#its part innate part choice. you too can be transgender !

[ispyspookymansion]

at least im transgender. at least when all else fails. im still transgender.

[khali-shabd]

Gender Theory

Readers, let us begin with a simple question- what is gender?

The Biological Theory Of Gender, and a majority of society, would say that gender is defined by biological sex, namely hormones and chromosomes. If you release estrogen and have XX chromosomes, you are female, and if you release testosterone and have XY chromosomes, you are male. However, this is an extremely flawed vision of gender for two reasons: one, that whatever proof of hormones altering gendered behaviour has been found only in lab rats1, which possibly will not exhibit the same extreme change in behaviour if the hormones were administered to them naturally in their own environment- and rats are not human- we have far too many differences as species for this study to be considered valid for homosapiens as well. And two, chromosomes are not strictly XX or XY- around 1 percent of the world population is intersex (and a similar percentage is redheaded, so its not inherently ‘anomalous’ or ‘unnatural’) , which means that they can have chromosomal variations such as XXY, X, XXXY etc, all of whom develop differently as compared to people with the traditional chromosome combinations. 

Further, there are far more things that define ‘biological sex’, namely:

chromosomes

gonads

sex hormones

internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus)

external genitalia.

Out of these, in humans, genitalia and internal reproductive anatomy can be changed without there being a significant change in gendered behavior. Sex hormones, when administered to bodies change secondary sex characteristics more than any sort of behavior; with the exception of testosterone increasing sex drive and sometimes increasing ‘ego’. Every single part of this definition of binary biological sex is challenged by the existence of intersex people, henceforth proving that sex is not binary and never has been, unfounding the existence of a sex-based gender binary in itself. Further, transgender individuals have a completely different gender identity as compared to their biological sex, and it has been scientifically proved that this is because their brains develop in the same way the brains of the children of the gender they identify with do. That essentially means that the brain of a transgender woman develops similarly to the brain of a cisgender woman, and the brain of a transgender man develops in the same way the brain of a cisgender man develops. All in all, there are far too many differences in the experience of biological sex to confine it to a binary, hence unfounding the theory that gender is based on biological sex.

Then how do we define gender?

There are a number of theories, but the most logical one at the moment would be Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity. Butler says that gender, as an abstract concept in itself, is nothing more than a performance. We ‘perform’ our gender by carrying out actions that we associate with it. They further say that this does not mean that it’s something we can stop altogether, rather something we’ve ingrained so deeply within us that it becomes a part of our identity, and it's the part of it we call gender identity. Gender, hence, is created by its own performance. Butler also implies that we do not base gender on sex, rather we define sex along the lines of established lines of binary gener, i.e. male and female- despite the fact that more than 10% of the population does not fall into this binary sex, and has some variation in their biological sex that does not ‘fit’ into either category. Gender in itself is so culturally constructed by western society that anyone who does not perform their assigned gender ‘correctly’ is punished- this applies to not only queer individuals but even men who do not ascribe to or criticise predefined ideals of masculinity. They are made social pariahs and excluded as outcasts, leaving them to find and create their own communities and safe spaces. This is shown in the way society ostracises queer-presenting individuals, makes fun of ‘soft’ men, and forcefully tries to ‘fix’ intersex children whose variations in biological sex cause no harm to them. I quote:

“Because there is neither an ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis. The tacit collective agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions is obscured by the credibility of its own production. The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one’s belief in its necessity and naturalness.”

One of the criticisms of Butler’s theories is that it does not seem to apply to transgender individuals, whose innate gender identity is not the one that they have been assigned to perform at birth; whose brains develop the same way that their cisgender counterparts’ brains do from birth. Butler themselves have responded to this, saying:

“I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that. No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support.”

Later on, Butler goes on to say that the main point of their theory is that identity is constructed, which means that it allows us to change how we view it as a concept. It leaves room for us to subvert gender roles, challenging the status quo on what it means to identify as someone of a particular gender, and re-structuring society such that we rally for change not along gender lines, rather on the basis of what’s right.

Further, if we combine the work of the psychologist Sigmund Freud with Butler’s theories, the latter does actually apply to transgender individuals. Freudian theory states that we internalize concepts of gender based on our parental figures at birth. That is, if you are born female, you begin to look towards the person who closest resembles your gender identity; which in this case would be your mother, to be your role model for your behavior as to how women are meant to act. Your mother would be your guide to how you perform your gender. If she crosses her legs, you cross your legs. If she dresses in a particular way, you would too, until you were exposed to the exterior world and allowed to develop your own sense of style. As such, you create your own gender identity within your mind, and perform that identity the way you have been taught to by your maternal figure. When you are transgender, you view yourself as innately as the gender you identify with, hence you base your gender identity off the parental figure of that particular gender. This means, if you are female to male trans, you would base your gender identity on your father, and accordingly perform your gender in that way.

Now the question arises: How do we create gender identity outside of gender roles? How do we identify anywhere on the gender spectrum while abandoning the performance that comes with that identity? Why is it important?

Well, the answer isn’t simple. For its importance, I allude, once again, to gender performativity theory- Butler even uses some evolutionary stances to support her views, saying that gender performance stems from gender roles which stem from the fundamental differences between the prominent male and female sex at the very beginning of evolution. Now that 'evolutionary' behaviors don't matter at this stage of societal, cultural, and psychological development, it renders gender roles and hence the performance of gender redundant. However, we still perpetuate these ideas regardless of their importance, or rather their lack of such. And in this process, we end up defining and segregating far too much on the basis of gender- from small things like friendships to even the feminist movement, which is majorly perpetuated and held up by people who identify as female. Other groups like men end up purposely excluding themselves from a movement that can benefit them as well(through deconstructing and eradicating ideas of toxic masculinity) just because of how strongly it is divided on the basis of gender lines. And as for how we create gender identity outside of gender roles; it takes a lot of work, at first, to unlearn all the biases you have internalized about what it means to be a certain gender. You have to actively work towards deconstructing what gender and gender identity means to you, and how much of it comes from societally misguided stances about the ‘role’ of a gender is. It may mean ridding yourselves of the school of thought that women belong in the kitchen and men belong in workplaces or even identifying and removing hidden biases such as those of toxic masculinity and/or toxic femininity. Lastly, it takes an understanding that often, gender expression is not the same as gender identity; and also that most gender expression is how people show how they feel the most comfortable viewing themselves. Once you’ve managed to deconstruct your biases, it’s just a matter of how you feel comfortable viewing and expressing yourself; and what label, among the myriad, you identify with the most. That would be your unique self-expression and identity.

[nomenculture]

Also see previous entries in this series: The confusion between sex and gender. [x] How not to prove the objective existence of gender. [x]

First, what is genderism? It can be used in the same sense as “sexism” and “racism.” And indeed that is how it’s mostly been used. But in this case I mean it in the colloquial sense of people who enforce gender roles. ...

The concept of genderism, as used in feminism, is usually defined as the belief that certain behavioral preferences are caused by a person’s sex, in general that one’s gender is the result of one’s sex, and therefore that gender is natural (and even desirable).

This stands in stark contrast to the view that gender is a social construct. It is also generally held as being the opposite of feminism, because feminists believe that being of the female sex does not constitute an obligation to take on a gender role which is constructed as inferior and subservient.

What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex?

If you are a Feminist (even a Liberal Feminist or a Fun Feminist), the answer to this should be “There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.”

There is a lot of nuances in definitions here, but they are not entirely necessary. For example, some include within genderism the belief that there are two genders. But the two genders are an artefact of culture; some culture have three genders or four genders, and really, the exact number is irrelevant: all that matters is that some are seen as superior and some are seen as inferior. Genderism would not magically disappear if we added another gender to the list.

So who are genderists exactly? There are two kinds. One is traditional genderism, which generally in the West holds that one’s gender was assigned by God or evolution through their sex. This covers the gamut from non-science (Bible fundamentalists) to pseudo-science (evolutionary psychology) to quasi-science (studies and papers written to “prove” genderism), as well as most conservatives and liberals.

Even if they vastly disagree on pretty much everything, the goal of all traditional genderists is to suppress feminism and restore “women’s place” in society in order to uphold the gender hierarchy. And these various factions have been quite successful; together they encompass so many approaches that one of them is bound to work.

The second kind is trans genderism (not to be confused with transgenderism). Trans theory states that when a male does not feel that ey is a man, or when a female does not feel that ey is a woman, this is a fundamental biological problem which must be rectified by chemical treatment and/or surgery. They believe in the link between sex and gender just as much; they simply add another layer, the “innate gender” which trumps one’s “assumed gender” and otherwise takes over its role.

Trans activists believe they are anti-genderism. This may be so, but the very definition of transgender implies a link between sex and gender:

Transgender (an umbrella term) (adj.)- for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self (“gender identity”) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with.

These are by far the most common definitions of transgender given by trans-friendly groups, and they clearly link sex and gender. If one is male, then one should feel like a man, and that if one is female, then one should feel like a woman. Gender rebels must be “helped” with chemical treatments and surgery so they can perform the proper gender.

In contrast, the traditional genderist position is that males are men and females are women, and gender rebels must be punished, not rehabilitated. The radfem position, on the other hand, is that we should live the way we want regardless of sex, that neither sex nor gender should limit us, and that gender-rebels deserve neither medical rehabilitation nor punishment.

From a radfem perspective, trans theory is extremely offensive in that it enforces gender roles while giving the illusion of choice. It ostensibly tells people that they can be whatever they want, but in practice they use one’s conformity or non-conformity to gender roles to assign them a label of “cis” or “trans.” And have created a new gender heirarchy between “cis” and “trans.”

Reducing “woman” to a checklist of characteristics that others have forced upon us is insulting. Feeling that you are a woman because you have a medically made hole in your body that does not act anything like our reproductive organ is insulting. Thinking that you can be a woman without experiencing the effects of being a woman in infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood is insulting. Womanhood is not putting on a frilly dress and being emotionally available. Womanhood is dealing with the fact that that is the expectation of us, which you just reinforce.

Cis/trans is a tyrannical, binary label which aims to erase all levels of gender rebellion. Everyone who is not genderist and who rebels against gender has no choice but to take refuge in the domain of queer and eschew the cis/trans binary completely (I know nothing of queer theory, so I will refrain from talking further about it). Given the fact that it reduces third genders from other cultures to a “trans” label that simply doesn’t apply, it is also a colonialist, some might even say white supremacist, concept.

I’m a bakla Filipina. To call me trans for being bakla is to entirely erase the cultural specificity of my identity and to enact a type of cultural imperialism, something I most certainly do reject. Yet in Asher’s binary construction of cis/trans I am considered trans, something that I am not. Either that or simply rendered invisible.

Please note that I am not accusing trans activists of being white supremacists. I know very well they are not. What I am saying is that some have called the cis/trans binary white supremacist from their own cultural perspective, and I completely understand that.

Gender rebellion is a consequence of the existence of gender itself. Once you set up these little prison cells where people have to conform to one or the other set of behaviors, there will be people whose personalities lead them to adopt an admixture of both, and who will rebel against the attempt to impose a set on them. Now we know for a fact that few people, if any, are totally gender conforming, but most people try to follow their role enough so they don’t stick out. Some people, by virtue of having a personality that is too divergent from these sets, cannot do so, and will naturally rebel.

If you research the subject outside of radfem blogs, the first thing you will find is that many people hate radical feminism with incredible passion and vitriol. The biggest part of this vitriol comes from trans activists and their allies, who accuse radfems of being transphobic and of propagating hatred.

The reason for this should not be hard to understand. Gender is an integral part of trans theory, and anyone who seeks to eliminate gender is undercutting trans theory at its very foundation. To deny gender is to deny the transgender identity. I don’t dispute that this is bigotry, but the bigotry is the result of a systemic analysis. An anarchist is right to be a bigot against policemen and soldiers, because their job is inherently one of repression, no matter how nice the individuals might be. An antitheist is right to be a bigot against priests, even if they are nice.

Anyone who identifies their job or their very well-being with hurting other people should rightly be hated, and gender hurts people on a massive global scale. Gender is the rationale for oppressing women, gender sustains the rape culture, gender is an excuse to beat down, imprison and kill people. In that it constrains us to a set of preferred behaviors, genderism is necessarily a denial of freedom, in the political sense as well as in the personal sense. To follow a gender role means to be told how to act, how to talk, how to think, how to react, how to dress, how to have sex; as long as we have to follow gender roles, we are slaves to hierarchy.

Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation.

Gender is an extremely oppressive and unnecessary construct. Defining “trans” people as those who deviate from otherwise unobjectionable gender norms is not a progressive social cause. Fighting for everyone’s right to be as gender “non-conforming” as they wanna be, on the other hand, is.

Some people even claim that radfems want to kill transgender people. This is a straightforward lie, but it is a fact that trans theory applied to children leads to the extermination of homosexuality, because a majority of gender rebellious children are homosexual. They are also the ones who issue death threats to “cis” people (the most popular trans slogan is “die cis scum”). It is traditional genderists who kill transgender people and want to take away their rights, not radical feminists. Trans advocates accuse radfem of “transphobia,” but they are the ones who constantly lie to transgender people and tell them that there’s something physically wrong with gender-rebelling children and adults.

I honestly don’t know a group of people more compassionate than people who run radical feminists blogs on the Internet. This is why it boggles my mind when I read claims that radfems are hateful monsters: it is disconnected from the reality I observe in a very egregious way, and so it feels like they’re invalidating my experience. Of course they don’t care that they’re invalidating me: to them, radfem are walking sulfur-smelling devils and that’s all there is to it. I don’t really know what to reply to that attitude except that they’re speaking out of a position of willful ignorance.

[whitehotharlots]

TERF war

I took feminist lit and theory courses as an undergraduate, in 2003 and 04. For the time, the courses were incredibly trans inclusive (bear in mind this was a year before Jon Stewart would dismiss Dennis Kucinich’s suggestion of appointing a trans SCOTUS justice, referring to the hypothetic appointee as “the honorable chick with dick”). A good 20% of the course was dedicated to reading books by and about trans people. We even got a visit from Leslie Feinberg—the person who literally coined the term transgender, and one of the kindest souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

The foundational, explicit understanding I was taught in these classes was that biological sex is innate, a fixed fact of a person’s bodily being, whereas gender is a fluid and malleable social construct. No one could have gotten through these classes thinking the opposite.

The utility of this understanding is easy to grasp: by denying the fixity of gender, feminists were able to undermine social and interpersonal structures that had traditionally denied women freedom, choice, dignity, and agency. A woman was not biologically destined to a life of domestic servitude; nor was she naturally inclined to be more submissive or deferential. Most germane to this discussion, this understanding validated the existence and experience of gender non-conforming lesbians: just because they were not traditionally feminine didn’t mean they weren’t women, or that they were in need of any fixing.

Very recently—within the last 5 or 6 years, as the abstract language of feminism has permeated the wider culture and gotten watered down for sake of digestibility—the poles have shifted. Now, we are told, it is actually gender which is fixed and innate, a metaphysical force lurking within us, suppressed by social pressures, unleashed gloriously with the aid of surgery and supplemental hormones. Biological sex, meanwhile, is a construct that doesn’t exist and shouldn’t even factor in to one’s analysis of gender relations. Sex is hereby an utter fabrication, a projection of the sick evils of normalized (cis male) consciousness engrained upon people’s erstwhile blank bodies.  Taken to extreme, we are told this therefore means trans women can get periods and that there is “literally zero” difference between trans and cis women. Ergo, having a uterus doesn’t make you a woman, biological or otherwise—it simply makes you a “uterus haver.”

The utility of this shift comes from the fact that trans self-actualization relies not just on social positioning but on bodily experience. Trans peoples’ mental wellbeing often hinges on their having access to the medical interventions required to get their body to conform to their innate sense of gender. Since we live in a country where few people have access to basic healthcare, trans people have had to medicalize their position—assert a fundamental and harmful mind/body disconnect—in order to have these interventions regarded as essential, rather than elective.  

So while it’s perfectly understandable and useful, this shift nonetheless represents a profound upending of decades of feminist thought, and I’m shocked that it doesn’t appear to have even been deliberated upon. It was asserted through tumblrs and tweets and everydayfeminism dot com posts, everyone kind of nodded their heads in agreement, and that has been that. For the most part.

Now, we might able to say that the reversal is simply academic: trans people and cis women each need to advance their respective theories of gender and sex to serve as the basis of political programs that might afford safety and respect to each group. There’s no need, necessarily, to concern ourselves too exclusively with the details. Consider a parallel: anyone who was actually involved in theoretical side of gay rights in the 70’s-90’s knows that saying gay people were “born gay” was not a universally agreed upon assertion. Many argued that this was essentially a reactionary frame which stigmatized homosexuality, making it seem like gays would have chosen to be straight if only their brains or genes hadn’t screwed things up. Eventually however, the “born this way” line prevailed, became mainstream, and was the basis of most of the gay rights campaigns of this century. Most of the people who disagreed with it on academic grounds still supported it, at least publicly, once they became aware of its political utility. Why can’t we do the same with today’s split conceptualizations of gender and sex?

Seriously, why can’t we?

The sex/gender-fluid/innate reversal came around the time when trans people started receiving their first regular, non-dismissive appearances in US media. This was the first time most people had been bothered to think seriously about gender, and the first time that the existence of trans people was admitted to as something that wasn’t freakish or a punchline. That’s a huge positive, obviously. And it happened with surprisingly little mainstream pushback (compare the responses to Laverne Cox’s appearance in Orange is the New Black with the intense outrage that accompanied Ellen Degeneres coming out just 15 years earlier—the difference is astounding).

This is where things get troublesome. Many established feminists, especially second wavers, were upset to see their life’s work upended in such a way. Some reacted horribly dismissively. Others wrote thoughtful, seemingly even-handed pieces that nonetheless seemed calculated to subtly dismiss the experiences of trans people, like by repeatedly misgendering trans authors. And still others respectfully expressed objections to or concerns with mainstream trans rights assertions. These writers tended to operate in either academic or upper-middlebrow spaces, and their prose is consequently calm, erudite, and often super dense. The rebuttals to these pieces came from places like jezebel, loveisarainbow dot com, or geocities.com/sunsetstrip/3765/madtransbitch. These pieces are easily digestible, frequently angry or even violent, and hyperbolic without exception, accusing the cis feminists of fomenting or even committing violence against trans people. In the court of woke public opinion, the second wavers did not stand a chance. They were accused—sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly—of abject hatred of trans people, blamed for suicides and murders, and grouped in with the racists and homophobes of yore. Within a very short period of time, those who haven’t learned to be quiet have been shunted away to the darkest academic backwaters (or they live in the UK, where university cultural studies is dominated by second wavers).

But, again, why not just be quiet? Honestly, that’s my preferred approach. Maybe it would be different if I had based an academic career on one assertion over another. But overall it seems like both groups should still be able to pursue their own political agendas on their own terms, so why bother discussing this contradiction? And just on a personal (that is, cowardly) note, I might not agree that biological sex is a construct, and I certainly don’t think gender is innate, but I also think trans people should have easy access to medical intervention, so why not let the inversion stand? 

But herein lies the problem: politically, the two groups are not separate. One of the most frequently levied criticisms against certain feminist authors and movements is a lack of trans-inclusivity. Pink pussy hats were verboten within hours of their debut. Colleges have cancelled productions of The Vagina Monologues (not because it’s overwrought treacle, but because it talks about vaginas, which makes it de facto transphobic). These incidents may seem trifling by themselves, but they serve as avatars of a very real and important conflict: cis feminists are being demanded to center their feminism in an understanding of sex and gender that directly contradicts the base of their ideology. Because of this, actions and symbols that were recently taken as signs of love and solidarity are now being cast as hate speech. Cis women are being told, literally, that they have no right to call themselves women (trans women are “women,” cis women are “menstruaters”). Cis lesbians are called homophobic for not being attracted to people with penises. In short, a trans movement that purports to dedicate itself to ensuring that its purveyors be given the right to be recognized by own their self-understanding is doing so by denying that same right to others.

The only possible result here is a complete collapse anything resembling a unified feminist movement. Meaning, I guess, that it fits in perfectly with the atomized understandings of social justice that stem from internet-based discourse. I suppose I could end with a plea for decency and understanding, perhaps even outline a alignment that would allow for trans advocates and cis feminists to recognize tactical points of departure from one another without fear of committing literal assault or denying the existence of one another. But we’re past that point, I think. There’s no more space for humane liberalism. Everything’s a knock-down, drag-out these days. We don’t even pretend to want to help one another.

Addendum:

People are raising the fair point that a vast majority of trans people don’t subscribe to the sort of wrecker beliefs I outline here. That is absolutely true and part of what makes the shittiness of online gender discourse so tragic. I did not mean to suggest that these beliefs are at all common among trans people. I intended to criticize only the shitty woke media apparatus (everydayfeminism et al) that occludes any attempt at effectively theorizing gender because it prioritizes hyperbolic victim mongering over achieving political goals.

[chiefbeck]

ACT III: A new beginning Chapter 22: What changes?

!Since starting on a journey toward the feminine in my life I have gone through changes of the physical, mental, emotional and the spiritual.

I have been on hormones for a couple of years now and I will not claim anything beyond what I know from living this journey. The experts can ply their mumbo jumbo to enhance or discredit many of the things I have to say and thats ok; I don’t know everything. I will not attempt to present you with every angle or show you “realness” or how to live you life. I pass this on to you as I know I learn many things from the most unlikely places.

I want to dive into the changes that I have succumbed first hand, going from a bearded viking, caveman, Navy SEAL into a delicate flower of a woman. Alright, maybe not a delicate flower, but I am getting closer and who knows where I will end up?

Physical:

The physical changes are the easiest to see if you wish to look. There are any number of books and films on Transgender people that spend 90% of the time on physical. They go into operations and photo montages of the effects of hormones. In all of my work I have tried to avoid this topic as it is over done and is a stereotype of a transgender person. We are more than our bodies, we are more than our jobs, we are more than this time on earth.

The little I will add to the physical changes that I have seen is the following:

I have gained weight in places that I normally would not have. I am developing breasts naturally and I have extremely increased sensation in some of my private areas, you would not believe how sensitive some areas have gotten.

My skin is softer and I have found less hair growth all around my body.

!

The one thing to point out is this is ALL due to a “chemical” change in my body, lack of testosterone and increase of estrogen. These hormones are amazing and the balance that we all have in our bodies is very delicate. This minor change in my chemical make up has had immense physical changes; makes you want to ask how different are we as men and women?

! ! Mental:

Women are smarter, thats about it. Next topic.... just kidding. But there are people out there that think one gender is superior to the other. People are living in a world that is built on misinformation. We all have potential and if you limit that potential to the physical world then yes, there are divisions to be made. Not everyone can make the cut to be on a professional football team, nor can everyone achieve the talent to be in a philharmonic. We all have gifts that let us wander along this life and learn what it is to be a person, we also have the ability to witness, enjoy and learn from others talents. There are many people that are smarter, faster, stronger, taller, darker, bigger, more compassionate, more graceful, and also the contrary. This is not a contest in any of the attributes that are measurable on this earth. This is an experience to bring to the next place. What are you doing with your talents and with your experiences you gain while walking on this journey?

! ! Emotions:

Women contain an innate divine of service and compassion that men do not have; I think this can be traced back to caveman instinct. The men hunt and kill and to have thoughts of compassion or nurturing pop

into your head during a kill will only get you killed. Women on the other hand were back at the home taking care of everything, expressing love through giving, nurturing and cherishing life. Women are the life givers and men were the life takers.

!

Spiritual:

I am a spiritual being, made up of energy or a spirit. That spirit energy does not have a gender, your penis is not going to any type of heaven or valhalla. I have come to understand that we are what we are and gender doesn't define who I am and it is not my spirit. We need to stop defining everything in terms of gender and stop the hierarchy of gender with women subjugated and inferior to men.

Since starting this new journey of the feminine I am coming closer to myself as a spirit. I understand the Native American “Two-Spirit” idea and why many two-spirit people were shamans within the tribes. I can see both sides of gender male and female and can exist in between and bring the two closer to the middle where they should reside.

Why should male and female reside more in the middle?

Think about it for a minute. Wage in equality, subjugation, mis- treatment of women in religion, division of labor and all of the stereotypes that keep women in an inferior position to men. Think of all of the underutilized intellectual capital that was never fulfilled because of prejudice against women for thousands of years. (Take this same thought and apply it to color, race, religion and all the other aspects we constantly prejudice against in society)

!

Where would humanity be RIGHT NOW if throughout history there was NO LIMIT on any person except their own motivation or potential?

!

OoO

!

My current focus is just on gender and the problems that have persisted when it comes to gender.

Gender, Male and Female are totally divided. One one hand you have the radical feminists and on the other are the chauvinistic man. In the middle is everyone else and we are ALL affected by gender norms that are engrained into culture and thought over thousands of years.

!

First I want to go into Gender a little bit and then go into some of what I am feeling and what I have learned about gender over the past few years on this journey. Three things that Gender can be divided into for study and understanding.

1. Gender Expression is in almost everything, its all the way from how we dress to how we act... its perpetuated by corporations and the media. This is just the outside covering and mannerisms that appear to be “gender” normalized.

2. Physical Gender in your body is the anatomy of yourself. Male and female genitalia, but as we look deeper into the subject we find that this is a very very gray area and there are thousands and maybe millions of combinations of “gender” and there is no 100% male or female.

3. Intellectual Gender is our thoughts and deep inside our “spirit.” This aspect of gender is the hardest to come to terms with and understand. I liken it to being born with blue eyes. You don't have a choice as to your eye color; it is just part of you.

!

Notice that sex is no where in the discussion. Sex and sexual orientation have nothing to do with gender and this is constantly confused by many people. Sex and Gender are separate and different.

!

Gender when you get right down to it is NOT ONE OR THE OTHER... it is all fluid and gray.

But our LAWs are set up for one or the other. our SCHOOLS are set up for one or the other. our clothing is designed for one or the other.

our sports, our jobs, our expectations, our salaries, our color schemes, our shoes, our jewelry, our models, our hair styles, our EVERYTHING....

Most of the media perpetuates this concept of total exclusion of one gender over the other. Religion for the most part does the same.

AND it is WRONG....It is a MYTH and a MISTAKE. How do we fix this if the two biggest influencers on peoples lives are behind the curtain and keeping the genders DIVIDED?

!

The general population needs to see GENDER NON- CONFORMING people and actions. The population needs to see transgender and queer people for who we are.... we are you and we are the same. 


Basically I am at peace with both genders in one body and accept both genders as equal. I have been able to move past gender to just what the spirt of a human is at its core. I have also now see past gender in other people and can treat them as who they really are as a human and as an “energy being.”

!

Have you ever seen old people acting like tough guys or primping around like peacocks on the seashore? When you see most people in their 80s or 90s they are closer what we should be as people. BUT we never see it, because we lack the respect for elders. We take to long to get there also and waste all of this time acting like animals with no compassion, no patience and just running around like Tarzan and Barbie and living in our body and not in our souls. It is too bad we can’t live till we were 200 so we could have a good hundred years to live and step into the next level of humanity. Can we become more if we had a chance to develop or evolve

into something greater than the animals who still fight over race or religion and any other difference we find on the surface?

!

!

OoO

Here is a further thought on the subject just to bounce around.

Evolution of every species on earth or the universe occurs because the organism has a potential and has a NEED.

Orcinus whales and some other higher beings have developed an enlarged limbic system or the area of the brain where emotions are processed. Some people refer to them as a "super-herd" and with this super herd mentality they are able to be much more than just a fish.

Can you imagine if we as humans acted as a “super-herd” with an emotional connection to each other with a common goal of becoming better and rising to a new level of humanity? If we continue to separate and divide each other and be negative with this constant struggle against each other we will never be able to know our true potentials as humans. We will always just be animals and not even as evolved as an orca in the wild.

What if there was a thousand acres of land where the only rule was to be human and endeavor to evolve the limbic system. If you think it then it could become real.


[the2travel]

* World Travel Tips : Stunning Photos Debunk The Myth That Queerness Is 'Un-African'

Travel Tips -

As a kid, Nigerian-born photographer Mikael Chukwuma Owunna knew of no other LGBTQ Africans personally, and he saw none represented in popular culture or mainstream media. His family and community hardly spoke of people being queer, and when they did, the tone was nearly always one of disdain. 

“Growing up being queer and Nigerian, I felt like I could not exist,” Owunna told HuffPost.

The artist was 15 years old, living in the United States, when he was outed as gay to his family, who blamed America and Western culture for his sexual identity. They proposed he return to Nigeria twice a year, hoping the culture would “cure” Owunna of his desire.

“They thought that since being gay was ‘un-African,’ re-exposing me to my culture would drive the gay out of me,” he said. 

Three and a half years ago, Owunna decided to respond to this injurious claim ― that queerness and African-ness can not and do not overlap ― by capturing portraits of individuals who are proudly both African and queer, gay or transgender. “I’ve been fighting to reclaim these two parts of my identity for myself,” he explained. “To create a queer African home for myself and others where we can be LGBTQ, African and whole.”

The series, called “Limit(less),” is part– anthropological study and part– street style shoot, aiming to capture, as Owunna put it, what LGBTQ African immigrants look like when they feel free. It features 34 portraits, mostly taken in North America, each accompanied by an interview that probes deeply into the life and personal style of the subject. 

In part, the work is inspired by a photo series by South African photographer Zanele Muholi called “Faces & Phases,” which Owunna saw at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh. The images depict black lesbians based in South Africa, their faces boldly featured against plain walls or patterned backdrops. “Seeing that work, I was so incredibly moved,” Owunna said. “Especially coming from my own experience of feeling completely invisible and erased as a queer African person.”

With “Limit(less),” Owunna attempts to challenge the binary understanding that sets queerness at odds with the African identity. Yet it was important to him that the project not cast homophobia as something innately African. The ignorance and hatred many young, queer Africans now face, Owunna explained, stems from the legacy of European colonialism, which, he said, “has brainwashed us to believe that being LGBTQ is somehow against our indigenous cultural identities.” 

Owunna cited Queen Anna Nzinga ― a 17th-century African leader who insisted that the male harem who served her dress in women’s clothing ― as an example of Africa’s early openness in regard to gender expression. 

Since Owunna had only met two other LGBTQ Africans in his entire life, he located the majority of his subjects on social media. When a potential subject expressed interest, Owunna reached out for a phone or Skype conversation, during which he would explain the concept of his work in full.

Most importantly, he ensured the subjects were entirely comfortable participating in such a visible project, given the potential safety concerns that could arise as a result. “Even though we live in diaspora, there are still very real fears and dangers for us as LGBTQ African people both inside and outside of our communities,” he said. 

The photographer then flew to visit each subject and spent the weekend in his, her or their home, spending a day getting to know each other before actually starting the shoot. The participants were also given interview questions beforehand regarding their personal style, their relationship with their families and what they might say to people who think being LGBTQ is “un-African”?

The subjects’ written responses are as compelling and moving as the images themselves. 

Em, a genderqueer Nigerian living in America, responded to the last question above with: “You’re un-African for believing that all Africans are this monolithic group of people, cis and heteronormative. We are dynamic, bold, and beautiful and queer. Our Africanness is only stronger with this identity because every day we breathe, especially for African trans folk, we are resisting and revolutionary. That’s pretty damn African to me.”

While fashion is seen by some as frivolous or superficial, Owunna’s subjects and their thoughtful answers illuminate how clothing can not only express identity but inform it. Netsie, a queer Ethiopian-Namibian woman in America, described how her personal style rejects the roles often foisted upon women of color.

“From a young age, women are taught that they have no choice in who looks at them, and so often, we are held responsible for what other people perceive,” Netsie said. “We are taught to be presentable, not just for business meetings, but potential friends, mates and assaulters. At the same time, we are taught never to look threatening, or look back at the people looking at us. We are denied the verb, and forced into the noun. Fuck that. I’m a hard femme with an hourglass silhouette, a goodwill budget, and a firm grasp of anti-capitalist rhetoric. I wear whatever makes me feel comfortable and powerful and safe.”

Reactions to “Limit(less),” Owunna told HuffPost, have been overwhelmingly positive, especially from LGBTQ African immigrants themselves. “I feel like there is such a hunger for us to see ourselves and people like us,” the artist said. “And to especially see other LGBTQ African people in a space of empowerment, loving ourselves.”

Owunna’s contributions to visualizing a population that has for too long gone unrepresented are staggering, and he is not slowing down anytime soon. The artist is en route to creating the largest digital archive of LGBTQ African immigrant narratives in existence. Having worked primarily in North America so far, he’s headed to Europe ― home to over 6 million African immigrants.

The artist is currently raising funds on Kickstarter to finance his journeys to Belgium, France, Portugal, Sweden and the U.K., gathering more stories and images every stop of the way. To continue the project, he needs $10,000 by June 8 ― at time of publication, he has raised just over $5,000. 

Owunna looks forward to growing his archive, finally providing visibility for the next generation growing up African and queer. “With each click of my camera,” he said, “I strive to capture my vision of what a free world can look like for black queer and trans people. And to show that this free world already exists inside each and every one of us.”

See more of Owunna’s “Limit(less)” on the project’s website.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5914dabae4b00f308cf40a19,590232c9e4b0af6d718cc8b4,591345f6e4b050bdca61a7a4,5911b952e4b0e7021e9b1cde,590b7208e4b0104c734ce127

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

World Travel Tips : Find cheap flights, hotels and car rentals. Plan your trip with travel guides, personalized recommendations, articles, deals and more. When you travel, you want your bags to travel with you. Follow these tips from travel professionals on how not to lose your luggage.