& that 1% regret rate is almost entirely “Yes I’m still trans but the surgery was bad, or the transphobia i encounter is so much worse than anticipated, or I was pushed towards a specific treatment by my binary-oriented doctor when I wanted a non-binary transition” etc.
Actual ‘whoops, I don’t identify as trans anymore” cases are closer to 0,02%.
[Image caption for original post: tweet by @EVeracite reading: “I like how in the context of trans affirming care, successful treatment in 99% of cases is treated as dangerous, whereas in all other areas of healthcare a 99% success rate would be treated as an absolute miracle.”
This is quote-reteweeted by @aster_disaster_ with the following addition: “Having a child has a 7% regret rate. A knee replacement has anywhere between 6-30% regret. Across all types of surgery, the regret rate is 14%. Transition and trans related surgeries have a 1% regret rate.” End caption.]
Being queer saved my life. Often we see queerness as deprivation. But when I look at my life, I saw that queerness demanded an alternative innovation from me. I had to make alternative routes; it made me curious; it made me ask, “Is this enough for me?”
there’s nothing like having people tell you that actually misgendering you IS including you in reproductive rights, and asking to not be misgendered is whiny and “making it all about you” and actually if they DON’T misgender you it will help cis men actually so asking not to be misgendered is misogynistic
a few things to keep in mind as you talk about the current situation with roe v wade:
women are not the only people who can get pregnant, and therefore are not the only people who get abortions or the only people affected by restrictions to abortion access — sincerely, a man with a uterus
the recent legislation against trans people transitioning, particularly as it relates to trans men and transmasc people, has been justified by the politicians supporting it using the argument that transitioning jeopardizes our reproductive potential, which they see as more important than our actual lives. if you support the legislation against us or have been silent about it, you cannot claim to be fighting for reproductive rights. you don’t get to only care about it when it affects you — if you let them get away with that rhetoric against trans people, you give them the power to use it against you. if you can’t stand in solidarity with us, you will end up standing against yourself
please don’t forget us in these conversations, and don’t be silent about the attacks on our bodily autonomy
all of this is connected — criminalizing transition, overturning roe v wade, it’s all working toward the same goal. if you care about one part of it, you have to care about all of it, or any efforts against it willfail
if you don’t care enough about us to fight our oppression for our sake, do it because you cannot fight against your own oppression without fighting ours too
Lately I’ve been seeing people discuss why ‘genderbending’ isn’t transphobic, or why it’s something that’s fine and should be accepted. Most of the people who have been discussing this are cis, which is an issue right off the bat, so I’m going to preface this post by saying that if you are not trans, you do not have the right to determine what is or is not transphobic. Full. Stop. So if you’re cis, and your first instinct is to argue with me on this, I would like for you to consider why you believe that you can recognize transphobia better than someone who is routinely subject to it. That being said, let’s get into this.
To start off, what is ‘genderbending?’ Most fansites will define it as the act of ‘switching’ a character’s gender, but there’s already an issue with this. ‘Genderbending’, or ‘rule 63’ as is called in some circles, it not just about switching a character’s gender, it is about changing that character’s body as well. I have yet to see a ‘genderbent’ version of a male character who lacked breasts and a dfab body. This the first and most obvious reason why ‘genderbending’ is inherently transphobic - it assumes that physical traits and gender are the same thing, and that you cannot be female without also being dfab.This is cissexism, and this is transphobic. The message that ‘genderbending’ says is that you must have breasts and a vagina to be female, and you must have a penis and a flat chest to be male. I should not have to explain why that message is transphobic.
However, the way ‘genderbends’ are carried out also has distinctly transphobic implications in how it switches out the physical traits of characters to make them ‘the opposite gender’ ( the notion of there being ‘opposite genders’ is some fresh bullshit that I’ll cover later in this post ). For example, by giving a male character breasts and curves when ‘genderbending’ him, the message is clear that this character was cis to begin with. ‘Genderbending’ inherently implies that all characters are cisgender by default, and erases any possibility of these characters being trans.This is not as overtly transphobic as the first point, but it is harmful to trans people within fandom spaces, as the assumption that all characters are cis until explicitly stated otherwise pushes us out of media and removes whatever representation we might try to make for ourselves.
The third issue with ‘genderbending’ is that it is always cis male <—> cis female, and nothing else. I have never seen people ‘genderbend’ characters by making them nonbinary or intersex. I have never seen a genderbend of a female character which made her a trans male instead. ‘Genderbending’ implies that there are only two options when it comes to gender: cis male and cis female. There is no such thing as nonbinary people within this ideology. Intersex people are laughable at best. Agender people are little better than a distant myth. ‘Genderbending’ ignores that it is impossible to make a character ‘the opposite gender’, because there is no such thing as an ‘opposite gender’. Gender is a spectrum, not a binary, but you wouldn’t know that from the way fandom spaces treat it.
Of course, there are some reasons for ‘genderbending’ cis male characters into cis females that will always get brought up in discussions on the politics of ‘genderbending.’ The most frequent is that cis girls, who only see themselves as one-dimensional characters in media, want to have characters like them who are just as multifaceted and developed as the male characters that we are given, so they make their male faves female to give themselves the representation they desire. This is a decent reason for ‘genderbending’, but it does not excuse the fact that the way in which ‘genderbending’ is done is inherently transphobic, and it gives fans yet another excuse to ignore female characters in favor of focusing on their male faves.
Another reason for ‘genderbending’ that I’ve heard is ‘it’s for the sake of character exploration - like, what if this character had been born as male/female instead?’ This excuse is cissexist and transphobic from first blush. The idea behind it is that someone ‘born as female’, aka with breasts/vagina will automatically be a cis female, allowing fans to explore what that character’s life would have been like if they were female. Why not explore the possibility of a character being designated female at birth, but still identifying as male? Why do you need a character to be cis for you to find their personality and life interesting to explore? Why do you automatically reject the notion of your fave being trans? If you want to explore what it would have been like for your male fave to have struggled with sexism, consider them being a trans woman, or a closeted dfab trans person.
As a closing statement, I want to make one thing very clear. ‘Genderbending’ does harm trans people. It perpetuates dangerous cissexist notions and the idea of a gender binary being a valid construct, erases nonbinary and intersex people, and others trans people. These are what we call microaggressions - they are not as dangerous as outright harassment and assault, but they enforce and support a system and ideology in which we are other, and we are worthy of hate and violence because we do not fit in.
‘Genderbending’ is a transphobic practice, and if you engage in it, you need to be aware of and acknowledge this.
Or you know, you could do “gender bending” but do it from a trans and non-binary aware perspective. It doesn’t have to be inherently transphobic to explore a character from a different gender or different sexed body than canon (not even if it is from cis to cis), as long as you understand and convey the limitations of such an approach.
I have also actually seen “gender bent” trans versions of characters as well (cis male to trans female), while not at all common they do sometimes exist. (though trans “gender bending” still can carry pretty binarist assumptions)
I totally agree on the general point though, a lot of the language and practice around “gender bending” is at worst transphobic and at best cisnormative and most of all binary normative, but I disagree it inherently have to be.
Though I guess the writer of the post might not have been objecting to the general idea of changing gender or sex on characters as much as the particular way the term “gender bending” as it is practiced is very binarist and cisnormative. Perhaps another term loaded with less ugly implication than “gender bending” is needed.
There’s another very gender-normative assumption in most “gender bending” that aren’t touched upon in the original post (understandably) but that I want to extrapolate on, and that is gender expression. The assumption in a lot of gender bending I’ve seen is that the “female version” of a genderbent male character is usually substantially more feminine (long hair, skirts etc), even if the personality of the original character is rather masculine (and the reverse). That assumes “changing gender” means a change of gender expression as well, and reinforces the idea that feminine or masculine traits unquestionably and naturally follows one’s gender, which is obviously not the case.
According to many this week, it seems that I, as an American Jew, apparently have a personal role in controlling American, European, and Middle Eastern geopolitics. Yet, I still cannot convince cisgender-heterosexual men to use my pronouns (they/them) correctly. What gives?
This town has always been a (sometimes ambivalent) home for ambitious, closeted gay men and women. But now ballot measures, state legislatures, and federal judges are advancing LGBT rights by the day; more openly gay members join Congress every cycle; the issues they and their allies champion occupy pride of place on the political agenda; and even Washington culture has become entirely habituated. A change like this reaches beyond the surface topography, deep into the tectonic architecture of Washington. These shifts have brought about the rise of an entirely new class of D.C. power players. Here are the most influential.
So opens a major feature in the new issue of National Journal, a weekly magazine on American politics. The piece is titled The 30 Most Influential Out Washingtonians and is part of the journal’s special report: Gay Washington. Scroll down the list of portraits and short bios and it is impossible to notice that the list is mostly cisgender white men.
I have to acknowledge my naivety as I saw the article tweeted and rushed to scroll through, looking for someone from the trans* community. Who would they acknowledge as a power player?
MaybeRuby Corado, trans* Latina activist known for her role as founder and CEOofCasa Ruby, the trans*- and Latin@-focused LGBT multicultural community center (the first of its kind) in DC? Though, despite the $25,000 grant Casa Ruby just won from the city, her influential work might be considered a little too grass-roots for a list and publication like this.
But maybe DOD employee Amanda Simpson, who was just promoted from Deputy Executive Director to Executive Director of the Army Energy Initiatives Task Force and made headlines when she became the first known trans* presidential appointee in 2010 would be a better fit? (Watch her It Gets Better video here.)
I thought Allyson Robinson was a shoo-in: the first trans* person to serve as director for a national LGBT organization, Robinson was named D.C.’s Best Transgender Advocate in 2013 by the Washington Blade for her work towards fully open military service and equality for LGBQ and trans* people.
Maybe National Journal would introduce me to one of the many openly trans* Washingtonians that I don’t already know about!
Even with all that excitement and those possibilities, I still was not terribly shocked when I realized there were no trans* people on the list. I was shocked when I went back to read the introduction [posted above] and saw no mention of the lack of trans* people. No mention of trans* people at all. I wasn’t shocked at the lack of inclusion because 1) I’m used to trans* people being left out of so-called LGBT organizations and lists and 2) there aren’t many out trans* people represented in our national political sphere.
In 2012, The Advocate rounded up a list of the nation’s openly transgender elected officials. There were six, a number the publication called “shockingly small.” Is it really shocking to think that in a country where trans* people are still fighting for their lives, let alone rights, respect, accurate media portrayal, ET CETERA, that few trans* people would have the resources to run for office, fewer would decide to be open about their transition in such a public spotlight, and fewer still would get enough voter support to actually land in office? What’s shocking to me is that anyone would think it shocking! That complete ignorance of the barriers trans* people face is part of the problem I have with the National Journal piece.
My critique is two-fold:
There are out trans* folk in Washington that should have been on that list.
This was a failed opportunity to address (or at the very least acknowledge) the disparities and discrimination trans* people face in political power and the political world, respectively.
I provided a list of people I would consider influential political powerhouses appropriate for the National Journal’s list. I wonder if these people were considered at all. The wording of the article sets the list up to just be gay and lesbian folk (not even bisexual or queer), so maybe they weren’t thinking of trans* people from the beginning. Even if the publication staff were to argue that LGBQ and trans* folks are inherently different communities (which is a rather advanced and within-community debate that I don’t think was on National Journal’s radar, to be honest), I’d question their choice of one community over the other or a piece that included both. There’s no excuse for excluding trans* people from this discussion of the changing climate of DC politics.
Which brings me to my second point. The climates of Washington, D.C., and American politics haven’t changed very much for trans* people. The shifting sands being celebrated by the introduction [again, pasted above] are applicable only to able-bodied lesbian and gay individuals with normative gender expression/presentation and fair skin. People of color, individuals with bisexual or queer sexual orientations, people with disabilities, gender non-conforming folks, and trans* people face persistent and ugly discrimination. Washington, D.C., and the political sphere housed in it (and across the country) are such unsafe climates for trans* people that opponents to trans* rights have no shame (nor consequences) in vocalizing (even campaigning with) smears against and offensive lies and stereotypes about trans* folk. The city is also a dangerous place for trans* people, specifically trans* women of color (TWOC). DC made national trans* news (and even grabbed some mainstream headlines) for its surge in violenceagainst TWOC in the past few years.
Let’s look at this introduction again:
But now ballot measures, state legislatures, and federal judges are advancing LGBT rights by the day;
I tried to find an article summarizing how far trans* rights have to go at all these levels, but it’s so daunting. Just Google “transgender bill defeated” and you’ll get a sense of how little is passing through state legislatures, and when they do (as in the example of California’s transgender students bill) it is not without a hard-fought battle and often after important pieces of the bill have been removed, as is the case in Massachusetts. On the national level, we can’t get a trans*-inclusive employee non-discrimination act (ENDA) to pass, and Democrats notoriously removed trans* protections in the 2007 iteration to make it more palatable (a common political move). [Though excitement and hope is appropriate here as the Senate passed a trans*-inclusive ENDA in November and the NCTE and other orgs are gearing up for a major battle to get it passed in the House.]
The ACLU has a good summary of the ways and places in which trans* people have legal protection. Though they focus on the victories, look at what’s missing and you’ll see how much the National Journal’s above statement does not apply to trans* rights. Also see the NCTE breakdown of trans* law at the federal level.
There are no openly trans* members in either body of Congress. I searched through the linked article (a collection of LG politicians’ reflections on their lives and politics) for the word transgender and only found it as part of the LGBT catch-all acronym in one person’s piece.
the issues they and their allies champion occupy pride of place on the political agenda;
I don’t say all this to be a Debbie Downer. I want to state that I think the positive strides being made in D.C. and national politics for LGBQ folks are great. I take great pride in sharing the Smithie title with Tammy Baldwin, the first openly lesbian member of Congress, and am happy to see her on a list celebrating out politicians and activists. I’m so glad we are seeing a rising tide in gay rights victories and cultural attitudes of acceptance. But I think it is irresponsible to celebrate that without acknowledging who is being left behind. I think if we all keep patting ourselves on the back for how far Washington, D.C. has come without acknowledging how far we have left to go, we’ll stop fighting.
I also think it’s appropriate to acknowledge the victories and changes that are being made for trans* rights and to acknowledge the trans* people making all sorts of differences in Washington. A teacher who attended a workshop I did with my former boss (Jennifer Bryan) on gender and sexuality diversity in schools told me that she plays a game with her early elementary students whenever they read a book as a class. It’s called “who’s missing?” and students talk about what groups of people aren’t being reflected in or represented by characters/stories in the book. I think this is a great way of examining the blinders privilege puts on for us, and there’s a big ol’ giant list of groups that are missing from the entire Gay Washington special report. Trans* people are one of those groups, and I’m challenging National Journal staff to explain why and/or apologize.
In commenting on D.C.’s lack of response to the violence against trans* people in its city, activist Larry Bryant was quoted as saying, “increasing amounts of violence and funding cuts and lack of service for those hardest hit … the term invisibility comes to mind." I read National Journal’s list (and the other articles in this special report) and thought, Well they aren’t celebrating our victories and heroes and they aren’t acknowledging our barriers. The term invisibility comes to mind.
anyway jokes by straight / cis people that rely on expectations of violence towards gay / trans people are Bad Content.
(example: cis person looks at a trans person, says “god that’s unacceptable”, and the punchline is them saying “THOSE shoes with THAT skirt?” or some shit like that)
like the entirety of the joke is “haha I’m homophobic / transphobic” & the entirety of the punchline is “oops! I can’t believe you thought I was actually homophobic/transphobic!” & it’s just like ??? the entire substance of the joke relies on the person telling the joke to have the power to act violently against the audience.
i mean i wanted to make this post like a month ago but I couldn’t find the words for it & I hope I can help other people have the words to explain it, because like, for example this:
This joke relies solely on the idea that we, the audience of the joke, would see the statement “This is inappropriate. At your age, you should know better. Some things are just plain unacceptable”, and associate the word “this” with “wearing a skirt” rather than “cleaning the skirt incorrectly”.
The punchline of the joke isn’t so much “ha ! I’m not actually transphobic!” as it is “ha! simply being and existing is dangerous for you because of people that think in the way that I tricked you into believing that I think in!”
The joke is only effective as a “joke” at all because of the expectation of violence.
the post seems to be was deleted (possibleapologysomewhere?) but this type of joke needs to stop.
However, there are also not-deleted examples such as a popular post by princecanary
I’d like to point out that actual studies have linked trans suicides to constant misgendering as a cause (one of, I should add), whereas affirmation of gender is known to do the opposite. So intentionally misgendering trans people is pretty much legit trying to kill them.
In other news, water is wet.
Where the study/source?
I’m uber busy at work and I don’t have the time to pull up the specific spot it’s discussed. But, look up the work of Dr. Ry Testa. He’s a trans man tackling these issues.
Someone who knows how to navigate resources and has the spoons and time try and find the paper, save trans momma the trouble.
Sounds super legit though. Being misgendered almost always causes some dissociation and social withdrawal form me since it belittles my identity. I don’t get suicidal thoughts but I could sure as hell see how someone who does would be affected by that.
Misgendering a trans person is a violent act. It’s an emotional abuse that cuts deep into who we feel we are at our core. We have enough to deal with internally, adding external voices to that can destroy us.
@TERFs who insist misgendering is just ‘hurt feelings’
“stop blaming (TERFs) for anti-trans violence, we’ve literally never hurt trans women!!!”
