an Essay by the always interesting Laurelai.
The thing about transgenderism in the realm of social progress is that it is its own thing. I'm starting to think that trying to latch-on to other movements like feminism or gay rights or whatever is not the right move. Being trans is a very distinct experience, and that's clear to me even knowing little about it.
There's almost a kind of ferver right now about social equality with feminism and gay rights. Depending where you look, media can seem pretty saturated with it. I'd say these topics are very much on the radar of most millennials, perhaps quite prevalently. If you live around a metropolitan area there are probably strong communities promoting a wide-variety of social progress topics. The topic has a lot of buzz.
And somewhere along the line transgenderism has also worked itself in to this buzz. On some level. You'd think that because you see it paired with feminism or LGBT that transgenderism has the same level of intensity and support. You'd think it's as big a topic as the other ones; blogs, coverage, and the internet make it seem that way.
The problem is that, at least for me, I don't think I've ever met a single trans person. I've known them through a degree of separation, but I don't think I've been introduced to anyone trans in my life. I lived in SF, I went to school near the Castro for a decade, I've lived in large cities my whole life. It's not just because I've been under a rock; you'd think I'd run into these people.
A distinct problem with the transgender movement is that it is incredibly fringe. It's easy to overestimate the impact it has when caught up in all the buzz. There apparently aren't even reliable statistics about how many people identify as trans. It's not like other popular social equality movements in that sense.
So the problem mk mentions about empathy becomes an important one, even in the arena of LGBT and feminism. Ultimately I think the trans community will need to fight its own fight. It's ultimately predictable that other movements won't be able to commit on their behalf.
As a trans woman, I can make two points:
You may actually in fact have met many trans people. Trans men tend to "pass" very easily, and trans women who transition at a good age generally also "pass" quite well. I started hormone therapy in July 2012 and now work in retail, nobody knows. A co-worker actually made a comment the other day in a conversation regarding LGBT matters that they've "never met a transsexual." Him and I are decent acquaintances. Whoops. What a lot of people don't realize is that being trans isn't necessarily an identity to a lot of trans individuals. Frankly the use of the phrase "being trans" is a bit of a misappropriation to me. To me and many other trans individuals, "being trans" is having a medical condition. We don't say refer to someone with cancer as "being unregulated in their cell growth"
This thus leads into my second point, most people don't discuss their medical conditions very often. Homosexual individuals are quite prominent because signalling your sexual orientation is a rather obvious, natural tactic for being able to find a partner. If an individual's physical presentation doesn't match the common stereotypes for how a transsexual looks, you won't be able to know they're trans unless they specifically disclose this medical information (or, as is all too common, someone else does). Many transsexuals don't see being transsexual as some identity they need to disclose to people.
What transsexuals share with the LGB community is an underlying fight against human tendency to place prejudice on those who are different. It is unfortunate for transsexual individuals that they happen to have a condition which ties into very strong cultural and societal ideas. We know there are many conditions that lead to a human not having entirely congruent sexual dimorphism. Some of these can be quite minor such as hormonal problems during adolescence or in mature adults (however these problems can be severe, too) and some of these can be quite major such as hermaphroditism. It's commonly accepted that hermaphroditism is a medical intersex condition that one had any control over or any identity with, and yet it is something quite shunned and parodied in society. Transsexuals face a similar battlefront in society, and yet they have an extra disadvantage in that we don't even have an external or internal consensus on whether it's a medical condition or "identity."
Glad you could put some input here. It makes sense that you wouldn't really need to identify yourself as "trans", but this also leads me to think that the representation you see of transgenderism on blogs, for example, is actually pretty distinct from the actual lives of transgender people.
It's also interesting to me that you say you wouldn't call yourself trans, because that makes sense, but in the blogosphere "trans" and "cis" get thrown around a lot in reference to personal identity. You see it happening in the article that was linked. Perhaps it's a necessary distinction in this case, but I'm under the impression that's not always the case.
I recall an article from way back which I can't quite remember the details of in which it talked about a trans game developer. The game was some kind of plain-text game where things like "trans" and "cis-hetero" came a lot. Gender identity was a big deal. In trying to find that article I found a different person with a similar situation. Here gender identity is also a big, vocal deal.
Perhaps what is going on here is that I'm seeing flamboyant, vocal figures in transgenderism that are drowning out the already small population of more typical transgender individuals. I can already see how people that would call transgenderism an "identity" would overshadow those who think of it as a medical condition.
- but this also leads me to think that the representation you see of transgenderism on blogs, for example, is actually pretty distinct from the actual lives of transgender people
For sure yeah, we're a highly underrepresented group subject to all kinds of statistical representation biases.
- but in the blogosphere "trans" and "cis" get thrown around a lot in reference to personal identity
I think this stems from three sources: legitimate feeling of an "identity", awkwardly trying to be inclusive and politically correct, and a conditioning factor where many trans individuals just simply think that's the way it is because that's how it's always been. When I walk into my doctor's office, which offers numerous services to LGBT clients, they have plenty of posters and pamphlets around the place. Even in the doctor's office there are plenty of references to "identity" and so forth.
A lot of trans people spend a large portion of their lives very confused. It's not a well known concept as an identity or a medical condition. Dysphoria is a very interesting feeling, many don't understand it's a medical issue. Many trans people describe a point in their lives where they found out being transsexual was a thing, they saw some website or (likely a rather awful) documentary and went "holy shit. this explains things, and I can fix this. I had no idea." The problem with this (besides just the obvious waiting so long for care) is that their very first exposure to the problem is one promoted as an identity. A lot of trans people learn they're trans and can seek treatment from some pretty poor sources.
- Gender identity was a big deal.
I just wrote about 250 words on my a topic that goes through a not very popular opinion in the community, but I ended up deleting it because I cannot articulate it in a way I'm satisfied with. However, I sometimes think there is a difference between being transgender and being transsexual. I think people get scrambled together in one big group due to the previously described unfortunate nature of this medical condition being tied into so many societal concepts and conditioning.
- Perhaps what is going on here is that I'm seeing flamboyant, vocal figures in transgenderism that are drowning out the already small population of more typical transgender individuals. I can already see how people that would call transgenderism an "identity" would overshadow those who think of it as a medical condition.
For sure yeah. I've been in quite a few large trans communities and almost all of the non-activist types (I'd like to note here that I'm NOT demonizing the more vocal folk) really just see being trans as a pretty large inconvenience and don't really identify as anything. They "identify" simply as male or female like the vast majority of the cis population does.
Another quick interesting note: When people say cis, the connotation is very often an individual who's brain matches their body, they don't have any concerns about congruency in this aspect of life. When people say trans it tends to open up a whole can of worms. Really - cis is just the opposite of trans, trans is just the opposite of cis. It's a very simple prefix that in this case refers to congruency in sexual dimorphic traits.
Many transgender folk don't want to be activists. They don't want to be vocal. They don't like the internal disagreement in the community and they don't like how people outside the community treat them. The stigma behind whether this is right or wrong is similar to the stigma placed on women who have not yet "woken up" to feminism and don't play a personal activist roles - this is a whole other issue though. Vocal figures tend to be the ones who are (rightfully so) angry, (rightfully so) opinionated, (rightfully so) feel a need to defend themselves and fight back against society's image of transsexuals. Many transgender people, including myself for the most part, simply don't want to deal with this. There have been plenty of instances in everyday life where I could've educated someone IRL on trans matters (or even just LGBT issues in general), but you know what? This makes my life complicated. I've just spent a two figure percentage of my life trying to get through a lot of hardship, right now I'm in a stage of my life where I'm trying to simplify and just be happy. A lot of trans people are the same way. There's a very common phenomenon of people who hit a couple years into their transition and just sort of disappear from trans communities.
edit: Another quick note. I think one example of people "identifying as trans" being a kind of "this is how we were told to behave" is the matter of the word "transsexual." Many people are scared of this word. It's pretty rare to find it in the community frankly. It's like we've tried to adopt this softer, more approachable term that can hop onto the more positive images the homosexual community is starting to receive. We frequently represent ourselves in ways that help us overcome the large amount of stigma against us.
edit 2: This is wild speculation. I think another biasing factor in the matter of "identifying as trans" is most people's perception of trans individuals. If you look at the stereotypical media image of a trans woman don't think of them as a woman. There's often humour revolving around "lol! Look at that guy trying to girl! haha." People look at me, a trans woman who passes very very well and have no trouble accepting me purely as a woman. I think some people push the identifying concept as a particular mechanism to separate trans individuals from cis individuals. As after all, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of a trans woman who doesn't pass well being a woman. For me, someone who had the privilege of receiving medical care at a good age and started with a fairly androgynous base of features and structure - people have no issue thinking of me as any other woman. Hell even my medical care is biased because of this. When it comes time for surgery candidacy, I've already essentially been told my process will be a lot easier due to how my transition has gone. There's no issue of questioning identity. This is a fairly large halo effect
edit 3: Actually, when I did my first intake appointment at my health clinic (which is somewhat of a special clinic as they are one of very few in my area that will give hormones via informed consent) they of course have you fill out an intake form. The intake form they gave me was not specific to transsexuals, however because this clinic offers many LGBT services they had a section on the paperwork for your orientation and gender identity. Under gender identity (and these were checkmarks not radio style "choose one" buttons) you could choose to identify as trans woman and woman (and various other gender options, but again, that's a whole other topic). My first thought was kind of like "Why the hell would I 'identify' as being trans? What does that even mean?"
I'm finding this conversation very interesting, particularly because my experiences have been pretty different to emisaurs.
For me, and most other trans*folk I know, gender identity is a huge deal. I'm starting to identify myself as trans* a lot more because I see it less as a medical condition (though it is, for sure) and more a part of who I am. It's something that I'm - proud isn't the right word, but it's a similar sort of feeling - of. It shapes so many of my experiences, the good ones far outweighing the bad.
I think the other huge impact on this for me is my gender identity itself and that I don't feel entirely female. I feel trans* and nonbinary is part of my gender identity and that most of the time I can't introduce myself as a woman (or a man, for that matter).
I dunno. This was going somewhere when I started but I'm all over the place today. I think, speaking entirely personally here, trans* as an identity has formed a better community for me than trans* as a medical condition.
Some people do not pick up on trans people at all, ever. I work at a bar where we don't really have a trans regulars but it's also common to see a wide range of sexual identities around. Some times I can tell right off, sometimes after many meetings, and I'm sure sometimes I'm sure I had no idea at all.
Anyway, there are some people who can not tell that a man was once a woman or a woman was once a man, some kind of cognitive or societal programing thing. Just an odd thing I've noticed.
Everybody looks 'normal' if you aren't a bigot but you can tell some people have changed their gender or the appearance of their gender either by way of dress and mannerisms or with more involved methods.
More than once on the job someone has mentioned that they once lived with a different gender and other people who have met that person and talked to that person before are just floored by the revelation. A revelation seemed pretty apparent to me.
To be honest I bet I haven't had many false positives.
I don't know until I've heard from the horses mouth or at least from good authority. I've had my suspicions confirmed more than a few times. I'm fine with ambiguity, it doesn't really matter, people should be honored for who they are and want to be.
I'm sure that there have been many, many people who I never had a clue about.
I wrote a big stream of consciousness reply but I don't know if I'll post it.
Trying to buy my first house this week and I'm a ball of stress. My mortgage is falling apart and my guts are in knots. Went out saw some bands and had some beers to blow off some steam tonight afraid to offend a bit tipsy and generally feeling unsure and vulnerable this week.
I'll give it a read tomorrow, it's only half on topic, maybe an edit maybe let it rip or let it die.
omg, I didn't know that laurelai had a website.
This article though is entirely uninteresting. It is full of ad hoc attacks, barely makes a point, and just demands to be right.
If you'd like to read something that actually makes a compelling case that interest groups for the disadvantaged only represent the least disadvantaged disadvantaged (for example, women's groups represent white middle class women, black groups represent middle class male blacks, etc), I highly recommend *Affirmative Advocacy* by Dara Strolovitch.
That is not what I was saying at all.
I was just suggesting another item to read, that attacked the point from a different direction.
What you wrote is only a call to action, perhaps I was harsh in saying this, but I clicked on it assuming it would be a critique and it wasn't.
And please continue with your ad hominem attacks.
I don't think ad hominem applies. She is accusing you of actions not saying you are wrong because of qualities.
I think there is a fallacy in play but its name does not come to my fingers. something about ascribing intentions to others. This is always a problem in Marxist/Freudian disciplines. In my opinion (as a western-cis-hetero-nearly white-male with an advanced degree) Identity studies should be reworked on a less theory laden paradigm.
I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I don't see how it cannot be an ad hominen attack.
- ignore the person who lives the reality as opposed to the cis woman with privilege
What she says is "you can't not believe what this author is writing because of who she is" which is an ad hominen attack. She did not engage with the author's argument in anyway, and only dismisses it based on who the author is.
Which is too bad since I would think, perhaps wrongly, that laurelai would appreciate a book about intersectionality, and how interest organizations constantly try to frame advantaged group issues as being universal, while ignoring disadvantaged group issues.
I dont need a book written by a privileged white cis woman to tell me about intersectionality because i live the experience every day of my life. Those books are for you people. The people who dont face multiple axes of oppression, honestly what can this book tell me about my life that I dont already know?
I dismissed her work and your suggestion like i did because you tried to tell someone who lives on multiple axes of oppression to read a book on multiple axes of oppression, i found it a bit insulting and patronizing.
You are more worried about logically constructed arguments than real life pain faced by human beings when people are seldom convinced by logic, they are convinced by emotion and use logic to justify it after the fact.
Im just honest about being motivated by emotion.
This writing was a reaction to the marginalization transgender people face within activism and within the regular everyday world. Where the people who are supposed to be on our side instead show solidarity with the people who want us dead and spend their money trying to keep laws protecting trans women from being passed, or working to repeal existing protections. This wasnt to convince someone on the internet with no vested interest in the situation, this was a war cry to other trans women who know exactly what we face and have seen it too. I dont have to prove it to them using logic because they live it every single day just like i do.
Im speaking truth to power, not writing a scientific paper.
Deal with it.
I was saying It is not a ad hom against you.
dismissing a paper because of its author is classic ad hom but not necessarily an attack.
I read Ms. Bailey's venom to be directed at you not the book you suggested.
Maybe I misread.
makes me right. ;) with that out of the way I am sorry the two of you met is such a unpleasant way. I think you two prolly have a lot to share.
If this was a diner party or a evening at the pub with friends. (which really is what hubski is at least to me)
What I would do here is say to geneusutwerk "this is Laurelai - Laurelai this is geneusutwerk I think both of you have an interest in gender politics"
y'all would shake hands, realize the other person is a person, mumble greetings/apologies and prolly hit it off.
so whatever the online equivalent of this is.
a little harsh I prefer the term poetic.
Laurelai is kinda a street fighter on this sort of thing.
and has a pugilistic stance.
- Empathy for sentient beings outside of your comfort zone.
I haven't really worked through it, but this above anything seems to always be the crux of the matter. Oppression begins where empathy falls short. However, I have long held the suspicion that solidarity eventually gives rise to an unequal distribution of empathy, however just the rationale. IMO this is what lays at the foundation of 'free the oppressor' philosophies.
I can't really say how that fits in here, but reading this brought it to mind. Perhaps I am saying that cis-feminists are victims of their own ignorance here, an ignorance perpetuated by a cottage industry?
in my own reductionist social theory decisions are made thus.
Folks treat folks in their in group in a egalitarian and generous manner and treat everyone else shoddily.
for partisans party members are the in-group.
for racists members of their race.
nationalists their nation.
on and on.
The true test of liberality is to treat everyone as a member of the in group simply because they are human.
this is a hard test to pass I stumble at the fascist hurdle.
[edit] also I don't like spies and cops but nobody is perfect [edit2] I like individual spies and cops who are family member and friends but I dislike spies and cops and a group also MRMers, MLMers and Objectivists.
- [edit] also I don't like spies and cops but nobody is perfect
[edit2] I like individual spies and cops who are family member and friends but I dislike spies and cops and a group also MRMers, MLMers and Objectivists.
This might all be to your credit, as the exception might validate the sincerity of your successes.
As I am also a 'western-cis-hetero-nearly white-male with an advanced degree', it can be quite easy to dress apathy up in the cloth of enlightenment. More than easy, it can be a straight-up motus operandi. And, under that consideration, Laurelai might hold the higher moral ground over us, even with its contradictions, which I suspect she has well thought upon. That is, she is on a path, and we are not on that path.
If the Dude abides and everything goes to fucking hell, did the Dude really abide?
Sorry to pull you into my existential crisis by association.
Oh I think we are in the same page.
I have the easy virtue of those who don't have enough energy to be hateful.