Stacy Blahnik killed; Philadelphia Daily News reduces her to trans status and beauty

Edit 10/14: This post originally appropriated the words of Helen G and attributed them to a cis woman. This is an act of centering the voices of cis people yet again, and I apologize. There's more  at the end of this post, but go here to read Helen's explanation of why this is so very wrong.

Trigger warning for degendering language

Stacy Blahnik, a 31-year-old woman who lived in Point Breeze in Philadelphia, was found dead by her boyfriend at their home on Monday evening. Blahnik is survived by her partner, her dogs, and many friends and colleagues.

Blahnik was known locally and nationally as an activist and mentor with the House of Blahnik. She held a position of leadership, the "Overall Mother", and focused on the emotional and sexual health of those in the community marginalized by race, sexuality, and gender identity. From their website:

The Undeniable House of Blahnik, a ballroom focused community based organization founded in 2000 by African American and Latino gay and transgender persons whose primary goal was to form a social network of progressive, supportive, and creative individuals dedicated to developing and garnishing the talents and gifts of the “ballroom” community. Our mission is to positively affect the social development of our members and to provide nurturing spaces for self-expression, and personal and professional growth.

The cause of death has yet to be announced, and some suspect homicide. A large bald white man was seen leaving her place on the day her body was found.

Details on this case are scant. Initial reports claimed that she was found with a pillowcase around her neck. Police later denied that and said that there were no signs of trauma on her body. Given that trans people face a rate of violence twice that of cis people, it is certainly more than likely that her tragic death was violent in nature.

Her death has been remembered and reported by police and media not with respect for her life as she lived it, but with incorrect information borne of bigotry and and sensationalism. This ABC news report has done an excellent job of giving basic information on the case that does not degender or dehumanize Blahnik, but it did so only at the urging of the Transgender Foundation of America. The police report and this report from Philadelphia Daily News reporter Stephanie Farr are both stunning and typical examples of how trans women are treated by the forces of cissexism.

Blahnik is referred to with male pronouns and a name she did not use. She is dehumanized from the very start, when "transsexual" is used as a noun, rather than "woman". Her clothing at the time of her death - the clothes she was wearing in private - are heavily highlighted to sexualize her death. Throughout the Daily News piece, her beauty is referred to again, and again, and again. Her body gave other women complexes! She got attention on the street! These are not compliments, but transmisogynistic exploitation of her gender and appearance.

This sexualization is not only reflective of Blahnik's gender, but also of her race. Black women have long been seen as hyper-sexual; women of color are frequently reduced to their shape and appearance and sexual attractiveness.

Two good posts on Blahnik's death and the media coverage of it have already been written. From Helen G* at Questioning Transphobia:

[I]t’s because of a legal system which is too busted, and those who run it too bigoted and transphobic, to allow for the possibility that, although some women may well be trans, that’s no reason to dehumanise them by denying appropriate documentation. By the look of it, the local PD in this instance is another one which has yet to make that great leap forward into the 21st century, where trans women are treated like the humans we are.

From Monica Roberts at TransGriot:

That means Stacey's name should not have been placed in quotation marks, since once again, she was obviously living publicly as a woman and your interviews with her neighbors should have established that.

Blahnik's life is not worth covering to reporters, and her gender is exploited for shock value. Farr, aided by the police report, focuses not on Blahnik's death, not on the circumstances of her case, not on her life and time, but instead upon the womanhood that she so clearly views as questionable. This is ground in with the very last line, which misgenders, objectifies, and trivializes a life lost: "'Whatever she was - transvestite, man, woman - she didn't deserve to die like that,' one man said."

Blahnik was a positive influence in the lives of many: her neighbors, her boyfriend, the people she worked with and for. She should be mourned and remembered for her life well lived: her good work, her relationships with her loved ones, and her considerable contributions to her community.

ETA: Please check out and share Lilith von Fraumench's open letter to the Philadelphia Daily News as well.

*Originally mis-identified as Helen Boyd, who is a totally different person. Apologies, and thanks to Queen Emily on tumblr for alerting me to my mistake.

ETA: I made a huge and very harmful mistake when I posted this yesterday by attributing Helen G's work to a cis woman with a history of appropriation.  

I deeply regret my actions and apologize to Helen G.

My act of verbal violence was a part of the long cis tradition of taking trans voices and issues and appropriating and centering them around cis voices. It was careless and cruel. 

Furthermore, I apologize to her and to my readers for not identifying my error and apologizing for my attack on her sooner. Both are indications of carelessness and unexamined privilege on my part. I will refrain from posting about trans issues for a while as I struggle to understand and atone for my actions.


Here is Helen G's explanation of why what I did was so wrong.

I also apologize to Kinsey Hope, whose expertise and friendship I selfishly used for my own learning experience.

Turkish women attacked at third European Transgender Council; police harrass, degender victims

The logo of Transgender Europe. The graphic is a cog-like circular design in yellow, and the letters TGEU are in blue.

Two weeks ago, Transgender Europe held the third European Transgender Council in Malmo, Sweden. The Council hosted over 200 delegates from thirty-five countries, and it offered a number of worthwhile speakers, workshops, and other activities. But cissexism cast a shadow over this event when random transphobes attacked two Turkish delegates; police degendered and harrassed the targets rather than protecting them.

On the evening of September 30, the first night of the Council, the two women went to eat at a restaurant. As they entered the building, a couple of bystanders began yelling slurs at them. These two men invited several more passersby to join them. When the women emerged, they were attacked physically, with fists and eggs, by a crowd of men.

The attack was apparently motivated not only by cissexism but also by racism. Turkophobia runs high in Europe and has for hundreds of years.

After the incident was reported to the authorities, the police on duty did not do their job and seek out those responsible for the hate crime. Of course not. They further penalized these activists for their nationality and their gender by referring to them with incorrect pronouns, questioning their right to be in Sweden, and otherwise humiliating them. The delegates described their treatment as "".

The hosts of the conference are understandably enraged, though not surprised:

“There is no safe space for transgender people in Europe. Last night's attack showed once more that transphobia and racism are not only a problem of certain countries in Europe. Transphobia is everywhere”, says TGEU Vice chair Julia Ehrt.


“We express our solidarity with our activist friends. We are sad and angry and call upon the police to do everything to persecute the perpetrators,” says Dr Carsten Balzer from the “Transrespect versus Transphobia Worldwide” TvT- Research project..


The largest European Human rights event on transgender issues deals among other topics with hate crimes and violence faced by gender variant people. In the last 30 months 33 transgender people were reported of being murdered in Europe according to TGEU's TvT-project. 79% of trans people are subject to negative comments, harassment, physical and sexual abuse and violence according to the European Hate Crime Study published by Press for Change last year.

In the US, Public and police mistreatment of trans people, particularly trans women, is often egregious and violent. Duanna Johnson was killed brutally beaten at the hands of police, and countless women have been sexually assaulted by officers.

But such abuse is not limited to the shores of my homeland. Women around the world are hassled, violated, raped, and murdered, and that hatred is intensified if they are trans. When they are also a member of a marginalized nationality, they are even more vulnerable to the violent agents of the kyriarchy. And like many marginalized people, the police offer no recourse but instead another avenue of victimization. Organizations like Transgender Europe and the brave activists who populate them are vital to dismantling the global system of racism and cissupremacy that endorses and encourages such treatment.

sources 1, 2, 3

Trans student not homecoming king because of Mona Shores High School cissexism

High schools have long been a bastion of gender policing, most recently punishing Constance McMillan* and Alexis Lusk for their sexuality and gender. And now, at Mona Shores High School, the cissexist administration is using homecoming as an excuse to champion the gender binary. Oak Reed was voted homecoming king recently by his classmates and friends. Since he is trans, school officials decided that that simply wouldn't do.

Assistant Superintendent Todd Geerlings said the issue is simple: The ballots gave two choices -- vote for a boy for king and a girl for queen...And, in school records, he said, Oakleigh is still listed as a female..."They told me that they took me off because they had to invalidate all of my votes because I'm enrolled at Mona Shores as a female," Oakleigh said.

Oak and his friends are understandably upset. He was surprised because school administrators and teachers had already given him the basic respect of treating him as his actual gender. "They let me wear a male tux for band uniform, and they're going to let me wear the male robe and cap for graduation...[Teachers] call me Oak, and they say, he, him, his."

His classmates, the ones who elected him in the first place, have intensified their support of their king. One student, Nick Schrier, started a Facebook group called "Oak Is My King" protesting the school's decision (click on the link to join!). The group suggests writing letters to the local paper and wearing shirts proclaiming their support of Oak on the day of the game. "It's the senior class that votes for their representative," Reed said. "What they did was taking away the voice of the senior class."

The article profiling this incident is at first benign, but actually another example of cissexism masquerading as objectivity. The reporter avoids referring to Oak's very clearly stated gender through pronouns; Oak is constantly referred to either by his first name or as "the teen". Alone, this would be troublesome. But especially in conjunction with pained references to Oak's prior name and surgery plans, it betrays a cissexist denial of Oak's gender as truly his on the part of the reporter.

An arbitrary popularity contest is far from the biggest struggle facing trans people today. But this is an excellent example of how cissupremacy and the kyriarchy are regularly perpetuated: by making sure that the genders of trans people are seen as less legitimate and less real than the genders of trans people.

Also see Monica at TransGriot's coverage.
*Originally mis-identified as Candace.

Woman brutally beaten for being trans; San Antonio media and police dismiss it

Trigger warning for description of violence against trans women .

A woman was brutally beaten this week for being trans. Media coverage has been scant, and little information has been released by the police, but here is what has been released: an unnanmed 24-year-old woman went on a date with a man with whom she had some kind of "arrangement". When he found out that she was trans, he thoroughly beat her around the face and left her at an apartment complex. She had to knock on a stranger's door begging for help to get medical and police attention.

The San Antonio police department are investigating this crime not as the hate crime it pretty clearly is, but as aggravated assault. This could have something to do with the fact that the Texas hate crime law excludes trans people (but of course, protects sexual orientation). But as John Wright of the Dallas Voice points out, "the new federal hate crimes law passed last year does protect transgender people and presumably could be used in this case. If the man beat the victim because she is transgender and not cisgender, then yeah, we’d say that’s a hate crime."

This act of cissexism in the face of horrific violence is part of a pattern of transmisogyny in the San Antonio police department. In February, officer Steve Nash raped a trans woman, and a similar incident happened in 2005 in the same department. Monica of TransGriot described the assault:

In San Antonio, one of the four cities profiled in the September 2005 report, veteran police officer Dave Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced on January 19 to 24 years and four months in prison for raping and assaulting then 21 year old transwoman Starlight Bernal during a June 10, 2005 traffic stop.

The most major coverage of the assault on this 24-year-old was also heavily flavored by cissexism. The title refers to her not as a woman or trans woman, but as a "woman who used to be a man". Furthermore, the man didn't "assault" or "beat" his victim; he "snap[ped]". Snapping at someone infers an overreaction to provocation. There was no provocation - she was just who she is. This was not an overreaction - he's a bigot who committed an act of hateful violence.

Furthermore, the first line of the report is about the man "was in for quite a surprise" - it does not mention the violence he committed. A surprise is a funny misunderstanding. He reacted to a human being's existence as a woman with severe violence - not, "oh my goodness, what a misunderstanding!" These linguistic choices shift the focus from the violent act to the woman's trans status and minimize her attacker's abhorrent actions.

To KENS 5, it's not about violence being perpetrated on an innocent woman - it's about how to make it relateable, and even funny. They're using the harmful trope of trans women as deceivers. Their language does not intent to inform their viewers of a vicious act of violence, but to satisfy their own sense of her as an other, and to comfort cis viewers that yeah, she's weird and icky. Even though a woman was beaten, that's not the focal point, that's not the shocking thing. As always with media coverage of trans women, the most important thing is what's in her pants, and how weird their trans status is, and how sorry they should feel for her poor attacker who was just pushed too far after his big surprise.

Source

Update: Cara covered this in a little more depth at The Curvature.

Court order restoring trans woman Christine Ehlers to her job ignored

Vandy Beth Glenn has been valiently fighting a battle for her job over here in the States, but over in South Africa, Christine Ehlers is fighting a battle against work-related cissexist discrimination. Ehlers was a saleswoman at a South African steel plant, Bohler Udderholm. She was fired explicitly because of her trans status:

“It was also determined in discussion with management that the position is distinctly for a male employee and the applicant (Ehlers) [has] already got distinct female features that create a difficult situation…. In the end, the employer has to protect its business and may demand a certain standard of acceptability from its representatives in relation to its customers.”

How, exactly, is any job specifically for male employees in 2010? This isn't about Ehlers' competence at her job; it's about using sexism (only men can do this sales job!) to enforce what's actually cissexism (trans identities make cis people uncomfortable). They go on to say that they "feared" her and provided some slim anecdotal evidence of her personality missteps that sound to me like reasonable reactions to harassment and misgendering. Their fear was based not on some threat posed by Ehlers but instead their hatred and distaste for her trans status.

Judge Ellen Francis reacted completely appropriately to this disgusting act of discrimination by ordering Bohler Udderholm to give Ehlers her job back with back pay and benefits. But her estwhile employer is apparently passionate enough about preserving cissupremacy that they've decided to ignore the order of the court just to keep a trans woman from coming into their environment:

"I arrived at 8am and they made me wait until 9am before they saw me. They gave me a letter saying that they had not received a copy of the judgment and until the board has seen it I cannot return to work. I am feeling deflated and totally dejected," Ehlers said.

This is patently ridiculous; I don't believe for a second that they were unaware of the widely reported ruling. Furthermore, Ehlers' lawyer says that Bohler Udderholm's lawyers were with him when he got the verdict. Bohler Udderholm is so committed to devaluing trans identities that it's facing contempt of court.

The workplace is a fraught place for trans people; the harrassment and prejudice they face on a daily basis is particularly harmful because it's often backed up by the courts. But even in the rare event that the judicial system is actually able to do its job and prevent (rather than enforce) discrimination, systematic cissexism still runs rampant.

sources: one, two, three

To ensure more Deeply Problematic, give a small monetary token of your appreciation. Click here for more on why I'm asking for tips this week, and non-monetary methods of supporting this blog.

TelevIsm at Bitch Magazine: Police Women of Memphis depicts trans women with respect

There’s not a whole lot I have to say about PWOM as a show in general. I think that glorifying a very problematic justice system as this show seems to do is probably not fantastic. But, I like that it depicts ladies in positions of authority, being competent. It’s also cool that many of these women are of color. And one of the cops on the show is named “Virginia Awkward”, which is a pretty kickass name.

PWOM came to my atttention this weekend after I heard of its depiction of an almost radical act. It portrayed women as being worthy of respect, and protection. As not deserving of sexual harassment. This in itself would be worthy of praise. But this depiction is particularly worthy of singling out because the women being protected were trans women. And in a media environment that generally depicts trans women as deceptive, predatory, disgusting, and generally less than human, that’s exceptional.

 Finish reading here.

Awesome alert: Vandy Beth Glenn wins Georgia trans discrimination suit

A federal court handed down a potentially powerful ruling on trans rights today, when judge Richard Story ruled that the Georgia State Assembly’s firing of trans woman Vandy Beth Glenn was illegal discrimination. The decision may help to give trans women the protection that cis women have legally had for decades: the right to not be fired for being a woman.

Ms. Glenn worked as an editor in the Office of Legislative Counsel successfully for two years before deciding to transition on the advice of her health care providers. Ms. Glenn approached her boss, Sewell Brumby, about her plans, providing pictures of herself as she planned to present. Brumby ‘s reaction, naturally, was to fire Ms. Glenn because her womanhood "...was inappropriate, that it would be disruptive, that some people would view it as a moral issue, and that it would make Glenn's coworkers uncomfortable."

Brumby’s prioritizing of the comfort of cis people and arbitrary notions of morality above details such as competence and the right to work is a clear reflection of systematic cissupremacy. The workplace is a frequent battleground for trans women particularly; upon coming out as trans, they are commonly subjected to sexual harassment and degendering. And as with Ms. Glenn, they are very often fired simply for presenting as themselves. This blatant form of discrimination contributes directly to high levels of homelessness among trans people.

Beth Littrell, an attorney with LAMBDA Legal who argued the case, praised the judge’s decision. However, she was cautious in her optimism, and quick to note that the ruling “is no substitution for a statewide law [protecting trans rights to work], but it does send a message.”

Congratulations to Ms. Glenn! Here's hoping that the July 13th ruling determining a remedy to this discrimination will be handled satisfactorily.

Trans woman Delphine Ravisé-Giard's breast size dictated by French civil court

Delphine Ravisé-Giard is a long-serving member of the French Air Force who transitioned in 2007. The Air Force has been respectful and reasonable about her shift in presentation, immediately reflecting her gender accurately and with apparently very little sturm und drang.

But in trying to transition legally, she is facing bigotry and ever-moving goalposts. The civil court handling her legal change is intimately policing her body and demanding that she get specific kinds of surgery. Originally, the court demanded that she get SRS. They have thankfully backed off that, but their new requirements? Not much better.

The court is now demanding that Ms. Ravisé-Giard undergo breast enhancement before attaining legal recognition of her gender, saying "The principle of respect for private life requires that the state recognize gender according to a person’s appearance."

Huh? So, respecting someone’s private life now means…policing their body? I suppose this is in keeping with the sexist idea that women’s bodies are always, necessarily public property, and that our bodies must be sufficiently titillating to be validated.

Ms. Ravisé-Giard said to pink news: “The request is ridiculous but this is what the state demands. I am satisfied with the progress I have made through hormones but as far as the state is concerned, unless I take steps to augment what I have now through surgery, I am not being serious about my gender change. Of course, if the state applied the same test to cis women, it would have to redefine the gender of many French women. But of course, this would never happen.”

This is blatant transmisogyny. Though the French Air Force has responded appropriately, by respecting Ms. Ravisé-Giard's identity, bodily integrity, and right to privacy. But the civil court is responding to Ms. Ravisé-Giard's existence as a woman with cissexist bigotry and classist entitlement, without regard to her desires for her body or her monetary ability to pay for these expensive surgeries. Instead of letting her determine the course that her body and identity take, they are mandating the ways in which women are women, when in reality there is no one path to true womanhood.

Ms. Ravisé-Giard asks, "Will that breast size be established nationally by the Minister of Justice or will it be up to the personal tastes of individual attorneys?" This is, sadly, a society where men are allowed to decide what a woman should look like, where cis people are empowered to decide what make a trans woman real. Women’s bodies should always be up to the woman in question to negotiate, but in France, that’s not the case.

Source

Awesome alert: Trans rabbi Reuben Zellman

Awesome Alerts is a new and hopefully regular quick-hit feature. I have several Google alerts set up to bring me news on some of the marginalized subjects I make an effort to cover here, namely feminism, disability, race, and trans issues. Since we live in a kyriarchy, there's not a lot of good news as a general rule. But oppressed lives are not so necessarily tragic, so I'm going to start making an effort to bring more good news. And thus, Awesome Alerts!

Reuben Zellman, a trans activist since 1999, has been ordained as the first out trans rabbi in the Bay area. He was recently hired at Berkley's Beth El Congregation as an assistant rabbi, where he will tutor b’nai mitzvah students and direct the choir. Zellman has previously worked in disability services, and he writes and teaches on trans and intersex issues. He was the first openly trans person to study at Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion.

Zellman is the second trans rabbi to be ordained after Elliot Zukla. Both contribute to the awesome website TransTorah. I'll close today with a quote from his 2008 sermon titled "No Longer Strangers", which I think is relevant to not only Jewish communities but feminist discourse:

When it comes to welcoming transgender people into our faith communities, we must say more than: come share this place with me. We must say: come share yourself with me. We must not only make more room at the table; we have to change what’s on the menu. Truly welcoming trans people into our houses of worship means we must all be prepared to think differently, to do differently, to believe differently. We must be ready to be changed, institutionally and personally, by the particular knowledge and gifts that transgender people bring.

Transgender is an adjective. Not a noun. Or a verb!

What does the word transgender lack?*

It is not a noun. Or verb. It describes an aspect of a noun. But like other adjectives in formal language– green, strong, female, etc. - it describes the type of noun in question, and explains something about a noun that’s relevant to the context.

Transgender describes folks who were assigned a sex or gender at birth incongruent with their actual sex or gender. Transgender is an adjective – it cannot stand on its own, but must be attached to a noun. Like other adjectives, transgender exists to modify and clarify some aspect of the noun at hand.

Transgender is a word that modifies, but when I open up my Google alert for “transgender”, it’s rarely attached to a noun; instead, cis journalists (out of ignorance and fear bred of cissexist society) often use it to dehumanize their subjects when reporting their lives and all too often, their deaths.

I notice the misuse of these words most glaringly in titles. Here’s a sample from May:

• Butt-Injecting Transgender Found Not Guilty
• Fil-Am transgender sues Macy’s for discrimination
• Transgenders seek state help with employment
• Transgenders win discrimination tiff with American Eagle Outfitters, AG Andrew Cuomo forces changes
• American Eagle Outfitters Agrees To Include Transgenders
• Right to ban transgenders from clubs?
• Transgenders call on Congress for jobs
• Kolkata transgenders stage a protest against discrimination

Transgender is not a noun. It is an adjective, and reducing people to just one of their qualities is necessarily reductive and denies their gender and their humanity.

"Transgender" is also, as you'll notice above, the catch-all for many different kinds of people. Dyssonynce wrote on this earlier this year:

Especially since while I am one of those trans people, I am not a transgender person. I am a transsexual person. This is why I don’t use transgender. This is why I do use Trans. If you can’t see that there are serious differences in just the letters used there, please, learn something about us.

Using transgender as a noun is occasionally an ignorant, symptomatic mistake made by a careless writer. But more often, it's an indicator of more issues: transgender or cross-dressing male to describe trans women, a she where a he is needed. It is indicative of a pattern of dehumanization, of degendering. How can a writer too lazy to check the AP style manual or question their own use of nouns and pronouns be trusted to write about trans issues? (The answer is systematic cissupremacy.)

Transgender is also not a verb because gender is not a verb. I do not cisgender every day when I put on a skirt or wash my genitals. I do not gender when I do anything, because gender is not a verb. Using transgender as such reflects a lack of understanding and avoidance of research on the part of the writer.

Transgender can modify “woman” in the case that the woman in question was assigned male at birth. Transgender can modify “man” in the case that the man in question was assigned female at birth. Transgender can modify “person” when talking about (particularly though not exclusively) nonbinary folks on the trans spectrum. Transgender can modify “people” when talking about a community, and “issues” when talking about issues of concern to the trans community.

Transgender can modify whatever nouns can be used to describe a trans person. Trans mother, trans father, trans political candidate, trans writer, trans blogger, trans journalist, trans veteran, trans student.

Transgender even as an adjective is not always necessary. Woman and man describe trans woman and trans man just fine, and in fact, that's probably better unless the story is somehow about them being trans. And it almost always is about the person in question's trans status, because that is what folks without cis privilege are reduced to.

Describing a person as "a transgender", article and all, is dehumanizing because it makes the person in question less than a noun: it defines them as not a person; they are not even a thing**, a place, or an idea. They are an adjective: one aspect of their life that has been pulled out of context of their humanity to mock and to shock.

Devon puts it this way:

Nouns are the primary components of speech, and they possess greater power and more potential for abuse than any other element. Consider this example: "a black man" versus "a black." The second construction strips the individual of his status as a man, an insidious thing. However, when the same word is used as an adjective modifier the problem disappears; "black" then simply describes the noun "man," the most important component of the sentence. Similarly, when "transsexual" is used as an adjective the implicit meaning changes -- the emphasis is placed on person, man, or woman first, transsexual second.

These words as a word doesn’t exist on its own. It is an adjective, a word used to further describe a person, a noun. Transgender is a quality, not an entity.

Also of importance:

I hate MTF and FTM
Put the Goddamn Space in: “transwoman” “transfeminism” “transmasculine” etc (language politics #1)
"GLBT" newspaper's transmisogynistic framing of assault erases Janey Kay's gender

*Ironically, I’m often using these words as nouns. In their capacity as words, they are nouns, as “run” or “exciting” is a verb or adjective in most contexts but a noun when discussing their qualities and construction as words.
**Describing trans people as "things" is degendering and no better than describing them as "transgenders".

Alexis Lusk fights transphobia in high school through the Dallas Voice

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and in recognition of this day, I'd like to bring you readers a saddening story that caught my eye on Friday.

Above is Alexis Lusk, a trans teen girl in Texas [photo has been removed]. Alexis, a junior at Whitehouse High School in East Texas, is out to her supportive friends and not-so-supportive parents. She has been slowly changing her presentation for the last three years by wearing unisex clothing. Recently, she edged into more presentation by wearing a bra, a blouse, and a pair of ballet flats.

Her bravery was not met with violence or harassment from students. But her slow, unobtrusive transition apparently made the administrators quite uncomfortable, enough so that she was reprimanded by the principal and told that she was creating a "distraction". Their cissexism was successful: Alexis has repressed her identity and presentation in the interest of preserving her academic career. She's an ambitious young woman who hopes to be a pharmacist or computer programmer, but as with many trans teens, this may be a matter of life and death: Alexis says that previous attempts to give up presenting herself as she wants to have led to thoughts of suicide.

Alexis, however, is a little bit tougher than administrators at Whitehouse High may think. Instead of bowing to their bullying and going back into the closet to protect herself (as would be her right), she's taking her fight to the media and the law.

She's contacted LBGT newspaper the Dallas Voice, and they've written an article on her situation that is, with an exception, a model for portraying trans folks respectfully and sympathetically. In most mainstream (and even in LGBT) news coverage, trans people are systematically misgendered or degendered or worse. Sometimes they are referred to with slurs, other times they are reduced to their trans status by turning the adjective transgender into a noun. Other times, there is inordinate focus on their transition status or sex assignment at birth. But this article by John Wright is almost entirely respectful of Alexis' body and identity, and focuses on reporting on the situation at hand.

There is one problem in the source that I noticed, which is the reference to "cross-dressing" in the third to last paragraph. Alexis is not cross-dressing: she is trying to represent her true gender through her clothes. Referring to it as cross hints that she's being deceptive. But unless my cis privilege is keeping me from seeing some problematic construction or statement, this is otherwise an excellent article.

Alexis has contacted some lawyers, Lambda Legal, and Youth First Texas, but the outlook is not particularly rosy. Her parent's lack of support means that she would have to emancipate herself. Alexis' juvenile diabetes makes her dependent upon her parents for this support, and emancipation would be a likely death sentence, as it is for many trans teens lacking support.
“All I really want to do is be myself,” said Alexis. “I understand that in today’s world that’s complicated, but there’s a point where it’s not that complicated.”
It's not that complicated. Every woman, every man, every person, cis or trans or genderqueer or otherwise, deserves and needs the right to present themselves as they see fit. This is what hateful rhetoric like Barney Frank's references "full beard and a dress" gets our country: women are restricted from full expression of themselves as they see fit, teens are kept from blooming in the stage when people blossom. The world is a hateful place, and teens like Alexis Lusk deserve admiration for being willing to blaze the trail.

The importance of the Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative; and introductions

I wrote about my problems with the language used to describe possible cuts to the Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative, but in doing so, I neglected the important work that the Initiative is doing and the San Francisco citizens who will suffer if it is cut.

I learned more about the Initiative when this article on it popped up in my reader. This Initiative provides vital services to the trans community in San Francisco. Beyond connecting members of the trans community with friendly employers, the program also offers job-training services – resume-writing classes, mock job interviews, and “legal help, mentoring and vocational services”.

The success of the Initiative is vital in a world where trans folks are not only violently oppressed, but consistently and legally denied employment based on their trans status. Its success has inspired a similar program in Los Angeles, and similar programs across the country are in development. The program relies on city funds, and in the current economic situation, its future is far from secure.

You can read more about the initiative here: http://www.teeisf.org/

The article linked above is itself is a subject of interest for how it does and does not respect the people and organization it profiles. The article I slammed last week (which appeared in the San Francisco Gate) did not consider those who use the services of this organization to be anything more than a punchline. In comparison, this article (appearing in the LA Times) is much better simply because it does not dehumanize or slur its subjects. The article profiles actual trans people and takes their concerns seriously and respectfully.

Unfortunately, it gets off to a real rough start:

Michelle WallowingBull was born a boy. But growing up on Wyoming's Wind River Indian Reservation, she knew from age 5 that she was a girl inside.

It’s great that this article starts with the actual name of an actual trans woman of color. But saying that a woman was born a boy invalidates her gender and necessarily questions the authenticity of her gender. To quote Lisa Harney at Questioning Transphobia:

It’s more accurate to say that nearly everyone has an assigned male or female sex. This is something that is done to nearly everyone born in the global north. You’re born, and the first thing that gets said is “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl.” There you go, a significant part of your life already defined for you right as you’re taking your first breath.

Furthermore, this beginning sentence is just not relevant to the article. The circumstances of WallowingBull’s assigned sex at birth are not directly relevant to her issues in finding employment. An article about employment shouldn’t begin with unrelated details about one of its subject’s backgrounds. It’s not particularly interesting – it’s just making the subject of the article into an object of curiosity rather than a person with relevant concerns worthy of serious consideration.

I'm focusing so heavily on this fraction of the article because an introduction sets the tone for any piece of writing. I’m a writing tutor, and this facet of writing is a daily topic of discussion with my students. I think that the first part of a piece of writing should define the topic and let the reader know how the writer plans on looking at the topic. This article’s introduction is unfortunate – in no small part because it doesn’t really reflect the rest of the article. The second paragraph would work very well as a first paragraph:

As a teen she bounced from the reservation to a South Dakota town to foster homes and back. In these remote communities, with a family steeped in addiction, she said, it was difficult to openly express the gender she deeply felt. Substance abuse and economic uncertainty followed — travails all too common for transgender people.

This is relevant to WallowingBull’s employment background. Though it's not attributing her past problems to systems of oppression, it recognizes that those issues are regularly felt in the trans community and presents that pattern as problematic.

The rest of the article is similarly well-constructed. The concerns of trans men and women are framed as valid and worthy of attention. Several different trans folks give input on the situation, and their words are centralized. In explaining the problem, the writer gives specific examples of how trans folks are forced into marginalized forms of employment such as sex work and drug dealing. Furthermore, she avoids victim-blaming by connecting high rates of illegal employment among trans people to the systems of legal oppression that keep trans folks from more traditional employment. [Sex work is great and I am all for it, but sex workers have few rights or protections and trans sex workers are particularly vulnerable.]

After a degendering introduction, the article actually does an excellent job (from my cis-privileged point of view) of presenting the work of the initiative as valid and necessary; the author, Lee Romney, is respectful of and sympathetic to the subjects of the article. If it weren’t for the cissexist beginning of the article, I think this would be a fantastic example of how to cover important trans issues in mainstream publications.

But it rhymes!: ridiculing marginalized groups in articles about their concerns

Trigger warning for terrible language.

In San Francisco, the city government is facing budget cuts:

Part of the proposal considered Thursday at the Human Services Commission called for cutting $239,000 from the Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative, a pioneering transgender employment program, and another $200,000 from Edgewood Center for Children and Families, which treats severely disturbed children and supports relatives -- often grandmothers -- caring for kids who would otherwise find themselves in the foster care system or worse.

I'm glad this is being reported on, because it's crap. Budget cuts for what look to be necessary programs will limit resources for those whose resources are already limited. Trans people are constantly assaulted, physically, verbally, and legally – they are subject to being legally fired because of their bodies at any time. The caretakers specifically covered by this bill face ageism – older folks, particularly women, are devalued and judged as incompetent.

However, the caretakers and those being cared for (whom are barely mentioned in this article) are described with ableist language:

Advocates for both centers said the cuts would be crippling.

Children with mental disabilities face an intersection: they are marginalized by their disability, and they have little legal right to their own identities and bodies. Ableist language like “crippling” further ingrains the dismissal of their concerns.

I don’t know which is more necessary, and ultimately, cuts were not approved for either. Good for the commission on making the difficult decision to prioritize these programs.

Unfortunately, this article and especially the title have decided to play this serious situation for laughs. Here’s the title of the article:

Photo: A header with a capital building reading "City Insider: the people, politics, and places of San Francisco". Below, the headline "Trannies vs. grannies?". Below that is the following passage: "Budget cuts are serious stuff, but as Trent Rhorer, the head of the city's Human Services Agency put it, this was definitely one of those "only in San Francisco" moments."

Framing a difficult decision on budget cuts in this binary, in the language of hate speech is not the way to introduce this story. This is a straightforward story about budget cuts. This kind of language makes both of these problematized, marginalized groups into a trivial joke, a funny juxtaposition. It’s not a serious repercussion, an illustration of how the economic downturn further marginalizes already oppressed groups. It’s a quip. From the last line of the short article:

But not before one speaker had this uniquely San Franciscan line of the day, relayed by those in attendance: "In the end, it shouldn't come down to pitting the trannies against the grannies."

Hilarious! Glad to know that hate speech is so uniquely of the area! I don’t even know how this is funny or interesting or revealing without the hate speech. Are there not trans people and older caretakers in areas that are not San Francisco?

Tr*nny and all variations thereof are hate speech (which is why I, a cis person, am using an asterisk to censor the word in my analysis). I’m hoping you know that. If you don’t, here’s an explanation from Queen Emily of Questioning Transphobia (and if you don’t know why tr*nny is a vile word, you should go and peruse the hell out of their archives):

See, the word “tranny” gets used with alarming regularity in the media, and I’m not sure it actually registers that it is a slur. It’s always so jolly, like it’s a whimsical, fun term that cis people can throw around with abandon. Always with the implication that trans people are laughably pathetic. Because my identity, our history, of itself is a joke.

What is missing is that in my personal experience as a trans woman, “tranny” is a form of hate speech. The last person who called me it literally spat on me. It’s frequently paired with “faggot”–yet no-one sprays that word liberally around the media. When someone spits a word at you, the implication is clear– you’re disgusting, barely even human. And that disgust is worked out violently against the bodies of trans people.

So why is it not that bad, why is this word qualifies as appropriate for use on ... apparently “liberal” newspapers? ... I mean, is it all this massive power we have in society? The general societal reverence and esteem trans people get? Now there’s a joke. If it’s not appropriate to use other hateful words, why does “tranny” get a pass?

Oh I forgot. I mean, we’re all post PC here, no-one gets really offended just because they’re constantly insulted, having their identity positioned between hilarious and disgusting? Hur hur.

Granny isn’t necessarily or usually a pejorative. However, when used in conjunction with a violent slur, the marginalization of older folks is also emphasized. This is not just cissexist - it's ageist.

Just because tr*nny rhymes with granny does not excuse the use of a hateful, vile slur. It’s effectively announcing to trans & older folks who might be interested in reading the content of this article - in reading about the issues facing their community - that the article is a hostile and unsafe space that does not cares about them beyond mockery. Both groups are made into a joke in an article that is about their concerns.

Eleventh Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance

Today is the eleventh annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. A staggering number of trans women and men are killed every year, often after horrific and extended violent attacks and torture. Reading the list of men and women killed through violence this year, the same causes seem to pop up again and again: stabbed, stabbed, head wound, tortured, beaten, raped. Again and again, this is the cost of being trans, the cost of being a woman.

This is not the only day to recognize and fight transmisogyny and cissexism. If you are cis, you need to consider the privilege that you have just by existing. Think about the danger cis women are constantly in just because we are women. Trans women face exactly that danger, but their trans status makes them many times more vulnerable.

I urge you to read the list of the 160 dead this year, and these authors:

What Does Transgender Day of Remembrance Mean to You? by Monica at Transgriot

International Transgender Day of Remembrance 2009 by kaninchenzero at FWD/Forward

International Transgender Day of Remembrance, 20th November 2009 by Helen G at bird of paradox

the drowned and the saved by Queen Emily at Questioning Transphobia

TDOR 2009 by Chally at Zero at the Bone

I Will Not Forget Them – TDOR by Recursive Paradox at Genderbitch

International Transgender Day of Remembrance 2009
by Lucypaw

(first five links via the Curvature)

Oprah.com: Are you a feminist? Or a feminine-ist? [Oh, come on!]

So, a writer for Oprah's magazine has this article suggesting that feminine-ism replace the term feminism. The premise is offensive, but arguing for femininity is not. I'm into femininity. Femininity is frequently devalued while masculinity is valorized in men and women. It's seen as frivolous - as not something that's worthy of being sought, and as something that weighs women down.

To quote Julia Serano:

Traditional sexism functions to make femaleness and femininity appear subordinate to maleness and masculinity... [F]emale and feminine attributes are regularly assigned negative connotations and meanings in our society. An example of this is the way that being in touch with and expressing one's emotions is regularly derided in our society...

[T]raditional sexism also creates the impression that certain aspects of feminity exist for the pleasure or benefit of men ... After all, feminine self-presentation tends to highly correlate with a more general desire to surround oneself with beautiful or aesthetically pleasing objects and materials - whether in decorating one's home or adorning one's body. (Whipping Girl, 326-328)

Sometimes, the article hits on those points:

As a card-carrying "feminine-ist," I am here to tell you that feeling sexy is what helps me to be my most powerful and successful self, and being powerful and successful also helps me feel damn sexy! As "feminine-ists," we definitely don't need to make the choice between feminine or powerful and successful. We should and must try to embrace both choices simultaneously.

But then it shames women who aren't feminine:

I see too many women these days rushing around trying to do it all, but meanwhile they're not being it all! They're not being their fullest, best feminine selves. Instead, they're being tougher than they'd like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out. All while suffering from guilt over the stuff they did not manage to squeeze into their over-booked schedules.

And tries to center the women's movement around men:

With the word "feminism," it might have been embarrassing for a man to say he was a supporter because it might sound like he was admitting to supporting of a group of controlling, bitchy women. But with new pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness, pro-balance words like "feminine-ist" and "feminine-ism," what's not for a man to love?

So, to re-cap: feminine is "best". Feminism is about "controlling, bitchy women" who are not sexy, sweet, or balanced. Advocacy for women's rights is only significant when it reinforces norms and caters to men.

Let's see.... what are we missing? Can't forget some good old transmisogyny:

True story: My friend David got mugged at a bank machine by a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman.
"Actually, it might have been a transvestite," David corrected himself.

"It's okay if you were mugged by a woman," I told him, smiling.

Now embarrassed, David said, "The more I think about it, the more I'm sure he was a transvestite."

I laughed but was also intrigued by why David would be so embarrassed to be mugged by a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman, but not a man.

So, the writer devalues and dismisses and others folks on the trans feminine spectrum, and implicitly essentializes femininity as the sole domain of cis women. Oh, and some ungendering thrown in there for kicks. Awesome.

"Feminism" has a great deal of baggage and issues in too many areas to mention, and femininity is devalued. But, let's not center it around traditional femininity in an effort to shore up oppositional sexism and cissexism. Thanks, though.

Why the term "ally" is not mine to apply

A stripey grey cat puts its face in its paws while a solid grey cat looks on. They sit on a wood ledge. Below, the text reads: "Tell me. Maybe Iz help."

When I was in a mostly-lesbian social circle in college, I claimed the label of ally to support my friends.* The term ally was fashionable - enough to be honored in the already-problematic acronym LBGTQ in most of our GSA’s publications. But one day, I began to wonder why the experiences of a heterosexual cis woman with a heterosexual cis boyfriend should be included in that acronym. Why should this conversation be about me, too?

My privilege socially elevates me above my peers, and the term ally centers and dismisses that privilege. If I claim the term, I’m saying that my privilege is no big deal, I’m in it to win it too! But I’m not in it to win it the way my trans, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer friends are. I’ve already won it. In the context of a conversation that should center oppressed folks, the very privilege that oppresses my friends is not just neutralized but beneficed with a special title.

While I’m not going to claim the term ally, I’m also not going to reject it. If an individual without cis or het privilege wants to apply that term to me, then that makes me happy. If they want to call me a bad ally to imply that I mean well but fuck up regularly, I’m not going to police their language with regard to harm on my part. My whole point is that it’s not my language to decide. The language that folks without privilege use in discussing their lack of privilege and others’ use of privilege is theirs to determine.

Are there cases where I see it as appropriate? Sure. My standards with regard to language are not universal, and I'm not saying you can't call yourself an ally. After all, it's not my word to apply or not apply to anyone. It can still be provocative in some contexts, and everyone has their own comfort level with regard to language. And I definitely think that people of privilege who are intimately impacted by lack of privilege – cis people in het relationships with trans partners, het cis children of non-het or non-cis parents – have enough of a stake to claim a special term. They are doing the daily, IRL work that I am not. I write or think about it on a daily basis – but I don’t have to.

Ally is not my word to apply – I can’t say that I am a good ally because I don’t feel the effects of my own actions. If I fuck up and don’t realize it and keep on calling myself a good ally, it’s another assertion of privilege. It’s saying that I am the one who gets to pat myself on the back, I am the arbitrator of effective support. And I’m not.

However, not claiming the word is also a bit of a privileged move on my part. It’s washing myself of the hurt and the harm of other well-meaning people of privilege. “Ally” carries weight that I need to recognize and remember – that I’m constantly able to fuck up and weaponize my privilege.

Working to support folks who are oppressed is not something that I see as enough to earn a trip to the cookie jar. I don’t get a special title – this isn’t feudal England, I’m not “The Goode Ally RMJ”. I’m just a cis, heterosexual, white woman who’s trying to be a good person, who’s not trying to fuck up – but who still has privilege that can’t be neutralized.

*Ally is used in other contexts, but since my experience with the term has mainly been in discussion about cis/het privilege, that’s how I’m framing this discussion.

Trans man sues for custody of son; former lover misgenders him in defense

Trigger warning for misgendering language

A trans man and a cis woman ("Sam and Melanie") who had been married since the mid-1990s (legally in New York before a late-90s annulment due to cissexist and heterosexist marriage laws) broke up in 2007. During their marriage, they had a child, "Sam Jr.", together. At first, they shared custody, but now Melanie is seeking custody, and taking the high road to get there:

"When the judge gave him standing to sue for custody, I thought, 'What's happening? She voided the marriage, she knows he is a woman.' It's ludicrous," the boy's mother told the Daily News...
Melanie says she is straight and didn't even know Sam was a woman until the relationship got serious.
Citing the "strong emotional and psychological bond" between Sam and Sam Jr., Morgenstern noted that Sam "is the only father that the child has known."

The whole article is full of cissexist misgendering on the part of the ex (through quotes) and the writer (which is why I'm not linking). "Father" and "man" are placed in quotes throughout, with incorrect pronouns, like it's some kind of charade or spectacle. It's crappy and wrong.

Other reactions:

1). I'm glad that the judge has some damn sense and puts the welfare of the child above cissupremacy.

2) Melanie's heterosexuality does not need to be reinforced - after all, she was married to the man in question for many years. There was no need to "reveal" that her lover is a woman because he's not a woman. And when he told her about his trans status is not of any consequence in this case because Melanie certainly knew about it many, many years before she decided to raise a child with Sam. It's the tired old trope of the deceptive transsexual person (usually a woman, but not in this case obviously): even when the "victim" is aware of their trans status, they're still tricking said "victim"!

Here's a link to a rewrite of the story which does not use dehumanizing language.

Sixth Carnival of Feminists

Welcome to the sixth Carnival of Feminists! I'm RMJ, and I'll be your host here at Deeply Problematic.

I've come across a lot of amazing writing while preparing this post - both submitted and sought. Thanks to everyone who submitted to this go-round!

Let's go ahead and get started!

Ableism

Eva shares a story of Bitch from Bitch and Animal talking to her respectfully, at The Deal with Disability.

Laura self-examines her use of ableist language at Adventures of a Young Feminist.

If you haven't read meloukhia's letter to Feministing, it's necessary.

I am also loving the 101-esque series on ableist language at new blog FWD/Forward.

Trans women and cissexism

C.L. Minou takes apart the cissexist assumptions that the phrase "think like a man" implies at Below the Belt.

Recursive Paradox explains why you are not automatically trustworthy at Genderbitch.

Alexmac posts on how trans women are sexualized in an ongoing series at Shakesville.

Rape and violence (featuring Roman Polanski)

Mad Kane names some pro-rape Republicans - in limerick form.

[Trigger warning - thanks lhiannanshee for the tip.] Amanda Hess takes on the casual use of the verb "rape" at The Sexist.

Cruella turns the tables on Polanski defenders by asking what kind of violence her difficult personal history and artistic accomplishments win her.

Daisy analyzes Polanski's Repulsion as evidence of his violence towards women at Dead Air.

Lauren discusses how to move forward from Polanski at Feministe.

Phaedra Starling explains Shroedinger's Rapist.

Holly presents her dissection of Dollhouse over at Self-Portrait As.

Women's health

amandaw lays bare the immorality of pre-existing conditions at FWD.

Also in pre-existing conditions: the bloggers at Shapely Prose had a roundtable about the fat baby denied health insurance.

Apu exposes the biased state of kidney donation in India.

Race and racism
Lisa wonders what race mixing has to do with communism at Sociological Images.

Lesley calls out colonialism at Fatshionista.

Community and dialogue

Ashley discusses exclusionary language and comprehensive feminism at Small Strokes.

Deborah summarizes and reacts to an anti-essentialist philosophical argument at In A Strange Land.

meloukhia reflects on the difficulty of speaking up and the importance of co-signing at this ain't livin.

Chally presents her reasons for blogging at Zero at the Bone.

Harrassment

Sungold responds to David Letterman and workplace harrassment at KittyWampus.

Amanda critiques The Muppet Movie's depiction of street harrassment over at The Undomestic Goddess.

Fillyjonk asks readers how frequently they've been persistently bothered at Shapely Prose.

Parenting

Mór Rígan dissects an article problematizing working mothers at Morrígan Reborn.

Geek Anachronism expounds on her feelings about breastfeeding.

Abortion

The Celluloid Geek alerts us to a scary new law in California that seeks to define a fetus as a person.

Amanda Hess wonders why some fetuses are aborted and others are just reduced at the Sexist.

Education

October is Sex-Ed Month of Action. Candace Webb has a strong argument against abstinence-only education at Womenstake.

Danine Spencer breaks down the Nobel laureates by gender.

Thanks, all, for submitting and reading! The next carnival is at Shut Up, Sit Down. Please submit here!

How to be an ally

This is a cross post from Recursive Paradox of Genderbitch. RP is a 20 something MtF transsexual who isn't terribly happy with how society wants her to be now that she's transitioned. Cue feminism and rage. Some things she's happy with? Science (she's a biology student). Cats. Writing. Sci Fi. Video games. She's also a geek, hence the geeky name: Recursive Paradox.

Privilege is a nasty thing. It steals perspective, traps us in mindsets and views that make it near impossible to comprehend what a marginalized person is going through. It is, invariably, the worst obstacle facing any ally of any marginalized group.

What I say here is probably applicable to any context of ally and oppressed but I'll stick with the trans angle, as it is what I know the best. Some of this might be lifted straight from my twitter account because I said it well there. Don't feel too offended by the recycling. XD

At its most simple, the concept of an ally is one who is in alliance with you. Alliance is in any context merely a mutually beneficial arrangement to advance common goals and interests. It means that your goals need to align with at least some of the goals of your allied members. And that the arrangement taken must benefit all parties involved. When it comes to marginalization, privilege, bigotry, -isms and alliance, things get a bit more complex. The alliance is only truly beneficial to the marginalized party if privilege is overcome long enough to achieve forward motion in social reform. Basically, lateral moves, a lack of any activity or any action that furthers, enables or ignores the marginalization of the marginalized party is not beneficial to them. Therefore it does not fit the boundaries of an alliance.

Let's say you're playing a real time strategy video game. Your base is under attack. If your ally sits back and watches your little soldiers die and your buildings burn, then that is a violation of the mutualistic nature of alliance. If your ally offers to trade some resources to your enemies, while they are attacking you, then they are in violation of the mutualistic nature of alliance. Generally a privileged person isn't being harmed by helping us. They will always have that privilege for as long as the system exists and works and will likely be spared what we go through as a result, even when supporting us. Our aims (which are basically, honor our bodily rights and respect our needs) do not in any way clash with their aims (unless their aim is to dominate, control, harm or damage us). So generally an alliance with a marginalized party is almost always beneficial to a non marginalized party (in the given context). Especially in this day and age, when we have the Liberal Reputation Points^TM game. So the thing that's the most important when it comes to alliance between marginalized and privileged parties is quite simply, does this actually benefit the marginalized party?

Unfortunately it isn't that common that it does.

Why is this? Because many allies are terrible, awful, incompetent allies. Terrible, awful, incompetent and under the privilege induced delusion that they are actually perfectly good allies, which just makes the problem persist. Part of the problem is certainly privilege, no doubts there. Privilege is the primary obfuscating curtain when it comes to knowing what those you act as an ally for need. But an even bigger part of the problem is actually the Liberal Reputation Points^TM game itself and people's personal reputation.

Let's face it, no one wants to look like a bigot. It doesn't look good and we all firmly associate the word bigotry with being a grade A fuckstupid douchenozzle (or an equivalent horribly insulting phrase in your mind). It gets especially worse when you're in a pretty seriously marginalized group yourself and have to deal with other people being shitty allies. You would feel like complete guilty shit if you suddenly realized that you just fucked over someone in the exact same way you get fucked over regularly. It's why GLB folk and womanists respond so badly to being called on transphobia and cissexism. Because GLB folk have to contend with being betrayed by a mess of the lib community and womanists get regularly fucked over by white feminists and our resoundingly loud White Noise. So realizing that, hey, you've suddenly become a giant raging hypocrite is not a pleasant experience.

I've watched this unfold before. An ally does something not terribly beneficial or slips on something, is called on it and just completely flips out. And then a little bit later, contritely goes, "aw fuck, I'm so sorry, that was horrible of me". Some don't come to the realization of course, and they are pretty much considered dirty self deluding liars when they call themselves an ally. There's a list of things that consistantly are done that reduce the effectiveness of one's alliance to folk and then are done that worsen the blow and add insult to injury. And there are things every ally can do to reduce the impact of their fuckups and to reduce the frequency of said fuckups. Let's take a look shall we?

The Don'ts:

1: Speaking for the marginalized person:
A lot of allies think they know a whole bunch of shit about what we need and how we need it. Well, they're wrong. You can do all the research in the world and you still won't know exactly what a given trans person will need. Fuck, most of us don't know what the rest of us need half the time. So when you speak over trans folk, or Aspects forbid, tell trans folk to shut up because you know what we need, you are being a shit poor ally. When a marginalized person tells you to relay a message, relay it exactly. Ask them at any chance you can to make sure you are not distorting, embellishing or extending their requests/needs verbally. You will make mistakes obviously, but if you do these things those mistakes will be less likely and have less impact.

2: Arguing a privilege call:
Face it, you do have privilege. This is a given. If you did something and someone calls privilege on you for it, don't argue it. Because chances are, you are wrong and if you argued it, you're making it just that much harder to get through to you to someone who goes through a helluva lot of shit normally and doesn't need it from allies too.

There are rare cases where people will pull a privilege call out of their asses. This does happen and I would be a moron to claim otherwise. But it is extraordinarily rare. It is also generally fairly obvious to other folk that are part of the marginalized group when someone is bullshitting a privilege call. Instead of arguing, ask how what you did was privilege induced. Ask nicely, ask politely. You have the burden as the privileged one, to operate beneficially to us. After all, life gives you a massive leg up and fucks us over. It isn't a huge deal to swallow your pride a little and politely ask what you did wrong. If the claim is bullshit, the person won't be able to describe what you did wrong in terms of privilege and other folk of that group will probably call them on it too.

But chances are, they aren't wrong and you fucked up.

3: Silencing:
This is never acceptable. Enabling others in engaging in silencing, engaging in silencing tactics yourself and not addressing others use of silencing are all unacceptable actions by an ally. Silencing tactics are fairly simple. They are methods used to quash dissent. To dismiss or disable the voices of dissent against the privilege induced majority speak. They can include trolling someone, threatening someone, making offensive jokes, using slurs, acting violent or intimidating, demanding or even criticizing anger from a marginalized person, demanding that a marginalized person change their methods for addressing privilege and a host of other things that are design to control the means of communication and discourse. Technically 1 often classifies as silencing, but as it doesn't always fit silencing, I separated them.

4: Prioritizing your reputation or being right over being a good ally:
Intellectuals hate being wrong. I know this, I'm the same way. Many folks will get defensive when called out as wrong or biased. This defensiveness is simply a defense of their reputation for accuracy or in general. But in the end, one's reputation for being right a lot is never as important as the life, well being and safety of the marginalized people that person is an ally for. When you prioritize these unimportant things over our bodies, lives, well beings and safety, you fail in being an ally. Such an action is pretty heinous because of how dehumanizing it is to be prioritized below something as emphemeral, largely unimportant and dynamic as reputation.

5: Engaging in actions known by the marginalized group to be marginalizing: This one is simple. Don't do the shit to us that we ask everyone to avoid doing to us, with your support as an ally. Seriously, this one is the one that really requires stupidity or asinine levels of apathy about us. If you're fighting other people doing something to us, DON'T DO IT TOO.


The Do's

1: Ask Questions:
Ask what's up often. You are at a loss when it comes to what we need maybe 80% of the time, if you're lucky. The more often you ask before or as you do something, the more likely you can catch yourself before you truly fuck up as an ally. When I write something about a group I am not a part of, I ask people to smack me with a correction if I'm being privileged or inaccurate. Requesting this shows good faith. You're trying and even if you make a mistake, the door is open to address it without fear of silencing. You are admitting your lack and your burden and this is always good.

2: Address things everywhere:
Even if we're not there to see you do it, fight oppression everywhere you can. Take the things we've requested of you and fight for them even when we aren't there. It shows that you actually give a shit about real change and not just about looking good for the Liberal Reputation Points^TM game. And for every person you change the mind of, that's another person who doesn't do something shitty to one of us. Real massive effects.

3: Self Analyze:
Privilege is, like I said above, nasty. It is sneaky, it is quiet, it is powerful. You will have a hard as hell time seeing past that stained glass window to the horrible shit beyond. I know I do. You have a burden due to that privilege, to do everything you can to see past it. The best way to do this (besides listening) is self analysis. Look at the things in your life that you have and compare that to the things marginalized groups have. Try to think in depth on it. Analyze and extend what we've taught you and try to find the points at which your privilege has truly given you immense advantages. And do these exercises in a way that will remind you. Publically, on paper, on a blog, in a journal, somewhere. If it's just up in your head, you may forget or not accept it. But if you read what you just wrote, it will drive it home. And nothing seems to convince privileged folk better that they have privilege than another privileged person pointing it out. Which is an element of privilege in and of itself. XD

4: Keep your priorities ordered well:
Don't play the Liberal Reputation Points^TM game. Just don't. Don't elevate your reputation or your sense of rightness. Don't elevate your hurt feelings that I spoke to you with anger above the people who are suffering because of people with your privilege. In the end, as an ally, your priority is our well being. The only thing that comes above that is your own well being (and as I said, you don't cost yourself a whole lot if anything by helping us). A few feelings being bruised cuz someone told you to fuck off is a whole lot less than being triggered by a rape joke. Know that we're more important than how you look, or how funny you think your jokes are, or whether or not you really liked that book, no matter how racist. And in the end, your first amendment rights are important but fuck are you a bad ally if you champion your right to use slurs about us in common conversation over helping us protect ourselves from being triggered and verbally abused by those same slurs.

5: Trust Us:
In the end, some of the things we say are gonna seem outlandish. Your privilege makes it tough to see the truth of the matter. It's like the matrix. You can't see past it but if you ever get that skill it is mind blowing and hard to believe. You need to learn to trust us to report our experiences and not question everything given to you. Because we get that enough from the non allies. We need you to make it easy for once.


So that is the list. Do's and Don'ts. There's more things, most likely, that I forgot or didn't add. But these are the big ones. Applicable to every single marginalized group and their allies. There are no exceptions to this list. You fail at being an ally if you are not doing these things. So if you are failing, stand up, dust off and do the right thing. Because we need you. It isn't just a pixilated base on a video game we're losing.

It's our lives.

Like this? Read her previous Deeply Problematic guest-post on cis privilege.

Thursday/Friday Roundup

Tenika Watson

Here's what I learned from around the blogosphere today and yesterday:

Tyli'a "NaNa Boo" Mack and another unidentified woman were stabbed in a vicious trans misogynistic hate crime only two blocks from DC Transgender Health Empowerment. Mack may have been targeted for refusing to be silenced in the face of oppression. To compound the tragedy, these women were hatefully degendered or had their gender erased by identifying the victims as "transgender males" in initial coverage of the attacks by Fox and NBC (both stories, which I will not link, have been changed without any kind of note of the correction).* There is a vigil tomorrow for the loss of these brave women. Coverage from Jos at Feministing, in which she is kind enough to link my post on Janey Kay, is here.

August 28 is a memorable day in civil rights history for many reasons. Allison McCarthy connects the death of Emmet Till, the "I Have A Dream" speech, and Obama's nomination last year on Global Comment.

Great conversation over at Laura's space on whether or not a man can be a feminist.

Renee covers scooter accessibility at Womanist Musings.

You all have probably heard about how Ted Kennedy was an "LBGT" advocate. Via TransGriot comes this piece explaining why the "T" part of that isn't valid.

I'm in a LTR, and this piece comparing the baby and wedding industry articulated a lot of my fears about my future with my partner.

Chally talks about her mother's struggle to have folks recognize it when she changed her name back. I'm very proud to have the McCarthy part of my name come from my mother following Lucy Stone's example, and we often had to hang up the phone on folks who called looking for Mrs. James.

Want some lemonade? 25 cents if you're a skinny able-bodied white cis straight man! $5 if you're a fat trans disabled woman of color!

meloukhia ponders the merits of photographed graffiti.

Cara covers another disgusting example of how rape victims are further victimized.

Ann at Feministing reviews a book on tallness. I'm 5'10.5 myself, and I loved it.

Monica covers the story of model Tenika Watson and how she was out-ed as a trans woman.

Blackkittenroar responds to commands to comb her hair.

Ruth Moss admits her fantasy of being thin.

*I apologize for participating in this degendering by referring to Mack and the other woman as "trans men" on Twitter. No matter my intentions, disrespecting and disregarding these women's identity is unacceptable. I should have been more skeptical of news media in reporting it to my Twitter followers. Thanks to Lucy and voz for setting me straight. For some instruction from voz on how to react to coverage of trans violence in the media, please see my retweets (hers are protected) here, here, and here.