"Coming Out" as an Ally

Much has been written about what the responsibilities of allies are,¹ and how calling oneself an ally doesn't preclude one from participating in the same oppression as openly bigoted persons.²  In fact, many people discourage themselves and others from using "ally" as a self-appointed label at all.³

GLAAD recently came up with a campaign that we can use as a case study.  They have since changed the wording to remove the problematic language we are responding to, but the Google search results still show the original text.

[Screencapture of Google search results. The page title reads "Come out as an LGBT Ally. Take the pledge" and the page preview reads "[A] is for Ally. Broadening acceptance of LGBT Americans requires the help of allies".]

This is a prime example of appropriation⁴ of trans/queer culture.  I am not asexual, so I encourage you to learn more from the ace community themselves on why the A should stand for "asexual".⁵  Even if you find that inclusion debatable (and I most certainly do not), this case still highlights the problems with trying to include "ally" under the alphabet soup of queer/trans identity.

Ember Assington outlined an incomplete list of reasons why, in the GenderQueer Atheists group on Facebook:

1. Queer people don't need to be saved by cis-het people, they need to be liberated from the oppression imposed by cis-het people.

2. Allies are necessarily coming from a position of privilege, so there's nothing for them to be in the closet about. They are not being oppressed, so there's nothing for them to "come out" about.

3. Calling yourself an "ally" is meaningless. There are plenty of people who declare themselves allies, and then go on to say horrible, bigoted things.

4. "Ally" shouldn't be an identity; it should be a collection of actions that support and raise up oppressed people by centering those people and their liberation rather than speaking for them.

5. Talking about "coming out" as not-a-bigot seems to imply that bigotry is a default position, and simply not being a complete shitbag is worthy of praise, rather than just being what we should expect of all people.

One additional reason I'm so opposed to allies appropriating a letter within LGBTQIA⁶ and the narrative of "coming out", is that once they take this and make it theirs, our own use of those things have lost their significance as descriptors of our own unique experiences navigating cis/straight structures of power as trans/queer people.  What is the significance of explicit Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Questioning⁷ Intersex Asexual solidarity, when our community must now be centered around straight/cis (ally) experience as well?  How can "coming out" be an act of resistance against structural cis/straight oppression, when straight/cis (allies) are "coming out" as cis/straight allies?

It really shouldn't need to be said, but this isn't an anti-ally position.  This isn't something that alienates straight/cis persons who make active efforts to enable queer/trans liberation.

Footnotes:

1. Racism 102: Ally, Step-by-Step

2. 10 Ways That White Feminist and White Anti-Racism Allies Are Abusive To Me In Social Media

3. Why I Don’t Like Calling Myself an “Activist” or “Ally”

4. It should be pointed out, GLAAD themselves are not the ones doing the appropriation of "coming out", but rather enabling cis/straight persons to do so.  Cultural Appreciation or Cultural Appropriation?

5. ASEXUALITY and LGBT: THE CASE FOR INCLUSION [pdf]

6. As to whether the alphabet soup itself should be perpetuated, that is a whole larger conversation.

7. I identify my sexual orientation as "questioning", so this is not limited to people who are seeking to resolve their questions with an eventual "coming out" as something else.

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 9: CRJ

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.

When someone asked me what pronoun I prefer in an offline context. It has happened only once. But it meant the world to me.

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

I pretty much have to present as a cisman for fear of economic retribution and fear of social isolation. I struggle daily with this, and one day it might be a day too far and I might forgo my fears.

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

One of the most fundamental changes is to accept that gender is a spectrum and not a binary, and to promote this view. This goes beyond pronouns - it is about transforming the outlook towards gender in general. At a more direct level, support for legal and/or institutional measures that mitigate or even eliminate binary requirements on gender - everything from forms that only accept two responses for gender, to bathrooms rights.

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

crj, 35, gq, nyc, pr

Survey results shared with permission.

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.)

Community Support and the Realities of Trans Suicide

Just read a kind letter from someone checking up on me, making sure I'm okay, since I haven't been online all that much recently. I am - life is good! But I want to thank each and every one of you who has ever reached out to another person with care and concern. It may not seem like a very significant thing to do, but each kind word adds up. Part of my personal growth as a humanist has involved considering how my actions exist in context of the lives of those around me.

I recently attended a safe space discussion on the impact of suicide on a local community. One of the principles I like to borrow from UU philosophy is the respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. Human beings are not islands. We have neither the right to demand of others nor often the luxury to demand of ourselves to operate in isolation.

Every act of compassion is a radical act of humanism in a society that glorifies hyper-individuality. Similarly, admitting one's own interdependence on those around us is not an admission of personal weakness or failure, but a radical act of self-care. The commitment I see in those around me to affirming these principles in their actions is something that warms my little humanist heart.

I've been sharing my thoughts with various communities, because I feel it's important to periodically recognize the goodness I see in those around me. One thing I want to add in here is that the sad fact of being a gender minority is the presence of suicidal ideation. Or to put it another way, I don't know a trans person who didn't have suicidal thoughts as a part of their personal story. Statistically, 41% of us have attempted suicide, and we all have found ourselves in situations where outside support seems thin or nonexistent.

I want to reaffirm to all of you that needing support is normal and healthy. That suicidal thoughts in the absence of support, in a society that hates us, are neither unusual nor a personal moral failing. The world would be a much dimmer place if a single one of your lights were to be snuffed out, because I see you, and you all are amazing people. I hope that as we stumble through life together, we can continue to create a culture of compassion that allows us each to be fully and unapologetically human.

Musings: Explaining Away the Trans

Hopefully this is at all inspiring to someone out there. But it probably is the opposite of help for someone else, so do feel free to completely ignore anything I have to say.

There are all sorts of hypotheses to explain away trans existence. "What if genderqueer people are just compensating for hating all gender roles!" "What if trans men are reacting to internalized misogyny?" "What if trans women are fetishizing women's bodies!" ...SO? No really, who gives a flying fuck if this or any other reason explains trans existence? If we truly believe that all genders are equally valid and deserve equal rights, we don't get to police why anyone would want to be a gender. It's OKAY to want to be a woman for any reason at all. It's OKAY to want to be genderqueer for any reason at all. It's OKAY to want to be a man for any reason at all. Unless we think there's something wrong with being a woman, or being genderqueer, or being a man, or being any flipping gender or none at all.

I've seen trans men turn around and be the biggest shitheads I've ever met, rolling in male privilege. And that still has nothing to do with that they're legitimately a man, because it's the Patriarchy that's fucked up, not being a man that's fucked up. I've seen trans lesbians be absolutely in love with their bodies and getting to experience female sexuality on themselves and with other people and do sex work flaunting their hot sexy selves. And that still has nothing to do with that they're legitimately a woman, because it's the Patriarchy that's fucked up, not thriving within one's womanly sexuality. And guess how few shits I give if some genderqueer or agender people think they're special snowflakes that just want everyone to give them shiny star stickers for showing up.

Cuz you know what? After we smash the Kyriarchy, being gender-unique won't be rare or outstanding at all. It will be part of the richness of humanity. And it already is - we already are legitimate people, and we already are getting a voice, and we already are seeing a world in which gender roles are being stretched ever wider every day. And if someone doesn't get that? If someone ever thinks that we're going away or can be explained away? We've already outgrown them.

The single greatest inspirational quote for me (and I hate inspirational quotes most of the time) is when Kate Bornstein said the secret to her living a genderfree life is that "you look for where gender is, and then you go someplace else." And I didn't realize the impact it had at the time, this being several years ago. At first I was like How, Mama Bornstein, how could I ever accomplish such a thing? And I can't, not 100%, not perfectly.

But after a while, I realized that I'm not aiming for perfection - I don't want perfection, because I don't want to live a life without gender, I want to live a life with all the genders. I look forward to each and every moment when I get to live as woman, man, gender-confusing, androgynous, gender-fucking, nerdy, genderqueer me at any time and every time and no time. Obviously it still sucks when someone tells me I "have" to be any one of those things! But when I get to be? Phenomenal.

Because this is my life. I have 50 more years of this ahead of me (based on my grandparents' longevity). I don't have a choice - I have to make peace with myself and my approach to life, or I don't get to live.

"I'm just not attracted to X"

I've noticed quite a lot of "I'm just not attracted to X" in my years, where X happens to be a member of society that is explicitly propped up as "revolting" by the media and the general public. X includes trans people, black people, fat people, etc. "I'm not racist, I just can't" I've heard. And you know what? I'm not debating whether someone "can", or whether someone "should", as if anyone has an obligation to prove their possibilities by forcing them into realities.

But I do expect people to be mature enough to know when they've been instructed "thou shalt not" from birth, that they're not experiencing a unique unbiased independent pure natural totally-has-nothing-to-do-with-society attraction. Not in a society that has been flooding their minds from birth with these anti-X messages. I also expect people to understand that, even if it feels like their sexuality is operating outside of society, that their own messages which contribute to the "X is revolting", even if not explicitly saying as much, are going to be added to that arsenal by society as a weapon against the next X person.

So again: I don't expect anyone to run off and force themselves into sexual experiments or whatnot. That's not what this is about. This is about being willing to introspectively critique one's own place in society, and how deep that external influence can actually go.

Edit to Add:

What I say: “Personal preferences don’t exist in a vacuum.”

What people read: “Personal preferences don’t exist.”

Sigh...

The Problem with Armchair Diagnosing Mental Illness

http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/verbalabuseinrelationships/2013/03/narcissistic-sociopathic-or-plain-abusive/

I have occasionally run into people who are preoccupied with narcissism/sociopathy. They insist that they can spot the tell-tale signs a mile away, and that the only acceptable response is to turn the diagnosed into a pariah.

I have several problems with this. For one, it reinforces the concept of sane privilege, which sets people who struggle with mental health as inferior to those with a mental health status accepted by society as "normal". It also introduces the idea that laypersons should be armchair diagnosing other members of society with mental illness, under the guise of self-preservation. Perhaps there could be a point on the side of such people if mental illness actually were associated with increased rates of abusive behavior, but the facts simply don't support such an assertion.

The end result of this sort of false correlation is a mental illness stigma on those who would seek help. This not only discourages people from getting help who need it, lest they be labeled as a dangerous person; it also diverts mental health resources away from those who don't fit our stereotypes of someone who needs help, when "needs help" is actually code for "is dangerous".

Bisexuals and Straight Privilege

Edit: I disagree with much of this now, but I am not deleting it in the interest of honesty.  I recognize now that bisexual (cis) women experience higher rates of violence  and abuse than any other cis queer demographic, and that for trans bisexuals (especially black trans people) it's even worse.  Materially, "looking straight" has proven to offer no protection.

As someone who used to see myself as cis bisexual (before I was comfortable with accepting my trans status), I can definitely relate to #1 and #2 in this post. I gained a lot of privilege when I was with a man that I lost when I was with a woman.

Having been on both sides of the fence, and even on top of it from time to time, I can say that #3 is really missing the point of what "privilege" means. I wish privilege were a feeling! Unfortunately, privilege is an systematic advantage gained by having a status ascribed to oneself.

If people think I'm cis, and they see me with my partner, they will treat us like we're straight. It will not feel comfortable, and in fact will feel very degendering, but that doesn't change the fact that even wrongly-ascribed privilege is still privilege.

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.

What is "Cisgender" Anyway?

Reaction to Breaking down the Cisystem.


“I’ve begun to wonder if anyone is cisgendered in the sense that they really do identified with their assigned gender role?” I think it’s self-selection sometimes that I hang out with a bunch of people who don’t really feel that they identify with their assigned gender role to any strong degree. But while most people respond to me telling them I’m genderqueer with “well I don’t really ‘feel’ my gender, am I GQ too?” (to which I say “I don’t know, are you?”), some respond with “but why can’t you just be proud to be a woman?”

Of course there are more than 2 reactions, but those are the most common, and it’s made me see just how being cis must feel. For some, it’s being so very comfortable in one’s own gender that they don’t even need to be aware of it. I never came close to feeling that way until I started living more authentically. It’s like when you have an itchy tag on your shirt you can’t wait to get rid of, and then when you do you quickly forget it was ever there.

For others, expressing their gender is a form of self-celebration. Love yourself! Express yourself! They tend to feel like the reason I don’t want to express the gender they think I am is because I don’t have “pride” or I’m somehow damaged by society. Again, when I did settle into a more authentic gender expression, I suddenly felt that same sense of self-celebration.

So in my experience, cis people are people who are more likely to have felt those things their entire lives, not just post-transition (or post-adjustment, or whatever you want to call it).

The Privilege of "Happy Cows"

The Ethicist Contest Winner: Give Thanks for Meat  For me, eating meat is ethical when one does three things. First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet and that all life (including us!) is really just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form. Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain and/or meat. And third, you give thanks.

Translation:

Good news! You can eat meat as long as you place yourself in a very particularly privileged position above the rest of the planet and ignore how most people won't ever have accesses to the same resources and choices that you do!

What, there's no way that we can find enough land to produce enough of this sort of ethical meat to feed the entire planet, and even less of a way to make it affordable? Oh, well you should have thought of that before you chose to be born as someone less privileged as myself.

Give thanks to me, for I am to be praised for finding a way to wrap my privilege-denial in self-aggrandizement!

McGoats says "Do you realize the privileged position one must be in, in order to be vegan?"

Oh yes, no doubt of that. It wasn't at all what I was responding to, but I agree with you. Getting to eat ethically in any way is a privilege, be it "happy cows" [aka expensive cows] or no cows [aka food considered too "specialty" for regular grocery marts]. Like yesterday, my friend had pizza, and I could either eat what he offered or go hungry. And back to the guy whose privilege-denial I was criticizing, I couldn't just eat only happy cow meat even if I wanted to, since that stuff is damn expensive.

My concern is that if the people who control the food production process were to somehow manage to overhaul the entire system and produce only low-impact sustainable ethical food, we simply won't have enough to feed the entire planet that way if we insist upon a high-animal-protein diet. I can see a future in which some people do eat some meat, but it would be at a greatly reduced rate of consumption than what is typical (at least in the USA where I am). And those of us who are able to sustain ourselves without meat are welcome to continue to do so.

People who insist that a more ethical food supply must come from the bottom-up are speaking from a place of privilege. The people at the bottom of society cannot bear the brunt of the blame for the less ethical choices we make, because more ethical choices do often come at too great a cost, precisely because ethics itself is not built into the system.

Does that mean my decisions are magically more ethical because the most ethical option was not available to me? Nope, I still acted less ethically. All it means is that I'm not to blame for my less-ethical non-choice. The sooner I accept that there are better options being denied me and the more I demand more ethical options (at less cost) available to myself and others like me, the sooner (hopefully) we can overhaul the entire system to make ethical decisions less privileged. But even still, it's not our fault if our demands fall on hardened hearts (those of us who are willing and able to take the time and effort out of our busy lives to make such demands).

But seriously, assholes like that "let's all just eat happy cows, yay!" bro aren't doing anything but helping privileged people like him feel better about themselves.

http://catandgirl.com/?p=1094

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 Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck (Trans Edition)

Listen to me read this here: http://youtu.be/kgIY0SsP1Xk

Inspired by: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html 

Despite cries of "die cis scum", I am not a cis-hater.

If I played by cissupremicists' rules, specifically the one that dictates it only takes one trans person doing one Mean or Duplicitous or Disrespectful or Unlawful or otherwise Bad Thing to justify hatred of all trans people, I would have plenty of justification for hating cis people, if I were inclined to do that sort of thing.

Most of the degendering comments I have heard have been in supposedly safe spaces.  I frequent feminist and atheist communities, many of which claim to love queer and trans people as a reaction against conservative Christian hate of the same.  I have heard that my genderqueer identity is an invention to blind myself to the realities of the kyriarchy, that trans women are just men trying to blackmail lesbians into having sex with them if they don't want to be called bigots, that trans people are oppressing cis people with our denialism of biological realities.

But I don't hate cis people because I play by different rules. In fact, there are cissies in this world whom I love quite a lot.

There are also individual cis people in this world I would say I probably hate, or something close, people who I hold in unfathomable contempt, but it is not because they are cis.

No, I don't hate cis people.

It would, however, be fair to say that I don't easily trust them.

My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the constant arguments and occasional threats of violence as regards to my gender. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with cis people—the casual cross-dressing joke, the use of the wrong pronoun, the dehumanization of the non-binary body, the accusations of overreaction, the requests that I be patient with them as they still "see me as a woman" so this is going to be very difficult for them.

There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("but you're really hot!"), and the presumption that I am, really, still eager to reinforce the way cis people have always thought about gender. "Surely, we're all in agreement that if I'm attracted to women, and I'm attracted to you, that means I get to relate to you as I do to other women." Always the subtle pressure to abandon my identity, as if I'll one day throw up my hands and laugh "you caught me, I was just doing it to feel different and special, when I'm really just female to the core!". I am exhorted to be patient and understanding, and if I hesitate, I'm just not being understanding, surely I can't expect cis people to understand. And so it goes.

There are the jokes about "my gender is now mongoose", about "traps", about "invented" pronouns, about "Ann Coulter is a man". They are told in my presence by members of supposedly safe spaces, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is specifically meant to put me into my place. I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of kyriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the people who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, "we're all on the same team, really."  I am meant to trust these words.

There are the occasions that people—intellectual people, clever people, engaged people—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Gender Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged people want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged people, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. "Why do you have to take this stuff so personally?" ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged people, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

There is the perplexity at my fury that my life experience is considered more biased and less relevant than the opinionated pronouncements of cis people who make a pastime of informal observation, like gender is an exotic locale which provides magnificent fodder for the amateur ethnographer. And there is the haughty dismissal of my assertion that being on the outside looking in doesn't make one more objective; it merely provides a different perspective.

There are the persistent, tiresome pronouncements of similitude between cis and trans/genderqueer experiences, the belligerent insistence that they don't "feel gender" either! that trans identities reinforce gender stereotypes! that anything done by one gender can be done by another! that they don't even mind when someone uses the wrong pronoun! and other equivalencies that conveniently and stupidly ignore institutional inequities that mean X rarely equals Y. And there are the long-suffering groans that meet any attempt to contextualize gender and refute the idea that such cis experiences, though prevalent they all may be, are not necessarily equal to trans* experiences.

There are the stereotypes—oh, the abundant stereotypes!—about trans people, not me, of course, but others, those trans women with their relentless shopping habits and their disgusting vanity and their inability to stop talking and their disinterest in Important Things and their trying to trap men and their false rape accusations and their being bitches sluts whores cunts… And I am expected to nod in agreement, and I am nudged and admonished to agree. I am expected to say these things are not true of me, but are true of trans women (am I seceding from the union?); I am expected to put my stamp of token approval on the stereotypes. "Yes, it's true. Between you and me, it's all true." That's what is wanted from me. Abdication of my principles and pride, in service to a kyriarchal system that will only use my collusion to further subjugate me. This is a thing that is asked of me by people who purport to care for me.

There is the unwillingness to listen, a ferociously stubborn not getting it on so many things, so many important things. And the dispassionate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm just being oversensitive.

And there is the denial about engaging in transmisogyny and binarism, even when it's evident, even when it's pointed out gently, softly, indulgently, carefully, with goodwill and the presumption that it was not intentional. There is the firm, fixed, unyielding denial—because it is better and easier to imply that I'm stupid or crazy, that I have imagined being insulted by someone about whom I care (just for the fun of it!), than it is to just admit a friggin' mistake. Rather I am implied to be a hysteric than to say, simply, I'm sorry.

Not every cis person does all of these things, or even most of them, and certainly not all the time. But it only takes one, randomly and occasionally to call me "she", like an unexpected punch in the nose, to send me staggering sideways, wondering what just happened.

Well. I certainly didn't see that coming…

These things, they are not the habits of deliberately, connivingly cruel people. They are, in fact, the habits of many of the people in this world I care for quite a lot.

All of whom have given me reason to mistrust them, to use my distrust as a self-protection mechanism, as an essential tool to get through every day, because I never know when I might next get knocked off-kilter with something that puts me in the position, once again, of choosing between my dignity and the serenity of our relationship.

Swallow being misgendered, or ruin the entire afternoon?

It can come out of nowhere, and usually does. Which leaves me mistrustful by both necessity and design. Not fearful; just resigned—and on my guard. More vulnerability than that allows for the possibility of wounds that do not heal. Wounds to our relationship, the sort of irreparable damage that leaves one unable to look in the eye someone that you loved once upon a time.

This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: cis people are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution.

A shitty bargain all around, really. But there it is.

There are cis people who will read this post and think, huffily, dismissively, that a person of color could write a post very much like this one about white people, about me. That's absolutely right. So could a lesbian, a gay man, an asexual. So could a poor or disabled or intersex person (which hardly makes a comprehensive list). I'm okay with that. I don't feel hated. I feel mistrusted—and I understand it; I respect it. It means, for me, I must be vigilant, must make myself trustworthy. Every day.

I hope those cis people will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the genderqueer and trans people in your lives are nothing like me.

Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day.

Just in case they're more like me than you think.

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

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.