To Whom It May Concern,
Meaning you who decide that gendervariant people aren't, and you fill in the rest according to your beliefs, values, whatever. You simply decide gendervariant people are less than human and don't deserve your understanding or acceptance. But that's what you don't get. You see, you think their being is about you. And it's not.
These people haven't done anything to you. They're not against you. They haven't hurt you physically or mentally. All they want to do is get through life just like you, without anyone bothering them, and especially anyone disliking them because they exist. Like you do and are doing. But they didn't do anything to deserve that anger or hatred.
They're just another person living with what they were given and trying to make the best of it. They not only face unreal personal trama and hurt from their family and friends who don't understand and often push them out of their home and lives, they face unreal hardship in life and world from people like you who for simply being.
So why do you hate them? And isn't your hate only yours?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Making Distinctions
Discrimination. What a word. It has a variety of definitions and applicatioins. It's almost only limited by our imagination for its use to describe some person, time, event, circumstance, situation, or whatever. And we discriminate by our words. Not just the acts but the distinctions.
The Oxford American Dictionary (copy sits by my desk besides on-line) defines it as:
discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən| noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.
• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.
• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [as adj. ] discrimination learning.
And I'm no different. Take the words transgender and transsexual. Whenever you read someone's blog, article, column, etc, they almost invariably directly or indirectly define the terms and then make distinctions, which often end up as discriminations. And I have my definitions, applications and disinctions, and yes, discriminations.
It's one reason why the LGBT and especially transcommunity themselves can't get on the same page on issues. It's the old adage about the devil is in the details and for them, it's the words themselves.
The Oxford American Dictionary (copy sits by my desk besides on-line) defines it as:
discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən| noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.
• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.
• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [as adj. ] discrimination learning.
And I'm no different. Take the words transgender and transsexual. Whenever you read someone's blog, article, column, etc, they almost invariably directly or indirectly define the terms and then make distinctions, which often end up as discriminations. And I have my definitions, applications and disinctions, and yes, discriminations.
It's one reason why the LGBT and especially transcommunity themselves can't get on the same page on issues. It's the old adage about the devil is in the details and for them, it's the words themselves.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Being blind
I was reading the news about Caster Sememya to run again in women's international track events. She was the woman who swept several sprints in Berlin last summer, winning by more than 2 seconds in some races, dominating the competition. It was then the other women competitors voiced their view that "she" wasn't just a woman. You can search the news stories over the last year to see the various views athletes and the media have taken with her.
I haven't changed my view of the situation then, because the South African doctor who examined her before her departure from Berlin advised the South African Athletic Association not to send her as she wasn't the women she appeared to be and any gender test would show the truth about her. But she went and the controversy began.
But that's not my argument anymore. It's that the transcommunity has not changed their view that she had the right then and more so now to compete as she is and not have to undergo any medical treatments required of transgender athletes to compete fairly with the other athletes. They still keep arguing the other athletes, the atheletic community and the athletic organization simply have to accept her rights.
My argument is that for the sake of one, who clearly demonstrated some unusual advantage, everyone else has no right to contest her rights. The individual is more than the whole. They argue this applies to all transgender people, but more so in some cases where it's clearly and obviously misplaced at best and wrong at worst.
The are simply blind to the reality of the whole. They assume all transgender people have the disadvantage and deserve advantages wherever they can get them. Except that Caster wasn't wholy born female but, as some sources have reported, some form of intersexed, probably mild to moderate AIS, meaning a male with the appearance of female gentalia, but no female reproductive system.
She may think of yourself as a girl (gender identity), raised a girl and accepted as a girl, but it doesn't make her female, and enough to compete with other women. But that doesn't seem to bother the transcommunity. They prefer blindness to reality and understanding. They prefer to discriminate against other women than acknowledge they may be wrong. They prefer to simply deny the truth.
The truth other sports have proceedures for transgender athletes to compete on par with their other same gender athletes and all have complied to compete, taking the mandatory two-plus years to transistion. That's what Caster should have done and what the IAAF should have mandated, striping her of her medals, records, and rights to compete until she complies.
But she didn't and screamed discrimination. And the transcommunity screamed with her. And those who voiced support for the other women, they were verbally pummelled into silence. They not only didn't want to hear the truth, they wanted their truth to be right. Except it wasn't right or fair.
And now after nearly a year from the events in Berlin and Caster is allowed back, they're arguing they were right all along, except it's clear between the lines in the news, Caster did undergo some medical treatments and proceedures to comply with the IAAF's rules for transgender athletes. Something she should have done then.
Being blind has some advantages, as we know. We can deny the truth and reality and only see our view as right and fair. And in doing so with Caster and against everyone else the transcommunity showed their colors, or rather their inability to see the color, only their black and white world, except everything and everyone else is black.
And only then do we see the transcommunity's self-righteousness and self-serving blindness. Sadly too, because it only adds to those who do help and support transgender people and the transcommunity to winch and balk. And then walk away, in their forced silence. Being blind not only hurts yourself, it hurts others who want to care, only to be rejected by not being blind.
I haven't changed my view of the situation then, because the South African doctor who examined her before her departure from Berlin advised the South African Athletic Association not to send her as she wasn't the women she appeared to be and any gender test would show the truth about her. But she went and the controversy began.
But that's not my argument anymore. It's that the transcommunity has not changed their view that she had the right then and more so now to compete as she is and not have to undergo any medical treatments required of transgender athletes to compete fairly with the other athletes. They still keep arguing the other athletes, the atheletic community and the athletic organization simply have to accept her rights.
My argument is that for the sake of one, who clearly demonstrated some unusual advantage, everyone else has no right to contest her rights. The individual is more than the whole. They argue this applies to all transgender people, but more so in some cases where it's clearly and obviously misplaced at best and wrong at worst.
The are simply blind to the reality of the whole. They assume all transgender people have the disadvantage and deserve advantages wherever they can get them. Except that Caster wasn't wholy born female but, as some sources have reported, some form of intersexed, probably mild to moderate AIS, meaning a male with the appearance of female gentalia, but no female reproductive system.
She may think of yourself as a girl (gender identity), raised a girl and accepted as a girl, but it doesn't make her female, and enough to compete with other women. But that doesn't seem to bother the transcommunity. They prefer blindness to reality and understanding. They prefer to discriminate against other women than acknowledge they may be wrong. They prefer to simply deny the truth.
The truth other sports have proceedures for transgender athletes to compete on par with their other same gender athletes and all have complied to compete, taking the mandatory two-plus years to transistion. That's what Caster should have done and what the IAAF should have mandated, striping her of her medals, records, and rights to compete until she complies.
But she didn't and screamed discrimination. And the transcommunity screamed with her. And those who voiced support for the other women, they were verbally pummelled into silence. They not only didn't want to hear the truth, they wanted their truth to be right. Except it wasn't right or fair.
And now after nearly a year from the events in Berlin and Caster is allowed back, they're arguing they were right all along, except it's clear between the lines in the news, Caster did undergo some medical treatments and proceedures to comply with the IAAF's rules for transgender athletes. Something she should have done then.
Being blind has some advantages, as we know. We can deny the truth and reality and only see our view as right and fair. And in doing so with Caster and against everyone else the transcommunity showed their colors, or rather their inability to see the color, only their black and white world, except everything and everyone else is black.
And only then do we see the transcommunity's self-righteousness and self-serving blindness. Sadly too, because it only adds to those who do help and support transgender people and the transcommunity to winch and balk. And then walk away, in their forced silence. Being blind not only hurts yourself, it hurts others who want to care, only to be rejected by not being blind.
The Case of Caster Part II
Well, she's back, and the controversy didn't go away and only is the rhetoric on both sides heating up. But what is added to the mix is more obvious the motive of the South African Athletic Association (SAA). According the news, she "completed" the regimen the IAAF prescribed, except it wasn't said what that was.
Going back to last year, what we know or really heard was that she had her undescended testes and no female reproductive system. Over this last year, according to the IAAF and the SAA, she had those removed and supposedly followed a regimen of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And the SAA said, "trust us." And she didn't have to go through the two years of HRT transgender althletes are required to complete before competing again.
Except at her recent track event she blew the field away. Granted her time was considerably slower than last year and far from any world record, it was still evident that her (former?) male body is still there and the (HRT) didn't seem to work or maybe not even followed. At this point it's clear while she still thinks she's a woman (for her gender) and wants to compete as a woman, she is still mostly male.
Her advantage is that any male athlete who matures will be physically stronger (and probably faster and quicker) than comparable being and maturing female. And if she had undergone HRT, there would be significant physical changes, even for an extreme athlete. That's not evident in the video I saw of her recent races. She wasn't at her peak, and has a lot of room to improve before more imporatant events his year and next.
In other international sports, any male to female transistion for an athletes would undergo two years of HRT, so why was she allowed to return after a year? The reason is that two years would have probably wiped out her chance to be competitive. But what if she wasn't under HRT for the year? Then aside from natural reduction of testosterone, she wouldn't be much different which training could easily make up.
The is because HRT is part anti-androgen and at proper levels reduces testosterone to within the more normal range for genetic women, not at the high level bordering on low male levels. Those levels indicates the HRT was too low or not followed. Even Kristy Worley has it wrong saying Caster has congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) when she has no female reproductive system to have this condition, according the doctor who originally examined her and recommended she not go to Berlin last year.
But in reality, this isn't about her but winning. She wants to win no matter what, and if she has a physical advantage of her birth and maturity (as male), then so what. Her country wants to win. So, that's what it's really about, medals and records, and having South Africa get the recognition. She's not a pawn anymore and it's clear she doesn't care about honesty and fairness, other words she would set the record straight for all to know and prove us wrong.
But I haven't heard that, nor do I expect, except in the future when the truth is finally known and will be too late to retract the awards and records. I would like to be wrong, and the information isn't complete to know for sure, but what does exists from reliable sources tilts against her. She can let the world know, so what's the problem since it's already a public issue?
I think if she continues to win with significant margins over longtime women athletes, then the questions will continues with more fervor and the other female athletes will have a case to make to make her case public so everyone understands. As I said last year, she stepped into the spotlight, so silence isn't an answer. And as I said last year, the IAAF really screwed up, but they will have to face the music of her competition if she continues winning.
She came out of nowhere to win big and was obviously male. That hasn't changed, which means the controversy hasn't changed, along with everyone's opinion. Anyway, that's my opinion to date, and as always, subject to change with the truth and reality.
Going back to last year, what we know or really heard was that she had her undescended testes and no female reproductive system. Over this last year, according to the IAAF and the SAA, she had those removed and supposedly followed a regimen of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And the SAA said, "trust us." And she didn't have to go through the two years of HRT transgender althletes are required to complete before competing again.
Except at her recent track event she blew the field away. Granted her time was considerably slower than last year and far from any world record, it was still evident that her (former?) male body is still there and the (HRT) didn't seem to work or maybe not even followed. At this point it's clear while she still thinks she's a woman (for her gender) and wants to compete as a woman, she is still mostly male.
Her advantage is that any male athlete who matures will be physically stronger (and probably faster and quicker) than comparable being and maturing female. And if she had undergone HRT, there would be significant physical changes, even for an extreme athlete. That's not evident in the video I saw of her recent races. She wasn't at her peak, and has a lot of room to improve before more imporatant events his year and next.
In other international sports, any male to female transistion for an athletes would undergo two years of HRT, so why was she allowed to return after a year? The reason is that two years would have probably wiped out her chance to be competitive. But what if she wasn't under HRT for the year? Then aside from natural reduction of testosterone, she wouldn't be much different which training could easily make up.
The is because HRT is part anti-androgen and at proper levels reduces testosterone to within the more normal range for genetic women, not at the high level bordering on low male levels. Those levels indicates the HRT was too low or not followed. Even Kristy Worley has it wrong saying Caster has congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) when she has no female reproductive system to have this condition, according the doctor who originally examined her and recommended she not go to Berlin last year.
But in reality, this isn't about her but winning. She wants to win no matter what, and if she has a physical advantage of her birth and maturity (as male), then so what. Her country wants to win. So, that's what it's really about, medals and records, and having South Africa get the recognition. She's not a pawn anymore and it's clear she doesn't care about honesty and fairness, other words she would set the record straight for all to know and prove us wrong.
But I haven't heard that, nor do I expect, except in the future when the truth is finally known and will be too late to retract the awards and records. I would like to be wrong, and the information isn't complete to know for sure, but what does exists from reliable sources tilts against her. She can let the world know, so what's the problem since it's already a public issue?
I think if she continues to win with significant margins over longtime women athletes, then the questions will continues with more fervor and the other female athletes will have a case to make to make her case public so everyone understands. As I said last year, she stepped into the spotlight, so silence isn't an answer. And as I said last year, the IAAF really screwed up, but they will have to face the music of her competition if she continues winning.
She came out of nowhere to win big and was obviously male. That hasn't changed, which means the controversy hasn't changed, along with everyone's opinion. Anyway, that's my opinion to date, and as always, subject to change with the truth and reality.
Monday, June 14, 2010
More Harm than Good
I was reading the news about one individual transwoman (pre-op and some might suggest marginably passable at best) who likes the spotlight. She's also a veteran and is active the transgender veterans movement, which I don't understand the VA accepting transgender care as service or veteran related. Demanding transgender care by the VA seems odd at best.
I'm a strong advocate for veterans' care, being a veteran myself, but only for those whose injuries and disabilities are service-related, whether directly or indirectly. I'm for more money and resources for our two Iraq war and Afghanistan war veterans who have been long rejected or neglected by the VA, much due to arrogance of the Bush-Cheney attitude about throwaway soldiers.
Anything else, however, belongs to the individual, which includes transgender care. It's a waste of government resources. But that doesn't seem to matter to this person, and she loves to write and promote herself working for the movement of transgender veterans and people. But to me, she's actually doing more harm than good for several reasons.
First, and really foremost, she has long implied she was post-op and legally female, but when arrested at a protest at the White House recently, she had to identify as (legally) male, but then claimed discrimination when housed with male inmates during her brief time in jail. This has been an issue in the transcommunity, which I agree transpeople need separate and safe places in jail and prison. But in her case, all her identification, according to the news stories, listed her as male, but dressed as female.
Being a cross-dresser doesn't, in my view, means she's transgender. I suspect she's in transistion, but she could just be living as man presenting as a woman. That's what fulltime cross-dressers do. Some even go through electrolysis and take some hormones, but they don't have the interest to change the sex or legal identification as male. This woman hasn't really said one way or the other which she is or going through except how she presents herself.
Harsh? Maybe, but when now she admits she's also bipolar. Ok, there are treatments for this, but I'm not sure it's cause for announcing it as without additional information, like what treatments she is getting and what she is doing about it. She served 20 years in the military and is just now coming out with this news?
My point here? Well, I've always had problems with transwoman who go fulltime as woman, adopting the whole thing about being women, except their face and voice. And add to some their body, and I just don't understand someone yelling at the world to accept them as a woman but nothing other than clothes appears normal for women. I know it's my own subtle discrimination and many of transwoman try hard to get by and through life quietly despite all the physical issues they carry.
But as several more famous (trans)women (meaning the trans is former as they're legally female) have stated in their opinion of any transwoman's transistion, consider facial surgery first among your surgical needs, A passing face gets you through 90% of the initial impressions people have. That's simple psychology. But a vast majority of in-transistion women, mostly older transwomen, don't and think it's their right to just be and we have to accept it.
I won't argue there are many natal women who have non-feminine faces, but all of the rest of the outward signals are there not to question their sex or gender. But these transwomen don't have those innate advantages, and all the makeup and smiles won't hide a masculine face. Add the voice, which doesn't change in transistion, and you have instant recognition of something other than a woman. All the clothes, behavior and expression won't overcome that.
And so the question is if transwomen like this one is doing more harm than good to the transgender cause and movement? When many transwomen transistion quietly and simply move on in their life as women, the vast majority easily or mostly passable, then why should they identify with transgender people like this woman? They don't and won't. It's the problem with the transcommunity promoting women like this one who loves the attention.
In the end I have say, I see and understand both sides, but that said, I side against this woman who is doing more harm than good as all the noise she makes is focused on herself in the name of the cause and not just being the messenger for the cause. She is the poster woman for why so many transwomen don't get involved in the community and movement and distance themselves after their transistion, and why transpeople aren't always accepted as normal, the proverbial "man in a dress" syndrome.
The reality is that this woman isn't going away, and probably why she hasn't finished the medical and legal process to be legally female, except maybe if the VA paid for her surgeries. And don't get me started there, as so many have begged, borrowed and worked hard for the money for their surgeries. And while some have had insurance coverage (rare but improving), having the VA pay for it is beyond common sense.
And the reality is the transcommunity will use her because they believe being visible is the key. But they forget being visibly good and accepted is more important than just being visible. They'll take people like her and accept the price of losing many other port and in-transistion women to silence and distance. They mistake the messenger for the message.
I'm a strong advocate for veterans' care, being a veteran myself, but only for those whose injuries and disabilities are service-related, whether directly or indirectly. I'm for more money and resources for our two Iraq war and Afghanistan war veterans who have been long rejected or neglected by the VA, much due to arrogance of the Bush-Cheney attitude about throwaway soldiers.
Anything else, however, belongs to the individual, which includes transgender care. It's a waste of government resources. But that doesn't seem to matter to this person, and she loves to write and promote herself working for the movement of transgender veterans and people. But to me, she's actually doing more harm than good for several reasons.
First, and really foremost, she has long implied she was post-op and legally female, but when arrested at a protest at the White House recently, she had to identify as (legally) male, but then claimed discrimination when housed with male inmates during her brief time in jail. This has been an issue in the transcommunity, which I agree transpeople need separate and safe places in jail and prison. But in her case, all her identification, according to the news stories, listed her as male, but dressed as female.
Being a cross-dresser doesn't, in my view, means she's transgender. I suspect she's in transistion, but she could just be living as man presenting as a woman. That's what fulltime cross-dressers do. Some even go through electrolysis and take some hormones, but they don't have the interest to change the sex or legal identification as male. This woman hasn't really said one way or the other which she is or going through except how she presents herself.
Harsh? Maybe, but when now she admits she's also bipolar. Ok, there are treatments for this, but I'm not sure it's cause for announcing it as without additional information, like what treatments she is getting and what she is doing about it. She served 20 years in the military and is just now coming out with this news?
My point here? Well, I've always had problems with transwoman who go fulltime as woman, adopting the whole thing about being women, except their face and voice. And add to some their body, and I just don't understand someone yelling at the world to accept them as a woman but nothing other than clothes appears normal for women. I know it's my own subtle discrimination and many of transwoman try hard to get by and through life quietly despite all the physical issues they carry.
But as several more famous (trans)women (meaning the trans is former as they're legally female) have stated in their opinion of any transwoman's transistion, consider facial surgery first among your surgical needs, A passing face gets you through 90% of the initial impressions people have. That's simple psychology. But a vast majority of in-transistion women, mostly older transwomen, don't and think it's their right to just be and we have to accept it.
I won't argue there are many natal women who have non-feminine faces, but all of the rest of the outward signals are there not to question their sex or gender. But these transwomen don't have those innate advantages, and all the makeup and smiles won't hide a masculine face. Add the voice, which doesn't change in transistion, and you have instant recognition of something other than a woman. All the clothes, behavior and expression won't overcome that.
And so the question is if transwomen like this one is doing more harm than good to the transgender cause and movement? When many transwomen transistion quietly and simply move on in their life as women, the vast majority easily or mostly passable, then why should they identify with transgender people like this woman? They don't and won't. It's the problem with the transcommunity promoting women like this one who loves the attention.
In the end I have say, I see and understand both sides, but that said, I side against this woman who is doing more harm than good as all the noise she makes is focused on herself in the name of the cause and not just being the messenger for the cause. She is the poster woman for why so many transwomen don't get involved in the community and movement and distance themselves after their transistion, and why transpeople aren't always accepted as normal, the proverbial "man in a dress" syndrome.
The reality is that this woman isn't going away, and probably why she hasn't finished the medical and legal process to be legally female, except maybe if the VA paid for her surgeries. And don't get me started there, as so many have begged, borrowed and worked hard for the money for their surgeries. And while some have had insurance coverage (rare but improving), having the VA pay for it is beyond common sense.
And the reality is the transcommunity will use her because they believe being visible is the key. But they forget being visibly good and accepted is more important than just being visible. They'll take people like her and accept the price of losing many other port and in-transistion women to silence and distance. They mistake the messenger for the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
