Why is it that if you are transgender, especially in transition or more so post-transition, and you don't want to be recognized with the whole diversity of "transgender" people, meaning crossdressers, transvestities, drag queens/kings, etc. you're considered against transgender people, even transphobic?
It's a what the f..k thought on their part. There no reason everyone has to accept the whole of any group. It doesn't mean you dislike or even hate them, it's just you don't have the interest in their world and they're not a part of your life.
I ask the question from a column where a transwoman wrote about the responses she got from transpeople who disagreed about thinking transvestites and drag queens were transgender and should be accepted by all transpeople because they're part of the diversity.
Well, sorry, it's her opinion, just that and nothing more, and not worth more than anyone who disagrees with her and doesn't want to be associated with other groups under the transgender umbrella. And I can see why some disagree with her.
If you are a woman who is transitioning and especially has transitioned and just want to be invisible in the world of women, why would you want people to see you, or worse label you, transgender like transvestites and drag queens.
This woman's column was prompted by Gwyneth Paltrow's comment she sometimes overuses makeup where she looks like RuPaul and other drag queens. Yeah, RuPaul should know what that means and no doubt she said it in passing without malice toward anyone.
We all know, or common sense suggests, with drag queens and most transvestites, it's all about glamour and makeup. And we all know those people often complain and always criticize real transwomen for their lack of makeup and common everyday styles.
They're two entirely different groups of people with no overlap except the things common with women as a whole, clothes and makeup. Transvestites, drag queens, etal, don't transition and don't go through the mandatory medical proceedures to transition.
So why should people have to accept them as transgender? Especially since some of them don't see themselves as transgender. It's a personal choice and opinion, and certainly not mandated by the very people who think they should accept them.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Damage Done
I read a column by a young transwomen who stated in her piece she dresses and acts like she wants to live her life but it's not as a "good" transwomen, meaning representative of women. She lives openly as a transwomen but is in the area between normally passing and not passing.
This means, as she stated, "survives" her transition as a (trans)women, the trans part being just the label other people attach to her because she wasn't born female and lives as a women. I don't know her and the photos of her suggest she gets through life and her transition, albeit probably with some issues and problems.
But that's not my point. My point is the idea of these women who openly, and in many cases as this women seems to say, live loudly as a transwomen. What does she and her openness do to other transwomen who are transitioning and don't want to be seen like her?
Does this women create an enviroment and set an example for other transwomen which openly invites problems for other transwomen? Where does personal presentation and expression overlap the presentation and expression of others who don't want the label?
The range of transwomen is diverse, as diverse as women, so there really isn't any consistent label which fits all of them, but there are so few open transwomen women that the diversity gets shrunk into fewer labels where many of the transwomen don't fit let alone want.
So do the actions of a few out, loud and proud transwomen who aren't necessarily normally let alone easily passable, damage the rest of transwomen who don't want to be seen as them?
If many people only see the extreme examples of transwomen, which is a small percentage of them, does it hurt the rest as how the public thinks should see them?
Many of these transwomen also like to write about their life and personal experiences as a transwomen, like this woman, which increases the perspective others see for transwomen. But once written, is the damage done to others?
Or do these women really think their words are simply unintended consequences they don't have to accept responsibility if applied to others?
The transcommunity is something I have seen be more about individuals than others. There are a few good organizations and people, but there are far more individuals who are out for self-promotion and self-identity, and these women are often mistaken for the whole of transwomen.
So where does that leave a transwomen except to simply get through their transition and get on with their life as women? The answer is that this is what the vast majority do and don't touch the transcommunity let alone get involved.
And why the transcommunity more often than not doesn't represent those transwomen, they don't want the representation if it's like many in the transcommunity. They don't want the damage done to them by others.
This means, as she stated, "survives" her transition as a (trans)women, the trans part being just the label other people attach to her because she wasn't born female and lives as a women. I don't know her and the photos of her suggest she gets through life and her transition, albeit probably with some issues and problems.
But that's not my point. My point is the idea of these women who openly, and in many cases as this women seems to say, live loudly as a transwomen. What does she and her openness do to other transwomen who are transitioning and don't want to be seen like her?
Does this women create an enviroment and set an example for other transwomen which openly invites problems for other transwomen? Where does personal presentation and expression overlap the presentation and expression of others who don't want the label?
The range of transwomen is diverse, as diverse as women, so there really isn't any consistent label which fits all of them, but there are so few open transwomen women that the diversity gets shrunk into fewer labels where many of the transwomen don't fit let alone want.
So do the actions of a few out, loud and proud transwomen who aren't necessarily normally let alone easily passable, damage the rest of transwomen who don't want to be seen as them?
If many people only see the extreme examples of transwomen, which is a small percentage of them, does it hurt the rest as how the public thinks should see them?
Many of these transwomen also like to write about their life and personal experiences as a transwomen, like this woman, which increases the perspective others see for transwomen. But once written, is the damage done to others?
Or do these women really think their words are simply unintended consequences they don't have to accept responsibility if applied to others?
The transcommunity is something I have seen be more about individuals than others. There are a few good organizations and people, but there are far more individuals who are out for self-promotion and self-identity, and these women are often mistaken for the whole of transwomen.
So where does that leave a transwomen except to simply get through their transition and get on with their life as women? The answer is that this is what the vast majority do and don't touch the transcommunity let alone get involved.
And why the transcommunity more often than not doesn't represent those transwomen, they don't want the representation if it's like many in the transcommunity. They don't want the damage done to them by others.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
What escapes me
What I don't understand about women who transition is that not all of them want Sex Reassignment Surgery (vaginoplasty) to have a vagina. They like and want to keep there penis. Why?
This is what escapes me, to live in between where your presentation and sense of being is as a woman but your body is still basically male. I know the younger generation have accepted this idea about transwomen, and two states have now legalized the change of birth certificates without SRS.
And while I can understand this is important to the many who want to complete their transition even with SRS but can't afford it or can't have it for medical reasons. But to consciously decide they don't need SRS and keep their penis?
What the changes in the law is allowing is women who live between male and female where anyone living and presenting as a woman, perhaps under some level of transition can skip SRS and still be legally recognized as female.
It's a hmmm..., to me, and raises the question, exactly what defines a legal female and a woman? The old standard of a vagina, or really no penis and testicles, seems a thing of the past, or at least in two states now (CA and IL).
But what also seems to me is what happens if these women are discovered, and as often happens, arrested if not beaten, raped and even killed, all because of their gentalia. And few outside the transcommunity cares, even to call them women.
I won't argue they have rights to be women and do everything every woman does, but isn't this exactly the opposite of what the transcommunity has been fighting all these years, the right to be women because they have the same physical body, ie, a vagina.
In the end this is where one of the distinctions exist within the transcommunity, those who view a transition as something through SRS because it's what women want, and those who view it as a choice. The quetion is if the two are compatible in the greater society.
This is because the former can be and often are seen as the latter, often describing those who did transition through SRS as all the other transgender women who didn't want to transition or complete their transition, just want to live as women and kept their male genitalia.
As one blogger asked, "Isn't being trans about your gentalia and changing it to match your mind?"
They went on to say, "It’s true, if you LOVE your genitals, the likelihood is, you’re not transsexual. ", which is my point and what escapes me, and makes me ask, "If you want to live as a woman with male genitals, then what makes you a woman other than your looks and clothes?"
And isn't this exactly what womens' organization, especially radical feminists groups, cite as the reason to exclude transwomen from any distinction as women and especially any legal recognition as women? Isn't that what they argue, women with male parts aren't women?
And there are those who argue this perpetuates the binary gender roles. Ok, to a point but we do need a way to accommodate those who want to pass through between genders as well as those who want to live in between gender roles.
The problem is that the law doesn't accommodate those in between, you're either one or the other. And society reinforces the binary roles. So what's the answer to those in between? Force them into one side or create the space for them?
This is where I don't have answers and why it escapes me. Personal choice versus everyone else.
This is what escapes me, to live in between where your presentation and sense of being is as a woman but your body is still basically male. I know the younger generation have accepted this idea about transwomen, and two states have now legalized the change of birth certificates without SRS.
And while I can understand this is important to the many who want to complete their transition even with SRS but can't afford it or can't have it for medical reasons. But to consciously decide they don't need SRS and keep their penis?
What the changes in the law is allowing is women who live between male and female where anyone living and presenting as a woman, perhaps under some level of transition can skip SRS and still be legally recognized as female.
It's a hmmm..., to me, and raises the question, exactly what defines a legal female and a woman? The old standard of a vagina, or really no penis and testicles, seems a thing of the past, or at least in two states now (CA and IL).
But what also seems to me is what happens if these women are discovered, and as often happens, arrested if not beaten, raped and even killed, all because of their gentalia. And few outside the transcommunity cares, even to call them women.
I won't argue they have rights to be women and do everything every woman does, but isn't this exactly the opposite of what the transcommunity has been fighting all these years, the right to be women because they have the same physical body, ie, a vagina.
In the end this is where one of the distinctions exist within the transcommunity, those who view a transition as something through SRS because it's what women want, and those who view it as a choice. The quetion is if the two are compatible in the greater society.
This is because the former can be and often are seen as the latter, often describing those who did transition through SRS as all the other transgender women who didn't want to transition or complete their transition, just want to live as women and kept their male genitalia.
As one blogger asked, "Isn't being trans about your gentalia and changing it to match your mind?"
They went on to say, "It’s true, if you LOVE your genitals, the likelihood is, you’re not transsexual. ", which is my point and what escapes me, and makes me ask, "If you want to live as a woman with male genitals, then what makes you a woman other than your looks and clothes?"
And isn't this exactly what womens' organization, especially radical feminists groups, cite as the reason to exclude transwomen from any distinction as women and especially any legal recognition as women? Isn't that what they argue, women with male parts aren't women?
And there are those who argue this perpetuates the binary gender roles. Ok, to a point but we do need a way to accommodate those who want to pass through between genders as well as those who want to live in between gender roles.
The problem is that the law doesn't accommodate those in between, you're either one or the other. And society reinforces the binary roles. So what's the answer to those in between? Force them into one side or create the space for them?
This is where I don't have answers and why it escapes me. Personal choice versus everyone else.
Was It Legal
If you know about veterans who are transgender and have fought for the rights of active, inactive and retired service members who are transgender then you likely know Autumn Sandeen, a retired Navy seaman (was a man during her service).
She has recently reported that she finally got the DOD to change the gender marker on her service record after over a year long fight with them for this change. Autumn has reported she has changed her birth certificate to reflect she is female after her "surgery."
Well, the problem is that her surgery, legal under California law now as irreversible sex change surgery, was only an orchiectomy, meaning just the removal of the testicles and not a vaginoplasty, does not comply with DOD regulations for the change of gender.
The DOD requires sex reassignment surgery (SRS) which is a vaginoplasty and what 46 states require to change the marker on birth certificates. Ohio and Tennessee don't allow changes on the birth certificates even after SRS and California and Illnois are the only states which uses the term "irreversible sex surgery" to allow changes.
This language is and will create more headaches for the state of California than they imagine when they made the change. Some transwomen have had lesser surgeries, not genital related, and had surgeon(s) call it gender surgery to get the birth certificate.
This creates what the laws were passed and are administered had not planned but opens the door to the issue of what defines being female under the law, namely, can a woman have a penis and still be legally defined as female?
But back to the issue at hand which is similar and the obvious question. Does this mean Autumn Sandeen deserve to have her gender marker changed when she hasn't completly complied with the DOD regulations defining the surgery for qualification?
The federal government agencies have different rules for gender markers. The State Department will issue a passport with the change if you submit affidavits from surgeons and physicians confirming completion irreversible and permanent sex change therapy.
They will also issue a one-year temporary passport for those in transiton if your surgery is within a year so you can travel without the gender conflict on documents. The Social Security Office requires the birth certificate to be changed first before their records.
The VA will change the marker to align with the patients on presentation of affidavits from medical professionals. But the DOD has, and with many tranwomen continues, to refuse to change the marker, until Autumn Sandeen got hers changed, but was it by hook or by crook?
Would the DOD reverse their ruling to change her record if they knew she didn't comply with the regulations for her surgery? I personally don't care because a former service record is really irrelevant in the normal lives of transwomen, it's more symbolic and not what the VA uses except to confirm service.
Is getting the DOD to change their policy on gender markers ok if the means used weren't exactly legal? Does it matter the person fighting for the change was more interested in their own issues than those of transwomen, wanted the attention to herself than anything using the transcommunity to get it?
When does the community recognize self-serving "leaders" of the transcommunity aren't for the community but for themselves and gains for the community are secondary. Their goals are self-promotion. So why does the transcommunity continue to support these people?
She has recently reported that she finally got the DOD to change the gender marker on her service record after over a year long fight with them for this change. Autumn has reported she has changed her birth certificate to reflect she is female after her "surgery."
Well, the problem is that her surgery, legal under California law now as irreversible sex change surgery, was only an orchiectomy, meaning just the removal of the testicles and not a vaginoplasty, does not comply with DOD regulations for the change of gender.
The DOD requires sex reassignment surgery (SRS) which is a vaginoplasty and what 46 states require to change the marker on birth certificates. Ohio and Tennessee don't allow changes on the birth certificates even after SRS and California and Illnois are the only states which uses the term "irreversible sex surgery" to allow changes.
This language is and will create more headaches for the state of California than they imagine when they made the change. Some transwomen have had lesser surgeries, not genital related, and had surgeon(s) call it gender surgery to get the birth certificate.
This creates what the laws were passed and are administered had not planned but opens the door to the issue of what defines being female under the law, namely, can a woman have a penis and still be legally defined as female?
But back to the issue at hand which is similar and the obvious question. Does this mean Autumn Sandeen deserve to have her gender marker changed when she hasn't completly complied with the DOD regulations defining the surgery for qualification?
The federal government agencies have different rules for gender markers. The State Department will issue a passport with the change if you submit affidavits from surgeons and physicians confirming completion irreversible and permanent sex change therapy.
They will also issue a one-year temporary passport for those in transiton if your surgery is within a year so you can travel without the gender conflict on documents. The Social Security Office requires the birth certificate to be changed first before their records.
The VA will change the marker to align with the patients on presentation of affidavits from medical professionals. But the DOD has, and with many tranwomen continues, to refuse to change the marker, until Autumn Sandeen got hers changed, but was it by hook or by crook?
Would the DOD reverse their ruling to change her record if they knew she didn't comply with the regulations for her surgery? I personally don't care because a former service record is really irrelevant in the normal lives of transwomen, it's more symbolic and not what the VA uses except to confirm service.
Is getting the DOD to change their policy on gender markers ok if the means used weren't exactly legal? Does it matter the person fighting for the change was more interested in their own issues than those of transwomen, wanted the attention to herself than anything using the transcommunity to get it?
When does the community recognize self-serving "leaders" of the transcommunity aren't for the community but for themselves and gains for the community are secondary. Their goals are self-promotion. So why does the transcommunity continue to support these people?
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Do not mistake
Don't mistake passing when people are simply polite and even nice. It doesn't mean you pass, it only means people are being kind and don't want to offend you. You pass when they're not polite and don't make comments about you that insinuate you don't pass.
It's easy to fool yourself if you don't hear criticism, comments or worse jokes. Don't mistake silence for acceptance. Don't mistake the absence of harsh words for the presence of the good words. Don't mistake your desire to pass for the reality of it.
It's easy to fool yourself if you don't hear criticism, comments or worse jokes. Don't mistake silence for acceptance. Don't mistake the absence of harsh words for the presence of the good words. Don't mistake your desire to pass for the reality of it.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Being Convinced
When you know you want to transition, it's not your heart which needs convincing for it already knows how you feel. It's not your mind which needs convincing for it already knows how you think. It's not your body which needs convincing for it already knows who you are.
It's your eyes which needs convincing for they need to see you as you are standing in front of the mirror where the truth and reality is always looking back at you. When you see yourself with your eyes, the rest of you has been waiting, you'll know you're there and the rest is just the process to make it right.
It's your eyes which needs convincing for they need to see you as you are standing in front of the mirror where the truth and reality is always looking back at you. When you see yourself with your eyes, the rest of you has been waiting, you'll know you're there and the rest is just the process to make it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
