I'm A Bitch, I'm A Lover

Meredith Brooks once sang:

" I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know, you wouldn’t want it any other way"

But I guess there are some gay men who aren't channeling Meredith. From the Washington Blade's "Bitch Session"

"It’s transgender people that need the gay and lesbian movement to succeed not the other way around. They are a minority within a minority who couldn’t get very far without us yet they always arrogantly fail to recognize that! Learn some humility instead of being so damn uppity.

To the transgender activist who had the gall to say that gays and lesbians can’t move forward without them: The fact is transgender activists have opposed gay rights legislation in the past simply because they weren’t included! Despite their being as bad as Christian conservatives or selfish brats, we often managed to succeed without them! They should thank us for forgiving them for this and allowing them to retard our progress by including them now!"

Uppity (gosh, in what context have I heard that word used)? To anyone who has this mindset, I say *insert your favorite expletive here*.

If you need a GLBT history review:



and



We are ONE community. You may want to deny this because we embarrass you. But we've always fought with you and for you. We've earned our place next to you with our bodies.

If you still want transgender activists to go away, then tell your organizations to remove us from their mission statements. The leaders of your organizations are the people that formed this marriage. Go talk to the leadership in the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and all the other GLBT organizations that say they represent the entire GLBT community.

We aren't asking for your charity, we're demanding our rightful place next to you. We don't want to hear you complain until you tell the massa's to free the "uppity" transgender people from your mission statements. Until you do that, shut the hell up.

Cross posted from Transadvocate.com

Memorex

Real, or memorex?

Helen and I were having an interesting chat recently about the degree to which we feel "real," particularly as it affects gender and class. I noted that while my family wound up fairly well to do, it started out just the opposite, and when I was young, I was very aware of being kind of from the wrong side of the tracks. Then my father's star rose, and they renovated the old house, and if you saw the place now (my new book is about that house and its ghosts) you'd think: wealth and privilege.

But I never felt that way, and I get all defensive when people talk about my being a person of privilege. My history makes me feel different-- and history, of course is not nothing, even though it's not always visible.

The conversation Helen and I had about class echoes the one I often hear from trans people-- they want to be "real," and yet their history follows them around.

Sometimes I think this is a universal feeling-- that everybody else is "real," and yet we alone ourselves are frauds. When we go on a perilous journey to "become real" it becomes a badge of honor, to have arrived at our "real selves" after such sacrifice. Which is why characters like J. Michael Bailey make people so angry-- after all that, he allows as how we are not who we think we are-- that in fact, he knows us better than we know ourselves.

Julia Serano Guest Blogging on Feministing

Julia Serano, about Bailey, on Feministing today:

The fact is that when a self-appointed “expert” like Bailey claims that transsexual women transition for purely sexual reasons, and that they are lying if they state otherwise, people will believe him because of his academic/scientist status. The NY Times may try to frame the controversy surrounding Bailey’s book as an example of political correctness run amok, but the truth of the matter is that Bailey himself did exponentially more damage to the field of academic research when he misrepresented anecdotes and innuendos as though they were science.

I'm Just an Angry Transsexual Activist Mafioso

In KQED's recent interview of J Michael Bailey and Alice Dreger, Bailey said:

"Again I reject the assertion that it's all transgendered people are offended by my book. Many transgendered people are actually very happy that people are finally talking about this phenomenon called autogynophelia, which they feel captures their motivation." I actually think that Bailey is wrong and that a majority of transgender people see Bailey's work as a direct attack on their lives. If you do too, I'd ask that you please sign a petition I made at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/trans4us/

Please spread the word about this petition to as many people you can think of.
Alice Dreger's dredging up of this old controversy has inflamed the right wing blogosphere with such wonderful posts as:

"The Man Who Would Be Queen" in black and white terms

If you're wondering why trans folks were/are upset with J. Michael Bailey's "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" [emphasis mine], here's an analogy. Imagine a researcher who:

- drew conclusions about the entire population of black women based on a half-dozen women he met in a local bar (because he didn't know how to locate other black women, despite the presence of several organization for black women) and based on that sampling

- argued that white women "aspire (with some success) to be presentable, while [black women] aspire (with equivalent success) to be objects of desire" (Pg. 180)

- argued black women "tend to have a short time horizon with certain pleasure in the present being worth great risks for the future" (Pg. 184)

- argued that black women "might be especially well suited to prostitution" (Pg. 185)

- argued the black women are "especially motivated" to shoplifting (Pg. 185)

- argued those who were black women "are much better looking than most" of those who aren't, and that he can tell the difference between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned white women based on whether he was attracted to them (Pgs 180-182)

- argued if someone said they didn't fit his characterization of them, they were lying

I doubt we'd be debating whether those findings were "politically incorrect" and recognize the shoddy "research" for what it was.

Or you can just listen to Bailey speak for himself -- about his test to tell the autogynephiliac transsexuals (those who Bailey argues are men aroused by the image of themselves as women) from the homosexual transsexuals (those who Baileys says are gay men who are just so effeminate they become women). I should note that Bailey argues these are the only two types of transsexuals who exist and that the many transsexuals who say neither of these descriptions fit their life experiences must be lying.

I have devised a set of rules that should work even for the novice (though admittedly, I have not tested them). Start at zero. Ask each question, and if the answer is "Yes," add the number (+1 or -1) next to the question. If the sum gets to +3, stop; the transsexual you're talking to is autogynephiliac. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.

+1 Have you ever been married to a woman?
+1 As a child, did people think you were about as masculine as other boys?
+1 Are you nearly attracted to women as to men? Or more attracted to women? Or equally uninterested in both? (Add 1 if "Yes to any of these.)
+1 Were you over the age of 40 when you began to live full time as a woman?
+1 Have you worn women's clothing in private, and, during at least three of those times, become so sexually aroused that you masturbated?
+1 Have you ever been in the military or worked as a policeman or truck driver, or been a computer programmers, businessman, lawyer, scientist, engineer or physcian?
-1 Is you ideal partner a straight man?
-1 As a child, did people think you were an unusually feminine boy?
-1 Does this describe you: "I find the idea of having sex with men very sexually exciting, but the idea of having sex with women is not at all appealing?"
-1 Were you under the age of 25 when you began to live full time as a women?
-1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?
-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?

Finally, if the person has been on hormones for at least six months, ask yourself this question:

If you didn't already know that this person was a transsexual, would you still have suspected that she was not a natural-born women?

+1 if you answer is "Yes" (if you would have suspected)
-1 if your answer is "No"

Keep in mind that people don't always tell the truth. This interview could be invalid if the transsexual is really autogynephiliac, but is either (a) worried that you will think badly of her or deny her a sex change if you know the truth, or (b) obsessed with being a "real" woman. [Pgs 192-194]

Scientific indeed...

“Stuff I Supposed After Meeting Some People in a Gay Bar”*

* quote by Mara Keisling, when providing an alternative description of what Bailey’s book could be described as instead of as “science.”

This NPR show out of the Bay Area about the whole Bailey controversy is good listening. Joan Roughgarden (author of Evolution’s Rainbow), Mara Keisling (executive director of NCTE), Alice Dreger (author of Hermaphrodites & The Medical Invention of Sex) & Bailey himself.

& A challenging phone call from Ben Barres, who I love & who does not let Bailey not answer a direct question (with textual backup from Roughgarden), specifically, whether or not Bailey feels trans people are suited to prostitution.

The only thing that no-one said that someone should have said is that Bailey now has a history & a record of turning (at best) weak science into “controversy,” such as with the bisexuality studies that came out a couple of years ago.

I’m upset by the idea of how or if Dreger’s status as a woman - not just as an academic or intersex educator - is coming into play here. That is, is a man not sexist because a woman says he isn’t? (I don’t think so, but I think that’s coloring her defense of Bailey.)

Victoria Arellano

I just happened to be catching up on my Feministing reading when I discovered a post by Jessica Hoffman about the death of trans inmate Victoria Arellano (or Arrelano) who was denied her AIDS medication and then Hoffman followed up her post wondering why this death hasn't been covered.

It's interesting time as just recently I've been bothered by a recent article in The Boston Globe, about a doctor who transitioned with much of her life in tact - ironic since Arellano didn't wind up with even her life in tact. Big article, no article.

& They say there's no such thing as privilege.

Mind you, my complaints about the way various media outlets cover trans issues aren't directed at the trans people who are often featured in these articles: their intentions are for the most part good, & they are trying, in their own way, to raise awareness of trans issues in general, all of which is much needed. It's not that it was a terrible article in terms of The Big Picture, but I'm tired of journalists/media writing a piece that is pretty much like every other piece about a trans person (choosing someone professional, white, with a traditional narrative including surgery & the like) & presenting it as if it's a revelation.

It's not a revelation. I'd like to get the bar set a little higher, & to start pressuring media to cover more types of trans people, in more situations, with more of the kinds of issues that come up. Like what does a person like Betty, or others like her, do about the ID issue? What do people do when their license says one thing but they can't get their passport changed? What are the issues for young transitioners, who are going to be dealing with discrimination from the outset of their careers? How is the expectation of not getting divorced changing what kinds of legal issues couples face? How does transness come into play with legal issues? What happens if a recent medical student comes out before she has a practice or an income or a family & established community?

I could go on. I won't. Like I said, this is good for general use, but as someone who is "in the field" & who works with the media on a regular basis, I also feel I have a responsibility to pay attention to the way media coverage ISN'T changing at all, & how the struggle to represent the diversity of trans experience, from within the trans community, is or isn't being reflected by the media, & maybe keeping an eye toward changing that, somehow.

The Woman Who Would Be Scribe

I was recently alerted to a blog post entitled "Academic intolerance." He discusses an article written by Alice Dreger entitled "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age." It will be published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Digging into her article, she says:

"I also believe that a scholarly history of this controversy is critically necessary to advancing both transgender rights and sexology, two things about which I care deeply."

I asked a friend of mine what exactly a "scholarly history" is. She said:

"It means a thorough research of the field, including review of the work of other scholars who have written accounts of the same history. "

Looking further, I found this definition:

Scholarly history, in contrast, seeks to discover new knowledge or to reinterpret existing knowledge. Good scholars wish to write clearly and simply, and they may spin a compelling yarn, but they do not shun depth, analysis, complexity, or qualification. Scholarly history draws on as many primary sources as practical.

And weave a yarn she does! The thread of the history she writes about is firestorm that followed the release of J. Michael Bailey's now infamous book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism."

The main characters in her "yarn" are Andrea James of TS Roadmap/Deep Stealth Productions, Lynn Conway, and J. Michael Bailey. She sets the scene in the abstract from the article:

In 2003, psychology professor and sex researcher J. Michael Bailey published a book entitled The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The book’s portrayal of male-to-female (MTF) transsexualism, based on a theory developed by sexologist Ray Blanchard, outraged some transgender activists. They believed the book to be typical of much of the biomedical literature on transsexuality—oppressive in both tone and claims, insulting to their senses of self, and damaging to their public identities. Some saw the book as especially dangerous because it claimed to be based on rigorous science, was published by an imprint of the National Academies of Science, and argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other. Dissatisfied with the option of merely criticizing the book, a small number of transwomen (particularly Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey) worked to try to ruin Bailey. Using published and unpublished sources as well as original interviews,It also provides a thorough exegesis of the book’s treatment of transsexuality and includes a comprehensive investigation of the merits of the charges made against Bailey that he had behaved unethically, immorally, and illegally in the production of his book. The essay closes with an epilogue that explores what has happened since 2003 to the central ideas and major players in the controversy.

In my previous post, I've already explained my feelings on Andrea James and J. Michael Bailey. Obviously, I'm not a fan of either one of their "theories." But it's obvious who the main character in this tale is. Early on in the essay Dreger sets her sights on Andrea James.

"Most interestingly to me, a surprisingly large number of transgender women wrote to tell me that they had been harassed and threatened by James for daring to speak anything other than the standard “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” story.

Almost universally those who wrote to me—including sex researchers—asked that I not ever quote them or mention them by name. They feared being attacked by James, as Bailey and others had been.

When I posted my blog, I made a point of emailing James to tell her about it and to ask her to stop undermining progress in transgender rights with her incontinent attacks (p.e.c., May 16, 2006). She was none too pleased and sent me back a series of hostile emails, including one referring to my five-year-old son as my “precious womb turd” (p.e.c., June 1, 2006). She also came to my departmental office (I was not there) and then emailed me, subject line “Mommy Knows Best,” saying, “Sorry I missed you the other day. Your colleagues seem quite affable, and not as fearful as you. […] Bad move, Mommy. […] We’ll chat in person soon” (p.e.c., May 27, 2006). At that point, concerned for my son and office colleagues, I forwarded the whole of the communications to my dean, who put me in touch with university counsel, who—given James’s threatening tone and her history—recommended I alert campus police. I told the police I was not aware of James ever having been physically violent; she seems simply to harass and intimidate.

Does this sound like anything "scholarly" to you? Honestly, it sounds like a "he said, she said" argument you'd hear in a in divorce court, not a scholarly journal.

Interestingly, later in the essay she says:

When I decided to undertake this work, I felt sure Conway would talk to me because she had spent so much energy on Bailey and his book and
because we had had a cordial history. In addition to our positive fundraiser-donor relationship through ISNA, we had over the years also touched base about parallel efforts at our universities (Michigan State University and the University of Michigan) to ensure that our institutions’ anti-discrimination policies adequately protected transgender people. Several years ago, Conway also very kindly at my request came to my home to provide one-on-one peer support for a colleague of mine who was considering sex reassignment. (I made them lunch and then left them alone at my house to talk.) When she did not answer my numerous emails about this project, I sent letters to her office and home. Still I heard nothing, although I knew from new posts at her website that she was still interested in Bailey’s doings. So I tried calling her at work, but her department told me she is now a professor emerita and no longer maintains a phone there. Consequently on August 16, 2006, I called her at home, because I wanted to be sure she had a chance to represent herself beyond the published record. I finally reached Conway that way and we had a phone call that lasted about a minute. She surprised me by being extremely hostile at the outset. She also would not answer my simple question about whether she was willing to speak to me on the record. This confused me—why would she not just tell me whether or not she wanted to speak on the record?—and I said as much. She responded that it was very strange that I would call her at home. I told her how many other ways I had tried to reach her with no response before finally calling her home. She then said that I was stalking her and added that she would circulate this fact widely. Since it was at that point clear she didn’t want to speak to me, and since I was afraid of being accused of stalking, I said goodbye and gave up.

Isn't it ironic how she can worry about Andrea James attacking her on one end then turn around and do essentially do the same thing to Lynn Conway and think that it's fine?

Of Lynn Conway she says:

In keeping with Conway’s simplistic “good versus evil” account of the book and backlash—wherein all true transwomen are non- and anti-autogynephilic (i.e., good) and all pro-autogynephilia researchers are antitrans (i.e., evil)

Apparently the author can see this behavior in others , but can't see it in herself. She portrays J. Michael Bailey as simply an innocent victim of evil trannies run wild.

In a very legalistic manner she tries to remove the stain on Bailey's record by claiming no laws were broken. But ethics and laws are two totally different animals. She dismisses Bailey SRS "support" letters because he was not paid for them. It's not illegal in the state of Illinois unless you're paid.

"As a side point, let me just note the irony in Conway’s, James’s, and McCloskey’s trying to use Bailey’s SRS-support letters against him. It certainly appears from this vantage that, in answering Kieltyka’s call for help for her marginalized transwomen friends by providing letters in support of their requests for SRS—free of charge and without any requirement of a lengthy and costly 'therapeutic' relationship—Bailey was helping to reduce the barriers to transition for a small number of transwomen, the very barriers about which people such as Conway, James, and McCloskey have complained"

It may not be illegal, but providing an SRS letter, which is part of the standards of care that most surgeons require, without ANY "therapeutic relationship" is highly unethical.

I've heard a rumor (that I've yet been able to confirm) that the author of this "essay" was paid by Northwestern University to produce this. If true, one has to wonder why this essay was commissioned in the first place.

Regardless, this essay seems about as scholarly as Perez Hiltion's website. The only thing that is missing is a defaced picture of Lynn Conway and Andrea James.

cross posted from Transadvocate.com

'Doing Gender'

Do check out the website of a German artist, Martina Minette Dreier, and her portraits of people 'Doing Gender'.

(Thanks to AO for the link.)

Transman Civil War Hero?

I won't lie, I'm a lover of history. One of the the blogs I regularly read is Civil War Women. The blog is thick with biographies of women that lived and thrived in the Civil War era. One of the "women" she posted about caught my eye. He was born Jennie Irene Hodgers, but lived most of his adult life as Albert D.J. Cashier. Albert served in the 95th Illinois Infantry Regiment. The 95th was was part of the Army of the Tennessee, led by Ulysses S. Grant. The 95th engaged in many fierce battles including including the siege at Vicksburg, the Red River Campaign and the combat at Guntown, Mississippi.

After the Civil War, Albert worked as a janitor, a lamplighter, and other odd jobs. It was not until a car accident that 1910, was revealed Albert was female bodied. His caretakers kept his secret, even when he was admitted into the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home at Quincy, Illinois. It wasn't until he was admitted to Watertown State Hospital for the Insane, that the secret became widely known.

You can read a wonderful biography of him here.

Even a cursory look at his life suggests that he was transgender. The evidence:

1. He volunteered on August 6, 1862 in Boone County. When his regiment was retired in 1865, they were in Belvidere, Illinois. He could have stayed in his home town of Bevidere, if he wished to return to life as a woman. Yet he moved 138 miles southeast of Boone County, to Saunemin, IL and continued to live as a man.



2. It might be argued that he did not live as a woman because he wanted the pension that came with service. But to receive the pension Albert would have been required to take a physical exam. He refused until later in life, when he was assured that his secret would not be made public.

3. At the Watertown State Hospital for the Insane, he had NOTHING to gain from living as a man. Yet even then when forced to wear a skirt he would bring the skirt in with pins to make the skirt into pants.

4. Albert secured his home with a number of locks, changing them frequently in case someone had somehow gotten a key. If he was going to be away from his house, he nailed the windows shut. Why? Being female bodied, there would be some evidence in his home of this.

Albert D.J. Cashier went to great lengths to protect his gender identity all his life. Even in death, he was gendered male. Those who knew and loved him went to great pains to keep his secret.

Rest in peace, my brother.



Cross posted from:
Transadvocate.com

Presidential Forum on Marriage Equality

It was billed as the "HRC Foundation and Logo Presidential Forum" but you could have just as easily called it the "HRC and Logo Presidential Forum on Marriage Equality. But it wasn't supposed to be that way.

According to Donna Rose's blog:

"I have been told by people who would know that a decision has already been made that each candidate will be given a "T" question (their words, not mine). When I sent my list of questions this morning (the deadline was noon), part of the response I got back was that they particularly "like the more general ones because it requires them to be more forthcoming."

For the record, there was ONE question during the entire forum that was a "T" question. Joe Solmonese asked John Edwards the following question:

"Susan Stanton is in our audience tonight. She was, for 17 years, the city manager in Largo, Florida. She did her job well; she was respected and admired. And when it was revealed that she was transgender, she was fired. So my question for you is if a member of your staff came to you and told you that they were transgender and that they were thinking of transitioning, how would you react to that? And who in your life has influenced what your reaction might be?"

Media of Late

Right. So we had a presidential debate ostensibly about LGBT issues. Anybody see it?

We didn't but that's because we're basically too broke to get the special super-duper cable package that includes Logo (and it isn't worth it anyway since we don't watch much TV).

Comments?

Larry King of the Suspenders did some hoo-haa about transgender stuff tonight. Anybody see it?

The Boston Globe is running an article about a doctor transitioning. Anybody read it?

I'm sure there's more...

Anybody?

Fa'afafine

There's a small clip about Samoa's Fa'afafine third gender on a current episode of National Geographic's Taboo. I haven't seen the whole bit yet, but it's an interesting slip.

(Thanks to Eileen for the lead.)

Nothing says "shame" like girlie stuff...

Someone just forwarded me a link to today's NY Times article about how the Bangkok police department is punishing its officers who commit small offenses (such as being late) by forcing them to wear pink Hello Kitty armbands on their uniforms. The person responsible for implementing this plan said:

“This new twist is expected to make them feel guilt and shame and prevent them from repeating the offense, no matter how minor,” he said. “Kitty is a cute icon for young girls. It’s not something macho police officers want covering their biceps.”

Hello Kitty apparently could not be reached for comment.

If you want to know what I think about this story, you can read my Barrette Manifesto ...

-julia

You Can Still Fire Me

Chris Crain has repeatedly suggested 1, 2, 3, 4 that transgender people don't need to be included in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because "existing federal civil rights laws have already been interpreted by some judges to protect trans workers."

A recent EEOC informal discussion letter would suggest otherwise.

Historically, courts and the EEOC have held that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against an individual because of transgendered status. See, e.g., Ulane v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984); EEOC Dec. 75-030, ¶ 6499 (CCH) (1974). In the past few years, however, some courts have determined that discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute unlawful gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. See Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm Inc., 2006 WL 456173 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2006); Tronetti v. TLC Healthnet Lakeshore Hosp., 2003 WL 22757935 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003); cf. Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2006) (disagreeing with Ulane and holding that discrimination based on sexual identity may be discrimination based on sex). Other courts, however, have adhered to the view that discrimination based on transgendered status does not violate Title VII. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 2005 WL 1505610 (D. Utah June 24, 2005); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 2002 WL 31098541 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002). Whether discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII is a factual question that cannot be determined outside the context of specific charges of discrimination and a complete investigation. - Title VII: Sex Discrimination/Coverage of Transgendered

Reading Jen Burke's "Breaking the Binary: Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Presentation (Volume 1: Employment)" was key in my understanding of the rulings of the United States concerning gender and sex. Title VII only covers transgender people if their employer "sex stereotyped" them. Sex stereotyping is a form of harassment directed at a person because that person does not conform to traditional sex stereotypes. Sex stereotyping is just as illegal against a gay people as it is against transgender or heterosexual persons. Regardless of what you're told, it's still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

Bathrooms in Arizona, Letters to The Advocate

Michele DeLaFreniere, a trans woman in Arizona, is suing a bar that kept her from entering.

The bar's owner objects to having been quoted as saying he doesn't want "her kind" in the place, but does admit that he's blocked trans women from coming to the bar because of the bathroom issue: trans women were being harassed in the men's room, and female bar patrons didn't want the trans women in the women's restroom.

As the story was reported in The Advocate, Anderson told the AP, “There was no place I could put these people.”

Two letters to the editor about the issue weigh in on the side of keeping women's restrooms free of trans women, one calling them "men" and the other calling them "'women'."

Yet another "women's space" issue, but I'm not sure the best answer is simply to insist that trans women use the ladies' rooms. Education, unisex bathrooms, - surely there are more intermediate ways of handling this instead of just telling women - who may be ignorant but also fearful, for good reason, of sharing bathroom space with people they view as male. Convincing women raised female that trans women are not male requires a hell of a lot of education, which will take time, so what do we do in the meanwhile?

(My thanks to Joanne Herman for the heads-up.)