Columns Nov 23, 2011 at 4:00 am

Ciscontent

Comments

102
I work at the child abuse hotline in Texas, *in Texas*, and nowhere in the family code does it say anything about poly being child abuse. I know it's not that simple, and people will exaggerate in all manner of ways to get an investigator out to the house of someone they just want to get in trouble. But if someone called me to report the situation as FTP describes it, I would give them the standard "we will record this information, but it does not meet guidelines for investigation. Have a nice day!" and only be thinking "you shit-smeared asshole" very loudly. To imply that being poly is child abuse shows that these people have no fucking clue what actual child abuse is.
103
@Hunter

Duh? Women are more likely to have low libido.
Meanwhile men worry about their ability to get it up.
Also, bonus tip. Men have penises and women have vaginas.

Since we're in the business of pointing out well-known gender differences.
Yawn.
104
All this info and my main wonderment is: How much DOES it pay to have one legs and feet photographed? Cause that sounds like one easy-ass job to me.

jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…
105
FRAUD is pissed off at being called queer:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
106
I went years without any kind of libido. The thought of sex or kissing my husband physically made me nauseated. Occasionally I would feel guilty enough to let him have sex with me (I was not an active participant) and it always hurt. I was convinced there was something terribly wrong with me, I talked to him about finding sex outside the marriage if he needed to (I don't think he ever did but I won't ask), and overall my quality of life was diminished.

But this spring I ran out of birth control pills and since I had no insurance to visit a doctor I gave them up, and my psychiatrist switched my anti-depressant from citalopram to wellbutrin. Oh my God! I am a completely different person. I think it took a few months to really get out of my system but I have actual desire for my husband again, it feels good to kiss instead of feeling like my mouth is being disgustingly invaded, and today I actually felt close to having an orgasm. I am 29 and have NEVER had an orgasm, by myself or with him (he has been my only partner), and had given up on ever having one and I felt defective.

So, there is hope if you are on birth control or anti-depressants and have lost your libido. My gynecologist just dismissed my concerns but my psychiatrist was ok trying out a different medication after my mood had been stable. wellbutrin can have fewer sexual side effects but may increase anxiety. But having a fun and happy sex life decreases anxiety!
107
102-Stacy-- I'm glad for your input. I was going to say something about the chaos that would result if children were taken away from every woman who was having a flagrant affair, but I didn't know how to word it. You said it better. The way FTP described it, the bottom line is that the brother discovered on facebook that his brother was having an affair with a married woman. That has got to be a common story even amongst folks who pretend it's not. I've heard that scenario called a lot of things but not child abuse.
108
@91 and @97 - I agree with you. Almost nothing about being human is purely physical or purely psychological/social - those two parts of us interact in extremely intricate ways.

Do post-transition people give off the pheromones of their genetic gender or their psychological gender? Pheromones are a big part of sexual attraction. Maybe FRAUD is just sensitive to the male pheromones given off by MTFs and his body doesn't respond sexually to that, no matter what the person looks like. No one can fault him for that.
109
Kate Bornstein has one thing in common with Republicans: they both think all liberals are queers.
110
I'm a little bit suspicious that FRAUD is a letter by a conservative, trying to show up the absurdity of what he thinks liberalism is.

His friends' argument sounds like the equivalent of saying you're sexist if you're not bisexual.
112
Re neologisms, I just like to remember that sometimes these politically motivated changes take hold (See "chair", "firefighter", "police officer" and "Ms.") Sometimes it doesn't work (see "womyn"). Neologisms aren't inherently foolish or misguided, though obviously some are.
113
@84:

Mirena doesn't just thin the endometrium; it can and does inhibit ovulation. Check
page fourteen of the FDA clinical review. Also, in case you didn't read this article from Gynecological Endocrinology, you probably should.

114
91-ankylosaur-- Re: Junk DNA a result of billions of years of adapting to an unpredictable environment.

Yes, but also junk DNA the result of all DNA being good at reproducing itself because that's what it does. Some junk shows up through mutation. It doesn't do anything to the organism. It's not acted on by natural selection. It reproduces. The reproductions are reproduced. It happens for billions of years. There's a lot of it because it builds up for billions of years. No environment, stable or unpredictable needed.

But yes, I agree with you on the messy complicatedness of human reality versus the clean sleek lines of the way humans would rather think about everything. I notice that I often accuse fundamentalists and republicans of appealing to the desire for the simplistic in human nature, but it exists on the left as well.
115
Bornstein wants FRAUD to stop identifying as straight? FRAUD is attracted to people who identify as women and who have womens' bodies. How is that not straight? Is Bornstein trying to play some cute semantic game that involves forcing some new-or-improved definition of "straight" onto an unsuspecting world?

FRAUD is entitled to a preference. Hell, if he's only attracted to healthy girls, his fat friends shouldn't be able to call him a bad person for not fucking them. Sure the unfucked can feel rejected, because they're being rejected. But they can't hold it against the rejector.

That said, he said "wouldn't feel comfortable" having sex with a trans woman, not "don't find them attractive". So maybe he could choose to push his boundaries and see what exactly breaks, if he found an attractive trans woman who was willing to take that risk on him.
116
@94 & 97, I have a few responses to that. First, you kinda did equate trans to psychosis. You might want to try a different analogy--maybe some other sort of body dysmorphia? And being more clear about your intentions?

Also, I think there is value in separating sex and gender. If you do not agree on this, there is not much point to your reading further.

For most people, they're pretty much the same, but sex is biological and gender is a social construction. I am female, was born female, and identify as such--but I present as fairly 'butch' and that has its own issues. My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do. He hasn't begun formal transitioning, but most people treat him as a man. How do you explain that, if there isn't some way in which sex and gender differ?

Manzana, you brought up other animals. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because there are two answers. One, we *do* see opposite-sex behavior in other animals; it's not exclusive to humans. Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them.

You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people. I don't see that they are doing so. Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification. I also don't see where in this thread that anyone was delineating such a split as you describe--with the possible exception of #47, John Horstman (my eyes glazed over a little).

I absolutely agree that the trans folks that the LW is talking about have their heads up their arses. He doesn't need to apologize for his attractions. At *worst*, it's a squick. I also dislike someone else labeling him as 'queer', for the reasons others have stated above.
117
@ Hunter
Yes I do know there's a difference. That fact was kind of implicit in how I wrote what I wrote.

You statement was trivial. That was my point. That's why I made fun of it. Apparently that went over your head.
118
echizen@113 This response is no so much directed to you, but rather to any reader who may still be following this conversation thread re: Mirena IUD.

I hope that readers will not be afraid to use this effective contraception method due to any misleading information.

The discussion is probably getting more technical than most people will be interested in following. So here's the take home message: Mirena IUD has hormones that work locally in the uterus. A very very small amount of hormone is absorbed systemically. The contraception effect is local (including the occasional ovarian inhibition due to proximity.)This means that while you may not get periods on the Mirena, it will be because it acts in the uterus to thin the uterine lining. Women using the Mirena have the same natural estrogen levels as women not using hormonal birth control. "Hormones" on the Mirena are almost entirely your own natural hormones -- as opposed to "hormones" when using systemic methods such as birth control pills.

Ok now to the details:
"echizen"@113 offered two links and I read both.

Link 1. FDA:
LNG IUS [Mirena] is believed to exert its contraceptive effect locally in the uterus by
a) thickening the cervical mucus
b) inhibiting sperm motility and function
c) preventing the proliferation of the endometrium during the menstrual
cycle
d) inhibiting ovulation is some cycles (seen more often in the first year of use).

I guess the main point "ecizen" was making is that it is possible that ovulation inhibition is sometimes how Mirena works. I realize that I simplified my description of the mechanism of action of the Mirena. But what I said still holds true -- the effect is local! Look at the quote from the FDA above. It states that it exerts a LOCAL uterine effect. Then at the end of the list it also states that it can inhibit ovulation some of the time. Are you wondering then how that can be local? Well it can! That's because the ovaries and uterus are very very close together. The ovaries are sometimes directly affected by the progesterone of the IUD enough to inhibit ovulation. But this doesn't happen most of the time. Most of the time women will ovulate on the Mirena. Remember that with oral contraception the hormone levels must high enough systemically to turn off ovarian stimulation. In the same way that high systemic natural progesterone levels in the luteal phase of the natural menstrual cycle inhibit ovulation. In short -- NOT how the Mirena happens to work.

Link 2. This is so weird! Though it looks like it's trying to imitate one -- this article is not from a peer-reviewed scientific journal at all. It some organization devoted to fighting Bayer Inc., called "The Coalition Against Bayer-dangers". The author of this "review article" is clear that he's fighting against the general medical/scientific consensus that Mirena contraception is local to the uterus, it has very low systemic hormones and little systemic hormonal side effects. This review article is a biased distortion and misrepresentation. They have other articles too, such as "Bayer sold AIDs infected bood" and "Bayer promoted heroin for children". I don't know why they are so fixated on Bayer, but like Chemtrail conspiracy theories I really have no interest in treading through that murky weirdness :-)
119
I'm confused by the idea that queer ally straight people should also call themselves queer. I am a straight woman who supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, two-spirit, asexual, and intersex causes. I'm even a sexual minority myself. (I'm poly.) I truly want to see all people treated with dignity.

That said, if I went around calling myself queer, I'm sure that I'm likely to annoy those people who will see my actions as mislabelling myself. I would not be surprised if it was seen as a form of cultural appropriation.
120
Just my 2c.

Please don't call me a queer. I'm a straight guy (married, even) with a lot of LGBTQABC Tennessee Valley Authority alphabet soup acronym kind of friends, and I support them as much as I can. They're good people, and I love them. That doesn't make me queer. There's nothing wrong with being queer, but in my (WTF is this new word) cis-hetero-male state of existence, it is just factually inaccurate. I am not queer. I am just a straight guy. But fags, lesbos, and trannies are cool by me. Feel free to argue about terminology (that's all gender studies seem to be anyway), but straight people who are cool with queers don't need to be queerified. It's just not the proper nomenclature, dude.
121
I hate people who threaten CPS or say someone "should" be turned into CPS. If they should, then pick up the fucking phone and turn them in. Otherwise it's just bullshit and the threatener knows it.
122
119, being poly makes you queer. Queer means "not straight." Poly is "not straight."
123
@122, since when does "straight" imply monogamous? It's my understanding that "straight" denotes a person who is only attracted to members of the opposite sex, nothing more nor less. If you're poly and only fuck members of the opposite sex, why shouldn't you be able to call yourself straight?
124
@118:

No, it is from a peer-reviewed scientific jo…. The anti-Bayer site reposted the article in its entirety (probably illegally, but hey, that's the internet for you). I posted the link to the repost on the anti-Bayer site rather than the original journal because I figured people who didn't have an institutional subscription to Gynecological Endocrinology probably didn't want to pay fifty bucks for the article. Sorry about any confusion -- but yeah, it's legit.
125
@103 I had to giggle when I saw that because some days I WANT it, but I can't get my vag to cooperate and it just becomes progressively more ridiculous to the point that if someone saw me they would think I was committing some kind of self induced genital mutilation. Luckily I haven't had this problem with a partner. I do worry more about libido overall, after all no one wants to be known as "frigid" and I've been on the receiving end of a partner's disinterest. Both roles in that situation really suck.
126
In my opinion, if not being attracted to trans people means you're transphobic, then does that mean being attracted to a certain ethnicity makes you racist, or to a certain sex sexist?

And similarly, if you can't be straight and support queer rights at the same time, does that mean a white person who isn't a racist isn't white anymore?

Let's face it: trans people aren't the same as cis people, because we're a long way from perfect operation/hormones, because the later you start the process the less effective it will be, and because a lot of people never go through surgery. And I can absolutely understand why people might, for instance, not be attracted to a woman if she has a penis.

Personally, I identify as a straight woman. I've only ever been attracted to males. While I don't really see myself with a transperson of any gender, I can picture it better with a woman who has a penis than a man who has a vagina.

@4 I disagree with the idea that there are only trans or cisgendered people. I don't think you have to be one or the other, and I don't identify as either. My sex is female but I don't believe my gender is male or female, I feel it is just me. I think that's why I'd be more likely to end up with a trans woman than a trans man: I don't really understand the concept of gender, how it's quantify, how you can tell it, and therefore I can't say I'm attracted to people's gender anymore than, say, to people's auras. Sure, most people might divide everyone between orange and green auras but if I can't see colours I doubt it affects my attraction very much.

Considering how many people transition after building a family, I would say their unsuspecting partners are like me, too.
127
Could part of FRAUD's "problem" be that his trans friends may want to date him?

I have long considered myself queer, in the original sense of the word. That has more to do with my nerdisms than sexuality, though my lack of discrimination towards LGB people back in the day might've earned me that label from others. I love how Erika Moen, author of the DAR comic puts it in terms of "I'm attracted to whom I'm attracted to" when she identifies as a lesbian, but married a man. I am sitting here, in our home, exactly where I want to be, in love with my wife. I wish and hope that everyone can have that chance to be with the one(s?) they want and need.

Happy Tday! Don't forget to get someone to register to vote if they haven't already, and don't use inflammatory language in explaining the Occupy movement and marriage equality (get out there and win some hearts and minds!).

Peace.
128
@Crinoline, who wrote:
But yes, I agree with you on the messy complicatedness of human reality versus the clean sleek lines of the way humans would rather think about everything. I notice that I often accuse fundamentalists and republicans of appealing to the desire for the simplistic in human nature, but it exists on the left as well.


I've often noticed the same thing -- in fact, some liberals can be downright conservative in the way they can push their liberal beliefs. Which is why I end up thinking that moderates on both sides (and on many other sides -- it's not only a two-way discussion) have actually more in common with each other than with the extremists of whatever party/school of thought they happen to identify with.

The reason why moderates are usually in one side is that they are appalled at the exaggerated/extremist versions of the other side, and may have to some extent succombed to the temptation of seeing said extremists as the voice of the opposing party. (It certainly doesn't help that said voices get a lot of, if not most, media attention.)

Extremes attract for a similar reason: simplicity. The enemy becomes clear-cut (it's "the other extreme"), the solution to all problems is reduced to some simple formula ("the market will decide!" "god knows better!" "gender is all in the mind!" "cultural relativism!"); we can all concentrate on simple activism (or the inevitable revolution, or death threats against abortion doctors, or burning crosses, or purging the "allies" who don't think like us, or...).

I frankly wish life were simple. Alas, it isn't.

129
@Crinoline, you also asked about the difference between transgendered people and economically challenged (aka. poor) people who think they should have been born rich, or people who were born thinking they are Napoleon, etc. Are transgendered people different?

In theory there is no difference, if you think that gender is as socially constructed as a person's name or economic status. But if gender does have something to do with the brain, then there is a difference: some physical structure of your brain would be different from what it would be in others. If seen from this prism, being born with the wrong sex would be more like being born with a malformed organ -- something for which treatments can be recommended, since such malformations can span the whole range from simply ugly to uncomfortable to dangerous to even life-threatening. The point is where on this range a sex-change operation would fall.

(Of course, considering how the brain evolves by itself in a Darwinian way in its own process of maturation -- how life experiences can have consequences for brain structure -- this may end up being a difference of degree rather than kind. The jury is still out on that one.)

And how about thinking you're a rich person who was born in a poor body? Well, leaving aside the above biological considerations, I think there is one answer: you are entitled to think so, and to do something about it, by namely becoming rich. (There is the social philosophy that thinks we all should have the same economical status, that economical differences are unfair -- property is theft! -- and shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society, but I'm not entering this question).

I'd say the same about transgendered (or gender-dysphoric) people: to me, they are entitled to doing something about their belief that theirs is the wrong body. Just as Blacks (Ă  la Michael Jackson) are entitled to changing their skin color if it is feasible, or like blondes are entitled to die their hair red or black. Or...

Because indeed I do think that we should have power over our bodies. To repair what we feel is wrong about them, or what we don't like about them, or simply what we wished were more beautiful about them -- as long as we don't endanger our lives in the process. (I understand there is a spectrum here, and no clear-cut rules, and a lot of space to do the wrong thing -- but hey, this is life, isn't it? In what arena don't we have these possibilities?)

So ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not transgendered people are ultimately right about 'being in the wrong body' or not. They want to transition; it's their bodies; they're not endangering their lives, nor anybody else's; so I say, they're entitled to it.
Call me a trans-agnostic if you will. :-)
132
Wait, so a person can't be supportive of homosexuals and transgenders AND be straight? Objection!

It makes no sense for people to make up their own definitions of words. If FRAUD says "I'm not straight" everyone will figure that he means that he is gay. If he says "I'm a queer heterosexual," everyone will figure that he's out of his mind (see "So open-minded that your brains fall out.") FRAUD should identify as what he is, "straight" or "heterosexual."

"Straight" doesn't mean "heterosexual person who doesn't support the homosexual and/or transgender community." Bornstein just WISHES that that's what it meant.
133
EDIT: I mean that it makes no sense for people to make up their own definitions of words that already have clear definitions. "Pegging" and "Santorum" work because there was no existing definition to override.

It's kind of like how McDonalds wanted Webster et al. to change the definition of "McJob" to "a great job with lots of opportunity." That's just not what the word means and no one who wants to communicate effectively should use it that way.
134
Mr Ank - Are you stating that the extremists never actually become the voice of the opposing party, suggesting that the concept of there ever being "the" voice of any party is a black hole in the first place, or something else? I was tempted to ask what happens when the extremists DO become the voice of a party, but thought that perhaps you could not engage what you considered an impossibility.

I'm not sure why, but your framing the issue as a matter of temptation came across as unusually superiour of you, though I agree with you in part (just can't settle on the proportion yet).
135
I call BS on those who claim FRAUD is a transphobe.

Sexual attraction isn't simply a matter of conscious gender identification. A transwoman, even a post-op transwoman, still has a Y chromosome. The effects of that Y chromosome may not be immediately apparent, but could still affect sexual attraction. As far as I know, pheremone secretion is not affected by sexual re-assignment surgery.

There is a lot we don't know about sexual attraction, but biology plays a pretty big role. (Otherwise it would be possible to "cure" homosexuality, right?) Like it or not, a transwoman will never be biologically identical with a ciswoman.
136
re the debate between Crinoline and ankylosaur:
I think it's fair to say that making things far more complicated than they need be is often a progressive vice, and asserting that things are far more simple than they actually are is often a conservative vice.
137
Oh Lord, 135, and others: 'Like it or not, a transwoman will never be biologically identical with a ciswoman'. As if it were that simple, as if all cis women were the same, or something. Human gender is bimodal not dimorphic- there are not two distinct categories, but only two distinct tendencies. There is more variation within the categories 'man' and 'woman' in almost all features which show co-ordinated variation, than there is between them. So, men are generally taller than women, but some men are smaller than the vast majority of women, and some women are taller than the vast majority of men. The main genuinely dimorphic feature, the xx/xy chromosome split, is only tangentially related to phenotype: the x chromosome acts as a trigger for male gonad development (gonads are also pretty dimorphic) which in turn acts as a trigger for testosterone production, which then tends given features towards the 'male' end of the scale. XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity develop as completely phenologically female, except that they have testes where most women have ovaries. Most trans women will have at least some features which are in the 'normal' range for males and the 'unusual' range for females. So will a lot of cis women. Some cis women will look so masculine they regularly get taken for men. If they choose to present as feminine, they will frequently get read as cross-dressers. Some trans women will have no perceptible features, mental, physical, whatever, that are anything other than 'normal' for females. (except in genatalia, of course, since this is the constitutive item which we use to separate 'trans' from 'intersex'). To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such that that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.
138
Let’s do a thought experiment here. Let’s say I believe I was born into the wrong body: I was born looking white, but inside, I am really black. So I dye my skin, have plastic surgery done on my nose, and do whatever I have to do to my hair to make it look like I have African ancestry. I start talking differently and acting differently, according to my idea of what an african-american me would be like. Do you think african-americans would accept me as one of their own, assuming that I was not realistic enough for them to be able to tell that I wasn’t born african-american? No, they would not. And nobody would accuse them of being bigoted for not accepting me. Nobody would ask them to adopt a new language to describe themselves, saying “african-american identified” or “black-identified” instead of “african american” or “black”.
Nobody is born into the wrong body. There isn’t some assembly room in heaven which occasionally screws up and puts the wrong body and soul together before sending us down to earth. I’m fine with people dressing however they want, or even surgically modifying themselves however they want. It’s your body, dude. But I am a woman, not a “cisgender woman” or “female-identified person”. You are a man who is imitating both biological femaleness and our society’s sexist constructs around womanhood. Frankly, I find it a little offensive. But I will accept your right to do what you want with yourself, and I’ll keep my commentary to myself IRL for fear of being called a bigot. But asking me to change how I identify myself is just going too far.
And equating “straight” with “bigoted” and “queer” with “accepting”? There’s a word for that...oh yeah, “bigoted”.
139
Several issues at play here, at least two of which involve neologisms and word definitions, and who gets to determine and assign them and to whom they apply
Maybe at the most literal level, # 137 (intermittentcat)’s assessment of FRAUD is correct, and your definition of “transphobic” accurate, too:

“To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such that that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.”

But it seems to me that the problem FRAUD is describing, labels aside, is that all his support is nullified in the eyes of his co-workers if he doesn’t want to fuck a trans woman. Not only is that a ridiculous opinion, but a dangerous one as well. It’s a stupid idea to alienate allies by insisting that they share all of your characteristics. There are far more straight people than LGBT ones in the world, and the battle for civil rights and equality depends on the backing of the majority.

So words’ meanings have changed over time, but old meanings linger long after the new ones have been adopted, and some people are quicker than others to adopt the newer usage or neologisms. FRAUD is now accused of being transphobic, even though he seems to have no fear of the companionship of trans people, even though he works to secure their rights. Since when did “phobic” come to mean, “not sexually attracted to?” Along comes Kate Bornstein (who, I guess, gets to be the arbiter of nomenclature and identity for the world) and tells him he’s not “straight,” but “queer het” (maybe he should be “queer-cis-het” since he is still the same gender he was born as , and that way we can stick an extra label on for further . . . um . . . it is clarity we’re seeking, right?), and now a lot of us are objecting to being called “queer” if we’re heterosexual. I am one of these. Some of these objections come from an idea of autonomy (I want to decide what to call myself, not have someone else tell me what I should be called) and some from an older sense of the meaning of “queer” as a synonym for “homosexual,” or someone who has “alternative sexual interests.” This is legitimate, as to many people, the word still has that denotation. And by the way, what better way to feed the idiotic paranoia of the religious bigots who fear that any exposure to homosexuality, including the acknowledgment that same-sex marriage exists, than to insist that supporting the rights of gay people makes you “queer,” where “queer” still means “gay?” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Way to never get conservatives to change their views, Ms. Bornstein.

As for me, I remember when “straight” wasn’t a synonym for “heterosexual,” but meant, “conservative,” or “not hip, not cool, not okay with taking recreational drugs or having recreational heterosexual sex.” “Straight” was used sometimes a synonym for “square” (boy, do I sound old now). So using that definition—which I doubt FRAUD is—FRAUD is indeed not “straight,” nor am I, or virtually anyone else on this thread, trolls aside. But neither is he “queer,” in the sense that to many people “queer” still suggests a same-sex attraction, which he doesn’t have. He is heterosexual. I guess we could drop “straight,” “gay,” and “queer” and go back (or forwards) to “het,” “homo,” and “bi,” for orientation, and “trans” for presentation (and I’m not even going to get into the “cis” conundrum here), and simply let our actions, not labels, define our sympathies or lack of them to others.
Because in the quest to pin people’s beliefs and behavior down by giving them descriptors of increasing specificity, we end up creating more ambiguity and confusion. And we can then fight over the labels’ correctness and accuracy rather than focus on the real work that needs to be done by a cohesive movement. We can splinter ourselves into so many factions, consumed by so much in-fighting,, that the big issues go unrectified.

Happy Thanksgiving. One of the things I’m thankful for is this blog, where people have thoughtful, generally intelligent conversations about interesting subjects.

140
First, I forgot to give kudos to 51-seeker for the comment on gender theory and waterboarding. Brilliant.

Next, the last 3 posters-- A little more white space, please, in your comments, maybe a paragraph break every 6 lines or so. Some of us have trouble reading big blocks of text. (Said with love. I want to read every word.)

Speculation-- Transitions so far have centered on genital surgery and hormones. Some have pointed out that nothing yet can be done to change skeletal structure. Others point out that a transsexual wouldn't send off the right pheromones as not enough is known about them yet but they're known to be a part of sexual attraction.

What if artificial pheromones went on the market? What if someone could buy in a bottle something that could make him/her more attractive to the person s/he wanted to attract? It would be like the ultimate in cosmetic surgery, but might we not feel tricked if it were used at the beginning of a relationship? What if it were used to keep a failing relationship alive?

133-On the sense of trying to change the meanings of words-- You're right that it rarely works and when it does work, it's to assign a word to something new that needs a word(spam) or to something old that never had one (santorum). People with political agendas try to change the meanings of words when they want to change the connotation without changing the denotation-- as with your McJob example. (I'd never heard of that and love it.)

The denotation is the fast food job itself. No one ever wants to argue about that. The connotation is the part about low-pay, unskilled, deadend, boring, maybe also demeaning. When you try to make the definition include great opportunity, you're trying to change how people feel about the denoted job. They feel manipulated.

Same goes for the changes in what we call someone who can't walk. Crippled, handicapped, physically disabled, physically challenged. Each word in turn starts to take on the connotation of something worse than someone bright and accomplished who merely needs a cane or wheelchair.

I think this is what's going on with straight and queer. We're all talking about what the words mean in their strictest denotative sense, but the words have tons of connotative baggage attached. We're arguing about the baggage, whether it's there, what it is if it is there, if the baggage is positive or negative or somewhere in between.

Perhaps this is what Bornstein was trying to get at. "Straight" may automatically mean bigoted to some. It doesn't to me, but if it does to her, then it follows that honorary queerdom follows.
141
Clashfan (#116)-- Again, I don't believe being trans is a mental illness as such (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, panic disorder, etc.). It is, undeniably, a rather rare belief amongst the population and, thus, from that perspective it is a relatively 'unusual' way of thinking/being. But 'unusual-ness' does not by itself = mental disorder (which is part of what I was trying to say in my previous post, #94).

Reducing gender to merely a belief in one's head is problematic though. It leads to absurdist deductions such as that which Crinoline (#73) was proposing. I.e., we'd have to take at face value anything that people said they believed. This is where my cat example came in (do animals have to 'believe' they are this or that sex in order to BE this or that sex?).

I posit that reproductive sexual categories are a real thing. Men can't produce babies with men, women can't produce babies with women (without borrowing eggs or sperm from somewhere else at least).

I get the sex vs gender thing. That is basic gender theory 101 and I got it in women's studies. It isn't a very nuanced/realistic argument though. It is an undeniable fact, is it not (?), that people are treated in different ways based on their perceived gender, and this differential treatment often starts even before the fetus emerges from the womb (parents start planning different colour schemes, different toys, imagining different futures, etc, etc.).

On this basis, not only do some people come into the world with male reproductive characteristics (which usually also go along with male secondary sex characteristics), but they come into a different 'world' altogether in some senses (socialization, cultural, not to mention hormonal) than do those who pop out w/ female reproductive characteristics. You pretty much made my point when you wrote "Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them." Indeed, we don't live in a vaccuum.

"My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do."

I honestly don't know what it feels like to 'be a woman', I just know what it feels like to be me (someone who happens to have female bits and was raised/treated female). So I find it absolutely befuddling that someone born with male bits and raised in a female social/cultural world could be so certain that they "feel like a man" (or vice versa).

You mention "trappings", and I ask: why can't people like/engage in the 'trappings' of the other gender without deducing that this makes them a member of that category? E.g., if I like to skateboard, climbs trees, fix cars, watch sports, wear trousers rather than skirts, etc (all "stereotypical" male things), does that make me a boy/man? Why can't I just be a girl/woman who likes that sh*t? There seems to be an awful lot of gender stereotyping going around in the trans community (and I should say that someone very close to me is TG, so I participate/read various messageboards related to the topic).

"You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people....Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification."

Maybe it is just a personal pet-peeve, but I am rubbed the wrong way by this post-modern thing whereby everything and anything is whatever any individual wants it to be. "Nothing is real, words are meaningless and, thus, can be applied to objects in the world willy-nilly." Blech.

Also, when people think gender is something you can put on like a skirt, I find it a bit offensive. I mean, I've had real experiences because of the configuration of my body. I personally feel (rightly or wrongly) that those experiences are essentially being erased when someone who does not share a similar body or similar experiences based on having that body claims to know what it is like to be someone like me; when they claim an identity with me. Um no, you have NO idea what it is like having lived in this body in our society/culture for X number of years.

All of the above being said, and as I stated previously, these are just my personal beliefs. They don't prevent me from treating whomever I'm dealing with (no matter how they 'self-identify') as a human being.

142
Ms Cute - What's getting tricky here is that it's very difficult to tell with many posters whether their objections stop at Ms Bornstein labeling FRAUD instead of suggesting he identify by a particular label, or extend to not wanting others to self-label (to whatever extent they'll own it; many people will say it isn't their place to police others but will have a different opinion) as queer if they're "really" straight.

I nearly went looking through Orlando for a passage that would Woolfsplain this letter, but unfortunately I have my first Woolfsplaining passage all picked out, and are now merely waiting for another letter to come along that suits it. I feel a little like a figure skater who has an ideal costume for a program but is just waiting to come across the right music.
143
Nobody asked me, but here’s my advice to Sent From My Mobile Device, the guy with “a fetish for snapping pictures of women’s legs and feet”:

Office kinkiness can still bloom just like office romance. I would advise you to send an anonymous email (open an account just for this purpose if need be) to the lovely woman who replied to your post. Tell her you’re an interested coworker who will never mention her initial reply to anyone in case she chooses not to proceed. If she doesn’t reply within three days chances are she got cold feet, pun intended.

But… if she’s ok with it you’ll both share a dirty little fun secret that may even increase your motivation to go to work!

I left some spaces here in order to accommodate Crinoline@140
144
Mr. V: nothing wrong with a little double-Woolfing.
Go for it, and do some Woolfsplaining.
145
@103 mydriasis: You beat me to it---again!

@96 & @111 Hunter78: Um.....are you having a bad day?
Sit back, relax, have some turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, pour yourself some Chardonnay or your favorite beverage and chill, boy.
Happy Thanksgiving.
146
This has probably already been mentioned but I'm not going to read all of these comments.

If he is ruling out ALL trans women, then yes, he is a bigot. Because there are many women who have had bottom surgery, let's say they've been on hormones since they were 13 or 16 or whatever. And there is just do way to tell if they are cis or trans.

If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic.
147
Oh, what rubbish. According to #146 and others, a man can take some hormones, get his dick chopped off and pay a surgeon to cobble together some Dr. Moreau-esque flesh apparatus between his legs that looks, externally, like a vagina. Then: hey presto! he gets to be anointed a bona fide card-carrying Woman, with all the personal histories and unique pleasures, limitations and traumas that status may entail. This is ridiculous. Going to such lengths makes a person many things, but a woman? Please.

To be perfectly honest, identifying as trans-whatever seems like a ridiculously self-important gesture that simulaneously belies a frivolous and superficial mis)understanding of the nature of gender.


148
Thanks to those who provided input on the Poly/child abuse question. I was in a poly relationship in which my GF had two children, and though there were a few raised eyebrows, there was never any hostility towards us.
149
@138

The data would tend to disagree with you. At least somewhat.

First off, to equate race with gender is somewhat silly. The difference between white people and black people is quite small and due to a phylogenically recent split. Men and women branched off a lot longer ago, if you follow. In other words.... I'm white and female. The differences between me and a black women are much smaller than the differences between me and a white man.

Second off, you're assuming gender is binary. Unfortunately this is untrue, biologically speaking. Not everyone is XX or XY. Some people have other sex chromosome combinations. Some people are born XY but appear female and are raised that way. The idea that biology makes things simple and people then make things complicated is completely false.

Third I would ask you to look at neurological studies which have shown that people who are biologically male but identify as female have... and I'm dumbing this down somewhat... brains that appear female. Physically. If you want the more detailed info or to be linked to the study I can see what I can do. Or you can google it.

Fourth I would finally say: how about compassion? Even the DSM which is a fairly conservative text (remember how it used to feel about homsexuals?) has decided that the best "treatment" for transgendered individuals is gender reassignment. These people experience an extreme degree of pain. Do you remember the story about the boy who had a botched circumcision and was raised as a girl? He ended up killing himself because he was assigned the wrong gender by a doctor. People who are genetically "male" (XY) but have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity) are also assigned a "female" gender by the doctor. Difference is, most of them identify as female. Are they "right" or "wrong"? Not so simple, is it.

If you think nature assigns gender "correctly" every time you're living in a dream world. I'm sorry but that's just not true. Nature does a lot of things wrong a lot of the time. Go visit a hospital sometime if you don't believe me.
150
"I consider myself a socially progressive person..."

Then you're not. Get over yourself. Being progressive is about changing things, not feeling good about being on the right side.
151
@146

"EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic. "

It does not change literally nothing.
I refer you to my post above. (32)

@147
I refer you to my post above (the most recent one) and also to this picture.
This person was given no hormones. This person has had no surgery. http://www.carolguze.com/images/Sex/Tfm.…

What's the sex/gender?
152
Dan, I'm a little surprised you defended the cheater so strongly. After all, he's cheating on someone whose husband has no idea that this is happening. Although it's certainly "edgy" to do that kind of thing, it's not very smart, because the husband could decide to bust his teeth in. As we say in my religious community, "we prize above all living our lives well" - a kind of religiousness with muscle. Slinking around and getting off on secretly cheating on a person's wife isn't living your life well.
153
@131, don't worry, Hunter, I'll keep you in mind the next time I go theoretical. :-)
154
@134 (Mr Ven), I'm suggesting that a party (or any group of people for that matter) is always more complicated than whoever speaks for it -- even when said speaker does have the support of the majority of his associates.

Of course extremists can become the voice of a party, or even its soul. The clearest example is everybody's boogieman, Adolf Hitler, who clearly was both the voice and the soul of the NSDAP.

And yet, even within the NSDAP, there were moderates and extremists (and opportunists) -- Strasser was not Rosenberg, Heydrich was not Speer, Göth was not Schindler. And, despite what they themselves thought, the moderates in the NSDAP had more in common with other moderates -- say, in the CPSU, their sworn enemies -- than they had with the extremists in their own party.

Going from moderate to extremist necessitates a leap of faith -- namely, that one indeed does have all the answers, and that one's enemies are actually harmful and have evil intentions ('the gay agenda'). What happens when extremists become the voice of the party? They managed to impose their opinions against the moderates, whom they try to scare ('be afraid, be very afraid! the enemy is at the gates!'), or even to drive away with accusations of agnosticism or heresy ('who's a real Republican? who really believes in the wisdom of the market?').

The extent to which people in the party itself, or in society as a whole, will buy an oversimplified presentation of reality and its dangers is the extent to which extremists will manage to become the voice of said party, or of said society. Or so, at least, it seems to me.
155
@134 (mr Ven), what do you mean by "unusually superio(u)r of me"? I'm not sure I understand. :-|...
156
@intermittentcat, who wrote:
But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.


Not entirely, intermittentcat -- because we are allowed preferences, in sex or othewise, because of things that we think or conceptualize in a certain way, regardless of the underlying reality. It's simply up to me to decide what it is that I like to eat, drink, see or listen to in my spare time... and have sex with, on the basis of any reason whatsoever, since what is at stake here is the pleasure I get from it.

I have the right to like classical music and dislike rock music, or the other way round; I have the right to think I'll enjoy people who like my favorite kind of music more than people who don't; people who share my tastes in foreign language, sexual orientation, bodily shape and form, than those who don't.

Of course you could counter that whatever kind of music I don't like is also internally complex and just as full of emotional associations and interpretations -- ultimately, just as aesthetically legitimate -- as the kind of music I like.

And you're right. It is.

And I'm also right -- because I don't like it, and I'm entitled to that.

So: someone who doesn't want to fuck a transgendered person is not transphobic, s/he is simply not attracted to transgendered people. Your claim is that this person is not attracted to the idea of what transgendered people are; but since the point here is this person's pleasure (sexual and otherwise), then the fact s/he is not attracted to an idea rather than to a reality is not really relevant.

I personally would advise this person to try to enter into contact with real transgendered people to see if s/he couldn't find one s/he would actually be attracted to; and if s/he did and was reciprocated, to go ahead and have sex -- it might be a liberating experience to see that one can go beyond what one thought were one's limits.

But then again, this person might say "no thanks" and stick to his/her current sexual preferences for cisgendered people only. And that is also fine, because this person is entitled to pursue his/her personal (including sexual) happiness with whatever limitations s/he wants to have -- even if I myself wouldn't likewise limit my own pool of available partners.

In short: people have the right to decide who they want to have as friends, lovers, etc. on whatever criteria they think are going to bring them closer to happiness -- even if I think these criteria are wrong or wouldn't work for me, it's not my life, it's not my happiness, so it's not my call.

As for whether or not it's prejudice... let me ask you the question: what's the difference between preference and prejudice? Can you have a preference for a certain kind of people without this being prejudice? According to what criteria, and under which circumstances, would you be able to tell the difference? (I have my own answers to these questions, but I'm curious about yours.)
157
@138 (psst), I, for one, would call the African Americans bigoted who wouldn't accept your right to identify as African American and alter your body to fit theirs. You are indeed entitled to do with your body what you want; and if someone believes that 'Blackness' is so deeply in the blood that coming to it later in life and without the necessary genes is 'just wrong', well then I beg to differ.

Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?

You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).

Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?

I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.

So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)

But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was as of yet no positive descriptor (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
158
@138 (psst), I, for one, would call the African Americans bigoted who wouldn't accept your right to identify as African American and alter your body to fit theirs. You are indeed entitled to do with your body what you want; and if someone believes that 'Blackness' is so deeply in the blood that coming to it later in life and without the necessary genes is 'just wrong', well then I beg to differ.

Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?

You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).

Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?

I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.

So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)

But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was no positive descriptor yet (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
159
@152 How do you know the husband doesn’t know and approve of the wife dating another person? Polyamorous relationship usually means that all people involved are fully aware and approving.
The brother and his wife are the problem in the case mentioned because they, just like you, believe that “living our lives well" means your way is the only way and everyone else has to follow. As they say in my religious community: “live and let live”.
160
@Alea, who wrote:
If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic.


See, here's what I don't like with this kind of definition for transphobic: it's basically regulating my right to define my happiness in the terms I like.

It's as if you were saying that, if I like classical music but not rock music, then I am "rockaphobic". Or if I like vanilla ice-cream but not chocolate ice-cream, then I am "chocophobic".

In some sense this is 'true' (if 'phobic' is taken to mean 'doesn't like', which I guess it sometimes does in colloquial usage), but this trivializes the problem: since we all like certain things and certain people, but not others, we're now all "something-o-phobic". Liberals are "Republicanophobic". Atheists are "religiophobic". Gays are "straightophobic". And on it goes.

The bottom line for me is: prejudice has to affect others to be a problem. If I don't like to sleep with a certain group of people -- to the extent that I would change my mind about sleeping with someone if I suddenly found out that s/he belonged to this group -- but treat them otherwise as normal people, I'm not being prejudiced against them. I simply know what works and doesn't work for me sexually (as I know also in the area of food, music, movies, hobbies, or work, etc.), and I'm entitled to that.

In order for my lack of interest to sleep with a certain group to be seen as prejudiced, it would have to imply some wrong, some harm -- and I frankly am not so arrogant as to think that not being able to sleep with me is going to be harmful to some group of people in such a way that I would be morally wrong in denying them access to my body. :-)

Sexual preference is not prejudice. Sexual preference is simply what does or doesn't make you happy sexually.
161
@159, you may be able to fool yourself into thinking that a disordered relationship like his is healthy, but I'm not fooled. There's a son in the equation, and Forced To Pick, as far as we know, hasn't done anything to raise him, look after him, or pay for his well-being. He seems, from his letter, to be getting pussy without any of the side-effects or responsibilities of getting pussy. I don't see any sign in FTP's letter that the husband knows about him, which led me to think he's sneaking around. I still think that this is what he's doing.
162
@21: I have a copper IUD. About 3-4 months after getting it (and getting off hormones) my sex drive about doubled. If you have been off hormones for a sufficiently long time (say, 6-12 months, though it varies) and haven't seen an improvement, or if your sex drive has noticeably declined since getting off hormones, then there is either something else going on medically (thyroid and depression spring to mind though there are many possibilities) or the hormones were actually boosting your sex drive (entirely conceivable if things can go in the other direction). Find a sex positive doctor-- http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ is a good place to start -- where you can discuss the issue. It took me four years to find a method that didn't suppress my sex drive, so keep trying!! It is *well* worth it. I wish this was an issue more often discussed... way to go Dan!
163
"If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic."

I believe this is a true statement. There is no reason for anyone to rule out possibilities for dating any one just because they happen to be trans, black , white or asian.

There is no way anyone can "tell" by bone structure that somoeone is transsexual, you can guess right, but you cant guess right every single time.

I dont think someone who is not turned on by a certain race is a bigot per say, nor do i think someone who is not turned on by someone who happens to be transgender is a bigot, but you have to have a little bias in order to rule out a whole group of people based on one trait.

164
By the way, I also think anyone who rules out any possibilities to fall in love with someone because they happen to be overweight,asian black at least on a subconscious level.

I am not saying we cant have our own perference, but there is no justification to rule out the possibility of falling in love with every transgender woman on earth, as i am sure there are transgender women completely live and look like a woman in every possible way.

The only thing that stop a heterosexual man from falling in love with such women is an internal bias against people who are transgender.
165
To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such th...at that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.”

This statement is absolutely bang on. Imagine if you fell in love with a woman (love at first sight) and than you found out about her past, about her DNA, and you suddenly stop loving that person or feeling attraction, than YOU ARE prejudiced against transgender people on an subconscious level at least.

It would be wise to at least admit and explore why you feel this way by digging deep inside your mind and soul, instead of saying you are completely accepting.
166
"Even though that changes literally nothing."

It sounds great, but examine the premise. How could finding out something as monumental as a sex change operation change nothing? How could a person's past with different genitals (and the expectations and treatment that goes with those genitals) be inconsequential? We forget all sorts of things, but that?

I'm trying to think of any other major component in a person's life that it would be easy to ignore, or even something that would change literally nothing, and I can't think of anything.
167
If FRAUD reads all of the comments, I hope he makes it down this far.

Based on the letter you wrote here, you seem to be an awesome person. You're fully aware of who you are and you're supportive of those who are fully aware of themselves as well. That is the best thing that ANYONE can be.

I have hetero friends who have my back 100%. They got issues with certain gay things, but if they approach me with it, I discuss it respectfully, present my points and hold my ground. They may not like it, but they respect it.

Don't let all this activism bullshit make you feel like you don't have a right to your personal preferences. A real friend lets you be you and accepts you for who you are - and JUST because someone is LGBT does NOT mean they aren't a selfish asshole.
168
Ms There - That's a bit flawed. Even if we leave out the question of odds (that FRAUD is capable of love at first sight or on ridiculously slight acquaintance, that a straight person who has known far more trans people than most and some of them probably quite well would come across one he wouldn't guess might be, and that there would be sufficient mutual attraction to allow the relationship to get to such a point), in your scenario the woman involved has permitted him to fall in love with her before making the revelation. Insufficient openness about a plausible dealbreaker has killed many attractions even when the dealbreaker wasn't a dealbreaker.
169
Vennominon, are you saying as a trans woman, I have the power to control when and how someone fall in love with me before I disclose my past history? I am not God and I dont have wear a label on my forehead about what DNA I have. People can fall in love on second or third dates and not have the opportunity to talk about or know the most intimiate details or even personal details about someone, and that doesnt mean that person is lying or witholding information on purpose.

You have the right to not like rap, or enjoy looking at art instead of playing foot ball, but just being against the idea that you can never be with someone because they are not born with the DNA you perferred, thats bias based on gender identity, thats a prejudice , even if you dont admit it , even if you are considered to be an accepting person by almost everyone including trans people.
170
Crinoline,

It's perfectly fine if someone choose to not be with anyone who ever had life changing surgery or anyone with a really impressive or intense battles with self actualization, but dont tell me thats just a personal perference, not a bias or prejudice..if you love a person, you love them based on who they are and trans women come in all size and shapes, pre op and post op, race and color, backgrounds of all types..

The only reason someone choose to say no to being in an intimiate relation with all transsexuals before ever even meeting them is based on a prejudice. sorry.
171
Mr Ank - Framing a choice of moderates choosing a political side as succumbing to temptation is practically calling it a moral fault to take a side. Calling that more superiour of you than usual was my own attempt at matching your own spotless moderation in all things in a tolerably humourous manner.

By the way, what's so beatified about being a moderate? Haven't we seen quite a few examples of outrageous things lately because somebody wanted to "present both sides fairly"? (I am reminded of Mr Mantegna's short-lived and perhaps rather insufferable television series in which he portrayed the most perfectly impartial Supreme Court Justice who ever existed and week after week was always the swing vote in a 5-4 decision. Superhuman impartiality may be a desirable quality in a Supreme, but do we really want to generalize it to the point of considering it a fault to have a strong and partisan opinion regardless of the issue?)

I could say more, but it's way too late. Sorry if this was incoherent.
172
Ms There - SOME people can fall in love on second or third dates, though we might debate on how shallow or deep such love might be. But it is not the sort of thing that happens to everyone all the time. In FRAUD's case, too, one might think that he'd probably even be much more likely to know (or guess) a trans woman's status before a possible first date than most straight men. He's also much more likely to discuss trans issues with women he dates just as part of his own history, which would seem to make it more likely that the matter would be revealed as a dealbreaker before he'd fallen.

I said "insufficient openness" rather than "concealment", consciously trying not to frame it as a matter of deliberate intent. There can be some things one finds out about someone too late, regardless of the reason. Some cases might or might not involve more fault than others, but that's a question of degree.

Again, it's very late here and I'm sure I'm incoherent. I just meant to say that I've known people with dealbreakers who surprised themselves by overcoming them, and people who couldn't handle the timing of when something came out even though the something itself wasn't the problem. That struck me as a flaw in your example; I was not saying that the example was wrong.
173
"The only reason someone choose to say no to being in an intimiate relation with all transsexuals before ever even meeting them is based on a prejudice."

Only if heterosexuality and homosexuality are also prejudices. Should we tell soi-disant lesbians that they're bigots by refusing to consider having intimate relationships with men? What about men who pose as lesbians online? Or men who convincingly crossdress?

MTF transsexuals want to be treated just like women (I reject the term "cis-women"). That can happen in the social sphere, maybe even should happen, but in the romantic sphere, forget it. You're NOT just like women: your bodies are an amalgam of male and female qualities, in varying proportions. It may be that in some situations the male qualities are well-hidden, but they're still there, and complete openness will generally reveal them, except maybe in cases where the two parties are of different races (non-Asian men have a hard time spotting Asian ladyboys because most races are bad at differentiating members of other races to begin with).

There are men out there who will be attracted to those male qualities, so why do you insist on railing against those who aren't? We have the right NOT to want to have sex with you, NOT to want to love you, NOT to want to "give you a chance". That doesn't make us bigots; it makes us people who realize that we'll never want the real you. And that makes you angry, just as every rejected lover gets angry -- but you no more have the right to cry bigotry than a man does if a lesbian doesn't want him because he's a man.
174
@93 clashfan: I'm glad you liked it!
I'm still puzzled about all this redefining new sex terminology.
Does this make me a cis-ter?
175
FRAUD's friends are being silly. If 'supports the rights of' has to equal 'sexually attracted to', then every queer-basher with girl-on-girl action on his hard drive is a LGBT ally and every woman-raper is a feminist.
176
@Doot (22) who said "man-made pussy looks like a blown-out truck tire that's driven through the mud,"

That may be the case for some people, but it's hardly universal. My girlfriend's cunt is gorgeous. Possibly her surgeon was better at his job than the surgeons who worked on the person/people you know? But no, a constructed cunt is not automatically less attractive than a home-grown one, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
178
arewethereyet-170-- Fine. I accept that my preference for the cisgendered is a prejudice, but in doing so, I reject any negative connotations normally associated with prejudice and bigotry. I now pronounce them good things and hope everyone engages them happily and proudly.
180
I'm not attracted to men with short hair, that does not make me menwithshorthair-phobic.
181
@179

It's like saying that women are more "obsessed" about getting breast cancer than men. Or more "obsessed" about being raped than men.

How'd you end up so fucking obtuse?
182
Anecdotally, I know many women who have experienced low libido while on hormonal birth control. Myself I lost 10 years of good sex before putting 2 and 2 together. Mostly because pharmaceutical companies and the medical community either downplay or outright conceal these side effects. Mirena IUD hormones not systemic? I would love to believe it. After being screwed by pharma for a decade, I won't believe anything they claim ever again.
183
It seems to me that there's two distinct issues here.

One is something I'll call the straight male teen's trans nightmare: "Imagine that you were dating this really cool girl. It's the third date, and you're in loooooove with her, and you're just about to hit a home run, when you find out she's a trannie!!!1! What do you do!?!? [in a hushed subtone] and does this mean you're ... GAY?!?!" Personally, I think I'd handle it much like I'd handle a revelation that the woman I was with had had her tubes tied. At certain periods of my life, that would have been a deal-breaker, even if she was "perfect" otherwise, and it would have been much less unpleasant for everyone if she'd told me that on the first date rather than waiting until everyone was heavily emotionally invested. At other periods of my life, it wouldn't have been a major issue.

But that's not what FRAUD is talking about. He's saying he's met a lot of MtF trans people, and he's never met one who turns him on. His political activism tells him he should be turned on by at least some of them, but his hormones refuse to cooperate. I think that's a comment on the limits of current male-to-female surgical techniques, not prejudice.

@Mydriasis: I think he's trolling.

BTW, Mydriasis, you don't understand phylogeny. Phylogeny compares populations that don't interbreed. So you can compare (for example) lions and tigers and bears with it. Phylogenetic techniques are inapplicable to male humans and female humans, or US whites and US blacks, because those groups do interbreed.
184
@161
I’ll try once more…
What may work for others may not work for you and vice versa. No need to label it as a “disordered relationship”.
And maybe he is involved with raising the child to some degree or another? After all, the brother and his wife threatened to contact CPS. They never threatened to tell the husband, and probably because he is fully aware and approve of what’s going on.

Just live your life happily and let other live theirs. Thanks
185
@179 Hunter: Did you not have a nice Thanksgiving?

I still don't understand your issue and your beef. I'm not obsessed with my libido, only observant. Are you mad because you're currently not getting any, and that you secretly wish more women DID obsess about their sex drives? Are you harboring a disquieting thought that if you didn't get some ass soon (Oh, the horrors!!), you might become a dateless troll? Or how well hung you think you are, DAMN IT! Why can't they SEE it??? Or whether or not I prefer hamburgers to hot dogs or chocolate to caramel? It sounds more like you've become a bit oddly "ob-sexed". For someone whose vague opinion that women's perceived obsessions are so obvious [they] "aren't worth saying", you seem hell bent on screaming volumes.

@181 mydriasis: Maybe it's because he's too obsessed with his libido?
186
@141 - "You mention "trappings", and I ask: why can't people like/engage in the 'trappings' of the other gender without deducing that this makes them a member of that category? E.g., if I like to skateboard, climbs trees, fix cars, watch sports, wear trousers rather than skirts, etc (all "stereotypical" male things), does that make me a boy/man? Why can't I just be a girl/woman who likes that sh*t? "

This is where I always get lost in discussions about gender. I was born with a standard female body and was treated in the normal way for my body. But I have zero mothering instinct, I like video games and rough sports, and rarely wear a dress. I don't feel like a man, I'm not sure I really feel like a woman. I like what I like. I don't understand how people cross that line from "I like the things normally associated with the opposite gender" to "I am supposed to be the opposite gender". I'm not questioning anyone's right to feel that way or to act on those feelings, just saying that I really don't get it. Just because society tells me my interests are masculine doesn't mean I need to change my body to be male to fit with my interests. Maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone recommend some reading that might explain it to me?
188
I wish we could/would take the BT out LGBT. Totally differnent issues and totally different life challenges. I know it's not progressively queer of me and unPC but there you have it. Hate away......
189
I agree with @90. Even though I'm in a long poly realtionship.
190
Read the question again:

"Do I have the right to not feel comfortable with the idea (or reality) of having sex with these women and still consider myself a supporter of the trans community"

Nowhere here does it say love, hes purely asking about sex. There is no way in hell he can know for sure every woman he comes across is or is not born with an XX OR XY DNA, this is his issue with being uncomfortable with an idea in his head about what trans women are like.

It is possible for FRAUD to get off on having sex with a woman, and than days later, he found out shes actually trans, it didnt matter how "uncomfortable" he is now, but the fact was, he did have no problem getting his rock off on a transsexual woman as long as he didnt know in his mind.

He has the right to be turned off at the idea of being a transsexual, he can still support transsexual people but dont tell me he doesnt have a personal bias if the only thing that is stopping him from admitting he is attracted to a woman is if he found out the DNA of the woman in question.
191
And there are also many people who dont have sex until they get married, you can fall in love with someone and never had sex with them. So the more important question I have is can FRAUD fall in love with a trans woman or a woman who happens to be trans?

I couldnt care less if some men dont want to have sex with transsexuals, in my experience, the problem with transsexuals finding a mate is not due to a lack of sexual partner, but a life partner who is brave enough to confront his desire and stand up proudly for the woman he is in love with.
192
With all the women I have slept with in my life, it would not surprise me to find out 1-2 were transwomen. What the hell, never really had and bad pussy. Some too loose, some too tight but it all was pretty good in my memory of how things were. Does that make me a, "queer hetrosexual", lol?

193
Identities are useful. I identify as gay so everyone knows I find men sexually and romantically attractive. Technically, I'm bisexual as I do find the very occasional woman attractive and I quite like vagina. Though, honestly it's unlikely I'd ever end up going there and I definitely couldn't fall in love with a woman. So I think identifying as bi would just be confusing for people and ultimately counterproductive.

Likewise, for me personally, queer is a redundant identity. Everyone knows what I mean when I say I'm gay; queer would just make it confusing. It's, for me, unnecessary.

I kinda thought queer stood for genderqueer anyway. And, whilst I'm not your stereotypical blokey bloke; I've got stereotypically masculine and feminine personality traits: I've always felt comfortable with male pronouns and uncomfortable with female ones. I'm definitely male.
194
queer heterosexual is the most ridiculous term i've heard of so far, and i love kate bornstein!
195
@187 Hunt: Ha-ha---You wish! It sounds more like you're a little cis-boom-sexed about mine, though.

All kidding aside, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you are.
196
@64 Please forgive me for a second -- I'm a bit of a nerd. I'm not arguing with you on the merits of your position. I just can't resist looking at numbers, statistics, stuff like that. So, have pity and don't get mad at me.

If GSA's are working the way they should, attracting a cross-section of the whole population, gay and straight, then the membership of a GSA should have approximately the same proportion of gay and straight people as the population does. Which is what... 90% straight? In such an organization, given perfectly unbiased processes, you'd likely have the majority reflected in the leadership, what, about 90% of the time? Anyway, just saying, something to consider when looking at the numbers. It might not harbinger the end of the world.
197
@112: All words are neologisms that took hold.
198
I was a little put off by Kate Bornstein's words - I'm supportive of equality, but I'm straight. Then I took a look at her IGBP video, and a couple more things she's got online. And, seeing how she presents herself, I'm a little easier about it. It's the kind of thing that comes off a lot more offensive printed on a page than coming from the mouth of a person.
199
@183

I understand how it works, I was just taking liberties for the purpose of illustration. If I wanted to be more accurate you could take the tree, point to the end of it, after people split off and say 'look, somewhere in here we developed somewhat isolated human populations'. And then trace your finger way way back to whererever sexual reproduction emerges and say "look, this is where 'men' and 'women' become seperate". I had to read a paper on it but I completely forgot who invented sexual reproduction.

I kind of meant it as an analogy, not a faithful description of genetics. My point was that the biological difference between a man and a woman is much greater than the biological difference between races. So equating race with gender is silly.
200
183-199- Besides, lions and tigers can interbreed. (But that's entirely beside the point.)
201
I'm a transgender woman, and I just wanted to say that Kate Bornstein does not represent me.
202
Ms Brooklyn - How's the tree growing?

Actually, I quite appreciate your viewpoint, and to some extent I approached FRAUD's possible dating future with a similar mind set.

Your approach seems better suited to a different type of alliance than one with such a built-in privilege and power imbalance. The closest type that springs to mind is a hypothetical Catholic-Protestant Alliance. That might fit your analysis much better, and I'm sure there are better examples just waiting to be recognized.

Granted, GSAs draw from a cross-section of the population, but you can hardly expect direct proportionality in membership. It's a bit difficult to deconstruct, because of questions of identification, but, with far more to be gained at stake for the G side than the S side, it seems safe to say that a considerably smaller proportion of the S side is open to alliance in the first place.

A few leadership considerations:

* Identity makes this murky, as presumably not all the straight-identified GSA presidents will still be straight-identified ten years later, but there may in many individual GSAs be no pool of available open non-straights. It reminds me of how Billie Jean King founded a women's sports magazine and had to hire a male editor because there were no qualified women available.

* An organization formed to address imbalance and promote amity between different groups is likely to reflect its mission in its leadership. If the idea of privilege is well addressed, then much of the straight membership might be more willing to take a back seat and listen instead of to push to the fore and White Knight.

* A sad counter-argument is that it seems highly likely that many non-straights will want a straight president thinking that it will be good for the GSA image or make it apparent that it isn't just a Gay Club.

* One concern I've been developing seeing such a lenghty run of openly straight GSA presidents goes a way beyond the appearance of prerogative to the extent that GSA presidency may come to be a sort of philosophical fashion accessory acquired by Type A young straights to establish liberal credentials. It reminds me a little of all those college-bound girls one hears about who would look at someone with a schedule of five hours a week of volunteering and call her a slacker. I don't want the position to become just another piece in the Competitive Charity game.
203
@200: Lions, tigers, and Hunter, oh, my!
204
ankylosaur @156 "what's the difference between preference and prejudice?"

It's a matter of certainty. If you say, "I have always liked red licorice, and never liked the black kind," that's your preference. If you say – "I don't eat black licorice because I know that I will never like it," that's a prejudice. I've lived long enough to find myself occasionally finding a pleasant version of something I thought I couldn't stand. You point out that it's not a problem as long as it doesn't affect anyone. And that's true for preferences/prejudices about licorice.

But it's one thing to say: "I've never had a black friend, and I don't expect to ever be friends with someone black. We're just too different." It's entirely different to say: "I could never be friends with someone black."

I'm glad to live in a culture where people understand that saying such things does affect other people's real lives.

Same with the transgendered. I see a difference between saying that you're not attracted to the transgendered, and saying that you could never be attracted to anyone transgendered.

The latter is closed-minded. Prejudiced. Not open to new experiences.

Crinoline @178 "I accept that my preference for the cisgendered is a prejudice, but in doing so, I reject any negative connotations normally associated with prejudice and bigotry"

Reject away, Crinoline. But I judge people closed-minded for not tasting the really spectacular octopus stew at this one restaurant ("I could never like octopus"). And similarly, to me there's a negative connotation when someone says "I could never enjoy any kind of sex with someone transgendered." You just don't know. Imagine being blindfolded while someone with amazing talents fisted you until you came multiple times. You can't imagine that there exists a transman who could give you pleasure that way? It's just a fist. What do the childhood experiences of the person with the fist matter, when it comes to a fun sexual moment?
205
"Sex-positive, supportive of trans folk, and heterosexual" doth amount to "queer heterosexual".

... Which the base vulgar do call straight.

206
EricaP (@204):

I understand the distinction you draw between preference and prejudice, but I find it hard to judge people as harshly, if their prejudice only manifests itself in closing off a possible positive experience for themselves.

If we're getting hyper-interpretive here, I would argue that many prejudices take more the form of "I can't bring myself to try octopus, because the thought of it makes me too squeamish," than "I could never like octopus."

And the same goes for statements of narrow sexual limits or preferences. If you recall, the lw's original question wasn't so much about whether his preference for sexual attraction being limited to women who were born female made him prejudiced (by your definition, I suppose it does), but whether his lack of desire to have sex with a trans woman made him transphobic.

I don't think the lw's statement of preference should be the basis for leveling a fairly harsh judgment about his being close-minded and prejudiced.

Prejudice means to pre-judge, to assume something about a specific individual, thing, or experience without experiencing it directly. But as long as one doesn't go around saying hateful things or behaving negatively about someone, s/he has the right to a preference without being called, essentially a close-minded bigot.

I'm a straight woman who isn't in the slightest sexually attracted to women (yes, some of my best friends, etc.). I didn't have to give the experience a try to know how not-attracted I am (though I have and I was: unattracted, unaroused, and unable to enjoy myself). But I knew how uninterested I was in women sexually long before I confirmed that gut reaction, which, btw, I did not to try and be open-minded, but because it was important to the man I was dating.

If I said, "I could never like having sex with a woman," but supported gay rights, and had many lesbian friends, would you call me prejudiced or homophobic? I hope not.
207
"Sex-positive, supportive of trans folk, and heterosexual" doth amount to "queer heterosexual".

... Which the base vulgar do call straight.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.