about my opinion on transgender matters or issues. Autumn is without any doubt an opinionated person, which is not respected or liked by many in the transgender community because of Autumn's views, which the journalist in the article fails to mention. So I will.
Autumn served in the Navy for 20 years, which Autumn noted was as a closet cross-dresser. Nothing else, not transgender. After retiring Autumn chose to dress as a woman but start through the proceedure to transition to be physically and legally female and a woman for years. That's Autumn's choice, but Autumn claimed to speak for transgender women who have transitioned or are transitioning.
And that's the problem, something Autumn likely knows little about. When Autumn did start to transition, Autumn has tried, somewhat successfully, to get the VA to cover some of the transition expenses with hormone replacement therapy and other medical care. I'm ok with the medical care but I don't think the VA should cover post-retirement transition.
That's my opinion since it's a medical issue unrelated to the service or the military. And recently Autumn declared she had "completed" her transition to be legally a woman, except it wasn't complete. Autumn had an Orchiectomy, the removal of the testicles, and not a vaginaplasty which is the legal requirement for change the sex marker on birth certificates in the 48 of 50 states which allow the change.
An Orchiectomy does allow one to change the driver's license, their passport, their Social Security files, and all the other documents save two. One being the birth certificate and the other military records. The DOD does not change the sex marker on anyone's record even with the birth certificate change.
And now Autumn is whining what was lost, to serve as a woman. Sorry, give us a break. Many transgender women postpone their transition to finish their career and they haven't and don't whine about it. They may have wanted to transition on the job but knew it would be a disaster to their career and life. It's the choice many made and still will make. You're not alone there.
And since Autumn's retirement Autuumn has frequently been in the spotlight as a transgender woman despite the "M" on all of Autumn's documents, even crying foul when arrested and treated as a male. Sorry, join club of all those other who were physically and sexually abused in jail and/or prison, except you weren't abused.
Maybe mistreated, but something to cry about? No. You knew the risks when you protested and knew you could be arrested and jailed, which then included a strip search and document check. Did you really expect them to put you in a woman jail when you're legally male just because you're a crossdresser as you claim? Oh, yes as a woman, and we're supposed to have sympathy?
So the journalist, in my view, did a disservice to the readers by including Autumn, who is a publicity hound for the causes Autumn thinks respresents the view of transgender people, but I don't know that many who have expressed support for Autumn's work. Some have and that's fine, but many haven't, and many more would like Autumn to just get on with life and stop claiming rights you don't have as a representative of transgender people.
One problem with the transgender community, and it has a lot of them, is that some individuals in the community like the spotlight, but unlike Chaz who is a reasonably good example for transmen, there are some who are not good examples of anyone let alone the community. One of those was written about in an article (found here) about DADT which includes a short description of Autumn Sandeem.
And that's the problem, or rather Autumn is the problem. Autumn has commented here on this blog about my opinion on transgender matters or issues. Autumn is without any doubt an opinionated person, which is not respected or liked by many in the transgender community because of Autumn's views, which the journalist in the article fails to mention. So I will.
Autumn served in the Navy for 20 years, which Autumn noted was as a closet cross-dresser. Nothing else, not transgender. After retiring Autumn chose to dress as a woman but start through the proceedure to transition to be physically and legally female and a woman for years. That's Autumn's choice, but Autumn claimed to speak for transgender women who have transitioned or are transitioning.
And that's the problem, something Autumn likely knows little about. When Autumn did start to transition, Autumn has tried, somewhat successfully, to get the VA to cover some of the transition expenses with hormone replacement therapy and other medical care. I'm ok with the medical care but I don't think the VA should cover post-retirement transition.
That's my opinion since it's a medical issue unrelated to the service or the military. And recently Autumn declared she had "completed" her transition to be legally a woman, except it wasn't complete. Autumn had an Orchiectomy, the removal of the testicles, and not a vaginaplasty which is the legal requirement for change the sex marker on birth certificates in the 48 of 50 states which allow the change.
An Orchiectomy does allow one to change the driver's license, their passport, their Social Security files, and all the other documents save two. One being the birth certificate and the other military records. The DOD does not change the sex marker on anyone's record even with the birth certificate change.
And now Autumn is whining what was lost, to serve as a woman. Sorry, give us a break. Many transgender women postpone their transition to finish their career and they haven't and don't whine about it. They may have wanted to transition on the job but knew it would be a disaster to their career and life. It's the choice many made and still will make. You're not alone there.
And since Autumn's retirement Autuumn has frequently been in the spotlight as a transgender woman despite the "M" on all of Autumn's documents, even crying foul when arrested and treated as a male. Sorry, join club of all those other who were physically and sexually abused in jail and/or prison, except you weren't abused.
Maybe mistreated, but something to cry about? No. You knew the risks when you protested and knew you could be arrested and jailed, which then included a strip search and document check. Did you really expect them to put you in a woman jail when you're legally male just because you're a crossdresser as you claim? Oh, yes as a woman, and we're supposed to have sympathy?
So the journalist, in my view, did a disservice to the readers by including Autumn, who is a publicity hound for the causes Autumn thinks respresents the view of transgender people, but I don't know that many who have expressed support for Autumn's work. Some have and that's fine, but many haven't, and many more would like Autumn to just get on with life and stop claiming rights you don't have as a representative of transgender people.
Sorry Chaz
To Chaz Bono,
You speak for yourself. Fine that I respect as your right. And you say you don't speak for anyone else, for other transgender people or the transgender community. Fine, again. But the media isn't seeing it that way and you're not portraying yourself and speaking that way. You're doing what you said you won't do, speak for all transgender people.
So, my response to you is simple. Don't! Don't speak for transgender people or the transgender community anymore. We're not you and you're not us, or me for that matter. So don't expect me to be excited for you, to be supportive of you, and definitely not agree with you. Ok?
That's it, so sorry Chaz, why don't you just get on with your life in private and for all of us, just shut up to the media. Yeah, we know you won't. You said you didn't like the attention, but we all know you love it. It's why your standing in the spotlight, as the son of Cher and Sonny Bono. Anyone else, you would be history and definitely not on DWTS.
So, don't be surprised if we're angry at you and don't be surprised if we don't like you. That's our right and our right to express it.
You speak for yourself. Fine that I respect as your right. And you say you don't speak for anyone else, for other transgender people or the transgender community. Fine, again. But the media isn't seeing it that way and you're not portraying yourself and speaking that way. You're doing what you said you won't do, speak for all transgender people.
So, my response to you is simple. Don't! Don't speak for transgender people or the transgender community anymore. We're not you and you're not us, or me for that matter. So don't expect me to be excited for you, to be supportive of you, and definitely not agree with you. Ok?
That's it, so sorry Chaz, why don't you just get on with your life in private and for all of us, just shut up to the media. Yeah, we know you won't. You said you didn't like the attention, but we all know you love it. It's why your standing in the spotlight, as the son of Cher and Sonny Bono. Anyone else, you would be history and definitely not on DWTS.
So, don't be surprised if we're angry at you and don't be surprised if we don't like you. That's our right and our right to express it.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Get the Facts Right
The news stories about Polish model Michalina Manios are totally wrong and I wish they would get their facts rights. Ms. Manios admited she was born intersexed (hermaphrodite in her words), meaning with a mix of male and female characteristics, and often a mix of male and female gentalia, and if you research it you'll see each person responds differently to that condition which produces different appearances with each person.
She is not transgender as the news has reported. She admited she had corrective surgery four years ago to be completely female, so she was interesexed and no longer is intersexed. This is not the same as sex reassignment surgery, as distinguished by the transgender and intersexed communities and the medical community. The surgery has some overlap and common aspects but corrects for different differences in the individual.
They should note that as Ms. Manios did not have to go through the same process as a male-to-female transwomen, which includes physician oversight, endrochronologist, therapists, etal, but just the surgery and some other treatments to complete the process. The reason for the differences are in the genes and fetal development, something they should note and distinguish.
So please give Ms. Manios her due to recognize her as a women born intersexed and has had that corrected, and not a woman who transitioned from being male or a boy. They are different, and she deserves the truth be reported as she told it, and not for hype or whatever bullshit the media wants.
She's couragous for being public. Let acknowledge and applaud that, and nothing else.
She is not transgender as the news has reported. She admited she had corrective surgery four years ago to be completely female, so she was interesexed and no longer is intersexed. This is not the same as sex reassignment surgery, as distinguished by the transgender and intersexed communities and the medical community. The surgery has some overlap and common aspects but corrects for different differences in the individual.
They should note that as Ms. Manios did not have to go through the same process as a male-to-female transwomen, which includes physician oversight, endrochronologist, therapists, etal, but just the surgery and some other treatments to complete the process. The reason for the differences are in the genes and fetal development, something they should note and distinguish.
So please give Ms. Manios her due to recognize her as a women born intersexed and has had that corrected, and not a woman who transitioned from being male or a boy. They are different, and she deserves the truth be reported as she told it, and not for hype or whatever bullshit the media wants.
She's couragous for being public. Let acknowledge and applaud that, and nothing else.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Don't Argue With Activists
Julia Serano wrote a followup to the essay (previous post), found here. I wanted to post a response but didn't, as I've learned it doesn't pay to argue with activists for any cause.
But not because Julia would react negatively, but the others posting responses would react negatively and even harshly. One of who on that essay (above) did reply to me once personally to GFY. Not that I said anything bad or wrong, only because of her view of people sending her e-mail she hasn't met or know.
Anyway, I kinda' liked Julia's followup essay and only wanted to comment on one point she made (point 9), which is as follows.
"I saw a couple commenters who actually said they didn’t feel that transsexuals needed to form alliances with anyone. I feel that those responses are naive, and I assume they were probably uttered by folks who have no experience doing grassroots activism of any sort. It is easy to be an “arm chair activist” who complains about alliances they dislike without having to do the heavy lifting required to change societal views about transsexuals and the various forms of sexism we face."
So if I were to post there, this would be my reply:
Reply.--
Thanks for the interesting (first) essay and replies. I have only one comment (point 9), which is about transwomen (in- and post-transition) needing alliances. Haven't many of the recent gains been accomplished by transgender groups than LGBT groups? Gains for changes to documents and health insurance coverage have come from transgender groups such as NCTE.
I'm not going to argue, because I agree, activism helps, but while many transwomen need activism to help, much due to their economic or social circumstances, many transwomen transition without the need of groups or activism. They transitioned within the existing laws and rules and then continued with life, only a few to become public afterward only to show transwomen are just normal women.
Why do activists seem to argue all transwomen must be out and proud and active for transwomen? Aren't there far more transwomen who transitioned and are more or less living quiet lives without being activists than all the public and activist transwomen? Why should they expose their lives to public scrutiny simply because other transwomen say they should? Don't they have rights not be to activists if they didn't need and don't need the help?
Just some thoughts and questions.
End of reply
So, at least now if anyone comments, which few have, I can moderate them instead of them moderating me. My rules versus their rules.
But not because Julia would react negatively, but the others posting responses would react negatively and even harshly. One of who on that essay (above) did reply to me once personally to GFY. Not that I said anything bad or wrong, only because of her view of people sending her e-mail she hasn't met or know.
Anyway, I kinda' liked Julia's followup essay and only wanted to comment on one point she made (point 9), which is as follows.
"I saw a couple commenters who actually said they didn’t feel that transsexuals needed to form alliances with anyone. I feel that those responses are naive, and I assume they were probably uttered by folks who have no experience doing grassroots activism of any sort. It is easy to be an “arm chair activist” who complains about alliances they dislike without having to do the heavy lifting required to change societal views about transsexuals and the various forms of sexism we face."
So if I were to post there, this would be my reply:
Reply.--
Thanks for the interesting (first) essay and replies. I have only one comment (point 9), which is about transwomen (in- and post-transition) needing alliances. Haven't many of the recent gains been accomplished by transgender groups than LGBT groups? Gains for changes to documents and health insurance coverage have come from transgender groups such as NCTE.
I'm not going to argue, because I agree, activism helps, but while many transwomen need activism to help, much due to their economic or social circumstances, many transwomen transition without the need of groups or activism. They transitioned within the existing laws and rules and then continued with life, only a few to become public afterward only to show transwomen are just normal women.
Why do activists seem to argue all transwomen must be out and proud and active for transwomen? Aren't there far more transwomen who transitioned and are more or less living quiet lives without being activists than all the public and activist transwomen? Why should they expose their lives to public scrutiny simply because other transwomen say they should? Don't they have rights not be to activists if they didn't need and don't need the help?
Just some thoughts and questions.
End of reply
So, at least now if anyone comments, which few have, I can moderate them instead of them moderating me. My rules versus their rules.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Julia Serano
Julia Serano, who's books I recommend, has gotten back to some level of blogging again and wrote and interesting essay on the transgender versus transsexual umbrella, found here, to which would reply with the following.
Note.-- I don't post or reply on other blogs anymore because of recent and past conflicts with others who love to verbally pummel people for asking questions or thinking out loud, so I post my response here where I can moderate the responses. I don't really care if Julia reads and/or replies, it's just my thoughts and ideas free of others.
The Reply.-- Thanks for the most rational presentation of the pro-umbrella argument I've found to date (that I remember to date), but there are questions which always seems to occur to me when I read these arguments. Why dismiss the right of transwomen to simply decide the umbrella doesn't work for them, whether it's individually or as their own group(s) when those groups have had some successes on rights and the courts have decided many cases of discrimination against transwomen as cases against women without the trans.
So why should transwomen subject themselves to being a minority under a larger umbrella when they've achieved more as their own group than under the umbrella? One example where they haven't gained is all the work done in support of ENDA to be dropped without notice by the LGB groups to fight for their rights than try to add the transpeople groups? And transwomen are expected to jump again to help on the same promises of inclusion?
One area is health insurance coverage. Transwomen are the only group which under the DSM has requirements for medical care to transition, and they gained those rights, not under the umbrella but as a self-identified group with special needs separate from the umbrella identity.
Another area is legal identity where trans-specific groups have achieved rights for changing sex markers on documents which are required for LGB people. Why would LGB people fight that issue for transpeople?
Why should transwomen subject themselves to the identity of the umbrella, often as the whole range of other transpeople from DQ's to CD's when it doesn't fit and isn't wanted? What transwomen wants to be asked those questions when they're living as women? In some cases voter have included transwomen as the rest to reject or overturn discrimination laws?
And then there is the issue of gender identity and gender expression which, as noted, confuses many people, even those in the transgender community and larger LGBT community. Why should transwomen who transition and live as women, whether straight or lesbian, decide to identify with those who just dress as women for a variety of interests without changing their sex or identifying with gender identity issues?
Locally several times anti-discrimination laws were either overturned or rejected by voters when the LGBT and transgender umbrella groups tried to include gender expression with gender identity (transwomen) when it was the latter who needed it because they lived 24/7 as women and faced discrimination in housing, employment and other ways.
I'm not against the umbrella, it's only I've seen transwomen achieve more without the support and help of the umbrella LGBT or transgender groups or simply ignore it to transition and get on with their lives, never to identify with it. If they didn't identify as trans-anything, didn't need it, and never used it, why do they need the umbrella later only to be mislabelled?
Just some questions and thoughts, and thanks for all your work and writing.
Note.-- I don't post or reply on other blogs anymore because of recent and past conflicts with others who love to verbally pummel people for asking questions or thinking out loud, so I post my response here where I can moderate the responses. I don't really care if Julia reads and/or replies, it's just my thoughts and ideas free of others.
The Reply.-- Thanks for the most rational presentation of the pro-umbrella argument I've found to date (that I remember to date), but there are questions which always seems to occur to me when I read these arguments. Why dismiss the right of transwomen to simply decide the umbrella doesn't work for them, whether it's individually or as their own group(s) when those groups have had some successes on rights and the courts have decided many cases of discrimination against transwomen as cases against women without the trans.
So why should transwomen subject themselves to being a minority under a larger umbrella when they've achieved more as their own group than under the umbrella? One example where they haven't gained is all the work done in support of ENDA to be dropped without notice by the LGB groups to fight for their rights than try to add the transpeople groups? And transwomen are expected to jump again to help on the same promises of inclusion?
One area is health insurance coverage. Transwomen are the only group which under the DSM has requirements for medical care to transition, and they gained those rights, not under the umbrella but as a self-identified group with special needs separate from the umbrella identity.
Another area is legal identity where trans-specific groups have achieved rights for changing sex markers on documents which are required for LGB people. Why would LGB people fight that issue for transpeople?
Why should transwomen subject themselves to the identity of the umbrella, often as the whole range of other transpeople from DQ's to CD's when it doesn't fit and isn't wanted? What transwomen wants to be asked those questions when they're living as women? In some cases voter have included transwomen as the rest to reject or overturn discrimination laws?
And then there is the issue of gender identity and gender expression which, as noted, confuses many people, even those in the transgender community and larger LGBT community. Why should transwomen who transition and live as women, whether straight or lesbian, decide to identify with those who just dress as women for a variety of interests without changing their sex or identifying with gender identity issues?
Locally several times anti-discrimination laws were either overturned or rejected by voters when the LGBT and transgender umbrella groups tried to include gender expression with gender identity (transwomen) when it was the latter who needed it because they lived 24/7 as women and faced discrimination in housing, employment and other ways.
I'm not against the umbrella, it's only I've seen transwomen achieve more without the support and help of the umbrella LGBT or transgender groups or simply ignore it to transition and get on with their lives, never to identify with it. If they didn't identify as trans-anything, didn't need it, and never used it, why do they need the umbrella later only to be mislabelled?
Just some questions and thoughts, and thanks for all your work and writing.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Do Not Argue
After an exchange of words with some people, ok, a gay man and a transman, on the previous post, I learned you do not argue with them about gay and trans issues and people, especially if you do not say you are gay or you're trans. They have views on the issues and about people which seems to exclude anybody else no matter who you are, all the knowledgeable friends you have, or all the resources you read and learn.
In short, if you're not gay, you don't know anything about them, and if you're not trans, which may mean transmen because I don't often hear this from transwomen, you don't know anything about them. It doesn't matter, you're just not right, and so you're obviously wrong. They shut their mind and then open their mouth to where you almost want to give them the middle finger and say, "...you too.", because that's what they're telling you over their words.
Ok, an exaggertion because it's really a few of them who loves to sit there and argue for their view, making assumptions about you, interpreting your words differently, and making their assertions of what's right and why you're not. In the end I just finally said with Snagglepuss always said, "Exit, stage left.", and left.
It just seems no matter what you want to say, and even give you latitude to make a mistake and correct yourself or change your thinking and words, they won't allow it, or some may but some will go back to your original words. They don't seem to enjoy conversations where people think out loud or enjoy playing with the ideas.
Yeah, I'm over reacting a little because I didn't expect to be pounced on for asking some questions. At least they could have said, "With respect to [insert quote], is that what you really meant?" Or, "Have you thought about ....?" In other words ask questions to clarify, learn and enjoy the conversation.
They prefer to just pounce and argue until someone thinks they should referree the thread and usually badly and not helping matters, but simply saying to everyone enough is enough. I've seen this on transgender forum when you like to engage in conversations about an issue or whatever to expand it to the larger world. And yes, I got booted by arguing with the moderator who was employing a double standard.
That's what I've found on these forum, common blogs, etc. They become very myopic about the gay or transgender community and they forget it resides inside the greater cultural and social community in this country, so it ends up being not unlike the old Bush logic, you're either for us and our view of things or you against us.
It doesn't matter if you're for them but disagree on some issues, it's an all or nothing deal. Take it or leave it. LGBT Texas mentality. And you're against us, according to them but not you, don't come in and especially don't speak up. And then they wonder why the straight and non-trans people who want to help and support them walk away shaking their heads?
Like piss us off and you then can say we're the enemy? Like then you can claim it's a fight for your rights against us? But then you want our help later for some issue to help you?
What's the answer? Yeah, right. They're a self-fulling prophecy for themselves. See, we don't get support from the rest of the world.
Like you keep pissing off the rest of the world? And that helps how? And by all means do not say anything with a smile on your face or your tongue in your cheek. Humor isn't something they understand from "outsiders", only them.
They forget the first rule, be a human being. And when they decide to be one, then I'll listen.
In short, if you're not gay, you don't know anything about them, and if you're not trans, which may mean transmen because I don't often hear this from transwomen, you don't know anything about them. It doesn't matter, you're just not right, and so you're obviously wrong. They shut their mind and then open their mouth to where you almost want to give them the middle finger and say, "...you too.", because that's what they're telling you over their words.
Ok, an exaggertion because it's really a few of them who loves to sit there and argue for their view, making assumptions about you, interpreting your words differently, and making their assertions of what's right and why you're not. In the end I just finally said with Snagglepuss always said, "Exit, stage left.", and left.
It just seems no matter what you want to say, and even give you latitude to make a mistake and correct yourself or change your thinking and words, they won't allow it, or some may but some will go back to your original words. They don't seem to enjoy conversations where people think out loud or enjoy playing with the ideas.
Yeah, I'm over reacting a little because I didn't expect to be pounced on for asking some questions. At least they could have said, "With respect to [insert quote], is that what you really meant?" Or, "Have you thought about ....?" In other words ask questions to clarify, learn and enjoy the conversation.
They prefer to just pounce and argue until someone thinks they should referree the thread and usually badly and not helping matters, but simply saying to everyone enough is enough. I've seen this on transgender forum when you like to engage in conversations about an issue or whatever to expand it to the larger world. And yes, I got booted by arguing with the moderator who was employing a double standard.
That's what I've found on these forum, common blogs, etc. They become very myopic about the gay or transgender community and they forget it resides inside the greater cultural and social community in this country, so it ends up being not unlike the old Bush logic, you're either for us and our view of things or you against us.
It doesn't matter if you're for them but disagree on some issues, it's an all or nothing deal. Take it or leave it. LGBT Texas mentality. And you're against us, according to them but not you, don't come in and especially don't speak up. And then they wonder why the straight and non-trans people who want to help and support them walk away shaking their heads?
Like piss us off and you then can say we're the enemy? Like then you can claim it's a fight for your rights against us? But then you want our help later for some issue to help you?
What's the answer? Yeah, right. They're a self-fulling prophecy for themselves. See, we don't get support from the rest of the world.
Like you keep pissing off the rest of the world? And that helps how? And by all means do not say anything with a smile on your face or your tongue in your cheek. Humor isn't something they understand from "outsiders", only them.
They forget the first rule, be a human being. And when they decide to be one, then I'll listen.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Michigan Womens Festival
Alice Kalafarski, a post-transition women who attended the Michigan Women Music Festival recently, wrote about her experience there to which there are a lot of responses, one which I wrote below.
Response posted.-- Interesting and thank you. I don't consider post-transition (physically and legally female) trans anything, so why genetic women do is beyond me. There are some women who aren't physically 100% women (intersexed or lacking full reproductive system) but they're not excluded, so why post-transition women, calling them men? Ok, it's rhetorical before you answer.
But I would ask if they would reject a post-transition women who doesn't pass or pass enough for their standards? Or do they reject male-looking genetic women too? God knows there are some. How would they know the difference? While I'm glad you had a good time and note they do allow "passable" post-transition women, what does that say about them and maybe you? Does attending such an event mean you condone them, meaning the organizers, and the discrimination of non-passing post-transition women? Ok, again rhetorical, but it does smack of similar discrimination within the transcommunity about public acceptance. Aren't you and the others just adding to it? And then writing how cool it was? And folks wonder why the angry from the transcommunity about this event and post-transition women who attend?
Please note, these are questions not opinions. Personally I applaud you attending, for the fun and maybe change some hearts and minds(?), but I can't necessary applaud being privately vocal and publically silent. How are they going to see the stupidity of their discrimination if you and others don't speak out when you're there? If you fear being expelled, so what? Is that such a high price for showing the fallacy of their discrimination? What would they have done had you spoken out on stage? And that would hurt you how? Take away the fun? And what of the hurt from the names and insinuations about you and all post-transition women?
Further thoughts.-- I would only add more of the last paragraph in that I think changing things from the inside helps but those who do need to be mindful of being on the "inside" and the perspective of those outside about and to them. There are many "passable" (and some beautiful) post-transition women who wouldn't attend for the hate toward transwomen (being both in and post transition), for good reason.
To take it to the extreme, would a black person try to change the KKK by being passable for a "white" person and join them? And what would they accomplish? Yes, an obvious extreme example really not since passing is passing. Why do gay Republicans have problems working inside the Republican party for change and end up simply becoming outsiders when they're ignored, and often worse, exploited as the enemy?
Her article is appropriate to make the point of the festival organizers' discrimination. But I can't applaud she made it after she left and returned home, and not when she was there. You change the hearts and minds of people when you're standing in front of them, not when you're gone, back in the comfort of home to make the point you should have done then and there.
Words after the fact aren't heeded by those who most need them. They will not read your words or listen to your speeches later, for they know not to care.
Followup.-- Someone replied to my comment to which I replied to them to clarify any confusion in my post. I'll left it to readers to judge for themselves, but I do have one comment not including in that one, and that's the misunderstanding some younger ( under 30) transwomen have toward other transwomen.
Younger transwomen tend to transition quickly, often less than two years from start to finish including surgery (SRS), usually in Thailand because it's relatively cheap (<$8-10K including trip expenses) and good. Good luck if you have problems and some states now don't recognize these for birth certificate changes, requiring US-certified surgeons.
I can't argue against them as they want to change and get on with their life. Only those who can't afford the upfront cost of SRS delay the completion of their transition but they life as women. They can because the vast majority of them are moderately to easily passable with just hormones. Their face and body changes relatively quickly to be feminine, in part because the use and tolerate higher dosages, and they can get on with their life until they can complete the transition.
They often then treat all transwomen like them, meaning if you can't transition quickly and in effect almost effortlessly (not really but with far less social, professional and health problems) then you're not a true transwoman. And they often decide to simply leave the transcommunity to integrate into mainstream life. Some stay to become spokeswomen but, like Alice, they tend to be vocal for the wrong reasons.
They can't seem to understand a 40-year old and more so a 50-60-year old transwomen aren't like them and don't have it so easy. And why I applaud younger transwomen like Alice I can't applaud their attitude or judgements about other transwomen. They need to see the bigger picture for all transwomen, but sadly few do, which is why the division persist and will persist in the transcommunity.
Response posted.-- Interesting and thank you. I don't consider post-transition (physically and legally female) trans anything, so why genetic women do is beyond me. There are some women who aren't physically 100% women (intersexed or lacking full reproductive system) but they're not excluded, so why post-transition women, calling them men? Ok, it's rhetorical before you answer.
But I would ask if they would reject a post-transition women who doesn't pass or pass enough for their standards? Or do they reject male-looking genetic women too? God knows there are some. How would they know the difference? While I'm glad you had a good time and note they do allow "passable" post-transition women, what does that say about them and maybe you? Does attending such an event mean you condone them, meaning the organizers, and the discrimination of non-passing post-transition women? Ok, again rhetorical, but it does smack of similar discrimination within the transcommunity about public acceptance. Aren't you and the others just adding to it? And then writing how cool it was? And folks wonder why the angry from the transcommunity about this event and post-transition women who attend?
Please note, these are questions not opinions. Personally I applaud you attending, for the fun and maybe change some hearts and minds(?), but I can't necessary applaud being privately vocal and publically silent. How are they going to see the stupidity of their discrimination if you and others don't speak out when you're there? If you fear being expelled, so what? Is that such a high price for showing the fallacy of their discrimination? What would they have done had you spoken out on stage? And that would hurt you how? Take away the fun? And what of the hurt from the names and insinuations about you and all post-transition women?
Further thoughts.-- I would only add more of the last paragraph in that I think changing things from the inside helps but those who do need to be mindful of being on the "inside" and the perspective of those outside about and to them. There are many "passable" (and some beautiful) post-transition women who wouldn't attend for the hate toward transwomen (being both in and post transition), for good reason.
To take it to the extreme, would a black person try to change the KKK by being passable for a "white" person and join them? And what would they accomplish? Yes, an obvious extreme example really not since passing is passing. Why do gay Republicans have problems working inside the Republican party for change and end up simply becoming outsiders when they're ignored, and often worse, exploited as the enemy?
Her article is appropriate to make the point of the festival organizers' discrimination. But I can't applaud she made it after she left and returned home, and not when she was there. You change the hearts and minds of people when you're standing in front of them, not when you're gone, back in the comfort of home to make the point you should have done then and there.
Words after the fact aren't heeded by those who most need them. They will not read your words or listen to your speeches later, for they know not to care.
Followup.-- Someone replied to my comment to which I replied to them to clarify any confusion in my post. I'll left it to readers to judge for themselves, but I do have one comment not including in that one, and that's the misunderstanding some younger ( under 30) transwomen have toward other transwomen.
Younger transwomen tend to transition quickly, often less than two years from start to finish including surgery (SRS), usually in Thailand because it's relatively cheap (<$8-10K including trip expenses) and good. Good luck if you have problems and some states now don't recognize these for birth certificate changes, requiring US-certified surgeons.
I can't argue against them as they want to change and get on with their life. Only those who can't afford the upfront cost of SRS delay the completion of their transition but they life as women. They can because the vast majority of them are moderately to easily passable with just hormones. Their face and body changes relatively quickly to be feminine, in part because the use and tolerate higher dosages, and they can get on with their life until they can complete the transition.
They often then treat all transwomen like them, meaning if you can't transition quickly and in effect almost effortlessly (not really but with far less social, professional and health problems) then you're not a true transwoman. And they often decide to simply leave the transcommunity to integrate into mainstream life. Some stay to become spokeswomen but, like Alice, they tend to be vocal for the wrong reasons.
They can't seem to understand a 40-year old and more so a 50-60-year old transwomen aren't like them and don't have it so easy. And why I applaud younger transwomen like Alice I can't applaud their attitude or judgements about other transwomen. They need to see the bigger picture for all transwomen, but sadly few do, which is why the division persist and will persist in the transcommunity.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Transition Early
This entry is a thought into why you transition early in life. Yes, I know many couldn't and many still can't for a host of reasons from personal and professional to medical and financial, and for some it's the obviousness of their presence, or simply put, passing is so far from reality it's a dream they'll never see.
This is why you do it early in llife and don't worry about what happens. The truth is most kids do know who they are in early in their life, despite what parent think or want or despite what every adult wants to believe which isn't true. Some transgender kids know very their life, under 3, and some express it between about 6 and 8 years old.
And some aren't confused but are simply flexible about it, meaning they're in between, and while they know they're some to mostly a girl with a boy's body, or vice-versa, they're not for various reasons such as personality, temperament, etc., so insistent to express it all the time. They almost always do eventually from about age 10 to 12 if not later in their teens or twenties.
And some, which is what is often used to show kids don't know, aren't transgender and just love to play in the area in between and across defined gender boundaries. They love things which some adults think, or often feel, they're gay or worse in their mind transgender. They may be gay, they'll express it later, but it's not likely their transgender, only a few decide they are transgender later.
This is what confuses adults, not the children, just folks wanting the children to be something they're not, from specific expressions of themselves to just open to anything but certainly not, God forbid in their mind, gay or transgender. This is the group child psychologists hold up as examples why kids should not transition early in life.
But that's just crap as only a handful are transgender. Some are gay, but many just kids having fun and enjoying and exploring life. The child psychologists, as some have been doing for a decade or so, should focus on those who do identify as transgender and let them transition the best way available to give them the best chances later in life.
That said as some in the medical community recognize this fact and help kids explore and even transition. But that's not so much my point here. It's about those past their teens and realize they need to transition. The rule to do it early as possible still applies because after 25 or so, it only reduces the effectiveness of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and increases complications with your body and genes.
A transition is a fight with your own body, to redirect it from what is in your genes and life experience to something totally foreign. Some do well even after 30 but they're few and far between, and usually with some surgery to remedy small things, like the face or breasts. Most, however, don't do well enough to pass invisibly in society and face the reality of living with being somewhat to marginally passable, or get significant to extensive surgeries (face and body).
The reality, however, is that after each decade of age, the return on your investment in HRT is complicated by existing conditions and age, and after 50, there isn't much left to change by itself and surgeries are usually the answer if you want to be passable.
After 60, it's easy to find yourself in a physical and mental battle between your body and mind and HRT, and often neither wins, and the balance between them isn't pretty. You find you're fighting the effects and results of age where HRT doesn't work or will excerbate other problems or issues, like depression or body weight or size.
This happens when some decide to postpone their transition for personal or professional reasons, namely to preserve their family or career. Some of these change their mind but mostly wait for a pivotal moment in life, such as a death of a spouse, a divorce, or retirement, to begin their transition to find plans and reality don't match, and everything changes, usually for the worse with themselves or life, meaning family, friends, etc.
And how prey tell do I know this? From knowledge, from friends and others, or from experience? All of the above. And I'll leave it at that for now.
This is why you do it early in llife and don't worry about what happens. The truth is most kids do know who they are in early in their life, despite what parent think or want or despite what every adult wants to believe which isn't true. Some transgender kids know very their life, under 3, and some express it between about 6 and 8 years old.
And some aren't confused but are simply flexible about it, meaning they're in between, and while they know they're some to mostly a girl with a boy's body, or vice-versa, they're not for various reasons such as personality, temperament, etc., so insistent to express it all the time. They almost always do eventually from about age 10 to 12 if not later in their teens or twenties.
And some, which is what is often used to show kids don't know, aren't transgender and just love to play in the area in between and across defined gender boundaries. They love things which some adults think, or often feel, they're gay or worse in their mind transgender. They may be gay, they'll express it later, but it's not likely their transgender, only a few decide they are transgender later.
This is what confuses adults, not the children, just folks wanting the children to be something they're not, from specific expressions of themselves to just open to anything but certainly not, God forbid in their mind, gay or transgender. This is the group child psychologists hold up as examples why kids should not transition early in life.
But that's just crap as only a handful are transgender. Some are gay, but many just kids having fun and enjoying and exploring life. The child psychologists, as some have been doing for a decade or so, should focus on those who do identify as transgender and let them transition the best way available to give them the best chances later in life.
That said as some in the medical community recognize this fact and help kids explore and even transition. But that's not so much my point here. It's about those past their teens and realize they need to transition. The rule to do it early as possible still applies because after 25 or so, it only reduces the effectiveness of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and increases complications with your body and genes.
A transition is a fight with your own body, to redirect it from what is in your genes and life experience to something totally foreign. Some do well even after 30 but they're few and far between, and usually with some surgery to remedy small things, like the face or breasts. Most, however, don't do well enough to pass invisibly in society and face the reality of living with being somewhat to marginally passable, or get significant to extensive surgeries (face and body).
The reality, however, is that after each decade of age, the return on your investment in HRT is complicated by existing conditions and age, and after 50, there isn't much left to change by itself and surgeries are usually the answer if you want to be passable.
After 60, it's easy to find yourself in a physical and mental battle between your body and mind and HRT, and often neither wins, and the balance between them isn't pretty. You find you're fighting the effects and results of age where HRT doesn't work or will excerbate other problems or issues, like depression or body weight or size.
This happens when some decide to postpone their transition for personal or professional reasons, namely to preserve their family or career. Some of these change their mind but mostly wait for a pivotal moment in life, such as a death of a spouse, a divorce, or retirement, to begin their transition to find plans and reality don't match, and everything changes, usually for the worse with themselves or life, meaning family, friends, etc.
And how prey tell do I know this? From knowledge, from friends and others, or from experience? All of the above. And I'll leave it at that for now.
Monday, May 23, 2011
How to be an Idiot
Yes, how to be a real Idiot, with a capitol I. An on-line advice columnist, Michael Alvear, wrote this answer in response to a question someone asked who was interested in an apparently obvious transwoman working at a Starbucks. First, since he doesn't know for sure and assuming somethings which may or may not be true, he's putting himself in the wrong frame of mind.
But mostly the answer was really stupid. First, the jokes were cruel and making a post-joke apology doesn't take away the joke. They were better left unsaid than his bad attempt to make transwomen the butt of some jokes. Second, the assumptions were far from reality. Maybe it's his reality but it's not the world's reality.
The answer should have been very easy, "Treat her like she is, a woman, a person and maybe a friend, and never ask "those" questions unless she feels ready to tell you. She is no different than any other woman. They all have their stories, and they all tell them in their time. So just be casual and let things go where they go. She is and that's all you need to start.
In short, they're people first as we all are and should be treated the same as making any new friend. You'll be surprised that her character, temperment and personality will quickly overwhelm anything about her past that seems curious, so focus on that and you'll be fine."
The sad truth is that men, when they think you're a transwoman, even if you're long post-transistion, always want to know about it, about the changes, like asking any woman about her personal and most intimate secrets on the first date. And while transwomen have their unique history from most but not all genetic women - as some women have undergone changes and surgeries for reason related to their genes or body, that doesn't make it topic number one in the conversation.
So why didn't he say that? He did but later in the response, when it should have been his first response. He tried to describe what he thought transwomen are like, like they all conform to a stereotype as we all do as people and more so as men or women. He gave all the things everyone says about them to tell you to forget what you think, except reiterating it only reinforces it.
So in the end, it seems anyone with any common sense would think, "Gee, maybe I should assume he's an idiot? He certainly showed he has the talent for being one." And he certainly didn't show an sense of humanity about transwomen. Would he have described a gay man or lesbian the same way? Offered generic advice about talking about the sexuality and intimate sexual affairs?
Common sense and wisdom would say the opposite, treat them and people. So treating transwomen as a joke or some stereotype is fair and right. Or only an idiot would think it was, like him?
But mostly the answer was really stupid. First, the jokes were cruel and making a post-joke apology doesn't take away the joke. They were better left unsaid than his bad attempt to make transwomen the butt of some jokes. Second, the assumptions were far from reality. Maybe it's his reality but it's not the world's reality.
The answer should have been very easy, "Treat her like she is, a woman, a person and maybe a friend, and never ask "those" questions unless she feels ready to tell you. She is no different than any other woman. They all have their stories, and they all tell them in their time. So just be casual and let things go where they go. She is and that's all you need to start.
In short, they're people first as we all are and should be treated the same as making any new friend. You'll be surprised that her character, temperment and personality will quickly overwhelm anything about her past that seems curious, so focus on that and you'll be fine."
The sad truth is that men, when they think you're a transwoman, even if you're long post-transistion, always want to know about it, about the changes, like asking any woman about her personal and most intimate secrets on the first date. And while transwomen have their unique history from most but not all genetic women - as some women have undergone changes and surgeries for reason related to their genes or body, that doesn't make it topic number one in the conversation.
So why didn't he say that? He did but later in the response, when it should have been his first response. He tried to describe what he thought transwomen are like, like they all conform to a stereotype as we all do as people and more so as men or women. He gave all the things everyone says about them to tell you to forget what you think, except reiterating it only reinforces it.
So in the end, it seems anyone with any common sense would think, "Gee, maybe I should assume he's an idiot? He certainly showed he has the talent for being one." And he certainly didn't show an sense of humanity about transwomen. Would he have described a gay man or lesbian the same way? Offered generic advice about talking about the sexuality and intimate sexual affairs?
Common sense and wisdom would say the opposite, treat them and people. So treating transwomen as a joke or some stereotype is fair and right. Or only an idiot would think it was, like him?
Friday, April 29, 2011
To borrow a song
I was thinking about what it takes to transistion. Not someone who easily passes and goes through it to get on with her life never needing to look back, only forward. Not someone who has all the dynamic energy to go through it and live, and often fight, for acceptance by others and the public, surficially passing but not past the first moments.
But someone who wants to transistion but faces not just public embarrassment and even humiliation, overt if not subtle or covert, but more so personal fears about themselves, which often grows into self-hate. They want and always fear the worst because they don't see themselves as good enough.
This is often the case with many people, usually children and often teenagers. When you add all the problems and issues of being in the wrong body and being seen by others and expecting to act as someone you're not, just outwardly, it's only spirals into something and someone you hate, yourself.
Well, it's somewhat in a song, Crosby, Still, Nash & Young's song, "Everybody I Love You", in the lyrics:
Know you got to run,
Know you got to hide
Still there is a great life
Lingerin' deep within your eyes.
Open up, open up, baby let me in.
You expect for me to love you
When you hate yourself, my friend.
When you are the one you have to let in and the one who is your friend. Yourself. When you are the one you hate but want so much to love. When you are the one you fear, as a failure as you were and as you may be. When you just stand there and nothing feels good, only hate.
All the words of others don't and won't change it. You let youself in only to find someone you don't like, then, now and ahead. You let yourself in to find someone who wants so much for acceptance, not just of the world, but of you. It's not just about finding love, but overcoming hate. your own for yourself.
And it will never leave, never leave you alone, never let you have a life, never let you feel good. It will always be there in the corners and recesses of your mind, waiting for the moments when doubt and fear sneak into your consciousness, to become present and sometimes overwhelming.
And you need a friend, yourself. The question isn't when but if, as sometimes the weight of the hate becomes suicide. And that if often lingers through your life, never more than a thought triggered by unknown events to become real again, and it takes all your energy to survive through the if, in hope of it being a when.
And it's the when that starts the friendship, but never a guarrantee, just a hope for the possibility of a promise. A promise to yourself. That's when you are your best friend and everything else just becomes what happens, something you can live within yourself to know it won't become hate again.
But ah, that's what you stand there and wait for in your mind, with your body and for your life. To find your friend. Yourself.
But someone who wants to transistion but faces not just public embarrassment and even humiliation, overt if not subtle or covert, but more so personal fears about themselves, which often grows into self-hate. They want and always fear the worst because they don't see themselves as good enough.
This is often the case with many people, usually children and often teenagers. When you add all the problems and issues of being in the wrong body and being seen by others and expecting to act as someone you're not, just outwardly, it's only spirals into something and someone you hate, yourself.
Well, it's somewhat in a song, Crosby, Still, Nash & Young's song, "Everybody I Love You", in the lyrics:
Know you got to run,
Know you got to hide
Still there is a great life
Lingerin' deep within your eyes.
Open up, open up, baby let me in.
You expect for me to love you
When you hate yourself, my friend.
When you are the one you have to let in and the one who is your friend. Yourself. When you are the one you hate but want so much to love. When you are the one you fear, as a failure as you were and as you may be. When you just stand there and nothing feels good, only hate.
All the words of others don't and won't change it. You let youself in only to find someone you don't like, then, now and ahead. You let yourself in to find someone who wants so much for acceptance, not just of the world, but of you. It's not just about finding love, but overcoming hate. your own for yourself.
And it will never leave, never leave you alone, never let you have a life, never let you feel good. It will always be there in the corners and recesses of your mind, waiting for the moments when doubt and fear sneak into your consciousness, to become present and sometimes overwhelming.
And you need a friend, yourself. The question isn't when but if, as sometimes the weight of the hate becomes suicide. And that if often lingers through your life, never more than a thought triggered by unknown events to become real again, and it takes all your energy to survive through the if, in hope of it being a when.
And it's the when that starts the friendship, but never a guarrantee, just a hope for the possibility of a promise. A promise to yourself. That's when you are your best friend and everything else just becomes what happens, something you can live within yourself to know it won't become hate again.
But ah, that's what you stand there and wait for in your mind, with your body and for your life. To find your friend. Yourself.
Separate and Unequal
I was reading the story of the law firm and lawyers who quit working for the supporters in Congress with the legal case to support the DOMA after the Justice Department, and really President Obama, decided not to support the DOMA in both the enforcement and legal challenges, currently going through the courts to eventually land in the Supreme Court.
It shows what the GLB community has gained since the first legal challenge to discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1961, and more so since the late 1960's following the Stonewall riots in New York City, which by the way wasn't about gays or lesbians but about transgender people who were the ones who fought back, far more than the gays and lesbians.
But this situation and the DOMA shows that the GLB community is separate and unequal, more in reality, than the T(rans) community. It's been that way since Stonewall and it will continue as long as gay discriminate against transpeople, treating them either as cross-dressers and drag queens, the former being mostly straight part-time men and the latter mostly gay men performing as women.
And often treating them as less than human. Gays don't really like transwomen, as many women and many lesbians don't like them either. But gays don't because it's about their penis and manhood. Gays don't mind and often like men who play at being women, they don't like them when they actually become women, physically and legally.
Overblown? Not really. Consider all the support the GLB community voiced for all-inclusive ENDA a few years ago to get the transcommunity support and work on the bill. But when it was clear it wouldn't pass, and they blamed the transpeople, they dropped the T in the bill faster than you picking up a hot skillet off the stove.
And in recent rounds to get it passed, they did the same thing again, but were suprised when the transcommunity wanted assurances of inclusion beyond words. Gee, like transpeople don't trust gay men anymore? Really they don't. I wouldn't and don't. At least on issues.
Gay men aren't really any different than other men, only their sexual preferences are different. Gay men are just men being men, and all the reason never to trust them farther than you can see them walking away from you in a crooked hallway, meaning about 10 seconds after they stop talking.
And that's the crux that the transcommunity has learned over the last decade and decided to forego help from the GLB community as seen in recent discussions with politicians and the White House. Stand alone and proud and do what you know is right, and if the GLB community wants to be there for you, great, but for your cause and issue, for your results to get fairness and equality, and not for anything or anyone else.
This is where the DOMA is interesting in that it never defined who was a man or a woman since that is the jurisdiction of the states, and where there is the full range of diversity of legal definitions. The DOMA never distinguished between a genetic man or woman and a legally defined (by surgery and birth certificate) man or woman, and the states differ.
Something the gay community never wanted to discuss to confuse the argument for their case, which was simple, recognition for gay men in marriages, and lesbians get a free ride if they join the fight. And transpeople? Well, that's another fight later. Or so said the gay community. Let's not confuse the politicians and public.
But the real issue to them was association with transpeople. They didn't want and don't want transpeople to have the same rights, have the equality in work, life, marriage, etc., and have the same protections from discrimination. At least not in the same deal as them. It's ok to covertly support transpeople, just don't make gay men be overt about it.
That pesky penis thing they deep-down don't like when transwomen have "that" surgery (SRS/GRS) to become women. It really it scares them that some women-born-male aren't men and want to transistion to be whole and complete women, physically and legally, and some men-born-female, keep their vagina as men. Alien concept to them and alien they think they are.
It's why the DADT policy never touched on transpeople and the DOMA hasn't. The gay community kept it out of the discussion. The seperate and unequal concept. The transcommunity can help the GLB causes and issues with nuggets of vocal support, but, in the end, not legal support. Some gays did help transpeople and the transcommunity, but they wouldn't and didn't stand up when the pressure was on passage of the bills.
And that's the lesson learned. The transcommunity has learned to be separate and equal, and then be inclusive as equals, not forgotten people.
It shows what the GLB community has gained since the first legal challenge to discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1961, and more so since the late 1960's following the Stonewall riots in New York City, which by the way wasn't about gays or lesbians but about transgender people who were the ones who fought back, far more than the gays and lesbians.
But this situation and the DOMA shows that the GLB community is separate and unequal, more in reality, than the T(rans) community. It's been that way since Stonewall and it will continue as long as gay discriminate against transpeople, treating them either as cross-dressers and drag queens, the former being mostly straight part-time men and the latter mostly gay men performing as women.
And often treating them as less than human. Gays don't really like transwomen, as many women and many lesbians don't like them either. But gays don't because it's about their penis and manhood. Gays don't mind and often like men who play at being women, they don't like them when they actually become women, physically and legally.
Overblown? Not really. Consider all the support the GLB community voiced for all-inclusive ENDA a few years ago to get the transcommunity support and work on the bill. But when it was clear it wouldn't pass, and they blamed the transpeople, they dropped the T in the bill faster than you picking up a hot skillet off the stove.
And in recent rounds to get it passed, they did the same thing again, but were suprised when the transcommunity wanted assurances of inclusion beyond words. Gee, like transpeople don't trust gay men anymore? Really they don't. I wouldn't and don't. At least on issues.
Gay men aren't really any different than other men, only their sexual preferences are different. Gay men are just men being men, and all the reason never to trust them farther than you can see them walking away from you in a crooked hallway, meaning about 10 seconds after they stop talking.
And that's the crux that the transcommunity has learned over the last decade and decided to forego help from the GLB community as seen in recent discussions with politicians and the White House. Stand alone and proud and do what you know is right, and if the GLB community wants to be there for you, great, but for your cause and issue, for your results to get fairness and equality, and not for anything or anyone else.
This is where the DOMA is interesting in that it never defined who was a man or a woman since that is the jurisdiction of the states, and where there is the full range of diversity of legal definitions. The DOMA never distinguished between a genetic man or woman and a legally defined (by surgery and birth certificate) man or woman, and the states differ.
Something the gay community never wanted to discuss to confuse the argument for their case, which was simple, recognition for gay men in marriages, and lesbians get a free ride if they join the fight. And transpeople? Well, that's another fight later. Or so said the gay community. Let's not confuse the politicians and public.
But the real issue to them was association with transpeople. They didn't want and don't want transpeople to have the same rights, have the equality in work, life, marriage, etc., and have the same protections from discrimination. At least not in the same deal as them. It's ok to covertly support transpeople, just don't make gay men be overt about it.
That pesky penis thing they deep-down don't like when transwomen have "that" surgery (SRS/GRS) to become women. It really it scares them that some women-born-male aren't men and want to transistion to be whole and complete women, physically and legally, and some men-born-female, keep their vagina as men. Alien concept to them and alien they think they are.
It's why the DADT policy never touched on transpeople and the DOMA hasn't. The gay community kept it out of the discussion. The seperate and unequal concept. The transcommunity can help the GLB causes and issues with nuggets of vocal support, but, in the end, not legal support. Some gays did help transpeople and the transcommunity, but they wouldn't and didn't stand up when the pressure was on passage of the bills.
And that's the lesson learned. The transcommunity has learned to be separate and equal, and then be inclusive as equals, not forgotten people.
Friday, April 15, 2011
If You Don't Understand
If you don't understand transgender people, or don't understand the circumstances or situations of the lives of transgender people, then ask and learn. Don't speak up until you have not just some knowledge and maybe some experience, but some understanding, and more so, compassion. Otherwise, your words are simply showing how ignorant, how insensitive, or worse, how hateful you are.
Knowledge, as they say, is power, understanding is being human. Power doesn't make you better. Understanding does. And expressing your humanity makes you a human being.
Why the thought? An essay about late transistioners, found here. The writer who obviously transistioned early in life when she had the opportunity and support, doesn't seem to understand late transistioners and their families. So why is that reason to write something which is just "I don't understand" followed by a lot of bitching about them and their families?
And yes I don't understand why she even wrote it. It's one thing to write something to ask questions to understand, but it's another to write something with the intent of not understanding but complaining about them. Maybe should she consider what her transistion would have been like if she didn't have the support and opportunities she had.
She needs to imagine if she had to wait into her 50's or older to transistion and try to understand all the reasons someone would wait and all the issues someone would face making the decision to transistion and then transistion. She might find not just some understanding but some compassion and be less hateful toward others.
What's the old adage, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Why couldn't she have just kep quiet and kept her hate to herself? Or ask to first understand? I don't know, but as they say, I won't hold my breath waiting.
Knowledge, as they say, is power, understanding is being human. Power doesn't make you better. Understanding does. And expressing your humanity makes you a human being.
Why the thought? An essay about late transistioners, found here. The writer who obviously transistioned early in life when she had the opportunity and support, doesn't seem to understand late transistioners and their families. So why is that reason to write something which is just "I don't understand" followed by a lot of bitching about them and their families?
And yes I don't understand why she even wrote it. It's one thing to write something to ask questions to understand, but it's another to write something with the intent of not understanding but complaining about them. Maybe should she consider what her transistion would have been like if she didn't have the support and opportunities she had.
She needs to imagine if she had to wait into her 50's or older to transistion and try to understand all the reasons someone would wait and all the issues someone would face making the decision to transistion and then transistion. She might find not just some understanding but some compassion and be less hateful toward others.
What's the old adage, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Why couldn't she have just kep quiet and kept her hate to herself? Or ask to first understand? I don't know, but as they say, I won't hold my breath waiting.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Jennifer Boylan's Testimony
Jennifer Boylan posted her testimony on her Facebook page (FB login required), first video here, about a bill before the Maine legislature to repeal protections for transgender people, currently protected along with LGB (add T) people from discrimination.
She makes several excellent points but one which is prominent in the transcommunity, and one would say divides the community itself into several groups and is reason why many post-transistion women leave the community, not identifying as transgender, which they aren't in my book but just men and women where anything trans is their history but who they are now, and don't rarely if ever get involved again.
In short, it's often an argument within the community to divide those who pass and those who don't and the rest in the middle wanting to pass more and not be identified with those who don't anytime. Yeah, that argument, do you look like a women despite your past.
And those who don't pass in any sense of the word where they're clearly and obviously not entirely female, the problem almost all crossdressers have since they're still men underneath with no interest to transistion but merely present themselves as apparent women (often called playing dressup), become the poster children of those wanting laws against all in and post-transistion women.
Strange it's not a problem with the men's bathroom. Why? Because men don't care and aren't worried other weren't borm male. Just do your business and leave. But with the women's restroom, every anti-trans person is afraid of potential threats, even though there is no evidence of it and no case of anyone being arrested for anything they're worried about.
But it doesn't stop them from using non-passing (trans)women and more so crossdressers, who aren't transgender, as examples of "men in dresses" wanting to attact women and assault children. Yeah, right. But they can't prove there is a threat let alone a risk, realistically anyway.
It's an imaginary issue to excite and incite people against transpeople. And Jennifer Boylan puts the argument to rest. It's only a reality in the imagination of those who hate anyone different than them, by race, color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. A bunch of strait-laced, uptight people with their head somewhere other than on top of their neck.
Anyway, Jennfier Boylan is cool, smart and hard to argue against.
She makes several excellent points but one which is prominent in the transcommunity, and one would say divides the community itself into several groups and is reason why many post-transistion women leave the community, not identifying as transgender, which they aren't in my book but just men and women where anything trans is their history but who they are now, and don't rarely if ever get involved again.
In short, it's often an argument within the community to divide those who pass and those who don't and the rest in the middle wanting to pass more and not be identified with those who don't anytime. Yeah, that argument, do you look like a women despite your past.
And those who don't pass in any sense of the word where they're clearly and obviously not entirely female, the problem almost all crossdressers have since they're still men underneath with no interest to transistion but merely present themselves as apparent women (often called playing dressup), become the poster children of those wanting laws against all in and post-transistion women.
Strange it's not a problem with the men's bathroom. Why? Because men don't care and aren't worried other weren't borm male. Just do your business and leave. But with the women's restroom, every anti-trans person is afraid of potential threats, even though there is no evidence of it and no case of anyone being arrested for anything they're worried about.
But it doesn't stop them from using non-passing (trans)women and more so crossdressers, who aren't transgender, as examples of "men in dresses" wanting to attact women and assault children. Yeah, right. But they can't prove there is a threat let alone a risk, realistically anyway.
It's an imaginary issue to excite and incite people against transpeople. And Jennifer Boylan puts the argument to rest. It's only a reality in the imagination of those who hate anyone different than them, by race, color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. A bunch of strait-laced, uptight people with their head somewhere other than on top of their neck.
Anyway, Jennfier Boylan is cool, smart and hard to argue against.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Really Cool Ad
In wandering around the Internet I found an editorial criticizing the clothing company J Crew. I like some of their clothes, but the ad is really pretty cool, shown here. It shows a parent loving their child and letting them express themself as they know they are. How cool is that?
And of course, the right wing, conservative folks picked this up to write the typical crap about gender "confused" kids and promoting transgender children. Well, as the comment (below column) noted, transgender kids, if given a loving home and supportive parents, aren't confused, and kids are kids. If you let them explore, they're fine and they'll be fine.
This ad helps both parents, noting to be there for them and let them just be kids, and kids, to explore and express themselves. After all it's just polish and pink is just another color, one many men as well as women like. Look at all the men's pink golf shirts of past years' styles. And many amateur and professional athletes wear pink as symbols of support for women's causes, like breast cancer.
In short, to all the uptight (and tight ass) conservatives who want to define sex and gender for all of us, get a life. It's just a boy, just polish and just a color. Go express your anger at freedom and liberty for all somewhere else than at the toes of a boy who's mother loves and supports him.
And of course, the right wing, conservative folks picked this up to write the typical crap about gender "confused" kids and promoting transgender children. Well, as the comment (below column) noted, transgender kids, if given a loving home and supportive parents, aren't confused, and kids are kids. If you let them explore, they're fine and they'll be fine.
This ad helps both parents, noting to be there for them and let them just be kids, and kids, to explore and express themselves. After all it's just polish and pink is just another color, one many men as well as women like. Look at all the men's pink golf shirts of past years' styles. And many amateur and professional athletes wear pink as symbols of support for women's causes, like breast cancer.
In short, to all the uptight (and tight ass) conservatives who want to define sex and gender for all of us, get a life. It's just a boy, just polish and just a color. Go express your anger at freedom and liberty for all somewhere else than at the toes of a boy who's mother loves and supports him.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A really Bad Argument
One argument, as defined by the OED, is "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong", is being the devil's advocate to put forth a position which is bad to begin with and then gets worse the longer the writer, or speaker, continues to propose it. Really? And here?
Or rather with transpeople. Roland Hulme wrote a piece, found here, which suggests transpeople, at the end of their transistion should not be able to get their birth certificates changed to reflect their innate gender from their birth sex.
He used the recent law suit in New York City brought to remove the necessity for surgery, the standard in 48 states (Ohio and Tennesse excludes that right) for transwomen to get their birth certificates changed from male to female. The laws in most states allow transmen to get the change without surgery as it's medically risky and too expensive.
The problem there is many, maybe almost all, transpeople oppose this lawsuit. The petitioners' case has merit as some transpeople can't get surgery for medical or financial reasons (the latter is the common rule for most transpeople as it's not covered by the majority of health insurance plans). But the case includes a transman who can get a judge's order for the change, something a transwoman can't get, necessitating surgery.
The reason they oppose the lawsuit is that it removes the dividing line between the in-transistion and post-transistion women, and some men (exception for them in most states) being surgery (sex/gender change surgery) and creates an indeterminate and indisguishable area defining sex and gender under the law.
This opens the door for early transistioners to get the change to be legally female while being mostly male, and it allows crossdressers and others who dress as women for personal or professonal reasons to find someone who'll agree to cerify their transistion when they're not in transistion or have any goals or plans to transistion.
And as we know, it opens the door to the proverbial media hype that even most transwomen oppose, the "men in dresses in women's bathrooms" idea or the disguse of the ultrafeminine dressup model idea. Neither of which are how transwomen want to be seen. They want to be, live and get on with their lives as women, real, ordinary women.
Transwomen, in-transistion but especially post-transistion, want to be women, and not seen or feared as crossdressers, transvestites or anything the media tries portray them for hype and ratings. And they want to be legally defined and identified as women. That's the law. Something Mr. Hulme doesn't understand.
Oh yeah, he's playing devil's advocate all right. But does he really, as he suggested, believe birth certificates are absolute documents and not fluid? We know can change your name, correct mistakes for parents and other information to get an updated or amended birth certificate. And we know intersexed people can get their sex marker changed from mistakes at birth (assigning the wrong sex) or after surgery to correct it.
I had three birth certificates issued for me for two name changes in two weeks. Is he suggesting my first one was absolute? And if I decide to change my name from what my parents decided three times, he would deny me that right? And all the transwomen and transmen the right to be who they are physically and mentally and not just defined by their genes?
The devil's advocate got his argument lost in his own details, which is mostly his own ignorance of the facts and his own inhumanity for others.
Or rather with transpeople. Roland Hulme wrote a piece, found here, which suggests transpeople, at the end of their transistion should not be able to get their birth certificates changed to reflect their innate gender from their birth sex.
He used the recent law suit in New York City brought to remove the necessity for surgery, the standard in 48 states (Ohio and Tennesse excludes that right) for transwomen to get their birth certificates changed from male to female. The laws in most states allow transmen to get the change without surgery as it's medically risky and too expensive.
The problem there is many, maybe almost all, transpeople oppose this lawsuit. The petitioners' case has merit as some transpeople can't get surgery for medical or financial reasons (the latter is the common rule for most transpeople as it's not covered by the majority of health insurance plans). But the case includes a transman who can get a judge's order for the change, something a transwoman can't get, necessitating surgery.
The reason they oppose the lawsuit is that it removes the dividing line between the in-transistion and post-transistion women, and some men (exception for them in most states) being surgery (sex/gender change surgery) and creates an indeterminate and indisguishable area defining sex and gender under the law.
This opens the door for early transistioners to get the change to be legally female while being mostly male, and it allows crossdressers and others who dress as women for personal or professonal reasons to find someone who'll agree to cerify their transistion when they're not in transistion or have any goals or plans to transistion.
And as we know, it opens the door to the proverbial media hype that even most transwomen oppose, the "men in dresses in women's bathrooms" idea or the disguse of the ultrafeminine dressup model idea. Neither of which are how transwomen want to be seen. They want to be, live and get on with their lives as women, real, ordinary women.
Transwomen, in-transistion but especially post-transistion, want to be women, and not seen or feared as crossdressers, transvestites or anything the media tries portray them for hype and ratings. And they want to be legally defined and identified as women. That's the law. Something Mr. Hulme doesn't understand.
Oh yeah, he's playing devil's advocate all right. But does he really, as he suggested, believe birth certificates are absolute documents and not fluid? We know can change your name, correct mistakes for parents and other information to get an updated or amended birth certificate. And we know intersexed people can get their sex marker changed from mistakes at birth (assigning the wrong sex) or after surgery to correct it.
I had three birth certificates issued for me for two name changes in two weeks. Is he suggesting my first one was absolute? And if I decide to change my name from what my parents decided three times, he would deny me that right? And all the transwomen and transmen the right to be who they are physically and mentally and not just defined by their genes?
The devil's advocate got his argument lost in his own details, which is mostly his own ignorance of the facts and his own inhumanity for others.
Crossdressers aren't trans
I ran across, visually of course, an editorial by Brian McNaught suggesting crossdressers should be in the LGBT definiton as transgender, see article. Well, in his opinion, but not in reality. Crossdressers, as he rightfully says, outnumber transwomen and transmen, those in transistion, and probably by an order of magnitude.
After all, while the entertainers, often called female illusionists or impersonators now, are mostly gay men who like pretending and getting attention as women, the vast majority of the rest are heterosexual men, often married with families. They're not gay and while many do go through facial hair removal to help, they don't go through any medical care to transistion. They don't want to transistion.
In short, they like their dicks and they like to play dressup. That's not transgender. It's not in the DSM-IVTR or will be in the DSM-V, although there are some suggestions to find something there for them to be medical and therefore protected as a condition. Yeah, right. weekdays they're ordinary men and weekends, pretend women. Gee, that's a psychological disorder?
Not according to psychiatrists and psychologists who call crossdressing a hobby at best and a fetish, transvestism, at worst. But when they don't need or want therapy, don't need medical professional help tor transistion, don't want surgeries to become women and don't want to change their birth certificate and records, they don't face discrimination just being who they are in life and work.
Mr. McNaught missed the point that in many fights for equality for LGB and then LGBT folks, crossdressers have been the problem, allowing opponents to use them as an example for all, the proverbial "men in dresses in the bathroom" argument. And after LGB people are protected, transpeople get shuffled aside as something later for fear of being identified with crossdressers.
This happened in Tacoma when it took three votes of the council and the failure of the third voter referendum to reverse the council's vote to add transpeople to anti-discrimination in housing, jobs and other activities of life. And even then the third time almost passed allowing discrimination when they used crossdressers as the poster child for transpeople.
This has also happened in organizations where crossdressers formed their own organization from LGBT organizations because they (CD'ers) outnumbered and dominated the political agenda of the organization before the transpeople jettisoned them to get some real progress. The CD'ers only wanted protections for them and wasn't interested in transpeople.
Any wonder why the LGB people hate the T (transpeople) and the transpeople hate crossdressers? I won't argue some crossdressers eventually transistion, but the percentage is small (<~2%) and those leave the crossdressing community for the transcommunity and eventually as men and women.
In the end, crossdressers aren't anything like bisexual people, and aren't transgender by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to escape his imagination for the sake of an arugment. Maybe he should ask the professionals, or better yet, ask some real transpeople.
After all, while the entertainers, often called female illusionists or impersonators now, are mostly gay men who like pretending and getting attention as women, the vast majority of the rest are heterosexual men, often married with families. They're not gay and while many do go through facial hair removal to help, they don't go through any medical care to transistion. They don't want to transistion.
In short, they like their dicks and they like to play dressup. That's not transgender. It's not in the DSM-IVTR or will be in the DSM-V, although there are some suggestions to find something there for them to be medical and therefore protected as a condition. Yeah, right. weekdays they're ordinary men and weekends, pretend women. Gee, that's a psychological disorder?
Not according to psychiatrists and psychologists who call crossdressing a hobby at best and a fetish, transvestism, at worst. But when they don't need or want therapy, don't need medical professional help tor transistion, don't want surgeries to become women and don't want to change their birth certificate and records, they don't face discrimination just being who they are in life and work.
Mr. McNaught missed the point that in many fights for equality for LGB and then LGBT folks, crossdressers have been the problem, allowing opponents to use them as an example for all, the proverbial "men in dresses in the bathroom" argument. And after LGB people are protected, transpeople get shuffled aside as something later for fear of being identified with crossdressers.
This happened in Tacoma when it took three votes of the council and the failure of the third voter referendum to reverse the council's vote to add transpeople to anti-discrimination in housing, jobs and other activities of life. And even then the third time almost passed allowing discrimination when they used crossdressers as the poster child for transpeople.
This has also happened in organizations where crossdressers formed their own organization from LGBT organizations because they (CD'ers) outnumbered and dominated the political agenda of the organization before the transpeople jettisoned them to get some real progress. The CD'ers only wanted protections for them and wasn't interested in transpeople.
Any wonder why the LGB people hate the T (transpeople) and the transpeople hate crossdressers? I won't argue some crossdressers eventually transistion, but the percentage is small (<~2%) and those leave the crossdressing community for the transcommunity and eventually as men and women.
In the end, crossdressers aren't anything like bisexual people, and aren't transgender by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to escape his imagination for the sake of an arugment. Maybe he should ask the professionals, or better yet, ask some real transpeople.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Being Thoughtless
There has been some recent jokes or skits about transgender people. It started with Saturday Night Live (SNL) and the skit portraying transgender women as men in dresses. It was clearly and obviously beyond even SNL's standards of taste, which isn't very high anyway (I stopped watching it years ago after watching it from the beginning).
They didn't just ridicule transgender people, they trashed them, needlessly. They should have apologized but I doubt any apology would change anything. They couldn't put all of their stupidity back in the tube and forget they even thought about the skit let alone write it and then perform it.
It's one thing to joke about a class or group of people, but the skit wasn't a joke. It was very bonehead of them from the idea. Transgender people have to struggle throughout their life to live as they know they are in the world today. It's full of all sorts of anger and hate from people, they don't need it from SNL or any TV show.
But SNL isn't the first to ridicule transgender people. It's been done for decades and almost always badly. Transgender people are just as normal and ordinary as everyone else. This seems to be lost on people, wanting to isolate them as abnormal and then ridicule them in extreme ways. It's not fair or right.
And following that David Letterman and Craig Ferguson not only made jokes about transgender people, they invited people on to further ridicule people. Craig Ferguson is known for pushing extreme without any sense of decency, and late night TV is known for this kind of abuse against classes or groups of people.
It's discrimination disguised as humor, really bad humor. David Letterman should have known and done better, but he hasn't in the past, so this new one with Adam Sandler isn't surprising. And Adam Sandler has no decency either, at least in the media and in his movies. Why would we expect anything different from him either?
In the end, it's time to stop attacking transgender people through the media. There are many successful post-transistion men and women and there are many more in transistion who deserve respect not ridicule. But considering the powers in the media support those who ridicule transgender people, why would I expect change?
I don't but then maybe we should turn the joke around to them to the extreme. How would they feel then?
They didn't just ridicule transgender people, they trashed them, needlessly. They should have apologized but I doubt any apology would change anything. They couldn't put all of their stupidity back in the tube and forget they even thought about the skit let alone write it and then perform it.
It's one thing to joke about a class or group of people, but the skit wasn't a joke. It was very bonehead of them from the idea. Transgender people have to struggle throughout their life to live as they know they are in the world today. It's full of all sorts of anger and hate from people, they don't need it from SNL or any TV show.
But SNL isn't the first to ridicule transgender people. It's been done for decades and almost always badly. Transgender people are just as normal and ordinary as everyone else. This seems to be lost on people, wanting to isolate them as abnormal and then ridicule them in extreme ways. It's not fair or right.
And following that David Letterman and Craig Ferguson not only made jokes about transgender people, they invited people on to further ridicule people. Craig Ferguson is known for pushing extreme without any sense of decency, and late night TV is known for this kind of abuse against classes or groups of people.
It's discrimination disguised as humor, really bad humor. David Letterman should have known and done better, but he hasn't in the past, so this new one with Adam Sandler isn't surprising. And Adam Sandler has no decency either, at least in the media and in his movies. Why would we expect anything different from him either?
In the end, it's time to stop attacking transgender people through the media. There are many successful post-transistion men and women and there are many more in transistion who deserve respect not ridicule. But considering the powers in the media support those who ridicule transgender people, why would I expect change?
I don't but then maybe we should turn the joke around to them to the extreme. How would they feel then?
Monday, February 7, 2011
John Muir Moments
I've read a number of the books by John Muir, his walk to the Gulf, his travels in the Sierra Mountains of California, and other adventures. And while I have long forgotten much of his writings, one story sticks in my mind about moments we often face in life and have to decide whether the past, known as it is, or the future, the gamble it is, is better.
It's about being stuck. A moment when going forward or going back freezes the person. The story John Muir told was about a canyon he was exploring in the Sierra Mountains. He started up a creek following the bed to the headwaters where he stood before a cliff to the higher plateau above the basin.
He faced the choice to go back downstream and into another canyon or find a route up the cliff to the higher elevations which was he real goal. He choose the latter when he found a crack in the cliff face he could climb. So he started up the cliff face and then climbed into the crack and climbed higher.
The crack, however, slowly widened as he climbed until he was using he feet and back to slowly inch his way up. The crack appeared to widen more where it was clear he might not be tall enough to reach across it and still climb higher, and so he stopped and rested. He faced a moment he had to choose.
He had to choose to go back down, however dangerous that would be with the likelihood he would fall from being tired and sore. Or he could risk going up, and hope the crack didn't widen beyond hold and climbing with the top of his back and neck and the ball of his feet and toes. He stayed there quite a while until he didn't to go up.
And sure enough the crack didn't widen at all and he reached the top, climbed over the ledge and stood on the top of the plateau over looking the creek below with the Sierra mountains above him, an easier climb anywhere he wanted to go. And he did.
I call these John Muir moments when and where we're stuck. Sometimes the transistion of someone will reach a moment like this where you know going back isn't the answer but you don't like the immediate prospects of the future. You're stuck in time between who you were and who you want to become.
These often occur when events, circumstances or situations put us where there aren't any easy or good answers or directions. In a transistion, which could be from or about a host of things, people or whatever making us feel nothing will help, going back or forward and we feel standing still is worse than the choices.
Often it's one of those moments the whole world around us sucks and we're at the center of it, the vortex being spun around with nothing clear, just a whirl of things we can't decide where to go. Except we know going back isn't the answer and going forward holds nothing good. At least at the moment.
We know beyond the moment we'll be ok, or we hope, because that's the unknown, will things widen and we fall all the way down with no chance to go back to who we were and find it harder to go forward. That's the problem, the future holds not assurances, only our hope and our willingness to try.
And we know the reality of transistions of transgender people, the reality isn't all that good. The majority of transistions don't go well and many fail, and only some will succeed. The stories of the folks who succeed are always good to know, but all carry the one caveat we can't lose or erase, who we were.
We all carry that one thing we can never erase from our history, our birth. Everything else changes, except that and it's always that which allows people to add that one word we hate after the transistion, "transgender" or "transsexual." The undeniable reality. And facing that will also be a John Muir moment, to let it drift by as the wind or hate it with the label someone sticks on us.
It's unfair and not right, but it is reality of our times. All the other John Muir moments can be overcome, save the one we always have inside us. And all the freedom reaching the top won't change it. We can simply leave it as our history and get on with our life, knowing we succeeded even over this.
It's about being stuck. A moment when going forward or going back freezes the person. The story John Muir told was about a canyon he was exploring in the Sierra Mountains. He started up a creek following the bed to the headwaters where he stood before a cliff to the higher plateau above the basin.
He faced the choice to go back downstream and into another canyon or find a route up the cliff to the higher elevations which was he real goal. He choose the latter when he found a crack in the cliff face he could climb. So he started up the cliff face and then climbed into the crack and climbed higher.
The crack, however, slowly widened as he climbed until he was using he feet and back to slowly inch his way up. The crack appeared to widen more where it was clear he might not be tall enough to reach across it and still climb higher, and so he stopped and rested. He faced a moment he had to choose.
He had to choose to go back down, however dangerous that would be with the likelihood he would fall from being tired and sore. Or he could risk going up, and hope the crack didn't widen beyond hold and climbing with the top of his back and neck and the ball of his feet and toes. He stayed there quite a while until he didn't to go up.
And sure enough the crack didn't widen at all and he reached the top, climbed over the ledge and stood on the top of the plateau over looking the creek below with the Sierra mountains above him, an easier climb anywhere he wanted to go. And he did.
I call these John Muir moments when and where we're stuck. Sometimes the transistion of someone will reach a moment like this where you know going back isn't the answer but you don't like the immediate prospects of the future. You're stuck in time between who you were and who you want to become.
These often occur when events, circumstances or situations put us where there aren't any easy or good answers or directions. In a transistion, which could be from or about a host of things, people or whatever making us feel nothing will help, going back or forward and we feel standing still is worse than the choices.
Often it's one of those moments the whole world around us sucks and we're at the center of it, the vortex being spun around with nothing clear, just a whirl of things we can't decide where to go. Except we know going back isn't the answer and going forward holds nothing good. At least at the moment.
We know beyond the moment we'll be ok, or we hope, because that's the unknown, will things widen and we fall all the way down with no chance to go back to who we were and find it harder to go forward. That's the problem, the future holds not assurances, only our hope and our willingness to try.
And we know the reality of transistions of transgender people, the reality isn't all that good. The majority of transistions don't go well and many fail, and only some will succeed. The stories of the folks who succeed are always good to know, but all carry the one caveat we can't lose or erase, who we were.
We all carry that one thing we can never erase from our history, our birth. Everything else changes, except that and it's always that which allows people to add that one word we hate after the transistion, "transgender" or "transsexual." The undeniable reality. And facing that will also be a John Muir moment, to let it drift by as the wind or hate it with the label someone sticks on us.
It's unfair and not right, but it is reality of our times. All the other John Muir moments can be overcome, save the one we always have inside us. And all the freedom reaching the top won't change it. We can simply leave it as our history and get on with our life, knowing we succeeded even over this.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
I Don't Agree
I've been reading about the transgender veterans who are arguing for care for their transistion under the Veterans Administration. This is promoted by the Transgender Americans Veterans Association with their most vocal spokesperson Autumn Sandeem. I'd say spokesman since her legal documents, which she acknowledges, says she male.
I don't agree any care or treatments should be available to transgender veterans for their transisiton. It's not a condition that's releated to their service, not related to any injury they incurred or disease they acquired during their service, and it's not life threatening requiring medical interventon. It's not warranted.
Now, I won't say that being transgender people don't deserve care or treatment. I'm an advocate for it to be covered by the health insurance companies as it's an identified mental and physical condition treatable under the WPATH Standards of Care. All non-costmetic care should be covered, including physician's care, drugs, therapy, and sex reassignment surgery (SRS).
It's the right thing to do. While the APA's have "recommended" it be covered, since they identify it as a mental condition worthy of intervention and with a course of treatment, they haven't pushed for it as mandatory. This is because it's a moral issue to them, but the studies of the employer-funded treatment, including SRS, have shown it's cheap.
But it's not something which should be covered by the VA under veterans care. It's a waste of funds better suited to injured veterans. I can say this because I served and haven't used any VA care. I have health insurance which covers most of what I want in life for health or emergency care. And should I be transgendered, it's not covered under my health insurance, so I would expect to pay for it out of my own pocket.
And this is only fair for transgendered veterans. They should find an employer or health insurance which covers it with other health and emergency care, or as they say, get out your checkbook as the vast majority of those who are transistioning or have transistioned. I just don't agree it's a necessity of the VA to provide it at taxpayer expense.
I would support the TAVA's effort to expand DADT to transgendered veterans to serve openly, but I wouldn't necessarily support the military fund the care and treatment for their transistion. The military should allow their transistion, just not pay for it. I've expressed this view and I have had my issue with when Ms. Sandeem spoke out and even went so far to be one of those who chained themselves to the White House fence.
I thought her complaint about her treatment during her arrest was unwarranted as she presented her documents to show she was legally male (at least the news stories I read stated). As I've said before I don't consider presenting yourself as female in public mean your transgender and in transistion. If she was serious, why hasn't she had some of her documents changed? I would as all those in transistion do, when they make the decision to be full-time and public.
But that's outside the point here. While I agree with the transcommunity on most issues, I can't agree on this one, nor with those who express the right to it. I will continue to say it's a good way to provide ammunition against transpeople by asserting the expenditure of taxpayers', and especially VA, money for care better paid by private insurance.
I don't agree any care or treatments should be available to transgender veterans for their transisiton. It's not a condition that's releated to their service, not related to any injury they incurred or disease they acquired during their service, and it's not life threatening requiring medical interventon. It's not warranted.
Now, I won't say that being transgender people don't deserve care or treatment. I'm an advocate for it to be covered by the health insurance companies as it's an identified mental and physical condition treatable under the WPATH Standards of Care. All non-costmetic care should be covered, including physician's care, drugs, therapy, and sex reassignment surgery (SRS).
It's the right thing to do. While the APA's have "recommended" it be covered, since they identify it as a mental condition worthy of intervention and with a course of treatment, they haven't pushed for it as mandatory. This is because it's a moral issue to them, but the studies of the employer-funded treatment, including SRS, have shown it's cheap.
But it's not something which should be covered by the VA under veterans care. It's a waste of funds better suited to injured veterans. I can say this because I served and haven't used any VA care. I have health insurance which covers most of what I want in life for health or emergency care. And should I be transgendered, it's not covered under my health insurance, so I would expect to pay for it out of my own pocket.
And this is only fair for transgendered veterans. They should find an employer or health insurance which covers it with other health and emergency care, or as they say, get out your checkbook as the vast majority of those who are transistioning or have transistioned. I just don't agree it's a necessity of the VA to provide it at taxpayer expense.
I would support the TAVA's effort to expand DADT to transgendered veterans to serve openly, but I wouldn't necessarily support the military fund the care and treatment for their transistion. The military should allow their transistion, just not pay for it. I've expressed this view and I have had my issue with when Ms. Sandeem spoke out and even went so far to be one of those who chained themselves to the White House fence.
I thought her complaint about her treatment during her arrest was unwarranted as she presented her documents to show she was legally male (at least the news stories I read stated). As I've said before I don't consider presenting yourself as female in public mean your transgender and in transistion. If she was serious, why hasn't she had some of her documents changed? I would as all those in transistion do, when they make the decision to be full-time and public.
But that's outside the point here. While I agree with the transcommunity on most issues, I can't agree on this one, nor with those who express the right to it. I will continue to say it's a good way to provide ammunition against transpeople by asserting the expenditure of taxpayers', and especially VA, money for care better paid by private insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
