The Risk for Transgender People

I don't understand why people are so adamant about their negative associations with transgendered people. I can see how, if you've lived an isolated life, especially in certain parts of the country, the concept can at first seem unfamiliar and strange, but why continue to harbor anger toward people just because you might've been taught to disapprove?

In October 2010, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released the results of a study which found that 41% of transgender people in the U.S. have made a suicide attempt, 19% say that they have been refused medical services due to being transgender, and 2% report they have been assaulted in a doctor's office.

Obviously, these statistics show that becoming transgender is not an easy decision and there are many risks involved, especially because society typically dictates what a man and a woman should act and look like. The process is expensive, uncomfortable, and stressful. It wouldn't make sense for a person who is completely comfortable with the gender they were born with to undergo such a change, and yet people still continue to claim that such a change is morally wrong.

It just doesn't seem like all that disapproval can be good for someone. They should let go of the anger and just let everyone be happy with who they are or who they want to be.

More Books

So I havent actually read this book myself, but a friend recommended it to me and i figured it seemed appropriate for this class. it's called Misfortune: A Novel by Wesley Stace



The story follows Rose Old, a boy who was abandoned as an infant and then raised as a girl by a rich man whose own daughter had died. The interesting part begins when, as one reviewer puts it:

Inevitably, the young Rose reaches adolescence and suddenly doesn't look or feel ladylike any more. As greedy relatives circle in their attempt to wrest control of the estate from Lord Loveall, Rose discovers his true gender and adoptive status. When he reveals himself as a male to society at large and to his predatory relatives, he causes a scandal that jeopardizes the legitimacy of his inheritance. He does not feel at home in his male body and continues to wear dresses, even while sporting a fine mustache. After Lord Loveall dies, his survivors struggle to keep their claim to the Loveall fortune while Rose sets out to discover his roots... and himself.
-Eileen Rieback

This book seems particularly interesting, both because of the issue of transgendered identities, but also the way the author treats the main character's identity. it is not a historical analysis of transgendered issues in 19th century London, it is a story about one person's adventure. Thus it must treat Rose's gender identity, not flippantly, but as an integral part of her without being a big deal. The concept reminds me a lot of Emma, the hermaphrodite in Fausto-Sterling's The Five Sexes, who appeared "to be quite content and even happy" (Young in Fausto-Sterling 70) during a time when the medical establishment viewed hermaphrodites as being automatically unhealthy and unhappy.

Lets bring this to some vaguely academic close: it is one thing for a journal on the subject of sex, written by someone who has done a lot of research and previous writings on the subject, to put forward the concept of gender loosing it's binary opposites in society. It is another, however, for a novel, written for people who may not have the same academic background as the people who would be reading a journal about gender, to have a main character with such a fluid gender orientation. do you think this is an indication of changing sentiments? an island of change in an otherwise unrelenting sea of tradition? nothing you would ever care about? talk to me.

Kye Allums: NCAA Div. 1 Basketball's 1st Transgender Player

Kye Allums, is getting a lot of mainstream press coverage about his transition from female to male while continuing to play on the George Washington University female NCAA Division 1 Basketball team.

Official statements from GWU and Allums follow:

Statement from Robert Chernak, Senior Vice Provost and Senior Vice President for Student Academic and Support Services:

“Student-athlete Kye Allums has decided to live as a male student and be referred to as a male. The George Washington University supports Kye and his right to make this decision. Kye has informed the university that he will not begin any medical or drug protocols while a student-athlete. The University consulted the NCAA regarding his competitive status. Kye will continue to be a member of the women’s basketball team. Kye has informed his teammates, and the university, with Kye’s consent, has informed athletics staff and others, as appropriate.”

Statement from junior Kye Allums, male member of George Washington’s women’s basketball team:

“GW has been supportive during this transition. This means a lot. I didn’t choose to be born in this body and feel the way I do. I decided to transition, that is change my name and pronouns because it bothered me to hide who I am, and I am trying to help myself and others to be who they are. I told my teammates first, and they, including my coaches, have supported me. My teammates have embraced me as the big brother of the team. They have been my family, and I love them all.”

Thoughts about this modern example of gender expression and sports? For example, do you think that Kye should be unable to play on the men's team when he completes his transition from female to male? If that should happen then, then why not now?

Omaha, Nebraska Rejects LGBT Rights Ordinance

Is it 2010 or 1975?

As we finish the LGBT Rights in the Era of Obama section of the class comes word about this story which reads like it is right out of Neil Miller's Out of the Past LGBT history book: a city council refusing to pass a non-discrimination ordinance protecting gay and transgender citizens.

Here's the deets:

The Omaha City Council on Tuesday voted down a proposed ordinance to give new protections to gays and lesbians.

The measure failed on a 3-3 vote. Councilman Franklin Thompson, who has called for a public vote on the issue, abstained.

Councilmen Ben Gray, Pete Festersen and Chris Jerram voted in favor of the ordinance; Jean Stothert, Garry Gernandt and Thomas Mulligan were opposed.

Gray, author of the ordinance, proposed that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people be a protected class under city code — protection they don't currently have under state or federal law.

He amended the proposal to exclude religious organizations, but members of the Omaha business community also opposed the ordinance.

The council held a public hearing Tuesday on Thompson's proposal to put the issue to a public vote, in the form of an amendment to the City Charter. The vote on Thompson's measure is expected next week.

“I find it offensive that we would equate this with civil rights,” Pastor Cedric Perkins, pastor of Pilgrim Baptist Church said. “Those rights were based upon a person's color of their skin, which they could not change.”

[...]

The existing city ordinance already includes language prohibiting bias based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, age and disability.

Gray's ordinance would allow homosexual and transgender residents who believe they have been fired or suffered other workplace discrimination, or have been refused service at a restaurant, hotel or other place that serves the public, to file a complaint with Omaha's Human Rights and Relations Department, Assistant City Attorney Bernard in den Bosch has said.

In case you were wondering, here's a picture of "Pastor Cedric Perkins." Leapfrog Paranoia, Willful Blindness and Defiant Ignorance, anyone?




(Note, that the city councilman who proposed the ordinance, Ben Gray, is also African-American). Thus we have an example of Diversity Within intersectionality.

Following the trend..

Because I just couldnt resist adding another bathroom-themed post to my repertoire, D.C. Starbucks' are making their bathrooms gender neutral.

While one response may be, "woopty freakin' doo, they're single room bathrooms anyways, who cares what the door sign says?", that's not the point here. For people who fit pretty comfortably into a gender, me included, changing the signs on two doors you already used interchangeably isnt too big a deal. For transgendered people, however, who spend every day of their lives being forced to choose between two signs that dont represent them (and who disallow them in both cases) this is really a great step forward.

That said, another big 'woopty freakin' doo' for the fact that this has been four years in the making. In 2006, the D.C. council passed regulations requiring that all public accommodations would be 'accessible to transgendered people'. Pretty much, that boils down to gender neutral bathrooms (no such thing as gender-specific stairs, I guess).

Four years. And now Starbucks is finally getting around to it, and only in their D.C. shops (admittedly, that's still 52 locations).

So, all in all, pat on the back for Starbucks for actually doing anything, but we're holding out the really big pat until someone makes anything more than a perfunctory (and actually legally required) change.

On suffixes, and considering the term Transsexed

I posted this really briefly on my twitter before, but since I thought it was particularly pertinent to our latest discussions, here we go again:

On suffixes, and considering the term Transsexed:

"Now, I’m not as much of a linguist as I wish I were, but I’ve noticed a linguistic pattern, which is that the words that end in sex or gender are nouns describing an identity or condition or medical (or gender) history not belonging to a specific person or group of people: ”I read up on intersex and found out that there are many different types of intersex.” OR “When trying to describe transgender to people, I often have to battle their internalized binaries.” Not everyone is offended when these words are used as nouns describing specific people or groups of people (“My girlfriend is a transgender”), but I am. It icks me out.

Words that end in sexed or gendered are adjectives used for people and groups of people...t’s just a good way of recognizing that people are people first, and have many identities inscribed onto them.

So now we get to words that end in sexual, which is where the anomalies lie. Did you catch them yet? Words like homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual (and many more) describe a person’s sexual attractions...But then there’s transsexual and intersexual, which do not refer to attractions at all. I’ll start with the latter. The word intersexual makes no sense. Just don’t use it when talking about intersexed people; everyone will get really uncomfortable because it’s nonsensical. I love nonsense, but not when it’s being used to refer to people whose experience you do not hold. If you meet an intersexed person who calls him/her/hirself intersexual, ask them about it, but don’t use it unless they do."

This is a really interesting article on semantics which, being neither transgender or intersex, I'm sort of on the outside of. As such, I don't have much I can bring to the debate. Any thoughts? Think this idea is crazy? Think this idea is awesome?