Bitchy Observations Regarding the Tattered Umbrella of Transgender

You can bitch at me for these observations, but if you are honest you admit they have crossed your mind too…

Some things have just gotta be said:

Is any one else as sick as I am of the so called “transman” Thomas Beatie’s  parlor trick of baby dropping?  WTF?  Just because you can do it doesn’t mean you have to join the freaking quiver full movement.

It is tired and just makes transsexuals who want to be taken seriously look foolish.  It has turned into a “Stupid Trannie Trick”.

Like those who use birth certificate games to enter “same sex marriages”.  Hint it isn’t a same sex marriage if the state views it as a heterosexual one.  If you want to marry a same sex partner and your state doesn’t recognize same sex marriage then a road trip is in order.

Going on Jerry Springer or any other “Reality TV Show” and outing yourself is always a bad idea.  Especially if you aren’t into exploiting the exposure.

Acting like you have real heterosexual privilege and not getting wills as well as certified documents saying your partner was aware of your medical history is both stupid and asking for grief.  For what it is worth…  Even though it is a heterosexual marriage get married someplace that recognizes marriage equality.  That is what inter-racial couples used to do and for now so should you.

Then there is a survey being circulated by Mona Rae Mason…

It claims to be studying attraction to transsexual/transgender people by other transsexual /transgender people.  It is located at:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X9BBY3R. Now why has this survey set me off even more than most of them?  For one thing I have a WBT life partner.  For another thing I have had several extended intimate relationships with either WBTs or with transgender women.

The study does the same sort of fetishizing of TS/TG women that one finds in she/male or transvestite literature.  It never looks beyond the sexually objectifying.

When it got to the type appearances/clothing that turned me on I said jeans and slogan t-shirts with piercings and tats, “Lisbeth Salander.”  I was kidding but mostly I am drawn to people who like art and literature and are more at home on a picket line/concert/museum/used book store/funky restaurant than in some sort of glamorous erotic setting.

Why do people doing these sorts of studies try to treat us like transvestites or she/male hookers?  One expects more from someone in the transgender community.

When will I ever learn to not expect more?

24 Responses to “Bitchy Observations Regarding the Tattered Umbrella of Transgender”

  1. Evangelina Says:

    Yes! These issue have more than crossed my mind. I have spoken out about them and copped a verbal attack for my trouble. Hasn’t changed my views and opinions though.

    But I guess all these things come down to the reasons why when I view this blog page a google generated advert for Thailand “Ladyboys” appears under your essay! That possibly is not your intention Suzan but appear it does. The image of transsexuals in media and by general public has become so confused I doubt anyone really knows what a “woman born transsexual” or “Classic Transsexual” or rose by any other name actually is.
    As my wise Mother used to say “Sometimes ’tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”

  2. Suzan Says:

    I use Firefox and do not get Google inserted Ads

  3. Evangelina Says:

    I don’t! The source is clearly from my own browser. My point was that the google add appeared against both our wishes. The association is there in google due to the word “Transsexual”

  4. tinagrrl Says:

    Well, with Firefox I do not see any ads. I suspect the insertions by Google will continue as long as someone makes MONEY from them.

    I also think a lot of the interest in “shemales”, “ladyboys”, etc., etc., etc., comes from het. crossdressers who like to consider themselves among the “transgender” folk while online.

    In other words, many of these folks could be called “panty-wankers”, or just plain old “wankers”.

    These are the guys who love to claim THEY are women — “just like you” — but live as men 24/7, enjoy male privilege (but claim it doesn’t exist), and are among the very first to attack post-op Women Born Transsexual whenever we dare anger, or oppose, them. They are among the folks who tend to say we have “frankenpussies”, they bring up the “inverted penis” crap, etc. As long as we go along with their fantasy, we are O.K.

    In other words — these are typical het. men who expect us to meet their every need.

    They can be wearing.

    If they just had SRS, most of this crap would stop — these “women — just like you” would be too busy missing their dicks.

  5. Angela Says:

    Ha ha ha, I’ve met them too, not sure they are het men though, gay delusional stalkers and transvestites who like to get off 24/7 and call themselves “trans women” while advocating for trans people with erections sticking out of the front of their skirts.

  6. Angel Says:

    I tried taking that survey too, and I was totally creeped out by it.

  7. Anna Says:

    Under the “T” umbrella we , especially if we were transsexual children, are the smallest minority, exoticised, objectified, and despised. Our concerns are ignored.

    I’d guess that people are failing to read and follow trans advice around things like marriage because they don’t want to be seen as trans. Or really do not see themselves as trans.

    The “pregnant man” thing has become quite the thing to do now. There are several websites giving guidance. Yes, it makes us look ridiculous, but what do they care?

    At an official meeting a civil servant was really overwhelmed when she declined to alter a document’s wording to include for male mothers on the basis of “just one case”. On Wikipedia it is maintained that it must not be assumed that mothers identify as women since they haven’t been asked…

    Still, when we start being able to bear children the press will probably ignore it now, thinking its just another Thomas Beattie. Which will be helpful. Although hardly anyone believes we do have a need to bear children, and the “pregnant men” probably even undermine the credibility of our saying we wouldn’t ever want to be fathers.

  8. Andrea B Says:

    That survey is straight out of the BBL stable. The author sees no difference between a woman born transsexual and a transvestite who gets his dominatrix to ram a dildo up his ass, spank him, then go home and beat up his wife.

    Mona Rae Mason lumping women born transsexual with transvestites, is enough for me to label Mona Rae Mason as a hater of women born transsexual who is heavily involved in the constant fetishisation of women born transsexual by deranged and dangerous sexual predators. That survey is purely for men who read porn and have a fetish for transvestites.

    Transsexualism starts in the womb. Children as young as 4 end up in gender identity clinics. The fact that so many constantly fetishise women born transsexual, does make me wonder if those people who perform the fetishisation are dangerous to children as they are fetishising women born transsexual as a group, without exception. That includes transsexual children.

    Thomas Beattie is an attention seeker. I do worry that people will use the Beattie case, to argue that women born transsexual should not be allowed to carry a baby and give birth, when the technology advances to that point. The constant promotion of Beattie by some FTM activists could lead to that. Paul Mc Hugh has pushed the point that women born transsexual have no interest in having children and rearing them. Beattie appears to be enforcing Mc Hugh’s opinions. That I consider to be dangerous.

  9. edith Says:

    You wrote,
    “Like those who use birth certificate games to enter “same sex marriages”. Hint it isn’t a same sex marriage if the state views it as a heterosexual one. If you want to marry a same sex partner and your state doesn’t recognize same sex marriage then a road trip is in order.”

    So by that reasoning, a person who has had SRS would remain the sex indicated on their birth certificate if the state or country the person is born in doesn’t recognize that SRS results in a true change of sex?

    • Suzan Says:

      Say What?

      How do you get that one?

      If you are from one of (I think) four states that do not change birth certificates and have SRS then you get the other document, a passport. What I am criticizing is some one who had SRS and then uses their unchanged birth certificate as a key to heterosexual privileged “same sex” marriage.

  10. tinagrrl Says:

    Edith writes: ” So by that reasoning, a person who has had SRS would remain the sex indicated on their birth certificate if the state or country the person is born in doesn’t recognize that SRS results in a true change of sex?”

    Errr, I don’t think you quite get it.

    Is your misunderstanding accidental or purposeful (“That Cooke person …………………, etc.!).

    Here in the USA some folks have used the fact their birth certificate reads MALE (for example) to marry a WOMAN, even though they are either in transition, or post-op (or perhaps, “transgender”). They then claim it’s a “same sex marriage”.

    It’s not.

    It is one of the most regressive of all the “stupid tranny tricks” — reinforcing the idea that “once male, always male”, and adding fuel the the claims by some lesbian and gay activists that we are neither women nor very bright or aware. It also allows anti-trans politicians to say stuff like, “what’s the big deal, it’s just a MAN marrying a WOMAN” (that’s a quote).

    See, Suzan was saying the EXACT opposite of what you seem (want?) to think she was saying..

  11. edith Says:

    Who does that? I do know a couple who married in Britain before the GRA was passed, which allowed them to marry because one of the parties’ sex/gender wasn’t recognized at the time. I think they were just looking for an opportunity to marry, however, because California wouldn’t allow them to at the time. A civil union law hadn’t been passed before then, either, which was before Vermont finally passed theirs and before the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling.

    I live in a state that doesn’t allow same sex marriage but does recognize it. I still don’t know exactly where I stand where marrying legally is concerned. I have a Tennessee B C and I am an Irish citizen as well as a U S citizen. Maybe I should look over the Texas Family Act but I still don’t understand how a birth certificate comes into play where legal marital rights are concerned. I imagine it varies from state to state, country to country. Also, I don’t think it is very clear how other documents are able to override what a birth certificate says in Texas or anywhere else.

    Sex/gender recognition (I use both words not because of the semantic way gender is used but because in some English speaking countries, I am told, both words mean exactly the same thing) and marriage makes so many people’s lives a complicated mess because both issues are so intermingled. I don’t think anyone of transsexual history can be too careful about sorting these things out. One doesn’t have to look too far to see how many times these problems have affected other people’s lives when all the loose ends weren’t neatly tied up.

    Thanks for clarifying but . . .

    One last thought, just to demonstrate how complicated all this can get. If I did want to move to Europe with my documents, which recognize me as an E U citizen but from a country that doesn’t recognize same sex civil unions or marriage and wanted to get my partner out of the country I would be in a quandary over being recognized in my current sex/gender. People have had to leave their country of residence for all kinds of political and economic reasons. Sorry for the length of this reply but I don’t think complicated situations can be oversimplified.

    • Suzan Says:

      I do not see it as all that freaking complicated. There is a reason we used to call the operation “sex change surgery”. It freaking well changed a person’s sex in the days before the hegemony of Transgender Inc and the rabid right socially engineered the new misogyny of gender.

  12. Andrea B Says:

    @edith

    A suggestion.

    Buy an english language dictionary. Ensure it is an Oxford english dictionary, not the uneducated slang that pass’s for language in Websters.

  13. edith Says:

    Hi Tina,

    I don’t know how to reply to your comment under the text of your reply to me.

    Please, don’t think what I wrote was in any way meant to be personal. I should have paid closer attention to the word “enter”.

    Still, you write:

    “Here in the USA some folks have used the fact their birth certificate reads MALE (for example) to marry a WOMAN, even though they are either in transition, or post-op (or perhaps, “transgender”). They then claim it’s a “same sex marriage”.

    It’s not.”

    Well, here you lead me back to my same question which was partly based on misunderstanding. The question is not whether I misunderstood but how much I misunderstood. Marriage is a performative act and so is gender assignment. Both are acts defined by legal authority and in the case of sex assignment, also medical authority. Such legal acts performed to certify that people belong to certain categories the state decides are valid for purposes under the law. Not all laws are just. Some laws are based on faulty reasoning, some on pure ignorance and prejudice. So, if the State of Tennessee says that someone who has undergone SRS remains the sex they were assigned before surgery what does that mean in relation to what sex they actually are? If what sex they actually are is not dependent on what the legal authority says they are, why should the way the state defines someone’s marriage have any bearing on what the marriage actually is – whether it is same sex or opposite sex?

    Please Tina, I will admit I often miss the point. I don’t make arguments for the sake of arguing, however. I wouldn’t visit this site on a daily basis if I didn’t think I had something to learn here. If my reasoning is flawed and either you or Suzan are able to correct it, by all means point it out to me.

    • Suzan Says:

      There is no such thing as gender assignment. There is sex assignment and sex role/gender role socialization. What you call gender assignment is the misogynistic expectations that a person will conform to a sex role stereotype (generally extremely oppressive to women) based on their sex assignment at birth.

      This does get continued forward to the expectation that those who have sex reassignment surgery will cling to often extreme sterotypes attributed to member so the sex they transition to.

  14. Anna Says:

    Suzan:
    “Like those who use birth certificate games to enter “same sex marriages”. Hint it isn’t a same sex marriage if the state views it as a heterosexual one. If you want to marry a same sex partner and your state doesn’t recognize same sex marriage then a road trip is in order.”

    With all due respect, understanding that you were writing about the US, and believing I understand the point you were making, I do think there is something wrong with the excerpt.

    I’m part of the worldwide campaign for equal access to marriage. Suddenly we seem to be making fast progress in the UK, which presently has unequal civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Equal marriage would make a huge difference in the UK to the process of legal recognition of change of sex and so I keep reminding LGB campaigners that the reform must cover that too. As part of that I point out that marriages where someone who has undergone SRS is wed to someone of the same sex (usually because they were married previously, but sometimes it happened afterwards but before a change of legal sex became possible – my lesbian partner in 1976, upon realising the possibilities of my legal status proposed marriage) is a legal same-sex marriage behind the legal fiction of the change of sex not being officially recognised.

    The supreme human rights court of Europe has, after all, ruled that the legal sex of someone should be that after reassignment surgery, but the UK government refuses unless someone is single and is prepared to sacrifice privacy.

    The fact hat there are such legal fictions hiding same-sex marriages and the sky person has not smitten the land in anger helps make the case that marriage really needs to be opened up equally to all sexes.

  15. edith Says:

    I shouldn’t have gotten involved in this. I had been pretty faithful in making sex and gender distinctions until I got a reply from someone who is British regarding the definitions of sex and gender in the U K’s Gender Recognition Act:

    “Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender
    becomes [and has previously] been for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the
    acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex is that of a man and, if it is the female
    gender, the person’s sex is that of a woman). (Gender Recognition Act s.9(1))”

    I think this implies that those who write the law in the U K, which I believe is an English speaking country, consider the terms to have the same meaning.

    Maybe all this is simple. Doesn’t seem so to me. As far as the OED goes, the print version is very cumbersome and, I imagine, quite expensive but I was able to find an on line definition of sex from the OED:

    “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:
    adults of both sexes”

    It really doesn’t seem like it could be that much better than the definition of sex from Websters that Judge Donald Allegrucci used to decide the Gardner v Kansas case.

    I am very happy Prop 8 was overturned, however. However, I am tired now. Going to bed. . . I don’t have time to go back to the 2nd Sex to see what de Beauvoir has to say about the homunculus and gametes. Ta ta

  16. tinagrrl Says:

    My position on this entire matter is very simple — if two WBW’s cannot marry, I think it a slap in the face of all women if two women, though one is still legally a man, do marry.

    In addition, I see it as potential “proof” that we are NOT “real” women. That argument could be presented by rad fems, conservative religious folks (of damn near any religion), and just about any person who does not like us (for any reason).

    That use of heterosexual privilege makes the old statement, “we are women, just like you”, a damned lie.

    Now, I do understand that the era in which things are done is a major consideration. Folks did things in the 60’s and 70’s to goof on society. Since “the transgender community” did not exist then, there was no way to gauge the effect on something that did not yet exist.

    Folks did things, tried things, looked at things, in ways that few would today.

    Heck, I remember there being a community of Queens back then. Some were transsexual, others were what we might call transgender, others would be seen as drag performers today. They were all Queens, and they were all — to some extent — outlaws.

    The entire situation is rather different today. We are interested in keeping what rights we have won, and are interested in gaining more. Public actions have consequences.

    We all have responsibilities, not only to ourselves.

  17. edith Says:

    Tina,

    I am happy you used the word “us”. I don’t think opinion is going to affect who we are, only how we are treated.

    We/us are all different but I am as uptight as you are when it comes to those I love and depend on. I think that is something any reasonable and empathetic person should be able to understand. As far as those who are unreasonable and without empathy are concerned, how could you be certain that anything would serve to change their opinions?

    How would you have marriage, by the way? Would you prefer to see it simply as a union between two people or would you rather see it categorized by the way each of the parties’ sex in a marriage is recognized? It seems in the latter case a marriage would be a separate but equal situation which would make equality a de facto impossibility. In either case there would still be the question of how to determine a person’s sex. In the former case, however, there wouldn’t be any need to make that determination in order to perform a marriage.

  18. Anna Says:

    Edith:
    > …the definitions of sex and gender in the UK’s Gender
    > Recognition Act:
    >
    >| “Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a
    >| person, the person’s gender becomes [and has previously] been for
    >| all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender
    >| is the male gender, the person’s sex is that of a man and, if it
    >| is the female gender, the person’s sex is that of a woman).
    >| (Gender Recognition Act s.9(1))”

    Ah. Well to understand that mess you need some background.

    The purpose of the Act was to get the UK government off the hook of having to comply with a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment that sex after SRS must be legally recognised. This was against the UK government having maintained for 30 years that sex could never change and was determined by chromosomes.

    Most of the government ministers responsible were devout Roman Catholics – a faith which says transsexuals are sick and sex can never change. They were therefore determined to not make it UK law that sex could change.

    They were being lobbied by transgender groups who wanted legal recognition of gender identity without SRS too, and denied that there was any inborn element in gender identity. In other words that it was a choice.

    What the government decided to do was adopt the word “gender” for the first time in UK law, making out it was the modern word to replace “sex” in every respect (subsequently sex is used again) and to recognise not “sex” but “gender”, as determined by “gender specialists” on a state list working to the DSM GID diagnosis. The reward for being “recognised” was listing on a central register and a second birth certificate showing the “new gender”, with the original still available and easy to obtain. Old records were not changed. Thus they made SRS irrelevant, destroyed privacy, and didn’t change sex. A dossier produced in the process, containing very intimate details is retained permanently (and will presumably become public after 100 years, in case the recognition needs to be revoked (it is not regarded as permanent).

    They reckoned that this was within their “margin of appreciation” – the amount of variation from its judgment the ECHR would consider reasonable, in the unlikely event anyone was able to take an appeal to the court.

    So “sex” and “gender” are not intended to be the same. What is recognised is effectively “gender identity” and there is still no way to have legal recognition of a change of sex.

    Of course it all makes no sense in languages that only have one word for the two concepts. Most of the judges on the ECHR speak those languages.

  19. edith Says:

    Hi Anna,

    That excerpt from the GRA that I pasted up somewhat mitigated the contempt I had for the way gender is commonly used. After reading pages and pages of analysis on GLBT blogs and the reactions, mostly by women of transsexual history, to what is written I started to believe I was a bit too strident in my opposition to the term. I felt maybe I should lighten up about it.

    I read a lot of what a few people I know from the U K have to say about the situation over there. I don’t know anyone who is happy about it. It causes me concern for the way “gender” is the preferred term among activists in this country working towards human rights legislation for many which I am in favor of unless it is at the expense of the few like me. It seems to me that those who voice concerns are drowned out. I follow most of what you say. I have tried to understand the implications of what has happened in your country for some time. Thanks for explaining things so clearly and concisely, though. Those in the know seldom have enough patience to take the time to enlighten the uninitiated.

  20. Anna Says:

    Edith:
    > That excerpt from the GRA that I pasted up somewhat mitigated
    > the contempt I had for the way gender is commonly used. After
    > reading pages and pages of analysis on GLBT blogs and the
    > reactions, mostly by women of transsexual history, to what is
    > written I started to believe I was a bit too strident in my
    > opposition to the term. I felt maybe I should lighten up about
    > it.
    >
    > I read a lot of what a few people I know from the U K have to
    > say about the situation over there. I don’t know anyone who is
    > happy about it. It causes me concern for the way “gender” is the
    > preferred term among activists in this country working towards
    > human rights legislation for many which I am in favor of unless
    > it is at the expense of the few like me. It seems to me that
    > those who voice concerns are drowned out…

    I broadly agree with that, Edith. But I think its more than whether people use “gender” instead of “sex”.

    We now have a legal situation in the UK, thanks to that usage of “gender” where most politicians and civil servants have no idea what they are saying or doing on trans legislation. A debate in the House of Lords on the Equality Bill earlier this year was a real case in point, with the then government minister reading a civil service-prepared brief talking about transsexuality whilst the main opposition read from a brief by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission addressing transgender, and their minds never met. Everyone present expressed total confusion on who was being legislated for and why.

    In the process it was made law that someone who has had SRS must still get insurance as their birth sex unless they have a gender recognition certificate, even though that is totally impractical and destroys privacy. Not to mention psychologically impossible – I’d rather die. The insurance industry lobbied for “certainty” and the response from “our” side was considered too varied to take into consideration. Try insuring as your birth sex when you rent a car and your driving license says female, and you look and drive like a female but your birth certificate has a totally different name and sex on it. Or buying travel insurance when your passport says female and your risk-taking style and health care needs would be female but your birth certificate…

    And yet the law is supposed to be that discrimination (in employment, education, goods, services) is illegal for life against anyone, of any age, who has so much as told anyone they would like to present as anything but the stereotypical gender role of their birth sex.

    Seems like putting a woman with a trans history in an impossible situation doesn’t count. And that’s with it being raised multiple times, very explicitly, with everyone concerned, by several people, including me.

    That protection, incidentally, is legally termed protection on grounds of “gender reassignment” (thats from the Gender Recognition Act), but the people protected are legally termed “transsexual persons” (so that’s not transsexual before you tell someone, and then transsexual for life; so we’re never the sex we identify with…)

    Other evils flowing from the act include an assumption that transsexual children should be content with being a third gender at school.

    But then that goes along with the widespread notion that T->F hormones are only to create a third gendered appearance, not optimal feminisation.

    I’m not sure how much of this comes from the predominance of F->M activists with quite different priorities and pathways.

    I totally support (and I’m an active lobbyist) legal provision for all those whose gender identity or behaviour is different to that expected from their birth sex but does not extend to needing a change of sex and being seen solely as that sex, but, as someone whose gender identity / brain sex totally did require that and is especially concerned for those who are that way from the earliest age, I see us drowned out, as you say.

    That so easily happens at the point where totally inexpert people (such as politicians, journalist, civil servants and voters) take responsibility for implementing what they hear from lobbyists or individuals. They get overwhelmed by people who seem a third gender.

    I suspect it is as simple as those who never experience the degree of incongruence from our birth sex simply not considering it, not believing it, thinking we exaggerate and go too far. Just as LGB people often do. But maybe they resent it and do just want to bring us down a peg. Or maybe they are in denial. Or maybe its simple misogyny. But I see them do it time and again, even to my face. Sometimes it feels like hatred.

    Like when the owner of GIRES declared that treating the very most extreme transsexual children as the sex they identify with, or as intersex children, at puberty (i.e. providing an appropriate puberty at the same time as their peers’) would be child abuse. You had to be there, but that’s a man who “advises” the police, attends social events with government ministers, has a medal for his work, and whose daughter transitioned as an adult.

    They will openly acknowledge that “trans” covers an uncertain list of sometimes conflicting groups (just as ethnicity or disability do, for examples), then reel off a list which doesn’t include us at all whilst still claiming to represent transsexuality.

    And it is a worldwide problem. I’m watching it with Nikki Araguz in Houston. I see it in Thailand where our access to SRS at 16 got terminated.

  21. edith Says:

    I’m all ears, Anna. Thanks for the update. This is not a very good harbinger for things to come in this country. My background is much different than yours but most of your frustration resonates strongly for me. I have to ask myself who am I to voice outrage, which is a good question. The answer isn’t that simple, though.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: