Monthly Archives: June 2009

Dear Cissexual Queer/Gender Theorists, Feminists, and Trans Allies:

We need to talk. That’s not quite accurate, actually. I need to talk, and you need to shut up and listen for a minute. Because some of y’all have been talking about me, and you’ve been talking so loudly that you haven’t been hearing what I’m saying. Some of you haven’t even noticed that I’m in the room.

You probably don’t know me. But a few of you seem to think you know everything you need to know. Enough to fill up chapters in academic texts or pages on your blogs. Enough to make fetishistic jokes or web comics. Enough to name my genitals for me

To be fair, y’all probably didn’t even realize you were talking about me specifically, most of the time. Thanks to testosterone and chest reconstruction surgery, you couldn’t pick me out of a crowd. But, make no mistake—you’re talking about my identity and my experience, too. And I’m tired of being made to feel invisible, or like I shouldn’t speak up about this stuff. So I’m going to offer a few suggestions, and give you yet another chance to respect my identity, and the identities of other people that you’ve been (unintentionally, I’m sure) stomping all over.

Now take a seat, because this might take a few single-spaced pages.  Maybe take a few notes this time, since you obviously forgot about the last thirty times we’ve had discussions like this.

First, in order to respect me, you need to work on completely deconstructing the conflation of masculinity and maleness. A lot of y’all have done some great and much-needed work around dismantling the bullshit idea that masculinity is the sole property of male people. But almost in the same breath, some of you seem to forget that there is nothing inherently masculine about maleness.

I’m male, but I’m not masculine-identified. At all. I don’t care how I look to you. I don’t care if you know that I’m trans. I don’t even care if you know that I identified as an andro dyke for a minute. I’m still not masculine. My experience is not a masculine experience. Period. If, for any reason(s) you think that I am, or if you don’t find it to be a big deal when my femme identity is invalidated, or if you know that I’m feminine, but—goshdarnit—you just keep forgetting? Then you need to check your shit.

Part of respecting me has to include calling bullshit on things that imply, whether directly or indirectly, that male people have inherent masculinity. At the very least, it requires that you notice when it happens. In case you’re confused, here are a couple of examples.

What about when people point out to y’all that it’s problematic to use the word “trans-masculine” to mean all female-assigned people who are masculine-identified, genderqueer-identified, and male-identified, and to exclude all male-assigned people—even masculine- or genderqueer- identified trans female people? I know, I know—“It’s impossible to find a word that will please everybody!” We’ve all heard that one before, right? Be quiet, you’re being divisive. Not to harsh your mellow, but I don’t want to be silenced any more than you do, especially when I can think of several alternatives to “trans-masculine” off the top of my head.

And, I know that lots of female-assigned-at-birth (FAAB) trans people use “transmasculine”. The trans community is only in the beginning stages of trying on new, accurate, and empowering language. We’re going to evolve, and you’re going to have to keep up, and listen to the discussions we’re having.  But, while we’re working on that, how about you stop saying “transmasculine”, if what you’re really trying to do is build a community around what you assume is in the pants of “transmasculine” people (or rather, what you assume isn’t in their pants). And that is what you’re doing, 95% of the time.

It’s important to a lot of folks (for various reasons of variable worth) to have an umbrella term to unite butches to genderqueers to trans guys and everything “in between”. But to say that “trans-masculinity” necessarily encompasses trans maleness is to shoot your trans-feminism in the foot.  Not all cis men are masculine. Many trans women are masculine, and there are many MAAB genderqueer folks who would fit comfortably under the “transmasculine” umbrella. And trans genders are as complex as, and deserve as much respect as, cis genders.

Of course y’all all know that in theory, but I need to see some action.

And when I say “action”, I definitely don’t mean like when “Top Hot Butches” showed up, and it included a metric shit ton of people who were assumed to be masculine, just because they’re male-identified. Oh, and one Riki Wilchins. I’m not sure what Riki Wilchins’ identity is currently, but how—when doing a project about “rejecting compulsory femininity”—is Wilchins theonly MAAB person on that list?

Seriously, why there weren’t way more masculine-identified and genderqueer-identified trans female people on that list? If anybody’s strength and beauty should be celebrated for “reject[ing] compulsory femininity”, in my opinion, it’s them. How many masculine cis female people do you know who have had their femaleness challenged in a meaningful way because they choose to exhibit “intentional masculinity” (and, no, being called “sir” in the checkout line does not count)?

I mean, if the primary criterion for “butchness” is “reject[ing] compulsory femininity”, I’m not sure why male people should even be on a list like that, since there’s nothing “compulsory” about male femininity. Even if the male person is trans. And there’s nothing necessarily “intentional” about trans male masculinity. I’m not even really sure what “intentional” means in that context, actually. Is FAAB masculinity more of a performance than any other gender expression (which can either be “not a performance at all” or “completely a performance”, depending on your views). If it’s not, then why is it mentioned?

The original “Top Hot Butches” appeared to be a celebration of what its author perceived as “butchness”. And—to me at least—it was damn clear that the author’s idea of “butchness” is about female masculinity—specifically, about FAAB masculinity. I hope I don’t even have to go into how fucked up it is to practically go out of your way to praise the masculinity of [trans] male people, while overwhelmingly ignoring the masculinity of [trans] female people.

And, you know what’s not a good excuse? This

I would love suggestions for more butch transwomen to include; I’ve been asking, and looking around, and I did include #84 Riki Wilchins, but surely there must be more than just her. I’m just not familiar with them. It’s so hard to include people you don’t know about, you know? Impossible, in fact. And who I know is completely related to my own standpoint. It’s a huge challenge to get a range of diversity on a list like this.

I find it hard to believe that they were personally familiar with all the FAAB folks they listed. And, even if they were, I think it says volumes about whose and what genders they perceive as “butch”, if they have just happened to never have stumbled upon the writings, activism, contributions, and hotness of masculine-identified MAAB trans people.

It’s a side step, and it avoids something that many folks in the “trans inclusive” queer women’s community need to own up to. If you don’t make space for MAAB trans people in your community, and none show up, whose fault is that? And whose responsibility is it to fix it?

But I don’t even believe for a second that “Top Hot Butches” was really about masculinity, anyway. Because no cis guy (feminine or masculine) would’ve been put on that list, but I have no doubt that—were I a semi-famous openly-trans guy—I’d have been considered for that list without a second thought. I think it’s a safe bet, since I’m pretty sure (at least) one of the guys included in the original list wouldn’t even identify his gender as masculine.

But trans genders are as worthy of respect as cis genders, right? Fortunately, I’m not naïve enough to have dared to hope that the Feministing community would back me up. Instead of calling out cissexism, y’all posted what seemed like a billion comments in which you didn’t notice that there was anything busted going on, or attempted to silence trans people who pointed it out, or—and this was my personal favorite—said shit to the effect of “I can see that this is problematic, but damn that list is hot”. Who doesn’t like their cissexism with a side of fetishism?

The link between masculinity and maleness may have been broken—but only for cis maleness and cis masculinity. I believe that a lot of y’all quietly believe that there is something intrinsically masculine about trans maleness—something that doesn’t exist in cis maleness. And, whatever that thing is, it apparently ties me to this idea of female[-assigned-at-birth] masculinity. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that it’s my hypothetical vagina.

That’s not respecting trans genders. That’s cissexism. And there’s no excuse for it. Not “we need more butch visibility”. Not “that’s not what they meant”. Not “[some] trans guys are a part of the community”. And definitely not “ think of it more as a celebration of bending gender norms, rather than a celebration of masculinity” (if you haven’t caught on, that’s fucked up, too). The fact that folks who consider themselves to be trans allies glossed over what amounts to blatant cissexist bullshit. . . it’s disgusting. Even more so because so many of y’all seemed to be overly willing to do so, simply because they liked the eye candy.

Why is it so important for y’all to claim a connection between “butchness”/female masculinity and trans maleness? Sure, connections often exist.  But you never seem to be talking about individual people’s experiences, and their unique relationships to their genders.  That is something to celebrate and honor within your community.  Instead, you’re conscripting all trans male people into your ideas of “butchness”, “trans-masculinity”, and “female masculinity”, without even considering the identities of those of us who are not masculine.

Just because you don’t see us, it doesn’t mean we’re not there. And it definitely doesn’t mean you can generalize the [valid] experiences and identities of the trans guys you do know onto the trans guys you don’t.

And, yes, after the outrage, the trans men were removed from the list.  Last I heard, they were being asked individually whether they’d like to be included.  The non-consensual gendering was an important issue that was appropriately addressed.  But the whole thing still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Just because many of the trans guys listed happen to be okay with being included doesn’t change the facts of why they were included to begin with.  Instead of being carefully chosen in a way that showed respect for their unique identities, they were chosen simply because they’re trans.  They would’ve been chosen even if they hadn’t wanted to be.

Perhaps all’s well that ends well?  But if you make a fucked up assumption about a group that I’m a member of, even if that assumption happens to be true for me?  I’m still going to think you’re an asshole.

This might also be a good time to mention that I’m genderqueer-identified. Does that surprise you? It seems like it should, considering that FAAB trans people who object to this shit are often portrayed as binary-identified, male-identified, cisgender*, not-radical, and “stealth” men of transsexual history. Many of whom don’t even consider themselves trans, much less queer.

But, no. I’m genderqueer. I’m genderqueer, and I’m telling you there’s a fucking problem. And one of these problems is subversivism. This shit is said with an eye roll. It’s a way of recognizing, but essentially dismissing concerns. Because all those things—male identities, nondisclosure, cisgender/binary identites—are automatically assumed to be backwards. Or, if not backwards, at least less evolved.

Lots of y’all seem to imagine that cisgender transsexual men are all so wracked with body dysphoria and internalized transphobia that they couldn’t possibly understand or respect other trans guys’ non-binary identities. Of course those guys have a problem with “transmasculine”, or that stupid list, or the creepy bullshit Margaret Cho has been spewing, etc. Most of the time, even when you admit that what you said/did/wrote was fucked up, it seems insincere. As if dissenters should be humored and shushed, so that everybody can go back to universalizing the experience of some trans people at the expense of others.

I’m not saying that cisgender trans men are all innocent victims; cisgenderism is a prevalent and serious problem among binary-identified folks (cis and trans). But there’s a difference between cisgenderism and people being pissed that you consider respecting their identities less important than drawing the lines of community where you want them, no matter who it hurts.

Since I’ve got your attention, we also need to talk a bit about the way some of y’all have been treating the complexity of genderqueer identities. Since it’s still so fresh in everybody’s minds, let’s take the “Top Hot Butches” list, for example. Some genderqueer people have butch or masculine identities. But many genderqueer people—even FAAB genderqueer people (me, for example)—wouldn’t identify their genders as “masculine” at all.

I highly doubt that the author of the list took the time to check to make sure that the genderqueer-identified folks on they included actually identified as butch/masculine. What seems to have happened is that they looked at the confetti of identities that make up genderqueerness, and decided, “Okay, so I know that some of y’all identify outside the binary and all that, but in reality you’re presenting as masculine (or male, which is really just hyper-extended masculinity), so we’ll just say that you present in a way that rejects compulsory femininity, and display some sort of intentional masculinity. For short, we’ll call that butch.

Maybe it goes without saying that, when y’all say “genderqueer”, it’s usually pretty safe to assume that you mean FAAB genderqueers. You mean those genderqueers you pretend to humor, but quietly consider women/female (despite the fact that many explicitly reject those labels). I’ll start believing that y’all respect my genderqueer identity once you start respecting (or even acknowledging) the genderqueer identities of MAAB genderqueer people.

This shit? It’s Not Okay. What you’re doing here—it’s Not Okay. And you’re doing it over, and over, and over again. And it’s exactly why I find so much of gender and queer theory to be a bunch of appropriative bullshit. My identities, my experiences, and my life is not an illustration in some cissexual exploration of “radical” gender and sex. Y’all need to work your transmisogynistic, biological-deterministic shit out, and then we can talk about the social and political implications of my transition. Maybe.

With hope, but no love,

Caleb

*I use “cisgender” in a way that many readers may not be familiar with.  I don’t find “cisgender” to be the corrollary to “transgender”.  While “transgender” is sometimes an identity word, it’s usually more of an umbrella term for gender and sexual minorities.  I think “cisgender” makes more sense as a corrollary to “genderqueer” (or gender-variant, or gender-nonconforming, etc.)—as a way to describe binary-identified or gender-normative people (both cissexual and transsexual).

I reject the assumption that all trans people challenge the gender binary, or bend gender, etc.  Some of us do, and some of us just see ourselves as men and women with a sexual history that really isn’t your business.  And I think that it’s an important way to illustrate that the genders of trans people have as much nuance as the genders of cis people.  We should all find ways to respect each trans person’s right to define how their gender relates to their sex.