It's not just about the restrooms but because you all keep making it about the restrooms we can talk about that...

Presented to Celebrate Diversity 2017 in Warsaw, Indiana.

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 at its contents, then up at me. “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.

There is a chance that any time you or your loved ones enters a public restroom, that they could be sharing it with a sex offender.  Child molesters, voyeurs/exhibitionists, date rapists - these are all people who buy the same groceries as us, eat at the same restaurants as us, and fill up at the same gas stations as us.  If you were the type to be concerned about safety in public restrooms, and believed that legislation were an effective tool to protect restroom patrons, what could you do about this situation?  If your proposed response is to outlaw transgender people, you just might be Indiana Republican state Senator Jim Tomes. Bear with me, I’m quoting him verbatim: “What about the other sector of society of people that who have all through the decades women been using women’s restrooms and men been using men’s restrooms and kind of like that and kind of expect that level of privacy?”

Don’t worry about people who are actually predators and convicted sex offenders; the real danger has been me all along!  Nevermind that if there really were an epidemic of cross-dressing voyeurs peeping under bathroom stalls, Fox News would be plastering their mug shots all over scare pieces in a never-ending parade of shame.  Meanwhile, the true stories of abuse and violence against transgender folks in public spaces get pushed to the back pages of the news.

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 will 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 some men gleefully plot for (or at least dream about) pushing themselves into women's restrooms in an attempt to get kicked out. Sometimes it’s cis men [“cisgender” means someone who is not transgender]. These cis men are attempting to “prove” that anyone can “fake” being trans simply by throwing on a dress. Sometimes it’s trans men posting selfies, and then "surprise! I have a vagina!" It's supposed to “prove” that they don't belong in women’s restrooms because they "look like a man". The problem is that all of this harms women. Many trans women are suspected of “faking” their genders and that's why these laws are being passed in the first place. They are enforced by targeting women who “look like men”, which hurts all women, trans and cis alike. Plus, at its most basic this trend an example of cis and trans men forcing their way past women’s stated boundaries in an attempt to intimidate them to get their own way. What if masculinity were used for justice instead of violence?

In many states, there has never been a law explicitly against using the "wrong" restroom.  So why after over 100 years of trans people in multi-user public restrooms - yes, we've always been using them, even if you didn't notice - why now do we suddenly have this deep and urgent need for laws to segregate and outlaw us?  Honestly, it's for the money.  This is a great way to scare people into donating money to the political campaign or advocacy organization of their choice.  I'm including pro-LGBT orgs here: many of them use fear tactics to profit from our situation too.

Even if laws were passed explicitly to protect people like me, we still wouldn't be safe.  Laws can only provide recourse against harms already caused, for those of us who can even afford legal action, but they don’t change the hearts and minds of those who act against us.  The fact is, we cannot be safe in a society that demands segregation.  I mean that in the fullest sense.  We cannot be safe in a society that demands “separate yet equal” restrooms.

Racial segregation dates back to 1849; the first separate gendered restroom ordinances came 40 years later, in 1887.  When you dig into the arguments presented when proposing these gendered restrictions over the past century, you will find that it wasn’t about protecting women from men, it especially wasn’t about protecting black women from white men, it was always about protecting white women from black men by demonizing blackness. Segregated restrooms have always been racist as well as sexist, and as such will always be unsafe.

I again want to make it very clear that the root of the violence against my people isn’t the laws, it’s the prevailing mentality of a society that accepts a certain order of things as “normal”, and anyone who deviates is deemed in need of correction. In a society where all genders were valid and deserving of equal recognition and protection, it would be unthinkable to demand some of us to hide ourselves while others flaunt your “normal” genders every chance you get. You accept gender segregation because you don’t see us as real people.

For example: a friend of mine on Facebook recently posted that she defended the right of trans women to use the women’s restroom alongside herself, but she wanted to ask all trans women to please place the seat down after they were finished. Several of her friends chimed in their complaints in the comments. I think they thought they were being cute, but the message was clear: normal women keep the seat down, fake women leave it up. It never occurred to them that if a trans woman leaves the seat up, then leaving the seat up is a normal way for women to use the toilet, because trans women are women, not objects for your scrutiny.

Separating us out as not normal, not like you, not fully people leaves us vulnerable even in places that aren’t segregated by gender, even in places designated specifically for us. Stonewall Inn, site of the Stonewall Riots of 1969, is famed as the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. In March of last year, a transgender woman went into the single-user restroom of Stonewall Inn, and video surveillance shows a man following her in there, where he then attacked and raped her. There are no safe spaces for people who are deemed less than human.

Two years ago, I spent the weekend traveling the beautiful Ozarks of Missouri with my child and my transgender wife. We stopped at a gas station to fill up, and we needed a bathroom break. It was a tiny place with a single-user restroom on the exterior of the building, so we sat on the nearby bench to wait our turn. The man standing next in line before us refused to budge. Soon he was joined by another man, forming a barricade. A woman came out and begged him not to start anything, to just let us go. We quickly realized they were targeting us, refusing to let us access the single-user restroom, willing to escalate to violence if necessary. They didn’t see a family with a child. They didn’t see people. They just saw some deviants with fake genders. We will never be safe until we are real.

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.

On the Meaning of Cis

Eminism has a post up about further clarifying the meaning of the word "cis".  It highlights an increasing problem in some feminisms lately, where cis women (who have always identified as female and who were designated female at birth) are rejecting the "cis" identity, because the gender roles assigned to women in our society are oppressive and they cannot relate to those roles.  And yet... there are trans women who feel exactly the same way about women's gender roles in our society.  And they are still women.  I agree that most gender roles are oppressive, and I am perfectly fine with people rejecting any and every role to their hearts' desires.

But this post isn't about Some Feminists™.  Quite frankly, most feminists accept the reality of cis privilege, and the few who don't are being confronted regularly enough that I'm not motivated to continue that battle in this particular post.  I am, however, concerned with Eminism's insistence that people whose experiences aren't "trans enough" - defined by her as "someone who does not suffer from (or must manage possibility of suffering from) transphobia on a regular basis" - must accept their ascribed identity as cis.  Taking thie counter-scenario to its extreme: what if literally everyone who claimed not to be cis was actually not cis? I don't care what they base their claim on. Maybe they're a butch-identified lesbian, maybe they're a gender abolitionist, maybe whatever. What portion of the population would all the non-cis people be? TINY. Cis privilege would still exist for that huge portion of the population that is most definitely cis, within a society that systematically delegitimatizes non-cis people's genders.

This is why I am not the gender police. While I do agree that some cis-but-not feminists are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and that the harm they are causing is as real as the cis privilege they are denying, I have exactly zero interest in spending my energy trying to slap a cis label on anyone I personally don't feel experiences "enough" trans discrimination. There are too many innocent bystanders who will get caught up in the casualties.  It also places the focus yet again on cis people's experiences, instead of centering the dialog around genderqueer and trans experiences.

It is difficult occupying the grey areas between cis and trans... As with a friend I know who is a very-light-skinned black person, and another who has an invisible disability, I am a genderqueer person who often "passes" for cis in society. Often times we have to say things like "no, I'm actually black" or "no, I'm actually in a lot of pain right now and need to sit down" and "no, I'm actually genderqueer" in order to trigger our swift decent from privilege. Other times, we risk being socially ostracized for living out our authentic selves without even saying a word, as we let the accusations come forth that we're doing white wrong, or doing ability wrong, or doing woman wrong.

Yes, I can hear you protest "but actual white and able-bodied and woman persons are policed too!"  Funny thing though: as soon as I came out as a not-a-woman genderqueer person, the tune society was singing changed from "you need to do X to be a woman" to "even if you don't do X, you're still a woman".  This is cis privilege: knowing that no matter how much the kyriarchy threatens to revoke your Woman Card, they will never actually do it; the moment you try to take them up on that offer, they'll drag you kicking and screaming right back into Womanhood.

If I got to define "cis" and "trans", here's what I would say (with a huge disclaimer that I'm not the Word-Defining Authority who represents all feminism):

• Cis people are the people whose genders are accepted on the whole by our society, and who are allowed to live day-to-day as their own gender without additional hurdles of "proof" required to validate their gender before gaining access to gendered resources.
• Trans people are the people who are told on a regular basis that cis people know what their "actual" gender is better than the trans people themselves, and who have to gather additional "proof" for cis gatekeepers before gaining access to those same gendered resources cis people take for granted.

Does this mean a butch lesbian who was designated female at birth [I keep using this example because the original article did] occasionally has trans experiences, such as people attempting to kick her out of a women's restroom for looking like a man? Yeppers! That does not necessarily mean her identity is trans, mind you - if she says she's a woman, she's a woman. But ultimately, anyone who dares transgress gender norms will be thrown from grace, and that deserves compassion and understanding beyond "but you do realize you're cis, right?"

So as a genderqueer person, I still do periodically ask myself am I cis? am I trans? I experience both. But ultimately, they become something else entirely in the long run: a constant reminder that I can never be a boring ol' regular person so long as systematic inequality exists in our society.

tl;dr - Binaries don't work.

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 12: Ruena

Humanizing Genderqueer: Lived experiences of non-binary people.

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 have only felt the most comfortable dressed as a woman at night. I feel safer, more under cover. Really, being femme is the only time I am really comfortable and happy with myself.

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

For 25 years I believed that transitioning was not an option for me because of how transgender people are portrayed in the media and my own desire to be well seemed in conflict. Since opening up to it, I have found being transgender and my wellness go hand in hand. The circumstances around my being able to be me were like night and day. More awareness would have helped me greatly.

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

I think more positive stories should be shared. Being transgender shouldn't be viewed with such stigma and the way to do this is awareness and education.

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

Ruena, 33, female, San Diego, CA, Caucasian/Dutch

Survey responses shared with permission.

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.)

Musings: It's not me, it's them.

It seems like the gender binary is oftentimes not even between man/woman but rather between man/not-man. "But you're not a man!" Yeah, no shit.

Another thing that gives me whiplash is that my entire life was people telling me how to be the right kind of girl. Dress this way! Act this way! Finally I threw the whole thing off, thinking that since I'm *not* doing those things I'd immediately get ushered into the not-girl category, like had been threatened me my whole life. NOPE. Suddenly everyone's a "feminist". [I purposely place in "scare quotes".] Girls can do X too! X being anything I happen to be doing at the time.

There's no winning when playing by everyone else's rules, because their rules are rigged in their favor. Always. The single greatest eye-opener for me was when I was not binding, just wearing plainclothes (somewhat gender-neutral) and I was ushered by a helpful lady into the men's room. There are plenty of times when that doesn't happen even when I'm presenting masculine-to-the-max. It suddenly clicked, not just in my brain, but in the core of my beliefs, a very liberating realization:

It's not me. It's them.*

I don't have to feel like it's something I've said or done. I don't have to feel insecure. I don't have to question what I'm wearing or how I'm acting. I'm going to do what makes me comfortable in my own skin, or even (gasp!) most fun at that moment. If they don't get it, I'll smile and pat them on the head and tell them that one day they'll learn.

*with the problem, that is

Not My Nigel

My Nigel* "gets it" more often than not. And I'm not saying everyone should give him cookies simply for being a decent human being, though of course I like to celebrate my partner's positive qualities because I love and respect him. But it seems like so many of my genderqueer and woman friends online and in meatspace are partnered with dudes that just don't "get it" at certain times when it seems like the situation is self-evidently hostile to gender equality. I want to be like "hey, this isn't rocket surgery, my Nigel gets it, what's this asshole's excuse?" but then that sounds so "my boyfriend can beat up your boyfriend."

I guess what I'm saying is that anti-feminist attitudes in men aren't some sort of force of nature, like "in today's forecast, we have a high of male supremacy with a chance of scattered sexist jokes." Some of us don't face that crap on the home front on a regular basis - my lived experience is proof of concept that this is not only possible, but to be expected, even demanded of men in our** lives. Anti-feminist male attitudes are the result of willful ignorance or gross negligence at best. They're not something that the gender minorities in our lives should be expected to brace themselves for on a regular basis, hoping the sexism washes over them with minimal damage, because "boys will be boys" and ze wouldn't want to hurt his feelings, now would ze?

*that's feminist lingo for a male partner, friend, or family member
**I in no way want to imply that the responsibility is on gender minorities to police men's behavior.

Men and Women Can't Be "Just Friends": Scientific American

And here we have a prime example of the deep psychological damage that can be caused by cisheterosexuality. They claim to be "born this way" and that it's "natural", but the true cost of their lifestyle choices lies in their inability to function optimally in normal intergender friendships. Having identified with a sexuality as their primary identity, they are unable to keep their obsessive thoughts from perverting their daily social interactions, and misguidedly seek relief by segregating into sociopathic same-gender-only subcultures. Let us be on our guard against this insidious Straight Agenda.

/satire

Dear Girl who One Direction thinks is beautiful:

It's okay to behave in a manner you find comfortable.
It's okay to place your sense of self-worth in something other than your appearance.
It's okay to place your sense of self-worth in something other than what a boy thinks about your appearance.
You don't need to change your behavior to match a boy's expectations.
You don't need to be flattered when a boy writes a song all about how you should change your behavior to further please him.
You don't need to please anyone but yourself.

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.

The Crime of Being Female in Public

To some, it doesn’t matter what you do: once you are charged with being a female* in public, you can’t win.  Take this article and the following comments about Angelina Jolie and two of her children going to the movies - let’s see how the kyriarchy responds to that seemingly innocent act:

• Treating motherhood as a public spectacle.
• Putting a young girl’s body up for public vote.
• Expecting females at all ages to express the proper amount of femininity (while playing a shell game with that that actually looks like) and either:

1.  Pitying one for not expressing enough femininity, or
2. Shaming one for expressing too much femininity.

And the fact that people can find these things “cute” is a symptom of how sick society really is.

*This post seeks to analyze the way the public treats those who are presumed female girls, and makes no speculation as to the actual gender identity of these children

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.

SLUT

This word is getting quite a workout in recent times.  Between the Limbaughs who use it as a way to dehumanize and the Slutwalkers who use it as a way to rage against rape culture, the word “slut” is getting pulled in any and every direction with everyone trying to put it to use for their own personal agenda.

Some women are trying to grab a hold of the word “slut” and claim it as a badge of honor.  It’s unfair how there isn’t a word for “women who love sex” that isn’t a horrible insult, unlike how words for “men who love sex” are all compliments.  And from a certain perspective, women who love sex are the ones most entitled to use that word in any way they like.

The only problem is, conservadouchebags are the ones who continue to hold power in society.  They’re also the ones who continue to decide that words like “slut” and “whore” are insults, and they’re the ones who have the power to use those words to harm women.  Can women fight back and make “slut” an acceptable identity, much the way queers have with that word?

Perhaps.  But as long as the word continues to cause harm, everyone needs to take a good look at why they feel the need to use it.  ”Am I using this word for myself with pride?  Or am I using it against someone else without their consent?”  Until we succeed in our all-out takeover of society by flaming atheist liberal feminists (and why stop even then?), we can’t let our starry-eyed vision of a better tomorrow cloud our ability to see the realities of today.