So Here's a Problem
When I introduced the subject of transgender identity to the class, one of my students told a story about a guy he saw when he was out fishing with a friend one day: they were at the end of a pier, fishing, like you do, when a 60-something year old guy got out of his car in a tiny bikini, walked the length of the pier, & then got back in his car & drove away.
& What the student wanted to know was whether or not that was illegal, specifically because there were children around.
In most cases, I explained, it isn’t, unless of course the bikini didn’t cover everything it was supposed to, in which case he was publicly indecent.
But I also thought: it’s a shame that this student’s first encounter with someone (presumably) trans was so sucky & inappropriate. As the student said, there was no issue with a guy wanting to wear a bikini. He just didn’t feel it was appropriate for the person to parade himself, with no attempt at passing, in front of kids, in such skimpy clothes.
Obviously this guy was within his rights, but still: it makes a lousy first impression, especially the lack of concern about his surroundings. It just comes off as kind of pervy & inappropriate.
So, thoughts?
Posts
19 comments:
Helen,
This is the dilemma I frequently deal with in my advocacy work on behalf of children, youth and their families. How do we support everyone's "right" to express themselves as they see fit when it comes to gender while at the same time acknowledging that far too many of "us" don't have a clue, or give a damn about the negative impression their narcissistic, age-inappropriate and self-indulgent public presentation makes on others. To take it one step further, the inherent misogyny in the way some people express their female identity makes it more difficult for some potential allies to throw their hat in the ring.
The sad truth in my work is that, when it comes to advocacy for children, youth and their families, MOST of whom are not part of the queer community, "passing privilege" and "good taste/judgment" is a necessary asset. I wish it wasn't so.
The person in their bikini may have been within their rights...but they were so wrong.
Jenn
Perhaps it's best to draw an analogy, even though employing them is fraught with peril. But sometimes the more of a stretch, the better.
It could even turn into a useful opportunity to explore other facets of the (real) topic at hand.
"Yea, that's inherently perv-y behavior. But, let's think a bit about this further. If a person parked their white Honda across the street from a playground and leered at kids everyday -- would we draw a link between people who drive white Hondas and perv-y behavior? Probably not. I think the tendency of some to do so here is based upon a couple of things. Like the somewhat infrequent occurrence of said perv-y behavior (thankfully), and the infrequency with which we publicly see, and notice gender behaviors which are considered inconsistent. Another might be the tendency to see gender expression as solely some facet of sexual behavior."
This could then lead into a discussion about the "invisibility" of gender-variance, due to things like the imperative to "pass", the tendency of "full-time" trans persons to go "stealth" and reject their histories and "trans" identity. Or, the hidden public/private dichotomies of others' lives. Or the relative acceptance of some behaviors as opposed to others (women can (for the most part) wear jeans without being chastised, etc, etc).
Ask men who have simply worn a pink shirt to describe any comments they may have gotten policing their behavior. Did they feel uncomfortable? Perhaps they could describe anxiety around carrying their girlfriend's or wives' purse - even for a moment. How do they hold it? Issue a challenge to exhibit obvious but minor gender-nonconforming behavior and have them report the results! Just the thought usually gets them shifting in their seats.
Quickly the tangent escapes the dangerous territory.
Or, in a more... sophisticated? crowd or ones that are familiar with gender or psychology that understood the separation you made about this persons behavior, perhaps you can indeed explore the ways in which multiple repressed behaviors might interact in complex ways; or the ways in which we hold monolithic views of other stereotypes that we know are false from personal experience. Are there trans people in the audience that assumed they should have feelings for the "opposite" sex? That explored their sexuality intensely during the beginning of their transition? Or the same for gays and lesbians as they were coming out? Or members of minority races who change their behaviors as they navigate between worlds?
Of course, even seeming to draw a paralel between that person's behavior and those subjects would be dangerous territory; but maybe it's a thread that can be pulled on much later after introductory concepts were brought forth as a response to the remark.
Hmm. I think I'm babbling now. Hope some of that was useful.
Dang it. Forgot.
"no attempt at passing"
I think this illustrates another force at work -- that there is an appropriate gender binary and that oppositional sexism is a valid model.
That's a whole other subject that would take a long time to cover...
I see the difficulty of the situation you were in, Helen, but I'm going to take the side of the bikini-clad "guy." If you're going to be sex-positive, that means not allowing prudes to use "the CHILDREN!" as a fig leaf for their own prudery.
Exposing genitals would have crossed a line, and so would masturbating, but the bikini parade didn't. I grew up in Woodstock and in Manhattan in the '70s, and there was plenty of weird exhibitionism around. It didn't scar me for life. In fact, I think it helped me to develop more tolerance and open-mindedness.
You can argue that the person in question made a tactical error in pissing off the prudes and giving people an excuse to hate on transpeople - but that assumes that this person shares your agenda. I appreciate that this put you in a quandary with your student, but understanding the student's viewpoint doesn't mean accepting it.
Is it true that these kids never see anyone wearing inappropriately sexual clothing? There's never any couples making out or snuggling in front of the children? They never see any guys parading their expensive cars or jewelry in an indecent way?
Here's what I would say to the student - and obviously I've had more time than you did to think about it: Kids can take a lot more than we give them credit for. People, trans and otherwise, do crazy, weird, exhibitionistic things. Kids should be protected from unwanted sexual contact, and that includes exposed genitals - especially if the kids are specifically targeted. But they don't need to be protected from random exhibitionism - trans or otherwise.
This is how I would have handled it. Student, would it have been illegal for a 60-something year old female-assigned person to walk down the pier in a bikini?
Student: No.
Teacher: Why do you want the behavior you observed to be illegal?
Student: Because there were children around and I don't want them to see a man in a bikini.
Teacher: Why not?
Student: [I honestly have no idea, but let's take a guess] Because its unnatural.
Teacher: Why is it unnatural?
This line of questioning opens up a dialogue that questions cisgender privilege and the oppositional sexism that prevents male-assigned people from freely engaging in feminine behaviors. The problem in this case was decidedly NOT the person in the bikini, but all of the cisgender people observing the person in the bikini and projecting their own gender issues onto the person.
My questions for you:
Would it have been "inappropriate" for a 60-something year old female-assigned person to walk down the pier in a bikini? "As the student said, there was no issue with a guy wanting to wear a bikini. He just didn’t feel it was appropriate for the person to parade himself, with no attempt at passing, in front of kids, in such skimpy clothes." This statement reeks of cisgender privilege and, honestly, makes me want to vomit.
Why is seeing a male-assigned person in a bikini "sucky" and "inappropriate"?
How is wearing clothing appropriate to one's gender "perverted"? Why do you associate trans people with perverts?
It was, in fact, a wonderful opportunity to teach children at an early age that people come in all genders, that gender is not determined by one's genitals, and that male-assigned people can wear feminine clothes.
Ms. Boyd, your post is completely inappropriate and anti-trans. We live in a transphobic culture, so we all absorb that, but it's also liberating to unlearn it. To help with that process, please read (or re-read) Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
Noah, I agree a Socratic approach is a good one.
However, before you go around accusing Helen of being anti-trans, you might try reading "My Husband Betty" and "She's Not the Man I Married," both of which talk in-depth about her marriage to a trans person. Or looking up her extensive record of advocacy for trans people and their partners. Just saying....
This case sort of reminds me of how some people feel that two gay men kissing is somehow inherently offensive or indecent when the exact same act between a het couple would be OK. In other words, it is the homosexuality, not the kissing, that people find offensive.
In this case, walking down a pier in a bikini is seen as OK so long as it is a form of cisgender expression (i.e., when cis women do it). But when it's a form of transgender expression (i.e., when "men" do it), people find it offensive - not because of the bikini, but because of the trans-ness.
Also, I should add that I've heard people make comments that heavyset women are being offensive or indecent when they wear bikinis or other skimpy outfits typically only worn by skinny women. Once again, it's fatness that they find offensive, not bikini wearing.
food for thought...
-julia
oops, I just noticed noah's post, which was along the same lines as mine. Also, I want to second what Lena said about Helen not being anti-trans.
I understand why Helen raised the issue though. While I think everyone on this list would support the bikini person's right to wear the bikini, some in the trans community might feel that that person's behavior makes a bad impression, one that jeopardizes the chance that other trans people will be taken seriously or respected.
This to me is the crux of the longstanding trans women vs. crossdressers divide. Historically, trans women (who are trying to be taken seriously as women) have resented crossdressers for "parodying" women or overdoing it with makeup, skimpy outfits, etc. Crossdressers (who don't get to endulge their feminine and/or female incliniations everyday) might want to be over the top with their feminine expression/presentation. At least that's how I was when I was a crossdresser.
The bikini person was doing their own thing. But it's also true that that act (and others like it) do affect people's impressions and create stereotypes of what transgender people are. Thus, the bikini person's actions could indirectly negatively affect the lives of other trans people in this sense. But I don't blame the bikini person, I blame the culture...
-julia
Following up on what others have said; I want to make sure everyone understands my comment from earlier, as it comes from the perspective of child, youth and family advocacy work.
Frequently the very first challenge I and the others who work with me face in serving the needs of gender non-conforming and transgender children and youth is adult fears about "what this means" for their child's future.
Their families are, most often, not part of the LGBTQ community. They have not been immersed in or exposed to a wide spectrum of gender expression. They are (often) trying their best to understand and support a transgender or gender non-conforming child in a world that has far, FAR too few positive examples of what may be in store for their child's future.
They have neither the time nor the experiential scope to take an idealistic approach to what may be the result of allowing their 7-year old male bodied child to present themselves as a girl to the world. They don't have the perspective to understand that by supporting their child in their youth, prior to puberty, the chances that they will grow up to be the "old man in a bikini running along the pier" diminish exponentially.
This is not because being a crossdresser is a bad thing, but rather because the gender identity suppression and oppression that they might have been subjected to is significantly reduced or eliminated.
I completely support the right of any individual to wear a bikini or a codpiece or a bra or a jock strap. And I agree without reservation that the "offense" is the bikini itself, but to the real or perceived homosexuality/perversity of the person in question. It is symbolic of the rampant effemimania and trans-misogyny in our culture.
Unfortunately, all of my personal, informed, enlightened and trans-feminist beliefs don't make much of a dent with a mother or father who are looking for reassurance that their male bodied /female identified child is not going to grow up to be one of the "personalities" they see on the Jerry Springer show, or one of the deep voiced, testosterone-poisoned late transitioners who, through no fault of their own, do not present a possible future that any loving parent would want for their child.
In the end...getting the parents to support their child often means getting them to believe that their child will not be outwardly perceived as being an artificial woman or man.
In the end, I will always put my personal ideals and beliefs on the backburner to serve the immediate needs of children, youth and their families.
More power to bikini-wearers everywhere. I only ask that they pause for a moment to think about their potential to be a positive role model for cisgender, transgender or gender non-conforming children. It might make their life and my job a little bit easier.
Jenn
julia
nice observation about fat women in bikinis - you're entirely right about that, about who is "allowed" to be sexy or wear skimpy clothing.
noah,
i agree with your socratic idea, & that was how i dealt with it. it was only after i questioned him about the man in the bikini that kids being around came up. but he never made it to calling it "unnatural" & couldn't articulate what bothered him about it.
for those who know me, you know i'm sex positive. i love perverts. i don't have an issue with someone getting some sexual thrills in public, if that's what this guy was doing. i think our kids are raised in a hypocritical sexual culture that's more often about producing sex (Girls Gone Wild, the Pussycat Dolls, etc.) than about actually encouraging genuine, individual sexual expression. & that's a shame.
What I was trying to get at is what you do about this kind of gut reaction without necessarily explaining sex positivity or the gender binary's oppression.
i also think there's a bigger issue of men's sexuality *always* being suspect & considered predatory (which i have a problem with).
so the issue for me was how to re-position this guy as harmless, but it's an awful lot of bullshit to work against - all of our sex negativity, our suspicion of male sexuality, & transphobia.
jenn, i think we were posting at the same time, but you expressed another aspect of what i meant: no matter how we feel about this guy, he makes our jobs a lot harder with the public, whether those people are parents of trans children or employers or legislators or law enforcement.
but i'm not for telling him he can't do what he does, certainly not during this ENDA debate, where we wouldn't be in half the shite we're in if gay men hadn't asked the queens to make themselves invisible so many years ago.
but my point was: you don't undo a culture's sex-negative, pro-binary views simply by telling them to.
so the issue for me was how to re-position this guy as harmless, but it's an awful lot of bullshit to work against - all of our sex negativity, our suspicion of male sexuality, & transphobia.
An awful lot, and you don't have an awful lot of time, in a class. I wish I knew a shortcut, but I don't. I guess you could say, "trust me" - if your student is ready to.
the word illegal caught my attention in the student's question...
I'm just thinking off the top of my head here but anyway... I think there's an odd fantasy about laws and illegality that floats around. When one is privileged along a certain axis (i.e. gender identity and expression for cisgendered people) there can be a tendency to assume that the role of the law is to affirm one's own preferences and biases. Me, I find aggresive, big-muscled frat boys disturbing and scary on the subway, but it would never have crossed my mind to say, children shouldn't be exposed to them. (okay, maybe it has, just a little.) So I think there's an additional issue here: the attempt of the privileged to assert that what they find annoying is actually a violation of some big principle.
Well, like a lot of anecdotes, this one can;t provide the mindset of the transperson. Was he an exhibitionist of sort? Was he oblivious, lost in a pink fog dreaming that at the distance some-how he passed.
I see threads on a forum where people exclaim "Eep!I got read!" The pictures of the outing tell the reason less diplomatically than most words can.
Years in the closet (bathroom in my case) clouds self-perception and self-awareness.
Yesterday in a thrift store I went en homme (woman's stealthy stretch boot-cut jeans) with my wife and the youngest of our 5 kids. I found a pair of what might be men's loafers except for the pointy toes and 3" heels. No one was in the shoe area so I took a runway turn or two. Dee was across the store, so trying not to clickety clack to loudly I made my way to her to show off, the shoes and my emerging courage. She smiled at me and said nothing at the time. At home she mentioned that an older lady was apparently mouth agape at my heels barely showing below the flare of the pant leg. I never saw her, and made a concerted effort to keep a rack or two of clothing between me and the rest of the customers.
My point is we transfolk are so giddy when given our illusions of freedom, that reason is overcome.
All,
Why are we referring to the person in the bikini as "he" and a "man"? We have no basis on which to make that conclusion. I'm dismayed that this is taking place on a trans blog.
Lena,
I have read She's Not the Man I Married, which is how I know that Helen Boyd has much unquestioned cissexual privilege. Being married to a trans person, in Boyd's world is "not something that anyone would CHOOSE," so her marriage alone does not make her an ally. Boyd spends much of the book talking about how she wishes her life were "normal" and that she had her trophy husband back. To be an ally, one must actively unlearn their transphobia, which, as Boyd's post indicates, she has not done.
Jenn,
Part of the reason that people who aren't part of a LGBT community have not been exposed to a wide spectrum of gender expression is because trans folks and alleged allies make sure that that doesn't happen because they condemn things like male-assigned people wearing bikinis. Condemning cross-gender presentation cannot in any way help make the world safe for trans kids. Please do not try to place your own transphobic responses onto "parents." You are the one making grossly offensive statements about "deep voiced, testosterone-poisoned late transitioners who…do not present a possible future that any loving parent would want for their child." As the significant other of a person who might become one of those people, I want what is best for them and I don't give a damn how "passable" they are. I want to live in world where no one else gives a damn either. The goal isn't to get people to transition as young as possible or to try to eliminate visibly trans people, but to eliminate the idea that parents wouldn't love their kids because they are trans. If you want people to be positive role models for trans kids, let's start with ourselves.
Helen,
I'm not concerned with the person in the class. I'm concerned with what you said on the blog. You called the trans person a pervert and "sucky & inappropriate" simply because they had a cross-gender presentation. You are the one who was making the negative comment about a trans person.
Yes, the person in the class had a negative gut reaction. The idea is to challenge that, and yes, that might involve questioning some of his basic assumptions. But you didn't want to outright stand up for a trans person; indeed you came here to complain about how that trans person is "sucky & inappropriate". Yes, transphobia is really hard to deal with. Please just remember that you are an "ally," which means that standing up for trans people is always optional. Whether it's not telling the clerk that the underwear are for your husband or being embarrassed by old male-looking people in bikinis, your silence preserves your cisgender privilege and is complicit with oppression.
Barbara,
I find nothing un"reason"able about a male-assigned person wearing a bikini in public. Perhaps their small gesture of freedom reminds the rest of us how we participate in our own oppression and we resent them for it.
Noah,
I'll have to respond at greater length at a later date, probably in a separate blog post, but for the record, I entirely disagree with calling someone transphobic who (1) expresses any sadness/difficulty with their partner transitioning, and (2) calling someone transphobic who is trying to acknowledge how some forms/expressions of transness make education/outreach more difficult for the whole of the trans community.
I'm also going to say again, & maybe you'll read it this time, that I have no problem with what he did. But his expression of his transness is "sucky & inappropriate" viz the larger culture exactly because of the sex negative, anti-male culture we live in.
Use "she" & "woman" to describe this person if you'd like. We just don't know either way, & assigning pronouns in either direction is quesswork.
Noah,
While I agree for the most part with your ideals regarding the world we all want to live in, the reality of the situation when dealing with children who may be gender non-conforming is that I must always ask myself this question: "What is in the best interests of THIS CHILD, AT THIS TIME?" My vision of the world this "should be" cannot compromise what I believe is the most effective way to bring and move parents into a supportive position for their child, and part of that is breaking down their stereotypes of what lies ahead for their child. The truth of the matter is, children who transition early, who are able to get on blockers and cross-gender hormones do NOT end up with the birth-gender physiological damage that comes with puberty. But since that reality is never exposed in the media, they have no way of knowing that unless they interact with trans people who, to one degree or another, do not carry many of the traits associated with post-pubertal transition.
Please see below for my response to other aspects of your comments.
Noah wrote:
"Jenn,
Part of the reason that people who aren't part of a LGBT community have not been exposed to a wide spectrum of gender expression is because trans folks and alleged allies make sure that that doesn't happen because they condemn things like male-assigned people wearing bikinis. Condemning cross-gender presentation cannot in any way help make the world safe for trans kids. "
First of all, I never condemned anyone for their behavior. All I did was suggest that what is "freedom of expression" for some people may be counter-productive for others. To attempt to correlate that with condemnation is really no different that the Bush administration calling people who disagree with their polices "anti-American."
Secondly, these children do not have the time for me to bring their non-LGBT parents up to a level of queer awareness/gender theory proficiency so that they can first understand "the movement" prior to accepting their child for who they are. The process actually works in reverse...the parents frequently come to more fully appreciate and empathize with those who were NOT afforded the advantage their child may have and as a result, have greater challenges to face in a culture that is not more open to freedom of gender expression for all people.
Noah wrote:
"Please do not try to place your own transphobic responses onto "parents." You are the one making grossly offensive statements about "deep voiced, testosterone-poisoned late transitioners who…do not present a possible future that any loving parent would want for their child."
Noah, you are the one throwing condemnation around. The tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with 'your' opinion about trans identity of being "transphobic" is a sign of feeling insecure about varying opinions and approaches. You don't know anything about me other than what I wrote here regarding some questions I have related to this single incident and yet, you, the so-called 'open minded one' have gone ahead and labeled me a transphobe. Anyone who knows me realizes what a ridiculous accusation that is. It is the politics of negatively labeling those with a different perspective than yours.
As for what you called an offensive comment, I would venture to say that the VAST majority of late-transitioning affirmed female individuals detest their "deep voices" if they have them, and would consider themselves to be "testosterone-poisoned" if indeed, they have a female gender identity I was simply stating the fact of what can happen to people, not making a value judgement about it. You are the one who saw that as, somehow, a derisive thing to say about a person. It's an every day reality for far too many late transitioners. My job is to help those who are younger avoid that reality if possible.
I simply acknowledged, based upon personal experience, the fact that no parent would want their female identified child to grow up to be perpetually victimized or betrayed by puberty-induced masculine traits . And the same in reverse holds true for the parents of male-identified children. To pretend that in an 'ideal world' it shouldn't matter and therefore we won't discuss it is counter-productive. It's like saying; "In an ideal world, facial disfigurement shouldn't matter. Therefore, we won't offer cosmetic surgery because to do so, while immensely benefiting YOU, it would undermine our ideal world scenario."
Noah wrote:
"As the significant other of a person who might become one of those people, I want what is best for them and I don't give a damn how "passable" they are. I want to live in world where no one else gives a damn either."
Nor do I. Personally, I don't give a damn how "passable" anyone is. I try to never use that word. I only used it in my original post here (in quotation marks, I might add) because it would be readily understood what I was referring to. I hate the word "passing" in reference to trans people and in fact, in my presentations and work I point out the negative historical usage and connotations of that word. I too want to live in that same world you describe. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world and I'm currently unwilling to disregard the opportunity to help children avoid dealing with that prejudice simply to make a point about gender freedom/equality. You know...it's possible to do both. I speak out every chance I get about living in that world you describe. However, that is NOT the message we deliver to parents in our work. For them, this is not an esoteric, past-tense exploration into trans Utopian theory. REALTITY: They have a child who is gender non-conforming. Through caring and loving early intervention they can save this child from experiencing what you acknowledge to be a difficult gender transition for your partner as the result of a late, post-pubertal transition.
What would you do?
When I sit facing THAT family and THAT child, to be honest, I don't really care much about the BIG PICTURE transgender political manifesto. I care about what's best for that child. I may leave the meeting with the parents and go to a gender peer support group meeting at which the BIG PICTURE transgender political manifesto is ALL I care about...but then again, it's a different situation, with a different group of people.
Noah wrote:
"The goal isn't to get people to transition as young as possible or to try to eliminate visibly trans people, but to eliminate the idea that parents wouldn't love their kids because they are trans. If you want people to be positive role models for trans kids, let's start with ourselves."
In my work, the PRECISE point is to allow children to transition whenever they feel ready to do so. It's a collaboration with the child, not a coercion, as your usage of the words "to get people to transition as young as possible". People should get to transition if or whenever they want to or need to. That includes children. The reality though, is that while adults can make that decision independently and unilaterally, children need permission, facilitation and cooperation from the adults in their lives. Of COURSE the ultimate message is that they should love their child unconditionally. So what should we do...force a child who has identified as something other than their birth gender from age 4 (or younger) to go through an unwanted birth sex puberty simply so their parents can demonstrate that they will love them no matter what? That's an excellent social experiment in unconditionally love, however I'm not convinced it's a responsible approach to meeting the child's psychological and physiological needs.
I believe I and the team of people I work with (and others) are outstanding positive role models for trans kids because we show them that their anxiety, stress and depression about growing up to be either a man with a high voice, large boobs and big hips or a woman with a beard, a deep voice and 6'2" is not an inevitability.
Furthermore the vast majority of these kids already know that people should be accepted for who they are. They are experts on what the negative impact of doing otherwise is. There is NOTHING we can teach these children about being open and accepting of people who are different.
Trans-identity outreach is not a monolithic, oppositional feminist, genderqueer juggernaut moving towards a pronoun free Shining City On A Hill. It is about everyone moving forward together in a way that best suits their needs and freedom of expression while, ideally, not infringing on someone else's vision for their own future and freedom of expression.
I enthusiastically support your position regarding the struggles your partner may face, and your open-mindedness about the individual who wore the bikini. I only ask that you at least endeavor to educate yourself more about the challenges faced by transgender and gender non-conforming children and youth so that you may appreciate, without name-calling, the area of trans outreach that I work in.
And for the record, at no time did I refer to the bikini-wearing person using a male pronoun. I did, using quotation marks, refer to the perception that OTHERS may have of that person (hence, the use of the quotation marks), but never did I assign a gender identity or pronoun to the person.
Noah wrote:
Barbara,
I find nothing un"reason"able about a male-assigned person wearing a bikini in public. Perhaps their small gesture of freedom reminds the rest of us how we participate in our own oppression and we resent them for it.
End quote.
I meant reason in the sense I wrote it not that the action is unreasonable if that was what he wanted to do and how he wanted to present himself. I meant that reason fails if one succeeds in deluding oneself.
Had he luxuriated in his expression I would assume a more transexual and confident being. HIs furtive actions of what I thought of as fleeingin his car, not wanting (apparently) to interact with others, suggested to me that he had a more fetishistic motivation.
Obviously we cannot know that.
This is also why it is I chose the pronouns that I did. I identified with him as a him that dresses. This is how I see myself as well (at least for now, perhaps I will find more layers of denial later)
Just as it does understandably grate on a transwoman who is expressing herself in words or in how she is dressed to be called he,(and to be clear for any non trans people that read this that I mean a transgendered person who is female between the ears irrespective of procedures or plans to change natal biology) ,It is equally dissonant for the crossdresser who has struggled with what the dressing means but doesnt not feel he is female to be called she/ and her.
My experience may be atypical for some trans folk and maybe I still hold on to my denial of female identity as a reflex. I was a slightly built effeminate boy and grew into an effeminate man. I was often bullied as being 'girly' or 'gay' when by my definitions of those I was an am neither. I still saw myself as a man, and do now. My definition of what a man is and how he may dress has merely expanded to accommodate my wardrobe.
I do agree though that she/her for persons presenting in cross-gender presentations is more polite until that person has a chance to express their own preference.
Every community has its crazies, and ours is no exception. We have trouble with ours because we feel so vulnerable. But anybody who has ever been part of a group knows that every group has its fringe.
Post a Comment