Do I Look Like I Belong in Here?

Content note: bathroom bills, transmisogyny, violation of boundaries (any others?)

I don't like the men's restrooms because I'm not a man, I’m nonbinary. I am familiar with the women's restrooms, but I'm not a woman, and I raise far too many suspicions in there now for my comfort anyway. I have gotten very skilled at finding single-user restrooms wherever I go, but I use the men's room now if it's urgent and carry myself with the confidence of a mediocre white man in a generally successful attempt to blend in.

I’m disturbed by a trend lately, where men gleefully plot for (or at least dream about) pushing themselves into women's restrooms to get kicked out, sometimes posting selfies, and then "surprise! I have a vagina because I'm trans!" It's supposed to "disprove" oppressive bathroom bills, by showing that they don't belong in women’s restrooms because they "look like a man".

The problem is that this harms women. Many trans women are suspected of "looking like a man" and that's why these laws are being passed in the first place. Plus, at its most basic this is an example of men forcing their way past [trans and cis] women’s stated boundaries. What if masculinity were used for justice instead of violence?

To the white boys out there interrupting the conversation with your “but what about?”: There's a key difference between "using the women's restroom to get noticed" and "using the women's restroom to avoid being noticed". I understand as well as any trans person that as long as restrooms are segregated, none of us are really safe. But please join me in working against transmisogyny in our words and actions.

The Violence of Personal Preferences

I see a disturbing pattern in conversations from time to time.
Person targeted with violence and oppression: "This thing hurts me."
Person who isn't targeted the same way: "But it's my personal preference."
It is not only possible, but it is highly probable that your personal preferences were shaped by the same culture of violence that the targeted person wants to be free from.
It is not your fault that your personal preferences are ones which perpetuate violence; however it is your responsibility to reshape your own thoughts and actions to minimize your contribution to violence, and it is your fault if you make excuses instead of doing the hard work.
At no point do you need to explain your violent preferences to the targets of oppression. At no point do you need us to make you feel better for having them.

Sexual Abuse as the Cis Norm for Sex Education

TW dysphoria and rape

Let's talk about how cis people have sexually abused me my entire life. FUN!
Being raped multiple times wasn't traumatic... so I felt for a while, only I'm now realizing this is an inversion of reality.
Being raped wasn't more traumatic than sex in general, not enough for me to notice a significant difference.
To understand why sex has historically been traumatic for me, we need to first look at what healthy sex looks like:
It requires informed consent and co-determination. I need to be aware of what is happening and have the ability to exercise bodily agency.
I, like many queer and trans folk, was raised to view penis-in-vagina as The Sex, and with zero acknowledgement that dysphoria is possible.
Every single person who had the opportunity to educate me, grossly neglected to de-center PIV or present other options for sex as equal.
The only context my vagina was mentioned was as either a source of magical Jesus powers, or as a source of profound sexual liberation.
It is especially important to note that every cis male partner I've had was actively pushing this repression/liberation sex binary for years.
I was actively taught to view my intense discomfort with vaginal stimulation (even in a loving caring context) as something that's fixable.
I was expected to change. Always me. Never the other person. Never the way society pushed their cis agenda.
Individual partners claimed to respect my desires to avoid certain contact, but would guilt me on how their "needs" were equally valid.
All of the sex-positivity cultural rhetoric was on their side as I was shamed for not being "good, giving, & game".
No one ever suggested even once that my feelings were normal or natural, and that their sexual pressure was the dysfunction.
Fact: informed consent is not possible when cis people have actively obstructed education on trans bodies and queer sex.
Fact: bodily agency and sexual co-determination is not possible in the midst of ongoing gaslighting.
Fact: cis-centered sex education is abusive, and cis people who aren't actively working to dismantle that are complicit in ongoing abuse.

Attempting to Define Gender, a Case Study

What is the definition of "woman"?  When I first saw the essay "Are Lesbians Women?" by Jacob Hale [trans man], it piqued my interest, partly because one of the first objections to my gender when I came out as genderqueer was that if I cannot adequately define "woman", I cannot adequately define myself to be outside of "woman".  (One wonders why it would not suggest that, given the allegedly questionable validity of womanhood itself, I could be more easily "allowed" to define myself outside of it, but I digress.)

Pop culturally, trans women are not "real women", but a quick google reveals that cis women can have their "real woman" card revoked as well (though albeit on a somewhat different "no true scotsman" level).  "Are Lesbians Women?" attempts to break down the fundamentals of womanhood into a list of what society has generally agreed are the criteria.  Jacob Hale is quick to point out that no one single item on the list is "necessary or sufficient", meaning you can generally leave one off and still be included within the category of "woman" by society, but if you can only count one in your favor you are not included.  For example: while "identifies as a woman" should be necessary and sufficient for womanhood, society rejects that criterion as such.

1. Absence of a penis
2. Presence of breasts
3. Presence of reproductive organs which allow for pregnancy to occur
4. Presence of estrogen and progesterone in balance with androgens within "normal" range
5. Presence of XX, or perhaps absence of Y, chromosomes
6. Having a gender identity as a woman
7. Having an occupation considered to be acceptable for a woman
8. Engaging in leisure pursuits considered to be acceptable for a woman
9. Engaging in some sort of sexual/affectional relationship with a man who is commonly recognized as heterosexual
10. Achieving and maintaining a physical gender self-presentation the elements of which work together to produce the gender assignment "woman"
11. Behaving in ways to produce the gender assignment "woman"
12. Giving textual [documentation] cues that work together to produce the gender assignment "woman"
13. Having an unbroken history consistent with the gender assignment "woman"

Notice that, thanks to the work of feminists, some of these categories have been so expanded as to include most people of any gender, particularly #s 7 and 8, and 10 and 11 to a lesser extent.  Perhaps that's what my well-meaning friends are saying when they insist that I do not fall outside of sufficient criteria, because to a certain extent I cannot fall outside a criteria which encompasses nearly everything.  However, as it stands, I only fully satisfy some of these requirements at this point (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12),  others are satisfied/unsatisfied in different ways at different stages of my life (7, 8, 9, 10, 11), and I definitely do not satisfy a few obvious ones (6, 13).  It becomes even more complex when one realizes that #s 1-5 cannot be verified as fact by others without an intimate understanding of my medical history.

What about "lesbian" - can that be a gender identity in its own right independent of woman?  (Yes, anything can be a gender identity. And no, claiming your gender identity is "squirrel" doesn't make you cute, it makes you a jerk.)  How many criteria of "woman" can one violate and still be "lesbian"?  For example, a genderqueer friend satisfies #s 7, 8, 11; partially satisfies 10; and does not satisfy 1-5 or 9.  They also answer #6 as "identifies as lesbian" (among other gender labels).

There are many questions yet unanswered:  How "woman" is "woman enough"?  How many criteria must one meet before one is "real"; how many criteria must one violate before one is "fake"?  How do we take into account the different ways different people rank the importance of different criteria?  How do we allow for the ways that race, ethnicity, class, religion, sexuality, regional location, etc influence the threshold of each criterion?  To whom do we defer authority to answer these and further questions on authentic womanhood, and how do we process dissent?  Certainly Jacob Hale was in no position to answer all of these, and certainly I am neither, but that's the way I rather prefer it to be.

Going Where Gender Isn't

This talk was given to the Ethical Society of St Louis on November 10th 2013.

“The way you live without gender is you look for where gender is, and then you go somewhere else.”

I am the face that genderqueer wants you to see. Let me rephrase that. I am the face that you are willing to accept - that society is willing to accept as the proper vessel for my message this morning. I am a white, thin, educated, young person of female history - I’m wearing a bow tie. Bow ties are cool. For those of you who are listening online, yes, this is my voice. I know, it’s not what I was expecting either, but if Bruno Mars ever donates his vocal cords to charity, I’m first on the waitlist.

But what If my body were tall, angular, hair tied back to reveal an adams apple, lipstick applied expertly beneath a mustache, little black dress with a low-cut neckline that plunges down a flat chest... if you were to see that body walking down the street, that would probably strike most people as the punchline to a Monty Python cross-dressing skit more than a proud genderqueer person of male history. They don’t get to use restrooms in peace, have equal employment opportunities, be treated with dignity by medical professionals. Mothers shoo their children away from people like that, as my friends can sadly attest. Add color to that person’s skin, and they’re quickly demoted in the public eye to street walker, because what else could they be going about dressed that way? Perhaps their body is found dead, and the police close the case, because nobody important was killed, only a black “gay sex worker”.

My dramatic hypotheticals are no exaggeration either. Last week, a 13-year-old boy was suspended for wearing a purse to school. Also last week, an agender teenager fell asleep on the bus in California, only to have someone set fire to the skirt they were wearing in a self-professed crime of “homophobia”. This summer, the murder rate of transgender people increased to twice that of gays and lesbians, despite total numbers of trans people in the population being much smaller than cis LGB people.

This, dear humanists, is the violence of genderqueer invisibility, and that which is hidden in the shadows can be dehumanized without recourse. Of the 6,450 people who responded to the 2008 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, nearly ⅛ identified as “a gender not listed here”, that is, their gender is neither man nor woman. (I want to take a quick moment to point out that this number does not include transgender men and transgender women, on account of trans men and women being men and women.) “‘Genders not listed here’ have significantly higher educational attainment than their peers who did not have to write in their gender. . . Nonetheless, ‘genders not listed here’ are living in the lowest household income category at a much higher rate than those who [selected a binary gender].” Of particular note to us here in St Louis, respondents in the midwest and the south were less likely to identify as a non-binary gender. I can tell you from my personal experiences interacting with hundreds of genderqueer people online, that regional disparity is a direct result of the necessity to fit into a binary box for survival in places that are not tolerant of gender diversity.

According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, those “genders not listed here”, those who are neither woman nor man, also have a significantly higher educational attainment than our cisgender peers [cisgender being someone who is not transgender], but skew much poorer and younger than our binary trans brothers and sisters.  In much the same way that living in the midwest gives us pause to living our authentic selves, coming of age in an era where we have access to internet communities of others like us can also give us the strength to know we are not alone.  But what is the cost of authenticity?  Non-binary and genderqueer people are more likely to avoid medical care for fear of discrimination, and as a result are more likely to not know our HIV status, and when we do know, our HIV-positive status is at a higher rate than other trans people.  We’re more likely to avoid help from the police, because we’re more likely to be harassed by the police.  We’re more likely to have been sexually assaulted at any point in our lives, including childhood.  We’re less likely to have lost a job due to bias, but we’re more likely to seek a job in an underground economy in the first place.  And - perhaps not surprisingly, after all this - we’re more likely to have attempted suicide than our binary trans sisters and brothers.

We keep waiting to be seen, to be heard, to be told that our rights matter and our humanity is valid.  When Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was struck down, Dan Savage announced that transgender people could now serve openly. This assessment was sadly incorrect, and the trans members who serve in our military at twice the rate that cisgender people do were forgotten, our pleas for justice drowned out by the celebration for LGB people. Two years later, and Chelsea Manning still has to claw her way toward basic access to female-appropriate health care. In 34 US states, it is still legal to discriminate against transgender people in the workplace. Several of those states have protections for sexual orientation, such as Missouri affords those LGB people working in the public sector. But when trans people ask to be included, we are told to wait our turn. And we’re still waiting.

In recent news, just last Thursday the US Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which would provide employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  ENDA has been introduced almost every year since 1994, and similar bills have as well, going back to 1974.  In 2007, protections for trans people were finally added, only to be dropped again, to give the bill a better chance of passing.  This is the first time the bill has been passed in a chamber of congress which included protections for LGB and T.  However, Speaker Boehner has said he plans on blocking this bill, so we still can’t rely upon its passage to protect the equal access to employment rights for trans workers in all the United States, nor would it address many of the other much-needed protections we need in addition to employment rights.

“The way you live without gender is you look for where gender is, and then you go somewhere else.” When I first read that statement by Kate Bornstein, I was struck by both the profound necessity for me to follow that path, and by the sheer impossibility to do so successfully. “The way you live without gender is you look for where gender is, and then you go somewhere else.”

“Which pronouns do you prefer?” I am asked, as is the right thing to do when in doubt. “It doesn’t matter,” I used to lie, afraid I’d be accused of trying to change the world. “Oh you should definitely call me by gender-neutral pronouns,” I would say, enthusiastic that I’d found someone to change the world with me. “Using ‘he’ is fine,” I now admit, having grown weary of changing the world by myself.

“The way you live without gender is you look for where gender is, and then you go somewhere else.”

I stand with my young child and face two doors, knowing what I need can be found behind both, aware that choosing one over the other is to publicly declare my deepest political allegiances. I casually make my way through Door #1, hoping nobody will notice. “Sir” I look up, and realize she’s looking directly at me. I’ve been found out. “Sir, you want to be over there,” she commands as she points directly toward Door #2, valiantly defending the innocence of the flock of preschool girls we’re both surrounded by. We go into the other room without a fuss. My child peers into a nearby urinal with suspicion. “Mommy, what-” I swiftly brush him into the nearest stall before he can utter any more incriminating words, not knowing how to explain to a preschooler that there is no Door #3 for people like me.

One thing I found as I began navigating society from an explicitly genderqueer frame of reference was that if there were any role models, they were rare to be found.  In looking into the history of the movement, I discovered that this was because the genderqueer community, by that name, was barely reaching 2 decades in age. This isn’t to say we’ve just invented the concept - I know genderqueer people in their 50s and beyond - but as a self-named social/political movement, we’re just getting started.

So who are our role models? Where can we find clues on where we’ve come from, to help ground us as we look forward to where we’re going? When I first tried to answer this question years ago, I was hoping to find binders full of genderqueers all over the internet. But what I mostly found were androgynous fashion heros like David Bowie and Tilda Swinton. I felt like I was floundering for a bit. “You mean we all have to figure this out on our own?”  Well... yes.

Early October 2011, Kate Lovelady gave a platform address on The Leaders We’ve Been Waiting For. The description on our podcast page merely describes it as “new ideas gathered by her sabbatical”, but I’m going to spoil the ending for you: we’re the leaders we’ve been waiting for. And it all seemed so warm and inspirational at the time, but I made the connection after a bit that this is what the genderqueer community is already doing. We look around, wondering who will take this movement out of our hands and take it where it needs to go, and as we search, we see the faces of our siblings looking back at us. It’s always been us, going where gender isn’t, together.

So who are we? What are the human faces of genderqueer? Let me start with some of the more creative responses given by those “genders not listed here” when allowed to write in their own on the survey I mentioned earlier: “gender rebel”, “best of both”, “jest me”, “birl” spelled like mix of boy and girl, and my personal favorite, “trannydyke genderqueer wombat fantastica”.  I also conducted my own survey, in preparation for today. I wanted to know what genderqueer people have to say to humanists: what you are encouraged see in us, what you can take initiative to do for us. I got a couple dozen responses which you can read in more detail on my blog entitled “Nerd is my Gender” [click here to read].

The responses were as varied as the individuals who responded, but a common thread ran throughout: a plea for society and for the humanist community to stop precluding our existence. Imagine, if you would, that if it were a matter of daily life that when you introduced yourself to people, they responded with “oh… well what did your parents name you?” rather than a friendly “nice to meet you.” Or if you said you had gotten married, they responded with “well, which state were you married in?” or “is your husband gay?” rather than a hearty “congratulations!” Imagine if you lived in a world where, essentially, you don’t exist to most people, and then you decide to be brave (or stubborn) enough to keep digging your heels in the sand and say “no, you don’t have a space on your form for my gender” or “no, you don’t have a restroom for my gender” or “no, your laws don’t include people like me” or “yes, I do need access to that medical treatment” or “yes that is my real name”. Imagine if you had to keep doing that over and over again, every time you met a new person at the Ethical Society, at the DMV, at the Shop n Save, and often with people you’ve known for months or years too, who suddenly develop “pronoun amnesia” when they’re around you. And then you have to get up the next morning, and find a reason to face all that again, to not join the 41% of us who attempt suicide in our lifetimes.

One of the more important ways we can take gender diversity for granted, and one that is surprisingly easy for everyone to fulfill, is by making the “gender” option on forms a fill-in-the-blank. Every time your form says “check one: M or F”, a kitten dies. Stop erasing us. Instead of the “select one: Mr, Mrs, Miss, Dr, Rev” etc, make it fill-in-the-blank. If every option available for me to chose is going to be a lie, I might as well pick the most fun lie. Doctor Semler? Reverend Semler? The Honorable Semler! That has a nice ring to it. And I’ll have you know, the Ethical Society member directory is literally the only place on the entire internet where I’ve encountered a fill-in-the-blank option. I get mail from the society delivered to Mx Andy Semler, and it makes my day.

Another common thread among survey responses was to please be proactive in making our communities safe for gender diversity.  Have explicit gender-inclusive policies already in place even before the first person complains about an issue. It’s going to take a while before some of us trust you enough to admit that we’re not living life inside the gender binary. For many of us, this is why we may need a sign to feel safe before we out ourselves as genderqueer.  We wait until we hear the code words of inclusivity. One way you can do this is by being explicit that anyone can use whichever restroom they feel more comfortable using, despite their physical appearance or whatever you think they may have underneath their clothes, and make sure the members who frequent the establishment are aware of that. If you have single-user restrooms, don’t label them with a gender at all. For example, our restroom in the nursery wing is gender-neutral. (It is also kept behind lock and key half the time, to my dismay.)

Try not to gender-label any other places or events either, if it’s not absolutely necessary. Insert inclusive language into your casual conversation, such as saying “this activity is for all genders” or the more simple “this activity is for everyone”, instead of the exclusive phrase “boys and girls”.  If you have a men’s club or a women’s club, include invitations to all people who wish to participate in a masculine or a feminine space.  We want to be written into your lives, and for some of us, this may be the first chance for us to finally feel recognized as fully human. “The way you live without gender is you look for where gender is, and then you go somewhere else.” Let that “somewhere else” be where you are, opening your arms to us.

One of the happiest moments for me was when I sat down with my 6-year-old to explain to him that I’m not a woman or a man, that my gender is queer. He was excited. “Sometimes you get to be a boy with me? Wow!” We discussed how that “mommy” and “daddy” are terms for women and men, and that we need a name for me that works for us. Now, I know a lot of parents say this, but I really do have the best kid in the world. He calls me “sweetie”.

Kate Bornstein, in all her infinite wisdom, didn’t quite get this one right for me, I think.  The way I live without gender is I look for where gender is, and then I go somewhere I am loved.

Review: Godless Americana by Sikivu Hutchinson

Sikivu Hutchinson introduces Godless Americana as "a radical humanist analysis" that "provides a vision of secular social justice that challenges Eurocentric traditions of race, gender, and class-neutral secularism", and then spends the next 7 chapters doing exactly that. This book is a call to action, a vision of humanism that decentralizes the white experience and asks the reader to embrace a compassionate sense of initiative within their own sphere of influence.

Page after page, I found myself questioning my position on which issues humanism ought to prioritize, as this book brings up numerous examples of how centralizing the concerns of white secular Americans is to actively render humanism irrelevant to anyone who falls outside that territory. Perhaps most poignant moment was the day I had 2 extra hours to myself to read on the bus, due to my car being in the shop. As I sat there, surrounded by people for whom, unlike myself, this was not their back-up mode of transportation nor a temporary inconvenience, I read about the mobility gap: "Transit-dependency means isolation. It means less access to living-wage jobs, quality schools, affordable housing, and park space... whites generally live in white neighborhoods with greater access to social services, park spaces, and job centers."

How can the reader continue to practice a humanism that does not make efficient public transit a humanist issue; that does not make city planning a humanist issue; that does not make jobs, housing, education, and public health a humanist issue? This book is ready to answer every white-washed "we are all Africans" humanist who can't fathom why Americans of color run back to their churches for support from a Bible which advocates slavery, by questioning the very presumed innocence of whiteness itself. It boldly proclaims that a humanism that is not relevant to people of all races is quite simply irrelevant. I recommend this book for all humanists who have come to expect more from ourselves.

Humanizing Genderqueer 1: Andy

Humanizing Genderqueer: Lived experiences of non-binary people


I'm going to be giving a talk to the Ethical Society of St Louis about genderqueer issues. I'm asking genderqueer people to share our experiences with the humanist community, and I figured I might as well start with myself!


Gender Wins: Recall a happy memory of when you felt most comfortable in your gender or most accepted as your gender by those around you.

I am fortunate to have many, but the most recent was last weekend at my friends Laura and Dustin's wedding. I loved being around so many of the people I care about, meeting new people, them all accepting me. Got a lot of compliments about the bow tie, and even some on my dancing. Lulz, little do they know, I can't dance, I merely am able to flail about in time with the music.

I think one the the most heart-warming gender moments was when I explained to my son about who I am, and he got so excited and told me how cool that is. He "gets it" way more than most other people I know - almost never forgets my prefered gender-neutral parental title, and immediately corrects himself if he does. He also is comfortable with the right for people to self-identify rather than falling back on an ideological gender essentialism. He's also 6, so that might have a lot to do with it. :D


Gender Struggles: Tell about a time when circumstances would not allow, or you had to make sacrifices, to remain true to your gender.

Well... there really isn't any space to be genderqueer in the insurance world. There just isn't. I'm there for my functional utility and to be likeable. I need to be what customers want me to be, or it makes the agency look bad, and making the agency look bad makes my bosses look bad, and making my bosses look bad makes my position less secure. This is not unique to me either. Many (if not most) genderqueer people have employment dilemmas such as mine.


Humanist Involvement: Suggest something the humanist community could do to make a positive impact on your personal quality of life.

I think the humanist community could focus on gender equality beyond simply women's liberation. This isn't to say placing one struggle over the other, but to say that all gender rights are intertwined. That feminism is incomplete without transgender activism, and vice versa. That gender equality isn't just about creating two equal genders, but also creating the freedom for people to choose all genders equally.


How You Identify (optional): Name, age, gender, location, ethnicity, anything you deem relevant.

Andy, 26, genderqueer, St Louis, white, humanist, Whovian.

Reactions to My Gender

I read a good list of negative reactions to someone's gender, and since everyone's experiences are unique, I thought I'd expand upon hir list with my personal reactions-to-reactions:

The Fundiegelical: “You may think you’re ‘happy’ by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, but you’re living in sin and you’re going straight to hell! Jesus loves you.”

I’ve had friends and family respond this way. “Sure, you’re happy now, but will you still be in 10 years?”  I could ask you the same: will you be happy in 10 years?  Will anyone?  Happiness not guaranteed in life, but I’m not doing this for happiness alone, I’m doing this to live life more honestly.

“Stop trying to act like a man.”  Oh, well since you've said so... *eyeroll*  Telling me to stop being my gender is about as foolhardy as me telling you to stop being yours.  And even claiming I’m trying to act like a man is missing the point of how I’m not a man, I’m genderqueer.

Bonus irony points that I'm an atheist humanist.  I'm not even rebelling against some ancient superstitious text, I just don't care.  Might as well reference Mother Goose to me, for all the impact it will have on my life.

The “Enlightened” Liberal: “But gender doesn’t even matter, because deep down, we’re all the same. So why is it such a big deal what I call you?”

This is always said to me by someone who consistently presents as one single gender for their entire life: man name, man pronouns, man appearance, man social role, etc.  They almost never have their gender questioned or mistaken for a different gender, and on the rare occasion it does happen, they all get a good laugh and it doesn’t happen again.  They don’t have to live in a world where they feel out of place or disadvantaged for having an “invalid” gender, so they don’t have the experience of a life where gender validity actually is a big deal, because it never has been to them.

Attempting to reason with such people is a noble endeavor, but ultimately a pointless frustrating one, for the simple reason that they can’t personally relate to what I’m talking about.  The best approach therefore is to simply appeal to emotions by saying “do this because it matters to me; and if you care about my feelings, you’ll do your best to respect my wishes”.  A good friend will accept that as is.

The TERF: “By embracing a gender role opposite your assigned sex, you are reifying gender/privilege and thus making it that much harder for us to smash gender. I know that sounds contradictory but, if you’d been a feminist for as long as I have, you’d understand.”

Forcing someone to remain in the gender role that matches their birth-designated sex is just as bad.  As is claiming that people won’t ever want to change their bodies for their own reasons (transhumanism, anyone?).  Plus, plenty of trans people don’t even want to reinforce gender binary roles, but they have no choice in order to survive as their trans gender in a culture which hates them.  They’re as much against prescribed gender roles as you are, and are happy to buck the system along with you.

I’m willing to strike a truce with any of the radical feminists who come at me with this objection to my gender: you stop trying to force me into your gender roles, and I won’t force you into any of mine.

The Proto-TERF: “Of course I don’t have anything against trans people, but abortion/sex work/breast cancer/ovarian cancer/whatever is and has always been a women’s issue! Why do you want to take it away from women?”

Because asking you to share equals stealing.  Right…

Don’t you get it?  The more rights we all share, the safer those rights are.  If even a man has abortion rights, then especially women have them too.  If even a man has health coverage for breast cancer, than especially women are covered.  The thing about equality is that it makes the world better for everyone.

The Ungendering Fetishist: “Hey, I don’t have anything against sh*m*les! I think you’re hot! I watch sh*m*le porn all the time.”

This has never happened to me, but if you say this around me, I will school you so hard your head will be spinning for a week.  Do. Not. Use. That. Word.

The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”

This statement is so objectively false, it’s laughable.  Except that it stops being funny when it blatantly erases trans people of color/trans people with disabilities/trans people in non-Western cultures.

For starters...

The Incrementalist: “Look, people just aren’t ready to accept trans folks yet. So instead of arguing about what pronouns to use for you, we should focus on something we can actually accomplish, like [insert other tenuously-related SJ cause here].”

Translation: “This issue makes me feel uncomfortable to the point where I’d rather not talk about it, but I don’t want to sound like I’m an intolerant person, so I’ll pretend it’s because I care too much about social justice as opposed to not enough.”  You’re not fooling anyone, bro.

Look, the thing about trans people is… we know that most people don’t accept us.  We don’t need you to validate their bigotry, we need you to help give us the support we so desperately lack, to help us carry on in this society.

The Genital-Focused: “I totally respect and support trans people, but I would never date one. Because ewww.”

This information is almost always volunteered entirely out of context, and I always wish it wasn’t.  Why?  Because it’s creepy!  Why do you need to bring your genital fetishes into discussions about my gender!  I’m not talking about my gender because I’m curious about what kind of tail you like to chase, I’m talking about it because it’s who I am.

Also, this is really creepy when applied to children. I've heard people say they refuse to respect the gender identity of children unless same children have gotten "the operation".  Think about it: you're obsessing over the genitals of little children instead of respecting their humanity. *shudder*

The Broad-Stroke Painter: “I once met a trans person who was selfish/mean/creepy/bad in general, so you’re all like that and I won’t respect any of you.”

"I once met a trans person who I decided was acceptable, so I’ll accept you."  Gee, thanks?

Similarly, I had a woman derail a convo on trans rights with how her abusive ex-husband turned out to be a trans woman. Because the ex was abusive, she deserved the right to misgender her ex in front of other trans people, ignoring how much it mattered to us that she not rub that act of social violence in our faces.  Life is already difficult for most of us, without being constantly reminded of how a single resentful cisgender person could strip us of our humanity on a whim.

The Inveterate Essentialist: “But… you can’t be a woman, because you have a PENIS! And chromosomes! And… a PENIS!”

AKA, the “science is real, yo!” objection.  Yes, science is real.  I live a science-based life.  But the human interpretation of scientific data is fluid and fallible.  I’m not going to be all like “well since I’m genderqueer, I no longer have XX chromosomes”, because that would be anti-science, as would claiming that XX chromosomes aren’t a primary player in determining whether I can grow a fetus in my uterus.  But your interpretation that XX chromosomes or a uterus are exclusively what defines my gender is limited and outdated.  After all, Pluto used to be a planet, and now it's not.

The What-About-Teh-Cis Whiner: “I know my refusal to call you ‘she’ hurts you, but you have to understand that your demand to call you ‘she’ hurts me, too. What about my feelings?”

This one is difficult to handle with friends, precisely because they’re friends.  I do care about their feelings - my heart isn't made of ice.  But I have to take care of my own mental health first, and that means not trying to push myself back into a box where I don’t belong.  I’m willing to consult with friends as to what would make things easier for them, but always with the understanding that it is an entirely reasonable request to have my gender respected in the same way I respect their genders.

The Pig-Headed “Skeptic”: “Do you have actual evidence that you’re really a woman? No, of course you don’t, because it’s impossible by definition. No, shut up; I’m right and you’re wrong, PERIOD.”

Yes, I’ve had someone say this to me!  Many people, in fact.  ”But what’s the actual definition of 'genderqueer'?  Or even of 'man' or 'woman'?  You don’t have one?  That means they don’t exist, so shut up!”

This is always said to me by someone who consistently presents as one single gender for their entire life: woman name, woman pronouns, woman appearance, woman social role, etc. They almost never have their gender questioned or mistaken for a different gender, and on the rare occasion it does happen, they all get a good laugh and it doesn’t happen again.

But somehow when it comes to my identity, gender itself conveniently stops being “real”.

The “Free Speech” Whiner: “Don’t you think that, in the spirit of free and open discussion, you should listen to my side of things instead of just dismissing it out of hand as ‘bigotry’?”

Sure! As soon as I’m had my fill of my own discussion about how fun it is to abuse puppies.  Oh wait, that’s tasteless, heartless, cruel, not fit for public discussion?  Exactly.

The Devil’s Advocate: “I’m not saying prejudice is right, but, to be fair, it is a little weird for someone to present as a woman and yet have a penis.”

Again, the thing about trans people is… we know that most people don’t accept us. We don’t need you to validate their bigotry, we need you to help give us the support we so desperately lack, to help us carry on in this society.

The Self-Proclaimed “Ally”: “How dare you say I’ve been cissexist? Don’t you know how very supportive I’ve been of you and your causes? Why aren’t you grateful?”

Hmm… where have I heard this attitude before?  Oh yeah...

Seriously, if it's that easy to lose you as an ally, you weren't really prepared to stick up for my rights in the first place.

The “Edgy” Comedian: “Look, it was a joke. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s funny; I guess I’m just too edgy for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to censor humor.”

I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s not funny; I guess I’m just too real for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to make the world a safer place for bigots.

(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)

My TDoR will be intersectional or it will be BULLSHIT.

Sitting here shedding white tears because I haven't even finished my coffee yet and already been hit with 4 powerful reminders of how racism shits all over everything, and how fond society is to look away instead of clean our mess up.

NPR ran a couple good stories this morning: one on the lashback against the choice to cast a light-skinned Hollywood-approved Nina Simone, and another on the rising acceptance of black people as valid nerds. I did a little fist-pump (while trying not to swerve off the road) because I was glad to hear the momentum going in the right direction. Just a few minutes later, NPR addressed the pro-pot movement as it pertains to Colorado, and of course they didn't mention how white-washed that movement is nor how racist anti-marijuana law enforcement is, nobody ever does.

Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR) - I'm sure you've heard of it. Pay attention to how the remembered are portrayed. See how many times you see happy white faces (or worse: white man faces) as the focus of all the attention. Make no mistake: this is about race. Trans women are killed because of their race and often their association with sex work. "Whore! Pervert! No need for an investigation" and the case is closed.

My TDoR will be intersectional or it will be BULLSHIT.

Sex-Positive vs Trans Equality

There is no "vs".

I'll re-emphasize:

THERE IS NO COMPETITION.

I don't know where this epic battle originated nor why it's perpetuated to the levels we're seeing online (mostly targeted at Laci Green and at the so-called "Tumblr SJ Community"), but it has its roots in bullshit.

That's right:

BULLSHIT.

Tonight I'm going camping with some awesome trans peeps. We need body autonomy, we need positive sexuality, we need acceptance, we need the support of sex-positive community.

Tomorrow I'm going SlutWalking with some awesome sexpoz peeps. We need body autonomy, we need positive sexuality, we need acceptance, we need the support of the transgender community.

And you know what? Maybe some of us has let the others down on both sides. But we're trying. We're looking forward. We're coming together tomorrow night for a Transgender Panel at SlutWalk (I'm going to see many of the same people at both events). There is respect, there is concern, and there is hopefully increased understanding and compassion for each other.

So when I see all this SELFISH FOOLISH BICKERING all over my Tumblr and my internets, I am hurt. I am drained of my optimism and hope. Yes, things may need to be said, and people may need to learn lessons. But when it fucking goes to 11 and stays that way for as long as this has, it's time to get a fucking grip and either BECOME THE SOLUTION OR SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Defending Sexism at The Reason Rally (or, Who's Exempt from Skeptical Inquiry?)

Reasons for God (RfG) has issued a response to the Friendly Atheist's post which is a response to various complaints about various speakers at the Reason Rally. RfG says "Mehta’s argument is that the documented sexism of some of the biggest speakers [Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette, Bill Maher] is just not a big deal! ... Therefore, it is still worth having them speak because 'we need big-name celebrities to attend.'"

I have heard the argument that big-name speakers deserve to push out other speakers.  To me, that reeks of appeals to authority, and it's also a pretty effective "shut up, that's why" tactic.  (RfG claims that the Westboro Baptist Church was also officially invited to attend.  Frankly, that point is moot, since there's no way they wouldn't have planned to attend in any case.)

At this point, RfG takes the time to point out that anyone can be sexist (true) and that atheists attempt not to be sexist, in general (also true). They seem to imply that sexism is caused by atheism and sexism is in spite of Christianity. Ha!

Anyway, on to the main show.

Point #1: Is it true that Bill Maher, Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins have all made blatantly sexist comments?

In short, yes.

Moving on...

Point #2: Are these comments representative of a broader problem with the atheist movement?

Yes, but this is where the answer isn't a simple Google search away. Let's zoom out past the atheist movement. Let's even bypass Christian culture. Let's zoom out to any level of society, really, even the entire world. What do you see? Gender inequality to varying degrees, with very few exceptions. That means we should apply that skepticism we so often apply to religion needs to be turned onto ourselves when someone makes the claim that we've somehow uniquely (seemingly from magic) achieved a community free from sexism.

Point #3: So what does it say about The Reason Rally that an organizer of the event is arguing that a higher standard—such as “no sexism”—should not disqualify speakers?

These "questions as points" are getting irritating.

Anyway, RfG writes what sounds like an excellent intro to this issue, but then places it at the end of their post with an air of finality, as though we can dust off our hands and walk away from this issue.  The reason is, they don't really care about the success of the atheist movement, they're just looking for their "CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS" moments.

Screw them, here's where we get down to the heart of the matter:

Actual Point: Nobody is exempt from having the skeptical toolkit applied to their issues.

Nobody. Even when we're trying to get a huge group of people from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences together.  And you know what really says "lulz, I get an exemption, u mad bro?"

If we got rid of every speaker who held an irrational belief, there would be no one left on that stage.
So deal with it.

Oh okay!

No wait, no. I don't have to "deal" with it, I can talk about it and anyone else can talk about it and even RfG can talk about it, because it's there and it's not exempt. Maybe you're worn out.  Maybe you have listened to a thousand complaints and need to turn off your email so that you can get some work done before you address complaint number one-thousand one.  Everyone has their limits.  But atheists are as entitled to talk about atheism as atheist leaders are.

After all, this rally is about us. We're the ones the politicians need to represent and the media needs to understand.  We will not travel across the nation to be told that our experiences should once again be second-class status and that our voices should fall into the background.  We will not exempt anyone from skeptical inquiry.

So yes, the rally is going to bring a whole lot of differences together in ways previously unseen.  But it is our right to expect more from each other, from our leaders, and from our future.  We will not be silent.  We are atheism.

On trans women holding “residual male privilege”.

“Asking or expecting individual trans women or all trans women as a group to agree to participate in discrimination against themselves (or agree that what they experience as discrimination actually isn’t), is not a reasonable request, and one which can never in practice be satisfied.”
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/06/reconsidering-women-born-women-space/

This is an issue shared by all gender minorities, and all minorities really. I can’t count how many times I’ve been asked, as a uterus-bearer, to agree with some dude that women really hold all the power because women give birth. Or been expected as a white person to agree that affirmative action gives people of color an unfair advantage (as opposed to, you know, having been born with white skin). Or been told if I’d only “act straight” then I’d be deserving of rights.

So I look around me and I see that cis men rule the world (or men who are assumed to be cis, anyway). And then trans women (or even all trans people) are asked to agree that they really hold power over cis women, or that they want a special unfair advantage, or that they need to “act cis”.

This is complete BS. I refuse to appease privilege. I have a personal zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. I will never say “gee, you have a point, trans women do act mannish”, the very insult so commonly hurled at cis lesbians and cis feminists to silence them.

Why do so many feminists seem to be anti-sex?

A curious mind asks:
Hello again. I have been dealing with an issue that I believe is rooted in religious morality. The issue is of being sex-positive.
Within some feminist circles, I sense reluctance if not outright disapproval about women who are proud of and enjoy their sexuality. To be honest, it feels as that if a woman were to really enjoy her sexual nature and beauty then she’s a traitor to feminism.
I resent that to the extreme. I don’t want to point out that men get to fully enjoy that aspect about themselves without any apology. I understand objectification and commodification of women, truly I do; however, I’ve seen some ultra-feminists shy away from sex-positive females if not outright condemn them.
I know I’m new to this group so I’d like to get a sense of what you all think…

It’s a very complicated issue.  First, feminists enjoy sex at the same rate as the population at large.  There are lesbians, straights, bisexuals, asexuals, all types.  They even use birth control and sometimes even make jokes about how they must be sluts as a result.  The fact that women are shamed for liking sex where men are shamed for not liking sex (and apparently all other genders are invisible) is sexism.  Feminism is against harmful gender-based double standards like that.

However, just because someone likes doing something doesn’t mean it’s good for gender equality as a whole.  Take for example the issue of posting nude photos of yourself online as a political act.  In Egypt, that can be quite a revolutionary statement against the male ownership of women’s bodies.  In the USA, if you think you’re being revolutionary, you’re a joke - we have no shortage of nude women and we never will.  Context.*  I mean, knock yourself out, there’s no shame in being proud of your body, but don’t assign political meaning to an act where there is none.

Which leads me to another thing that many feminists are critical of: the idea of sexual “empowerment”.  I have observed that there is a tendency to equate “empowering women” with “getting women to feel like pandering to the male gaze is something women do for each other and not for men”.  Protip: it’s called the male gaze for a reason.  And the reason it’s so frustrating (infuriating, even) is that there’s a decided lack of balance in society to celebrate other women’s choices to dress in sloppy clothes or swear off makeup or to (gasp!) dress in butch styles as “empowering women”.  Apparently it’s only worth celebrating if the hetero man-penis approves.

I’m sex-positive.  But it is so disappointing how many sex-positive blogs I read that embrace the above biases.  They claim to be about embracing the whole sexual person, but then they only focus on stories that pander to the male gaze.  Queer bodies aren’t represented.  Asexual experiences aren’t represented.  Monogamous couples barely get any notice except for those who practice extreme forms of BDSM.  Again, this isn’t all of them.  (I’d like to take the opporunity to encourage everyone to visit sexstl.org as an example of a group I admire.)  But when feminists see people take the patriarchy, wrap it in a pretty ribbon, and then try to sell it as sex-positivity, we feel cheated by the continual wasted opportunities for real progress.

*Someone has correctly pointed out that, even within the USA, certain bodies can be revolutionary that are traditionally marginalized by our society.

Creating a More Inclusive Humanism in an Ableist World

Warning: ableist slurs.

Humanists generally claim to support creating an inclusive space where people of every background can feel welcome. For example, a web search for “diversity in atheism” returns posts from Daylight Atheism, American Atheists, and Friendly Atheist, among others, all about how to open up atheism to a more diverse crowd. Women, blacks, parents, the poor – these people are traditionally left out of atheist conversations, and there’s a much-needed movement to include them. But one crucial area is still overlooked to an alarming degree: disability.

Unfortunately, the message many of us are sending out (even if unintentionally) is: if your mind or body is configured differently than mine, you’re not welcome here. Which is a shame, because I know many people with autism, hearing impairments, PTSD, reduced mobility, schizophrenia, etc, some of them as good friends and terrific contributors to the community.  Here are a few comments I’ve read recently in atheist spaces.  I’m not interested in mud-slinging, so I’m not linking to the sources, though Google probably renders my caution irrelevant:

• “You are so literal as to be autistic. Are you really that stupid?”
• “PETA is creating the next wave of young adults with scary personality disorders.”
• “Cannibalism is the same as eating a hot dog?  I’ve heard better analogies from people with Down Syndrome.”
• “Instead of writing a new generation of software to circumvent our filters, maybe they should recruit social misfits with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and write software that amplifies their efforts.”
• “I realize that this man-child is a ward of the state. Too “young in the mind” to hold a job or live on his own without assistance. This simple minded man is alone. He is most definitely frustrated. And I feel like in a way, we are one.”
• “[Insert countless remarks equating religion with mental disability/insanity.]“

We as humanists have the opportunity to show everyone that we can have superior ethics and morals without god or religion.  One way we can do this is to stick up for the dignity and rights of all people, regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ability, etc.  This includes people with disabilities, both physical and mental (which are really one and the same *glares at dualists*).  It is a basic humanist value that all people, including people with disabilities, deserve dignity and respect.  Not all people have the “standard model” brain, and a lot of those people are proud atheists and need the support of a freethinking community, so here are a few ways we can begin:

1. Recognize and discourage use of ableist slurs.  These include “retarded”, “lame”, “idiot”, “crip”, “insane”, etc.  Why?  Because these words still are being used as slurs against the disabled, and have not been “reclaimed” by the disabled, so they are not our words to use.  To use “idiot” [or any slur] as an insult is to say that this word can be used to degrade you, because being that identity is degrading. In the same way, a slew of all-too-familiar terms have been used to degrade people according to sexual orientation, gender and race.  And in case you’re wondering which words to use instead for biting criticisms, I like to go with “wrong”.  Or when I’m getting creative, “dangerously wrong” or “bogus” or “transparent” or any number of words which don’t equate an identity with an insult.

2. Understand that taking steps to include people with disabilities is good for everyone.  For example, if your local atheist group meets up in a room where the only entrance is up/down a flight of stairs, that is not accessible to everyone.  Anyone who has mobility impairments will have a very difficult time feeling included.  Meeting in a loud or crowded space can be difficult for those with hearing impairments or autism spectrum conditions.  Meeting at an expensive or out-of-the way location can also exclude people with disabilities on a limited income (as they are more likely to be unable to find and keep a high-paying job).  If we keep these things in mind, it improves meeting conditions for people without disabilities as well.  Realistically, we’re all going to experience a disability at some point in our lives, excepting the small chance of flat-out spontaneously dropping dead.

3. Be willing to stick your neck out for people with disabilities.  Trying to create change isn’t always easy or comfortable to everyone – if it were, people would already be doing it!  For example, I myself am not disabled and I don’t appear to be disabled.  This means I have the privilege to chose to ignore ableist actions in the world around me without being negatively affected by them.  But to me, humanism is about creating a better world for all of us, even if it involves more of a struggle to those of us with more resources.

Is this list complete?  By no means, but hopefully it is the beginning of a more open and honest look at the inner workings of our communities, both online and in meatspace.

Further reading:

http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/11/19/what-is-ableism-five-things-about-ableism-you-should-know/

http://www.stopableism.org/what.asp

http://www.disabilityisnatural.com/explore/pfl