Well, the (queer) blogosphere is (once again) up in arms over trans related discussions, so I thought I’d (once again) try and construct a timeline so that I could better understand what the heck has been going on. Here we go!

General note: I’m realizing, rereading this, that I switch between present and past tense. I’m too lazy to got back through everything, particularly since WordPress is still making me write posts in HTML and not with a WYSIWYG editor. Deal with it. Also, if you don’t care about the specifics and want to know what I think, scroll way to the bottom, past all the bullet points.

• On June 26, Autumn Sandeen posted Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues at Pam’s House Blend. Autumn called out Aravosis for a number of different things, and she said why better than I could:
  

  Mr. Aravosis owes an apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for personally approving of kicking transgender people and issues out of the broad lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for the benefit of ENDA 2007/2008, and now he currently owes a fresh apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for using a story about the transgender subcommunity to make a point about the Obama Administration’s treatment of LGBT people.

  The comments and conversation in Autumn’s post got rather accusatory, not only at Aravosis, but at cis, gay men in general. From what I can tell, the thread really started to get argumentative around here, and turned from discussing Aravosis to discussing the use of cis as a label/identifier, and whether or not it is/can be/should be offensive. (Note that I’m trying not to say right now which side I think I agree with, just pointing out what I’m seeing. “Argumentative” does not mean “wrong.”) And the meta-argument about the use of cis, which became the main issue in the days to come, really got going slightly further down the thread, here, with someone saying:

  I still find it offensive to be described as such [cisgender]. It is no different that for a trans person to say do not refer to me as pre-op or do not define me as the gender I am from. If I were to do it anyway…. that is not acceptable no more than to lump all white gay men into this category. Just admit that you have issues with gwm [gay white men] and leave it at that, but to lump everyone into one category is offensive to me. To call me CIS is offensive when it is a made up name and not an identity that I choose it is offensive. This is done because it is easy for you and rather than to have a dialogue you choose to dump us all into one category as the enemy and that is what I find offensive. Don’t put words into my mouth and do not fucking pretend that you are any more righteous than me, because when you use this language it only serves to distance us from each other and offends me. It is no different than if I started calling you a tranny… I would think that would be offensive.

  The comments went from there to a healthy mix of people continuing to try and have a constructive, rational discussion, and a number of people engaging in name-calling, intentionally/unintentionally misunderstanding what other people were saying, and the like.

• On June 28, Autumn posted a followup, Enough Already, in which she said, in part:
  

  To say I’m angry at some of my trans peers for their comments on white, gay men in the diary Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues is an understatement.

  How does one take a diary about one famous blogger’s comments on trans people and turn it into a thread where white gay men are attacked with a broad brush? Especially with the diversity focus of Pam’s House Blend? Incredible.

  Again, the initial discussion was (mostly) calm and (mostly) reasonable. What seemed to set things off again was turning the discussion toward the use of cis:

  For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don’t say tranny, etc.

  So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-? If members of the trans community said “stop calling us trans, we find it offensive” would we here at PHB continue to say “trans”? I doubt it very much.

  Why the lack of respect in the other direction?

  Again, I’m not commenting on whether or not this commenter was right, wrong, inflammatory, conciliatory, whatever. Just noting that bringing cis back into the discussion did turn it away from talking about civility and how to hold discussions on The Blend to a discussion (often ugly) about cis/trans terminology.

  Autumn stepped in here to say, “Public warning in this thread — next person who uses this thread to make comment defending “cis” terminology gets a trap door drop.”

• Early on June 29, Lisa at Questioning Transphobia responded to all this by posting Cis is hostile terminology? Really? In it she reminded people:
  

  Cis is a neutral term applied to people who aren’t trans. It’s intended to decenter the notion that not being trans is the natural, default state for human beings and that being trans is a deviation, and that trans people are other. Most terminology that cis people use to define themselves as cis generally reifies cissexism and cissupremacy.

  (Can you tell I’m doing a bad job staying neutral?)

  Lisa continued by saying, “Just to be clear, it’s not [my concern] that Autumn disagrees with “cis” terminology. It’s the tone argument (used at least twice), and the threat to ban anyone who defends “cis” usage.

  The comments and discussion are generally supportive of the word/concept cis(gender/sexual). It looks like (as of writing this) discussion has also turned to Pam’s House Blend removing comments without any acknowledgment or discussion, and of how to hold better and more civil discussions in the future.

• Later on June 29, Renee at Transsexual Ferox posted Poison?, with her initial thoughts on what’s been happening:
  

  I was a little surprised really. I see it as an academic term, used mostly to distinguish between tran and non-trans when context is important for such things. I hadn’t considered its negative impact because, really, let’s face it, I wish I was cisgendered. Or natal. Or genetic. Or normal. Or whatever other word means born with a coherent female identity…pick your poison.

  Which suggests that perhaps the problem really does lay with me. I can’t speak about others because, well, I’m not them. Among my friends and I, if someone’s using the word trans, it’s usually me. I’m the one who brings it up. I’m the one who talks about it. I’m the one assigning labels.

  And if you feel the need to tell someone they’re cisgendered – if you give them that label – are you merely drawing a distinction between the two of you, or are you implicitly suggesting some level of cissexism on their part? And if you are, isn’t that a little bit cisphobic of you?

  Does the term cisgender mean a whole lot more than: a person whose biological sex and gender identity are synchronous?

• Keeva also weighed in on June 29 with “cis”, summarizing what had been happening thus far, expressing her disappointment in Autumn and PHB, and finding a choice comment comparing trans people using ‘cis’ to what the Nazis did to the Jews.
• And, lastly for June 29, Jackson at Queer Subversion put in his two cents, as did geopunk.
• On June 30, Mattie at xoros posted Cis. Particularly relevant:
  

  The trans modifier is only there when… relevant. Cis modifiers are even less often relevant, because it’s the unspoken expectation. The only time it needs using is when it would be confusing or othering not to use it. So, it’s not meant to be used as an identifier. It is a descriptor. That’s all. Just a way to avoid saying “woman and trans women”, or “women don’t face some of the issues trans women do” cos that would be like othering. You know? What is wrong with being able to say those with equality and respect for each other in the form “cis women don’t face some of the issues trans women do”?

  You don’t have to use it like an identity or use it all the time or use it when it’s not relevant or if there is no need to distinguish between trans and cis people or use it when shopping or use it when you need to pee or anything else? Kthxbai.

  Likewise, I appreciate this summation:

  Cos, you know, there is little more soul wearying than talking to someone who wants to say “I’m normal, you’re not, no need for a word to describe me! I’m normal! Now stop being an angry, difficult trans person so I can go back to feeling sorry for you and happy about my normalness.”

  Mattie followed up on July 1 with And even more cis use and on July 3 with Cis the Third. If your eyes are crossing at this point, go read Cis the Third, if nothing else, to get an idea of what the argument about whether or not to use cis boils down to.

  (At this point I realize I’ve dropped any real pretense of neutrality…)

• On June 30, Marti at TransAdvocate posted A Strange Brew – Pams House Blend now serving Privelege.
• July 1 also saw Veronique from TransCanada post Counteroffensive, which reiterates the importance of ‘cis’ in gender dialogue.
• On July 2, Nelson (note: name corrected since original post) at NGblog posted Stop Bleeding Pam, who isn’t happy with out PHB is handling things, but also isn’t actually correct with his take on what’s happening in the first place:
  

  So here we have, Autumn, a transgender, taking issue with people who, for whatever reason identify as cisgender, and who herself has a website/blog thingy with the word “abnormal” in it.

  Ignoring the “a transgender” faux pas, the issue was with people not identifying as cis and, indeed, rejecting that as an identity. Just so we’re clear, I agree with Nelson that PHB is in trouble, but wanted to point that out.

• Autumn returned on July 2nd, posting I Have An “Angry Inch”. She points out where she “began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam’s House Blend threads,” and how it has turned her off to the words in general. This post also began a larger discussion on how discussions should be held on the blend.
• July 2 also saw Keeva post The post Autumn Sandeen does not want me to make. In it, she posts an email from Autumn about her previous post (see above) “I have an ‘Angry Inch’”. Keeva follows up on it soon thereafter, with more information about her communication with Pam and Autumn.
• On July 4, Lisa posted A Point about Cis, reiterating that
  

  Cis is not an insult, it’s not a slur. It is, however, as much of an identity as trans is, even if most cis people never stop to think about the fact that they’re cis, that they just assume that being what they are (”I’m just a person, I’m not cis/white/het/able-bodied!”) is the normal way to be.

  Being cis doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Having privilege doesn’t make anyone a bad person. When you sit back and you think “that person who’s calling me cis is saying I have privilege and thus I AM A TERRIBLE PERSON” consider that the trans person who says that may be white, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied, or otherwise privileged. That trans person who says that may even have come to terms with hir own privileges, and does not take it personally when her privilege is pointed out to her.

• Also on July 4, Autum posted What, In The Grand Scheme Of Things, Is Important?. In it, she says that the meta-discussion has distracted and is distracting people from more important issues, such as ongoing trials and legislation affecting trans men and women.
• Keeva responded, calling Pam out for connecting Keeva’s online and offline personas. Keeva has continued to post since then, and it seems like she and Pam/Autumn are now sniping back and forth every so often…

Dear lord.

So, after all that, what do I think??

How kind of you to ask.

Ultimately, I think Mattie sums it up with Cis the Third. As I said before, you should go read it. She’s sarcastic and sharp (both plusses, in my book) so if you agree that cis is offensive, you probably won’t find Mattie’s post particularly enlightening. That said, she’s still right.

However, more broadly, I find myself continuing to go back to my recent post about thinking before speaking. It does seem like Aravosis (remember him? from the first post way back in June?) should apologize, and is transphobic. (Or, at least, a jerk.) But, rereading the initial comments that sparked things, I find a lot of people making accusations and assumptions that I simply can’t imagine them saying face-to-face. From there, everything kind of snowballed, with few people wanting to A) admit they were rude, even if they were right, B) appolgoize for being rude in the first place.

I don’t want to oversimplify the situation, or to say, “Had everyone been nicer, this never would have happened.” It does seem like there is a substantive disagreement over whether or not to use cis(sexual/gender) to describe people. I happen to agree with the pro-cis-usage camp, as I think it’s an important word and concept for discussing gender, identity, privilege, and their intersections. But that doesn’t mean it should be impossible to hold a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with me.

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with both ‘sides’ of the issue – those agreeing with PHB and those thinking PHB handled things poorly. I do think Autumn did a poor job attempting to get the discussion back on track, as did Pam, and ultimately much (but not all!) of the origins of this blowing into a multi-blog storm lie with their actions. Taking a stern tone can work well in a face-to-face argument, but rarely seems to in online discussion. I’d wager this is because the perceived cost of matching the other in tone and “volume,” so to speak, is minimal. That is, if I literally get into a screaming match with someone, it’s much more emotionally and physically dangerous than getting into a figurative screaming match online.

Likewise, there were members of the trans community – in blog posts and discussions – who assumed Autumn, Pam, and others were acting with ill-will or attempting to be overly conciliatory to their (cis) readers, and acted rudely as a result.

To be perfectly clear, I’m not attempting to absolve either side of blame, to try and avoid taking sides, or to pretend that I can float above the fray. I agree with those who said ‘cis’ is an entirely appropriate and acceptable word. People who dislike it’s use have every right to request it not be used to apply to them specifically, as an identity, but don’t get to bow out of their cis privilege simply because it makes them feel icky. (I don’t get to bow out of my white privilege either, even though I don’t have a strong “white identity.”) And Autumn, in my opinion, unintentionally fueled the flames by attempting to cut off conversation rather than further it.

But life (like gender!) is rarely black-and-white. I’m also not thrilled with the level of discourse by some of the trans men and women in the comments through the above links, and while saying “You’re being hostile” is often simply used as a derailing technique, that doesn’t mean it’s never true, or that it’s impossible to both be right and rude.

That doesn’t mean I’ve never flown off the handle in an online discussion, or that I won’t ever again. And it doesn’t mean people should continue to call out obnoxious and X-phobic privilege when they see it. But I hope everyone will take a deep breath and count to ten before posting in the (inevitable) next round of controversy. ]]> http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/07/08/are-we-really-doing-this-again-or-the-great-trans-blogging-shakeup-of-2009-pt-2/feed/ 14 http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/05/25/transitioning-and-changing-sexuality/ http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/05/25/transitioning-and-changing-sexuality/#comments Mon, 25 May 2009 06:29:52 +0000 Rebecca http://fridaythang.com/blog/?p=645 Feministing has a regular sex advice column called Ask Professor Foxy. I submitted a question about sexuality changing over the course of the transition, which was posted – along with a response – earlier today. The basis of the question was this: I’m a trans woman in the process of transitioning, and having a lot of frustration in figuring out how to deal with my ever-changing sexuality.

And from the resposne:

Part of this process is also going to have to be exploring your new body and your new desires and not judging yourself during this process. You can even think of it as a burden or as an extra gift during transition. Unlike cisgendered women, who typically have to get used to things on their body, you are going to be able to explore things on your body that you very much want: the breasts, the hips you will likely develop. Enjoy it!

It’s definitely worth reading, but what’s a lot more interesting is the comments…

I’m going to say that, overall, the comments are really positive. There’s a lot of good links, and good advice, and general well-wishings. As I said, you should check it out. However, two things are worth noting. First, the obliviousness of those putting out transphobic comments (or, much worse, their intentional ill-will). Second, how quickly a post explicitly on trans sexuality got sidelined into a meta-discussion about how the discussion should happen, and how those posting transphobic/offtopic comments should be handled.

Concerning the first issue, there was really only one explicitly transphobic post:

butterflywings said: ‘Having boobs is fun!’…uh…blech.
Wait till strangers feel entitled to grab them or comment on their size. I know they are ‘funbags’ to you, as you were male and still carry around misogyny.
*Waits for comment to be deleted as being ‘transphobic’…sigh.*
Yep, those poor trans people gotta run off in a sulk because some commenters didn’t agree with them…

I responded to the post at Feministing and don’t need to cover that same ground again. There were some other posts that were somewhat offtopic, but not really worth mentioning, and one that was read as transphobic by some commenters, but the poster came back and clarified what she meant. But I  want to highlight butterflywings’ post and note that people are still oblivious to saying transphobic things (or, even worse, know it’s transphobic and say it anyway), even after extensive discussion at Feministing and elsewhere on how to conduct yourself when discussing a topic concerning a minority group (in this case, trans issues), from the perspective of one granted social/cultural privilege by not being a member of that group.

More frustrating is how quickly the comments devolved into a meta-discussion on how to hold the discussion. As I said, I’m still glad I submitted the question and that it was chosen to be posted, and I really am getting a lot out of Prof F’s response and further comments from others. But, by my count, between one half and two thirds of the comments are either directly off-topic, or responding to someone else’s off-topic comment with further off-topic discussion.

Now, in a topic like this, it’s hard to know what ‘offtopic’ really means – I do appreciate comments from cis men and women on their perspective, and I don’t want it to come across that I think comments from someone who isn’t trans (or is commenting about cis experiences) is inherently offtopic. It’s not. Likewise, I really enjoyed posts from the people who used their own experiences to make sense of my question, and come up with analagous situations. Obviously there is an issue with people being dismissive of trans experiences, but I’ve never had a problem with people acknowledging the reality that trans men and women don’t hold a monopoly on issues surrounding sex and gender. Indeed, I’m eager to hear about the experiences of others – even those who aren’t trans! – so that I might better understand my own.

But (and you knew there was going to be a ‘but’) after all the discussion on how to discuss trans issues, I’m a little disappointed in some members of the Feministing community. Again, I’m really getting a lot out of this discussion surrounding my original question. I can’t stress that enough, and I’ve been trying to go through and leave responses – both agreeing and disagreeing – with comments that particularly struck me. And I’m really trying not to say, “You’re not trans, so you can’t comment/don’t deserve to be educated on trans issues/etc.” But I don’t know that this thread was the appropriate place for a meta-discussion on the number of comments left by others or Feministing’s place in the trans community, and it certainly wasn’t the place for accusations about my own misogyny (or the extensive discussion which followed on why that’s transphobic).

And, damn it all, I don’t know how to handle those things. I don’t know the answer. As much as I’d like everyone to get a clue and not post those things in the first place, when someone does post something off-topic and/or transphobic, I’d rather have people respond than just ignore it. And I’m somewhat uncomfortable with deleting comments that are off-topic and/or transphobic unless they’re really inappropriate, because they may be of value to someone for some other reason. (Ideally, some other reason above and beyond a meta-discussion about their value or lack thereof!)

Likewise, while I really appreciated and enjoyed Prof F’s response to my original comment, I’m frustrated by her later post containing the line, “While [the above comments] are nasty, transphobic, and manipulative, the response to them has been so right on that I am leaving it as a great example of people on feministing responding to these kinds of comments.” Again, I don’t know what the right answer is, even though I don’t think this is it. Is the answer deletion? Of just the comment, or the comment and its replies? Some sort of ‘asshole’ alert? As one poster suggested, dissemvoweling the post? (Removing all the vowels so if you want to read it you can, but you have to go out of your way to understand the negative language.) I really don’t know.

This is all made more complicated because people aren’t going to be monitoring comments 24/7 with imediate response time. If a comment does stay up and generates multiple responses, is it worth closing down that entire thread to force staying on-topic?

I guess I’m asking a lot more questions than I am providing answers. And I’m guilty of being drawn into the meta-discussion about how to hold a discussion. I think my suggestion would be that Feministing come up with stock replacement text, along the lines of, “This comment is offtopic and/or offensive speech, and was not appropriate for this thread. Information on how to stay ontopic and respectful, and why this post may have been offtopic or offensive, may be found here.”  (“Here” would be a link with that information and, perhaps, examples of specific posts and why they were offtopic or offensive.) The text would be put in place of the commenter’s post, and no replies would be allowed to the replacement, but replies and discussion, including “I don’t understand why my comment was offensive/offtopic,” would be allowed on  the linked-to information page. That would seem to satisfy everyone: those who are simply seeking knowledge and not attempting to be offtopic, those who are (intentionally or unintentionally) offensive, and those who crave the meta-discussion about what is or isn’t on-topic…

Again, I want to reiterate that the experience of reading (and responding to) all these comments has been more positive than negative – it’s reassured me that, on the whole, Feministing’s community is able to be supportive when discussing trans issues. But not 100%, and not without veering offtopic along the way.

-R

• Trans-Related
  • Transsexual Ferox posted a number of questions about her “doubts, worries, and questions” from before going full time as a woman, and her responses have given me a lot to think about. I want to write a whole post about this at some point, but I’ll settle for linking to it for now.
• Random!
  
  • Stuff White People Like’s post #115 Promising to Learn a New Language which struck a little close to home for me… =P
  • From the Official Google Blog, a story about how they constructed a zip-line to get across a stream divding the Google campus… I sort of can’t get over how much I love this concept… (Particularly working an an organization that could pretty easily set up a zip-line. That’s probably how I should start getting down from the grid in the gym.)
• Last, but not least, a bunch of politics links
  • FiveThirtyEight.com has a piece about Prop 8 and to what extent California’s black and latino populations are ‘to blame,’ and that “(at) the end of the day, Prop 8′s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one.”
  • The Yes Men distributed a fake New York Times paper announcing the end of the Iraq war
  • Pam’s House Blend talks about some of the great the ads against Prop 8 that weren’t run during the lead-up to the election….
  • Bilerico has a post called “The queers are upset that I’m not an upset queer,” which I find particularly interesting because it echoes a lot of what G has said about how she feels about Prop 8
  • Feministing had a link to these amazing pictures from the Nov 4 Obama rally, and another post with a round-up of election responses from various places

I felt bad about not having made a post in over a week, so figured this is as good a time as any.

Blog!

-R

• Queer Blogs
  • Rebecca’s Thoughts
  • Just Another Opinionated Trannie
  • Transsexual Ferox
• Queer News and Politics
  • Feministe – great feminist blog
  • Feministing - another great feminist blog
  • Bitch Ph.D. – yet another great feminist blog
• Other Blogs
  • Get Rich Slowly – a great personal finance blog about (you guessed it) getting rich slowly. The source of my information relating to starting an IRA and opening goal-oriented savings accounts (which is why I now have $500 saved specifically toward transitioning to spend guilt-free, instead of a single big pot of savings that I’d stress about dipping into)
  • Give Me My Five Bucks Back – another personal finance blog

Woo! I’ll try and go through and plug some more later.

-R

• Black History: Loving v Virginia – a post about the 1967 Supreme Court case which ruled that laws against interracial marriage were un-Constitutional. Particularly interesting is a quote from Mildred Loving, the African-American woman married to a white man, who in 2007 said:
  

  I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

• Orson Scott Card Calls for Violent Overthrow of Govt if Gay Marriage is Legalized – I’m still not sure how I feel about Card’s (fiction) writing. I loved Ender’s Game, enjoyed most of the other books set in that universe, and really enjoy his short stories (a delightful find from back when I was at the sci-fi/fantasy bookstore, as I’m not sure they’re in print any more). Unfortunately, he’s also a raging homophobe and, at the end of a long rant (in which he denies his homophobic status through a BS semantic argument) says:
  

  How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

• Some posts on Judaism:
  • Thoughts on Gender and Judaism and Thoughts on Homosexuality and Judaism are similarly structured posts about looking at modern and historical Jewish views on both subjects
  • I Can’t Believe It’s Not the Taliban is a post about ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel harassing women and homosexuals