Tag: trans

Trans Fears on Sex Crush the Trans Community

Posted on by JAC

Over the past month a conversation about transmale identity, validation, and fetishization has been circling the web. This month long thread originated from a blog “Possibly Problematic Attractions to Trans Men” which discusses an excerpt from an Original Plumbing Magazine (OP) blog post about non-trans folks who are assumed to be trans written by well known (not to mention awesome) trans publisher, writer, and artist Amos Mack. Mack presents an interesting perspective from non-trans folks who are read as trans because their appearance aligns to how people expect trans folk to look. This opens up many conversations, primarily what does it mean to look like a trans person and what does it mean to be attracted to one. Some statements by non-trans guys interviewed are problematic, but I think I have some bigger fish to fry, and these “fish” are hopping right out from our own trans community.

Personally, I took more exception to the expectations raised by transguys about transguys than anything said by the non-trans interviewees of Original Plumbing. This is primarily because the issues raised by the trans folks, with good intentions of asserting their identities and masculinities, resulted in a smorgasbord of phobic trans-disempowerment. All of this centers around a quote from OP interviewee named Rico on Original Plumbing blog.

“…I was dancing with all these beautiful ladies… …one of them started like gettin’ all over me and… We made out a little bit, then I went to get a drink at the bar. She came up behind me and grabbed my crotch. I looked at her and she turned PALE face white. She was like, “What are you doing here at DYKE NIGHT?” And I was like, “I didn’t know that was what night it was.” She got super offended even though I was the one who just got groped.”

A key issue from readers isn’t Rico’s experience but the demasculinization of the hypothetical transguy (thought to be Rico) via what the Dyke Night Woman said and did. The original blogger states that they “read this story as someone failing to see the maleness of a trans man or at least minimalizing it in the face of his female history and/or anatomy.” The author is appalled that anyone would be excited about a transguy being at a ‘Dyke Night’ because in order for that to happen the excited person would have to be equating a transguy with a queer woman… First, it is a serious issue in our community that folks who come out through the queer women’s community are then kicked out after coming out as trans – so I would think that a welcoming Dyke Night is the bees-fucking-knees, but apparently some people prefer gender lines being drawn across our communities, and as a result, our bodies. And speaking of bodies, what is “maleness” exactly? Does it depend on the body, the conceptual idea of sex, the identity, or all of the above? Is it dependent on the male person, or someone else? According to many concerned transmasculine folks, women labeling themselves as lesbian or queer are taking interest in transguys under the guise that transguys were not real men but women and therefore acceptable to sleep with under the lesbian code of conduct. And if you are a lesbian and you have the hots for me, a transguy, you are essentially annihilating my transmasculinity with a sapphic ray gun. ZAP! “NOO! MY MALE IDENTITY! DAMN YOU LESBIANS FOR THINKING I’M SEXY! WHY?!” –Really, friends? Are we still here? Sexual orientation labels are not necessarily aligned directly to behavior. Labels are dependent on personal connection to a community, and since no two people are the same neither are any two people holding that label. Additionally, my identity is not dependent on someone else’s, I do not seek a partner’s approval in how I describe myself, and I would never expect or want anyone to seek mine in order to date me.

A growing conversation in our community is whether including a person’s trans identity into one’s attraction automatically denotes fetishization. Yes, there are a lot of people who are attracted to TRANS in a fucked up way, but the majority of people who are attracted to trans folks are into something our community struggles with more than being fetishized – our own trans bodies. I am a trans person. I don’t know whether I look like a trans person, but based on what I get from others I cover the map. Without any prior knowledge of me, (while in everyday dress, so not in drag) people have read me as a non-trans woman, a transguy, a genderqueer, a transwoman, a non-trans man, and tons of random combinations of all of the above. I don’t consider any of those readings to be offensive, maybe annoying at times, but not offensive. Attraction is a tricky topic. At one point in my life I was confused about how anyone could ever be attracted to me because I was a guy who didn’t look like one and if someone was attracted to me I wanted to be sure they wanted a guy and saw me as a guy, but I didn’t look like a guy so what would they want about me? I was uncomfortable with anyone being attracted to my body because I didn’t know what it meant to them, or what that would make me. I eventually learned something that we all should be taught right from the start. There there is not one type of man or woman, is not one type of body, and there is no “real” sex. The author states that the Dyke Night Woman, because of her anger about a non-trans guy being at Dyke Night, “…was attracted to a man based on his trans status because she saw it as making him less of a man.” Or maybe she just likes men who don’t have that kind of flesh penis. Just because someone doesn’t want a partner with a specific type of body doesn’t mean they don’t like men or male people, or the bodies of male people. I’m not less of a guy because I do or don’t have a certain body and if that’s the first assumption I make about someone else that is actually saying more about me than it is about them. In other words, your trans baggage is showing. Making an overarching “us” statement like “Someone who is attracted to us should be attracted to us as men, otherwise they are not seeing us for who we truly are and are not affirming our identities” not only does not include my (and many other transguys’) voice, it also creates a rigid specification for what is required in order to partner with transguys and what transguys are to require of a partner – something the same blogger claims not to be promoting. I personally don’t mind if someone is attracted to me categorically as a transguy because that is what I am. If someone likes me as a guy, well awesome, but they have to also like the fact that under my clothes this guy’s body is different from what a lot people expect for a guy. A good way to trust that will happen is if that person likes trans bodies. (To clarify, someone being attracted to trans folks is not the same as sexualizing TRANS as a label aka fetishizing TRANS without valuing or being attracted to the rest of me (like my fabulous hair, ha! like that could ever happen).) If someone is attracted to me with the knowledge I am trans, I know they are seeing all of me, not just part. I don’t have to pretend and I don’t have to panic and it took me a long time to get here. That is why I take particular offense when someone, especially transfolks, start to say how liking trans for trans is some secondary status of sexuality that is not affirming of some precious hyper-binary gender.

Everyone is different, and just because something works for you does not mean it works for everyone. Attraction to trans bodies is entirely possible without fetishization and without identity sacrifice. Trans folks have our own bodies, our own styles of sex, our own conceptualizations in partnering, and our own sexual niches – in other words all that is needed for a sexual orientation interest. The assumption that someone would only be interested in a transguy if they thought of trans folks as “less than real” or as a fetish is transphobic – even if it is a fear coming from transfolk. We are crushing ourselves under our own fears of being misunderstood and/or rejected. I’ll be honest, I have my own baggage. And though I’ve come a long way, I don’t always trust people either. The cynicism on this blog extends to more than politics. But what I do know is that if we place expectations on others based on fear we will never be able to connect with anyone. There are mediums here, we don’t have to know or not know everything all at once and we don’t all have to be everything all at once. We all know what its like to struggle, and sometimes we get wrapped up in the fucked up expectations of others which only results in oppressing ourselves and each other.  No one person can be the voice of a community, and we can not place voices on others based only on our own hurt. That is why it is important to encourage more and more of us to speak, and not assume or attack what we are saying when we do.

 

No Boys Allowed: The Fucked Over Femme Part II

Posted on by JAC

One of the photo blogs I follow, FuckYeahFemmes, has been having a lot of discussion about inclusion recently. Some issues were raised about the blog being un-inclusive of transfolks; all sentiments I can identify with whole heartedly. However, I never felt that about this blog because though trans/non-female identity posts were not common, I asked the author a long time ago if I could post and she was very welcoming. But to anyone who has not asked, they probably wouldn’t think it was very representative of all femmes. The author reached out to me about being more inclusive of guy/trans/gq femmes and she immediately began to act on making a more inclusive blog. Unfortunately some of the blog readers have not been equally awesome and have been posting commentary about how it is “ridiculous and offensive that femme is being appropriated by masculine identified people…” and how “femme IS restricted to female identified, feminine presenting, lesbian/bisexual/transgender/queer women.” This is so hurtful. I continue to struggle with why we are oppressive of our own communities, and frankly why we queers can’t get our act together. Below is my response posted on the blog:

“I’d like to respond to the several “femme appropriation” posts that have been appearing. I have a female sex assigned body. I am a male transguy. I am genderqueer. I am read as a man but more often as a woman. I live as guy. I am a femme.

I am a feminine person and though masculinity is an aspect to my identity it is not prominent. I used to beat myself up over it, my whole life spent stuck between what I wasn’t and what I couldn’t be. It was lonely, frustrating, and painful. When I found FEMME I stopped feeling so “wrong” and I started feeling something I had never felt; included. Femme supports me so I am no longer ashamed of being feminine despite other expectations. It empowers me to not feel obligated to be something I’m not while also validating me in being who I am. When you tell me I am not allowed to be femme, you are telling me I am not allowed to be myself.

Boarder policing is one of the most detrimental things we do in our communities. How is stating that people “are not allowed” to identify with how they feel any different from the oppressions placed on us from outside queer communities? Yes, there are words other than femme, but femme is more than a word, it is an identity and it is a community. And if there is a community of people who identify similarly to me, live similar lives, have similar politics, why would I not be in that community? Is it because I am not identical to you? To that I say is anyone really identical to you? History is important. And in history we have been combating oppressive systems that try to define femininity based on what someone else wants. I find that we are now doing that again, but in a different forum. We must always remember where we came from, but we also must look ahead to where we are going. An identity label is not a physical space; it is a state of mind, and it is a community in communities. Me, a guy, standing under FEMME is not stealing someone’s spot under the umbrella. There is always more room and there is strength in numbers. When you tell me I am not allowed to be femme, you are telling me that you are going ahead but I must stay behind alone.

When we talk about appropriation, we are discussing communities of power and privilege adopting words, behavior, etc of communities who have less/none. By being male one may think I have more privilege and therefore I am appropriating but I am not seen as male in society, by government, by the average person on the street, in a gay bar, or even on the internet. I do not receive a plethora of privileges from the patriarchy. It oppresses me too; not the same ways as for a woman but in ways just as legitimate. Closed spaces and safe spaces are vitally important. Women have the right to be in women-only spaces and use language that speaks to their experience. But for femme, there is not one femme experience and your femme experience is not the only one. As queer people we have a lot of doors closed on us. I can not understand why we continue to close doors on each other. We must do all we can to combat privilege and exclusion in order to create a just and conscious community. Maybe femme means woman to you, but it does not mean woman to me. How can we judge who is right? The presence of maleness or masculinity does not negate femininity. The gender binary is not a friend to anyone, including femmes. I work hard for the femme community, just as hard as someone who is not male. When you tell me I am not allowed to be femme, you are telling me I am not good enough to have a safe community.

Yes, I admit that I do get frustrated when any group address at FemmeCon or on a femme blog is “Ladies!” My response is to remind folks that I am here in hopes of change. FuckYeahFemmes is not a transphobic blog. Originally, I didn’t know if I was allowed to post on it so I asked the author and her response was very welcoming. We can’t know everything all at once, what matters is learning responsibly and correcting our mistakes. FuckYeahFemmes did correct itself and I know that for a fact because I was personally contacted by Shawna (author) about how to make the blog more inclusive. I wish everyone in our community had FuckYeahFemmes’ drive and love for community inclusion. When we see others challenging our friends, it is hard not get upset but the answer is not to pick up our toys and go home. The answer is to listen, to talk, and to open our arms to one another saying “This is hard for me too, but we can make it together.” When you tell me I am not allowed to be femme, you are not standing up for the femme community; you are standing in the way of it.

In solidarity and love, Midwest GenderQueer”

Fortunately, not all the blog followers are un-inclusive. There have been posts by readers advocating for the diverse spectrum of Femme, including the author herself. I guess we can only keep working, keep fighting until we all are included. Until then, we’re going to continue to hurt each other and fuck each other over.

Threats to “Women’s Rights” Step on Trans Toes

Posted on by JAC

The recent legislative and funding threats to abortion rights, sexual assault, and sexual health (aka Planned Parenthood) have been described as an attack on women’s health. I do not agree with this… at least not in full. I have been getting a surge of petition and action emails from the sexual health organizations I work with, and I’ve been working hard to get the word out. The problem is that in order for me to spread the word I have to change the word being spread – one word in particular, the word woman.

I am a survivor of sexual assault. I need health care specific to a female assigned sex. I am also not a woman. I can’t help but find it frustrating when issues that affect me are, pretty much without exception, stated to be only for women. To be clear, I do not feel any discomfort being associated with women in any sense due to some masculine hang up or personal insecurity. Its just the simple reality that I am not a woman, and therefore I feel I should not be considered one in order to be included in legislation, or in this case, activist work. I wanted to re-blog an activist call from an inclusive femme blog about sexual health that, in theory, spoke to my experience. However I soon realized that the caption only discussed women.  I felt really invalidated and as I replaced each “women” with “people” I felt even less included and more alone. Its like showing up to a rally for your rights only to be met a the door and told, “This doesn’t involve you.” No, I am not a woman, but these are my rights too and I’m willing to fight for them.

I continue to struggle to understand the opacity of people’s though processes when it comes to sexual assault work. Women are not the only survivors out there. And if I, a guy, need sexual assault resources, where do I go? Everything is focused on women’s health, provided by Women’s Centers, and is advertised as a women’s space (my city’s rape crisis center is called “Women Helping Women”). What if I’m a guy who also has a female assigned body? What if a woman does not have a female assigned body? What about people who are outside the social, sexual, or gender identity binary? According to our culture, not only do resources for these survivors not exist, we, the survivors ourselves, don’t exist. You might be thinking, “Ok, but abortion is still a women’s issue.” Or is it? Some trans guys and genderqueers can and do get pregnant, which means that sometimes they may need abortion related care and emergency contraceptives.  Transguys and genderqueer folks also need to go to the gynecologist or may need birth control – things associated with “women’s health” but none of us are women.

Its not that I don’t understand and appreciate woman-focused language; women are a primary population here and historically activism surrounding these issues has been lead by and focused on women. But the reality is that while women are super important, transfolks, genderqueers, and (respective to sexual assault only) non-trans men are equally important. It affects our bodies just as much as the bodies of women. I am not saying that there are not challenges specific to women or that “women’s rights” should never be used. I just think it should be used when its appropriate, and it this is not one of those times. MoveOn.org wrote a nice break down of various proposed legislation oddly titled “Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women.” I say oddly titled because most of the list is about the greater community, not just women. I realize that this is a spin to get readers, but this spin is highly problematic. Yes, I see the correlation of the gendered concept of women and children, but doesn’t that further reinforce the cultural expectations this article is arguing against? At one point it lists sexual violence as a “gendered crime.”

What is a “gendered crime?” Is this saying that rape is an attack on cultural womanhood? Because womanhood cannot be defined outside of they very stereotypes and cultural expectations we are battling. And not only women are sexually assaulted so it can’t be solely a “crime” on the woman gender. Perhaps the language they are looking for is “sexualized” not “gendered,” in other words assuming gender identity based on sex stereotypes. But rape isn’t about sex drives it is about power via sexualized weaponry so… gah, my brain is exploding trying to make sense of this! I guess its just that people who wrote this think that rape = attacked woman, and that = problem.

Sexual health, sexual assault, children, elders, education; these are not only women’s issues. These are human issues. There is a big difference between the phrase “women’s rights” and “human rights” and that difference is inclusion. I don’t think that saying “human rights” negates women’s involvement or autonomy. Granted, I am not a woman, but I am a fellow oppressed minority and a fellow human being. Women’s rights are equally as important to me as my own therefore I do not feel the need to differentiate between their rights and mine. I am not naive about the anthropomorphic system we live in but by limiting ourselves with gendered language we are promoting yet another form of oppression, except this time instead of a boys club its a girls club. Gendering political issues about our bodies feeds cultural expectations creating major obstacles to accessing health care, obtaining research, and founding/protecting legislation. I’m glad that people are talking about these topics but if we are only talking about women then we are missing a big chunk of the conversation. By de-gendering our language we can easily be inclusive and fight for everyone’s rights. My body does not define my identity any more than one word changes the reality of what my body needs or has experienced. I am a man, I am a survivor. I am in need of female assigned sexual health care. I am a human being who deserves rights. And I am not the only one.

Trans Role Models Chosen by Non-Trans People?

Posted on by JAC

This is one of my rare less-professional rant posts that I could not not write, even though I’m supposed to be headed out the door for a gig in Columbus. So please excuse any typos or less than well rounded points. Today, I had only been awake for an hour and already 2 things had offended me.

1) a queer blog posted Lady Gaga’s new racist, queer-disempowering song as if it was something to cheer about. Come on, community! Get it together! If you ACTUALLY listen to it the lyrics, or have decent politics, you will hear how racist and pitying-queer it is. Do I need to go into how tired I am of people idolizing icons who don’t know queer from quack? No? Ok, I’ll move on.

2) a trans blog posted THIS article about trans role models.

First it opens up with some snarky comment about how the “role models” presented are not “going to be telling you to stay off of drugs in the near future.” WTF? How do you know these people use drugs (like it matters). Plus, it completely delegitimizes the people its supposed to be praising before the article even starts, essentially calling them wild, crazy drug users. Stigma and stereotype says what? Second, what’s with the “traditional” vs. “non-traditional” word play? The only thing “non-traditional” about the people listed is that they are trans. All are activists, artists, and writers, doing what all other activists, artists, and writers do, they are just trans while doing it – which is apparently SO non-traditional. Us trans folks have only been around since the beginning of humanity, but yeah we’re breaking those boundaries! But its an article about trans people so why is it using language that puts us in the ‘other’ box? Well, it is written by a non-trans person who, from what I can find has a stellar career in sex positive work but has NO background in trans activism or writing. Exoticize much?

You start to read and see the expected folks- Sylvia Rivera, Kate Bornstein, then WHAT? Thomas Beatie?? Ok, he stood up to adversity; gave birth and publicized it in an attempt to quash the idea that it isn’t ok for transguys, or men, to do so. (I still think he’s a little press hungry…) But he also lives a cushy life in the Pacific Northwest, is rolling in money from his books… I don’t see him making any statements about ENDA or founding educational movements, creating groundbreaking art, or marching on Washington. (CORRECTION: So I fucked up and in my rapid rant post I didn’t look into Beatie enough, and he has done lots of activist work. Apologies.) I donno, when I think trans-activist, Oprah appearances is not what comes to mind. Maybe someday, but not today.  I think comparing someone like Sylvia Rivera, who lived their whole life on the streets working in the shit of the system for trans rights and created a legacy for trans and queer youth, CAN NOT be fairly compared to someone who birthed his own kids in a media circus. (too harsh?) And I recognize this article is in the “GLBT Teens” (anyone else get irked when its GLBT and not LGBT? I think it should be TBLG) and because its for teens they may be trying to show variety of professions. It does not however, show a wide variety of trans folks. For the main transguy to be Thomas Beatie? I totally respect Murry Hill, I just have never heard or found any info that he identifies as a transguy per se so that is why I don’t include him here. AND that Beatie would be listed before Murry Hill, who has worked in this movement for decades, is another insult. Another transmasculine spectrum person is showcased,  a 17 year old vblogger who I am sure is totally awesome – their stuff looks awesome. I am in no way saying they should not be listed. Its good for young people to see other young people being awesome. But hopefully even they would admit that there are other transmasculine folks also worth highlighting to inspire youth like S. Bear Bergman or Dean Spade. And speaking of me naming two white people…

There is only ONE person of color on this list. One out of seven. There are countless, amazing POC trans activists – to name a couple favorites: Miss Major, Ignacio Rivera, and Pauline Park – who I want to marry someday. And this list has no genderqueer or gender non-conforming representation on it. Again, I don’t know exactly how Murry Hill identifies himself but in all my community connections I have never heard that he is GQ. But where are all the non-binary kids gonna look when they want a role model? I just had a conversation with a young person last night about how hard it was for them to grapple with their identity because they had no genderqueer role model. Maybe they stumbled upon this article.

I’m not saying this is what happened, but what it looks like is that the author just did a google search for trans folks and threw up what they got. I think if people want a list of trans role models maybe they should let trans people write it? Or at least someone who is an active member of the trans-ally community (cause I know tons of non-trans folks who would write a better article than me!) If I was a young trans/GQ I would not have been empowered by this article at all. No nice try about.com, but better luck next time. Maybe you should check out my blog roll for some trans blogger role models to aspire towards.

The Not-So-New Fad: Tokenizing Transgender for Your Entertainment

Posted on by JAC

Maybe its me, but recently there seems to be a larger surge of media trans-fuck-ups than usual. Myself, I am rather disconnected with pop culture. I do this on purpose because, as a general rule, I tend to hate everything mainstream because as a general rule everything mainstream is a big, hot problematic mess.

We are all painfully familiar with the old, common “joke” of a male actor dressing up to make an intended “ugly” woman for some strange comedic value focused on the jest of femininity presented and the shame of a man lowering himself to play a woman. But apparently for Saturday Night Live – a program that has in the past offered a mix of men playing women legitimately to create character as well as to create a farce – the “man in a dress” joke doesn’t go far enough. They needed to extend it to transwomen too.

This weekend’s SNL ‘Estro-Maxxx’ Sketch (obtained via GLAAD)

Am I the only one who thinks that a bunch of non-trans people dressing up like trans folk (even in jest) is a type of appropriation that should be equally as rebuked as other equally oppressive appropriations? Not only does this appalling video play on any number of oppressive stereotypes about transwomen, it also promotes cultural constructs on gendered feminine  behavior and female body expectations. What’s fascinating to me here is that the main punch line isn’t men in dresses but the presence of (intended to be} life-like breasts on a person who was originally assigned male. We have progressed past the shock value of a man in women’s clothing  and graduated to needing actual physical recreation of our apparently hilariously hormonally deformed bodies. The combination of the (arguably) most well recognized “female” secondary sex characteristic, breasts, with the constructed “male” facial hair and voice creates an extreme contrast of hyper-male and hyper-female – a fabulous freak act for the audience to gawk and wonder. And to add insult to injury, the airport scanner. I guess the writers did their homework and found an issue that really affected transfolk… OR what is more likely is that they wanted an easy way for a transwoman to be outed, and result in her being seuxalized and objectified. Are we supposed to be complimented when the security guard gets aroused by the transwoman’s revealing image? Are we supposed to appreciate the mocking normalcy placed on us here?

I hold little doubt that the writers thought that this “funny” sketch would also plays some role in trans liberation. Its trans on TV, that’s gotta be helpful, right? Seems like now days anyone who can mutter the word trans is automatically considered to be rallying for progress. Never mind what ignorant, backward crap they are spewing, they claim to be an ally so that means they have to be one, right?  Speaking of which, good o’l Lady Gaga is at it again. I continue to wonder how a woman with what seems to be good intentions and such cool outfits can fail so miserably at her claimed passion – supporting trans and queer folks…and everyone else in this case. Via her latest song: Born This Way, not only are “transgendered” people brave for coping with our shit lot of “disabilities,” so are all the other crap-life people like queers and people of color such as the “cholas” and “orients” (Cause apparently she picked up her racist slurs back in the 1800s). I can’t tell if she is implying that disabled people are a separate group that she is cheering for or if she is saying that essentially all non-white, non-straight, non-normal people are disabled because we are different. But its ok to be different, Lady Gaga says. According to her, suburban housewives AND god are on our side, which I have to admit is news to me. Its good to know that even though I’m struggling through my horrible life with all my weird identities and physical disabilities, Lady Gaga is going to get a Grammy for “standing up” for a community she knows nothing about. Good thing I have Lady Gaga to tell me that it isn’t my fault that I am an outcast with a shit life. Its God’s fault because I was born this way.

Dear Pop Culture: Leave TransFolk Alone!

Posted on by JAC

Ok, so am I the only one who really would prefer it if pop culture would leave transfolks the fuck alone? I’m not saying I don’t want our folks in media, quite the opposite, I want our faces, our stories, our experiences out there; I want visibility for our people. That said, there is a difference between visibility (which I define as socialized educational promotion of our community and cause) and simple exploitation or just plain annoying stereotyping.

Pop Culture often will poke fun at or provide cameos for community leaders or performers that it respects. And if this were what was happening for transfolks, to for example have Kate Bornstein on TV, that’d be awesome. But that isn’t what happens. I am so sick of non-trans media outlets feeling that they have the right to represent us when they don’t have a clue about what they are doing. This isn’t just a trans issue, is a problem for all groups outside the privileged minority, but I’m trans so I’m gonna talk about trans stuff. The reason why transfolks (and queers) are included in media is because we are considered weird and fascinating. We’re an interesting hook. Many people take it as a compliment when, to repeat previous sentiments, Pop Culture throws us a bone with a “its better than nothing” mentality. Me, I would rather be ignored than have to deal with mainstream adaptations of my people based on what outsiders think we are.

This week, The Simpsons, an old school favorite of mine (until it stopped being funny around season 20, but I still love the old episodes) has finally got on the culture-crash band wagon and making jokes about trans folk. I have to admit that unlike last years’ Family Guy disaster, the Simpsons trans cameo was far from monstrous, but it wasn’t anything to cheer about.

via The Bilerico Project

(Note: You think its a coincidence that that one women looks like Winne from the Kinsy Sicks?) I have to admit as an activist I thought the little rally was cute, but I am left feeling confused, wondering about the intent. To me, I see a cute little community rally portrayed, with queers and other ‘queer’ groups – but I’m a radical queer and see this as my community. To others – the creators included perhaps – I’m sure that they saw one ‘freak’ community(transfolks) and then wanted to continue to highlight how weird and strange queers are by adding other “weird” things like the Furries and the “1900s style gays”.  Were they trying to make fun of Furry communities too? Possibly the Simpsons’ intent was to humanize these communities, but it isn’t clear to me. Why include Furries (who aren’t expressly ‘gay’ by the way) but not Leather? And I can’t help but laugh at the episode’s androcentric gay community with 1 lesbian (Selma).  I definitely recognized our community in this in the stereotype promoted here: that all transfolk are trying to pass inside a cultural mirror of gender conformity. And maybe its because this is a real life problem for us that I was irked to see it used by non-trans people to crack a joke for a primarily non-trans audience. Yeah, we have a hard time, thanks for laughing at our troubles – and what’s worse, not even knowing or caring how it affects us.

I definitely do not think that non-trans or non queer people can not or should not be a part of the trans movement. What I do think is that when it comes to representation, best leave it to the community OR at the very least educate yourself before doing something stupid or offensive. But Pop Culture doesn’t do that. It just throws us in because we are interesting or funny or fascinating, and that’s fucking bullshit. Am I reading too much into this mostly harmless clip? Honestly, part of me thinks I am, but the rest of me is saying that every little bit helps, or hurts. And if we don’t play watchdog for ourselves, who else is going to do it? It is not impossible for the media to get it right, for example the trans character on Degrassi (Canadian show, go figure) is widely recognized to be a good adaptation. So clearly the issue here is lack of trying. Pop Culture doesn’t care about actually representing, they just want to exploit. Surprise, surprise.  The continual usage of the trans community as an community clown or freak act plays into our dehumanization, not the other way around.

xposted: En|Gender

Life-Saving Midwestern Queer Clinic Needs Help!

Posted on by JAC

Friends,

Howard Brown Health Center, the ONLY sliding scale queer health clinic, is in dire need of funds. This Chicago based health center provides accessible health and community services for over 36,000 queer and trans folks from all over the Midwest every year, including trans health care WITHOUT Gender Identity Disorder. I started going to Howard Brown three years ago, driving a ten hour round trip to get health care where I was treated like a human being. Now they are in danger of closing. Please make whatever donation you can to this life-saving organization. Every little bit helps!!

Click the heart to help!

Pictures of a Genderation – Gender Outlaw: The Next Generation

Posted on by JAC

I’ve never been a book person. Reading has never come easy to me, resulting in my rarely reading anything. Sure, I read signs and emails and 142 character tweets, but my brain refuses to give up my 7 year old mentality of if a book doesn’t have pictures, I’m not interested. And though I have never been a book person, I am an insatiable learner. My inability (or refusal) to read has caused a lot of problems with this, starting with bad grades as a kid and then escalating to a much more frustrating fate. It puts me at risk of being left out of my communities. Most of our breakthrough thinkers and epiphany-enduing personal stories are only found in, you guessed it, books. So what’s a dyslexic femme boy to do? Just gotta suck it up and read some shit, or better yet get a cute queer to read aloud to you Jane Austen style while you recline on a sofa with an undeserved sense of accomplishment.

I know, I know, I’m amazingly smart, but I wasn’t always this awesome. Before I was clever enough to enlist a cute reader I had to laboriously read books to myself. One of my early labors of love, and possibly the first ‘gender’ text that ever spoke to me, was Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw – not because of its theoretical or activist implications, but because of Kate’s poetic gender-fuck-you, “Its my life, I do what I want” mentality. The book may not have changed my life, but it made me feel like I wasn’t alone – something I surely already knew but had never been proven to me until then – and that changed my life.

Kate and S. Bear Bergman just edited a new book: Gender Outlaw: The Next Generation and once again I am being taught things I thought I already knew, or maybe just needed to be re-told. The book opens with a heart-warming conversation between Kate and Bear. It is like hiding behind the kitchen door while your parents talk about you, but instead of your parents in a traditional sense, its your trans-queer family and instead of talking about you specifically, its your community. And what is “community” but a broader reflection of ourselves, what we’ve done, and what we need to do? (And what else do parents talk about but what you did and what you need to do?) And though community in a sense is about us, community isn’t one thing or type of person because every community is made up of countless other communities. Its a group of intersectional identities bound together by a common identity or experience and this forms some intangible matrix that we exist in and our existence makes it visible. Now, I could make Kate and Bear very happy by expanding this borderline sci-fi reference into a full sci-fi metaphor but I am not cool (or un-cool) enough to know how (sorry darlings <3) so I’m going to talk about paintings instead. A Monet painting. Its made of millions of different sized, shaped, and shaded strokes create something recognizable. Someone may only see the greater image without seeing the individual strokes that form it, and some strokes may be more visible than others, but there are no true lines, no way to define where one shape starts and another ends or which has more impact on the finished work of art. It all depends on who’s looking and what they are looking for. That is why this anthology is so relevant to our community now. It is a collection of various strokes and swabs from the greater work of our community so that we may get a better idea of what we’re looking at when we stare into that mass of color on canvas.

Recently, I have been especially frustrated with the barely moving, politically stunted and socially constricted suffocation that is my Midwestern hometown’s “gay” community. This book reminded me that I’m not out of my wits, not just in reference to my genderfucked femme trans-radical queerness. It also focuses on socio-political state of our community through its presentation of multifaceted political consciousnesses of privilege, language, power, race, class, and accessibility. It discusses who we are in our differences and similarities, what we are doing now, and what we need to do to better the future. Sometimes the only push we need to keep going is to see that we are not the only one who is fighting, who is living a life like ours while also working to enable others to do so in their own right. I can’t tell you this book will change your life, but it may remind you that you’re not alone. And if you’re like me, and not a book person, they got us covered. The book has pictures.