News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile

Your blogmistress is in need of a real vacation...

I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
Nov. 16th - Dec. 3rd, 2009



Join Stop Taser Torture on 12.4.09


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


I Have An "Angry Inch"

by: Autumn Sandeen

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:00:00 AM EDT


(NOTE FROM PAM: Autumn wanted to respond to the many emails and comments from the transgender community in response a couple of diaries that generated contentious, often angry and uncivil exchanges between commenters and how moderation was handled. This comment thread is completely for your open feedback; she and I will let you speak.)
Suddenly I'm Miss Farrah Fawcett on TV...
Until I wake up, and I turn back into myself.

--Hedwig, from Hedwig And The Angry Inch's Wig in a Box

Kitty Bon-BonSomewhere between communicating effectively -- so that people will listen to my peers and me about trans civil rights issues -- and communicating only anger and hate, I feel lost. I don't want to give into "the tone argument" -- the argument that oppressors get to define what words the oppressed get to use, and get to say "I'd pay attention to you if your tone was better" -- but somewhere between civility and "the tone argument" there must be a balance...there must be a middle ground.

As we've called for civility between blenders here at Pam's House Blend -- well, today I asked my kat Bon-Bon about where that balance and middle ground is. As usual, she silently turned from looking out her perch at the front window -- the window that that looks out on the street -- and silently stared back at me.

[Below the fold -- trans-feminist terminology that's currently spoiled at The Blend, feeling like I'm fruitlessly railing against incivility atThe Blend, and discussion of how I have "an angry inch."]



Excerpt (from below the fold): Frankly, my transgender peers, this is where I began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam's House Blend threads. When, in my opinion, these terms should be used to teach -- as Julia Serrano and others use the term -- it was used to express anger and hate.

...In my opinion, this blender began this recent Pam's House Blend a discussion of cis- terminology with a can of gasoline and a match, and then has responded with anger as I tried to put out the fires.

Autumn Sandeen :: I Have An "Angry Inch"
Cup Of CoffeeThe balance issue began with me over the terms cissexual and cisgender. I've always liked the words cissexual (for not transsexual; for non-transsexual) and cisgender (for not transgender; for non-transgender). I liked that these terms took the negative prefixes away from my transgender and transsexual identities when describing people who aren't trans.

The term cisgender was, as far as the research I can find, was first used by a trans man named Carl Buijs (in the mid-nineties), and cisgender and cissexual were then popularized by Julia Serrano in her book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. From a feminist and privilege perspective, these two cis- terms have been used in helping to define for non-transgender and non-transsexual people the kinds of oppression trans people experience. And even though the cis- terms were popularized in a feminist work, the concepts of cissexualism and cisgenderism apply as equally to trans men, trans women, genderqueers, and other types of trans people.

I believe, in reading Serrano's book and her essays, that she meant the terms in a neutral way to describe a certain kind of privilege -- in the same vein of the concepts of white privilege, male privilege and straight privilege. These privileges exist in more than just theory, but those who are experiencing these privileges are often unaware of their privileges, and sometimes folk (rightfully) take offense when these terms and privileges are pointed out to them.

Frankly, I didn't used to understand the concept of white privilege because I never experienced straight privilege. That is, until about my mid-forties, when I started "passing" as a white female. Even as a morbidly obese woman, my feminine movements, speech, and style of dress no longer identified me as being someone the the other f-word described.

When first confronted with my then newly experienced white privilege as a white woman, and was told I was communicating with others from a place of white privilege, I took offense. The very idea that I had it any better than any other human being sounded ludicrous to me, because my experience of being sexually harassed in the military told me I never had any privilege of any sort to operate from.

In time, though, it slowly dawned on me that I now did have white privilege, and I noticed it because I also gained that mainstream straight privilege -- my feminine movements, speech, and style of dress now were considered "normal" behavior for a woman, when those same behaviors identified me as gay when I presented as a white male.

And then, when I lost 125 pounds after my gastric bypass -- well, then I really noticed what being perceived as a white, attractive woman (for my age, anyway) in American society. Realizing that part of my "strength" at being a publicly transgender comes from how I can "pass" as female in society, and am out of the closet by choice instead of my appearance giving me away as trans...my white, female, privilege shocked me to my core. But being aware of it as I am now, I try to use it to better other trans people's lot in life -- especially for transyouth.

Let's be honest -- no one likes to be confronted with the privileges they experience, especially when one has one or more privileges to operate from (such as being white and male), but at the same time operate from a position of not having privilege (such as being gay). I had white privilege even when I didn't have straight privilege, but I didn't know I had any privilege in society whatsoever.

Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we [transgender people] don't belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement.

It's not ancient history for us. It's the way Aravosis treats trans people. We've borne the scars; we're the ones who had our comments deleted or edited, earned our bans from his site.

And you wonder why we hate the guy? ...

That's the exact comment in the Aravosis thread that first injected the term cisgender into our recent discussions. And, That's not my emphasis in that comment above, it's the blender's emphasis.

In that comment, the term cisgender wasn't used to explain privilege to people who didn't understand it, but instead used to angrily -- accusatorily -- pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn't care about the civil rights of transgender people. It was that weaponized use of that cis- term that began the current Pam's House Blend debate over cisgender and cissexual terminology here at The Blend. When I've mentioned repeatedly that the two cis- terms have been weaponized at The Blend, this is the is starting point as to where I feel the term was weaponized against gay white men.

Frankly, my transgender peers, this is where I began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam's House Blend threads. When, in my opinion, these terms should be used to teach -- as Julia Serrano and others use the term -- I saw the term cisgender used to express anger and hate.

The writer of that comment has now written her own blog about how I've shut down discussion of the cis- terms here at The Blend. She's also commenting that I shut down discussion -- many comments to that effect in her twitter feed. In my opinion, this blender began this recent Pam's House Blend a discussion of cis- terminology with a can of gasoline and a match, and then has responded with anger as I tried to put out the fires.

Next weaponized cisgender comment in that thread:

Here is main point for Aravosis and all other cisgendered, transbigoted privileged assholes

The fight for GLB rights and the fight for Transgender rights are the same fight, because, at the most basic, they are rooted in the fight for people other than cisgendered, straight (white, wealthy) men to have a sexuality and a gender identity and not be punished or shamed for it.

Not to mention it's just the right goddam thing to do.

Go forth and converse.

To my transgender peers, let me say this: use the terms cisgender and cissexual. However, I recommend using the terms not as pointed weapons, but as the teaching tools about privilege that these terms are meant to be. PitchforkAs for me now though, I've personally lost the ability to use cisgender and cissexual as educational words for quite awhile. What originally started out as moderation and civility issue at The Blend  over the weaponizing of the terms cissexual and cisgender by a small minority of trans people turned into the viral perception that we're shutting down discussion of cis- terminology at The Blend.

That was the effect of what I did to try and keep civility at The Blend, but it was never the reason for why I did in shutting down the discussion of threads where those terms were being discussed.

Basically, it doesn't take more than one or two people to broadly sour a discussion in our threads. I perceive that some of my trans peers weaponized the cis terms to paint gay white men (GWM) with a broad brush -- they poisoned the well for me, and poisoned the reasonable, neutral use of those terms in our blog for quite awhile, I feel. So trans people, keep the two cis- terms, but know that a few of our trans peers have poisoned their use as neutral terms at The Blend, and you're likely going to get no where for awhile with many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people here at The Blend if you use those terms because the words have taken on added meaning as pointed weapons. Again, it only takes one or two voices to poison the well in a discussion, and that's happened here.

And, let's not let some GWM blenders off the hook. They responded to an article I wrote about a John Aravosis with a "tone argument" in response to trans folk. I don't think that "the tone argument" is a GWM-as-a-group problem, just as I don't think the weaponizing of cissexual and cisgender are a transgender community problem -- again,  it doesn't take more than one or two people to sour a discussion in our threads.

But folks, this is why broad-brush attacks on communities and subcommunities are so damaging -- this is why personal attacks and cross-identity community attacks are so damaging within the coalition of subcommunities of the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

The frustrating thing is I went on a trip to meet Allyson Robinson for lunch on that last Friday of Pride Month -- after posting my Aravosis diary -- and came back to The Blend to see what I perceived was the morphing of those neutral cis- words into weapons, and "the tone argument" being used with what I perceived without reasonable challenge. I used a second post, entitled Enough Already to try and make the point that we're supposed to be friends around the coffee table here at Pam's House Blend, but then the thread was hijacked to again bring up how a blenderbelieved the terms cisgender and cissexual are neutral.

So, let me back up here, for a moment, and tell you about behind the scenes stuff that I usually wouldn't share with y'all. The individual who kept that cissexual and cisgender discussion in the Enough Already thread has been sent a warning e-letter three days earlier for a personal attack on another within The Blend's thread, where the commenter I perceived as trying to hijack my Enough Already thread said this:

Now now, Brandi

I'm sill cuter than you are, and I'm putting the lie to everything you just said, simply by existing.

Care to explain that one?

War is what they call it. I call it living.

Please read that comment above in light of the civility link we have had at the top of our blog for over a week:

This Blog is not a haven for trolls, threats, or people wishing to spam or harass...We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable. Please respect the rights of others to be heard and to be respected. We welcome all viewpoints, but we do not welcome personal attacks on our users, in any form. The moderators of The Blog retain the right to ban any user from posting at The Blog for behavior deemed inappropriate.

And from a recent post about calming our baser instincts at The Blend, this comment on hijacking threads:

We baristas and Pam have been noticing a coarsening within the discussion threads of late. Frankly, when we see within discussion threads Ann Coulter again start being referred to as a tranny and as Mann Coulter, when we see in different threads where the acknowledged gender identities of trans people aren't respected, when in still another thread we see the term bitch used in a derogatory fashion, and when we see people hijack threads for flame wars, it's time again to remind people about what the character of this blog is supposed to be.

Off-topic discussions in our threads sometimes don't happen in a vacuum -- and it didn't happen in a vacuum here. Discussing the terms cissexual and cisgender in a thread on civility -- the Enough Already diary's thread -- was a big red flag for me. I saw the terms that a small number of trans people weaponized in the previous Aravosis thread being brought over for discussion to the new thread -- the new thread on civility -- by someone I just warned about a TOS violation related to civility not three days earlier.

Frankly, that's when I lost it. I wasn't in a calm place to start with, and I saw a thread on civility being hijacked in a way that just infuriated me -- In my mind, I saw the way that the discussion was about to turn.

Well, I slammed that blender publicly for discussing those cis- terms in the Enough Already thread -- I turned a moderation issue about trying to keep discussions civil among friends into a cis- terminology issue. Yes, the cis- terms were at the moderation issue's core, but it was less about the cis- terms directly than it was -- well, what I perceived as hijacking a thread about civility into one where recently contentious subject matter (and that subject matter included cis- terminology) was discussed. I should have made the public issue about hijacking a thread to discuss a recently contentious use of terminology rather than making it about terminology that had recently been used contentiously. I take full responsibility for the wrong way I shut down discussion in that thread; I also own that I still feel that the Enough Already civility thread was absolutely the wrong thread to have another cis- terminology discussion.

Of course, a flame war wouldn't be complete without more flaming. I banned the blender in question after she left a public message on my Facebook page regarding my comments in the Aravosis thread. Most of y'all didn't see that comment on my Facebook page because most of you never look at my Facebook page. It felt pretty searing though; I definitely feel that she just kept upping the ante.

And here, let me interject a reminder of what we aim to be at Pam's House Blend. We aim to be a virtual coffee house were friends gather to discuss issues, just like friends in a brick and mortar coffee house. If one of your brick an mortar coffee house friends went and sh*t on the front doorstep of one of the baristas at your brick and mortar coffee house in anger, that coffee house friend would likely not be welcome back at that brick and mortar coffee house. If you're looking for the analogy as to why the blender who appeared to be reasonably defending the use of the terms cisgender and cissexual at The Blend was banned from your virtual coffee shop -- well, there was much more to the story than what most of you saw occurring. What I perceived as the virtual sh*tting on my virtual front porch was just last straw that broke this camel's back.

So now, to retain civility to my lesbian, gay, and bisexual peers, I've lost my ability to use these two cis- terms as these were meant to be used to create awareness about privilege that visibly trans people don't have. The odd thing is that I lost my ability to use these words during the 40th anniversary weekend of the Stonewall Uprising, where I believed I saw the trans contribution to the Stonewall Uprising being neglected or overlooked.

Invisible WomanInstead of being able to comment on that perceived erasure; instead of being able to comment on the lunch I had with Allyson Robinson this past Friday; I was busy on the Stonewall Uprising 40th anniversary weekend reading through hundreds comments and sending warning letters to blenders for incivility, inappropriate language (which included one blender tossing the term "whore" at another blender), and community/subcommunity attacks.

But back to the cis- terms, does my anger and dropping from my vocabulary the two cis terms mean others can't use the terms in the neutral way to explain trans oppression as these were intended to be used? I hope not -- these should be good terms to describe privilege into the future.

But at least in the short term, I know I can't effectively use the terms here at The Blend, and I'd strongly recommend trans people stay away from those terms here at The Blend for awhile.  Frankly, the cis- words are just too emotionally charged here at The Blend right now for neutral use of the terms here in our diaries, or here in our threads. I take a portion, but not all, of the responsibility for how those terms have become emotionally charged here at Pam's House Blend.

However, I'm rightfully accused of shutting down the use of those terms is in a thread that I thought was aptly titled Enough Already, and in a follow on thread entitled Jumping Into The Deep End Of The Language Pool. I don't believe I was wrong to shut down the discussion of those terms in that thread, but I was wrong in how I did it.

Basically, I felt one of our blenders was hijacking a thread on civility to again contentiously discuss the use of those two cis- terms. I wanted to shut down that discussion in that thread as a moderation issue, and ended up overreaching in my response. I'm not sorry at all about shutting down that discussion in that thread, but I'm incredibly sorry for the way I did it.

My approach to how I moderated that thread mirrored "the tone argument." And of course, "the tone argument" of shutting down the discussion on that thread was wrongheaded. I took a moderation issue and mishandled it -- I made it seem like a terminology issue.

Kitty Bon-BonSo, I asked my kat Bon-Bon last night and this morning "How do I fix this?" Again she silently stared at me from her window perch.

In the past months, I've seen many of our threads at Pam's House Blend involving trans people or issues have seemed to turn into uncivil discussions -- discussions on trans people and issues devolving into personal attacks and community/subcommunity attacks. And this week on top of that, we're been bombed with comments by trans people creating new profiles -- using unrelated threads to say that we at Pam's House Blend have shut down trans voices. I deserve those bombs, but Pam and my fellow baristas don't.

I'm the one who made that moderation mistake; it wasn't Pam's fault, it was completely mine.

And, the sad thing I see in all this is that no one with any viewpoint on trans issues is really being heard because on trans issues because no one is really listening to anything anyone else says. All -- including me -- have just seemed to give in to burning anger, and seem now to be talking past each other.

I asked Bon-Bon what to do about all of this mess too, and again she just silently stared back at me from her window perch.

Y'know, Bon-Bon looked at me as she often does...in that where she appears to be hanging onto every word I say. But as we all know, she's a kat, and she really doesn't understand a single word I say. There's a metaphor in there somewhere, I'm sure.

My peer baristas and I have found that I haven't been able to effectively moderate the discussion at The Blend -- to navigate that narrow path between being civil and giving in to "the tone argument" -- that we strive for here at the Pam's House Blend virtual coffee house. Pam and I have asked people on both sides to calm down, and it seems that many of you blenders won't moderate yourselves. And at least on the discussion of the cis- terms, my approach to dealing with the issue has been way too heavy handed.

I feel that on this side of the myriad of gender and community divides, I gave into my "angry inch."

For those of you who've never seen the movie (or play) Hedwig And The Angry Inch, it's a story about a gay man on the "wrong" side of the Berlin Wall living with extreme anger -- he gave up his penis and became a woman in a botched sex change operation specifically to flee oppression, only to see the Berlin Wall fall less than a year later.

For me, I'm not a gay man, and I'm not angry for the same reasons Hedwig was angry. But that said, Hedwig faced the same frustrations of not fitting well into sexually dichotomous world, and facing the same hate of the other f-word. And too, Hedwig was being oppressed for somehow being visibly transgender, but always living openly as transgender even when her appearance wasn't giving her away as trans.

What little sexuality and "length" I ever had...well, I lost whatever I had in taking Estrodial and Spironolactone. This week, my genitalia are not now much more than the metaphor of "the angry inch." But just as Hedwig looked and saw no benefit to the anger in the video above, I sometimes share the anger about a lot in life that leaves me discriminated against, hated, and oppressed. But, that anger doesn't get me respect or the equality that I want when I yell, scream, and rail at those who don't want to extend respect or equality to me.

Because I'm open about being trans, by many I'm seen as a gay man; by many other as a "third gender" person; by still others as "Autumn" Sandeen, the fake woman; and by still others as capricious, angry, transgender activist who rose to prominence in the "blood lust" of covering the Angie Zapata Hate Crime Murder trial, I don't fully get to define myself. I chose to define myself as a transgender, transsexual, real woman -- but I know I'm defined in other terms by others.

And this week, I'm defined by appearing to close all discussions at The Blend that involve the terms cisgender and cissexual because those terms are being discussed. I know I've shut down discussions because of moderation issues, but when Lisa Harney of Questioning Transphobia essentially believes I was shutting down discussions related to the terms cissexual and cisgender as a "tone argument" -- I know I flubbed things horribly. The myriad of phone calls, IM chats, and emails from a number of transgender activists that Pam and I have both fielded since my visible flubbing on what she and I agreed were incivility and moderation issues...well, I know my flubbing of moderation issues went viral.

Today, when I'm feeling all of my "angry inch" in perceiving those particular gay white men and gay white lesbians who have used the "tone argument" at The Blend, as well feeling that "angry inch" against those particular trans peers for screeching with anger, hijacking threads, and being uncivil to many of us who are trans and non-trans alike -- I find myself at a loss.

Kitty Bon-BonBon-Bon, of course, has no answer for me but her blank stare. Twice today already she's nudged my elbow why I've sat writing this at the computer, demanding my attention-- demanding scratches on her crown. So many blenders and others have been demanding my attention of late, and I just don't have the energy to answer all the commentary and demands. There is no fixing this problem.

So, I've been slow to respond because I've taking a few days off to cool my anger, and to recharge. I've had a mani and a pedi; I'm going to take a long walk on a sandy beach; I'm going to go fishing in the woods that are just an hour away from my little apartment; and I'm going to spend some more quality time with Bon-Bon -- my ever quiet, but loving friend. I'm going to continue a very needed break.

Before my frustration and anger turns to hate, I want to again truly embrace what Martin Luther King Jr. stated:

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.

Frankly, I'm not there this week.

I've shed some tears within my frustration and anger this past week -- and said some words publicly and privately that I find I deeply regret. I'm well aware that apologies aren't going to be enough for the damage I've personally inflicted; I'm well aware I lost my own sense of self and my own civility in the frustration of repeatedly and fruitlessly asking that blenders treat each other civilly.

All of these things are going to be a hard for me to bear.

So, while I'm gone and recharging, please remember to that civility matters...

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

--Martin Luther King Jr.

So true...it seems to have eaten me alive this past week.

.
***

(NOTE FROM AUTUMN: Wow. I went to the post at Questioning Transphobia, and as of this moment, there are 287 comments on the thread. Having stepped away from Pam's House Blend for two days in an attempt to recharge, I discovered that 1.) one of our blenders posted a comment comparig trans people to Nazis, and 2.) I'm a pretty hated trans person by other trans people at the moment.

In the small picture, to the now former blender who made the Nazi comparison -- Wow. Really? Wow. Exactly how much power do you thing trans people have in America? Do you think trans people have the power -- or the desire -- to kill millions of people? If you do -- Wow. In any case, that was such an unnecessary and over-the-top comment.

And in the bigger picture, take a read over at Questioning Transphobia, and you can see for yourself how hated and tainted a trans person I've become within my community. It's been quite a humiliating to be so chastized -- so raked over the coals, for sure. Especially true for the comment where I was compared to a house negro -- which would of course make Pam my "massah."

It's been so difficult for me to "get" that this all started from me criticizing a gay man for not first apologizing to trans people for saying that T people should not be part of his gay community -- when he used trans people to make a point about LGBT issues. I can see the process of how I became a pariah within the last five days within the trans community, but the bitterness and anger I've seen is something I'm having a hard time grappling with.

To those peers that might want to come to my defense -- please don't. My angry peers need to have their voices heard, and they need to be unfilted, and unchallenged.

Honestly, I don't know whether anyone here at this blog will want me to respond to the comments for this diary or not. Frankly, I was planning to go fishing today because I need some time off, but I think I need to stay home instead and pay attention to what my peers say here today. My taking the past two days off from the blog and try to recharge has apparently turned out to be a particularly bad plan, considering what has transpired within the aforementioned Questioning Transphobia thread, as well as here in our Enough Already thread.

If you want me to respond to your particular comment in this diary's thread, then please let me know within the thread -- I'll get to as many of the comments requesting reply as I can, and answer as honestly as I can. If you don't ask for a response, I'll assume you don't want a response.

Frankly, I fully expect to be pummelled.)


NOTE FROM PAM: It's not hard to see how far beyond the pale all of this has gone in these specific trans-related threads, but quite a few diary threads in general. Obviously if we've called for a civility day, there's a problem. Some of the responsibility of this has to be bourne by the readers, after all, that's ultimately why we are here now.

To remind readers, and inform newbies:

1) I don't read every thread.
2) I don't monitor comments very often at this point; I have a more-than-full-time offline job, and an actual life, plus I have to write the content you read.
3) Reader diaries that are promoted or written by baristas do not necessarily reflect my views; sometimes they are counter to my view and presented for open discussion and debate.

I should note that no one monitors Daily Kos or Pandagon at the level it has been done on the Blend; on Pandagon it's usually just for blatant right-wing troll removal and even then the bar is high. I don't even think it exists on DKos. The original goal was to make the Blend a safe space, not a 100% PC zone, but at this point it's a balance between being able to write content or sitting there trying to stop people who cannot tell the difference between honest debate and screaming epithets at one another at a personal level. We have over 8,300 registered users; just a couple of months ago we had 5,000.

Some of you may use this thread to respond to Autumn; I would  like to hear from people who want to problem-solve the issue of moderation, since that is the overarching issue.  We've obviously reached a tipping point in being able to moderate effectively (or fairly to some users).

So, here are some questions that you, the readers and the commenters, need to answer for me about this community space, and let's start with basics:

* Do you want comments? I personally like the interaction they provide, but it's an option to turn them off.

* If you want them on; do you want the Blend moderated or not? We can certainly let it be open like many blogs, completely free of editorial intervention.

* What about ratings? Should the feature remain or be turned off?

* Does the community want to fund baristas to sit in front of a computer 24/7 to be a hall monitor/bouncer? On a community blog, that would mean also monitoring the comments of the non-front-page blogs as well. This is madness; I can't imagine anyone voting for this option.

Assuming that one is off the table, then...

* If you want the Blend moderated, what is a realistic expectation of moderation?

* Do the ground rules for "offensive language" change -- get relaxed, since there's so much content?

* What is a reasonable turnaround time for a barista to address an offensive comment?

* How should an offensive comment reported? Via comment or email to the tips line? I personally think doing so in the comments is obviously proving ineffective; on the other hand my inbox is already full of emails I can't get to right away.

* How many warnings does one receive before receiving a suspension or trapdoor?

* How many reports on one comment constitute auto trapdoor/suspension?

* Are banned users ever allowed to return?

I'd prefer to talk it through and hear your suggestions than make a unilateral decisions without any input, but my-way-or-the-highway decision making is obviously an option. Thank you in advance for those who want to roll up your sleeves and work on this problem.  
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tone arguments.
I read this entire lengthy post - and isn't all of it essentially a tone argument?  Isn't all of it essentially telling trans people to stop using words that (I'm sorry but, unreasonably) upset cis people?  Doesn't anyone see the problem with this?  

As a long-time lurker whose first post was one of the blank comments that Pam called "threadjacking" (nice terminology comparing trans people passively protesting the silencing of trans voices to hijackers, btw), I think one of the most frustrating things is that nasty comments directed at trans people generally and individual trans posters are NOT moderated with the same intensity as trans people who dare to use the term "cis," and never have been.  I've seen that myself as someone who has just read the comments here.    

It's hard for me, personally, to see this blog (and particularly its comments section) as a place that is welcoming and safe for trans people.  I don't see a commitment from Autumn, Pam, or any of the other moderators here to make it better.  I see more of the same.  


Tone Arguments
Please help me, and I say this without irony.

Is there something wrong with arguing that the "tone" of a comment can be inappropriate?

In other words, isn't it possible to fully accept what is being said as acceptable in an exchange of ideas, but disagree, or even exclude a comment because of the way in which it's being said?


[ Parent ]
You are right
I have a friend who has one method of communication - every interaction is a fight and he goes in on the attack. He has good things to say, but his tone tends to turn people off because there is never an attempt to listen or negotiate or be friendly.  

Stormie
Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.


[ Parent ]
Autumn explains in the intro
I don't want to give into "the tone argument" -- the argument that oppressors get to define what words the oppressed get to use, and get to say "I'd pay attention to you if your tone was better"

Frequently when oppressed groups object to how they're being treated they're accused of being nasty and unreasonable.  I don't personally think the "tone" is necessarily the point - maybe the person whose tone you don't like has a reason to be angry.  Or maybe you're reading their objections as anger or nastiness.  I think it needs to be used with caution.  


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I don't
Isn't all of it essentially telling trans people to stop using words that (I'm sorry but, unreasonably) upset cis people?  Doesn't anyone see the problem with this?

I don't see the problem, because it's the mirror of telling everyone else to stop using words that upset trans people. It's just basic courtesy to not use a word toward someone after they've said it upsets them.

The first time I met a woman who objected to my calling her a girl, I didn't understand it. If she'd lashed out at me, I still wouldn't understand it, I'd have dismissed her as a crank and moved on. Instead she explained, and I don't call women "girls" any more. I understand that it belittles adult women, that it's demeaning - even if it isn't intended to be. That it propagates a view of women as eternal children, to be cared for, but not listened to, or taken seriously.

I wrote previously that the word cisgendered has no emotional component for me. I don't particularly object to having it used toward me, but others do, and I definitely object to being told that I'll be called something whether I like it or not. My first - and usually final - reaction to that is to dig in my heels and say "the hell you will". That doesn't get either of us what we want. I want to learn more, and you want people like me to understand your position, your goals, and your needs. Cooperation and education are the only way I can see that happening.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
What Alternative?
I know women that like being called Girl, a personal preferance for them.

But at least there are alternatives aren't there!

And there's a heap of terms that apply to you whether you like it or not.

Human for one.

Discussions of sexism require words like... sexism!

What alternative is there that puts Trans and the Cis-equivalent as equal? Cis does it but if people object what alternatives are there? Not-Trans is othering as far as I and a heap of other TG people are concerned.

And Cis still applies to me as I currently consider myself cis-sexual but Trans-gender!

It's not like complaints about words like 'tranny' or 'faggot' where polite and nice alternatives exist. What more valid option is there to Cis?


[ Parent ]
He's not suggesting an alternative, battybatty bats
he's not objecting to the term, at least not now.

I don't particularly object to having it used toward me, but others do, and I definitely object to being told that I'll be called something whether I like it or not. My first - and usually final - reaction to that is to dig in my heels and say "the hell you will".

And that's pretty much my attitude toward anyone.


[ Parent ]
I noticed
The point is that if the term is the term and there's no better term then thats what everyone is stuck with!

And there's lots of things he is called without anyone asking. If he's Cis then we can start with his being called He and him!
Then add man. Male. Human. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There will be a truly massive host of descriptive terms that will apply, tall average or short.. terms of build, skin and eye and hair colour, personality type.... Where all these objected to also?

Where there are alternatives then a persons preferance and objections has meaning. Where there are none then all there can be until a better alternative is coined is an objection to the topic being discussed at all.


[ Parent ]
Most people here
call me some variation of my handle, but if you really hate that, you can call me Scott. That's my name IRL.

If you're talking to me, or about me, that's what I'd prefer. If you're talking about aggregate groups of people, and not singling anyone out, then you can use whatever word you choose. I'll decide whether I'm part of the group you're describing or not.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
Ha! IRL!
Thank you!  I always say "In real life" and my friends ask me, "How is the Internet not real life?"  I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that does that.

[ Parent ]
Easy
It's fake life, hadn't you heard?

I always say that the "internet is made of PEOPLE".  Because, yanno, it is.  (They're squeezed through the tubes!)


[ Parent ]
Are you cisgender?
Okay, Scott, I'll ask you.

Are you cisgender?

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Yes
If I understand the question to mean "Were you born with male genitalia, and do you function as a male in your day-to-day life?", then yes.

And still, if you're speaking to me directly, or about me in particular to other people, I prefer you to use my name or my handle. It's polite. I'm a proper noun, not an adjective. For the record, I also don't like being referred to as "the gay guy down the hall", or "the bald guy down the hall", or "the short guy down the hall", or any of several other ways that, while perfectly accurate and are labels I don't particularly object to (especially since they're true), I consider impolite if used to speak to me or about me in particular.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
Hi Scott.
How is Scott today?

I ask because I don't want Scott to suddenly think that use of adjectival phrasing implies that Scott is any less an individual, but since Scott is a person who is also homosexual, of some ethnic background that is in part at least not the same as myself, and possess a congruity of self that is markedly different from my own, I would say that Scott is possessed of particular privileges that are not possessed by me since Scott is not someone who lacks those privileges, even when there is an intersection between the privileges that Scott is lacking and that I lack as well.

So, given that particular aspect about Scott, It would be proper to say that Scott is possessed of cisgender privilege, and that it is the facing of this particular privilege that needs to be dealt with on the part of Scott, not on  the part of Kynn or Dyssonance.

All of which would be much easier to say by simply noting that you are a cisgender person and I am not.

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


[ Parent ]
And in your case
I'm happy to have it, and if you'd like to drop by sometime, I'll be thrilled to wave it like a flag, while sticking out my tongue and saying "neener, neener, neener".

See? You're not the only one who can be childish.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
Ah, but..the whole while I would, of course, flaunt my female privilege
and revel in it :D

Except on the phone.  Then I'd use male privilege because some times they just won't let a gal get stuff done the way a guy can.

Childish its not.  And you can't help but to wave it about and all that.  Indeed, it takes work and effort not to do so.

Privilege is not racism.

IT is not something to be ashamed of.

Its something to be aware of.  And use.

As for saying neener neener neener -- I'm afraid I do that already. :D

take care, Scott. I'm not welcome here, and it has nothing to do with you, but know that I always liked ya.

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


[ Parent ]
It's a descriptor not a NAME!
I don't go by the name Transgender. My handle here is Battybattybats because BBB were my birth intials, Ba are the first two letters of my male birth name and Te was the same from the name chosen for me were I born female-bodied and I am a Goth and Bats are important animals to me and I've looked after orphaned bats.

So your own name wasn't going to be replaced with Cis.

Your point that you have a name is nonsensical.

This is just about a term that describes merely an aspect of you, one with many advantages that I as transgender don't have because of the different ways we are treated because of that descriptor! Nothing more than that.

So the next VITAL question is... where does your hyper-sensititvity come from?

Why do you suddenly feel when a descriptor of a class you belong to that makes visible unfair advantage you get and disadvantage you don't get that this somehow is an assault on your very identity? How can it threaten your name? It Can't! How can it threaten your identity? Why are you irreationally upset over this term and raising an irrational argument about it?

Take a moment to consider that carefully. Because it could provide ou a powerful insight.


[ Parent ]
Don't bother asking angry cis people what term to use
They are refusing to answer that question.

They want their privilege to remain invisible.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Good afternoon, Kynn
Well, it's afternoon where I am.

[ Parent ]
= exact attitude that caused all this drama
I'm not against the terms. However, the notion that these terms are "neutral" is patently absurd. The very fact that every time this is brought up, bigger issues about majority privilege get immediately invoked along with it, proves this isn't simply a neutral term.

Question: Can you fierce proponents defend "cisgender" as a "neutral" term without accusing others of benefitting from some sort of social privilege and being in denial about it? Or being angry, ignorant and oblivious? Or launching any insult at all?

Can you?

I know I can describe someone as "white" without launching into a sermon about white privilege. I also know I could explain to them what white privilege is, and that it is a social reality, without resorting to childish behavior or hurting their feelings.

On top of it all, cisgender is not synonmous with cissexual, just like transgender is not the same as transsexual. So when you throw around the prefix "cis" on its own, you need to be more specific.

Cisgender and transgender are broad UMBRELLA TERMS that describe theoretical concepts dealing with large scale group dynamics. They are not labels to be applied to any individual. Transgender vaguely means "transgressing gender norms". Therefore its opposite, cisgender, should mean "conforming to gender norms."

Therefore, arguably, all LGBT people are "transgender" in that we all violate prevailing gender norms (although the norms themselves aren't cut-and-dry to begin with either).

Cisgender privilege certainly exists, but it's not a static characteristic an individual can possess at all times. Some people can access it more than others, and sometimes the same person can access it in certain situations but not in others.

Meanwhile, transsexual is usually understood in academic discourse to be more specific; it is meant to describe, in particular, the phenomenon of people being born as biologically one sex while having the mind or brain gender identity of the opposite gender.

***90% of the bitchy comments I am reading are completely failing to make this distinction.***

- Most gay people can be said to fall under "transgender" since we violate dominant gender norms simply by being attracted to the same gender.

- Depending on their gender expression/mannerisms, gay people can either benefit from cisgender privilege or be harmed by it. I am a fairly masculine male. Therefore I benefit, usually, from cisgender privilege. However men who are more effeminate will be perceived as transgender and be harmed by cisgender privilege. In social situations in which I am perceived as "not masculine enough", I will also be harmed by cisgender privilege.

- Anyone who experiences their brain gender identity as being aligned with their biological sex can be reasonably labeled cissexual. This, unlike cisgender, CAN be a neutral and scientific term that doesn't come attached to all kinds of other issues and judgments.

I am a masculine gay man. I am cissexual. I am transgender. In many social situations I benefit from cisgender privilege. In others, I am harmed by it.

Either way, we are all in the same boat.


[ Parent ]
C'mon thats simple!
People with bias who didn't realise they have bias or thought that their biased position was justified and neutral don't like their bias being highlighted! And so they get upset. Because they must cede the position of 'normal'.

And of course cis-privilege is variable! Just like a tanned white guy might not always get much white privilege compared to a pale white guy but still has heaps more than the really dark-skinned guy. Lots of privilege is variable and that doesn't invalidate the existence of 'white provilege'! And then you add Intersections of privilege/discrimination on top of that.

That Cis privilege comes in degrees like white-privilege and lots of other privileges do that doesn't invalidate it, it supports it!


[ Parent ]
But is it the term, or the existence of any term, that made him uncomfortable?
"The first time I met a woman who objected to my calling her a girl, I didn't understand it. If she'd lashed out at me, I still wouldn't understand it, I'd have dismissed her as a crank and moved on. Instead she explained, and I don't call women 'girls' any more."

Yup, and she didn't just say, "Don't call me 'girl'," did she?  Her explanation probably mentioned 'woman' or led you by the nose to it.

The objection to 'cis' that trans people objected to in turn did not say, "that's an uncomfortable term and i want you to use this other one instead."  Rather, it just said not to use the term, and by extension, the concept.  Since then, I've seen assertions that the very concept of 'cisgender' is a meaningless, made-up class -- not just claiming offense at one name for it, but trying to invalidate the entire idea.

Is it any wonder that so many trans people and allies dug in ourheels this time?  It was not, as far as we could tell from the start and as further evidenced by where things went later, an honest request to pick a less offensive term; it was a heavy-handed attempt at silencing trans people.


[ Parent ]
I can't answer for anyone else
I don't object to it, because it's just a word. If it means something to you, and you want to use it, I'm all right with that. My sole objection - the only one I've ever voiced, or even thought to myself - is when the argument turned from "you don't understand the word" to "I'll use this word whether you like it or not, because you're privileged". The unilateral decision, and the implication that its use was a form of punishment for privilege, was my objection, not the word.

There may be people here who object to the word for precisely the reasons some are pointing to - that they define themselves as normal, and anyone who isn't like them as abnormal. I don't know what to say about them, except they're wrong. The way the word normal is usually defined today simply doesn't exist. It's normal for me to be gay, just as it's normal for my little sister to be straight. It's normal for Autumn to be transgendered, just as it's normal for me to be cisgendered. And there's no value to be had, for any of us, by dividing us up into little groups and competing with each other. I can't, and wouldn't want to, defend anyone actually protecting their (dubious) higher status than another group, but it seems over the last several days there have been a lot of assumptions, and a lot of accusations, and way too few moments spent actually listening to and trying to understand each other.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
But
Why do others object?  Many trans people are suggesting that people object to the term because they object to being placed on the same level as trans people.

It would be the same as supporting heterosexual people who object to that term because their sexuality is normal/the default, while other types of sexuality are deviant and need to be named.  


[ Parent ]
Well...
No, it really isn't the same.

When someone tells us to accept what we're told by cis people, it sounds like the same things that have been told to us in the past -- that their needs are paramount to ours in some fashion, and it's because we're defective and they're not.

It's systemic in our case, and not so in theirs -- at least not as much.

I'm perfectly willing to not use a term to directly refer to someone if they ask me not to, personally.  But that's the term I use in my head until I'm corrected otherwise, because that's the TERM for that.  Using something else is inexact, dissembling.

I'm not suggesting cis queer people don't have their own different issues -- merely that these lines aren't drawn where some people think they are.  I've been told to shut up because I was "really a man" or "not a real woman" by gays and lesbians alike.  It was okay to them -- I didn't count.  They were "men or women", and I was the freak, in their mind.

With a history like that, it's absolutely not the same at all.  And cis people don't realize this history exists -- but how else do we tell them?  We have to use this word.

It's a resistance I understand to the term -- it's borne of our occasional lashing out at the mass of people who erase, ignore, or point fingers at us every day combined with the general horror of someone who's got privilege trying to accept the idea.  But the word itself has a meaning, and that meaning is absolutely necessary for a discussion of trans issues in some meaningful way.


[ Parent ]
The recent explosion of censorship of language and ideas is killing the blend
And quite franky the damage may already be permanent.

I have encountered other blogs and groups who used a similar "heavy hand" to stifle controverial topics or respond to insults (both real and imagined) and in every single case where I encountered such tactics, I simply never went back to that site - ever again.

I didn't post a dramatic "swan song" or explain my reasons, I simply went away...and later, so did the site.

Make no mistake, the only reason there IS a PHB is because of the contributors - and the more strident and opinionated voices are the real driving force behind the success that PHB has experienced.

Limit discourse to only those voices who a 'vanilla', only those who march in lock step with the party line, and only those who do not offend anyone, and the Blend will be gone within a year.  

I have watched from the sidelines throughout this recent Pogrom (and I use that word intentionally) and have come quite close to leaving forever.  And I am one of the moderate middle of the roaders here.

What was a vibrant interchange of ideas and opinions has devolved into a cult of personality - reminding me of snitty teenage girls.

I have a teenage daughter and I get enough of that in my house.

Stop the banning, stop the censorship, stop acting as the internet language police, or turn off the Blend for good.

Fighting over percieved insults between people who are seemingly allied in wanting the same results is just plain stupid, and gives ammunition to the opposition.  

As long as this continues, the Blend is actually hurting the cause of equality -



Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.


Yep...
I agree completely...well said.

[ Parent ]
Pam and Autumn have to deal with a reality
and that reality is that there are people from all kinds f viewpoints on the Blend; Some Gay men who are still uncomfortable with a Lesbian presence in the LGBT movement, let alone a trans one, Lesbians who are the remnants of the second wave separatist movement, Trans inclusive people of all stripes, Transsexuals who want out of the TG unbrella, TG universalists, radicals, conservatives, gradualists and revolutionaries.

What is the chance that all of those people are going to get along all of the time?

Heck, even Dave and I, radicals cut largely from the same cloth, got into it last eve but as always were sure to make our piece before it went too far.

All in all, Pam, Autumn and the rest do  great job.
Autumn, put th computer down and step away from the monitor...relax a bit sis, and don't personalise the response. You know some of the lovely things that have been written about me

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


People uncomfortable with one another
It's all too true, Maura... and it's sad.  You'd think that GLBT's of all stripes could see the common struggle we have.

Transphobia = gender-based judgmental hatred.  ("How dare you go outside the manufactured binaries in your mind, your body, or both?")  Homophobia = gender-based judgmental hatred.  ("You're a woman, so you're 'supposed' to be physically and mentally drawn to men!")

Trans, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are natural allies... Let's start acting that way.


[ Parent ]
Often times it seems
the four letters are only held together by the dictum of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It's depressing.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

[ Parent ]
At this time
I have no opinion. Perhaps because its soo early for me and Ihave not finished my first cup of coffee.

I just wanted to say, "what a cute little kitty!"  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/


Questions, answers, and statements
Comments: Leave them on. That's the only way discussion and education can happen.

Moderation: Yes. Both ways. Have a moderator, and posters have some moderation.

Ratings: Meh, don't care.

Moderator funding: where would the money come from? That's just the first logistical problem in a never-ending litany of problems.

Expectations: Vary. Some want a free for all, some want a "only thing I agree with" space. Ultimately, this space belongs to Pam.

Offensive language: demeaning language certainly should be off-limits. Swear words? Not so much, IMO.

Reporting: set up an inbox for complaints.

Warnings: depends on the nature of the transgression.

Trap-door: depends on the transgression.

Banned for life: only in very infrequent, very extreme cases. People learn, grow, and change. Policy must recognize that.

=================================================
Statements:

I'm sad that Autumn has lost a word she feels is useful and productive.

I understand male privilege. I have four sisters, and I was raised in Southern Utah. I was taught to expect my life to go in certain ways, including a job, a family, and responsibilities toward that family. My sisters were taught to expect a husband, children, cooking, sewing, and cleaning. After my youngest sister's divorce, I remember how shattered she was. Everything she'd been taught to expect and count on had dissolved, and what was left wasn't anything she'd been taught to get satisfaction from. A woman doesn't have a career, she holds a job until a suitable husband comes along. A woman's only true satisfaction in life comes from being a wife and mother. Without those, she's an empty cipher. My little sister paced back and forth in my backyard, more angry than I've ever seen her, demanding to know why she'd never been taught to have a career? Why wasn't she taught that she could be happy and complete without being someone else's property? She's better now, but that early conditioning will always be with her.

I partially understand white privilege. I was raised in a mostly white community. We had a reservation near town, and I grew up hearing about drunk, lazy Indians. My religion taught me that Native Americans were dark because they'd sinned against God, and their skin was a curse. It also taught me that African Americans were cursed, and that's why they couldn't hold the priesthood, or any position of authority within the church. If I applied for a job, I didn't have to be as educated, as talented, or as qualified as my fellow candidates, if I was the white candidate. No one would hire anyone who lived on the reservation, or rent a house in town to them, or give them a loan, or even socialize with them, because, well, they were all lazy, drunk Indians. Everybody knew that. When I was 20, the first black person moved into town. And - gasp - she was the wife in an interracial couple. If they'd known the new policeman they hired was married outside his race, he would never have been considered for the job. As it was, they only lasted six months before moving, and the town breathed a sigh of relief.
I struggle against what I learned every day. I question myself constantly, trying to reinforce who I'm trying to be, and suppress who I was raised to be. Some days I'm more successful than other days.

I'm just barely beginning to learn about (for lack of a better term) cis- privilege. It's all theoretical at this point, and I've probably got some key points wrong, and I don't trust my own judgment on it for a second, but I know it exists. The complete shape and scope of it escapes me, but I know it's there. What I very much need at this point is some guidance. Not lecturing, not scolding, not flaming, just guidance. Point out unquestioned assumptions that should be questioned. Forgive stupid mistakes, and understand it wasn't an intentional harm, just a stupid, thoughtless one. Several of my previous posts here are flashing through my head as I write this - things I wouldn't post today, but didn't have a qualm about when I posted them.

I'm not a person who wants to exclude people. I don't want to break my group off from that group over there, and draw some artificial line between us. I don't think that serves any useful purpose. Yes, I have my personal agenda, and I will do whatever I can to see that to completion, but I can adjust it. I can make it more inclusive. I can make it more fair. I just need to know where the adjustments have to be made.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


Yeah, you and I are in about the same place.


[ Parent ]
Can I third this?
Busy, no time to read the contention, but...without comments this blog becomes a news feed.

All the power you need is the power to trapdoor those who intend to troll.  

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
I'm right here with you -
gay, white, male - barely a minority according to some, but trying to learn and understand.

Unfortunately it's gotten to the point that I pretty much ignore any posts that seem to be trans related on the front page simply because they keep devolving in ways that seem like a very juvenile "oneupmanship" of some person or group over another.

It's a shame, because I feel the most of the people involved have things to share with the rest of us, education and understandings that we don't currently have - but as allies, we'd really like to know.

It sure was a helluva lot easier when we could just come in here and have a common bitch session about whatever wrongs BushCo was up to on a daily basis.

If someone calls me 'cis' - I don't care - simply because I'm not even sure enough of the term to know whether I should be insulted or feel complimented.  And the saddest part of that is that once or twice in different diaries when I asked - it just got lost in the flame wars.  Everyone got so caught up in proving their point of view as the right one, nobody bothered asking if any of the rest of us were learning

Sure seems like a pretty non-productive way to build allies and coalitions


[ Parent ]
Ah, an easy question to answer!
"If someone calls me 'cis' - I don't care - simply because I'm not even sure enough of the term to know whether I should be insulted or feel complimented."

Generally, neither, any more than being called brunet or blue-eyed or able-bodied or Anglophone.  It just means that you identify as the gender that matches the sex you were assigned at birth based on a) the initial appearance of your genitals or b) a surgeon's decision of which sex your ambiguous infant genitals would be easiest to 'correct' to, if you were born intersexed and never told.

It can be correct if that describes you, or incorrect if you're actually transgendered, but the word by itself is no more of a compliment or an insult than 'Russian-speaker', 'American', 'sighted', or 'electrician'.

OTOH, tone of voice can add meaning that is not inherent to the word.  If someone says it with a tone of relief, they may mean it as the kind of compliment that's really an insult to us trans folk.  If they say it with a sneer that suggests that merely being cis implies other, darker things, then they're probably pissed off about having been whacked over the head by somebody's cis privilege.  (Fairly so if it was you who hit them with the privilege stick; unfairly if it was somebody else and you're just a convenient target.)  In either case, it's not the word, it's the tone of voice and the whole sentence.

Similarly, 'American' can be a positive word to an American jingoist, a sneering slur to someone feeling oppressed by Americans or bigoted against us, and an absolutely neutral term 99% of the time.

So no, in general you should not feel insulted or complimented when somebody calls you 'cis'.  Unless you're not cis, in which case it's your trans-invisibility that should bother you or please you as the case may be, and you can correct the speaker or not, at your pleasure.


[ Parent ]
welcome back
I think that it was good to address the legitimacy of the term; I think that its not difficult to have that conflict between allowing free discourse and trying to create a space where no one is offended. Its not easy to draw the line and it can take stepping back a bit from the issue when in the center of the whole thing. Subjects where a GWM and his (Aravosis) anti-whole-community attitudes are being addressed can make other GWM's feel as though they are already the one being singled out for attack when no, just Aravosis and ones like himself are being addressed. Knowing you I think causing any community hurt was the last thing you intended and I hope others can move past it and learn from it, recognize the good that has come from PHB, and return to the work of creating a better community.

co-host of trans-ponder

Actually, I was wrong...the Blend is dead.
I just read all the links, and did a fairly comprehensive web search for recent posts elsewhere pertaining to the the Blend.

There is nothing but contempt anywhere -

RIP


Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.


You are using...
... a blunt instrument to measure life force.

Contempt is being expressed, that's for sure.

Contempt is being expressed for the whole LGBT movement all the time.  Does that mean it's dead?


[ Parent ]
The Blend is hardly dead
and the contempt is largely from people who object to either trans-friendliness or to radicalism in the LGBT community.
And the Blend embraces the Dallas principles, some other LGBT blogs have rejected them.

J'y suis, j'y reste


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


[ Parent ]
contempt
Your observation is significant, indeed.   It is worthy of very serious consideration and I hope that it won't get overlooked in all of the hand-wringing over "cis" and whatnot.  How dreadful for "GLBT" to be linked  with "contempt."  Yet your conclusion must be an exaggeration, if for no other reason than your comment about contempt was not itself made in contempt.  

On the one hand, some characters of the Blend unashamedly excrete tons of contempt for everybody and everything that they dislike.  I imagine that these kids must be stewing in their own bile.  On the other hand, the Blend has been blessed with more than a few sparks of real class, of genial wit and of wisdom — If your web search didn't come across any of these, look again.


[ Parent ]
Weaponized against prejudices, not people,
Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we [transgender people] don't belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement.
In that comment, the term cisgender wasn't used to explain privilege to people who didn't understand it, but instead used to angrily -- accusatorily -- pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn't care about the civil rights of transgender people. It was that weaponized use of that cis- term that began the current Pam's House Blend debate over cisgender and cissexual terminology here at The Blend. When I've mentioned repeatedly that the two cis- terms have been weaponized at The Blend, this is the is starting point as to where I feel the term was weaponized against gay white men.

At some point when you are talking about the real-world politics of discrimination, you have to as the questions of who is discriminating against whom and for what reasons.

I don't see a problem with pointing out that there are many within the gay rights movement who see it as a movement for only cisgendered gays and lesbians. I saw it in the rhetoric surrounding ENDA, I see it in the open speculation regarding institutional complicity in the death of Lawrence King because they let him "cross-dress" in the classroom. And I see it in the way in which feminine men and butch women are scapegoated for anti-gay prejudice.

If we can't say that activists such as Aravosis or legislators such as Barney Frank are privileging cisgendered gays and lesbians, then we have a big problem. If we can't talk about who is discriminating against whom and to what ends within our community we have a big problem. To quote Martin Luther King:

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

The prejudices that many of my fellow cisgender white queer men demonstrate in regards to trans and gender-variant people within our community disgusts me. Sometimes, I feel the personal target of that. The derail of those topics from a discussion of how little trust we might have for Aravosis or Frank given their relatively recent commitments to inclusion was a serious problem IMO.  


This is just what I was going to say
At some point when you are talking about the real-world politics of discrimination, you have to as the questions of who is discriminating against whom and for what reasons.

There is no way to identify the cissexual and/or cisgendered people who dislike transsexual and/or transgendered people and regard them as social and political nuisances that won't make someone feel uncomfortable. This is a fact of life. The cure is exactly the same as with the reality of white privilege, of male privilege, of able-bodied privilege, and so on down the road: acknowledge the privilege and see what you can do to reduce its power over those who lack it.

The key mistake was Autumn's rush to agree with Lane rather than telling him, "I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, but the word is descriptive, and any other word would end up bugging you just as much because the thing it described is what's making you uncomfortable."

The key insight is this: experiencing one form of discrimination doesn't bar you from having another kind of privilege. White GLBTs can be racist; GBT men can be sexist; Ts can be as ableist as anyone else; and so on. And we have to be able to talk about this...but it appears that we won't here at PHB.  


[ Parent ]
In a nutshell
The key mistake was Autumn's rush to agree with Lane rather than telling him, "I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, but the word is descriptive, and any other word would end up bugging you just as much because the thing it described is what's making you uncomfortable."

Yes, this, in a nutshell.


[ Parent ]
Just for the record:
That person whose use of the word "cis" offended Lane?

Was not me.

Because that happened before what Autumn falsely identifies as the start of the argument.

I just want to make that clear to everyone:  Despite Autumn's revisionist history, I was not the one whose usage Lane objected to, and I really really object to Autumn's transparent attempt to make me the whipping girl here.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Oppressed people get angry at their oppressors!
It happens!

If I had a buck for every time a woman near me complained about men or when an Aboriginal, Islander, Chinese, Maori, Samoan, Tongan or Native American I knew complained about whites or a Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual complained about Straights or a disabled person complained about the abled and so on and so forth from a legitimate grievance of being oppressed and did so in a strongly angry way then I'd be a very rich Batty indeed!

The oppressed get angry! It happens! They have justification for it!

And even when I belonged (or was perceived to belong) to one of those citicised oppressor-groups even if I personally had not contributed to that oppression I at least realised that overall that group had done that injustice to this person and the person was legitimately angry. It's not the most constructive way of dealing with an issue by any means but justified anger twists and poisons inside if it has no outlet or redress.

Now unless we are going to ban the terms:
Man
Straight
Heterosexual (and all its derivatives)
White
Able-bodied
Christian
And all the other terms of privileged groups mentioned in justified anger then i fail to see why Cis of all words should be singled out for special treatment!

Double-standards are not ok. All the above words have been used in anger 'weoponised' to use Autumns term.

Now if someones releasing their anger wildly try talking them down a little and help them redirect that anger productively.. anger is the primary energy-source of activism after all. And look at their grievance to see if it's justified! Often it is! One need only look at the comparative suicide-rates, the murder-rates, the school-bullying-rates to see that the TG community has a massively valid grievance. Yes the GLB folk have a massive grievance too compared to the het folk (and plenty of TG folk are also GLB) but the TG community gets the worst of the hate and the least of the help.

Thats a legitimate grievance and a legitimate reason to be angry. And angry emotuons WILL result from it. If people don't like that then they could do more to reduce the injustice that causes the anger rather than complain that people treated badly get emotional.


missing the point
This shouldn't be a discussion about general moderation, because the issue that caused it isn't.

Trans people here are being moderated for using basic decentering language, or responding with anger to people who'd very happily throw us under the bus.

You want credibility? Start behaving like Feministe's mods. Transphobes, racists, et al, get shown the door as soon as a mod spots them, and those they oppress can speak honestly without fear of being shut down in a tone argument.

This is a safe space for cis gay people to make ignorant comments, or to whine about being called on their cis privilege. But when a comment as basic as (angrily) pointing out that John Aravois defines his gay-rights movement as being a cisgender one is described as "weaponising" and its author threatened with banning, it sure as heck isn't a safe space for trans people. It's the sort of double standard I'd expect from people who don't even pretend to be trans allies, so acting stunned when it damages your credibility seems to me to be a bit ridiculous.


I was there too.
"In that comment, the term cisgender wasn't used to explain privilege to people who didn't understand it, but instead used to angrily -- accusatorily -- pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn't care about the civil rights of transgender people."

John did say those things.  And people were rightfully upset with him.  And they rightfully pointed out that his perception that he was better off with out others was the primary factor at play.  

Namely, that his privilege as a cisgendered white man was leaving him unable to see the realities of other queer communities.

People don't need my permission to point out my white, male, or class privilege.  And unless transpeople (and allies) are able to continue to describe what's going on, the Blend is making a decisive and hurtful stand with those in power.

Summer and Pam, I'm dissapointed and hurt by this new course you're plotting.  Consider this my last post.


Wow
I'm not even sure what I want to say beyond offering hugs and thanks to Autumn (and Pam) for putting yourself in the middle of this.

Lots of thoughts and ideas have been churning in my mind over the past few days.

It came down to this, though: I don't have enough time or energy to fight here on the Blend, but I'm okay with using those resources for civil discussion.


Civility
Thanks to Pam and Autumn (among others?) for moderating the discussions here at the Blend.  It's a tough, thankless, but enormously important job.

What's missing from the commentary of most of those objecting to the moderation is any discussion of what is lost when forums degenerate into name calling and metaphoric screaming at each other.

Forums are not just for venting, they are for education.

Education is a two way street, meaning, for example, that Autumn can teach me something, and I can hope to return the favour.

Venting is a one way forum, where I say whatever the f*ck I like, any f*cking way I want to, to satisfy whatever motivations move me at the moment.

People will disengage if they can't put ideas out there without getting stomped on.  Not sure if that's true?  Look for the threads where respectful disagreement and discussion takes place.  Can't find them?  Wonder why?  How about the threads where someone acknowledges that they were wrong, or apologizes for misunderstanding something, or thanks somebody for enlightening them.  Shouldn't that be happening regularly?

Free speech doesn't mean freedom to come to Pam and Autumn's place of business and treat it like it's our own.  It's not.  Those who want to treat it that way are free to create their own place of business, and then treat it like it's their own.

If there is a reason that ideas can't be expressed in a civil way, please let's hear it (expressed in a civil way).  Otherwise, we should be able to put ideas out there and talk about them in a civil way.

That's one of the things that should differentiate this place from wingnut forums.


I appreciate all of the barista's hard work
Pam, Autumn, and all of the other baristas--I appreciate your hard work at making this 'virtual coffeehouse' a welcoming environment.  Autumn, you may have mis-handled the follow-up posting, but I think your instincts were correct in closing down threads that were devolving into flame wars.  Don't be so hard on yourself.  Everyone makes mistakes. :)

To address Pam's questions:

Comments--I like being able to comment on threads and discuss things.  Sometimes that discussion has clarified issues for me and helped me support or change positions on those issues.  

Moderation--I do think the threads should be moderated to keep it civil.  I once managed a yahoo group, and had a heckuva time keeping the trolls away and the threads civil.  

Ratings--I do like the ratings system, but I might post a "definition of ratings" in the TOS or in a thread similar to the thread on civility (if it's not there already.)

Moderation expectations--With my experiences being a moderator elswhere and -when, I think the moderation you currently have is just fine.  The only way to change the system would be to fund a 24/7 moderator, which would then require possibly paid subscriptions or other methods that would probably sour things more.

Offensive language--With the depth and breadth of content and the types of discussion here, perhaps it should be a "Supreme Court pornography" definition: we'll know it when we see it.

Turnaround time-- 48-72 hours.  That allows for a comment/post on Monday, an allegedly offensive reply on Tuesday, and an investigation on Wednesday for instance.  I would rather err on the side of liberality--letting some offensive content pass by and/or stay up for a bit--than to stifle healthy discussion.

Flagging offensive messages--Rather than relying on reporting via comments or email, does Soapblox have a 'flag this post' feature?  Then when a post has been flagged a certain number of times, the baristas get a notification and the content can be investigated.  

As far as banning/suspension/trapdoors--I would have a 'Three strikes' rule.  Three warnings, then a couple of weeks suspension.  Then said user is allowed back, but on probation.  If they violate the TOS again, a longer suspension.  Finally, permanent banning if it happens the third time.

Thanks for all the wonderful work you do!


*sigh*

To quote an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, "It's like watching your mouth trip and fall down the stairs."

You still refuse to make acknowledgements that have been laid bare with your behavior. Seriously. This is it? Accuse everyone full of justifiable anger over your behavior of having 'hate'?

What part of the whole 'pointing out a couple of statements to justify your behavior thing' are you not understanding?

You sit by silently while your enforcers (you call them peers) drive out people that disagree with you on T matters, and then yank the lever claiming 'incivility' when your enforcers fail.

Things go boom. Insert emotional plea with Famous Quotes. This isn't even close to what some people were wanting.

It's why you continue ignoring emails and posts that point out your enforcer's behavior. They're doing your 'dirty work'.

Telling somebody to 'fuck off' is pretty much grounds for a slap down in any forum i've ever participated in, so when you deliberately ignored it when it was pointed out to you, i wasn't sure if i was free to respond to your enforcer (peer) in kind.

They spend such large amounts of post time praising you, i thought maybe that it was some sort of ticket to acting like an ass and getting away with it.

Or was having you effectively declare me a 'classic transsexual' what marked me as a free target? i tried straightening it out. It could have been done in any one of the emails you ignored. You would have learned i'm not post-op, and i think HBS is junk science.

But while we're on it, are 'they' not allowed to post here?  Pam stated she would like 'some' of us to return to future discussions. Who are the 'right' people you want to allow here? Is rapid posting, ALL CAPPING and have 'fuck off' on speed dial preferred? As apposed to sincerely articulated disagreements?

Or just the whole praise-and-agree 24/7 thing?

It sent me into a spiral. Want to participate. Can't trust the police officer in charge.

Most of Pam's questions have only one real answer. i'm not sure what the point of asking most of them even was.

We don't need more watchmen. We need someone watching the watchman we already have. It's that simple. All the heart-tugging in the world won't mask her real agenda at this point.

Pictures of your cat?

Seriously?

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com


I needed to a statement in here that said you definitely...

...wanted a response. When I first saw the questions, I assumed you were asking rhetorical questions; however, your note below tells me otherwise now, so now I'm responding.

Autumn, Louise, Lurleen, and I can't be everywhere, monitoring everything. The routine, such as it is, has been piecemeal, as we discover inappropriate comments (a very subjective exercise, as we know all too well), or when they have been brought to our attention.

...People really do want to believe we're tethered to computers staring at threads all the time, I have no earthly idea why, and are ready to charge that we are purposely "letting someone get away with it.".

I'm not sure who the enforcer is that you are referring to. To me, it's an unclear reference I don't understand.

Yes, telling people to "fuck off" would have been  unacceptable before the reboot. Again, I must have missed that email...currently I'm sorry to say I have 3000 plus emails in my inbox today. I imagine that in the future emails send to the tips e-addy with a "TOS Issue" in the subject line would get our attention -- although we'll do nothing about moderation this week, except:

* The exceptions:
-- diaries created for spamming (we have some dolts who sign up to promote a product, not write a discussion post)
-- direct physical threats between commenters, or publishing of private information.

Who will be the watchmens's watchmen you envision? Seriously, no clue. Doesn't sound very grass roots though.

I apologize for misidentifying you. It's wrong to mislabel people, and apparently I did it to you in guessing or assuming you were a classic transsexual when you were not. Seriously, you have my apologies for f*cking that up.

And lastly, Bon-Bon is my friend. Seriously. I do all that talking to my kat that I say I do. I don't have a GF, BF, or QF in my life, so the kat fills in a surrogate significant other for me. If I has and SO to talk to, you'd have heard his, her, or hir responses...but my friend is a Kat.

As to why the pics of the kat, well, the blog was long and without graphics -- which meant visually thin. I added what I had file pics of, which included the kat in question. Don't like seeing Bon-Bon? Sorry -- she came with my write up to give the post some visual depth. My apologies for irritating you with those pics. However, some in this thread positively commented on seeing the Kat, so as life goes, we can't satisfy everyone.

Pam did the final edit -- she agreed with the kat pics too. So, we ran with 'em.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
Visually thin...?

Don't like seeing Bon-Bon? Sorry -- she came with my write up to give the post some visual depth.

What exactly was the point of the pitchfork?

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
my preference is for the Blend to not turn into Shakesville.
In other words, allowing for the end of the normal distribution everybody hates--the drive-by trolls--I'd like to see efforts at civility all around, while leaving people free to discuss and offer opinions that may not be shared by everyone. I'd prefer not to see the site devolve into the Pythonesque, self-flagellating exercise in demonstrating who's the most ashamed of their privilege that you see at Shakesville. Recognizing your privilege and trying to rise above it? Good. Dramatic posturing over your sudden epiphany that you've been receiving 5'10" privilege or cat-preferring privilege or Mac privilege and oh goddess I'll try to do better in the future? Eh, not so much.

Discussing emotionally loaded, painful subjects is probably going to leave at least a few people feeling wounded. If you're hurt, say so. Some will understand why and change their discourse, and others won't give a shit. There are no completely "safe" public spaces on the web, and the ones that try to be the safest are locked in the continual spiral of offensive post-offensive response-blogmistress threatening to quit-loyal posters declaring their undying allegiance-everyone posting on eggshells for two days-offensive post...

Reason and moderation. Boot the chronic assholes-for-the-sake-of-being-assholes, and encourage people to look at their posts through the lenses of other readers before posting. Heavy-handed policing isn't worth the headache.


Autumn, read your email from me.
and if you want to post it, quote it, or keep it to your self, fine.

Just do not ignore it.

Maura

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


I like the blend. A lot.
When the "N" word (Nazi, not the other one) is used, the poster has gone over the line unless it is a response to an article about Hitler and National Socialism. Posts that simply name call - I am thinking specifically of the posts on Ann Coulter - are over the line. They are noise, static, empty content that adds nothing to the discussion.

If a comment does not engage the stated ideas or positions of the other person by responding with something of substance, then the comment does not contribute.

A while back I saw a neighbor with three identical bumper stickers on her car (right and left bumper and top of the window)that said, "Get Bush a blow job so he can be impeached." I pointed to her car and said, "Those are great." She started to proudly respond and I added, "Of course, for it to work we would have to get him to have multiple affairs, be charged in civil court with sexual assualt, get him to lie under oath, get his law license suspended, get his right to try a case in the Supreme Court taken away, get him charged and fined in Federal Courth with Purjury..." She inturpted me and with the cogent argument of calling me a "fucking Nazi." Her whole position was a bumper sticker with no content.

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS:

Ratings? Who cares. I would prefer an "offensive post" button that members could hit. After "x" number of hits, the post would be bounced to a moderator to look at - that way a human eye can seperate "offensive" with "unpopular ideas."

"Nazi" and a few other terms should generate an automatic final warning. Ditto with personal attacks.



Stormie
Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.


I like your "offensive post" idea
The ratings system is too complicated, and some people seem to use it as another form of attack.

[ Parent ]
Some moderation is necessary
I wouldn't be much interested in the Blend if comments were turned off.  Hearing a variety of opinions and reactions on any one topic is far more enlightening than just reading one person's view.

I do think moderation is needed, though, because I stop going to forums where the comments are nothing but people attacking each other.  Personal attacks do shut down constructive discussion.  Occasionally two people will get into a snit with each other, and that's to be expected.  But if someone's whole purpose in commenting is to make trouble, they should eventually be removed.

It's not good to make generalizations like the idea that we should just avoid cis terminology because it will upset people.  Just about anything you say will upset someone, and it isn't reasonable to expect baristas to patrol 24/7.  I say give people the benefit of the doubt, and only ban them when you see that they are repeatedly and intentionally stirring up trouble.

I love the pictures of Bon-Bon.  She's adorable.


Banning words
Hmmm. I think that banning cis from the debate was a bad call. I'd never heard of cis before reading this post, but I think it's a good word. Decentering the language is the right approach. The word isn't a weapon. Except for certain slurs (and cis clearly isn't a slur), no single word is a weapon; only complete thoughts can be. No one should be compelled to use cisgendered if they want to refer to themselves or others as non-transgendered or anything else, but no one should be prevented from using the term either.

That's nothing against anyone in particular, especially Autumn -- we all make bad calls -- and a short and simple apology and correction/clarification should fix it.

The "tone argument" debate is an entirely different issue, I think. On the one hand, everyone should be civil (and moderators or community members are morally entitled to enforce civility), but on the other hand, everyone deserves rights whether or not they act civilly. The reason tone arguments are so offensive is because they suggest that because someone who acts like a jerk generally isn't advancing his cause (which I am willing to believe is usually true), he deserves not to have his cause advanced -- and that's a vicious and immoral thing to suggest.

In this case, I think moderators are totally justified in banning people who say nasty things about trans or cis people or indeed who make personal insults of any kind. But use of the word cis does by itself mean that that has occurred any more than use of the word trans.


My Experience and Thoughts
When I first came to the blend quite some time ago I ended up caught in a massive argument that raged for weeks and months across a number of pages.

Because I wouldn't put up with all non-binary transgender people being repeatedly called mentally-ill fetishists, blamed for all the transphobia in the world and labeleed a danger to children and to women.

I got called quite a few nasty things for this.

And yet some people I argued with have eventually become allies.. others have been banned (and i hope one day change their minds on the subject).

Discussing controvertial topics is vital. It's needed for people to learn.

Allowing the oppressed to stand up for themselves is also vital. If the privileged feel unconfortable with it being called out their suppossed to! Antiseptic stings! They should never be protected from that discomfort, eased into it at best and thats all. When there was desegregation on race and sex there was discomfort too. People had to endure that discomfort to get over it. If they were protected from that discomfort nothing would change or improve.

Sure when someone is making a harmful generalisation like 'all cis people are hateful to TGs' then the person making the comments needs to be reminded to be more accurate like saying 'Cis-society marginalises and supports hate of TG people' which would be accurate. Not every cis-person does that but the society does.

Thus far the examples used of Cis being weaponised pales compared to the claim, made here all too often during my time here, that allowing TG people to use the bathroom will harm women and children. Or the claim that crossdressers are all mentally ill fetishists. Oh and I almost forgot all the Anti-Goth and Emo stuff too!

That a few comments using the term Cis are seen as such a disaster is utterly unfair to the feellings and needs of the transgender community! Where was all the massive outrage when I was being called a freak repeatedly?

When that statement was made against the term Cis I was already in the middle of writing my own defence of the word when the ban on defence of it statement was made!

Because its an important word! A neccessary word! And fine if anyone comes up with a better one (that does not other me! Non-Trans is sure not equal, it others me!) thats fair and people find comfortable with than by all means, but we need some word to describe cis-privilege. And shutting down the defence of that word hurt me deeply emotionally.

And it further demonised the word by preventing it from being reinforced as a nuetral term! By reacting this way the loading of the term is magnified not reduced! And there is no way it's been used as hostilely as plenty of words used here every day.

If the comments on Transgender issues often fall apart there may be some reasons for that... and I suggest the problem isn't the term Cis.

But I believe in trying to reach people, in educating them, in building bridges. And I also believe in helping everyone make up for mistakes. Theres a heap of anger in the TG community. They've got good reason for that. They are sick of being derided, comdemned, hated, ridiculed, laughed at, mocked, excluded, sacrificed, ignored, sidelined and having to explain the same things over and over and over and over and over till they get so sick of it all they crawl under the doona if they are lucky enough to own one and cry and cry and leave the net for months at a time. So the over-reaction on this issue when there is so much hostility they face every day is just another 'kicking the dog when it's down'.

I think this can be rescued... the way the radio show and their transphobic remarks was handled! And you got a lot of respect from for your handling of that Autumn!

To be honest the two comments claimed as weaponised don't read that way to me at all! "Here is main point for Aravosis and all other cisgendered, transbigoted privileged assholes" That says that that person is a cisgendered transbigoted asshole and it says that others exist. It doesn't say that ever cisgender person is a transbigoted asshole! Just as saying that there are white swans does not mean that all swans are white!

Note: I know little of the person discussed, I am merely reading the comments as they seem to be written.

And "Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we [transgender people] don't belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement." That only says that this person excludes TG people, it does not judge the entire cisgender gay population.. only 'his' movement.. his view of the movement and the version for which he was acting and speaking. Where Orson Welles character says "not your world" to the survivor he met near the end of the infamous war of the worlds radio broadcast he sure isn't judging the world, just the persons plans for it.

I think these comments were missread! I do not think they were generalising in themselves (maybe thats not the case in full context of them though but reading them now they do not seem to condemn all cisgender people at all!) but were making statements about a person and many of the oppressive group to which they belong. Like saying 'male chauvenist pig' did not refer to all men as chauvenists and pigs or refer to all pigs as being male for that matter!

I think the time might have come for the Blend to Increase it's discussion of Cis Privilege, not reduce it, to Increase it's discussion of TG issues too. To invite prominant TG thinkers and activists to provide more content to the blend and to make sure it's high-profile and a focus.

This hasn't just hurt the community, it's brought existing hurt of cis privilege and double standards out into the open. Use this opportunity to do more to fix that, not complain that hurt exists and the whipped are thin-skinned.


I don't mind increasing the discussion
of the term (especially since I'm now Mr. Privileged Cisgender Asshole). I had to work on that one. :)

Just because links are provided either in a comment thread or in a story, though, doesn't necessarily mean that anyone reads them.

In a sense, I think there was a liitle bit of an assumption that the term was understood and it really isn't, by and large


[ Parent ]
Each person must hold some responsibility for their education
Seriously every TG person cannot post a detailed explanation of the term everytime they post! Let alone a long list of cis-privileges both cisgender in one column and cissexual the other.

Every yer there are new terms! Scientific ones, slang ones and so-on. People manage pretty well in getting used to them. You see one you don't understand and you look it up. Not so hard surely? People are still getting used to the term twitter for example. And I now can't use the term twitterpating anynore without people missunderstanding me now because the old ter is swallowed by the new.

Whether it's twitter or podcast or Cis there are always new terms!

So it makes no difference that a term is new or has yet to saturate the media and community yet. And if theres a link and you don't read it whose fault is it if you don't have the knowledge the link contained? Why you of course and you alone.

Actually one of the common complaints of TG people is that often when they have a discussion of TG issues open to the general public online some cis folks come in and derail often important discussions by demanding a personal explanation of Transgender in all it's minutia and often debating much of it. Can you imagine how annoying that must be? Especially when even wiki would sufficiently answer the persons questions.

That too is a part of cis privilege don't you see? The demanding of the victimised and oppressed and marginalised and excluded group that they explain and justify themselves to you when you don't have to do that to them as cisgender is already everywhere, universally understood and filling society and the mdeia so much you don't think about it at all but accept unconciously it as the way everything just is.


[ Parent ]
But it does make a difference
for example, if a trans person is directly implicating Mr. Privileged Asshole that I am in every single injustice that has ever happened to transfolk (as happened at QT last night).

I don't do that with white people (though I know black people that do). When a specific issue of white privilege arises in a particular instance, I sit down and at least try to explain. Sometimes I communicate well, sometimes I don't, sometimes a person gets it, sometimes they don't, sometimes they don't give a rat's ass (in which case I just move on).

And while I did feel a bit of vitriol being directed at my clueless ass at QT last night, there were others that were more restrained that took the time to explain ( in a tone that still let me know that I was a bit of a cisprivileged asshole) and now I know a little bit better.

I don't know perfectly; I don't know anything perfectly. But everyone has different learning curves, I guess.  


[ Parent ]
At what cost?
Sure speaking to a TG person and asking to be educated will work better like any one-on-one learning is better.

But as your literate enough to use the net you still could have gleaned most of it from some brief research without putting the burden on others.

If our time is totally filled with nothing but one-on-one educating we wont be able to do anything else. And it's not like we are getting paid for it whereas if you bought a book on it written by a TG person they'd at least get some royalties.

All-too-often important discussions of tg issues on a deep level get dragged back to just providing basic education to someone too lazy to look it up!

That it works has nothing to do with the cost that many pay for your privilege to swan in and demand to be educated.

Now luckily for you I don't mind personally doing that education :) But I see the cost others pay for it and so its important that one of the things that privileged communities as a whole need to learn is that they can't demand the oppressed just drop everything and teach them personally.

Now feel free to contact me directly or on my own little blog if you have questions I might be able to answer that would be off-topic for this discussion here so it doesn't become an object example of the trans-101-derailing.

But perhaps whats really needed is a community-wide education.


[ Parent ]
Not demanding to be educated at all at this point
And, as you said, the information is out there and i will read it and study it. Several people at QT actually offered to help and I appreciated.

But explain this to me. What is the cost that many in the trans communities pay for "my privilege?"


[ Parent ]
Costs
Which one?
As there are many.

In the context of my post specifically it is the regular derailment of TG issues on TG blogs with getting all sidetracked by Cis-concerns and basic education. Thats a cost in time, in effort, in loss of the original discussion. And it hapens plenty frequently. So much so that many TGs cannot have a TG-centred discussion unless they confine themselves to small backwaters because cis-concerns end up hijecking the discussions.

Essentially it becomes all about the Cis-person, the cis-persons needs, the cis-persons feellings.

And TG issues get filtered through the screen of how it will effect cis-people.

Example: Because Cis-people may find it uncomfortable to share a public toilet with a TG person TG-people are forced to justify why they should have access to public toilets at all. The real need of the TG people and their measured risk of violence (there have been a number of assaults on TG people in public toilets) is compared to an imagined risk to Cis people (after 30 years of some places allowing TG people to use the bathroom that matches their presentation there has been no increase in danger to cis-people. There is a greater risk from other cis-people than from TGs going by the data!) and to the cis-peoples comfort (where their squeemishness is more important than the TGs safety and basic access to the outside world).

Not only does that make a TG-safety and basic-amenities issue about cis-concerns it also underlines how TG people exist solely by the sufferance of cis people, without recognised equality as humans, who must beg or argue and fight snd educate till blue in the face just to get basic things everyone else takes for granted.

Just having to do that has a massive emotional and psychological cost. It's othering in itself, marginalising and dehumanising.


[ Parent ]
But that is the same thing the rest of us have to do on LGB issues.
We are constantly being told we NEED to educate people on this, we need to have more personal discussions because when people know us, it changes their views.  Isn't that the same for all segments of the LGBT community?

Just like the heterosexuals who need educating, and PERSONAL education, we-who know less about a subject matter, are less likely to use terms and phrases and whatnot by knowing people.  Why shouldn't you be required to do the same educating as the rest of us?  And the reticence of educating others does YOU harm, it certainly does me no harm if people are unwilling to talk in a reasonable fashion without all the assumptions of this privileged or that, without seeing or knowing to whom they are typing.  None of us have it easy in regards to how others perceive us, and the heterosexual community as a whole does not see any difference between you and me.  Yes, it is tiresome and time consuming, but really, what other choice do any of us have?

One of the problems I see with the term was that on a blog, those using it cannot tell what the status of the person they are describing with the term REALLY are.  You cannot tell from the user name, or even the L or G or T or B if a person is cis or not.  That should be considered in online conversations.  

And just in this threasd I see that there is a T who identifies with CIS.  Now, from all explanations previously, that identification does not make sense.

 

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
Cissexual =/= Cisgender
Transsexual and transgender don't mean the same thing.

It's very possible to be, for example, transgender and cissexual.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Some privilege is based on visibility
This one is pretty clear if you think about it. Let me explain.

A clearly androgynous person is going to easilly suffer discrimination based on gender-non-conformity right?

Well a closeted crossdresser will avoid that! Now they will still suffer, they will suffer from the closeting, from internalising the hostility they see others face and the like, but they will get advantages in employment and education and reduced risk of being bashed or murdered so long as they stay in the closet.

If the same crossdresser comes out or expresses too much femininity publicly those advantages start falling away.

A transsexual who is stealth, who passes every day, will have different advantages to the androgynous person, also avoiding the appearance-based judgements, but will have healthcare issues that the Androgynous person does not.

This is because the Androgynous person is Cissexual but Transgender. And to the public eye the stealth TS is Cisgender. The crossdresser to the public eye so long as they are closeted and hide well enough is seen to be cisgender too.

If the crossdresser is sufficiently effeminate anyway, like I was, they will get less cisgender privilege but still more than if they were out.

And a TS who does not pass, no matter how cisgender they feel inside will still suffer from discrimination based on the gender-non-conformity of their appearance. Because while they have a Cisgender identity and a transsexual body their appearance is perceived as Trans anyway so they don't get any or much Cis privilege.


[ Parent ]
All true.
Very well explained, batty.


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

[ Parent ]
The cost of this blow-up...
...as I explained (and other people explained) on QT is that, gee, thanks angry cis men -- now there's one less blog that trans people can feel safe talking about our issues.

You and others -- with assist from Pam and Autumn -- have transformed this from an LGBT blog to an LGB blog.

Yeah, there was no cost to you. But quit fucking shitting all over the cost you've forced us to pay.

Look at what upset trans people are saying, look at how our view of PHB has changed thanks to this. That disappointment and pain is the price tag of your privilege.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Fair enough
If our time is totally filled with nothing but one-on-one educating we wont be able to do anything else. And it's not like we are getting paid for it whereas if you bought a book on it written by a TG person they'd at least get some royalties.

I've read several threads and various posts here and at other places where the same book can be lauded and pilloried. The same viewpoint can be esteemed and vilified. How do I know which to believe without asking someone?

And, you know, sometimes life isn't fair. Sometimes life blows chunks. I don't like that I have to explain my gayness, I don't like that I always have to respond to stereotypes with gracious understanding for the clueless (not the willfully ignorant, then it's open season). I don't like that I can be bopping along, having a perfectly great day, and suddenly I have to stop and play Tutor To The Brain Dead. That's one of the prices we pay for being a minority. No, it's not fair, but it is. When some guy starts pissing and moaning that women get all the choices when it comes to childbirth, and he has none, I tell him "Welcome to Biology 101". In this case, for both you and me, the only practical and realistic answer has to be "Welcome to Psychology 101".

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
Peoples views differ too
You wont get a better answer from one person than from one book.

Both will be from individual points of view. And getting multiple sources will be needed either way. But if you try looking up a few articles first, lurking on a blog or forum a little etc you'd be surprised what you pick up and then when you do ask a question it will be from a more informed level. So you can skip some of the worst mistakes that way and can begin to ask questions that will get better results.


[ Parent ]
this is just life--a lot of these problems are up to the individual blenders to deal with
and while your efforts to soothe hurt feelings and try to resolve these issues are very admirable, pam and autumn, there is really only so much you can realistically do unless you are willing to completely alter the tone and accessibility of the blend.    

i love it the way it is.  i think you have a winning formula here, and the ratings, troll/abuse monitoring, comments--it all works fine.  i don't want any of it to change, and while i'm seeing threats from blustering blenders about how it's going to crash and how they're leaving.  so the hell what?  how many blenders have come and gone over the years, and it's still an outstanding place for discussion and insight?  

we as individuals need to be able to deal with incivility and attacks, to a certain degree.  misdirected anger and shitty words are the sole reason that some blenders come here--that's life.  they'll hijack threads in their own manner to put others down.  i've experienced my share of them and quickly learned that not everyone is my friend.  but for every one of those, there are 10 others who provide excellent commentary and who are quite capable of providing civil discourse.  i choose to focus on the positive.  

The gays stole my lunch money


I missed it
And I'm not a regular here.  That said, I rely on PHB for queer news and trans info, and I read Lisa Harney's QT every couple of days (and respect it enormously).  I also spend (too much) time on daily kos.  I've followed Autumn's reporting on and off and am very pleased to see her evolution as a voice for our community.

The thing to me is that no marginalized group is ever going to be a fount of civility and moderation.  Our lives make us, some of us, sad crazy, and regrettably enough, sometimes it shows.  Some blogs have a "be excellent to each other" vibe that works (docudharma, mostly) or simply a tradition of barking loudly while genuinely listening to the barks in response (dk).  PHB, while it does many excellent things, does not have that culture, at least when it comes to trans stuff.  People come in and say rotten things.  There's a strong temptation to log in and respond.  I don't know how one fixes that (in response to Pam's end comment).  No idea.   I do know that as a genderqueer identified MTF medical transie, I shy away from PHB trans treads as a rule.  It isn't so much that I think we are too cruel to the cis folks (deal, ban me, whatever), but that we are too cruel to each other.  I am too likely to read things that remind me of the saddest and angriest parts of a support group about who is real and who isn't.  

And I don't have a fix.  Just don't.  I think this problem applies to discussion in any society with great gulfs of inequality though, because the folks on the edges go nuts and have trouble talking in a way that others can access.  So while it may be frustrating as all get out, any creative solution will help us all move forward...


Reluctant
I have to admit, I tend to be a bit resistent to new terminology that is just designed to be politically correct.  This is probably because the first "safe" community I found was the leather community in the 1980s, at a time when Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were assailing that community, porn, sex work et. al. to a highly irrational degree.  So conforming to something just to be PC just isn't my nature.

That said, "cissexual" still fits a void that would otherwise be occupied by words like "normal," which intentional or not are backhanded slaps in the face.  I've kind of reluctantly settled into using it.

I really hate that we get so hung up on language, labels, terminology (and it doesn't help that everyone's definitions differ).  To me, it's always the intent.  To me, "shemale," "tranny" or "queer" spoken playfully or with friendship, admiration and respect is a damn sight better than "transsexual" coming out of someone's mouth with a spit of venom.  But then, as much as I don't care for those former terms, I've been in environments where you sometimes have to adapt to them, so that's sort of taught me to see past the literal.  Words don't have to wound; intent does that well enough.

I also get tired of arguments about who is the "most marginalized" and "you don't have it as bad as we do."  It's not a bloody contest.  Ideally, yes, people should show respect for our lot -- but that should also be mutual.  I tend to think that we have it "different," moreso that "better" or "worse."

Re: censorship, I missed most of what occurred, but the way I see it, you simply use your best judgment, and sometimes mess up.  That's your prerogative.  For the longest time, I thought I was being true to principle to allow anything on Dented... and that escalated to the point of threats.  There always has to be limits somewhere.  Basically, be as patient as is reasonable.  "Are banned users ever allowed to return?"  If you feel assured that the apology is adequate and the behaviour will not be repeated.


Rather than use terminology
Maybe an honest inventory of personal privileges (and handicaps) is a better strategy.  If done right, it will reveal far more about ourselves and others than assigning terminology.  It's not something that can be off the cuff;  if it's done quickly, or for that matter, finished up at all...it won't be right.

Done so, I suspect we will all come to the conclusion that privilege is part of each and every one of us.

The next step is to come to the conclusion that exercising privilege over some one else is a deep violation of that person's freedom.

I am privileged (in Michigan, where I live) to have a job, and unfortunately, I have to go work it.


Hate stops a beating heart.


Vocabularies and responses
I'm a cisgendered male. To me, that feels like a simple statement of fact. The adjective is new to me, so it has no sub-text for me.

(By contrast, "queer" and "faggot" always make me flinch, because those words were used to literally assault me.)

If someone refers to a "cisgendered gay rights movement", I react the same as when someone refers to a "male gay rights movement" or a "white gay rights movement". Those also feel to me like statements of fact. I understand all three labels as critiques of failures within the LGBT movement.

If someone actually asserts on principle that there should ONLY be an LGB movement (or an LG movement, or a G movement), well, I disagree with them on principle. It is an argument that fails to match reality. (In the 1970s I would have said it was "objectively counter-revolutionary", but that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.)

I have a wistful nostalgia for the loss of the "gay rights movement". I wish it still existed. I was saddened when it morphed into the united front against patriarchy that is the LGBT movement. But I absolutely do not agree in principle that that united front should be dissolved.

At every step of the transformation, I completely agreed (and continue to agree) with what was happening. When lesbians argued that "gay" implied "male", I agreed. When bisexuals argued that "gay and lesbian" left them out, I agreed. When T-folk argued that they were being excluded, I agreed.

So -- I personally am not offended by the term "cisgendered", whether it is being used as a calm statement of fact or an angry accusation. YMMV, of course.

As a side issue, I do not agree that anyone has a right not to be offended by the speech of others. I assert my right to offend christianists, god-worshippers of all stripes, right-wing loons, and anyone else I disagree with. I also assert that my right to do so by necessity entails their right to offend me. Being offended does not harm me (me, personally); being criminalized, harassed, tortured, or murdered harm me.

As far as moderation, one of the reasons that I read the Blend and not Daily Kos is because the Blend is moderated to the extent that it is. My life is filled with many interests and obligations. I personally have no time to read vicious attacks, whether they are on me or on others I consider allies.


bounce and be done with trolls
Since the baristas already recognize the destructive effects of hostility and of trolls and other sociopaths, I wait with much interest to see if they will effectively put an end to this infestation.  I simply want to suggest that the baristas not struggle with exaggerated remorsefulness when they enforce the rules.

Maintain the blend as the sort of place where you would want to share your wedding pictures.  


Not everybody wants to see wedding pictures
I for one would much rather have PHB be a place where all issues (yes, even the divisive ones) touching the queer/TBLG communities can be discussed openly. Do I think that discussing divisive issues will sometimes result in angry discussions? Yes, but silencing dissent by not allowing angry people to speak, no matter how justified their anger might be, isn't going to make the Blend a better place.

[ Parent ]
stop looking to your goddamn CAT for answers
So, I asked my kat Bon-Bon last night and this morning "How do I fix this?" Again she silently stared at me from her window perch.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making trans people your whipping girls -- as you quite blatantly did with me -- you should start listening to what trans people are saying about how you fucked up.

Instead of bowing and scraping to win favor among cisgender people.

Several very rational and friendly trans people have told you exactly how to start fixing this. But instead you did completely the wrong thing.

PS:  Thanks for throwing me to the wolves because I spoke the truth about what Aravosis did in 2007. I really appreciate that, you fucking asshole.

http://kynn.com/


please get kynn out of here already


The gays stole my lunch money

[ Parent ]
Everyone gets their say; I get to listen; Pam gets to listen.

No commentary from me on a particular blender's comment(s) unless that particular blender specifically asks for a personal commentary back from me, and no one will be ejected for their comments here today.

This is what Pam and I said we were going to do, and this is what we're going to do.  

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
Except Matt didn't ask for a specific commentary
But since you responded, are you going to take responsibility for the mob you've set on me, which includes Matt who apparently wants me gone, Autumn?

You've made me the whipping girl by pinning this on me -- for a statement that was in no way "weaponized" -- are you going to own up to your scapegoating or are you going to insist that your actions (which you admit were wrong) are justified by whatever you imagine I did?

This is a specific request from personal commentary from Autumn Sandeen.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Yes Autumn
I second that.

Are you going to take responsibility for what you said and the actions that were a result of your words?


[ Parent ]
Matt isn't alone
and it has nothing to do with Autumn or anything else, it has to do with your behavior, today, in this thread.

We get it, you're angry. Are you anything else? Is there some other side to you? Can you get over your anger and contribute anything productive, or do you just want to continue being a dam in the middle of everyone else's stream? I don't have much use for a dam, and I've sure as hell never let a dam change my mind about anything.

I don't see where you being here today leads to anyone's progress, including your own.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing


[ Parent ]
Glad of the mob to check in!
Thank you so much Autumn Sandeen for validating these angry cis queers in their attacks on me!

You've designated me as a target, Autumn, and not only linked to my comment but also my personal blog and my twitter feed -- and also made up provably false tales in order to make me the one "responsible" for an argument that started before I ever got here.

Great job, Autumn! Thanks for throwing me under the bus, you self-promoting sell-out!


http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Where Do You Suggest She Be?
Kynn was specifically called out by Autumn, and has yet to get an explanation -- or better yet -- a retraction of the claim that she started the whole cis controversy, a provable falsehood because Kynn's first comments came a day after the controversy started. There are timestamps on comments, you know.

As far as I can tell, she has every right to be present and be angry until someone with some authority here explains why she was specifically called out -- and therefore targetted -- for something that she didn't do.

I'd consider the "baristas" recalcitrance to address this issue publicly and fairly to be the "dam" in this stream. And also the sticking point for a lot of people (including queer cis allies like myself) in ever feeling that this is going to be a trustworthy and safe environment to be a part of again.


[ Parent ]
Seriously?
After everything i've said, i have to specifically ask you to respond to me?

Autumn Sandeen, please respond to my prior post i made today at 10:25 EDT. If necessary, i can print this request out and wrap it around a brick for less subtley.

Email rather than public post would be fine if you like. i'm not looking for a public show. Just real answers.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
The Kat (Cat)
The Kat is a prop designed to divert one's attention and personalize the discussion, it's an old writers technique.


[ Parent ]
Poisoned well
I have been a long time lurker here, I have been hesitant to post until now because of what I see as being the almost abusive use political correctness by Autumn and a few others.
The actions of Ms Sandeen have extreme enough that I think the only to restore trust at the Blend would be for Autumn to resign and no longer post here.

Weaponizing political correctness chokes free thought, it also creates animosity.

Right now PHB is not seen in a good light for what has happened.

I feel if the Blend is to survive then there must be some big changes including changes in management.  


Wow
44 comments and everyone is pretty much civil.

Autumn and Pam are not being "civil"
Their words may be honeyed but what they are really saying is very indecent.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
And you are the picture of civility.
You have down rated every person who has asked a valid question who does not identify as trans or is supportive of PHB in any way, you are now targeting those you perceive to be the Cis-Gendered amongst the blenders and you wonder why the issue is so contentious.

I laugh at people like you (not because of the fact that you are Transgendered, but because of your hostility and hypocrisy), who get all worked up over civility and then go on to be as uncivil or more than those they rail against.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing, and do you really think you are bridging the divide by being such a vindictive individual?

Please, keep it up, and that helps transgendered individuals HOW?  I look forward to another one of your 1 ratings.

Keep demonizing everyone and soon you will find yourself alone.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
What's wrong with me down-rating unproductive comments?
Here, I'll be nice, and even refrain from rating you down.

For what it's worth, though -- I don't "get all worked up over civility" -- I get worked up over oppression. There's a difference and you'd best learn it.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
You seriously ask that?
I took the time to go over and look at your blog, and from what I read, you are not stupid by any means, so one would think you KNOW exactly what you are doing.  To pretend otherwise cheapens your commentary.

It is obvious that you had an issue with Autumn and that you will continue to take it out on her here, and that is your prerogative, just don't expect everyone to stand by without saying something.

I really hope YOU never make any mistakes, that you never are in disagreement with your blog readers and that YOU never get treated the way that you are treating the other participants on this blog.

Are you more concerned with Trans-rights or are you more concerned with beating up on Autumn for a mistake she has admitted to making and is trying to figure out how she can fix it?

If you really are concerned with Trans-Rights and oppression, then what is it you want in THIS diary?  YOU have a beef with Autumn and that is your right, but to down rate people as unproductive who are talking about educating people (I thought that was everyone's common goal)and who really wish to figure out how to resolve these concerns is unconscionable.  Do you really wonder why I said what I did?  You are smarter than that.

Just because Autumn is transgendered does not make this blog a trans specific one, and both Pam and Autumn have a responsibility to the other letters in the alphabet to educate them on issues they are not as familiar with as you are.  These "conversations" even as contentious as they may be, do educate people and serve a purpose, even if it is not in the way you would like.

Keep teying to divide, and pretty soon you will alienate those who support you.  Does that do anyone's rights any good?

 

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
When I make mistakes...
...I own up to them. I don't create false stories that blame other people for my mistakes. That's what Autumn did here -- she lied. And falsely blamed me.

Meanwhile, have you been to Derailing for Dummies? Because your concern trolling about "oh no, you aren't helping your cause by being so angry" is right out of the derailing playbook.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Wow
44 comments and everyone is pretty much civil.

I'm at sea
I'm one of the 3,000 newbies.  I came here originally because of my interest in marriage equality:  So many of you are feet-on-the-ground reporters, and you provide terrific insight into what's really happening around the country on an issue I care deeply about.

IRL I've only ever had one trans friend (that I know of); and although I've made friends with trans people in online communities, I'm basically pretty uneducated when it comes to trans issues.

Which brings me to one of the reasons why I'm still here:  I don't want to inadvertently hurt anyone through my ignorance.  I need to know what words are triggers for others so I can avoid them.  It's not being PC...it's simple civility.

My guess is that what the Blend is experiencing right now is major growing pains.  You've gone from a small tight-knit community where certain responses were automatically anticipated to a larger (nearly double in size) place with a lot of new blood.  It will simply take time for the community to reform in its new configuration.

Value what you have here.  Value each other.  And value the amazing insight you bring to others.


I agree
In reference to Bobbi's first paragraph: I bought the box, but never connected it, so when tv went digital, here and JoeMyGod are where I get most of my news on those issues.  NPR is always at least 12 hours behind you all, if not a whole day.  The others are good, but Joe is quickie and Pam has more of the details (as Joe often recommends).  So---I hope this is all just growing pains and that the community will reform in its new configuration.
I don't know any of you personally, but I still love you all.
Love,
Rick Cabral

[ Parent ]
Propaganda
Autumn, I will keep my promise never to dare to discuss transgender issues in the future.

However, I have to protest your statement that I compared transgender people to Nazis. I did nothing of the kind.

The Nazis did more than just kill millions of people. They invented modern political propaganda. They were experts at silencing the opposition.

There is a fairly decent Wiki about the subject here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

I believe that the use of the terms "cisgender" and "cissexual" as a method of identifying a group as one that enjoys undeserved privilege is classic political propaganda. It is exactly what the Nazis did to gain power and influence in Germany.

That doesn't mean the objectives of the transgender movement are the same as the Nazis. Of course, they don't want to exterminate the "cis" people. (Stating that was my intended message is really just a hyperbolic way of demeaning me.) However, I do believe that they are politically motivated and wish to silence those they view as oppressors. The comments on this blog and your action to ban me from The Blend support that.

I find it ironic that you quote Martin Luther King Jr. frequently without acknowledging how he felt about the concept of privilege.

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

-- Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter From A Birmingham Jail

This is why it is futile to discuss "cisgender privilege" and focus on groups that are perceived to be your oppressors. King recognized that.

Equality must be attained through legal channels, not by identifying a privileged class and alienating individual allies who happen to belong to a particular group.

In order to succeed, you must appeal to individuals. You must recognize that morality and compassion resides in the individual and not a group. This is why is saddens me to see transgender people actually invent a name for a broad group that they see as privileged.

You can't just pick a choose your King philosophies. If you want to model your movement on his, you must abandon this attempt to invent a singular oppressive group and appeal to the individual conscience. That's what King did. He didn't lump all white people together and condemn them all for the privileges that they enjoyed.

Hitler, on the other hand, used the concept of undeserved privilege to effectively silence his political opponents. If a Jew objected to his argument, he simply said, "Of course you would say that, you're a privileged Jew." It is immpossible to argue with that statement. That is the position "cisgender" people are being put in by some in the transgender community. Is it any wonder that people like Aravosis are distancing themselves from this?

I have no choice but to distance myself as well. Good luck to you. You will not see my commentary on your articles in the future.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.


Actually Fritz;
This is the very position transgender people put classic TS, WBT, HBS, woman of operative history in. (use whatever alphabet soup you wish there is plenty to go around.)

The Very behavior you sighted is the behavior that is the driving force in the alienation of the above groups from the TG cause.

Transgender people, especially the activists can be the movement's worst enemy.

Everybody is privileged in one way or another.


[ Parent ]
I think you're on to something here LiZ
The pro-choice, gay and (I'm guessing since I may actually be too young to remember this) feminist movements went through similar issues with what is perceived by "others" (for lack of a better word" as baiting, "in-your-face" tactics and language.  I'm not sure I recognized it for what it was until I was in grad school working as an escort at a local clinic and absolutely cringed at the "Abortion, on demand, NOW" stickers and statements that made an adamant supporter of choice like me think it sounded like people wanted to intentionally get pregnant just so they could abort.  Frankly, the vitriol that went along with those proudly chanting or displaying those words created an atmosphere in which it really felt as though that was their intent. To say it was off-putting is an understatement.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because people who are fighting for their very rights (as well as a modicum of respect, dignity & common courtesy) end up being hurt by those who insist on battling their supporters who do not face the same exact issue(s)  and often do so in the most patronizing of manner that only the least squeamish and most committed of those outside supporters just check out.  Some non-committed outsiders may be so tired of the attacks and unnecessary histrionics that they start to believe the haters who claim people are demanding special rights and privileges.

The arguments and power we give words, regardless of the intent/context, are distracting [from the cause] at best and can actually be downright destructive to the cause.

I haven't been to Shakesville in ages because of the overabundance of "political correctness"; I have spent time away from the blend because I've noticed an increase in unnecessary over reactions.   As you point out, everyone has some sort of "privilege" (being a member of some group that makes up the majority and is therefor a "norm") to attack those whose privilege is different from your own because it is where you are not part of that group is counter-productive.


[ Parent ]
sometimes one is reading along...
...trying to understand a brouhaha one missed, and a particular comment makes everything crystal clear.

Good grief Fritz.  Dude, I agree with you that one must appeal to individuals, and there is no "them".  But, um, speaking as just one trans chica, this goes about it all wrong.  People hear "them" in lots of ways, and to my reading you light the fuse on a half dozen or so in as many paragraphs; the way to bring it back to individuals is to avoid the broad point and speak to...individuals.  Though I suspect you have heard this before, maybe :}


[ Parent ]
pointless to respond to a Godwin but...
Equality must be attained through legal channels, not by identifying a privileged class and alienating individual allies who happen to belong to a particular group.

-Fritz

Certainly, the question is, what do you do when someone like Barney Frank or Aravosis specifically act in order to prevent justice through legal channels? How should we respond when Frank revises a bill to exclude trans people, or Aravosis openly questions whether an inclusive ENDA is in the best interests of everyone?

I have Letter from a Birmingham Jail bookmarked, and I don't think it says the same thing you claim. In that response, King wasn't opposed to calling white moderates out on their shit:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

-MLK, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

People made the exact same criticism of Avarosis that King made of the white moderate from the Birmingham Jail. Because Avarosis did not see himself personally affected by a trans-inclusive ENDA, he considered it reasonable to question the viability of those protections. And pointing out that Avarosis is, or at least identifies as cisgender (non-trans) strikes me as much less a personal attack on him than King's statement that the white moderate was more frustrating than organizations engaged in murder.

You can't just pick a choose your King philosophies. If you want to model your movement on his, you must abandon this attempt to invent a singular oppressive group and appeal to the individual conscience. That's what King did. He didn't lump all white people together and condemn them all for the privileges that they enjoyed.

-Fritz

Certainly you can't do that, so why do you quote from a text that did condemn white moderates as a class for their blindness and unwillingness to support change?

Saying that Avarosis is cisgender isn't a condemnation. It's pointing out that he, personally, does not have a vested interest in gender identity protections for ENDA, DADT or DOMA.

Avarosis had a bill in congress that would have given him substantial employment protection had it been made into law. Trans people were explicitly excluded from that bill, in spite of being subject to the same kinds of discrimination. That's privilege, and it's no slur to point out that perhaps Avarosis may have acted on the basis of it.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think the article about Aravosis was completely fair.
If People have only read the clips of his article as refrenced in the original Autumn diary, please, go and read what John wrote IN FULL.

And this is why.  His article closes with this:

I've not seen a lot of public debate in the gay community about the transgender issue being akin to sexual orientation, other than from those who argue that of course gender identity should be included in the larger gay community and of course we should kill ENDA if they're not included. I also suspect that the lack of a debate is not a true indication that a debate does not exist. So, let's have one.

http://www.americablog.com/200...

and from the other article:

People are simply afraid to ask any questions about this issue, and those unresolved conflicts are coming home to roost. I know I was afraid to write about this issue, and still am. I thought long and hard about even weighing in on this issue last week. Did I really want to have to deal with people screaming and calling me a bigot? And I've got gay journalist friends and gay political friends who have sent me private "atta boy"s supporting my public essays, while refusing to go public themselves.

There is a climate of fear and confusion and doubt about the transgender issue in the gay community. And no one wants to talk about it. And when you don't talk about your small concerns, when you're afraid to talk about them, when it's not considered PC for you to talk about them, one day those small concerns turn into big problems and the revolution comes tumbling down.  

http://www.americablog.com/200...

I read that as being a call to a conversation, saying "explain to me how we are the same" and let's have this conversation.  This conversation IS being had, the only thing is it is rarely a conversation being had by BOTH segments of our community, but by each within their own cocoon.  I saw it as a call to further the dialogue.  Not as a complete dis to the trans segment of the LGBT group.

And the issue over ENDA and it's non inclusiveness does mirror the same conversation as to the rights being afforded the entire LGBT group in piecemeal handouts.

There are many people that discuss the incremental approach, and from my reading of that AmericaBlog  first posting I reference, that was what was being discussed.

Yes, Aravosis is not always the best writer, and he can be clumsy in writing about issues that HE PERSONALLY does not have much experience with, but as a non-transgendered/Cis person I didn't see it as being anti-transgendered.  I saw it as an opening to dialogue with each other.  Yeah, he does some mangling of the English language, uses the wrong terms and is somewhat offensive in his efforts, but he DID make an effort and I think the original article by Autumn was not fair and left out a lot of important features (Cherry Picking comes to mind) and I DO think that was because Autumn saw the article through the prism of being a transgendered individual, and that reading limited the ability to be objective, see beyond the words and to the heart of the matter AS SEEN BY THE WRITER, which was "WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS".

AUTUMN FEEL FREE TO COMMENT AS YOU ARE DIRECTLY REFERENCED IN THIS POST

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
I don't see it that way
Yes, I've read the original posts. But I don't see it that way. His calls for having open dialog and questioning comes entirely from a position of privilege that it's not his right to employment that Frank is not placing on the chopping block.

And well, we've been having these conversations for the last 20 years. Trans people were pointing out that they were marginalized in groups that nominally included them when I came out in '90. We were debating whether gender-variant people helped or harmed the community in '90.

This isn't a new discussion, and suddenly asking the question as to whether transfolk are part of the community in the midst of their most vulnerable hour, as if the question wasn't a chronic dead horse that's been revisited time and time again since Stonewall is incredibly short-sighted.  


[ Parent ]
I see that point, but not everyone has been having that conversation.
Not everyone on this site has been having that conversation, hell, not everyone in the LGBT has been having that conversation, just as we have not all been having that conversation about race in the LGBT community, as we have here on the Blend.

Just because the conversation was being held in the past does not mean everyone is up to speed or in agreement, or that everyone has been OUT long enough to have that conversation.  

Our community continues to grow, as more people discover their sexuality and gender identity and in that process there will be individuals who have NOT had these conversations and are now afraid to even ask.  Does that do us any good?  I do not see these as ever being a closed subject matter, there are always NEW people to our table, and thus these conversations will need to be continued until we all have full equality under the law.

To pretend that conversations that we had 10 years or more ago are settled, is not being honest.  I've read on a few Trans blogs that there are even those within the trans community that have their differing views (trans people who do not want to be included in the LGBT grouping), so if there is no one answer, the conversation should continue, and we should not demonize those who would ask for it to be had, even if we feel it is repetitious.  Look right here on this blog today, there are people who just came out and do not know all the issues and who have questions.  Are we prepared to step up and educate our new found friends, or do we tell them, Sorry, WE had this conversation, WE are not answering questions anymore?  If so, expect to see any changes revert back to the same old crap, because without continued conversation and education, we WILL be back where we were 20 or 30 years ago.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
Please
Except that Avarosis wasn't just having that conversation.

He was raising the conversation at a critical point in time in connection with what he described as the most sweeping civil rights legislation to ever be proposed in regards to LGBT people. He wasn't just questioning the role of transgender people in the movement, he was questioning their role to a piece of legislation he called revolutionary.

The fact that his rights were not on Frank's chopping block gives him the privilege of asking those questions at the worst possible time.  


[ Parent ]
"having that conversation"
You do realize that for all the talk of "John Aravosis just wants to ask questions," he was actively banning anyone who disagreed with his conclusions and deleting their comments from his blog, right?

Right?

You know that, right?

And you're still wanting to argue that Aravosis was simply arguing in good faith?

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Not everyone was Listening!
The conversation was being had for decades.. but many juust haven't been listening! Many GLBpeople were allowed to ignore TG issues, were not called out on their transphobic comments and attitudes..

The problem hasn't been TG people not speaking up! It's been TG people being ignored or given just token opportunities to be heard, or being heard only so long as what they say doesn't make the more acceptable folk uncomfortable.

And TG folk aren't the only ones treated like that in the GLBT community either. Like all the rest of society it's time those more advantaged in the GLBT community start to listen to the less advantaged and start to look at their own biases and double-standards and weighing the comforts of the more privileged over the needs and rights and legitimate grievances of the less so.


[ Parent ]
Tenses matter here. So does the Overton window.
Just because the conversation was being held in the past does not mean everyone is up to speed or in agreement, or that everyone has been OUT long enough to have that conversation.  

[...]

The conversation was being had for decades.. but many juust haven't been listening! Many GLBpeople were allowed to ignore TG issues, were not called out on their transphobic comments and attitudes..

#nod#  This is what I saw wrong there too:  I wasn't aware the conversation had been held [pluperfect] "in the past", because I wasn't aware that it had ever stopped; from the point of view of T* folk, we're still having this conversation (as I think you are pointing out, BBBats; I'm just tidying up the tenses a little), and I know we were already having it in the 1980s because I was there, and expect somebody older to point out that it had been going on a while already by that point.

So yes, somebody coming in honestly ignorant, a fresh-out-of-the-closet newbie to the community, may well show up unaware of the long conversation sie's stumbling into the middle of -- true! -- but it's not ancient history, and anybody who manages to stay unaware despite it seeming to come up every doggone time there's another attempt to pass ENDA for example (current enough?) is, as BBBats points out, Not Listening.

Do we trans people need to educate and agitate?  Why yes, we do.  And we have been for at least as long as I've known there were labels for people like me.  Some of us take breaks sometimes and let somebody else drive for a while, but I don't think The Conversation ever stopped.  

Maybe more of the cis people in the community (don't worry, I'm well aware that many of you already do this -- and even many of my friends outside the BTGL community), once they do learn this stuff, need to help propogate the message so that folks who are legitimately ignorant get some education even before a weary, weary trans advocate shows up and has to have the same decades-old arguments again like some ossified ritual before they feel they have to actually start listening to us as though we have a clue what we're talking about.

Oh, no, wait, maybe that's not the answer (though those of you doiing this, please don't stop) ... like I said parenthetically, there are cis allies out there helping with Trans 101 education, but it seems that in some quarters even though the message is presented, it's being tuned out until a weary, angry trans person shows up and insists on being loud about it and displaying, if not anger, at least extreme irritation.

The problem hasn't been TG people not speaking up! It's been TG people being ignored or given just token opportunities to be heard, or being heard only so long as what they say doesn't make the more acceptable folk uncomfortable.

Yeah, that.

Some intelligent and mostly reasonable people (despite my feeling like they've seriously stepped in it a few times) have tried to make the case that we T*folk need to be gentler with our words and avoid pissing cis people off before we get our explanations out.  Here's the problem:  that reaches some people (a great many, really (some only need to hear a definition and suddenly the rest clicks into place!)), but being "too polite" lets a bunch of other people just Keep Not Noticing an issue that doesn't sound like it affects them personally (y'all remember what an 'SEP field' is, right?).  To reach those people, we do need to get loud, call out bullshit when we smell it, and be allowed -- no, allow ourselves -- to own the anger that we feel over being ignored repeatedly, and express it.

To reach everybody we need to reach, I think both styles of discourse need to be employed.  And each of us has a slightly different threshold for figuring out when it's time to switch registers.

And yes, we do occasionally misjudge which type of person we're talking to and unload on the wrong target -- I hope most of us have the sense to try to make nice again after realizing that's what has happened -- and sometimes both kinds of people are in the same room and the ones who've heard the message politely but don't realize how thick other folks' SEP shields are, get startled and wonder, "Where the [expletive] did that explosion come from?"  (I think the latter is (most of) what has happened these last several days in this space.)

An ex-lover with a background in psychology once told me of one of her university professors who was active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, where there were factions within the movement who wanted to get in white people's faces, show their anger, demand rights, even riot if that was what it took to be heard; and who wanted to do everything peacefully, step by step, appealing calmly to reason and showing the white mainstream that they were reasonable.  My ex-lover found out that her professor had been working with both factions, and asked him about the apparent contradiction.

He explained that both were needed simultaneously, because although nobody was going to give the loud, angry people what they wanted just because they yelled a lot and caused trouble, the polite, reasonable group was going to have to settle for "reasonable compromises" that weren't really reasonable because they still weren't full equality, as long as the reasonable activists seemed like the far pole of the debate.

But if the reasonable group could point to the angry group and say, "No, they're the far pole of radicalism; we are the compromise, real progress could be made.

Many years later I learned of the Overton window, and the tactic of deliberately shifting it, and immediately thought of my ex-lover's former professor.

Unfortunately, some people react very badly to being made uncomfortable.  Even more unfortunately, just knowing what trans people are and what we need is enough to make them uncomfortable.  I reserve the right to make people uncomfortable, even though their discomfort is not my goal.  I literally could not walk to the grocery store if I did not assert that right.  

Soft words and harsh words.  Both are tools.  I ain't giving up either one, as long as I have breath in me.  But no, I don't use either All The Time.


[ Parent ]
Good points and Interesting Notion
You raise a heap of good points, and indeed your right Tense is very important as we haven't stopped talking and many are still not listening. Thanks for the correction.

The idea that the loud extreme is needed to make the moderates look like an acceptable compromise is interesting.

Especially as if truely the way it works it makes those who call for the loud folk to demand less doing the exact opposite of what is needed.

As in such a system the more the loud folk demand the more the moderates can call for as the compromise.


[ Parent ]
To be honest...

...One of my many, many mistakes I've made in the past couple of years is assuming that trans people made a convincing argument and one the day when we, as a community, had convinced all of the major LGBT civil rights organizations to embrace the T in LGBT. By 2004, everyone of the major LGBT non-profits had added the T to their mission statements.

When the HRC backtracked, and congressional representatives backtracked, from keeping the gender identity inclusion in ENDA that trans people had fought so hard for, I was actually shocked.

However, I'd rarely talked about inclusion with my LGB peers, and had never talked to an elected representative about gender identity inclusion. Neither had most of my peers.

I've rectified that now.

John's statement was in 2007. It's 2009 now. It's not that he had that opinion in 2007, it's that it's 2009 and he never publicly backed down from it.

Have we talked enough yet? Have trans people shown why to John Aravosis, in trans people fighting for LGBT issues like marriage equality that we're parts of a broader LGBT community yet, instead of the "gay community" John Aravosis envisioned in 2007?

He's never publicly backtracked, he's made no comment about us all being a broader community. Do we need to talk more? Exactly how do we convince him that we are part of a broader community?

Which leads me back to our civility discussions here at The Blend. Do T people belong in an LGBT community of subcommunities, where all of us fight for each others' rights because these are human rights, or because we agree on everything and perfectly understand what makes you a gay man and me a trans woman?

When some trans people lose there humanity to some gay people because of how they talk to gay people, and visa versa -- and others watch the uncivil discussions between members of these two subcommunities of the LGBT community I envision -- do we all become so inhuman to each other that we lose the concept that this is supposed to be about human rights for all humans -- no matter how they identify?

My fear is that it does. When I or my trans peers look inhuman to you (better said as not necessarily "you" in particular, Bursey, but you in the some somewhat nebulous world of individual gay males meaning of someone who could be "you", but not necessarily "you" you -- that was tough to say, btw!), how do you fight for my human rights?

I'd argue uncivil conversations between individual gay men (who talk to other gay males about their negative experiences with trans people) and trans people (who talk to other trans people about their negative experiences talking to gay males) will have the secondary consequence of no one fighting effectively for all of our broader communities human rights -- our "civil rights," so to speak.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
Could you please stop talking about "my trans peers"?
It's getting really offensive, giving your quick willingness to throw trans people under the goddamn bus faster than John Aravosis, Autumn.

Also, quit blaming the trans community for the fact that the cis LGB community that you suck up to isn't being decent to us. Stop the damn victim blaming already.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
well
well some of your trans peers like me for example don't agree with your hate or vitriol.  i feel sad this had to happen. your original post was pretty square on but after the flame war started you made it public to everyone all over the tubes and pretty much drummed up lots of support for something that should have remained and finished her.  Most people on the internet take comments with a grain of salt and move on.  Yes the other poster should have not fought back either or you should have taken it private.  But taking a fight like this public makes it harder for us non hate-filled trans people to have better lives because all the transphobic assholes get to point to things like this and say see this is what happens so they oppress us more.  It is harder to work for our rights and the rights of the broader community if we hate instead of educate.  You tried to educate, it was rebuffed and you turned to hate.  Autumn admits she screwed up, take it with what you will and leave.  I am guessing most blenders don't agree with teh hate being spewed by your mouth.

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

[ Parent ]
You're not my "trans peer" either
Quit trying to use the term "trans peers" to silence me.

As far as taking a fight public? I'm sorry, but Autumn and Pam have a far larger megaphone than I do -- as do TransAdvocate and Questioning Transphobia, two other sites which have blogged about this.

In neither case were they doing so in response to me.

As far as me turning to "hate"? No, you confuse righteous indignation with "hate."

I'll cop to hating on John Aravosis, but as far as Autumn admitting she screwed up? No, she has not done this. She has spread front-page lies about my role in this in an attempt to make me her whipping girl.

Until she address that, I'm not going to "take that with what [I] will and leave."

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
unforunately for me you have ruined other safe spaces
you have ruined other safe spaces i once had on other sites that will not be named but i no longer feel welcome because i will be silenced for being a transwoman who supports pam and autumn in this. so thanks alot for ruining phb and some of my safe spaces on other sites..

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

[ Parent ]
I have not ruined any of your "safe spaces"
So grow the fuck up.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Wait
Are YOU seriously telling someone to grow the fuck up after your actions and comments here? Seriously?

[ Parent ]
What were wrong with Kynn's actions and comments?
You may object to the idea of a trans person speaking up for trans people against cissexism, but is that really something that is inappropriate on a site that claims to be LGBT?


It's pronounced "Keeva."

[ Parent ]
well
considering i feel no longer safe in safe spaces that we both were members at then yes you have ruined safe spaces so there for you did. because i feel now that i've defended autumn the same vitriol you have used against people here will spill out there.  

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

[ Parent ]
Hi, I don't know you, but....
Has any of this vitriol-spillover actually happened?

I'm just confused by the concept you're trying to push here. It doesn't make sense. What exactly has Kynn done to you?

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
Add this to your list of mastakes;
Over the years you have made the assumption that people of operative history had the same "group think" as cross dressers transvestites sissies and transgenders.
That is a huge mistake on your part. Our goal and the goal of those who seek us out for help and support is to fit in with the mainstream and not have to rely on special privilege in the form of special laws to protect us.

Your lobbying GlAAD to dilute the meaning of the term TS has brought much anger toward you and the TG community.

We are not like you,
We want to live in the greater part of society by their rules.

We for the most part art not boxed into the GLBT.

We now have to work to reeducate the greater society that we are not like transgenders.

Thanks Autumn.
for making our lives more difficult.  


[ Parent ]
Thank you for making this point
This is part of why I have changed my mind about the use of "transgender" as an "umbrella term." I am working on using transsexual when I mean transsexual, and I think we need to get rid of the umbrella term and/or come up with a term that means "non-transsexual, non-transvestite transgender people."

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Trans*
Or, what I use frequently since I've long made that my point:

Gender variant.

I am transsexual.  I share much in common perceptually in the eyes of others with crossdressers (which, as an idea, essentially misgenders me and is an insult).

I am not genderqueer.  To be frank, I don't grok it. I do have an understanding that the common issues we face are greater overall than my particular problem.

Because it is my problem that I don't understand it.  Not theirs.

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


[ Parent ]
yeah
gender variant sounds good

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

[ Parent ]
Sex And Gender Diversity
Thats the umbrella thats been used recently in Australian Human Rights discussions. Covering Transsexuals from non-op to post-op including those who are Cisgender Transsexuals through to Crossdressersd and including Intersex people.

We share discrimination, we share human rights causes.

Sex and Gender Diversity. S&GD.
Easy term, huge umbrella, no more excuses for horizontal transphobic hatred, of cisgender transsexuals using othering terms like 'classic' and 'true' transsexual in order to invalidate other transsexuals or non-binary people.


[ Parent ]
fuck the mainstream
do you really want to appear to be part of the mainstream and blend in with the same cissexual people you have ranted and raved about..apparently you do.  that i dont get..join the haters for all i care.  but i do feel its fair to be lumped in with the lgb part of the community because we have been there since the beginning.  This type of in fighting within the community makes it worse for use and dilutes the idea that we can have rights.  they aren't special rights, they are protective.  Do you think Civil rights are special rights? Because it appears that you think that way.  And what about us trans people who want to id with the lgb community or us ts that want to be tg. it seems to me you are trying to deny our existance by saying we are not like you etc... well im more like pam than i am like you. I dont want to blend into a cissexist society and feel boxed in to acting a certain way. I am who i am. I am proud to be a transsexual and to deny that you are anything but that is to deny a part of your own soul.  

Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.

[ Parent ]
I've got mine
Fuck you.  I don't want to stick out, but fuck your fucking rules and laws.  Good for you if you found your place on one extreme.  We all try to find our comfort zone and some of us find it and some of us search for it our whole lives.  If you or I find it, wow, good for us.  But for you or I to tell anyone behind us that doesn't fit our criteria to shut up and go away is incredibly privileged.  Ger your ass back to the Women-Born-Transsexual blogs and fuck off.  I prefer to help everyone feel comfortable in their lives.  There are infinite stops between the ends of the gender spectrum.

[ Parent ]
John Aravosis was clearly arguing against trans inclusion...
...so that ENDA could get passed.

If you can't see that -- if you're so blinded by the rhetorical dodge of "but I'm just asking questions!" -- then either you're willingly ignoring what's going on, or you're pretty oblivious.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
@ Fritz
Nazi's didn't invent propoganda, communists in Russia used the film Battleship Potemkin for propoganda...very efficiently
  http://historical-films.suite1...

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


~Heather Small


[ Parent ]
I am trying to figure out what is going on.
There are hundreds of comments here.  I have been out of the loop just oiver a week and I am not sure I am getting the whole controversy.

Cissexual = anyone who is not transsexual.

Cisgender = anyone who is not transgender.

These are useful terms in a lot of ways.  When I give a trans 101 lecture to non-trans people, having the terminology helps them understand - a trans person is not "a" transgender, otherwise a cisgender person becomes "a" cisgender.

Perhaps one has to look at what differences there are between cisgender/cissexual and transgender/transsexual people.

"Cis" people identify with the sex they were assigned at birth - their gender and their birth sex assignment are in harmony.

"Trans" people don't identify with that birth sex assignment (transsexual people identify with the opposite sex of that initially assigned).

The essence of cissexual "privilege" is being accepted for one's true sex.  Trans people need the protection of the law to be recognized as their true sex. "Cis" people have an entitlement.

Of course, sometimes "cis" people have their true sex questioned - ask a woman with obvious symptoms of PCOS, or a butch-looking lesbian who has been asked to leave a New York City restaurant because the bouncer thought she was wrong in using the women's restroom.  

But those are exceptions - most "cis" folks never have the experience of having their sex questioned, or legally denied.

Rather than invoke "Godwin's Law," let's discuss this comparison to Nazi propaganda by citing to some facts:

"It might just as easily be argued that the right of privacy protects a person's decision to be surgically transformed into a donkey. The transformation, by its very happening, would lose the quality of privateness. Certainly, those who had known the donkey as a man would detect the change, even though those acquainted only with the donkey might never have occasion to remark upon it. In addition, the change from man to beast might be just as devoutly wished, as psychologically  imperative, and as medically appropriate as the change from man to woman, but the Constitution, I fear, could not long bear the weight of such an interpretation."

Ashlie v. Chester-Upland School District. No. 78-4037, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12516, at 13 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1979)

Or for a more familiar case ridiculing and dissecting a trans person, how about this quote:

"Ulane is entitled to any personal belief about her sexual identity she desires. After the surgery, hormones, appearance changes, and a new Illinois birth certificate and FAA pilot's certificate, it may be that society ... considers Ulane to be female. But even if one believes that a woman can be so easily created from what remains of a man, that does not decide this case... . If Eastern did discriminate against Ulane, it  was not because she is female, but because Ulane is a transsexual - a biological male who takes female hormones, cross-dresses, and has surgically altered parts of her body to make it appear to be female."

Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984)

There are numerous cases out there denying transsexual and transgender people their real sex, imposing society's narrow birth-genital-based paradigm on people who kust do not fit into the binary in that way.

That isn't anything like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the likeness painted by a good number of courts in the United States of trans people to freaks, frauds, and donkeys is not some opium dream.

There are cases like Littleton, Kantaras and Gardiner that treat post-op transsexual people as members of their birth sex.



[ Parent ]
Hi, Pam and Autumn!
Where exactly do trans people lodge our complaints when cis people are being rude? I'd like to know, I haven't found that button on the web site.

Do you think Matt was being civil to me?

I would like a reply from Autumn regarding this. If she is serious about being willing to take her knocks from everyone, then she'll respond to the trans woman who she specifically singled out to place the blame on for "weaponizing" the term cisgender.

http://kynn.com/


Everyone gets their say; I get to listen; Pam gets to listen.

No commentary from me on a particular blender's comment(s) unless that particular blender specifically asks for a personal commentary back from me, and no one will be ejected for their comments here today.

This is what Pam and I said we were going to do, and this is what we're going to do.

To answer your question that you asked, there is not button. However, the function you would be looking for is the tips email address to The Blend, which is up at the top of our front page under the red block labeled "News Tips."

How it works: you would give us a News Tip to a comment that you believed violated the Pam's House Blend Terms And Conditions Of Service (Sometimes referred to as the Terms Of Service, or by the abbreviation TOS). You would tell us what the comment said, and why/how you believe the comment violated the TOS.

That's the tool that's been used by many in the past to make us aware of comments that violated the PHB TOS. You are free to use that email link in the future to report comments that violate the PHB TOS, although we've suspended the TOS rules for this thread.

Again; everyone gets their say; I get to listen; Pam gets to listen.  

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
To answer your other question...

No, I don't think so -- Matt wasn't particularly kind to you, and talking past you instead of to you wasn't particulary civil. I don't believe his comment rose to a TOS violation -- but in this thread that wouldn't matter aanyway as these are suspended here today.

And on the other hand, if I had time to review every comment in every thread (like I'm doing with this thread -- because I said I would) and send an email out regarding civil behavior, I might ask him to be more civil in the future to people he disagrees with. At a virtual coffee house of virtual friends, I believe we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable, and I didn't see that kind of "virtual friendliness" happening in Matt's comment to you.

But that said, I don't have that kind of time. As Pam said, she doesn't spend her whole day in front of the computer monitoring the threads at The Blend. I don't either. Today, I'm only reading this thread.

If Matt asks me what I think of your comments, I'll tell him whether or not I believe your comments were civil to him. Otherwise -- and again -- no commentary from me on any of the comments within this thread. It's Pam's and my turn to listen.

And, mostly my turn. So, I'm listening.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
Hello Sandeen.
Here, you dropped this. i picked it up for you.

Autumn Sandeen, please respond to my prior post i made today at 10:25 EDT. If necessary, i can print this request out and wrap it around a brick for less subtley.

Email rather than public post would be fine if you like. i'm not looking for a public show. Just real answers.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
Autumn
Do you remember you fit in the trans spectrum after CourtTV put you on air?  Maybe you are the token trans now, but just wait until they find a more "acceptable" (ie "natural") woman.  Do you remember when you were the "piece of shit" rather than "the shit"?  Do you remember those you've left behind?  Wake up.  "Cis" is entirely proper in opposition to "trans".  If you want to fit in and sell out, that's your decision.  But don't expect anyone (and I mean ANYONE) to respect you.  And no trans person will feel sorry for you, house trans.

[ Parent ]
the only trouble is finding
which of your abusive comment out of dozens of your abusive comments could be submitted.  you really have some nerve calling for civility when you can't muster it yourself, to anyone.  i have every right to call it out when it's spattered around these threads like the shit that it is.  yes--loves to dish it out, hates to eat it.  why am i not surprised?  it's the same line that we hear from bigots when they say that calling out their bigotry IS bigotry.  

speaking of hypocrisy, it's nice how you've singled me out as "cis" now, several times, in spite of the fact that it's irrelevant to the fact that you're rude.  and you really still think that it's just a word, when you're clearly using it as a perjorative?  this is some game you're playing--i hope you're enjoying it because it's really ugly.    

The gays stole my lunch money


[ Parent ]
I'm not calling out "civility"
I don't care about civility. I care about oppression.

And I am calling you out as cis because you are one of many cis people here who actively attack any trans person who doesn't bow the cissexism rampant here.

There are other cis people here, too, and they're not flaunting their cis privilege. If you want me to stop calling you "cis", then stop being cissexist. Simple, you transphobic idiot.


http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
i'm so glad we have autumn on this blog
who has done more to win passive observers to the cause of the transcommunity with her thoughtful, reasonable reports and dialogues than someone like you--who only serves to divide and drive away with homophobia and false accusations.  you want to talk about tone and how even well-meaning allies can hurt the cause that they are advocating?  look in the mirror, honey.  you're a rageaholic whose selfish impulses have hijacked every thread you've posted on in order to put the focus on kynn, kynn, kynn.  

really, your focus ISN'T civility when you ask "Do you think Matt was being civil to me?" to autumn?  LOL!!  how many postings do i need to make to point out yet another hypocritical statement you've made?  it's getting tiresome.  you care nothing about oppression--you care about demeaning others and casting labels/blame where it isn't warranted.  you've acted like an asshole on this blog and it's past time for you to hang it up and retreat to wherever you came from.  pam and autumn have accomplished and will accomplish far more for everyone's rights than you could ever dream.      

The gays stole my lunch money


[ Parent ]
From how I read it....
That was not Kynn asking for civility as much as her pointing out the hypocritical standards to which trans people are held, but cisgender gay men are not.

It's pronounced "Keeva."

[ Parent ]
gay men have been booted for anti-trans comments
And there have been diaries calling the gay men and lesbians here to task for their words and attitudes expressed here.  I simply think you only see what you want to see, and that is totally unfair.

See the whole picture, not just what is in front of your nose.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
Some trepidation entering this thread
I don't want to add any more heat to what is burning.
I have read at some trangender people's sites, and the anger and hurt is palpable, but so is the blame against Autumn, who most sides should all agree, is in a difficult situation. She makes mistakes and she admits it, I can understand making mistakes...I do so often.
I hope the Blend attracts diverse voices, but I'm reminded of the saying "watch what you wish for." Living in interesting times, is both a curse and a blessing.
There is a scene in Stonewall, where the two older characters speak of the younger ones, while one dances for the first time with a man. "You can't tell them young uns, nothin'"

   BBC's Stonewall
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I'm one of the older folks, and I won't change easily, and you don't need my approval, you'll do as well as you can, like we did. Not perfectly.
I do hope those who are hurt and angry visit this thread, and we try to listen to each other...it's a start.
I like videos lately so here's Beyonce...."LISTEN"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


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


~Heather Small


we're all doing our best here...
Not to sound namby-pamby, but being a queer person of any kind (L, B, G, T, Cis, poly, etc) is damn hard in this world. I think most people involved with PHB are really trying to make some sense out of the hatred that's out there, and to support each other in the face of a still-hostile, straight-dominated culture. I wish we could give each other a break. Pam (and Autumn) work hard to keep the Blend going, to keep us informed, to encourage discussion, to support queer bloggers...I could go on.  I am not saying that people's anger about feeling censored has no merit--it does--but calling anyone a "f#cking assh&le" is profoundly unhelpful. Nor does it answer any of the questions Pam asked above.

Here are my thoughts, if anyone cares (and it's OK if you don't).

1. Yes to comments...they are a way to delve more deeply into our discussions, to get to know each other, and, when needed, to call each other out on our sh*t.

2. Please keep moderating. Not everyone will like your decisions but I think it's a huge plus of PHB that comments ARE moderated and it's not a complete free-for-all flame war all the time.

3. I'm not really sure what purpose the ratings serve. Of course it feels nice when one or more other blenders give me a high rating, but that's really all it is, and I do think some folks seem to use the ratings to diss people they don't agree with. I do think we need some way to identify "trolls" or abusive comments. Maybe we could just have a "troll" rating and not the others?

4. I think the amount of moderating currently done seems fine. No more, no less.

5. Offensive language is so subjective...but I would agree with the poster who said we will know it when we see it. Cuss words, to me, are not offensive, unless you are calling someone a shithead, or whatever.

6. 24 hours to address an offensive comment.

7. Email to PHB tips seems more effective than the comment system.

8. Three strikes, you're out.

9. Same.

10. I would like to think that anyone can be redeemed...perhaps a banned user could return after 6 months?


one minor addition
"a still-hostile, straight-dominated culture"

Please add sexist, and cis to that.

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


[ Parent ]
While my generation couldn't envision all the changes
Maybe it'd suprise the younger voices, YOU are exactly what we hoped you'd be.
Unafraid, fiesty, and taking ZERO sh*t.

So while those qualities are amazing, they can also be uncomfortable to live with at times.

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


~Heather Small


See, I have a real appreciation for you, petey.


[ Parent ]
it's mutual
and the same goes for Pam, Autumn, Louise, dyssonance, Zoe B, Pollyanna, and many others.

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


~Heather Small


[ Parent ]
What we hoped
What Petey said, doubled. As furious as I am at the limitations that are still in place, I am in awe of the refusal of so many younger than me to put up with crap. Thank you all for making this old fart proud.

[ Parent ]
When does 'descriptive' become 'weaponised'?
I'm read about half the entry so far, and am about to go back and read the other half, but I do feel the need to call out one bit:

"In that comment, the term cisgender wasn't used to explain privilege to people who didn't understand it, but instead used to angrily -- accusatorily -- pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn't care about the civil rights of transgender people."

The term 'cisgender' was, as i read that commebnt, being used to denote that Aravoisis' priorities are exclusive rather than inclusive, and that the nature of his exclusivity was that he included cis and excluded trans.  It was descriptive and pertinent to the problem.  (I do not, off the top of my head, know whether 'white' and 'male' were equally pertinent -- I have more back-reading to do.)

If the intent of labelling someone cisgendered is to claim that their words don't count because their gender happens to match their natal assigned sex, then I can see you having a problem with that.  If the intent of labelling someone's version of LTBG activism as being peculiarly non-T-inclusive -- as being cissexist, then the word is being used in a meaningfully descriptive way and the thing it's pointing out is what's ugly, not the word being used to point it out.

So yeah, up to that point in this essay, it still sounds like a Tone Argument.

Now I'll go read the rest.


A question for Autumn
Why are you lying about the sequence of events?

Your "discovery" that "cisgender" is offensive came BEFORE my post that you call out as the start of all this.

Your banning discussion supportive of "cis" came BEFORE my post.

You are scapegoating me, pure and simple, by using revisionist history in the most appalling way possible.

Here is my blog post with links to the comments and their timestamps.

I make it very clear at the end of blog post what I expect from both you and Pam: A retraction of your fabrication and an apology, posted on the top level of this site.

I will not be made the whipping girl because you moderated poorly.

Note: I request a specific response to this post from both Autumn and Pam.

http://kynn.com/


The reply Autumn Sandeen doesn't want you to see
Despite saying that she'd reply to people who posted here requesting a reply, Autumn decided instead to write to me "offline" and then demand that I grant her a level of confidentiality that was not previously agreed to.

Here's her email response to me that she insisted I hide from the world.

Yeah, I know some of you are going to flame me for "violating email confidentiality" -- and will excuse Autumn's deceptive telling of the story (which she made up) where I caused all the problems with "cis." I'm mainly writing to the rest of you, who don't justify cissexism.


http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Kynn on how to get banned in the free-speech zone in record time
Right there in the post on the week of a free speech zone on the Blend that is only a few hours old, I listed precious few exceptions:
-- diaries created for spamming (we have some dolts who sign up to promote a product, not write a discussion post)
-- direct physical threats between commenters, or publishing of private information.
Yet Kynn managed to do it! Autumn had copied me on the email that Kynn republished on her blog after Autumn specifically said in the email "This is a private email, and I'm not giving you permission to repost the comments in it."

Private information breached. Now how hard was that not to follow, people? It has nothing to do with being trans, nothing to do privilege, and nothing to do with stopping Kynn from speaking her mind in the comments. This is about attempting to gain allies to continue the rancor. She didn't ask that Autumn reconsider the privacy matter, nor did Kynn ask why the necessity for privacy; she just breached it.

This is troubling behavior -- would you trust Kynn with your private communication based on this interaction? Would you trust her to adhere to any terms of service, no matter how favorable to her POV at the Blend? She volunteered the answer with her actions.

If Kynn's point of doing this was to be banned in order to say "see, I've been silenced" to her allies, as you've just seen, it clearly had nothing to do with a political or personal POV, or inability to freely speak, it was simply common indecency bourne of rage that she used to justify her lack of principle -- no one made her do it.


[ Parent ]
You know, of course, that I posted no private information here?
Right?

I know, you don't care.

You're powermad, Spaulding.

You're shutting me down because I am a threat to your grasp on power.

But he more you tighten your grip, Spaudling, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Er, I mean blenders.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
you post this while bitching about your tweets and blog?
You post this personal email and then you still have had the nerve to get upset because Autumn posted your PUBLIC tweets and PUBLIC blog information?  Not only are you an ass, you are a hypocrite.  

Keep this up, you won't have any allies that are not part of your clique.  You are worse than the "mean girls" I went to school with.  And you have less class.  I for one am sick of this bs.

From your view no one has a valid view on this issue except lil ole you.  Sorry the world does not work that way.  And I love the way you ban or unfriend people on YOUR blog simply because they disagree with YOU.  And you complain about getting banned here?  You have no credibility any more.  Pack it up.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
Why did Autumn post a link to Kynn's journal and tweets?
I'm still confused about that.

Especially given that Autumn claims Kynn originated the problem -- which was ongoing a day BEFORE Kynn posted here.

Can anyone explain that to me? I haven't seen that answered yet.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
You have demanded an apology from both Pam and Autumn.
You may have made other demands, as well, that I missed, since you parachuted back into the Blend in the last couple of days, lobbing grenades in all directions.

May I ask, "Or what"?

If your "demands" are not met, what then?


[ Parent ]
Yes, I've demanded an apology
I have no power to back it up; I'm not an admin here or anything.

I'm just going to keep asking for it.

And no, I didn't "parachute" in (hell, I've been here longer than you), and I didn't "lob grenades."

An apology for creating a false timeline that blames the wrong person is the only decent thing to do. If Pam and Autumn aren't decent, that will become pretty clear quite soon.

Do you disagree?

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Yes, I do disagree.
And no, I didn't "parachute" in (hell, I've been here longer than you)
You registered in October, 2007; you essentially stopped posting at the end of 2007. Characterize that however you wish, though.
...and I didn't "lob grenades."
Want to put your money where your mouth is? I'd be happy to have that put to an anonymous front page poll (exact wording to be determined). How much money would you be willing to lose?

An apology for creating a false timeline that blames the wrong person is the only decent thing to do. If Pam and Autumn aren't decent, that will become pretty clear quite soon.
I'm so tired of listening to you blame everybody for something on this board that I frankly am unwilling to verify whether this particular grievance about a "timeline" is accurate or not. I just don't care, and I suspect most members here feel the same. You appear to have come on here itchin' for a fight. What happens when only a couple of people choose to engage with you? Meanwhile you poison the well.

A "tone argument"? You betcha.


[ Parent ]
Feel free to put up a poll
You've already admitted that you don't care about the truth, but hey, I don't mind if you're going to put up a top level poll anyway, asking if I "lobbed grenades."

I have no money to lose, though -- I am unemployed.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Wow
Autumn?  I'm 36, and I'm thinking, maybe you're too old.  Or disconnected from the modern trans movement.  Wow.  If you're comfortable subordinating yourself to L, G and b...  damn.   We have to fight harder than anyone.  We need to be less accepting of shit than anyone.  If you wanna be the house trans, that's your decision.  But when I watch the master's house burn from the field, I will not feel sorry for you.

[ Parent ]
or in other words
Had the 2007 exclusive ENDA passed, Avarosis would have his day in court if he experienced certain forms of discrimination. Transgendered people would have been denied that same option.

If that's not privilege, I'll eat my shoe.  


My two cents
I agree with the sentiment that we don't want to go the way of Shakesville and become a pay-to-play members-only clique.  I'm incredibly offended by what that site has become.

I'm a gay white man who knows very little about the lesbian or bisexual experience and even less - much less - about transgender issues.

But the Blend is a place where I come to learn and understand what the other letters in LGBT are all about.

While I do advocate for civility and respect, I also believe it is the responsibility of a community to be self-policing.  Pam and Autumn - I suggest that your roles be as arbiters, authorities to whom we can appeal.  Not overseers, as some paint you here.

You have posted the rules and I believe the majority of us abide by them. When others don't, (except in extraordinary situations) the community should attempt to handle the situation first and then appeal for intervention if the situation isn't adequately addressed.


Hmmm
A lot of people are acting silly in this whole argument. Let me break this all down to show just how silly it is.

1) Someone gets upset and offended by something they were called when they don't even know what it means.

2) Someone gets upset and offended that someone was upset and offended by something and tells them why they shouldn't be offended.

3) People (including me) argue back and forth about why or why not someone should or should not be offended.

4) People on both sides take everything out of context, don't listen to the other side, and blame the other side for being whatever they feel.

5) Great people who are forced to make judgment calls because of how the readers are acting get blasted all over the internet for making a judgment call that YOU FORCED THEM TO MAKE.

6) Those people feel horribly about it and post with their feelings, and people again come back and blast them.

People, both trans and cis (or not trans whatever you want to be called) need to realize that YOU FORCED AUTUMNS HAND.

Don't try to be all innocent and say that you were thrown to the wolves or thrown under the bus by this. You were posting angrily with a lot of vitriol. So was the other side, but that doesn't make what you did right.

Autumn tried to point out that she handled it wrong, but the posts were stopped because there wasn't civility. You are the one throwing her under the bus because you are pissed that you were called out on being vitriolic.

No one should get a free pass for being mean. It doesn't matter if you are cis or trans, if you are white or black, if you are L, G, B, T, Q, I, TS, or any other letters we have. You have no idea at all what anyone else is or has been through. If they ask you to back off, then back off. You're not helping anyone's cause by pushing them and making them defensive. You can educate without being vitriolic.

I should explain my position. I think the people upset over being called cis are wrong, because they don't understand it completely. I think part of that problem is people using the word in a derogatory sense and rarely in it's intended usage. I think that cutting off the word is the worst thing that can happen. People should start using the word in it's intended sense and not only when hurling insults.

To all the Ts here at the Blend: We're not all Ts and this is not a 100% T board. Some people don't know anything. Most of us here are for you, and for 100% inclusivity. Don't treat us as the enemy, and don't talk down to us. Not all cisgendered white gay men want you to shut up and be quiet. Quite a few of us fight for inclusivity just as hard as you. Some of us use our privilege to try and add Ts to everything we do. So please don't lump us all together as has been done. Some people don't understand the concept of privilege very well or at all. Work with them to educate and don't blast them for not knowing.

To all the non-Ts here at the Blend: Lighten up. No one is out to get you. If you are a cisgendered gay white male (like me) and you're screaming about oppression from the LGBT community, take a step back and realize you're like christians screaming that they are oppressed. The fact is that cisgendered gay white males (like me) DO oppress the LBTs in our community (not like me). The fact is also if you do not do that, then COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPRESSORS DO NOT POINT TO YOU. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. They are talking about the ones like Aravosis. NOT YOU.

To Autumn: You made a bad judgment call, and it blew up in your face. You didn't handle a situation correctly, and it made you look bad. Everyone does things like this. You've apologized for your mistakes with a personal and heartfelt post and that's all you can do. You don't deserve to have this shitstorm come down on you at all. There were no innocent parties in the debate, and anyone trying to look innocent or like a victim is a drama llama.

To Pam: Disabling comments would be counterproductive in my opinion. The blend thrives on the blenders, and it would shrivel and die without them. My only suggestion is to be patient with people, but when people are being intentionally vitriolic warn/ban them for that reason, and that reason alone. Don't say it was because of specific words, because that always gets taken out of context.

If the Blend can afford it, I would suggest a few 24/7 moderators to take the stress off the bloggers. Especially people who don't post diaries, so there isn't double duty being done. And/or a way to mark possibly harrassing/vitriolic comments to bring them to a modertors attention right away, even if they don't see it as it comes up.

And to everyone on all sides of the argument: CALM DOWN. Take a deep breath and realize that infighting will help no one. By being intentionally mean you are alienating our allies. Anger helps no one.

Feel free to respond Autumn, Pam, anyone. I hope I don't seem vitriolic, I just had some strong feelings about what went on lately. If I do seem vitriolic, please feel free to delete me or send me a warning. If either happens, I know I will have earned it.


Accidental derailing?
Not all cisgendered white gay men want you to shut up and be quiet. Quite a few of us fight for inclusivity just as hard as you. Some of us use our privilege to try and add Ts to everything we do. So please don't lump us all together as has been done.

One problem that I've seen come up in context after context, including racism, sexism, and most other isms, is where someone points out that a) the privileged class is privileged and as a whole works against the disprivileged despite the efforts of allies within the privileged class, or b) that one particular person is throwing hir privilege around ... and then other members of the privileged-in-that-context class jump in and say, "Oh no, I feel insulted, and you're lumping us all together when we're Not All Like That!"

Here's a tip:  if the shoe doesn't fit, don't jam it on your foot and then complain about how it pinches!

If a trans person (for example) makes a bigoted statement that All Cis People Are [something bad], then the exceptions get to stand up and say, "Hey, not so fast."  But when a trans person complains that the dominant cis-normative culture oppresses us, or that F. Random Derailler is abusing hir cis privilege, or that a particular group shows signs of being cis-centric, and you're not that person or doing the things that person is accused of or forgetting to help resist the cis-normativity of the culture -- if you're not the one being complained about -- then it's not about you and it isn't lumping you all together.  You're reacting to more than what was said, out of fear that we might mean you.

So it winds up coming across as something like this:  an apparent ally asks for a cookie for not being an oppressor and simultaneously invokes a tone argument ... which means that despite a positive history and good intentions, at that moment the would-be ally is Not Acting Like An Ally -- sie's (inadvertently, we hope) aiding the oppressors that sie's complaining about having been lumped in with.

There's irony there.  Way more irony than we need.

(Goodness knows I've done this too, on the other end of the privilege stick, and still have to choke down the urge to get inappropriately defensive sometimes.  And I was being unhelpful and wrong when I let that urge get ahead of reason.  I'm saying that I know better now, but not claiming to be, or to have been, perfect.  I wish it weren't such an easy mistake to make.  But it's still a mistake, and it can still be derailing.)

I closed my most recent blog entry with:

Some people will read this who have already progressed beyond this stage, with or without input from me.  You should be able to figure out whether you're one of the people I'm yelling at or not.  If you're offended because I yelled at all, then even if I wasn't yelling at you when I started, I might be once I find that out.

Fortunately my friends who have commented so far seem to have been able to figure out whether my complaint about some cisgendered people's stubborn opposition to neutral language is an attack on them or not.

So, really, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't insist on jamming your foot into it.


[ Parent ]
I think
I covered that a bit later in my post, in the section speaking to non-trans people. Unless I missed your point.

To all the non-Ts here at the Blend: Lighten up. No one is out to get you. If you are a cisgendered gay white male (like me) and you're screaming about oppression from the LGBT community, take a step back and realize you're like christians screaming that they are oppressed. The fact is that cisgendered gay white males (like me) DO oppress the LBTs in our community (not like me). The fact is also if you do not do that, then COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPRESSORS DO NOT POINT TO YOU. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. They are talking about the ones like Aravosis. NOT YOU.

I didn't really take any of it personally, but I was addressing those who seem to think everyone is against them.


[ Parent ]
Whoops
I covered that a bit later in my post, in the section speaking to non-trans people. Unless I missed your point.

Well, [mild expletive] -- my eyes bounced right over that rather important bit the first time I read your comment.  :-(  Mine should have been cast as an amplification of that paragraph, rather than as a rebuttal to the one before it.

So no, you didn't miss my point; I missed the half of yours that agreed with mine.  I still like my shoe metaphor, but I probably didn't need to be so shouty, and I should have called attention directly to the paragraph that I unfortunately overlooked myself.

To all the non-Ts here at the Blend: Lighten up. No one is out to get you. If you are a cisgendered gay white male (like me) and you're screaming about oppression from the LGBT community, take a step back and realize you're like christians screaming that they are oppressed. The fact is that cisgendered gay white males (like me) DO oppress the LBTs in our community (not like me). The fact is also if you do not do that, then COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPRESSORS DO NOT POINT TO YOU. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. They are talking about the ones like Aravosis. NOT YOU.

Thanks for pointing out my gaffe so gently.  (And for writing something that really should be requoted and highlighted like this.)


[ Parent ]
Well
I like your shoe metaphor too and wish I had thought of it ;)

I'm guilty of my eyes bouncing back and forth and missing points, so I really understand.

And thank you for the compliment.


[ Parent ]
Most of the time I won't just "second" things
because I find that non-productive and a touch sycophantic, but in this case I will make an exception. The reason for the exception is that I think your comments are very much correct and to the point, but as you stated you were a gay male and with the pitting of gay versus trans in this whole train of threads I want to similarly make clear that I as a trans woman would have been proud to post something this elegant as a comment on what happened. I found your insights and suggestions to each particular person and the groups in general useful, constructive, and at times inspired. But I wanted to make clear that your insights--while they SHOULD stand on their own--were not simply perceived as another bow shot one of two sides.

Thank you for taking the time to post this comment.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks
I wasn't sure if I'd get anyone who agreed, or if I would piss off both sides. Glad to see people are taking it as it was meant.

[ Parent ]
Except this didn't happen
I think part of that problem is people using the word in a derogatory sense and rarely in it's intended usage.

That hasn't occurred, except in Autumn's fantasy world where any use of "cisgender" that isn't "for education" (whatever that means) is automatically offensive.

http://kynn.com/


[ Parent ]
Yes, it has.
It happens all over the place. People may not use it like that, but that is often how it comes across.

It's the same as being called a homo can be insulting or not depending on context. If a gay friend said, "You're such a sweet lovable homo" to me I would not take offense. If a straight person whom I didn't know said, "You're a dirty sodomite homo" I would take offense.

If a friend of mine said, "Hey bitches" to some friends and I, I wouldn't take offense. If a stranger to me said, "Hey bitches" to me I would take offense.

If a friend of mine said, "You're such a sweet lovable cisgender" to people, they wouldn't take offense. But if a stranger uses "gay white male cisgender oppressors", then cisgender comes out as offensive, because it's linked with oppressors.

How many times do you see cis used to just describe non-trans people, versus how much it is used in conjunction with bad sentiment? Cisgender and Cissexual are not offensive terms, but they can be viewed as that in a mixed audience when they are often used with words and themes like "oppressors" "throwing us under the bus" and such.

Keep in mind I am not pointing a finger at anyone, just calling it as I see it.


[ Parent ]
Wait, so you're saying that trans people can never talk about cis oppression?
That's quite a stretch here.

It sounds to me like you, a cisgender man, are saying that you want to control the dialogue and prevent trans people from describing who exactly is doing the oppressing.

What's offensive is not the terminology; what's offensive is the oppression.

You are putting the blame on the victims when they speak out against what's wrong with cis-dominated society.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
Yet again
someone twists a point to make them look like a victim being oppressed.

I never once said not to use it to point out oppression. What I said was stop using it ONLY for that. Use it when dealing with any cisgender person, and they will stop seeing it as a negative term, and the neutral term that it is.

I really wish people would take a deep breath and stop looking for ways to be victimized. We're not out to get you. We're not telling you to shut up. If you look at my posts, you'll see I am telling you to be louder and talk more. Just stop being angry at people who aren't deserving of it.


[ Parent ]
Use it otherwise where? Here?
I never once said not to use it to point out oppression. What I said was stop using it ONLY for that.

As someone who has been using the word 'cisgendered' (and occasionally 'cissexual') in spoken and written communication for over a decade, I can tell you that it is used for more than just pointing out oppression.  You're seeing just the point-out-oppression use because that was the context in which it came up here, so asking for a raft of other uses of it here, which would require a boatload of tangents even less related to the main discussion than what we've already had, is asking for a big distraction.  Frankly, I'm inclined to see, "you have to prove the word is neutral by talking about everything else but the privilege for a while first", to be a new and sneaky form of derailing.  (Maybe somebody who has paid more attention will tell me it's not so new, I dunno.)

Derailing may not be your intent, but it would be the effect of what you're requesting.

Look, if you're not a member of various T* communities, either as a trans person or as an ally who is also socially involved with trans people, then I can understand how you wouldn't be aware of the complete history of how 'cisgender' has been used in conversations.  But fercryinoutloud, please understand that you haven't been listening in on all those conversations and don't know what you don't know, instead of leaning on us for only using the word one way in a conversation that started off being about cis privilege and trans exclusion.

We folks who've been using it since the late 1990s do know better than you how we use it.  And hearing that we have to Prove It To You just to be allowed to use it in a discussion-of-privilege context as well ...

... well golly gee, if you can insist on that, what does that make our relationship?  If you get to dictate terms like that, is it because you're the grownup and we're the kiddies?  Because you're the language police and we're the suspected semantic miscreants?  Because what you know firsthand is all that counts, and our testimony about our own language cannot be trusted unless vouched for by a cis person?

[expletive] that.  You're not my mommy and your're not my schoolteacher, and you have no better claim than I do to set the ground rules and force others to do your sociological, anthropological, and linguistic homework for you.  You want to know for yourself how 'cis' is used the rest of the time?  Go hang out in T* spaces other than just activist ones, get to know the people as people foremost and as study subjects second, and listen.  Do your own research ...

... Or Take Our Word For It When We Explain How We Use Language In Place Other Than Right Here where you happen to be.

Right now, by insisting that we must not really know how we use the term elsewhere, or that we must be lying just to sidestep your objections, well even if you intend to be a trans ally, you are acting like an oppressor.

It's bad enough that we have to get various sorts of permission from our 'betters' just to shape our lives and our bodies to match our genders, and have to go nine rounds of debate just to get our own families to believe we are what we say we are.  It's bad enough that we're asked to Prove Things to officialdom at every turn, and worry about something as simple as whether we can safely go to the bathroom.  Now, here, people are telling us how we are permitted to speak, and claiming they know better than we do how we speak elsewhere?

Can You See How Offensive That Is?

If you can't stop othering us, at least, for the love of all that is decent and humane, try to stop infantalizing us.  And don't assume that because we use 'cisgender' to talk about privilege in a conversation about privilege, our more humdrum uses of it elsewhere don't exist without documentation.  Come hang out with us, get to know us as people, and see how we talk the rest of the time.

Or if you can't be bothered, grant us this much:  that we know what we're talking about when we try to tell you how we speak when we're not picking apart privilege.

Use it when dealing with any cisgender person, and they will stop seeing it as a negative term, and the neutral term that it is.

Golly gee, ya' think maybe that's why none of my cis friends who replied to my blog entry yesterday could see why anyone could consider it negative -- because in general, everyday, casual, social life, I (we) do use it the way we've been trying to tell you we do?

I can understand your assuming on first contact with the word in a politically charged context, that it was a politically charged word.  But even though we've tried to educate you out of that misapprehension, some people here seem to be actively resisting that education.  If I spend the rest of the day and night compiling old email, diary entries, Usenet posts, blog entries, and IRC logs to document neutral uses of 'cisgendered', will that be enough or will you say, "tl;dr", or move the goalposts?

But I'm not going to blow my entire Friday night doing that.  Because I shouldn't have to.  Accept that we know our own language habits, come hang out with us socially for a year to find out for yourself, or stop even pretending that you respect us as humans and as adults.


[ Parent ]
Heh
You really know nothing about me and are making a lot of assumptions.

I have been using the word for ten years to educate people. To assume that I don't know or hang out with any trans people is wrong. I do know them, and I have hung out with them.

My best friend in high schools father is transsexual. When I started what was going to be a gay straight alliance in high school, I made absolutely sure that we included transgender into it. I had to do my homework, and explain to the school board, administrators, and faculty why we needed it in our school. It was then, in 1998, that I learned the term cisgender, and used it to explain to those people. I did it thoughtfully, not to demean them, but to explain to them what it was and how it affected trans teens in my school. They told me I shouldn't include transgender nmy group because it would rile up parents, and I said that it was all or nothing. I pushed hard to have transgender kids be treated the same as the Ls, Gs, and Bs.

Oddly enough I didn't have a single person there, all of them cisgender, take offense to the term. I won them over, and they finally agreed with me, letting my group be inclusive.

Since then I have worked with, and been friends with, many many trans people. I've spoken to classes of students about GLBT issues, and cisgender comes up in each and every one of them. I've spoken to panels of people about GLBT issues and included cisgender in them. I fought hard with the administration of another school to add transgender to their personal anti-discrimination policy, all the while using cisgender.

During all of that time, over ten years, I have never once had someone take offence to my use of cisgender, even when I was pointing out their privilege.

I've gone well out of my way, sometimes losing something that would benefit me personally to press trans issues. I've spent a hell of a lot more time than I had to to make sure things I worked for were inclusive. Yet you don't have the time to try and educate people on your own issue, and then scream when people try to throw you under the bus?

So how dare you come here trying to be all high and mighty telling me I don't know how to use the term or concept correctly. How dare you assume that because I have a different viewpoint, one that apparently works a hell of a lot better than yours, that I am wrong, and that I am oppressing you.

Now, throwing me, a cisgender gay white male into that category, and telling me that I can't even pretend to respect you as a human or an adult is incredulous. You are the one oppressing my viewpoint on the matter. Because you are trans it is assumed that you know everything oh so much better regarding the word. Because I am cis it's assumed that I am a dumb ignorant fool who has no idea what you deal with. How's that for privilege?


[ Parent ]
No, she might be INSULTING your point of view
But she is not OPPRESSING you, because there is no system of oppression by which trans people can OPPRESS cis people.

Really, we don't need the long, defensive essay from you about how self-sacrificing you are by including trans people, and what a great friend you are to trans people including your buddy with an FTM parent, and how dare we and all that other bullshit.

Her judgment was based on the way you are acting on this thread and nothing more, nothing less. You may have been wonderful back in high school, but you're being criticized for what you are doing now.

Oh, and this?


I've spent a hell of a lot more time than I had to to make sure things I worked for were inclusive. Yet you don't have the time to try and educate people on your own issue, and then scream when people try to throw you under the bus?

This is privileged bullshit. And if you would spend less time lecturing trans people while puffing yourself up for being an "ally" and more time listening to trans people, you might actually get somewhere.

First thing you gotta do is stop misusing the term "oppressing" to mean "trans lady is being MEAN TO ME."

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
What am I doing now, really?
Trying to explain what I did that worked opposed to what you did that has, if you look all over, failed miserably?

In order for you to be mean to me I would have to be affected by what you say. But I am not, because you're angry and when someone is pissy I don't pay attention to what they try to do to hurt me.

I didn't say trans were the only people I was inclusive for.

I could fight for my own rights and do whatever I wanted, but I don't. Because I think everyone should be equal. But you won't take the time to do that, and to make people see you otherwise. You lash out at them.

You were dealt a crappy hand in life. So was I. I'm sorry your hand was more difficult that mine, but there is nothing I can do about that. What I can do is try and make everyone's hand equal.

I have privilege and I use it. I never said I didn't. But if you weren't being stubborn and looked more into what I said than looking for things trying to demonize me you'd realize that I am not against you.

Also, there are plenty of ways that trans people can oppress cis queers. For instance, if you're cissexual, you can hold hands and do things with your partner in public in front of me, yet I am not allowed. If you're post op, or able to change your birth certificate pre-op, there are more places you can get married than I can. Chances are that after transition you can pass better than I can. Those are all privilege whether you want to admit it or not, and those all oppress me.

You personally are trying to oppress me personally by trying to paint me as a bigot that is oppressing you. It has nothing to do with trans or cis privilege.  


[ Parent ]
"What am I doing now, really?"
What am I doing now, really?

ojrocks, as an observer of your participation in this discussion thread, here is what I see you "doing now, really:"

1. Elevating the defense of your ego over other more useful priorities and using your own and others' time and energy in service to your ego.

2. Participating in the diversion of attention as I wrote about here.

3. Quite possibly you are also getting a rush of argument adrenaline that has taken on a life of its own and is running your replies in conjunction with your ego-defense.

(and BTW, no one can make you get defensive. You have to have a defensive to get to first, and that's your choice).


[ Parent ]
Hrm
1) I'm not entirely sure how I am trying to defend my ego. The only part I am seeing about that is talking about the work I've done making sure things I do are inclusive. If that is the case, the reason I brought it up was because it was implied that I had never dealt with the word, that it was new to me, and that I had never talked to or dealt with transgender issues. Though I can see how that can be seen as working on my ego.

If there are other instances, please point them out to me as I am not seeing them like that.

2) In that section of the comment, yes I was diverting, and I recognized that. That was completely my fault. The main parent comment of that was something I was diverting from, and that was my fault. The issue of Aravosis, and on a grander scheme, needs to be addressed completely.

But in this parent thread I am addressing the comments specifically. Something that needs to be addressed separately from the other part. I'm trying to mediate between two sets of people who are both right and both wrong in their own ways.

Frankly, I think the people who took offense to cisgender were just being ignorant. But I also think that the people who pushed the point instead of educating were also just as ignorant. I think a lot of this had been solved had people thought more clearly instead of being defensive. This is solely dealing with the comments I read about cisgender being used. While I don't agree, I understand why people on both sides were hurt.

3) I will admit that argument adrenaline is a slight part of my replies, but I still don't see how I'm trying to defend my ego. I've spent most of my time in comments explaining to people how other people were offended, and how to get the same point across without sounding vitriolic.

(I don't get defensive because I realize at any given point I may be right or wrong on any subject in a variety of ways. But to change my mind about that someone needs to be civil and not argue for arguments sake. Many people are angry here, and rightfully so. But I don't appreciate the anger pointed at me, when people half read my posts to go with whatever they think I am going to say because of my cisgender privilege. Thank you for your well thought out and stated replies to me michelle. I appreciate them)


[ Parent ]
coming back to this
But I don't appreciate the anger pointed at me, when people half read my posts to go with whatever they think I am going to say because of my cisgender privilege.

IMO this statement could be a good starting point for reflection if you want to understand better what I mean by ego and how it's playing out.

Look at it. Why does it matter what you do or don't appreciate, and why is it about you at all? You're engaging in a discussion of and playing out of some really heinous power dynamics -- why are you focused on whether people express anger at you or what you do or don't appreciate or whether they think you can speak from anything other than cis privilege?

Keep your eye on the birdie, you know? Keep your eye on the operation of the larger power dynamics and what you can effectively do to resist them. That's my take.

And I will also say: everything I say about this stuff is a translation from a different kind of extremely vivid perception into much less vivid (to me at least) words. A lot of times the words aren't there for me to be as accurate as I want to.

Anyway, thanks for your response to my other comment here in #2 especially.


[ Parent ]
Hrm
Anger over the whole incident is being used towards me, when people aren't fully reading what I am saying. Misdirected anger is never a good thing.

Saying that cisgender needs to be used more in all contexts got turned around by people into me trying to silence transgender people and being called an oppressor for that.

If my saying use cisgender more in all forms is turned into silencing transgender people, doesn't it seem like other things will be turned into other bad things too?

The reason I don't appreciate, and in essence no one should appreciate it, that is because if people are jumping the gun and seeing bad in anything said, it makes the situation worse. People mistaking and misreading what people say because they assume they will say something else because they are cisgender, transgender, gay, straight, bi, etc. is disruptive and detrimental to the cause.

I didn't mean "Appease me on this forum, it's all about me."


[ Parent ]
I wasn't dealt a crappy hand
No, what we need to do is change the rules of the game. My hand isn't any more or less crappy than anyone else's.


Also, there are plenty of ways that trans people can oppress cis queers. For instance, if you're cissexual, you can hold hands and do things with your partner in public in front of me, yet I am not allowed. If you're post op, or able to change your birth certificate pre-op, there are more places you can get married than I can.

You do know that none of that is true? Unless you're going to assume that trans people are always straight.

That's not trans privilege oppressing you. That's straight privilege.

Stop confusing the two.


You personally are trying to oppress me personally by trying to paint me as a bigot that is oppressing you. It has nothing to do with trans or cis privilege.  

LOL, no.

You don't understand what "oppression" means, clearly.

Calling you out on your privilege? Not oppression.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
a small retraction
In my previous comment what I meant was:

I can work to make the game so everyone's hand is equal. I agree with you on that.

Also, I mistakenly used cissexual instead of heterosexual. I have cis on the mind. With that in mind, the point I was trying to make was that some trans people have the ability to switch to a better privilege than they had. Admittedly a weak argument.

But so are a lot of privilege arguments on the internet. You don't know where my privileges move up and down.

If you look at my white male privilege, I have a ton. Add gay and I lose some. Add poor and I lose some. Add effeminate and I lose some. Add atheist and I lose some. My privilege is there, and I use it. With how much you throw around privilege you really should know all this. A straight, passing, trans male blows my privilege out of the water. Are you suggesting that he can't be oppressive to me? A straight white passing christian trans woman would blow mine away to be honest.

You are trying to dehumanize and demonize me to justify your aggression towards me. That is textbook oppression. Can you not see how you are doing that? I am not saying a trans person is oppressing a cis person with their privilege, I am saying YOU as a person are oppressing ME as a person. There is a difference, you know.

You have, numerous times, skipped over what I said and argued with me what you thought I would say, even when it's directly in opposition to what I did say.  


[ Parent ]
Trans people do not have the ability to "switch"
I am not trying to "dehumanize" you.

You, however, are playing very silly privilege games when you start trying to compare yourself to "straight white passing Christian trans women" and so on.

As for whether someone can be oppressive to you, it depends on the context.

As for whether I am being mean to you or if I am oppressing you, please remember that oppression is not something one person does to someone else, oppression is "meanness" that flows in the direction that society has decided is appropriate.

There is no privilege called "trans privilege" because trans people are not, as a group, privileged by society; cis people are. There is no privilege called "female privilege" because females are not, as a group, privileged by society; male people are. There is no privilege called "gay privilege" because gay people are not, as a group, privileged by society; straight people are.

"A straight, passing, trans male blows my privilege out of the water." -- in some circumstances, yes. In others? No. There are no absolute scales of privilege; they are all contextual.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
Some do
And also, as you seem to be fairly well versed as either a trained sociologist, or an armchair sociologist, you should be able to realize that there are various viewpoints on privilege, and various viewpoints on institutional privilege versus personal privilege.

In your train of thought, you'll see what I call privilege as advantages. You'll also argue with me that institutional privilege trumps personal privilege, etc. etc. And frankly I've had this same argument over and over again.

Your valid viewpoints of privilege are different than my valid viewpoints of privilege. So, we will never get anywhere with this discussion.

This is my agreement to disagree and with you luck with that.


[ Parent ]
ojrocks
U of A on my part, under Williams before he passed.

Yours?

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


[ Parent ]
beautifully accurate statement IMO
oppression is not something one person does to someone else, oppression is "meanness" that flows in the direction that society has decided is appropriate.

Wow, that's gorgeously accurate to how I actually perceive and experience this stuff working. Thank you.  


[ Parent ]
What's more
The fact that you mixed up "straight privilege" (i.e., an FTM can maybe marry a woman) with "trans privilege" shows just how little you've thought about this.

You need to start over, and stop telling me that I throw privilege around, and start thinking about what privileges you have and refuse to acknowledge.

Do I need to get out the link to the invisible knapsack essay for you?


It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
Curious Failure
What am I doing now, really?
Trying to explain what I did that worked opposed to what you did that has, if you look all over, failed miserably?

My response tto "failed miserably" got way too long, so I'm posting it separately.  Somewhere along the way it stopped being about this argument and more just something that was years overdue for me to say.


[ Parent ]
A clarification
My quote of what is working versus what hasn't been working was pointing directly to Pam's House Blend, and the usage of the word cisgender and cissexual. All of my arguments have been focused on that.

I didn't mean to imply that things in your 3d life weren't working, and I did mean 'you' as a collective 'you' and not pointing you out.

I'm aware, and I hope that we are all aware that being on the internet causes a lot of misunderstandings, which build on each other to make worse ones. It is so much different than working with people in person.

I've seen a lot of people with good points acting horribly and having their points lost because of it.

I have found over time that the explicit way that I deal with language in person works just as well on the internet, and because everyone has a different way that they work with it, some peoples ways don't work on the internet.

I apologize for my lack of clarification before with that comment.


[ Parent ]
Yah
I couldn't tell which you meant, just right here or in general, and the right answer did occur to me as a possibility, but I answered the question that felt more important to me instead of asking which youmeant -- which would've been as much a reason as the essay's length for taking it out of the comment stream and posting it as a diary.

Being on the Internet does provide plenty of opportunities for misunderstandings, but the same short feedback loop that enables rapidly developing flamewars also, when folks are thinking about what was said yesterday while composing today's angry reply, can enable a quicker sorting-out of those same misunderstandings, than in the days when such battles were fought in the letters pages of magazines.  It can go either way, and sometimes bothways at once.

I don't think the 'net causes the misunderstandings; it just provides more paths once they happen.

I usually have more success with my verbal style online than I have here, and in between trying to take care of the bunch of other things I should be trying to finish, I've been mulling over what has made this episode different.  I've got some ague hypotheses, none more than half-baked, which I may describe when they're a little closer to being done.

It's clear that you and I disagree strongly on some points, agree on others, talk past each other in a few places, and still seem to see each other as rational and well meaning enough to keep trying to convince, despite the offenses given and taken.  I plan to keep arguing when I have time, because we might be in a mutual-education situation here, not just a head-butting contest.


[ Parent ]
As an observation...
"I've seen a lot of people with good points acting horribly and having their points lost because of it. "

Is pretty much the definition of a tone argument.

I'm not saying that to upset ya or anything.  I'm just saying that's what is meant when people say a tone argument.

As individuals, we are each responsible ourselves for our own emotional reactions to things we see and hear and feel etc.

For online communication, which is absent the various social cues and structures that dominate in person, close proximity communication (face to face), we have a greater responsibility, ourselves, to control our reactions to what people are saying.

So a tone argument's flaw is based in that it is blaming the victim, and through projective behavior, it increases the tonal quality of the discussion.

Again, this is strictly an observation, and not a direct commentary on the particular subject matter at hand, nor the people involved.

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


[ Parent ]
I really really want to argue this
but I can't. So I won't.  

[ Parent ]
LOL!
I know that feeling...

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

[ Parent ]
For the record
Chances are that after transition you can pass better than I can.

The conflation of straight privilege vs. trans privilege has already been addressed and acknowledged; I'm not trying to keep flogging you for that, but I do feel the need to include a reminder for future reference:

Not all of us 'pass'; not all of us can.

I get het privilege -- oddly or not oddly, depending on how you see it, considering that I'm not even sure what "the opposite gender" would be for a third-gender person -- because when strangers see me kiss a woman I'm easy for them to pigeonhole as 'male' despite also being so very visibly trans.  I have het privilege and am very much aware of it; use it when I need to but try to be very careful how I use it, to try to avoid harming those who lack it.  Here's the funny thing though, in light of what you said:  if I did pass, while that would be a buffer for my trans disprivilege, it would also cost me every drop of my het privilege.  (It'd be worth it, mind you, but it would be a cost.)

Not jumping up and down on you shouting "Yer doin' it wrnog!!" this time; just offering some food for though.


[ Parent ]
PS: If you don't get it...
You said right here that trans inclusion is something that was OPTIONAL and you deserve A COOKIE FOR:

I've spent a hell of a lot more time than I had to to make sure things I worked for were inclusive.

Anyone who is serious about trans equality would not sit there and claim that he didn't HAVE to include us, but he DID ANYWAY and we should be grateful now and HOW DARE YOU criticize me.

Privilege check. You need one. Massively. You are being oppressive and privileged. Whether you mean to or not.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
I am always privileged
and I can not help that, until things change.

Also, I do not need to include you. I can fight for my rights and throw you under the bus. You not being able to do what you want to do has no effect on my life, at all. I signed no contract saying I wanted trans people to be associated with me. I didn't come up with LGBT.

But that doesn't matter to me, because I think everyone should be equal. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who all work together to make sure everyone is equal on all levels. I'm not martyring myself, and I am not saying I am doing any great thing by being inclusive to everyone. It's just what I do.  


[ Parent ]
Okay, let's back up a couple of steps
You really know nothing about me and are making a lot of assumptions.

I have been using the word for ten years to educate people. To assume that I don't know or hang out with any trans people is wrong. I do know them, and I have hung out with them.

That's good to know.  But it's a little perplexing in light of your earlier:

I never once said not to use it to point out oppression. What I said was stop using it ONLY for that.

... though I suppose this could be 'sampling error', where you and I have managed, for a decade, to each only see one of two very different types of T* community WRT how they speak and how they use the term 'cisgendered'.

Because I'm having trouble interpreting the earlier comment as not contradicting our claims about how we use the word.

Look, I did make assumptions -- well, draw conclusions from your words -- that are now contradicted by new information from you.  Okay, you have hung out with us.  But you still said something that came off as chidingly paternalistic (yes, I know there's a problematic gender stereotype in that adjective; I'd like to set that aside for another day) about How We Ought To Speak.  Step back from your invisible-to-me-until-just-now track record and look again at what you wrote, and see whether you can understand how button-pushing you came across.  In the meantime, I'll step back and try to figure out what you might have meant to say in light of previously unknown history.

Oddly enough I didn't have a single person there, all of them cisgender, take offense to the term.

Similarly, when I posted a strongly worded statement about 'cis' being neutral, in my blog, cisgendered friends piped up to say, "Well, of course it's neutral; what's the fuss?"  I think I know my friends well enough that somebody would have called me out on that to say, "gee, you always seem to use it as an attack," if I hadn't been using it as a neutral term all these years.  And it makes the pushback against the words 'cisgender' and 'cissexual' here seem all the more fishy, more like the people complaining about having it imposed on them were looking for an excuse for a derailing tactic more than voicing a real offense.  (Though I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a better term, and for someone to better explain what makes it offensive other than "it sounds funny", as signs that there's some fire under that smoke after all.  And yeah, I'm keeping "it sounds wrong" in the "maybe that's real but very poorly articulated" bin for further study -- right now it's the only thing in that box.)

I've spent a hell of a lot more time than I had to to make sure things I worked for were inclusive. Yet you don't have the time to try and educate people on your own issue, and then scream when people try to throw you under the bus?

Speaking of assumptions, what makes you so sure I/we haven't done our share and then some of education and activism over the years?  Where do you suppose most of my cis friends learned the words 'trans' and 'cis' and how wide the spectrum of T* people is?  I'm visible to an unusual degree, too, so I've spent an awful lot of time educating complete strangers on the sidewalk, in the supermarket, at the beach, my own doctors, ... and I've been doing this sixteen years longer than you have, without the head start that modern genderqueer kids get from building on what I and my peers did before them (but very much indebted to everyone who came before me, including those who worked to pave the way both before and after Stonewall).

I'm used to, "What does that unfamiliar term mean?"  I'm rather less patient with, "That's an offensive term and I know better than you what it means so stop using it."  (Not what you're saying now, but what was said about it not being a neutral term right from the get-go.)  And I'm even less patient with being told that we haven't been using the word the way I know so many of us have been and oh my gosh if only we would do so nobody would be offended.

The immediate attempts to educate here got short-circuited and shut down prematurely -- people were ordered not to try, on pain of banishment.  Regardless of whether "you have to educate us if you want us to listen to you" would have been a distracting tactic or not, using the last few days' events here to justify a "you're not willing to educate" claim is ... let me settle for calling it Extremely Unhelpful, and not looking at the whole picture.

(And yes, like you, I've done what I can to agitate for equal rights and supportive environments for B/G/L people, not just my own narrow interests, all the way down to details like being very, very careful not to sound like I'm denigrating or invalidating gay identity when I explain how gender identity and orientation are statistically unrelated despite the dramatic and comedic shorthand most people absorb into their default assumptions.)

So how dare you come here trying to be all high and mighty telling me I don't know how to use the term or concept correctly.

I didn't say you didn't know how to use it.  I said that you didn't know how I (and lots of other T* people) have been using it (neutrally, just as you lectured) for the past fourteen years.

How dare you assume that because I have a different viewpoint, one that apparently works a hell of a lot better than yours, that I am wrong, and that I am oppressing you.

Here's the thing:  you probably didn't mean to -- you were probably sincerely trying to help -- but you were acting as the oppressor.  I called you out on what you did and said, not what I thought you were, and I gave you a privilege check.  I did get an important detail wrong, when I assumed that if you'd spent so much time with us you would have known better.  I apologize for leaping to the wrong conclusion ... but I'm not sure whether that makes your patronizing tone and attempt to tell me I've not been using 'cis' the way I've used it for years, better or worse than if it really had been from complete ignorance of trans spaces.

I wrote:

Derailing may not be your intent, but it would be the effect of what you're requesting.
(emphasis added).  I stand by that, and hope the added emphasis makes my meaning clearer.  I'm complaining about what you said, not claiming that you are Oppressive Evil Incarnate.

You wrote:

Now, throwing me, a cisgender gay white male into that category, and telling me that I can't even pretend to respect you as a human or an adult is incredulous. You are the one oppressing my viewpoint on the matter.

I'm not oppressing you; I'm asking you to stop being patronizing.  I complained about a lack of respect because patronizingly lecturing us in a tone argument was disrespectful, whether you meant to be condescending or not.  Your history of helping us out for the past eleven years doesn't give you a free pass to tell us to our faces that you know we've been using the language differently than we have been without getting called on it.

I'm not inclined to apologize for telling you you acted disrespectful.  I am willing to call your actions harmful rather than calling you, the actor, evil -- to hold onto the idea that you did so unintentionally out of some sort of privilege blindness (temporary, I hope) and the hope that having the magnitude of the wrongness pointed out to you will help you avoid doing it again.  For the record, that was already my position before you posted your activist credentials, but probably wasn't as clear as it should have been.

Because you are trans it is assumed that you know everything oh so much better regarding the word.

I know far, far better than you how I have been using the word.

Finally, let me state that I am, in fact grateful for your willingness to agitate on behalf of T* people in the past.  I may not be willing to put up with being condescendingly lectured on how to speak, or whether I've done enough educating elsewhere based in impatience with a derailing tactic here, but I do appreciate that you've done good things in the past and hope you will continue to do the right thing in the future.

In the meantime, I hope you'll get past the inclination to defend tone arguments being used as derailing tactics against trans people complaining about exclusion or cissexism.  As we discovered in another subthread, you and I do see some parts of this the same way and seem to be able to communicate with each other on some aspects of the larger discussion.

I know I'm going to screw up in ways similar to what you've done here at some point, in the context of some other *ism (I've done it before), and if I blow past the gently chiding or prickly warning responses and get yelled out outright, I'm going to absolutely hate how that makes me feel once I finally realize I've screwed up.  But I can only hope that when it happens, I'll have the perception and control to replace defensiveness with a more productive mindset and learn the message I'm being yelled at to learn.  (In the past, I've done a good job of this some times and been kind of an ass other times, to my shame.)  To quote someone on a different site, whom I know only as 'z':

A good ally is not made up with single deeds done in the past and no more, but deeds continuing into the future.

A good ally is allowed to stumble, but must recognize their mistakes, apologize from them, understand why they were made, and avoid making them again.

You're not being kicked out of the trans-ally club (as if I controlled the roster anyhow).  You're being asked to be a better ally by recognizing how patronizing 'If you'd just stop using cis ONLY for pointing out oppression' was to somebody who has been using it for more than that for even longer than you say you've been an ally-activist, and by recognizing how/why it sounds as though you're telling us, 'oh if you were just more polite then those cissexists wouldn't have raised a distracting objection to being called cis'.


[ Parent ]
There is some miscommunication here
which is indeed my fault. I want to address a few things quickly though, but it's late and I need to get to bed.

1)

I've spent a hell of a lot more time than I had to to make sure things I worked for were inclusive. Yet you don't have the time to try and educate people on your own issue, and then scream when people try to throw you under the bus?

I meant this as a response to


But I'm not going to blow my entire Friday night doing that. Because I shouldn't have to.  Accept that we know our own language habits, come hang out with us socially for a year to find out for yourself, or stop even pretending that you respect us as humans and as adults.

which I misread. I read it as saying, "I don't have time to educate people on the correct usage of the word." That was my fault, and I apologize for it.

I'm going to bed, because I am tired. I'll be around later to explain myself a bit more later.


[ Parent ]
Apology accepted
Looks like we're tied at one and one for recognized-so-far (and acknowledged) accidental misreadings of each other.

[ Parent ]
A bit more of a reply
Similarly, when I posted a strongly worded statement about 'cis' being neutral, in my blog, cisgendered friends piped up to say, "Well, of course it's neutral; what's the fuss?"  I think I know my friends well enough that somebody would have called me out on that to say, "gee, you always seem to use it as an attack," if I hadn't been using it as a neutral term all these years.  And it makes the pushback against the words 'cisgender' and 'cissexual' here seem all the more fishy, more like the people complaining about having it imposed on them were looking for an excuse for a derailing tactic more than voicing a real offense.

I've known the word for a while, and I wasn't taking offense to how it was used here. When I saw people starting to get riled up over it I was getting ready to tell them they were in the wrong, that's not what the word meant. Then I started looking over the usage and arguments that were surrounding it.

Here, on Pam's House Blend, almost all of the incidences I saw of it were negative. I am not saying that the word was used wrongly in any of those cases, because it generally wasn't. I'm going to list the uses of it from the aravosis thread. None of these were used incorrectly, but imagine that you didn't know what the word meant. Tell me what your feelings would be on it.

Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we don't belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement.

Kind of neutral, but it also links the term to Aravosis. If you don't know better, it kind of makes cisgender look like it would be a supreme gender, all others are inferior, because that is Aravosis' gay rights movement.

privileged, white, cisgendered, male, Stepford gays

Does that look like it's neutral? Add those two together and the term is looking pretty bad.

Here is main point for Aravosis and all other cisgendered, transbigoted privileged assholes

cisgender, transbigoted, priveleges, asshole are all put on the same level here.

Right after that is when someone said they found it offensive. The next response to that had a short explanation of cisgender, then went into how it's not an identity but it's what you are. ALl true. But then the definition went into


ANd historically, it has been those relatively few white, gay men that have made the deals and undercut our rights, and they do so using the same transphobic arguments that John Avarosis uses, whcih are little more than minor variations on the same things said about white gay men.

I realize this doesn't make how you feel any less hurt for being grouped in a category that you don't feel you belong in.

But it one based predominantly on history, in response to current words and actions.

Again linking cisgender to Aravosis, the transbigoted asshole. The definition again linked cisgender (which you don't choose, you just are) with Aravosis (who is, truly, a transbigoted asshole). So cisgender doesn't look any better from this definition, because of  what it was linked to.

The argument then went on to all gay white men constantly lumped into one catagory, and the man still had a wrongly defined cisgender. The next post was speaking harshly down on him, putting him in the defensive. It doesn't matter that most of what was said was valid and true, he was pushed into defensive because he still had a wrongly defined cisgender.

Now, right at the beginning he should have looked up cisgender and gotten a correct neutral definition. He didn't, and it ended up making him look silly. But that also doesn't make the vitriol spewed any better.

You don't like the word "cisgendered" because it points out your privilege within the LGBT community during discussions of transgender issues. I notice all your comments since registering on the 18th are only on posts discussing trans-inclusivity, and they're all the same lady-doth-protest-too-much theme

No, he didn't like it because he had the wrong definition.

After that the definition of it kept coming up and up, with people arguing what I am arguing now, and they kept getting talked down to and insulted, saying the only reason they didn't like it was because they wanted to give up their privilege. They were getting written off as transbigoted assholes for expressing their views.

Both sides here were wrong, both sides. Some people have admitted it, and some people keep spewing more and more vitriol at each other.

As for my actions, I will admit I act privileged. I am also patronizing and condescending at times. Those are personality traits of mine that come out often, as much as I try to stop them. Often I won't mean to be, but I am anyway. It puts my arguments into question and overlooked.

But as for my  comments regarding using cis for more than only negative, here, at Pam's House Blend, that is how it is most often used, and it should be used for more than that. With such a diverse community, we should be using it as a descriptor more, not less.  


[ Parent ]
Nobody is talking about how you use it elsewhere.
The point was how it has been used HERE on PHB.  And it has only been used as a negative here, always with oppressor.  I thought the word was supposed to be a neutral term, yet I rarely have seen it used without some sort of negative inference because of the words used WITH the term.  Is it really that hard to see that?  When a word is used surrounded by only negatives, how is the supposed neutrality of the word supposed to come through?  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

[ Parent ]
Where we use it
The point was how it has been used HERE on PHB.  And it has only been used as a negative here, always with oppressor.  [...]  When a word is used surrounded by only negatives, how is the supposed neutrality of the word supposed to come through?

There's a balancing act required here.

On the one hand, yeah, it's not a word that everybody already knows.  On the other hand, being required to give its history and examples of neutral use, not just its definition, each and every time we want to use it in discussions about privilege just in case a newcomer doesn't know how we use it the rest of the time, is putting an awfully large burden of education on us.  Why, we might spend so much time educating about vocabulary that we never get around to making the point that we wanted to use the concept in ... Oh, wait.

How do we balance these two problems, the fact that some people do need to learn the word in context, versus the need to be able to speak without having to give an entire history and sociology lesson as a preamble?  I'm not sure exactly where that balancing point is.  But wherever it is, the willingness of a third group of speakers to feign ignorance in order to then feign offense and derail the conversation by design ... muddies the waters and makes the right balancing spot even harder to see.

Personally, I think that, "You've made a mistake regarding your interpretation of that word; it's a neutral term that's been used neutrally since its coinage and just looks negative here because we're specifically talking about privilege here and so yeah, it's an adjective you'll see attached to phrases identifying privilege," is a reply that makes a certain amount of sense.  (You may then want to do your own research instead of taking our word for it, but be willing to look outside of the discussions-of-privilege context to see whether it's used in ways other than pointing out privilege.  And if you're not going to do the research, then take our word for it.)  And when the question of whether it's ever used not as an adjective for oppressors in discussion of privilege is asked, then how we do use it the rest of the time becomes relevant.  Because right here, that whole privilege thing and whether pointing it out is offensive was where we started.

Finally, bear this in mind, from ojrocks:

To all the non-Ts here at the Blend: Lighten up. No one is out to get you. If you are a cisgendered gay white male (like me) and you're screaming about oppression from the LGBT community, take a step back and realize you're like christians screaming that they are oppressed. The fact is that cisgendered gay white males (like me) DO oppress the LBTs in our community (not like me). The fact is also if you do not do that, then COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPRESSORS DO NOT POINT TO YOU. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. They are talking about the ones like Aravosis. NOT YOU.

and my own version:
Here's a tip:  if the shoe doesn't fit, don't jam it on your foot and then complain about how it pinches!

In light of that advice, is it a bit easier to see that 'cis' has been used descriptively, and the negative attachments referred to what particular cis people were doing?

To get back to the most important point here;  no, I don't know where the appropriate and useful balancing point is.  I do know that having to "break in" 'cis' gradually in each discussion where it comes up, just in case a newbie gets the wrong impression of it, seriously undermines our ability to use it.  And that as important as education and outreach are, people do have some responsibility for educating themselves as well.


[ Parent ]
No
You're being oppressive.

You're being privileged.

I won't stop pointing it out because it makes you feel bad.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
Please
tell me where stop, or that I feel bad. I really don't give a fuck what you think of me, what you do, or what you point out.

I have privilege. I never said I didn't. I use my various privileges in many ways, as everyone does.

Not one word you said has made me feel bad. I think most of what you say makes you look bad. But I don't feel bad. Point out what you will whenever.

I don't care about you. Your opinion means nothing to me.

It may have had an impact if you weren't so quick to assume and be angry about things. If you spoke logically, and didn't imply that I said things that I never said, maybe I would have listened to you.

But you're angry, and you're lashing out at me trying to make me feel bad.

It doesn't work. Because I don't know you, and I don't give a fuck who you are, what you do, where you go, and what you say.

None of that matters though. I'll still fight just as hard as I have been for your rights because you are my ally in the battle for rights, even if you can't see past your own nose on this issue. Even if you don't read what I say and lash out at me.  


[ Parent ]
oh how nice of you to still fight for my rights!
I'm so happy to have such a great supportive ally on my side!

Here, have a cookie! You oh-so-very-special cis white gay man!

It may have had an impact if you weren't so quick to assume and be angry about things. If you spoke logically, and didn't imply that I said things that I never said, maybe I would have listened to you.

"Maybe"? No, you weren't even willing to listen. There have been people much nicer than me trying to explain things to you, begging you to put aside what you're doing here and stop hurting trans people, and you won't listen. Not one bit. So quit trying to pretend this is about anything other than your unchecked privilege; quit saying things would have worked out if only trans people were kinder to you.

Nice tone argument, though. Almost classically awful.

It's pronounced "Keeva."


[ Parent ]
What
I'm not willing to listen to you saying that I am dumb, wrong, ignorant, and should change my life and mindset, even though what I do works, and what you do fails?

Way to troll.


[ Parent ]
That
You're clearly dumb and ignorant when you confuse straight privilege (possessed by SOME trans people) with a mythological trans privilege.

It's pronounced "Keeva."

[ Parent ]
As to getting thrown under the bus
In New York, ESPA (The Empire State Pride Agenda) did that to the trans community from the time I got involved politically in 1998 to December 2002 when SONDA passed in the state senate without trans inclusion.  Since then, and some changes in personnel, ESPA has been a huge supporter of trans civil rights in New York.

HRC has historically "thrown the trans community under the bus" after giving us lip service, most notably in 2007 with the non-inclusive ENDA getting passed in the House of Representatives.

Not all white gay men do the "throw the trans community under the bus" thing.  My friend Matt Foreman acknowledged his role in New York, and apologized for that role in keeping trans inclusion out of SONDA.  We have yet to see an honest apology from Joe Solmonese.

There are trans leaders in New York who still don't trust ESPA, and who think that any positive move on marriage (which itself is trans-inclusive) without a corresponding positive move on GENDA is a betrayal. (I think they're overreacting, but the historical context gives them reason to be twitchy.)

The best analogy is to see the trans community as the equivalent of the women's movement in its struggle for equal rights at the same time as the movement for abolition of slavery and the civil rights for African Americans being the equivalent of the gay rights movement.

Women, like trans people, were told time and again that they had to wait.

The history is there.


[ Parent ]
Yes
It's absolutely horrible that that has happened time and time again. I don't think it has been disputed (by me at least) that it has happened. It makes me sick that people actually think it's a viable option.


[ Parent ]
Personally, I like it...
I'm cisgendered and very happy to have discovered the term.  I've often been uncomfortable with trying to find some way to delineate cisgendered/transgendered in discussion.  Using transwoman or transman is simple.  But how do you describe the cisgendered without perpetuating stereotypes with words like "real," "normal," "natural," "born a...".  None of these terms are accurate to describe the differences and all of them are insulting.  Having the word allows us to stop pretending that there's some sex/gender default from which all others deviate rather than a complex spectrum of sexes and genders.  

Okay, I'll shut up now.


Sympathy for a difficult position, but not letting you off the hook yet
"So, I've been slow to respond because I've taking a few days off to cool my anger, and to recharge."

Y'know, that was pretty frustrating to everyone wanting an instant reaction to their criticisms of what you did and said, and yes, it let things build up pretty big without being addresed right away, but I'm going to have to say that IMNSHO, it was probably the right thing to do.  I, for one, would rather be made to wait a while for answers not made in the heat of "OMG I'm under attack!" defensiveness and anger, than see positions staked out and defended as surrogates for defending one's self, that turned out to be the wrong positions to defend in the first place.

I do still see big problems with your current response.  But having taken an emotional step back, and some time to sort out what you mean from what you wrote, shows.

(I know it's Not The Same, because I was only criticized by one stranger rather than a whole community, but the first time a gay man called me out on my use of 'straight' as a synonym for 'het', my gut reaction was to defend it ... instead I asked for a day to think about my response, and came back calmer and agreed that he'd been right, and have tried to stick to using 'het' since.  If I'd answered straightaway (no pun intended), we each would have left thinking the other was an oversensitive and bigoted asshole.)

It sucks to have most of the community hating on you, and I hope you do turn this around.  At the moment, you've still got statements out there that need to be better argued/explained, or recanted.  Despite being one of us, you did manage to convey a Tone Argument (to be fair:  most of the criticisms of you that I've seen have asserted that you were first taken in by Fritz's tone argument) and make many trans people feel as though we were being told to let those with cis privilege prescribe the language to our detriment.

Walking the line between "civility" and "not falling for the tone argument" is, well, delicate and difficult.  I do appreciate that it's difficult, and all the more so for being in such a well-known place.  (It's much less effort at my blog, which has only a few hundred readers.)  Sometimes, even in a friendly little café or coffeshop, people do need to bellow a little to let other people know how important a line they've just crossed, and things can go back to being friendly once it's all been sorted out; whereas being told that raising a voice is forbidden, people will seethe, get even angrier, and find other outlets (including passive-aggressiveness, or leaving in disgust and telling outsiders why).  And even the short, justified explosions can be uncomfortable as hell, both for those of us who simply do not cope well with being around angry people (or feeling anger ourselves), and for moderators and other "space owners" who fear the day when a blow-up marks the start of a downward slide into perpetual ugliness instead of a much needed venting of steam.

Sometimes bottling up the steam just leads to a bigger explosion.


The Issue Is That the Trans Community Is Seeking to Define OTHERS - Not Themselves
I've been reading Pam's House Blend for over a year now, but registered until this discussion (although I've always considered the comments as much a part of the content as the blog posts themselves, I was happy to just read).

I'm a twenty-something year old gay man.  I think the point the transgender community is missing is that they are not looking to define themselves or to determine their own lexicon.  However a group chooses to define themselves, the broader society should respect that.  When gay men demanded to be called "gay" instead of faggots, society eventually complied.  The same for people of color who, after the civil rights movement, claimed the identity of "African American" and demanded, in many cases, for the older generations to stop referring to them as "negro" or "colored".  As an oppressed group, that was their right.  

What is happening here, however, is entirely different.  The transgendered community is not seeking to define themselves or ask the broader society to refer to them with a specific term that shows them respect.  Instead, they are labeling another group and demanding that group accept the label.  At that point, they exceeded their rights.  When they found out that others found the labeling offensive and yet still persisted, it's no different than the intolerant man or woman who still uses derogatory terms for other races, genders, or sexualities.

To illustrate from the earlier example: Although the term itself wouldn't have been different, if it had been white men who labeled people of color "African American" and demanded that the black community describe itself that way, it would have been offensive and unjustified - again, even though the term didn't change.

No group has the right to label another group.  Regardless of the intention (which, I believe, in many cases was good natured), the idea of labeling a large cross section of society without their consent, and in many cases, after they've informed you they find the word offensive, is only counterproductive to the transgendered rights movement.  Not only is it a losing battle, the damage is going to include the loss of support from the gay community who, right or wrong, will be hesitant to fight for a group that they feel doesn't care about their own requests and continues to label them a term they find derogatory.  It's just human nature.



Not exactly
Although the term itself wouldn't have been different, if it had been white men who labeled people of color "African American" and demanded that the black community describe itself that way, it would have been offensive and unjustified - again, even though the term didn't change.

Now if African Americans (the minority) had demanded that white people be called "white people" under that scenario then, well...that would fit your scenario.

The connotations of the words "white" and "black", simple as they are, are extremely loaded with white privilege. That part of the reason that some wanted to be "African American" and not "black"

Now if the African American community commanded at the same time that white people be called ___________ that also would be close to the present scenario. But notice, you rarely hear "white Americans". it's invisible there, but understood.


[ Parent ]