Columns Nov 23, 2011 at 4:00 am

Ciscontent

Comments

1
I still don't know what cis means.
2
While we're spreading the word about pharmaceutically induced sexual dysfucntion . . . Low libido (and/or diminished orgasmic capacity) is also a very common side effect of SSRI antidepressants. Sometimes the problem persists indefinitely after antidepressants have been discontinued. I'm not saying antidepressants are bad and no one should take them, but if you're considering starting an antidepressant, the likely sexual side effects are definitely something to bear in mind.
3
Kate Bornstein made one of the best It Gets Better videos ever. I felt like I was really plucking that "Get Out of Hell Free Card" right from her hands.
4
@1: Basically, it's the opposite of "trans." If you're not transgender, you're cisgender.
5
@2: Here, here. Not to mention that most therapists out there either don't mention these side effects before prescribing the drugs, or tend to treat them as relatively inconsequential (as if being able to enjoy one's own sexuality could be parceled out from enjoying life as a whole!)
6
Yay, I'm a queer het!
I'm not going to go around unpacking this to everyone though, I'll just keep walking the walk and talking the same talk I've been talking all along, m'kay?
7
This makes about 538 GSA presidents running about whom I've heard who are openly straight. It's almost enough to make one long for the old quota system of co-presidents, 1 straight-identified maximum (ideally, one any-identified maximum).

During my only venture to Europe (for the Gay Games in Amsterdam), I did encounter several queer-heterosexual-identified individuals. It is something of a useful distinction, but here it almost seems as if FRAUD's relabeling himself is some sort of litmus test, a shade pushy.

As for, "And who knows? One day, he might meet the right trans person." - I can only hope there's a lot of tone we aren't hearing. Given how often I was told during those attempts at enforced conversion I ultimately defeated that I just hadn't met The Right Woman, I don't think that sentence as phrased is at all helpful. Now I shall never sleep tonight from remembering those ghastly sessions, but I am still sufficiently myself to wonder if Mr Ank will see my point by suggesting that "a trans person who attracts him" would be much better phrasing than "the right trans person". That definite article carries such an air of authority about such a person definitely existing. Sigh.
8
Hmm. I'd like to examine the assertion that a sex-positive, queer-allied, gay-loving, trans-supportive heterosexual cis-gendered individual is granted queerhood and is no longer straight.

That's sort of redefining his sexual identity from the outside, and redefining the concept of "queer" and "straight". Now maybe challenging that line is what the guest is going for, but to what end?

It sounds like Ms. Kate is saying that a cis-het-dude isn't "straight" simply because he acknowledges and supports the full humanity of his fellows without exceptions for sexual identity or orientation. This is, of course, a fantastic social/moral position for him to take, but it doesn't change his sexuality, nor should it. They are unrelated.

He is still straight. He just isn't a bigot.

9
If not being attracted to transsexuals makes FRAUD "trans - phobic", then that makes all his gay friends that aren't attracted to women are "misogynist, woman-hating pigs".
10
@8, I have issues with the term "queer heterosexual" for FRAUD, too. If I understand correctly, part of the point of saying "I'm queer" is that you're claiming membership in a group of sexual minorities who are oppressed or at least "othered" by the larger society, and FRAUD isn't claiming any such thing. Admittedly, I'm not well-informed about the confusing world of LGBTQXYZ terminology, but offhand I'd say cis-gendered, woman-loving dudes who are into trans women (for example) might be better candidates for the "queer heterosexual" label.
11
@9: Pretty much.
12
(Last comment for now, I promise.) I resent the implication that we're now supposed to equate being "straight" with being a bigot. I thought "straight" was supposed to be a valueless, literal descriptor of someone's sexual orientation, like "gay." It's a useful word, and I hope we don't have to start using the term "queer het" because people like Kate Bornstein ruined "straight" for us.

I would also really question the wisdom of bringing everyone who isn't a bigot under the "queer" umbrella. I thought the whole point of organizations like GSA's was that people from all over the spectrum of gender and sexual orientation can get along just dandy despite being different from one another. Saying, "if you're okay with queer people you are queer" sort of undermines that message in my view.
13
That first response was a bit confusing. I'm a straight dude who fully supports LGBTQ equality and acceptance. If "straight" and "queer" are opposites, does my allegiance to equality make me queer?
It shouldn't. Queer means, more or less, atypical: something other than the most common state. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are and always will be queer. That's not an insult; it's just a simple fact that most people are heterosexual and cisgendered, and LGBTQ people are always going to be minorities. What SHOULDN'T be a minority is the subset of people who believe that LGBTQ folks should get the same respect as everyone else. It shouldn't be queer to support gay and trans rights; it should be the norm.

And for the record, I would feel uncomfortable going out with a MTF transsexual, even a postoperative one. I chalk this up to my attention to bone structure allowing me to quickly spot the telltale signs of masculine sexual dimorphism in a person who otherwise passes well. Bit of an uncanny valley effect.
14
Dan: Kate Bornstein is fucking awesome and should be featured all the time!! Can't wait to read her book! (hope it's on audible :P)
15
FRAUD's misunderstanding of his own situation is understandable, in the climate in which some activists demand some sort of 'ideological purity' that, as always, is only a dream (and wouldn't mean a thing even if it were attainable). It would be like saying that the only way to be a true advocate of gay's rights is to be gay, or a woman to be a true advocate of women's rights, or Black to be a true advocate of the advancement of Black people, etc.

From the misguided activist's viewpoint, this is also understandable -- after suffering under the bigotry of mostly straight-identified people, one is often too quick to conclude that otheer similarly straight-identified people are similarly bigotted, even if they claim they aren't. (A Brazilian proverb says that gato escaldado tem medo de agua fria, i.e. a scalded cat is afraid even of cold water.

Understandable, however, doesn't mean right. Consequently, overzealousness, no matter how understandable, is simply this: overzealousness. Let us, like Dan, hope that overzealous activists will eventually grow up and accept their comrades-in-arms as they are, instead of insisting in some ultimately misguided (because irrelevant) ideal.
16
Direct bullseye to FTP, Dan!
Thanks, STW!! I KNEW there was yet another good reason for getting off the pill!
@9: I second that!
@12: for the win!!!!
17
@9:

I think FRAUD's friends are ridiculous for accusing him of transphobia, but I imagine they're making that accusation because they think he's making an unfair distinction between transwomen and "real" women.

. . . actually, the more that I think about it, the FRAUD strikes me as being a tiny bit transphobic. I can see him being legitimately non-attracted to pre-op transwomen, or even to post-op transwomen who don't fit his preferred physical type (and, let's face it, a lot of post-op transwomen still have noticeably masculine bone structure). However, FRAUD's basic objection to the possibility of dating a transwoman seems to be something along of the lines of "ewww, I'd be fucking a dude."

Judging from FRAUD's letter, if he happened to meet someone who seemed like his absolute dream woman, and he was incredibly physically attracted to her and they got along wonderfully, he'd still dump her like a sack of diseased rats if it turned out she was born biologically male. Granted, the odds of any of this happening are ridiculously low, but still. I'd expect the president of the GSA to be a little less paranoid about catching Teh Gay from having sex with somebody who, at some point in her life, used to have a penis.
18
@17, I'm not sure about the dumping-like-a-sack-of-diseased-rats scenario, but I feel like everyone should be granted amnesty regarding who they want to fuck, or don't want to fuck. Who you do or don't want to fuck is somewhat beyond your conscious control, while how you treat people is very much within your conscious control. Those are separate issues and should not be conflated.
19
I'm a supporter of gay and trans rights, and I won't say I get all my terminology perfect all the time, but my understanding is that a transwoman didn't "used to be a man", she used to present as a man. So I tentatively agree with echizen_kurage: FRAUD may indeed be a bit transphobic.

Like, I can understand not being attracted to women with penises. I really can. I can also understand not being attracted to a woman with a certain body type or bone structure. These are just physical preferences. But the fact that FRAUD says he wouldn't want to be with a woman "...who at one point in her life had been a man" bugs me. At the very least, it indicates that he doesn't quite understand how trans-ness works.
20
Hey, on the subject of birth control and low libido, does anyone have any info/experience with non-hormone birth control (IUDs) being associated with low libido?
21
On the subject of birth control and low libido, does anyone have any info/experience with IUDs causing low libido?
22
Man-made pussy looks like a blown-out truck tire that's driven through the mud. I've seen this up-close and personal.

I'd have serious issues having sex with anyone trans for the above issue.
23
@Strangedanger:

Hormonal IUDs can definitely fuck with your libido (and your weight and mood). They rely on synthetic progestogens, which are a major (or sole) ingredient in other forms of hormonal birth control, and have a host of potential side effects that don't really get enough press.

Copper IUDs, on the other hand, come with their own set of risks, but they don't affect libido.
24
I suspect that the 99 percent of gay men who would prefer NOT to have sex with female-to-male transgenders can be considered bigots as well, at least by the currently fanatical and whining standards of the transgender community, which seems hellbent on taking the whole gay, bi, and lesbian community down.

Sorry, transgenders, but being transgender comes with certain inherent limitations that are really nobody's fault. Get used to it.
25
I'd say the issue in the first letter is 'the idea'. Not being interested in having sex with a given trans woman in particular- not transphobic. Who you fancy is who you fancy. Expressing a feeling it's unlikely you'd be into any trans woman given your experience so far- still not transphobic. Ruling out being attracted to any trans woman on principle, not because of their individual characteristics now but because of their history- maybe a little bit transphobic. Or nervous, or self-conscious, or something. That said, I take Kate Bornstein's larger point- best not to be too angry with someone like this. If he even has this concern, then I'm sure his heart is in the right place. Better to be welcoming and wait for him to relax a bit. Don't say: 'You're a transphobe!' Do say: 'Relax honey, I don't want to fuck you either.'
26
Hormones: I wish this had not been offered up as unchallenged truth! I am an NP who works at Planned Parenthood and counsels re: hormonal contraception. Though some women do find a clear link between hormonal contraception and low libido, this is far from common. Female libido is complicated. Worry, stress, relationship issues are far more likely culprits. I am always amazed that a woman happily using a birth control pill for years will come in to complain that it is causing low libido -- oh and her boyfriend lost his job and she just started community college while working full-time and her dad had a heart attack... hmmm... it's always the fault of the birth control!
Also Mirena IUDs do have progesterone-- which acts locally in the uterus. The effects are NOT systemic. A very small amount of progesterone hormone is absorbed into the rest of the body -- about 1/30th of the amount from a progesterone only pill. That's like taking a progesterone only pill and cutting it into 30 pieces and taking one piece a day. This is not enough to stop your own cycling and your own natural hormone production. You will ovulate on either IUD.
Dan: there are many causes for low female libido. Some are physical (e.g., hypothyroid, fatigue) but life stress/emotional/psychological issues are a huge contributor. I wish you hadn't accepted the claim at face value that hormonal birth control is a major factor in low libido.
27
Justdiane,
I was on hormonal bcps from the ages of 19-24. At 24 I wondered why I didn't have any libido. I happened to see an Oprah episode about hormonal bcps and libido and decided to go off and try condoms for a while. Within 3 weeks my libido was back. Honestly, I was pissed. I wasted 5 good years feeling like something was wrong with me. Over the years I went on and off various forms of bcps, even nuvaring and Mirena, and experienced the same side effect with each. I now have a copper IUD and love it. I have a middle of my cycle peak libido each month. It is noticeable. In my experience, hormonal bcps definitely affected my sex drive.
28
Add my voice to the chorus of those who think the answer to FRAUD was off the mark. We cut people slack who are only attracted to fat people or skinny people or ones who like oral sex or who don't care for vaginal penetration. We think it ordinary if someone said s/he is only interested in others who share their love of classical music, Mediterranean cooking, or Colonial indigo dyeing techniques. So what's wrong with only being attracted to people who were born and remain physically, emotionally, and mentally female?

Bornstein's answer is in 2 parts. There's the part that says, as I and others have, that we're all welcome to be attracted to whatever we please. Then it goes on to say that if we're accepting of others, we're queer. Is this a play on words, an example of how words change meaning over time? If so, send out the memo, and we'll need a new word to convey what queer used to mean.
29
@8 -- Agreed. Last thing we need is to get the meme out there that any LGBT support is inherently queer. That's just what the 'think of the children' fundies want to be able to quote to get their allies riled up: "You see? These people aren't straight any more once they start hanging out with the gays!"

That line of thinking is, at best, going to scare away guys who might've been on the fence about helping us out but for some insecurities they're still working on.

It's okay to have a sympathetic ally who considers himself straight. It's even okay to have one who actually is straight, last I checked.
30
Justdiane:

Actually, a significant number of women do not ovulate with the Mirena IUD. Maybe not most, but a lot, and I'm one of them. (This fact is readily available and clearly stated on the Mirena site as well as many other reputable sources, online and otherwise.) I've been using a Mirena for the past 8 years, and I love it. I am sensitive to hormones and had a hard time with the pill (which I took for about 10 years). The localized nature of the hormones in the Mirena IUD have not affected my libido, but it did stop my ovulation. (And yay, no periods!) Your point about the complex nature of female libido is sound, though.
31
Re: FRAUD. What I'm hearing is that if you're not queer you're ignorant. Semantics? Splitting hairs? Super-progressive? The idea seems a little ahead of its time but I actually like it.

Everybody has at least a little inner-queer that the right circumstances would bring out, once the dust of ignorance is brushed off, or the thick sludge of denial-- in some cases-- is dissolved.

Ahead of its time, but I feel it.
32
A work friend of mine is a lesbian and we chat about sex and relationships sometimes. One time she asked me if I met the perfect man and then found out that he was born female, how would I feel about it.

I'm not transphobic, but I told her there were two problems with that.

1. To the best of my knowledge, we have done a lot worse at FTM surgery so far and creating a convincing penis that passes for a real one just hasn't happened yet.

But say they magically could make a believable fake that was just like the real thing?

2. Babies. Two women can't make one together. (As in one that shares both of their DNA)

Yes, there's some men that can't either, but I'll take my chances on that, especially since part 1 isn't going to change any time soon.
33
@26:

Yes, Bayer claims that the progesterone released by Mirena rings somehow acts "only in the uterus" and has no systemic effects. Unfortunately, they're probably lying.
34
P.S. I identify as straight but have been tempted to claim 'queerness'. I think that's just a holdover from being a teenager with lots of friends who were gay/bi.

Just like not all heterosexual people are bigots, not all homosexual (etc etc etc) people are tolerant. Look at all those Republican men trying to score some nice nice from their strapping young interns. Equating queer with tolerant is not at all accurate.
35
@33

Actually, if they used a synthetic progesterone receptor agonist it's possible that it's selective for certain cell types. That's what they're doing now with hormone replacement therapy now in order to avoid the unpleasant and/or dangerous side effects.

I don't really know much about those fancy birth control things since they kind of wig me out but I could totally look into that,
36
*edit, oh no, they're just lying.
Bummer, because what they're describing is certainly theoretically possible, and is done with estrogen receptor agonists all the time!
37
Are we really calling us cisgender now? You mean those organic chemistry classes paid off? Love it!

BTW, awesome advice to FTP, Dan.
38
I was on hormonal birth control for years (yes I switched types of hormonal birth control a few times) and it had a definite effect on my libido that really screwed me up when I went OFF the birth control. I've been off hormonal birth control for 2 years now and I finally have my libido back. I am NOT advocating that women shouldn't take birth control, but people need to be informed of the facts, and pharmaceutical companies need to do a better job of being truthful.
39
I actually think FRAUD and a lot of the commenters are coming from a place of transphobia. The base issue with transgenderism is that you just ARE a woman. I'm looking at comment #9, for example, which says, '

If not being attracted to transsexuals makes FRAUD "trans - phobic", then that makes all his gay friends that aren't attracted to women are "misogynist, woman-hating pigs".'

But that isn't right at all. Not being attracted to women obviously makes you GAY. Being attracted to women makes you straight. Transwomen are just women. Not being attracted to a certain subset of women because of a quirk of birth that they can't help that you might not know about unless they told you is a little phobic.

Imagine if one of your friends said they just weren't attracted to black people. It's certainly their right not to date people for whatever reason, but I'd probably feel like they were being a little racist regardless. That's how I feel here.
40
Really enjoying the debate on "queer het."

For me to claim "queer" seems unnecessary and confusing to most. We have: open, tolerant, and ally among other words, that seem to fit the variety of statuses out there. I'm not sure how queer adds to my (or anyone's) identity when it isn't part of the subject's sexuality. If this is the "word of the week," then I'll use it, but I'm not convinced yet.
41
Maybe the word that's changing over time isn't "queer" so much as "straight." I used to think of it as meaning primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex, but perhaps the point is that we all fall somewhere on a continuum from attracted only to same sex to attracted only to opposite sex such that completely gay and completely straight don't exist.

That may be the case (or not), but I can't see that just because words don't have exact definitions the concept of any definition is negated. Words still have meaning; definitions are still useful even if a little fuzzy around the edges.

I wonder if values have shifted to the point where "queer" is associated so much with "good" that it's a compliment to confer honorary queerdom.

Next, I ask myself if there's something transphobic about admitting to not being attracted to transgendered individuals. I ask myself the hypothetical question: If surgery had advanced to the point where a post-operative transexual really couldn't be distinguished from a cisexual, could I be attracted to both men equally?

Answer: We are all of us the sum total of our physical selves, our emotional selves, and our past experiences. We're not just attracted to physical types-- at least, I'm not. I need the whole package. So it makes sense to me that I'm attracted to a man who was once a boy. It's all part and parcel of who he is. And if he didn't let me know about that important part of his past until after the 5th date, well, I tend not to be attracted to liars either.
42
Kaliann @8:
It sounds like Ms. Kate is saying that a cis-het-dude isn't "straight" simply because he acknowledges and supports the full humanity of his fellows without exceptions for sexual identity or orientation. This is, of course, a fantastic social/moral position for him to take, but it doesn't change his sexuality, nor should it. They are unrelated. He is still straight. He just isn't a bigot.
Sea Otter @12:
I resent the implication that we're now supposed to equate being "straight" with being a bigot. I thought "straight" was supposed to be a valueless, literal descriptor of someone's sexual orientation, like "gay." It's a useful word, and I hope we don't have to start using the term "queer het" because people like Kate Bornstein ruined "straight" for us.
These, a thousand times.

To our friends in the queer communities: if you look at us hets and straights and arbitrarily decide what our identity is to be based on your measurements then you have become the enemy. Seriously. You spent decades rightly arguing that the cis community had no right to impose its characterizations of your sexuality on you, so what the hell gives you the right to characterize us? And to equate my self identity with bigotry, for that matter? It's arrogant and insulting and counterproductive.

Then again, it does fit the progressive activists' handbook: piss off your friends and supporters ... they're easier to upset and it's so much fun!. The douchebags on the right never seem to enjoy that ... they'd ratehr attack their enemies.
43
I'd much rather have heard what you had to say than what Kate Bornstein did, Dan!
44
I'd like to give a shout-out and thank you to Dan for having a column that is utterly free of rehashes of a previous SLLOTD. That's not sarcasm, I do genuinely appreciate it.
45
The more I ponder the "who you support must be who you want to fuck" notion the less I like it.

Let's compare it to race. If you're the CEO of a company and you ensure that, say, black women get their fair shake and get promoted commensurate with their talents, do you magically become a bigot if you're not turned on by them?
46
@26 I use the Mirena, and I'm very happy with it. When I got it, I spotted heavily for a couple months and then stopped menstruating entirely, so I'm skeptical of your claim that neither type of IUD will impact ovulation.
47
Yay Kate! I love you!

@19: That all depends on how one is defining "man". As someone who views gender (social and biological) as social constructions, I take the position that any of us aren't "really", intrinsically, essentially any gender, man, woman, or otherwise. That position requires a rejection of the woman in a man's/man in a woman's body narrative and all of the framing that goes with it (e.g. "really" a man who previously "presented" as a woman), since there isn't a "real" subject in the first place, nor any concept of gender without the discursive construction that's predicated on social interaction with external signifiers. One "is" a man if one functions as a man in a cultural discourse, one "is" a woman if one functions as a woman. My view was very heavily influenced by Kate Bornstein's book Gender Outlaw, which is, in part, a deconstruction of the trans-normative narrative of "trapped in the wrong body" from a Queer Theory perspective (at one point she points out that the idea that one who has never lived as a woman could have any idea what it means to "feel like a woman" is absurd, and for that matter, so is someone who HAS lived as a woman claiming to "feel like a woman", as this universalizes and essentializes what it means to be or feel like a woman, despite the fact that any two given people who might be overwhelmingly recognized as "women" could very well share no common experiences or emotional responses to various experiences).

Gender Outlaw was the first trans narrative that made any sort of sense to me, given my gender non-essentialism. My previous exposure to trans narratives were all in the form of "X in a Y body," which struck me as flatly delusional: if we, as a culture, define "male" based on exclusively physical/genetic characteristics (I was aware of the sex/gender/sexuality divisions established by Second Wave feminist theory), then to say "I am not a male" when one clearly embodies all of the only factors we use to define the category "male" in the first place, then one is rejecting the reality that one's body does, in fact, exhibit those features that are classified as "male". Kate's book helped me re-conceptualize this as a rejection not of physical reality but instead of the socially-constructed sex and gender categories: it's not that my body isn't actually like X, it's that the social category ascribed to my body is not something with which I identify.

@29: In a culture that is at best ambivalent toward LGBTQetc. persons, and more hostile than accepting of especially the Ts, I don't think that an argument that active, visible/vocal support of LGBTQetc. people and issues represents a queer challenge to cultural norms is unreasonable. "Straight" doesn't just mean men and women (and women and men) having any sort of sex, it embodies a whole constellation of prescriptions (e.g. PIV sex, oral sex, male sexual agency/privilege, female sexual pliancy, assumed communal/care-giving roles for women in shared households, gendered clothing and other appearance norms) and proscriptions (e.g. no sex with someone outside The Relationship, sometimes extended even to porn and masturbation; no kink, mostly; no receptive male sexual behavior; no penetrative female sexual behavior; no anonymous sex; no public sex). Some of these may or may not be embodied by any given person who IDs as "straight", but this is the general discursive functioning.

That the definition of "straight" is becoming more open and flexible in some ways is directly a result of the challenge leveled at sexual norms by queer sexuality activism. Queer is and has (for a very long time) been deployed not just to refer to sexualities/genders but to social roles and norms, and the same goes for straight. In this context, straight/queer is being used in the more general sense of normal/strange
48
I'm fully supportive of gay men, but I don't want to have sex with them. I'm also pretty sure they don't want to have sex with me. Ditto lesbians. It's okay to be attracted to who you're attracted too. "Phobic" enters the equation when someone makes disparaging remarks or treats others poorly because of their sexual identity or preferences.

Also, I'm on both hormonal birth control and SSRI anti-depressants, and my libido is just fine.
49
I too found my libidio dropped like a rock on hormonal contraception. It also made me moody as all get out, this was from the very start on a couple different kinds. Fortunately for me I recognized the cause quickly (and this was back in the Eighties) and switched to a diaphragm, which worked well for me.

I also found the same effects when I was pregnant, and I know women vary in how their libidio is affected by pregnancy. Since the idea of hormonal BC is that it mimics pregnancy, that makes me think that it too can vary in how it affects women.

I believe there is also evidence that some women have lowered libidio for a long time after going off hormonal BC.
50
justdiane @ 26
I completely agree with you about stress. Women are stupid when it comes to the role stress plays in their lives and tend to ignore the medical side-effects of that stress. (BTW, I am a woman, so people don't bag on me about calling women stupid ABOUT STRESS. We think we can handle anything (because we usually do) and we think stress is such a normal part of our lives that it doesn't affect us.)

However justdiane,
As a NP who works at Planned Parenthood, ESPECIALLY one who councils women, you should really refresh your knowledge about the side-effects of Mirena.
On the Mirena website itself, it says that not only do a majority of women have lighter, shorter periods, but 20% of women STOP having periods altogether, and won't start having them again until the IUD is removed.
20% is not a small number. This means that for TWENTY PERCENT of women, there is more hormone than necessary, and its presence causes such a drastic change in normal hormone levels that it often necessitates removal.

Granted, this means that for the majority of women it works beautifully. But if you are going to provide accurate medical advice, you cannot actually say that "it is not enough to change your cycle."
Clearly, it is.
51
John Horstman's @47 reminds me of a debate when I was still in school between a teacher who insisted that the only way to enjoy Shakespeare's sonnets was to deconstruct them to death, and a classmate of mine who insisted that the real joy in them was listening to the music of the words and messages. The latter won the debate when he described the teacher's argument as "the equivalent of saying that one can only truly love a woman after he has performed an autopsy on her".

Dude, there is a point where the explanatory process gets so detailed and convoluted that one's allies want to go over to the Dark Side just so they won't have to listen to something being parsed down to subatomic levels.

I don't know why the CIA bothers with waterboarding. Hours of intensive lectures on gender theory would have anybody who isn't majoring in that field weeping for mercy in very short order indeed, eager to say anything, do anything, to please, please, just make it stop!
52
Thank you, justdiane, 26, for answering the question I was going to ask. When I saw "common side effect of almost every form of hormonal birth control," alarm bells went off in my head. It makes sense to me that desire is connected to hormones. That's obvious to me since I'm a woman who always used to (peri-menopause now) be aware of how the hormones were washing over my body. I'd feel one spike of horniness at ovulation, another before my period, and they felt different in a hard to explain way, different fantasies or preferences. But I was aware of being unusual in that. Most of my friends just seemed to ovulate, menstruate, and like sex. In 30 years, I never heard anyone volunteer that the Pill affected her libido, then suddenly I was hearing that it was common.

I never took birth control pills to alleviate the horrendous cramps and have wondered on and off if I should have. I did eventually try the Pill to help with peri-menopause symptoms. I found that it had side effects in the sore breasts but didn't affect my desire except that it made me somewhat more horny when I first started on it, not less. In fact, I'm not taking it regularly now, but I've been known to take a single pill now and then as a boost when my mood is low. I like the way estrogen makes me feel.

Antidepressants are another story. 2-Echizan's message is the one I wish were advertised. I can't see that the removal of one's entire sexual desire is just another side effect along with "might cause slight nausea" or "do not operate heavy machinery". I did find out when I freaked out and did research. I was lucky enough to get off that stupid drug before any long lasting damage was done. I'm still furious with my doctor for not mentioning it to me. I never took drugs for depression though I do have a history of it. I did go to a doctor for help with pain. She recommended prozac with the reasoning that people who take it for depression report a lessening of all-over pain. I tried it. I couldn't come. I didn't fantasize. I didn't have the advantage of the one thing that made me feel good about my body when I was hurting.

Obviously an antidepressant is called for when someone's life is in danger. You don't worry about sexuality when someone is suicidal. I call that priorities. But I wonder about the teenagers who are taking antidepressants because they're feeling sad or stressed. I at least knew what was normal for me so I knew when something was terribly wrong, but a teenager might not know that. I worry that the formative years are missed and the the kids won't find out that they've been robbed of something important until later.

I also wonder if there's something in the wholesale prescription of antidepressants for teenagers that hearkens to the way adults often fear budding sexuality even as we purport to love our children. The culture seems to think that leaving young people to discover their sexuality on their own is akin to child abuse and aren't we lucky to have this new drug that suppresses their desire altogether.

It's especially awful when applied to girls. Boys at least know they're supposed to get hard, but girls might have trouble coming at the beginning anyway. I could go on and on (and have), but I'll step off the soap box for now.
53
Kate Bornstein is a fucking idiot, and Dan makes giant missteps when he includes her misguided opinions in his columnn. She should NEVER call ANYONE queer; some people find that even more offensive than faggot. And to tell a straight guy who's 100% gay-friendly that he's NOT straight sends a message of confusion and worry that's completely unwarranted. So to all you straight folks who are put off by her stupid bullshit, worry not: we appreciate your support, and please pay no attention to brainless self-righteous whackjobs like her.
54
@42: Bingo!

I'm a heterosexual male who believes in equality for ALL. I am GLBT-friendly, but I am NOT queer. (And no one has the right to tell me otherwise.) I'm what Bornstein would call queer, but I object to the term and refuse to personally recognize the validity of the word based purely on the arbitrary sillyness of it. Because reassigning definitions to words and using words arbitrarily stinks of postmodern, political doublespeak. It's curious that a guest commenter illustrates the very problem with the word "queer" that Dan has so eloquently railed against in the Lovecast on more than one occasion.

Naturally, I don't think the LW is phobic of anything--phobic means fear, not a lack of physcial attraction--he just isn't attracted to women who used to be biologically men. A MTF person may identify as a woman, but his-to-her body most certainly wasn't. Trans folks are keen on the subjective experience of being trans, but should objective realities (i.e. biology and physiology) be ignored when considering who we're attracted to?
55
@ 12 and others -- very well and eloquently put. I came out as bi (ok, then I had to say lesbian then as bi was not accepted by the community) about 25 years ago. I had to deal with brutal rejection from my family which took years to repair, all the time insisting on my right to be me and love whomever I wanted. I did not give in until they accepted my girlfriend, about 15 years ago. Then I felt free to openly date men, with their knowledge, as I had "won".

A "queer het man" (whatever THAT is?) would NEVER have to go through that. There is no such thing as a queer het. FRAUD is straight, and a good one at that. Why would people accuse him of trans-phobia? It's unfair to assume to know what's in his head when he's simply not attracted to trans people. He never said he was repulsed, just not attracted.

Totally agree with 53. Kate B's comments about "the right one" is scarily reminiscent of my family's attempts to "convert" me in the 80s by showing me pictures of Pierce Brosnan. She's a little too eager to have everyone join the tribe.
56
@20 I used to use BC pills and it really killed my libido. I use the copper IUD now and it came back. However, there are all kinds of horrible down sides to the copper IUD. MUCH longer periods, painful cramping, and I can feel it during sex. My doctor says I have a tiny uterus and that most women can't feel it. I guess I'm lucky... However, I wouldn't trade any of the side effects for zero libido. :)
57
That first question and answer is very strange, and quite frankly, is a set back for equal rights.

We have this desire to be equal, but why people so hung up on categorizing people and putting labels on them? We will NEVER achieve equality with these labels. Queer heterosexual? Cis women? Am I the only one that does not see the point in micro analyzing every fucking person in this world? When did these terms get invented, because I've never heard them until now. Why can't we all just be known as "people"?

Also, how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man (see what I did there avoiding labels?). This kid clearly has a good head on his shoulders, has been involved in equal rights causes, takes into consideration the feelings of others, but just because he is only attracted to women that were born with a vagina he is now being called a "transphobe" by his "friends"? I'm sorry, but "-phobe" should be reserved for the true homophobes in this country, the people that call others "faggots" or go on Fox News and talk about the sanctity of marriage. This kid isn't a "phobe".

We will never achieve equality if the ones fighting for it are still stuck in neutral because they feel that being progressive is making up different labels for each person's unique situation.

I am not cis. I am not trans. I am not a straight homo. I am not a queer hetero. I am me.
58
@7 This makes about 538 GSA presidents running about whom I've heard who are openly straight. It's almost enough to make one long for the old quota system of co-presidents, 1 straight-identified maximum (ideally, one any-identified maximum).

vennominon, perhaps we have different understandings of the purpose of a GSA, especially in high schools and below, but I totally fail to see what is wrong with "openly straight" people presiding over one.

I certainly would hope that removing the bigots, the cowards and the disinterested from the "straight" majority would not reduce their numbers to the point that they match the numbers of out homosexuals in those schools. Again, unless if you are arguing that "straight" people are somehow deficient or incapable of having the qualities necessary to preside over a GSA, why wouldn't they account for a higher precentage of presidents?
59
To FTP: Please do not take lightly the advice to seek an attorney's advice NOW in the face of a CPS threat over your lifestyle. I did not take the threat seriously, assuming that the judicial system had some sense of social justice, and a four-year battle for my children ensued. Some of this is part of public record, Internet searchable; but more importantly, you can never get back the time lost with a child.
60
Abe @57. I saw what you did: "Also, how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man (see what I did there avoiding labels?)."

But if you read some of the comments, some will still say you have failed. "born a man" vs. "born presenting male". I'm not saying you are wrong and they are right, but you have to know that confidense in the labels we use is clearly going to be challenges(and this both frustrates and inspires me).

61
Thx for the birth control comment. That is a VERY real side effect!

@53 - www.cyclebeads.com - check 'em out. If your cycle is within range, it's a pretty good hormone free option. I used them in a relationship for 2 years w/ no surprises. :)

And Fraud is straight - what's up w/ the LGBTQ author having to be a middle schooler - you have to have a label just like me. :(
62
I would like to think that my problem with "cis" is not that it attacks my privilege, but that it is uncommon, unnecessary and unknown; basically the opposite of useful for communication. In the pretty much never that I need to describe myself or others as "not trans", I have found that "not trans" worked adequately.

As I brought it up, while there is something to the wrongness of the assumed "white", "straight" or what have you, I think the bigger issue is the otherizing nature of the unnecessary labeling.

Perhaps this is problematic in ways I don't fully grasp, but I would think that common terms like "people" adequately describes trans people, except when we are discussing ways in which that is actually a distinct group.

Ultimately, I don't see how trying to build a word that segregates out trans people is a step forward for their acceptance and equality.
63
Straight people sympathetic to LGBTQ issues are just advocates for social equality. I fail to see what civil rights has to do with my sexuality.

Because isn't that the essence of the fight, that it is not about sexuality at all, it is about all citizens having equal rights under law, no exceptions. It used to be about skin color, now it's about gender/sexual identity, and it's just the same amount of wrong.

Just as you wouldn't say that my desire for equality meant I should identify as cis-caucasian, don't label me cis-het.
64
Ms Forward @58 - There is nothing wrong with AN openly straight person presiding over A GSA. There is nothing particularly wrong with the majority of presidents reflecting the majority of the memberships. But when one after one becomes dozens after dozens becomes hundreds after hundreds, it rather suggests that the presidency over what is after all an alliance has become the prerogative of one particular group. Because one is dealing with orientation and self-identification, it does not quite reach the same areas as racial or sexual balance, but that just makes a somewhat more disparate proportion acceptable.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of co-presidents as peculiarly apposite for an alliance. I've seen imposed balance tend to provide more improvement than detriment.

(It might be possible to make the case that alliance leadership is if anything more valuable training for young non-straights, as building alliances is much more likely to be their daily bread ad infinitum. Even the most dedicated straight people are likely to find that their lives just fill up with things that have nothing to do with such issues - not a fault.)
65
If FRAUD is a queer Het (which phrase I totally dislike, why can't we just be straight folk with common decency), then what is a Straight Homosexual? A gay person who has no tolerance for others? So, then, straight will come to mean intolerance? There is already a word fo that, or words: asshole, bigot, phobic, Rick Santorum, etc.
66
Re bc pills, put me in the camp of women whose libido is not affected by the hormones. No weight gain either. And my periods when off hormones are awful. I love my pills.

As far as the transphobe issue, I think @39 has it right.

I recommend the following:
"I've never been sexually attracted to someone I knew was trans. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
Similarly, a white person can say:
"I've never been attracted to someone who was black. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
I'd even go so far as to recommend that straight people try saying:
"I've never been attracted to someone of my gender. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."

That leaves the door open for the possibility that one might, someday, be attracted to someone trans, or black, or of the same gender. And it shows that you are aware of your position of privilege as straight and/or white, and open to people questioning you about it.
67
I'm a 32 yr old "queer" (Not "straight queer") woman (not that who I am or what I am really matters on this subject). I would like to point out that regardless of changing from a man to a woman physically... with advanced procedures, even if there are absolutely zero male qualities of any kind left (bone structure or other details), male born and woman born individuals VIBRATE differently (and no, I'm not talking about toys), brains are wired differently, scent is a factor... It's not just physical differences. The FRAUD dude just might not be able to have %100 of the connection or chemistry required to go all the way with a male-to-female individual. It’s just as likely for a %110 GAY individual to fall in love with and go all the way with (because falling in love and going all the way can be two separate issues here) a person of the opposite gender. He should be allowed to feel that way if he cannot help how he feels sexually any differently than GLBTQ feel. Sexuality is a very intricate. FRAUDS friends should indeed respect his preferences. Seems a little hypocritical of them not to.
68
@62, "I don't see how trying to build a word that segregates out trans people is a step forward for their acceptance and equality."

I think most transwomen prefer to be seen as women. But in situations where one is talking about them being trans (saying they don't get to use the women's bathroom, or saying that their medical situations should be seen as cosmetic rather than necessary surgery, or whatever), then it has proven helpful to have language that denormalizes the cis-gendered. Like affirmative action, it's a stop-gap measure, and when everyone agrees to treat all women as women, then the terminology can change. But for now, I think the cisgendered should focus less on maintaining their own comfort at all costs and work a little harder at sympathizing with the difficult life transgendered people face.
69
He's not Queer, he's just a decent, conscientious and energetic human being. His should be the default position.
70
Throwing more and more labels into the social-acceptance-of-sexuality pot seems like a really messy idea.
71
I'm a 32 yr old "queer" (Not "straight queer") woman (not that who I am or what I am really matters for this subject). I would like to point out that regardless of changing from a man to a woman physically with advanced procedures, even if there are absolutely zero male qualities of any kind left (bone structure or other details), male born and woman born individuals vibrate differently, brains are wired differently, scent is a factor... It's not just physical differences. The FRAUD dude just might not be able to have %100 of the connection or chemistry match required to go all the way with a male-to-female individual. It’s just as likely for a %110 GAY individual to fall in love with and go all the way with a person of the opposite gender. He should be allowed to feel that way if he cannot help how he feels sexually any differently than GLBTQ feel. Sexuality is a very intricate. FRAUDS friends should indeed respect his preferences. Seems a little hypocritical of them not to.
72
@57 "how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man"

LOL. How about rephrasing that as "not wanting to fuck a woman who was born a boy."
73
I've just reread FRAUD's letter and see that it's his own friends who are calling him a transphobe. This isn't a general discussion about what you believe and whom you're attracted to. These are people hitting on their friend, then calling him names when their advances are rejected. Sexual manipulation at its nastiest.

Count me as a transphobe because I don't buy the idea that sexual identity is entirely a subjective matter. I believe that the way a person "presents" counts for something.

By analogy: A boy is born to John and Mary Quackenbush. They name him Jim. He grows up, but as he gets older, he becomes more and more convinced that he's not really Jim Quackenbush, he's the lost Lindbergh baby-- or Jesus or Napoleon or Anastasia. We don't decide that he really is Charles Jr. because he thinks he is. We decide he's schizophrenic with a distorted view of reality and give appropriate treatment. He doesn't get to decide who he is. The society does.

Why is trans-sexuality different? Why can't I decide that I was born rich in a poor person's body and demand that you all give me money so the outer reality matches my inner one?

I have the feeling that I'm about to get in a lot of trouble.
74
@64 Thank you, vennominon.

I guess I view these more a discrete selections of the perceived best candidates than as a trend, but I can understand your concern.

Still, I think you may be undervaluing the benefit of that leadership training in the hands of "out" allies, who go on to exert influence in other spheres. While direct advocacy is vital, I think indirect influence brings converts.

I don't dislike co-presidencies of GSAs, so much as I worry that it is much more suggestive of detente than unity.
75
@73: At least you're brave enough to think outside the cis-boom-box.
76
I regards to the podcast, your new co-host Lucy is terrible. Glad you like her, I can see why, she's a suck-up, defers to your opinion, acts stupid but is also bubbly and upbeat.
Good for her for talking about being abused, but most of time she comes off as such a little girl. Any woman who won't tell a guy she's on her period, is an idiot.
Anyway, no more listening to the podcast for me.
Why don't you get a real woman, like Susie Bright or just have Mistriss Matisse back on? If your going to have a co-host, get a grown-up.
It might be harder for your ego, but it would make a better show.
77
@68 EricaP, I think what we're saying is much more closely aligned than your response implies, but we certainly do disagree on whether cis is a stop-gap or as I said, a step in the wrong direction.

I think that your "comfort" may be a more accessible term than my "privilege", for starting to get at the kinds of issues around "normal" this sort of conversation necessitates, but I think your statement may have been a bit more inflammatory than illuminating at this point in the conversation.
78
@73: The subjective "because that's how I FEEL" vs. the objective "this is how you ARE physically whether you like it or not" is what I was hinting at in #54.

If someone born with man bits feels she's really a female lesbian AND female sexuality is as fluid as Dan says, is there a possibility that she will be a straight woman once she cycles out of her rebellious, experimental college phase? I'm kidding, but...
79
I really have to take issue with Bornstein’s coining “queer heterosexual” to describe a non-bigoted straight person. By abandoning the perfectly adequate “straight,” she signals that “straight” sexual orientation goes hand-in-hand with bigotry, which is patently false. In fact, it borders on heterophobic. Yeah, I went there.

Also, Bornstein seems to forget that queer people can be bigots too, often against other stripes of queer people. Having a queer sexual orientation does not automatically confer enlightenment any more than a straight sexual orientation automatically confers prejudice.
80
@8: I totally agree. To the extent that sex and political beliefs are different things, I think calling a GLBTA ally "queer" pointlessly muddles the distinction.
81
Am i the only one here that thinks FRAUD's letter is a FRAUD!!!

After all the recent accusations of Dan alleged transphobia, this letter reads like its baiting Dan to say something insulting towards the trans community to justify their anti-Dan Savage glitter bombing ways.

People read the letter again... first how many straight men are there that would even worry about the possibility of dating a transwomen? And then said person, would then take up his fears with his trans friends. I find the whole situation very very unlikely.

I call BS on this letter. However, Dan you answered it well, got advise from a trans expert and handled it all very open mindedly. So the next time you get glitter bombed, let's see what this tiny minority of anti-Dan activists will bitch about then.
82
I'm with you, Crinoline (73). But yes, tomatoes (and more) may be lobbed at you for saying it. ;)

And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!

ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex too, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?

OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL! And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.

#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with experience. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body, etc. etc. I got whistled at just minding my own business walking down the street. These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body and experiences have consequences for who you are/become.

Also, why is it that trans people get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is and not the 'cisgendered' who make up 90%++++ of the population of male and female people? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?

Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an ism or a phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. I.e., the trans-person's beliefs about him/herself do not trump your beliefs about him/her.

83
I'm with you, Crinoline (73). But yes, tomatoes (and more) may be lobbed at you for saying it. ;)

And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!

ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?

OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps sometimes, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL. And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.

#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with bodies. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body. As another example, b/c of my body, I got whistled (or rude things said to me) by men in cars while I was just minding my own business walking down the street (age 13!). These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body; and experiences have consequences for who you are/become. Bodies and experiences are not wholly separable.

Also, why is it that trans people -- a tremendous numerical minority -- get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?

Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an -ism or a -phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. To each her/his own, right? So long as you treat others with dignity and kindness, you don't have to f*ck 'em too.
84
@50 and @56
Glad this is a slow day at work so I can address your important questions/concerns!
Mirena hormones work very differently than systemic hormones (e.g., birth control pills.)
Mirena hormones are LOCAL to the uterus as I stated previously (#26). The Mirena IUD will not stop ovulation or natural cycling. So then why do some women have NO periods on the Mirena? That is because the local effect on the uterus is to thin the uterine lining.

(BTW it also triggers the uterus to create a cerical mucus that blocks sperm -- that's the main way it works as contraception. Copper IUDs work b/c copper is toxic to sperm.)

With a Mirena IUD nothing needs to come out. However all the ovarian stimulation from the brain and ovarian hormones throughout the body -- that will continue on the Mirena. Natural hormones! If a woman has PMS, bloating, breast tenderness, even cramping -- any menstrual cycle symptoms -- these will all continue on the Mirena. Everuthing except the bleeding that is. Bleeding will be very light or not at all. Not because the Mirena stops your natural hormones but because it thins the uterine lining so that there is no lining to come out.

@56 Coper IUD does cause painful heavy periods for some women. Perhaps try a Mirena??

Re: Cycle beads are OK but be careful! Too long to go into here -- but you must know what you are doing and how your natural cycles work to use these effectively. Also 12 days out of the month you must abstain or use a back up method, such as condoms. Your risk of pregnancy is much higher then if a condom breaks during the possible fertile days. Chcek out "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" website www.tcoyf.com
85
@76 Thank you!! I hate her. She has no idea what she is talking about and she does just defer to Dan in everything!! She never says anything in support of the callers or calls Dan out on his bullshit (which does happen at times). I also feel like it is very sex negative to refer to her as his wife because they don't have sex. Really Dan? I know it's a joke, but you get letters everyday from people about their lack of sex and it's not just women. You shouldn't be reinforcing these negative stereotypes that woman don't enjoy sex, or just stop after they get themselves a husband! Fuck Lucy, she makes me never not want to listen to the podcast.
86
When I find out a guy is gay, no matter how insanely hot, I lose any urge to fuck him.

I also lose the urge to fuck people who tick the following boxes- stupid, married/partnered, children, shorter than me, high pitched voices, are women.

I'm sure there's exceptions to that rule. As I experience more, I'm open to more things. But my general orientation for attraction stays pretty much the same from day to day. I'm not a bigot. I don't feel hatred or repulsion towards people who don't fall into my sphere of attraction. I just know who I do and don't want to fuck. That's my right as a human being. Isn't that what LBGT rights are about?

As for being 'queer hetro'. My boyfriend is a big supporter of women's rights, I don't consider him a 'female man'.
87
Oh I meant to say 'people who HAVE children'! Not the...not the other thing. That's sort of a given, right?
88
I am with those who find declaring FRAUD 'queer' to be a bit offensive. Not that he might call himself queer. If he wants to think of himself as queer that's fine by me. But telling him that he is not straight but queer, regardless of how he sees himself, is arrogant, insensitive, and rude.

It's one thing to suggest to someone who's self identify is pretty clearly at odds with their behaviors that they might want to consider re-evaluating their identity. Like, if a man identifies as straight, but never shows any interest in women and goes off every night to pick up guys to suck their dicks, it might not be out of place for someone close to them to suggest that possibly, just maybe, they might want to consider that they aren't completely straight, what with all the cock sucking and all.

It's no one's place to tell them they are gay.

It's no one's place to tell FRAUD that he is queer.

I'm gay but I don't indentify as queer. If others want to use the term fine, but I don't identify with it. If someone wants to think of me as 'queer' in their heads that is their deal. But if someone tells me I AM queer and need to identify that way I will tell them they can kiss by gay, not queer, ass.

As for FRAUDS question, although I am loath to chime in on anything having to do with transgendered issues, my advice is lie.

When someone asks if he has a problem with the idea of getting involved with a transgendered person he should just say no, he simply hasn't been attracted to any transgendered people yet who were attracted to him as well. That he isn't attracted to any doesn't have to come in to it.

As far as I am concerned it is no one else's business who I am attracted to or why. If I don't find myself with a desire to get involved with someone else no one has a right to know why. Not even the person I am not attracted to.

Who we are attracted to and who we want to, or not want to fuck is the one area in our lives where we have the right to absolute latitude to choose or acknowledge what we want without having to explain or justify to anyone else. Not that we have the right to fuck who we want, but we have the right to not be attracted to those we are not attracted to for whatever reason.
89
"Straight" is just fine as a neutral term for heterosexual. Don't burden it with judgmental garbage suggesting it includes homophobia in its meaning. We don't need "queer heterosexual". We already have "straight" for that.

Likewise, "gay" doesn't mean "heterophobic".
90
"Right off the top of my head: Your brother is a shit-smeared asshole, your sister-in-law is an ass-smeared shithole,"

Surely we can do better than speak about other human beings like this, whatever they do,however they behave.
91
@seeker6079, Manzana, Crinoline et alii, I quite agree with you. It seems that gender is not just social construction, and that, despite Freud's famous perverse polymorphy hypothesis, there indeed are features that are more likely to develop in females (or males) than the other way round, in body and spirit -- to say nothing of the common experiences one may have with those who share the same sex one has and how they can influence who one is (in the latter there's a social component, but also a purely physical one -- the experience of having this or that hormone, or having a period, for instance).

It is interesting that people like Mr Horstman, however, do propose to see everything as the result of social construction. I think this comes from the -- quite human -- desire to see simplicity eveywhere. A theory that explains everything on the basis of a neat system is more enjoyable: it offers a story that can be told about all the cases and situations (in this case, relating to sex and gender), it offers a clear vision of things, a framework against which to make moral and ethical choices. It offers the comfort of calculus when dealing with physical reality.

There is a reason, however, why physicists, even though they are all taught to be proficient at calculus (and linear algebra, and), are also taught numerical methods. One often has to deal with the fact that the model is never a perfect fit for the data.

When the genome project showed how full of junk the human DNA actually is, this was supposedly a surprise; but then everybody started saying -- of course! it is, after all, a result of billions of years of basically chaotic evolution (in the sense that organisms had to adapt to environments that changed in ways nobody could predict). It had to be a mess. If we saw an underlying system that wasd beautiful, harmonious and ruled by symmetry, that would have been quite a surprise.

The same thing with purely social-constructionist explanation of... well, of pretty much anything in human cognition. To put it bluntly, they are too simple, too modular, too "blank slate" to be actually a true result of messy, chaotic biological evolution.

It's the beauty of the theory, the 'freedom' it gives us (in that, since everything is socially constructed, then everything can be changed by changing society) that attracts, I think, people like Mr Horstman.

And indeed it is a beautiful theory. Too beautiful for our ugly and ultimately messy reality.
92
As far as the young poly man, he should tell his girlfriend about his family's threats. While he may be willing to cut ties with his family, she may not be willing to deal with a visit from family services or the possibility that she could lose her child. He should give his girlfriend the choice about whether or not to continue the relationship. If she breaks-up with him. He can tell his batshit crazy family that his girlfriend broke-up with him because of their threat and he was is cutting off all contact and they will not have any knowledge about any of his future relationships. If she stays with him. He can consult an attorney and make sure she is legally protected and he, his girlfriend and her husband can talk to the batshit crazy relatives and let them know that they are not cowering to their threats and they are losing a relative.

As far as women having a low sex drive, many health problems affect the sexual health of both men and women. If either has a drop from their normal sex drive, they should consult a doctor. It could be a prescription or the first indicator of a serious health problem.
93
@75, That was an awesome comment. Johnny Carson, FTW!

@73 & 82, I'm unclear on your goals here. Are you saying that trans isn't a real thing? Are you conflating a psychotic disorder with being trans?

There really is a difference between me saying "I'm the Queen of Romania" and my buddy Jake saying, "Yeah, don't call me Jen--I feel more like a guy."
94
Hi Clashfan (#93). No, I'm not saying that trans isn't a 'real' thing. I'm refuting the argument that *nothing* is real and, in particular, that there is nothing real about sex/gender. There *is* something real (no less real than what this distinction means for *other* animals), but - being that we are social animals with the capacity for language, self-related memories, emotions, etc. - there are also *real* experiences tied to the sexed/gendered bodies that our minds inhabit.

I personally think that reducing gender to a "belief in the head" is vastly more essentialist/reductionist than is saying that gender/sex has something to do with the bodies into which we are born and which we experience both physically and socially. I realise that many trans people will reject my approach to thinking about gender. But equally, I have the right to reject their defining my gender for me.

I don't think being TG is a mental disorder. Mind you, it is in the DSM (the psych guidelines for what is/isn't a mental disorder), but so are lots of other 'variations' that are just 'different' ways of thinking/being (ways that, perhaps, are out there on the ends of the normal distribution, but still within the confines of the distribution).

95
I really can't buy into the BS that there are "queer heterosexuals" unless by "queer heterosexual" you mean that they date a lot of gender queer individuals but prefer the gender of the person (not sex necessarily, mind you) to be the opposite of their own. What does "queer" actually mean then, if people who aren't actually homosexual, trans or genderqueer can identify as "queer?" Kate Bornstein really has opened up this larger and more important question of definition if she is going to so broadly define anyone and everyone as "queer." Is queer the new normal then?
97
93-Clashfan-- I'm with Manzana on this. It's said well in 94.

The way the discussion was going, we had 2 extreme possibilities.

One was that one's reality on sexual identity was entirely subjective. A person was only what s/he felt s/he was regardless of the DNA and genitals.

The other was that a person's sex was entirely objective regardless of how that person felt. Penises = men. Vaginas = women. No other questions accepted.

I'm rejecting the binary assumption that it has to be one of the above.

I'm also calling foul on FRAUD's trans friends who get to decide which sex they are based on their personal subjective reality but who also get to tell FRAUD who he should be attracted to based on (surgically altered) genitals. That's what I'm calling crazy.
98
You have to identify as queer if you're queer-supporting? Whatever happened to "straight but not narrow"?

And, yeah, it sounds to me like it could come off as appropriation.
99
It galls me to say this, but Kate Bornstein's comments to me represent the tyranny of the minority. If straight people have no right to define the social and sexual experiences of LGBTQQ2SA people, Kate Bornstein has no right to define the terms 'straight' or 'heterosexual' as implicitly bigoted.

You're not gonna win over anyone to your 'side'--whatever side you think that is, Ms. Bornstein--by implying that hate underpins the social and sexual experiences of cisgendered people who like to fuck opposite cisgendered people.

Dan, as the kids say, "I am disappoint."
100
Cis gendered? How about "heterosexualized"? I think gender-studies' obsessive focus on language is why so many people find gender-studies just slightly ridiculous.
101
FRAUD sounds kind of like a...fraud. I'm sorry but while I know many gay friendly straight men, to go the extra-extra mile that FRAUD does is a bit much (i.e. vocal high school activist, college GSA president, all of these gay, lesbian, AND trans friends)?

But in the case FRAUD is not a fraud, I got news for him when he says "I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude". Actually yes, you would be. All the hormones and surgeries in the world are not going to change that Y chromosome to an X.

And le'ts please dispense with silly prefixes like "Cis". The number of MTF transsexuals relative to actual female humans does not warrant having to re-label the standard.

    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.