Thursday, August 28, 2008

Birthday Travels

I don’t always like traveling, and I don’t always like birthdays, so when the plan for this year’s birthday involved travel, I didn’t quite know what to expect. I don’t know if low expectations helped, but I definitely had a good time.

Day 1: Asbury Park, New Jersey
I have driven through New Jersey on a handful of occasions, but my time in New Jersey had been limited to stopping for gas right off of the turnpike. Wanting to be near, but not in New York City (destination for Day 2), Asbury Park seemed a good pick.

It was a weekday, so there weren’t too many people around. Although, I’m not sure how populated it gets even on the weekends. I got a good price on a room with a king-sized bed at the Berkeley, which is always a good thing. The hotel has just recently gone under some reconstruction, and is still in the middle of more. Their decoration was kind of crazy, the air conditioning in the room never quite got cold, and the shower drained super slow, but being a block from the beach made up for it a little.

The part of the boardwalk nearest the hotel also seemed to be undergoing renovation/restoration, and some new construction, too. The boardwalk itself clearly had new planks, and there were new businesses, as well as some old ones, too. I wonder what the area looked like before...



The weather was gorgeous, and that night there happened to be a fireworks show right at the beach closest to the hotel. They weren’t as big as D.C.’s 4th of July fireworks, but being close make them bigger, sitting on the sand with the waves crashing, and having fresh baked cookies from The Baker Boys definitely heightened the whole experience. Well, and the beer and food from the Irish pub earlier in the evening didn’t hurt!

I had time the next morning for a quick walk on the boardwalk, and breakfast nearby.


Day 2: Slice, Garlic Knots, Waterfalls, & Dinner at Nobu (Next Door)

I admit, I can get pretty pre-occupied/obsessed with food...but when you find a good slice of pizza with some yummy garlic knots, and then have dinner at Nobu, then what’s not to celebrate. Hey, at least I also made time to walk a little of that food off by taking a walk to the Brooklyn Promenade to catch a glimpse of the waterfall installation.



Principle of Least Astonishment

“The bathroom question,” is a well-known fixture of transgender issues. Transpeople want to be able to use public restrooms in peace and with safety, but transphobia fuels cisgender people’s fears about what might happen (read: what transpeople will do to cisgender people).

Where all these fears around bathrooms come from, I’m not sure. I know of some fears around men in women’s restrooms based in sexual assault attempts, and fear of such assaults. But, the issue seems to go back much further. Or, perhaps what goes back further is the entitlement and privilege of some being asserted over others in material ways through bathroom spaces (e.g., during the U.S.’s Jim Crow era where there were three bathrooms—white men, white men, and “colored”). (There must be some geography/cultural landscape scholarship on this...)

In any case, I had long ago internalized this fear, even before I started identifying as trans. My gender presentation has never really conformed to “woman,” and I learned early on that I could startle women in restrooms. I also learned early on how to compensate/cope—to use the restrooms on campus during class when traffic was minimal, to use out of the way restrooms, to limit my liquid intake and wait until I got to a “safe” bathroom, etc. I also try to follow the principle of least astonishment, and use whichever restroom I think others expect me to use—that is, that will not be a cause for surprise.

The other day, I was at a coffee house in DC and had to use the bathroom. As usual, I waited until there seemed to be a lull in the restroom traffic before I made my approach. The coffee house had two bathrooms, both single-use, and a key was needed to enter. (Why places insist on labeling one bathroom “men” and one “women” when they are single-use, I’ll never understand. True, some can be equipped slightly differently, as in the case when there are urinals in one but not the other, but otherwise they can still be used by either.) The keys were in plain sight by the register, and for the most part, employees pointed the keys out to customers who asked or looked like there were searching, but otherwise, didn’t seem overly concerned with strictly and closely monitoring them. I packed up, quickly walked to the register, and grabbed the key to the women’s room.

Now, I always feel conflicted about which bathroom I use, and I’d prefer to use the one that says “bathroom,” but if they are sex-segregated spaces and other people are around, I usually default to “women” because I don’t think I pass all that well, all my documentation still says “female,” and in my experience they are often a little cleaner.

Imagine my surprise when the employee at the register saw me and said, “not that one,” indicating I had taken the wrong key. He seemed to think I took the women’s key by mistake, and I was really glad that he thought so. A small victory, but I’ll take what I can get.

Burden of Proof

You’ve got to demonstrate that you’re a part of society and can work and perform just as well as anybody else. (Marisa Richmond, first openly transgender African-American delegate to the Democratic National Convention)

This quotation appears in the Advocate’s recent article, “Pie-in-the-Sky Presidency?” by Julie Bolcer. Moving from Barack Obama’s soon-to-be first ever presidential candidate (and hopefully, the nation’s first black president), the central question posed by Bolcer in the article is “When—and under what circumstances—might an openly gay person move into the Oval Office?” The question isn’t one that’s particularly interesting to me, but it’s one that’s certainly not unexpected. What was unexpected for me, however, was reading Richmond’s quotation above.

I wonder, is everyone, equally, burdened with this task of demonstrating their belonging and worth to society?

I don’t think so.

And, moreover, I highly doubt that the evidence seemed acceptable to prove such a thing would be held consistent for all—that is, what would be sufficient for some would not be sufficient for all.

Maybe I’m a pessimist? Or, maybe I’m just a realist?

Well, and then there’s what Susan Stryker points out in her recently published book, Transgender History:

The state’s actions often regulate bodies, in ways both great and small, by enmeshing them within norms and expectations that determine what kinds of lives are deemed livable or useful and by shutting down the spaces of possibility that imaginative transformation where people’s lives begin to exceed and escape the state’s use for them. (51)

Just makes me wonder about all the recent talk I’ve been hearing about “the American dream,” as if the only thing standing between any one individual and obtaining that dream is only hirself. Given the regulations put upon us by others in society, industries, the state, etc., how can we not know how untrue that is?!

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Cheer or Jeer?

In an Advocate interview (April 22, 2008) with Kimberly Peirce about her second film, Stop-Loss, interviewer Anne Stockwell turned the topic of conversation to masculinity, pointing to Peirce’s fascination with masculinity as an artist. (Considering Peirce’s debut directorial film, Boys Don’t Cry, Stockwell’s observation seems warranted.) After some insights by Peirce about the need for men—trans, biological, gay, and heterosexual alike—to work to perform, and moreover sustain, masculinity in a modern culture in which traditional, stoic masculinity is more and more often being considered insufficient, the conversation took what was for me, an unexpected turn.

Talking specifically about what she characterizes as queer culture’s concern about masculinity, Peirce then goes on to say “You have this whole thing where women who used to be butches now are becoming transsexuals or tranny fags. So a love of masculinity ultimately becomes a love of self becomes wanting to be two men together.”

That Peirce describes transmen as “women who used to be butches,” is slightly disturbing given the history of border wars between FTMs and butches (see Judith Halberstam’s chapter on this in Female Masculinity), and the way that her statement seems to feed into those battles. It’s also an unfortunate statement given the predominance of transmen who have been so adamant that though they may have been born in female bodies, they were never women. Clearly, not all transmen feel this way (I’m still struggling with this myself), and we need to hear more about such diversity within the trans community.

But, that nuanced acknowledgement of trans diversity isn’t what Peirce’s comment was getting at—instead, what she highlights is how transmen identify as gay men after transition because they love masculinity so much that not only do they seek it out for themselves in being men, but also want to partner with men. She never says it, but my impression was that she saw this as a narcissistic love of masculinity extended, and awry.

Are there tranny fags?
Hell yes.

Do some of them love masculinity so much that they not only want to be men, but they want to be with me?
Yes. And why are we so concerned about this? Isn’t this giving into the same oppressive forces that promote homophobia, of gay men and transexual women especially?

Are all transmen gay-identified?
No. So then why single-out gay-identified transmen for their sexuality?

Is a narcissistic love of masculinity the only reason that some trans men are gay?
No. Even if it were, shouldn’t we celebrate self-love, especially living in the context of a heterosexist and homophobic culture?

Is narcissistic love the reason most transmen are gay?
I doubt it. Is there really ever just one reason for anything?

So, what’s the big deal with what Peirce said?
It’s not THAT big a deal...I still put Stop-Loss on my netflix queue, and thought it was a good film, and told others, too. But, it did get me thinking about the interconnections between gender and sexuality...

It used to be that historically there were those who thought that people were “homosexual” (e.g. butch lesbian) because of their “inappropriate” gender display. The theory clearly fell through when considering femme lesbians, though that didn’t prevent femmes from being overlooked and/or ignored for a long time, since they weren’t always acknowledged as “real” lesbians (see Joan Nestle, including one of my favorites, The Femme-Butch Reader: The Persistent Desire). Heck, it was even the case that in the U.S., a post-transition heterosexual was mandated before consent for sexual reassignment surgery was given. And, it’s still true that in some countries today, sex reassignment surgery is being covered by government funding so as to turn “homosexuals” into “heterosexuals,” in keeping with compulsory heterosexual thought. Even trans-identified researchers have made the mistake of assuming the heterosexuality of their trans-identified subjects—that’s what happens under the dominance of compulsory heterosexuality and heterosexism.

So, it’s good to hear about transsexual gay men, to have their existence acknowledged and reflected in media and culture. But, it would have been nice if their sexuality wasn’t made out to be “a love of self,” as if self-love were so bad, and as if same-sex sexuality is only about self-love.

Really, though, maybe my reaction to Peirce’s passing comment about the sexuality of transgender and transsexual people is more about my own interest and theory about how previously gay-identified transpeople cope with passing/identifying as heterosexual post-transition...

Oohh...I smell a new research project...but I guess I should finish the one at hand first!

Wishes

Wishes shouldn't only be for birthdays, but I think that sometimes we get too caught up in life to remember that. So, I guess it's nice that when birthdays do roll around, we take the time to stop for a second (hopefully, more) to remember.

Unlike last year when I atypically gathered a group people together to help me celebrate my birthday, this year I choose to celebrate more intimately. Don't get me wrong, birthday parties can be fun, but I find they can be a bit overwhelming, too. Not necessarily in a bad way, but overwhelming nonetheless, for someone shy like me.

(My friends never believe me when I say how shy I am...and I guess I don't really blame them. After all, if we consider each other friends, I probably am not as shy around them as I would "normally" be!)

In any case, I had a long, fun birthday week that included travels to New Jersey and New York. (More on those later when I have the pictures to go along with the story.) It started with a birthday card from my mom (which was early, of course) that read:

A Birthday Blessing

Life is change...
this much we know.
We plant a seed,
we watch it grow.
A caterpillar,
small and shy,
Unfurls into
a butterfly.
An acorn falls
so it can be
Transformed into
a sturdy tree.
And so we know
when change arrives
Across the landscape
of our lives,
We still can trust
that it will mean
a special blessing
not yet seen.
As you grow into all
that God has planned
for you this year,
may each day give way
to blessing after blessing.

The best thing about this card was that I read it and thought about its message of change and love. It reminded me how much my mom loves me, and how she would probably be just fine with me being trans, if only I would give her the chance to accept me by telling her. I don't know exactly what stops me from coming out...probably all the other things I'm afraid of that don't really have to do with my parents. Which is why the card I got from a long-time friend was just what I needed, too.



Inside the card reads, "Hope the fun lasts 'til pigs fly!" And she writes, "my birthday wish for you is for all the 'impossibles' out there to be 'possibles.' Have all the cake and happiness you want." Better yet, I just came out to her as trans this past June when I saw her, and she addressed the envelope and the card with exactly the right name. :)

And, I did have both a bunch of cake, and happiness this year. Thanks y'all.


Coffee oreo ice cream cake, even--YUM!

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Bring people of color into leadership positions. Duh.



“Digging for Dollars.” Ran across this article from The Advocate a couple of months ago, and wanted to finally sit down and blog about it. It reports that “Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues reveals that only 8.8% of all funding for LGBT causes in 2006 went to groups targeting people of color...even though blacks, Latinos, biracial people, and other minorities make up at least one quarter of the U.S. population.” Author Conn Corrigan also goes on to provide us with the fact that out of 19 prominent foundations reviewed, “10 didn’t award a single grant to people-of-color groups that year,” and that in fact “four hadn’t awarded any grants at all to these groups in the preceding five years.”

It’s too bad that Corrigan didn’t name names...maybe then there would be some awareness raised about how Funders could better allocate grants, and how donors could choose better funds to donate to to begin with. By not calling out these 10 groups who aren’t supporting LGBT POC groups, we are complicit in their overlooking of such groups.

And, other than the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, no other foundation who IS supporting projects by LGBT POC groups is named. How about some much needed kudos for funders like these who are supporting a wider segment of queer communities?

True, we could read the report card ourselves (but then what would we need Corrigan for?)

Corrigan focuses his critique on the composition of the board for foundations, arguing that until boards get people of color into leadership positions, such uneven allocation of grants will continue. More POC leaders could translate into more POC groups receiving funding. But, it’s not just the responsibility of POC leaders to grant funds to POC groups. In fact, without the help of allies, no civil rights movements or groups would ever gain much ground. White LGBT leaders are just as capable of giving grants to POC groups, if they realize the necessity and benefit of doing so. And, it’s not just POC’s responsibility to do this education.

I’ve heard over and over in my life how we should “bring people of color into leadership positions” if we want change. I’m not against such a move, but I am against being complicit with white leadership that continues the status quo despite the need for change. Why would POC want to take leadership in such environments? And, how can we expect POC leaders to succeed given the climate they are entering into?

The answer isn’t ONLY people of color in leadership positions—-the answer is anti-racist work, by ALL.

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Brown Paint



I ran across this "Frazz" comic by Jef Mallett in this past Sunday's paper, and was immediately drawn to it: on one hand because the issue of the lack of diversified racial representation is raised (which is refreshing to see since it seems to be done only a small fraction of the time), and on the other hand because the white character in the comic strip is blatantly oblivious to the lack of racial representation (which is refreshing to see since white privilege like this character demonstrates, isn't often made explicit as it is in this strip). Kudos to Mallett.