i read with interest sabrina star’s post entitled variations in the experience of ‘having gender’ which reviews some of her experiences in attempting to describe trans issues with her radical feminist friends.

she writes:

When i tried to explain to my friend that i experience my transsexuality as persisting in spite of rather than because of cultural gender enforcement, this confused her. But i think i understand this, now, too.

See, for a long time it has deeply puzzled me to hear it said that transsexuality is an enforcement of the gender binary. From my perspective it is has been very clearly a total transgression. At no point did anyone ever say to me, “Well, if that’s the way you really feel about it, then why don’t you just switch to the other side? Just as long as you’re not… you know… androgynous.” Generally instead what i hear is that people suggest i should be some kind of “unconventional male.” I actually even tried that.

i can see how some feminists perceive some trans people as enforcing the gender binary. a man, who expresses his gender in traditional manly ways, starts expressing his gender in traditional womanly ways, by wearing womens clothes, hairstyles, jewelry, and so on, and interacts with other people in traditionally womenly ways, by changing the words he might use in conversation (like using “tummy” instead of “stomach” or “belly”, and asking questions instead of making statements), and employing other gendered behaviors.

now if all trans people did this, then i’d agree that trans people do enforce the gender binary. in that line of reasoning, trans people would be exchanging one set of gendered behaviors for another.

but that has not been my experience with all trans people. quite the contrary, in fact. many trans people i know were never traditional men, and they are not now traditional women. they lived outside the traditional behaviors of men before transition, and now live outside traditional behaviors of women. and not without a lot of grief from the other members of society, i might add, both before and after.

and some, like myself, go as far as to reject any kind of gendered self-identification. granted, i legally changed my sex to female because that’s how people see me (that’s right, i do not set off people’s “manometers” when they see or interact with me), and i have to make a living to pay my bills. something that requires my legal documents to align with the perception that people have of me.

funny thing is, i don’t wear dresses, heels, makeup, or nail polish, and while i have long hair, i had long hair before transition too. with apologies to my rad fem friends, it’s not my fault that people see me as a woman. that’s been a problem since childhood for me (only back then, they saw me as a girl), and at some point in my 20’s, realizing that i had to get a job, i began to change my appearance according to traditional male stereotypes. i grew a beard, i cut my hair short, i took up more space, and i started to talk using traditional male phrases. “i gotta take a piss”, instead of “i gotta pee” goes a long way in our society in being accepted as a man. those aren’t my rules, but one needs to avoid getting the crap beat out of them on a regular basis, should one want to attain some level in their quality of life.

i became increasing more conflicted as i increasing tried to act more manly to fit in. so at some point, i just stopped.

i grew my hair back, i shaved off my beard, i stopped talking funny, and i started shopping in the section of the clothing departments that offered clothes that actually fit my body, and had styles i liked.

and in order to function in our society, i transitioned. as i said, i need to hold down a job because i have bills to pay.

and while i see myself as very much androgynous, in both the context of my appearance and behavior, society sees me as very much feminine. except when i fix up my husband’s truck, or the house, or use power tools, or drool over motorcycles, or visit the shooting range. then, i’m seen as some kind of radical feminist. yeah, ironic, i know. but a few friends at work often send me links to feminist articles because they think i’m all about breaking down stereotypical female behavior and appearances.

when in fact, i’m just being me.

i have no gender identity. i don’t care if my appearance or behavior fits into traditional male or female stereotypes. and i don’t “feel” like a woman or a man. i followed the medically prescribed transition path because it allowed me to be who i am, and still make a living while enabling me to function in our society.

and to that, i plead guilty.

i found this amazing sculpture on the mcneill gallery by csilla varga entitled “between worlds” a while back.

somehow, it spoke to me on a personal level regarding my path through transition. and that brings me to today’s observation, via the view from (ab)normal heights and a post by stephanie kay that she calls in the zone?

she links to a blog by walt heyer called “trading my sorrows; celebrating the journey to wholeness”. interestingly, the page title is “gender, lies, and dna”. there’s no “about” page, but i get the sneaking suspicion that walt is an “ex-trans” person.

walt has a post called born in the wrong body which i find extremely disturbing, with regard to the assumptions he makes (and even the assumptions that the medical community makes).

i’m transsexual, according to every diagnosis in the book. i was not born in the wrong body. let me say that again, just so i make myself perfectly clear.

i was not born in the wrong body.

and while i know a good number of trans people who claim that they were born in the wrong body, i do not, in any way, believe that for myself. i don’t even know what that means.

now while it’s true that i have modified (and not the dreaded “mutilated”) my body, my body is still the same body that i was born in, and it was “right” when i was born, and it is still “right” after all the modifications, which also include a few piercings, tattoos, minor surgeries and trimmings.

i was “whole” when i was born, and i’m “whole” now. i was “complete” when i was born, and i’m “complete” now. the changes i make to my body are mine to make, as my body is mine. and it’s mine in a way that one can’t claim ownership to anything else. i believe our bodies are the only thing we really do own. except, of course, if one is a woman, and that woman tries to take ownership of her reproductive system. in that, trans people and women have a lot in common when it comes to ownership. but that’s another rant.

trans people are not homogeneous; we have different narratives, different motivations, different ideologies, different politics, and different experiences. like all other classes of people, one person’s story is not every person’s story. and our diversity is as wide as any other class of people. even, dare i say, men.

as usual, namoli brennet continues to entertain with innovative music and lyrics - i came across this video on youtube and find myself with a new favorite tune. lets hope it will appear on her new cd, coming out this fall.

and since i seem to be having a bit of trouble figuring out how to embed the youtube video itself, here’s a screen shot - click to see the video. note the cool video effects.

video effects, i might add, which coincidentally echo a digital image i created about a month ago and posted on my old blog:

via autumn’s blog, it has come to my attention that we’re at it again in shrek 3, promoting our gender confusion to the world. just look at this mess:

oh, wait a minute. that’s not it. apparently, there’s a “crossdressing character [who] simply doesn’t make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.” and this from our friends over at americans for truth, a site that seems obesessed with perversion, leather, infantilism, sadism - the list goes on. the site even has a warning ” CAUTION: This website contains information not suitable for children”. i’d venture to say that the site is not suitable for humans, but that’s just one human’s opinion.

like autumn, i was not involved in the film’s agenda formation. and frankly, it seems to me that the “agenda” agendas are merely an attempt to spin fear and hatred of any group that is even slightly different than the white, middle class, christian conservative template. if i were as hateful as some people, i could say that the “christian agenda” promotes hate, child molestation, bombing of innocent americans, and random acts of war, but i’m more the type that prefers actual truth.

anyway,  the article is written by fran eaton, who is described as being from the illinois review. at first reading, one may think the review is some kind of newspaper. but it’s just a blog, like this one. just some person, like me, who speaks their mind, rightly or wrongly, with no more authority or expertise than, say, me. and only at the end of the article, is the review revealed as a “conservative blog”.

fran writes:

Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on.

let me say, here, and for the record, i am not confused about my sexual role. i just don’t buy into your 5000 year old traditions of rigid, inhumane behaviors dictated by a god who suggests his people smite women and children. and when women stop wearing pants, then we can have a discussion on crossdressing.

and i’ll add that i am not “turned on” by appearing in public. while that may be your particular inclination, please, stop projecting your moral and sexual deviancy upon me.

interesting too, that no mention was made of this guy wearing a dress: