Assistant Software Developer
|
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.
Is this the same character in trade 5 that was told that she couldn't go into the realm because she wasn't a real girl. The one that made me stop buying the series and sad that I started reading it? Or is there another transcharacter in Sandman?
Digital Products Assistant
|
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.
Shvaugn Erin from Legion of Superheroes has been around since 1978, and they were dropping hints about her being trans as early as '89. That being said, both Wanda and Shvaugn are AWFUL, insulting depictions.
I think DCs first (mostly) positive trans character was Coagula from Doom Patrol; 1993.
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.Shvaugn Erin from Legion of Superheroes has been around since 1978, and they were dropping hints about her being trans as early as '89. That being said, both Wanda and Shvaugn are AWFUL, insulting depictions.
I think DCs first (mostly) positive trans character was Coagula from Doom Patrol; 1993.
Sorry! Wrong member of the science police!
All I knew is that one of them was trans, no idea as to the accuracy of the depiction, as I was 11.
Also Doom Patrol WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Also... I apparently was born the year Erin was introduced. Wow.
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.Is this the same character in trade 5 that was told that she couldn't go into the realm because she wasn't a real girl. The one that made me stop buying the series and sad that I started reading it? Or is there another transcharacter in Sandman?
Wanda couldn't participate in the ritual used by Thessaly because it was form of magic related to physical female sexuality. Or maybe just Thessaly was believing this and didn't want to risk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think DCs first (mostly) positive trans character was Coagula from Doom Patrol; 1993.
I still think Rachel Pollack doesn't get enough credit for her run on Doom Patrol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She could, however, compete in the Olympics (as briefly mentioned in the article)...
So CrossFit has stricter rules than the Olympics.
One could also argue that the Olympics rules favour transwomen over transmen, given the stipulation for SRS (I'll readily admit to not having checked whether they have changed any of these rules since the CNN article above - it was just linked from the HuffPost article I read about the case).
EDIT:
Aaaaaand I made the mistake of reading the comments on the Yahoo article. :-/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Transgender woman sues CrossFit over competition
I'm torn over how to feel about this. On the one hand, if medical documentation is provided to show that sufficient feminization has occurred to eliminate the athletic advantage of initial high testosterone levels, transwomen should be able to complete. That could be a lot of documentation, though, and it would need to go beyond just the legal gender change recognition criteria to focus on things like baseline hormone levels and the effect of years of high T that give a female athlete the same advantage as if she was using steroids.
This said, female athletes with more complex genetic conditions that would raise testosterone level would probably not be subject to the same stipulations in most sports. And you could holler 'unfair genetic advantage' about pretty much anything, including stuff like high or low calf muscle insertion points. It's a genetic lottery, and some people win it and have the potential to become elite athletes. Some people don't, and will probably never achieve those rarefied heights without those advantages even if they work harder than the athletes who do have the natural advantages.
Or maybe people could stop throwing tons of cash at sport events and stop making them public circuses and instead everyone interested could just do sport for fun instead of profit.
Transgender woman sues CrossFit over competition
I'm torn over how to feel about this. On the one hand, if medical documentation is provided to show that sufficient feminization has occurred to eliminate the athletic advantage of initial high testosterone levels, transwomen should be able to complete. That could be a lot of documentation, though, and it would need to go beyond just the legal gender change recognition criteria to focus on things like baseline hormone levels and the effect of years of high T that give a female athlete the same advantage as if she was using steroids.
This said, female athletes with more complex genetic conditions that would raise testosterone level would probably not be subject to the same stipulations in most sports. And you could holler 'unfair genetic advantage' about pretty much anything, including stuff like high or low calf muscle insertion points. It's a genetic lottery, and some people win it and have the potential to become elite athletes. Some people don't, and will probably never achieve those rarefied heights without those advantages even if they work harder than the athletes who do have the natural advantages.
I do think conceptualizing being a trans woman as analogous to having used performance enhancing drug is certainly different, and maybe even transgressive. Though, I am not sure simply being raised a man (or having "typically male" anatomy) is equivalent to being a "typical" or "ideal" woman on steroids. I don't think the presence growth enhancing drugs is the definitive boundary between what makes a man not a woman.
But even all this "raising" of trans women to the status of athletic paragons, I am not sure it escapes some of the typical pitfalls we encounter when shoring up the categories of "women" and "men" as a means to segregate athletic competitions. If being a trans woman, or any woman, with testosterone levels designated much higher than is considered appropriate for the "ideal woman," is sufficient to call into question that woman's inclusion into athletic competitions, then in what sense have we escaped misogynistic binaries that situate women as inherently less than men?
It is worth noting that we (or at least, I) almost never hear about instances where trans men or male athletes with more complex genetic conditions that would lower testosterone levels have attempted to participate in male athletic competitions to be bared because of insufficient "athletic advantage." I think J. Halberstam talks about this subject in Female Masculinity, but I don't have that book with me.
"Dueling Dualisms," the first chapter of Sexing the Body,Anne Fausto-Sterling relays the story of Marie Patiño, a woman who had "failed her sex test," and was bared from competing in the 1988 summer Olympics. Though I think the change in policy that GentleGiant links to is a step in the right direction, it is worth noting that the Olympics still bars participation of a large number of trans (and not trans) people who don't conform to their narrow (and "tidy") bodily prescriptions. It seems to me very strange that we ought to put so much emphasis on a handful of biomedical markers and proxies for gender when there is obvious (and arguably more genuine) recourse through expressed identity. It seems like any truly fair assessment of gender must ultimately be based on the specific gender a person lays claim to, regardless of whatever "contradictory" evidence medical practitioners or lab technicians try to present.
Also, checking a box as "male" or "female" doesn't really convey anything about the physical aptitude spectrum both genders entail.
I'm 6'6" and could probably go into any given gym and do a 880 lbs leg press without any kind of training regimen. I have friends who would struggle with a 250 lbs leg press even after weeks of training.
We would, however, all check the "male" box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, checking a box as "male" or "female" doesn't really convey anything about the physical aptitude spectrum both genders entail.
I'm 6'6" and could probably go into any given gym and do a 880 lbs leg press without any kind of training regimen. I have friends who would struggle with a 250 lbs leg press even after weeks of training.
We would, however, all check the "male" box.
... Damn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is worth a read, on the subject of trans casting.
That... Would work wonderfully. I will use this in the future.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.Shvaugn Erin from Legion of Superheroes has been around since 1978, and they were dropping hints about her being trans as early as '89. That being said, both Wanda and Shvaugn are AWFUL, insulting depictions.
I think DCs first (mostly) positive trans character was Coagula from Doom Patrol; 1993.
Is this the same character in trade 5 that was told that she couldn't go into the realm because she wasn't a real girl. The one that made me stop buying the series and sad that I started reading it? Or is there another transcharacter in Sandman?
Let me preface this by saying that I know Wanda is a controversial character for trans readers, and that I understand the anger she generated.
For me, I didn't find Wanda to be either awful or insulting. She was written from a cis-centric perspective, granted, but I found that perspective to be, for its time, one sympathetic to trans people.
The bit about Wanda being told the moon wouldn't accept her was one of the many examples of the gods being a) jerks and b) wrong about things, both of which had been clearly established as part of the Sandman worldview at that time.
By the time that moment occurred, the gods had already been depicted as fallible, and it was clear that there were aspects of reality they didn't understand or have power over, and that they did not get the last word about how things are. This is partly what "Season of Mists," the long storyline immediately before "Game of You," was about. And it's one of the concepts underlying the series as a whole, the idea of human self-determination. This same idea crops up in Hob's storyline, in the Emperor Norton story, and in the story of the exiled Chinese courtier near the end of the series.
In other words, I think it's a misreading of Gaiman to think that the views expressed by the gods in Sandman are necessarily his own views. Oftentimes, as in this case, they're not.
And who tells her she can't take the Moon's road? Thessaly, who doesn't always know what she's talking about, and then proceeds to get everyone into a big mess that she can't get out of.
I think the story's view of Wanda is clearly depicted near the end of "A Game of You," when you see Death, who is far above the various gods in the series, and probably the wisest character in the book (as had been well established by that point). When you see her, she's standing beside Wanda in a vision that Barbie has. Barbie hasn't met Death, that she knows of, so if she sees Death in a dream, we're meant to understand that actually is Death we're seeing, and standing beside her is Wanda's true self, her actual soul. (And I get that this then falls under the trope of the tragic trans woman, who only gets to be her true self in death. But like I said, the story's written from a cis-centric perspective, at a different time. And it's worth noting Gaiman's said he'd write the story differently if he wrote it today.)
There's also the line from Maisie (the old homeless woman) when she tells Wanda, "Just because people are different, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them," or words to that effect.
And most importantly, there's Wanda's discussion with George, after Thessaly and the others enter Barbie's dream. George reiterates what Thessaly said. We then get a close-up panel of Wanda saying "I know what I am." There's no rejoinder to that line. I take that to be Gaiman's last statement on the matter.
To me, despite what happens to her, I think there's something kind of hopeful in the story, the way we see forces arrayed against Wanda that go beyond just the social ones we as trans people face, forces that are supernatural and that attempt to lay claim to controlling reality itself. And she does not back down from that. She holds onto herself in the face of that. "I know what I am."
At the time I read the story (back when it was coming out in single issues, in the early 90s), that was really helpful to me. And I still think about that line and that close-up panel during difficult times.
I respect the negative reactions others have had to the story, including the ones expressed here. I think I understand those reactions. But those reactions are not the one I've had to it.
... Damn.Also, checking a box as "male" or "female" doesn't really convey anything about the physical aptitude spectrum both genders entail.
I'm 6'6" and could probably go into any given gym and do a 880 lbs leg press without any kind of training regimen. I have friends who would struggle with a 250 lbs leg press even after weeks of training.
We would, however, all check the "male" box.
Viking genes. ;-)
Also, when I've actually done any leg press exercises I usually warm up with 400 lbs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of good bits of trans news from the midwest, from near Milwaukee and from Illinois.
If being a trans woman, or any woman, with testosterone levels designated much higher than is considered appropriate for the "ideal woman," is sufficient to call into question that woman's inclusion into athletic competitions, then in what sense have we escaped misogynistic binaries that situate women as inherently less than men?
The binary is in thinking that something as superfluous as physical strength makes you less of a person.
|
|
And actually, as much as I love Alysia, she's not really the first trans* character in a DC comic. That honor would go to Neil Gaiman's Wanda from the brilliant and everlasting Sandman series.Shvaugn Erin from Legion of Superheroes has been around since 1978, and they were dropping hints about her being trans as early as '89. That being said, both Wanda and Shvaugn are AWFUL, insulting depictions.
I think DCs first (mostly) positive trans character was Coagula from Doom Patrol; 1993.
Is this the same character in trade 5 that was told that she couldn't go into the realm because she wasn't a real girl. The one that made me stop buying the series and sad that I started reading it? Or is there another transcharacter in Sandman?Let me preface this by saying that I know Wanda is a controversial character for trans readers, and that I understand the anger she generated.
For me, I didn't find Wanda to be either awful or insulting. She was written from a cis-centric perspective, granted, but I found that perspective to be, for its time, one sympathetic to trans people.
The bit about Wanda being told the moon wouldn't accept her was one of the many examples of the gods being a) jerks and b) wrong about things, both of which had been clearly established as part of the Sandman worldview at that time.
By the time that moment occurred, the gods had already been depicted as fallible, and it was clear that there were aspects of reality they didn't understand or have power over, and that they did not get the last word about how things are. This is partly what "Season of Mists," the long storyline immediately before "Game of You," was about. And it's one of the concepts underlying the series as a whole, the idea of human self-determination. This same idea crops up in Hob's storyline, in the Emperor Norton story, and in the story of the exiled Chinese courtier near the end of the series.
In other words, I...
And that's pretty much how I felt about Wanda as well. Sandman is one of my favorite comics of all time, so much so that I bought all 5 Absolute editions and the Absolute edition of Death as well.
|
Assistant Software Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is worth a read, on the subject of trans casting.
I wrote up some comments on this in her personal posting on facebook:
I just would like to make a point. I've heard a lot from both sides. My wife is vehemently on the opposing viewpoint here and I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. I think we need the exposure from good non-political advocacy making in-roads in an otherwise tough industry. I also feel that there is a lot to be gained by pointing out where we can improve and asking(and even demanding on occasion) that hollywood do better. I think it can but I'm not sure it knows that it should. Every time there is a film where a man plays a transwoman someone is going to pat that man on the back telling that guy how brave he was and the greater queer community seems to be right up there doing the same. Which may be fine, but I'm not seeing a lot of trans women or men standing up and saying, "Damn that was a good job. Thanks for telling my story. Thanks for getting that momentary flash of sadness or anger or just hurt when someone calls you sir. Thanks for getting right the details that mean something to me and not just another typical hollywood portrayal." That is problematic.
It very much reminds me of a much more extreme case when we had to fight just to be heard about a certain book that the queer community at large thought was worthy of an award that the larger transcommunity felt was incendiary and damaging. Everyone on the committee was happy to speak for us and tell us that it was a fine piece of work even though we were telling them otherwise. I just want to make sure that this isn't an echo chamber where that kind of thinking can exist. I know that I literally wouldn't be where I am without Calpernia and I owe her lots of respect including an honest appeal to acknowledge that we can like something and be proud of it even if we're criticizing it's problems. I think Hollywood would benefit from this conversation if it would listen to it. Most of the screaming is simply from people trying to be heard that are being told that their view is invalid by people who wouldn't really know and don't care to learn. While I appreciate your view, I think these other women have a right to be heard as well and they make some valid points.
@Lissa:
I'm pretty much in the middle myself. My views on the subject are close to yours.
|
Digital Products Assistant
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think conceptualizing being a trans woman as analogous to having used performance enhancing drug is certainly different, and maybe even transgressive. Though, I am not sure simply being raised a man (or having "typically male" anatomy) is equivalent to being a "typical" or "ideal" woman on steroids. I don't think the presence growth enhancing drugs is the definitive boundary between what makes a man not a woman.
Comparing being trans to drug use is really problematic.
As someone who keeps up an endocrinology because she's had to educate every doctor she's had on trans healthcare, I can confirm that androgens (like testosterone) don't provide much in the way of permanent advantage. The only permanent changes androgens cause are in hair follicles and bone density, and (as a side effect of the bone density), added growth if exposed during puberty. Once a trans woman begins HRT, any extra muscle mass fades quickly without testosterone to support it, and what you're left with is a woman who actually has slightly more weight to carry around than a cis woman with the exact same size and build. After orchiectomy (removing the gonads), trans women actually have less available testosterone in their bodies than cis women. The only minor advantage a trans woman might have are in sports where height or reach are a benefit, but I don't see anyone arguing that 6'5" cis woman Lauren Jackson shouldn't be allowed to play pro basketball just because she's taller than average.
In the end, the easiest way to see if Chloe Jonnson has any "unfair advantage" is to look at her numbers. While they're very good, they still don't compare to the top scores in the women's categories.
And as a side note, Annabel, it is super not-cool to throw around terminology like "raised a man." It ignores any agency or identiy I had in my own childhood, invalidates my experiences and perspective, and pushes the tired old "really a man" line of thinking.
Hum, I was trying to be somewhat optimistic about TanothT's equation between transitioning one's body's gender or athletic ability. I guess I don't really think of performance enchancing medication in charged moral terms. But I think I understand the concern about it being problematic, in the way your seeing it.
I wasn't really "throwing around" the term, it was part of a disjunction: "(or having "typically male" anatomy)". Admittedly, these two things (and more generally, experiencing bodily or social gender conflict/uncertainty) don't exhaust the field of experiences in trans life. But they are two ways some trans people experience life. I also am not sure experiencing social forces that conflict with other experiences of gender necessarily remove consideration of an individual's autonomy.
|
Digital Products Assistant
|
Crystal, let me apologize, but also let me beg for your understanding. I can only imagine how challenging life has been for you, as with all of us, all of us have our own crosses to bear, but it is clear that your life (and the lives of people somewhat similar to your situation) must have been so much more difficult, simply because so many of us do not even know how to talk about that kind of life without making mistakes that reveal our ignorance.
And we are ignorant, I am ignorant, and I would never want to throw around terms that offend anyone, but it is difficult, and it is because of you, and others like you, that we are learning.
But sometimes, the message doesn't get out to everyone, or doesn't get out complete enough, and some of us might say things, use terms, we probably should know are not going to come across the right way, but we know so little, and knowing how to talk about our lives, is a challenge for all of us (some a small challenge and some a big challenge, but a challenge nonetheless).
Thank you.
No apologies necessary in your case, Terquem; I'm not angry or upset and realize that most people aren't as up on their endocrinology or trans healthcare as I am. One of the frustrating aspects of being a minority is that it's hard to express disapproval at something without it being seen as outrage. I was really only trying to communicate that 1) Biologically, trans women don't have any advantage over cis women, and 2) That in general referring to a trans woman's background as male or masculine aren't cool (even if some specific trans women do decide to use that phrasing, or use that phrasing because they don't have a more personal way of describing it).
I do appreciate your thoughtfulness, though!
And as a side note, Annabel, it is super not-cool to throw around terminology like "raised a man." It ignores any agency or identiy I had in my own childhood, invalidates my experiences and perspective, and pushes the tired old "really a man" line of thinking.
If you wouldn't mind, what terminology do you prefer ?
(With regards before, during and after the various - staging posts? milestones? steps?)
It's really bothers me that the presence of masculinity on/in trans women is unequivocally read as evidence for (or implication of) illegitimate womanhood. Admittedly, this is the logics that often operate within cissexist, heterosexist, dominant society. But it really ought not be imposed as the normal reading on queer (or even LGBT) speech. Let me explain why:
If masculinity becomes the means by which womanness or womanhood becomes illegitimated, then this has stark implications for masculine women, whether cis or trans. What becomes of the bulldyke, the tribade, or the drag king? Are these women illigitimized because they lay claim to masculinity?
This insistence that masculinity is irreconcilable with being a trans-woman also forecloses the field of trans inclusion. Being a trans woman is being implicitly measured as a negative quality: a lack of masculinity. I am not sure why the norm of a vacant or vacated masculinity is being purposefully enforced on "deviant" masculine trans women. Trans women who are purposefully masculine and women are implicitly rejected by the logics circulating within your rigid prescription:
That in general referring to a trans woman's background as male or masculine aren't cool (even if some specific trans women do decide to use that phrasing, or use that phrasing because they don't have a more personal way of describing it).
I don't see how to understand this sentence other than: experiences of or speech about masculinity from trans women are explicitly erasable or impersonal, they can't represent a legitimate trans woman experience.
Perhaps the purpose of your advice that this is "not cool" wasn't meant to be read this way (maybe you had a more specific context in mind). But as it currently stands, there is a problematic here: that masculinity is articulated with being really a man, and that masculinity illegitimizes being really a woman.
Bulldykes, tribades, and drag kings constitute instances of masculine women (female masculinity), therefor there is no reason discredit the legitimacy of trans women with female masculinity.
|
Digital Products Assistant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as a side note, Annabel, it is super not-cool to throw around terminology like "raised a man." It ignores any agency or identiy I had in my own childhood, invalidates my experiences and perspective, and pushes the tired old "really a man" line of thinking.
If you wouldn't mind, what terminology do you prefer ?
(With regards before, during and after the various - staging posts? milestones? steps?)
The big labels that are generally accepted are pre-transition and post-transition. The exact moment of transition is a bit nebulous, and each person's but is generally either when they come out, when they start medical treatment (if they decide to do so), or when they start living the way they prefer.
If you're looking to specifically describe a trans person who is chemically altering their body, the generally preferred term is HRT (hormone replacement therapy) or hormones, and the time before that is usually referred to as pre-HRT or pre-hormones. But generally that's best used in abstract; using those terms to refer to a specific trans person when you aren't trans can be a bit invasive.
Childhood is usually a very painful time for trans people, and everyone has their preferred ways of dealing with, explaining, or defining their experiences, and there isn't really an acceptable catch-all term to describe that period beyond "childhood." Different trans folk will describe it different ways, but bear in mind that most trans people, especially DMAB trans folk, will have some level of anxiety of even PTSD related to that stage of their life, so tread lightly if at all, and accept that the way one person describes it may be very uncomfortable or upsetting for others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When talking about people's backgrounds especially, when appropriate I personally prefer to talk about “assigned sex” (and gender) rather than the sex and gender people are raised as. I think it appropriately makes the process sound more arbitrary and potentially disjunctive; one can make an assignment much more quickly than one can raise someone or something. I think it also highlights that under certain circumstances (jumping through the right hoops and being lucky enough to live in a place where transition is legally recognized, if we want to be cynical) trans* people can bring their assigned and lived sex and gender identities into alignment, whereas I don’t think very many people at all get a second rearing.
Talking about the range of trans* people’s histories in general is tricky because of how much they vary. Many of us may not feel that we have ever been successfully raised in our assigned gender. I only learned the concepts to be able to come to terms with my trans-ness in university, having previously identified as androgyne in late adolescence, and as a boy by default in childhood, because that’s what everyone told me I was, and how I felt about it somehow never came up. So I personally wouldn’t mind that much if it helps someone to think of my experience in terms of “being raised a boy,” because at the time I wouldn’t have thought any differently. (My relationship to girlhood is vexed, and I won’t get into it right now, not that I would mind.) However, I have purposely avoided referring to “being raised a man” because I never really thought that being a masculine male adult accurately described me, and that gets to the heart of the matter.
Maybe some trans women feel that they were able to do “man” or perform man-ness well enough that they would describe themselves as having been “raised as men.” On the other hand, for trans* people who became aware of their trans-ness in early childhood, I can imagine that their experience of disjunction between their identity and what people around them expected of them would provoke an even sharper response to the question of how they were “raised.” If, for example, one became aware early in childhood that they always were a girl who everyone else insisted on treating like a boy, and one went through all that and only transitioned in adulthood, I imagine one would be considerably more nonplussed to be thought of as “being raised a man,” since they may have struggled simply to pass as both a boy and a man to avoid trouble (to put it mildly!). On a historical note, I think similar distinctions might be behind the horrible old categories of “primary” and “secondary transsexuals,” which at least acknowledged that different trans people realize their trans-ness in different ways and at different times in their lives.
It's really bothers me that the presence of masculinity on/in trans women is unequivocally read as evidence for (or implication of) illegitimate womanhood. Admittedly, this is the logics that often operate within cissexist, heterosexist, dominant society.
[...]
That in general referring to a trans woman's background as male or masculine aren't cool (even if some specific trans women do decide to use that phrasing, or use that phrasing because they don't have a more personal way of describing it).I don't see how to understand this sentence other than: experiences of or speech about masculinity from trans women are explicitly erasable or impersonal, they can't represent a legitimate trans woman experience.
Perhaps the purpose of your advice that this is "not cool" wasn't meant to be read this way (maybe you had a more specific context in mind). But as it currently stands, there is a problematic here: that masculinity is articulated with being really a man, and that masculinity illegitimizes being really a woman.
I think the stress was on the “in general,” as the assumption that all or most trans women feel they have much or any connection with masculinity is obviously offensive. Similarly, in the section you highlighted, I read the “or” as disjunctive: if some trans women do decide to think of their background as masculine, then that sounds to me like it could be very personal.
I'm sorry to intrude, but that seemed like the natural way to read things.
That is, if I may be flippant, the more opportunities for female masculinities the better, absolutely, but could some people slip up and assume that masculinities as such are better? If in each case the conventionally masculine option is preferred… As masculinity and femininity tend to be understood today, is there a limit at which being feminine overall tips into being masculine overall and vice versa? I’ve also got half-formed thoughts in mind about things like androgyny vs. butch/femme as an ideal, and in the latter case, which half is more visible, and so on. Maybe I’m just reading in the wrong places, but I’ve also not seen much discussion about male femininities in quite the same way – I’ve never actually seen that phrase used.
With all that going on, I’m rather sympathetic to trans women who decide they’d rather not bother trying to sort through all of masculinity for something to reclaim, especially if it doesn’t have any appeal for them, broadly speaking, and they can suffer a great deal of abuse for it. Why shouldn’t they erase masculinity from their experience, so long as they don’t presume to judge others who don’t? Why can’t it just be irrelevant to them, and femininity sufficient?
I wonder why we think about particular qualities as masculine or feminine at all. The radical, idealistic streak in me wonders if it wouldn’t be preferable to build up new ideas about masculinity and femininity from the ground up, even individually, trying to think of the categories in terms of tendencies and not boxes between which to split opposites.
I try to live something like this. I try not to fret about whether this, that, or the other thing pushes me over into too masculine. I can’t deny that I think about how it might fit into prevailing gender norms, though, and that I frequently think of things I don’t like that I more often see men doing as masculine, but I also try not to think of them as the opposites to a universal feminine. (E.g.: many of the men I know and see clomp around making what I think is an ungodly amount of noise, but of course men can move quietly too, and women don’t always and shouldn’t feel they have to always move quietly.) As a last example, since I’ve started my transition, I’m often asked, “What do you think being a woman means?” or “How do you feel like a woman?” I’ve always answered what I honestly feel:
I have no idea that it means or feels like just one thing; after all, there are any number of ways of being a woman. When it comes down to it, I can only say, ‘This is the sort of woman I am. It’s shaped by the ideas I’ve been exposed to of what women and men are, and it’s what feels right for me. If some of us can come together and say, this is the sort of woman we are, so much the better, but let every woman be the sort of woman she is, that feels right for her, and be respected for it.’
Naive, I know, and it doesn't actually address what underlying ideas let me formulate the concept of "woman." ;)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, all. I'm going to reiterate a piece of advice I've heard (okay, read) in the past that now applies to me. This may or may not be useful to people.
I came out to my mother as transgender this past September. Her response was pretty much what anyone coming out could ask for. Although my mother had a lot of questions, she was immediately supportive, even asking me what my new name was going to be before I brought that subject up, in our first phone conversation after she'd read my coming out letter. (My brother was supportive as well, as was my sister-in-law.)
That support and dialogue continued in the weeks and months that followed, and it was really great, and sustaining. Although she was worried about the difficulties I had ahead of me (and regretful about the difficulties I'd experienced in the past), it was clear that she was happy to finally have a daughter.
She passed away earlier this month, somewhat suddenly. I was fortunate enough to get to spend a last week with her in the hospital before she passed, but that was only the second time we'd seen each other face to face since she knew I was her daughter. The previous time was at Thanksgiving, which was a good Thanksgiving. She told me a few times that seeing me at Thanksgiving put to rest whatever anxieties she might have had about the transition, when she saw how much happier I was. We did not have a lot of time to experience this new mother-daughter relationship. Five and a half months, and now she is gone.
Now. I know that everyone needs to be careful about how and when they come out, and who they come out to. You need to take care of yourself, and protect yourself. And many people are not as fortunate as I was in terms of how my family reacted. For many, it's not safe to come out, or feasible at the moment. So I hope no one takes this as me telling people what to do or how to manage their affairs.
But I do want to say, if you think your family, and your parents in particular will be supportive (or could learn to be supportive), be careful about waiting too long. I'm grateful for the past five and a half months, but I wish to god it could have been longer, both for my sake and for hers. And I know it could have been if I hadn't waited so long.
Again, I know my situation is not the situation of many, that I am lucky, and I don't want to tell people who are not out (either to their family or in general) that they should suddenly come out. Each person is the best judge of their own circumstances. But this is something to keep in mind as you think through these sorts of decisions. Be careful, be safe, certainly, but also remember that time passes, and that when your loved ones are gone, they are gone.
I came out to my family and friends about a year and a half ago and even though I'm only a bisexual crossdresser, I've "only" gotten support from almost all of my friends and a small number of family members (only one is blood and that's my brother, the rest are either part of the family through marriage, my cousin in my step mom's family, or my birth mother's foster family, I have a complicated family). Most of my family won't even acknowledge it and I know that some (who don't know) will actually hate me. I can't imagine the difficulties I would have if I had to go through a full transition.
I wish you could have spent more time with your mother (transition or not). I'm very happy that your mother was so accepting. I am sincerely sorry for your loss. It's my hope that everyone is accepted the way you are.
I came out to my family and friends about a year and a half ago and even though I'm only a bisexual crossdresser, I've "only" gotten support from almost all of my friends and a small number of family members (only one is blood and that's my brother, the rest are either part of the family through marriage, my cousin in my step mom's family, or my birth mother's foster family, I have a complicated family). Most of my family won't even acknowledge it and I know that some (who don't know) will actually hate me. I can't imagine the difficulties I would have if I had to go through a full transition.
I wish you could have spent more time with your mother (transition or not). I'm very happy that your mother was so accepting. I am sincerely sorry for your loss. It's my hope that everyone is accepted the way you are.
Thanks Bob.
And I hope the rest of your family comes around someday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They won't, but that's ok. I've got the support group I need for now. Since I'm not trying to change, I can simply be Bob around them and not talk about it. When I'm around those who are supportive, I can be Cindy. In some ways that's a bonus for me. In other ways, it's a drawback since I have to hide who I am. My family is ultra conservative. I was told as a teen, that if I wanted to get my ears pierced I might as well come home in a dress. Funny, I don't want my ears pierced but I do like dresses. My uncle gets his nails done just to piss off my grandfather. He also likes to get his hair dyed pink and go into biker bars to pick fights. I have a strange family.
|
Assistant Software Developer
|
They won't, but that's ok. I've got the support group I need for now. Since I'm not trying to change, I can simply be Bob around them and not talk about it. When I'm around those who are supportive, I can be Cindy. In some ways that's a bonus for me. In other ways, it's a drawback since I have to hide who I am. My family is ultra conservative. I was told as a teen, that if I wanted to get my ears pierced I might as well come home in a dress. Funny, I don't want my ears pierced but I do like dresses. My uncle gets his nails done just to piss off my grandfather. He also likes to get his hair dyed pink and go into biker bars to pick fights. I have a strange family.
I'm sorry. That really sucks and noone really deserves that. Especially for just being true to themselves. I bet that uncle is is a good ally though. =)
I haven't told him and I don't plan on it. I don't see him very often and we don't really get along very well. He's a nice guy but for some reason he doesn't really like me. We haven't hardly interacted at all, ever, and he doesn't seem to like me very much. I do know that he has some serious PTSD problems and maybe my service in the Army brings that out in him since he also served in the Army. He used to do interrogations during Vietnam. It's possible that I'm a trigger for him.
Wow.
That makes me sad, Bob. :(
A similar case has been moving through the Texan courts for a while now, and should be decided by the Texas Supreme Court this spring. (Last update I could find was in February—anyone know anything more recent?)
I have a great support group of friends. There's no need to feel bad for me or anyone in my family. Even my uncle is actually a decent guy. He gets along with everyone else (except grandpa but that's his own doing). The two biggest problems I have with my support group are the ones who are there only in spirit and the ones who want to push me into something I'm not interested or ready for. Most are just fine though.
When I said that I was "only a bisexual crossdresser" I was comparing my situation to KSF who has gone through far more than I ever will. I'm able to just be either Bob or Cindy. I'm not trying to change into what I should have been from birth. I am happy being a man. I just really love women's clothes. I can choose to be either persona as the situation merits.
Sorry if I took away from what KSF was trying to say. I agree completely with her. Don't let fear force you to wait until it's too late. If you are safe and comfortable, let your loved ones know. You don't know how much time you have left with them.
My grandfather is probably going to pass away soon if he doesn't start eating. I'm trying to spend as much time with him as I can. I've missed out on 25 years with him. I don't want to miss out on any more. I know he won't accept me if he knows but that doesn't change how I feel about him. He won't be around forever. There's no need for me to do anything other than get to know him better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama Requires Insurers To Guarantee Health Coverage To All Married Same-Sex Couples
"New guidance released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Friday offers crucial protections to same-sex couples purchasing insurance coverage..."
"In the guidance, HHS plainly states that group and individual market insurers regulated by the Affordable Care Act cannot deny family coverage to legally married same-sex spouses where family coverage for opposite-sex spouses is offered."