time for some howling before my early-afternoon dose of thorazine

[sophiaserpentia]

The past few days i've been watching a controversy in the trans and feminist blogosphere about a movie called "The Gendercator."

In 1973 a group of hippie women are celebrating Billie Jean King’s victory over Bobby Riggs. They are partying in the rural woods outside of Bloomington, Indiana. Our heroine Sally is a simple minded, sporty type who overindulges at the party and passes out under a tree. Sally wakes up 75 years later in 2048 to discover (amongst other social changes) that feminism has failed utterly and completely. Sex roles and gender expression are rigidly binary and enforced by law and social custom. When Sally rejects the feminine hairdo and short skirt she is given, the doctor at the emergency room calls in the "Gendercator", a government official who informs Sally that butch women and sissy boys are no longer tolerated – gender variants are allowed to chose their gender, but they must chose one and follow its rigid constraints.

Sally is baffled by this brave new world. All she wants is to "do her own thing" – but her own thing is no more. Sally is a simple-minded stoner, indoctrinated into 70s feminism. She is no poster girl or freedom fighter, just a gentle tomboy dropped into the future with a tendency to respond in slogans such as "sisterhood is powerful".

Nurse Nancy locates some of Sally’s former friends – they are 100 now, but because of advances in the medical profession (cloning spare parts), they are still healthy and thriving. The friends tell Sally they heard she moved to California and that's why they never looked for her. One of her friends appears to be a man and tells Sally, "They made me do it. They'll make you too." They explain to Sally that in the early 2000s the evangelical Christians took over the government and legislated their strict family values, legally sanctioning only "one man, one woman" couples. Advances in sex reassignment surgery have made it possible to honor an individual's choice of gender AND government policy. Sally is comfortable in the middle of the genders, an unacceptable choice in 2048.

It's unfair to jump to conclusions about a film without seeing it, so what follows carries a caveat: it is a reaction to what has been written about the film which may be shown to be moot, incorrect, or off the mark by the film itself.

Does anyone think there's anything strange about transsexuality being portrayed as a tool of reactionary Christianity? I mean, take a peek behind the cut to see how reactionary Christians are portraying transsexuality right this minute:



Conservatives think our proper place is not in the world, trying to figure out how to play the hand we're dealt, but "howling" in a padded cell, straitjacketed and dosed with thorazine for our whole lives.

These people are in a very literal way out to get me.

And yet this director, Catherine Crouch, like me a member of the queer feminist community, makes a film in which she directly insinuates that transsexual treatment is indistinguishable from patriarchal gender normativity. She comments:

Things are getting very strange for women these days. More and more often we see young heterosexual women carving their bodies into porno Barbie dolls and lesbian women altering themselves into transmen. Our distorted cultural norms are making women feel compelled to use medical advances to change themselves, instead of working to change the world. This is one story, showing one possible scary future. I am hopeful that this story will foster discussion about female body modification and medical ethics.

Maybe this comes from a place of concern that hormones and surgery might not be the best thing for me. I have my own doubts in this regard, and have a conversation with myself every day of my life about this.

But does this statement reflect any genuine concern about what is best for me? Is there any indication that the director is willing to admit or even consider that maybe for some of us, being androgynous or "just doing our own thing" is not going to cut it? That it is not quite the same thing as having a boob job? We can talk all we like about feminist utopias where gender has been abolished but that is not the world we live in.

Furthermore, does this statement reflect any acknowledgment of our experience as transfolk, as recipients of horrific ongoing discrimination? It is irresponsible to blend in transsexual issues with misogynistic beauty standards and those who take advantage of it for profit. There are similar forces and patterns at work, but these are not the same issue.

Her idea for transfolk is that we should eschew medical treatment and "work to change the world." That's great. What in the holy hell does she think we've been doing? The image of transsexuals as ex-GI-June-Cleaver-wannabees is a little out of date. In between taking hormones, many of us have been actively railing against oppression. She thinks we're part of the patriarchal status quo. The same status quo who equates us with caricature 6-foot-5 drag queens in 6" heels and howling asylum inmates.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Okay, done howling now. Time for my thorazine.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

A play perhaps on the word "adjudicator"?

According to the movie's description it's someone who tells people they have to act appropriately for their gender, or have a sex change and act appropriately for the other gender.

It's kind of an outlandish idea, but from what i understand, this is actually what is going on in Iran -- where transsexuality is tolerated by religious edict but homosexuality is punished by death. But even in that case it is not so much that transsexuality in Iran is a tool of the patriarchy (because transsexuals still face violence, discrimination, harrassment, "honor violence" from members of their own family, etc. etc.) so much as it is a survival tactic for queer people in a tremendously unaccepting place.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Perhaps a play on the movie title The Terminator? I know there were parodying PhotoShopped graphics of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the "Gubernator" when he was running for governor here a few years ago. He's certainly someone who's big on sticking to rigid gender roles, from what little I've read of his peculiar viewpoint.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Maybe, i didn't think of that. Could be.

[kumbunny.livejournal.com]

I see it as Judicator. The final decision applied to sexual identity. Black/White.

[la-veuve-chibi.livejournal.com]

I'd be impressed by anyone who can tend children in 6" heels.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

> Maybe this comes from a place of concern that
> hormones and surgery might not be the best thing for me.

Might not be the best thing??? To me, that is is statement like saying smoking 3 packs a day might not be the best thing for one.

> Time for my thorazine.

I do hope you are joking about the thorazine.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

My partner has been on hormone replacement therapy for about a year-- decreasing her risk of prostate cancer to almost nil among other benefits. I have friends who have gone thru gender reassignment surgery & are much happier & healthier for it.

As with anything, one should inform oneself & evaluate the risks, but I find your criticism of this valuable medical tech seems rather off the cuff.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

Proper diet and supplements can greatly reduce the risk of prostate cancer as well.

My problem with hormone replacement "therapy" is that the so-called experts really don't understand much about what they are doing. An incredibly complex biological system is being tampered with by "experts" who really do not understand how the system really works.

It sure seems to me that the prevelant myth in this culture embodies the idea of two distinct sexes with nothing in between. Such a myth is leads to lots of money being spend on doctors and treatments which are not based in a real understanding of how people actually work internally.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, what they do know, after sixty years of clinical research, is that on balance many transfolk are better off with this therapy than without.

If a person is more likely to die without having this treatment than they are with it, even with the risks involved with hormones, then from a harm-reduction point of view the compassionate thing is to administer the therapy, right?

Most transfolk don't have any perfect, clear-cut options here. You're judging the situation from your standpoint, not the one we transfolk deal with.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I am judging things from watching allopathic medicine.

I am not saying hormones and surgery should never be an option. Not my decision to make. But the phrasing in your post is what disturbed me. I was a sugar-a-holic for decades, and had myself convinced that it really wasn't all that bad. Clear phrasing of dangers has helped me make trasitions. Saying that something might not be the most healthy sure seems to me to be not looking at dangers head-on.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

The dangers of this (not quotes) therapy (end not quotes) are fairly minor statistically & the benefits to many transpeople are great. More & more there is understanding that most tranpeople are born transpeople & many from the time they are toddlers communicate deepl frustration & unhappiness in their biologically indicated gender.
Saying that we need less rigid gender expectations is well & fine, but for many transpeople who do not define themselves in anyway as pangendered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangender) it's not just about gender roles: it's about the fact that having a male or female body just plain feels wrong & disturbing.
It's downright cruel to tell them they just need to change the way they feel or think about gender.
What needs to change for many of them them not to suffer from anxiety, depression & a host of other stresses, is their bodies.

& that requires (not quotes) hormone replacement therapy (end not quotes).

[shaktiboi.livejournal.com]

The main dangers for M2F therapy are: increased risk of venous thrombosis once you're over 40, possible strain on the liver, increased risk of breast cancer (above the female norm). On the positive side, however, you have a far decreased risk of prostate, testicle, and colon cancer compared to the typical man over 40.

But lets examine these increased risks more closely. (I sure did, for a year before deciding to take the plunge.) Essentially, the increased risks of venous thrombosis and breast cancer are very very very small. Effectively less than 1% increased risk in practical terms. The higher numbers you might see quoted here and there are an increase from the baseline chance that is already quite low (on the order of 40 occurences in 10,000). A 20% increase from 40 in 10,000 to 44 in 10,000 is pretty dang low indeed.

The main thing you can do is prevent a "first pass" of estrogen through your liver, which reduces the strain on your liver. You do this with topicals and sublinguals. You can also supplement your liver function with herbs like Milk Thistle. As for thrombosis, just don't lead a sendentary lifestyle, and take 81 mg of aspirin per day with a meal, which isn't bad advice for most people over 40, not just M2Fs. And as for breast cancer, well that's always a crapshoot but good diet and low stress are the keys to preventing cancers for as long as your genetics will allow.

IMO, undergoing HRT is no different from any type of body mod decision. Plastic surgery and other medical aethetic treatments like laser, etc. has its attendant risks, but millions of people benefit from a better self-image and feel the benefits far outweigh the risks. HRT is essentially a slower form of body mod. Unlike taking brain chems or other unusual compounds to affect your body chemistry, you're just tweaking your balance of testosterone to estrogen (and sometimes progesterone, although many transwomen don't take progesterone). All men and women have both hormones; it's simply the balance to which your various body cells respond.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Thank you for putting it so clearly and succinctly.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

& thank you for this thread! I was made aware of this movie from the LJ partners of TG group & it seemed to me to be more divisiveness in the gay community arising from & fostering further misunderstandings of transfolk -- very very sad indeed.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

A growing number of transfolk are starting to question whether or not we have a real alliance with the LGB community. For example the murmurings from transfolk who just last week went to lobby on Capitol Hill is that gender identity protection is going to be removed from the Senate version of ENDA. We're being thrown under the bus by gay lobby groups. Again. It's okay to give up our rights as long as they get theirs. HRC's literature about discrimination never mentions transphobia. At what point do we say, this is not an alliance?

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Nods grimly. I've been following that too & hey isn't it lovely to be told yet again that transfolk & their partners & families don't belong anywhere? When I walk down the street holding hands with Shan, most people would unhesitatingly label us as a lesbian couple, yet you & I both know how many in the lesbian community will not be accepting of Shan & I at all.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Apparently this: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2006/11/the_trans_betra.html


is the kind of support we can expect from many quarters.
"Stop whining, your turn will come, take one for the team..."

Yeah. Right.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes, poor Chris Crain, he's been vilified by transfolk for saying our rights are more negotiable than his. Boohoohoo.

[shaktiboi.livejournal.com]

I've always been one to openly call people on their shit. Not very feminine of me, I know, but it's the *right* thing to do. I posted a response on his blog to that article that herbgrrl linked to, as "Shannon" on May 26.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Might not be the best thing??? To me, that is is statement like saying smoking 3 packs a day might not be the best thing for one.

Would you want someone else deciding on the basis of their theories or ideology what is best for you?

Hormones and sex-reassignment surgery are problematic, yes, and i have not eagerly pursued them, largely because i am not starving for them. But these treatments have literally saved lives. I may decide i won't pursue those treatments myself, but i would never tell someone they just shouldn't on the basis of my say-so.

Yes, i'm joking about the thorazine. It's a reaction to Michael Savage, radio commentator, who, if he had his way, would have me locked up and drugged for life. But you know, if that is what actually happened to transsexuals in the US, i'm sure he'd be on the radio complaining that we're a big drain and we should be out here supporting ourselves.

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

I want to know what drugs that director is on. Oh, to be so out of touch with reality.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I haven't read anything by Jeffries, but i have heard others charging her with misunderstanding transgenderism.

People who aren't transgendered claiming they know what we're all about, while dismissing what we have to say about it? Yeah, that's why i put the "misappropriation" tag on this entry.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

For me, it's about choice. Doesn't matter if it's abortion or gender reassignment surgery, because no one knows you as well as you do. Friends and family and professionals can (and should!) make suggestions, help you do research, offer you comfort and support, but in the end, for me, it boils down to this: it's my body, therefore it's also my responsibility and choice.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I wrote a while back that i think the divide in the feminist community over issues like this boil down to whether one starts and ends with personal freedom, or with social structure. Because if someone says to me, that i should forego surgery as part of a larger plan to undermine the patriarchy, is the experience of being denied or silenced for that reason functionally different from being told i should forego surgery as part of a larger plan to establish Christ's kingdom on earth?

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Exactly; well put.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I was going to say "who cares what some crappy B-movie director thinks?", but then I saw their showing her work in the San Francisco LGBT film festival. I think it says more about the people running the festival than it does anything else.

You summed up the ridiculous of the idea that transfolk are agents of the patriarchy pretty well in this post. Unfortunately, it seems to be a meme that just won't die.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Frameline has pulled the film from the San Francisco GLBT Film Festival.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

They're apparently showing the thing at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival too, which is more in line with what one would expect.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, she tips her hand when she says "lesbian women are becoming transmen." I posted recently about how there's a bit of turmoil in the lesbian community over the numbers of people, previously known in the community as butch lesbians, coming out as transmen. It's very hard not to view her statements in that context -- especially given the number of gay transmen who she apparently overlooks.

This oversight is part of what lead me to think that she really doesn't see a distinction between beauty-standard-driven body modifications, like boob jobs, and transsexual treatment.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Is there any indication that the director is willing to admit or even consider that maybe for some of us, being androgynous or "just doing our own thing" is not going to cut it?

I think the point is that in a world that upholds strict gender dichotomies, it is nearly impossible for anyone to do thier own thing. Even for those who identify strongly with one of the two current definiton of genders, a strict dichotomy holds no space for personal variation at all.

While we are asking "where is the" from that excerpt where the hell are you getting the idea that the director thinks being basically "male" or "female" by current standards is a horrid and not allowable thing?

Being is NOT THE SAME as having not choice but to be.

We can talk all we like about feminist utopias where gender has been abolished but that is not the world we live in.

True. Which is why it is important to question how much of one's gender expression is true to what one wants and how much is sucked up and done to fit in, to get acceptance by the status quo. This is the question that feminists pose to women all the time. Not bashing for doing - whether it is a matter of being oneself or a matter of surviving- but asking for awareness of reasons why. And asking that those who are willing to take the barbs of not fitting in not be further bashed by "i'm a feminist but" women as "saying women can't wear pink" etc fucking etc.

Furthermore, does this statement reflect any acknowledgment of our experience as transfolk, as recipients of horrific ongoing discrimination?

from synopsis: They explain to Sally that in the early 2000s the evangelical Christians took over the government and legislated their strict family values, legally sanctioning only "one man, one woman" couples. Advances in sex reassignment surgery have made it possible to honor an individual's choice of gender AND government policy.

I would say that makes it a YES. The whole "advances in technology" thing. Is not most of the discrimination trans people face because they are somewho percieved as being "inbetween." Not men or not women regardless of who they are and how they identify. You yourself (I think it was you) have talked about issues between those who can fully "pass" and those who identified as trans. From what I gather, the future world the film is set in makes the trans experience invisible. It calls for a wiping out of trans people's past , any indication of how they were raised, etc. Which even if painful contributes to making a person what they are. Even if that ends the overt violence, that is still pretty horrific discrimination, that wiping out of expeirnece to fit an outside ideal.

What in the holy hell does she think we've been doing? The image of transsexuals as ex-GI-June-Cleaver-wannabees is a little out of date.

Wow. I do think your own issues are clouding what you are reading here. The current social push is to turn WOMEN into JuneCleaver wannabees. Well, sexed up yet virginal JuneCleaver wannabees. Which would affect transwomen who don't want to be that fucking sterotype, who are, you know, just women and don't want to have to push that into some damned fucked up patriarchal image of womanhood. Because in the world this film is set in (as I see in the discription), even transwomen would be goddamned barbie dolls. Or be forced to remain physically and socially male.

Sorry, sounds like you are getting into the "feminsist say I can't be femme" mode of thinking here. Nothing wrong with someone who is femme being femme, but EVERYTHING wrong with telling someone who isn't femme (for lack of a better word, not that I think poofy hair and short skirts define "femme") that they have to be either femme or be "male."

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Sorry, sounds like you are getting into the "feminsist say I can't be femme" mode of thinking here.

I'm not writing this from a "trans vs. feminist" perspective, since i am a feminist and i know many trans-accepting feminists.

Also, and maybe i should have made this clear from the outset of this post (even though i've been pretty clear on it in the past), i do share her concerns about the beauty mold into which women are being forced, about the patriarchal mindset in the medical community, and the force of profit-seeking behind the growth of cosmetic surgery.


Wow. I do think your own issues are clouding what you are reading here.

By saying "you have issues," you're hitting below the belt, you know. How can my own issues not affect the way i see this? But when does someone marginalized ever get to talk without their "issues" affecting what they say?

I don't feel i am being delusional in thinking that the end result here is to contriubute to the marginalizing of transfolk. (I'm not alone in saying that, BTW.)

When i say that, i have foremost in mind the part where she conflates transsexual treatment -- a medically necessary and clinincally established course of treatment -- with cosmetic surgery. Can she really not tell the difference?

I can sort of see how someone in 1979 might look at transsexuality then and conclude it was a tool of patriarchal domination. Back then, you didn't have anyone who would adopt a "trans" identity. You had people who were eager to blend into society as a member of the opposite sex. But now, there are plenty of "transpeople," people with specifically transsexual identity. Now there are growing numbers who choose to go without hormones or surgery. Transsexuality in 2007 is not men with scalpels deciding that people must either be 'men' or 'women.' It is much more driven by who we are, what we need, and what we want.

Transsexuality has evolved. It is no longer a patriarchal tool (if it ever was) and stands now as part of the frontline where the rigid gender binary is being unravelled.

So i'm sorry but it is infuriating for this progress to be discounted out of hand, and to be told that who we are and what we want is nothing more than social programming. If transsexuality is a result of gender role socialization, then how can i remain transsexual in spite of having had parents, and teachers, and religious leaders who have all done their best to flog it out of me? It's not me wanting to be a bit androgynous and step outside the rigid masculine gender role. It's something fundamental, something that can't be talked out of me. It's not the same as feeling like i need to have cosmetic surgery.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I was referring to the issues that you referenced. The unsureness about hormones and surgery. I'm not trying to make light. That is a big step to be seen as how you view yourself. Hella bigger than shaving legs or not shaving legs. But that goes back to what I am reading this synopsis as. That the film is agains the idea of a man or woman being a pre decided upon presentation instead of who a someone is.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I was referring to the issues that you referenced.

It's just that my issues are my experience. If they are just "issues" then i am indeed deluded and crazy.

The message the director apparently intends to send is dependent on my experience, and that of all transfolk, being discounted. It doesn't matter what medical sex change means to us, it's inconvenient for her bigger point.

And in all of this criticism i don't mean for it to sound like i disagree with her points that we face a problem of plastic surgeons and diet hawkers and cosmetic companies preying on women.

But in making that point she doesn't get to pretend for the sake of her movie that we don't exist. If there hadn't been almost two generations of animosity between certain elements of the lesbian community and transfolk, i might be less wary.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the word choice then. I that was the connotations you saw I didn't mean that. I don't feel the same resonances with the word issues that you do.

It isn't just plastic surgeons and diet hawkers. I have to modify my body language and natural tone of speaking to be seen as not aggressive. Even though the body language and tone are naturally still less "out there" of what a male does to be percieved as calm and logical. The more "feminine" I am dressed, the more I have to modify how I naturally express myself in order to even have a chance of being heard. Nevermind that the ways I have modify it means it carries less weight - it is still more weight than what it would get if I didn't modify it.

And the animosity isn't a one way street. I will agree that it is totally mistaken to say all tranpeople - but from what I've seen the number of transpeople who are clueless about the issues women face are about equal to the percentage of the general population that is clueless, you know. Nothing special there. People being people and still inculturated into general view of gender.

I can recognize the fact that trans people have to work hard and put up with a lot to be seen as a gender description that fits them a hell of a lot better than it does others. But it seems anytime someone stands up and says, "you know, having really defined genders isn't a great thing for everyone" trans people yell that is silencing. Plenty of recognition that what is "feminine" should be given more value in society, shouldn't be as manipulated as it, but almost total lack of recognition that some of the things they strive to be seen as, women who don't want to be seen as that thing have been fighting against having certain traits thrust onto and still not be called "unfeminine" or "emasuclating" with just as little success.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

and by women I mean women. not just born women. as in, some people have further standards of how feminine someone has to present (regardless of body born in) before they count them as "real" women. and by some people I mean from every sub community. even some who label themselves as feminist (the "I'm a feminsit but" segment).

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

But it seems anytime someone stands up and says, "you know, having really defined genders isn't a great thing for everyone" trans people yell that is silencing.

It's not that statement which is silencing, it's the way the point is being made here.

Although, quite often when people say, "having rigidly defined genders isn't a great thing" and the context includes transsexualism, what they really mean is, transsexuals are harming the movement to undermine rigid gender by seeking treatment, and should just refuse to buy into gender.

Well... do people who say this really, honestly think that we HAVEN'T tried that, among the large assortment of things we've tried? Megadosing on hormones and having your genitals cut is a last resort! I mean, in my own life, i tried being an unconventional male -- didn't work. I tried being a part-time cross-dresser -- didn't work. I tried being androgynous or genderqueer -- didn't work. I tried stiffling all of this and being a traditional male -- didn't work. Any transperson you ask can tell you a very similar story.

And... frankly, i'm tired of being made to feel guilty for failing to undermine gender duality in myself, as if this is some kind of failing. I didn't choose any of this. I don't want to be "special" in this way. But i am. We disprove the theory that gender can be undermined by force of will, and that makes us inconvenient, but there it is, and i'm not going to apologize for it anymore.

[la-veuve-chibi.livejournal.com]

Although, quite often when people say, "having rigidly defined genders isn't a great thing" and the context includes transsexualism, what they really mean is, transsexuals are harming the movement to undermine rigid gender by seeking treatment, and should just refuse to buy into gender.

Well... do people who say this really, honestly think that we HAVEN'T tried that, among the large assortment of things we've tried?

Also for the similar statement in your original post: Damn straight. (No pun intended). One can't exactly transition on a whim, or without massive sacrifice! This isn't done lightly!

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Hmm, this occurred to me as a way to demonstrate the distinction i'm trying to communicate.

Women's desire to change their bodies via surgery, medicines, dieting, anorexia, cosmetics, and so on -- happening BECAUSE OF patriarchal socialization

Transsexuals' desire to change their bodies via surgery and medicines -- happening IN SPITE OF patriarchal socialization

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I really don't see what you mean by inspite of. The changing of the body is changing to fit into the patricarchal socialization of what a person's gender is. Just trans people start with having more to change since their body is further from the patriarchal notion of who they are.

Perhaps that is where we are seeing this differently. From the discription of the film I don't see it as being about trans people. Because it is not the changing of the body that makes a person trans.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I really don't see what you mean by inspite of.

Yes, in spite of. What part of the patriarchy has ever sent the message that changing your sex is tolerable? What part of the patriarchy has ever celebrated or lauded transsexuality? (Tranny-chasers, perhaps; men who get sexually aroused by us and are eager to use our bodies, but who remain silent as we struggle for our dignity and rights because they prefer us vulnerable.) Certainly not the church, or the government, or the mass media, or the business community. Their plan is that people born male should act masculinely and people born female should act femininely -- period.

As i was growing up there was not one voice, ever, that said what i wanted to do was okay. Certainly not my parents. How can something persist in the face of total, absolute 100% negative conditioning?

The patriarchy does not approve of transsexuality. Transsexuals embrace the medical model because it is the closest thing to tolerance that exists in our society, even though in many ways it comes up short.


From the discription of the film I don't see it as being about trans people. Because it is not the changing of the body that makes a person trans.

In a sense you're right -- the movie is not about transsexuality. It uses medical sex change as a literary tool to make some other point. But the point she is apparently trying to make is quite counter to the experience of people who today, in 2007, seek medical sex change... and that is why transfolk experience this as silencing.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

(first reply deleted because somehow hit enter while mouse was hovering over post)

Their plan is that people born male should act masculinely and people born female should act femininely -- period.

Uhm, Yeah. And it seems that this is what the particular film in discussion is about. When has the partriarchy ever lauded women who want to be mechanics or mathmeticians or men who like housecleaning without ever trying to make them feel as if they were not "properly" their identified gender?

men who get sexually aroused by us and are eager to use our bodies, but who remain silent as we struggle for our dignity and rights because they prefer us vulnerable.

I am reading this and staring at you like I hope you are not thinking this is a trans issue. Because that pretty much describes the life of anyone that the patriarchy views as "not-male."

As i was growing up there was not one voice, ever, that said what i wanted to do was okay. Certainly not my parents. How can something persist in the face of total, absolute 100% negative conditioning?

I don't know. I was over twenty before I ever heard another voice saying my ideas about how I am were okay. That I didn't have to fit or want or talk like or be all the things I was told I was but I most emphatically am not as part of the package of being female.

In a sense you're right -- the movie is not about transsexuality. It uses medical sex change as a literary tool to make some other point. But the point she is apparently trying to make is quite counter to the experience of people who today, in 2007, seek medical sex change... and that is why transfolk experience this as silencing.

Would it have been better in a fantasy rather than scifi setting where in order to enact what is by 2007 standards a magical change was accomplished by chanting a ritual and waving the god wand rather than "advanced medical technology?"

Perhaps the film is counter to the experience of trans people who are and want to be seen as a lot more belonging to one of the two boxes than either I or many, many people I know want to be. But the film, is not about transexuals. And the experience of being forced (more subtly yes than what is portrayed in the film) into a role that is not us is most certainly NOT COUNTER to the experiences of living today. Do we need to shut the fuck up because some people are happy changing (outwardly) to fit a box that defines them a hell of alot better than it defines us? Do we need to suck up our oppression until yours if fixed?
(Reply to this) (Parent)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I am reading this and staring at you like I hope you are not thinking this is a trans issue.

No, i know it's not. I'm just saying that's the only thing i can think of that maybe even looks like praise of transsexuality by the patriarchy, and praise it ain't.


And it seems that this is what the particular film in discussion is about.

Well, here's another statement from the director which i saw today:

"My anxiety is about the amount of women I see transitioning into men and how fast it seems to be happening. I wonder about this sudden escalation. They are women, or they were women, and now they are not," said Crouch. "They seem like me, so I am not understanding what is the difference between them and me." [emphasis added]

She doesn't see the difference. The difference, for the most part, is that they are trans and she is not. She can't see that difference. She makes a movie which glosses over transfolk as though our stories and experience don't exist. She doesn't see the difference. We don't exist to her. Transmen are errant women.

Whatever greater point she is attempting to make about the enforcement of gender roles comes at the expense of trans experience and politics. And she's showing this film in the GLBT community! I'm kinda baffled, to be honest, that you seem to think that this is not a big deal -- that it's worth it to make that greater point at the expense of a marginalized community.

In that discussion i linked i learned that apparently some butch lesbians are feeling pressured to go trans, which certainly adds a wrinkle to this and does make me a bit more sympathetic to Ms. Crouch. But it doesn't cancel out my problem here.

edited to add

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Would it have been better in a fantasy rather than scifi setting where in order to enact what is by 2007 standards a magical change was accomplished by chanting a ritual and waving the god wand rather than "advanced medical technology?"

Actually -- yes. Probably.


Do we need to shut the fuck up because some people are happy changing (outwardly) to fit a box that defines them a hell of alot better than it defines us? Do we need to suck up our oppression until yours if fixed?

No, that is not what i'm saying at all.

::sighs::

You just have to find a way to express it that doesn't marginalize me. And i will endeavor to do the same.

Re: edited to add

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

okay. I can sort of see how surgery as a metaphor is too close to reality that it might lose some of the symbolicness and be seen as to close to reality.

Sometimes I think maybe highly gendered people don't really get the in betweens. And this could be a bit of a stretch maybe, but I'm thinking to go through all the troubles and risks associated with transistioning a person has to be pretty highly gendered. By the same token, maybe inbetweens don't get gendered people.

I mean, it is not just about shaving or cosmetics. If it were that I wouldn't feel "in-between" and certainly wouldn't unnerve people - and I have met several who can't decide if I'm highly femme or more butch than most born males and it makes them really uneasy. Or hostile. It is not just a body thing. There is no body that fits an identity for who I am. I don't want to have to be one or the "sets" of assigned gender. This isn't to bash people who do fit a set or close to (and fitting and fighting for the dignity and belief that those traits should be fully human are realted but different) but the knee jerk reaction to someone having traits too far outside of their presented gender happens even among the people who are accepting of trans people. In-between is an invalidated and nearly invisible thing. Which may explain why I'm being strident here - my own issues or concerns or whatever connotation fits.

What I am reacting mostly to is how saying some people don't want to be one or the other invalidates those who do want to be one or the other.

Or maybe it goes back to the plot device of surgery being too close.