Questioning Transphobia

When Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Proposition 8 was issued two weeks ago today most of my queer friends and supporters of equality everywhere where electrified by the historic decision. But I couldn’t share in the enthusiasm ; in fact I even felt depressed over the news. Why? People asked me a number of questions when I made my views known: I was a self-hating queer? Didn’t I want to get married? Why couldn’t I be happy for other people? Nowadays I usually avoid discussion of the issue because I’ll usually be shouted down for my unpopular opinion. Namely being that marriage is an obsolete patriarchal and inherently oppressive institution and should be abolished instead of expanded.

Marriage is oppressive because it gives state-sanctioned privileges and approval to some relationships at the legal and social expense of other relationships that may not fit the hetero-normative, nuclear family model that have has been held up as the ideal form of love, companionship and child-rearing for nearly a hundred years now. Marriage by its very nature is an exclusive practice, its purpose is to ennoble some relationships and by default render other relationships to be less meaningful and less worthy of legal and social recognition. Granting the right to marry to one minority group will do nothing to change this or make to the institution equal.

Given the temperament in the LGBTQ community today, it would be hard to imagine a day and age when the raison d’être of the gay rights movement wasn’t “equal” marriage. But just barely ten years ago there was a vigorous intra-community debate that had been ongoing since Stonewall era over the desirability over gaining the right to marriage. Early attempts to obtain marriage licenses in the wake of Stonewall were oftentimes accompanied with political statements pointing out how morally corrupt the institution is and were more political statements than genuine efforts to marry. The early queer liberation movement resisted the idea that the state has a right to regulate private relationships and was dedicated to challenging heterosexual ideals surrounding the purity of the institution.

This perception began to change around the time that the AIDS crisis of the 1980s receded from public view. Some of the more conservative LGBT public intellectuals like Andrew Sullivan, Gabriel Rotello and William Eskridge started writing articles and books extolling the benefits of seeking out the right to marry, selling a perception that it was a path to legal recognition and social legitimacy for same sex relationships. During this time major LGBT organizations stood on the sidelines, while working against Defense of Marriage Acts on the state and federal level it seemed that the day for same-sex marriage would be far in to the future. They were so disinterested in the issue that the case that resulted in Baehr v. Lewin, the groundbreaking ruling by the Supreme Court of Hawaii that established that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry was a form of discrimination, was litigated by the ACLU because the plaintiffs could not find a major LGBT rights organization to litigate it as a test case.

As the gay marriage movement picked steam with Civil Unions in Vermont, marriage in San Francisco and California, major gay rights organizations took up the cause and the proponents of pursuing marriage continued to sell the perception that gay marriage as a one-size-fits-all solution to the question of gay rights. Suddenly the robust debate around the desirability to access the right to marriage was dropped and critics of the strategy were pushed to the margins. But the community has been sold a false perception; it won’t help problems with school bullying, job discrimination, health care discrimination, addiction, youth homelessness or any of the rest of the discrimination and oppression that queer people face. To say that queers have always wanted the right to marry or that all queers want to marry today is a distortion of not only our history but a misrepresentation of our needs as a community. The LGBT movement has swallowed the spider to catch the fly when it comes down to the right to access marriage in that it will access a privilege at the expense of others. That is something I cannot support.

So if not marriage; what is the solution to seeking legal recognition for all relationships on an equal basis? To start, I would advocate abolishing marriage as a privilege granted by the state. People could have private commitments that they could call marriage if they wanted, but it wouldn’t come with a special set of rights and legal responsibilities. People in all committed relationships could be protected by some form of civil partnership, hopefully modeled after something like France’s Pacte Civil de Solidarite (PACS). PACS not only legally recognize romantic relationships, but also honor and protect other plutonic relationships such as care-taker relationships, families of choice and even siblings who own property together. Unfortunately French law still recognizes a tiered system of legal protections, with marriage being the most protected, concubinage the second most protected and PACS being the least. But with tweaking this could be a solution that does not involve legitimizing some relationships over the social and legal status of others and it would offer legal protections to many families which do not currently have any protection such as families of choice, caretaker relationships, or poly relationships.

This way all families can be honored without state enforcement of moral standards or through legally privileging some relationships over others. Same-sex marriage only further legitimizes an exclusionary system and will do nothing to legally protect or recognize other forms of relationship that are now also disenfranchised.

So Glee wins a GLAAD award for

fair, accurate and inclusive representation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and the issues that affect their lives in the media.

Just this past week, Glee featured one of the main characters calling a student “shemale”:

The thoroughly despicable, cartoonish Coach Sue is seen cutting a nerdy male student’s ponytail and utters “there, you no longer confuse me with your shemale looks”.

“She-males” is a term for male-to-female transgender people that often is used in the porn industry, and, when used to refer to someone who has transitioned from one gender to another, it suggests a negation of their gender identity. Many transgender people consider it pejorative. It is not normally used in polite company. It’s also often used by those who oppose non-discrimination laws, like ENDA, in raising the ghastly specter of trans people using the bathroom.

Good to know I can expect trans issues to be respected without having to grab someone and start yelling. Oh, and did GLAAD ever do anything about Keith Olbermann’s transphobic Ann Coulter joke a few months ago? Have they ever said a word to Stephen Colbert? I know GLAAD acts on some things, as I’ve received quick response on several lower profile matters, but it seems like some things are just not worth mentioning, at least when aimed at trans people.

What I also want to know are why slurs like “tranny” and “shemale” allowed on the air at all? Does anyone outside the trans community even acknowledge them as slurs?

I’m not talking about trans people who reclaim and identify with those words. There’s a difference between a member of a minority using a word with a painful history and members of the majority reifying that painful history.

Also, I realize Coach Sue is a villain. The quote above says she’s a terrible person. I’m talking about how they present her villainy. It’s not necessary for her to whip out slurs often associated with violence against a minority to prove her awfulness. Hell, nonconsensually cutting anyone’s hair is pretty traumatic in my opinion and doesn’t need a slur to emphasize it. Also, it’s a matter of standards – other slurs are, I believe, frowned upon if not outright forbidden, but anti-trans slurs are still used routinely on prime time television.

Continuing on with thoughts about trans children and violence, just recently GLSEN, the gay lesbian and straight education network, has produced a report surveying trans students at American high schools.  They found, shockingly, that constant harassment is part of growing up trans.  No really?  This is a bit like filing a “sky is blue” report on the news, but I guess the more awareness there is about the realities of trans lives–as opposed to the descriptions from people who appear to have confused The Handmaid’s Tale for a documentary–the better.

Key findings of Harsh Realities include:

Biased language:

90% of transgender students heard derogatory remarks, such as “dyke” or “faggot,” sometimes, often or frequently in school in the past year.

90% of transgender students heard negative remarks about someone’s gender expression sometimes, often or frequently in school in the past year.

Less than a fifth of transgender students said that school staff intervened most of the time or always when hearing homophobic remarks (16%) or negative remarks about someone’s gender expression (11%).

School staff also contributed to the harassment. A third of transgender students heard school staff make homophobic remarks (32%), sexist remarks (39%) and negative comments about someone’s gender expression (39%) sometimes, often or frequently in the past year.

School Safety and Experiences of Harassment and Assault

Two-thirds of transgender students felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation (69%) and how they expressed their gender (65%).

Almost all transgender students had been verbally harassed (e.g., called names or threatened) in the past year at school because of their sexual orientation (89%) and gender expression (87%).

More than half of all transgender students had been physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved) in school in the past year because of their sexual orientation (55%) and gender expression (53%).

More than a quarter of transgender students had been physically assaulted (e.g., punched, kicked or injured with a weapon) in school in the past year because of their sexual orientation (28%) and gender expression (26%).

Most transgender students (54%) who were victimized in school did not report the events to school authorities. Among those who did report incidents to school personnel, few students (33%) believed that staff addressed the situation effectively.

Got that?  90% verbal abuse.  50% some violence.  25% serious violence.  Per year.  And somehow I doubt that this is often a one-off experience for a lot of kids.

Further, this confirms what bitter personal experience has taught a lot of us–that rather than be at all protected from the violence of their peers, staff actually allow and even add to the transphobic abuse that trans children and teens receive.

Given that level of complicity, I’m skeptical that any report can change such deeply ingrained personal and institutional biases, but I hope that at least some teachers and school administrators will read this and start thinking about the specific obstacles faced by trans youth and begin the very difficult task of making schools better.

via nexy

Via this Tweet comes proof – not that proof should be needed – that transphobic violence and hate crimes take many forms.

From the Washington Blade:

Anti-trans assault reported at D.C. gay bar

Women allegedly attacked trans men outside Fab Lounge

Two female-to-male transgender patrons at the Dupont Circle gay bar Fab Lounge told police they were verbally harassed and assaulted by two female customers who denounced one of the men as androgynous.

The D.C. Police Department’s Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit was assisting Second District detectives in investigating last week’s incident to determine whether it should be classified as an anti-transgender hate crime, said acting Lt. Brett Parson, who oversees the unit.

Second District police officers responding to the scene did not designate the incident as a hate crime at the time they prepared their report of the assault, Parson said.

Mitch Graffeo, 40, of Alexandria, Va., said the incident began when he and a friend were getting ready to leave Fab Lounge shortly before 3 a.m. on Feb. 28 at the conclusion of the club’s weekly lesbian night. As his friend walked over to a sofa to retrieve his coat, a female customer began “groping” his friend, Graffeo said.

The 29-year-old friend, also from Alexandria, spoke to the Blade on the condition that he was identified only by his first name, Jaime.

Graffeo said Jaime, who is about 5 feet 4 inches tall and has a slender build, recently began a female-to-male gender transition process and has a youthful, boyish appearance. Graffeo noted he transitioned more than 10 years ago and his gender is readily recognized as that of a male.

“They said, ‘What the fuck are you? Are you a girl or a boy?’” Graffeo recalled one of the women saying to Jaime inside the club.

Graffeo said another woman, along with a man who was with them, joined the first woman in shouting insults aimed at Jaime’s appearance after Jaime asked the first woman to leave him alone.

Jaime told the Blade as many as three women in the bar ran their hands over his chest as they taunted him over his appearance, saying they wanted to find out if he was male or female.

He and Graffeo then left the Fab Lounge, which is located in a second-floor space at 1805 Connecticut Ave., N.W., in an effort to avoid a confrontation with the women, the two men said.

“When we were about 20 feet from the club’s entrance, one of the lesbians came up from behind and put [Jaime] in a headlock and again began to question his gender,” Graffeo said.

Jaime said that as the woman released him from her grip, another woman punched him repeatedly in the head and body, inflicting injuries that included a concussion, doctors told him later.

As the alleged assault unfolded on the sidewalk near the corner of Connecticut and Florida avenues, Graffeo said he asked the women to leave Jaime alone and announced he was calling the police on his cell phone. At that time, the woman who had held Jaime in a headlock “grabbed my phone out of my hands and hit me in the neck and head a few times,” Graffeo said.

Minutes later, Graffeo said, the male friend who had accompanied the women inside the club arrived in a car, which he stopped on Connecticut Avenue in front of the Royal Palace nightclub, which operates below Fab Lounge. He said the two women entered the car, which turned onto Florida Avenue and drove eastbound, Graffeo said.

He said police arrived minutes later after Jaime used his own cell phone to call 911. Graffeo noted that the woman who grabbed his phone never returned it, and the phone has been reported as stolen.

The two trans men said that officers who responded to the scene did not immediately indicate whether they attempted to locate or identify the attackers through a license plate number of the car the alleged attackers drove from the scene. The men said they saw the car license number and provided it to police.

Parson told the Blade that “all leads have been followed up on to include the license plate information provided in the report.”

Graffeo said Jaime declined an offer by D.C. police to call for an ambulance. Instead, he said, he drove Jaime to a hospital in Alexandria, which is closer to where Jaime lives.

Jaime told the Blade he was treated and released from the hospital after doctors administered a CT-scan and other medical tests. He said doctors told him he had a concussion and a whiplash injury to his neck. He also noted that he has numerous bruises on his body, face and head.

Parson said Second District police officers listed the incident in their report as an assault and theft. He said the officers did not initially classify the incident as a hate crime.

Graffeo and Jaime said they attempted to explain to the officers that Jaime was singled out because of his appearance and gender expression.

“I don’t know if they fully understood the situation,” Graffeo told the Blade. Graffeo said his reasons for talking with the Blade about the incident were twofold.

“I want to make our community aware that this hate crime occurred,” he said in an e-mail. “Moreover, I want to emphasize that this crime happened in a gay bar and that the offenders were from the LGBT community itself.”

Jaime said in a telephone interview that he was likewise “shocked that anything like this would happen here — that somebody from our own LGBT community would want to hurt somebody else from that same community.”

Parson said Second District police are investigating the incident with assistance from the GLLU.

“If we determine that the assault was wholly or partially motivated by bias toward their gender identity or expression, we could reclassify it as a hate crime,” he said.

Washington’s hate crimes law calls for stricter penalties for hate-related crimes where victims are targeted because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

Graffeo described the woman who assaulted him and took his cell phone as black, about 5 feet 4 inches tall, and weighing about 140 pounds. He said the woman sported hair with long braids and wore a black baseball cap, black jacket and blue jeans with designs on the pockets.

He and Jaime said they did not get a good look at the woman who repeatedly punched Jaime because Graffeo was distracted by the assault against him and Jaime’s vision was obstructed as he was struck.

Both men said the attack against Jamie took place in front of the entrance of the Royal Palace in clear view of a Royal Palace security worker. Graffeo said an employee of Fab Lounge also came out to the sidewalk where the assault occurred and appeared to have watched as one of the two women who committed the assault entered the car of the male friend.

Representatives of Fab Lounge and Royal Palace did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(Abridged version of the WB report posted at bird of paradox)

Bil’s second post of questions about trans and feminism went up yesterday, and I am superlate in posting this (sorry, Bil).

It seems like a good time to do another installment of Stuff Bil Doesn’t Know Enough About™. This week’s question is in direct reference to two other blog posts inspired by my post admitting I have questions about feminist and transgender issues and encouraging others to add their own questions so we could have a community dialogue.

Over at Questioning Transphobia, Lisa brought up the inherent privilege in my request for answers. The comments section on her post are very interesting even though some of them really take me to task. On Father Tony’s discussion a commenter took a different tone that I want to highlight. Question below and comment additions after the jump.

Why must trans people primarily bear the burden for educating cis people? Why do some cis people not do some of their own education to learn about the issues before the questions begin?

Why is the education itself necessary to justify equal civil rights protections?

Keep in mind that everyone participating in the discussion is writing from their own experiences. Please be patient and civil in your comments. Let’s learn from each other!

I think everyone made the point about the privilege of asking for education, and at this point, it’s a matter of whether you want to participate or not, more than anything else.

Anyway, in many ways, Bil’s post is a continuation of the discussion from this post.

One of my responses to the post:

After listening to our explanations and our experiences, even if what we’d said leaves you completely befuddled and scratching your head, please, please acknowledge that we are still fully human, fully equal. That we DO deserve basic rights and protections from harassment and discrimination (ie: policies that exclude us, and ONLY us), even if you don’t understand us.

Is understanding really required to recognize someone elses humanity?

This. When these discussions happen, trans people are held to much higher standards than cis people, to the point that it is usually impossible to meet those standards.

The fact is that it should not be necessary to educate people on every aspect of our lives to justify our existence and access to civil rights. Our existence should be sufficient to justify our existence and access to civil rights.

The fact is, no matter what people understand or believe about trans people, we exist, and thousands – tens or hundreds of thousands – of us come with a rather similar (but not identical) set of stories about our lives and how they relate to sex and gender. We have these stories before the first time we hear the words “transsexual” or “gender identity disorder” or “genderqueer” or “transgender” or about hormones or surgery.

And the question should never be “Can we mind meld with people and implant intimate knowledge of our lives into their brains?” because that’s simply not a fair demand, and yet it is the demand made of us whenever talk of education begins.

Being trans isn’t a moral condition, it’s not a delusion, it’s not confusion about gender or identity. The problems and barriers trans people face are social – the fact that people do not believe we are who and what we say we are. There are reams of books and articles written by psychiatrists and medical doctors who have worked with trans people, who verify that this is the best treatment for who we are, that nothing else has worked. Why is this ignored?

So Bil of the Bilerico project has decided it’s time to educate himself on the topics of feminism and transgender people. I’m interested in the fact that he’s doing this because the questions he’s asking will hopefully reveal some good answers – aside from the inherent privilege of a cis man asking women (cis and trans) and trans people (men and women) to explain what’s up with all their political needs. The request or demand for education is a privileged act.

Anyway, in the second post, Bil asks:

From Projector Jill:

My first question is one that I think is fundamental to all further discussion. Are transgender people part of a community with gays lesbians and bisexuals, or is transgender a separate community that is being lumped together with the GLBs as an allied group? I know in the old days, no one really made a distinction between gays and transgenders, but is that still valid today? (Okay, so it’s two questions.)

While a couple of people left comments about Jill’s question in the comment thread, I asked to expand it further:

…if the T community is separate, doesn’t that mean the other segments are also free standing? I mean, is it the G & L & B & T community?

And does that explain a lot of the frustrations that sometimes all the groups have getting along? Men vs women keeps G & L at odds. Throw in trans and their touch on both sexes and a whole new set of concerns arise. Are we really four different groups that just consolidated for political power?

So, what do you think? What’s the commonality? Shared history? Non-gender conformity? Political power? Pipe up; don’t be shy. Ask other questions too, if you need to.

My answer:

First, I want to point out as a trans woman who identifies as queer and lesbian, that I get the feeling sometimes that people here talk about the L, G, B, and T as all being separate categories, and that L, G, and B aren’t really acknowledged as intersecting with the T.

For that matter, I think (but don’t know for sure) that the number of gay trans men and lesbian trans women – percentage-wise – is potentially higher than the rest of the population. And also, many (not all!) trans men were part of the lesbian community before they transitioned, and many trans women were part of the gay community before they transitioned.

But I want to get into something else: The argument over who organized first. Trans people were there at the beginning. We were part of the movement right at the start – not all of us, but enough of us. We were pushed out of the gay rights movement just as surely as trans women were pushed out of feminism.

And when arguments that we didn’t pay our dues, do our education, that we weren’t there when the gay rights movement was making its gains, it makes me deeply angry, because it wasn’t our choice to step out. It was yours to throw us out. Consider the damage that was done to trans people’s civil rights by keeping us out of the process, that put us in a position where we’re seen as not having done enough education.

And also, it wasn’t just in the 70s and 80s when we were pushed aside. It’s happened in the 21st century – and while you, Bil, may feel that trans people are too angry about the way HRC treated us, I think that anger is fair and earned, and I think that the cause of that anger needs to be acknowledged: That HRC has actively worked against trans activism, that HRC has interfered with trans lobbyists in Washington – blocking access to politicians.

But it’s also the goals that HRC and other organizations prioritize – same-sex marriage, for example. Very few of the goals that are pushed for in the LGBT movement are of direct benefit to trans people (and, for that matter, this does not apply to only trans people). For example, trans people specifically require access to hormones and surgery to transition, but there’s no real activism on that front, to get Gender Identity Disorder/Transsexualism increased medical coverage – most companies don’t purchase insurance policies that cover trans-related treatments, but this is apparently not even on the radar for organizations like HRC.

But really, when it comes right down to it – we were excluded almost from the beginning, when we finally work our way back in – we’re blamed for not being involved in gay rights activism from the beginning.

This comment isn’t aimed personally at anyone in this discussion. It’s my answer to Bil’s question.

Also, Cedar pointed out the damage caused to trans people by Exclusion in Beyond Inclusion.