Enough Already

On Joe.My.God. recently...

I just wrote about this in another comment. But, when Joe wrote about Chaz Bono's transistion, a gay man who is a regular commenter there wrote that Chaz wasn't really transistioning because he would never have a "real" "functioning" penis.

A trans man went off on the guy. He told him "get your mind out of my pants" and tried to explain why he was offended by the statement.

Several other commenters chimed in and one told the trans man that he "wasn't making any friends" at Joe.My.God. -- as if he were stepping into gay white man territory and should tread lightly. I found that to be very upsetting.

As an intelligent person, I can see when someone is rightfully offended and has perhaps has been pushed over the edge by just one stupid comment too many.

And, writing that Chaz Bono won't have a real penis is profoundly stupid. The guy who wrote that needed to apologize. Instead, he went on about science not being able to change chromozomes, blah, blah, blah.

The trans man just kept getting more angry and finally told everyone to fuck off.

That's reality. We can't expect every trans person to be a good will embassador. That's not being realistic. Sometimes, getting mad and saying "fuck you" is the best approach.

I learned my lesson about transgender issues when I posted a stupid "Man Coulter" joke on my blog a few years ago. I was taken to task for it and I realized I was being narrow minded and insensitive to an entire group of people.

I was wrong. I was stupid. I learned a valuable lesson.

Those are very hard words for most people to write. But once you do, your whole world will change. It is easier to do it the second time. Even easier the third.

We are all here on this planet to learn to be better people. No one is perfect.

You just can't issue a blanket request to all trans folk and turn them into Autumn Sandeen. That's exactly why we need you and others like you.

Likewise, I can't force other gay men to learn the lesson I learned back when I thought ridiculing Ann Coulter with "tranny" jokes was an appropriate thing to do. They have to learn for themselves. Maybe it will take a "fuck you" or a kick in the ass to do it.

There is a time and place for everything.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 01:43:55 AM CDT

Ann Coulter: No Woman Nor Mann

She's a hag.  Like the Sea Hag from the old Popeye cartoons.

A miserable hag whose jaw-wiring and plastic surgery made her less attractive than she already was.

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:00:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We let this slide because Ann Coulter is a public figure...

...but your comment goes to my point. Instead of commenting about Ann Coulter's words and behavior, you engaged in name-calling against her. What did you accomplish with the name-calling?

Notice that when I wrote my piece about Aravosis, I didn't call him any names, or refer to him in a derogatory manner. Instead, I attacked his ideas, and commented about the hypocricy of his statements (because pointing out hypocricy is an important media function).

So to again quote Martin Luther King Jr.:

I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up against our most bitter opponents and say:"We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.... But be assured that we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

Our ideas don't win the day in the marketplace of ideas if our retorts are name-calling.

So to see our ideas wine in the marketplace of ideas, I'd suggest not calling Ann Coulter names. Tell us instead what's wrong with her particular ideas and accepted opinions.

That's what being civil is about -- attacking the ideas people have, and not personally attacking the people who promote the ideas.

And, as a real world example, how many minds did Kim Pearson and I change by being reasonalble, thoughtful people during the Rob, Arnie, and Dawn In The Morning incident? If we'd have called Arnie and Dawn names like "bigot" and "transphobes," we'd have gotten no where with them, or with their's or our audiences.

We won with love. Again with MLK Jr.:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I prefer a brighter future -- especially for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. And to get there, I've found I need to be as civil to my perceived enemies as I want my perceived enemies to be to me. Sometimes, I can turn my enemies into friends with love.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:55:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent point, easily forgotten

Passions get heated and common sense and decency get ignored. It's also difficult w/ Coulter because she herself calls people names and dehumanizes them rather than debating their ideas.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:31:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We shouldn't let it slide because it spreads

I run a blog about album cover art and two artists have been hit with ugly attacks by people who call them "tranny" and other transphobic insults.

- Brooke Hogan

- Demi Lovato

Neither one of these women are trans. They are both beautiful, natal women.

Demi Lovato is a cute Disney actress/singer. Some of the things I've read about her are simply shocking. She's a teenager for Christ's sake!

Also, the word "tranny" is often combined with "whore" and "bitch" etc.

Most of the people who engage in this horrible behavior are GAY MEN. That's simply a fact.

We let gay men get away with calling Ann Coulter a tranny and now it is being used to smear other women like Hogan and Lovato.

This has to stop. It is vulgar and hateful.

The one good thing about this is that neither Hogan nor Lovato have responded to these attacks (I don't think Coulter has either).

If you're speaking to a gay man and he calls someone like Brooke Hogan "tranny", tell him that he's being offensive and tell him why. If you don't speak up, you are encouraging the spread of this crap.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:38:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

@Fritz

I have stated forcefully when other sites, when the trans jokes about Coulter and adam's apples, begin. She is such a detestable __, and it's hard not throwing in the worst sexist slurs, and I know its FOUL to do so.
I will say the word DICK and male slurs are usually laughed at, and acceptable.
I also had many friendships with drag queens, (mostly because my first lover was very tall, and could dance partner with men in high heels.) He had his closest friend, who performed in drag) help him through a horribly ugly divorce involving blackmail and child custody, combined with his coming out,)before I met him. From my History, I know drag performers are some of the BEST/WORST at name calling, and can do it in a heartbeat.
Just pointing out this isn't JUST a gay men's problem.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:18:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hadn't mentioned some of the drag performers were transitioning

Most in my circle of friends, were some of the earliest AIDS deaths so they never transitioned beyong some taking hormones.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:30:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My ex was a fairly famous drag queen

He and his partner performed all over California. He died in a car accident in 1989.

So, I am very familiar with drag culture.

I believe that my former use of the word "tranny" as a slur came from my white, gay male peers and not the drag queens that I used to know.

I am trying to recall if I ever heard my ex use the word "tranny" and I don't think he ever did. He had many trans friends. So, I don't think he would have been inclined to use that word.


When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:48:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just said drag performers were very adept at name-calling

Not the use of trans slurs specificly. They could embrace some of the most toxic slurs that were racist, sexist, elitist, etc.
Many of my friends were Black drag queens, and sluring based on race was no exception with them.
Some of this was defense mechanism, being able to humiliate some hateful bigot in the audience, was the epitome of FIERCE.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:02:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kinda blurred nowadays

"I believe that my former use of the word "tranny" as a slur came from my white, gay male peers and not the drag queens that I used to know. "

Don't know how it was in the 80's but most drag queens who perform in San Francisco nowadays are white gay males. Some of the most prominent were regulars at a well-known club named "Trannyshack". In that context, I don't think anyone took "tranny" as a slur on trans people.

My impression is that while some of us who started out as white gay drag queens eventually transitioned, it wasn't all that common. I've met hundreds of trans folks, but only a few others like myself.

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:17:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh. Trannyshack

One of my oldest friends is Shutterslut, who documented much of trannyshack on a daily basis.

Off and on, back and forth, we've known each other since 1st grade.

I'm jealous, too -- he came out as gay long, long years before I came out at trans. Lucky little @#&%$!*&%

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:31:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"as a slur"

I think that's the point I was trying to make. Not that the drag queens didn't use the term -- cuz God knows they did!

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:44:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But my ex never used it

I can't remember a single time.

Make sense?

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:46:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It does to me.

But then, I'm closer to some Queens that I like to admit publicly, LOL.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:47:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nothing

You could give me 20 years to find 1 quality about Ann Coulter that I like, and it'll still be 1 thing:

She once dated Bill Maher (I wouldn't, but he's my favorite comedian).  

I've never seen her do anything nice for anyone, never heard her say anything nice about anyone.  That alone makes her one of the most unattractive women in this country, in more ways than one.

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:03:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And so it's okay to act in a way to her...

...in a way you don't want her to behave towards you or your communities?

I think you're somewhat willfully missing the point I'm trying to make about civility. To quote Gandhi:

Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.

And...

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:46:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do you let that slide?

That was pure misogyny and transmisogyny. Why are you giving it a pass here?

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:00:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dammit

I'm sorry I missed this. I read JoeMyGod regularly. If I would have read this I would have given that guy a piece of my mind.

I think you're talking about something different than what Autumn is trying to address though.

---

by: Eshto @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:20:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Autumn, but...

speaking only for myself as a GWM, I wasn't terribly offended by people's comments.  The anger was misdirected, but the feelings were valid.

It's a problem because so many of us GWMs have stayed silent and let Aravosis pretend to speak on all of our behalf.  We have failed to distance ourselves from the guy, and failed to publicly reject his views.  We haven't spoken up for more inclusive representation when again and again gay white men are used to represent "the gay community" or "gay opinion leaders" on the TV news channels, to the exclusion of other voices.

so let's do just that, GWM's!  Let's commit ourselves to an inclusive movement, and say " John Aravosis doesn't speak for me, nor does he speak for "the gay community", let alone the LGBT movement for equality.

---

by: kevinerickson @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 01:50:19 AM CDT

I don't know if that's exactly right

John Aravosis is as much a part of the "gay community' as, say, Tavis Smiley is a part of the "black community" (FYI, a lot of people in the black community aren't feeling Tavis behind his steadfast support of Hillary Clinton in the primaries and his criticisms of Obama).

Aravosis is a voice in the gay community, OK, he;'s a pretty loud voice. He's only one voice but I'm not going to disown him. Hell, I've never even disowned Dan Savage.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 09:08:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

GWM

I avoided the Aravosis thread, because I just knew it would likely turn into a war of words LOL

Personally, I have a love/hate thing for Aravosis.  I like his writing and appreciate the work he does.  But on the other hand, he, Solmonese and other GWM who allegedly represents the gay community as a whole - I don't want them representing myself.  And they shouldn't be representing the rest of us, because not all of us are decently wealthy, travels the world and lives a lavish lifestyle.  

Unfortunately when fundies sees these guys representing us, they must assume we ALL live like these guys - when the fact of the matter is, no matter what race we are, most of us are more like Roseanne and Dan Connor from Roseanne.  We're not rich, but at least we surround ourselves (in our offline life) with our friends and family - NOT with politicians and people who are your friends one minute and working against you the next.

I'd rather some average everyday working class gays representing me, because they and their lives are WAY more authentic than the GWM representing our community as a whole.

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:18:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly

I had never heard of him before this.

---

by: Eshto @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 23:24:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your refusal to condemn Aravosis and Savage are the problem

Why do you not want to distance yourself from bigots such as Aravosis and Dan Savage?

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:05:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Worry about your own distancing n/m

---

by: hominidx @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 22:41:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On my part, Autumn

I want to thank you for not including me in that group.

I'm bad enough as it is, lol

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:01:53 AM CDT

Right on

There are a lot of Blenders who feel sick to our stomachs when we see ANY "Group A" broad-brush ANY "Group B" for ANY reason.  Thanks, Autumn, for reminding us all that inclusion is a principle... not a sword to be selectively wielded.  

Hopefully your comments bring about some change... and help us all focus our energies where they really need to be targeted... against ANYONE who wants to stop ANY of us from living our sexuality and/or gender in the way that feels natural for us.

---

by: CubPaws2008 @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:36:31 AM CDT

In fairness to the trans-community, Autumn

and watching the events as a Lesbian, I do have to say on their behalf, if I may, that their anger is repeatedly fanned by certain people with extremist, exclusivist anti-trans positions in an effort to generate exactly that kind of response to split the trans off of the LGBT community by using the hyperbolic responses of some trans people against the entire community

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 06:27:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

:D

Damn.  I swear, you could turn me in a sec..

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:49:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hugs

Hey ya know all this infighting is just what they (right) want to see happen now isn't it...

I think everyone should cool off and remember there is fewer of US, than of them. United we stand divided we fall.

I for one often think of my self having belonged to all the colors of our rainbow.

Back when I was White male by birth I loved a few men in my life. thus I get a G :D yay for me  

As Woman of surgical history now I have loved 2 women
Thus I get  L  Yay for me

Pre surgical but living full time as woman I have dated men, women, Trans person both male and female , some with surgery some with out . both Ftm's and M2f's.
Thus i get a B with extra clusters on my merit badge Yay for me.  

And of course I transitioned
Thus i get T  Yay for me

G,L,B,T

But what i find so disheartening having belonged to all the groups in my 48 yrs 36 yrs male 2 yrs T and 10yrs come September as a woman.. How each group clusters in lil self affirmation clusters. As if to bolster each others sagging self worth.. When really were all special people and orientations of sexuality should not define who we are as a person. Tis a great shame and disservice we do to each other buy trying to belittle others for our own gain.
While we may view our views as just and true and worth doing battle for. Yet when you isolate in small pods (IE, Like were doing in this bickering, Gay white men, Gay black Men, White lesbians, Black lesbians , white Trans, Black trans, Young early trans, Older trans, People who eat left handed only, carnivores, herbivores, omnivores,Atheist, creationist, spaghetti monsters,) an only see from that one position it is egocentric and places us in the same category as the Church when they viewed the Earth as the center of the universe. And all the world was to revolve around our self inflated egos.  Yet we find ourself today suffering this same disease. Only we changed our words and not our perspective.  Wake the heck up the universe does not revolve around any one group or pod or any other self appointed or imposed label. Try seeing more than just your view. You might find the answers were all seeking.

Equality for all.    

And like my granny use to say .. If you don't have something nice to say then don't say it.    

Pain is Inevitable .
Suffering is Optional  

---

by: Ana @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:50:35 AM CDT

Thanks Autumn--the fringe extremists do not define the rest of us.

It would be like attacking all Lesbians for the attitudes of the shrill remnants of the separatist extremists

Or all trans-people for the attitudes of the few homophobic HBS'ers

There are fringes in the movement.

Are there hard core extremists at the margins of every demographic in the trans cummunity?

Of course

Are they representative of the entire group or even a majority of the group?

Hardly

DO I have an issue with the cloistered, conservative, priviledged few neo-mattachinits?
Most certainly.

Do I deplore the excesses of my radical feminist Lesbian sisters, forever attempting to eradicate any hint of testosterone from their enclaves?

Oh yes.

But attacking the entire community of any subset of the LGBT community is both wrong and shortsighted.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 06:24:01 AM CDT

Just a Thought

I read Pam's House Blend through the Google Reader aggregator because I read a lot of blogs.  This is my first time commenting, so what I have to say may not be relevant.

While I am a woman of color, I am not a lesbian nor am I bisexual or transgender.

My thought was did you tell Aravosis that you were offended by his statements?  All too often, we don't tell the offenders what is really getting on our nerves.  We tell everyone except them.

I think Aravosis should be made aware of how hurtful his comments are and asked to, if he can't personally accept the error of his philosophy, he can always change what he says.  After all he has a huge platform and is read by people all over the world.

I say the last because I live in Greece and wouldn't miss either of your blog postings (I really like the "family" dynamics) for anything.

Thanks,

Amaliada  

---

by: Amaliada @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 06:49:34 AM CDT

As pointed out by some people commenting on Autumn's article

Aravosis doesn't seem to be someone who handles criticism well. He has deleted posts, removed references to dissenters from posts and the blog roll and banned their accounts.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:18:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How to get Banned at AmericaBlog

John Aravosis published a luridly transphobic rant on Salon during the ENDA betrayal two years ago. Aravosis banned me from AmericaBlog after I posted the following reply in an open discussion:

Here's another point Aravosis makes in his article "How Did the T Get in LGBT?":

"It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause."

Aravosis might have had a legitimate case had he stuck to justifying the Congressional Democrats' legislative strategy for passing ENDA. Instead, he used ENDA as an excuse to launch a misguided and divisive broadside against LGBT solidarity. In the process, he exposed his own transphobic ignorance, insulting trans people with tabloid stereotypes straight out of right-wing talk radio.

When I confronted Aravosis on his blatant disrespect for trans people he made this public reply:

"I'm sorry if not using buzz words and code words that people don't understand, like gender identity, offends you, but I think I gave a pretty accurate definition of pre-op transsexual, did I not?"

No John, I think you gave us a pretty accurate picture of how much contempt you have for trans people.

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:55:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suspect what so many of us in the L and the G don't get

I that we don't have to totally understand why we should relate to the other person, but what we must understand is that we are ALL discriminated against.  Can't we come together under the banner of human and civil rights for all, and not pick each other apart.
Why do we have to all have something in common?  Or believe the same way.  That is exactly what I see the far right and the fundies doing and requiring.  Sameness of belief or experience.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:00:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, it's our shared experiences we have in common

There's a lot of overlap, of course, but I think "LGBT" is really about a coalition of communities rather than a collective group identity. When we tag each other with L, G, B, or T, it's not so much to assess one's personal identity as it is to associate a person with their primary affinity group.

The four categories are not regarded equally either, as some letters take precedence over others. In my case, I've actually identified as each of the four - L, G, B, and T at different points in my life. But once I became "T", that overshadowed all the rest in other people's eyes. I know very well that I am primarily seen as a trans woman who happens to be a dyke, rather than a dyke who happens to be trans.

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:32:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, Lish that's a better way of looking at it

I like the coalition of communities better too.

When I first was coming out I wasn't sure I wasn't a B, because I couldn't explain being married to a man for 18 years, discounting that I was always fantasizing about women to stand it. Anyway, that was within myself, but I have "identified" myself as lesbian even before I came out officially.

I personally have never felt like I was a man trapped in a woman's body, but that doesn't mean we don't share other experiences that can be similar.  And the same with gay men, heck even other lesbians who have always been out don't understand how I could have believed that I was so evil that I denied everything about myself for so long, but, when we talk to each other, we see how much we all have in common.  And the differences only make things more interesting.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The two sides of the coin...

On one hand, I can understand the "why" of transpeople, I would gets mostly transwomen, going off on gay white males for the simple fact that they are the most visible within the LGBT culture and (from the sociological point of view) the highest social chain on the LGBT hierarchy.  I know that I've been having my own period of adjustment to being seen as a second- or third-class citizen due to being a woman, a queer woman and a transwoman.  There's a lot of frustration and anger that you deal with throughout the process to find your own peace with the situations that those of us that identify as women/queer/trans have been thrown into.

On the OTHER hand, I don't think that gives us permission to go off on gay white males.  While they may be the most visible representation of LGBT folk, that also puts them at greater risk for violence and name-calling.  How does that give us the right to go off on them because they're more visible?  Should we include more lesbian/trans voices & voices of color?  Hell yeah!  But does that mean that we have the right to criticize all gay white men because they are the most visible representation of our community.  No.  Not in a heartbeat.

To be honest with you, I've known very few gay white men that were bitchy or catty to me.  Most of the gay guys love me because IRL I'm no-holds-barred.  I'll tell it like it is, and most of them see that and respect me because of it.  Is LGB acceptance of the trans community something to still work for?  I believe so because, just as those people who are trans went off on them, they also go off on us... neither of which does anyone any good.  We should accept the differences within ALL portions of our community and not throw anyone under the bus whether they be gay/lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, or anything other than heterosexual and cisgendered.  If we all work together and FOR each other - not AGAINST each other - maybe we can all manage to create change not only for our neighborhoods, not only for our COUNTRY even, but for the entire WORLD!

Happy Pride!
Hazumuchan

---

by: Hazumuchan @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 07:58:10 AM CDT

Thank you

I would like to take this opportunity to thank both you and Pam for the civility that you have maintained on this blog and that you have asked us to maintain.  It speaks highly of both of you.  Having Pam's House Blend is a real pleasure.

---

by: silverkjk @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:21:43 AM CDT

!

Thank you! As a gay white man, I have to agree that some of us can have "perception problems" where the only people we pay attention to are me myself and I. That said, not EVERY gay man is like that, all of the time, and its hurtful to group the good with the bad. Believe me, many of us are well aware of this problem, and wish we could change things, but its up to the other dudes to teach themselves. We can't help bing white gay men-please don't hold it against me just because someone who looks like me is clueless!

---

by: philipot00 @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:52:22 AM CDT

Well said, Autumn

As a GWM, I want to thank you for calling attention to this.

Independent thinking, challenging the status quo and conventional thinking, along with questioning a strategy are all fair game and are healthy to a discussion.

And as you correctly noted, denigrating someone else is not.

Thank you again.

Regards,
JJ

P.S. Happy pride to everyone!

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 09:16:06 AM CDT

I've been so

busy the last few months with school that I've only been able to comment here and there at PHB. But, I always read.

I love July 10th as a Day of Civility. The respect and decency at the Blend has really drawn me in. I had never (and have never) encountered it at numerous political blogs. It's what made me a faithful reader from day one.

I stopped reading ABlog exactly during the ENDA tragedy. I was really crushed by some of the things I was reading there. The only thing John's stubbornness (I think I'm being polite, but at the very least I can't see him as anything but stubborn after seeing so many comments deleted and so many people banned for simple dissagreement.) did for me was make me more committed to directly confronting transphobia when I encounter it.  I'm not one to let my anger show very often, so I usually use arguments and draw parallels, most of which I've been educated on here at the Blend.

When I do encounter transphobia in the community, I get a sick feeling of deja vu. It reminds me of the attitudes I've seen expressed toward HIV+ individuals - and I'm not trying to equate the two; obviously one is something to be treated and the other is a celebration of being true. The underlying self-dignosed "superiority" is a commonality though, and it's very gross and very, very ignorant.

And that superiority is mythical. I'm from upstate NY I can say from first hand experience that no matter how much certain people in the community hate it, we are ALL lumped together in one large monolith (at least we are by the fundies I was raised among and encountered).

I hope you post reminders for the Day of Civility on the sidebar or facebook when the day gets closer.  Pam, will you announce it at Panda too? I think it would be a great day to celebrate through the progblogosphere.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 09:41:17 AM CDT

What the Blend has done for me

is educate on more levels and topics than I can properly do justice to in a few quick sentences.

But perhaps the most important thing I have taken away from the Blend and incorporated into my real life is this concept:

All words matter and a calm, reasonable, respectful and thought-out approach achieves the best results in a discussion.

I spent over 40 years of my life thinking that simply being intelligent and able to make my points strongly was the way to go.

Wrong...

We are all capable of typing up a quick retort. The thing is: is it worth it? Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery?

Does my credibility as the messenger degrade as well?

Excellent post, Autumn and Pam- civility is very important and I am glad to see it get discussed here today.

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:07:01 AM CDT

Pam sorry drug side effects are treating you harshly

I hope they adjust the dosage or alter the drug regimen to get you functioning again. I always hated when I'd have to switch to a different drug cocktail, usually it'd be two weeks to a month of feeling crappy.
Some of the civility issue boils down to, it gets as bad as you let it. As a gay man here, the threads in question didn't have any lasting harm, and I posted to another angered gay man on the thread, and explained I had backed away a year earlier from some of the trans threads. Even with some confrontations, I value the the trans issues that are brought up on PHB, and the site would be LESSENED without contributions from diverse voices. Does that mean folks won't have battles, and get miffed....NO.
Passionate people don't behave that way, and allies can sometimes just agree to disagree on specific issues.
Not letting everything get SO serious, might be a good release. Communally we might make friends on lighter subjects, that will weather us through confrontational subjects.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:29:48 AM CDT

I learned early on at PHB

not to post or comment on trans issues if I wanted to keep my health and sanity. I am commenting here not on the validity of trans issues, but of the attitude surrounding discussions ABOUT trans issues.

I find the attitudes of several commenters to be highly counterproductive to civil discourse.

Before posting this message here, I read all 200+ comments on other thread. It was quite something.

It was very hard for me not to write off the whole trans community here on PHB after the gang beating I took on marriage issues. I found I had to really work at it to separate the posters from the issues.

So I gladly read postings on trans issues because I find that I almost always learn something -- about others and myself. I freely admit I don't know many trans folk, and that I use PHB to further educate myself.

But I don't have time or energy to fight people who I generally consider to be allies in the civil rights struggle.

And FWIW, I like AmericaBlog. I like John. I don't agree with all of his thoughts, and I freely admit I was unaware of his previous trans-phobic remarks. I am glad he's being called on them.

But I was NOT shocked at the vitriol with which members of PHB responded against him and those of us who are middle-class GWM's, from a small subset of commenters in particular. (Actually, some of you DID shock me, because I hadn't seen that side of you before.)

And one last wading into the deep:
For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don't say tranny, etc.

So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-? If members of the trans community said "stop calling us trans, we find it offensive" would we here at PHB continue to say "trans"? I doubt it very much.

Why the lack of respect in the other direction?

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48:33 AM CDT

I am hopeful

that this self-evaluation of the Blend community might lead to more fruitful conversations in general.

I value Louise's and Autumn's contributions very highly, and look to them as voices of reason. Louise's remarks above are spot-on: "Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery? Does my credibility as the messenger degrade as well?"

In the past the answer has definitely been yes. Going forward, perhaps more civility will be demonstrated -- in all directions, from all sources.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:55:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your comments Lane.

To begin with, I'm giving up on the words cissexual and cisgender. I saw these as neutral terms, and now I see these are not. Thank you for your reasoned explanation as to why.

And yeah, civil tone matters, and thinking in terms of broad communities matter. I see these as being more and more as important as time goes on.

One more MLK Jr. quote:

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

I, for one, want to see the stars through my very real rose-colored glasses -- $50, pink-shaded, prescription glasses I actually bought from Zenni Optical to make that personal point about looking for a brighter, more beautiful world.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:12:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Autumn

Happy Pride Blenders

Season of Love
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
By With A Little Help From My Friends...Joe Cocker
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Couldn't find the footage of Longtime Companion of Post Mortem Bar...but here's the song. Where all those lost in the pandemic stream onto the beach on Fire Island.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
   Cover of Zane Campbell Post Mortem Bar

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:24:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Watching Joe Cocker

It reminded me BOTH Woodstock and Stonewall happened in 1969. and BOTH were of value, and they came from absolutely polar opposite positions. One valued putting aside fighting, and one felt it was time to finally fight.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:44:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fascinating...

isn't it?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the same logic,

then you need to give up the term straight, please.

And Republican.

Because I'm both (well, was, now I'm independent) and I've heard both such terms used as slurs here.

So, for the same reason, they must go as well.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:51:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well

Is anybody really "straight"?

I think that term is usually used as a refuge for people who want to conform to some mythical ideal.

As for Republican, they're doing a good job of eliminating the term on their own.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:01:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"is anyone in the Mainstream?".....La vie Boheme

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:14:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

why yes.

We all are.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:01:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, mainstream society sure as hell does exist out there

"Straight" means exclusively heterosexual. And due to the fact that straight people dominate mainstream society, their predisposed exclusivity acts to collectively exclude us. That is what we mean by "heterosexism".

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:40:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, per Kinsey

yeah.

They are just rare.

Then again, per kinsey, a lot of the people we call gay men are actually bisexual.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:52:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some things are more subtle than statistics

What's objectionable about heterosexism is the sexual hypocrisy that lies at its core, and that's a human factor that no statistical survey can measure. In social practice, the term "exclusively heterosexual" doesn't simply refer to someone who would only have sex with someone of the opposite sex. What it really means is someone who is heterosexual in an exclusive manner, that is, someone whose profession of heterosexuality excludes all other options from recognition or consideration.

A public figure like Republican Larry Craig is exclusively heterosexual regardless of whether he has ever had sex with other men. He actively perpetuates the dogma that excludes everything outside the heterosexual mainstream from social acceptance, including aspects of his own behavior that he not coincidentally wishes to deny.

And to Dyssonance's point, do I think it's common practice for straight people to make numerous, though much less hypocritical, exceptions of this type in their own lives.

Oh yes, very much so...

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:19:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jon Stewart nailed it

Conservative mind, and liberal penis

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:22:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a study I loved was homophobes got erect MORE when tested watching gay porn

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:23:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as Kinsey said no one is on 1 or 10, none are exactly 5 either

The concept of a bisexual with no preference towards 1 or 10 seems very unlikely to me. It may have changed over the course of their lives, but it doesn't seem very likely at the exact same moment, there is no preference leaning one way or the other.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:29:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As rageful as I can get at the NAZI pope and LDS elders

I'm laying next to my devoutly Catholic lover, and my mother (was),and all her side of the family are Mormons, (thankfully not fire breathing variety.)So being mad as hell at individuals, and organizations they run, has to be tempered that not all in that classification are enemies.
While Socrates and Plato used logic to strip away old false concepts attached to subjects, even they didn't believe ONLY logic mattered.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:13:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

neither do I

I'm using logic to suspend an illogical concept.

I am not spock.  :D

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 16:50:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're the BAD Spock....ya can't fool me....LOL

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:10:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh damn!!!

I've been outed!!!

Noooooooo!

(although the wicked goatee had to go when I transitioned using the machine that had previously been used on Kirk...)

oy.  I am way too much a closet trekkie

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:14:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I need a different Star Trek machine

nip and tuck
  http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:20:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh, that, that..

looks painful!

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:23:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We've been

Out Trekkies forever- even went to a ST convention on our honeymoon!

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:58:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

giggling here picturing you doing the Ulhura fan dance on your honeymoon

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:11:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What makes you think

it would be ME doing the dance?? ;)

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:20:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of my very favorite aunts

Mary Kathleen, is VERY devout Irish Catholic from Chicago.

Tell me about it, petey- I could no more hate on her than I could give up chocolate.  

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:23:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I don't

Toni, your logic is faulty.

The point I made (and that you ignored -- COMPLETELY) was that the group BEING labeled has the right to choose the label, if we follow standard practice. And the right to determine if a particular label is offensive.

You insist on calling people cis- when you've been told MANY MANY MANY times that it's offensive. You reply that it's simply a descriptive term and that if we're offended, it's our own problem and not yours.

That's wrong on your part and highly insensitive.

Now you're trying to deflect the discussion away from your actions to justify your own rude behavior rather than take responsibility and own up to the situation.

It's too bad. I think you have a lot to offer, and I really would like to hear it, but your words and actions lead me to ask you Louise's questions:

[I]s it worth it? Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery? Does [one's] credibility as the messenger degrade as well?

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:28:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well...

Bluntly, by that token, then as I described elsewhere, I am a straight, fundamentalist republican, and those have been hurled with the same force here.

With far more vitriol than I have ever used (and, for the record, I have never used cis as an epithet).

I do own up to my use of the term.

I also own up to understanding the speaker.

So, if I am being insensitive, then so is anyone who's ever spoken poorly of our opponents.

And it so happens that I have said it was offensive to hear straight, republican, and fundamentalist used in such a way.  I have noted how insensitive it is to call them crazy or nuts.

Pretty much the entire time I've been here.

if you want to find something that connotes someone as not gender variant insensitive and offensive, then I have the same ability to find something that connotes not homosexual or bisexual offensive.

I don't need to deflect anything from my own actions -- I already stated that saying such with cis is a devaluing of trans experience and lives.

I embrace my actions there.  The actions of others, perhaps, no.

And of course the logic is faulty -- the premise is faulty to which I was applying it.

Calling our opponents straight, fundamentalist, Christianist, bigot, nuts, crazy, republican, etc -- they find that offensive to be told such.

SO is it worth it?

To me, yes.  Because I don't hide behind the anonymity of the internet.  Anyone who takes half a moment knows I am Toni D'orsay, I live in Phoenix Arizona, my email address is right in my profile here, and I have no problem giving out my phone number or my address.

I do not play that way.

I do not see any anger in your delivery.  I am not putting anger in my delivery.

Look at my position: if you stop cis, then you must also stop straight.

That also means you can keep both and people can realize it is not an insult, or you can remove both for the same reasons.

Its not all that hard. THis isn't just thought up to prove a point, either. ITs an ongoing element of how I do everything, reaching now a point where I do not call those who oppose us nuts, or crazy, or Dominionists, or wingnuts. I have, in the past, and met people from these groups that are our allies -- more so than some in office.

They are our opponents.

This is merely an extension of it.  Note that within my position its fine if you take offense.  I'm understanding of such.

But if your offense is going to count, should not mine as well?  And if so, why not?  Because everyone does it?

That won't fly.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:04:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The example elsewhere here I gave was:

the point being that if someone is going to take offense at cis* because of their interpreted meaning and lack of familiarity with it, then I will take offense at straight for the same illogical, emotion driven reason.

"non-gender variant" is not nearly as easy.  And when you aren't concise (as I am not), little things like that work.

The same way the word was used in the complaints is the same way the word "straight", the word "republican", the word "religious", and a few others have been used.

I've been a republican all my life until I switched to Independent last year or late the year before.

I am deeply religious and fundamentalist in my religious views (they aren't christian, but irrelevant).

I am heterosexual -- I was before transition, I am after it.

So, as a heterosexual, fundamentalist, religious republican who posts frequently on a blog where such people are routinely called crazy, nuts, bigots, etc., I have to sit up and say "wait a sec".

Now, some would say "well, if you don't like it, leave".

I can say the same thing, though.

Doesn't settle the issue, though, does it?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:13:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ANd there is this diary, as well

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:22:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And this one

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:32:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're still missing the point

and I think you're doing it on purpose.

Do you call yourself straight? Yes.
Do you call yourself Republican? Yes. (or you did before)
Do you call yourself a fundamentalist? Yes.

Great! Good for you! Please feel free to label yourself as you see fit.

Do I call myself cis-? No.
Do you call me cis-? Yes.
Do I want you to do so? No.
Have you been asked to stop? Yes.
Have you continued to do so after being told it's offensive? Yes.

Do you see the problem here?

Look at my position: if you stop cis, then you must also stop straight.

I think it reasonable to call people straight who call themselves straight (for example, people who identify as heterosexual, be they trans or not). I think it reasonable NOT to call people straight who do not call themselves straight (for example, people who call themselves queer).

Why do you consider it okay to continue to offend when asked to stop? Why are your feelings granted more consideration than mine?

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:04:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I didn't miss that point.

The problem is that I am labeled straight, and I use it because what the hell, its easy, right?

Makes sense to you, right?

Well, it doesn't me, and I resent that since I am labeled straight -- perhaps not by you but by others nevertheless -- I have to use that word when I find myself particularly bent (straight is not a word I would use for myself nominally).

Combine that with its meaning not intended to be defamatory (it isn't, is it?), just as republican and fundamentalist are such, and yet add in the perceptin that they are used in such a manner makes them offensive.

Again, you aren't giving me a choice, simply because you are uncomfortable with something that means no more and no less than you are different from transfolk.

So let's run that list of yours down for me, shall we?

Do I call myself straight? No. I use it as a reference the same way cis is used as a reference.
Do you call me straight? Yes - or, worse, you make an assumption about my particular view of myself.
Do I want you to do so? No.
Have you been asked to stop? Yes.
Have you continued to do so after being told it's offensive? Yes.

Now do you see?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:10:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Additionally

First off, sorry for getting sidetracked.

However, my actual argument here is not that you are not offended -- I understand that.

My argument is that if you don't want to be called something (anything) and I dont' want to be called something (anything) and both of us want to make it so that neither of us are going to be offended, then we need to erase both.

You want to make cis a "non-word" here, fine!  I'm grovvy with that.

I want to make straight a non word here as well, in turn.

Why aren't you groovy with that?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:13:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please stop.

This is going nowhere, and is starting to offend people at The Blend.

And in a post that's theme is about behaving civility, I'm not having any of it.

Public warning in this thread -- next person who uses this thread to make comment defending "cis" terminology gets a trap door drop.

Understand, dyssonance?

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:24:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Off board

see your facebook, Autumn.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 21:40:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trapdoor dropped.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 00:35:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's be consistent about this

I'm a transgendered civilian who objects to militarism, and to all this glorification of state violence. I'll be calling you retired baby-killers "retired baby-killers" from now on. Thank you for not oppressing me with your militarism-coddling language like "veterans".

---

by: Cericonversion @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:24:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Questions

Are offended when other people are called straight too?

Do you use it to refer to other people who identify as straight, or do you call them something else? What term do you use?

Otherwise, it seems you're only offended when the word is applied to you, not in general.

Which is perfectly reasonable.

So which is it -- straight is an offensive word in general, or saying "Toni is straight" is offensive?

Because cis- is offensive whether I'm called it or when someone else is.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:03:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I withdraw my questions

In light of Autumn's refereeing and that I was writing them while she posted her message.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:06:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just smile and say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:08:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No need to withdraw

If you would like to discuss this further, my email addy is in my profile here.

Feel free to send to me, or, if you'd like, add me as a friend on Facebook (I am Antonia D'orsay there).

I will respond, and without the risk of my getting banned.

Can't say more, although Now I'm upset like I have not been in all the threads on this.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:12:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most of don't bother with the "cis" words anyway

When I need to refer to people as not being trans, I usually go with factual terms such as:

non-trans
natal female
natal male
woman (who was) born female
man (who was) born male

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:51:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Limitations

Those are the terms used to diminish us in language used to defame and demean us.

Case in point: the old Questioning Transgender site used those specific terms and some additional ones -- and it grew out of the terminology that arose in light of the stuff said by the organizers of MWMF.

It's accurate, no doubt -- I wouldn't challenge its accuracy -- but to describe them as factual is always questionable -- there is significant evidence that we, to some extent, intersexed, for example (enough, in fact, that were it not for the politicization of such, we'd likely already be classified that, one could argue).

Furthermore, as an example, a crossdresser is a natal male or female with a male or female gender identity. And yet they are trans.

A woman born female can be trans if she is genderqueer and uses female pronouns.

Its simply not accurate enough in any context outside the strict confines of transsexualism, and transgender is not synonymous with transsexulism -- indeed, there are some transsexuals who have no problem with their social roles, but extreme dysphoria regarding physicality (that is, they would, for example, be born male, get MtF surgery to relieve their physical dysphoria, yet continue to live as men).

So they are not suitable for wide discussion of Trans in general context when referring to the wide potential for gender variance that exists within the trans community.

In short, its reliant on transsexual privilege within the T.  And is wrong.


http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:57:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, context always counts

Even terms we both acknowledge as accurate in certain aspects can be manipulated into conveying oppressive messages. But it's not the bare words that contain the venom, it's the malicious agenda that lies within the message itself. If we declared every turn of phrase that's been hijacked by our enemies in the past to be indelibly tainted by association, we'd have to make up new words nearly every time we spoke.

For example, "womyn-born-womyn" is a phrase coined by Michigan Women's Music Festival organizers explicitly as a made-to-order "identity" that not coincidentally excluded all transwomen. I think we'd both agree that anyone who knowingly employs that expression has a transphobic agenda in mind.

But to claim that a syntactically similar expression such as "born female" is equivalent to "language used to defame and demean us" is quite an extreme reaction. What genuinely matters is how it's used in context.

For example, if I claim I was treated less favorably than a woman who was born female, I'm not demeaning myself, I'm pointing out that the circumstances of my birth were used in a prejudicial manner against me. Depending on the context, it may not have anything to do with whether I'm pre-op or post-op, or personally identify as transsexual or transgender. The phrase itself is not inherently "reliant on transsexual privilege"; its connotation is subject to how we each choose to use it.

When a simple concept like "born female" doesn't apply well to complex cases, it's up to us to find more descriptive terms, such as you did with a genderqueer woman who was born female. But note how this example is inherently problematic - while it's accurate to say that she's both trans and a woman, would it be appropriate to call her a "transwoman"?

---

by: Lish @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To continue.

Write her.

Visit http://www.thespectrumcafe.com to see the T put back into LGBT news.

---

by: ynsaen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 23:25:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do non-trans people want to be called?

People who aren't transgender who don't like being called "cis" should probably tell us what they really do like to be called.

What is it, lane? How would you like me to talk about, for example, how some women are trans, and other women are ___?

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:15:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People who aren't transgender are MANY groups!

That's the point. You can't just lump everyone together -- especially if your aim is identify that group as your privileged oppressors!

Why can't you understand that?

Here's my final example:

I belong to a group that supports marriage equality.

In order to have a discussion about those who enjoy the privilege associated with having the right to marry, we have to have terms that we can use to identify these groups.

Marriageplusgooders - They have the right to marry.

Marriageplusbadders - They do not have the right to marry.

(A little Orwellian Doublespeak never hurt anyone, right?)

Of course, transgender people have the right to marry. So, they all fall in the marriageplusgooders category.

As a marriageplusbadder, I am ANGRY that ALL marriageplusgooders don't realize that they are privileged. ALL marriageplusgooders, including transgender people are my oppressors!

Now that we can identify the enemy, let's have a discussion about everything that is wrong with those horrible marriageplusgooders. They see us as second class citizens. None of them support us. Boo! They are all horrible people. It is us versus them!

How do you like it? Does it feel good to be a marriageplusgooder? I bet it does. You get to get married and have a family. I'll never have YOUR privileges. Shame on you!

Don't even get me stated on those Iowa gay marriageplusgooders! They are the worst! They have joined the enemy camp by getting equal rights!

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:34:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's to understand?

Any given individual is going to belong to countless "groups".

My question is why you think being counted together with other cis people is inherently negative? That's like a person with red hair resisting being called "red-haired" because "people with red hair are a rich and varied group and can't all be lumped together!"

And FWIW, your overblown analogy is factually wrong, since transgender people don't have a right to marry. We are allowed to marry only someone who is legally considered opposite sex to us, regardless of our gender identity (which is the same "right" everyone else has).  

---

by: Xayide @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 19:36:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fritz is bigender

our generqueer (roughly the same thing) and so his particular feeling about is that he's one of us.

HE just hasn't fully realized it.

Visit http://www.thespectrumcafe.com to see the T put back into LGBT news.

---

by: ynsaen @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 20:32:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahhhhh

Thank you for the clarification. :)  

---

by: Xayide @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 20:41:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do you want me to call people who are "cisgender"?

You avoided answering the question.

Once more: What do you propose instead of "cisgender" as the complement of "transgender"?

(As a general rule, the answer from most cisgender people is "normal," which is offensive.)

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 21:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm giving up on the word man...

I'm giving up on using the words man and male because in a patriarchy, it's the default assumption behind human, just as cissexual/cisgender is the default assumption behind man and woman.

So, instead of men and women, we'll have humans and women.

There, now we can avoid offending men, er, I mean humans.

---

by: timberwraith @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 13:27:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Giving up on "cissexual" and "cisgender"

I think you are making a really big mistake there.

How do cis people self-identify? As "real women" (or "real men"); as "normal people."

Allowing cis people to dictate that talking about them as cis people is OFFENSIVE is a really gross distortion of the concept of self-defermination, and overlooks the power dynamics.

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:12:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree.

I'm cis, I identify as cis, and I cannot imagine what's supposed to be objectionable about it.

Moreover, it is a term that's needed, at least if you ever want to refer to people who are not trans, to say that someone is not trans, etc. Consider some of the alternatives offered here, like "natal woman", etc: my best friend, who is a transwoman, would insist that she was born a woman, if she were reading blogs now. Gender reassignment surgery doesn't make you a woman/man, it brings your body in line with your gender, if you're trans.

Cis has the signal advantage of avoiding all these loaded assumptions, plus it's short, not some horrendously long term that would be hell to type repeatedly.

That said, I'll give it up if someone can convince me that there's something objectionable about it that I haven't noticed. I just don't see that one person's objections should be decisive: human nature is endlessly variable, there's bound to be someone who objects to just about everything, and if we let that stop us from using any word to which someone objected, we'd just have to stop communicating altogether.

---

by: hilzoy @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 21:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about...

Trying to find that common ground with those who support the concepts?  This whole dramatic set of posts and comments seems to have kicked up some dust...

There is privilege, I don't see anyone denying that here.
But does that negate the right to self-determination, even if it doesn't mean the same power-dynamic?
"Allowing (people) to talk about themselves as (a label) is a really gross distortion..."
It's not comparable to social and legal oppression, but am I mistaken that this is supposed to be - at least in part - about self-determination for everyone?

---

by: hominidx @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 22:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Determine away, please!

OK, so in the spirit of that, what word are we supposed to use for not-trans people? What word do you want us to use?  

---

by: Xayide @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 22:56:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

None of them will say

None of the non-trans people say anything other than that they want to retain the privilege of having their cis status be the "unspoken default."

They don't want their cis privilege to be looked at or examined. That's why they are refusing to tell us what they want to be called.

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 23:40:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will!

Seriously: I really think people underestimate the importance of a short, non-ugly term. (And for those of us who had to slave over European history in high school, there's the joy of having all memorized that stuff about the transmontane/cismontane split in 17th century France finally pay off...)

---

by: hilzoy @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 23:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you

very much for saying it, and for just understanding in general.

The more I think about it, the more sadly telling it is that a neutral, intentionally-non-ugly term like cis gets so much resistance while no one has been offended by me saying "not-trans" up and down the thread. :P  

---

by: Xayide @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 23:57:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frankly, I'm nervous

ME? A voice of reason?? Aw shucks.  ;)

Thank you lane; I appreciate the kind words and it encourages me to continue to improve my processes- but my family got a great guffaw when I read it to them!

---

by: Louise @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 17:56:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My pleasure

Glad I could provide your family w/ some amusement.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:07:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm cis and...

Well, if my fellow cisgendered people feel that cisgender is so offensive, they we to come up with a way of describing we gender identities, expressions, and orientations that do not implicitly define transgender people as abnormal and unnatural.

As it is cisgender/transgender parallels nicely with heterosexual/homosexual.  

---

by: CBrachyrhynchos @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:34:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you

for acknowledging that gender is a relevant consideration and descriptor not only for those who depart from the gender "norm" but also for those who conform to it.

---

by: Abby @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:22:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

terrible analysis -- ignores reality and power dynamics

For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don't say tranny, etc.

So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-?

Because cis is a privileged location in this society.

This is not rocket science, you know? Not hard to grasp. Those of us (I am cisgendered) whose sense of gender identity meshes with the gender this society assigned us are in located in relation to gender identity where heterosexuals are located in relation to sexual orientation.

If I called a heterosexual person hetero and that person got all "OMG you are oppressing me, you have no right to name me in ways I do not approve and I don't like that naming" it would be an expression of heterosexism - the institutionally-granted power to control definitions of the privileged self/group.

This issue of who is on what side of what institutionalized power imbalance and what that means in terms of control, naming and communication ... doesn't seem like something that should be difficult for anyone on a site like this to grasp.

---

by: michelle @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 14:23:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True! But it's not the full story.

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?
Does that go for all, or just those of us who use 'trans' as self-descriptive?

---

by: hominidx @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 22:32:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What?

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?

Nice straw person.

http://kynn.com/

---

by: Kynn @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 23:41:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

huh?

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?
Does that go for all, or just those of us who use 'trans' as self-descriptive?

I don't get what you are saying here.

I'm talking about how power (and violence) works in this society and how naming and defining is part of that.

But really, I have no clue what your reply has to do with what I wrote, so I won't even try to guess.

---

by: michelle @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 23:55:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll try to respond anyway

Eh, I'll try to respond anyway:

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?

No, not from what I observe of how this system actually functions.

My observation of how things work in this system I live inside and deal with everyday is that the viewpoint of someone in a privileged group can carry massive institutionalized power backing it up, while masquerading as "just another viewpoint."

This situation happens when that viewpoint fits with the maintenance of power required by the larger system. It masks the maintenance of power under what appear on the surface to be individual viewpoints, but that is an illusion in situations like this.

In this case, objections to cisgendered as a term are carrying that institutionalized power behind them. It's like being way bigger than you actually are.

To my eyes this whole conversation at some level is about dominance and control inside a nasty violent system that has a stake in centering cisgendered people as "just people" and the prototype of human-ness when it comes to gender identity.

The objection to cis as a term was a move to assert and maintain a certain kind of control of how things are defined. It is backed up by massive institutionalized power running through our everyday lives and the larger system we live in.

The nasty trick in this (or, one of them) is that people who do have privilege in some areas while being oppressed in others can be feeling like "I am just expressing my individual viewpoint!" when speaking from that privilege. But in fact they are actually acting as an agent of a violent system that would just as soon kill them too, when it comes down to it.

Someone in that space will defend that huge violent system as if they are defending their own perspective, their own self. They won't even feel (or will feel but suppress/ignore) that massive power behind and through them, it will feel like "my individual viewpoint." That is an illusion in situations like this.

Someone in that space will fight challenges to the system as if they are fighting challenges to their own selves, and will call on those around them to "help/support me!" when they are actually functioning as channels that funnel help and support back into this violent system as it maintains its overarching power and control. It's a way to get those people tied into defending and identifying with something that doesn't even care if they survive. A sort of bait and switch kind of move.

And in the end, I think the real winner is this violent system that causes us all -- meaning, in this context, this site, all LBGT people -- tremendous and varied violence and pain in our everyday lives.

The reality I see is that it is not trans people who are doing harm by naming cis gay people as cisgendered.

The reality I see is that the real harm we face is from a violent horrific system that at some level wants all of us either dead or suffering.

In fact, those who have put a name to cis/cisgendered are doing a serious favor to all of us queer people by de-centering cis people as the un-named normal ones and making visible yet another way that this violent system twists reality into confusion and disorientation.

IMO it is best to be able to clearly see how this thing works in all of its many layers and dynamics.  And naming what is supposed to be "just normal" and universal as the specific thing it is (in this conversation, using the term cis or cisgendered) helps a great deal in making the landscape of this insane system more clearly visible.

---

by: michelle @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 00:47:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Who said it's a lack of respect?  If you personally find it offensive, I won't use it about you.  What would you rather I call you, to clarify you are not trans?  :)

---

by: chaoticgrace @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 18:34:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not just GAY white men that get painted unfairly with a negative wide brush...

Not long ago the trans community demanded and received an apology for an offensive commercial put out by a car dealer.  When the car dealer offered a mea culpa explaining that he was horrified that he had offended "women and transgender people" when he would NEVER intentionally offend or make fun of them.  He went on to explain that his REAL intention was to show how cluless/stupid the man in the ad, "and men in general", are.

Autumn and others in the comments section oooohed and aaahhhed over the apology and how wonderful it was that someone knew how to make a real and proper apology seemingly ignoring the fact that the man had just transferred the insult from one group to another.

I'm not a straight white man but I don't find it any more acceptable to insult them than it is to insult a black transgender woman.  I mean is a white transgender man fair game because he's white and male or is he also off limits because he's transgender?  It's time to stop stereotyping men, straight men, and yes, even straight, white men.  Dare I say, some of my best friends are straight, white men.

---

by: Zeke @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 19:33:29 PM CDT

Please point out the language I used to insult straight white men...

...in my objection to that commercial.

Frankly, you won't find it. Frankly, I'm not happy how you're essentially claiming that I did use language that broad-brushed all straight, white men.

So if you're saying I engaged in hateful language or behavior against straight, white men as a group, you're projecting motivations on me that just aren't there in the words, thoughts, and deeds related to the diaries I've posted. Again, I'm not happy in the slightest that you implied I did.

And frankly, I have not had time in the past to scour through all the comments in the PHB threads to look for that kind of behavior among my trans peers, but I'm going to make the time now because Pam, I, and the other baristas have been noticing incivil behavior by our blenders has gotten way out of hand. And, Zeke, if I see broad brush attacks on straight, white men in the future, I'm going to come down on those hard as bigoted and inappropriate -- just as I just did with the attacks on gay, white men today.

And, I'm going to begin repeating this mantra over and over again, Zeke, to folk who don't like what's said at this blog in the articles and the threads going forward at this point:

If you don't like what you see and read here at Pam's House Blend, then maybe you need to find a different virtual coffee house to hang out at.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:25:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]