Ask

I was reading over an article about a woman of color dealing with reactions to her taking care of her children (varying from "his he yours" to complimenting how good a nanny or babysitter she is and asking if she can be hired) or asking a racially diverse family "Where did you adopt [your child]?". To "is zie yours?": mixed feelings here- if the question is "are you really his mother or did you adopt him/is he a step-child?": that's busted, because an adopted/step child can be just as much yours as a "biological" child, and because it's probably at least a bit race based (if they looked the same, no one would assume the kid is adopted). People assuming she's the nanny? Busted. But if people just ask if a kid is the adult's rather than assuming? Not so much. One homophobic person replied demanding to know why it's okay to not assume a person is straight because "What? You think I look butch?!"- busted. Which allows for an excellent way to start my post. The difference between "Is this a "traditional" family or two mommies?" and "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met.".


The question "Is it a "traditional" family or two mommies?"- is showing tolerance, depending on the tone ( a sarcastic or "two "mommies"?"- not so great) and reaction to "two mommies". The doctor is showing that zie is accepting of same-sex couples having children together and is (hopefully) non-judgemental about the fact that some children are raised by two parents who are not hetero. Not only that- but it makes no assumptions*. It isn't calling the person a lesbian- it's keeping an open mind because you can't tell sexuality by looking at a person. Assuming that everyone you meet is straight  does damage.

The statement "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met"- is showing intolerance. Or, at least, close-mindedness. And it makes assumptions. It's assuming that an adult who is not close enough to the skin tone/facial structure/hair color or quality of the child cannot be the child's parent, because two people who aren't obviously of the same race couldn't have had a child. It also assumes that she couldn't be related to the child in any way- not even by friendship. That this person who is darker than the child couldn't possibly be a good enough friend of the "white" family to be taking care of the kid.

Next is intent or "what are they really asking". For example, "Is zie yours"- on the surface, tame. But not when the real question is "Is zie your biological child?" (as opposed to adopted/step/kidnapped/whatever the person thinks) and can be followed up with "Where did you get zem?" (because you couldn't be related to a kid with that much darker/lighter hair color/skintone/eyes than you!) or "I mean really yours" (because only biological children are REALLY yours). Obviously, this is pretty messed up for the same reason that assuming the person is the nanny/babysitter is- it's clear that the asker doesn't believe that mutli-racial children exist and doesn't think that a parent who doesn't look "enough like" their child is "really" that child's parent.  But sometimes the question is asked because the person is aware that  they can't exactly tell family dynamics just from meeting people and asking avoids complications that assuming creates- and then it isn't really a bad question.

Next I'll go with entitlement. Take this scenario: Person 1: "That's a really cool bracelet you have. Where did you get it?" Person 2: "Actually, it's a really long story and I'm just not up to telling it right now and I don't really know you well enough, sorry." And person 1 replies in one of these ways: 1. the person says "Oh, alright, if you ever feel comfortable telling me then" and leaves it at that. 2. the person demands to know what the backstory is, pestering the person about it.

If the response is the first: That's good. Person 1 is respecting Person 2's wishes. If the response is the second: VERY BAD. The person clearly feels entitled to this knowledge about Person 2- regardless of how Person 2 feels. (and, if Person 2 relents, it's very possible that zir right to making these decisions will be further attacked by Person 1 saying "I don't get why you didn't just tell me that in the first place") This one really depends on your relationship- but if you have a close enough relationship, you know what questions you are and aren't allowed to ask already.  This guide is pretty much for near strangers. And when you don't know someone well, you have no right to know anything about them that they don't want to tell you

That said, I hope we have a pretty decent grasp on good vs bad questions. Good: Respecting the person, not making busted assumptions, not having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. Bad: Disrespecting the person, making busted assumptions, having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. That said...

ASK!

Ask about anything and everything! Ask about pronouns! Ask about orientation (when relevant) rather than assuming straight! Ask about personal space/contact limitations! Ask about acceptable/unacceptable labels to use for the person!  If you don't know: ASK!

And this goes to people being asked, too. If a question makes you uncomfortable: Ask why it was asked. (and don't make busted assumptions, either!) if a person asks you what your sexuality is- don't assume that they think you "look gay", maybe they just don't want to add into the bustedness of heteronormativity. If someone asks you your pronouns- don't accuse them of saying you look like a [opposite gender], maybe they just realize that you can't tell a person's pronouns by looking at them. (you can guess correctly 90% of the time, but you can't know).

For the world to be a place where privilege no longer hurts people (especially regarding things that aren't visible)- we need to ask. We need to stop assuming things. Don't assume everyone is straight (or even sexual), don't assume that you know someone's gender & pronouns from looking at them, don't assume that they have the same education/views/experiences/abilities/needs as you, don't assume that one aspect of anyone's life/personality necessarily determines how they feel in any other part of their life, don't assume that a person in a wheelchair or with a seeing eye dog or anything else needs your help just because they're in a wheelchair or have a seeing eye dog or anything else and you aren't. Just don't assume!

But we also need to be in a place where questions CAN be asked. I do NOT mean that you have to answer every question- I already made it clear that people 100% have the right to say "I don't want to answer that". But reacting violently because someone doesn't assume something? That's not going to get us anywhere (and, of course, it's mostly privileged people who do it- because privileged people are allowed to get offended when a person asks them something that attacks their privilege and are also allowed to demand answers and get offended when we don't get them).

*okay, well, it does. It assumes a monogamous relationship in which the two partners have binary genders. Baby steps....

Transgender and Crossdressing

Disclaimer: I'm not a crossdresser, crossdreamer, nor a drag ace†. Clue by four.

"I would never want to be a woman. That would spoil all the fun of dressing like one." - Carly*

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I put up the definitions of the words I use (and feel free to mention if I need to add any more or you have problems with the ones I put up). I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why I define transgender as I do. Which is:

An adjective describing a person whose gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender makes no assumptions about the person’s genitalia, sex, gender role, presentation in daily life, or anything else- only the disconnect between what the doctors assumed the person would be and what the person actually is.

Now, I know that's not how everyone uses it- particularly as an umbrella term. One thing that there tends to be some disagreement on is whether or not people who don't uphold gender norms (crossdressers, drag royalty†, etc) are included in this. And here's my take on it.



Some crossdressers and drag royalty are bigendered or genderfluid (or actually trans [wo/wer]men but haven't accepted that yet) or something along those lines- the "desire" they have to crossdress is the same as a werman or woman "desiring" to dress like a werman or woman, respectively. To me, that isn't really crossdressing. A bigendered maab who wears dresses to express her womanhood isn't "crossdressing" any more than a woman wearing a dress is- she's expressing her female gender by wearing clothes associated with females. The fact that she isn't always a woman or is also a werman doesn't devalue her female gender in any way. And even if this person is crossdressing, aka dresses like a woman when he's a werman even though he's a woman at other times, they still fit into trans because their gender both does and doesn't match their assigned sex- not because of the clothes. (of course, in the literal transgender sense of "across-gender", they might be the only ones who really are transgender, as they actually go across genders)

So what about the wermen, the people with only one gender and whose gender matches their assigned sex, who want to wear a dress? (or women who... whatever counts as crossdressing for women, I'm not really sure)

I don't think clothing has a gender. Now, yes, socially genders are assigned to clothing. But the bounds of what's considered "acceptable" for wermen and women are ill-defined and change with time. Are wermen who wear "skinny jeans" crossdressing? Are women who wear loose jeans? They aren't even consistent over all of US culture- subcultures, age groups, races, classes, and geographic locations can all have different limits of what is and isn't "acceptable" clothing for wermen and women, much less all countries. Is a werman who wears a kilt crossdressing? What about if he's wearing an unbifurcated garment designed for wermen? Now, people can obviously crossdress in the same sense as crossplaying- dressing up with the intention of dressing as a different gender, but I don't think it makes you trans any more than playing a character who's another gender  makes you trans.

A person can't express gender they don't have- I can't express my female gender by wearing a skirt because I don't have a female gender. Even if a werman (and, yes, this applies to women- but generally you hear about maab crossdressers and drag queens) is intentionally dressing to look like a woman, he isn't expressing his gender as a woman- his gender is still that of a werman. And, seriously, no one bring up the bi/multi-gender thing, I just spent a paragraph explaining that.

Similarly- I don't include otherwise cis people who have non-standard presentation/traits for the same reason. I don't think a werman who likes shoes is less of a werman than one who likes football (or that a person can't like both), and a woman who prefers playing rugby to getting her nails done isn't less of a woman either (and rugby players can enjoy getting pampered as much as anyone).

I also don't like the concept of clothes having a gender because people use it as a basis for discrimination. If a person is perceived as crossdressing, even if they're wearing clothing quite appropriate to their gender (just not assigned sex) or don't feel what they're doing is crossdressing, they can face a lot of problems for it. Last year a man was threatened with arrest for wearing a skirt in a courthouse (a skirt that would have been appropriate on a woman, based on the description). If that's what applying genders to inanimate objects gets us- I don't see any benefit in it.

For the time being; crossdressing, gender variant, and other people who have a gender that matches their assigned sex but don't entirely fit the gender roles/traits/expectations of that gender might  functionally fit in (at least with 'queer') in the sense that they can face trans- & homophobia for it, but I really don't like the idea that someone is somehow "less" their gender just because of the clothes they wear or the things they enjoy. And, of course, trans does not mean "less"- but why would we call a person who is otherwise cisgender "trans" just because of the clothes they like to wear? A person being trans implies that their gender is different than what cissexist society expects people with the genitalia zie had at birth to be, and that zie'll have a harder time being accepted as that gender because of that.  A maab werman has a gender that very much matches what society expects, people will rarely have a difficult time believing he really is a werman- even if he expresses that gender by painting his nails pink, strapping on 6" heels, and putting on a lovely dress.

It also causes confusion when it comes to trans people who have non-standard presentation or who enjoy crossdressing/playing, drag, etc. If a cis werman is transgender just because he likes to wear dresses (even if he does full-time)- what is a trans werman? Trans people already face far more pressure to fit their gender's roles/traits/expectations than a cis person is ever likely to face, saying that your presentation somehow effects your gender only adds to that.

*The quote is from "Too Much Information", a webcomic featuring a transvestite- Carly (born "Carl Lee"). It comes from this page, but I'll give a warning that I'm not sure if it's misgendering or not. It either says that he thinks Carly is a trans man, or that he thinks trans women are really men, Carly's reply implies the latter- and also mislabels the fact that trans women are women and says that they just "want" to be a woman, implying they're actually men or at least not "really" women. That 1-page slip aside, the comic is pretty cool- though adult and NSFW. I put it as a footnote to explain this, though.
†Drag Ace is a joke, but I like it. Basically my line of thought was "What would you call a neutrois in drag?", as most titles are gendered, and going over the face cards in a deck (one thought was "joker")- since 'ace' is slang term for an asexual, I liked it. Drag Royalty is because there aren't really non-gendered terms for queen/king, but both are royal titles. I think that one's more self-explanatory than ace.

Request: Womens’ prespectives on Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

I like The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert which, for people who don't know, is a movie about 2 drag queens and a woman who works as a drag queen making their way across Australia. For the woman, of course, it upholds the longstanding "tradition" of cis actors playing trans people (in this case, a feminized man rather than a masculinized* woman) In my non-female opinion, it's not a bad job. But, of course, I also know that some women have problems with drag queens and might also have a problem with a woman who's a drag queen. (and some drag queens have given them reason to have problems with them, although certainly not all)

I'm curious about what women actually think about this film and how it portrays them.

So, essentially, that's the point of this post- if anyone knows a woman who has seen Priscilla (or is one!) and can ask her to let me know how she feels about it- that would be awesome! (I also sincerely hope it's obvious that I'm not asking about how cis women feel about this- although their comments are welcome, I'd really rather hear from the women that are actually being portrayed here, thanks.

How to be a woman

By Zyfron, see the full size: here (although- I suggest you read all of their comics)

Who is it?

Before we get this post started, I'm going to say this on the pronoun "it" used for people: Yes, it is way too charged to be a pronoun to use when you don't know what the gender/pronoun of a person is- but it's still a pronoun that some people do prefer being called by. That should be respected.
Now, on with the show.

"Inspector, do you know if the killer was a man or woman?" -Journalist
"Well of course I know that! What else is there? A kitten?" -Clouseau (from 'the Pink Panther 2')

Because apparently the objections to 'it' actually run deeper than I realized, as a person has expressed that even "Is it a boy or a girl?" is dehumanizing. Now, unfortunately, the commenter has no public information on their blogger profile so I cannot send them a message to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding this (I also cannot send them a message asking their preferred pronouns, hence the 'they'- I'll happily fix it if someone who knows this person lets me know the right ones). I did ask in the comments why the person feels that asking "is it a boy or a girl?" about an infant is dehumanizing- but it's a personal blog and a post on an extremely sensitive issue so I can appreciate Helen not wanting to publish any comments she doesn't want on there. So all I've really got to work with is what the comment says, which is this:

I know that “it” starts bloody early (“is it a girl or a boy?” – whatever sex a child was assigned, they’re not a fucking ‘it’) and I hate “it”, it’s a cheap and nasty way to de-humanise someone.

This person is making it clear that if this child's preferred pronouns are 'it', which does happen, then that is unacceptable. The kid isn't even crawling yet- and already this person is setting limits to what its gender can and cannot be, what is and is not acceptable (along with the rest of society, so I'm hardly shocked). But, this person is also doing it while accusing other people of dehumanizing the child by using pronouns that express a lack of knowledge as to the child's gender or preferred pronouns (although the question does lead to the kid's gender and identity being heavily policed). So, basically, this person is complaining about other people being dehumanizing while possibly dehumanizing the child by saying its gender and pronouns are inherently insulting. (in this hypothetical the kiddo grows up to prefer 'it'- why not, I know enough people who have) And that's actually why I have an objection to people who get so angry whenever anyone calls anyone else 'it' and claim it's "dehumanizing" no matter what (even when a person calls itself 'it'- which was just busted).

No one gives a shit if you don't believe in gender

From shemale on livejournal.Some other points of her post:

• Trans people are not cutting-edge theories at the frontier of feminism/gender studies/whatever.
  


• Trans people are not under any more of an obligation to alter their bodies, gender identifications, or gender expressions for some higher goal than cis people are.


• If a trans person does not present/experience/identify/etc. their gender the way you want them to, it is none of your fucking business, nor does it mean you can generalize about all trans people (or subgroup of trans people) from your experiences with and observations of said trans person.

All of them are worth a read, but this one I like the most:

Nobody gives a shit that you don't believe in gender.

You don't have to believe in something for it to exist, and perhaps the fact that you don't ever think about gender speaks more to your privilege than to the way that trans people are "perpetuating norms and stereotypes" or "supporting the gender binary" or whatever.
[...]
Gender in-and-of itself isn't a bad thing, it is just a thing.

It is the forced assignment of gender to people against their identification and the inequality between members of different genders that is problematic.

(and am I the only one a bit saddened/enraged that this was posted 2 years ago and I still feel it's incredibly relevant to how people treat trans people today?)

Binary-gender Privilege

I've been adding things to this list and it may not be up to date, to see the full list, please check HERE

You can reasonably expect that...

• words to describe your gender not only exist in every natural language, but are commonplace
• characters with your gender commonly appear in fiction as more than just a joke, and are often mentioned in serious non-fiction
• everyone is aware that people of your gender exist and have met people with your gender
• words exist to describe your sexuality and to describe people attracted to those of your gender, and most people have heard those words
• there is a way to pass as your gender, and roles/clothing/actions associated with that gender that you can use if you wish to be read correctly
• people will not have to "get used" to using your pronouns, as they use them for people on a daily basis, and will not tell you that your pronouns are "too hard" or treat them as some sort of novelty
• no one will say that humans can not have your gender, or treat the words and pronouns you use to describe your gender as an insult
• you can expect to find safe spaces for people of your gender
• in gender-based safe spaces, it is obvious if people of your gender are welcomed/allowed or not (from the One With No Name)
• it will be obvious which bathrooms, locker rooms, and facilities to try on clothes people of your gender are allowed to use (from the One With No Name)
• you will not have a hard time finding a partner who has heard of your gender, much less one who understands and accepts your gender and pronouns
• you will not have to educate people about what your gender is to have any hope of having that gender respected, because they have grown up around people who have that gender
• when you see a gender therapist, zie has dealt with people of your gender and will treat you with respect
• if your body is not "normal" for your gender, surgeries exist to help fix it and you won't be denied them due to your gender
• you do not have to create an entirely new legal sex to be legally acknowledged as your gender
• if parents raise a child as your gender, people will not consider this abuse
• people do not think it's okay to tell people of your gender that asking your child to respect your gender and pronouns is wrong because no one has heard of your gender
• from a young age, you are aware that people with your gender actually exist and will not have to go looking for or invent definitions that fit you. -(from AlextheSane)

I thought we needed one. I'm sure I'm missing some, critique is welcome & encouraged. Although some are somewhat binary trans specific, the fact that much of cis society doesn't accept trans genders can limit the amount of binary privilege they actually enjoy, but it's still there.

For example, with pronouns- a woman who doesn't look like a cis woman will not always have her pronouns respected, but she can still expect that people are accustomed to referring to people as 'she' and 'woman' and other words associated with her gender, and she won't have to deal with people struggling to add new language to their vocabulary to describe her gender. Also, in terms of safe space, women who happen to be trans are often excluded from so-called "women only" spaces (and let in trans men)- which erases their gender, but it's still blatant that, by all rights women should be able to join women-only spaces; however it can be difficult for non-binaries to tell if they'd be welcomed or accepted even in trans-only spaces.

This is What a Male-Bodied Person Looks Like

via This is What a Man Sounds Like. (highly related to this site, which I linked earlier, and suggest everyone also read.)

Male is a modifier, a word used to describe things that pertain to men. I am a man. Therefore, I, a man, have a male body, and I am a male-bodied person. My uterus, my clit, my soft chest, and my rounded hips are all part of my male body. Of course, other people have different body experiences, and I speak only for my own experience.
[...]
Often, people call me female-bodied when they’re addressing my experience of misogyny. Since I was raised as a girl, and I am a non-passing transman, I experience a lot of misogyny. I definitely got sexist street harassment when I lived in Boston. Similarly, people are likely to assume that I don’t know what I want when I go into a bike shop, or when I go dancing, that I’m a follow. Misogyny isn’t fun, but I don’t aspire to take on male privilege. That doesn’t make me a female-bodied person, although it does indicate that people perceive me that way. A more appropriate way to address my experience of sexism is to talk specifically about the experience and what’s going on, rather than to tell me what my body is like. For example, people could express their views of street harassment along with my expressed experience and analysis of being street harassed.

Another reason people try to call me a female-bodied person is in dealing with shared body experiences, like menstruation. In that case, instead of saying “women” or “female-bodied” folks could say “people who menstruate.” That avoids defining people by one biological process. It would also be important to never tell anyone about their own bodies. I experience menstruation, but I can only speak for my own experience, so I would not assume that other people experience the same thing. So, for example, I would not say, “The Diva Cup is great for women,” nor “The Diva Cup is great for female-bodied people.” I would say “The Diva Cup is great for me when I’m on my period, and it might be good for other folks.”

The third reason people assign me as female-bodied is to put me in a category of people who were socialized as girls, based on the way I act or relate to others. It’s true: I do tend to take care of friends and devalue my experiences and needs in comparison with others, at least in part because I was raised as a girl. Although the perception of my body by others led to me being raised as a girl, it is very important that no one tries to teach me about my own experiences. If I locate my learned behavior of devaluing my own thoughts and feelings, I will say those tendencies came out of the systematic devaluation I experienced from being socialized as a girl, not being “female-bodied.” So, if we’re talking about socialization, let’s talk about socialization, but let’s not blame it on bodies, and thus, injure by assigning.
Read More

Strawbreaking (via the Letter Z)

Anyone who wants to sign, comment here: http://sheisz.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/straw-breaking/.

Whereas those factions of cisgender people by sanction of state or sanction of religion, either by explicit or implicit means, or by inaction:

• have trivialized and ridiculed transgender people for the satisfaction of cisgender people,


• have majority and systematic control over our transgender narratives,


• have committed crimes of casual abuse against transgender people,


• have committed crimes of psychological warfare against transgender people,


• have sought to censure transgender people for expressing the desire to be treated with the same respect afforded cisgender people


• have sought to inspire and incite violence and maltreatment against transgender people


• have committed crimes of deprivation of liberty and crimes against humanity against transgender people


• have committed crimes of murder against transgender people, and


• have the desire of eradicating transgender people as a whole

Whereas those factions of cisgender people, nation states, organized religions, and religiously motivated groups have refused to address the above and take action to rememdy the above in a serious and timely fashion

Therefore, be it resolved that signatories or adherents to this document do solemnly declare war against those factions above and those States and organizations sanctioning and/or harboring them, and that signatories or adherents take any means necessary or desired (that would not be in themselves criminal acts) against those factions, States, and organizations with an end to the cessation of the crimes listed.

via the letter z. And, as Z went on to add:

I had to deliberately make it vague: for one reason, I don’t want the feds on me for incitement to violence, or whatever, hence the “without committing crimes” clause. The broad goal is to make those cis people who would see us exterminated know that they’re going to have a fight on their hands, and we’re not going to take it any more. I know that this is pretty much the attitude and goal of everyone who’s already in the fight, so this can be construed really as a message for cis people — we’re already engaged in the war, and cis people to know that they are the agressors in this war, and we’re fighting back and why. And it is something for me, at least, that makes it easier to deal with the news of the continued warfare against us, I suppose.

Transgender and Crossdressing

Disclaimer: I'm not a crossdresser, crossdreamer, nor a drag ace†. Clue by four.

"I would never want to be a woman. That would spoil all the fun of dressing like one." - Carly*

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I put up the definitions of the words I use (and feel free to mention if I need to add any more or you have problems with the ones I put up). I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why I define transgender as I do. Which is:

An adjective describing a person whose gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender makes no assumptions about the person’s genitalia, sex, gender role, presentation in daily life, or anything else- only the disconnect between what the doctors assumed the person would be and what the person actually is.

Now, I know that's not how everyone uses it- particularly as an umbrella term. One thing that there tends to be some disagreement on is whether or not people who don't uphold gender norms (crossdressers, drag royalty†, etc) are included in this. And here's my take on it.

Gender and the Binary

During the talk I had with Milla the other day, I started thinking about what gender would be like without the binary. And before I go on- let me make something clear. When I say "without the binary" I do NOT mean "without wermen and women", I mean "without the idea that everyone must be either a werman or a woman. Not both, not neither. One. Or. The. Other." (as well as the cissexist binary which says "and what you are is based on your genitalia" and "breaking gender roles makes it okay to mistreat you").

Then Why Does Misgendering Matter?

Also known as: "It must be so nice to be comfortable in either social role (even though you say you aren't)" and "I don't care about non-binaries enough to find out what things are like for you, so I'm going to make snippy digs about how I have it worse and therefore don't have to care about non-binaries".

This conversation happened on facebook in a conversation about passing: Person1: "I don't really identify as female. I identify with both sexes. It's kinda hard to explain." Person2: "okay, then why would passing as male as opposed to female be an issue?"

Transgender Sexuality

So someone made the claim that "LGBT people are heterophobic". They weren't listening to logic anyways, so why use logic, I just pointed out that some trans people are straight- and not all of the LGBT is heterophobic. They argued that trans sexuality (not to be confused with transsexuality) is based on assigned-sex, so trans people can't be straight. Let's ignore everything wrong with this statement. Here's my argument on why trans sexuality should be based on gender (if the person prefers it) more often than assigned-sex. I'm not going to get into "real" sex or surgery or anything like that. It pretty much comes down to this, for me.

The public part of a person's relationship is rarely sexual.

From here

We make the same sort of assumptions about bodies based on sex, although I would argue that they are more insidious. Culturally it is given that people with female bodies are women and people with male bodies are men. (Remember that, culturally, intersexed people do not exist.) Even among people who accept that trans people are telling the truth and we are who we say we are, we are still described as "men in women’s bodies" or "women in men’s bodies." This language is very problematic, as it still assumes that a female body must belong to a woman and a male body must belong to a man. To see how silly this is, consider a "man in a woman’s body;" just which woman does his body belong to? It’s not a woman’s body; a man inhabits it, it belongs to a man, so it is a man’s body.

This leads to my main point. Bodies belong to their owner or owners, not to society or anyone else. And bodies belong to people; people do not belong to bodies. Thus, a person’s body is theirs to modify and interpret. Even when given the example above, people tend to huff and say, "Well fine, it’s not a woman’s body, but it’s still a female body." To me, this is still problematic. What precisely about a man’s body is female? Certainly not his brain. (Culturally we also have a problem where we don’t consider your brain a part of your body or your biology.) It’s his body, and he’s male, so I’d argue that his body is male as well.

That usually leads to another huff and, "It’s biologically female, and you’re just going to get in trouble if you deny that." This is where things get particularly sticky. There are two problems with this statement. The first is that it is none of anyone’s business what someone’s biological makeup is, except their doctor’s; and thus the insistence of cis people to constantly point that out to trans people is, at best, annoying, and at worst, intrusive.

A lot of cis people have a tendency to forget that biology is a lot more complicated than "male" or "female." First of all, there are those pesky intersexed people again. There are more people than our society likes to admit who have ambiguous genitals or chromosomal anomalies that don’t fit in with our ideas of neat little male and female categories. (A cursory overview of intersex conditions is listed here.)

Secondly, you can’t describe someone’s entire health profile by deciding which sex box they go into. Bodies are more complicated than that. Even amongst cis people, there are biological overlaps. As a personal example, if I took women’s multivitamins, I’d be poisoned. Even though I have a "biologically female" body. How is that? Because we have different nutritional needs than other people based on other factors apart from sex (in my case, a genetic disorder is what causes this particular issue.) So because my nutritional needs are "biologically male," what does that make me?

The second problem with insisting another person’s body is "biologically this or that" is that, by clinging so desperately to the "your body is really female/male" line, you are still privileging the body over the person’s identity. My argument is that we, as human beings, can all interpret our bodies in a way that makes sense with our identities without killing our bodies or getting dread diseases.

We do this already to minor degrees. How often have you heard someone attach sentimental value to a scar? Or point to a birthmark and say, "It’s a heart" or "It’s a kitty face" or some other thing? It would be pretty rude to come down and say, "No, that’s just an abnormal pigmentation of the skin caused by injury or vascular irregularities. Stop being silly." Clearly, that’s what scars and birthmarks are, but the technical explanation of others is not as important as a person’s interpretation of their own body. These marks may have sentimental value, or it may simply be more pleasant to think of a weird mark as a flower or whatnot than as skin damage. It does not stop that person from seeking appropriate medical care if their marks start showing signs of cancer-like activity. So why should anyone else feel compelled to rain on that proverbial parade?

I argue the same principle applies to trans people. I can call my body male to my heart’s content. It doesn’t mean I am going to pretend that it’s no big deal if I get a lump in my breast. (And frankly it’s not your job to make sure that I check.) I don’t need you to tell me that my body is "really female" or "biologically female." I can take care of my body’s individual needs, such as checking my breasts for lumps, without needing to label my body in a way that I don’t wish to label it.

I fell into the trap of labeling my body as somehow essentially female for a long time, and it caused me a lot of mental anguish. The perceived incompatibility of my mind with my body was the source of a lot of discomfort for many years. But once I took a more subjective stance on my body (realizing that it is mine to interpret how I wish), and fixed the incongruity in my own mind, it relieved a major source of stress in my life.

A turning point in my life was researching sexual homology. (Specifically, looking at this web page.) Seeing the origins of particular genital tissues and the similarities between "male" and "female" sex organs made me realize that I could re-interpret my body to be something I am more comfortable with.

Before, I had a lot of sexual difficulties. I couldn’t really touch myself without feeling castrated and wrong. The things I was expecting to be there weren’t there. My genitals were alien and unpleasant to me. But that was a matter of interpretation. I was thinking of them as being somehow essentially female and therefore I was uncomfortable with them. After researching sexual homology, however, I changed the way I thought about my body. In essence I "re-mapped" my associations.

I started with the penis/clitoris. It hadn’t occurred to be before that the two were homologous organs. So the next time I touched my genitals, instead of thinking, "I don’t have a penis, I have some other weird thing instead," I thought, "Okay, so, I can think of this clitoris as a small penis, because they’re similar." And strangely enough, it worked. I was able to become more comfortable with my body based on my new interpretation.

Your first thought may be, "But it’s not really a penis." What difference does it make to you how I interpret my body? As I’ve said, I don’t ignore my health. I realize that my penis doesn’t work the same way as a normal cis man’s penis. But there are plenty of people, cis and trans, with "abnormal" organs and tissues, who take care of their body based on the way that their individual bodies work. Someone with a prosthetic limb may refer to their artificial arm as "my arm," despite the fact that it’s not flesh and blood, and still attend to the health needs unique to their situation. Interpretation need not be delusion, and in fact, I believe that it can be an incredibly positive action to take.

I realize that my particular solution to how I came to be comfortable with my body is not for everyone. However, I do think that because it was such a positive experience for me that it is worth sharing how I came about it.

The only problem I have with it is the lump thing- men need to check as well. Everyone with breast tissue needs to. TRANS MEN need to unless their surgeon scrapped it completely. Pap smears would be a better point.

Gender: Let's try this again

Let me start by saying that gender and sexuality are not the same thing. They are somewhat related, they effect each other, but they are not the same. Trans people and non-binaries and everyone else can have any sexuality. But, people have an easier time understanding sexuality than gender. Probably just the way the world is going- or maybe it's because they can understand "I find X hot" easier than "I know myself to be X".

I continually see binary-gendered people try to define everyone else as between the gender binary. This even happens right after a non-binary expresses that this is not true, usually accompanied by a condescending "Silly non-binary, you don't know what you're talking about" or a lovely amount of derailing. This is trying to base our gender on your identities, even if we insist that they are not based on them. This is annoying at best. So let's see if using sexuality will make this finally get through.

Lilo & Stitch

Like many Americans, I was raised on Disney Movies. And, like many people, I find myself noticing things as an adult that I never saw as a child. Although one thing that you really don't expect to notice in Disney is any LGBT reference. Sure- you get the occasional guy forced to wear dresses, dress like a woman, but this is usually accompanied by them bitching about it, or as a horrifically humiliating thing.

On Zucker

Kenneth Zucker is probably one of my least favorite people on the planet. I dislike his ideas about trans people, but more than that I hate what he gets away with doing to children. If you're not aware- he takes trans kids and forces them into the most rigid hetero/cisnormative gender roles that many cisgendered kids aren't expected to fit into these days.

It is completely backwards thinking. "Boys can't play with Barbie, girls can't play with GI Joe". What century are we in?! So what if a boy wants to wear pink? So what if a girl likes her hair short? Can someone please provide me with proof that children are scarred for life, utterly traumatized by being allowed to play with the toys they like?

Raising a kid "gender neutrally" doesn't mean "forcing a kid to be gender neutral".

"“If you raise your children to feel that they can accomplish any goal or task they decide upon, you will have succeeded as a parent and you will have given your children the greatest of all blessings.” - Brian Tracy
“It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.” -Maya Angelou

A while back, there were two parents in Sweden who decided to raise their child gender neutrally. They didn't tell what sex their child was and all of that. This was, of course, met with much hullabaloo and disapproval. One person commented that it wouldn't work because "They'll see gender roles anyways".

At first I was confused by that. Yes, of course they will, but the gender roles won't be forced down the child's throat. And that's a good thing, really, because if the child does grow up to be a man or a woman, they'll need to know about gender roles to know what society expects of them and make decisions from there.

With friends like these...

"Allies actually further the erasure of trans people in queer communities by only admitting to a related relationship, an abstract, and not a real and inherent one." - gudbuy t'jane

About a year back I was on a forum, and the issue of trans came up, and someone made a post talking about men and makeup/treatments/whatevers. I was genuinely confused about whether they were talking about trans men, cis men, or trans women. It could have applied to any of them. So I politely (no, really) explained that I didn't understand what the person meant and asked, if they were talking about trans women, to use the correct gendered terms.

The reply? Something along the lines of "I support you so I get to call you whatever I want".

I sincerely hope this person is in a vast minority, but I somehow doubt it (*waves to the genuinely supportive cis people out there* You guys rock! This post isn't about you!). If you aren't sure what's so bad about this, I'll try to explain.

Traits vs Gender

"Once, power was considered a masculine attribute. In fact, power has no sex.” - Katharine Graham
"I think we're struggling with trying to redefine various positions at this point in history. To allow freedom for women, freedom for men, freedom from those sharply defined gender roles." - Fred Ward

One thing that seems to be a source of confusion and aggravation for cisgendered/sexual (aka- non-transgendered) people is traits vs gender. In other words, confusing masculine traits and being manly with being a Man and vice versa. And the transgendered community doesn't help one bit.

The stereotypical backstory for a transgendered woman generally involves always playing with girls when she was a child, wanting to play with dolls and wearing dresses, always wanting to be the mom/woman figure when playing house, etc etc etc. When a transgendered person first comes out, which is also when they're least likely to pass and most likely to be out about being transgendered, they tend to go a bit 'overboard' on the femininity/masculinity (for mtFs and ftMs, respectively), too.