Like Horsradish and Hot Fudge: "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" Fails, as a Movie and as a Concept

It's rare that a three-and-a-half-minute trailer tells you just about everything you need to know about a movie, but in the case of "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" the movie is everything you see in those few minutes but more...and worse.

First and foremost, this is a really bad movie, but clearly intentionally so. The film is artificially "aged" and made to have a look similar to the "blaxploitation" films of the early 70's, complete with low-budget production, film imperfections, and missing reel notices.The overplayed transgender stereotypes are blatant and ludicrous, but it's the titling and the marketing of this film where the biggest mistakes have been made.

Anyone who sees this movie understands something about it in very short order: This isn't a movie about transgender women, it's a movie about drag queens. Not that any confirmation is needed once Pinky La'Trimm, Emma Grashun, Bubbles Cliquot, Tipper Sommore, and Rachel Slur (no, I'm not kidding) are introduced to the viewer, but there's even a scene in the movie where one of the characters defines herself and the other queens with her as "gay men in dresses".

Immediately after seeing this movie I remarked to someone who'd already seen it that if they'd titled this movie "Ticked-Off Drag Queens With Knives" probably no one would have batted an eye, but thinking about it now I'm not so sure. The biggest problem with this movie is that the concept just doesn't work, no matter what perspective you view it from. You can make a campy movie about drag queens or you can make a film about hate crimes, but you can't do both in the same film and expect it to be seen as credible on any level.

Director Israel Luna's attempt to meld these completely and utterly disparate elements into the same film results in nothing short of disaster, with the campy, comedic scenes undercutting and perhaps even completely discrediting whatever anti-hate crimes message he may have been hoping to convey. At the same time, the graphic and gory hate-motivated violence ruins whatever comedic value the film might otherwise have had. Hate crimes, after all, just aren't funny, not ever. For all too many, that bloody baseball bat has been real. Including graphic depictions of anti-transgender hate violence in a movie that's clearly being played for camp and comedy comes off as complete ignorance of the reality of anti-transgender hate violence at best and outright mockery and denigration of transpeople and the hate violence perpetrated against us at worst.

The transgender community's reaction to this film is understandable. This low-budget hackfest employs just about every tired transgender stereotype out there and doesn't even do a decent job of mocking itself as you'd expect a film like this to do. Despite the mostly generic hairstyles and clothes that are presumably supposed to reflect the styles of the early 70's, the queens are seen in a late-model convertible that couldn't have been built more than than a few years ago. This film fails even the most basic tests of consistency and good writing.

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is so bad on so many different levels that it's even schlock when compared to other schlock. It's almost like Israel Luna set out to do an early John Waters film (right down to the Divine-like "mama queen") but just didn't have the chops to pull it off. The hate crime element, while perhaps well-intentioned, seems more like a written-in afterthought than anything else, just an excuse for the drag queens to comically kick some ass rather than an attempt at any sort of truly serious statement about hate crimes. This aspect of the film comes through clearly even when watching the trailer so it's not surprising that many transpeople and allies find it disparaging and offensive.

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" tries to succeed as a comedy while making a statement about something as deadly serious and unfunny as anti-transgender hate crimes, and therefore fails miserably at both. Honestly, I wonder what the folks at the Tribeca Film Festival saw in this disjointed, poorly-made mess of a movie. Fortunately, real transwomen can take heart that this film is such an unremitting and unadulterated piece of shit that once the Tribeca festival ends it's highly likely that this film and its director will quickly fade back into the obscurity they so richly deserve.

GLAAD's "Ineffective" Campaign And Doing The Right Thing Even If It Isn't Easy

Some time ago, I received an email in my inbox asking for people to get involved in a survey about HIV risks for men who have sex with men (MSM). It was very specifically about penile-anal intercourse (PAI) and very specific about the kinds of participants that were wanted. While there are are some transmen in our community who have male partners, it was clear that they weren't who the survey was about, so I forwarded it to a couple crossdresser group lists but otherwise ignored it.

A week or so later, the survey request arrived in my inbox again. Also ignored.

A few days later, the sender followed up with an email asking me why I hadn't forwarded the MSM survey information on to the trans networks I'm involved in. I replied (in nicer words) that if they were interested in transwomen participating, they could have at least bothered to make the effort to word the request more inclusively. To me, the heavy emphasis on MSM and PAI terminology made it clear how participants would be regarded and treated. At this, the sender flipped out, accusing me of being homophobic and saying I'd be guilty of the genocide of every transsexual woman (which was not the terminology he used, but by this time that was obviously who he meant) who contracted HIV as a result of my "knowingly suppressing" information about it.

In the Alberta communities, I've kept myself at an arm's length from mainstream LGB(T) groups, participating somewhat, but not getting enveloped in LGBT culture. I do believe in an inclusive community (and am a bisexual in a lesbian relationship, so am affected by and do get involved with LGB issues), but I also believe that trans-specific advocacy needs to be first driven by trans people, regardless of where we come to in the "should we include the T" debate. And while I've found the vast majority of LGB advocates to "get it" about us at least enough to respect trans identities -- many very earnestly wanting to help despite the occasional fumble in doing so (yes, including Bil Browning) -- every so often the patronizing "you're just deluded, I know who you *really* are" attitude bubbles up from someone, and the arm's length is useful to keeping it from blowing up into a fight that leaves everybody bitter over trans inclusion. Aside from when I'm "knowingly suppressing" information for MSM, that is.

I don't bring this up to drive a wedge between groups, but to make a point. There has been a growing sentiment in the online community, as people in the US started realizing that even with a Democrat congress, senate and "fierce advocate" President, an inclusive ENDA was going to be a difficult sell, and it was our fault. I saw it in comments around the web as people complained about the potential liability we were via the growing bathroom debates, in the complaints that we saw ENDA as more important than same-sex marriage, in the drop-off of trans writers in LGBT arenas (some who've made similar observations), and even as far back as the protests about being tired of angry trannies venting about the HRC. Trans people are being increasingly resented because the greater community signaled with UnitedENDA that a bill that dropped transfolk wholesale was no longer acceptable. By the time a blog controversy hit that my readers will probably be familiar with, it seemed more like an editorial sea change to embrace this growing readership than anything that was just out of the blue (which may not have been the case, but at any rate, it's done). In the context of all this, the rumours of a caveat being written into ENDA to... well, we don't know just yet, but it has something to do with concessionary language about transwomen and restrooms... is unsurprising, and worries me that some of our own "fierce advocates" will ultimately embrace the same roll-over-and-take-it approach they perceive in a legislator they are now decrying.

It's time to call for, support and thank those who continue to do the right thing, even if it isn't easy or a guaranteed win.

And that includes GLAAD, who campaigned against the Tribeca Film Festival's inclusion of a transploitative film that would have probably been simply another badly-acted bit of visually caricaturish B-grade schlock masquerading as "camp" if it hadn't tried to co-opt some very real tragedies in the murders of Angie Zapata and other trans-identified or trans-affected (i.e. apparently in the case of Jorge Mercado) people, and then pass itself off as the voice of our community's anger.

GLAAD which is now being criticized and called "right up there with the Human Rights Campaign in its irrelevance" for speaking out against the film.

In reply to Queerty's 8 points:

"1) TRIBECA'S ALREADY DECIDED TO RUN THE FILM NO MATTER WHAT"

So? If we focused only on easy targets and ran away at the first sign of difficulty, we'd still be fighting to decriminalize sodomy. We don't advocate for people because it's easy.

"2) THE GLAAD CAMPAIGN AGAINST TOTWK HAS HELPED GUARANTEE ITS SUCCESS"

And also guaranteed that it will be accompanied with the knowledge that the community it's allegedly supposed to be about are protesting it as an inaccurate representation of who we are. Silence is tacit approval.

Maybe next year, Tribeca will remember this and seek to be inclusive by choosing a film from a now better-educated standpoint. I'd call that an eventual win, if it happens.

"3) GLAAD HAS PROVED ITSELF TO BE A POOR ARBITER OF TASTE"

While exploitation of real tragedies could be considered a matter of "taste," blatant misrepresentation of a community that is then dismissed with indifference when it protests goes a little deeper. Sure, GLAAD fell for the FoF Superbowl ruse -- we all did -- but drumming up the mistakes when someone does something right isn't exactly the best kind of encouragement to stay focused on the objective.

"4) TOTWK COULD URGE THE TRANS-COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT A TRANS-DIRECTOR TO TELL THEIR STORY"

I have a story I'd love to turn into a potentially powerful film. Is there anyone willing to produce and fund it?

This attitude is all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that if one community makes an exploitive film that claims to tell the story of another, the latter has the right to be angry if it's misrepresented.

"5) HOWEVER, FILMS "FOR US BY US" WON'T SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF TRANS-REPRESENTATION"

Neither will defending a film whose portrayal is just really bad.

"6) TOTWK IS A REVENGE FANTASY, NOT A REALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF TRANS-VIOLENCE"

Tell that to Traditional Values Coalition and their flock. This might hold water if there weren't large swaths of people who already really believed it.

"7) BRINGS ISSUES ABOUT TRANS-VIOLENCE AND REPRESENTATION INTO THE MAINSTREAM"

Such as the tragedy of running mascara during fight scenes? It's obvious that the film didn't take anti-trans violence seriously if it turned it into the vehicle for comedy, so why should anyone else?

"8) THE ENTIRE TRANS COMMUNITY ISN'T AGAINST THE FILM"

Trotting up someone who doesn't realize how she's being exploited (sorry Krystal, but it's true, and it's disappointing to have to point it out) isn't representative of large swaths of the community.

Thank you to GLAAD for doing something right, even if it wasn't an easy win.

I hope many of our inclusive organizations will be ready to do the same when the new ENDA wording is unveiled.

(crossposted to DentedBlueMercedes)

Finding Freedom from Fear

For our weekly Family Popcorn & Movie Night last night we watched a cute little movie called Finding Rin Tin Tin. It's a children's version of the story of the famous German Shepherd who was adopted by an American soldier during World War I and went on to become a beloved screen star in the 20's and 30's. It was a cute little film--the rare live action kiddie tale that can keep the interest of our whole family, from our four-year-old right up through Mom and Daddy.

This telling of the story has a sub-plot that centers on a French orphan boy, Jacques, who becomes separated from his parents when Paris is bombed. Rendered mute by the trauma, Jacques is placed under the care of the ruthless camp cook, who abuses him and even tries to sell him into slavery before the plot is uncovered by Rin Tin Tin. In the film's final scene, Jacques is reunited with his parents as Rin Tin Tin prepares to leave France with the victorious American forces.

As my wife and I were laughing about the unabashed sappiness of that scene, my seven-year-old daughter, who was watching from a pile of pillows on the floor, turned around and started to climb into our laps. That's when I noticed that she was crying. In fact, she was wracked with sobs--so much so that I assumed one of our boys, sitting on the couch behind her, had kicked her in the head and hurt her. (These things occasionally happen in our house.)

"What's wrong, honey," I asked. She was crying so hard it took her a few seconds to respond.

"Tears of joy, Daddy," she sobbed--at which point all our cynicism about sappy movie endings dissolved and my wife and I joined in. Before the credits had finished rolling, the whole family was weeping tears of joy together, cuddled on the couch, relieved that after all he'd suffered, the probably fictional Jacques would have a chance to live happily ever after with his family.

I've taken pride in the past that my wife and I are raising children who are so in touch with their feelings and so unashamed to let them show. But when I shared my daughter's story with a colleague this morning, she helped me see it in a way I hadn't before. "I was just thinking about all that time you spent separated from your wife and kids while you were job hunting," she said. "I wonder if she was remembering that."

It hadn't even occured to me to make that connection, but as I've thought about my friend's observation, it makes perfect sense. Longtime readers may remember that our family was separated for almost ten months while I searched for a job after finishing grad school and transitioning. In order to minimize expenses, my wife and kids lived with her parents in Montana; because they did not approve of my transition and would not allow me to live with them, I stayed in Arizona with my mom. Though we did all we could to stay connected while we were apart (we spoke on the phone daily and I wrote letters to the children almost as regularly), it was still incredibly hard on us all. As my daughter's sobs seem to show, the anxiety it created in my children lingers, almost a year later. I wonder how long it will last?

I know we're not the only family that's had to endure a long separation--families do it every day, and it has nothing to do with being trans. And yet I can't help but think that it was avoidable in our case. If only my in-laws were more accepting, if only their church would speak from a place of compassion for trans people and not one of domination and oppression, if only it weren't so hard for trans people to find meaningful work through which we can support not only ourselves but our loved ones as well...if only.

It has been said that all politics is personal. I think it's truer still that all activism is personal. My reasons for doing the work I do are very, very personal. My daughter shouldn't have to worry that our family will have to endure long-term separation again just because her daddy is transgender. Nobody's child should. Nobody's wife or husband should have to worry about the social cost of supporting a transitioning spouse. Nobody's parents should have to be afraid of violence against a transitioning child. No trans person should have to be anxious about finding a job or a place to live or walking into a public rest room.

These anxieties have a very real psychological impact on a person and, I would argue, a spiritual impact that is just as real. They can cripple you, hold you back, hold you down, hinder you from fulfilling your beautiful, awesome, awe-inspiring potential. For me, turning my anxiety into action has helped mitigate those negative effects. By making my own small contribution to healing this hurting world, I heal myself. Not only that, but I help make it possible for my kids to grow up in a world that is a little less scary.

(Cross-posted at my personal blog, Crossing the T.)

RIP Steve Dain - FTM Pioneer

So, I found out recently, that Steve Dain died of cancer at the age of 68. Steve Dain was an FTM who transitioned in the late 70's and lost his teaching job, he was a gym teacher in Union City. This was a big scandal and made the San Francisco papers, including the gay paper that was then -- "Coming Up" instead of "The Bay Times". I remember being 24, in late 1981, and reading about Steve in the local gay paper "Coming Up" and feeling an odd mixture of shock, excitement and queasy fascination. I remember accounts of him changing his ID, and speculation by the lesbian and gay press as to his motivations for changing his sex from female to male. Of course, I had heard of sex change, even female to male sex change. but what I had heard was vague. Later, I saw a picture of Steve, it was scratchy and dark in the San Francisco Chronicle. I had never, ever seen a photo of an FTM before in my life. I found it disturbing and unspeakably magnetic.

Those two articles were about Steve Dain and his fighting for his job as a teacher, a battle that he lost. Although the court would eventually decide in his favor, and allow him to go back to teaching, he was not able to find a school that would hire him.

After hearing about Steve, I did not hear of female to male sex change for another 7 years. The next time I saw anything about transsexual men would be in "On Our Backs", the lesbian sex magazine in 1988. There I spied the tiny ad that Lou Sullivan placed in the back pages for a support group for "Female to Male Transsexuals and Cross Dressers". He also offered information with a newsletter and handbook. I wrote to the address he listed in time, and began my own transition.

Later, I would meet Steve Dain. Steve had been Lou's hero. In those days, most trans men in the Bay Area went off on a pilgrimage to meet him as we entered medical transition. Lou had met with Steve years before when he began his transition, and Jamison Green would meet him a short time before I did. It was nearly a ritual, a rite of passage to meet with Steve. There were no trans men that we knew of who had come before him, Mario Martino was on the east coat, living in a safe obscurity, although some were in communication with him, and Rupert Raj was in Canada. Steve was nearby and our most visible example, and someone who each one of us hoped would confer wisdom, and a kind of blessing or validation. I think we all were a bit awestruck. And, Steve didn't let us down. I know he didn't let me down. I still remember meeting him in Union City, he picked me up from BART and I was taken with his easy and total masculinity. He was hirsute, and handsome, confident and kind. He was sensitive to each question I asked and his answers would influence me for the entirety of my transition.

I am so sorry that he is gone; time goes by quickly. He was about my age now when I met him, and now, was 68 when he died -- of cancer recently on Oct. 10, 2007.

Here is a clip of Steve Dain from a film he was in called, "What Sex Am I?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXLoLYXuCo&feature=related

"What Sex am I?" was ground-breaking in its time, even with its confusion of "female transsexuals" and "male transsexuals" -- and when I saw it in 1988 at an FTM support group meeting, I found it informative and enthralling. However, I remember that the film also had what a friend described as "hospital music" and the narrator was omniscient and oppressive with a tone of medical pathos; I wanted the documentaries I was in later to be dramatically different, and they were, starting with "Max" filmed in 1991. However, this film was not made by Steve, and its faults are not his. He was one of two FTMs in the film, and his presence was calm and confident -- he even had a bit of a swagger and a palpable pride in his masculinity. I owe him a great deal as does every trans man who came after him.

Rest in Peace Steve- and thank you, thank you so very much for being yourself and being brave enough to share that, with me, with other FTMS, and the world.

Gendercator re-visited

To be honest, I'm having trouble juggling all of the various anti-trans controversies these days. The ENDA issue has of course (for good reason) been the focus of much of the trans community's energy. Then there's the whole Bailey/Dreger debacle (which I am currently writing madly about). And now, unfortunately, it seems like SF's upcoming Gendercator screening has been orchestrated so that there is little room for an actual community dialogue (which was supposedly the original point in doing the screening). Anyway, here's the forwarded post:

Please attend transphobic filmmaker event this Friday in SF!

Supporters of ENDA have threatened to exclude transgender people from employment protections. Every other month, a letter runs in the local LGBT newspaper expressing disdain and disgust for transgender people. At last summer’s “Transforming Community” event in the SF LGBT Center, a gay man walked into trans community space and began distributing flyers against “Transsexual Mutilation,” claiming he simply wanted to start “dialogue.”

And this Friday at 6:30 p.m, Center Women Presents at the SF LGBT Center will be hosting the Midwestern filmmaker whose most recent statements equate gender transition with violence, social ease, and political apathy. These positions have been framed as a “difference of opinion” in the SF community. It is incredibly important that you attend this event and speak your truth. You may need to get there early. You may need to buy tickets for friends. You may need to bring copies of her statements. And you may need to brace yourself for a frustrating evening. But please, do not allow a transphobic outsider to the community frame what an actual respectful dialogue about community tensions looks like.

On Friday, Oct 26 at 6:30 p.m., Center Women Presents will show Catherine Crouch’s “The Gendercator,” the film that SF’s Frameline decided to pull last summer after community concerns about Crouch’s public statements against trans people and, for those who saw the film, the depiction of trans people as coercive right-wing anti-gay villains whose very existence was a threat to queers. If you missed the Frameline film fest uproar, Crouch's original publicity said that "lesbians alter themselves into transmen" ... "instead of working to change the world." She then clarified that to say she "never mentioned" trans people--just women who take hormones and have surgery in order to be read as male. Of course, all of this was said, she explained, to "spark dialogue."

Shortly afterward, the LA film fest pulled “The Gendercator” from its scheduled program and showed the film by itself along with a panel; this event, said Crouch, was “unsafe,” because it allowed people an open forum to challenge her and her ideas. Subsequent events have decided not to include Crouch on their panels due to her divisive positions. Friday’s “Center Women” event in San Francisco while initially well-intentioned-- has made great efforts to make sure Crouch feels “safe,” and during the process for this panel, organizers expressed concern for Crouch’s safety and respect. To that end, they have added a full panel of speakers to address everything from censorship to Crouch’s full body of film work – and not just that pesky topic of transgender marginalization within our own communities. Additionally, questions will be "randomly drawn,” increasing the chance for transgender ally “censorship” and discouraging any emotional members of the public from adequately expressing themselves. Crouch’s damaging public statements (which I’ve included below) are considered by many of the panelists and organizers to be irrelevant.

Again, it is incredibly important that you attend this event and speak your truth – this is our Center and our community, and if it takes civil disobedience or printed materials to be heard, it is important for that to happen. It is also important that you go to witness and document the event and not allow history to be distorted, as Crouch’s “revised statements” keep attempting to do. Like all communities, not every trans person agrees with Frameline’s decision to pull the film last summer, and not every lesbian or queer woman is sympathetic to Crouch’s positions. Some have emphasized that pulling the film was “censorship,” while others believe the film and Crouch’s statements are not transphobic. Others say that Crouch has valid positions because they do know one or two people who fit her criticism of an entire population. Such sentiments, however, ignore the real issues: our SF community frequently does respectfully and productively criticize one another without resorting to hateful rhetoric; there is also the undeniable reality that we would not be bending over backwards to give a safe space and an open mic to anybody who made similar anti-gay or anti-lesbian statements. Although Crouch keeps revising who she “meant” to target, the issue is not who or what she meant, but the ethics of judging people’s lives and bodies as cowardly or not queer enough--especially in our own venues.

Below are Crouch’s most recent public statements. From CatherineCrouch.com:

Director’s Note - Things are getting very strange for women these
days. Barbie dolls and lesbian women altering themselves into
transmen. Our distorted cultural norms are making women feel compelled to use medical advances to change themselves, instead of working to change the world. This is one story, showing one possible scary future. I am hopeful that this movie will foster discussion about female body modification and medical ethics.

This remark is not about transpeople. It is about women. My
understanding of transsexuality is that it is a rare condition, a medical condition of gender dysphoria. A person’s exterior body does not match their interior sense of self, causing serious social, sexual, and mental problems. This person is a transsexual, not a woman or a man. My statement was not meant to question the validity of this condition, but to call attention to the increasing number of young women who are taking testosterone or undergoing voluntary mastectomies to enhance their masculinity. These are women who formerly identified, or would be considered by the lesbian community, as butch lesbians. If we situate this in terms of the larger culture’s misogyny, it seems to be a rejection of the female part of the masculine female. Why does a woman do this? Most often, the reasons given are: to avoid harassment, rape and ridicule as a gender variant. It seems to me that what is also going on, but has not been explicitly addressed, is the desire to avoid being perceived by the world at large as female. Or to avoid the label of lesbian. Some may do this because it enables their sexual fantasies.

From a Movie magazine interview:

What I said was that cultural norms are making women feel compelled to use medical advances to change themselves instead of working to change the world. This remark is not about the trans people. It’s about women. My statement never referred to transsexuals, but some took it upon themselves to assume it was all about them. It seems to me that what is also going on but is not explicitly addressed, is a desire to avoid being perceived by the world at large as being female, or to avoid the label lesbian. But I think we need to acknowledge that it has become a trend among some young people who formerly identified as, or would be considered by the lesbian community, as butch lesbians. The rigid binary of a larger culture enables this violence and harassment of the masculine woman or effeminate male. It’s harmful to everyone, that their safety and identity is defined by conformity to this Ken and Barbie model. This is what The Gendercator is all about.

Key West and the Trans Traveler

I just came back from a trip to Key West. I was invited down as part of Monroe County Tourist Development Council’s outreach to gay markets but once there the organizer of the press trip shared his concern about my ability to find enough trans related stuff to write about. I’m in of the nation’s top travel destinations for the gay dollar. It’s during Women’s fest and the island is swarming with lesbians. As a ride on the country’s only Gay and Lesbian Trolley Tour attests, there’s dozens of gay and lesbian owned businesses, and a rich gay and lesbian history in Key West. But, from the marketing material, tourist information, guided tour and head of the gay market sales department, there’s no mention of the words transgender or transsexual.

The Key West tourism department even seemed unaware of the trans resources they did have. At the same time as I was being told there was nothing “trans” going on, a few blocks away a small theatre was playing the documentary Boy I am, which explores several trans men’s transitions and interviews a number of lesbians about FTMs—including queer theorist and drag king Judith “Jack” Halberstam who claims in the film that, even for FTMs, misogyny goes hand in hand with masculinity.

This has gotten me thinking about the fact that there seems to be no acknowledgement or understanding of a trans consumer. In the rare situation where trans consumers are recognizedged we are undoubtedly positioned solely in medical and aesthetic terms as in (almost entirely MTFs) seeking reassignment surgeries, electrolysis, cosmetic surgery, big and tall dresses, makeup and wigs.

And while I’m not thrilled with the way our country has confused capitalism with democracy, I do see that when an individual or community is not recognized as viable consumers they are treated as nonentities. I think that the history of the gay rights movement has shown that when the gay dollar was widely acknowledged and courted, it was followed by the acknowledgment of a gay [political] constituency. Of course it also led to the corporatization of gay pride and helped convert dangerous activists to placated consumers, so maybe it’s not something the trans community wants to emulate.

Before my trip one Floridian trans woman had warned me that Key West’s idea of “trans” was drag queens. So when our chauffer drove past the 801 Bourbon Bar and I saw a few of the drag performers standing outside, I barreled out of the car and accosted one, sputtering out a lame introduction like, “I’m a trans guy and a reporter looking for trans women on the island. Are there any T-girls here?”

“You mean pre-op?” She asks seeming completely at ease with my strange question. She takes my hand and pulls me around the corner into an alley, then through a doorway into a darkened club where she deposited me in front of the woman taking money for the 11:00 pm show.

Sitting on a stool, Marilyn is wearing a low cut blouse and very long fake eyelashes. The makeup on her face is thick, but it turns out, it doesn’t need to be. Although she hasn’t undergone gender reassignment surgery, Marilyn is on estrogen and she passes just fine. That’s the problem.

Marilyn used to be the manager of the Denny’s restaurant just down the street, but then she was injured on the job and unable to work. Forced by the bureaucracy of social security to find a job—but unable to in the face of anti-trans discrimination—Marilyn ended up at 801 Bourbon, and that’s when the trouble began.

Drunken tourists attracted to the club with promises of an exotic drag queens (who strip at the end of the show to shatter the illusion) began complaining to the management about a real woman working there.

“That’s when I created this alter ego named John,” Marilyn says, between stamping the wrists of customers so they can come and go during the upstairs performance. ““John’s this truck driver. I’d go over and talk to these guys like this—” Marilyn puffs out her shoulders and lowers her voice to a growl, “I’m all man. See these?” She swipes her chest, “they ain’t real. Silicon. I’m just doing this to put my kids through college.”

Marilyn shakes her head and laughs. “But I couldn’t keep it up. See my fake eyelashes and this make-up? I don’t need them. I’d pass without them. It’s my compromise.” She doesn’t pretend to be John as much anymore. Now she lets the thick make-up cake her face so patrons will assume she’s covering up a five o’clock shadow. She's in an all new closet.

Although Marilyn says she’s often the only trans person to sit on educational panels, she’s far from the only one on the island. “There are a lot of us.” She claims. “Both women and men—though the guys usually don’t want anyone to know.” She tells me that there used to be a support group that met once a week but she says they didn’t get a lot of support from the rest of the community and interest died out a while ago.

After talking to Marilyn for a while I pop upstairs to watch part of the show. On my way out, a man walks in and says, “Oh hi, Marilyn.” Ironically, it’s the guy from Key West’s tourism board, the gay market guru who arranged the LGBT press tour and worried there wouldn’t be anything for me to write about. The same guy who couldn’t give me the name of one trans person on the island.

He knows Marilyn by name. Maybe he just doesn’t know she’s trans.

Gendercator Part I

I saw a screener of the film The Gendercator today. This is the film that has been at the center of controversy since a group of (primarily) trans folk protested its showing at San Francisco Frameline Film Festival and succeeded in getting the film pulled from the festival line up.
Helen Boyd wrote a post about the film and protest earlier this year, and a number of trans folk have said (mostly off the record) that they were concerned by the film being pulled because it bordered on censorship.

Although I'll be doing a more indepth analysis of the film later, I'll share some of my initial thoughts. First and foremost I found the film a disappointment. Although the lesbian director, Catherine Crouch, has been involved in the writing and directing of noteworthy and award winning films like Stranger Inside and Stray Dogs, The Gendercator fails to live up to that standard. It's simply not a good film. The ironic part of this situation is that the controversy around the film has created far more interest and attention than the film deserves.

I have to admit that I was also disappointed that The Gendercator failed to do what some supporters hoped it would: address the real concerns that the lesbian community has about "losing" butch women to the world of men. While that concern might be a valid--if controversial--subject matter for a film, Crouch did not adequately or eloquently address it here. Instead her film and the protests it generated have done a disservice by likely precluding any real investigation into the perception of the endangered butch. Fearing a similar response filmmakers and festivals will likely steer clear of potentially controversial subject matter in the future.

The controversy also pitched lesbians against trans men and women, threatening to further deepen the growing chasm between our communities. That all of this occurred over a relatively inconsequential film is truly a shame.

I was offended by The Gendercator. But I think I was more offended as a feminist than a trans man. The film opens with what appears to be archival footage from the Sixties or Seventies in which a number of women-loving-women are loving women and getting high. One of these doobie puffing lesbians falls asleep and wakens Rip Van Winkle-like decades into the future, where she describes herself as "just doing my own thing" and "partying."

It seems that Crouch means the protagonist from the feminist era to contrast with a future where feminism has failed and the borders of gender are controlled by enforced sex reassignment surgeries. As a feminist I found it offensive that this character was more interested in getting stoned and playing softball than fighting the power or protesting the treatment of women.

Maybe Crouch means to situate the character as a sort of "natural" lesbian, one that pre-dates and is located outside of feminist criticisms of patriarchy that led some women to "choose" womyn-loving as political lesbians? I'm not sure.

Nor do I understand why she uses soccer as the metaphoric opposite of softball. Unless the U.S. is overrun by immigrant concerns (not reflected in the all white future of the Gendercator) I don't see soccer pushing football out of the glorified position as "real men"s favorite sport.

As you can see, there's much to criticize in this film, even when you don't examine how it portrays transsexuals.