In Defense of the Town Tranny

From my friend Susan:

There is an implied attitude that "real" transsexuals are stealth, or make every effort to be so.

Not all women are from a cookie cutter mold, neither are all men, but some how nobody is telling super butch women that they should be acting more like the cookie cutter variety of women, and the same is true for the varieties of men, i.e. drag queens, CDs, and effeminate straight men, etc. Yes, I know, straight assholes, who are threatened by gender diversity, do like to make a lot of noise. But when it comes to the transsexual community, why is diversity in transsexual expression ridiculed.

Not every transsexual person is capable of going stealth. So, does that mean that s/he should not bother. Perhaps it is better for them to stay in the closet so the rest of us don't get embarrassed by their existence.

My neighbors and friends are always telling me about the television show they watched about transsexuals. Often the same shows have caused us to get plastered because of the "tranny drinking game." I see nothing wrong with the fun and humor of the tranny drinking game, if it is understood that it is an "in house" joke, and that in reality we have compassion for those who are doing what they feel they need to do.

Anyway, my neighbors and friends tell me how much they learned from the different shows, and I have never heard anything negative from them about any of the shows. Of course, I don't know anybody that watches Jerry Springer or that ilk. I'm thinking more of shows put on by Oprah and Barbara Walters.

If it were not for these transsexual people willing to step forward, many of us would still be in the dark thinking that we were the only ones. These people that talk to the media, write the books, make the movies, and live daily lives being open about their transsexual history are the ones that are making it easier for the rest of us.

Now days, most people have heard of transsexuals, but only about 20 years ago, nobody had heard of them. There are many historical parallels that can be drawn when comparing transgender people with gays, blacks, and other minorities. Some of us remember how the straight looking gays shunned and put down drag queens, but it was the drag queens, by their being open and out, launched the gay pride movement.

When I hear about people like Dr. Deborah Bershel, Jenny Boylan, and others, that are willing to step forward, and not keep their transsexual history in the closet, I, for one, am really grateful.

Because of many circumstances that are often beyond a person's control, many people transition late in their lives. For some this makes going stealth virtually impossible. But, this does not mean they are "failures" at being trans women. They are simply a different variety of trans women. It is this attitude that "true" transsexuals want to be seen only as women, and that to choose otherwise makes them suspect of not being truly trans.

I am a transsexual female person. Whether I am a woman or not, that is something others may decide. I know that I am female to the core of my being. I make no pretense about trying to pass. Sometimes I get startled when I realize that I have been passing, but to be perfectly honest, I really don't care whether I pass or not, as long as I'm not seen as a man. Being seen so would be an anathema to me. That may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. If I am seen as a transsexual woman, I am not being seen as a man. I may not be being seen as a woman, but being seen as a woman was never my goal. My goal is to be me. My goal is to live my life as who I am. For us late transitioners, that may be the only goal that is attainable.

Many late transitioners are never going to achieve stealth, but we can still enjoy being who we are. I get to wear what I want; I get to express my femininity, and I never get treated as a man. I honestly think men just don't see me as the same "species," which is fine with me. So, why the "failure" label, or why make snide remarks that we go around showing our surgery photos. I don't feel like a failure in the least bit, and I have never shown any surgery photos. I have given several talks on transgender 101 for various classes and for several different diversity weeks, and plus I have spoke several times in church. None of these times did I feel a need to talk about any details of vaginoplasty--mine or anybody elses. I am not defined by my genitals any more than anybody else is. I am a unique person, and if my existence does not fit in somebodies worldview, then I know where they can stick their worldview.

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.

The Little Case Study that Autogynephilia Forgot

(a discussion specific to Dr. Ray Blanchard's model of autogynephilia, and not so much to people who identify as autogynephile because they feel it's a close representation to their identity. This is a draft response to the proposed DSM5 changes, in this case specifically to the diagnosis of Transvestic Fetish / Disorder, which I see as the most urgent part to address from the trans spectrum -- Mercedes)

Everyone has a sexual identity, some mental image of themselves, to take their place in their fantasies. That sexual self-identity might be more buff or more sultry, might be more muscled or more busty… they never seem to conform to our physical reality. It’s just a diversion, after all. There’s no shame in it. Unless you have a male body and are picturing yourself as female – then, you’re considered mentally ill. The sexual arousal of a male who pictures himself as a woman is increasingly being labeled “Autogynephilia,” and as of 2010, is proposed to be written into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as one of two subcategories of Transvestic Fetish (TF, to be renamed “Transvestic Disorder”).

There have been a large number of questions about whether non-damaging consensual sexual activity should be pathologized to begin with, and the revisions to the DSM proposed in 2010 attempt to make a distinction between “paraphilias” and “paraphilic disorders.” Thus the paraphilias sub-group (led this revision by Dr. Ray Blanchard) still gets the juicy job of defining what “normative” and “non-normative” sexual behaviours are, while still apparently limiting diagnosis-to-treatment paths to those times when the behaviours cause distress or impairment, or hurt others -- a paraphilic disorder. Distinctions can be important.

Starting in the mid 1950s, Dr. Evelyn Hooker started collecting data about homosexuals, having realized that there was a marked difference between those who’d reached self-acceptance and those who sought treatment – that homosexuality itself was not a mental health issue, only the distress wrought by societal stigma. In the late 1960s, this sentiment slowly grew among select therapists who’d realized that people coming to them to deal with their struggles with guilt were only a part of a larger, healthier picture. Although political pressure is often credited with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, this slow realization also helped fuel the decision.

This is a distinction that Dr. Blanchard, the father of Autogynephilia, would do well to remember, as he is developing a theory about crossdressers while studying both transvestites and transsexuals, and hopelessly conflating the two because of the imbalance between those who he sees seeking treatment, versus those who don’t.

Transsexuals are currently catalogued in the DSM as having Gender Identity Disorder (GID, which is proposed to be renamed Gender Incongruence), which oversimplified is a sense of being a gender opposite their birth sex. More and more, we’re coming to realize that there is something very real to transsexual identities, whether or not we believe or are familiar with the accumulating medical studies that demonstrate a likelihood of a biological origin or biological component of transsexuality. ¹ I tend to believe that transsexuality and many other transgender identities have a similar cause, but are mostly separated by the degree that cross-gender identification is experienced – transsexuals have totally oppositive cross-gender identification, while someone who crossdresses or fits in more as bigendered or genderqueer might have a less intense or dual-gendered identification. Someone who is further away on the scale and is a non-tactile transvestite may have a cross-gender identification that is submerged to the point that it only surfaces in sexual fantasy (although I don’t know enough about transvestites to know if this is the case for all or some). But while a difference in degree, it is a difference nonetheless.

Dr. Blanchard conflates transsexuals with crossdressers because he refuses to accept transsexual identities as valid, referring to post-operative transwomen as men without penises.² But because transsexuals comprise the majority of patients seeking treatment (because GID provides a framework through which they can obtain hormones and surgery, while it’s mostly only crossdressers struggling with shame who will ever seek treatment) and because of a refusal to accept transwomen as women, it becomes easier to equate the two. Indeed, at times Blanchard seeks to annex transsexuals (particularly those who are not solely androphilic / attracted to men), including this recent footnote in his rationale for the proposed changes to TF / TD: “As a practical matter, the autogynephilic type seems to have a higher risk of developing gender dysphoria. This was confirmed in a secondary data analysis reported by Blanchard (2009c).”³

Because of the existence of the two diagnoses (TF and GID) and some lack of clarity in the concept of Autogynephilia as to where the division lies, it becomes necessary to provide some kind of differentiation, and Blanchard misplaces this by dividing patients by sexual orientation (“homosexual transsexuals” versus “autogynephiles,” to simplify) – in other words, you’re either gay and want to change your body so you can be straight, or you want to change your body because you get turned on by the thought of being a woman. In reality, transsexuals are often neither ashamed of their sexual orientation (whatever it may be), nor motivated by arousal (otherwise, male-to-female hormone therapy would be very self-defeating!), so this misconception could easily be dispelled just from listening to transsexual experiences. In the transsexual community, a clear understanding has developed that transsexuality is about who we are, not who we love, and consequently a transsexual might be attracted to a man, a woman, or both. In the transsexual community (by my observation over the years, anyway), the intensity in which trans identities are experienced does not appear to vary in any significant discernible way purely according to sexual orientation.

Transvestic Disorder (where Autogynephilia is proposed as a subcategory) also has the unique distinction of being the only paraphilia (possibly the only psychiatric disorder?) that is exclusive to one gender. In the proposed revisions, TF / TD is still defined as recurrent sexual fantasies by a male of having a female body.⁴ Besides overlooking possible male sexual identities in the female-bodied and/or women who crossdress, studies being done related to autogynephilia fail to include control groups of cisgender (non-transgender) women, making it impossible to know if the difference between a cisgender woman who occasionally dresses up and feels a bit of self-excitement mingled with anticipation and a transvestite who gets turned on by crossdressing (and not all crossdressers do) stems mostly from the different amounts of testosterone produced by the body. Ultimately, the cisgender woman becomes the little case study that autogynephilia forgot, and with this absence, it is impossible to see “autogynephilic” female sexual identity in context.⁵

When it comes to defining Autogynephilia, it becomes all about sex fantasies. Several years ago, I had been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. I have transitioned and am accepted as female in my everyday life. Given the wrong therapist, I could have been diagnosed with TF / TD instead. After all, in my pre-transition sexual fantasies (upon which the diagnosis of TF / TD hinges), I’d always been female… just as in every other moment of self-identification in my life. After all, what else would I be? I could never make enough sense from forcing myself into a male identity (sexual or otherwise), so arousal was impossible without a female sexual identity. But the thought of being female was not of itself a cause of arousal. Distinctions are important. I would think it would be much the same for any cisgender woman. The framework of autogynephilia makes it possible or even likely that one can observe female self-identification in someone who is male-bodied, and assume causality when it's simply a reflection of a deeper problem.

The diagnosis of GID has traditionally taken into account a spectrum of people who experience gender variance, but the revision clarifies by indicating treatment only for those who feel distressed by their bodies enough to need to change them to reflect their identification as fully male or female.⁶ Distinctions are important. However, this puts Transvestic Fetish and Gender Incongruence in a position of competing to be applied to overlapping groups of people, creating a quandary for the therapist. This has the potential of being resolved entirely by the therapist’s own bias, hinging on whether he or she accepts transsexuals as being genuinely the gender to which they identify, or whether he or she considers this to be fantasy... or for those therapists in between, it will depend on what criteria they will settle upon to determine which identities are “real” and which are not. For any who doubt this, keep in mind that this has largely been the practice for years of the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH), where Blanchard is the Head of Clinical Sexology Services. At CAMH, it appears that only transsexuals who are at risk of harming themselves and “autogynephiles” who are at risk to themselves because of the distress and anxiety caused by societal stigma are approved for surgery – and then, only after several years of therapy. The mere admission of a female sexual identity that I’d made above (combined with bisexuality) would have resulted in a diagnosis of autogynephilia in a CAMH framework, regardless of the context I’d given it.

Having two potentially overlapping and competing diagnoses is duplicitous, especially when one (GID / GI) has a long history of study and proven track record for positive outcomes, while the second (TF / TD) integrates a theory that is highly controversial, depends on studies often described as unrepeatable by other researchers,⁷ and rings so untrue with the communities most at risk of the diagnosis as to generate enormous vitriol that has been leveled at the proponents of the theory. When it comes right down to it, most people in the trans community do realize that Blanchard and his network of supporters sincerely want to help people, but react to the harm we feel being caused by their misguided attempts to do so.

Distinctions are important.

And returning to Transvestic Fetish / Transvestic Disorder, if we take transsexuals completely out of the equation, then we return to the question of whether mere crossdressing (along with consensual BDSM and a number of other things classified as paraphilia, except for when they affect minors or cause harm) really need to be categorized in the DSM, or (like homosexuality prior to 1973) if researchers are only seeing a part of the equation based on a circumstantial bias in the types of patients they typically see.

With the exception of behaviours that involve minors or cause harm, it's time to look at the depression, anxiety and distress caused by societal stigma as being depression, anxiety and distress caused by societal stigma, rather than giving causal status to and targeting treatment for a sexual or gender identity.

Of course, I don't speak for the whole transgender community (as nebulous as that concept can be). Trans encompasses an enormous set of diverse identities, and there are in fact even a few who do identify as autogynephile (although with the high-profile exception of Dr. Anne Lawrence, even many self-identified autogynephiles take issue with how autogynephilia is defined and treated clinically⁸). I speak as an individual who has been through treatment for GID and would be considered one of its many success stories. I also speak as someone who has been involved in trans communities for years, learned a great deal about varying perspectives (including crossdressers, who are an extremely varied crowd) and while I know I can't speak for all of them or claim for certain that my answers represent a majority opinion, I can say that I've heard a great deal of concerns made regarding the proposed subcategory of Autogynephilia and the diagnosis of Transvestic Fetish.

-- Crossposted on DentedBlueMercedes --

References:

1. Including (and covering a range of theories / phenomena):

Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation D.Swaab & A.Garcia-Fulgaras Functional Neurology, Jan-Mar 2009

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15724806,

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html,

http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/swaab/2009/04/03/the-atypical-brain-development-of-transsexuals/,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177706?ordinalpos=26&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum,

http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/mens-health-forum/prenatal-exposure-diethylstilbestrol-des-134253671.html

2.Armstrong J. The Body within, the body without. Globe and Mail, 12 June 2004, p. F1.

3. from the dsm5.org revision website, with a footnote referring to Blanchard, R. (2009c). The DSM diagnostic criteria for Transvestic Fetishism. Archives of Sexual Behavior.Sept 16 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9541-3.”

4. http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=189#

5. Wyndzen MH. A personal and scientific look at a mental illness model of transgenderism. APA Division 44 Newsletter, Spring 2004, p. 3.

6. http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=193

7. i.e. Wyndzen MH. A personal and scientific look at a mental illness model of transgenderism. APA Division 44 Newsletter, Spring 2004, p. 3., http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogynephilia/

8. http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com/2010/01/blanchard-and-dsm-v-redefining.html

Petition to the International Olympic Committee

About a month ago the IOC (International Olympic Committee) came out with new 'policies' for addressing intersex women athletes. If you're not familiar with the new guidelines, this article is a good overview. There is a petition being circulated by the Organisation Intersex International requesting the IOC to abandon these guidelines. If you care to learn a bit more about the petition, here is the link.

The Dr. Oz Show and the Transgender Umbrella

For those of you who haven’t seen it, the Dr. Oz show recently did a story about transgender youth. (If you have not yet seen it, you can learn more here: http://glaadblog.org/2010/02/18/the-dr-oz-show-raises-the-bar-for-transgender-talk-show-coverage/). For the most part, I have heard many Trans people applauding the show and the parents/families featured. Although I fully support the parents, the show, and the language used therein, was, difficult for me to handle. For instance, in one “explanatory” segment, the narrator (presumably Dr. Oz), states that “EVERY transgender child” feels they are the wrong sex. The show largely conveyed that the term transgender means, “changing sex” (female to male or male to female). This seems to be a growing trend: when the Trans community gets the chance to be visible in a large medium (TV shows, movies, etc), the term transgender is characterized as synonymous with changing sexes.

Although I fully support the visibility for the Trans community, and the amazingly compassionate parents featured on the show, I am disheartened by the misuse of language and the continued misconceptions about the wide spectrum of identities under the “transgender umbrella.” Where is the visibility for GenderQueer, Third Gender, Poly-Gender, Bi-Gender, Androgyne, Crossdressers, and all the other diverse Trans identities?! Why do these dialogues fail to mention other Trans identities? Why are these identities ignored? I can’t help but find this situation analogous to the GLB (gay, lesbian, and bisexual) community’s choices to ignore the Trans community in the past. Because gender-variant identities are harder for the public at large to understand, the majority chooses to ignore these identities; we are swept under the rug, if you will.

I’m not angry, so please don’t think that. Honestly, I am simply hurt and heart-broken. I have dedicated my life to Trans rights: and yet, as a GenderQueer, I am continuously treated as invisible in these extremely important dialogues. Where is the representation, information or even acknowledgment of other Trans identities outside the FtM and MtF spectrum?

My goal in writing this is two-fold. First, I hope that people who are outside the Trans community learn a little something: consider the possibilities of gender diversity and realize that not all Trans people are transmen or transwomen. This, of course, is nothing against my brothers and sisters who identify as such, but please remember the other identities within the Trans-family. This leads us to my second goal: please, to those within the Trans community, don’t forget about other identities represented by the “T” in the GLBT. You may not understand our experiences in gender; but we are not looking for you to understand us, just acknowledge and accept us as a part of this community. Don’t leave members of the Trans family out in the rain, just because our experiences differ from your own. In the end, we are all one family: let us start acting like it.

From the Guardian: Julie Bindel's Dangerous Transphobia

This essay originally appeared on the Guardian's Comment is Free website on Monday, February 1st 2010. The comments thread was, shall we say, lively, and included both a reply from Ms. Bindel herself and my own reply to her reply.

I don't much care for Julie Bindel, unlike Beatrix Campbell, who defended her on this site yesterday. That does not mean I don't admire her. As a feminist whose radicalism would probably surprise her, I appreciate Ms Bindel's advocacy and the genuine good that has come for her work against violence directed at women. Yet in her long, lonely crusade against transsexuals she contradicts three of her own three feminist principles:

1) Gender is a social construct and malleable – unless you try to change yours.
2) Biology is not destiny – except men are always men and women are always women.
3) Bodily autonomy is something all women struggle for – but not something trans women are competent enough for.
4) Misogyny is evil – unless it is directed at a trans woman, even if, as is often the case, no one knows she is trans.

Indeed, what is astonishing about Bindel's writing on transsexuals, which has been published in the Guardian, is how often it resembles the diatribes of anti-gay bigots: the disregard of our own voices, the disbelief that transness is anything but a degeneracy, and the general air of condescension and paternalism.

Gays and lesbians have long known that such diatribes are not merely "offensive," but dangerous – as is transphobic writing like Bindel's, and for the same reason: they support social attitudes that have often proven deadly for trans people. According to the Transgender Day of Remembrance web site, 130 people were murdered in 2009 simply because they were transgendered – and those were only the deaths that were reported. Like gay and lesbian people, trans people face the very real threat of violence every day simply for being themselves. Very often, even in places where legal protection exists for gays and lesbians, no similar protection exists for trans people.

That Stonewall, an organisation named for riots that were led in part by a trans woman, Sylvia Rivera, should honour a writer with such disdain for the transgendered was a profound insult. Its action deserved protest, but protest is not censorship, as Campbell argued. Neither is the NUS applying its "no-platform" policy to Bindel nor other groups who no longer want her to appear at their functions. This is more a sign of an evolution of the modern feminist movement away from its historic transphobia towards an inclusive model; one that, as Laurie Penny puts it, "...holds that gender identity, rather than being written in our genes, is an emotional, personal and sexual state of being that can be expressed in myriad different ways that encompass and extend beyond the binary categories of 'man' and 'woman'".

Like any woman, a trans woman experiences having her anatomy scrutinised, commodified, and criticised; her appearance criticised for being either too masculine or too feminine; and is told repeatedly how her gender disqualifies her from many positions – all before she transitions. Afterwards, she is subject to both the misogyny that all women face plus the added prejudice faced by trans people, sometimes from the very organisations who exist to help women in need. We are neither dupes nor Jake Sully-like avatars of the patriarchy: we are just ordinary women and men facing the same problems of other women and men.

It is my guess that neither Campbell nor Bindel would have a problem with the NUS refusing someone a platform who had frequently published homophobic writings, even if they had done other good works. Both, I suspect, would happily write about and protest against such a person. Their surprise that the same thing should happen to a person with a long record of public transphobia must thus seem a bit disingenuous – unless you don't think trans people are worthy of human dignity. Which is neither good activism, feminism – or politics.

I'll be doing some follow-ups to this piece and some of the issues Ms. Bindel and other commentators brought up over at The Second Awakening.

Stealth / Closeted

Autumn Sandeen recently wrote an article about Mike Penner / Christine Daniels called "The Closet Kills" for PHB. A woman who transitioned quite a long time ago responded to it, and her take on Sandeen's ideas about stealth seemed like exactly the kind of opinion we don't often hear in the larger / activist trans communities. So here it is:
Sandeen writes:

So first of all, there is a difference in trans community in living closeted and living stealth.

Then a couple of paragraphs further down, confuses stealth and closeted:

However, I didn't chose (sic) stealth; I instead chose (sic) to live out of the closet.

This is such a common misconception. It drives me nuts. This stealth = closeted thing.

Here's how I see it. In order to be happy and harmonious and generally get on well in life, you've gotta present to the world at large as how you identify. When I was assigned male and self identified as female, I was fucking miserable.

So then I transitioned, and started presenting as transsexual. I was still fucking miserable, because people still didn't see me as the gender that I saw myself, which is female. For the most part, they still gendered me as male, doing some sort of "act". Often they were really complimentary about my act. "Oh, I would never have known!" (that you were really a bloke). Not terribly helpful.

So then I stopped telling people about my trans past, and allowed them to gender me correctly. Guess what? My identity and presentation are aligned. I'm a happy camper. No act.

So this Autumn Sandeen clearly identifies as trans. She gets to to the point where her self identification and presentation match, and she's happy as an out (in all capitals, apparently) trans woman. Good for her. Only there's a hitch. It appears she identifies all trans women as being just like her, and is somehow disappointed/distressed/off her weetbix because some of us are "living in a closet".

Apparently my life can't ever be fulfilling, because I'm not disclosing.

Now here's how I see stealth and closet.

Closeted is where you hide some aspect of yourself. Something you do. Whether that's fucking with other men or dressing up as a woman on weekends.

Stealth is where you fail to disclose an irrelevant past that would cause people to gender you incorrectly. There's no ambiguity, because you present how you identify.

Totally, totally different things. If you're living stealthily because you identify as female, despite being assigned male as a kid, then you're certainly not living in a closet. You're showing people what you actually are, not what somebody arbitrarily assigned you once.

I have no idea what set Penner/Daniels off. It could be that he was a CDer who got caught up in the pink mist and ended up transitioning and regretting it. It could be that she ID'd as female, but made the mistake of a very public transition, so found that she was never able to reach escape velocity and actually be seen as female. Either way it was a fucking tragedy. Either way he/she was in torment. Obviously.

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

GenderQueer in the Midwest

Documentary about being a trans activist in the Midwest by Hunter Stuart at Stuart Productions

Transphobia In Mainstream Media: Are The Right-Wingers The Real Problem?

It seems like all too often when you tune your radio or television to mainstream news and talk shows these days, there's good reason to be at minimum pretty annoyed, and sometimes even genuinely pissed off and angry if you're a transgender person or ally. Despite decades of progress made in the area of LGBT acceptance and representation in mainstream media, the problem of transphobia in mainstream media remains pervasive and seemingly virtually unchecked in some quarters, even in media specifically directed toward politically progressive and left-leaning audiences.

While there are probably few on either the left or the right who'd find it unusual for pundits and their guests on Fox News or similar media to enthusiastically bash transgender and gender-variant people, it amazes me how this kind of thing is all but completely ignored by just about everyone when it happens on a show popularly considered to be liberal and/or left-wing.

Let's take "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" as an example. On a broadcast last year that took place shortly after the incident, Keith's guest, author and Village Voice columnist Michael Musto, was humorously bashing Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean for her negative response to pageant judge Perez Hilton when asked if she supported same-sex marriage. Toward the end of the segment, Musto jokingly offered that in addition to her breast enhancements, the Miss USA pageant officials also paid for Prejean to "cut off her penis, sand her Adam's apple, and get a head-to-toe waxing.", along with other transphobic insults which followed. Olbermann's reaction, as far as I could tell, was to simply chuckle right along along with Musto's transphobic jokes.

No one I'm aware of in our community media or our advocacy organizations, mainstream or otherwise, took any notice of Musto's transphobic spewings on "Countdown" that night. As a loyal "Countdown" viewer myself, I suspect that many did what I did when I saw the original broadcast live, which was to think to myself "Michael Musto is sooo last century. Why can't Olbermann have someone good on, at least someone who doesn't look and sound like he just time-warped in from 1985?". Unfortunately, that's all I did. I didn't write about it, I didn't call it out, I didn't use my platform at the Bilerico Project to make people aware of it. I just acknowledged my disapproval of Musto's blatant transphobia internally and moved on. I was wrong. I should have done more.

Then there was the hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. When Rachel Maddow reported on its passage on her show, she mentioned that the bill covered gender identity, but she never mentioned that this meant that transgender and gender-variant citizens were protected as well. In fact, a viewer who was hearing about these issues for the first time on that show would have learned that this new law would cover gays and lesbians in the event of a hate crime, but nothing about anyone one else. In fact, the only thing in the entire segment to even allude to the inclusion of transgender and gender-variant Americans in the protections of this new law was a quote from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese who used the word "inclusive" to describe it.

This, of course, is a very different issue than the one with "Countdown". On that show, Musto's transphobia was blatant, intentional, and not only unchecked but even validated and encouraged by Olbermann's laughing along. In the case of "The Rachel Maddow Show", however, we're really talking about a sin of omission. Still bad, and still worthy of challenge, but also unquestionably not as transphobic or as potentially damaging to the public image of transgender and gender-variant people as Musto's bigoted and unchallenged diatribe on "Countdown". What we saw on "Countdown" was transphobia, pure and simple, as well as open disregard and disdain for transgender and gender-variant people and the way we live our lives, presented to "Countdown"'s audience as acceptable humor by Michael Musto and promoted and validated as such by Keith Olbermann. It's frankly amazing to me that a man who delivered one of the best commentaries I've ever heard in favor of same-sex marriage could be so utterly insensitive when it comes to topics and issues affecting transgender and gender-variant people.

What happened months later, in the aftermath of these incidents, is instructive as well.

When Olbermann hosted Michael Musto on "Countdown" again, he brandished a hotel-style desk bell and warned Musto he'd ring it if he went over the line. While this may or may not have been inspired by Musto's transphobic jokes during his previous appearance, Olbermann's turning the situation into an on-air joke for his viewers certainly sent a pretty clear message about what he thinks of the problems some of us have with Musto and his on-air behavior. Interestingly, the bell remained silent as Musto joked this time that one of Carrie Prejean's goals was to "prevent Chastity Bono from transitioning".

"The Rachel Maddow Show" was a different story entirely. Rachel covered President Obama's appointment of transwoman Amanda Simpson to a position at the Department of Commerce recently, and it was everything we could have hoped for. Rachel's commentary was brilliant, striking right to the heart of the issue and skewering those who actually deserve it, those on the right who are up in arms over Ms. Simpson's appointment because she's a transwoman, despite the fact that she's supremely qualified for the position she was appointed to.

To me this dichotomy is nothing short of stunning. I'm a loyal viewer of both shows, but how they've dealt with trans-relevant topics and issues on their shows are so diametrically opposed to each other that if someone wrote a book on the topic they could define those differences as "The Right Way" and "The Wrong Way".

Does it matter that Rachel Maddow is a gender-variant lesbian in her thirties and Keith Olbermann is a middle-aged straight guy? My bet is that it does, at least a little.

When Rachel's show essentially erased transgender people from a segment about the hate crimes law, I (and I'd bet many others) wrote to her and let her know that we weren't happy. We sent her stories to cover (I personally sent her the piece about Amanda Simpson from ABC's website that she used in the segment, as I'm sure many did), and we told her why it mattered to us. When the opportunity presented itself, Rachel rose to the occasion and gave us a terrific segment, not only on Amanda Simpson but also on the new anti-discrimination regulations protecting gender identity and expression in federal employment recently put into place by the Obama Administration.

My guess is that many like myself were moved to write to Rachel, far more than probably wrote to Keith Olbermann about Musto, in the expectation that she'd understand because she's family. I believe it very likely that many LGBT viewers who enjoy "The Rachel Maddow Show" on its own merits also feel a connection to Rachel and want to cheer her on and support her because she's one of us. I know that for me at least, Rachel being who she is certainly made it seem worth the effort to write her in the hopes of better transgender coverage. Olbermann on the other hand, didn't inspire me with the same kind of confidence, not because he's straight or traditionally-gendered but because of his laughing along with Musto. In short, while what I know about Rachel Maddow inspired me to contact her and express my views, what I saw from Olbermann during the Musto segment said to me that it wasn't worth the bother. I probably should have written him anyway, but it was just hard to see a point to it. I strongly suspect I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

As far as I can detect from simply watching "Countdown", Olbermann still doesn't seem to realize that there's a real problem here. Musto's appearances on "Countdown" have the feel of two middle-aged white guys wisecracking and denigrating whatever doesn't fit into their own limited worldviews. I find this especially striking and hard to accept because as regular viewers know, Keith Olbermann is a true progressive liberal, the kind of person who puts both his money and his media influence where his mouth is to help accomplish good works such as the health care fairs funded by donations from "Countdown" viewers and promoted on his show. He presents compelling progressively and liberally-oriented commentaries on a variety of important issues, including our own.

Yet, it seems that for Keith Olbermann while gays and lesbians such as Michael Musto and Rachel Maddow can and should be protected from discrimination and are a cause worthy of speaking out on behalf of, transgender and gender-variant people are still appropriate objects of humor and derision on his show, and it's also still acceptable to publicly denigrate an object of liberal and progressive distaste and disgust such as Carrie Prejean by defining her as a transsexual. .

To my way of thinking, this is where the real problem lies. Everyone expects the right-wingers to bash progressive and liberal causes. No one's shocked when Matt Labash calls Rachel Maddow a man on Tucker Carlson's new website, but when Michael Musto bashes transgender people on "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann snickering along it's a very different story. Those paying attention to Carlson, Beck, Limbaugh, and other right-wing pundits probably aren't going to be in our corner politically anyway, but when someone like Keith Olbermann presents and validates transphobia on his show it can have a much greater and far more damaging impact because it's the people watching his show who are the ones we're going to have to depend on to support us and our equal rights politically when the time comes.

Personally, I believe we have the right to expect, and in fact to demand, that those who define themselves as liberal and progressive pundits in mainstream media actually practice what they preach, at least during the time they're actually on the air. If it's wrong and, as Olbermann put it in his Special Comment on the topic, "horrible" to pass a law taking away the right of gay and lesbian citizens to marry in California, it's just as wrong and just as horrible to present disgusting, offensive jokes about transpeople by defining an anti-gay beauty queen detested and vilified by those on the left as a transsexual. It reeks of a sad time in our nation's history when when political figures and others of note were often defamed by their opposition in the media of the time by accusing them of having Negro ancestry. Such attacks not only define the target as unworthy of equal rights and fair treatment, but also reinforce the idea that the minority group the target is accused of belonging to isn't worthy of such considerations either.

Understand that I'm not saying that I believe that Keith Olbermann is transphobic or personally responsible for Michael Musto's transphobic outburst on his show. As an online pundit and Internet radio host myself, I know there have been many times when a guest has said something on one of my shows that's just made me cringe. The difference here is that not only did Olbermann let Musto continue spewing his transphobia unchallenged, but he also chuckled right along as he did so. As liberals, as progressives, as those on the loyal left who make up a significant part of his audience, I think we have the right to expect better than this, both from a pundit with the progressive and liberal credibility of someone like Keith Olbermann, and from a cable network with the liberal constituency MSNBC boasts.

Also, I want to make it clear that this isn't about bashing Keith Olbermann, "Countdown", or MSNBC. Just as in the case of Greg Grunberg, I believe that Olbermann simply didn't realize that Musto's comments would be seen as truly offensive by some of his viewers until after the fact, and honestly, there's still no real evidence that might lead us to conclude that he understands this even now. My issue with Keith Olbermann centers mainly around the fact that someone as demonstrably tuned in, knowledgeable, and staunchly liberal and progressive as he is would not only laugh along with Musto's comments in first place, but then would later mock the concerns of those of his viewers who have been offended by Musto by turning them into minor comedy skit on his show, complete with prop and sound effect.

What this is about is asking the kind of questions that need to be asked every time we see something like this in the mainstream media, and particularly when it concerns pundits speaking to the political left: Why doesn't Keith Olbermann know better? Why doesn't he see the positive, progressive, and inclusive political values he represents on his show as applying to transgender people as well? Most importantly, why should we, as loyal "Countdown" viewers and part of the show's audience, be willing to silently accept it when it happens just because Olbermann speaks to the political left instead of the right?

The answer, of course, is that we shouldn't stand for it. It's time we started calling out stuff like this publicly, every time we see it, on the blogs, on Twitter, all over online media, no matter what network it happens on or who the host happens to be. It's time we put the mainstream networks on notice that when they allow unchallenged bigotry like this on their shows, we're going to make sure politically-conscious LGBT's and our allies know about it just as quickly as when a politician says something stupid in front of a video camera and it ends up on one of their shows.

The truth is I don't like having to write this. I'm a fan, a loyal "Countdown" viewer, and I watch the show just about every weeknight. Yet, at the same time, I also have to ask if we can't even get shows on the political left in mainstream media like "Countdown" and hosts as left-wing as Olbermann to treat us and our issues decently, how is it reasonable for us to expect Congress to do it?

We can no longer sit and wait quietly, hoping this will finally be the year that the networks figure this stuff out on their own. With Twitter, the blogs, and so many other ways to communicate and interact with each other online, and with the participation and promotion of GLAAD and other like-minded organizations and activists involved in these efforts, we'll finally have what we need to make our voices heard at a level of reach and impact that's never been possible before now.

It's time to start leveraging the power of our community and what we can accomplish when we join together to make it happen. It's time to stop simply asking for positive change in our mainstream media and start demanding it. It's time to use the tools at our disposal to force the issue and make it one the networks can no longer avoid or ignore. We need to start calling out those on the left when they fail us just as eagerly and as enthusiastically as we do those on the right. Nobody on the right or the left is going to care much if Glen Beck is popularly seen as transphobic, nor probably even Michael Musto, but I doubt the same can be said for Keith Olbermann.

Nobody (I know of) really wants to attack media pundits who they enjoy watching or listening to and agree with the vast majority of the time, but just as we can't hesitate to call out Democrats who fail their constituencies, the same must be equally true here. Just as we may speak out about problems we have on some issues with politicians who nonetheless still get our votes at election time, so must we also be willing to call out our favorite shows and pundits when they fail to measure up. We may not like having to do it, but it's only by calling these things out publicly and doing it consistently, regardless of the source, that we can be even reasonably assured that any success we may have in the short-term will have a chance of evolving into a long-term policy of respect for and fair representation of transgender and gender-variant people in mainstream media.

While we've obviously gotten through loud and clear to some, others have not yet demonstrated that they too understand that you can't really call yourself liberal or progressive when you're facilitating and promoting what essentially amounts to transphobic hatespeech on your show, even if you personally find it funny. There's a lot more work to do here, and it's up to us to do it.

Turn on the TV and fire up the Twitter. Our basic civil rights are on the table this year, and it's time to get serious about this.

Not Just Amanda Simpson

From the "there goes the MTF end of things sucking all the air out of the room again" division: in fact there were two trans people appointed by the Obama administration in late November.

The difficulty arose because Simpson is a former NCTE Board member, & so they sent out a press release noting their former board member's new job, which is what caused all the hullabaloo.

Just Say Sorry, David Letterman

Ox Freeman of the Alabama Gender Alliance just posted the info from GLAAD about the stupid joke that was made on David Letterman about Amanda Simpson, and with it he commented that, "Trans people will not be safe from hate violence until it is safe to be attracted to us, to love us, and to regard us as human."

He's entirely right, of course, and it's nice to have someone else articulate exactly why I do what I do.

Betty and I are both for trans people having more of a sense of humor, but we both agree: this joke is not even a little funny, exactly because this reaction to finding out a woman is trans is the same reaction that causes the heart-breaking violence trans people -- and especially trans women -- face.

As Allyson Robinson of HRC put it in an article by ABC News:

"Your skit affirmed and encouraged a prejudice against transgender Americans that keeps many from finding jobs, housing, and enjoying freedoms you and your writers take for granted every day," HRC's Allyson Robinson wrote in the letter.


Robinson said the punch line of the bit has "been used as a defense in nearly every hate crime perpetrated against transgender people that has come to trial." She cited two cases in which individuals suspected of murdering transgender people claimed they did so in a rage after learning about their victims' gender identity.

So now go to GLAAD.org and bug CBS, or do the same thing via change.org.