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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.