• Showing balls, sometimes more than nature gave you
• Pee standing up
• Can write your name in the snow
• To NOT always let your penis do the talking
• Have PENIS TESTOSTERONE!
• To play basketball and masturbate in the bathtub
• I get to sleep on her red splotchy sheets!
• Boys get to be dirty
• What makes you most happy
• Boys are DIRECT! LOVE THAT!
• Having sensitive ego
• I have to/get to put together things like bookshelves
• Dad eats the creepy candy at Halloween – black licorice, things with coconut, etc
• Puberty means wet dreams until DEATH!

And, of course, someone drew a penis.

But here are some of the responses, proving the above wrong!

• As for masturbation in the bathtub goes, that is the domain of the woman jacuzzi tub.
• Some of the best vibrators are waterproof!
• Testosterone is not exclusive to males or boys
• I’ve done this [peed standing up] with my lady parts
• You’ve never met my friend Alyssa (in response to “Have Penis Testosterone!”)
• You should meet some of the women in The League of Miscreants (in response to “Boys get to be dirty”)
• Seriously? (In response to “having sensitive ego”)
• Ask Rob (in response to “I have to/get to put things together like bookshelves)

Without being sarcastic, some of us are concerned about having their small penis put up for display. This will inevitably be TMI, but I know I’m not the only trans woman who reads Slashdot, and presenting and being perceived as a woman but smuggling a dick through security runs the risk of harassment (if you’re lucky) and arrest/sexual assault/murder (if you’re not).

I’m all for safe air travel, but I can see a million ways to abuse this technology, and use it to harass and humiliate people who aren’t terrorists for every one way it can be used to “fight terrorism.”

Well, airport scanners have been in the news a lot this past week. Bruce Schneier has a good rundown of everything that’s been going on. But, in short, there has been some major backlash against scanners that are able to take and store effectively naked images of all passengers.

From a livejournal post:

It is no accident that women have been complaining about being pulled out of line because of their big breasts, having their bodies commented on by TSA officials, and getting inappropriate touching when selected for pat-downs for nearly 10 years now, but just this week it went viral. It is no accident that CAIR identified Islamic head scarves (hijab) as an automatic trigger for extra screenings in January, but just this week it went viral. What was different?Suddenly an able-bodied cisgender white man is the one who was complaining. (Emphasis in the original)

An interesting segue into my own take on the issue, Schneier quotes that same section on his blog, but leaves out the word “cisgender.” Which is ridiculous, because this is an issue that effects trans and gender-nonconforming people more than any other population!

(There’s a note at the bottom of the livejournal post, saying “cisgender” was unintentionally left out, so it’s possible Schneier copied the quote before it was put back in.)

Since beginning my public transition, flying has made me nervous. Way back in July of last year, I posted about my worries concerning an upcoming flight. That one was particularly nerve-wracking, since it took place a few weeks before I legally changed my name and documentation; I was flying under a name and license that said ‘male,’ but trying to hide my breasts under baggy clothing. Now, the reverse is true: I have a proper ID and name documentation (though still haven’t gotten a new passport, more out of laziness and cheapness than anything else) but I’m terrified about the idea of having my genitals show up on these new backscanner imaging devices. As I said in January, being laughed at is the least of my concerns, and being harassed, detained, or sexually assaulted aren’t out of the realm of possibility.

As such, I feel cut off from some of my family, as well as any thoughts of having The Surgery. Most of my friends are in Chicago (where I live) or Minneapolis or the east coast (pretty drivable or bus-able), but I have family in western Colorado and in San Francisco, and I have no desire to drive to either of those destinations. (Or money to afford a train ticket, which is what I’d really like to do.) For my entire life, flying has been an affordable if cramped way of getting from point A to point B quickly and cheaply – I’ve flown around the US, to Canada, and to Europe.

Now, without even having any particular plans to travel in the near future, I feel trapped and unable to fly.

But at least I can be reassured that the policy of either submitting to the scanner or going through the “enhanced pat-down procedure” is being applied inconsistently:

When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then [the family behind me] opted out. She’d already convinced the family behind them to do the same. Her response to the TSA agent was awesome, I wish I’d thought of it:

“Ma’am, please step over here.”

“No thanks, I’ve already had cancer, just feel me up or whatever.”

After the first 4 “OPT-OUT” calls, they just passed us all through the regular metal detector. No one got groped.

So if it’s inconvenient, the TSA has the authority to ignore these new “security” regulations. Awesome! I feel so much safer!

The ACLU has a page where you can email your congresscritters, so please take a moment to do so.

First, the Dangerous Book for Boys (from the series of the same name) with chemistry experiments:

It's dangerous! It MUST be exciting!

Then, slightly down the shelf, the Spa Science kit:

I couldn't find the image on my camera, so this is from Amazon

For the visually impaired, the ‘boys’ kit is a dark red cover with notes about excitement, danger, and 30 fabulous experiments. The ‘girls’ kit is “Spa Science” with a note to “Relax…and experiment with different fragrances in your bath!” It’s blue and pink, and “Perfect for science fairs, birthday parties, and family fun!”

I’m not a huge fan of the Dangerous Books for Boys series, because the best they could counter with are a Daring Book for Girls. I’m all in favor of feats of daring-do, but feel like that’s a week effort to make for female equality. Undoubtedly, lots of market research went into the Spa Science and Daring Books chemistry kits. They’re targeted at specific demographics and, I’m not going to lie, playing with test tubes in the bathtub does strike me as my idea of a good time. (I’m a giant dork. So so me.) But I can’t help but feel disappointed that the Museum of Science and Industry – an institution I really value and respect – is trying to entice boys into chemistry projects with promises of danger, and girls with promises of bubbles.

As a bonus, I also found this book on the book rack:

Yes, the title is actually How to Talk to Girls. And it's aimed at middle-schoolers.

Here’s an excerpt:

Girls always like the smart boys.

What if you were the smartest kid in the class?
Girls would be prowling at your feet.
Pick one and skip along.

If you try to go out with all of them, it just gets crazy!

If you are the smartest kid in the class, you are like a magnet and girls are the metal.

I honestly don’t know where to begin. I mean, first, I’ve been the smartest boy in the class and it didn’t do shit for girls. (At least, not until high school and college…) Being the smartest kid in class doesn’t make you any less awkward or scared, and advice later in the book actually talks about how to show off for girls. Coupled with the keen advice about seeming smart, you’re sure to get the girls to come a-runnin’!

I’m really impressed with most of the changes MSI has made since I was a kit. Their exhibits are more interactive, more accessible (both literally and figuratively: my mom was impressed by their wheelchair accessibility across the board), more interesting, and make great use of technology and presentational developments over the last few decades. I just can’t help but feel like this sort of product is the worst sort of selling out. Not that gift shops are bastions of neutrality and impartial science, but I have memories of the museum shops are least making an effort to present good, well-designed material instead of just the shiniest or more sensational toy or book

Likewise, I’m not totally sure what to do with the idea of a “How to talk to girls” book aimed at children. I’m grudgingly allow that dating how-to books make some sense, but I refuse to believe boys and girls are so different in childhood that an entire book is required to tackle the issue.

As I was observing the story workshops this year, I kept a particular eye out for the relationship scenes present in a few of the stories being examined. Inevitably, they all involved male/female relationships, just as they have in the past. But this year, much more than in years past, it really bugged me.

I acknowledge that having a gay relationship in a story – particularly with high-schoolers – will often mean the focus of the audience is on the gay-osity of the story, at the expense of everything else. Likewise, if the purpose is to teach students to portray stories on stage, adding issues of gender and sexuality will complicate and distract from the primary purpose for most students. But I’m not straight, I’m gay. The straight-osity is distracting for me. And, statistically, we probably have a few students who aren’t straight in our high school class of eighteen kids.

Part of this, I think, is coming from the bad taste in my mouth left from the recent transphobia I experienced. Still waiting to clear up some things before I really post about that, but it’s made me more aware of my minority status as a trans woman and a lesbian. So I’m feeling a bit more confrontational than I once was.

But I also want to know if it’s possible to find a balance, of allowing kids to portray non-heterosexual characters without it being A Big Deal. I want to be able to direct pieces – even in high school – about People Like Me without the entire process turning into a discussion on what that means. (Just like we’re directing pieces with straight characters without it being a big deal.) Is simply an unrealistic and naive desire?

Coming out of the closet isn't always easy...

There’s a post, Out Open, Closed, and In, at The Spectrum Cafe, that caught my attention. It’s about the spectrum of ‘outness’ trans people can choose to have: Out, Open, Blended, Closed, In, and Stealth. Dyssonance’s full definitions in her post, but briefly:

• Out – someone who makes a point to have ‘trans’ as part of their identity
• Open – someone who is willing to discuss their trans status, but not go out of their way to highlight it
• Blended – “[being trans] is a non issue — something that isn’t a topic for discussion unless the discussion is specifically relating to something important for themselves”
• Closed – “They don’t want people to know they are trans, and usually being closed is more a matter of simply not having had control and being put into a position that prevents them from being In”
• In – “In folks are what we have long called “stealth” — but stealth carries with it connotations of hiding, of deception, of intrigue…”

It’s an interesting scale, and I’d agree more useful than simply saying someone is Out or Stealth.

I’m pretty obviously Out. If you’re in doubt, just Google me or look at my website. My trans identity is part of my political and artistic identity as well, and I’ve found value in living my life that way.

But I’m privileged enough to be able to do so. Financially privileged. Socially and familialy. Educationally. Racially. And, to be frank, in my ability to present myself as and be perceived by others as a woman. As one of the commenters on Dyssonance’s post says…

It’s nice for a trans person to say, “I’m closed” or “I only tell a few close friends or community people” but the reality is, if other people know you’re trans (or have extreme suspicions) then what does that personal status mean? Yes, I this is verboten to say, but I’ve known trans people who looked believably like their gender, claimed they were in stealth, and appeared as women yet spoke like a baritone/bass. So now it becomes, not just how one personally experiences their private information, but how it interacts with what others know about you and might not ask you about, might ask you about in supportive way, might be curious about

That’s a tough issue, and part of what makes being trans so difficult: there’s a direct correlation between how others perceive you and how In or Out the world will let you be. It sucks, and I’m certainly pushing for a world where that isn’t the case, but perception is on equal footing with presentation for how others will interact with you.

The goal is, I guess, to make sure your presentation matches what you think it should be, and let everything else wash over you. Easier said than done, no doubt, but something I’m striving to achieve every day.

The photo from both articles

I don’t expect much from the New York Daily News, but still… They’re reporting that “The Swedish clothing brand ACNE is launching a new collection aimed at transgender consumers.” Except the NY Daily News is reporting on a Vogue UK story, which actually says, “ACNE has joined forces with Candymagazine to launch a new collection targeted at transvestites and cross-dressers.” (Emphasis added.)

Being trans is not (necessarily) the same thing as being a transvestite or cross-dresser!

But my frustrations are a little deeper than that.

ACNE’s creative director said, “This collection is a playful collaboration and a celebration of diversity. It touches on ideas I have always played with when designing for Acne, the tension between male and female and what happens when you shift things around a bit. This project has been so much fun.” See, I think that’s awesome. Showing that “women’s” clothing or “men’s” clothing are arbitrary lines and not inherent or universal constants. But both articles imply that the clothing itself is aimed at fringe groups, and that no mainstream or ‘normal’ person would be interested in them.

And, of course, another article has this choice quote:

“I didn’t want this to be ‘unisex,’ in fact, I wanted exactly the opposite. I wanted to create a bit of gender confusion.  Instead of the usual unisex statement ‘for men and women,’ I want people to ask: ‘is this for men, or women?’  Well, this is for all the many types of men and women worldwide in the 21st century. It’s tranny shirts for everybody, something relevant and open-minded.” (Emphasis added)

One step forward, one step back? Again, putting forth androgynous clothing as a valid fashion choice is awesome. But it becomes a problem when “tranny” choices are presented to mean that any transgression of gender roles or binaries is a merging of gender roles and binaries. Being trans (or a transvestite, or a cross-dresser) can mean that an individual is inherently rejecting a binary gender choice.

Using myself as an example I present myself and am usually perceived as a cis woman. I’m – consciously, deliberately – making a choice to conform to a binary notion of gender. But I don’t have to be. I could go for a more androgynous look, and that wouldn’t make me any more or less trans.

It seems like Acne, and the articles covering the story, are pushing the sensationalist angle rather than celebrating a legitimately interesting decision to market androgynous clothing. Which is a shame, really, because the clothing itself looks interesting.

One of the people I met, we’ll call her E, expressed interest in getting drinks or coffee with me after the festival. I said I’d like to, because E is a cool person and I need more queer friends, but I definitely had the thought in the back of my mind that this might be asking me out on a date. Since I’d be happy either way – date or friendly socialization – I didn’t bother asking E to clarify. We set up a time and place to meet on Saturday night, and I tried not to over-think things. (“Things” being whether or not this was a date, what I was going to wear, how much makeup I needed, noticing while walking to the bar that – oh bugger – I forgot to put any on, and so on.)

When we met at the bar, E bought us both drinks and left her card with the bartender. I figured this was a good sign, but still tried not to over-think things. She then pulled out my chair for me and helped me remove my coat, at which point the signs became a little more clear. We chatted for the next hour or so, talking about the Fringe Festival, our previous and future artistic projects, our experiences living in Chicago, the ridiculous drunken people walking past the window; all the things you chat about with someone when you’re enjoying their company, getting to know them, and getting a little tipsy.

As we both worked on our third drinks (mine: a vodka cranberry, hers: a dirty martini) I realized I had almost reached the bottom of my glass while E had barely touched hers.  ”E,” I asked, “are you trying to get me drunk?”

She looked at me. “Yes.”

“I would keep pace with you,” she continued, “but if I get drunk I’m worried I might just lean in and kiss you.”

(What a great line, right?!)

Well, she leaned in, and I leaned in, and we both pulled back a bit breathless. Somehow the decision was made to walk back to my place, a few blocks away, as opposed to sitting in the bar window and making out on display. E helped me get my coat on as we were getting ready to leave, something which made me simultaneously feel awkward and ungraceful (trying to find the sleeves) and put a flutter in my tummy.

E and I continued to chat on the walk back to my apartment, and upon entry I defaulted into the apartment tour. (In my mind, being a good host means showing around newcomers to my apartment…) When we went into my room, though, she leaned in again for a kiss. A few moments later, I’d been pushed back onto my bed.

I’m not going to go into detail about the sex we had, except to say a few things. First, I had a ton of fun. I’m not one to go on many dates, let alone have super-hot sex on a first time out.

Second, the experience reminded me both of what I currently like and am frustrated about concerning my body. I love the sensations it provides, the fact that my erogenous zones have multiplied and heightened since going on estrogen, the peaks to which my excitement can reach. And yet, I’m not totally sure I ever came while E and I were having sex. She did, which is a good thing, but my body is still sending mixed signals about what it wants, where, and how, so while I had a blast and am in no way complaining, I didn’t quite have that cathartic moment of cumming.

I think part of that was knowing what to ask for, and when. I was still a little too in my head when we began, and worried about somehow disappointing or frustrating E. For example, I really should have asked for lube sooner than I did…

Third, I really like being the more passive or submissive one in a sexual encounter. That isn’t to say I don’t also like being on top (emotionally or physically) but I’d say I lean at least 60/40 towards wanting to be overpowered, rather than overpowering. Who knows how this will play out as I continue to become more comfortable as Rebecca, but I think a lot of it has to do with feeling like it’s an affirmation of my femininity. (Likewise with E pulling out the chair for me, buying my drinks, and helping me with my coat.) I don’t need those things, and might get tired of them if I felt I could only be in that femme role, but it was really enjoyable to try it on, so to speak, this weekend.

Linked with that was how wonderful it felt to be told I’m beautiful. Not shocking news, I imagine, but it made me feel good and turned me on to know the person I was with thought I was hot. (And reassured me that my unreasonable noisiness was also OK! Fortunately, neither of my roommates were home. They serendipitously arrived about 30 minutes after E left.)

E also surprised me by referring to my penis as “she.” I’ve talked before about whether “a penis need[s] to be a male organ” or “a vagina …a female organ.” But it’s easier to say something like that as a political statement than really think about it. When masturbating, I usually don’t think much about my penis at all; it gives me pleasure, but I don’t dwell on it. But E made a point of asking how “she” was doing, something which made me laugh but also feel that more more like I’m allowed to claim ownership and naming rights over my body. My dick doesn’t need to be an “it” or a “he,” unless I want it to be.

Or want her to be.

Sadly, I don’t see a longterm ‘dating’ relationship happening between myself and E, for some reasons I won’t get into here. But I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to grow the budding friendship we have, and wouldn’t complain at all if that also meant we got to hookup every so often.

Down the street

As a teaser, here’s some text from my upcoming show:

The Land of Gender, part one

Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech ha’olam asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav v’tzivanu al ha-milah. Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech ha’olam asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav v’tzivanu lihach-neeso bivreito shel Avraham aveenu.

Blessed are You, O Lord Our God, Ruler of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and has given us the command concerning circumcision. Blessed are You, O Lord Our God, Ruler of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and hast commanded us to make our sons enter the covenant of Abraham our father. (Source)

Eight days after birth, Jewish boys are supposed to be circumcised as part of the covenant between God and Abraham (in Genesis), as specified in Leviticus. In this way, Jewish boys are supposed to continue the line of the Children of Israel, fulfilling the obligations and duties laid out for them in the Torah.

There are no required rituals or ceremonies to mark the birth of a girl.

Snip snip!

What does that mean for me?

I was circumcised. I did not ask for the circumcision, the gender it carried as baggage, or to enter in any sort of covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but I was circumcised.

According to Jewish law, have I renounced that covenant by transitioning? If a circumcision is a ‘male’ ceremony, one which need not apply to those created from Adam’s rib, is my circumcision null and void by rejecting that male identity? Biblically, will that rejection only be complete if I go through with The Surgery?

All of this very much links back with my Ba(r/t) Mitzvah post, because the deeper I dig into Judaism the more frustrated I get with the historic, institutionalized, ritualized, ceremonialized, holy gender roles.

Take, for example, the following passage. It’s something I came across while doing some research for this post. From Being Jewish:

It is noteworthy that woman has no similar Commandment. Most things in the world were created before man, so that it would all be completed and ready for humanity’s use when we were created. Woman, however, was created after man. Thus, we find that woman was created at a higher level. Therefore, man needs woman to become complete, and until a man gets married, says the Talmud, he is not complete. Men are required by Jewish Law to get married. A man breaks a Commandment if he doesn’t get married, but women have no such requirement, and do not break the Commandment if they don’t.

Woman is the completion of man, but woman needs no completion herself.

That is why a woman says the blessing, each morning, “Blessed are You, Hashem, King of the universe, Who has made me according to His will.” Woman is made according to G-d’s will, but man is not! (For more about this, see my wife’s letter on this subject.) Man needs woman for completion, man needs circumcision for elevation, but woman needs nothing except what is within her, which was granted her by G-d. The man cannot say that G-d has made him according to G-d’s will. G-d’s will in this case is something that man must complete.

Ah, the midwest. Corn. Farm girls. Circumcised cocks.

That’s pretty fucked up, both in terms of assigned gender roles and in how it highlights the absurdity of circumcision in the first place: how could man possibly not be made to God’s will? How else would man be made? It’s God’s will (apparently) that men go through self-mutilation of their genitals, but that doesn’t mean the foreskin is anti-God somehow. By the creation story (stories, actually) in Genesis, everything is made in and by God’s will.

More to my point, the above passage is a really odd interpretation of circumcision. Its author is saying that women are somehow more “complete” than man, and thus needs no direct covenant with God. Wouldn’t it be a simpler (and less ridiculous) reading of the Torah to say that, biblically, women just aren’t as important as men? So no covenant is needed, by virtue of no one caring what women think in the first place.

Awesome.

I emailed my mom and asked about my own circumcision, how and when it happened, and here’s what she had to say:

Wow!  What a weird question.  Yikes!  I so think of you as female that it’s hard to imagine circumcision for you.  Anywho….. in answer to your question, you were circumcised at the hospital.  I complained because they would not allow me to accompany you.  I couldn’t get out of bed when [older brother 1] was circumcised & [older brother 2] was 6 when he asked for it.  They said that’s how it’s done in the hospital-no parents allowed.  I couldn’t handle the idea of some old guy giving you wine & then using (what in my mind was) a dirty old knife. And your father would not even consider a home circumcision.  That’s the story.

(Yes, her font of choice is Comic Sans. I apologize.)

So it sounds like my circumcision was somewhat religious, but was also done under the auspicious of the medical establishment.

The older I get, the more anti-circumcision I’ve become, at least if it’s done at birth. I don’t have a problem with an adult choosing, of their own free will, to get circumcised. I think it’s kind of silly, but I’m not against it. But I do have very real problems concerning at-birth circumcision, problems related to personal autonomy and the sanctity of one’s own body. If it’s not alright to medically assign genders to children, why is circumcision considered an “acceptable” genital modification?

Fitting circumcision in with my identity as a Jew is even trickier. I already feel Judaism is at best complacent in the unwanted and unwarranted gendering of children, if not an active encourager. To go a step further and surgically mark children assigned “male” at birth really upsets me, and makes me feel violated in the name of a religion to which I’m not sure I subscribe.

And where do trans men fit within the Jewish community? Would it be better for a penis created via phaloplasty to be uncircumcised, so the Jewish man might under go the requirements of the covenant, or already circumcised, a retroactive circumcision? Am I, as a circumcised woman, higher in the Jewish religious hierarchy, or am I already so far outside it by virtue of being trans that my circumcision is irrelevant?

These may sound like stupid questions, but that’s what Judaism is implicitly and explicitly saying I should be thinking about, by virtue of placing so much importance on the penis in the first place.