One of these things is not like the others

I can definitely understand why L.A. School Superintendent Ramon Cortines was upset that students were carrying pictures of O.J. Simpson at a Black History Month parade. The man is widely believed to be a brutal murderer, and is currently in prison for robbery and kidnapping. I can also understand why Mayor Villaraigosa was upset that the children were wearing pictures of Dennis Rodman, who was recently in rehab for alcohol addiction and has been convicted of spousal abuse. However good they were as athletes, they are not good role models like the other choices, who included President Obama and Dr. King.

Like Calpernia Addams, I'm very disturbed, however, by the fact that Cortines, Villaraigosa and NAACP branch president Leon Jenkins seem to be just as upset that the students were looking up to RuPaul Charles. A school district spokesperson implied that the administration believes RuPaul, like Simpson and Rodman, is not "appropriate for Black History Month." Jenkins is quoted as saying, "These are not the people we want our young people to emulate or believe these people represent the best of the African-American community."

I honestly haven't seen too many other Black drag queens, but RuPaul is one of the best I know of any ethnic group. More importantly, aside from his talent, he has a reputation for being professional, hardworking and an all-around decent human being. I've never heard about him being involved in any instances of drug abuse or violence. Children of any race could do a lot worse than to emulate him. In that regard, he's a much better role model than Michael Jackson, who died of a drug overdose and was accused of pedophilia.

RuPaul has been something of a role model for me, too, over the years. He can look glamorous in a dress, but is comfortable being seen in men's clothes. He doesn't sweat the pronouns. His presentation is wild, sexy and provocative without being clownish or degrading. And for a guy who's pushing fifty, he still looks damn good, even without the airbrushing.

It remains to be seen whether this was a deliberate racist joke on the part of three white teachers, or a fumbled attempt to appeal to things that impress kids. But I know that if I were a kid at that school grappling with transvestite or homosexual feelings, and I heard people like Leon Jenkins lumping RuPaul in with O.J. and Dennis Rodman, I'd be pretty crushed. No wonder the suicide rate is so high.

I would like to see Cortines, Villaraigosa and Jenkins retract their condemnations of RuPaul. I hope that TBLG leaders will let them know that this kind of homophobia and transphobia is not okay. I hope that some national Black and Hispanic leaders will also come out in support of RuPaul, and of cross-dressers everywhere. We can be good role models.

Update: the World of Wonder blog has more on RuPaul and the homophobic Ramon Cortines. I should also point out that Rodman has done drag too, much more clownishly than RuPaul.

Republican Candidate Paul Scott Targets Trans Folk

Paul Scott, republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state released his platform last week and was kind enough to include transfolks in his agenda. Among his desired changes of immigration restrictions and traceable RFID chips inside state IDs he has included a statement for us trans folks too:

" I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance." -Official Paul Scott Weblog

Now, the average person doesn't know a thing about trans-related issues in any scope, let alone specific ID policies. So how can such an issue be of public interest? As with all discriminatory smears it is surely a scapegoat to screen the state's real problems. But out of the potpourri of things that conservative right-wingers hate, why pick on the genderqueers? Honestly, I think that Scott wanted to pick something that would shock people in a "look what the dirty liberal government did behind your back" kind of way. By bringing trans elements to the forefront he is gaining attention via a conservative fear mongering crusade. And with abortion being way overused and therefore unexciting, he had to find something that would appall people more than dead unborn fetuses. Enter transSEXuals, cause they aren't just out to get fetuses, they're out to get everyone.

Scott has made statements about his opinions being an issue of "social values", clearly implying that if you have good values you will agree with him, and if you don't you are a horrible person contributing to the moral downfall of society. However, Scott goes further to say that his main drive behind policy change is “preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms.” What value system does this relate to other than that anyone who is not normal by specific definition is therefore a violent threat? And because gender is involved sexualization comes into play and turns a genderqueer into an automatic sexual predator. It's the age old stereotype that men are going to put on dresses just so they can sneak into women's bathrooms and rape every female in sight... cause that has totally happened before. (FYI never been one report (TransgenderLawCenter, Peeing in Peace)). Promoting this false fear of transfolk attacking women is all part of the bigger picture of society's default appeal to heterosexist, transphobic attitudes which have no actual standing scientific or otherwise in creating a safe, equal-value based society.

Another reason why Scott's position is such a great concern is that the secretary of state is the primary government official who deals with issues like document and ID changes. For this reason, among others, having an anti-trans person in that position is clearly more than just problematic. Along with being a human rights and equal treatment and access issue, in many cases a change in documents can be a huge protection from discrimination, threat, and death. Clearly Scott could care less about Midwest transfolk's right to stay alive.

I'm going to be looking into any activist movements being formed around this issue, as my no being in or from Michigan makes it difficult to head up such a project alone. Here's hoping there will be updates on progress.

xposted MidwestGenderQueer.com, AmplifyYourVoice

Drafts from the DSM-V workgroup are out and they're continuing to pathologize trans people

When the infamous Ray Blanchard was appointed to the work group revising the American Psychiatric Association's "Manual for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders" -- the standard reference book used by psychiatrists in North America, there was widespread worry that he'd used the opportunity to push his pathologizing and discredited theories about trans people all being sexual fetishists.

What a surprise... Blanchard reportedly has done exactly that the recently presented "Provisional Report by the DSM-V Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" according to the GID reform advocates, who are calling on trans people and their allies to voice their concern about the direction the work group is heading.

I don't have a copy of the report itself, but a related presentation Blanchard made at the same conference seems to support the reported account.

Blanchard proposes keeping the current disagnostic criteria for "transvestic fetishism" -- only now it's a "transvestic disorder," which by definition, according to Blanchard, can only occur among hetero men. (Apparently gay crossdressers and women who crossdress don't exist in his world.) Blanchard would also add two subcategories -- "transvestic disorder with fetishism" and "transvestic disorder with autogynephilia" -- based on "unpublished research, which I conducted specifically for the Paraphilias Subworkgroup." [emphasis mine]

Blanchard's research claims that:

The results showed that transvestic patients who acknowledged autogynephilia had higher odds of reporting past or current desires for sex reassignment than transvestic patients who denied autogynephilia. The opposite result was found for fetishism, that is, transvestites who reported fetishism were less likely to report a desire for sex reassignment. It is noteworthy that these predictors were independent to a large extent.

But either way under his proposal by definition people with this "disorder" are always sexual fetishists, i.e. you're either "sexually aroused by fabrics, materials, or garments" or "sexually aroused by the thought or image of self as female."

Hmmm... I guess it's too much to ask that proposed diagnostic criteria, one that affects a huge number of people's lives, be based on research that's withstood peer review...

No Lawrence King wasn't sexually harassing his killer

One year ago today, Lawrence King was shot twice in the back of head by a classmate, after months of being harassed by fellow students for liking boys and being effeminate -- including wearing girls clothing and calling himself "Leticia" at times. (Whether King would have grown up to be a femmy gay man or a trans woman is something we'll never know.)

After the spate of stories claiming King sexually harassed his accused killer -- and implying he had it coming -- prosecutors just released additional information about the case showing that simply wasn't true. At most, King had begun talking back to his tormentors after months of harassment.

Whereas King's accused killer turns out to have been a neo-Nazi/skinhead wanna-be with a huge homophobic streak, who was watching training videos about "Shooting in a Realistic Environments," and who repeatedly threatened to get a gun and kill King.

But of course it was all King's fault...

The only moral use of an epithet is my own...

To the Life+Style Editor of a gay newspaper petulantly defending his right to call people "trannies"

Dear Faggot:

Now I know you won't be offended by me -- a hetero crossdresser who also does drag -- calling you that, since after all we're all about reclaiming terms, right? Just like you getting RuPaul to "rule" that it's OK to call trans people "trannies." The thing is, as far as I know, RuPaul identifies as a gay man, so asking his/her opinion on this issue is a bit like asking a white person whether it's OK for other white people call black people... well you know the term I mean.

The thing is, reclaiming an epithet is something that only gets to be done by the people who've been targeted by it. There's a big difference between members of a stigmatized group reclaiming a term as a way of saying "yeah I am a [insert derogatory term here], wanna make something of it" -- and quite another when someone outside that group decides to fling that term around carelessly. And no, we're not "already there" in reclaiming tranny as a cuddly term of endearment -- Christian Siriano's catchphrase "hot tranny mess" was clearly meant as a putdown in exactly the same way as clueless straight kids use "that's so gay."

As far as using "drag queen," I've got no problem with using that term to describe people who are actually drag queens -- i.e. people who are crossdressing for performance. Some of whom may also be trans. But using it to describe trans people off the stage is implying their gender identity is just for show, akin to straight people who tell you that you're not really gay, you just haven't found the right woman yet. Think I'm kidding? I've seen gay men tell transwoman: "No really, what's your real (i.e. male) name."

I do agree with RuPaul that one does need to take intent into account. I've got gay friends who've thrown around "tranny" -- but when I've gently mentioned that it's a term that a lot of trans people find problematic when used by people who aren't trans (or friends and allies), guess what, they stopped using it. But no, you had to go pissily justify your right to use the term and accusing people who complain of "Nazi-like" rigidity. That's hardly "coming from a place of love and respect" now is it? The place that comes to mind is: asshat-ism. Because bottom-line, if you have to have to ask yourself whether a term you're using is offensive, that's a pretty good clue that it's not a good idea to use it.

Words may never hurt me, but they can piss me off -- and I think RuPaul might also have something to say about the folly of getting on the wrong side of an angry drag queen.

<snap> <snap>

---

Just to be absolutely clear, since the use of irony can go over people's heads...

"Faggot" is a vile, hateful term -- and it's one that I'm all too familiar with. I was taunted with it as a boy who wasn't sufficiently manly for the school bullies. I've heard it muttered at me when I've been out en femme and in drag. I've had it screamed at me by potential gay bashers.

Which is why I didn't use it lightly. In fact it's the first time I've used it in more than 30 years (the last time was back when I was a school kid who didn't know any better). Why? Because I've lost patience with (some) gay and lesbian writers and editors who, when asked stop using a term that a number of trans people find equally problematic when used by non-trans people, not only continue to use it, but then go on to arrogantly proclaim their right to decide what's offensive to others, and belittle those who asked them to stop as being "overly sensitive."

My use of the term was a shock tactic intended to goad these folks into thinking about what they're saying, using a stark example that's close to home for them, since they've been utterly unwilling to put themselves in other people's shoes. I.e. "how would you like it if I took it upon myself to call you a faggot in the same way that you take it upon yourself to call trans people 'trannies'." Perhaps I could've more clearly posed it as a hypothetical, i.e. "how would you like it if I called you a..." But unfortunately, the experience of myself and others is that subtler arguments made in the past have just been blown off by these folks. So sometimes it takes a 2x4 between the eyes to get people's attention.

Those in question, including this particular editor, come across as being willfully oblivious. As someone aptly put it elsewhere -- in the case of the "pro-gay" radio DJ defending his right to call gays "fags":

When someone says you're doing something that hurts them, you could either a) stop doing it, or b) continue. Why would you continue? If you accidentally step on someone's foot in a crowd, and they say "Ouch!" would you apologize, or would you try to convince them that it really didn't hurt because you didn't mean any harm?

I understand if you're angered by my use of the term. But I hope you understand why I feel angered by those who insist on using a term they know that a number of trans people feel hurt by.

Incidently, I also meant the title of the piece ironically, inspired by the title of this article about hypocrisy.

Shades of "To Wong Foo"

At least 150 locals in Silverton, OR showed their support for the first openly transgender/gender queer person elected major -- Stu Rasmussen, who sees himself as male but who had breast implants and presents himself as a woman -- drastically outnumbering the quartet of Westboro haters who had slithered into town to protest and get their media fix.

Best sign of the day: "My love is bigger than your hate." And there was this heart-warming encounter:

A woman pushing a baby jogger past City Hall did a doubletake on her run, backing up to question 16-year-old Victoria Phelps, whose family runs the small Kansas church.

"I'm a Christian," Lesley Brighton said, clearly perplexed by the girl's "God Hates Fags" sign. "This is some kind of joke, right?"

No, it's deadly serious, Phelps replied. Electing a transgender mayor, she said, was an abomination.

"I don't expect for it to sink in but it's our duty to come out here and preach to these people because they're so proud of having a transvestite mayor," Phelps said. "It's disgusting. And where was it? Was it Isaiah? Deuteronomy? About it being an abomination?"

Brighton shook her head. "I've read the Bible cover to cover," Brighton said. "Bottom line: love beats hate."

And while I was joking about the "To Wong Foo" reference,* apparently someone did in fact show their solidarity: in a similar way:

Silverton attorney Yossi Davidson, 59, wore a dress to the rally.

"Today, I'm just Joe the Cross-dresser," Davidson said. "Stu's an institution in this town … which is probably why he got elected. He's a straightforward, genuine kind of guy despite his gender complexities.

"I think a lot of people in town are against this sort of bigotry and militancy, their (Westboro's) bullying attitude," he added. "People are out here to mock them."

Even the comments about the newspaper story -- which are all-too-often seem to bring out the haters whenever it's a trans-related article -- were a pleasure to read.

Finally, one of the locals gives his account of the counter-protest (and thanks for showing your support Barry!). As he put it: "[T]he good guys won. And we did a good thing." That you did, that you did.

* For those who didn't get the headline reference, here's an explanation (be sure to read the plot outline).

Tribeca Film Festival's trans "humor" (the sequel)

Over at Bilerico someone posed the question about whether I was being ashamed of trans hookers and couldn't the ad be viewed as a message of tolerance, i.e. "hey it's OK to be a lawyer by day and a crossdressing part-time hooker by night."

For the record, I don't think sex work is something to be ashamed of, nor should we be ashamed of trans hookers.

But the premise of the joke was that the mom with her kids was utterly blase about something that we the audience are supposed to find freakish and probably shocking. You could've substituted a talking dog and the premise would be the same. Ever in my rewriting of the ad, the joke remains premised on the crossdressing lawyer being a "freak," but at least my version tries to show something unexpected about someone who's perceived that way. Similar to a "Sex and City" episode I once saw where one of the characters was upset about the boisterous trans hookers outside her window, but through some plot twist that I don't remember, she ends up befriending them and discovers they're human too.

It's true the ad could be viewed as "hey there's nothing wrong with that" and if there was a lot of other kinds of protrayals of trans people in the media I might agree. Or had the scene been played straight and not for laughs. But let's be honest, the vast majority of Americans (even New Yorkers) do see prostitution as disreputable -- otherwise "whore" wouldn't be an epithet -- and the ad clearly seems to be making the lawyer a hooker for the additional shock value.

But the other part of what makes the ad problematic is that it's trafficking in stereotypes, i.e. if someone's trans, we obviously they must be a hooker.  It's similar to historical complaints about blacks and Latinos only getting roles that depict them as crack dealers and gang members, gays only getting roles that depict them as stereotypical caricatures, etc.

Tribeca Film Festival's trans "humor"

While this ad for the 2006 festival (which recently resurfaced on YouTube) was undoubtedly meant to be edgy and funny, it's belittling and reinforces stereotypes that all trans people are prostitutes. The key is that we're not laughing with the lawyer/hooker, we're meant to be laughing at her.

And yeah, it hurts more when it comes from folks who undoubtedly would be horrified at equivalent humor aimed at minorities. Do you think they would've done an ad showing a black lawyer who moonlights as a crack dealer? Or a female attorney who moonlights as a hooker? I thought not.

The truly sad thing is that the ad's joke about jaded New Yorkers could have just as easily been accomplished with a positive portrayal (and just a few minor changes in the script). For example, the crossdressing lawyer could have been out for a walk with her wife, who she introduces to the the mother with her kids, who's just as blase about it all.

OK, maybe I'm being humorless, but having two trans people (Cameron McWilliams and Simmie Williams) and a gender-variant kid (Lawrence King) who might (or might not) have later come out as trans gunned down in apparent hate crimes within less than a month kind of leave me not in the mood for this sort of "humor."