This particular attack generally comes from people with a view to deconstruct gender, i.e. socially mandate it out of existence. It's not so much an argument against transsexuality as it is against transition (with the implication that such methods can't "work" or have no effect, as if I needed a vagina or breasts to be a woman...)
Your first incorrect assumption here is that I want to fight the gender binary. On the contrary, I suspect that the "gender binary" is very much natural and I know it does not in any way offend my sensibilities. I would say that most everyone I've ever met is either a self-identified man or a self-identified woman, and that is totally cool if it works for them. As for myself, I'm a self-identified woman. No, I've no interest in fighting the gender binary. I've interest in fighting the obligations one is born with toward the gender binary. If you are born male you are obligated to be a man in the binary, while females are obligated to be women. Everyone is obligated to identify as one or the other, at least. The fact that most people DO identify within those fairly narrow ranges is wholly incidental; one should be free to identify anywhere along the masculine-feminine spectrum, or outside of it, if they feel such a label accurately describes them, regardless of birth sex or anything. It isn't acceptable to have as a goal "dismantling the identity of another person"; that is a violation of their rights to self-determination. Liberating people, on the other hand, to freely choose their identities and their expressions of them, is a profoundly noble thing.
Your second incorrect assumption is that for whatever reason transition (usually medical transition) is by nature an appeal to normativity. This often comes from people who honestly believe that being a trans woman who is "feminine" is somehow more "normative" than being a feminine man or a masculine woman, and more importantly, that being "normative" is necessarily bad. First--trust me, I know this--being trans is not suddenly conforming to gendered stereotypes, especially not in a world that stubbornly continues to conflate birth sex and everything else relating to one's gender/presentation. I still catch tons of shit for being a trans woman, and NOBODY, EVER, has said to me "Well at least you transitioned, 'cause if you'd been a feminine man, whoa, that would have been rough." My life is not suddenly simple now that people no longer usually mistake me for a man--I still have to deal with the cultural baggage that comes with my now-perceived womanhood, much of which I would reject wholesale, were that an option, in addition to all the shit shovelled on me for being trans. Second--there's nothing wrong with being typical or "normative". In many ways I am a typical woman--that doesn't mean I suddenly can't be an activist or that I'm suddenly kowtowing to "the Man". Look at it this way--there is no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of being white. Being white is not bad. Being oppressive and wielding your white privilege against people of color is bad. Likewise, I am in many ways a "typical" woman, and I'm fine with that--if I were ranting about how I'm so much better at being a woman than butch lesbians, that would be bad.
Many people back this up with bullshit like "I don't really agree with any cosmetic surgery, though, so I'm not transphobic. You just shouldn't be ashamed of your body, because it's what's inside that counts." I want you to picket the burn victims' unit in your local hospital with signs that say "No skin transplants for burn victims; BE PROUD OF YOUR BODY". Now, I don't think a burn victim ought to be compelled to get skin grafts. But if they want them then they should be available. Skin grafts generally serve no physiological purpose--your skin WORKS, scarred though it may be. Skin grafts are a psychological/social thing done for the comfort of the individual--just like transition. I'm the same person now, mid-transition, as I was before I started, and I will be the same person when I'm "done" (though perhaps happier, when I no longer catch hell over the information on my driver's license). Transition is making me happier, nothing else, because I can finally say I love every part of my body, and it all feels right (or is getting there). You don't have to like it, but here's the thing--to refuse to actually support my right to alter my body as I am comfortable doing is simply giving ammunition to those who WOULD out-and-out stop me. I don't ask that you change the way you FEEL, merely the way you ACT. If you are really committed to personal freedoms you have a duty to BEHAVE in a supportive manner, which includes not saying stupid shit like "Cosmetic surgery is perpetuating a dangerous materialist streak in our culture." Instead realize that people who undergo cosmetic procedures (whether they be surgical or hormonal, in any case) MAY indeed do it to conform to someone else's beauty standards--but some of us do it for ourselves, and in the end--neither you nore anyone else should get a say in what I do with my body.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Outing people: good or bad?
'Outrage': Kirby Dick kicks open Washington's closet door
Trailer
Is it ever okay to out someone?
The obvious response is: No, never. We as people have individual rights to privacy that extend to everyone; just because you're a politician and have accepted that de facto your life is not as private as it once was does not mean that the de facto situation takes on any sort of de jure facet. You SHOULD expect the same level of privacy that everyone else gets and you SHOULD receive it. Unfortunately you probably won't expect or receive it, but that doesn't mean such deprivatizing of private matters is acceptable.
The more honest one: It's complicated.
You should never out someone for the sake of outing them (in order to, for example, discredit them or shame them). In an ideal world, like I said, everyone has their right to privacy. However, consider this: In court, a witness's own criminal record is inadmissible information, UNLESS THE CONVICTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO DISHONESTY (i.e. fraud, perjury, etc.). So you can't bring up a criminal record unless it calls into question the value of the individual's testimony.
If someone's history is seriously relevant to the debate then maybe it is admissible, even if it's related to something usually private (like sexuality or a criminal record). Maybe. I still think it's a douche move--there are legit ways to attack anti-gay legislation that don't amount to ad hominem attacks against politicians, after all--but I suppose if the debate devolves into mudslinging and you don't feel mature enough to rise above it, it's fair ammunition.
Trailer
Is it ever okay to out someone?
The obvious response is: No, never. We as people have individual rights to privacy that extend to everyone; just because you're a politician and have accepted that de facto your life is not as private as it once was does not mean that the de facto situation takes on any sort of de jure facet. You SHOULD expect the same level of privacy that everyone else gets and you SHOULD receive it. Unfortunately you probably won't expect or receive it, but that doesn't mean such deprivatizing of private matters is acceptable.
The more honest one: It's complicated.
You should never out someone for the sake of outing them (in order to, for example, discredit them or shame them). In an ideal world, like I said, everyone has their right to privacy. However, consider this: In court, a witness's own criminal record is inadmissible information, UNLESS THE CONVICTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO DISHONESTY (i.e. fraud, perjury, etc.). So you can't bring up a criminal record unless it calls into question the value of the individual's testimony.
If someone's history is seriously relevant to the debate then maybe it is admissible, even if it's related to something usually private (like sexuality or a criminal record). Maybe. I still think it's a douche move--there are legit ways to attack anti-gay legislation that don't amount to ad hominem attacks against politicians, after all--but I suppose if the debate devolves into mudslinging and you don't feel mature enough to rise above it, it's fair ammunition.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
We couldn't get ONE person out of two dozen? REALLY?
You've probably heard about the "bathroom bill" that came up for a vote (and was shot down) in the New Hampshire senate this past week. I honestly can't help but take this personally. It would be one thing if the bill just lost--a vote split almost 50-50 (or 11-13 as the case may be, whatever) would at least be a sign of progress. I'd be absolutely ecstatic if 50% of the members of any group were defending me and my gender identity.
But the fact is, it was shot down unanimously. Twenty-four reasonable, intelligent people ALL voted that as long as I'm in New Hampshire, my rights to housing, job security, and safe urination were all essentially nil, because I was born with a penis.
This wasn't even a radical proposition: the law would have only affected housing, job security, etc. because the toilet issue which made such a stir was resolved already. Laws already prevent discrimination based on sex, and the men's room/ladies' room dichotomy smacks of separate-but-equal to me; essentially sex-specific restrooms are already enforced by courtesy, not law.
People stated that they were worried about predators using this statute to legally prowl in women's restrooms. In the hundred-or-so locales with similar laws that has never been reported to be a problem. People say they want to protect their daughters, their wives--then lobby about an important (and real) issue like the rape kits that go untested for years or clearing the wage gap. Don't take an opportunity like this to point out how you think I'm sub-human--I know you think that. And now I know your legislative body thinks that, too.
I'm not sure what you can do about this as an individual. I even understand if you're not up-in-arms about it--I'm not from New Hampshire and it took me a while to get well and truly pissed about this, too. But here's something small: any time you hear someone call this the "bathroom bill" correct them and inform that (a) I can already use any bathroom I want and (b) this decision had the more significant effect of essentially letting me know that I couldn't necessarily rent an apartment (which would have a bathroom in it and solve this whole problem).
But the fact is, it was shot down unanimously. Twenty-four reasonable, intelligent people ALL voted that as long as I'm in New Hampshire, my rights to housing, job security, and safe urination were all essentially nil, because I was born with a penis.
This wasn't even a radical proposition: the law would have only affected housing, job security, etc. because the toilet issue which made such a stir was resolved already. Laws already prevent discrimination based on sex, and the men's room/ladies' room dichotomy smacks of separate-but-equal to me; essentially sex-specific restrooms are already enforced by courtesy, not law.
People stated that they were worried about predators using this statute to legally prowl in women's restrooms. In the hundred-or-so locales with similar laws that has never been reported to be a problem. People say they want to protect their daughters, their wives--then lobby about an important (and real) issue like the rape kits that go untested for years or clearing the wage gap. Don't take an opportunity like this to point out how you think I'm sub-human--I know you think that. And now I know your legislative body thinks that, too.
I'm not sure what you can do about this as an individual. I even understand if you're not up-in-arms about it--I'm not from New Hampshire and it took me a while to get well and truly pissed about this, too. But here's something small: any time you hear someone call this the "bathroom bill" correct them and inform that (a) I can already use any bathroom I want and (b) this decision had the more significant effect of essentially letting me know that I couldn't necessarily rent an apartment (which would have a bathroom in it and solve this whole problem).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)