My friend, Lauren, is far better qualified to do fancy video and twitter stuff than I am, but I can still say, if you are anywhere near Arizona and want to make a difference or learn what you can do to unify the LGBT&S communities come to the Transform Arizona Cinference October 16 thru 18, for details you can go to http://transform.transmentors.org/. It is low budget so anyone who can get there can afford to attend.
It has to be low budget, they hired me as a speaker. Lauren, at Pretty Precious People, the new name for her blog about part two of her journey, which can be found at http://lorisrevival.blogspot.com/, has the list of activities and a nice synopsis.
I remember when Michael Broen mentioned the conference to me several months ago and ask me to hink about speaking. As he was outlining his dream, I could not help remembering when I decided to try to bring the 2008 IFGE Conference to Tucson, and my thoughts were, "Sweetheart, you have a HUGE undertaking ahead of you, are you crazy!" Knowing that it is impossible to deter a zealot (being one helps with that understanding) I did not voice my thoughts, and true to zealot form, Michael has given form to his dream. And it is a low budget affair, one just right for the times.
Michael, I salute you for all your hard work and your single minded focus.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
That's A Really GOOD Question, Michael
My friend, Michael Brown, in Phoenix, posed the question on Facebook as to why many trans-gender women lead off introductions with a statement about their surgical status.
While there were some respondents who wondered why a trans-man would ask such a question, I think this is a valid question that deserves an answer. Michael is not the only one I hear this from, he is just the one brave enough to ask it in this forum.
Before I began my response, I looked at my own electronic shadow and do not think I have ever done this on line, and only do so in conversation or when speaking if there is a strategic advantage to be gained or an educational point to be made. My surgical status, and the status of my plumbing in general, are among the many challenges I have faced in my life, some of which I have overcome, some have overcome me, some are works in progress, and some yet await their turn in the queue.
That said, IMHO,it is amazing that more trans-women are NOT like this. I believe this is due to the long history of pathologization of trans people.
From where I sit, we have been affected by a non-transgender, psycho-medical perspective that has morphed through many unhealthy stages to get to a place today where we are still considered aberrations and still looked at a mentally unstable. I present the basic phases as I see them in a rough order of historic appearance:
1. “You people do not exist.”
2. “It is a choice. These are just homosexual men masquerading as women to make their homosexuality moreacceptqble. ”
3. “Transgender people are crazy.” After all who in their right mind would cut off something as important as a penis, “especially since women want one of their own.” “Isn’t that what feminism and lesbianism are all about?”
4. “Female to Male transgender people do not exist.” In 2009, this has morphed to, “transmen are very rare and hardly matter.” (This approach is used to reduce the difficulty that the existence of transmen poses to the anti-trans argument in #2 above. The existence of transmen also causes problems with #5, and especially troubles the autogynephilia theory described below.)
5. “A true trans-woman only desires hetero-stereotypical female roles—the ultra-femme fashionista, barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen.” This idea is male dominated, “after all, if a transwoman was a feminist or lesbian, she would want a penis and therefore there would be no need for the transwoman to chop it off” (see #2), in fact a non-femme transwoman would not be a transwoman at all. (And yes I know transwomen can’t get pregnant, but under this theory they are supposed to want to)
6. “All transwomen must want surgery.” This again is an anatomically oriented approach. It is STILL based on the presence or absence of the phallic god. It defines woman as the absence of male parts.
7. There are currently several versions of the classist assertion that one must have completed surgery to be a true woman of transgender experience (Yes, there are many who claim that after surgery they are no longer transsexual or transgender, but are true women of transgender/transsexual experience). This is in reality an economic and classist extension of #6, defining the acceptability of transwomen based on who much surgical intervention they have achieved and sometimes even by which surgeon/combination of surgeons.
8. Finally we are still socialized to believe that true women have all the correct plumbing.
There is one more view, to which I choose not to assign a number because it is really stupidity gone to seed and fertilized with androcentrist hubris. This view is the incredibly poorly researched and analyzed, but widely published (in spite of it’s highly controversial basis) autogynephilia model . For those unfamiliar with it, autogynephilia means that one is aroused by the image of oneself as a woman. This theory holds that only those born with a penis can have these feelings. In pre-supposing, without any attempt at validation of this pre-supposition, that women do not have any sexual arousal when they see themselves in the mirror. In order for this to be true women would have to be validated only as sperm receptacles and have no interest in sexual activity. Only men an have fun with sex, women hate it but submit out of duty to their masters. It also ignores the Female to Male transsexual (see #3 above) (that is, unless FTMs change their gender because they are rebellion against their masters, which is an idea that has never been postulated.) While this argument is intuitively easy to discredit, it’s proponents hold to it with religious fervor. Women spend a lot of time and money on enhancing their sex appeal because they like what they see, and they like the effect it has on men; maybe because women like sex as much as men. Anyone who has heard women talk about their sex lives will know this, and the clothing industry makes zillions and bazillions of dollars of that very concept.
ALL OF THIS PIFFLE is all over the internet, it mingles in with, and frequently obscures, the facts. And it has a great deal of influence on the self-image and self-identity of a group of people already groping in the darkness for validation.
While there were some respondents who wondered why a trans-man would ask such a question, I think this is a valid question that deserves an answer. Michael is not the only one I hear this from, he is just the one brave enough to ask it in this forum.
Before I began my response, I looked at my own electronic shadow and do not think I have ever done this on line, and only do so in conversation or when speaking if there is a strategic advantage to be gained or an educational point to be made. My surgical status, and the status of my plumbing in general, are among the many challenges I have faced in my life, some of which I have overcome, some have overcome me, some are works in progress, and some yet await their turn in the queue.
That said, IMHO,it is amazing that more trans-women are NOT like this. I believe this is due to the long history of pathologization of trans people.
From where I sit, we have been affected by a non-transgender, psycho-medical perspective that has morphed through many unhealthy stages to get to a place today where we are still considered aberrations and still looked at a mentally unstable. I present the basic phases as I see them in a rough order of historic appearance:
1. “You people do not exist.”
2. “It is a choice. These are just homosexual men masquerading as women to make their homosexuality moreacceptqble. ”
3. “Transgender people are crazy.” After all who in their right mind would cut off something as important as a penis, “especially since women want one of their own.” “Isn’t that what feminism and lesbianism are all about?”
4. “Female to Male transgender people do not exist.” In 2009, this has morphed to, “transmen are very rare and hardly matter.” (This approach is used to reduce the difficulty that the existence of transmen poses to the anti-trans argument in #2 above. The existence of transmen also causes problems with #5, and especially troubles the autogynephilia theory described below.)
5. “A true trans-woman only desires hetero-stereotypical female roles—the ultra-femme fashionista, barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen.” This idea is male dominated, “after all, if a transwoman was a feminist or lesbian, she would want a penis and therefore there would be no need for the transwoman to chop it off” (see #2), in fact a non-femme transwoman would not be a transwoman at all. (And yes I know transwomen can’t get pregnant, but under this theory they are supposed to want to)
6. “All transwomen must want surgery.” This again is an anatomically oriented approach. It is STILL based on the presence or absence of the phallic god. It defines woman as the absence of male parts.
7. There are currently several versions of the classist assertion that one must have completed surgery to be a true woman of transgender experience (Yes, there are many who claim that after surgery they are no longer transsexual or transgender, but are true women of transgender/transsexual experience). This is in reality an economic and classist extension of #6, defining the acceptability of transwomen based on who much surgical intervention they have achieved and sometimes even by which surgeon/combination of surgeons.
8. Finally we are still socialized to believe that true women have all the correct plumbing.
There is one more view, to which I choose not to assign a number because it is really stupidity gone to seed and fertilized with androcentrist hubris. This view is the incredibly poorly researched and analyzed, but widely published (in spite of it’s highly controversial basis) autogynephilia model . For those unfamiliar with it, autogynephilia means that one is aroused by the image of oneself as a woman. This theory holds that only those born with a penis can have these feelings. In pre-supposing, without any attempt at validation of this pre-supposition, that women do not have any sexual arousal when they see themselves in the mirror. In order for this to be true women would have to be validated only as sperm receptacles and have no interest in sexual activity. Only men an have fun with sex, women hate it but submit out of duty to their masters. It also ignores the Female to Male transsexual (see #3 above) (that is, unless FTMs change their gender because they are rebellion against their masters, which is an idea that has never been postulated.) While this argument is intuitively easy to discredit, it’s proponents hold to it with religious fervor. Women spend a lot of time and money on enhancing their sex appeal because they like what they see, and they like the effect it has on men; maybe because women like sex as much as men. Anyone who has heard women talk about their sex lives will know this, and the clothing industry makes zillions and bazillions of dollars of that very concept.
ALL OF THIS PIFFLE is all over the internet, it mingles in with, and frequently obscures, the facts. And it has a great deal of influence on the self-image and self-identity of a group of people already groping in the darkness for validation.
That's A Really GOOD Question, Michael
My friend, Michael Brown, in Phoenix, posed the question on Facebook as to why may trans-gender women lead off introductions with a statement about their surgical status.
While there were some respondents who wondered why a trans-man would ask such a question, I think this is a valid question that deserves an answer. Michael is not the only one I hear this from, he is just the one brave enough to ask it in this forum.
Before I began my response, I looked at my own electronic shadow and do not think I have ever done this on line, and only do so in conversation or when speaking if there is a strategic advantage to be gained or an educational point to be made. My surgical status, and the status of my plumbing in general, are among the many challenges I have faced in my life, some of which I have overcome, some have overcome me, some are works in progress, and some yet await their turn in the queue.
That said, IMHO,it is amazing that more trans-women are NOT like this. I believe this is due to the long history of pathologization of trans people.
From where I sit, we have been affected by a non-transgender, psycho-medical perspective that has morphed through many unhealthy stages to get to a place today where we are still considered aberrations and still looked at a mentally unstable. I present the basic phases as I see them in a rough order of historic appearance:
1. “You people do not exist.”
2. “It is a choice. These are just homosexual men masquerading as women to make their homosexuality moreacceptqble. ”
3. “Transgender people are crazy.” After all who in their right mind would cut off something as important as a penis, “especially since women want one of their own.” “Isn’t that what feminism and lesbianism are all about?”
4. “Female to Male transgender people do not exist.” In 2009, this has morphed to, “transmen are very rare and hardly matter.” (This approach is used to reduce the difficulty that the existence of transmen poses to the anti-trans argument in #2 above. The existence of transmen also causes problems with #5, and especially troubles the autogynephilia theory described below.)
5. “A true trans-woman only desires hetero-stereotypical female roles—the ultra-femme fashionista, barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen.” This idea is male dominated, “after all, if a transwoman was a feminist or lesbian, she would want a penis and therefore there would be no need for the transwoman to chop it off” (see #2), in fact a non-femme transwoman would not be a transwoman at all. (And yes I know transwomen can’t get pregnant, but under this theory they are supposed to want to)
6. “All transwomen must want surgery.” This again is an anatomically oriented approach. It is STILL based on the presence or absence of the phallic god. It defines woman as the absence of male parts.
7. There are currently several versions of the classist assertion that one must have completed surgery to be a true woman of transgender experience (Yes, there are many who claim that after surgery they are no longer transsexual or transgender, but are true women of transgender/transsexual experience). This is in reality an economic and classist extension of #6, defining the acceptability of transwomen based on who much surgical intervention they have achieved and sometimes even by which surgeon/combination of surgeons.
8. Finally we are still socialized to believe that true women have all the correct plumbing.
There is one more view, to which I choose not to assign a number because it is really stupidity gone to seed and fertilized with androcentrist hubris. This view is the incredibly poorly researched and analyzed, but widely published (in spite of it’s highly controversial basis) autogynephilia model . For those unfamiliar with it, autogynephilia means that one is aroused by the image of oneself as a woman. This theory holds that only those born with a penis can have these feelings. In pre-supposing, without any attempt at validation of this pre-supposition, that women do not have any sexual arousal when they see themselves in the mirror. In order for this to be true women would have to be validated only as sperm receptacles and have no interest in sexual activity. Only men an have fun with sex, women hate it but submit out of duty to their masters. It also ignores the Female to Male transsexual (see #3 above) (that is, unless FTMs change their gender because they are rebellion against their masters, which is an idea that has never been postulated.) While this argument is intuitively easy to discredit, it’s proponents hold to it with religious fervor. Women spend a lot of time and money on enhancing their sex appeal because they like what they see, and they like the effect it has on men; maybe because women like sex as much as men. Anyone who has heard women talk about their sex lives will know this, and the clothing industry makes zillions and bazillions of dollars of that very concept.
ALL OF THIS PIFFLE is all over the internet, it mingles in with, and frequently obscures, the facts. And it has a great deal of influence on the self-image and self-identity of a group of people already groping in the darkness for validation.
While there were some respondents who wondered why a trans-man would ask such a question, I think this is a valid question that deserves an answer. Michael is not the only one I hear this from, he is just the one brave enough to ask it in this forum.
Before I began my response, I looked at my own electronic shadow and do not think I have ever done this on line, and only do so in conversation or when speaking if there is a strategic advantage to be gained or an educational point to be made. My surgical status, and the status of my plumbing in general, are among the many challenges I have faced in my life, some of which I have overcome, some have overcome me, some are works in progress, and some yet await their turn in the queue.
That said, IMHO,it is amazing that more trans-women are NOT like this. I believe this is due to the long history of pathologization of trans people.
From where I sit, we have been affected by a non-transgender, psycho-medical perspective that has morphed through many unhealthy stages to get to a place today where we are still considered aberrations and still looked at a mentally unstable. I present the basic phases as I see them in a rough order of historic appearance:
1. “You people do not exist.”
2. “It is a choice. These are just homosexual men masquerading as women to make their homosexuality moreacceptqble. ”
3. “Transgender people are crazy.” After all who in their right mind would cut off something as important as a penis, “especially since women want one of their own.” “Isn’t that what feminism and lesbianism are all about?”
4. “Female to Male transgender people do not exist.” In 2009, this has morphed to, “transmen are very rare and hardly matter.” (This approach is used to reduce the difficulty that the existence of transmen poses to the anti-trans argument in #2 above. The existence of transmen also causes problems with #5, and especially troubles the autogynephilia theory described below.)
5. “A true trans-woman only desires hetero-stereotypical female roles—the ultra-femme fashionista, barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen.” This idea is male dominated, “after all, if a transwoman was a feminist or lesbian, she would want a penis and therefore there would be no need for the transwoman to chop it off” (see #2), in fact a non-femme transwoman would not be a transwoman at all. (And yes I know transwomen can’t get pregnant, but under this theory they are supposed to want to)
6. “All transwomen must want surgery.” This again is an anatomically oriented approach. It is STILL based on the presence or absence of the phallic god. It defines woman as the absence of male parts.
7. There are currently several versions of the classist assertion that one must have completed surgery to be a true woman of transgender experience (Yes, there are many who claim that after surgery they are no longer transsexual or transgender, but are true women of transgender/transsexual experience). This is in reality an economic and classist extension of #6, defining the acceptability of transwomen based on who much surgical intervention they have achieved and sometimes even by which surgeon/combination of surgeons.
8. Finally we are still socialized to believe that true women have all the correct plumbing.
There is one more view, to which I choose not to assign a number because it is really stupidity gone to seed and fertilized with androcentrist hubris. This view is the incredibly poorly researched and analyzed, but widely published (in spite of it’s highly controversial basis) autogynephilia model . For those unfamiliar with it, autogynephilia means that one is aroused by the image of oneself as a woman. This theory holds that only those born with a penis can have these feelings. In pre-supposing, without any attempt at validation of this pre-supposition, that women do not have any sexual arousal when they see themselves in the mirror. In order for this to be true women would have to be validated only as sperm receptacles and have no interest in sexual activity. Only men an have fun with sex, women hate it but submit out of duty to their masters. It also ignores the Female to Male transsexual (see #3 above) (that is, unless FTMs change their gender because they are rebellion against their masters, which is an idea that has never been postulated.) While this argument is intuitively easy to discredit, it’s proponents hold to it with religious fervor. Women spend a lot of time and money on enhancing their sex appeal because they like what they see, and they like the effect it has on men; maybe because women like sex as much as men. Anyone who has heard women talk about their sex lives will know this, and the clothing industry makes zillions and bazillions of dollars of that very concept.
ALL OF THIS PIFFLE is all over the internet, it mingles in with, and frequently obscures, the facts. And it has a great deal of influence on the self-image and self-identity of a group of people already groping in the darkness for validation.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sinner the Hands of an Angry God? Not so much
NOTE: While I have no intention of this blog being solely theological, there are moments when my fingers start running around the keyboard producing ideas of their own. Is this the so called stream of consciousness? I don't know. Todays missal comes from a reaction to some things a fiend is goint through, and my response to it. As my response grew in length, I realized that a chord in my spirit had been set off and that this was more than a response to one friend, it si for all those out there who face doubet about the source of your faith and have been told that God is out to get you and he will punish you...Do we belong to an Angry God? Do I live in fear of an angry God? Is God waitng for me to screw up kust one more time before he yanks me off this blue marble in the outskirts of the Milky Way and dumps me into some dark abyss? Not so much.
At some point we all make a decision to accept the manure that lands in our lap or do something about it. When we are at that point in our lives, we are all too often inundated by judgementalist Christianity (that is my term for fundamentalists after they left the fundamentals on the bathroom sink) and the only reasonable voice we hear may be the one we are told is no longer reliable or reasonable.
Our government is based on a principal that the majority rules. But with God, that is not the case. The only voice that should matter is His, through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. He wants us to live by faith in Him, and that faith means we should listen to His voice alone. Fear, on the other hand, sends us careening around the planet looking for a majority consensus to tell us we are doing okay, or at least okay enough that God is not going to smack us down and grind us to powder. I know all about this, I have been there, and sometimes still stop there for a while.
Many, too many, Christians live in this fear based belief system without being aware of it. It is what we have been taught by our traditions. It is a belief that says, “God’s gonna git ya” unless you follow the rules. The “sinners in thehands of an angry God” philosophy.
So, why don't we take a close look at this Angry God…
This angry God, while we were still His ENEMIES, while we were still AGAINST Him, sent the ONLY SON He ever sired to be the recipient of His judgment and wrath, so that I WOULD NOT HAVE TO, so that YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO. And Jesus stretched out His hands WILLINGLY so that he would be the recipient of that wrath. WILLINGLY! INTENTIONALLY! AS PLANNED for eons. WITHOUT HESITATION. I fully believe the bible shows us that Jesus fought to make sure he lived through all of the torture prior to the cross so that He could willingly be nailed to it. He did this for everyone of us. Angry hands? not so much.
The images are clear of this "angry" God...JESUS praying, sweating blood, before God in Gethsemane; Jesus silent before the Sanhedrin; Jesus silent before Pilate; Jesus silent in the face of the Roman whips and the Roman fists; Jesus struggling along the path to the top of Golgotha, Jesus suspended in agony on the cross, crying out, “WHY have you forsaken me?; Jesus, God in the flesh, outstretched hands clearly demonstratingthe true nature of Gods “anger.” Angry hands? Not so much
And then He said, “IT…IS…FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!” God’s anger was fulfilled.
He was buried.
And then, by the power of the Holy Spirit, HE ROSE FROM THE GRAVE. He is ALIVE.
Because HE LIVES,
I can face tomorrow.
BECAUSE HE LIVES
ALL fear is GONE
Because I KNOW
HE HOLDS the future,
MY life is worth LIVING
BECAUSE HE LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Gaithers)
And because He lives, I need never fear an Angry God.
An angry and judgmental world? For certain.
A world that is hell bent for election on rebelling against Him? YEP, and as often as not I get caught up in that headlong rush.
And what is it that awaits me when I recognize the error of my ways? If it is God’s anger, it is an anger that takes the form of the atoning and cleansing blood of Jesus and the forgiving and restorative grace of God that surpasses even his perfect mercy.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
What's In A Name
Standing on her balcony, crying out to the stars, Juliet asks,
And so, why choose to title my blog as I have?
The short answer is that I am an adopted daughter of the King of The Universe (aka: God). I was given this opportunity through the sacrifice of Jesus, the first born of the redeemed.
I accepted this gift and, as an adopted daughter of a king, I am thus a princess.
As a soldier formerly serving as a US Army Infantry officer, and one who still sees a need to assail the odd errant windmill, scale ivory towers of intolerance and work to right social ills, both from a human as well as heavenly perspective, I am called to live as a warrior.
There are many other titles that could also be included, but to do so would make the title longer than many of my future reflections.
I challenge you, the reader, to give this blog a chance. Ride with it a while. See for yourself that while I am a woman whose faith is central to her life, my perspective is unique and will often prove challenging, if not controversial, to readers on every side of an issue.
This is good.
A little thought never hurt anyone, and a lot of thought can only prove to make the world a better place.
While my faith is central to who I am, I strongly believe in the old adage "more is caught than taught," and hope that my whole personality comes through [ and my sense of humor, you are in for a real treat, there ;) ] and that something in who I am may show someone that it is okay to believe as I do and still be who you are. In that light, the purpose of this blog is not to proselytize, or cram any form of religion into anyone's brain housing group, rather its purpose is:
And anything else I find of interest...after all it IS my blog.
E.
PS, as this is new technology for me, there will undoubtedly be moments where I so seriously botch what I am doing it will come across as if written in some obscure ancient dialect of Klingon. But its my party and I will try if I want to...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
And so, why choose to title my blog as I have?
The short answer is that I am an adopted daughter of the King of The Universe (aka: God). I was given this opportunity through the sacrifice of Jesus, the first born of the redeemed.
I accepted this gift and, as an adopted daughter of a king, I am thus a princess.
As a soldier formerly serving as a US Army Infantry officer, and one who still sees a need to assail the odd errant windmill, scale ivory towers of intolerance and work to right social ills, both from a human as well as heavenly perspective, I am called to live as a warrior.
There are many other titles that could also be included, but to do so would make the title longer than many of my future reflections.
I challenge you, the reader, to give this blog a chance. Ride with it a while. See for yourself that while I am a woman whose faith is central to her life, my perspective is unique and will often prove challenging, if not controversial, to readers on every side of an issue.
This is good.
A little thought never hurt anyone, and a lot of thought can only prove to make the world a better place.
While my faith is central to who I am, I strongly believe in the old adage "more is caught than taught," and hope that my whole personality comes through [ and my sense of humor, you are in for a real treat, there ;) ] and that something in who I am may show someone that it is okay to believe as I do and still be who you are. In that light, the purpose of this blog is not to proselytize, or cram any form of religion into anyone's brain housing group, rather its purpose is:
- To afford me an opportunity to vent my spleen on issues about which I feel strongly;
- To allow me to regale the universe with my vast knowledge and wisdom regarding all subjects, public or private, be they plant, mineral or animal; larger or smaller than a bread box; and brought to you in living color;
- To offer some perspectives on contemporary issues;
- To at times offer my opinions on matters of faith for discussion and consideration;
- To accomplish other goals as determined to be necessary by the management (the standard blanket "other duties as required" clause common to all job descriptions).
And anything else I find of interest...after all it IS my blog.
E.
PS, as this is new technology for me, there will undoubtedly be moments where I so seriously botch what I am doing it will come across as if written in some obscure ancient dialect of Klingon. But its my party and I will try if I want to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
