Gender Identity is not the same thing as Gender Expression…Some miseducate that they are two peas in a pod, which is delaying legislative change. We must counter the miseducation and make a distinction, or those with medical and legal needs urgently will be compromised.~Ashley Love, May 5, 2011
Within trans community, there is a misconception by some that antidiscrimination protections based on gender identity are about transsexual people,
while antidiscrimination protections based on gender expression are about crossdressers. The oversimplifying, boiling down of the term gender expression to apply to a narrow subset of trans people strips out the broad concept of what the term gender expression actually is, and its ramifications towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights.
Gender identity and gender expression are terms for two fully separate concepts. From a legal perspective for transsexual people, as well as for transgender people who don’t identify as transsexual people, these are very related terms. And, these terms really can be two peas in a single pod, but at the same time these two terms are definitely not a single pea in a single pod.
For pretty much everyone else in broad society gender expression still applies — it’s just that their gender identities matches the societal sex and gender norms for their assigned birth sex of male or female.
So what do the terms gender identity and gender expression mean? Well, per the GLAAD Media Reference Guide:
Gender Identity: One’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or a boy or a girl). For transgender people, their birth-assigned sex and their own internal sense of gender identity do not match.Gender Expression: External manifestation of one’s gender identity, usually expressed through “masculine,” “feminine” or gender-variant behavior, clothing, haircut, voice or body characteristics.
The GLAAD Media Reference Guide then adds regarding transgender people:
Typically, transgender people seek to make their gender expression match their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex.
And that second line isn’t entirely accurate. This is how the GLAAD Media Reference Guide defines transgender:
Transgender: An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexuals, cross-dressers and other gender-variant people. Transgender people may identify as female-to-male (FTM) or male-to-female (MTF). Use the descriptive term (transgender, transsexual, cross-dresser, FTM or MTF) preferred by the individual. Transgender people may or may not decide to alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.
With transsexual and genderqueer people — 24/7/365 people who live as a gender that doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth — seek to make their gender expression match their gender identity. Crossdressers and drag performers are part time expressers of gender that doesn’t match their birth-assigned sex — these folk aren’t seeking to make their gender expression match their gender identity, but are only sometimes expressing gender that doesn’t match their gender identity.
But for the majority of society members who don’t identify as transgender, gender expression still applies — pretty much everyone who functions within society expresses gender, or is perceived as expressing gender. For the majority of societal members, gender expression conforms within the range of gender norms for the sex they were assigned as birth.
Even genderqueer, androgynous, and intergender identified people are expressing gender — they’re just expressing it in a gender neutral manner.
And males who express gender with what is perceived in our culture as more feminine expression, and females who express gender with what is perceived in our culture as more masculine expression — these folk are perceived to be gay or lesbian, whether or not these folk actually are actually gay or lesbian.
There is a reason why male-to-female trans women who are victims of hate violence aren’t usually referred to by the antitransgender pejorative “she-male” by their attackers, but instead — when called pejoratives — are usually referred to by the antigay f-word. And, that reason is that people who are perceived to be male who have what is perceived to feminine gender expression are perceived to be gay.
I would say that housing, employment, and especially public accommodation antidiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are protections for people whose expression of gender is perceived to be non-conforming to societal sex and gender norms.
One important concept to remember regarding gender identity and gender expression is that gender is expressed on some level by pretty much all of us in our broad society. When gender expression doesn’t conform to societal sex and gender norms is when that antidiscrimination protections for LGBT community become legally important.
The other, key concept regarding gender identity and gender expression is that gender expression is the glue — the commonality — that should bind trans community together.
It’s also a glue that should bind LGBT community members together — significant numbers of LGBT community members are indirectly perceived by people outside of LGBT community as gender nonconformists, and that indirect perception of gender nonconformity is the why and how they are percieved to be LGBT.
And too, that perception by people outside of LGBT community that gender nonconformity is an identifier of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people has civil rights implications.
Gender expression isn’t gender identity, and vice versa — these two terms really do represent two separate concepts. And gender expression? It’s a broad concept: gender expression isn’t just a transgender term that functions as code wording for crossdressers.
~~~~~
Related:
* Why Transgender Activism



110 Comments



How do you not harm women with these concepts?What you call “gender identity,” I might call “sex stereotypes.”
Why is it a good idea to embody concepts of sex stereotyping into law?
Also, the NGLTF definition of “gender identity” is non-definitional, as it states, in part, “gender identity means a gender-related identity.”
Huh?
I am starting to think that gays and lesbians working on trans issues are signing their own death warrants. Instead of being a butch dyke, I’m now being told I should become a man. How is this a good idea?
Let’s talk! Again, this is a political discussion – not personal, and I have no ill will towards you (as you know, I hope).
We can all agree that irrational discrimination is wrong.
Is that a trolling attempt?It’s actually about outlawing discrimination based on stereotypes. Do you think denying reality will make it vanish?
This is why…Gender Expression is so important. Gender Identity legal issues cover a lot of things, including being able to change sex on drivers license.
But Gender Expression covers breaking of gender norms in appearance, and that is why it is important it too is covered as a different, but certainly related, issue.
Society tends to enshrine ideas that certain appearances are “masculine” and certain are “feminine”, and that women shouldn’t wear “masculine”, and men shouldn’t wear “feminine”. Those “sex stereotypes” you mention.
But that is exactly why Gender Expression as an umbrella term for protecting those who partially, or completely, break that binary, is very important. For example in a mundane business example: I am forced to a very strict dress code at work, that is touted to exist to enforce professional attire, but which is arbitrarily drawn on these two lines. If your drivers license says F you can only wear X, if M, only Y.
Sure in our current legal system, at least in some places, a woman may have the ability to challenge this. But a man almost never could. While women’s rights still have a ways to go, it should be part of the larger “people rights”, which the LGBT community certainly represents.
The way I look at it, Gender Expression has nothing inherently to do with biological sex in and of itself so much as it has to do with whether you can break this arbitrary societal definition of what you are “supposed” to look like because of it.
This is important for those who have been legally listed as one gender but who are, for example, intersex and present in ways that don’t “fit” this binary. It also clearly covers the trans who simply doesn’t “pass” (maybe they are still in transition).
While one can argue about non-conforming people such as yourself being covered simply with the sexual orientation laws, from a legal standpoint that isn’t by necessity enough without verbiage covering appearances as well.
But also very importantly on that front is it covers the straight woman who presents as very masculine, or straight man who presents as very feminine. And these probably wouldn’t ever be covered by most sexual orientation discrimination laws, OR Gender Identity/Trans laws.
So I see this being a very good thing for men or women, straight or gay, and anyone anywhere in between either.
ThanksSolid – and much-needed – piece of work. Thanks Autumn!
No…All gender identity is trying to describe is why all of my male friends growing up were okay with being male-bodied, while I wasn’t. That’s because their “gender identity” is male, and mine is female. That’s why I transitioned, and they didn’t. Butch dykes, despite what their expression of gender may be, are still okay with being female-bodied, no?
I’ve never been a fan of this particular phrase to describe this phenomenon, because the use of “gender” in the phrase is VERY misleading.
AckThis was supposed to be a reply to bugbrennan above. Whoops
“…gender expression isn’t just a transgender term that functions as code wording for crossdressers.”Fine and dandy. But as long as the larger society understands that it does mean that cross-dressing males and others with penises will be allowed in formerly female-only spaces like locker room showers, then the “community” has a public relations problem every time legislation is introduced which enshrines this “gender expression” as a legally protected entity.
Language is the issueI think the term “Gender Identity” is needlessly confusing.
To many people, particularly people who have even the slightest brush with feminist theories, “Gender Identity” sounds very much like “I like/do/dress/act in ways that have been assigned to a sex different than the one I was born. For that reason, I must be a member of the sex I was not born.”
As an example, Van and Pickup Truck to most people are essentially the same thing and do the same stuff and are largely interchangeable. To most people GI and GE function the same way. However, if one has need of a van and only has access to a truck some modifications need to be made. The essential functions remain the same, but the modification make it more useful.
Personally, I could have easily remained fully male-bodied and retained all the same likes, dress, etc. The issue, for me, centered on my relationship with my body – my sex. Transitioning had ZERO relationship with any other aspect of my life other than my physical body. For example, I didn’t transition because I like to cook or because I think pants with decorative pockets are a good idea. (for the record, I don’t like to cook and decorative pockets are stupid)
I think including gender expression should be a given within the movement. I just think that “gender identity” needs to be called something else because interchanging ”gender” and “sex” reduces men and women to likes and actions and affectations. Thus, the confusion and the IMO a large part of the LGB’s problems relating to trans experiences.
I agree with AshleyI feel that gender identity and gender expression are two different things and that the insistence of gender expression in issues that would otherwise be of a medical nature under gender identity and causing substantial legislative delay.
While we as a society have made great strides in the breakdown of the gender roles (women can now wear pants to work, etc.) one thing has not changed, the gender binary. I still feel that a gender binary will exist for this an upcoming generations to come.
The issues that impact the “gender identity” community (those who truly live their lives 24/7 opposite their birth gender, get their names changed, their IDs changed, on HRT, etc.) have polar issues to those in the “gender expression” community (those who may dress gender variant, perhaps perform, but not on a path of full transition).
The problem is that many who are in the mainstream GLB community (I hate the expression Gay Inc.) in an effort to keep the T as a whole do not realize that in fact there are two distinct subsets of the T community. When you compare this to the GLB community, there’s some major differences:
- Homosexuality has been removed from the DSM. You are not diagnosed with homosexuality like you are with Gender Identity Disorder.
- Homosexuality does not require a hormone replacement therapy or corrective surgery to meet the identity.
- Homosexuality does not involve a legal name change in order to have a name that complements your appearance. Let’s save the name changes for a beautiful occasion like marriage.
For the gay, lesbian, bisexual and a subset of the T community, this is a social issue. This is an issue about the right to express ourselves based on how we look and who we choose for our partners.
However, for a subset of the T community known as transsexual/intersex, this is a medical, psychological and legal issue as our existence requires additional medical, psychological and legal recognition.
The way I see it is it all depends on what gender you identify with on an ongoing basis and what you are doing to make it happen that way.
When I watch public hearings, the two major stickling points that the mainstream have with T people is:
- Restroom/locker room access (sex segregated public accommodation)
- Transition on the job (which also includes restroom access)
Many of the issues around sex segregated public accommodation are related around trans women and the presence of a penis with the potential of a full male sex drive. The main issue is that those who are raising these concerns are not necessarily aware of the true effects of a medically supervised hormone replacement therapy on a male to female transsexual. Honestly, I would not feel comfortable with someone who has a full male sex drive in a sex segregated public accommodation with me but when that sex drive has been reduced to nothing through HRT, there is not an issue (OK.. call me an elitist).
The issues around work transition stem not from just the restroom use issue but also the concerns that employees may “switch hit” day after day or that they may not observe dress codes. In Maryland, this is why I supported Sen. Frosh’s “bona fide and persistent” being added to the definition of gender identity. I can understand the needs of employers because they need some form of consistency and predictability. In other words, an employer should not have to face daily surprises with one of their employees. A transsexual who is playing by the rules and who is serious about transition will play by these rules.
Unfortunately, the vague way that gender identity is written in law opens the door for people to be “transgender for a day” and still expect protection.
This is why I support recognition of gender identity by a state or federal authority. Even if the state will not change an identity document without surgery, the federal government will. It’s called your passport and passport card.
I know that many of you don’t want to hear it but if we are trying to get rights for those who are transitioning, we MUST separate gender identity from gender expression as they are truly apples and oranges.
Law works prefers to work on a fine line and when we bring in gray areas into law (gender expression), it puts additional uncertainty that questions the enforceability of a particular law.
This is why I feel that in states, like Maryland, that have a moral standard where even democrats are calling trans rights “non-family”, we may need to hold a different standard.
The line in the sand is recognized gender identity, whether than recognition comes from a state, federal or foreign government.
I feel that gender expression does not raise a major concern where it comes to housing, credit and non sex-segregated public accommodation.
However, gender expression does raise major concerns where it comes to sex-segregated public accommodation and employment.
If my back is against a wall (like in Maryland), I feel that we need to separate the medical and social issues and create two protected classes and yes. This will assure that those who identify with a particular gender and have taken measures to have that identity recognized by a state or federal authority will have access to facilities of their identified gender and the state will back them.
For a transsexual, I see no difference between a transsexual showing medical proof to get an ID change to be given access to a public accommodation such as a restroom than a disabled person showing medical proof to get a placard to be given access to a public accommodation such as a reserved parking space.
Gender is binary. The law is binary. That will never change.
You’re very welcome, Julie……and I very much appreciate your comment.
Gender identity does not equal stereotypes.Well, some people’s gender identity may conform to society’s sex stereotypes, but the two terms are not synonymous. Gender identity is a very personal, subjective, thing. If you identify as a woman, then you identify as a woman according to your own definition of what a woman is and what it means to be a woman. That may or may not coincide with what other people think a woman is or should be. So gender identity is not the same as sex stereotypes.
Who is telling you that you should become a man? Not the trans community in general. It’s all about being true to yourself, and accepting others for who they are.
ThanksAppreciate the perspective.
If you find the concerns of womenA “trolling” attempt, I am guessing you are a man.
As a dyke, I get this And I’m not talking about feel good interpersonal stuff. I’m talking about how do we make law that advances human rights but doesn’t harm women. Because at the end of the day, it’s females first for me.
What you describe for your own experience Is transsexualism, I think?
Women have a right to feel safe tooBad things happen to women at the hands of those with penises (i.e. men). It’s not transphobic to state this – it’s reality for women. The reason the bathroom meme is a “meme” I am guessing stems from this concern.
So why is it ok to label women as transphobic for not wanting people with penises in women-only space?
We need to do better. If we are an LGBT community, we need to care about women too.
Yup yup
So how do you define female?
My piece……had nothing to do with bathrooms or showers, but the definitions of terms.
I’ve written a great deal about bathrooms and trans people over the years, but this isn’t one of those pieces.
So, I’m not sure, Om Kalthoum and bugbrennan, why y’all are going there in the thread for this diary when the diary has nothing to do with either bathrooms or showers — it’s a diary about terminology.
Because they are actually transphobic.
Simplistic response.True, I’m a man. But that I am able to be reasonable has nothing to do with that.
And gender expression isn’t just about crossdressingAutumn said it but didn’t really expand on it.
As I read, there is a web site informing the public that women that play softball are not lesbians. Also, a teen male taking home economics is not gay, he just wants to become a chef. Male tailors are not gay. Women fighter pilots are not lesbians.
I am very much a male gender identity, but I sure fit in well with women, being just one of the gals, shopping, tupperware parties, sewing clothes, chick flicks, sickness with the way men treat women. The reason it took me so long to find a wife was due to my effeminate gender expression, I was not manly enough to interest women.
Excuse Me?“Mother Nature can think beyond binary. Human Nature cannot.”
Basically, are you saying that Mother Nature (or “God” or “Goddess” if you will) is not capable of creating any amount of genders but 2 and only 2? I don’t know about you, but I’m not about to put such a limited, narrow-minded restriction on the perpetrator of all creation. And, science (biology) backs me up. In fact, there are at least 12 different chromosome patterns the AMA recognizes for sex in humans. If XX is supposedly female and XY is supposedly male, then what are the other 10? The AMA actually calls some of those “male” (“sudo-male” in reality) and some “female” (“sudo-female” in reality) so they can stay within the narrow binary system. It doesn’t make the AMA right.
Also, the Intersex Society of North American says that 1 in ever 500 humans have something different about them that makes them not stereotypically “normal” male or female. With 6.5 billion people on the planet, that comes to 13 million people.
I would say that “binary in gender” is far from reality. Because Human Nature cannot think beyond binary, our laws sadly reflect only binary. That can change when the human brain grows up, one of these centuries.
“human nature” certainly can think beyond the binarybecause it has in other cultures. it’s the american (western?) culture that’s stuck on binary. anyone making broad statements about ‘human nature’ based only on american culture is myopic and uninformed.
ExactlyHowever I would like to point out, that laws can be changed, and have been progressively changed to cover more and more variations of reality.
I do have hopes that I will see the day when the majority of legal definitions just get over the damn gender assumption and stick with “all people are created equal”.
Not “all men” or “all men and women”.
ps. I believe you mean pseudo.
So you suppose these are unreasonable questions to ask?Perhaps we have bigger problems than I thought.
Or, why don’t you try addressing my questions instead of telling me I am an unreasonable troll? If you don’t do that, perhaps don’t bother posting again.
Gee, Sorry!You’re right. But, since this is an American blog, then I’m pointing the finger at most who comment here.
And you are a manAnd women have good reason not to trust men’s decision making as to what is safe for women.
sure!i was just making a general comment – not actually meaning to aim it at you.
Your terms are problematic for femalesAnd I’m happy to “go there” in order to have a robust discussion. Are you? Or are you just only interested in lecturing?
Women has an interest in not having stereotypes about “gender” codified into law. And merely saying you are a woman does not makes you a woman.
The question I think the communities must answer is what is the problem we want to solve and how do we do that. I do want to eliminate irrational discrimination, but not at the expense of women.
You?
Read what you wrote.
Doesn’t happen.
Could you give us insight into your “thought” process? I can’t see that this would actually happen.
If you read your comments, you are drawing purposefully nonsensical conclusions. How could you not be a troll? Oh …
Good thoughtsGender expression is part of sex stereotyping in that women have sued for sex discrimination when they were discriminated against for not being “traditional” women, and courts have said “yeah, you were discriminated against, wrongly, because you weren’t acting like a ‘traditional’ woman.”
How do you feel about fighting for transsexual-specific protections?
PS – decorative pockets are stupid!
NonsenseWomen also have good reason not to trust other women’s deicsions what is safe for women.
Having something considered a penis may make it very likely that the owner is male, but the person could also be a woman (even by birth). So you would force this woman for not matching her sex perfectly to go to the men’s room.
So YOU simply decide “No protection for her.” And then label her a man.
Unfortunately your comments are very revealing about your attitude towards transgender people.
I am guessing you are what some would also call “cis”There is extensive case law where women have sued, successfully, for sex discrimination when a defendant took adverse action against them because they didn’t conform to stereotypes about women.
Gender identity legislation seeks to codify the idea that there are, in fact, gender-specific traits – that there are masculine traits and feminine traits. That is scary, and wrong.
Finally, yes, I’ve had many transmen tell me I should be trans. They are usually ten years younger than me, which affirms that I am old, perhaps, or that this is fashionable.
Tell me, Chris, care to tell me what “gender related traits” are and assign a M or F to each? I’m dying to know how your mind works.
Chris since you are an anonymous Internet person I’m not interested in your assessments about me. But I am done responding to you, as only a misogynist would say what you actually typed in the first line above.
Ah . . . yes. Thanks.
Nice try.No, I just disproved your ridiculous blanket statements. If you cared about reality, you would know that you can’t simply trust women because they are women.
Of course, such a statement could probably be made for women as a group in the Western world. But I doubt you were thinking of that.
And I’m done responding to an obvious bigot who peddles the bathroom nonsense of the right. One would think that people could see how illogical this is, but for people who argue entirely with logical fallacies …
Re: How do you not harm women with these concepts?Well let me begin by saying if you’re using the term “death warrant” as a hyperbole, it’s over the top. If it’s used seriously, I would appreciate reading why you believe that is. As always, I like to see cited references for claims.
I would define discrimination of transgender people as discrimination based on sex stereotypes, which I believe would be a Title VII interpretation. However, even Title XII uses “sexual identity” in the text. I’m not aware of any state or municipality that has written antidiscrimination legislation based on sex stereotypes that covered transgender and/or transsexual people. Everywhere that I’m aware of that has prohibited discrimination to include transgender and/or transsexual people have used gender identity somewhere in the definitions related to the legislation.
And, of course, I can’t imagine legislators wanting to end discrimination based on sex stereotypes not wanting the type of sex stereotyping of transgender and/or transsexual people enumerated.
In California where I live, then Assemblyman Leno’s AB 196 (the Gender Non-Discrimination Act of 2003) didn’t use the terms gender identity or gender expression as protected classes, but instead redefined the term sex to include gender.
But even the explanation of the bill from Equality California used the term gender identity and expression. From the Equality California Fact Sheet for AB 196:
From the Assembly Bill No. 196:
The official analysis of the Gender Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 is here. It says this about the bill:
Then it added this on office dress codes:
And you can find a discussion same issue of dress codes discussed on the Maryland House of Delegates floor:
>
Apparently, being able to define grooming and dress standards is important to legislators across the country. Apparently, legislators don’t like the idea of a person coming to work in stereotypically female attire Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and showing up in stereotypically male attire on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday — that description regarding workplace attire is in the audio for the discussion of the first reading of HB 235 (beginning at roughly the 3:15 mark in the video):
But anywho, even in redefining sex to include gender, California’s AB 196 referenced Penal Code 422.56, subparagraph (c), to define gender:
I believe the key word in that penal code paragraph above is “stereotypically,” which goes to your point about how providing antidiscrimination protections is about countering sex stereotypes. It is the stereotypes regarding sex and gender — what I refer to as societal sex and gender norms in my piece above — that employment antidiscrimination laws in 13 states and hundred of municipalities attempt to address.
I know that we lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people, as well as feminists and others, don’t buy into the sex stereotypes that are dictated by societal sex and gender norms, and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins directly addressed sex stereotypes in the workplace. We know from the history of the case that one partner at Price Waterhouse told the plaintiff that could improve her chances of making partner if she would “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.”
Sex stereotyping that requires conformity to societal sex and gender norms shouldn’t be used to discriminate against all people in with regards to employment, housing, and public accommodation, so that should include employment regarding trans people. The Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals in Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana inCreed v. Family Express Corporation…well, one could go on citing cases regarding trans people where sex stereotyping was going on, but they were discriminated against anyway.
And Joanna Grossman of FindLaw Writ wrote the following regarding dress codes after Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in her article Sex-Stereotyping and Dress Codes Under Title VII: Why Courts Can’t Get it Right:
She then went on to cite Jespersen v. Harrah’s and Creed v. Family Express Corporation.
Women are already being hurt by employers who can choose to harm women with dress codes that put more burdens on women — it’s not “my” concepts (which are actually concepts that are widely accepted by many LGBT activists) that are going to pile on additional harm non-transgender women.
I don’t who you believe is telling you that you need to be a man — I don’t see anyone demanding that of you — It sounds rather a straw man argument to me.
This is because HB 235 (and California’s AB 196) didn’t mandate you or any other female bodied person become a man, nor did it require that any workplace that didn’t have a gender specific dress code develop a gender specific dress code. Yet, you and I both know society as a whole frowns on gender fluidity with clothing for those assigned male at birth; it also frowns on men perceived to be dressed as women…men described by many who oppose antidiscrimination protections for trans people (including those on the religious right, such as Ruth Jacobs) as “men in dresses.”
The opponents of antidiscrimination protections for trans people want sex and gender rigidity. Those on the religious right who oppose antidiscrimination protections for trans people often cite Genesis 1:27 as the reason gender rigidity is required by God:
And then of course they play to fear with the Bathroom Bill Meme and the Kindergartener Teacher Meme, with the underlying theme that transgender people are inherently anti-family.
And guess who has legislators ears? The religious right is generally more organized and better at messaging their fear based memes, for the most part, than grassroots trans people and LGBT civil rights non-profits are at countering memes and pushing their own equality agenda with vigor.
I’m all ears for coming up with better language than gender identity and gender expression for creating antidiscrimination protections for trans people, and I’m definitely there with not writing into law that one needs to pick a gender and dress appropriately for that gender in the workplace. But that said, I’m not sure how we get to the point where trans people are protected in the workplace without relying on the terms gender identity and gender expression; I haven’t heard of anywhere in the U.S. that passed employment antidiscrimination protections based on gender identity into law has resulted in any additional burdens regarding dress standards placed on peer employees.
Huh?
Gender identity legislation seeks to protect trans people from being forced to conform to a certain set of rules based on their birth sex. I.e., a trans woman early in transition not being allowed to wear her hair long because traditionally “men” aren’t supposed to have long hair.
It’s actually protecting against the same exact thing: “sex discrimination… because they didn’t conform to stereotypes about women”. But for a trans woman, instead of being expected to conform to stereotypes for women, we’re expected to conform to stereotypes for men.
But is is misandrousNot everyone possessing a penis is a bad or dangerous person. To characterize everyone sharing some external quality by the behaviors of the very worst people having that external quality is the heart and soul of bigotry.
I have to question that. Does anyone really have a right to feel safe? Is feeling something you can legislate? What about the very common situation (and certainly the one impacting the trans community) where someone’s fears are irrational and not at all rooted in reality? Do women or anyone have the right to have their irrational fears be addressed and eased, no matter how much it impinges on the very real world rights of other people? I certainly think not.
One might argue that women have a right to not be exposed to unreasonable, real world danger. Do transwomen, even those possessing penises, in women’s restrooms present an unreasonable, real world danger to ciswomen? There’s no evidence to back that up. There’s no reported incident of such a danger happening. For it to be an unreasonable danger, a single incident would not make it so. There would have to be a significant number annually to make it even worthy of considering restricting the rights of those who happen to share the same external quality with the perpetrators, and even then it would be a discriminatory law.
If there is any basis in what you are getting at, namely that transwomen represent a risk however remote or utterly imaginary in women’s restrooms, then the way of addressing that fear isn’t by marginalizing them and restricting their rights. It would be to redesign women’s restrooms so the stalls are like impenetrable safe-rooms where women can feel safe from any kind of outside attacker.
Your fear is not our fault. Don’t expect us to pay the price to deal with it.
I am a woman.If you’re telling me I’m not a woman because I’m merely saying [that I am] a woman does not makes [me] a woman, I will take an incredible, incredible amount of offense at your statement.
I’m sorry if I sound a bit angry at this point. Your commentary now feels to have become very personal — stating “merely saying you are a woman does not makes you a woman” … Well, please pardon me if I have this wrong, but it sounds to me that you are setting yourself up as a final arbiter of who is male and who is female.
**breathe in, breathe out…count to ten**
The science on transsexual and intersex people to date has been collected by Zoe Brain Transsexual and Intersex Gender Identity — sex and gender is not as clear cut as we’d like to think it is.
In fact, geneticist Eric Vilain wrote pretty much that and more in his L.A. Times article Gender Blender; Intersexual? Transsexual? Male, female aren’t so easy to define:
As for robust argument, my lengthy, robust response to your opening comment is above. I let you know privately it was going to be lengthy and would take quite a bit of time to write, and it is lengthy and it did take a significant bit of time to research, format, and write. It took longer to assemble than I usually spend on even writing a diary.
And, I asked earlier in this thread how you defined female. Since you’ve now said “merely saying you are a woman does not makes you a woman,” I honestly want to know what your personal criteria are for determining weather someone is really female or male; weather someone is really female or male.
Again, the statement of yours I quoted seems to indicate that you are functionally declaring yourself a final arbitrator of who is and who isn’t female. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
typo…Line that reads..
should be…
I orginally was going to phrase that sentence differently, and in the editing it states somewhat the oppostite of what I meant to say.
transsexual-only protections are a problemBecause they do nothing to address gendered expressions. “GE” protections are the bits that apply beyond transitioning transsexual people. It is also setting into law something that, I hope, all people can recognize. The simple fact that, as adults, most every single one of us has embraced and rejected various parts of the expected gendered bag o’ goodies. Women can shave their heads, have hairy legs, like fixing cars, be mommies, love pink, be squicked by spiders – all at the same time and her womanhood – her understanding of her sex should not be questioned and she should not be limited in her ability to work, rent a home, or use the subway.
My fear, with an absence of GE language in laws, is that this creates another loophole for people to use to marginalize those who don’t conform enough to gendered stereotypes.
Pray for Swirled Peas
So peas are gender?
Now do carrots represent sexual orientation or may I be excused from the table?
But wait! There’s dessert and you’ve managed to stumble into the truth
That is the thread which binds the L to the G to the B to the T…..
An extremely important discussion of terms too often misrepresented.
Thank you
I think it important…..to emphasise that Autumn’s words are not meant as an attack. No-one, not me, not her, is saying that you are not female. We can take that as read, stipulated, an axiom that we all agree on. Something so obviously true it’s beyond question. Just as it’s obviously true that there’s a concept called “women” and that women have been historically oppressed. Those self-evident facts are not being questioned.
This is not about you, or personalities, or disagreements we may have. It’s a genuine question, and one that needs answering.
How do you define “female”, “woman” etc?
Identity is an interesting concept…Identity really has very little to do with what one wears. A trans man can have feminine clothing and appearance, and a trans woman can have masculine clothing and appearance. In fact, it’s possible to have a female identification while living, working, and presenting full time as male. Many people do it for years. Whether or not that merits legal protection (or at what level of government) is, however, a debate in itself.
)
There is some degree of difference between typical men and typical women, but any line one draws will have exceptions (intersex individuals), and/or cause a lot of problems. Instead, it makes sense (from a government standpoint) to not discriminate people for drawing their own lines, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into a rigid binary.
Instead of being a butch dyke, I’m now being told I should become a man. How is this a good idea?
This can be a problem, especially in highly homophobic areas. All it takes is a sex change, and poof you’re straight! This line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed – it presupposes there is something wrong with being gay, and seeks to use transition as a “cure”.
Trans individuals and gays have a lot in common – for one thing, almost any relationship they are in runs the risk of a) being seen as “really gay” from a legal standpoint, and/or b) being seen as in a gay relationship from a societal standpoint. Passable trans individuals often end up “obliterated” in that standpoint by being defined away as gay.
Instead of seeing things as “death warrants”, it makes more sense to look at it as an opportunity to educate. When someone tells you that you should be a man, it’s a chance to have an honest discussion about gender stereotypes, patriarchal societies, and homophobia – sometimes within the community itself. I once had plenty of homophobia myself, and it took living with a “ex-lesbian” couple to cure me of it.(one of them was a FTM
I personally approach the topic from the perspectiveThat everyone deserves to live free of discrimination, hatred, bigotry and violence. Period.
I don’t parse that belief away from anyone who considers themselves a part of the LGBTQI(forgivemeifIoverlookedyourletterbutyoutoo) community.
Legislative rememdies that are broader, unite us, and broaden out base of support, IMO.
QuestionGender identity legislation seeks to codify the idea that there are, in fact, gender-specific traits – that there are masculine traits and feminine traits. That is scary, and wrong.
I am genuinely curious about which legislation you are talking about.
I’ve looked at quite a bit of legislation, and the closest I can come up with is that which would require an employer to permit employees to dress in accordance with their gender identity. In other words, if an employer has separate dress and grooming standards for men and women, an individual would (through transition) be permitted to confirm to the dress and grooming standards of their gender, rather than sex assigned at birth.
It is true that it does in some ways reinforce a binary view of gender, but the dress and grooming codes were enforced prior to any T-specific legislation.
If this is not what you were referring to, I apologize.
Finally, yes, I’ve had many transmen tell me I should be trans.
I have seen cases of FTM transsexuals who disliked being female themselves and extrapolated it to looking with disdain upon them. Some of them also had the (all too prevalent in this society) impression that men are fundamentally better than women, so it’s better to be a trans man than a female. Many MTFs have a dislike of all things male, but for them transition entails a loss of privilege, and is societally looked down upon. To many people, a woman becoming a man makes perfect sense, but a man becoming a woman is a travesty.
If we want to stop this, we need to realize as a society that a) it’s OK to be female (or not), and b) it’s OK to be gay (or not). Otherwise, we’re just going around in circles, and people will continue to try to cure/obliterate us.
Being trans isn’t (generally speaking) the easiest path to follow, and I wouldn’t really wish it on anyone. Sending someone who isn’t trans down that path is not the road to happiness for them, even if it can be convenient sometimes for society.
It’s not my job to make things easier on everyone else.
I agree. Gender expression inclusion is important because we do not all fit into neat little box categories. In fact, anti-gay discrimination more often manifests as punishment for violating gender norms than actual evidence of being gay. The woman at the office who is “too aggressive.”
The guy who just doesn’t fit in as one of the boys.
And of course all the people in the T universe who don’t feel the desire to conform to being strictly a boy or a girl. And so what if they don’t?
Not completely correct
In 1987, Wilma Wood was fired. She brought suit against her employer, claiming that she had been fired after the employer learned that she was intersexed and had undergone genital surgery. The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania found that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act protects women because of their status as females and discrimination against males because of their status as males, but employers are not legally prohibited from terminating employees on the basis of intersex status. The Court cited caselaw arising under Title VII as “persuasive authority.”
63 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 677, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,314
I’m currently part of the Australian National University’s panel of experts assisting the Law Reform Advisory Council for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). They’re part of the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety’s inquiry on Transgender and Intersex law reform. There’s both expert lawyers and medics on the panel, to try to make the law consistent with biological realities.
I have more medical knowledge than the lawyers, and more legal knowledge than the medics. I’m also a case study in why legal reform is needed.
What’s happening in AustraliaI know America is unique, etc etc etc. But the problems are the same worldwide.
Please see
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/…
It’s a long read, but germane to this whole issue.
What you are vs. what you doIt’s interesting to me that the basic nature of the division between GI and GE never seems to come up as an issue in the LGB struggle for social equality. Gender Identity is to Gender Expression as Sexual Orientation is to Sexual Behavior and Sexual Relationships. There is a difference between what you are thinking inside and how you are acting. One can feel same sex attraction and be in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex (which is what many religions want gay and lesbians to do). I believe that gay is as gay thinks, not as gay does, but gays are more likely to experience discrimination as a result of what they do than on what catches their eye and they find attractive. After all, who they find attractive is a private matter in their own thoughts until they act on that attraction in some way.
Why is it that “sexual orientation” pretty much covers the field for LGB people, but for the trans community, “gender identity” doesn’t quite cut it? It could be a practical matter where if you tried to pass legislation giving protections from discrimination based on sexual behavior, you would never get anywhere. I could certainly see that. Is there anything to be drawn from that parallel in the case of GI/GE? Would it be much harder to pass legislation based on Gender Expression than Gender Identity, specifically because GI describes something internal while GE describes something observed by others? This starts sliding into the “incrementalism” quagmire where it becomes a debate of saying what we really need is GE protection, but in GI we have the best hope of at least getting passed. Is it GE or nothing, or if SO is good enough for the LGB community, GI is good enough for us? GI protection is a protection for what you are, while GE protection is a protection for what you do. Culturally, we don’t like the idea of discrimination against someone for what they are, but also culturally, we feel a need to regulate behaviors. However, in our case, it is our behaviors that tell others what we are inside. As such all discrimination will be brought on by our behavior, making it a challenge to prove definitively that it was actually our identity that they are discriminating against.
When you have protections for GI and not GE, then any attempt to seek remedy in a court for acts of discrimination based on expression (which they in all likelihood will be) could require the plaintiff to demonstrate that either a) their identity mandated this expression, so discriminating against the expression equates to discriminating against the identity (like wearing a yamaka equates to being Jewish), or b) the defendant took their expression as a clue as to their internal identity, and were in fact discriminating based on their knowledge of the internal identity. This also means that the defendant has the potential defenses of a) saying, “I have no idea what’s going on in that person’s head, all I know is that their expression is unacceptable in the contested setting,” or b) presenting evidence that their gender expression might not be a perfect representation of their gender identity and you can’t prove GI discrimination based on expression. That latter one could be a real issue for people like myself. I’m a transwoman who does not live a completely female life. I have elements of my life that could be described as masculine, like the choices of cars I drive. If you protect GI without GE, could you set up a situation where any element of your life inconsistent with the cultural standards for the gender you express could negatively impact your ability to gain protection under those laws?
I could talk about what happens when you have GE protection and not GI, but I really don’t see that as a plausible case. GE is the much broader protection, and GI protection is pretty close to being a subset of it. There might be cases of someone being fired for telling someone they have always felt their gender to be that of the other sex without ever expressing it, but even in that case, “saying” your gender could be considered a way of “expressing” your gender. Realistically, GE protection is not likely to come without GI being right there with it.
Read the definition of HB 235
All stereotypes are wrongBut the answer isn’t to enshrine the idea that there actually are “gender-related identities” into law.
What is a masculine trait? What is a feminine trait?
Discrimination based on gender expressionIs sex discrimination based on sex stereotypes. This is not a new legal concept. The issue now is that we have a specific population that has been disallowed from using these concepts (transsexuals). This is because of our legal system.
Irrational discrimination is wrong. My questions here are posed to ensure that the cure for irrational discrimination doesn’t inadvertently end up hurting females.
WellHow do you define female?
Huh?I haven’t personally attacked anyone. People – if we are afraid to discuss ideas on a blog, our community is toast.
Happy mothers day!
Death warrantNot over the top. If the medicalization of gender stereotypes continues, I worry the treatment for gay and lesbian kids will be to become the opposite sex and thus not be gay. One Maryland advocate held up Iran as an example of forward thinking on this subject – in public, without anyone questioning it.
The cure for homosexuality used to be reparative (ha) therapy – change behaviour. That clearly didn’t work. So, now, change the body to make it (sexual behaviour/attractions) “not” gay. People might call it hyperbolic, but as a butch lesbian this country has given me good reason to be wary of men who say they know what’s best for women (not to mention doctors). And before I am accused of being a “man hating lesbian”, I will also acknowledge that women can be complicit in their own oppression.
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust shrinks that much. I have a 3-year-old daughter who tells me for over a year she’s a boy. Do you think I want a doctor near her prescribing hormone blockers?
Anyway, today is mothers day, so if anyone wants to continue this discussion you can email me at bugbrennan on gmail.
Very thoughtful postThanks. I agree with much of this. I’m more of a Larry Kramer kind of activist so I favour the dramatic.
We have a lot of work to do.
I can’t stop you from taking personal offenseAnd I’m not a final arbiter of anything except when my kids go to bed etc.
When we are talking about laws that impact all of us, we all have a responsibility to think about them. Surely you would agree that thoughtful commentary is a good idea.
Ha! Yes. Women have a right to safety (and to feel safe). If we cannot agree on that premise, then we probably don’t have much to tall about.
That said, I don’t think I actually didn’t brought up the bathroom (I responded above to a post about women only space). I’m personally unconcerned about bathrooms. But the community needs a better answer than “you’re transphobic.”
I actuallyjust shared that document along with the recent “Injustice at Every Turn” and some various other smaller articles with some people who had some… misapprehensions… about LGBT rights. Especially T.
I am so happy we are seeing more comprehensive documents coming out on the subject that include GI & Intersex etc. It makes it so much easier to explain to the (unfortunately very large) part of the population that is less than informed. And the fact some of these documents are from outside the US only helps.
(I actually told them a bit about you as well to explain that a lot of people aren’t exactly advocates by choice, but by a necessity far too many in the general population don’t even realize exists.)
But that’s sex discriminationAlready covered – and it is free to file complaints with the Maryland Human Relations Commission (and the general counsel of the Commission has stated that the Commission has taken these complaints under sex). I won’t speak for other states.
I don’t think we disagree much – we all think irrational discrimination is wrong.
Anybody remember Caliente Cab Co.?Let me refresh your memory.
In New York after the Pride in 2007 a group of lesbians went to the Caliente Cab Co. and were thrown out of the restaurant when one of them went to use the bathroom. Not because they were transsexual (or because of their gender identity) but because of the way they expressed their gender identity.
The victim said,
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/…
ExceptThe problem I see is that, safety cannot be a right, because it can never be ensured without violating everyones privacy (leading to the ever fictionalized ThoughtCrimes). It should certainly be something which we perpetually strive for – but never at the cost of allowing continuing discrimination against others.
No one should be allowed to repress another for simply the ability to “feel safe”. Especially since that feeling is invariable fleeting and false.
There will always be those who would violate another persons rights. Should we fear them? Not actively perhaps, but it is hardly avoidable without pretending they don’t exist. And that leads to never being prepared. Should we be protected insomuch as is possible from them? Absolutely. But never at the cost of oppressing the innocent.
I once was at a presentation by a woman from a rape crisis center, primarily discussing all of the various issues related to her job. One thing she especially focused on was the problem of fear, and how it translates into base assumptions that hurt, without actually helping anyone. Because as we know, most men aren’t rapists, and in fact most rapists are serial rapists, and often never caught. The point being, that fear of all men is not only irrational, but counterproductive in the fight to protect against those who are rapists (and doing something about stopping them). But at the same time, out of the knowledge those people are out there, there should be simple basic precautions taken to protect oneself. (Which is certainly an important consideration when it comes to the bathroom issues regardless)
In other words, safety is never a given. It can never be absolutely enforced, without perpetuating other forms of discrimination, a catch-22. There is a reason legally speaking it is always “Innocent until proven guilty”. So while safety cannot be considered a “right”, it should absolutely be a perfect ideal we strive for. But not one clung too so closely that sight is lost of the complex reality of any given situation. Which is the very problem those who fight so hard against LGBT rights have – their fear leads them to oppress, because they believe they have a “right” to safety from the perceived threat of “sexual deviants” (a problem which is also not entirely imaginary). This is why people are (perhaps too freely) so often throwing around the homophobic/transphobic.
While I think your initial assumption about GE being inherently bad for women is wrong, I do think it is certainly important that it is an argument we keep in mind. While we cannot 100% ensure the safety of anyone, we should at least strive to ensure that any attempted legislation doesn’t make women any less safe than they already are – or as you seem to be pointing out, make it harder to ensure improved safety in the future.
My viewMasculine traits: Facial hair, hairy chest and belly, wide shoulders and narrow hips, square jaw, deep voice, more angular features, penis, testicles.
Feminine traits: Breasts, wide hips, finer, curvier features, higher pitched voice, vagina.
Though none of these are necessarily exclusive to either males or females, they are nonetheless what I think of as masculine and feminine traits. As trans man who wasn’t able to transition until midlife, I personally have a combination of both.
Hmmm
This never occurred to me, and it does sound like a valid concern, though my hope is that the medical community in this country would never allow such an atrocity.
I, personally, am very strongly against any medically unneccessary procedures being performed on people against their will or without their consent, and that includes sex ressignment of intersex infants, neonatal circumcision, etc. The David Reimers case is a perfect example of the horror of sexually reassigning a non-consenting person to a sex that was opposed to his gender identity.
Plus, as we all know, sexual orientation is not, in any way, an indication of gender identity. Trans people have the same range of orientations as cis people.
You first
But if you prefer me to, I’ll go first.
This is not just hypothetical…
In Germany, legal sex changes can be revoked if a trans person fails to comply with socially typical gender expression. Seriously.
And some transsexuals oppose reform attempts.I guess the motto is “After me, the deluge.”
There really isn’t a better answer
It would be the same as denying lesbians access to the women’s bathroom because they make straight women “feel” unsafe. It’s the same line of reasoning, and has about as much basis in reality (read: none).
Well yes it isLegal protections for trans people aren’t going to somehow codify sex stereotypes into law. And asking us to wait until society somehow becomes blind to gender and sex is cruel and pointless.
Just because these laws allow us to do the stuff that women do doesn’t mean that these laws are going to somehow force ALL women into having to do those things.
Since you are advocating for the right of feeling safe…Is this a your-group-only philosophy on your part, or are you willing to extend this right to other groups? For example, do you support children’s right to feel safe from the monsters under their beds? Would you support laws mandating placing children’s mattresses directly on the floor to eliminate the spaces where monsters hide? What then about closet monsters? Do you think they should outlaw closets in children’s bedrooms? Anyone who knows anything about monsters know they can come in out of a dark hallway as well. Do you think laws should be passed requiring 24/7 hallway lighting in residential homes? How many laws do you think it will take before children feel completely safe from monsters?
Your fear is only ever so slightly less irrational than theirs. The difference is the threat you claim a right to feel safe from translates into real people who are equally citizens with everyone else. The fear is imaginary, the people are real. I frankly think it would be easier and more rational to simply legislate away irrational fear. Why don’t we just say, if there’s no real threat, you have no right to accommodation to your fear of it?
I think I’ve died and gone to the 1970s.I guess in your world, my femme trans dyke self doesn’t exist.
If you’re going to fight against trans liberation, then GTFO the LGBT movement.
I’d laugh if this wasn’t so bloody serious.Transsexuality as aversion therapy fails the sniff test, since (a) being transsexual is far, far less socially acceptable than being gay or lesbian and (b) far, far more people transition from being “heterosexual” into being gay or bisexual than the other way around.
The stereotype in the LGBT community of transsexuals being self-hating gays is one that needs to END.
What?
I’m not sure if this was hyperbole or not, but no doctor would prescribe any sort of HRT for a 3 year old (mostly because there’s nothing to block…). Only in some instances, a kid would get hormone blockers at the onset of puberty… like sometime between 10 and 13, when a child has a much better sense of their own identity.
Blocking puberty isn’t standard treatment at all… not even by a long shot.
No. You do not have a right to “feel safe.”If it were a right to feel safe, we would still have racially segregated public spaces. How many white people argued that the safety of white women from black men needed segregation in the pre-civil rights era south? In WWII, how many Japanese-Americans were interned in concentration camps to give other Americans a feeling of safety?
With the “feel safe” perspective that you seem now to be giving credence to, the discrimination against trans women in public spaces has irrational components. There is no data that has been presented anywhere that shows that when trans women are given public accommodation protections — using legislative language of gender identity and gender expression — that sexual predation by “men in dresses” on women in women’s spaces increases.
You don’t have a right to feel safe in public spaces if irrational discrimination against others is what gives you your feeling of safety. You haven’t provided data, nor are you citing studies, regarding any brick-and-mortar world harm being done to non-trans women with legislation that uses the terms gender identity and/or gender expression. I’ve done my homework; I’ve looked for studies to document any changes regarding public safety of women when laws are passed with gender identity and/or gender expression language, and the studies just don’t exist.
So in other words, what you have presented us with then is a theory regarding possible harm to women in public spaces that you’re not backing up with any empirical data. I believe the burden of proof is on you, not on trans people. If you want to say that legislation using gender identity and gender expression language (as these laws are currently written) is doing actual harm, you’re peers and you have had a dozen states to do studies within to prove your theory in the brick-and-mortar world.
Again, you don’t have a right to feel safe in public spaces if irrational discrimination against others is what gives you your feeling of safety.
And yes, I actually am calling your fear of trans women in women’s spaces irrational, and your fear of harm to women with civil rights laws with the terms gender identity and/or gender expression irrational. Rational thought in this case demands that people with your point of view cite empirical data/studies that back your point of view, or assemble the empirical data and create the scientifically sound studies to back might, or might not, support your peers and yours point of view.
Divide and ConquerHey, the right wing haters just have to sit back and do nothing … we manage to do their work for them! Just read all this stuff to have us fight each other!
Can’t folks keep it all simple and learn how transgender people and intersex people and our gender variant and straight acting gays and progressive and moderate allies who regardless of their gender expression worked together in New Jeersey to pass fully inclusive non discrimination legislation in less than 2 years and by a bi-partisan vote of 102-8?
is this the twilight zone? WTF?
I don’t know about you, but that kind of worried meI certainly hope she reconsiders if, in a few years, her child is still insisting on male gender.
IMO, to force a transgender child through wrong-gendered puberty is child sexual abuse.
Welcome to the trans community
This has always been true. This is the reality of what we have to work with. You can curse it all you want but you’re never going to change it. If you insist that we all work together before you do anything, you will never do anything. The challenge is to find a way to make progress in the midst of this infighting community.
I challenge you to come up with a way of doing that.
I don’t get it…“GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER-RELATED IDENTITY OR APPEARANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.
QuestionIt would be silly to deny that men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence, but the interesting (and useful) question is “why?”.
Is it due to social conditioning? Testosterone? The actual act of having a penetrative organ? Some combination of the above?
In the interest of understanding your perspective (I’m an Aspie, and I tend to be blunt), may I ask a question?
Would you feel comfortable having early-transitioning FTMs in those same women-only spaces? Earlier transition would lead to a lot more male-typical socialization, and the mental effects of testosterone would be just as present, if not more so (depending on dose and time since beginning male puberty).
There’s another reading of it, though.“Gender expression” can also refer to how people express their gender of identity. A butch woman and a femme man (I’m in the latter category) can both have a quite ordinary gender identity (I’m definitely a man, and a butch woman is still a butch woman) while expressing their manhood/womanhood/etc. in non-stereotypical ways. Basically, gender-identity protections are (if well-written) a matter of protecting trans* people from those who would insist that “you have [insert supposedly absolutely determinative chromosomal/anatomical/etc. trait], so you must be a [man/woman].” Gender-expression protections (again, if well-written) protect against the people who would say “If you’re a woman then you must be a wilting submissive flower, and if you’re a man then you must act like a hyper-macho he-man type.” When there is a difference between gender-identity and gender-expression protections, the latter are in place to keep people in positions of power from enforcing any particular set of stereotypes about how a given gender “should” be expressed. Trans people tend to take shit on both counts, so both can be used to defend trans people from some of the more obnoxious forms of discrimination; gender-expression protections can also have the effect of protecting those of us who don’t fit popular stereotypes of our (cis- or trans-) gender.
You seem to be missing something.While the presence of a trans-woman in the women’s bathroom might make the other women feel less safe, if that transwoman has to use the men’s room, she’ll actually be less safe. Considerably so. “Taking her life in her own hands” so. If there’s a conflict between one person’s physical safety, and the mere feelings of any number of other people, most readers here are going to prioritize the actual safety.
@ Azerca — or notI watched, waited, read and saw the same old thing. On the one hand we have the Australian miracle woman with vast citations and on another the umbrella worshipers engaged in back and forth with the adamant no cross dressers allowed crowd. What would you say are those numbers? Maybe 50 or 100 or even 300 vocal internet participants?
Now let’s look at another set of numbers. 8 North American Surgeons, 12 well known Thai’s and a handful of others scattered around the globe. All doing 200 or so SRS surgeries per year for 50 years. That’s 220,000 or so post ops. Cut that in half for statistical conservancy and non North American post ops and you still have over 100,000 women sitting on the sidelines. Are they scared or perhaps just living normal lives and this whole controversy is simply irrelevant? Whichever or another scenario I doubt you will be able to get many of them involved.
So Keppler’s law isn’t exactly appropriate in my opinion. In fact it is darn near irrelevant.
Contrasts are such funWho is safer, an eight year old girl alone in the women’s restroom when a trans-woman enters or an 8 year old boy alone in the men’s room when a Catholic priest enters?
You just made it relevantBy identifying and soliciting the involvement of the best and brightest of our community, you are making use of what the community has to offer, which is the opposite approach from what it typically proposed of coming up with a plan and then expecting people to jump on board with it, and expecting the right set of talents to be available to make it a success. If you can get a small team of our talented people to push things forward, you will have found a way to step around the problems of activism within the broader community. You are applying Keppler’s law, not ignoring it. You’re making it relevant by saying if we can’t do it with everyone, we will find that portion of the community that will. However, that portion of the community is still a part of the community you’ve got, and what you will achieve will be achieved with the community you’ve got.
You’re on the right track. Keep on it. Now go make it happen.
You are saying to accept our “idiocy”?You didn’t read my post … we worked together in NJ and succeeded. My challenge is for “YOU” to learn from others’ success. It can be done and it has been done …I’m not wasting my time trying to herd cats.
Perhaps you didBut whether you did or did not, the first line is somewhere being irritatingly misogynistic and offensively misogynistic
I think you’re misreading thatHe’s not saying women are inherently untrustworthy or anything like that: just that women are perfectly capable of doing bad things and supporting positions that are harmful to women (see: Sarah Palin).
He’s just saying the whole “Women are all good and nice, men are all evil rapists” trope is silly… which it is.
No it isn’t.There is a long history of women policing other women’s bodies and behavior “for their own good.” Acknowledging this is far from misogynistic.
Women’s Safety ConcernsOne study at UCLA found that 51% of college age men WOULD rape if assured they would not be caught. An additional 27% indicated they might do so.
A similar study of college aged women revealed 1 in 9 had been raped in just the past year.
It isn’t just feeling safe, it’s being safe. The concerns of the female bodied are totally legitimate regarding rest rooms. That’s reality, like it or not.
I propose a new corollary to Godwin’s LawWhen someone has to be reminded of the existence of Phyllis Schlafly, the discussion has reached the point of absurdity – and the side represented by person who had to be reminded of the existence of Phyllis Schlafly shall be deemed to have lost.
furtherGiven the semantic antics on this blog, henceforth, we should refer to “people with penises” and “vaginal Americans”, those who are women identified and female (having a vagina) bodied to avoid risk of banning for accidentally using “woman” or “man” in a common sense manner contradicted by the GLAAD lunatic dictates.
Thus states MAAD (Mothers Against Absurd Diction)
ChrisIf men are not dangerous predators, and women not so much…please explain why the transgender arguments against them using a men’s room almost always includes great physical danger if they do so and their relative safety in the ladies. The very argument used proves the legitimacy of the concerns of the female (vaginal American) bodied regarded those people who have penises. Common sense would thus indicate at least an acknowledgment of the concerns of women born female about having people with penises in woman space, not a blanket dismissal.
Game, set, match.
Thank you,ProdiGAL977, shaedofblue and Senora Wences.
“The concerns of the female bodied are totally legitimate regarding rest rooms.”But why just restrooms? And why, presumably, just restrooms that have female designations on them?
What percentage of rapes happen in restrooms?
Anyone arguing with common sense …… deserves to be laughed off.
TransparentTell me why you shouldn’t be banned if you make clear that you only veil your attempt.
It’s also interesting to see someone seriously using common sense as argument for primitivity.
What about those with both?Intersexed women with CAH and masculinised genitalia have been using ladies’ rooms since they were invented.
I was Male Assigned At Birth, and used to have genitalia that was definitely more M than F. But I know of many, many women who are far more “well endowed” than I ever was. Cis, not Trans. Females Assigned At Birth.
Having a phallus does not a male make. Yes Virginia, some women do have them, and while most are unable to get pregnant, some can. And while some are uncomfortable with their different anatomy, many are not.
As it happened, I opted for a full reconstruction to a female norm, or as close as we can get. I was – uncomfortable doesn’t begin to describe it – with having anything even remotely masculinised down there. Not all women are like me though, I’ve known too many, some FAAB, some MAAB, who are not.
This fear is not based on facts, not supported by evidence. You gave figures for college-age men, not college-age women born with masculinised genitalia. You of all people know the difference.
Well…
I’m sure there are exceptions, but the arguments are indeed usually framed in terms of “physical danger,” a phrase which, of course, encompasses rape but also includes quite a few more forms of danger.
I guess that now needs to be re-worded to be specified as the fear of being beaten and/or knifed and/or shot – all of which would top rape on my list of concerns were I forced to use a men’s room.
Women has an interest in not having stereotypes about “gender” codified into law. I’m a post-transsexual and lesbian feminist who was out in the late 1960s and 1970s, an era with vastly more gender freedom than today.
I too find so much of the party line from many people involved in the transgender as umbrella movement to be rather reactionary when it comes to the reification of rigid gender role linkage to sex.
Women had to fight far too long to be able to enter fields defined as male based on gender expectations for me to feel comfortable with the reification of gender as a substitute for sex. The question of the female soldier or police officer always comes to mind but one could substitute doctor or other profession that was defined as recently as 1970 as being for men only.
I’m not certain how transgender folks can get around the reactionary arguments basing their claims on gender. Perhaps by arguing that hormones, living 24/7 and other surgeries actually make them transsexual due to their taking actions to physically change sex might avoid the entire highly problematic minefield of “Gender”.
Too often people who have pointed out the problematic nature of the transgender movements appropriation and repurposing of “Gender” have been vilified as enemies of the community, when there are actually alternative arguments based on freedom and equality of rights based on simple humanity.
Too often questions of philosophical differences have deteriorated into ad homenim attacks based on personality that tend to characterize any sort of difference of opinion within groups wedded to any form of ideological purity.
I am particularly disturbed by recent attacks on gay and lesbian people’s focus upon marriage equality instead of an inclusive ENDA. It is as though both can not be worked toward at the same time.
I am very aware of the existence of Phyllis Schlaflythat poor woman who is a pathetic puppet for the men of the Right.
But the Greater Community of Women oppose Schlafly; she primarily represents brow beaten fundie wives, but realistically represents their husbands.
Mary Daly had her number….as did my Profesora
Phyllis SchlaflyIt is BS as well as rabidly misogynistic to consider Schlafly some sort of victim.
This woman is every single bi as much an engineer of the ultra right wing neo-fascist movement in America as Robert Welch, Rushdoony, the Kochs, and the rest of the ultra right that formed the John Birch society.
The oligarchs of the right aren’t representative of the people they oppress.
Mary Daly has about as much creds as Camille Paglia as far as I am concerned.
A Personal ViewHaving read Pam’s Blend for quite some time now, I’ve decided to do more than lurk and, gasp, contribute.
As a person of transsexual history, I’ve found the various responses here be fascinating as well as disturbing. I get the impression of stereotyping here and there, and, perhaps, a lack of empathy from some.
Rather than name names and point fingers needlessly, I’ll touch on topics generally.
Gender Identity / Gender Expression. Some have said this leads to the codification of gender stereotypes, but I think the intention here is to identify a group of people for specific protections under law. The problem seems to be one of perfection: the terms used must be sufficiently inclusive while non-harmful to any group — what a tough request from a fragmented community! And yet, without definition, we cannot itemize what is to be protected. It may help to think of these terms as like an old fashioned grindstone: their use can be part of vicious circle of a term causing problems which then demand new terms, and yet in time this process may lead us to a final, polished, product.
Harming Women. Often stated as ‘women’ but with a distinct undertone of being for one or more subcategories of woman, here I find the aforementioned lack of empathy. A little story: the first time I used the womens’s bathroom, I was terrified. I feared violence of all kinds: physical, social, even legal and financial, from the women around me and others besides. Later in life, my father told me, “A woman doesn’t go there at night alone,” because, whatever the medical case may be with me, my womanhood is what put me at extra risk. And yet, me and my kind are presented as nothing but dangerous, with no consideration for our own — often extremely similar — danger, as if we were composed of but one phantom monster that exists, like a storybook villain, purely to bring harm and fear.
Speaking of which …
The Phantom Monster. This is the face of the transsexual ‘menace’ so often hinted at but rarely described in full: a) sexually attracted to women, b) possessed of greater physical power, c) male-bodied, d) dangerous, e) a rapist. This is a distinctly negative sort of stereotype, and it’s quite narrow. Missing, are the characteristics of non-conformers: sexually attracted to men, weak, female bodied, harmless. Missing, are the FTMs, intersexed, and many more. Missing, is any sense that a real person exists, whatever their particulars, and does not conform to the monster mask thrust upon them so the speaker can be afraid. Because in the end, that is what storybook monsters are created for: to create fear. Authors of such fiction, I implore you: we do not live in a storybook, we do not need phantom fears. We have quite enough real ones as it is.
Which leads to …
Feeling Safe. I think that most people prefer not to live a life of constant fear, yet immunizing even a single person from all danger — to make them feel completely safe — is both physically and socially impossible. There must be a middle ground; there must be reason. A reasonable person does not accept phantom tender for their services; a reasonable sense of safety should not accept a phantom fear. In particular, we, who are often a minority, should never urge an unreasonable sense of safety at the expense of another. In this way we would argue for our oppressors the means by which they may justify their own unreasonable safety in oppressing us.
I would write more, but I think I’ll stop short of writing a more of a novel than I have and just thank Autumn and all the others who make the Blend what it is. Thank you!
I happen to agree with you.
That statement is extremely accurate. I’m very glad you said it.
I’m quite glad that Autumn got offended too. =)
Because…Disagreement with a blog post is not a violation of the Terms and Conditions for posting a reply.
I happen to agree with Cathryn regarding the constant usage of a “dictionary” that has allowed no outside input or adjustment. It is constantly shoved down our throats, and utilized in much the same manner as that religious book by those who feel it’s the end all be all of human existence.
Point taken, butin this thread Chris is mansplaining to women. “Nuff said?
No, not enough saidAn ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. And we aren’t talking about general women here, but extremely bigoted women.
WellWere you more likely to rape a woman before you had SRS?