Conundrum

The transgender community has a conumdrum. Like that's new or news to or about them? No, it's not, they're always the stereotuypical walking conumdrum with all their diverse members and issues. But that's another issue. This one is about visibility or really invisibility. I was reading the call by some in the community instead of a Day of Rememberance they hold for all the (trans)people who have been killed by violence against them they proposed a Day of Visibility.

They want all transpeople to become visible for a day. It's about being out and proud versus being stealth and invisible. The reality is, when I do a back of the envelope calculation on the numbers of post-transistion women, the number of public post-transistion women is about 5% of the total number of post-transistion women who aren't. It's the reality that they prefer being invisible and simply going about their lives as women.

And that's the conumdrum facing the transgender community. Post-transistion women aren't transgender, but simply legally recognized females and women, meaning those who have completed the medical process, under the Standards of Care, to be physical women (as much as possible) and the legal proceedures to be legally female (birth certificate and all necessary docments). The last thing they want is to become visible.

So, the conumdrum is that only those who are out and proud become visible. When faced with the potential problems and lack of rights and protections, why would a post-transistion woman become visible? Now the vast majority live with just a handful of friends, family and co-workers knowing their history. So, why step out of the shadow into the light for a day? It doesn't make sense except to those who are out and proud and want more to be like them.

I know or have met post-transistion women in the course of my life. We all have, it's just that we likely didn't know it, because they're not obvious. They're just like any other women you meet, only their past is different. They identify as women and are legally recognized as women, so why would they want to become visible as transgender?

The problem is that the transgender community is a diverse group, which many see ranging from the female impersonators thorugh transvestites, cross-dressers, transexuals, and in-transistion women and men. So why would any woman who has gone through their transistion to life silently and quietly as women want to be recognized as one of them?

It's not that they don't support transgender people, they do. It's just that they don't see reasons to go back in their life, something they left and went through a lot of pain and hurt to get through it. They don't see the need to be visible again, and face all the realities that entails in today's society. They're done and have gone on with their life.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the importance a Day of visibility would do for the transgender community. It would be important. But that said the transgender community hasn't recognized the damage it would do to those who are post-transistion women. The last next they need or want is to be portrayed again as less than women, not because the transgender community won't respect them, but society won't.

Just look at the news stories about transgender people and transsexuals. It's neither pretty or nice. It's why the media mistakenly uses the term transgender to describe post-transistion women, because in their minds and what they think is the readers' minds they want to distinguish genetic women from legally recognized women. It, to them, is about their view of morality of being "normal".

And that's why the vast majority of post-transistion women leave the community and never again identify as trans-anything once they've completed their transistion. They're said, done and gone. And becoming visible again? That's not who they are. They're simply women, and deserve the same in return, only visible as women, nothing more.

And that's the conumdrum the transgender community has, but more importantly it's also the totally mistaken perception they give society about all post-transistion women. So why would these women want to come back to the community and become visible. Some of them didn't have a choice. Their life and work circumstances required being out or they were outed in the press.

And if you listen to them, they don't deny the transgender label, they simply ignore it or use it to describe who they were than who they are. It's about the past. They accept the label from the media, and many do an outstanding job presenting the whole positive side of being formerly transgender men or women. That's the visibily which helps.

And no one doubts if all post-transistion women stood up in America, they would amaze everyone as to the diversity and postive role models they have been as women. But we know that visibility would be lost on the media because it's not a story. The media wants the label as the story, not the people. And that's why they're invisible and will likely remain so.

Being Hypocritical

When someone owns and runs a member forum on their Website, the hardest thing to practice is fairness. The easiest thing is being hypocritical. In two ways. First, to members, treating members differently, and second, about yourself, being hypocritical about your policies and decisions.

When you run the forum, you establish the basic rules and policies. That's normal and expected. And those rules and policies evolve, you change and adapt them over time as events, circumstances and situations arise. That's also normal and expected. But what isn't is when you're hypocritical with those very rules and policies.

I wrote how my account was deleted when I challenged the application of a rule on one forum. Notice I didn't challenge the rule but the application of the rule by the owner. She decided that no one challenges her on the rules and policies. But then when I pointed out that quite a few members had challenged those very rules and policies, I was bannished.

It's the old adage, kill the messenger and the problem disappears. A very strong, "Not!" And that's because you, the owner, are the problem, being hypocritical with yourself. You can't be fickle with members, decide who's ok to allow to be rude or insulting and who gets booted for the least infraction of you choosing.

In my case I challenged her decision on a rule when it clearly wasn't being enforced fairly and evenly. The day before she booted someone for something I would simply send an advisory e-mail to "please don't do that.", but she deleted the person's account. And sure as the next day I made a similar comment, I was gone too.

Yet, in an e-mail exchange I pointed out she own contradictions in her words and actions, she simply stood pat saying that's her right. It is since it's her forum, but it's not when it obviously so blatantly hypocritical.

What's funny is that she has made changes to the moderators on the forum, she changed those who were posting news and blog entries saying the same thing we did. They no longer post those entries. But they still allows members to make statements which contradict her rules and policies. Yet they're still there.

And my point besides just ranting about a person?

No much except it's just another example of people being people. But I've noticed in the transgender community this attitude and perspective is often pervasive. In part it has to do with the nature of the community as a whole and the many divergent membership and members. It's worse than the Democratic party membership and members.

And that's saying a lot. The reason is that the only thing holding the transcommunity together is everyone's identity as transgender, everything else is different, including the flavor, expression, behavior of their identity. Kinda' like soup with a little of every spice in the world mixed into it. It just doesn't work and always ends up tasting bad.

It's doesn't work because beyond the umbrella term, which many don't agree with anyway and don't identify as, there isn't any commonality except wanting to be and expressing themselves as victims. Never mind the source or cause, they always consider themselves victims. And as such often think the rules of fairness don't apply.

And that's where they're wrong. It's actually the opposite. But they're sometimes no different in feeling being the victims a people who become some flavor of terrorists, from vocal advocates to religious extremists. They become defiant about their identity, with the world and especially with and within the community. The transcommunity, as many have said, is its own worst enemy.

But it doesn't change the responsibility to be fair about yourself and with other people. As many have also said, it's more reason to be vigilent about fairness, both yourself and everyone else. But I rarely find that in the transcommunity. I'm not talking nice here, almost everyone is nice. I'm talking after the initial nice is worn off and the real people begin to show.

And that's when fairness gets lost because they go back to their own self-identity and commonality with that. Everything else and everyone else becomes someone else outside their world, and sometime their own perspective, and fairness is usually the first victim. And being hypocritical becomes the only common expression.

And, as I learned, just don't be the one to point that out to them, especially about themselves. I know this is a one-sided view. The transcommunity can be and often is very fair and all the rest of the "good" adjectives in the dictionary. They often are a great group of people, as I have seen photographing events. And I, all too often, only see the negative side of things, whether it's work, life, issues, circumstances, situations, event, whatever.

It's part of my nature and personality, having lifelong Dysthymia. But this also allows and affords me the ability to focus on the negative side when everyone else is playing happy. And after being bannished I had two choices, apologize or walk away. Well, I didn't to the former, and only did the latter after making her aware of her hypocrisy.

And I've vented on my blog, not about being the victim, here, but about the hypocrisy. I know I'm not the good person here. No one really is, but I opened my mouth, as I often have in my life, to point out a contradiction, and got verbally pummelled and then banished. And doing so I've discovered how self-centered and self-absorbed many transpeople are, living in their world and the world.

And when you prick their identity and world, expressed as rules and policies, they get defensive and then get offensive, the latter disgused as reality but really is hypocrisy. And in the end I haven't minded being dismissed from that forum. The ownder didn't do anything I haven't seen before and haven't experienced first hand. I'll just move on to leave her in her own little world in the greater world. And that is my choice.

The lesson was learned, again.

Outside the box

I've always lived outside the box, any box anyone wants to put me in. I've never fit inside any box anyway, so standing outside a room full of identity boxes is ok with me. I'm not confined to any one and free to wander and wonder, and walk up to any box, look over the edge and see what's inside. And sometimes see how it fits inside.

But then I usually either jump out or get kicked out (see post about being deleted). That's also ok with me. I don't strive in life to be a socially accepted person by any one group's view of members or people. I do strive for a common sense perspective and approach to almost anything.

Note, almost. Everyone has personal issues they're passionate about. I have quite a few issues I'm passionate about, but I've also found that often my perspective is either extreme or out of the normal (box) of the group. And expressing my view also often gets me kicked out of the group, which is what I don't understand.

Why groups discriminate against members seems illogical, despite someone's extreme view with the issues. These people often bring a different thinking and set of ideas, where most of the groups becomes so inbred with their thinking. And it always surprises me when the groups begin some self-analysis after a major setback or failure. What don't they understand the old adage about repeating the same experiment expecting a different result.

I've seen this in the dwindling newspaper business, trying to reinvent itself like all the other failing newspapers, the American auto industry, trying to sell new cars when they haven't improved their reputation, conservative-religious groups, every answer is in the Bible, and so on.

Even the minority groups who feel burdened as victims and have been discriminated against follow their traditional perspective, it's their comfort zone and changing would be seen as heresy, often condeming or expelling members who challenge the status quo, let alone propose new ideas or directions. i've been there myself a few times in my life. Those times had their price and cost.

And during those times I had to decide which was more important, following my own values and beliefs or sacrificing them for being a "team player." I almost always choose the former, and only the latter when the issue was worth negotiating and compromising, even if it hurt a little. The key is your core values and beliefs.

But I'm not talking dogma for those values and beliefs, as is often found in religions. I'm talking basic human values and being a good human being with yourself and others, being honest, trustworthy, respectful, and the rest of the best of being human. That's unverisal and doesn't take anything outside of yourself.

I've wandered a bit, and wondered a bit more, as I often do, just following the stream of consciousness I am. And this post is like a box, I'm both inside writing and outside peeking. And always really outside the box, even looking at myself.

Semantics

I was reading about the transgender community. Some of my friends are or were, meaning self-identify as, transgender. And you can read the many Websites with all the terminology and definitions and get overloaded who's all under the transgender umbrella or in the transgender community, often shorten to transcommunity.

Anyway, I got into an e-mail exchange with the owner of a forum for transpeople. And she described all the flavors or classes of transpeople, but the ones that interested me were as follows:

"Pre-ops: Transsexuals who desire to to make their body as congruent as possible with their preferred sex, but have not yet had the surgical procedures for whatever reason.

Post-Ops: Transsexuals who have had surgical procedures to make their body as congruent as possible with their preferred sex. For MTF transsexuals this is generally considered to be after Genital surgery (GRS, orchiectomy, and/or penectomy), for FTM transsexuals it is generally considered to be after top surgery."

Except Non-op is missing and Post-Op is incomplete.

A Non-op is someone who elects not to go through genital surgery and lives with the birth genitalia but as a member of the opposite gender, usually a male-to-female since female-to-males are not required to have the surgery for their legal documents (it's medically not recommended and very expensive). Many lesbians who identify as f2m's do everything else.

But some m2f transwomen never get GRS but live as women the rest of their life. This doesn't allow them to get their legal documents, only a Driver's LIcense in some states - not all are consistent with standards, changed to reflect their female (living) gender. Some illegally get their documents changed, but this has risk of discovery later in life and possible civil and/or criminal actions.

After all who wants to know a woman has male genitallia? Yeah, the thing most men freak over, some get angry with, and some love them (that "she-male" thing). Personally I don't understand any of these views. But I do expect that a woman was either born with or has surgery to create a vagina. It's part of a woman's experience in and with life. I haven't met any woman who trade their vagina for a penis and testicles, and everything else it entails.

That's the view of our binary society. And like it or not, it's the reality here.

So why a transwoman pronounces here womanhood without a vagina is beyond me. And even is she illegally obtained her documents saying she's female - remember issuing legal documents under less than legal or fraudulant circumstance doesn't make the documents legal, they're invalid on their face, it's just a matter of time when she'll be required to present the documents supporting her status, take a physical or provide the name of her OB/GYN to certify her status. In short, she'll eventually find justice.

Anyway, there is a last group, Post-transistion.

These are Post-ops (above) who have had their documents legally updated and are fully recognized as female. This starts the the first necessary one, the birth certificate, allowable in every state save two (OH and TN), and then proceeds with the other local, state and federal records and any employment and credit records, and so on down the line. Rarely do all records get changed because they're either too long ago or a changed is not allowed, eg. DOD records.

This is important because you may be physically female with GRS (often called Sex Reassignment Surgery or SRS), but you're not legally female. SRS is the final medical step but not the final step you a (trans)woman's life, just the beginning of the end of her transistion. The rest is the mechanics of the paperwork.

This is also important because it then gives the woman the right to say she's not transgender anymore, but legally female. This is a small semantic difference but a significant one between the transcommunity and the individual. She is now free and independent of the term and community, so the community often likes to avoid that step by stopping at Post-op.

It's also why at least 80%, some estimates 90-95%, of post-transistion women leave the transcommunity, never to be recognized with it again. It's not their present or future life, only their history and past. And the community doesn't like or appreciate these women doing this.

The remaining ones were either publically outed for some circumstance or situation, outed themselves or didn't really have a choice to due their life, work or career. They may dislike the term and label, but it's the one the media sticks on them. It's the media's way of describing them for the story, to isolate and identify them as "not one of us but a transgender person."

It's unfair and not right. The media doesn't use adjectives with other people in the same way, only to highlight their difference between "normal" people and "transgender" people." But it's what the transcommunity loves, post-transistion women claimed and under the umbrella, which they can then call all transgender.

That's neither fair or right either. Post-transistion people are simply male or female, men or women, take your pick, but they're not transgender in any respect anymore. That's the right they earned and deserve when they finished their transistion. We owe them that, nothing less and nothing else.

Tavern conversations

I'm basically a tavern conversationalist. I like the spirit and openness of a good Friday night conversation at a tavern with rounds of good microbews, stout ale for me thanks, and great food. I like the hearty openness, honesty and freedom of these conversations. And the humor and tolerance for diversity and divergent views.

I like people who are passionate about their views, like wandering ideas, and listen well to understand and debate the subjects beyond saying, "I think..." I like people who take their issues seriously but don't take themselves seriously. I certainly don't. I often hold extreme view on issues, but I rarely speak them. I prefer offering views that open the door to dialog and debate.

Only when pressured or I want to say what I truly feel will I express my deeply held and strongly felt views on an issue. But even then it's just my view of the world, from my experience, knowledge and understanding. Nothing more, but certainly not less than anyone else's view. It's just mine.

And even as I age, I still feel the same way. The only people I avoid anymore are those who are clearly so intransigent in the views they won't change, they won't even listen. And they will keep twisting the topic or issue to their view or to denigrate the opposing view, or worse other people. At that point, when I used to try to talk to them, now I simply shut up and often walk away.

They won't change. But that's also issue dependent. I've known some very interesting, and staunchly opininated, people in my life, and I like being in their company for conversations, because they see the humor in life, and even their own life and view. They're often a hoot to be around and talk with. They laugh at themselves more than they laugh as life.

And I can kid them about life and their views. That's my style. Always with a smile and a humorous idea or perspective on things. The little kid in me never left and sometimes likes to make people smile. It's all in the value we have as people with each other. If we didn't respect each other and learned to appreciate and respect our differences and different views. what else would there be in the world?

I know somtimes friendship is best, and why maybe diplomacy is often better done, on a Friday night at the local pub over good beer and food.