Life, Law, Gender

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

It's been a long time since I wrote a blog post.  And, I guess if I'm honest here, I'm not writing one now.  I don't know when, or if, I'll ever blog regularly again.  But, that's not the point of this post. 

I came across this article nearly a week ago.  But, I've been crazy busy with work and only just now found time to read it.  It's quite long, and it takes a fair amount of critical thinking to get through it.  But, it's really worth it.  I don't agree with everything she says here.  But, her main points are essential, in my view.  Take some time and read this.  It really is more than just a re-hashing of this decade-long debate.

According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).

While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.

...

Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.

**********************************************************************

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

By Julia Serano, AlterNet. Posted August 5, 2008.

"The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women -- or those who play the female role -- are held."

In 1991, Nancy Jean Burkholder was expelled from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (MWMF), the world's largest annual women-only event, because festival workers suspected that she was a trans woman -- that is, someone who was assigned a male sex at birth but who identifies and lives as female. That incident sparked protests from a burgeoning transgender movement to challenge what eventually came to be known as the festival's "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, which effectively bars trans women from attending. The protests evolved into Camp Trans, which continues to take place just down the road from MWMF each year, and which has become a focal point for a much broader push for trans-inclusion within feminist and queer communities. Despite more than 15 years of petitioning, and a growing acceptance of trans identities in both mainstream society and within queer, feminist and other progressive circles, the festival still officially maintains its "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, and countless other lesbian- and queer-woman-focused groups and events continue to harbor dismissive, if not outright disdainful, attitudes toward trans women.

The history of the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate has been retold countless times -- often in an overly simplistic, cut-and-dry manner. The controversy is usually depicted in one of two ways: either pitting the supposedly out-of-touch, transphobic lesbian-separatists who run the festival against a more politically progressive transgender minority, or portraying transgender activists as bullies who selfishly seek to undermine one of the few remaining vestiges of women-only space with their supposedly masculine bodies and energies. In addition to being obvious caricatures, these sorts of us-versus-them portrayals obscure one of the most important aspects of the story: the fact that there are actually three "sides" to this debate, each driven by a different take on feminism.

Rather than rehash the history or delve into all of the details about the festival and the controversy, I will attempt to describe these three differing feminist perspectives and discuss how they have played out with regard to the issue of trans woman-exclusion at MWMF, as well as in lesbian/queer women's communities more generally.

For those unfamiliar with the subject, I will start by defining some of the trans-specific language that I will be using. Transsexuals are individuals who identify and live as members of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. A trans woman is someone who has socially, physically and/or legally transitioned from male to female, and a trans man is someone who has similarly transitioned from female to male. While the medical establishment (and the mainstream media) typically define "transsexual" in terms of the medical procedures that an individual might undergo (for example, hormones and surgeries), many trans people find such definitions to be objectifying (as they place undue focus on body parts rather than the person as a whole) and classist (as not all trans people can afford to physically transition). For these reasons, trans activists favor definitions based on self-identity, that is, whether one identifies and lives as a woman or man. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for all people who defy other people's expectations and assumptions regarding gender, and can be used to refer to transsexuals as well as people who are gender nonconforming in other ways -- for example, cross-dressers, drag performers, feminine men, masculine women, and genderqueers (who do not identify exclusively as either women or men), to name a few. Transgender people who defy gender norms in the male-to-female/feminine direction are said to be on the trans feminine spectrum; those who transgress gender norms in the female-to-male/masculine direction make up the trans masculine spectrum.

-- Radicalesbians (1970)

Unilateral Sexism and Lesbian-Feminism

MWMF is one of many women-only institutions that grew out of the lesbian-feminist movement during the 1970s and 1980s. A dominant ideology within that movement was the belief that sexism constitutes a unilateral form of oppression -- that is, men are the oppressors, and women the oppressed, end of story. While more liberal or reform-minded feminists of that time period focused primarily on the most obvious examples of sexism (e.g., wage and workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, reproductive rights, etc.), lesbian- (and other radical) feminists extended their critiques of sexism to include many taken-for-granted aspects of gender and sexuality. They argued, for example, that masculinity is inherently dominating and oppressive and that femininity is necessarily associated with objectification and subjugation, and that both forms of gender expression are merely products of socialization rather than natural aspects of people. According to this perspective, a first step toward overturning sexism is for individuals to distance themselves from ways of being that are associated with male domination and female subjugation and instead revert to more natural (and presumably androgynous) forms of gender and sexual expression.

Lesbian-feminist critiques did not solely take aim at the heterosexual mainstream; they also targeted other sexual minorities whose gender and sexual practices were deemed (in their view) to emulate unilateral sexism. This includes those who engage in BDSM (who were seen as reinforcing dominant/submissive sexual roles), and butch and femme lesbians, drag performers, cross-dressers, and transsexuals (who were all seen as reinforcing masculine/feminine gender roles). While lesbian-feminists derided many forms of what we would now call transgender expression, the bulk of their contempt was directed squarely at trans women and others on the trans feminine spectrum. This attitude stemmed both from the assumption that trans women are "really men" (i.e., oppressors) and that femininity is tantamount to a "slave status." Thus, according to this logic, trans female and trans feminine individuals were viewed as oppressors who appropriate the dress and identities of the very people they oppress. For example, feminist Robin Morgan claimed that trans women "parody female oppression and suffering," and Mary Daly equated trans feminine expression with "whites playing "blackface.'" Many (including Morgan and, most famously, Janice Raymond) even described trans womanhood as a form of rape.

While many lesbian-feminists today will concede that such accusations are beyond the pale, their unilateral perspective on sexism still leads them to insist that trans women should not be allowed to enter women-only spaces such as MWMF based on the assumption that trans women have experienced male socialization and privilege in the past, and/or because their bodies, personalities and energies still supposedly remain "male" or "masculine" on some level.

The Gender Binary, Queer Theory and Transgender Activism

Prior to the mid-1990s, trans women and allies typically responded to trans woman-exclusion by stressing the similarities between trans women (who live as women and thus experience misogyny in their day-to-day lives) and non-trans women. But this strategy of emphasizing similarities became less relevant by the mid-to-late 1990s due to the rise of "third wave" feminisms, which challenged universalizing views of womanhood and examined the many differences that exist between women. For example, "third wave" feminists embraced the critiques made by women of color over the years that the belief that sexism was the "primary" oppression, or even a unilateral form of oppression, ignores the ways in which sexism intersects with racism and classism in many women's lives. Additionally, many feminists (especially younger ones) around this time began reclaiming expressions of femininity and sexuality that had previously been considered taboo or repressive among lesbian-feminists. But perhaps no shift in feminism had such a profound affect on transgender-inclusion within lesbian and queer women's communities as the rise of queer theory.

Queer theory shares the lesbian-feminist belief that many aspects of gender and sexuality are culturally derived (rather than natural), but takes this notion one step further by bringing into question the very categories upon which sexisms are based. This is often accomplished by critiquing, subverting and deconstructing the "gender binary" -- that is, the assumption that there are only two legitimate genders: feminine women and masculine men. For this reason, many queer theorists became particularly interested in transgender people, whom they sometimes hailed for challenging traditional notions about femaleness and maleness. This view is in sharp contrast to lesbian-feminist perspectives, which claimed that these same individuals reinforced oppressive sex roles.

Queer theory both influenced, and was influenced by, the rise of transgender activism -- a movement to unite previously disparate gender-variant communities around the idea that these groups are all targeted for discrimination because they transgress binary gender norms. Activists such as Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg, Riki Wilchins and countless others mobilized many transgender spectrum folks, and won over many feminist and queer allies, by positioning the transgender community as the cutting edge of a much broader movement to shatter the gender binary. In 1999, Wilchins and other transgender activists took this approach to MWMF, where they revived Camp Trans (after a five-year hiatus) and challenged the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy on the basis that it is rooted in outdated, binary assumptions about gender.

The idea that transgender identities and expression subvert the gender binary did much to increase transgender-inclusion within feminist and queer spaces. However, this approach did not benefit all transgender people equally. Because transgender-inclusion was explicitly linked to gender transgression and subverting the gender binary, those individuals who did not identify within the gender binary -- for example, people who are genderqueer, gender-fluid, or who engage in "genderfuck" (purposefully playing or screwing with gender expression and presentation) -- tended to be most celebrated, whereas transsexuals -- especially those who identify within the binary and who appear gender-normative and/or heterosexual post-transition -- frequently still had their motives and identities questioned.

It is also common for trans feminine spectrum individuals to be called out for "reinforcing the gender binary" more so than their counterparts on the trans masculine spectrum. This is due, in part, to the fact that female and feminine appearances are more readily and routinely judged in our society than male and masculine ones. And because concepts like "transgression" and "rebellion" tend to be coded as "masculine" in our culture, whereas "conformity" and "conventionality" are typically coded as "feminine," there is an unspoken bias that leads masculine transgender expression to be seen as more inherently transgressive than feminine transgender expression. Indeed, such unconscious presumptions about masculinity and femininity have surely contributed to the tendency exhibited by many feminists to praise women who engage in traditionally "masculine" endeavors, while expressing anywhere from apathy to antagonism toward men who engage in traditionally "feminine" endeavors. In fact, one could make the case that historically feminism has been predisposed toward "trans-masculinism" -- that is, favoring gender transgression in the masculine direction.

Not coincidently, perhaps the biggest change in lesbian and queer women's communities since the rise of queer theory and transgender activism has been a growing influx of trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum, many of whom date and/or are partnered to non-trans queer women. While trans men are not officially allowed in MWMF, many still attend anyway (as the festival has essentially had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gender identity for much of the last decade). The significant attendance of trans male/masculine folks led one trans masculine attendee in 2000 to remark that the festival was "the largest female-to-male trans conference I have ever seen in my life." The festival not only accommodates such individuals, but has invited trans masculine musical artists who go by the pronoun "he" to perform on the festival stage. It has also become increasingly common for MWMF supporters to claim that the festival is a place for those who have grown up female in a patriarchal society, an interpretation that conveniently enables trans men to attend but not trans women. Indeed, this growing inclusion of trans men has not yielded a similar inclusion of trans women; in fact, many feel that it has only served to make trans women more invisible and irrelevant within queer women's communities.

Trans-Misogyny, Intersectionality and "Second Wave" Transgender Activism

I personally became involved in the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue in 2003 when I attended Camp Trans. This was a turning-point year for the protest, as organizers began to make a purposeful effort to focus specifically on working toward trans woman-inclusion (rather than "transgender-inclusion" more generally) and to try to shift the dynamics of the protest from one that favored trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum to one that is equally welcoming of, and empowering for, trans women. It was there that I first had in-depth conversations with other trans women about how people on the trans feminine spectrum tend to be more routinely derided and demonized -- both in mainstream society and within lesbian and queer women's spaces like MWMF -- than our trans masculine counterparts. It was clear to many of us that this phenomenon was not simply the result of the fact that we "transgress gender norms" (something both trans masculine and trans feminine folks do). Rather, it seemed to be driven more by traditional sexism -- that is, the presumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, or less legitimate than, maleness and masculinity.

Over the last five years, trans feminine feminists have begun to articulate a new perspective on feminism and trans activism that better captures our own experiences dealing with sexism. This approach is not so much rooted in queer theory as it is in intersectionality -- a theory that grew out of the work of feminists of color, most thoroughly chronicled by Patricia Hill Collins, and perhaps first discussed in relation to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue by Emi Koyama. Intersectionality states that different forms of oppression do not act independently of one another, but rather they interact synergistically. Unlike queer theory and lesbian-feminism, intersectionality focuses primarily on the ways in which people are institutionally marginalized, rather than fixating on whether any given individual's identity or behaviors "reinforce" or "subvert" the gender system.

According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).

While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.

Trans feminine perspectives on sexism have shaken up the dynamics of long-standing feminist debates about trans individuals and inclusion. For example, lesbian-feminist critiques of queer theory and transgender activism have charged that focusing primarily on transgressing or blurring the distinction between "woman" and "man" does nothing to address the affect that traditional sexism has on women's lives. Trans feminine feminists typically agree with this lesbian-feminist critique and further extend it to address the many ways in which traditional sexism impacts our own lives, both as women and as trans women.

Trans feminine feminists have also taken issue with the ways in which others have defined and positioned us in the MWMF inclusion debate. For example, queer theorists and transgender activists often argue for inclusion on the basis that transgender people transgress or subvert the gender binary. Trans women have challenged this approach for being both masculine-centric (as it favors trans masculine individuals) and cissexist (as the presumption that we blur or subvert the gender binary is the direct result of people viewing us as "fake" and "illegitimate" women in the first place). Lesbian-feminists, on the other hand, typically argue that trans women should be denied entrance into women-only spaces such as MWMF because we were born and socialized male. These claims are also masculine-centric (as they emphasize supposedly "male/masculine" aspects of our history over our female identities and lived experiences as women) and cissexist (as they presume that our female identities are less legitimate than those of cissexual women).

Trans feminine feminists have also countered the way in which MWMF has increasingly co-opted queer/transgender rhetoric in recent years in its defense of its trans woman-exclusion policy. For example, a 2006 MWMF press release described "womyn-born-womyn" as "a valid and honorable gender identity." This statement seems to takes advantage of the transgender activist claim that there are countless possible gender identities, each of which should be equally respected. However, it fails to recognize who the privileged majority is in this case (cissexual women/"womyn-born-womyn") and who the marginalized minority is (transsexual women). Thus, MWMF's statement is analogous to the hypothetical situation of heterosexual women declaring that "straight woman" is a valid gender identity in order to justify excluding lesbian and bisexual women from an event in which all other women are welcome. Most MWMF supporters would undoubtedly recognize such an approach as being unquestionably heterosexist; by the same reasoning, MWMF's trans woman-exclusion policy is unquestionably cissexist. MWMF has also asserted that the festival is not "transphobic" because plenty of transgender people attend, or because it is "home to womyn who could be considered gender outlaws" (an apparent reference to Kate Bornstein's binary-shattering book Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us). While this strategy gives the appearance of accommodating queer/transgender perspectives, it does not address the concerns of trans feminine feminists, who believe that the festival's policy is primarily cissexist and trans-misogynistic/trans-masculinist (as it is excludes trans women while accommodating trans male/masculine folks).

A recognition of trans-misogyny/trans-masculinism -- both within queer and feminist settings, and in society at large -- has led many trans women and trans male allies to critique the growing numbers of trans men who, despite their physical transitions and the fact that they now live as men, still feel entitled to inhabit lesbian and women's spaces. Such individuals will often justify their continued presence in such spaces by citing their female history, or claiming that they don't feel 100 percent like a "man" (even though their appearance definitely reads "man"). Such claims reinforce the popular misconception that transsexual gender identities should not be taken seriously, and thus has had a direct negative impact on trans women's inclusion in these same spaces. In a sense, these trans men seem to want to have it both ways: being men in the male-centered mainstream and then being "not-men" in queer/women's/feminist spaces. This places trans women in no-win situation: We are treated as second-class citizens in the male-centered mainstream because we are women, and then further derided for supposedly being privileged, infiltrating "men" in queer/feminist/women's spaces.

This growing "gender gap" between trans masculine and trans feminine communities is not unique to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate, but can be seen in other areas of transgender activism. While trans men used to be a minority in the trans community, over the last 15 years their numbers have significantly increased and, in many cities and college campuses, they have come to dominate transgender organizations and activism. This prominence is often enabled by the trans-masculinist leanings of feminist and queer activism (which tend to be suspicious of, or less welcoming toward, trans women both before and after our transitions). Trans men also enjoy significant social advantages over trans women, both because they physically tend to "pass" as cissexuals more often and more easily than trans women, and because of the male privilege they experience post-transition. Trans women -- especially those who transition at a young age and who thus do not benefit significantly from male privilege pre-transition -- have more difficulties finding and maintaining employment, are more susceptible to poverty, and are more likely to engage in survival sex work to make ends meet. There is a growing sense among many trans women that previous models of transgender activism have largely ignored these trans female/feminine-specific issues in a manner similar to how progressive movements during the 1960s largely ignored woman-specific issues, and how the gay rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s largely ignored lesbian-specific issues.

Trans feminine feminists are not the only group critiquing the "first wave" of transgender activism for ignoring the ways in which transgender issues are often intertwined with, and exacerbated by, other forms of oppression. Since the early 2000s, a number of organizations -- such as the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, TransJustice, Trans/Gender Variant in Prison and others -- have begun to focus specifically on the needs of trans people of color, trans people of low income, and those who are incarcerated -- all of whom are especially vulnerable to gender regulation and oppression due to living at the intersection of racism, classism and sexism. As a testament to the importance of intersectionality, a GenderPAC report on violence against gender non-conforming youth showed that the vast majority of the victims were of color, poor or on the trans feminine spectrum (and very often, all three). Activists like Viviane Namaste and Mirha-Soleil Ross have pointed out that trans sex workers -- typically poor trans women and trans feminine spectrum individuals -- receive little to no attention or support from mainstream transgender organizations, activists and academics, despite the fact that they are arguably the most marginalized segment of the transgender community. Other activists, such as Monica Roberts -- who blogs under the name TransGriot and who is one of the organizers of the annual Transsistahs and Transbrothas Conference -- have written extensively about how mainstream transgender organizations routinely fail to acknowledge issues that disproportionately affect trans people of color. Just as universalizing views of womanhood that existed within "second wave" feminism were challenged by "third wave" feminists, the universalizing view of transgender people forwarded in the 1990s (which tended to ignore differences with regard to race, class and direction of transition and/or transgender expression) have increasingly been called into question by this "second wave" of transgender activism.

Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.

Perhaps more importantly, this is about us being able to have a voice within feminism more generally. MWMF is not only the world's largest annual women-only event, but historically it's been a focal point for dialogues and debates on a wide range of feminist issues. As someone who has experienced firsthand the substantial difference between what it's like to be treated as a woman and as a man, and who now experiences both misogyny and trans-misogyny in my day-to-day life, I have found feminism to be an indispensable foundation for me to make sense of my experiences and to articulate the obstacles and issues that I face. For many of us who are trans women, this is about having a voice in a movement that is incommensurably vital to us.

For years, trans women have effectively had no voice in MWMF. During that time, many cissexual women and trans masculine attendees have tried to advocate on our behalf inside the festival. While their intensions may have been sincere, the fact that they entered into a space that excludes trans women, and that they claimed to speak for us (despite not having had a trans female/feminine life experience themselves), their actions further contributed to the erasure of our voices and perspectives. While the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy remains in effect to this day, MWMF stopped formally expelling trans women from the festival in 2006 (although they still insist that any trans woman who attends is "choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this festival"). While the situation is hardly perfect, it does for the first time allow trans women to speak in their own voices within MWMF. And that's a crucial part of any feminist or activist movement: to allow those who have been marginalized, disenfranchised and excluded to be able to define themselves, and to speak in their own voices about the struggles they face and the way they experience their own lives.

To kill a Trannie - Part II

As if I weren't already sick of death.

The week before Creating Change here in Detroit one of our local television stations reported the murder of a "Cross-dressing prostitute", with a subtitle of "Man dressed as a woman found dead".  The editor and I exchanged emails about the titling with her expressing her desire to be sensitive to our community.

Then, last week, the murder of 8th grader Lawrence King, 15, in Oxnard, CA was widely reported.  In case you've been under a rock, this is about a young person being killed in his classroom at middle school because he was openly gay and wore "women's" clothing, makeup and accessories to school.

Today, I read about the shooting death of 17 year old Simmie Williams in Florida. 

Perhaps, given this current spate of violence and death, I can be forgiven for my little rant over at Lobal Warming when I saw this post.  I hate being politically correct; I think it's important that we have a sense of humor about ourselves.  I guess today just isn't the day for a sense of humor for me.  My earlier post about the Ann Coulter bitch can be found here (Yes, GM, I'd like to disassociate her from UM also!)

To kill a Trannie

This article showed up in my inbox; I'm afraid I don't know where it was originally published, so I don't have a link:

How to kill a transperson
February 15th, 2008
By Ceridwen Troy

On Saturday, Sanesha Stewart, a transwoman of color living in the Bronx, was murdered in her own apartment. She was 25 years old. Her accused killer, Steve McMillan, had known her for months, yet when he was arrested, he claimed to have been enraged to find out that she was what the media coverage called not really a woman. He stabbed her over and over again in the chest and throat. She tried to fight him off; there were defensive wounds found on her hands.

On Tuesday, eighth-grader Lawrence King was in a classroom in Oxnard, Calif. He was openly gay, and often came to school in gender-bending clothing, makeup, jewelry and shoes. According to another student, it was freaking the guys out. One of them shot Lawrence in the head. He was declared brain-dead on Wednesday.

It is easy to look at cases like this and think, how tragic. How random. How senseless.

But then, you forget how easy it is to kill a transgender person.

You forget that all across this nation, faith leaders of all stripes, men and women who claim to speak for God Himself, call us sinners, call us abominations, call us evil.

You forget that at best the media depicts us as something to be pitied, something that our families must be strong and overcome. At worst, they depict us as abnormal, exploiting our bodies for ratings, exploiting the publics fear of us for shock value.

You forget that on a good day, law enforcement agents are neglectful of us, and that far more frequently they join in our harassment. You forget the transwomen of color who are rounded up on suspicions of prostitution. You forget the beatings that go uninvestigated. You forget the molestation and rape we face when we are arrested.

You forget the medical establishment that drains our wallets for the therapy and hormones and surgeries they tell us we need. You forget the way we are then refused treatment when we are dying, dying of treatable diseases, dying of easily patched wounds.

You forget that, by the law of the land, it is legal in the majority of states to deny us employment, to deny us service, to deny us housing.

You forget the shelters and the rape crisis centers that will not allow us through their doors.

You forget that many of us do not even have family to turn to when we are at our most desperate.

You forget that the leaders of our own community have told us that it is not time for us to have rights, that it is not pragmatic for us to be considered worthy of the same respect as other human beings.

You forget that in our own circles, it is considered a negative thing to be too flamboyant. You forget the way our pride parades have been derided by our own community. You forget the scorn heaped upon drag queens by other gay men. You forget the fear to be seen in public with a friend who is considered too open, too queer.

You forget the way it seeps into the minds of transgender people, too. You forget the way a transsexual will shout that she is not a cross dresser, as if there were something wrong with that. You forget the catty names we call each other if we don't pass". You forget how many of us take our own lives every year.

You forget because the noise is always there, a constant drone in the background. Every newspaper piece that calls a trans woman he instead of she. Every talk show host who spends an hour talking about our genitals. Every childish taunt about looking like a tranny. Every trans person who talks about themselves as true transsexuals. Every activist and politician who tells us now is not the time.

You forget too, how easy it is to kill a person of color, with myths about gangstas and lies about immigrants. You forget how easy it is to kill a person living in poverty, cutting off her welfare because she is supposedly being paid to breed. You forget how easy it is to kill a sex worker, with sex-shaming language, slinging about slurs like hooker and whore.

You forget the message hidden inside every single one of those statements.

You are less than I am. You are not worthy of the rights and respect that I am worthy of.

You are not human.

It is very easy to kill something that you do not see as human.

It is very easy to kill a trans person.

Creating Change and the City of Detroit

As my Girl and I prepare to attend the 20th anniversary of Creating Change to be held in Detroit this week, it is with great excitement that we read the following announcement from Triangle Foundation (full disclosure, I was just named to Triangle Foundation's Board of Trustees).

As an aside, it is amazing to me how many of our lesbian friends, and clients, have never heard of Creating Change.  Admittedly, I only asked 3 couples but not one of those six women had heard of it.  Is it the middle-age demographic?  This will be my third one and I'm quite excited.  Last night, we went to The Ark in Ann Arbor and watched Kate Clinton. Damn, she's good.

Detroit City Council Welcomes Creating Change,
Supports Transgender Rights

On February 5, the Detroit City Council passed a two-part resolution opposing discrimination against transgender individuals and welcoming the National Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality, Creating Change. Creating Change is bringing more than 2,000 LGBT and allied activists to the Renaissance Center Feb. 6-10.

Triangle Foundation, the state's leading anti-violence and advocacy organization, and the ACLU of Michigan's LGBT Project, have worked closely with City Council to include gender identity and expression in the city's anti-discrimination ordinances.

"I can't think of a better time for City Council to pass this resolution than the eve of Creating Change," said Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for Triangle. "We will continue working with the ACLU to help Council translate this resolution into an ordinance that will protect Detroit's transgender residents, workers and visitors - like the ones coming this week for Creating Change."

“We applaud the City Council’s passage of a resolution welcoming the Creative Change Conference and its statement that it opposes gender identity or expression discrimination," said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the LGBT Project. "When it passed its human rights ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in 1978, the City of Detroit demonstrated that it was a leader among major United States cities in its commitment to diversity and equal opportunity. It’s only appropriate that 30 years later, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has chosen the City of Detroit as its host for the Creating Change Conference,  where LGBT activists and allies from around the country will convene to work towards full equality and opportunity for LGBT people."

Which way to go?

I recently represented a young (18) trans-woman who wished to change her first name to something that seemed to her to be more feminine.  The judge initially denied her request (asserting that it seemed to him she was changing it for fraudulent reasons - the only grounds the law allowed him to deny her request).  Then, she retained me and I was successful in getting him to change his ruling.  One question he asked me was "Counselor, shouldn't we wait with this name change until your client has completed transition?"  (I successfully argued NO).

In the article copied below the fold, is a story about a man who transitioned to become, legally, female and has now been denied permission to transition back again to male, for purposes of marriage.   [UPDATE: I just got the full text of the opinion. You can read it here).

I understand this article correctly, Steph was successful in transitioning (from male to female) the first time, including getting his birth certificate amended.  Now, he needs to transition from female to male, legally.  As I'm sure many of our FTM brothers already know, this is a bit more difficult.  It is, of course, complicated by the fact that he (apparently) already (still?) has a penis, so it will be difficult for him to show that he's had sexual reassignment surgery.  It seems to me that he has two options: 1) Convince his judge that he has successfully re-transitioned (I'd like to understand his lawyer's approach of asserting a "mistake"; that seems destined to fail, to me) or 2) Getting married in either Ohio, Texas, Kansas, or Florida (whichever state does not have a residency requirement).  No matter what he does or what a Wisconsin birth certificate says, he's still legally male in those states.  Just ask J'Noel Gardiner. See the following footnote in this post: In re Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191 (2002) (Wife received no share of estate upon death of husband as court said she was a man in the eyes of the law, despite sexual reassignment surgery, birth certificate noting her as female [issued in Wisconsin], and having satisfied all other prerequisites to marriage).

I wish this person luck.  I wish we didn't have a system that confined people to one of two sexes -- and then doled out benefits based upon which sex that system determines you to be.

Chippewa Herald - Chippewa Falls,WI,USA

Court refuses request to change gender on birth certificate again

By ROBERT IMRIE
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 4:45 PM CST

WAUSAU, Wis. - A Green Bay man who amended his birth certificate to change his sex to female failed Tuesday in efforts to have it revised again to identify him as male.

Stephanie Calewarts asked for the latest change after marrying a woman last year. Brown County revoked their marriage license because Calewarts' birth certificate listed him as female. Same-sex marriages are banned in Wisconsin.

Calewarts contended that a judge's 2000 order changing his birth certificate to female was an error based on mistakes and misunderstandings. Calewarts said he had some surgery done for health reasons, not to change his sex.

But the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the time for Calewarts to appeal or challenge Brown County Circuit Judge J.D. McKay's decision had long passed.

McKay properly rejected the petition Calewarts filed in October 2006 requesting that his birth certificate list him as male, the three-judge panel said.

"Oh God, no," Calewarts said when told of the appeals court decision. "I am scared to death right now. I am not going to see my wife. She is the only thing that means anything to me. I am a nobody right now."

Calewarts vowed to appeal.

"If I got to take it to the federal Supreme Court, I will," Calewarts said in a telephone interview from his Green Bay home.

His attorney, Megan Carollo, did not immediately return a telephone message Tuesday.

According to court records, Calewarts was born Stephen T. Calewarts on Oct. 28, 1949, in Kenosha. Calewarts had "ambiguous genitalia" _tissue for both a penis and a vaginal opening _ because of birth defects. His birth certificate identified him as male.

Calewarts had surgery in July 1999 to correct some medical problems. It included the removal of his testicles, court records said.

Afterward, he sought a new birth certificate changing his first name to Stephanie in honor of his late grandmother, who raised him and called him that as a child, court records said.

Calewarts said he mostly goes by Steph, which he claims could be a name for either a male or female.

Following what a doctor described as gender reassignment surgery in Montreal in 2000, Calewarts had his birth certificate amended to list him as female, court records said.

Calewarts said Tuesday he pursued that paperwork only because the Canadian doctor advised him he had to do it.

He didn't learn of the ramifications until after he married a woman from New Zealand in September 2006 and their marriage license was revoked.

Because the marriage was null, the woman couldn't get a visa to stay in the United States, Calewarts said.

In an effort to change the birth certificate again, Calewarts submitted an affidavit from a Green Bay doctor who concluded that while he had some female traits, he was predominantly male with characteristics including a prostate. Calewarts' "surgical reconstruction" was done for health reasons, the doctor said.

"I thought I was going to have two birth certificates. One of each. Big deal. I was born with two genders," Calewarts said Tuesday. "I can't have sexual intercourse because nothing works."

He is a male, he said. He dresses like a man and speaks in a deep voice. His driver's license lists him as male.

"I can put them under the table when it comes to drinking like a guy," he joked.

Calewarts, who owns a Green Bay demolition and renovation company called Tool Belt Divas, said he has already spent $2,000 trying to fix his birth certificate.

"I have to get this changed," he said.

The appeals court suggested Calewarts petition McKay again and argue that "extraordinary circumstances" dictate that the birth certificate be changed.

A Milwaukee judge married a transsexual and a woman last March after finding there was no legal reason to prevent it. The judge determined the transsexual remained a man even though he lived as a female.

You've still got a little "man" in you...

One of the things I hate about telling people I'm transgender is that they seem to automatically then assume that every characteristic or trait that I have that does not conform to a stereotypical female is because I'm transgender.

For example, last week, my spouse was looking particularly smashing in an outfit she was wearing and I complimented her by telling her that she looked "hot" and looking her over approvingly.  My mother in law (hereinafter MIL) commented, "Denise, you still have a little "man" in you".  Now, I really love MIL; she's a sweet old lady.  But that comment totally annoyed me.  I retorted (I hope not too meanly), "Well, possibly, especially if you assume that one woman cannot be attracted to another."

Transgender Day of Remembrance

November 20 is Transgender Day of Remembrance.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with this date and its significance, I urge you to check out the Remembering Our Dead website.

Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) was first held to honor Rita Hester, who was murdered on November 28th, 1998. This marks the 9th year of international vigils and the 6th year of vigils in Ann Arbor. TDOR publicly mourns and honors the lives of those who might otherwise be forgotten. It allows us to connect again to those who are gone and raises public awareness of violence against people who transgress the normative boundaries of gender identity or expression.

This past Sunday, at the University of Michigan, I had the privilege of coordinating and hosting this year's ritual of memory.  I called it "Connections" in an attempt to remind us that we are all connected and even death does not end that.  You may download the program (in PDF form) here. Download TDOR2007Program.pdf Approximately 50 people turned out for the memorial service. It was an extremely moving evening.  Rainbow Law Center was very proud to join the Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP) and the University's office of LGBT Affairs in co-sponsoring the evening.

During the evening, we were privileged to hear from many voices. It would do them no justice for me to here try and recreate the beauty and eloquence of their words and emotions. Instead, I offer only my own meager musings.

Nakia Ladelle Baker died in January in Tennessee as a result of blunt force trauma to the head. Keittirat Longnawa was beaten by nine youths in Thailand, who then slit her throat. In March, Moira Donaire was stabbed five times by a street vendor in Chile. The body of Michelle Carrasco was discovered in a pit in Chile, her face unrecognisable.

Ruby Rodriguez was found naked and strangled to death in the street in San Francisco. Erica Keel was repeatedly run over by a car in Pennsylvania. Bret T. Turner died from multiple stab wounds in Wisconsin. Victoria Arellano was refused HIV related medications in California. Oscar Mosqueda from Florida was shot. Maribelle Reyes from Texas was turned away from HIV treatment centres because she was transgender. In July an unidentified cross dressing male was found dead with gunshot wounds to the chest and lower back.

Once again, we gather to remember. Once again, our hearts and eyes fill as we read the names of those who didn’t survive the year. Once again it is time to mourn.

But my good friend, Andre, reminded me that it is much more than that.  It is also a time to reconnect with these souls. And, in that connection, find our own inner strength to again recommit ourselves to the end of this madness.

And, perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to reflect on how far we’ve come.

I’ve long believed that it is easier to draw strength for what lies ahead not by looking at the enormity of that task, but rather by looking at the distance one has already traveled. I have traveled this road for many years now, and I’d like to offer my perspective on that journey.

In 1995, I was among a small group of out transgender people who lobbied on Capitol Hill in Washington DC for transgender inclusion in two bills that were then under consideration in Congress: the Hate Crimes Act, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  It was the first national Transgender Lobby Day and we had to educate our legislators about what the word “transgender” even meant.

Although all of us are, I’m sure, enormously disappointed with the failure of ENDA to get passed in the House with transgender inclusion, I think we should – especially on this day – not overlook the other major legislation that passed and did include gender identity.

This year, the Hate Crimes Act, renamed the Matthew Sheppard Act passed both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. This bill included gender identity as one of the affected classes. And, I don’t know about you, but I have to tell you that I was deeply moved to hear the respectful tones by which our inclusion in these bills were debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, from people who, a dozen years ago could not even tell you the meaning of the word 'transgender'.

When I began this work, when Gwen Smith first started documenting the horror, we were losing two people a month to anti-transgender violence in this country alone. That rate continued unabated for many years. This year, we remember 11 victims of hate here in the US. That’s 11 too many. But, it’s a dramatic reduction from where we started. Perhaps our voices have help to reduce the carnage. We have come far. We still have so far to go.

I would like to end with a reminder of the work yet to do. I have to say how profoundly saddened I was to read about Ian Guarr Benson’s suicide this month. We have at least two known victims of suicide this year. Of course, we know there are many more that we never hear about. It is a rare transperson who has not considered suicide at least once in her or his life. All of us in this room understand that the suicide of a trans person arises from the same societal-based fear and hatred that led to the murders of those we remember tonight. But, there is one important distinction. The desire to live is the single strongest motivator in the human animal. To overcome that desire to take one’s own life bespeaks a pain no one should have to bear. And so, in closing, I offer a poem to this year’s victims of suicide:

Unlike some, to me death was a gift:
No longer to live pointlessly in pain.
Choosing death, I might have on my own
Let loose the darkness gathered in my heart
Except that luck has seen the matter through.

How simple, then, to let one's fortunes drift
Away from one, nor care for loss or gain
Remember me as one who, not alone
Relinquished well my moorings, to depart
Yet not without a backward glance towards you.

As a part of our "Ritual of Remembrance" we all stood, walked past a table containing one white rose for every name on this year's list, a stack of papers with each person's story -- to the best of our ability to retrieve -- and a box of stones.

Ritual of Remembrance

Ask the audience members to line up, single file and walk past the table, picking up a stone, a flower, and a sheet of paper with a name on it.  Repeat until all sheets of paper are gone.

“The Stones we take away with us today continue a tradition started last year. They are intended to represent the diversity of people that we are and to remind us that, like them, none of us is permanent. These stones are different shapes, sizes, and colors, just like us. The smoothness of them remind us of our fragility and the weight and the roughness of them remind us of our strength. I encourage you to each take a stone and carry it with you for one week and each time you see it or feel it, remember again that we are all connected – those of us in this room, those whose memory we are here today to celebrate and, indeed, those who would see us murdered.

After we return to our seats we will go in clockwise fashion around the room reading each person’s story until we are finished. After the reading of each person’s name, I would ask that we say, in unison, ‘We remember and connect again with you’."

At the end of our reading of the names, we all stood, joined hands for a moment of silence and we closed with a poem:

Be patient with life, despite its cruelty.
Often it seems careless of our pain,
But just as often brings us hope again.

Remember, I wanted happiness for you.
Under every foolish word this still was true.
Be happy, then, without, as you would with me.
In your life many sweet events remain.
Not in anguish, but in joy remember me.

Do you care? If so, please take action

Why 'Gender Identity’ in ENDA matters to me

Of all the nouns that can be used to describe me – including woman, attorney, spouse, parent, homeowner, business owner – it is often the noun ‘transgender’ that sticks with people.  And, for good reason.  Despite my so-called ‘passing privilege’ I rarely let people forget that I was not always seen in my circle of family, friends, and co-workers as a woman.  And, on three separate occasions, despite exemplary professional performance in my jobs, I was terminated from senior-level executive positions because of my gender identity and expression.

In the first such instance, I was the Vice-President of Finance for a small medical products distribution and home health care company located in Clearwater, FL.  I had been hired 4 years earlier because the company was in financial distress and needed sound management in this area.  I turned the company around and provided the owners with a liquidity they had only dreamed of.  Only months before my termination I received a letter of praise and thanks from the primary stockholder.  Then he discovered that, while away from work, I would dress as a woman.  He was so deeply offended that he called me into his office, fired me, and then had me escorted off the premises.  As a direct result of that termination my family – my children – and I lost our cars and all of our savings and were forced into bankruptcy.

Later, as the Chief Financial Officer for a small publicly held computer hardware and software company located in Tampa, FL, I helped to raise the millions of dollars necessary to finance the company’s necessary research and product development.  Again, my performance reviews were full of praise and gratitude.  However, when I announced my intention to transition from living my life as a man to living it as a woman, I was asked to leave.

However, as it turns out, I’m one of the very rare, incredibly lucky transgenders.  I met a man who did not care about my gender expression or identity.  He cared only about what I could do for his company.  Four years after hiring me (when I was hired his company was producing less than $5 million per year in sales) I orchestrated the sale of the company for him for nearly $200 million, over half of which went directly to his personal bank account. Needless to say, he is still one of my strongest advocates.

What distinguished the third business owner from the first two was the recognition that gender plays no role in job performance. 

A few years later, I was privileged to attend the University of Michigan Law School.  At that time, the University prohibited discrimination against its faculty, staff, and students on several bases, including sexual orientation.  But, it did not prohibit such discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. A task force commissioned by the University President, Mary Sue Coleman, found that such discrimination did in fact exist on the campus. The first recommendation of that task force was amending the University’s bylaws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.  Responding to near universal support (and, indeed, some pressure) from its faculty, staff and students the University this year did amend its bylaws to provide that much needed protection for its population.  But, they were not the first and don’t merely represent the ‘liberal’ environment of higher education.  Indeed, currently 9 states and over 150 cities and municipalities – plus a large percentage of the Fortune 1000 – prohibit such discrimination.

As I said, I’m one of the very rare, incredibly lucky ones.  Most transgender people are unemployed, or woefully underemployed.  Unemployment and underemployment of people hurts us all.

We are at an historic cross-roads. We now have an opportunity to protect American citizens from workplace discrimination that has nothing whatsoever to do with their abilities to perform their jobs.  As part of my legal education, I’ve had the opportunity to read many cases regarding discrimination in the workplace that bears striking resemblances to the discrimination which I suffered.  The jobs that were lost, represented by these cases, include airline pilots, firefighters, police officers, professors, city managers, bus drivers, and yes, business executives such as myself.  We exist in every walk of life in America. It is contrary to our country’s value system that we allow such discrimination based not on performance but on traits that are otherwise meaningless in the workforce.

House Resolution 3685 – the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – says that it will outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  That is a wonderful thing.  But, it falls woefully short of what it needs to do.  Over 300 local, state, and national organizations have banded together to say that this bill needs to be fixed.  Representative Tammy Baldwin has proposed an amendment to the bill that can fix it.

PLEASE – call your representative – TODAY – and tell her/him that you strongly support the Baldwin amendment to HR 3685 and would ONLY support the bill if that amendment were a part of it.

If you don’t know how to reach your representative, or what to say, try the following (borrowed from my friend, Phyllis):

1. Go to www.congress.org, enter your zip code and find your US Representative.

2. Call BOTH the local office and the Washington office on the phone.

 

3. Tell the person who answers that you are a constituent. You live in the district. Tell that person that you support LGBT equality at work.

4. Tell the person who answers that you want HR-3685 amended to include transgenders and straight people who may express gender a little differently than the norm (like women wearing pants or men with long hair or an earring).  Tell them that you want HR-3685 to be amended to include "gender identity or gender expression."

5. Tell the person that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has such an amendment and you want a YES vote on the Baldwin amendment to HR-3685.

6. Tell the person that if the Baldwin amendment fails that you want a NO vote on the non-inclusive and toothless HR-3685 that does not protect ALL of your LGBT friends, and that does not protect you because sometimes you go outside of the gender stereotype.

    The vote on the amendment is Wednesday.  Please call soon.

United ENDA

As a member of the board for the Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP), I was proud to sign onto the following press release (I might have had a hand in writing it):

                WRAP Opposes Stripped-down Version of ENDA

The Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP) today announced that it will support only the original Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and will oppose any modified bill that purports to protect a part of our community at the expense of another.

As you may already know, the struggle for the passage of ENDA has been a long one. Many of us have lobbied for years, even decades, for this simple justice.  But it cannot be justice if we leave the most vulnerable of our constituency behind.  The incremental approach to rights sounds plausible, but it rarely works.  In 1990, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assured passage, an amendment to exclude HIV+ food workers was added at the last minute.  The leaders of the disability rights movement would have none of it.  At the risk of losing the protections they had worked lifelong to achieve, they stood firm. All of us, or none of us. As a result, HIV-positive workers who handle food are covered by the ADA to this day.

WRAP is proud to join the growing list of organizations that oppose this politically-motivated, misguided effort by the House leadership to weaken our community through divisive means. Doing so sends the wrong message – to our own community, to the power brokers in Congress, and to society-at-large. Among the list of organizations that oppose the stripped-down version of ENDA are the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, hosts of Creating Change, Lambda Legal, and Michigan’s own Triangle Foundation and Michigan Equality. For a complete and up-to-date list of the over 150 organizations please visit www.UnitedENDA.org.

WRAP urges you to contact your United States Representative today – right now – and tell them you support only the original, inclusive version of H.R. 2015. The Representative for Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and eastern Washtenaw County is Congressman John Dingell and you can contact him at (734) 481-1100, or email him at public.dingell@mail.house.gov. For western Washtenaw County, your representative is Congressman Tim Walberg and he can be contacted at (517) 780-9075.

The WRAP Board of Directors
Michael G. McGuire, President
Jeremy Merklinger, Vice-President
Jim Toy, Secretary
Barry MacDougal, Treasurer
Denise Brogan-Kator
Jim Fuester

Gender Identity or Expression at the University of Michigan

Well, after years of effort and pressure, it looks like the Regents of the University of Michigan will vote today to finally amend the University’s bylaws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression (see President Mary Sue Coleman's motion here).

This is something I, and many other activists, have worked on for a long time.  It was something that was first brought to the administration’s attention over 10 years ago by a friend of mine, Jim Toy and an ally our movement knows well, Sandra Cole.  In 2004, the year I started law school here, the administration assigned to the Provost’s office the task of measuring the climate for the TBLG community on campus and making recommendations as to how best improve it.  The task force was headed by another friend of mine and professor at the law school, Bruce Frier.  The task force’s first recommendation, when its report was published later that year  was that bylaw 14.06 be modified to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.  Although the University adopted many other of the recommendations, the Regents refused to adopt that first one.

Over the 3 years that I was in law school, I lobbied the Regents heavily for this change (including public speaking, marches and protests on campus, and private meetings with individual Regents).  Today, they will finally vote on the amendment and I’m told it will pass.  I was contacted by the Administration and asked to be present for the vote and to be prepared to make some remarks.

I know that, in the scheme of all that is going on around the country and the slow progress we are making, this isn’t a momentous occasion.  Nevertheless, a lot of people worked to make this University a safe place for all people, regardless of their gender identity or how they express that identity.  Today, we will take an important step in that direction, and I wanted to share it with you.

[UPDATE] The measure passed 5-2 (with the one missing Regent submitting a letter into the record indicating (eloquently, I might add) his strong endorsement of the amendment).  It was a pleasure and an honor for me to be there for the vote.  The Regents were all very gracious to me and many thanked me (and other activists present) personally.

Ignorance wins the day

My Girl and I stayed up last night and watched the Largo City Commission's sham proceedings as they pretended to give Steve Stanton his day in court.  Karen Doering of the NCLR made her case and made it well; Steve himself reiterated his devotion to his job and his city.  Dozens upon dozens of citizens from Largo and around the state stood before the commission and spoke -- heavily in favor of retaining Stanton.  I didn't do an actual count, but it struck me that the odds were something like 6 or 7 for to every 1 against.

A blow-by-blow can be found on TampaBay.com's website, here.

After six hours of speakers, commissioners take less than five minutes to reaffirm a decision to fire Steve Stanton. Voting to dismiss Stanton were Mary Gray Black, Andy Guyette, Gigi Arntzen, Harriet K. Crozier and Gay Gentry. Mayor Pat Gerard and Commissioner Rodney Woods dissented.

Fortunately, Steve will get a sizable severance package.  Still, he is now in a very difficult situation.  The article in the St. Pete Times suggests that he and his wife, Donna, are planning a divorce.  My experience with divorce in Florida (under similar circumstances -- long-term marriage, teenage children, divorcing because of transitioning, my holding a high paying, high profile job and my (ex) wife not having worked for many years) tells me that he's in for a rough time ahead.  And, on top of that, he's going to have to find another job. 

Steve (Susan), I wish you the very best.  You have lots of friends in the trans community and a good lawyer in Karen Doering.  I hope you sue, although I understand your desire not to sue the city you've served with love and distinction for so many years.

Good luck, Steve Stanton!

Like everyone else, I've been following Steve Stanton's case in Largo.  For me, the case holds a bit of extra significance as I used to own a home in Largo and I used to work for a company with a Largo mailing address.  There have been dozens and dozens of articles written about this embattled city manager and I won't try and catalog them here or to offer my assessment of his case.

What I will say is that I am sorry that it has come to this.  Having experienced both sides -- a successful transition and a firing (or three) due to being transgender -- I really empathize with him (note that he prefers masculine pronouns until further in the transition). 

The St. Petersburg Times scooped the story and has run most of the articles, including this lenghty one, which I thought was good (note the inclusion of Steve's wife's perspective) and this one about his communication plan (note the reference to Jillian Weiss).  The Times is Tampa Bay's liberal newspaper.

Tampa Bay's conservative newspaper is the Tampa Tribune.  Last week, it ran an editorial that said Stanton should be fired.  You might imagine my anger and annoyance at that article.

Today, they ran an article in the business section suggesting that if Steve had worked for business instead of the government, he might have been better off.  Maybe he would have been.  I don't know.  Whatever the outcome, his case has certainly brought substantial nationwide and world-wide attention to the issue.

The Tribune's Dave Simanoff interviewed me for its business article.  I've copied it below the fold for any of you that want to read it.  It included this picture, which was taken at the first anniversary party of the sale of my company.  The "trophy" is an award I was given by the (former) owner of the company in recognition of my contributions as Chief Financial Officer and member of the Executive Team.  Considering all that Steve's done for Largo, they should be giving him a trophy, too, and not firing him.

Not feminine? Have a penis? Hit her with an axe!

Please read this and watch the video.  Is this really funny:?

During the interview, Kimmel showed photographs, both real and fabricated, of male-to-female transgender people, and then insulted the transgender community by asking how the producers of Ugly Betty could make such a leap by casting someone as feminine as Romijn in the role.

Further, when Kimmel read from a personalized romance novel Romijn gave to fiancé Jerry O'Connell for Valentine's, Kimmel added an impromptu twist to the story by saying "and then he (Jerry) finds out you have a penis and hits you with an ax."

Thanks, Autumn, for the link!

Better than Chocolate

My Girl bought me a DVD for Valentine's Day (she knows that I just love movies; she got me a dozen or so for X-mas).  The title of the movie was "Better Than Chocolate" (a coming of age movie about a couple of young lesbians).  From the review:

Canadian director Anne Wheeler's Better Than Chocolate is a movie for women, about women. Mostly it's about gay young women, but it is also moderately about larger issues, such as liberation and acceptance.

If you haven't seen this film, buy it and watch it; I highly recommend it.  It was a totally hot, totally perfect movie to watch on Valentine's Day.

One of the supporting characters in this film is a transgender woman. I always tense up when I see a transgender woman in a film.  I am pretty certain it's my own transphobia coming out and I hate that.  I worry that she will be portrayed as "not-woman", or "used to be a man", or that the role will reinforce stereotypes. But, even worse for me to admit, is that I fear some side of being transgender that I try to hide will be shown.  I know this is not ME on that screen, but I always feel as if I'm being put out there for all to see, critique, and question.  I was *so* grateful that Peter Outerbridge did such a great job in his role as Judy.  And the song "Don't Fuck with my tender, cross-gender heart" is freakin' awesome.  I so want a copy of that song!

Am I the only one that feels this apprehension when watching a portrayal of your own identity on the screen?  I imagine not.  I imagine it's like watching a gay or lesbian flick with your hetero friends or family.

What's important

A few days ago, a good friend of mine from law school (known to attentive, long-time readers as BoSox) wrote to me asking if she could nominate me for an award that the University gives to students "who have made the greatest contributions to activities designed to advance the cause of social justice".  Of course, I am flattered.  But, as I looked back on my career at the University of Michigan Law School I realized that I was very involved in activism for the first year and a half and then, quite suddenly, became uninvolved.

The reason, of course, is obvious.  I met my Girl and she became my world.  I moved 40 minutes away from Ann Arbor and it was no longer easy to attend meetings or rallies.  This certainly helped my GPA (I got all of my A grades in the second half of law school) but it did nothing to advance the cause of social justice.  Don't get me wrong; I didn't completely drop out -- I still did things that people asked me to do, like speak at the TDOR rallies, or give talks to classes and student leaders about my experience of being transgender, but I no longer participated in the planning of events.

I am not at all disappointed in my choice of priorities.  I know that people that really make a difference in the world are the ones who are single-minded and laser focused on the task at hand.  I am just not that type of person.  Sometimes, I long to be.  Sometimes, I imagine what it would be like to be a moving force in the destruction of gender stereotypes and the liberation of people to be who they really are. Sometimes, I imagine what it would be like to achieve fame (a little fortune would be nice, too) in this regard.  For example, I loved the little bit of noteriety I got from this blog; I relished it when people I didn't know would approach me in law school.

When I first began to transition, I lost my focus on what was important.  That cost me a daughter.  I realize now that it was inevitable that my marriage would end; I became a person different from who she had married (and I had very little say in that). But, losing my eldest daughter is a blow I will never recover from and I will forever blame my own self-centeredness, my focus on myself and my needs at the time.

Before that time, and since then, I know what's important to me -- my family.  My mom and Augie, my sisters, my children and my Girl.  They all mean so very much to me. They come first, middle, and last in my life.

It is from that space that I read this article.  Renee Richards is sad now.  Sad that she is alone in life.  She was a beacon for so many. She was a true pioneer who helped map out a road for us to follow. She accomplished much.  But she's lost so much more in her inability to find a fulfilling personal relationship.  Fifty years from now her name will live on and no one will remember mine.  I'm OK with that.  I wish you peace, Renee.

"You have to be a pretty strong character to have a relationship with someone who has been a man originally, and famous. I haven't had any romance in a number of years."

"It is annoying to me," said Richards. "I'm so ordinary now; they're not interested. There's lots about transsexuals now."

UPDATE: Also, check out the preface (courtesy NPR) from her new book: "No Way, Renee: The Second Half of My Notorious Life".

But I have not written No Way Renée as a justification of my life; rather, it is a look at the second half of a life that I hope no longer needs justifying. It is the story of how I thought through and reconciled my bizarre family life; how my son and I coped with my changed persona; how I gave my new incarnation an adolescence; how I restored my medical career; how I searched for understanding, stability, romance, health, and a sense of my place in a changing world. It answers the question in the minds of so many, "Was your sex change a mistake?"