#there are still transsexuals. there are still transvestites (trans and non-trans even!). there are still gender freaks.

[uncanny-tranny]

Something beautiful about the word transsexual is that contrary to popular (often by transmeds) belief, it has always included people who don't medically transition in anyway. It simply is an older word for what a lot of people would now call transgender and there are so many transsexual elders who never went on hormones and never had surgery but have identified as transsexual for decades and still do. I know transmeds have been around back in the day too, claiming that transsexual is only for medical transitioners, but many elders will disagree. Even if you look at some trans glossaries from 15 years ago they will define transsexual the same way that we define transgender. Transsexual and transgender are largely synonymous with different connotations to different people. The beauty is that we as trans people get to choose whether we want to reclaim a term that was put on us by cis people, or if we want to claim a term that was created by us for us, and both are beautiful and radical in their own way.

The thing about the history of transness is... we have documentation of trans people having existed for at least a thousand years. Trans history is ancient. We are a fact of humanity, not an option.

The interesting thing about transsexual is that it's a new word - coined in German as Transsexualismus by Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s, introduced later as transsexual. Around this time, more people were interested in what would be known as transsexualism. It's around this time and after the war that more and more medical transition options became wide-spread and practiced. Medical transition is by no means as experimental as people fear monger it to be, but in terms of trans history, we're living in a vastly different era than our trans ancestors.

The understanding of transsexual depends on who you ask, but it's my opinion that we ought to include as many transsexuals as possible. The idea that transsexuals are the Good Trans People, the ones who Put In The Work is an idea that's based on transphobia, not the language that's used. The attitude is the problem, the idea that we are inherently broken or must prove ourselves worthy is separate from the words that we identify with or are used to describe us.

It's for this reason that transsexualism is important to me. It's for this reason that I want as many people to be transsexuals as possible, whether or not you medically transition. I personally started preferring transsexual because I see it as political, as personal, as a community of beautiful people I want to help make good. If you don't identify as transsexual, that is great! But, please, know that transsexuals are also not stereotypes. We're not the Good Ones. We are part of the broader trans community, and thus, we should all work together.

[crossdreamers]

A transgender Norwegian sexologist on how to celebrate the transgifted

Not long ago the non-binary general practitioner, sexologist, professor emeritus and Norwegian nestor in clinical sexology, Esben Esther Pirelli Benestad, was interviewed by Blikk magazine.

They made some important points about the development of the language and narratives used to describe gender variance:

According to Pirelli Benestad, for a long time people only used the term 'transvestite', and then came 'transsexual'.

The 'transvestite' term

'When I came into the picture in the early 1970s, it was important to maintain a sharp distinction between transvestites and transsexuals.

'Being transsexual meant that one wanted to "change" gender from the gender one was assigned at birth. While wearing dresses and stockings, or flannel shirts and jeans, was portrayed as something that some enjoyed on Saturday night.

'Transvestism, dressing and behaving like the "opposite" sex, did not challenge the heteronormative gender system in the same way, and many transvestites assigned male at birth had both wives and children.

'The distinction helped that the wives could still keep their husbands, even if they had a penchant for expressing themselves as women from time to time. Double-role transvestites, who acted as both men and women, was a term used at the time,' says Pirelli Benestad....

Pathologization of gender variance

Until 2018, gender variance, whether you considered yourself a binary or non-binary trans person, was a diagnosis of illness, Astrid Renland writes.

'When I looked up the encyclopedia to find out more about myself, it said that "transvestites had a morbid urge to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex." It was deadly poison for those who were less robust than me, because it said here that we were sick,! says Pirelli Benestad.

'But I myself and many with me knew that we were not. We felt that it was about something more profound, something that touched our gender identity.'

The forced binary

'I use to say that trans people are indigenous people without a country, and the land we were allocated by the majority population was pathologised, says Pirelli Benestad, who links it to the fact that cis people have dominated professional development in the trans field.

'The trans field as a field consisted exclusively of cis people in both research and clinical treatment, so trans people were assessed according to cis people's gender norms. One was either male or female.'

According to Pirelli Benestad, this contributed to transgender people having no choice but to define themselves as the "opposite". The minority had to express itself and appear as the gender majority did.

'Many trans people are binary, but also among those of us who were previously described as transvestites, there were some who felt that they had to follow the either-or gender norm. It is "natural". If you were born a man and felt like something else, you had to be a woman. There was no language for anything else.

A language for the nonbinary

'But already in the mid-1980s, I documented together with Berthold Grünfeld [Norwegian doctor, specialist in psychiatry and professor of social medicine at the University of Oslo] in a research project on heterosexual transvestites, that gender identity could be fluid between experience yourself as a man or as a woman,' says Pirelli Benestad...

'We ourselves have developed concepts and built up specialist expertise which we have given back to the cis world,' says Pirelli Benestad, who points out that much of this work has been done in collaboration with their colleague and wife, professor and sexologist Elsa Almås.

'First we used the term near-binary to describe the distinction between cis and trans men and trans women, then we formulated terms such as bi-gender, gender fluid and gender cruising,' says Pirelli Benestad.

The transgifted

In addition to "coining" new terms, they have introduced new words such as gender enthusiasm, gender talent and transgifted as a counterweight to the pathologization of the trans population, Astrid Renland writes.

- When you create space for people to let loose and show the talents they have for gender and identity, then people become much freer and much more beautiful, Pirelli Benestad asserts.

PHOTO: Professor emeritus Esben Esther Pirelli Benestad (left), together with her colleague and wife, professor and sexologist Elsa Almås, introduced new words such as gender enthusiasm, gender talent and trans gifted as a counterweight to the pathologization of the trans population .Photo: Reidar Engesbak/BLIKK.

Google translation of the original article.

"Den rødeste kluten", by Astrid Renland, Blikk

E.E.P. Benestad MD: From gender dysphoria to gender euphoria: An assisted journey

[variousqueerthings]

no actually what I would like to ask alan alda and/or mike farrell about (or loretta swit or jamie farr, if they’d have any opinions on it, but I haven’t yet delved quite so deeply into how they interact with the show post-making) is the references to transsexuality/transvestitism, as something that was made about 50 years ago writing it as in the public knowledge in some form or other/to one extent or another 70 years ago

(and here is where we take an interlude to mention that glen or glenda was made in 1953, so right around the same time as this show is set)

I’m curious about how commonly occurring it was that they had sidney offer it as an out to klinger in s2 (albeit with consequences, because it would be on his record), I’m curious about radar of all characters from the middle of nowhere understanding its existence, although with the small-town attitude that comes with it, and I’m especially curious about inga offering klinger gender affirming surgery 

jokes of course, but none of them age badly when looking at them head-on either (perhaps the part that ages slightly worse is how klinger reacts when assumed trans, but even that makes sense for the time it’s set in, regardless of how one reads klinger’s gender)

and I don’t think necessarily that these musings can be turned into an easily answerable question + the person to really talk to would presumably be walter dishell (whose rundown videos on youtube I still need to watch), but what I’m wondering broadly about is a bit how the characters-as-medical-professionals would have been aware, a bit how the non-medical-characters would have been aware, a bit how the writers and cast would have been aware, and a bit of how the audience would have been aware -- these reference don’t exist in a vacuum after all

one of the things one is constantly facing is this absurd notion that “people” (as a vague whole) have never been aware of transness until the 21st century, or even that transness didn’t exist properly until the 21st century, and while there is plenty to show that this is simply incorrect -- texts, academia, personal anecdotes, oral histories, movies, popular music, art, etcetc. -- especially coming from inside the community, it’s interesting (and heartening) to see it mentioned several times in one of the most popular shows ever made in America, also considering the time period the show is set in 

maybe “question” is incorrect. would like to have a conversation about it, whether or not there was any real intentionality in it (and tbh if there wasn’t -- as I suspect there may not have been, beyond the simple fact that it existed -- I don’t consider that a negative, because that’s simply another fascinating inclusion of note that was done simply Because. that is still a rarity in film and tv made by and for cis people, especially film and tv with the reach that MASH had) 

I think teasing out these bits and pieces about marginalised people would be an interesting conversation to have with the people who were involved in the making of it (especially alan, as he wrote and directed inga), to gain another little puzzle piece about how trans people have existed throughout time

also, youknow. getting all of the above to say trans rights would be neat

[rivetgoth]

I think part of what makes trans liberation a tricky convo for so many people is that there is a point where you have to acknowledge the fact that trans rights are going to overlap with butch cis lesbians, with cis male crossdressers, with GNC people who may or may not call themselves cis, with cis gay people, that the line between GNC cis woman and trans man actually is blurry when discussions of our rights are involved, as is effeminate cis man and trans woman, but so is effeminate cis man and trans man, and GNC cis woman and trans woman, and I don’t mean this in the “transphobia effects cis people too!” way where trans people are displaced as the main targets & instead priority is given to people experiencing splash damage (ie. when a masc cis woman is mistaken for a trans woman and then suddenly “trans allies” are taking transmisogyny seriously), I mean that, realistically, at what point does someone’s transness become proveable or tangible enough that we can be distinctly separated from cisgender counterparts when it comes to human rights and our autonomy on a legal level? There is a reason that transsexual and transgender and transvestite and drag king/queen and butch and crossdresser are all terms that can have overlap even when it doesn’t quite make sense. There is no autonomy or freedom if we suggest that the key to trans liberation is to give humanity only to transgender people who circle back around to perfectly conforming to gender but on the opposite playing field this time and leaving everyone slightly to the left of gender conformity to rot. But navigating this is a complete mess because from the outside there are MANY groups just jumping on the chance to nod sagely and agree that trans women are just crossdressing men, or trans men are actually just repressed tomboys, and one wrong word and it could very easily veer in that direction, and from within the community I think a lot of people resist this because they don’t WANT to be grouped with lesbians, or butch women, or crossdressers, or risk being degendered or misgendered for the same reasons I just mentioned. But what I’m saying isn’t “trans men are the same as butch cis women” or “trans women are the same as cis crossdressers,” it’s that these are not solidly separate groups that can be divided up cleanly, where one can earn civil rights and autonomy while the other does not. Trans men being afforded respect without GNC or butch womanhood being afforded respect is a facade because ultimately that respect is surface level and built upon respectability politics, the moment he is perceived as an individual assigned female at birth subverting that assignment he is back to square one. Transmisogyny won’t be stopped if trans women fitting a very narrow single definition of transfemininity earn some basic level of respect but anybody too far from that, any person assigned male at birth who engages with femininity or womanhood but just to the left of the binary transitioned passing trans woman, is still left to fall through the cracks. What you’re saying is that there is still a gender and sex binary that can and/or should exist, and trans rights are dependent on how well individuals can adhere to it “despite” their transness. Which both sucks and is just not a functional way to achieve true equal rights.

Obviously this leads to TERFs showing their asses all the time, when they make sweeping generalizations about womanhood that exclude large groups of cisgender women/anyone assigned female and when they & conservatives try to push laws that are just entirely regressive regarding gender roles that ultimately harm any GNC person regardless of trans status or lack thereof. It’s also why trans people are included within the LGBT acronym to begin with, because “queerness” or same sex attraction or non heteronormative identities or whatever you want to call it is inherently non-gender conforming by mainstream western Christian societal standards, and trans people are in some ways the furthest end of this nonconformity. This is why the result of the LGB vs the T being viewed as two separate distinct categories is transphobic LGBs acting -surprised pikachu face- when transphobic lawmakers time and time again turn on them next. “Gay people are fine but trans people aren’t” is never going to be a worldview that works in practice in the long-run, right from the get-go you’ve admitted that the moment somebody crosses the line you’ve created for what acceptable deviation from gender is that they are no longer deserving of human rights, and there is never an actual easy cut-off to that. Trans women BAD, but cross dressing men are okay? What if he lives full-time as a woman? What if he takes hormones? Cis women can be butch but they can’t call themselves men? So then what are you implying, that gender nonconformity is okay up until you use the wrong words, up until you undergo consensual body modification, as long as you go home at the end of the day and take it all off and look at your naked body and can happily say “Yep, I sure am glad that I’m a cis person even though I like to pretend?” Come on. At what point, then, is it “too gender nonconforming” to be a woman who dates other women, a man who has sex with other men, a person who chooses not to exist in a nuclear family unit? Remember awhile ago when someone did that article on how classic texts on conversion therapy consistently focused on curing gender nonconformity, with “same sex attraction” being one of many examples of the types of the “nonconformity” being treated?

[perenial]

Been questioning my gender for a bit now. As far as labels go, I'm not sure if I'm genderqueer or non-binary. I tried looking into it but ended up with more questions than answers. Is there a difference between the two? Are they similar? If you don't know the answer that's fine, I just thought I'd ask.

funnily enough this was originally one of the primary research questions for my phd! tl;dr it's kinda. hm. well,

genderqueer is a term that starting gaining traction in the 90s and its coinage is commonly attributed to activist riki wilchins, who used it in the spring 1995 edition of the transsexual menace. wilchins wrote that,

The fight against gender oppression has been joined for centuries, perhaps millennia. What’s new today is that it’s moving into the arena at open political activism. And nope, this is not just one more civil rights struggle for one more narrowly-defined minority. It’s about all of us who are genderqueer: diesel dykes and stone butches, leatherqueens and radical fairies, nelly fags, crossdressers, intersexed, transsexuals, transvestites, transgendered, transgressively gendered, and those of us whose gender expressions are so complex they haven’t even been named yet. Maybe us genderqueers feel it most keenly because it hits us each time we walk out the front door openly and proudly.

genderqueer was, and arguably still is, a politically-oriented identity marker that denotes those whose gender is queered in some way. in a later essay, wilchins highlighted that the term genderqueer was coined as a catch-all term for trans-aligned folks who didn't fit the highly medicalised narrative that dominated mainstream trans debates. interestingly, wilchins is specifically critical in this essay of those who would one day be termed transmedicalists, writing that

[...] transgender, a voice that originated from the margins, begun to produce its own marginalized voices. And in part because – as an identity organized around “transgression” – there is a growing debate over who is “most transgressive.” How does one decide such questions? For instance, as one transexual put it, “I’m not this part-time. I can’t hang my body in the closet and pass on Monday.” There is no doubt, from one perspective, that cross-dressers enjoy some advantages. They are large in numbers, most only dress occasionally, and they can do so in the privacy of their own homes. Does that mean they would live that way if they had a choice? Does it really make them “less transgressive”?

[...] Among genderqueer youth, it is no longer rare to hear complaints of being frozen out of transgender groups because they don’t want to change their bodies. In an identity that favors transexuals, changing one’s body has become a litmus test for transgression

sometime in the late 90s/early 2000s, genderqueer evolved into its own definitive identity instead of the umbrella term it was originally created to denote. it still retained its anti-assimilationist leanings and over the next decade was used as both as a single identity category and as a gender intensifier (i.e. genderqueer man, a man who engages with his gender in a queer way). for the most part – and i emphasise, for the most part – genderqueer folks from the early 2000s-onwards tended to not identify as transgender, instead viewing genderqueer as a separate relationship to gender and its transgressions that isn't covered by the binary trans umbrella (sidenote: this is remarkably hard to find online sources on and the one reference i remember off the top of my head is in a book in my office...,which is on the other side of town...and it's currently 1:30 in the morning.... so uh. either take this with a grain of salt or imagine i've put the actual reference in lmao)

now here's where it gets tricky.

the exact origin of the term non-binary is heavily debated. if we're talking about the literal word 'nonbinary', there are definitely mentions pre-2000s in reference to software modelling and associated computer tech stuff; for its association with gender and identity, the earliest mention i've found in my research is from the mid to late 2000s (again, my sources are all back at my office). the point is, though, that at some point in the 2000s this term – which, like genderqueer, originally functioned as an umbrella term – became the most prominent identifier to denote gender outside the western binary.

(fun fact: if u look for early resources on non-binary relating to gender & sexuality but not as a discrete gender label, u'll find a lot of stuff relating to 'nonbinary sexuality' – i.e. bi & pansexuality. see elizabeth, a. (2013), 'challenging the binary: sexual identity that is not duality', journal of bisexuality, 13:3 and callis, a. (2014), 'bisexual, pansexual, queer: non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands', sexualities, 17:1-2.)

(another fun fact: the nonbinary flag was specifically created by kye rowan in 2014 because nonbinary people didn't feel completely comfortable aligning with marilyn roxie's 2010 genderqueer flag. the nonbinary flag was never meant to replace the genderqueer flag , but rather to be "flown alongside it", which makes for a rly cool parallel to nonbinary & genderqueer themselves)

non-binary is......somewhat less political than genderqueer. because its origins are so murky we can't definitively say it was coined to denote an identity less anti-assimilationist than genderqueer, but from what we do know it's generally leveraged as neutral and all-encompassing. whether 'political neutrality' and 'queerness' are diametric opposites is a contentious debate and rests on some super western ideas of the political being so without really getting into it, the thing to take away is that nonbinary differs from genderqueer in that it refers to that which it is not – it isn't male or female, man or woman, queer or normative. genderqueer, by contrast, moves towards a gendered way of being that, while also being capable of existing outside the gender binary, has a more active, directional component.

......but that's not entirely it

because u'll find people who are non-binary who consider their gender a v queer thing (like me!) and genderqueer folks who don't align their gender with any political leanings. u'll get people who identify as both nonbinary and genderqueer, or one at some point and the other at a different point, or people whose gender falls outside the binary and don't use either term. u'll get nonbinary and genderqueer people who want to medically transition, nonbinary and genderqueer people who identify as transgender, nonbinary and genderqueer people who do want to align with the transnormative narrative that riki wilchins derided back in 2002.

and u know what? that's okay! this shit is super complicated! i'm doing an entire fucking phd on it and i still don't have my head wrapped around it all!!! gender is a slippery, highly contextual thing and while my job is to identify the patterns that emerge across communities, ur only job is to find something that makes sense to u. it doesn't matter if u change ur mind about the words u use to describe urself, or if u choose to do away with them altogether; it's fine if u cycle through a whole bunch of identifiers or stick with one from the very start. what matters is this: taking the time to know urself honestly and openly, and choosing to live in whatever way that feels right.

and tbh? the more u think about gender, the more questions u'll end up with. there's never a definitive answer and that's what makes the whole thing so fun (and stressful) to explore

[feuilletoniste]

I am aware that the person making this comment is openly transphobic, and has no interest in learning actual history, but I’m correcting the record anyway.

Anyway, when Magnus Hirschfield established the WhK (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee) in 1897 and the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in 1919, he specifically included transgender individuals* in his advocacy and research. Not only were trans individuals specifically employed by the Institut, they were also clientele; the first modernized gender affirmation surgeries were performed at the Institut in Berlin in the 1930s. Hirschfield and the Institut were targeted multiple times from 1919 to 1933, when the Nazi Party attacked the building and destroyed much of the archives there. Hirschfield’s work -- which included studies on sex** and sexuality, various types of erotica, and research on gender and sex*** -- was one of the first casualties of Nazi book burnings. While the general understanding of transgender and/or transsexual identities was still in its scientific infancy (“From today’s perspective, it is therefore unclear whether an individual who identified as a transvestite in thirties Germany [...] was what we would today consider transgender, nonbinary, a cross-dresser, or something else altogether”), pre-Nazi Germany was not ignorant to trans identities. Friedrich Radszuweit, who also created the lesbian magazine Die Freundin, among others, was responsible for the periodical Das dritte Geschlecht (The Third Sex), specifically aimed at bringing trans issues and experiences into the spotlight. A specific type of certificate -- Transvestitenschein -- could be issued to individuals wishing to identify as a different gender from that assigned at birth.

Due to the not-insignificant overlap between the queer and trans communities at the time, in no small part a result of the nascent vocabulary defining such groups, it is unfortunately impossible to know exactly how many transgender, transsexual, transvestite, or otherwise non-cis individuals perished during the Holocaust. Of course it is inane to claim that trans or otherwise gender-nonconforming individuals were targeted to the same extent as the Jewish population, but acknowledging this facet of Germany’s history is not “[making] the Holocaust about us” any more than Black, Romani, disabled, Polish, Serbian, or even Slovenian**** individuals would be were they to draw attention to the fact that they were targeted as well by the Nazi Party.

*At the time known as transsexualism (Transsexualismus, a word coined by Hirschfield in 1923) **Intercourse. ***Biological sex, as one might call it. ****The Nazi Party had a specific plan for extermination of ethnic Central and Eastern Europeans.

[purpleradfeminista]

"Why is this kind of treatment never even CONSIDERED for a trans person?" cause dysphoria sufferers are considered non-responsive to talk therapy unlike BDD/anorexic patients who can enter remission. Maybe if you actually stepped out of the radfem bubble where y'all theorize out of your butts and did actual reading about older writings on transition you would know, duh. Read about John Money, Harry Benjamin, Magnus Hirshfield, Havelock Ellis, Virginia Prince, Lou Sullivan. If you truly care ofc

Ok sure I'll bite.

John Money: was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender and his conduct towards vulnerable patients. [bolding mine] He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia. He spent a considerable amount of his career in the USA.

Recent academic studies have criticized Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to his involvement with the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer, his forcing this child and his brother to simulate sex acts which Money photographed and the adult suicides of both brothers.

--I haven't read any of Money's work directly, but I have read the book that is about his patient victim David Reimer, who was surgically "turned into a girl" shortly after birth and used by Money to try and justify his opinions about gender reassignment. Reimer reports that "when living as Brenda, [he] did not identify as a girl. He was ostracized and bullied by peers (who dubbed him "cavewoman"), and neither frilly dresses nor female hormones made him feel female."

Harry Benjamin: seems to at least not have been a pedophile, and I suppose is best known for his treatment of Christine Jorgensen, but I find it significant that he only stepped in to help patients after other therapies had failed.

Magnus Hirshfield: I'm sort of puzzled as to why he's on your list, as his major body of work is about sex, and gay sex in particular, and his only contribution to what you're talking about appears to be some vague writing he did about "transvestitism".

Havelock Ellis: worth first noting that he was a eugenicist....but aside from that he appears to have been the first, or one of the first, to acknowledge that autogynephilia exists and is often a factor in the male desire to "transition".

"Aware of Hirschfeld's studies of transvestism, but disagreeing with his terminology, in 1913 Ellis proposed the term sexo-aesthetic inversion to describe the phenomenon. In 1920 he coined the term eonism, which he derived from the name of a historical figure, Chevalier d'Eon. Ellis explained:

On the psychic side, as I view it, the Eonist is embodying, in an extreme degree, the aesthetic attitude of imitation of, and identification with, the admired object. It is normal for a man to identify himself with the woman he loves. The Eonist carries that identification too far, stimulated by a sensitive and feminine element in himself which is associated with a rather defective virile sexuality on what may be a neurotic basis.

Ellis found eonism to be "a remarkably common anomaly", and "next in frequency to homosexuality among sexual deviations", and categorized it as "among the transitional or intermediate forms of sexuality". As in the Freudian tradition, Ellis postulated that a "too close attachment to the mother" may encourage eonism, but also considered that it "probably invokes some defective endocrine balance"."

Virginia Prince: I am honestly surprised that current TRAs even want to claim this person, as she seems to be like....completely saying the opposite of everything that TRAs claim to believe about their "gender identity".

"Prince helped popularize the term 'transgender', and erroneously asserted that she coined transgenderist and transgenderism, words which she meant to be understood as describing people who live as full-time women, but have no intention of having genital surgery. (bolding mine) Prince also consistently argued that transvestism is very firmly related to gender, as opposed to sex or sexuality.Her use of the term "femmiphile" related to the belief that the term "transvestite" had been corrupted, intending to underline the distinction between heterosexual crossdressers, who act because of their love of the feminine, and the homosexuals or transsexuals who may cross-dress. Although Prince identified with the concept of androgyny (stating in her autobiographical 100th issue that she could "…do [her] own thing whichever it is…"), she preferred to identify as Gynandrous. This, she explained, is because although 'Charles' still resides within her, "…the feminine is more important than the masculine." Prince's idea of a "true transvestite" was clearly distinguished from both the homosexual and the transsexual, claiming that true transvestites are "exclusively heterosexual... The transvestite values his male organs, enjoys using them and does not desire them removed." (bolding mine)

By the early 1970s, Prince and her approaches to crossdressing and transvestism were starting to gain criticism from transvestites and transsexuals, as well as sections of the gay and women's movements of the time. Controversy and criticism has arisen based on Prince's support for conventional societal norms such as marriage and the traditional family model, as well as the portrayal of traditional gender stereotypes. Her attempts to exclude transsexuals, homosexuals or fetishists from her normalization efforts of the practice of transvestism have also drawn much criticism.

Lou Sullivan: was an American author and activist known for his work on behalf of trans men. He was perhaps the first transgender man to publicly identify as gay, and is largely responsible for the modern understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity as distinct, unrelated concepts.

Sullivan was a pioneer of the grassroots female-to-male (FTM) movement and was instrumental in helping individuals obtain peer-support, counselling, endocrinological services and reconstructive surgery outside of gender dysphoria clinics. (bolding mine) He founded FTM International, one of the first organizations specifically for FTM individuals, and his activism and community work was a significant contributor to the rapid growth of the FTM community during the late 1980s.

From what I've read I don't know, it kind of sounds like Lou might have agreed with me that counselling should be a first step before handing out hormones like M&Ms. But unfortunately I can't ask him since he had the misfortune to decide to live as a gay man at the height of the AIDS epidemic.

---------------

Ok I spent some time researching all those folks you mentioned. None of them seem to say, or have the opinion, that counselling is useless for people with gender dysphoria. So my question remains......why is it not considered as an option? You are telling me that it "doesn't work", but not one piece of the "research" you told me to do bears that out, and there is actually quite a LOT of research showing the reverse, that many folks who identify as transgender, especially young children, will eventually desist if supported with counselling but not given a social or physical transition. So. My question is still hanging out there. Thanks for providing me some interesting reading, however!

[nothorses]

ive asked around and looked but i cant find anything so i was wondering if you know if there's a word for 'oppression because of someone's distance from or "incorrect" display of manhood' like i don't think misogyny fits the bill because it's specifically about oppression against women and say an amab tme nbi person still faces a weird axis of oppression for their gender that doesnt really boil down to just general transphobia and i don't think transphobia fits the bill bc a cis disabled man still experiences something like this too. i feel like it could be really useful for communicating but i can't find anything? do you know if this exists or should i just try coining it myself? im kinda afraid to do the latter cause i feel like i would get made fun of

If I’m reading right, you’re getting at like... bigotry for apparent gender non-conformity? I think you’re very right that misogyny doesn’t cover it, because it’s not proximity to womanhood or femininity that lies at the root of this; I think what you’re describing is transphobia. It just feels like a mis-match because of how we understand the concept today. I know we now think about transphobia as being a hatred specifically of trans people, and that’s kind of correct, but what gets lost in our current understanding of that is the historical context behind both what “trans” is, and where transphobia itself comes from. (This is gonna get long now. Whoops) Historically, “trans” and era-specific variations have included more than just “people who don’t identify with the gender assigned to them at birth”. Leslie Feinburg describes it as including transgenders, transsexuals, transvestites, full-time, part-time, drag queens, drag kings, bigenders (being the older term for nonbinary folks), intersex people, and gender-nonconforming cis people in hir book Transgender Warriors. Anyone who deviated from their assigned gender role, in any way, was considered to be “trans” in some way. This was, for a really long time, the popular understanding of the word. We’ve defined it differently now to capture a more specific experience, which I agree is a wholly positive and helpful move, but the reason it used to be defined that way is because transphobia targets all gender non-conformity. Not just those of us who fully are not the gender we were assigned at birth, but every single person who breaks from the rigid gender roles- all of us are punished by transphobia. And like, I think it does include cis disabled men and folks who don’t ascribe to that hypermasculine ideal; because the reason the ideal is so hypermasculine, so “strong” and “aggressive” and “forceful”, is because of the fear of being perceived as gender non-conforming or “trans” in some way. It’s just that our words used to be fuzzier and broader to reflect that understanding, and as we specify, we tend to forget what we’re specifying from. So “oppression because of someone's distance from or "incorrect" display of manhood” would be transphobia, even if it impacts people who aren’t what we’d now consider trans. You’re totally right, though! That’s a really interesting thing to think about, and an idea we could absolutely use a word for. I just wouldn’t entirely discredit transphobia’s place in the conversation. If you have ideas about it, please, send them my way! I’m super interested!

[sapphos-darlings]

Sorry for the dumb over-specific question but are there women who are into ftm transvestites & mimicking hetero relationships? i'm a dysphoric "stone" but not transitioning (no plan to) and i'm coming to the realization that i just want to "be the dude". But I feel like wlw are either very into female features (and i'm dysphoric) or into transsexuals (and i don't look male at all without clothes on). Are there wlw who are both into hetero relationships roles and non-trans females?

Hey, Sade here.

I think you’d do better looking for individuals who are interested in you rather than trying to chase down a phenomenom of people generally looking for the extremely specific set of characteristics and traits that make you up. You don’t have to be anyone’s primary type or match a box to find a relationship where you are appreciated as you are for exactly the things that make you the person you are.

There are definitely women who enjoy a masc/fem dynamic in their relationships (although I wouldn’t necessarily call that ‘hetero roles’ considering the relationship is still desirable to each party due to the fact that it is not straight and both parties are female). Navigating dysphoria in a relationship can be tough but finding a woman who appreciates a masculine/butch partner is definitely possible, and all the rest takes is communication and learning the boundaries in that relationship.

Simply put, even though there are certainly women out there who are looking for a traditional masc/fem or butch/femme dynamic in their relationships, what I think you should focus on is that people are ultimately not attracted to types or ideas but people, individuals. You will be loved for you, as you are, rather than as a consequence of matching somebody’s specific type. In that relationship where you are seen and respected for you, you, in turn, can express your love for your partner as comes naturally to you - say, in a more traditionally masculine role, for example. This isn’t outrageous at all.

Good luck, anon.

[hernandopride]

Pride 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the historical shift in the LGBT rights movement. On this day 50 years ago, patrons and neighbors of a New York gay bar took a stand against a government who refused to see and treat them as valid members of society. What started as a targeted raid against the illegal sale of alcohol to gay people that caused multiple people to be injured and arrested, ended up being an all out riot. Trans men and women, along side the gay men that frequented the bar that night decided that enough was enough and that it was time to stand up for themselves against the biased, abusive, oppressive, and bigoted arm of the law. For three days, members of the LGBT community alongside allies marched, fought, rioted and picketed in the streets demanding fair and equal treatment and an end to the discrimination. The actions of these brave men and women are now referred to as the first Gay Pride event.

Prior to these concerted efforts to make change for people who couldn’t help who they loved and how they felt, members of the LGBT community were effectively deemed to be of an illegal existence. This left them open to harassment from law enforcement, susceptible to being institutionalized as homosexuality was seen as a form of psychosis, abuse from anyone who found out about their sexuality, public humiliation, and extortion. As bad as all of these things were for lesbian and gay people they were doubly horrific for members of the trans community.

Among the many activist that participated in that first stand off with law enforcement and the government were two well known drag queens Marsha “Pay It No Mind” Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. While standing in solidarity with the lesbian and gay members of the LGBT fight they saw an opportunity to help an even more oppressed group of people that seemingly was going unnoticed. Together, these two women started the first trans activism organization S.T.A.R, Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries. The purpose of the organization was to help the homeless transsexual, gay, and gender non-conforming community in New York by helping to provide temporary housing, food, and some forms of education to the abandoned and discarded youth and sex workers of the city. While the first S.T.A.R. house did not last for long as Marsha and Sylvia both regularly struggled with homelessness, the two continued the fight in service of those less fortunate than themselves. These women were pioneers for the trans and gay community as well as the advancement of the LGBT movement.

Much progress has been made since that initial uprising in 1969 towards the acceptance and equal treatment of members of the LGBT community. While we have achieved great things like inclusion in the military, marriage equality, and in some states protection from workplace discrimination we still have a long way to go in this fight. More specifically as it pertains to our trans family. Much like the conditions of 1969 our trans sister and brothers are still being murdered, harassed, openly discriminated against, assaulted, bullied, and disregarded. This can not continue to stand!

We will continue the fight that Marsha and Sylvia helped start and we won’t stop until there is justice and peace for all members of the LGBT community.

[vestiremylife]

as much as I hate to admit it, i know i will never in my life time be able to actually be loud and proud and prideful. it’s just a reality I have to accept.

some might consider it my fault for picking transvestite to be my identity instead of the more accepted transgender or the still more accepted transsexual but it’s not necessarily a choice that i made just for the hell of it. i picked it for a reason over the other two

i realize especially now, i can go to other blogs and share being queer and reblog things and find support or vent about queer issues but i could never do the same for being a transvestite, it’s too much a slur, even censored, i’m sure i’d upset people. i can’t go ask for flag requests, currently there isn’t one; though i’m working to try to fix that.

no one is going to make or support me, most will probably fight against my decision or try to bully me to use a more acceptable word, but if that did happen. if i did end up choosing a more acceptable word? it wouldn’t be my word. it wouldn’t be me. it’d be me making myself palatable to other people instead of true to myself.

people fight for queer because it gives them power, or it’s a word that answers or explains things they can’t else wise, or maybe it’s history. i use queer too, i get it.

i never felt right with being called transgender, it never felt like it was my word. it felt wrong. the more i was in transgender circles the more it just felt out of place. sure i wasn’t cis but i wasn’t transgender. it didn’t feel right. i knew some people who still used transsexual because their were about the physical stuff and changing and modifying their body to be sexually right, but that doesn’t fit either for many a reason.

i tried word after word, non-binary, agender, genderqueer, just queer for the whole thing, tried to make up new terms, tried to ask others. nothing felt correct. it felt more like i was trying to cover up a wound with anything i could find instead of using the stuff i was supposed to. so i decided to look through history. maybe a word in the past would be what im missing instead of a new word.

that’s how i came to find transvestite. i knew the word was a slur, but i still decided it was worth it. because finding my identity and solving my placement issue felt important. so i looked up the history. i studied what it meant. i realized the origins were not even slur-related, the creator was actually anti what made it into a slur! it’s origins were not in cross-dresser like people insist it is. the creator didn’t believe clothing had anything to do with your gender, it’s just cloth, your gender had nothing to do with that. i learnt a lot and i found things that felt right. i felt support and understanding in the words he wrote about it and the efforts he did to help trans people.

i felt realized.

i dont use transvestite because it’s some slur that has shock points.

i use transvestite because i studied its history and origins and realized it gave validity to my experiences and made me feel whole and understood.

it might never return to being something that isn’t a slur, it might stay mostly as a term for cross-dresser as it is these days, but i don’t want to abandon something that made me feel powerful and able to say ‘i have solved my identity, i know what i am. i feel comfortable moving into the future to see what is to come next.’

i am a transvestite.

i am queer.

i will have pride.

i will exist.

and i will prosper.

[dimitrippy]

Pride month may be over, but it is also important to retain some sense of it. So here are some book reviews. If you've read these books, you might not like what I have to say. If you haven't, you may find that you don't want to. Or maybe you're so intrigued by what I've said, you'll want to read them anyway. The books I've chosen to read and review are (in order): This Book is Gay by James Dawson (2014), Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan (2003), and Queer, There, and Everywhere: 23 People Who Changed the World by Sarah Prager (2017).

Note: I am an independent person with no affiliations and I am doing this for fun, I am by no means a professional book reviewer.

This Book is Gay by James Dawson

I'm gonna start right off the bat and say that this book is... out-dated. Published in 2014, this book is a crash course on all things gay... but that's it. Despite many a disclaimer within the book itself, I found the writing to focus almost exclusively on homosexuality, with very little focus on bisexuality or being transgender. 'Well' you may say 'the book is GAY.' And right, it is, but the author, James Dawson, touted it as a guide to all things LGBT, which it wasn't. I understand the lack of nonbinary genders being mentioned, as the term did not really become widespread until very recently, but many trans people will find themselves unhappy when their eyes flick to the words 'transsexual' and 'transvestite'. Not to mention, in a later chapter about sex (skipping this chapter is an option, Dawson makes that clear) diagrams that equate genitals to gender. Overall, incredibly cisnormative. I'm not going to lie, Tumblr may have made me overly bias to any sort of queer literature created by a cis, gay man, but a good LGBT book should really spread out the attention between all of the letters.

I also found the writing style to be, for lack of a better word, trite. And I guess another good word would be condescending. Don't believe me? Dawson refers to sex as 'sexyfuntimes' at least 3 times, if not more. I understand that this book was written to appeal to young adolescents who might be questioning their sexuality or gender, but the word sex was already being used. Why change it to sexyfuntimes? Anyone reading the book should KNOW what sexyfuntimes means. Once was funny, but to keep using it to refer to consensual bedroom business made me feel like the author didn't care about his target audience. Speaking somewhat from experience, an adult talking down to me always made me feel like shit. Teenagers aren't stupid. Us adults need to start acting like it. ( that's not to say that teens can't be stupid, but generally when consuming content that is meant for them, it can be alienating.)

Then the author wrote a chapter on religion that I felt was written from a Christian-centric point of view. The author himself said he had limited knowledge about certain religions but went ahead and wrote about them anyway, assuming knowledge. This is a book that contained interviews with other queer people, you couldn't have found queer people of faith to interview? That just seems lazy to me.

Another big BIG problem that I had with the book was the chapter called 'Gay Saints'... or something to that effect. I had to return the book and I'm writing a lot of this from memory, which is quite good but can't always remember everything...

Anyway, I'm sorry, but however they may have felt while functioning as a boy-band, Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson are NOT gay icons. They're nothing more than two young men that over-zealous straight girls wish would get together. Sure, they may support the queer community which is all well in good but to refer to 'Larry Stylison' as a gay icon just... left a bad taste in my mouth. Also, Dawson referred to Macklemore as handsome which is just... not correct.

Honestly it felt like a lot of these 'icons' were straight people. And of course gay people have been idolizing straight people for basically forever (look up Friends of Dorothy) but one moment of activism does not a gay icon make.

Not to mention that leaving out Billie Joe Armstrong out of a list like that is criminal, considering he's been an open bisexual and supporting LGBT punk bands since Green Day became popular.

… Also a crime to leave out Prince but there are some battles you can't win...

Still, it would be remiss of me to not mention that this book was meant to be read by EVERYONE, not just by LGBT kids. I definitely understand the need for a book like this, but the queer community has become so fast paced and new terminology is updated and accepted on a near- daily basis. And I, personally, would not recommend this book to my friends (unless my friends want to know the book i'm slamming – LOL ). Perhaps a companion book titled “This Book is Trans” or “This Book is Queer”? Or maybe keep the title and come out with a second, more inclusive edition.

I would, however, recommend it to young, questioning kids and their parents – should said parents be aware of their kid's situation. I also recommend it to straight people who have very little interaction with LGBT people but who want to understand us a little better. I know I said the writing was condescending at times, but it is a good resource for people who aren't gay or who aren't sure what they are yet, especially if they don't wanna dig through Google, trying to find non-homophobic sources.

My overall opinion in a nutshell: Mediocre and non-inclusive

Score: 4/10

Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan

I'm not going to lie, if I had read this book in middle school or high school, I probably would have LOVED it. Pretentious teen romance was probably my favorite genre. (Something I don't talk about very much because everyone on Tumblr has a boner for hating the king of pretentious teen romance novels, John Green, and I rather like him.) Now, however, it is... to be honest it's uninteresting drivel.

The story focuses on local gay high schooler, Paul. Paul has ALWAYS known he was gay and everyone in his small, shockingly liberal town (shocking because it's so small) doesn't really care, except for the parents' of his friend, Tony, another gay high schooler. (only Tony's parents are homophobes and they have to lie about stuff just to get him out of the house)

We have other great characters! Such as Kyle, the bisexual who won't call himself bisexual because he doesn't like labels, also Paul's ex. Infinite Darlene, a trans girl who Paul does not call trans, only drag queen. She is homecoming queen and captain of the football team and also the other drag queens in school (???) don't like her because she's too masculine. Cis drag queens hating trans women, what else is new?

We also have Noah, the pretentious artist new kid and Paul's crush. And Joni, who was Paul's best friend but dumped him for her crappy boyfriend.

Right? The sheer amount of characters made my head spin too. And the drama with everyone was... too much. The only redeeming moment was when Tony finally stood up to his parents. Which he did so in, again, an unrealistic way.

And I'm not even going to mention the motorcycle cheerleaders.

So by the end of it, I was pretty disappointed.

Until I read the author's note. 10 years after it's original publication, David Levithan answers some questions about the book and gave a myriad of reasons as to why he wrote the book the way he did. He explained that he knew how unrealistic some parts of the story were, and that that's why they were there. Because as unrealistic as it was, it is something that he wants to one day be a reality. And that while we're far from that reality, it's something we should always, always be working towards.

There's something very brave about that. It's definitely true that there are far, far too many tragic stories featuring LGBTQA+ characters, but this is nothing short of a very happy story published in a time when stories like that simply didn't exist. A jaded queer person (such as myself) might brush off the pie in the sky life that Paul leads, but ultimately there really is nothing wrong with writing happy endings for people like you.

Should you choose to read this book, I recommend the new edition that comes with the author's note. It puts the entire novel in a much better perspective. It also has a short story featuring Infinite Darlene.

My overall opinion in a nutshell: Pretentious but well meaning

Score: 6/10 (points taken away were re-added after reading the author's not

Queer, There, and Everywhere: 23 People Who Changed the World by Sarah Prager

As an avid history nerd who doesn't read nearly as much historic shit as they should, I loved this book. Clear, concise, and with a detailed bibliography in the back, Queer, There, and Everywhere gives us undeniable proof that people like us – queer people – have always existed.

Starting in ancient Rome, through the civil rights movement and up the the present, Prager makes the context easy to understand by using modern language and beginning each chapter with a brief flashback to each figure's time. While many scholars look at things from a cishet lens and use the language to match, Prager does pretty much the opposite, making a disclaimer at the beginning of each chapter any time modern terminology or certain pronouns usage needs to be used for clarity.

This book doesn't just cover cis, gay people over the course of history, it has something for everyone across the spectrum of gender and sexuality – trans and nonbinary people, lesbian pioneers (no, not 1800s pioneers),George Takei, and much, much more.

While queer history can be a touchy subject, Queer, There, and Everywhere: 23 People Who Changed the World makes it so that our history can not, should not, and will not be erased.

My overall opinion in a nutshell: Fantastic and a necessary must for any person who needs a brief course in queer history.

Score: 8/10 (some of the historic figures she picked struck me as far-fetched, plus use of the outdated terms transsexual and transvestite)

[dudaallas]

lgbtqia pride month

LGBT is an acronym that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. In use since the 1990s, the term is an adaptation of the LGB acronym, which began to replace the term gay in reference to the broader LGBT community from the mid-1980s, from approximately 1988, activists began to use the LGBT initialism in the United States.

LGBTQIA+ The other form that has been used is LGBTQIA+ (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, queer, intersex and asexuals). In it, the Q comes from the English word queer and serves to designate who transits between the feminine and masculine genders and even beyond this binarity. Finally, the A relates to sexual orientation. Asexuals are those who do not feel sexual or affective attraction to another person, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The acronym has become popular as a self-designation, and this, as well as some of its common variants, tend to function as an umbrella term for minorities of sexual orientation and gender identity, being adopted by most community centers on these minorities and in media in the United States, as well as some other English-speaking countries. The term is also used in some other countries, particularly those whose languages ​​use acronyms, such as Argentina, Brazil, France and Turkey. The acronym LGBT can refer to any person who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender, or outside gender norms due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sexual characteristics. To recognize this inclusion, several variants emerge, one of the most popular being LGBTQ, which adds the letter Q for people who identify as queer or are in questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity. Those who add intersex people to LGBT groups or organizations will be able to use variants such as LGBTI. Some organizations may also use variants such as LGBTIQ, LGBTQI  or LGBT+, with the "+" being sometimes added to the end to include any other related minority that has not been represented by the other initials. Other less common variants also exist, such as LGBTQIA+ with the A signifying asexual and, agender or arromantic people, or still in controversial use for allied people. Longer acronyms, with some being twice as long as LGBT, have generated criticism for their length, and the implication that the acronym refers to a single community is also controversial. Another acronym used is LGBTHQIAPD+, created and used by the Arouchianos collective from the experience, identification and articulation in Largo do Arouche, whose meaning identifies lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transvestites, transgender women, trans men, heteroallies, queers/non-binary, intersex, asexuals, pansexuals and demisexuals. People may or may not identify as LGBT+, depending on their political concerns or whether they live in a discriminatory environment, as well as the LGBT rights situation where they live.

[roidespd-blog]

Chapter Twenty-Four : T as in TRANSGENDER

Let’s run down our Queer alphabet. I did the G for sure because patriarchy. I did the L. The L was an interesting journey. Obviously, I did the B, I may have overdid it at times. Okay, are we done ? What do you mean, no ? T ? Uh ?

WHAT’S THE T ?

Transgender : denoting or relating to a person whose of sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

We previously talked about gender identity and how sometimes, it may differ from the sex you were assigned at birth. Well, still true but that’s just the basic info everyone is supposed to know about. The word transgender, coined by Psychiatrist John F. Oliven in his 1965 book Sexual Hygiene and Pathology, is actually as much an proper identity as it is an umbrella term to many variables in the Trans community. We’ll get to that in a minute.

4500 YEARS IN THE PAST (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ambitious Storytelling in a Amateurish Article)

In broad terms, the History of transgender people begins in ancient Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations, as texts from over 4500 years ago mention transgender priests and prostitutes (remember, oldest job in the world). Some reports suggest that the idea of a third gender came from prehistoric times. They were known Trans priests in Ancient Greece, Phrygia and Rome while an Roman Emperor called Elagabalus preferred the use of “lady” instead of “lord” when addressed to. Variables from the trans community umbrella comes from the fact that there is shared History between transgender people, intersex people and even Second Spirit individuals from the Navajo community. Hijras (India), Kathoeys (Thailand) and Khanith (Arabia) have importance and recognized identities when it comes to the question of gender around the world. They are reports of transitions from male to female and female to male as early as the 1800s, with musicians (Billy Tipton), soldiers (Albert Cashier) and painters (Lili Elbe) coming to terms with their identity reassignment.

Lili, in fact, is famous for becoming one of the first woman to go through vaginoplasty in 1931. She went to Germany to undergo four different operations over a period of two years. Her immune system rejected the final operation (construction of a vagina and implementation of a uterus), and her body developed an infection. She died on September 13, 1931. Her life was immortalized in 2000’s The Danish Girl written by David Ebershoff, followed by a movie adaption from Tom Hooper (2015).

To be honest, the History of Transgender people in the world is so vast and varied, I’m getting overwhelmed. The Tale of Two Brothers from Ancient Egypt. Tribes from West Africa who did not assigned gender to their children until the age of five (In Central Africa, one can be genderless until puberty). The great tradition of dan roles in China since at least the Mind and Qing dynasties. The story of Esther Brandeau/Jacques La Fargue from 18th century Canada. Frances Thompson, a formerly enslaved black trans woman, one of five to testify in front of a U.S. congressional committee in 1866. Zuni Ihamana We’wha who became a cultural ambassador of her/his people in 1896. Danica Roem… Oh Danica Roem. Remind me to talk about Danica Roem later.

And now, it sounds like we’re not defining Trans identity properly as I’ve just mentioned Intersex and Cross-Dressing performers. Well, History is messy. Although they officially differ from one another now, they were more obscure concepts back then (and before “then” was a “then”).

DO NOT CONFUSE (PRESENT EDITION)

The first notion that a ignorant could have, based on lack of informations and overbearing sense of historic confusion, is that Transsexual and Transgender are synonyms. In fact, yes, Transsexual is a term that was used for a long ass time to define transgender people. It has since been rejected by a big part of the trans community. For now, transsexual is a subset of the umbrella that is Transgender. For a transgender person, the notion that “sexual” is used at to refer to their gender identity is extremely reductive. If you are still confused and one day you meet a openly out trans man or woman, don’t put your fist in your mouth flipping a coin to figure out what term suits them best. Just ask. Politely. A Transgender individual is also not to be confused with Transvestites. Transvestite : Someone who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes primarily associated with the opposite sex. First of all, transvestite is kind of an outdated term that was used in such a negative way I almost find it insulting (although it shouldn’t). Know that transvestism has nothing to do with gender identity. It’s the pleasure to put on clothes that do not belong to your gender category. A transvestite gay man stays a gay man. In some cases (but not all), the act of transvestism is developed as a fetish and provokes sexual arousal.

One synonym of the term would be cross-dressing, which was coined after some members of the post-Stonewall Riots group Street Transvestite ActionRevolutionaries, founded by Sylvia Rivera (1971) complained about the use of the term Transvestite. One newly-named long-lost cousin derivative of this is the term Genderfuck (or GenderBender), in which an individual will dress regardless of the binary concepts of fashion and clothing.

Do not confuse Transgender with the Art of Drag. Yes, you’re straight but hyped, you kiki in front of RuPaul’s Drag Race from time to time because they’re so funny and flamboyant. Yes. Yes. Being a Drag Queen is basically being a Cross-Dresser, except that this is a vocation, a paid job if you are lucky. Drag Queens are performers, pretty damn good ones at that, and their gender and sexual identities have nothing to do with how they pay the rent. If you read the June 11th article on RuPaul, you’ll see the details on the scandal Ru created about transgender people. Know that some Drag Queens are transgender and they can keep on being fabulous Drag Queens. Oh, and Drag Kings are a thing too. They just don’t have an Emmy Award-winning show to popularize them.

I will talk about Intersex people and their ancestry and connections to the Trans community, but not today.

PROCCESS

As a Transgender person, you usually feel a disconnection at a very young age between who you are in your head and what body was given to you by a non-existent God Almighty. When a person starts to go into transition (Process of changing one’s gender presentation and/or sex characteristics to accord with one’s internal sense of gender identity — the “and/or” is crucially important) he/she/they makes a conscious personal decision. Careful, you cannot confuse Transitioning with Sex Reassignment Surgery (or SRS), which is only an option. Transitioning is a holistic process and includes many physical, psychological, social and emotional changes.

On the social side, the first step would be to come out. A gay man or woman does not simply go from one gender to another, he/she/they has to redo the entire terrible dance of announcing your gender identity. Through that process, a new name might be chosen by the individual, with the proper set of pronouns. Since it’s a process that can be years in the making, the person transitioning might start to wear different clothing and accessories, style their hair differently, ease themselves into his/her/their real self.

Whether of not he/she/they go through with SRS is totally up to the individual. In the times of Lili Elbe, you could not consider yourself a transgender person unless SRS was performed. You would have been a transvestite. Today, as the laws progressed (very slowly and very recently), only the decision and the social and psychological changes are factors into transitioning legally.

Also, if you ever wonder in a transperson went through surgery, just dont. IT’S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, YOU DOUCHEFUCK.

On the medical side, the use of hormone therapy to create feminine or masculine characteristics is a major step into the transition (again, not an obligation). For trans women, surgeries can include breast implants, orchiectomy, laser hair removal, tracheal shave, facial feminization and penile inversion vaginoplasty. For trans men, male chest reconstruction, hysterectomy, phalloplasty and metoidioplasty are options to explore.

You also need a trustworthy doctor by your side to help you through your transition. Using hormones without medical guidance is dangerous and you may risk serious complications.

The point is, not all transgender people transition “completely” or even at all. The ways of some are not those of others. It may be a personal choice or a financial one, as those surgeries are very expansive and not always part of your insurance package (in the States, for example). Nevertheless, a person’s gender identity should always be respected no matter how they decide to transition socially or medically.

TRANS UNDER THE LAW

They are still a lot of places in the world where Transgender people are not protected under the law, where they cannot access the public bathroom of their gender based of bigotry ideas and religious fanaticism. There’s also discrimination in work places, many other public services, in health care.

In the United States, where you can be recognized as Trans, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act was stalled and failed several times over the last two decades. Each state now have choices of legislation in the matter. Mr. Orange is quickly taking back what was giving over the years to Trans people, such as the right to serve in the United States Armed Forces. Furthermore, Trans black women are still the most in danger population on record. As recently at early, the body of 26 year-old Chynal Lindsey was found. It’s the second unsolved murder of a trans black woman in the spam of a few weeks, fourth in three years in Dallas alone.

Did you know that until January of 2018, France was asking their transgender citizens to go through obligatory sterilization, a direct violation of human rights (decision made the European Court of Human Rights in April 2017) ? 20 countries in Europe were implementing that rule, while 36 still require mental health diagnosis in order to get legal gender recognition. Back to France. Laws to protect trans people started to be talked about as early as the late 70s. Twice, in 1981 and 1982, a law failed to pass. Meanwhile, transpeople were still considered psychiatric cases when in need of hospital care, and that until 2010. Since the 2016 case of a young trans woman who didn’t want to go through any surgery and still change her legal name, shit have moved around in the right direction. With the non-obligation to be sterilized came the possibility to change one’s name more easily, not based on any invasive medical procedures. You need to prove that that name represents your real identity, that’s it’s been used that others for quite some time and the change would harm your psychological well-being. New rules about minors who want to transition have also been add up to the law. They can change their names at age 12. The birth certificate can be modified at age 16. Transphobia is punishable through many updated laws when it comes to slurs, defamation, sexual harassment and discrimination.

And yet, trans people don’t feel safe. I wonder why.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY NOTHING

2017 and 2018 were the deadliest years for Transgender Americans, with over 50 deaths in 24 months. Cases of Transgender people being arrested for crimes that were not crimes are basically limitless at this point. The Transgender community is still the most rejected of them all. Have you ever wondered how you would react if Pierre was suddenly in the process of becoming Vanessa, her real self ? The answer is not relevant. Vanessa would not have the support of her family, her uneducated friends would try to ditch her faster than you can say vaginoplasty and her boss would find a way to make her feel unwelcome. People have not been properly educated. They get easily confused with pronouns, so to understand the difficult process of gender dysphoria ?

Gender Dysphoria : the distress a person feels due to their birth-assigned sex and gender not matching their gender identity. My mama once told me that the fact that I was gay took time for her to process but she never stopped loving me. When I asked her “what if I was transgender ?” she replied “Oh no Alex. Not that. I don’t think I would accept that”. My mama’s no bigot. She is just so uninformed that she automatically rejects any foreign ideas. That’s why representation is so fucking important, so.

WE CAN BE HEROES

Long gone are the days where the only trans people on television were played by cisgender actors and were called “transvestite hooker #2”. It started with a bang with Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry (1999), it slowly went to more recognition with Felicity Huffman in Transamerica (2005) to continue through Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club (2013). All fine performances by three cisgender folks. I’m not even gonna mention prior appearances of trans characters, they are just so offensive.

The real revolution started in July of 2013, when the character of Sofia, played by Laverne Cox, was introduced to the world by Netflix. A transgender character played by a transgender actress. She went on to be nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Guest Actress. Twice. The consecration came a year later when Cox made the cover of Time magazine. It was called a “transgender tipping point”. 

In 2014, Transparent debuted its first season on Amazon. Let’s not forget the Tambor scandal, yes, but it would be a shame to not celebrate the work of non-binary individual Jill Soloway, who gave trans people a platform — as except for Tambor and Whitford characters, all the trans characters were played by transgender people. in 2015, Caitlyn Jenner made the cover of Vanity Fair, officially announcing her transition. She’s a terrible person. I won’t say otherwise because she’s a trans women. A terrible person is a terrible person. In 2017, A Fantastic Woman won Best Foreign Film at the Academy Awards. First, it’s an incredible movie. Second, it served as a response from the government trying to erase the trans community from existence in the military. An incredibly realistic portrayal of a trans character in Shameless (played by the gorgeous Elliot Fletcher) in also to be noted. 

In 2018, Pose premiered its first episode. I’ve already talked about Pose so much. I’m not getting into too much detail again. It’s major.

I’ll just say this : I went back to work on Friday. I work at an english bookstore, you see. In the press department. And There she was. Indya Moore. On the cover of Elle US. My jaw dropped on the floor. A trans woman on the cover of one of the most popular fashion magazine in the world. I’m sorry but MILESTONE. 

Scarlett Johansson having to quit a movie where she was gonna play a transgender person because of the outpour of rage that followed ? PRICELESS MILESTONE. Janet Mock becoming the first transgender person to direct an episode of television ? MILESTONE TO INFINITY. Supergirl just introduced the TV’s first transgender superhero, played by Nicole Maines. I’ve said it before. Get the kids on board and then, jackpot. In France, activist-turned-actor Adrian de La Vega and actor Océan (who documentary feature is available for streaming right now!) are making incredible waves for the french trans community.

My god… DANICA ROEM ! This american journalist was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017, becoming the first transgender person to both be elected and serve in any U.S. state legislature. She famously answered to a chance to attack her republican counterpart in the race (Bob Marshall, nicknamed the commonwealth’s “chief homophobe”) by these simple words : “I don’t attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.”

GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT… WELL, TRANSGHT

Queer people, here’s my daily message on repeat : GIVE MORE TO THE TRANS COMMUNITY. Stop looking at yourselves in the gym mirrors and focus : Trans people be should OUR top priority. We are letting our siblings in the mud while we parade with pride. Enough. Each new Pride should be first of foremost about trans rights and how we can protect them. AS FAST AS WE CAN. Here we have brave men and women having the courage to live as their true selves, we are one of the same. No dancing on Robyn’s music until the entire crowd starts screaming “TRANS RIGHTS NOW ! TRANS RIGHTS NOW !” I’m not hearing you. LOUDER.

[sivym1-blog]

Reading Response #1: Chapter 4, “Transforming the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System”

Laurel Westbrook, in her chapter entitled “Transforming the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System,” asserts that, contrary to popular belief, “sex, gender, and sexuality...are in fact socially constructed systems,” as opposed to being predetermined “biologically” or by some other set facet (Location 1106*). Referencing Anne Fausto-Sterling’s “The Five Sexes,” Westbrook defines the spectrum of sexes, which include the “usually acknowledged” sexes, male and female, which are generally “based on genitalia, hormones, and/or chromosomes,” a misguided determination of sex as said category is not easily delineated into two binary counterparts, Westbrook suggests (Location 1106).

Likewise, Westbrook discusses the relation between proposed binary sex categories and gender, which she defines as “refer[ring] to a set of behaviors and identities often assumed to be caused by, and to reflect, a person’s sex” (Location 1106). With these rigid categories come rigid differences in assumptions and expectations of behavior, psychological “norms,” and physical appearance (Location 1121). These assumptions often garner support, becoming integral to daily life: creating ideal roles to which people who consider themselves to align with this construct attempt to adhere.

One of these roles includes heterosexuality, in which someone who identifies as a woman is attracted exclusively to people who identify as men and vice versa. Heteronormativity, the construct that places heterosexuality as the dominant and ostensibly “correct” and “natural” sexuality, creates a “classification schema” that defines heterosexuality as the highest “status categor[y]” of “sexual desires, behaviors, and identity” (Location 1121).

Therefore, as Westbrook declares, “In current mainstream U.S. culture, sex, gender, and sexuality are mutually reinforcing” (Location 1121). The three groups collude in a subject’s personal representation- a “signal” defined by West and Zimmerman, to whom Westbrook references, as “doing gender” (Location 1121). These ideas, or “presentations,” define certain social acceptability within the intersecting categories of sex, gender, and sexuality (Location 1121). In fact, as Westbrook proclaims, “The academic conception of sex, gender, and sexuality as separate systems are relatively new; in the past, they were seen as one and the same,” which was previously the source of definitions of deviancy in these categories (Location 1138).

These ideas of “deviancy” had medical consequences, with doctors “[studying] so-called deviants” in order to define, “categorize and ‘treat’ intersex people” and separate sex and gender as categories irrelevant to one another (Location 1138). Simultaneously, though, “doctors medicalized” trans people, defining their “’mismatch’ of sex and gender” as an illness that required a cure (Location 1138). Doing gender in a way that was non-normative, therefore, became a point of contention even within communities in which inclusion was a tenant: gay communities rejected gender non-conforming people “in an attempt to reduce stigma regarding homosexuality” (Location 1138). This in-fighting, though, furthered the distinction and separation of sex, sexuality, and gender, which can be seen as a rainbow after the storm.

Westbrook cites recent (i.e. within the past ten years) legal protections created on the federal level to protect trans people as well as increased mainstream visibility of the trans community and its figureheads as an improvement in the way of acceptance within a generally cissexist society. She contrasts these improvements with the flurry of confusion following Christine Jorgensen’s gender affirmation surgery, as she was the first widely known trans person to obtain such a procedure (Location 1171). Of course, like many famous trans faces today, Jorgensen’s surgery gained attention because she was “white, normatively attractive, and feminine” in a time where science and societal questioning were becoming acceptable (Location 1171). Aside from the category of whiteness, the acceptance of conventionally attractive trans people gaining attention in the media is still visible today, including figures Laverne Cox and Janet Mock.

Something of which I was previously unaware was the modern history of transgender medical services, including the limited accessibility of “hormone treatments and surgeries” which “were usually only accessible through university clinics” and that trans people had “to conform to dominant norms around gender and sexuality” in order to receive surgery, including “doing gender” in an otherwise cisgender way and performing non-sexual heterosexuality until surgery, after which they were expected to perform heterosexuality (Location 1171). It’s also pretty shocking how trans patients were required to adhere to secrecy and seclude themselves from other trans folks.

The inception of the word “transgender” or, as some in the trans community have argued, simply “trans,” remove much of the stigma suffered under labels “transgendered,” “transgenderist,” “transvestite,” and “transsexual,” which all have connotations of unnatural-ness and wrongness. Trans “has been defined as ‘all persons who cross traditional gender boundaries’” and therefore includes not only the masculine and feminine, but also the non-binary (Location 1205). As Westbrook states, “This recognition moves them from what Judith Butler (1993) terms abject (not seen as human) into a realm of subjects eligible for social acknowledgement and rights” (Location 1205).

As Westbrook cites, there is still an incredible amount of violence and discrimination that targets the trans community, recently including the bathroom laws in some states that require a person to use the bathroom that aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth regardless of their gender. This fear re-links the interactions between sex, gender, and sexuality, assuming there is some underlying/hidden masculinity in someone who is assigned male at birth who is a woman, therefore provoking fears that a transwoman is “really” a heterosexual man looking to use women’s restrooms in an attempt to sexually assault them (Location 1257).

Westbrook uses the term “transsexualities” to refer to trans people’s sexualit(ies). I do not agree with this term, as it perpetuates the distance between cisgender and trans people, and posits that trans people cannot and do not experience attraction the same way that cisgender people do, not-so-subtly hinting at the same idea behind the bathroom laws: that trans-ness is simply a mask or an illness, someone disguising themselves for an ulterior motive.

Likewise, I cannot really get behind Westbrook’s discussion of trans queerness, as she seems to suggest that in order to date a trans person or date as a trans person, one must ultimately call themselves queer. She does cite that many of these people do identify themselves as queer, but she does not make it clear that trans people exist all over the sexuality spectrum (Location 1274). I do agree, though, that there is an up-tick in identities that fall under the “queer” umbrella, including queer and pansexual, as people begin to include genderqueer and nonbinary people in their considerations of their sexuality (Location 1274).

I agree, in general, though, with Westbrook’s message. Interlocking Western binary systems do adversely affect those who do not exist within heterosexual, cisgender, binary sexed spaces, rendering these people without voices. It is because of this intersecting oppression that discussion of gender, sexuality, and sex must be intersectional, addressing these three categories, as well as other social identities that affect any one person, at once.

Edit: * My eTextbook does not have page numbers, and, instead, lists “Location” numbers. I will cite these as opposed to page numbers for my own reference, as well as for citation purposes as I do not have access to other means of page delineation. 

[lavendermenacing]

Trans vs. Gender Critical conceptions of womanhood

This is a long read but I hope you will hang in there with me.

The insistence by the transgender movement that transwomen “have always been women” and transmen “have always been men” is relatively new; even 5 years ago you would not have found people claiming that, for instance, a male child who would later transition in his 20′s had actually been female all along and had received female socialization.

While it’s not new, it is the logical endpoint for this line of thought and we’re seeing it break down more and more as it clashes conspicuously with reality. Transwomen have not “always been women”, so long as “woman” has any definition whatsoever, and it’s obvious from any material analysis of their lives; claiming a male child who may not even be old enough to have a concept of gender was somehow treated by society as a girl based on an identity that the child would grow up to have 20 years later is just, it’s ridiculous; and I don’t know why discrimination against GNC and trans people can’t seem to be addressed without claiming that child was always female.

So let’s back up: gender non-conforming people have always existed because gender is a social construct with an oppressive purpose, not a natural description of human behavior. Whatever gender means in a place and time, there will always be people who don’t fit that box and who will actively resist it, to various degrees of societal lashback.

Right around the 60′s and 70′s, the rights movements of gay people, gender nonconforming people, and those who would have called themselves transvestites or transsexuals really began to gather steam. People in these groups at this time described themselves in various ways. Some felt they had a masculine or feminine energy, or felt like they were a woman in a man’s body, or were sometimes a man and sometimes a woman. Some described a more male or female persona, described themselves as “half sisters” and “drag/street queens”. These were terms used by both gay/bi people and by people who we might describe today as transgender. A lot of times, differentiation between those categories really wasn’t seen as important.  I am 100% not here to criticize this; these were individuals fighting for their existence in a world coming out of the highly gendered era of the 50′s, and they used the terms available to them to describe their experiences of being gay, being gender nonconforming and transgender.

And I think from here there were two sorts of lines of thought that developed moving forward and have been slowly polarizing ever since:

1. Individuals who feel that their gender does not match their sex are correct; gender supercedes “assigned” sex and these people are their chosen identity, which can be male, female, nonbinary, or any number of things. Language and conceptions of male, female, man, woman, etc need to be changed and corrected to be identity-based, not anatomically-based because an identity-based system of sex and gender means “woman” does not insinuate any body type or set of experiences based on that body type. Legal and social barriers to changing gender or seeking hormones/surgery to assuage body dysphoria should be dismantled as much as possible. Delineation of spaces as male or female based on anatomy should be challenged as oppressively exclusionary. Confirmation of identity in this way is the best way to fight marginalization and oppression of GNC and trans people. This is the transgender movement.

2. Gender itself is oppressive and should be dismantled alltogether, which would remove the societal stressors driving people to identify their normal human behavior and feelings as in conflict with their sex (or a signifier of sex at all). Sex is a biological reality, but it should not have any social significance or insinuate anything about a person’s personality, behavior, likes and dislikes, occupation, etc. Sexual orientation is sex-based. Gender nonconformity in present society is valid, but male people should still be identified as men (and female people as women) because these categories are important descriptors to a power system (patriarchy) that has oppressed women in ways that specifically target our bodies for a very long time: forced pregnancy, FGM, female infanticide, human trafficking for prostitution, denial of reproductive healthcare, many more. As such, “woman” is a valid sex-based category that deserves preservation in its meaning so feminism may continue to effectively address the ways women are specifically oppressed. Dismantling of gender is the best way to fight marginalization and oppression of women, GNC and trans people. This is gender critical, or radical feminism.

Both do seek to address the harm that society does to gender nonconforming people, but only one sees women’s historical and continuing experience as deserving of respect. We see harm in expanding the language used to describe female people so that it includes people born male, because female people still face specific oppressions for being female. We need this language to describe and fight against what has happened, what is happening. We do believe that clear language to discuss sex-based oppression is more important than individual identity, and I think that is where we will always come into conflict with the transgender movement. They do not see womanhood as being a category that needs to be preserved in its meaning for any reason, while we see many many reasons why it deserves to retain its meaning and serve as a foundation for feminist work; every woman who has ever been targeted for her female body is reason enough for me.