I just have to say

[aidan83]

 
I am so tired of all of this bullshit hype about Thomas Beattie and how he is messing everything up for trans men.  For the record, he is not the first trans man to do so.  I don't know if he brought this media circus on himself or not, but I do know that he is not the first trans man to get pregnant.  In any case, now all kinds of people are all

Comments

Re: kind of ironic

[aidan83]

okay, touche. I am, of course, part of the problem and I do spend my time and energy in ways that are not necessarily most effective. However,I also chose to put my time, money, and energy into getting my master's so I can be a therapist who doesn't make anyone jump through hoops or play the game to get access to hormones. I also go out into the community and educate and I also choose to be a visible trans man to further the agenda that I've decided is important. It's not fair for me to judge anyone else's agenda, and sometimes I do it anyway, which makes me a hypocrite. And I recognize that I have all kinds of privilege which influence my space in the world and the way I negotiate the world. But I'm not saying anyone else has to do things my way, or at least I'm recognizing that it's not fair when I do say that. I am saying that I'm tired of infighting and gender policing in this and other cases.

Then again, I stand by my belief that every time minorites spend time and energy tearing each other down instead of creating alliances, it is time and energy that could have been better spent. I can't make anyone else do that, and I can't even say that it is really the right way to go about things. But that's why it's my opinion, and that's why I posted this in a free speech community.

Re: kind of ironic

[daddysambiguity]

Then again, I stand by my belief that every time minorites spend time and energy tearing each other down instead of creating alliances, it is time and energy that could have been better spent.

I read an article for my multicultural seminar recently about this. One reason the dominant group is able to stay in power is they are able to keep the oppressed fighting among themselves. We live in fear, in anger, lashing out at eachother -- instead of at the system that keeps us angry and afraid.

Re: kind of ironic

[aidan83]

I can understand from where you are coming and I will admit that it is a position that I hadn't really thought through all that well. I don't think I have a stigmatized medical condition and wouldn't want to approach it that way so I can see why you wouldn't want to approach it my way. I still think that tearing each other down is a waste of time and energy no matter how we view it, though.

Re: kind of ironic

[aidan83]

No, I was trying to make it clear that I think that's exactly what's happening by saying that you don't have to want to approach things my way. We're coming from two inherently different places, and that's fair. I do think that "the binary" is to blame for both of our problems, because I don't think you would have a stigmatized medical condition if all people were allowed to express their gender identities in whatever ways felt best and if gender expression and biological sex weren't necessarily expected to match up. I think in that case you would just have a medical condition but it wouldn't be a stigmatized condition. I think that you would have easier access to hormones and surgery, that documents would be easier to change, and that you would be able to use the bathroom you want. Maybe you feel you have easy access to these things and I am making assumptions. And in any case, you don't have to agree with me on that issue in order for me to respect your position. I think the issue comes in when anyone assumes that theirs is the only position and/or gets angry with people who do things with their own lives and bodies that we would not choose to do.

I think that "tearing each other down" is a million different things. Right now I feel like we're having a respectful conversation about our very different opinions. That's not "tearing each other down." That would happen if one or both of us couldn't recognize the other's position as legitimate, and I think that happens a lot among people who may or may not identify as part of the trans "community" but could conceivably be considered to be part of that "community" by someone outside it. I realize that "community" is a buzz word and I'm not even sure how much I feel part of any kind of trans "community." I just don't know a better word to use.

Re: kind of ironic

[turkishb]

just want to step in and ask why having an identity which is medically defined removes you from the minority community position? disabled people feel they have a minority community, and feel they have a political goal. i think since the medically defined, normative group of transmen do have political goals, it is a little disingenuous to say you're medical not political.

i guess my point being, i don't see how those are mutually exclusive. (though i certainly understand how you see it different from queer community politics.)

i understand you're trying very much to disavow the transsexual from your identity (i mean, even the phrase you use casts it as irrelevant as possible, no?). but i think ultimately, there is a political utility to identification that i don't see how you're going to make an end run around. ultimately, when you demand rights relevant to your position, your position will have to become the active part of your identity. i hope that makes sense, it seems a little obtuse now.

Re: does this make it clearer?

[turkishb]

That's not the issue I was bringing up. I understand your distinction between those methods and the queer methods. But I still don't see why you're removing minority-community politics. That's more what I'm trying to bring out. I used the disabled community as a counterpoint to try and bring that out. I don't think the trans community could work for their rights the same way women or gays or blacks have, either. But we can probably learn from their organizational structures and the cultural context that finally enfranchised them. (In all three cases, each seemed to be close to enfranchisement at least once before they finally reached it.)

"I already get that you don't understand me. I don't understand you either, and the word you use are usually Greek to me."
I don't think they're that Greek. I read what you write. Your thinking is very astute and sophisticated.

"You've already admitted elsewhere that all of us are your own little pet experiment to marvel at who describes themselves with which narrative, or something like that, and I'm not really interested in being your experiment, so it doesn't really matter all that much whether or not you understand where I'm coming from."
That's an interesting characterization of my motives. I'm pretty sure I've never said any such thing, but it's obvious to both of us you're putting up a straw man for emotional reasons, because we haven't interacted well in the past.

"I will ask you not to assume that you are any more intelligent or "enlightened" that I am, or that I do not think critically. What I say, particularly about my own experience of the medical condition known as transsexuality, is honest and genuine. the way you refer to it ("mythos", "narrative", "disavow", "you're trying very much", etc etc etc) often sends off a clear signal that you consider it a mere story I'm telling, and I don't appreciate it when you do that."
This the real problem here. First, I want to assure you I don't believe it has anything to do with intelligence. Second, I want to try to express to you that just because those words trigger you doesn't mean they're invalid to describing your experience. I think you're largely misunderstanding their real context.

They come from a specific understanding of human subjectivity. Most essentially, that we have imperfect access to reality. We use different methods of teasing out information from the universe. Just because something is a construction, in this sense, or a theory, or a story, doesn't mean it's untrue or without demonstrable power. Far from it! A good example of this, to my mind, is that we talk scientifically about the theory of gravity, but no one would doubt that when my cat trips me I will fall. The word "narrative" is used in a context of trying to tease out the historical and circumstantial and subjective conditions that created a characterization of reality or our orientation to it. The aim of that sort of language is to help recognize the changes that happen, both in reality and in our understanding of it.

Re: does this make it clearer?

[turkishb]

It's still a straw man. And showing my words doesn't prove your interpretation. I stand by my assertion it's a mischaracterization, and a shallow one at that. :/

Sleep well.

Re: does this make it clearer?

[turkishb]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you.

Re: does this make it clearer?

[turkishb]

yes, absolutely.

Re: kind of ironic

[aidan83]

I think this is what I've been struggling to understand. I get very much how I can identify as a trans man and believe that the reason I'm stigmatized is that my body doesn't match the socially constructed gender role in which I'm comfortable. I can also see how someone else can be in a similar situation and see that as a stigmatized medical condition. Both are equally legitimate and deserving of respect, and I hope I'm making it clear that I truly believe that.

What I can't understand (and what I'm trying, respectfully, to get clarity on) is how that precludes people in that situation from being a minority. I think the comparison to disabled people is worth thinking about.

In both cases, someone was born into (or came to have through some circumstance) a body that doesn't match what society expects or what society values. If you are transsexual (my word, not yours, I just don't know how else to say it), your gender presentation doesn't match what society expects from your body. You can change your body as much as you want and get closer to that expectation, but in the end you've still got a stigmatized medical condition that can't be completely corrected. If someone is disabled, their body or mind somehow don't match up to what society has constructed as the "ideal" and that is stigmatized as well. There are disability studies and activism, so why can't there be transsexual studies and activism. I'm not saying you can't have the end goal be to "1) attained recognition for the condition as a real medical concern worth treating and not, for instance, a delusion, a curse, a divine punishment, etc; 2) gained the attention and resources of researchers to begin developing treatment and 3) developed a respectful (or even if you want, empowering) vocabulary to speak of themselves and others with the same condition."

Those three goals aren't all that far off from my goals. I want any trans person (again, my language) to have access to treatment without having to accept being diagnosed with a mental illness. I want that treatment to be accessible and affordable to everyone and I want that treatment to be safe. Finally, I want to have an empowering vocabulary to speak of myself and others with the same condition. That vocabulary might not be the same as yours, which would be fine.

Granted, I want more than those three things and maybe you don't. I just don't know that coming from two different angles means that we aren't sharing some goals or that we can't ally ourselves to reach those goals even if we might have different methods to get there.