Battybattybats' Cave Of Rationality

Bigoted Housepaint!

2010-11-02T19:05:00.000-07:00

Taubmans Paints responds, Update at bottom of article!

Crossposted from equallovearmidale

I was in a Bunnings store in Sydney the other day looking at paint options for a room when i saw something that made my blood run cold. One of the paints on a large display of Taubmans Easy Coat Suede… a nice shade of pink (though in the photos it looks paler than it is to the eye) that is very close to a shade of nail polish i often wear…

Labeled PUNCH ME

We just had to get some photos of this appalling label and these that i’m posting were taken by my partner. Here is the top of the standing display it’s on showing the Taubmans name.

As if there aren’t enough problems with bigotry and violence and bullying of Intersex Transgender Bisexual Lesbian and gay people as it is. And for that matter violence against women. All of whom are at times associated with the colour pink.

When the Nazis who were trying to Exterminate Transgender sent Transgender and Gay people to the death camps they made them wear a pink triangle.

This clear distinct blatant association with a shade of pink and ‘asking for’ being subjected to violence is inexcusable in modern day Australia. That it’s on a public display is extremely disgraceful and disgusting.

With so many young ITBLG people attempting to take their own lives, with homophobic bullying such a serious problem, with so much violence against Transgender people that nearly half of them in a Queensland study had been victims of assault this is an extremely disturbing endorsement of violence, abuse and prejudice!

How the heck did this happen Taubmans? And what are you going to do about it?

Update: I was emailed about a response from Taubmans by Rebecca Dominguez who had sent them this

I just read the blog post:

http://equallovearmidale.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/bigoted-housepaint-taubmans-needs-to-explain-this/

You seriously have a colour of paint (that is pink) called “Punch Me”? What on earth were your marketing department thinking when they came up with that?

Way to go promoting misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, transphobia and violence against women, trans* and queer people.

An apology to women’s groups and queer groups would be a good idea, as well as sensitivity training.

I’ve been told (via another source) that “Punch” in this instance relates to the drink. But as “Me” follows the word “Punch” this doesn’t compute for me.

And they replied:

Hi Rebecca,

We acknowledge & understand your complaint. The name will be changed as soon as is possible.

Regards

Taubmans Paints

Busy Bats, when local is also national

2010-09-27T20:02:00.001-07:00

Whew it's been a while since i posted here or at the Spectrum Cafe but it's not from want of being busy.

Australias recent election put several independents in the balance of power. They decided which of the two major parties would form government. For the next three years these Independants could be critical in every single piece of legislation at the federal level.

My local representative is one of them. And I'd already been raising Trans and Intersex issues with him via letters and emails over the last few years. Before the election several of us Trans Intersex Bi Lesbian and Gay locals were making the initial plans for a rally in town in November for the National Day of Action. When several local candidates had a public forum we raised our voices and made our issues a key part of discussion getting surprising support from almost all there and we later learned the only attending candidate whose response was dissapointing had his hands tied by his party who gagged even their GLBTI candidates from supporting marriage equality!

So what happens in my sleepy rural city could have a disproportionately large impact. And so this opportunity has been taking the greater share of my energies. Pretty exciting stuff. Anyone know of a place i can get a good cheap pink megaphone?

Batty Joins Spectrum Cafe

2010-05-26T18:45:00.000-07:00

Hi all.

Thanks to one of those friends everyone needs, someone who doesn't just encourage you but gives you a good push when you need one, there's a cool new endeavor underway that I'm a part of.

http://www.thespectrumcafe.com/

We are trying to build a fully inclusive area for the whole spectrum, building bridges, raising visibility, busting myths, respectful yet in-depth discussion.. in many ways plugging what many have felt is a gap in the online world. Mission statement here: http://www.thespectrumcafe.com/?p=168

I'm not abandoning my cave here though :)

So i hope those who read here will take a look and it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

Trans Beauty, Trans-Attraction, Transphobia and murder?

2010-05-15T07:53:00.000-07:00

This is not the first time i've upset people with an idea. Though perhaps the actual idea is missunderstood this time. Hard to tell as my CFS has been making communication a little difficult.

The upset occured on a comment at facebook and it occurred again in a comment at Questioning Transphobia, the latter here: http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/i-hate-mtf-and-ftm/ though each in very different ways.

So lets consider what the idea actually is, and I'll see if i can get it across properly this time.

Lets start with some basics.

* some people are binary-gender transsexuals. They are strongly neurologically fixed in being male or female and where possible correct their bodies to match that.

* there's also non-binary transgender people including transsexuals and non-transsexuals, including Genderqueer and many crossdressers. We can worry about whether all bi-gender people should be considered non-binary or not another time.

* there are many people who are not transgender or transsexual i.e. are cisgender cissexuals, who nevertheless are attracted to Transgender people. There are also transgender people who are attracted to transgender people.

* just as society has in recent centuries been largely transphobic so too is attraction to Transgender been dissaproved of, taboo etc.

Ok. That's our starting point. Lets expand on that shall we?

* Some binary Transsexuals have argued that this attraction is bad. Pestering, unwanted, negative, missgendering and harmful. Because of course they do not want people attracted to them for charcateristics that they do not want and are trying to fix, they may find that extremely disstressing or offensive. Perfectly understandable.. for them.

* Non-binary people have extreme difficulty in getting and maintaining relationships with people who are not attracted to their being Trans. Many relationships end when a crossdresser comes out to or is found out by their partner. Some genderqueer people I know have found their degree of gender expression curtailed by what a partner deems acceptable.

Already we have the beginnings of an obvious potential, though still solvable, problem. Lets add further factors.

* Arguments from various sources including Feminists Binary Transsexuals and Psychiatrists have described the Trans-attracted as Gays in Denial, (including sometimes arguing that Transgender people are also Gays in Denial) based on the relationships between Trans-attracted people and Transgender people. The argument goes that the Trans-attracted is really interested in the male characteristics of male to female transgender people. This ignores a lot of different factors.

What factors does it ignore?

* Trans-attracted people may be female as well as male.

* Trans-attracted people may themselves be transgender or they may be cisgender or any other part of the sex and gender spectrum.

* Trans-attracted people may be attracted to people on any point of the sex and gender diverse spectrum. Even irrespective of whether usually they are attracted to the same or opposite cisgender cissexual sex.

* Trans-attracted people are attracted to Trans people because and not in spite of their being Transgender.

So we have one group that finds the trans-attracted a nuisance or worse quite upsetting because they do not want to be attractive for being perceived to be transgender. Understandable. We then have a group that needs the trans-attracted to find fulfilling relationships. Also Understandable. And we have that group attracted to what they are attracted to, a sense of Trans Beauty, Transgender as beautiful and desirable.

But is the problem just one of helping the Trans-attracted to the ones who want their attention and away from those who don't? No it's not so simple. We have other issues involved.

These include:

* Most Transgender people are deeply closseted. For fear of Transphobic persecution but also for fear of never finding someone who will be attracted to them once they are out.

* Most trans-attracted people are also afraid of the consequences of being outed.

* This closetting of Trans-attraction results in many of them visiting Trans sex workers or Trans pornography but not being willing to let family or friends know about their attraction and so are less likely to have a full open lasting relationship with an out Trans person.

* like all closetted repressed communities there are many other maladaptions and harmful coping methods and problematic issues withion the Trans-attracted community that need to be healled and overcome.

* The issues of the transgender sex industry and the sex industry in general are complicated in themselves, however they also have a bearing on the stigmatisation of the Trans-attracted amongst much of the community including amongst binary transsexuals, amongst other parts of the transgender community, amongst other parts of the sex industry and in the general community. This alone is a complex set of intersections of prejudices stereotypes and blamings.

So as long as the Trans-attracted are clossetted many trans people will also be closetted, the Trans sex industry will have a strong client-base who do not want others to know of their desires, many trans people will be alone and romanticly unfullfilled and many trans-attracted people will make do with cis people when they'd rather trans or will also remain alone.

What else?

* I suspect that as its been said that homophobia, including assaults and murder, often comes from the perpetrators issues with their own attraction to the same sex and after hearing about the frequency in transgender assault and murder cases that the perpetrator knew in advance the victim was trans but later claimed they just found out it seems to me that many cases may be Trans-attracted people unable to accept their own attraction and/or trying to prevent others from finding out about their relationships and the feared consequences of being discovered to be trans-attracted.

* This means that to end or reduce transphobic murder and assault and villification it is neccessary to reduce the stigma towards Trans-attraction.

* This means that all those who contribute to, support or fail to act against the stigmatisation of the trans-attracted are assisting in all the negative consequences of that stigma including the harm done to transgender people unable to find partners and if my suspician is correct also to some, maybe many of, the transphobic assaults and murders.

In that last one, and one perhaps that Lisa at QT may have missunderstood (and i may have misscomunicated) i am neither blaming trans people as the major causes of trans-attraction stigma but neither am i letting those amongst the trans population who have encouraged this prejudice off the hook for being prejudiced. Whether empowered and overprivileged or disempowered and underprivilieged everyone is responsible towards every human rights issue without exception as a basic mutual-obligation consequence of the idea of Equality and Human Rights. And every voice may have an impact even if only a tiny one within a limited minority community. Inaction also is a choice with consequences too. She called what i had said victim-blaming, but I never said that the victims of transphobic violence were those who were prejudiced against the trans-attracted. I'm sure some victims were supportive of trans-attraction.

If anything one might conclude from my argument that some peoples vocal trans-attraction prejudice might have got other transgender people than themselves killed by contributing to the hostility towards the trans-attracted in parts of the trans community and the hostility towards trans sex workers and erotic models in parts of the trans community and the lack of inclusion of such in attempts to undo prejudice. It is worth considering that the seperation of trans people from the trans-attracted is very different from the situations of the Gay and Lesbian communities. But even then the majority of trans-attraction prejudice will still come from mainstream society. All groups even majorities are made up of individuals, so no-one gets out of having some responsibility, but some are of course vastly more powerful and influential than others. The violent conforming peer-pressure of much of male society will clearly have a far greater impact on that. But that doesn't make it ok to hold such a prejudice or to support it or to by inaction allow the prejudice to continue unoppossed.

Those transsexuals who are not interested in the trans-attracted still have an Ethical and Moral obligation to not foster prejudice against them just like a hetero cis male may not want gay cis men to find him attractive and ask him out but should not foster homophobia etc. The issues of problematic behaviour amongst parts of the trans-attracted population should definatly be addressed.. like problems in any closetted and/or repressed population caused by the closeting and the stigma. Internalised trans-attraction-phobia as well as general ignorance about the sex and gender diverse community (attraction doesn't come with knowledge automatically after all) will of course lead to all manner of problems that its in the interest of the entire community to fix. Yes the main cause of trans-attraction prejudice has been cis society but we all have to act against it. Sure problematic behaviour of some trans-attracted people gives them all a bad name but what minority is that not true for?

We all need to address this just as we all need to work on all human right issues and prejudices.
Especially if this is a cause of some of the transphobic violence suffered by the sex and gender diverse community!

It's late so i have no time for refining or proper editing so lets see how that goes. Discussion of these ideas is very welcome. As always i'm willing to explain further my thoughts and to hear oppossing views. I'm happy to learn i'm wrong about things. The all important part is the why of being wrong or right as that leads to greater knowledge.

S&GD, bussinesses that profit from them, closets and responsability to the community

2010-05-10T17:30:00.000-07:00

I've been making comments along these lines at various places from time to time but a recent post at Bilerico has prompted me to fight through the flu i've come down with to blog about this. The post in question is here

The Sex and Gender Diverse population is a very large minority. With estimates of 1 in 500 people Transsexual, 1 in 60 Intersex, 2%-10% of the population regular Crossdressers and who knows how many of the other facets of S&GD there are thats a big minority. Just the MtF crossdressers alone are a demographic large enough to swing elections in some countries if they voted together.

But they aren't voting together. Our community is nigh allergic to the word politics. Our rights depend on politics. We are discriminated against in legislation written by politicians. Where we have had increased decriminalisation and protection it has been through politics. We DEPEND upon politics!

Yet many forums outright ban discussion of politics. I've been banned from one crossdresser forum for 'political innuendo' lol. In truth this is a negligence towards the rights of S&GD people. We NEED to discuss politics where related to S&GD rights! We NEED to be political.

Even those in the closet have an obligation to the rest of the community. There is an obligation to the next S&GD generation to make the rights and social acceptance and Transphobia situation better for them than we have grown up with. Especially as many S&GD variations have been found or are suspected to have genetic components. This means that acting to improve the situation of the S&GD community is part of the FAMILY DUTY of each and every S&GD person! And of their families! Because regardless of whether the S&GD person has children themselves their family members will carry those genes.

Something the Crossdressers' Wives especially whose concerns (or predictions of their concerns) so often direct or limit much of the lives of crossdressers need to address. Their children may well be carrying an S&GD gene. And peoples Neices, Nephews, Cousins...

Because of that fact it totally changes the dynamic of family-based arguments about the closet. Many stay in the closet to protect their family but in fact thats condemning relatives and non-relatives alike to the same societal and internalised Transphobia that has so harmed our own and past generations. People usually will sacrifice much for the sake of their children... well as some of those children or grandchildren will also be S&GD so families must consider what they will decide about that, what they owe to those S&GD descendants and family.

Now if families or individuals choose to remain closeted for whatever reason that does not let them off the hook. The responsibility to family and non-family S&GD people remains. There's much a closeted person can still do. Donations of even petty amounts to S&GD charities and organisations make a real difference. How you decide your vote should still consider candidates and parties stance on S&GD issues. Being closeted is no excuse for any iota of Transphobic remarks, sure it may help dissuade people from thinking your S&GD but it's hurting others in the process and thats just not justifiable. Instead if your going to be closeted your still obligated to speak out against Transphobia and be pro-acceptance.

It's not just S&GD people and their families that have obligations though. As i mentioned already with forums and politics-bans failing the community there is also responisibility from websites and bussinesses to the community.

There's many bussinesses that profit from S&GD people. If your making money from S&GD people then you should be contributing to S&GD people. From specialist transformation-product stores to the sex industry to ordinary online clothing stores which i'm sure get a significant amount of crossdresser bussiness.

The site i was banned from for 'political innuendo' crossdressers.com i used to reach via the domain name crossdressing.com. Not the first time a site has multiple addresses, nothing unusual there. And when i discovered that crossdressing.com no longer went to that site i assumed they'd just sold off a spare domain name like other non-S&GD forums i've been on have done... but they deleted all discussion about them doing this!

There was even a thread where one wife was distraught at finding 'Date A Crossdresser' in her husbands internet history. Did a mod step in and tell her that the web address crossdressing.com that formally went to crossdressers.com was now that 'date a crossdresser' site? No. In fact when i posted this information to that thread it was deleted! The owners for what ever reason deciding to hide the change apparently more important than the marriages of people the site was allegedly there to support. Whether sold off or both sites having the same owner this is hardly an ideal way of handling that. Since then they have added an online store to crossdressers.com.

I think few have any illussions of the profiteers of the sex industry contributing much to the community outside of the services they provide for money. Though often individual sex workers have been some of those fighting for S&GD rights.

And we shouldn't consider that bussinesses making money from S&GD customers is neccessarily a bad thing. Economic power is a way a community can show it's strength and numbers and gain more acceptance in society. But it has to be done in the right way. Helping raise the success of S&GD artists and supporting products positively marketed to and engaging the S&GD community (even regarding sexual products of trans-attraction portrayed positively) and supporting companies which donate to equality orgs and charities are all positive but purely exploitative bussiness have not much value and may actually have a vested interest in maintaining the closet and transphobia.

There's others with a responsibility to the S&GD community.
For example i noticed a book for parents on school bullying the other day and flipped through it and to it's index. Any mention of Gay, Transgender, Intersex in the index or contents? Nope. Just sexual harassment. Yet the amount of homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools is a serious issue. Thats a bad omission. And for that matter was their any books in the bookstore on raising Gay children? Trans children? Intersex children? Nope of course not, just books on raising 'boys' and others on 'girls' by which of course they mean cisgender cissexual heterosexual boys and girls.

Omitting SS&GD where it's actually an important factor that should be addressed even if controvertial is irresponsible. And the general absence of S&GD books is again a problem. It's not just irresponsible to the customers who have need of such it's also irresponsible bussiness practice when there is going to be a growing market for it.

We need to address the responsibility we all have to the S&GD community. If we want things to change we must act to change them. If we would have liked it if others changed things for our benefit in the past then we need to do that for the next generation. Where we have benefited from the actions of past equality-fighters we need to pay that debt forward. We need to consider the legacy we leave to our children and our families and future generations. We need to demand of those that profit by us or claim to exist to support us that they contribute to the cause of equal rights and community building. We need to accept that no matter our ideology politics is an essential part of gaining equality which we must all stop avoiding and start addressing. We need to get those who choose the closet to still contribute. We need to demand the silence over S&GD cease and we get appropriatey addressed in all avenues.

Like other communities with internalised oppression issues and an equality struggle our community is pretty fractious and bitter. But we need to start building our understanding of personal power and responsibility. To consider our responsibility to the community and ourselves.

Redheads Human, Emo's not? And Law fails on racist government ads

2010-04-17T19:28:00.000-07:00

Well looky here. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Comission makes clear that the law doesn't count hate-speech that promotes prejudice against an inherited pigmentation characteristic (i.e. racism) as actionable discrimination....

But wait a moment, what was with that whole TRIAL and CONVICTION against Catch The Fire Ministeries anti-islamic comments?

You know, the one that had several religious groups claiming the Victorian law as a reason the nation shouldn't have a Human Rights Act?

So what happened? Are they applying the law differently for Red Haired people than for Islam? Or did they change the law to pander to whining Christians distraught that they may be held fairly and equally accountable for Slander and Libel and Villification against followers of another faith?

But only red hair AGAIN.

Apparrently while they consider it regretable that red haired people are the subjects of prejudice its so fine to hate members of the Emo culture that they don't warrant any mention. Apparently Red Haired people like my Aunt are Human but the Emo's in town are not.

The SHAME of this foul unethical and abhorent and cynical Human Rights Abuse, the subsequent ignoring of Emo and only recognising the effects on red haired people STAINS the state of Victoria, STAINS our national broadcaster the ABC and STAINS The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Comission.

Ethics and Fighting for Rights and Running Support/Issues/Discussion Websites

2010-04-13T20:53:00.000-07:00

I want this post to be the starting point of a major and vital discussion. I welcome ALL pertinent commentors (only spam advertising will be deleted by me). This is i believe one of the most pertinent possible conversations.

Where is the line between Ethical and Unethical tactics when engaged in fighting for ones rights and when engaged in running websites that will involve supporting sections of the community, specific issues and general discussion?

Thats not a minor subject and cannot be solved quickly. I welcome long comments, i welcome examples, i welcome bringing in connections to other areas or raising parallels that other sites would often consider off-topic or derails but which are all too often vital to a deep understanding and can cut right to the heart of an issue. I am totally happy for people to quote this, to have it cross-posted, to engage in conversations across other sites etc. Theres a lot in this and it covers a panoply of varying issues and needs and perspectives.

Now I'll give some of my current starting thoughts:

* I think that as philosophically the foundation of Human Rights including Civil and Political Rights is one of an assumption that all rights are enjoyed equally, and that as they are not enjoyed equally that anyone fighting for their own rights does indeed have an obligation towards fighting for the rights of others, supporting others fight for rights and to ensure that they fight for their own rights in such a way that it does not interfere with the rights of others (in general, there WILL be an exception which I'll get to shortly).

* I conclude based off this also that anyone currently enjoying their rights while others do not enjoy theirs have in essence borrowed upon the future enjoyment of all on those rights and as such do literally owe those currently unable to enjoy their rights.

* I see that Equal Rights requires as a responsibility all claimers of those rights to be obligated to respect the equal rights of all others as well as to fight to defend and also to ensure the equal rights of all others. That this requires some compromise of rights to practically ensure but should be kept to the minimum required to do so. That this then results in, if failed to do so, a loss of valid claim to ones own rights. That this loss should still be as minimal as possible with the goal of rectifying the problem. This is an important but complex part. It justifies a legal system for example, road rules and other laws where compromises on free action when behind the wheel of a deadly machine to the lives of others etc.

* That when the state and appropriate systems fail in it's duties to the equal rights of all then the minimum required amount of law-breaking to change that is ethical. Now lets not take this one too lightly, because it does go all the way up to killing. Before you dissmiss that thought lets remember that the legal and Ethical validity of many modern democratic rights-principled states are based upon this because revolution, civil war etc was validated by the citizens literally being prepared to die or kill in order to assert their equal rights. Now i'm so not suggesting we reccomend wheel-chair bound or transgender suicide bombers or violent revolutionaries but we must consider the ethics of every aspect of fighting for equality including the riots and bloodshed of past fights for equality. The degree of usefullness and practicality must be weighed regarding such actions.. so it's not so neatly Ethical to use violence as it can sometimes seem.

* Redressing inequalities become everyone's responsibility. That actually validates Affirmative Action for example so long as, and this bit is important, so long as it's still required and is applied relative to need.

* Rights-organisations and activists need to develop full Ethics Standards to ensure that they do not harm the rights of others in their fight and in proposed legislative reforms except where it fits the exceptions discussed above.

* Websites have a Duty-Of-Care to the members of forums, to commentors, to the community they are targeted at and serve. That this includes troublesome members/commentors who may act from triggers and inner pain and refelxive defencive aggression as well as the community they are trying to create a safe stable place for and that while difficult to balance these policies regarding moderation, temp-bans and bans need to consider the realities of mental illness, vulnerability to suicide and the like all too often ignored.

These are not set-in-stone but open for reasoned debate. It's good to discuss them, test them, consider them carefully. There are all sorts of practical considerations like how one might ensure that a small minority populations needs and voice are not drowned out by a larger one when the rights of both need to be considered in order to find the answer to achieving equality. Or how to ensure a community that has been past hurt by another community can still ensure that it considers the rights of that community are not harmed inappropriatly when attempting to get legislative reform. (good examples here involve conflicts between parts of the gay community and transgender community as well as conflicts between the Transsexual and Crossdresser communities).

So please, think about these issues. Think about the principles that underly them, what you feel about them and why, what makes the right thing right and the wrong thing wrong. Consider examples of this and practical considerations. Look for problems and for ways around them.

Lets make this the start of a broad inclusive cogent and consistent conversation that needs to consider all the issues of all involved. The begininng of a deep consideration of some of the most important, contentious and vital issues effecting much of todays society. One that relates to every activist, every official, every democratic represenative, every system, every forum message list and website. It's a big subject and it's time we got started on it.

Keep it Simple.. is sometimes stupid when it comes to sexism

2010-04-12T05:17:00.000-07:00

There's been a very very interesting discussion over at Questioning Transphobia.

http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/guest-post-by-sin-nombre-story-time/

One that has revealed some of the stereotypes especially sex stereotypes not just outside the transgender community but also within feminism and inside the trans community too.

A very offensive thing has been said about Trans Men showing stereotypes and generalisations are alive and well.

And we have the very interesting phenomena of peoples reactions to my raising cis male rape victims of cis women.

I first learned of its existed because of a suicide, a teen killed himself after police laughed at him and told him he should have enjoyed it. You know who else laughed? Most of the people who talked about it! Someone was dead but it was funny cause they acted like such a girl by not wanting sex with an older woman and being upset and killing themself.

In the many years since then theres been the occassional rare mention in the media and other places of this sort of thing happening. Often met with outrage and anger by women that its even mentioned. Often met with disbelief from women that its even possible. In conversations i have mentioned the subject men will usually laugh at or condemn the victim for being weak useless stupid unmanly. While many women often disbelieve it at all because they cannot imagine that a woman could be string enough to rape a man and/or would want to and/or that the man or boy involved would object unless the woman was extremely unattractive others respond with sadistic glee happy that a man got a taste of his own medicine... but the victims aren't rapists raped back but innocents i might say... nope by being male they are guilty apparently.

See how much sex stereotypes of both men and women are involved?

Thing is i know cis male victims of both rape and attempted rape by women. Not just one but several. From one being tricked into getting drunk around someone he had no reason to think was unsafe through to one whose attacker used brute force and physical violence.

But of course we hear man or male and we usually think strong and powerful and conquering and desiring endless amounts of sex with anything that moves. And woman or female.. well i think you can guesss the rest. Despite many of us knowing exceptions to these, strong powerful aggressive women and weak soft gentle compliant men we still generalise back to these defaults to some extent. Feminism has undone a little of that... but not a lot.

Now cis male victims of cis females are far less common that the reverse. Not that we can get accurate figures because both rarely report an assault but its still likely to be true. But it happens enough that we should all know that it happens, that we should recognise what that means for our sex stereotypes. But the subject is too confronting, too taboo. The sex stereotypes too powerful and too beloved and too integral to the way we consider ourselves and each other... that we erase all exceptions.

Who has not felt the attacks and judgement for not fitting sex stereotypes? It doesn't matter that on average men have more muscular strength there's still many women who can out arm-wrestle many men. There are men with great reserve when it comes to sex and women who mark their conquests.

And the further you fall away from sex stereotypes the worse you get it.
Sexism does not just harm women it harms those men who don't fit the stereotype too.

Lisa at that link said "The whole fucking world exists to talk about cis men’s problems, Batty. " But thats NOT true. No if your reality goes totally against the grain of the sex stereotypes as the cis male victims of cis female sexual assault does then you dont count as a privileged male in the same way anymore. You are not the center of the world. You reality is a threat. There is not the place to discuss it, to get support and help coping with the aftermath let alone justice.

In the news right now is a woman arrested for sexually assaulting the elderly in my state. And news from spain about a horrific crime done by two ci-women agaunst a trans man.

In a discussion about safety from sexual predators every at-risk group no matter how much a minority they may be is a valid stakeholder. The erasure and taboo of cis male victims is caused by sexism, by the need to defend sex stereotypes. It does not erase the cis female victims to include cis males as a minority group of victims and cis females as a minority of perpetrators cause thats just a reality.

A reality that forces us to look harder at sexism to see it's complexity, its degrees of harm, its diverse effects. It makes us reasess our ideas of women when we acknowledge women can want to rape, murder, torture, destroy and value material possessions more than peoples lives it challenges our traditional idea of what consitutes a womans desires and behaviour. When we acknowledge they can be capable of doing that even to men it challenges our ideas of a womans power.

With the conflicts between parts of binary and non binary transgender, the conflicts between some trans women and trans men, the conflicts between feminism and transgender and the bathroom panic attacks on us from some political groups intending to ensure no equality for S&GD people and how sex stereotypes are so caught up in ALL of that then this form of sexism NEEDS to be addressed in our community.

And when a group so marginalised and erased that many have trouble accepting they exist at all yet common enough that I could know more than one in my life (and i don't have the biggest if social circles!) is considered by us taboo too because they happen to be connected to a priviliged class yet have no privilege in this regard.... no excluding discussion of victims of sexual assault like that is not ok. And the role of sexism in their marginalisation is too important to ignore.

Sexism is not simple. So we cannot afford to be simplistic about it.

Reforming the community label, complex issue but vital

2010-04-08T20:46:00.000-07:00

Recently i found an article i missed that refers to something i wrote. http://oiiaustralia.com/oped-stop-erasing-intersex-acronyms/ Alas comments are closed on it so i cannot respond there to make clear my views on the terms S&GD, TG, GLBTI etc.

But it's well worth my discussing here in more depth.

Why do i support the term S&GD Sex and Gender Diversity?

Well i first encountered it in the HREOC community consultation with the community.

There were a number of people who find the term Transgender offensive if applied to them. Some are Intersex who see no relevance to the term to them. Some are Transsexuals who see their Gender as binary and fixed and the Trans term applying only to their anatomy. CisGender Transsexuals is a term that could rationally describe quite a few people.

There were also people who strove to have one or more groups kicked out of the consultation or have their input ignored because they feared that they and their demands would dominate the consultation. I was one of the targets of this from some transsexuals, and ironically it was the documentation issues of transsexuals that got the focus of the consultation over the objections of those like myself who called for Intersex Surgery issues to be the highest priority let alone my personal issue of anti-discrimination legislation inconsistency accross states especially related to non-gender-binary people.

The same human rights were being discussed in that consultation. Each groups issues had clear overlaps with others. And taken in isolation fixing the issues of one group could have deliterious effects on others of not done peoperly. It was absolutely essential that every group have a place at the table and non-adversarial understanding of the interplay between the systems involved and the rights of all is crucial.

A term was and is needed to show who had a stake in the discussion. S&GD was the term used.

If each group with a right to be there was listed it would be long and unwieldy. Lets list some shall we?

* Intersex
* Post-Op Transsexual
* Pre-Op Transsexual
* Non-Op Transsexual
* Transitioning Transsexual
* Woman Born Transsexual
* Person of Transsexual History
* Crossdresser
* Genderqueer
* Drag King
* Drag Queen
* Androgyne
* Female-to-male
* Male-to-female
* Sistagirl
* Bi-Gender

and thats just a taste, because there are lots of further identities, combinations as well as all the seperate Intersex medical catagories.

It's important not to erase these people. All have a right to be there in these kind of discussions and have their identity recognised and respected.

But we cannot practically list them all every time we write or speak. Not even just as Initials.

But Sex and Gender Diverse covers them all. Diversity of Sex, Diversity of Gender. It doesn't erase each identity that fits under the term. If we need or want to refer to any specific group or groups that fit under that rather than the whole lot it's easy enough to use any of the myriad terms but its impractical to list all of them every time.

Now there is objection in the article i link, a,ongst several, to changing GLBTIQ and varients to GLB(SGD)Q and that looks reasonable enough. After all it lengthens the term for starters and glues two together in their while leaving the others unchanged.

But I don't think thats right. I don't agree with GLB(SGD)Q

If we list every group identity label covered by sexuality we get a nightmarishly long list added to the ones of sex and of gender. We cannot list all those everytime we talk either.

We need a sane, sensible, practical and respectful inclusive way of talking about the community that doesn't involve taking one part of it and using it as a catch-all term for others. Gay is not ok to use for everyone. Nor Queer. Nor Transgender. Nor Intersex where despite evidence for some cross-sexed neurology in not just transsexuals but cissexual gays and lesbians its not part of their identities and the science is far from covering all yet.

So what answers are there?

I suggest that the shortest fairest term i have thus far seen is one that AFAIK i coined myself though its so simple and obvious i would not be surprised if others did before me: SS&GD.

Sexuality Sex and Gender Diversity.

Covering Diversity of Sexuality, of Sex, of Gender.

That term by definition, by having the D for Diversity, is intrinsicly inclusive.
Of course its up to those who use it to ensure we live up to that inclusivity and respect the individual identities that have a deserving place within it.

Its not about erasing any identity. Its about giving us a practical term that respects all identities. That respects those who are rarely if ever included in bite-sized acronyms and are regularly left out of things.

Now i'm not saying it's perfect. And I'm very much against the erasure of Intersex. I am totally in favour of putting Intersex issues right at the front of our priorities because some of them go through some of the worst stuff of us all.

It's suggested in the article that Intersex doesn't imediatly spring to mind with the term S&GD. Well i would think the problem there is peoples association. Diversity of Sex? It seems to me rationally that it would indeed cover Intersex amongst others. Yes new terms need to be explained to people, that can take time and effort, but that does not invalidate the usefullness or importance of such a term. Especially when current terms used are not fair on many and using Transgender, using GLB, GLBT, GLBTI, GLBTIQ.. they all leave people out or misscharacterise them. And often leave them out of things.

Crossdressers, Bi-gender, Genderqueer etc.. like Intersex there's no coverage for us in my state, we can legally be discriminated against (though with female-to-male transsexual with a medical condition making further surgery potentially life-threatening being denied proper legal recognition narrow definitions of Transgender under the law hurt plenty of people who should be covered already). But unlike gthe occassional I for Intersex I never see those intials in the acronym alphabet soup and CDs BGs and GQs et al are regularly left out or treated with direct hostility. The comments, mostly from transsexuals, against including people like me in the HREOC consultation spring to mind, including the radio comment when i was the only such person on the forum at the time. And they claimed we'd be making everything about us to their expense, yet i was advocating for TS and Intersex needs and they were trying to keep us out where my issue with anti-discrimination laws was a valid issue. There's a lot of groups fighting for their fair due of recognition representation and inclusion.

We need to change terminology to be fair, to be respectful and to be practical. We need to deal with the intolerances, bigotries, scapegoating and hate within our communities too. For those who hate being associated with groups they are prejudiced towards.. well SS&GD and the like puts us all rationally and fairly into the same basket and having to rub shoulders with others is usually a darn good way of overcoming prejudices.

It seems to me currently that SS&GD is the answer. But I'm very open to hearing other viewpoints.

ABC article discusses anti-red hair ad prejudice, ignores Emo!

2010-03-31T06:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/31/2861543.htm

An article on the prejudice road safety ads discussing red haired people BUT NOT EMO!

That in itself is an outrage and my complaints already emailed to the ABC.

But look at these MASSIVE revelations in the article.

Gone viral

Late last year, people with red hair were targeted by a joke on the TV
show South Park, which inspired an online campaign calling for a "kick a ginger"
day in the US.

There is little anyone can do to retrieve the Victorian Government ads
now they have spread online but the Government was hoping that was exactly what
would happen.

The campaign relies on being interesting enough to be spread by the
online community.
Roads Minister Tim Pallas says all of the ads were tested
by experts.

"The psychology advisory group were shown all the ads and those that
they believed were acceptable for the purposes of promulgation have been used,"
he said.

"There were many others that didn't make the cut, I can assure
you."

The Minister's spokesman said the Government expected the ads to be
controversial and there were no plans to withdraw them.

Well looky here. They rejected heaps but kept the insulting villification they thought they could get away with! And a psychology advisery group let a RACIST ad villifying people for an inherited characteristic was let through? And an attack on a vulnerable often bullied and victimised minority subculture who have been the target of hate-attacks and even a violent riot overseas?

Thats an advisery group that NEEDS THEIR CREDENTIALS REMOVED! Whatever the term for malpractice amongst psychologists thats what we have here!

And the ads now cannot be retracted and were intended to be controvertial... They will echo through the net for who knows how long causing harm to people and spreading villification and prejudice not just in Victoria, not just Australia but worldwide!

They are deliberatly using prejudice to convey their message. Official government hate ads! Cynicaly at that. Exploitation of the prejudice that harms peoples lives!

How can Red Haired people and Emo people, all over the world, get justice when these videos could potentially outlive them? Sure thats not too likely but it is still possible. The government has no plans to withdraw the ads (which they can't anyway which was always their plan)? Despite using Racism and Prejudice to carry a message about not using mobile phones while driving?

To possibly save some people from car accidents the Victorian Government has decided to increase bullying, villification (in fact directly participate in villification), likely increase assaults and possibly even suicide of these target groups! Risking ruining the lives of some of the already persecuted in order to talk to the persecutors about not driving dangerously.

How about not bullying? Clearly the Victorian government is fine with bullying and its cost in suicides, drug use, mental health consequences and cost to the communtiy.

This is so not ok!

Not ok too is the ABC's ignoring Emo and only mentioning the prejudice against red haired people in that article. BOTH have valid reason to be upset ABC BOTH!

Government uses HATE ads to fight road toll

2010-03-29T19:33:00.000-07:00

I'm am shocked and appalled.

That a state government would stoop to exploiting prejudices to create 'funny' viral ads to reach youth about road distraction dangers of using mobile phones is utterly shocking!

And also note they drew a line at some prejudices as one had combats a prejudice while others actually use the prejudice!

The Asian driver ad has a message that asian drivers can be good drivers...

But other ads say that every time you use a mobile phone while driving an emo is born, another that redheads, referred to by a derogatory term, have sex!

The 'humour' comes from the absurdness of the claim of course but that has no bearing of the fact that they are knowingly using clear prejudices.

Emos have enough villification already. Recent years have seen anti-emo riots in one country for goodness sake! And with the hate-murder and bashing of Goths in the U.K. the government think that tapping into a prejudice against a harmless subculture is ok?

And red hair is an inherited characteristic, making the ad about them having sex RACIST.

This is not ok. This is despicable and disgusting. And no 'its aimed at the young people' excuse covers the fact that one form of racism and hatred of subcultures are being exploited cynically by the government. Note that talking about anti-redhead prejudice isn't commonly considered racist and this prejudice is more commonly accepted so its something they'd think acceptable while they did the opposite on anti-asian prejudice where they'd get more of an outcry.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/yaunzpop/popup/?rn=16196868&cl=18874625 theres some vid of this, which i only hesitantly post as i do not wish to help them spread the 'virus' of HATE but should allow people to see the evidence for themselves.

The people responsible for this should be sacked. And face criminal charges for villification. Emo's and Redheads should SUE! And I hope they do in a massive class action.

Explaining Rights to Peter Stokes of the Salt Shakers

2010-03-28T02:14:00.000-07:00

Two blogposts in one day is fairly unusual for me. Still rather than repeat myself too muck I'll just provide links to start with.

The discussion in question came when Peter Stokes of the Salt Shakers commented on discussions of Gay former Chief Justice of the High Court Michael Kiby's comments in recent times that the government should and eventually would apologise for it's wrongdoings to gay Australians and that the Church follow suite.

Quickly the discussion between Peter and I becomes one about nature, science and Human Rights.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2010/03/24/church-should-apologise-too/23127

I welcome comments here on this but please try and stay respectful and compassionate.

Is calling 'Tranny' an offensive word Offensive?

2010-03-28T01:17:00.000-07:00

No thats not a joke. Or a defence of bigotry.

This is a VERY serious question.

One relating to Cultural Imperialism, to Class, to Transphobia between subsets of Transgender, to anti-sex-worker hate too.

The calls for Tranny to be considered a dirty word have been substantial. And they have some clear merit. Most of the time we encounter the word in the general media it's used as a derogatory word.

Its often condemned for being a word used with hate. A word used to un-gender or label third-gender binary identified transsexual women and women of transsexual history. A word that associates Transsexuals with the sex industry.

Wait a moment!
I know people who ARE third-Gender people! Intersex people who embrace being neither male nor female. Cissexual Genderqueer people. Bi-gender people.

I have been told by one commentor at Bilerico that the term originally referred to transvestites and so is offensive... wait a moment! I have friends who self-identify as transvestites! Their not fetishists either.

The use of the term to incorrectly call a binary-person non-binary is bad yes.. but being a non-binary person is not! Thats like saying Gay is an offensive word because some people call things that are bad Gay.

But trans is used substantially in the sex industry... hey! I have friends who've been in the sex industry! It's legal to be a sex worker in Australia. Those are real people with real feellings facing real prejudice and thats not ok either. To say all Transgender people are sex workers is wrong but to oppress and villify sex workers is also very very wrong.

Let me return to the term Transvestite. This is a bad word, connected to sex and the assumption that it is nothing more than a sexual fetish so the polite term is crossdresser right? No! As in the U.K. for example this is not such a demonised term. They both translate as the same thing anyway.. and for many the reason to reject Transvestite is the Trans bit. The association with Transsexual! There has been plenty of transphobic hate bettween transsexuals and crossdressers, between binary transsexuals and non binary transsexuals, between crossdressers who dont live full-time or modify their bodies and those who do either or both. And in some places and communities it's the word Crossdresser thats the dirty word connected with sexual fetish rather than internal gender identity.

And when i'm told Tranny is offensive because it started out as a shorthand for transvestite well that itself is offensive because there is nothing wrong with being a transvestite! Being mislabeled is wrong but objecting to a term for someone elses valid identity being used at all is also wrong. It'd be like a straight person sick of being called Gay wanting the word Gay banned as offensive. (And i'm sooo sick of a few het crossdressers whining about people thinking they are Gay and so making homophobic remarks!)

And it's not just some countries where the language use differs. Different places in a country, different social groups, different classes all may vary between which is the good term and which the bad. And often hatred of another part of S&GD people is part of the motivation.

And the bias against things sexual is often part of this. I've had Transsexuals tell me that Crossdressers are to blame for social stigma. I've had Crossdressers tell me that it's unconventional dressers that are at fault for dressing too sexy. I've seen non-binary Transsexuals blamed. Goth Crossdressers blamed. Drag blamed. Genderqueers blamed. Cos-players blamed. What a load of bovine manure.

And of course the sex industry gets blamed. Now of course there is massive exploitation issues in much of that industry. But there is also a large trans-attracted population in the world who are closetted too. They too are often derided for finding people attractive? Yes. And yes there are problems amongst many who are trans-attracted but then thats hardly surprising for a deeply clossetted population now isn't that? Sex workers are people. The people who visit sex workers are people. With feellings, desires, aspirations and fears. While it is a shamefull thing to find Trans attractive people will slink off in secret to purchase trans-erotica and to visit trans sex workers. Sex workers who are from under more than one part of the Sex and Gender Diverse umbrella.

Yes the constant assumption that Trans is all about having sex must be stopped but the villification of Trans sex workers and Trans-attracted people must also be stopped.

And the Internet is International. Not only that but American media in particular is spread worldwide filling TV and Cable and DVD stores worldwide. And so these cross-country language issues have serious consequences worldwide.

I have had a friend since my teens who is a transsexual. She always uses the term Tranny. She rarely ever says Transexual or Transgender. Thats been the case the whole time I've known her. And she's not the only Australian Transsexual that uses the term.

If a term is someones identity, like Tranny and like Gay then attacking the term itself as offensive is oppressing the people who validly have claim over the term. That doesn't mean the misuse of the term cannot or should not be condemned and decried. Of course they should be. Demanding the term only be used for those with a valid claim to it? In a non-offensive manner? Absolutely. But it's not ok to attack the term itself. Especially in ways that support the idea that being non-binary gender, being third sex, being a sex-worker, being gay, being transsexual, being a transvestite etc are themslves bad or wrong. That merely contributes to the oppression of those people.

That people, is clearly Transphobic.

Bi-Gender and Identity Discrimination plus 2 Petitions

2010-03-23T01:09:00.000-07:00

Wow the identity documents really have become a big isue lately.

The Sex Files Report lead SAGE (the gender one, there seems a couple GLBTI orgs by that name) and Bi-Gender activist norrie mAy Welby to strive to get NSW to give norrie sex-not-specified documentation.

They did. It then went public hitting headlines worldwide from International papers to the Colbert Report.

So of course the NSW Attorney General looked into it and declared that the department responsible couldn't actually provide a document not listing male or female and it's been cancelled.

Well I'll be writing to the Attorney General soon on these matters...

After all what are the effects of sex documentation markers? These are the things that have come up in conversation with people on this matter:

1.) Gathering statistics on the number of women in Australia. Which the Census does too.

2.) Telling Admin workers what honorific to use on letterheads if a name is potentially androgynous. Yep, no joke. Is it really worth harming Bi-Gender peoples human rights in order to put a sex-specific sexist title in front of peoples names?

3.) Daily enforcing gender expression on Sex and Gender Diverse people where if their gender expression doesn't match an officials assumptions of what a member of that sex should look like they suffer interferance of their human rights by:

A. Undue additional process to prove their identity

B. Denial of essential services

C. Allowing legal discrimination as gender expression is not covered in many states and territories including NSW

D. limiting their freedom of expression coercively in order to avoid these issues

E. Often coercively forcing surgery and loss of reproductive rights in order to obtain documentation to avoid these discriminations

F. Violating their human right of self-determination

4.) Segregating prisoners in jail so that men and women won't mix. This ignores that Intersex people are also imprisoned, that Transgender, Bi-Gender, other Sex and Gender Diverse people and people of all sexualities are also all imprisoned each of which raises all the same sort of problems of power, sex, vulnerability etc that mixing men and women does. Not only does this require the issues of S&GD issues in prisons be addressed regardless but why should non-prison people have to suffer in order to make prisons easier to run when sex markers need only exist for and in prisons if need be. Thats still not a reason not to allow undpecified documentstion in the general population!

While I'm at it there's two petitions people might want to be aware of. First one to remove the sexist and nonsensical Transvestic Fetishism from the DSM http://dsm.ifge.org/petition/ discussion of it here http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/the_international_federation_for_gender.php

And one to the IOC on Intersex Athletes http://oiiaustralia.com/oii-petition-international-olympic-committe-intersex-athletes/

Widespread Trauma and GLBTI/SS&GD conflicts

2010-03-10T04:42:00.000-08:00

On an activism mailing list i'm on there was a recent fraccas.

I'm not saying which one and I'm not saying over what.. or at least not the surface whats that are all we usually see.

That conflict gave me an insight. One that should be obvious really but it's the kind that should be obvious but aren't that are usually the most important don't you find?

I've been in my share of battles between ideological positions, internecine conflicts over who is legitimatly this, who is harming who with this label or that term, who is throwing who under the bus and why. For a long time i just couldn't grasp the WHY of a lot of peoples views. Why some HBS supporters have tried so hard to hurt crossdressers. Why some crossdressers have been so homophobic or transphobic towards transsexuals. why so many Cisgender Gays and Lesbians have been so often prepared to leave transgender people out of legislation.

I thought for a time that some articles i read on Internalised Oppression would sufficiently explain this all.. but I was wrong.

I've been dealing with the subject of trauma recently. Dealling with some of my own experiences and those of people close to me. Not the first time but perhaps more successfully lately.

Notions of triggerring, of the explosive emotional distress that can come from something sometimes only reminscent of a traumatic event that need not conatin an iota of the actual threat or actual harm but need only have some reminder sufficient have been something i have become more aware of. It makes total sense, after all a mere waft of a scent can set most of us quite nostalgic and consumed with memories. But we often aren't used to considering the world that way so much so it's not always something we are conciosly mindful of. And of course it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to predict if something may be triggerring to someone even if we know a great deal about the trauma they have experienced because any sense may trigger the memories, feellings and reflexive responses.

We can try and avoid things when we know it'll be triggering for others. We can be there for them when it happens. We can try and hold back our normal emotional responses to their outbursts because we know that it's coming from hurt. And when we face triggerring issues of our own we can try and cope with them, try to not allow them to limit or define our lives, try and learn to defy the reflexes, the fears, the pains, the paralysis, the shrieking terror.

Well i realised that when many people are wronging each other it's coming from a place of hurt. It may be about rejection, lack of fair recognition, ostracism, violence, being sacrificed...
And many people will react to such hurt with their own triggerred reflexes. Hyper-sensitivity from raw exposed nerves, over-reactions because of similarities to past traumas.

Those who are thrown under the bus because another is so terrified of being hurt again or a hurt not ending are themselves likely to also be traumatised. Often associating an entire class with the wrong done them.

Now the internalised oppression i mentioned before is undoubttedly one of the larger sources of trauma. But more than that recognising that many people are traumatised by the discrimination they have faced and will act and react the way a traumatised person will is i think crucial to understanding and in dealing with the bickering and anger and hostility between so much of our myriad interconnected and interdependant communities.

Judging others has become so commonplace in our society especially online that most of the time we don't question it. We happily ban many people for being disruptive, uncaring as to what kind of hurt may be the true origin behind the disruptive behaviour. Yes the net is full of trolls. And the harm they have done to the way we deal with hurting fellow humans is immeasurable.

How callous we have become on one hand that we easilly dissmiss each other as bad, as just plain wrong, as the enemy.. or is it really at heart that they are wounded and that we are wounded, they their anger is a response to past trauma and our coldness to them is our own response to our own trauma?

And isn't this substantially the way many actually want the world to work? That through pain and trauma we will develop reflexive responses? Isn't that how authoritarian thinking works? And what is the motivation of an internet troll? Have we been to quick to dissmiss them as sub-human rather than to wonder what kind of inner pain would cause one person to try and hurt the feellings of others? Or lead someone suppossedly following a faith they believe in as right and true and honourable and all-powerful to descend to trickery deception missrepresentation and outright lies in order to prevent the equal rights of another human being they feel somehow threaten them?

As some studies seem to have confirmed the long held notion of some that most fervent homohobes are themselves to some extent GLB doesn't that really all make sense?

Many in exasperation condemn those who squabble and fight amongst our communities and indeed those fights do often slow our efforts for equality down. But sometimes they have solid valid comp,laints that need to be considered and acknowledged. And each persons reactions from pain can trigger others leading to cascades and avalanches of suffering, lashing out and conflict.

We need to try and learn about each others traumas, as people and groups, so we can try and avoid being unjust by accident or triggering each other. And we need to be patient with over-reactions and triggered pain and reflexive defencive reactions and not exacerbate situations.

And we need to remember people won't always be able to predict what might trigger someone. And if someone goes off i a big way about something that seems unimportant well they may be responding to past pain or they may see something clearly that you've been unaware of. Both are possible even at the same time.

Overcoming bigotry. bias and internalised oppression are not easy. But they are neccessary. And helping each other to do so is neccessary.

That means trying to hold our own reflexes and pain in check, trying to heal our own pain, to not take the seemingly easy and seemingly quick options of quitting of banning of excluding and of anger but instead fighting the disease of passing along pain and instead try the slow but most powerful long-term path of passing along healling.

Non Binary Gender, Absences and Appropriations

2010-02-28T23:52:00.000-08:00

Two discussions well worth having.

This one on the erasure or allowed absence of non-binary non-transsexual parts of Transgender in the media is very important as the largest part of the Transgender Umbrella is the least seen.

While this one brings up claims of many people appropriating a Genderqueer identity and the effects of that on the community, a tricky problem indeed to take any side on with self-identification in the mix. And one in which i appear to have raised some controvertial ideas that some consider off topic, though i feel are getting to the actual heart of the matter.

Of note with my comments in the latter is the connected issue of how much the experiences of one group may be applicable to others in similar circumstances. While some imposing their experiences on everyone elses has been a problem in the past has the reaction to that gone so great as to cause massive loss of opportunities to learn from one another? Like has been raised in Science of recent times where Inter-disciplinary science has become invaluable in solving problems that sat building for ages through exclusivity and non-comunication between different fields?

Definatly some interesting conversations well worth having.

Quick response to new APA draft on Transvestic Fetish

2010-02-11T03:17:00.000-08:00

It's late and I've been busy and with bad symnptoms so this is brief though i've added comments on it at bilerico and Zoe's and at some crossdressing forums.

Here it is: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=189

That its there at all is problem number 1.

There's lots wrong with it.

It still only lists Males. I know female-bodied crossdressers exist cause I'm dating one!

The rationale section makes clear that even a well adjusted happy crossdresser is still labelled as having not-normative sexual behaviour even if not having the disorder so long as they ever have sex when dressed.

And then there's the bit where they explain no longer having heterosexuality a criteria for diagnosis (emphasis added by me): "[11] The word “heterosexual” was removed because some transvestites interact sexually with other males, especially when cross-dressed, and may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual."

Not may be bisexual, not may be homosexual. But may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual.
Are they wrong about being bisexual? Seems to me something they'd know. Are they suggesting Bisexuality doesn't exist?

I'll discuss this at more length later as there's plenty more but I'll mention this as it will also annoy the HBS crew who always demand that CDs have no conection to TSs and don't suffer gender dysporia: "Other transvestites, whom Blanchard (1989) has called autogynephiles, are most aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women. As a practical matter, the autogynephilic type seems to have a higher risk of developing gender dysphoria. This was confirmed in a secondary data analysis reported by Blanchard (2009c). The results of that analysis clearly suggested that the addition of the proposed specifiers to the diagnosis of Transvestic Disorder could provide clinically meaningful information as well as data useful for research."

Could Bigotry be a mental Illness or is that an Ableist suggestion?

2010-01-22T19:02:00.000-08:00

Well in some comments at Questioning Transphobia i've upset a lot of people by supporting the idea that the bigotry of homophobia and transphobia are likely mental ilnesses. Caused by strongly unconciously supressing ones own homosexuality transgenderness or trans-attraction.

I had reached that conclusion because I'd read of studies that over 80% of those strongly homophobic had themselves strong sexual arousal to homoerotic imagery.

Now i was told this is ablist. Indeed perhaps i have made ablist assumptipons. Everyone does tend to accrue some logical fallacies from society so some degree of such is unsurprising and I'm happy to confront challenge and defeat any such i may not realise i have.

On the other hand it's also possible that my conclusion is correct but people understandably do not wish to in any way share a catagory with such people and wish to avoid any taint-by-association from the strongly bigoted being given an umbrella label that also applies to them. I can understand that, the thought that the murderers of Trans people might themselves be members of our own community that lash out from self hate is an unpleasant one in the extreme to me too. Though the DNA evidence on the vibrater in the Angie Zapata trial in that case at least does seem suggestive of this.

The idea of course goes into several hotly contested areas, aside from the emotional aspects, such as what constitutes a mental illness, what influences exist on behaviour, what responsibility people can have for their behaviour if/when we are all not purely reasoning beings 100% of the time which of course throws into chaos a great deal of our legal system which operates under the assumption that we are all 100% under total reasoning calm control of our every action.

One of the issues that seems to be involved is one of behaviour. To suggest that behaviour may be influenced by mental illness seems from my understanding of the comments in response to mine to be considered ablist. I certainly can understand the fear caused by past practices of institutionalisation and abuse of human rights by loss of personal agency that might fuel this. Suffering regular varying severity cognitive impairment myself caused by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome though i can certainly say that my behaviour personally does seem to be effected by my symptoms both in reflexive unconsciouis actions as well as in varying degrees of ability to reason which cn result in very different choices made under similar circumstances just with the variable of severity and type of cognitive symptoms. Something that I find the experience of profoundly distressing.

It seems to me however that to dissmiss effects on behaviour that can result from symptoms or likely ractions to symptoms of disability is itself problematically ablist.

That a dangerous all-or-nothing thinking may be involved and that attempts to avoid the stigmatisation of people with varied cognition as dangerous and needing to be removed from self control may also result in unfairly abandoning people who have behavioural effects a a consequence of their condition to rot in prisons blamed for the effects of their illness or diversity and blamed for the societies failure to cope with the possibility that individuals, all individuals I might add not just those with mental illness or neurologically diverse etc, are not wholly 24/7 in total control of their every act. If there are important shades of grey there the danger could exist that the efforts to avoid stigma and injustice for some if the shades of grey are not acknowledged and considered could result in stigma and injustice for others.

However i'm well aware i could be totally wrong about this. I may in fact have been making very ablist assumptions and therefore reaching warped and incorrect conclusions from the available data. Additionally the available data i have could be critically incomplete or plain incorrect in the first place.

So then the question is what is in error in this and why is it? Is it ablist to consider that unconsciously repressed homosexuality leading to homophobia would be a psychological illness? Is it ablist to consider that mental illnesses and other cognitiove variation could effect behaviour? Or conversely is it ablist to hold people responsible for the effects on their behaviour which may stem from such?

I have no desire to oppress disabled people, being one myself, nor the mentally ill or neurologically diverse. But that doesn't mean i cannot be disasterously wrong either.

We need better Human Rights Education

2010-01-15T04:55:00.000-08:00

Time and time again i fnd myself explaining to people the principles behind what makes rights rights.

They are pretty simple in the main.

Total sole ownership of the self.
Informed consent required to interact with the selves of others.
Responsibilities to those unable to consent.
The social contract that forms the society we all benefit from which we are all responsible to.

All our rights stem from fairly simple principles. Which need to be consistent and not arbitrary.

Alas as usual plenty of people haven't the faintest ideas as is evidenced in this discussion I'm involved in here at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Plenty of people are making arguments about rights without the faintest understanding, resulting in frequent human rights abuses.

We need far better education for the community about the principles that makes something a right or a human rights abuse.

Transphobia on TV, general life stuff etc.

2010-01-14T03:57:00.000-08:00

Well Channel Ten played the Transphobic episode of The Cleveland Show here in Australia last night. Which i discovered channel surfing after realising the beautiful people wasn't on.

Sigh....

Thank goodness for Batman Arkham Asylum as some anger-release. Though i have to be careful I don't spend too much energy on gaming. I'm still trying to rest as much as I can to slow the holiday crash and start picking up. I wish i could get the brainfog clear enough as I really want to find an avenue for contributing positively to things some more.

There's a discussion going on about transphobia and the media actually at Questioning Transphobia finding ways to improve media coverage of transgender people both in quality and quantity is important i think to maximising the gains of recent years.

Sigh and if having insomnia while feelling exhausted and still being plenty cranky about Channel Ten and missing my girl/boyfriend being close at hand weren't bad enough I can't find my nail file and I think I left my lovely purple nail polish at Mum's place.

Dying Transgender Children and Youth.. Beyond Blue starts to do something!

2010-01-10T02:49:00.000-08:00

As i mentioned in past posts like this there are a lot of people with blood on their hands in Australia.. the blood of Transgender children, Bisexual children, Lesbian children, Gay children, teens and youth.

Murdered by negligence. By ignoring the horrifically high stats of attempted suicide for these groups.

According to this report Beyond Blue is improving on it's handling of the issue. Will they go far enough? Will they commit the resources proportional to the high rate in figures on their own site? (Oh.. but of course those figures left off Transgender and Intersex didn't it.)

Well of the stats I've seen Trans is the worst suffering group. (Anyone got stats for Intersex suicide?) so surely rationally we should see the efforts proportional to risk... but will we see that? Will we see beyondblue ads on rural local tv about preventing the suicide of closeted transgender kids, of bi-questioning kids? Will we see them as much or more than the ads we see of preventing suicide of farmers? Because the attempted suicide rate of TQBLG Youth in australia is shockingly high and demands not one iota less than the resources appropriate to the degree of the problem!

Lets see how serious this is. Lets see if Beyond Blue start actually acting to save these childrens lives or if they continue to MURDER THEM BY NEGLIGENT INACTION!

When will we see real action? When will we see advertising in the general media to reach the rural closeted and scared and depressed and anxious Transgender, Bisexual, Lesbian and Gay teens? To get them to help before they try and die? To provide effective programs to rural doctors and to rural families and rural schools to stop the slaughter?

Well I'm waiting to see... but while everyone's waiting more children are DYING! So please do remember that when considering just how much the " ‘x’ dollars over ‘x’ period of time" Beyond Blue is comitting to this will be.

Post-holiday recovery begins

2010-01-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

It's been a busy few weeks filled with travel and family.

Yesterday i had to farewell my girl/boy-friend flying back to the big city which is hard on us both to return to the distance thing.

Still we had a lot of fun. Getting to let my hair down at the Warner Brothers Movieworld themepark and getting our pics taken with Batman while both crossdressed was particularly moving for me, I'd wanted a pic with Batman since i was a kid.

But all this comes at a price. Muscle and joint pain, neausea, mental blanks, memory problems, exhaustion, dizzyness.. all symptoms substantially increasing. And possible returns of ones that had faded like red-fades and daylong headaches etc.

I'll have to do everything more slowly with more rest periods in between. Just like the last time and the time before that. Even with getting Tai chi in on the good days for my joints and muscles and painting more of my Tyranid army i'll be keeping up on things online and posting my thoughts.. even if they may be more rambling and less well articulated even than usual due to the more severe 'brain fog'.

Widespread TBLG Support Among Religious Australians!

2009-12-18T16:16:00.000-08:00

It's not the way that the anti-GLBT folk who are religious or most religious 'leaders' and authorities paint it, but it's the only possible conclusion from the numbers.

A recent poll on religion found 68% of Australians believe in God, a God or Universal Spirit. (Athiests have a vastly stronger showing than Agnostics interestingly with 24% don't believe in any god or universal spirit and only 7% polled as unsure or don't know).

But wait then... if as we are always told religious belief means opposing transgender and gay and lesbian rights etc then what can explain this?

85% of Australians support Federal Antidiscrimination legislation... on sexuality and also on gender identity but then even if we assume that every single athiest and agnostic is in favour of that 85%-31% = 54%.

Well thats a blow for the anti-equality folks isn't it! the vast vast majority of religious believers are supporters of anti-discrimination laws!

What about Same Sex Marriage?
Well that polled at 60%... Even if we assume every single athiest and agnostic is in favour of it then still nearly half the supporters of same sex marriage are religious!

The only way these numbers can be correct is with substantial support from religious Australians for TBLG rights!

What does that mean?
It means that religious Australians are being missrepresented in politics and the media. It means that religious 'leaders' and authorities are extremely out of step with their congregations.

It means that religious 'leaders' risk pushing their congregations to other churches by insisting on anti-gay anti-trans preachings and activism!

It means that Politicians taking an anti or slow-movement stance on equal rights antidiscrimination and same-sex marriage for fear of losing the religious vote are missreading the position most religious australians have on this matter! They may in fact LOSE the religious vote by their attempts to get or keep it!

It then is important that the Majority, The Religious Majority who support Antidiscrimination and Marriage Equality are recognised as such. Publicly. That it is made clear to Politicians, Media and Religious Authorities and 'leaders' that in fact the majority, the substantial majority, of Religious Australians support Equal Rights for TBLG Australians!

What would a genuinely accepting society look like?

2009-12-08T08:13:00.000-08:00

Often we are so accustomed to discrimination we don't see it. Some will refuse to accept it exists because they are so used to the status quo.

But this is a great simple thought experiment to consider on that.

Say there was no discrimination, no injustice towards crossdressers no pressures towards keeping people in or even any existing closet.
What would that be like?

I'll start with one example.

As we are between 5% and 10% of the population by most stats 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 people on tv would be out crossdressers and crossdress on tv.

Including newsreaders, weather announcers, hosts, contestants, supporting cast, main cast, drama characters, science fiction characters, romance characters, childrens cartoon characters... in every genre and in every type of show 1 in every 10-20 would be an out open CD.

Imagine that!

What else can you think of? What ways would society look different if it was truly totally accepting? What other groups can you think of that may not be as visible as their numbers would require if everyone truly was treated fairly?

Shame on FOX and the Cleveland Show

2009-12-01T18:32:00.000-08:00

On channel ten I've been seeing ads for the Cleveland show, a family guy spinoff.

Then recently i saw this at bilerico.

Since then there has been a response with discussion of that at bilerico here.

They do a lot of good work. I won't dismiss that. But this kind of seriously harmful missrepresentation of sex and gender diverse people needs to be publicly condemned and decried.

I wont be watching this series, but its not enough that I not watch it as unless i get slected to provide ratings data channel 10 and Fox will never know this. So I'm going to tell them I'm not watrching and why, and that I'll be encouraging everyone i know not to watch it either.

And I'll tell channel 10 in advance that I'll be keeping an eye on the tv guides and if they ever play the offending episode I'll put in a complaint to Australias television standards body. And I'll be encouraging others to do so.

That includes you dear reader. I ask you to write a letter to whatever channel is showing this program near you.

Sex and Love, key to TG and TG-community growth or stagnation

2009-11-28T00:13:00.000-08:00

Well I'm back from Sydney.
I travelled to be with my boy/girl (FtM Crossdresser) for their birthday.

The circumstances of one of their friends helped put into focus for me something key to the transgender community.. and often quite taboo. One i've mentioned before but which seems even clearer and more crucial to me now.

It was yet another crossdresser attempting to hang up their heels and quit. They felt their crossdressing need stems from a lack of a girlfriend and would dissapear with a woman in their life. I won't discount the possibility, though it was what i once thught too till i learned from direct experience that i was wrong, and there's been many other crossdressers who thought so too only to then be in the complicated situation of being in a comitted relationship when the need to crossdress returns with all the struggle and stress that comes of telling or hiding or repressing and the partners feellings on the matter etc.

Now this person had been coming out more and more with the support and encouragement of, and with feellings for, my current boy/girlfriend. It's not the first time for hir as being openly TG-attracted for some time. Hir ex-fiance went forward with transition because of the accepting relationship.

Many closteted crossdressers and transsexuals yet to transition have been in that state because of loneliness and the fear of forever remaining in that state. Many other CDs are closeted because of the concerns and feellings and comfort-zones of cis partners. For many an accepting partner is the path to being out and self realisation. Of course for some internalised issues may be strong or stronger nevertheless, but for many it robs them of a terror that holds them back, holds them down. In mainstream society few doubt the need for sex and romance...

Loneliness, the desire for companionship, for romance, for sex, reproduction... why these are recognised as primary drives in life in most communities.. but not ours. No the terror of the labels Fetishist, Gay and the fear of offending, confirming the fears of or scaring off the existing cis hetero wives and girlfriends of MtF CDs rules. To the point of many parts of the community excluding and villifying others.

Now sure some people who are attracted to TG people are badly behaved.. like thats a new thing to women, and to men too. But there are many transgender-attracted people who are quite decent people... and most that I've met are totally closeted about their desires. And most are assuming i mean cis men, but in fact i've met quite a few trans-attracted cis women, most in relationships with cis men. I've even been propositioned by some cis women in my own rural town to join them and their partners for threesomes and in the offline world i've met far more trans-attracted cis women than cis men.

There's also the concerns over sexual images of transgender people, often requiring us to ignore the entire role of appearance in sexual attraction, the reality of sexual imagery of cis women and cis men pervadinng nearly every magazine newspaper film tv show. And often these complaints are about the very existence of non-binary transgender people and objections to them being considered sexually attractive. Now arguments about what kind of sexual images are exploitative and of imagist bias is seperate and reasonable topics, but to say all are is to deny the possibility of erotic art or any beauty in any transgender nudity.

The trans-attracted are labelled 'chasers' and often excluded with much hostility. Flirting and the like often strictly forbidden despite occuring in most hetero cis spaces. And while an argument can be made that it's needed to have some spaces for TG people to discuss issues without having to consider trans-attracted people or interact with them it's often the case amongst CD support groups and sites that such privacy is centred on allowing cis wives such privacy from their CD husbands and the rest of the world but the reverse is less often true.

What we have is a situation where huge numbers of people remain closeted or suffer by delaying transition out of fear of never finding a partner. Where many stay in abusive relationships out of fear of blackmail, loss of custody or of never finding another partner. Where the concerns of cis partners don't just effect the compromises within relationships but also drive the policies of support groups and organisations resulting in the exclusion and marginalisation of some of those already suffering too much. And where those attracted to transgender people are also closetted often, both cis men and cis women, only able to bring themselves to seek the sex but too frightened of judgement to date openly and often staying in the comforts of cis relationships.

Addressing the reality of this is vital, of the need for transgender people to be like everyone else, able to flirt, able to seek sex and/or romance, to seek a compatible partner. The need for incorporating the trans-attracted into our efforts to liberate our diverse community from oppression and to help them overcome the stigma of their desires.

And taking the controling reigns of large chunks of the community from the hands or fears of cis people with cis concerns is equally vital! Sure easing family members through transphobia is important. Sure relationships need compromise and communication. Sure Cis people can be valuable members of the community and the most accepting of Cis people being free of the internalised transphobia that hamstrings us and with little (usually...) transphobia of their own have often been courageous and supportive in helping members of our community to step out into the light.

But all the pandering to cis concerns has gone way too far. It's holding the community back and it's causing harm to many within it. We must address these issues solidly and squarely.

Until we do only a tiny minority of TG people will be out, plenty will slink back into the closet when relationships fail or be overcome with despair that they will never find love.

Bigotry and Unscientific and Unethical Rot in the Heart of Psychiatry

2009-11-05T18:06:00.000-08:00

Once again comments I've written elsewhere strikes me as being worthy once re-edited of a post on it's own.

These are from here: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/update_statement_on_gender_identity_disorder_and_t.php

I am especially troubled by a September report from Dr. Raymond Blanchard, chairman of the Paraphilias Subworkgroup of the DSM-V Task Force. He proposes to retain the TF diagnosis, renamed "Transvestic Disorder" with its existing diagnostic criteria that ambiguously label all "behaviors involving cross-dressing" by those assigned male at birth as sexually deviant on the basis of their sexual orientation. Moreover, Dr. Blanchard proposes to add the deeply offensive and inflammatory term, "autogynephilia," as a specifier to the diagnosis. I ask the DSM-V Task Force and elected officials of the American Psychiatric Association to reject his proposal.

Here we have a diagnosis criteria of a mental illness that includes SEXUALITY as one of it's criteria! And SEX as another! From the pdf preview of the report:

"(4) with a heterosexualorientation. There are, of course, cross-dresserswho fall outside this definition: homosexual men who crossdress without sexual arousal and perhaps rare women who cross-dress with sexual arousal. The existence of these other groups has no necessary bearing on whether the combination of male sex, heterosexual orientation, cross-dressing, and sexual excitement constitutes a distinct syndrome. The consensus of expert clinicians, for almost a century, has been that it does."

Does anyone like the idea of sexual orientation being a criteria for diagnosing a mental illness folks? Think it's good that het male to female crossdressers are seperated from gay ones because of their sexuality in this? Or the female to male ones from the male to female ones because they are assumed to be 'rare'. And strange that being aroused wearing lingerie (something they seem to think only happens with het CDs, not gay ones) is somehow bad but a man being aroused wearing leather chaps or a woman finding wearing a tight corset arousing (which is almost every goth woman i know for the record) is somehow different.

This is an arbitrary definition. Built on policing gender roles from a transphobic gender-binary as well as sexuality double-standards and sexist double-standards. There's something wrong in that affecting everybody! And the knock-on effects through the psychiatric field could effect anyone!

And as Kelly, the author of the original post i was commenting on reminds us:

...the TF diagnosis defames a huge population of CD, genderqueer, and other trans folks who have been inexplicably silent on this issue. Moreover, a person does not actually have to be sexually aroused by gender expression to be diagnosed. Criterion A in the current and proposed diagnosis is (conveniently) ambiguously worded to be met by "or behaviors involving cross-dressing." The mere "involvement" of "cross-dressing" is all that is required. Even worse, the second criterion fails to distinguish distress actually caused by gender expression from distress caused by societal prejudice. So a CD individual who is perfectly happy and well adjusted and has been outed and fired can be further bashed by a TF diagnosis, because being a victim of job discrimination can be considered "impairment" in the diagnosis. Dr. Blanchard's TF diagnosis was designed to ensnare as many gender nonconforming people as possible on the basis of male birth-assignment and sexual orientation. It should be removed from the DSM-V.

There is a phenomenon I've been observing, and repeatedly subject to in fact.
It's where bad science with poor evidence poor logic poor conclusions and cherry picking of evideence and failing to apply proper scientific method by searching for disproofs of contrary evidence rather than only corroborative evidence get accepted and placed on high because it's consistent with presumptions and unscientific beliefs and what suits the mainstream.

It happens regularly with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyalitus/Fibromyalgia where psychologists are still getting pieces published and supported that the illness is psychological in origin and exaccerbated psychologically despite findings of genetic switch activity in blood, despite mitochondrial function evidence, despite evidence in cerebrospinal fuid and evidence of cerebrospinal swelling/inflamation and now the evidence of a retrovirus XMRV previously linked to prostate cancer being found in the majority of CFS sufferers.

In other words in total contrast to empirical evidence which must be ignored and pretended does not exist in order to make these claims the more comfortable stereotype-affirming view gets undue support and acceptance.

If Blanchard GENUINELY wanted to test his theories the very first thing that should be done is to apply all the tests that have found biological corellates in transsexuals upon crossdressers, looking for milder forms or varient forms of the same traits. An obvious thing to rule out surely? But major tenants of Psychiatry are under threat from Neurology, that'd be fraternising with the enemy. And i doubt any genuine test would be applied to his theories by him. He wants to build a theory, not test one. Construct an explanation that fits his preconceptions, not find the truth.
And here is an important question.

Why is it that despite years and years of homophobic and transphobic murder....
There is no sign of homophobia or transphobia listed as mental illnesses? No sign of treatments for them?

Cause there is an Unethical notion at the heart of much psychology.. that social norms are right because they are social norms and deviation from social norms and resistance to social conditioning is an aberation. Thats a Philosophical and Unethical cancer at the heart of psychology.

Until all Ethical actions and behavior is removed from the DSM and Unethical and Irrational Hate is included then there is Human Rights Abuse at it's heart!

Time To Stop Subsidising Religious Businesses?

2009-11-03T06:05:00.000-08:00

It's a simple concept.
Money corrupts. Most faiths even preach so. Religious owned businesses are subsidised by the taxpayer and given an unfair competative advantage. Thats protectionsim pure and simple.

Now i'm not suggesting we remove alltogether tax exemptions from churches. Or prevent them from doing charity work.

But how's this for a simple concept?

If its donations going to ceremonial buildings and ceremonial implements thats purely religious in function and not taxed.

If it's something sold or bought that's business and should be taxed.

Surely thats fair?

And regarding discrimination laws and exemptions a simple line can be drawn too.

If its for admission to, participation in and running of ceremonies and for ceremonial buildings and the beaureacracy directly pertaining to ceremony they can discriminate however they want. But in all charity works and in all businesses these should not be able to discriminate. If a religion wants to be a business all bussiness laws should apply without exception. If a charity then all charity laws should apply.

Surely thats fair too?

It's time to stop the unfair subsidising of businesses by the taxpayer purely because the owner of shops, printers, food companies or whatever else is a religous organisation. That immaterial to the freedom of religion and it's contrary to free trade and fair business practices!

Julie Bindel still doesn't understand what Human Rights actually means

2009-11-01T19:56:00.000-08:00

Julie Bindel once again rails against the Transgender community with an argument that once again clings to some studies while ignoring the existence of others and which also is a human rights EPIC FAIL.

The full article is here: http://standpointmag.co.uk/the-operation-that-can-ruin-your-life-features-november-09-julie-bindel-transsexuals#comment-2757

But the key error is the same one I tried to explain to her on facebook and reiterated here on this blogpost

I have no idea if she's reading the comments on the article page but my own there (qued for mod approval at the moment i type this) is as follows:

Hi again Julie. As i explained before and available here: http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/2008/11/julie-bindels-basic-human-rights-error.html your view is in places contrary to basic human rights principles. Most notable Bodily Autonomy, the principle that gives people the right to say no to sex, to say no to state-forced surgery, the right to contraception and to terminate pregnancy. You use the term human rights but you seem confused about the key concepts of human rights. As arguing that transgender people should be able to choose surgery or no surgery is valid, but your criticism of those who choose it is
invalid as its contrary to the human right of bodily autonomy. I suggest you
read this also http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/ I suggest you look into the philosophical foundations of what makes human rights human rights then review your opinions to remove the hypocritical inconsistency.

Now it's a pretty simple concept. And it's a fundamental human rights principle. The basis in fact for many feminist womens rights fights to assert this fundamental universal human right. It's astonishing to imagine that Julie could go through her career without once encountering this principle or that she would knowingly attack the right that is so vital to women and children the world over. Only a few possible explanations come to mind.

* She may think that for some reason Transsexuals are an exception to Universal Human Rights. Making her use of the term human rights and claims to advocating them a knowing lie or unknowing falsehood.

* She may have a Utilitarian view that the possible effect on Cissexual and Cisgender women are more important that the universal human rights of Transgender and Transsexual people even though the same argument would invalidate the womens rights movement because of its effects on men in the past. Making her use of the term human rights and claims to advocating them a knowing lie or unknowing falsehood.

* She may knowingly be using the term human rights in full understanding of the hypocracy of arguing against the human rights of others and falsely claiming the human rights of women and children are effected by the equal rights of all people including transgender and transsexual people.

Either way a clear and unavoidable hypocracy exists. Bodily autonomy is a Universal Human Right. A key concept upon which Womens Rights and Childrens Rights depend. And it means that people MUST have the right to CHOOSE SRS and they MUST have the right to DECLINE SRS without any coercion of any sort including needing SRS to be recognised as a woman or man or to avoid laws and beaureaucratic processes that discriminate based on actual or perceived sex or gender identity or expression.

Thats what Human Rights demand. It's what Bodily Autonomy, Freedom of Expression, Equality, Freedom From Disscrimination, Freedom Of Self-Identification and more all require.

Thats what Human Rights means Julie. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Your incorrect use of it in your article is hypocracy as it refutes your arguments.

War on Crossdressers more important than War on Terror?

2009-10-24T05:06:00.000-07:00

Once again something hits the news where people are irrationally looking at things backwards.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13725/#177468 where some people object to a human rights criticism of an anti-terror plan..

Oh no, being fair to crossdressers by not targeting them put us all at risk.... i find it hard to think down to the level of stupid involved in this faulty conclusion.

Only in a world with no female terrorists ever would that be a valid argument.

Instead we live in a world where female spies existed in world wars long before I was born. Where female suicide bombers have struck!

Which means that any policy that looks for men in dresses as higher potential threats than women is a threat to our security.

Passing is not easy fot many crossdressers. Sure some desperate people trying to escape a seige (and got caught!) have tried it. and sure some already skilled at crossdressing have a decent chance.. but then women suicide bombers exist. And a woman can hide on her person a weapon more easilly than a CD who has to spend so much time and effort disguising that they are a CD!

The terrorists are already using our sexism as an advantage by recruiting female suicide bombers.

Now we hand them the ready-made distraction of focusing on crossdressers while they slip the real terrorists by under our noses.

What is really important? Finding hidden penises in the skirts of crossdressers? Or finding hidden bombs?

Because those bombs can and will be hidden on anyone and anything.

A female-bodied Cisgender person can hide such a thing far better than the attention-attracting spectacle of a crossdresser failing to pass to everyone (and believe me even on a good day some can read you while others are fooled).

A policy that singles out crossdressers is a waste of time, no... worse... its a danger that may allow real threats to slip through while we waste our time searching every transgender person.

To be useful a priority searching system must prioritise the most common risks and the highest risks. How many crossdressed suicide bombers and crossdressed terrorists have passed successfully and got past checkpoints and airport security etc compared to how many female-bodied cisgender suicide bombers who do not need to disguise all male and masculine traits?

Surely any rational person who sits and thinks about this for 10 minutes can see its a dangerous and stupid policy and that being ready for cisgender female terrorists is a greater threat. That pretty much every person is a potential terrorist and ignoring the real existing threat of cisgender female terrorists by concentrating on screening for crossdressers make us all more vulnerable to female terrorists. And that reveals something terrifying about the people running our security.

Whats more important?
Finding the hidden penises or finding the hidden bombs?
Genuine security or sticking with sexist assumptions that cisgender females cannot be terrorists?

Looks like some people are more scared of some thing than bombs... and willing to risk all our lives because of it!

Transgender Brains, a vital resource for the community?

2009-10-20T04:33:00.000-07:00

In many of the worlds cultures there have been traditions of sex and gender diversity where people who would be termed in modern labels as transsexuals, crossdressers et al were given special roles and positions in society. In some cultures they were sacred.
http://blog.ctnews.com/evans/2009/10/19/one-nation-two-spirits-our-native-american-brothers-sisters/

In modern society a wave of anti-transgender oppression has washed over the world, largely unremarked by historians and yet across the colonial world these practices were outlawed and often stamped out. Only through returning to early records have some of these traditions been rediscovered or saved from the brink of cultural extinction. Not just cultural genocide, the discovery of the 'transsexual gene' means many countries oppressive policies against transgender peoples identities being recognised until after they are steralised means such eugenics are actually genocide-genocide. A policy reducing the prevalance of a genetic trait within the population.

At what cost to society? And what advantage could make such a gene so prevalant worldwide?

Well this at Zoe's blog could well give us a crucial answer as well as validating many indiginous beliefs about transgender peoples wisdom and value http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/10/web-surfing-and-brain.html

Neurological variations often have great value to the community. Without Asbergers people we'd have far less technological and scientific advancement. Having a distinct advantage in combining both creative and logical thinking, as Zoe suggests may be the case (but in good scientific behaviour she mentions merely the possible as possible not as certain), is something of tremendous benefit.

Zoe mentions there have been studies suggesting a 30-IQ point advantage! That is collossal!

Considering that there is a tremendous advantage to companies, militaries, governments, administrations etc having transgender people in high-ranking positions!

Instead these people are far more often unemployed than average.. so much for the lie that our system is a genuine meritocracy!

Those companies and departments etc that however do rise above the anti-transgender bias have the pick of a very rich crop indeed! Corporate headhunters can pick and choose amongst people with substantial qualifications, often military experience and it seems a distinct neurological advantage! And with the high unemployment they could pick and choose, find people over-qualified for the job and still extremely grateful for what they can get! An employers market, a smorgasboard of talent!

It also makes ENDA and it's ilk around the world as good for the economy. Any short-term costs likely paying for themselves quite quickly. And those countries that more successfully incorporate such neurological varient people as Aspergers and Transgender will likely have advantages over their competitors in international trade, strategic planning, international politics etc. So it's even important for National Security!

Now thats something that demands serious thought.

I find it amusing my disability may come from a 'retro' virus (and transgender)

2009-10-13T06:23:00.000-07:00

Amusing because I always have loved old styles of sci-fi, art and fashion.

http://sacfs.asn.au/news/2009/10/10_11_xmrv_retrovirus.htm

Now of course its still early days. There's been other biological factors found for this illness still considered by many even in the medical profession as purely psychological.. yeah they can tell that to the blood tests where i was eating for three and my body still thought it was so starved that canabilising my muscles and bones seemed a good idea to it.

It's a big puzzle and with many complicated aspects, what is thought in one discovery to be causal may instead be consequential and vice versa. And it may well be the umbrella term covers more than one illness related causally or unrelated but for similarity of symptoms.

Seem familiar?

There are quite a few similarities between that and much in the Transgender world.

Of course even with the name conflicts between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and Myalgic Encephalomyelitus and whether or not fibromyalgia is a seperate similar maybe related illness or merely just the side of CFS that gets more muscle and joint pain compared to the exhaustion and cognitiove imapirment on the other with a false-divide with lots of people having a chunk from each camp and being difficult to shove into either box there has still not been in my experience any of the vicious vitriol and ad hominems amongst sufferers in these debates.

Unlike the TS anti-TG extremists who in the comments at Bilerico recently went on and on in attacks, but again fell silent when those with an ounce of scientific literacy challenged them and called their pseudo-science and cherry-picked science bluffs. (when oh when will they respond to the discoveries of cross-sexed brain neurology of gays and lesbians and the inclusion of non-ops in some of those studies they tout as proving their claims?)

There's lots of pseudo-science around CFS too.. people get desperate so some of those without conscience will try and fleece sufferers. Other sufferers try all sorts of things and if they are lucky enough to go into remission will celebrate whatever they were taking or doing at the time.. alas all too often theres no evidence it actually will help anyone else. Heck years ago one teenage girl was so desperate she trepaned herself.. drilled a hole into her own skull with a powerdrill to expose her brain!

For those used mostly to my posts being directly related to transgender issues its worth looking at the experience of people with CFS. I'm lucky that I can string written sentences together with a reasonable enough degree of coherancy that the cognitive impairment problems don't so often show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMh_JpPmL-s

And with CFS ignorance and bias amongst the medical fraternity ignoring the evidence, ignoring the science also kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_T5ylWUv4

And of course there are lots of ways that society punishes the disabled.. centrelink is a minefield of ablist beaureucratic traps seemingly designed for no other purpose than to make disabled peoples lives more difficult or to find excuses to cut their pensions.

So there is good news.. but only another piece of the puzzle at the moment, no new treatments are available and there is only a chance this discovery will lead to some.

And its a good opportunity to think about the issue, and for those without disability to think about those around them whose quality of life and their very continued existence depends on society fulfilling the social contract and looking after them.. which all to often it's failing to do.

When religion is used to demand Special Rights

2009-10-05T06:18:00.000-07:00

"Special Rights"

Its one of the common ways to denigrate a valid claim to equality.

It's usually used when someone would use the same right in a different way.

The right to marriage being used to marry someone of the same sex is called a 'special right'. But its really just marrying the person you love.

Whereas to say that only straight people may marry is in fact to demand a real 'special right'. It becomes a special right only available to straight people.

Now in Victoria there are attempts to get 'special rights' for religious businesses and organisations to deny services and employment to people for a large swathe of reasons. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/balancing-religion-and-rights-the-case-against-discrimination-20091003-gh9y.html

A religious persons right to worship whichever god/s they choose are not harmed by having to sell a product to every customer equally. A religious persons right to worship are not harmed by having to fulfill their duty of care and obligation of duty to serve every person in need equally. Its even theologically bankrupt for those christians supporting it, Jesus was more than fine hanging with gentiles and tax collectors etc, he outright targeted them.

Yet caving to these people is somehow considered a valid course of action by the government. And when 85% of Australians want anti-discrimination protection on sexuality and gender identity!

So its a minority demanding the special right to discriminate against other minorities!

Religious rights do not supercede others equal rights. thats how that word Equal works. But yet some people irrationally and unethically and unjustifiably are demanding a special right to treat others as not equals. A codified double-standard. They want injustice to be ptotected and legal.

Thats the real special right demanded here.
It's unethical, unequal, unjust, unpopular, undemocratic and unaustralian.

An abuse of universal human rights and basic equality.

Save the Lawyers, but who cares about Transgender people dying?

2009-09-26T20:35:00.000-07:00

I heard this on the radio th other day, and its a serious issue and I'm not going to denegrate it or partake in lawyer-bashing. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2696426.htm

But with beyond blue having only recently got around to putting a bit of front page space dedicated to GLBT depression despite it being not just well above the average but with a shamefully high attempted suicide rate the ignoring of this critical demographic shows exactly how transphobic and transignorant our society and media really is.

The stats on transgender suicide are sketchy at best, but horrifically high whenever data is collected. The lowest i've seen was about 37%!!! Ranging up to 54%

Lets see how serious beyond blue are really getting or if this is just another under-the-carpet face-saving excercise in token gestures.

The Tranznation Report with its again horribly high rate was long enough ago.. its time some genuine action was taken.

Harming Loved Ones or Being Harmed By Them? Perspective and Assumptions and Transgender

2009-09-18T20:36:00.000-07:00

This is and will remain for a long time a central issue for the Transgender population that is, by birth gender identification, considered opposite-sex attracted.

It's a big issue for crossdressers, for genderqueer, for mid-to-late-transitioning transsexuals. And holds true for many others.

It's one ruled by accusations of selfishness.

The TS who anounces the need to transition after years of marriage or after father/motherhood. The crossdresser who is discovered or who comes out to their family in the same situation. The ones that want to be out, or open, or even activists.

They are said to be selfish. Selfish for transitioning, selfish for exposing their family to transgender, selfish for putting their families through it all, selfish for exposing families to ridicule, selfish for every moment spent crossdressing and not playing the male husband role or female wife role for their spouses, selfish for getting married or having children in the first place.

These are thoughts based on certain assumptions.

* That a TG person should be able to be self-aware of and open about their issues from the start before a relationship starts and that it is selfish if they hide it.

The TG person conversely may feel that they must stay closetted and hide and repress this part of themselves in order to protect parents, family and friends which may lead in to forming relationships and families while still fighting with this. An attempt at selflessness and self-sacrifice from the TGs perspective is then considered selfish from the Cis peoples perspective. That it may take years for them to admit they are TG to themselves, that they may have to overcome deep repression of this is of course ignored.

* That Transgender is something that exposure of children and family to and experience of causes harm and that the responsibility of that harm is the TG persons.

The society being transphobic and having removed TG accepting traditions is not taken into account. That overcoming transphobia is, no mater how painful, still an important thing all people really should do is not considered. The possibility that TG is hereditary and that children or grandchildren may be TG themselves or have TG children of their own or even the possibility that the descendants will go to school with, be friends with, work with or fall in love with TGs is not considered.

* That being publicly transgender will bring judgement hostility and more onto the family.

That this is caused by societies transphobia is again not considered. Again this is seen as the fault of the TG and not the fault of society.

This can be seen in the concentration in documentaries and tv programs on transitioning TSs on the 'impact' of the transition on wife and children. The way they are protrayed as victims of this even when they are supportive of their partner.

Essentially the concerns of Cisgender Cissexual people are put forward as more valid because they are 'normal' and must endure the 'other' of transgender in their lives.

This also plays through the minds of Transgender people. It's often how they view these situations themselves . It's why the vast vast majority of CDs remain closeted, one of the reasons many TSs who can go stealth and more.

Because in most cases TG people were raised with an absence of TG culture they grow up with a cis-society focus, a Cis-concerns focus. Even though cultures have existed where Trans and Cis coexist well transphobic cis culture is protected. It is assumed to be the normal, the natural, the safe and harmless and right when in fact it is closer to the opposite.

And in fact often amongst some crossdresser groups and sites challenging these assumptions can get a very hostile reaction.

Challenging this way of looking at things can be very confronting to those CDs sacrificing their needs to reduce the short term suffering of family, confronting to the assumptions of selfishness of those who do not restrict their transness sufficiently on behalf of the transphobia and cis concerns of their families, challenging to those spouses and families who pride themselves on being long-suffering of the TG's TGness and who wear whatever extent of tolerance of the TG they have like a medal earned, or like a bargaining chip in their relationship.

Challenging the way we look at these circumstances challenges the basis of much transphobia. Is a CD who must choose between CDing and spending time with their family being selfish if they CD? Or is it the family being selfish for not choosing the TG family member over their transphobia?

Ah, thats a question many do not wish to face! And an essential one to overcome transphobia and reform our bigoted and skewed society. And we have many of our assumptions, especially of selfishness, weakness and harm totally backwards.

And what about choosing our and even our families comfort while passing the buck and not doing something about the transphobia in society resulting in other families in the next generation being in the same dilemma.. is that not selfish?

Quick Update: Batty In Love

2009-09-06T09:36:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since the last update because for 10 days I had a wonderful time with my girl/boy Tamsin/Thomas.

Yep, I'm now officially in a relationship with a FtM crossdresser. (is that the sound of 'binary-only' 'all cds are male fetishists' folks heads exploding off in the distance?)

Alas theres a big distance between where she lives at the moment and me, an hour by plane, 6 by car and 8 by train so we're both counting the days till the next visit.

So now i have a lot of stuff to catch up on, people to get back to etc
But if anyone was wondering where I've been or what the dreamy look in my eyes and being constantly distracted was all about there you go :)

Australian Government Celebrates Bigotry!

2009-08-16T07:02:00.000-07:00

This is repugnant.

Not only is the government ignoring the opinion of the majority of australians especially those who voted for them on this but they actually had the Minister For Social Inclusion attend and address it!

What is this I speak of? Why the celebration of banning same-sex marriage in Australia!

Censorship of Transsexual and Transgender in School Dictionaries?

2009-08-10T20:54:00.000-07:00

I just heard from an email group that the words Transsexual and Transgender have dissapeared from recent editions of ALL dictionaries aimed at Australian school students.

Homosexual is in there but not homophobia.

I'll try and find out more about it.

And of course the government appears to be just ignoring the AHRCs sex and gender diversity report, bet it will ignore the paper on intersex infant surgery and the whole human rights community consultation on a charter of rights too.

Sorry Attorney General and Co. We won't go away if you keep ignoring us. The tide of popular opinion is now well on our side and the generational shift coming is truly untouchable. Take another look at those galaxy-polls!

Pandering to the lobby groups of small bunches of fundamentalists is not going to save you from that. Time to cut them loose and pick up the younger folk before it's too late. And no, Hillsong doesn't cut it.

Anti-Intellectualism, Anti-Thought, Anti-Knowledge

2009-08-10T20:26:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning to do a blogpost about it for a while.

Much of society is anti-intellectual. It's astounding the amount of times I've seen people burst into outrage over an academic term or the introduction of relevant statistics into a online discussion (like TG suicide rates or hate-crime stats for example)

The reasons for this, as best as I can deduce, is firstly that many average-IQ people like to make fun of and mock learning-challenged and neuro-atypical people and so place a lot in considering themselves superior to others in that regard.

So when faced with those who are more intelligent than themselves whether they are quick-witted or slow thorough thinkers they feel threatened and imediately assume the smarter person will act the way they do. Hence condemnations of 'you think your better than everyone else' 'stop acting so superior' 'i'm not insuperior to you' (yes, real quote, they didn't say inferior but insuperior)

Crucial to this is the claim that academia is an 'act', that technical jargon is 'babble' (a favourite appears to be psychobabble) and in reality meaningless and that all such things are in fact false and without value. Thus they can dissmiss the speaker and what is spoken as invalid, not correct and quackery.

Other elements of this involve a culture that feelling is all a person is not their thoughts and actions and that thinking too much is bad. This helps keep people much more easilly manipulated both by peers and by partners and by politicians and by media and especially by advertising.

Also there is an assumption that everyone is somehow 'the same' (which is different from equal, very different) and that achievement is due only to effort, the learning-challenged are seen as lazy and deserving of scorn and the clever as being so only by excessive study and a lack of quality of life. You see the same thing in sports where it's assumed the people who win tried hardest ignoring that some are born with better muscle-attachments etc. This lie of sameness protects the inequality of the advantages some are born with.. and of course there is great hostility towards intellectual people having any sort of social advantage hence the increasing vilification of them by those involved in social competition, especially sexual competition (a lot of people I know consider that smart is sexy, in men and in women, but a lot of people have a lot invested in fighting that view)

And then there's the hostility towards and suspician of all knowledge that is not direct personal experience. Despite books being the recording of life experiences of one or more peoples life experiences etc statistics, studies, nothing is considered valid but a persons direct experience so if its something they havent seen themselves it doesn't exist. Worse they dont see that they things through filters of assumption so they will say racism and sexism do not exist even while perpetrating it because it does not fit their understanding of their own experience and the reality of subjective bias.

And then there's the missunderstood view that 'all opinions are equally true because they are peoples opinions' rather than 'all people are equally entitled to form and hold their own opinion, which may or may not reflect actual reality' which sure is not the same thing.

Anti-intellectualism of course has extended far beyond a hostility towards solely armchair researchers and academic conservative authoritarianism in disregard to actual evidence in favour of old and beloved theories to a pervasive hostility of any understanding of any situation beyond the individual self. A rejection of there being an objective reality at all. Not just a legacy of post-medernism and trendy existentialism though it's also a favoured lever of the culture war.

It has a flaw as a strategy in the culture wars though... as it's also led to more GLBT people accepting themselves over ideology. Which is why there is much more expression of a broader gender-spectrum amongst young people and increasing tolerance of GLBT issues.

The danger of this new romanticism to those that fostered it is that in the long term it taps in to the deeper feellings of people, deeper understanding of themselves... and watch what happens as the natural philosophers and ponderers and measurers of the next generation hold true to their passions towards understanding the material world...

Fighting over who should be the Stereotype

2009-08-08T20:28:00.000-07:00

Another comment elsewhere that works well on it's own. It's from this long discussion in Bilerico where once again the Nomenclature stuff derails another discussion between GLB and TG. The comment goes as follows:

Curious isn't it that when TG-advocates do acknowledge the human right of the seperatists to self-define as not Transgender it goes unremarked, uncelebrated and actually totally unrecognised by the seperatists?

Interesting that isn't it. The CDs here, Lena and myself, have actually acknowledged the seperatists self-defining as not transgender... and the response is silence.
But I've seen this phenomena before... amongst some crossdresser groups and organisations. Exactly the same phenomena.

Their beef is being included under the term 'Gay'. They state it leads everyone to assume drag queens are the norm, that all CDs dress to attract men, that the public image of CDs are excessive over-the-top exaggerated drag and that this causes problems for themselves and for their wives.

So they say "Crossdressers are not Gay" and when it's pointed out "Sure you may not be and many CDs are not but actually some are" they respond "Crossdressers are NOT Gay!" and a common response is "Look, we can't get totally accurate data on proportions but clearly a lot and maybe the majority of MtF CDs are women-atrracted but theres a whole lot of Bi and Male-attracted CDs on this very forum in this discussion too, and what about the FtMs who consider themselves Gay? So isn't it important we acknowledge them too?" their response is "CROSSDRESSERS ARE NOT GAY AND GAY PEOPLE ARE THE REASON WE ARE HATED AND NO-ONE ACCEPTS US. BEING THOUGHT OF AS GAY RUINS OUR LIVES..." Blah blah Blah.

See the problem there is a societal stereotype, not the existence of or acknowledgement of male-attracted MtF CDs. Acknowledging the existence of male-attracted CDs does not really harm female-atracted CDs, the existence of the stereotype is all that does that. The fact is that despite claims of being a small minority the 'gay' CDs and Drag Queens are often the ones with the courage and conviction to be out and also to not be stealth/passing so they are the ones most in the public eye, if more of the complaining CDs were out they would get more recognition in public perception.

Basicly there are other Ethical ways of attacking the stereotype rather than the utterly unethical act of attacking the people who more closely fit the stereotype and trying to invalidate them.
But what do organisations like Tri-Ess and many CD Support Groups do? They marginalise those that transition, ban discussion of hormones and SRS and marginalise Bis and Gays/Lesbians. Some chapters/groups are better than others of course but many are utterly shocking. The reason they give? That having such topics discussed, that allowing transitioning and GLB members to be prominant in any way would scare off spouses and have them turn on their CD husbands.

Surprised about the company seperatists? Your very much alike it seems in that your using the same arguments for what seems to be the exact same reasons. The same piece of algebra but with X being 'classic' rather than 'straight' Y being 'TS' rather than 'CD' and Z being 'TG' rather than 'Gay'.

Attacking one another trying to fight the symptom not the cause, attacking people to try and effect public perception of both, and it seems that it's really fighting over which group gets to BE the stereotype rather than attacking there being a stereotype which could be accomplished by showing, and educating about, the diversity.

See our acknowledging a diversity or difference from a stereotype harms the stereotype, it doesn't acknowledge their claim that they should be the stereotype, and I say this about both 'Straight' crossdresserd and 'classic' transexuals equally. So as its not very useful in the battle to BE the template of the stereotype it seems that acknowledgement of the diversity is not acknowledged. That would reduce the power of the 'see they hate us, they claim we are just like them and hurt us'.

It's not just about the desperate phobic desire to 'not be associated with' 'icky' folk... a homophobia from the 'straight' crossdressers and a non-binary-transphobia from the 'classic' transsexuals, though that seems a big part of it. So maybe it's really a desire to fight to claim to be what the stereotype should be? An all or nothing desire to replace one narrow stereotype in the publics eye with another narrow stereotype and to hell with everyone who strays too far from either stereotype who gets trampled in the way.

There is another way though. One thats issues-based not identity-based. That acknowledges not just ideological justification of needs but a basic right to choose irrespective. One where all the needs of all people can be considered as equally valid and can be fought for not just by those stake-holders effected by it but by anyone capable of reason.
Human Rights Principles.

Self-Identification, Health-Care, Hormone and Surgery-access, Access to Hormone-Blockers for teens, Protection from IS Infant surgery and brutal reparative treatments, protection from discrimination and violence, protection of gender expression, Equal access to all Services from employment to business to bathrooms to marriage to disability to insurance etc... theres overlap between the groups that need these in GLBTIQ, S&GD, Disability, Neuro-atypical and many many more and yet all these are actually covered by the same set of reasons in favour of them ALL.

Human Rights Principles.

Seriously EVERYONE take a look at this http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/
Our rights are NOT mutually exclusive. We DO share these rights, these issues, just on occassion they work in different directions. The right to not be permanantly surgically altered as a child so when old enough to give consent the child can make a choice is the exact same right of a child to not be forced to undergo puberty they do not wish to endure and instead be given hormone blockers till they are old enough to legally give consent to their own choice. The same right solves both a Intersex issue and a transsexual one.

THAT is the way forward, not one ideology winning over another, not one stereotype defeating another, not one group of peoples rights being trampled on in favour of another. That will be a battle that would continue for all human existence. Instead basic universal human rights applied properly solves everyones issues. And Everyone can fight for Everyone Elses Equal Rights!

Missrepresentation of Science and transgender politics

2009-08-05T08:55:00.000-07:00

I've blogged on this before but its worth returning to the subject again. One of the things that really annoys me is the increasing level of what appears to be lying in politics, mostly related to the Internecine Nomenclature Conflict (easy answer for that conflict i would have thought: we acknowledge the existence of Cisgender Transsexuals, Cisgender Cissexuals, Transgender Cissexuals and Transgender Transsexuals and move onto the human-rights-issues umbrella term of Sex and Gender Diversity which allows better cooperation with Intersex issues too)

You see despite basic scientific methodology people from several positions are making claims not supported yet by the data as if it were totally conclusive and using that as an attack on others.

What do we have? We have good leads from small studies of small sample sets that transsexuals have several brain differences from averages of their assigned birth sex that are closer to their self-identified sex-identity. Both in structure and in function. One gene so far has been found to be more common amongst TSs too. (Zoe's blog is a great source for this stuff)

But what about non-transsexual transgender? Well they haven't done the same studies on genderqueer, bi-gender, crossdressers etc yet. So as science goes it falls into the realm of 'maybe'. Actually 'maybe but we don't know yet'. That doesn't mean 'no' it doesn't mean 'yes' it means 'maybe'. It means that the simple testable hypothesis that the same or similar related phenomena exist in these others could be tested but hasnt yet and until its tested we dont know. Either way.

Thats plain ordinary scientific method, something I got taught in highschool and I would have thought everyone else would have got taught that too.

So what's the problem? Well some are claiming that the tests done thus far say things they do not. The tests needed to say that crossdressing is not biologically caused have not yet been done, yet some are claiming that because 'there's no evidence' that it is not so... but hang on, the neccessary tests havent been done! To test if the same cause causes both you have to do the same test on both! Not biological tests on one but only psychological tests on the other!

Others are claiming the studies done support only their version of the definition of transsexual or only binary-gender identity etc but the selection criteria for these studies didnt split the subjects up like that! To get those results all you have to do is seperate your test subjects into different catagories and compare the results of each catagory.. you likely need more test subjects though as you need a representative sample of specimens from each group, tricky when brain-dissection is one of the studies and expensive for FMRI scans. But doable.. but not yet done either!

Now some folk gave trouble with coping with ambiguity, with living with a maybe till the answer is found. Some even have trouble understanding that to say something is possible (and testably so but not yet tested) is not saying it is definately so, it is however saying that it is not yet definately known as not so.

Science works by refuting testable hypotheses not making stuff up, saying anything untested is true nor by saying that something cannot be so till its proved to be so.. thats all creation-science level nonsense. The stuff that was the laughing stock at the Dover evolution trial, in fact very much like Dembski's non-science.

Sure some people have been let down by the education system and are scientifically illiterate. Not their fault but if they want to use studies to validate their claims and invalidate others at least some basic undersanding of scientific methods a good idea and some self-education might be beneficial.

Other people though seem to play the same tune no matter how refuted, ignoring the facts of scientific method and continuing to make spurious claims. Mistakes happen, everyone gets things wrong sometimes, but to maintain such arguments constantly is falsehood, self deception at best and deliberate lying is definately possible.

It's a common enough tactic. The 'repeat the lie often enough' tactic of hate-groups religious and otherwise.

It's time these people were called out on them though. Gently at first, some will simply be mistaken. But certainly because allowing these myths to propagate unchallenged is often to allow manipulative divisive hate-speech to propagate unchallenged.

The deliberate anti-science, unscientific, unethical missrepresentation of science in order to denegrate others and propagate divisions and hate and various ideological positions is abominable.

Much more study needs to be done on transsexuals, on intersex, on crossdressers, genderqueer, bi-gender etc in verifiable sciences like neurology and genetics to rule that out first. Especially as psychology is a kind of speculation, like taxonomy before genetics, a simple attempt to explain complex systems with only a minute amount of data. It must cede to the physical sciences in all things at all times.

And last of all, from a Human Rights perspective even were there no biological causation for ANY of it, not even for any transsexual the hman rights claims would not diminish one iota. Because human rights are filled with choices at every level, choices of religion, expression, medical treatment as just some examples. Check out the Yogyakarta Principles on that. These attacks on others using missrepresentations of science involve at their heart a disregard for human rights of others in order to propagate their preferred (and usually self-serving) ideology.

It's time to call out missrepresentations of science used as tools of hate for what they are in transgender politics as much as GLB politics (including the anti's). Whether hatred of non-bianary folk or of binary folk, of gay-supporting Tgs or TG-supporting gays etc etc etc.

Concise post on Oppression and how we contribute to it

2009-08-01T20:42:00.000-07:00

This was a reply on a comment in this discussion at bilerico that just seemed to work on it's own so I'm putting it up here as a post:

One of my favourite aspects of Taoism is how in the symbol of The Tao the teardrops of Yin and Yang, the masculine and feminine principles of 'the way', there is a corresponding pearl of the other contained within. And with the key to 'the way' being a harmonious balance of energetic principles it's a philosophy thats principles lead easilly to trans-friendliness (though like all such systems it has it's bigots too).

Indeed the same problems of conformity, of hostility to the different, of judging others by negative stereotypes, of ignorance etc effect us all. Problem is in oppressed groups we tend to Internalise a lot of that oppression as well as absorb a lot of the bigotries in society against other groups. So you can find transphobic GLB's TS's who hate CDs and vice versa, racists, sexists etc.

Often these are even stronger in oppressed groups than in the general population! This is because many oppressed people want to fit in and want to identify with the 'mainstream' oppressing society not because it is oppressing but because it is seen as 'the' society. And so they will defend the status quo, justify it's flaws in all particulars save for the discrimination against themselves and they will discriminate against other marginalised groups.

It's like the kid with glasses tripping over the overweight kid at school so the rest of the kids will be more accepting of the kid with glasses and see he can be just like them.

Thus the victims attempts to survive for themselves reinforces and strengthens the bullying/opressing culture. Whereas whats really needed is the undermining and dismantling and condemning of the bullying culture so that differences are seen as valuable not detrimental and conformity to fit in and be the same is seen as the enemy of all. A unity of diverse equals rather than a hierarchy of differences enforced with physical and emotional and psychological violence.

As every group has its people struggling to survive themselves and perpetuating the problem it's easy for someone from one group to see those in another and label the entire group as 'bad' while seeing the same behaviour in their own group as justified and an understandable response to what they have suffered. This perspective bias also feeds into the rest and further strngthens and perpetuates the oppression.

By building bridges between groups, by making friends and allies in other groups, by condemning such opressing and scapegoating within our own groups we can dissmantle this pattern if not wholly then substantially enough to drastically improve the lives of masses of people.

Transgender and being sexual, the double-edged-sword of transphobia

2009-07-26T21:56:00.000-07:00

There are a myriad of issues about sex and Transgender.

Just the word sex alone is a problem. Peoples inability to deal with the subject meant that euphamisms became standard for any polite discussion of coitus, of copulation of humans. So it became 'the sex act' and then 'sex' making any duscussion of the differences between sex and gender in ordinary english with people uneducated in TG issues a mess to begin with.

Transgender has often been cast as a fetish, a going-wrong of sexual desires. So this sets up a conflict where ordinary sexual expression of a transgender person is labelled fetishistic so some reject such behaviour in themselves and others, condemning the sexually expressive as bringing problems onto the whole transgender community.

Others internalised transphobia results in them trying to excuse their transgender nature as purely sexual. This may be conscious or unconscious. But as they grow in self-acceptance many self-proclaimed fetishists find that the more they accept being transgender to some extent the more non-sexual TG aspects of themselves get unlocked after years of repression.

Seems a bad 'devil and the deep' scenario already huh? But it gets worse.

Many wonder why if studies suggest TG is comparably common to GLB then why is it so invisible, so closeted?

Ah well here you come to the worst part of the dilemma.

While there are a very significant number of TG-attracted people as the market for TG pornography, TG sex workers shows this is considered further taboo.

Despite the many women who have had posters of folk from David Bowie to Marilyn Manson to Davey Havok and Jefree Starr on their walls in their teens few seriously consider a relationship with gender-non-conformists let alone taking them home to meet their parents. The attraction is there but the social pressure is strongly to conform and have relationships with cis folk. Same for those who visit TG sex-workers, they'd happily pay for the sex but not consider openly dating the same person or openly admitting their sexual attraction to TG to their friends, family and workmates.

And those who do find TG sexually attractive are further condemned by parts of the TG community just for finding TG attractive! Now sure if a TG wishes to transition fully then someone who finds the combination attractive may not be for them, but plenty of TG people do not transition fully.

And in fact it is the fear of not finding a long-term partner that keeps a huge proportion of TG people in the closet, keeping being TG secret form their current and prospective partners.

The desire for sex in fact keeps TG people trying to be Cis!

The sexual drive is the most powerful social force in our and most other species. Yet for TG people it is condemned if present and used to invalidate their gender identity and expression. And yet the taboo of TGs being attractive sexually to others is also one of the major forces holding Transgender people back!

The sexest and transphobic notion that a TG person cannot be sexual without their transgender-ness being a fetish causes horrendous harm. Cis men and women are sexual constantly. Much of media revolves around Cis sexual expression both male and female.

The Transphobic notion that non-gender-binary attraction is wrong also does horrendous harm. This is perpetuated by some binary-identified transgender people (and cisgender transsexuals for those who prefer another term) too which can perpetuate the sexual-phobia in the TG community.

And in society at large the many TG-attracted people need to start coming out about their attraction. That taboo needs to be undone.

Transgender people are sexual beings but no moreso than any cis straight or gay or lesbian or bisexual. We need to be seen in public as sexual beings and more than just sexual beings. We need to be acknowledged as attractive just like cis-folk get acknowledged as attractive.

And TG people will not make sufficient headway by trying to cast sexuality out of the community. That only keeps the majority of TG folk closeted and lonely and miserable. The reactionary fear of the sexual-taboo and fetish label is holding us back. We have to find ways to claim our sexual expression and attractiveness as being as valid as everyone elses.

Call for Australian marriage equality

2009-07-25T08:58:00.000-07:00

While I think that federal antidiscrimination legislation covering sexuality and gender expression/identity and the host of other major transgender, intersex and other issues are far more important (and which polls show has even higher majority support at 85% rather than the almost 60% of this issue) nevertheless the marriage issue is important still.

So here's a series of vids on the subject from Equal Love
http://www.youtube.com/user/EqualLove09

It does seem to say that GLBT issues are all fine except for marriage which I think is problematic but I think that in the main the vids seem pretty effective.

Lifestuff

2009-07-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

Whew, things have been a bit rough lately.

My CFS flareup is still going at pace. I overdid things on recent human rights work as well as the neccessary de-stress activities. Then the sudden trip to visit Mum and my Brother because a friend was heading up there at short notice.

It was good. They are still gradually getting used to TG things so i kept to androgyny at most but did get given a lovely skirt and bought another when shopping with them which was great.

Yet for some reason i find that after (but not during) spending time with them my unconcious self-acceptance problems kick in a little. No idea why but interesting. I caught myself trying to ignore my TG-ness again and squashing it aside. Now that I'm aware of it I can keep an eye out for self-destructive repression and defy it :) Though being so exhausted that in itself is tricky.

I also sent a quick email with some of the recent polls and stats etc to my local MP who I'd written to before and to my senator who I'd not. I got a quick thankyou email from the senator and a thankyou letter from my MP. I feel better and better about having voted several times for my MP, the senator I did not vote for and am interested to see how he will stand on the issues I've raised.

So I'm trying to balance taking it slowly and easily, getting housework done, keeping up the fight for TG equality, de-stressing (social interaction, old-fashioned Dungeons and Dragons and working on and gaming with my warhammer 40,000 tyranid army - take that assumption of TGs perpetuating gender stereotypes!) and my own emotional and gender-expression needs.

So first things first I need to get out of my comfy pjs, get the cat off my lap and try and do something with my annoying hair.

85% of Australians support Gender Identity anti-discrimination!

2009-06-30T20:19:00.000-07:00

This makes me chuckle about the 'phobes who were complaining that a charter of rights would dilute majority rule which would force them to put up with antidiscrimination protections for GLBT folk against the views of the majority... but lets see if the goverment acts quickly on this.. oh wait, they haven't yet on the almost 60% supporting full same-sex marriage yet have they?

Still check this out! http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/GalaxyPoll-AntiDiscrimination.pdf

85% support federal anti-discrimination protections based on sexuality and gender-identity.

85%!!!!!!!!

So come on politicians! Act on the views of the VAST MAJORITY of Australians!
And don't you dare think you can get away with narrowly interpreting gender-identity to short-change whole swathes of the transgender community either! You gotta count Bi-gender folk, Crossdressers, Genderqueers, the whole shebang!

And Media.. where is the coverage appropriate to this level of Australian opinion? You hardly mention GLBT issues but this shows it's mainstream!

If a poll-number ever justified action it's 85%

Suicide: the dead and dying children murdered by negligence

2009-06-28T21:55:00.000-07:00

UPDATE at end of post.

Think the title might be too dramatic? Nope. Personally I don't think there can be a collection of words in any human language that cann properly express enough what this blogpost is about.

First lets use an anology.

Your sitting by a swimming pool. A child is in trouble, drowning, shouting for help intermittently. You can swim well. Do you rescue the child or ignore them?

What kind of monster would ignore them you may ask? A stupid analogy because surely only serial killers and the worst dregs of humanity would ignore them you might say. Why? Because the person is making a clear choice between simple effort and a childs death. They are murdering by deliberate negligence, they are choosing that the child will die.

But its been a while since the figures of GLB youth suicide has been out with a criminally high almost 30% attempted suicide rate and what has the government done?

Nothing.. they have sat by the pool and ignored the drowning child.

But what about groups like Beyond Blue? Well days ago when I was bringing up the suicide rate in my posts on the human rights community consultation online discussion forum I had a look and found... Searching for Gay I got three results.. the pdf of the horrific figures on their research page, an article about a dog with an owner named Gay and a piece about a womens circus act that had performed previously at the gay games...

In other words they turned to look at the drowning child and mumbled quietly something about 'oh look a drowning child' under their breath so quietly no-one else noticed and went back to reading.

And what about the Transgender youth suicide rate in Australia?

At Beyond Blue the word came up not at all.

Oh well the studies haven't looked at that! Overseas there are figures as high as 53% which is as high above the gay rate as the gay rate is above the average.

Looks to me like there's a crowd sitting by the edge of the pool ignoring drowning children!

Some few are trying to speak up! http://www.theage.com.au/national/gays-ignored-by-beyondblue-20090627-d0lf.html (not much mention of TGs there though is there?)

Everyone who has seen these figures and had a possibility of acting and done nothing, they have chosen that children will die. Not just one but many! They have murdered-by-negligence. They have blood on their hands!

Every government official who saw these figures and did nothing has blood on thier hands. Every charity leader who has seen or heard of these figures and done nothing has blood on their hands. Every single group that has oppossed measures to stop these deaths or who have argued that the current system is adequate despite these figures is a bloody murderer pretending to themselves, lying to themselves with whatever justification they use to sleep at night that ignoring a drowning child is not murder or that somehow its just too hard to get your feet wet to save them or that its ok to let some kids die, just not others.

Well I for one am making this clear. If your making a choice between inaction-resulting-in-predicted-deaths and action-resulting-in-effort-but-less-deaths and you choose inaction then you are a bloody murderer. And there is no reason to play nice with lesser language about that, you instead need to accept the fact that your a bloody murderer.

And every one of those bloody murderers need to live their lives in shame and guilt and penance and save many lives for every one they allowed to die or they are no better than the people we lock up in jail and heap hatred upon for murdering and neglecting children. You may escape jail because the law doesn't cover your responsibility but you cannot escape truth.

And yes, I'm angry, and no Its not because of a personal loss. It's because i have enough brains to imagine the scope of loss to the world of each of these deaths. And honestly.. dead kids. Seriously dead kids! what language can possibly be severe enough to express the horror we should feel in the face of the figures of an epidemic of DEAD KIDS! and people sitting by and letting them die?

Some people have decided that if the kid is Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Undecided then its fine to let them die.. and if they are Transgender then it's fine to not even look to see if they are dying.

UPDATE: Some TG figures were past on to me. "...Professor of Psychiatry at Newcastle [NSW] university Steinbeck's estimation of 40% in the chapter he contributed to the founder's of the Monash Medical gender reassignment Centre book, 'Transsexualism and Gender Reassignment' by Prof Michael Walters and Dr Michael Ross last published by Oxford University Press in 1991."

Well an estimate of 40%... in stats over a decade old... I wonder how many TG kids succeeded in killing themselves in the last 18 years? While better than 53% can we at all consider that 40% is at all acceptable and not demanding immediate substantial attention?

Lets start washing the blood off our hands and start saving these kids.

Busy Batty

2009-06-19T10:04:00.000-07:00

Sorry it's been so long since my last post but I've been plenty busy. The Human Rights community consultation has posts aplenty from me and I've been raising it in long discussions with others and what little time I've had other than that has been with family friends or generally restorative (i.e. art and video games) to destress from dealling with some of the poor excuses for argument used to justify maintaining discriminations and inequalities.

Hopefully I'll have some more time to throw a better post together soonish.

Crossdressing and Biological Causation, a lack of studies doesn't mean a lack of causation

2009-05-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

In the coments at Zoe's I had an argument with radicalbitch and since I've referred to it a few times elsewhere I think it's worth discussing here. To see the full argument, the original discussion is here

But there's really a simple way to say it.

Some folk quite rightly disregard the past 'evidence' and 'theories' of psychiatry and psychology regarding homosexuality and transsexuality yet insist on still applying them to crossdressing/transvesticism and/or other parts of Transgender.

It's hypocracy, a clear double-standard.

For those arguing Transsexuals have a biological causation (which the science definately supports) they say rightly that the biological evidence is more valid than the psychiatric... unsurprising ad fairly safely valid.

But they often claim there is no evidence for a biological causation of crossdressing etc...
An archaeologist I know often says 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. But importantly in this case... no-one has looked yet! Absence of Studies is not Absence of Evidence

Pretty simple notion.

Possibility 1. Crossdressing is caused by a mild case of the same cause as transsexualism.

How do you test it? Do the same tests on crossdressers thats found evidence for biological causation in TSs and see if you find milder versions of the same as predicted.

Possibility 2. Crossdressing is unrelated to the cause of transsexualism.

How do you test it? Do the same thing as testing possibility 1.

Posibility 3. Crossdressing is also biologically caused but from a different causation to TS.

How do you test it? First rule out 1 and 2 by doing that test. If that doesn't work then look for other biological causes, functional MRI scans and other brain examinations that have found biological factors in homosexuality etc may provide clues as to what else to look for.

Possibility 4. Crossdressing is not biologically caused but is purely psychological.

How do you test it? Rule out 1 and 2 with that test, then rule out 3 by searching for and not finding any biological cause.

So as those tests aint been done yet all those folk who say its purely psychological are full of it.
It doesn't matter how many psychological studies have been done on it either, that has no bearing on whether or not there is a biological factor, component or causation.

And the 'it's understood as psychological already' argument is full of manure too. Science regularly re-asseses old ideas and tests new explanations. The discovery of the bacteriological cause of stomach ulcers is a good example.

I keep running into anecdotal evidence that crossdressing is inherited. Crossdressers finding a parents clothes and book stash after their deaths I've heard of plenty through to one of the FtM CD friends of mine discovering a coworker is a closeted MtF CD whose brother also turned out to be a CD. Those sorts of cases alone suggest its worth looking into if these are just coincidences or whether incidence of CDs are far more common than usually assumed and whether it is an inherited trait.

And some of the scientists predict that the rest of TG is biologivally cuased. From one of the comments in the above link:

riki said...
I am doing a PhD on the political and social implications of the brain sex theory of trans. My assessment is that there is certainly more evidence for that theory than for any other, but that it is far from "proven", and that many biological hypotheses have been falsified on the past (EG the HY antigen in the 70s and 80s). The psychological theories have very little evidence to support them.
I interviewed Dick Swaab, whose lab produced the BSTc research that is the strongest evidence for a neurological correlate for trans. It should be noted that one of the six MTF transsexual people in the original 1995 Zhou study had never transitioned, but insisted that they had a female gender identity. It sould also be noted that the 2002 Chung study found that the difference between males and females in the BSTc does not occur until after puberty, which poses some problems for a pre or early post natal hormonal causation theory.
Swaab thinks the BSTc is probably a part of a network in the brain involving the hypothalaumus and cortical areas.
"We only, by accident, hit on a little bit of it"
He also explicitly supported the idea that there is a biological causation for the whole range of gender identity variations:
"I think we talked about a scale like the Kinsey scale for sexual orientation – we should also have a gender identity scale. It is not either this or that; there is also something in between. The distribution will not be simple, but here will be people somewhere in the middle."
"So it is not the entire brain that is switching, it is some systems, and that may also be the explanation for the [gender identity] scale. Some systems do switch and others don’t and it depends on which systems have switched where you enter on the scale."
Other recent research (as reviewed by Zoe in earlier blogs) also supports the idea of certain sex differentiated brain areas being switched in ts or tg people while others are not.
So if that is the opinion of Swaab, perhaps the best qualified scientific researcher in the field, perhaps we can accept that tg is as likely to be biological as ts?

Now even if it's not the case that it's biologically caused we won't know for sure till we test for it! so everyone who keeps on about it being certain that CDing is unrelated causilly to TS need to STFU cause we don't know that cause the studies aint been done yet! And to the scientificly literate you look like either ignorant or lying.

Besides, even if it were to turn out to be purely psychological, which I doubt, it's still ethical. And as such should no longer be considered any less valid as homosexuality or any other ethical form of self-expression.

Absence of studies is not absence of evidence.
So it's about time people stop throwing the non-transsexual transgender folk under the bus too.

Busy busy busy

2009-05-25T08:03:00.000-07:00

Well it's been a while since my last post, and I've been a busy batty indeed.

My main focus has been on the Human Rights community consultation, on trying to find ways to dissolve enough of the internalised transphobia endemic in the crossdressing community to get them more active including in undoing their own internalised issues (and always working on my own) but I've also spent a lot of time with online socialisation and offline Dungeons and Dragons. And a close friend has had a profound personal loss recently and has needed my shoulder *hugs if you read this*.

And just as my sleep schedule was falling back into gear it's been broken again by each of these. Oh well.

Lots of discussions lately have run into some frequent topics, many with religion...

Why oh why do so many people not understand that there aint just one religion? So religious freedom means ya gotta consider there's more than just one religion? Which means ya can't impose any religious rules outta your religion on everyone else cause some of them wont follow your religion but another one with different rules?

Example: Oh noes, treating gays as 1st class citizens rather than bashing them or discriminating against them interferes with my right to practice my religion.

But it was established a long time ago that basic rights overule religion, thats not new.
Example: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Well murdering witches has been against the law how long?

And what if the christian were to suffer because of another faith?
Example: A worshipper of Camasotz the Vampire-Bat-headed God decides to sacrifice the christian to their god.

Think the christian, like the witch, would at that point be happy that basic civil/human rights overule a persons following religious morality?

Yet still it keeps coming up.

And this nonsense about gay and transgender being 'new' keeps turning up too.

Where are they getting this nonsense from? Gays and Transgender people have been around as long as decent records go! C'mon folks who taught you history?

And to make matters worse in Australia, Canada, America and many other parts of the world the lack of acceptance of transgender, the lack of recognition of same-sex relationships is whats new! Merely centuries old.

Lets face it, heterosexual and cissexual, cissgender dominated society is not only new but a failure... a failed model of society resulting in large amounts of harm.

It only gained dominance by associating itself with colonialism built on expansive warfare with a technological advantage and using religious hostility that used force or coercive measures to stamp out other faiths.

Of course for people to hold these unsupportable conclusions requires them not to know about or understand other religious views, key points in history, other cultural traditions especially GLBT ones and the like.

So why are there key gaps in peoples knowledge and understanding?

On CFS, Psychiatry, TG and idiocy in medicine

2009-05-05T07:07:00.000-07:00

I link to two great articles whether you have CFS, know someone who has or have no idea about it.

Read this.

Some days, when my natural instincts slip past my stict internal ethics-filters, i consider how just it might be to get all the people who make ignorant assumptions about CFS and jam them in a room filled with mosquitos carrying Ross River Fever or some other illness with similar symptoms to CFS so they get a taste of it, oh and use some drug to mess with their memory so they have no idea whats wrong with them when they start to feel ill.

That or just take a big hammer with the studies showing biological factors in CFS wrapped around the hammerhead and smack them right in the knee with it to remind them of the damned data!

Thankfully for all these I am both too tired and too ethical for such behaviours.

But lets check another shall we? Try this It took something like 5 years before I was diagnosed. During which time I had to leave school, tried to get work, tried to do several forms of further education all of which made me deteriorate to the point of having to quit and overall dramatically worsened my condition with all the antibiotics and antidepressants, (the latter i was not informed were antidepressants I might add, the doctor led me to believe it was a different antibiotic for the 'unknown virus' he said was the likely cause of my illness after the courses of anitbiotics had no effect... only when i webt for a second opinion did i learn what i'd been placed on!) let alone the fact that no matter how sick i felt I still kept up a moderate level of activity (I get bored too easilly to be happy being bedbound thank you very much you *censored*) till after trying several different doctors one said:

I'd say you had chronic fatigue syndrome.. If i believed it
existed

Amusing no? So when I tried another doctor i mentioned this quote. He was astonished. A bunch more tests later to rule out more possibilities he said i clearly had CFS and there i was, finally diagnosed. Now if this moron discussed in the second article is correct then what the heck illness did i have for years and still have long before I had internet access or had heard anything about CFS beyond vague jokes about Yuppie Flu?

Back from my experiences to the excellent article:

Why can they not see this? Because they don’t want to admit that they don’t know
everything, perhaps? I think that’s a component, but there’s more to
it.
Here’s my current take: These psychologisers are believed, because they
are the people who are reinforcing existing prejudice. I think that popular
conceptions of CFS are heavily gendered: If a disease is suffered more often by
women, we all know they’re doing it to themselves, don’t we? And if people -
especially women - have diseases we don’t understand, they must be to blame
somehow. We’re not very comfortable with uncertainty, we don’t like “shit
happens” as an explanation.
We seek to blame, and who better to blame that
the people who we see at the centre of the problem - women with disabilities?
The shadows of victim-blaming rear their ugly heads again and again and again
within every axis of oppression, and those shadows are multiplied at the
intersections**.
And so, people with disabilities are abused - medically,
socially, financially, and psychologically. Every day. Because of people like
Wessely who are “just trying to help”.

Well my oh my does this seem familiar to me. Just like the Zucker and Blanchard nonsense. Just like constantly calling non-binary folk all 'fetishists'. Despite the data when it fits the prejudice it must be true.

I should point out though that for several years after my diagnosis I was still trying to get work and study. I asked three times and DSS/Centrelink about the disability pension and was told each time that CFS was not covered. Then I met a local woman who also had CFS (and a much much milder case than mine) who had been on the pension for years! I mentioned this to my doctor and he had several other patients with CFS on the disability pension, all women, and he helped straighten things out so I finally got my pension.

So in this case was it an assumption that as a 'strong' male i could just ignore the illness and keep going while 'frail' women could not? Or was it that womens contributions were considered negligible and could be pensioned off while I as a male needed to keep being a productive worker?

I'd appreciate others theories on that. Either way back then I heard of quite a few cases locally at least where males with CFS had much more trouble obtaining the disability pension than females.

At any rate there are patterns here. Patterns of sexism, ablism and more. At each turn there is a lack of Ethics, a lack of conclusions based on thorough data. Just prejudice used to draw faulty conclusions from the outset and construct bad studies to support them.

UNethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini and The Age Newspaper

2009-05-04T02:04:00.000-07:00

Today I read this.: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5540572/court-allows-girl-remove-breasts/

And in that was this:

But ethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini said mainstream medicine did not recognise
hormone treatments and surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria, and that under
US guidelines it was psychosis because "it's a belief out of accordance with
reality".
"What you are trying to do is make a biological reality correspond
to that false belief," he told The Age.

Now I think that some FMRI scans and disections count as Empirical Evidence last I checked. And irrespective of ones beliefs based on faith of things existing outside what can be measured in Naturalistic Methodology whatever can be measued Is undeniably part of reality!

And as such that makes UNethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini logically either a liar or incompetant. If a liar which is a clearly unethical act he is incapable of being considered qualified sufficiently to call themselves an ethicist. If incompetant through ignoring Empirical Data of course he is incapable of being considered qualified to be an ethicist.

Q.E.D. So he should quit or be fired in disgrace or publicly retract the statement and apologise or prove those studies and evidence incorrect beyond any possible doubt.

Is UNethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini the equivalent of the legendary man of the cloth who refused to look through Gallileo's Telescope by ignoring these studies? Or deliberately lying because the measurable reality does not match his particular personally accepted interpretation of scripture?

And for the Newspaper The Age to use the opinion of this man without checking the facts or reporting his potential Religious-Politics Conflict Of Interest and Bias is a failure of Journalists Ethics as well as Incompetant. And for every Media outlet that then continued to spread these assertions uncritically and without checking again that's incompetance.

What exactly does UNethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini think the "mainstream medicine"s recognised treatment for Gender Dysphoria actually is? I'd like to see him produce one reliable methodologically sound study of an equally reliable and successful alternate treatment.

Art, vagueness, interpretation and the oppressed

2009-04-28T07:48:00.000-07:00

So the other day I finished up my entry for a local art prize. A mixed media piece on the hatred of difference and it's injustices. And a friend who had encouraged me to enter when asked about her views on the piece suggested that it was too direct, too clear.

Now I knew what she was saying (I did study art formally years ago). That often how people respond personally to an artwork is to the vagueries, the blank parts and the indistinct. They then project of themselves into those spaces.

But i'd been dissatisfied with this phenomena in art for a long time. Sure it may be easier to make an artwork profitable by making it so vague but full of nebulous and indistinct symbols as to encourage people to populate it woth their own feellings...

But then all your doing is making a rorschach inkblot.

And during this conversation the part that really annoyed me clicked!

Art without some clear meanaing is really just an inkblot. Devoid of genuine truth or impact beyond the ease with which it captures the viewer, merely building flypaper of nonsense. My teachers droned against illustration etc, and I understand their points, but no matter the potency of an artists personal symbols if they cannot convey at least some of the same meaning to the viewer then they are not truely invoked.

And it occured to me how that works with marginalised groups art.

Because the interpretations of those vaguenesses and unclear symbols will be coloured to an incredible degree by biases. Just as many find the case when their issues are in public discussion and it gets imediately turned around to the concerns of the privileged group and what it means to them, how it effects them etc so too are all these nebulous spaces that so easilly allow a viewer to identify with an artwork also allow them to intepret in a way that they are comfortable with!

Or if the art is unable to be comfortably interpreted they will see it in a light where it is meant to disturb them on a general level. Which in a way will also make them more comfortable. But they will avoid as much as they can naturally to view the material in such a way as to actully comprehend the artists intent if that makes them call into question their biases.

Using this vaguery may make artworks more popular and help them sell but it means that the power of the message is diluted to one that will more easilly fit the comforts of the privileged. Sure sometimes artists can shock or lure viewers out of their comfort zones
but often in ways that the viewer will not easilly understand and so will not gain much from.

So i looked at my artwork, with it's symbolised blood clearly representing blood unambiguously, with the words scrawled in pink over the photo stark and certain. And I felt good about it.

I don't know if it will sell, I doubt with all the great artists in town that it will win any of the prises. But I know that anyone who takes enough time to look, to read the images and the words, are going to understand what I meant whether they want to or not or find it comfortable or not or agree or not.

Light a Candle

2009-04-11T01:01:00.000-07:00

Please.
Go here http://www.angiezapata.com/
Watch the vid.
Add it to facebook, myspace and all other accounts.
Pass it on to others. As many as you can.
Light a candle.

Oppose hate publicly whoever you are,
whatever your catagory,
cis or trans,
queer or straight,
out or closeted.

The Human Rights Meeting

2009-04-09T21:21:00.000-07:00

The meeting itself was fairly small in size though most of the seats were filled. Made up mostly of elderly people, members of the local Amnesty group and a locla Aboriginal Reconciliation group as well as a handful of university students.

A lot of my friends couldn't make it because of prior comittments so I was in effect representing quite a few folk.

The speakers were impressive giving very different perspectives. Dr Jurgen Brohmer who had worked with Human Rights laws in Europe gave an interesting and informative explantaion of how they work there and of various catagories of rights, Dr eric Ghosh on the various ways that such rights could in their various forms interact with the cutrent system and finally there was Proffessor Helen Ware who explained the needs for human rights protections by ilustrating some issues as well as giving some of her experiences working within the human rights field and changing attitudes in the community.

I have been further impressed by Independant MP Tony Windsor. He wasn't there to just get his picture taken, it was no token involvement. He showed clear attention to the speakers, to the questions asked of them by the audience and often turned around to read the projected points on the screen behind him.

As for me i asked one question regarding Dr Ghosh's suggestion of large civilian juries to hear human rights issues rather than judges. (my concern was how to minimise socially embeded prejudices against traditionally unpopular groups)

I also went in a fairly conservative appearance for me, no makeup and only minor jewelry etc. I'm sure I still stood out but my point to be there was to be involved for universal human rights not just my own Goth and TG communities.

I put my name down to be available for the comittee to work out the local community consultation submission. Hopefully I can make a positive contribution.

All in all I am very thankful to everyone involved in this process and I hope that this process results in a good set of universal human rights protections for all Australians.

Local Human Rights Consultation Meeting

2009-04-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

I'm all excited.

Tonight my towns having a community meeting to discuss the pros and cons of protecting human rights in Australia with some speakers from the University and some form of chance for the community to have a say with the results being a submission to the governments Human Rights Consultation.

I'm not very fond of public speaking but if there is an open mike sort of deally and I think a point hasn't been made, needs to be reinforced or if something needs to be refuted I'll have to make myself speak.

So the possibility has me plenty nervous.

I hope it goes well and that reason and not emotive rhetoric carry the night.

I'll post up my thoughts afterwards when I've recovered :)

Different voices for different needs

2009-03-30T00:07:00.000-07:00

From time to time I run into criticisms in causes, especially in Human Rights/Civil Rights causes of particular people and their views.

Some are accussed of being too strong, of being to vitriolic or angry etc and likely to turn the average folk against the cause. Some are accussed of being too soft, of pandering to the comfort zones of the oppressive forces and of putting their needs ahead of the needs of the real victims.

But really are these not simply different voices fulfilling different needs? The oppressed usually need an angry and inspiring voice to shake them out of fear or complacency and to give them courage and motivation to act. The mainstream need sympathetic images to help undermine the hate-images built up of the victimised groups and calm and clear voices to help them come round to the side of justice.

One voice alone can only give a false representation of a group. Whether within or without the group itself we should not expect a single lone representation can be valuable nor condemn there being a variety of voices for a group. Instead we need to support there being a variety of voices as well as helping get the right voices to the right audiences and meet the right needs.

Groups need the angry voices, the calls to act, the fierce and strong calls to stop hiding, the motivating force. They need the charismatic positive and/or sympathetic figures too for the effect they have upon the privileged in disarming them of their illussions.

Both are essential.

A touching of the soul

2009-03-19T09:48:00.000-07:00

It's another expression of emotions post.

One of two good Goth friends who recently moved away from town gave me some music and one song in particular, even though the bands music is far from what I consider the epitome of Goth music, has especially lodged itself in my heart mind and mp3 player :)

Here it appears on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96__CjuzvjM

The lyrics really move me so I'll quote them, especially for those who might not watch the youtube link.

I've seen the terrible hand of struggle
and felt the pain that hubris brings
I have tasted the wisdom of divinity
and the horror of its sting

And though they tell you i am lost
and their words report my death is come
the fates have left me breathing still
very much alive

And though my mind is cut by battles
fought so long ago
I return victorious
I am coming home

And if the paths that I have followed
have tread against the flow
there is no need for sorrow
I am coming home

For the distance I have traveled
upon an ocean of despair
have led me back into your arms once more
an answer to a little prayer

And though they tell you i am lost
and their words report my death is come
the fates have left me breathing still
very much alive

And though my mind is cut by battles
fought so long ago
I return victorious
I am coming home

And if the paths that I have followed
have tread against the flow
there is no need for sorrow
I am coming home

(Trans)gender Security Threat?

2009-03-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

Well finally the Australian Human Rights Commissions report into the Identity Documentation Issues of Sex And Gender Diverse People is out... and it's mostly very good indeed.

They have sensibly included a call for the Government to remove as many sex/gender markers as possible from peoples documentation which is excellent.

But they still have two points in which they argue that they are neccessary one of which makes sense and the other... the other I am convinced is not just absurd but threatens our national security!

One is that census data on women is important for Australia to fulfill its obligations to UN treaties to measure the degree of sucess in reducing inequality to women. Well that does seem pretty reasonable. Adding other options to the Census would be good too then to allow for more than just M or F. If someone has gone to the trouble of getting a U for Unspecified on their other documentation then surely they should be able to use that in the Census too.

But the other need for sex markers....
You see... they say that having your sex marked on a document is neccessary for Identifying you for Security Purposes!

There are many ways in which a person can be identified as who they claim to be. By measuring characteristics of them as they present themselves with ones previously recorded about them.

DNA is one of the primary standards as few people will share an exact DNA match (of course there are identical twins), there are fingerprints of course, Iris patterns too. Much has been made of Facial Recognition software. Then there are less unique ones that nevertheless help identify someone compared to someone else.

Height, build, eye colour, skin colour, hair colour, handedness, blood type....

Each of these can narrow down which of, say 50 people in a room, is the individual you are looking for.

Many are very mutable... none are immutable!
Blood type has been known to change in a single instance from a bone marrow transplant. Handedness changes to a point (I have personally lost a good deal of my ambidexterity over the years). Hair colour is easy to change and skin colour is for some and changes naturally over time for many. Eye colour changes too. I know 2 people one of whom is my brother whose eyecolour changed naturally. It can also be disguised easilly by contact lenses. Body proportions change as does height over time. Iris paterns shift and alter especially with certain illnesses. Fingerprints don't just change... they can completely dissapear! Few people hear of this but it occurs to from what I've heard about 13% of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers! Even DNA changes, though not greatly and ussually it's genes switching on or off.. still it does change. Facial structure... well a lot of costly surgery can change that.

As does Measurable Sex, naturally on occassion and with medical assistance (to affirm sex identity).

And yet sex markers on documents is apperntly KEY to identifying someone. Not Blood Type, not DNA and certainly not facial proportions. The entire field of Biometrics which is frequently touted as a vital tool against terrorism etc is less useful than an M or F (or U or X) on a document???

WTF?

At absolute best it halves all the possible people you could be other than the person you claim you are!

Especially when, except when walking through one of those new 'views-through-clothes' cameras the only way this suppossedly vital characteristic is tested is by visual examination of appearance!

Lets imagine this in an easilly possible hypothetical scenario shall we?

You are an official at an airport checking passports.
First in line is someone called Leslie Smith. Leslie has a genderqueer appearance... it's hard to tell if they are male or female. They have an F on their document. Suspicious? Off you send them to be interrogated, possibly stripped and perhaps physically violated with an internal cavity search. On to the next person in line.

Second in line is Joe Smith. Joe looks like a guy and it says Male on the document. Guess he must really be Joe then. Off he goes onto the plane.

Third is Habib Hussein. Looks Male, it says male. He fits two flagged catagories though, he looks arabic and he's male. That means he's a high-risk of being a terrorist then. Off you send him for interrogation just in case.

Fourth is Maryanne Michaels. It says female, looks female. She is passed through.

Later at the inquiry you discover that Leslie was a military trained security analyst and martial arts expert.. if she'd been on board things might have turned out differently.

Turns out Joe Smith was a known member of a hate-group fleeing before an arrest warrent was issued for murder. But being visibly male and white and having a common name he got waved right through as no risk. But he didn't do anything bad on the plane...

Poor Habib. A christian convert. Is now languishing in extended detention without charge. His lawyers hope that the results of this inquiry will help them get him released.

Maryanne Michaels though.... she was a terrorist. Her name wasn't Maryanne Michaels, the real Maryanne was found buried in an unmarked grave in the woods later. The passport was a fake. But she looked unlike an Arab. In fact she wasn't. She was a member of another non-arabic and non-islamic terrorist organisation (remember them?) and most importantly she looked female and it said F on her document! She didn't appear to belong to either of the high-risk catagories. And how were you to know she wasn't really Maryanne when the key to identifying a person is that M or F on their documents?

And yet she took over a plane and killed hundreds of people.

You see how ridiculously stupid this is? There have been plenty of female terrorists. Enough that any sex-based screening is a threat to national security that can and has been exploited by terrorists.

And sex markers merely cut down the number of people someone can be. And not very well at that! To have a catagory like that as considered vital to identifying someone is beyond rediculous. We could replace it with facial recognition, with swift blood-typing technology, with digital fingerprinting, with Iris scans and rather than having a loss of security we would in fact have an increase in it!

In fact if we combined those four off-the-cuff options together we'd have several measurable biometric identifiers that in combination could vastly improve our security far more than paying someone to look at an F or M a photo and a name and decide using their own highly fallible subjective judgement as to whether they are who they say they are.

And what is the real practical function of sex marker visual screening? What does it really do?

Does it correctly identify people reliably? Heck no! As my example shows the visual apraisal by an official comparing your appearance to an M or F classification has only one practical function! Only one result, regardless of intent. It makes life more difficult for people whose appearance goes against gender stereotypes!

Thats the only conceivable logical result! It can do nothing else! Whether it's facial bone structure, hairstyle, makeup, bodyshape, clothing style... all these contribute to whether an official will decide you 'look like an M or F'. If that does not match the document you suffer.

Not just transsexuals. Not just Crossdressers. Not just Androgynously fashionable Goths and Emos. It's the subjective appraisal of the official you see. It entirely depends on how they personally catagorise M and F!

And that means a crossdressing terrorist that 'passes' will get through this idiotic notion of identification but a law-abiding citizen may not.

And the passport theft nonsense? A man can steal another mans passport and a woman a womans. So why then is the possibility that, GASP, a woman could try and use a stolen mans passport or vice versa something so desperatly serious when its a lot easier to have a woman using a stolen womans passport without attracting attention!

Believe me 'passing' is not easy. To do so as to not attract any attention would be for your average cis errorist far more trouble than recruiting some terrorists of the opposite sex!

This is idiocy of the most farcical level!
I would have thought it were some kind of joke.

And really that is what it is. A dangerous, a deadly, joke.

If sex markers are considered important, nay vital to identifying someone for security purposes then terrorists rejoice! Our security services are clearly utterly incompetant morons!

The only real practical effects of making sex markers an important part of security identification is to discriminate unjustly against sex and gender diversity to ensure compliance with sex and gender stereotypes while making life easier for terrorists!

Operating on Healthy Bodies.. happens everday

2009-03-15T20:44:00.000-07:00

Once again I run into the argument that operating on healthy bodies is bad or scary or worrying.

But its an everday occurance! 'Unsightly' but healthy moles get removed, benign non-cancerous growths too.

Varicose veins, fat redistrobution, liposuction, tummy tucks, nose-jobs, breast implants, reductions and reshaping.

Hair transplants, pec implants, buttock implants even.

Tattoos and tattoo removals, body piercing, facial piercings even common old ear piercing.

Those are some of the permanant changes. We make temporary ones too like shaving and waxing and plucking and cutting of head hair and dying of it and shaping of nails and painting them and makeup.

These are not new. We know of ancient cosmetics in Egypt and it's neighbours. There are mummified bog and ice bodies with tattoos. The indiginous peoples of the world have tremendous varieties of piercings tattooings brandings and scarrification.

There isn't even a taboo on genitals either from labial reshaping to penile enlargement to the extreme genital modifications of some indiginous peoples.

The permanant modification of healthy human bodies is not new, its happened throughout human history. It's not unusual, tattoos and piercings are extremely common and cosmetic surgery is done countless times every day. As you read this here are people getting their healthy noses and breasts and teeth altered cosmetically.

Clearly there is a fundamental universal human right to do with ones own flesh whatever one wishes, from a facelift to becoming a lizardman (and to not be forced in any way to undergo such procedures, not even in order to have ones rights or identity recognised. Requiring SRS for recognition or rights is a Human Rights Abuse just as banning or making overly difficult to obtain SRS is a human rights abuse!)

So there can be nothing whatsoever wrong with a person choosing to change their sexual organs, to have a sex change to any degree of primary or secondary sex characteristics irrespective of biological causation of transsexuality or not.

The squeemishness about SRS is clearly NOT about Altering Healthy Bodies. That's patent nonsense!

What it is about deserves examination. But people change their healthy bodies cosmetically every day. It's a common experience. Considering the amount of ear piercing and dental work in the world it's something that probably the vast majority of people have done to at least some extent!

Because of that nonsense mant Transsexuals are so desperate to reinforce their own claim to a biological causation and neccessity to transition that they base all validity on such causation and decry and try to invalidate Transgender people that do not match their specific view of that causation. Sure it's important to recognise that SRS is often a life-or-death need for many. Thats important to recognise so that impoverished TSs can get their needs met, same too for those where private or partially public health systems need to cover such surgeries.

But biological causation is not required for the human right to modify one's own body! People modify their bodies everday.

Discussion on Freedom of Speech and other Rights

2009-03-13T23:23:00.000-07:00

Carolyn Ann has taken up an offer I made over at Questioning Transphobia to discuss Freedom of Speech and it's interactions with other freedoms etc here to help keep the discussion there on topic.

So this should have some interesting discussions through the comments :) By all means if anyone else wants to chime in be my guest.

So I guess I'll kick it off.

The initial discussion concerned Carolyn's concerns that moderation on a blog regarding certain forms of comments was contrary to freedom of speech.

Lets start with the pro for that.

It means that the commentators responses in that discussion in its immediate context are limited. At the very least this does appear to be against the spirit and substance of freedom of speech.

Con. The commentator still has the capacity to have their own blog and hence express their views. They are no longer in the initial context of the initial discussion however so that suggests moderation still goes against the spirit of free speech even if the substance is not hindered.

However comments on a blog are published in effect by the blogger, as such are they not falling within the bloggers free speech? Is the moderation by the blogger, so long as the comentator can blog themselves elsewhere, of their own blog not in fact an excercise of their own freedom of speech? Do the comments publication then exist as purely the comentators free speech or are they also part of the bloggers free speech?

In general a blog is considered to be an edited publication like a magazine or newspaper. Where the editor decides what will and will not be part of the publication.

Is this fair and valid is the question?

I previously suggested an analogy I like about street-speech VS lawn speech.

In the street if you offend someone they have every right to walk away and
ignore you. On their own private lawn however they have every right to ask you
to leave their property or to define by what rules you must abide to remain
there.Well a blog is like a front lawn, accessible from the public street where
you can be invited to sit on the porch or verandah and chat, or asked to leave
and threatened with having the hose turned on you or the police called if you
continue to be rude.

I think it's a good analogy and can show how personal space extends into public spheres. Like a t-shirt slogan or the way one dresses free expression exiss in public space with few valid limitations. However a persons home, or lawn, is owned. It is personal space in which activity is to a large degree conditional. It exists by consent, consent which may be withdrawn.

So someone may object to what someone is wearing or saying while they are in their front yard and may validly withdraw consent for them to be there on that account but they cannot do so if the person is merely walking down the street, a public space, so long as their appearance and speech in no way overrides others rights.

The error of many who object to the words or appearance of others in public space that upsets them is that they are failing to recognise that they are extending their personals space over the other persons. One may have fair control over ones front yard as an extension of personal space but not over the shopping mall.

And might I add thats so even if one owns the shopping mall! A business is more than personal space, it provides a neccessary public service and as such is partially public space and partially personal space and as such cannot discriminate in the way that the business owner may with their own front lawn. The same is true of a rented property. To enter into business is to engage in a social contract, the individuals obligations to the rights of others are more pronounced in a way that control over ones front lawn does not interfere with. If someone cannot have access to your lawn to talk t you there rights are not harmed. If they cannot enter your shopping mall to buy bread and milk their access to goods neccessary for life are limited, so their rights are indeed harmed.

So Carolyn and anyone else interested, agree? Disagree? Have anything you wish to add? This need only be the launching point so any rights/liberty based related issue is welcome, it need not be a narrowly focussed discussion.

Is how Kids are brought up seriously damaging to Crossdressers (and the rest of Transgender)

2009-03-09T22:09:00.000-07:00

This was originally written for an MtF crossdressers forum hence the focus on MtF CDs rather than all of Transgender but I'm sure most readers will be astute enough to see the similarities and if any would like to raise differences or contrary views in comments then please do so!

Is how kids are brought up seriously damaging to CD's?
I've been considering the issues of why most CDs are in the closet, often well into marriages before they are able to come out to their wives if at all.

Why is that so? Usually we answer 'because society isn't accepting of CDs'...

That sounds logical but is it really how it works? Do we at whatever point we start CDing, from 3-4 through to teens, think to ourselves: 'Yup, this is who I am, but gee i better not tell anyone as society isn't accepting'?

I think that usually we are all well aware that it's taboo before we try on our first piece of womens clothing. Certainly as we see here many of us struggle daily with the reality that we are crossdressers.

From the very beginning of our lives we have been living ina gender-coded world. Colours, styles, toys, books, tv shows, clothes... almost in every case from baby to teen we have gender coded things. Cribs and mobiles and wallpaper and posters and comics... almost every single thing is gender coded.

And that coding is segregated. It's made clear that people are not suppossed to like the things from the other gender code. When we see examples of people doing so they are usually mocked or derided. It's made clear to boys growing up that 'throw like a girl' or 'act like a girl' are serious insults, as is Sissy.

Often conformity to the boy part of the code is enforced through violence or threats of violence, often enough that has even come from parents who considered it important to 'toughen up' their boys.

We get no role models of people crossing the gender line, we get no messages of acceptability of crossing the gender line. If we see or hear of it at all it's as a negative.

Is it any wonder most crossdressers live in, or pass through, intense fear and shame and guilt? Is it any wonder that we hide the full reality of being crossdressers even from ourselves?

Some can handle it better than others... but that is true of all things.

I think that the way we grow up is quite literally abusive. Not always intentionally so but abusive nonetheless. And that it abuses not just transgender kids but everyone else too. I think it is because of this that society struggles so much to accept us, that family and friends struggle so much to accept, that wives struggle so much and that CDs themselves struggle so much.

I think that to judge ourselves, to judge one another and to deal with the issues of CDing in marriages fairly we will have to accept that we have been abused. That it effects most of us profoundly emotionally and psychologically.

And that to get societies acceptance and ensure future generations will not suffer as badly as we then we will have to raise the public awareness of crossdressing.

Not just in our imediate streets and shopping malls and neighbourhoods by being out etc, though when any one of us is strong enough to do so it definately helps, but by getting the subject more, and importantly better, media exposure!

The next generation of teens have the advantage of the gender fluidity in some anime... but thats certainly not enough, just better. TS and CD teens still struggle with being TG.

So do you think I'm right? What are your views on the subject?

The Politics of Appearance and Personal Expression

2009-03-07T08:03:00.000-08:00

Well, as appearance can be such a political topic, as personal expression seems to cause such a stir these days especially when it comes to transgender and people who do not fit the neat binary gender catagories or for that matter when it comes to Goth and related subcultures I suppose
pictures will speak strongly as well as words... so this is me.

So there we go. Eyeliner on the tame side perhaps compared to some days. Passable or not? That is in the eye of the beholder.. I have passed as female when in masculine expression and I have failed to pass and yet received compliments on my appearance at the time when in this style of feminine presentation. Pretty or beautiful or attractive or not? Again the eye of the beholder.. I have my admirers and those who disagree with them.

:) this is my 'uh-uh' pic at a friends suggestion which indeed is their favourite pic of me. Note the fingernails like the hair are real. They are rarely not painted and at the time these pics were taken were uncommonly short. At this time I have only been out in my town with this degree of feminine presentation in small amounts, it is a rural town after all so I'm taking my coming out slowly with an emphasis on safety.

Here are my nails at a little closer to the normal length I tend to keep them at. Note the cute goth nail-art :) The other hand had little skull-and-crossbones with love-heart shaped eyesockets. My nails are not like this for crossdressing. They looked just the same whether I wore pants or a skirt (and these nail-art decals have come down in price recently too!)

And here it is... my 'male' presentation. Masculine enough? Handsome? Again some have said yes, others no. This is generally my ordinary look for a days shopping. Only I might have purple lips or red nails and other colours and often I'll have more eyeliner than the first two pics and in this summer heat the great coat stays home. But here is one of my main points. While I have failed to pass in the presentation of the top pic i have passed for female unintentionally dressed as a male like in this pic, even without any makeup and even on those rare times my nails have been short and unpainted.

For those obsessed with the bathroom nonsense from a binary gender perspective, this is how i look every week when I do my shopping and have to use the mens public toilet.

I am not conforming to others expectations. Many days I fit in even more between these two. Some times I may have a couple days of beard growth when my skin is playing up and I can't shave daily or when i'm too exhausted. I don't just wear black but colour too. I don't dress as a Goth to fit into a crowd as I did it when I was the only out Goth in town. Nor did I do it to rebel either. I go from colour and t-shirts through to picking up pizza in a top hat, brass cane and lace cuffed shirt, satin vest and cloak.

My looking different causes no-one any harm. It infringes no-one's rights. My gender non-conformity is no threat to others lives or rights. How I feel inside, my gender identity certainly doesn't match most stereotypes or assumptions of crossdressers though it's common enough amongst the ones I've spoken to. Same with my style of gender expression, neither mockery or exaggeration nor fetishistic nor an attempt to blend in.

The only threat that comes from my appearance is that of all diversity, of freedom, of someone disobeying unjust rules and not conforming to expectations or neat little boxes or catagories.

That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing!

The notion of required conformity is the enemy of all liberty and all justice. All ethical difference, all variations that respect the rights of others are automatically good no matter how unusual or unpopular and any restrictions or condemnations of ethical difference are unjust unreasonable and a threat to everyones equality and fair treatment.

So there is me. As Man? As Woman?

Most importantly as Human.

Australian Bill of Rights well overdue!

2009-02-25T18:52:00.000-08:00

Well I'm not even halfway through Geoffrey Robertson's book A Statute Of Liberty and it's already prompting me to make Invader Zim style clawing motions in the air at the injustices and utter stupidity detailed in the book from Australias history.

Sure I already realised Australia needs the protection and guidance that the rest of the democratic world enjoys from a Bill of Rights, and sure I knew that racism was a big part of federation and that much of our freedom of speech etc in australia came mostly from assumptions and conventions that could be wiped away ata single penstroke... but when the subject was taught at school and even at TAFE such points are danced around or briefly mentioned. The utter catastrophic fragility and patchwork of flaws just doesn't get emphasised enough by half.

This is a deep problem in Australia. Growing up in the bush I saw it all the time. The 'she'll be right mate' attitude of shut up, don't worry, don't fuss, leave things alone.

It's a deadly attitude. It costs lives. It's the height of utter stupidity. A lazy fatalism. A resignation to negligence.

This is not the only attitude in Australia. We've had plenty of brave folk who have spoken out. But we don't celebrate them. We generally just celebrate sportsman, as if only the physical feats of just men and only in the arena of competative sport is all that matters.

Well this 'young country' has to start to grow up. It's well nigh that we start to take seriously the matter of formal federal protections of Human Rights in Australia.

I urge everyone to get involved in raising this subjects profile while the community consultation is going on. It's media coverage seems to me woefully insufficient, most people have hardly heard about it, have little understanding of the importance of it and have no idea how much the freedoms they expect in life exist only at a whim of government with little if any recourse at all.

Especially considering that Australia was fundamental in the drafting of the now 60 year old UN Decleration of Human Rights that we are the last modern democracy to lack a bill of rights is a profoundly collossal embaressment and we really need to return to our position as a leader in international human rights rather than a straggler right at the very back of the drove!

Is the crossdressing community held back by the concerns of hetero marriages?

2009-02-23T03:27:00.000-08:00

This is something I've been pondering for some time.

The standard line is that most crossdressers are 'straight'. Personally i doubt this because I think the degree of 100% heterosexuality of the whole community is I think overexaggerated.

Nevertheless much of the crossdressing world online and in organisations often revolves around MtF CDs Cis wives and girlfriends.

There are the concerns of coming out or being outed on ones future dating prospects, there are those who've kept their CDing a secret from their wives who fear to lose their marriages or to cause upset hurt and harm to their wives by coming out to them. And even those who do share their CDing with their wives make all manner of concessions to their feellings and comfort.

And organisations likewise are concerned with the comfort and feellings of wives of straight crossdressers.

Because of wives frequent concerns that their husbands CDing means they might be Gay some organisations ban or minimise the visibility of Bisexual and Gay crossdressers.

Because of wives frequent concerns their husbands may be Transsexual and transition similarly some ban or marginalise Transsexuals too.

Also the view that the public perception is that all CDs are gay has some reacting with hostility towards Gays and Drag Queens.

Now today I'm not going to discuss the validity of each of those decisions (though feel free to do so in comments), I certainly am not saying that the concerns feellings and needs of CDs wives are not important. It is firstly important to know that much of this is done under the notion of 'protecting' the wives and ensuring they 'don't get the wrong idea' by going to a CD support group meeting and seeing gay people there or hearing mention of TSs transitioning. Which in my view must be rough for those few whose CDing husbands do turn out to be Bi and/or TS!

Instead for the moment I will focus on the consequences of the actions based on these concerns.

Firstly the vast majority of CDs appear to be deeply in the closet. I've seen claims that range from 2% of the population to 10% regularly crossdress. Thats a pretty significant sized minority. It is quite comparable to estimates of the numbers of Gays and Lesbians I've seen. The most common reason for being closeted according to CD forums i've been on appears to be about impact on wives/girlfriends. Sure the rest is there that other closeted groups face: other family, career, friends etc but this one appears to have a major additional impact on the numbers of those willing to be out.

The next is the seperation of groups with otherwise common causes. Fear of being labeled as Gay or blaming Drag Queens for negative views in society of CDs means that CDs have little if anything to do with GLB groups despite similar closeting and discrimination experiences that should naturally have them working hand in hand.

Then of course there is the schism with much of the rest of Transgender. Transsexuals lose out on the larger group which as allies could help them in their many shared and unshared issues. There also ends up an emphasis on passing which tends to isolate the genderqueer. And of course some transsexuals consider themselves for a time crossdressers, often hoping that just the clothes would be enough and ful transition surgery et al would not be neccessary only to find as they gain self acceptance that this is not the case. In some CD groups these TSs get ostracised in case they may trigger wives fears and then some TS groups ostracise them for having been in the CD community.

And there is a substantial hostility amongst many groups for any form of politics.

It is a community largely paralysed by fear. One that if those numbers are correct could have a profound impact if only it could rid itself of it's own homophobia and transphobia and perhaps some of the fear of upsetting or validating the fears of the wives of a portion of the community.

There are some crossdressers who oppose the heterosexist binary-gender views when they are expressed, who try and reform the biased policies of some groups, who try and rouse others to action, who try and assist some in coming out and of course in opposing the negative stereotypes of CDs which are found in the mainstream and GLBT communities. But the crossdressing community still appears to be far behind the rest of LGBT.

But how should the community face the fears and concerns and needs of the het relationships within it?

What if any say should a wife have over a husbands degree of being out? Of how often and to what extent they can express their femininity? How should their fears and concerns be handled? How should the needs of married Het CDs be balanced against those who are Bi etc?

And what about the FtM guys? Do they have these sorts of issues? Because I only hear about this problem from the FtM community. Maybe some of the great guys who have dropped by here could give me their perspective on this?

Quick update

2009-02-17T19:51:00.000-08:00

It's been a bit since my last post so I thought It would be a good idea to get something posted.

Most of my time has been filled with social stuff, especially with some of my friends moving away so we had to get the most shared time we could. Miss you both already! Wednesdays especially just won't be the same now.

I also had some writing commitments to work on too. As well as the usual flare up of symptoms that come with sudden changes of temperature so the heatwave and then the rains have seriously impeded my productivity.

As usual I've had some interesting conversations, from comparing the ethics of BDSM compared to the common 'normal' sex practice of the drunken one night stand to the complicated issue of how one defines when a healthy but uncommon sexual variation crosses over to unhealthy. That latter is tricky because usually its based on how close it is to whats common and socially accepted rather than on matters of ethics or a measurable level of harm.

There was also much discussion about punk and goth mods of My Little Pony's, of makeup and manskirts, mohawks and brightly coloured artificial dreds and various subgroups of Goth culture and it's history.

And there was plenty of Anime watching, especially Trinity Blood.

On top of that I had my birthday recently, which was good. I'd not been looking forward to it and the lead up to Valentines Day was filled with far too many reminders of my last relationship. However on the day I got some really quite lovely gifts and touching messages and it really made my day. And theres more to come as I'll also do some celebrating on the weekend.

Anyways I'm a little too vague today to go into detail on any of the many interesting and important topics that have been an issue recently to do them proper justice so that'll do for now.

Because Defiance can be Adorable

2009-02-01T06:44:00.000-08:00

I assert my right to cute fuzzy adorable and pretty resistance to the dull and dour unjust rules and expectations demanded of me by those who do not wish me to step outside their narrow catagories. Queen Emily is right http://sexualambiguities.blogspot.com/2009/01/bunny-resistance.html I have happiness and joy and laughter and friendship. Whether my presentation at any given time is wholly female or a genderqueer androgyny all of masculine and feminine expression belongs to everyone to use or not as suits them, as pleases themselves. And all you haters of transgender, especially of non-binary TG cannot stop me Mu-Ha-Ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaa.

I am free. I will defiantly express that freedom. Adorably.

Crossdressing hurting others? But which hurt?

2009-01-24T19:52:00.000-08:00

This is short but hopefully sweet. It's an excerpt from a post I've made on a forum in response to someone talking about how crossdressers being out can hurt families, friends, other people etc and that while we have freedom we should consider that the consequences may hurt others.

As for hurt, there are several kinds of hurt that should be considered.
1. The hurt caused to person A by person B using their own rights in a way A would
rather they not use (A's selfish hurt) or
2. the kind where person A is hurt by the interferance of their right by person B overstepping their rights (injustice) and of course
3. the hurt caused to person A when person A's rights are limited by the existence of equal rights of person B (justice).
Some examples of each to make them easier to grok.
1. examples include Goths looking like Goths, Interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, tattoos, body piercing, blue and green worn together, min skirts, women not wearing veils, rock and roll music,
comic books etc.
2. includes racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, theft, murder, rape, forced sterilisation or surgical 'normalisation of Intersex children, circumcision of infants etc
3. includes people not being able to rape, murder, assault, steal etc.
All three are felt as genuine emotional hurt. 1 is essential for people to suffer. It has to happen. People must overcome their own pain with this. 2 is an evil that must be stopped as much as possible. 3 is the point where you introduce equality to liberty, where freedoms are only restricted by the mutual obligation of respecting the equal freedom of others ie fairness. It too is a pain that must be borne.So some hurt is inevitable, neccessary and fair.
In fact avoiding or attempting to limit the first and third types of hurt is arguably bad, wrong, harmful to society and contributing to the worst hurt, the second one.

If we are not ready to inflict the hurt of justice, the hurt of exposure to difference which all of us should suffer and overcome in order to have our own equal liberty then by that choice we inflict the far worse hurt of allowing and encouraging injustice!

Goths and Gender and Censorship and other issues

2009-01-17T16:53:00.000-08:00

Well it's been quite a busy week for me. Lots of socialising and a lot of good and interesting conversation.

One of the things I've been impressed with is that Goths are even more acepting of TG these days than I'd realised. This week I came out to some new goth friends and met a heap for the first time while at a party 'out'. I also met some non-Goths at the party.

Many though not all were teens, mostly about 15, though the full range was somewhere near 11 to 40's. Utter, instant, unquestioning, unconditional acceptance.

Discussing gender issues with the teens I learned some interesting things. For one in the 'norm' or non-goth non-emo population their age the gender 'colour code' of pink=girls and blue=boys is reversing as so many teen boys are wearing pink the girls are now going for blue. And man-skirts are becoming trendy with plenty of 'norm' boys wearing them on casual days.

And all this in rural New South Wales Australia.

I remember when I was the only goth in the village lol. Except for the brief period when it was suddenly a popular trend when The Crow came out. It was interesting hearing similar views from these teen goths as they discussed the surge of interest in vampires due to the Twilight books and movie and it's wonderful to see the growth development and spread of Goth culture accross so many decades as we had people from their early teens, late teens, 20's 30's and 40's.

I also discoved just how bad I am at singstar lol!

Through the many conversations i've had with several social groups this week the following notions were particularly interesting ones.

How philosophy, especially ethics, as well as politics and the law can handle coming to terms with implications of cognitive neuroscience such as the evidence that we are far less concious than we think with most decisions post-rationalised by the conscious brain after the decision has been made... how can anyone be held responsible for actions if this data is correct and the 'person' is but a passenger and not actually in command?

And it was great to hear the views about Toxoplasmosis Gondii (the rat-behaviour and possibly human behaviour-altering brain parasite) of someone who actually definately is a host to that parasite!

How should we handle things like car-insurance and drivers licences for people whose brain-parasites effect their reactions in emergencies? And what is societies responsibilities to it's citizens rgarding transport and infrastructure let alone what are the ethics issues involving someone with a brain parasite? Should a treatment exist should they be forced to undergo it? What allowances should be made for those with it when there is no treatment or for those who may refuse such treatment.

Sex work, sex-positivity and pornography were also discussed at length from several different viewpoints with intersting notions raised.

For example it was suggested that pornography with GLBT content, especially that made for the 'mainstream' audience should have a moral and perhaps ethical obligation to include some education content or carry political messages. The comment "If they are good enough to (masturbate) to then how about voting on their issues. no-one else need ever know who you vote for any more than what genre your getting off on".

There was also some discussion of how the industry apeared to be largely failing to address the changing audience when 1/3rd of the pornography audience and growing is female.

Issues of pornography as well as video games and censorship were interesting and it seems clear that the 'community values' used to determine a lot of things have nothing to do with the actual values of the actual community unless all the polls on the subject can be dissmissed.

It was also interesting that pretty much everyone in the discussion agreed that from an ethical viewpoint the BDSM community with it's emphasis on informed consent and safety is generally far better than the standard vanilla community where sex while drunk and/or stoned and therefore unable to give truly informed consent because of impaired cognition is in fact the primary sexual circumstance.

And my Le Chevalier D'Eon anime boxed set arrived and a friend has the Hellsing series set so as well as social fun and a host more roleplaying gaming I've got some fun stuff to watch.

Chronic Ablism pervaisive throughout Net, Law and Bussiness

2009-01-14T16:58:00.000-08:00

Not a study, not an article. Just a blatently obvious fact anyone with an ounce of imagination can realise. So routine is it that even us who often suffer it really don't realise exactly how pervasive and unjust it is.

It's at the deepest fundamental levels.

Shall I start with the signiature? How often do we use our signiature? A piece of hand-art intended to be regularly repeated as well as unique to the individual.

Now imagine what thats like for someone whose hand is not always steady! Or whose muscle-memory can be every bit as interferred with as their short-term or long-term memory. Or who suffers sudden muscle spasms or twitches or whose coordination is irregular. And those are just the ones I've experienced personally! Imagine the embarassment when trying to pick up a parcel from the post office and having your own signiature not match!

Ah but the world is going increasingly electronic blah blah blah.
That is not helping!

Consider all the rules one must obey in nettiquette. the differing rules from forum to forum, keeping up with changes of rules... imagine what that is like for those with memory issues, dyslexia and other reading difficulties, cognitive difficulties.

Again this is something I experience myself when my CFS 'brain fog' cognitive impairment is at it's stronger levels and i really have to struggle through some things.

Consider that criticising people on their spelling is considered quite acceptable on much of the net. How repugnant is that really? It is patently ablist privilege. Oh sure there are 'spell-checkers', largely culturally-biased constantly trying to change my S's to Z's because American English is different to Australian English! And it's not my fault many spell checkers have vastly lower vocabularies than I.

Nope, criticising spelling, grammer etc is nothing more than ablist bigotry pure and simple!

But the net is full of so very much more than that. I've been on several forums where breaking of some rules occurs frequently enough that people get auto-bans for it. Not behaviour like flaming mind but mistakes like posting in the wrong section. Seems reasonable if it's a constant problem doesn't it... or does it? Why is the problem reccurring? No-one asks that, it is just assumed that some people are stupid or bloody-minded.... wow... consider the bigotry and stupidity in those assumptions!

Stupid? Like people with lower IQs don't deserve access to forums and the internet? Bigotry, pure and simple. Bloody minded? What kind of ignorance is involved in that assumption! A purely rational person will have a purely rational reason to act thusly. If they are not purely rational as many people aren't then any system that assumes a basic level of competance or standard of behaviour that requires people to be purely rational whe many many people are obviously incapable of such is again bigotry pure and simple!

The net is a cornocopia of ablism at nearly every turn!

And returning to law and government systems there are copious hoops we all have to jump through that are substantially ablist. The requirements of Centrelink for those who benefit from the various pensions are often quite ablist. I get so furious having to negotiate through messy automated phone services and irrationally complex forms etc when I'm going through bad brain fog. C'mon you gits not every disabled person has a career to do these things for them! Not every person who fails to report something or who doesn't get a form in on time or turn up at the appointed time (asssuming you genuinely sent that letter Centrelink... as you got caught out on that penalising people for your own staffs mistakes more than a few times!) do so to deliberately defraud. Deeply entrenched systemic ablism!

And as for business!
Just consider telemarketing for starters. Pestered at a random unexpecting time, badgered to accept a deal which may or may not be reasonable. Now if someone has anxiety issues, confussion issues, slowed cognition, difficulty in evaluating budgets or just plain arithmatic at short notice how disstressing traumatic and potentially manipulative is that?

I occassinally have tried asking these telemarketers to send me the details of the deal they are offering in writing for me to evaluate when I can think clearly.. but nope, they can't do that can they. ABLISM. And I'm not referring to some piddling cruise or mobile phone thing. I'm talking about the large Australian telecommunications companies here like Telstra and Optus!

I have missed good deals because of this, but to avoid countless good-seeming but actually bad deals that is what I've had to do.

When most people think of disability issues they think of wheelchair access and eyesight. Those a big deal, still. But it is the issues of cognitive and learning and reading and memory and concentration that people are taking for granted to a massive extreme!

And people are penalised on forums all over the net for not being able to live up to ablist standards! People are financially penalised, getting criminal records even for not fullfilling ablist legal obligations! People are penalised in business or manipulated by it by ablist systems.

Vast amounts of daily life are filled with ablist systems, assumptions of certain levels of ability that just are not so for many people! Often the people most in need of those services!

A housebound disabled person often rellies on the net for their social interaction. When they get kicked out of communities whether it's forums mmorpgs or what-have-you that is extraordinarilly wrong!

A disability pensioner who has only the pension to survive on who suffers a financial penalty for failing to meet some ablist obligation is suffering a profound wrong!

I could go on. There are so many examples. All it takes is a little imagination to realise how utterly common these wrongs are. Just take a little time to consider it and to mention it to others as it really is something more people, especially people who work on these systems and in fields, need to think about!

Someone wrote a Genderfree Manifesto!

2009-01-05T06:26:00.000-08:00

http://intersexnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/genderfree-manifesto.html

I definately think it needs to be read and discussed.

I like it substantially.
Though I do take exception with this paragraph:

For the general public do not even know the difference between the intersex (with *biological* disorders of gender differentiation), the transgender (with minds that are hardwired to the opposite of his/her biological gender), or the transvestite (with normal minds and normal gender biology, but a fetish for the opposite gender's clothing). Each of these is a choice, but the first two is allowed in Islam.

Namely that it ignores the possibility that transvestites, or some of them anyway, may have minds hardwired between biological genders or to have no hard-wired gender. Certainly Genderqueer people are likely to fit somewhere into such a situation. Are they 'fetishising'? Also if a brain is hardwired or the body differently differentiated how is it a choice? Other than what to do in response to existing in such a state?

And in this otherwise excellent part that I support substantially:

WE THE GENDERFREE AND OUR SUPPORTERS

HEREBY DECLARE:

That the rights of children with intersex conditions must be fought for, and the choice given for them to make on their own—without any kind of “corrective” surgery before the age of consent.

That the rights of transgenders to change their bodies in accordance to their true mental gender must be fought for as a God-given right.

That bigotry against the genderfree must be fought against in all forums of discussion and spheres of existence.

That the genderfree statuses, whether intersex or transgender, is a symbol of power, not a stigma, and the genderfree must be proud of the innate capabilities of hir/her/his kind.

Genderfreedom Fighters of the World, Unite!

The phrase: "a God-given right" Is invalid as the manifesto needs to apply outside of god/s-based theistic worldviews as well as within them so I suggest "an Inalienable Right" is more appropriate.

First Meanderings of 2009

2009-01-03T03:05:00.000-08:00

Well I'm back from visiting family, alas my symptoms are flaring and using my brain feels like swimming through treacle.

It literally feels like that, like pushing against and through resisting dense material.

So I hope you'll forgive the more likely scattered nature of my post.

On the personal level it's been a bit draining. It was good to see family members I'd not seen face-to-face in a year. We had some good times, we spent much of it wrapped in nostalgia watching dvds of cartoons enjoyed when kids and catching the black-and-white Quatermass which we'd not been able to see before and of course with a fair amount of shopping.

But it was also painful at times because of difficulties Mum was having with aspects of coming to terms with my being Transgender. At least she is trying, she is being supportive. I know transexuals who suffered horribly at the hands of their parents and suffered more because they never gained any acceptance or support from them their whole lives. I'm one of the very lucky ones indeed!

But being lucky doesn't make it easy. It doesn't make logical points made from lack-of-knowledge (I say that rather than ignorance because plenty of people I know consider it an offensive term to use. When did ignorance become a dirty word? Willfull ignorance is shamefull but appropriate to point out when that is what the case is, ordinary ignorance is universal amongst humans as none of us are omniscient!) and therefore incorrect any less painfull sometimes to hear.

I think thats a problem with many who comment on TG issues and many other issues. They may be making what appear to be logical deductions or raising logical issues but if it comes from limited knowledge or for that matter from stereotypes, assumptions or un unrealised bias then it often becomes unintentionally hurtful or in the case of many media opinion-spouters outright harmful. At least with many, like my Mum, they can be given data, analyse it, weigh it on its methodology and reconsider their opinions.

Alas many seem incapable of it. What is wrong with them? Are they sleepwalking through life to a degree that I even when my CFS Brain Fog is so severe I cannot contemplate basic arithmatic without severe pain and confusion yet cannot remotely imagine let alone sympathise with? Can they have their higher brain functions so suborned to their emotive functions that the capacity for rational thought is used only barely enough to try and rationalise whatever irrational illogical and I dare say utterly insane notions they have already espoused? Or can it be a deliberate and knowing lie used to try and save face by ignoring it when they discover they are wrong?

Like the Popes recent statement. Can he himself be bisexual and so incapable of imagining that there may be non-bisexual people that he thinks that the fair treatment of gay and transgender people will result in no-one procreating anymore? Could he be so utterly stupid? Or is it a deliberate attempt to save face by refusing to recognise that science once again is disputing part of their theology? Are gender-theorists and neurologists the new astronomers? The new geologists?

And I hear of more Transgender deaths. Some by murder and one because of the discrimination involved in sheltering someone based on birth anatomy. Religious or not charities and support services have a duty-of-care and if that means they have to change their systems to accomodate transgender people then thats what they are obliged to do. The hetero/cis-normative assumption used in these systemic injustices falls apart in the light of the existence of transexuals, of intersex, of women who rape women children and men. Only via ignorance or worse willful ignorance can suvh notions be maintained.

And it's not just the Salvation Army and the frozen woman on the church doorstep that this applies to. Tri-Ess also bears substantial scrutiny for the way they treat male-attracted crossdressers and those who when they come to terms with themselves need to transition. To turn people in need away is abhorant. Seemingly, from discussions on crosdresser forums, it is done to ensure that the wives of female-attracted crossdressers won't have their fears that their skirt-wearing husbands might be gay or transexual triggered by their presence. How abominable is that! It's manipulative of the wives, it abandons the needs of those wives too whose husbands do turn out to be bisexual etc or transexual.

Complaining about 'activists' and drag queens and transexuals etc for stirring things up, for the lack of acceptance they experience especially from their partners and arguing for their exclusion for selfish personal benefit.

The idiotic and nonsensical divisions amongst sections of the sex and gender diverse communities are built on such pathetic pretense at reasoning! And I note that I'd heard most of the arguments before... from the more hostile and irrational ravings of some amongst the HBS advocates.

People pushing those divisions cause real harm. People pushing stereotypes that dismiss the diversity of humanity do real harm. If we do not work together, if we dismiss the more different because they dont fit the average or the standard or the image one wishes to portray then we cause real harm.

Now all that said I'm far from without hope. There is much that can be done to build bridges between communities so they can work together on shared and related issues. There are many people who just need to be inspired, or who wish they could help but don't know how they can do so.

As for Mum. Well while she still is working through this (heck so am I too) she took me shopping for clothes, and after we watched To Wong Foo (I'd picked it up when shopping having not seen it and we'd had our fill of 80's cartoons and finished Quatermass) the hug she gave me was painfully wonderful. That's something that many TG people I've met never got. A hug from their Mum after coming out.

We need to work together, HBS TS CD DQ DK GQ IS etc etc so that more people get hugs from their Mums, so that less freeze to death on church doorsteps, so that everyone is treated as equal.

It's time for a Bill Of Rights in Australia, for A Fair Go For ALL!

2008-12-14T03:48:00.000-08:00

Finally Australia is contemplating the notion of doing something on the Human Rights issue.

It's well overdue.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/charter_of_rights/index.html

Trouble is though it's a 'community consultation'. Which is often a good way for the majority to enshrine their prejudices rather than a way to ensure a cogent and uncontradictory set of principles get recognised.

So if were going to get a binding bill of rights rather than a decorative one, if were going to get one fully compliant with the now 60 year old U.n. charter and with the Yogyakarta Principles we're going to have to work at it.

The arguments in favour are logical. Equality for all, no exceptions. Thats fair.

Trouble is many people aren't logical thinkers but emotional ones so we need to make the call in an emotive one. One that carries the message in a way more Australians can easilly understand.

"A fair go for all!"

"Equal Rights for ALL Australians!"

Hows those for some catchy slogans? They tell the truth, they touch the heart and the mind.

There will be many who just want a decorative bill. There will be those who want rights for themselves but not for others. We could waste time debating the justifications for why Gay people should be able to marry too, why transgender people need many inequalities fixed in many laws in many states.

Or when they try and say "But gay marriage...." we shout back at the top of our lungs " A Fair Go For ALL!" and they start saying "But bathrooms...." we shout back at the top of our lungs " A Fair Go For ALL!" and when they say "God says..." we shout back at the top of our lungs " A Fair Go For ALL!".

And if we ever need to go any further than that all we have to do to counter any of their arguments is say "(they) dont believe in a fair go for all. They want rights for them but not rights for everyone else. We say A Fair Go For ALL!"

Too long we have argued with considered reason and the enemies of equality have argued with fear and emotion. Well it's time to fight that with reasoned emotion and reasonable fear!

Because people can and would and should be suspicious and fearful of anyone who'd oppose the notion of a fair go for all. And any justification they make will sound like what it is, weasel words!

Well thats what we need to demand. All bound up in one simple statement.

We shout back at the top of our lungs " A Fair Go For ALL!"

Letting the Heart get a few words in

2008-12-01T05:51:00.001-08:00

It feels like hilly country, the road I'm travelling within my chest.

Plenty of steep hills, sudden descents, unexpected turns and the like.
And things come in bursts with long falt sttais of dull monotony in between.

It's been an interesting time. I've come out to a number more people directly and I've made things blatantly obvious in my 'gradual acclimatisation' plan with some others.

I've had plenty of compliments on my increased gender non conformity in public which is encouraging and by several reactions the sex appeal of androgyny has not gone even though it is not 'fashionable'. I'll definately wear my purple lipstick more often.

But despite this encouragement and the acceptance from friends there is still plenty of troubles. There are the remnants of old fears that still remain, some still yet to be conciously discovered. There are the deep wounds left from my past relationship. There are the fears that have been borne by that become reflexive.

And it's all well and good when someone while drunk tells me they like me because I'm weird, but i remember hearing that before till suddenly one of my weirdnesses was 'not normal' (despite that weirdness being far more ethical than many of their 'normalities') so I fear.

So sure, my ex GF wants me back but how soon would it be before i'm considered too 'not normal' again? How can I measure the degree of improvement she claims over her issues that made things impossible? And sure there are some others who clearly find me attractive but again the fear is strong.

And while I have friends I like, friends I respect, few of those friendships are at that deep rich emotional support-system relating level of friendship and opening up emotionally too much can be the kiss-of-death to far to many friendships. And the fear of losing those friendships can often stop me from trying beyond a minor level. And people who are not disabled will often have little idea just how much time energy and effort goes into building and maintaining friendships.

And it's a host of issues, not just my broad gender expression or my disability (though in many ways thats the worst one) but all the many insecurities and too-often validated concerns that build up.

And then theres just the huge horrible problem that comes with having no main outlet. No work and no study is a horrible torture. But worse is knowing that I am not currently capable of either without setting myself into a downard spiral of deterioration. But going for days without face-to-face human contact every week is just horrific. And it's not like I'm capable of throwing myself into my writing or art either. I'm barely able to keep up with basic housework and enough entertainment and net activity to keep me reasonably sane while struggling to reserve enough capacity to more frequently get out and get more social interaction.

I want to do things. To make a contribution to the world. I see so many apathetic folk and wonder how they can manage to squander so much in such banality.

Oh if only there was a cure or treatment for this curse that has had me living my life dragging against locked brakes for half my existence... there is so much of life i want to sink my claws and teeth into.

Nevertheless, I am frequently caught up in hope too. Chance circumstances fall in my favour as much as they do against me lately. There is much to appreciate and look forward to.

As I unlock more of the feellings I'd set aside, held back and locked away each requires developing skills and understanding. As I find more acceptance for my gender variation that too has waves of emotional reactions, and rational logical pondering too as much insight is gained, unknown hypocracies noticed to amend and new data thet requires the review and often changing of long held opinions.

And while that can be painful, it's good in the long term, like the pain that comes from stretching a tense muscle so that it relaxes.

So slowly it's a matter of finding ways to get through the periodic days of sorrow anger and tears (more chocolate definately helps. Now where's that polyphenol enriched chocolate that CFS study tantalised me with damit!) and hopefully some new Hammer vampire DVDs and some anime will help. And ways to try and build the social and emotional bonds needed to break this horrid isolation that goes hand-in-hand with CFS.

And at the end of this blogpost I'm smiling as I touch up my purple lipstick, enjoying the rattle of the bells on my anklet and looking forward to the future.

Ethics and Crossdressing

2008-12-01T05:33:00.000-08:00

Hmmm... well this was the begining post of a thread at a crossdressing website in the MtF section.

For whatever reason (they didn't give me any) the powers that be there deleted the thread so I'm bringing the discussion over here. Had I written it for this blog I would have tried to angle it a little differently to be a little more inclusive (for the great FtM blokes who drop by here every so often at least). So here restored to existence by the power of the cut-and-paste backup is my attempt to begin an examination, debate and discussion of the Ethical issues of and relating to Crossdressing.

(oh and the thread that got locked was because someone tried to consider as a comparison crossdressing and infant-fetish as compulsions)

The Ethical and Moral issues of Crossdressing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm posting this to try and discuss the importan Ethical and Moral Issues relating directly to crossdressing.

I don't want this thread to get locked up like a recent one was so please lets try and keep this discussion sensible, rational and calm. That way we can discuss the big problematic issues for CDs and CDing as well as address the criticisms of us from others.

It will be a long post but that is important and it should be an interesting discussion.

Firstly let me raise a basic argument for the validity of crossdressing and then we can discuss whether the argument holds up and issues with various common dilemmas that face crossdressers from secrecy to obtaining clothes to the closet to relationship issues.

Is crossdressing Ethical?

Crossdressing does not neccessarily involve interacting with the bodies of others. Whenever you interact with anothers body you generally require informed consent for it to be ethical.

Murder, assault, rape etc are acts without consent or expressly against a stated denial of consent. Children and animals cannot give informed consent to sexual acts.

If crossdressing is done for a purely sexual activity and involves anyone else then yes, informed consent is required. Non-sexual crossdressing does not require it. Sexual crossdressing done by ones self does not require consent.

In some things consent is assumed where it is not strictly stated otherwise. This is rare and dangerous. Yet in medicine, like performing life-saving resusitation, transfusions and emergency surgery informed consent is assumed
unless there are clear instructions otherwise like 'do not resuscitate' or 'no transfusions' medic alert jewlery or tattoos or the like.

Thus far crossdressing is Ethical.

Harm.

This should be considered in several ways. There is harm to rights/freedoms, physical harm, unethical emotional/psychological harm and bizarrely enough till it's explained there is ethical emotional harm.

The consent issue is caused where freedom of action meets freedom of choice over ones own body. Freedom of speech is (debatably) considered constrained by deliberate attempts to cause physical harm. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a common example. Telling lies about someone to harm their reputation impacting their social, political and economic well being is another. From this we get laws against libel, slander, perjury etc.

This is a big one. Many people see CDing as a deliberate lie/deception for the purpose of causing harm to social systems or to enable voyuerism or make sexual assault more practically possible, of women by getting access to 'safe spaces' and of men by tricking them into uninformed consent, where they consent to sex with a woman but not a TG woman.

Yet this is not the intention of crossdressers. Nor is it intrinsicly the consequence of it. So while this explains many peoples fear of crossdressing it is a myth not a reality (or its a possibility not a neccessary actuallity, so only if done for that intent would it be unethical) and crossdressing remains ethical.

Crossdressing interferes with no other freedoms directly. People who do not wish to see crossdressers are as free to look away as people who do not wish to see women in the workplace or black people not in chains or gay people kissing and holding hands in public.

Public harassment for example causes harm. It is done deliberatly with the intent to cause suffering or irrespective of the persons desire to look away. This can be difficult for people to grasp exactly. Essentially it is not the expression that is the true cause of the harm, it is the removal of a persons capacity to escape it. Bailing someone up on the bus for example. So long as they can turn thier head and look away or walk away from the speech through the loud-hailer then free expression which is upsetting is not unethical.

Certainly some people can find the views and appearance of others causes them emotional disstress. Literally any thing at all someone wears or says or does can trigger a disstress reaction in someone. There can be found no fair way of accomadating such distresss at others reactions to otherwise ethical expression/views/behaviour as it is easy to have two people each equally distressed at the other. The disstress of two racists of opposing races at the presence of the other is one example. Opposing religious fundamentalists another.

As such, if something is otherwise ethical yet someone finds that emotionally distresing it would not be right to curtail that, the disstress may well be real, but to have others comply to alleviate that disstress would itself be a great wrong! We can feel sorry for the disstressed person, try to help them overcome their disstress and of course enable them to withdraw as much as practical from the source of their disstress but only voluntarily and only to a point.

Example: A racist gets upset everytime they see someone not of their race. On the street, serving in stores, holding positions of authority. Just these people being present and alive may well cause them geunine profound real emotional disstress and pain. Yet it would be wrong to kill those people or to lock them up or expel them for the benefit of alleviating the persons disstress. We can try and help them cope wih the presence of other races, give them counselling and information to overcome their disstress. Thus ethical behaviour and ethical freedoms trump emotional disstress at anothers fair use of their freedoms.

Thus even if it upsets people crossdressing remains ethical while preventing crossdressing is unethical.

Now that gets really dicey for many when the person getting disstressed is a close friend or family member!

Ah but what about indirect consequences of harm?

Example. CD goes out. CD gets recognised. CD's family member suffers embarassment and loss of social standing etc.

Lets try this one for comparison:

Example. Young white woman goes on a public date with a black man in an area with a degree of racism. Is recognised. Womans family suffers embarassment and loss of social standing etc.

Both of these acts were done with no intention of those being the consequences. Those consequences only exist because of the unethical acts of others. Even if those people knew that such consequences were likely are they responsible for the consequences?

That involves determining whether it is right to suffer the consequences of others unethical behaviour by not conforming to that situation or whether it is right to go along with unethical groups by surrendering to their threats to avoid the consequences upon others.

Now thats just an argument for crossdressing by itself being ethical. Not crossdressing in secret or wearing clothes of others without asking or hiding ones crossdressing from ones partner. There are heaps of these sorts of things discussed here every day. Discussing these at a deeper level of ethics and morality may help everyone understand, cope with, consider and decide about these major issues.

Does anyone have issue with the points I've raised? Have views on the Ethics of other issues that face crossdressers?

Remember morality and ethics can be distinctly different and their are different schools of thought in each.

And this bit is really important.
Try not to just say that you think or feel something is right or wrong! This is about deeper truths than just feelings or unconsidered or unconcious or instinctive or reflex opinions.You must try and explain why your view is right or the view your criticising is wrong.

Hopefully we can all learn from such a discussion, hopefully we can all be challenged by such a disscussion and maybe even have our views on things changed by such a discussion.

Good on these Blokes!

2008-11-26T04:57:00.000-08:00

So it seems the idiocy of binary sex/gender conformism has decided that Hitler and Stalin was right and that 'undesirables' must be sterilised.

But the 'undesirable' blokes are challenging that evil idiocy.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24699313-2702,00.html

Awww... the pooor widdle folk on the board can't handle that the possibility potentially exists that someone considered legally a man may get prgnant and so deny them their due recognition.

Tough!

Reproductive rights are Human Rights. Belonging to all. And requiring sterilisation to get legal recognition, rights and access to essential services is nothing short of, no different from, damn well is literally coerced, ie forced sterilidation.

My heart and best wishes go out to those two blokes and I hope they soundly win their case.

TG Or a Rose by any other name...

2008-11-09T07:12:00.000-08:00

It always disheartens me when I read the vitriolic rants of many groups who try and divorce themselves from other groups of people.

From Julie Bindel to the writings of many amongst the HBS groups and many many others.

When people write about Transgender in this vein they either attack it as some form of ideological theory or they try and justify one group of people being considered legitimate and others not.

It's saddening and its nonsensical.

After all it does not matter if there is or is not a causal relationship between Intersex and Transexuals biologically when it comes to the Human Rights Issues of both groups.

It does not matter if 'behaviourists' as us crossdressers are being called by some are biologically determined as such (please, please read up on the genetic connections to behaviour you folk because you seem to think that no behaviour is biologically determined and thats just not borne out by nature at all, and there is even transgender behaviours in animals) and transexuals are biologically determined or if neither is or both is.

Because Human Rights do not stem from Biological causation. They stem from presumptions of intrinsic equality and liberty. Nothing more is needed.

As an ideology which it does not seem to be except in the arguments of opponents of its existence, Transgender should be as subject to all the riguers of science as all other ideologies... which often enough is none at all rather unfortunately.

As a theory used to explain a phenomenon indeed science can and should be involved.

As a social and political movement it needs no other justification than Basic Human Rights and must also be judged and modified by those rights equally.

As a culture the same is true.

So at the end of the day we should all be judged by our adherance to the basic principles of human rights. Its not so hard really.

No amount of slinging the word 'behaviourist' at crossdressers, drag queens, pre-ops, non-ops or what-have-you will ever reduce the real legitimacy of any one of those people or the legitimacy of the way they dress or the way they identify themselves or what basic civil rights they have.

No Cissexual Straight Man or Woman, No Gay or Lesbian Straight-Acting or otherwise, No Transexual of any level or form of opperations or age of transition is in any way better, more real, more legitimate than any crossdresser. And no crossdresser no matter how conservatively dressed is in any way better than a fetishist or genderqueer or drag queen.

The hair-splitting bigotry is truly pathetic.
Every single person who practices such arguments of exclusion delegitimises their own claims to equal rights if they are correct or successful in their arguments. They all shoot themselves in the foot because to justify their bigotry they toss out the very principle of equality which is the only valid reason they too have human rights.

We are all human. We all deserve the same rights. The same protection from abuse. The same access to healthcare including body-modification if we decide that is best for us and to protection from body modification if we decide (or before we are able to decide) that it is right for us. We all deserve protection from discrimination. The same access to essential servics, public amenities, safety, the law, public office and representatio and on and on.

No matter what differences you can point to our blood is still red.
And where our issues are the same, similar, related or intersecting we all are still equals. We all are as legitimate as each other.

Transgender, by any other name, by any causation, would still be legitimate.

Julie Bindel's Basic Human Rights Error (and a little on Jim Carey)

2008-11-05T03:31:00.001-08:00

Here is a message I sent to Julie Bindel via facebook. I have no idea is she's read it. She has not yet replied but I expect she gets a lot of messages these days. Still I hope others might find it interesting.

You see I think it's vital not just to tell people they are wrong but to explain why they are wrong to them and then to give them the opportunity to realise their mistake and to change their views.

We must always give people opportunities to redeem themselves and I'm sure Julie Bindel though she was doing the right thing, that she had no idea where she crossed the line from attempting to protect people from being railroaded into SRS (good) to preventing people from getting SRS (ver very bad) especially as I'm sure she does not understand what doing the latter actually means in Human Rights terms.

So this is what I have to say to Julie Bindel:
Hi.

Regarding Human Rights, Bodily Autonomy and Transgender.

Doesn't the human right of Bodily Autonomy aka Somatic Soverignty wherein every person has the right to do with their body whatever they wish and to refuse consent to anything being done to their body no matter the reason mean you should change some of your stated views on SRS access for Transexuals?

Now I'd like to point out that the same right is the explanation of what makes a whole host of things right or wrong

Rape and a Jehovahs Wittness forced to undergo a life-saving blood transfusion are both wrong according to this argument because each involves disregarding lack of consent regarding the body.

The right to Abortion comes from Bodily Autonomy too.

This means that just as people have a right to body-alteration from ear piercing, tattooing, cosmetic surgery, ritual initiation scarrification and genital modifications like circumcision, penile subincision and SRS.

It also means that no-one should be forced to undergo any of those procedures or coerced into doing so.

So then if your position is that no-one should HAVE to undergo SRS in order to obtain fair treatment, legal recognition and access to essential services then you'd be consistent with this right.

But if you say that people should NOT have access to the procedure or that access should be somehow restricted then you are arguing counter to the Human Right of Bodily Autonomy.

And if Bodily autonomy is not a basic human right then abortion can not be justified under human rights, nor protecting children (male and female both) from circumcision either and many many other things.

I do hope you ponder this aspect of Human Rights as certainly your views on SRS as are being reported are contrary to the Yogyakarta Principles and Bodily Autonomy, but with such a very small clarification could be a progressive and strong position in favour of Bodily Autonomy. All by ensuring you advocate for unrestricted access to SRS but no requirement at all for it!

Where it all depends on the individuals right to choose without coercion either way.

If however there is a flaw in my reasoning please do point it out as understanding these Human Rights issues is important to me.

Regards,
Battybattybats

I hope she has read it, I hope she thinks about what it means.
You see by saying people do not have the right to do anything they want with and to their own bodies including refusing anything anyone else wants to do to them you unravel the fundamental foundation of all human rights. It is the most basic principle, the core, the root, the source of all Human Rights, Civil Rights and of all the positive gains in social justice of the last several centuries.

Without that basic right rape is no longer universally wrong but only wrong if those in political power or cultural/religious authority say so. The basis of Abortion as a right is the mothers capacity to do with her body what she wants, whether she chooses to continue to carry or not the child to term. I could go on listing examples but hopefully everyone can grasp it already.

So as Julie Bindel considers herself an advocate for Human Rights I'm sure that once she understands what it is she's been arguing for she'll modify her views accordingly. Because I'm sure she thought she was arguing for protecting peoples right to choose, to not be shoehorned into SRS, but in fact she's been arguing for an end to the basic fundamental principle of human rights she thought she was protecting, a persons right to choose.

In her attempts to defend it she crossed the line and called for the destruction of the ideal she thought she was protecting, presumably by looking at the situation too narrowly and missing the big picture, the consequence of how far she took her argument.

But it's easy to bring her views into line with Basic Human Rights, with Bodily Autonomy, with every persons right to choose...

She just has to say no-one should need SRS or hormones or anything else to get all the legal rights recognition and services that any other citizen gets including full recognition as their self-identified sex/gender.

And say that also no-one should be denied access to SRS if they want it.

That way she supports choice. That way she supports Human Rights.
And if she does so we should support her, and if she does not we should keep trying to explain it to her.

Oh and in other news it seems that according to reports Jim Carey is a Crossdresser, that the occassion of his wearing his partners swimsuit was not isolated.

Well we need more people out of the closet including celebrities so I hope soon to be saying "Good on you!"

But before I celebrate this I'm waiting for the apology. You know... for the Transphobia in Ace Ventura... so when he gives that apology I'll praise him and until he does i'll say:

"Jim Carey, your an (extreme expletive) hypocrit!"

These aren't complex things though it takes a little strencth of character to admit a wrongdoing intentional or otherwise or a mistake in an argument.
C'mon Julie, c'mon Jim. It's the right thing to do.

Intersex Solidarity Day November 8!

2008-11-04T04:28:00.000-08:00

I just found out it's less than a week to Intersex Solidarity Day.

So in case I'm unable to post on the day and also to ensure that anyone reading this has a chance at learning of it in advance I'm posting on it imediately!

In my experience Intersex people are rendered even more invisible in Western Culture than Transgender people with few people knowing much at all about it. And yet considering what is done to children every year, the horrificaly unethical 'normalistion' surgery performed on children unable to give consent in Western countries where people react with horror at female 'circumcision' in other parts of the world this should be an issue that everyone knows about.

So please go here: http://www.intersexualite.org/ISD.html and sign the petition.

And the next person you see making or drinking a cup of coffee? Tell them about how horrible you think that surgery is and how the poor kids should be let grow up to decide for themselves what they are and what if anythings should be done to their genitals. Mention the petition and that the 8th is Intersex Solidarity Day.

And at the water cooler, talk to someone about it there too.

If you take a taxi, tell the driver what you think!

Bring the subject up in every conversation you can.

How many children are goin under the knife in the next four days? Are you going to just let that happen? Or will you help spread the awareness of that outrage so it will be stopped?

Transgender Beauty

2008-11-02T22:35:00.000-08:00

"You look better than many..."

It's a phrase that seriously rankles a lot of people. But one a lot of people use.

On some crossdressing forums its considered quite the no-no as many wives and girlfriends feel quite offended that some consider that a TG person might look more female than a cissexual female or more attractive as a female than one (so far on the forums I've explored it doesn't seem to be as big an offense for boyfriends and husbands of FtMs but that may not be the case and please correct me if I'm in error on that). Some have argued that the actuallity is that some TG folk look more feminine than many Cis females, some CDs find it outrageous that any CD considers themselves more female than any female no matter how naturally masculine and the conversations tend to fall apart as people struggle to defend their own identities from the threat that peoples judgement of anothers appearance seems to constitute to them.

I could go into an analysis of what it means for many cis womens self identity if a crossdresser does look better or more female and the way that seems to speak of a lack of value of masculine physical traits in cissexual women, but thats not the point I want to make today.

See one thing I note in most cases where members of the general public respond with the phrase "You look better than..." in it's varients that most seem to fail to consider..

A lot of the time the TG person did not 'pass' and still got that compliment!

So what does this mean?
It means that these people see that the person is trans and yet still say they are good looking or attractive.

That means there must be qualities of Transgender Beauty that are utterly independant of strict masculine or feminine traits or which exist because of the mixture of these.

Now that many people can find androgyny attractive or fashionable is nothing new, their have ben trends in fashion for centuries where aspects of male or female fashion swap over and there have been plenty of people who've had success with a presentation that sits solidly between standard presentation of male and female.

But neither of those is what I mean. Because in the cases I'm referring to, the transgender person is clearly presenting strongly in a way that is, culturally, female or male, who is nevertheless perceived to be anatomically not matching that presentation and who yet is perceived to be attractive in that state.

And that is significant I think.

Prescient? Moi?

2008-10-27T01:04:00.000-07:00

Wow.
And there we go.

Since my last post something interesting has turned up.
Another reasonably chunky piece of genetic evidence for transgender has turned up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm

Not proof as yet but solid enough for the moment.

So now until there is strong evidence to the contrary then each and every piece of legislation around the world that requires surgery/sterility in order for someone to be recognised as their proper sex rather than apparent birth sex and/or for receiving rights and/or services

IS AN ACT OF GENOCIDE

Genocide and Transgender

2008-10-21T05:18:00.000-07:00

I urge everyone to read this and pass it around.

http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/genocide-julie-bindel/

But it is worth taking this further, because in much of the world to obtain basic rights and essential services as a transgender person that cis folk always enjoy one must be steralised.

It's all well and good for those who choose to undergo procedures that render them sterile. Its their right to make that decision for themselves and everyone should support their right to do so. But to mandate it in exchange for basic rights and access to essential services is a human-rights abuse plain and simple. Forced and coerced sterilisation has been one of the great crimes of the 20th century.

But consider this also and consider it well.

If there is a genetic cause or factor involved in being Transgender then forced sterilisation is clear and direct biological Genocide.

It is Eugenics!

Transgender people do not automatically lose their reproductive rights! They may choose to waive them but should never be forced to waive them.

Those who do go through treatment that renders them sterile should be able to preserve reproductive material where possible and to use that later in life if they so choose.

Where there are state-based health systems these should provide for this service for those that are covered by them.

Transgender people have the same reproductive rights as anyone else. They may choose whatever treatement is appropriate to suit them according to their own priorities. They ahve a right to their own culture too.

These are all Human Rights. Basic fundamental Human Rights.

To deny them these rights is a Human Rights Abuse and where it constitutes Genocide it is a Crime Against Humanity!

Antiseptic stings

2008-10-14T04:30:00.000-07:00

No I've not endured an injury or anything, just giving people an effective analogy.

Cause plenty of people are all for equality or for helping out the disadvantaged and discrminated against until it reaches a point or an area that they find personally uncomfortable.

But antiseptic stings when put on a cut.

A scab itches.

A healing wound aches.

When your body fights a disease you feel sick.

The pain the aches the discomfort etc is an inevitable part of the healing. It's how you know it's working! If your cut has gone numb you know there's a terrible problem but if it stings from the antiseptic then you know it's going to heal.

So then when people find some aspect of human rights makes them uncomfortable from same-sex marriage to transgenders in public toilets that discomfort is the awareness of something wrong, but it is not the equal-rights that is the something wrong but the previous acceptance of the injustice now being challenged that is the cause of the discomfort.

And that discomfort passes with time, like the sting of antiseptic, like the sore foot as it heals.

Do we ever think about how uncomfortable many white folk were when things were desegregated? Do we consider that just as gays and transgender people are falsely portrayed as predatory pedophiles so were innocent black people portrayed as cannibals and rapists and instinctive animals less than human. The discomfort those people felt when having to share their spaces with black people was real! But it was a shameful unjustice, based on lies. Still it was how people felt. And because of this no amount of how people feel now is an excuse to keep an inequality!

And men having to share their worklaces with women felt real discomfort, and when they had to share their education institutions it was real then too. And when Christians had to coexist with Jews and stop persecuting them again there was discomfort.

ALL equality results in discomfort because the undoing of injustice is discomforting, often even disstressing and painful. That should never be ignored or forgotten as it is far too easy in hindsight to dissmiss the concerns of people in the past as pointless while to consider valid the discomfort of people now.

So if you ever find yourself feeling uncomfortable about a rights issue do not use your feelings or comfort as judgement, it will betray you and lead you to injustice because justice and equality stings like iodine on an open cut!

Instead judge it solely by the philosophical principles of human rights. That is it's only valid measure!

If you want it to heal you have to expect it to sting a bit!

Dealing with the damage done

2008-10-10T04:42:00.000-07:00

Well I'm trying to take it easy at the moment. Spring always ends up making my CFS play up and I overdid the activity and emotional stress a little both of which are bad for flare-ups.

I've been doing some gentle introspection lately to figure out how to improve my life a little. (Well, in between chapters of Varney the Vampire and watching a DVD I stumbled on for a pittance of Flesh For Lulu in concert)

Anyways my tiny social life and minute romantic situation had me wondering why things have been so difficult.

My problem is not communication skills, those are quite good. It's not empathy, that works fine. My trouble is social skills. Not ordinary day-today ones but more the meeting new friends and potential romantic partners skills and the turning casual friendships into strong ones.

And inevitably the problem came I think from school bullying. We moved around a lot in my early years but that wasn't much of a problem, I still made new friends and coped with the bullies. But the last year of primary school and then Highschool things were different. Thats when the ostracism began. A constant campain of not just physically violent but also psychological and emotional bullying from many and having friendship with me become social death for others what few friends I developed in high school swiftly ceased them to gain acceptibility for themselves.

And thinking about it since then I've devoted far too little time and energy to such social skills relying on having a small amount of good dependable trustworthy loyal friendships. But life draws people to distant corners and while all those are good friends they are mostly scattered over the continent now. And one of the worst parts of CFS is that it is socially isolating, leaving people unable to attend parties or having to leave early, preventing them from working or studying, keeping people housebound and restricting interaction substantially.

I realised that other than via the net I interact with other humans on less than half the days in the week. That is not good.

So despite the limitations of my CFS and of course of being far different from 'normal' (thank goodness!) I need to work on improving my social lot.

With the huge incidence of bullying I wonder how many others are struggling with the damage done to them. How great a cost that must have on society.

And considering the social effects on Transgender people... those caused by fear of having ones closet door opened, the fear of unacceptance, the fear those who find transgender people especially attractive that they would never have such a relationship accepted by others that leads them to either just hide it or to seek only sex and not a long-term relationship, worst of all being the outright hostility violence and ostracism that comes from transphobia where people lose families, friends, jobs and more for coming out.

Thats not ok, not acceptable. One of the major challenges for the Human Species is to change this malfunctioning excluding tribalist instincts role within society. We must find ways to include those excluded. Whether by the practicalities of illness or the oppressions of moronic and illogical intolerance.

So I'm adding another ball to the juggling act of balancing my CFS by slowly trying to improve my social life without getting myself housebound, or worse bedbound by my symptoms. It'll be interesting.

Will someone just cure this already?

2008-09-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

So the other day i tried to join in a game of Warhammer 40,000 that some friends were wanting to play. I knew I was feeling more tired than most days and I knew that Spring would likely trigger a bit of a flare-up of my CFS.

About halfway into the first turn of the game the crash hit and I went from participant to half asleep spectator and over 3 days later the crash is not yet over, just lessoned a bit.

So I'm having periodic mental blanks, confusion, language troubles and housework is a pain. I'm too tired to do even 5 minutes of tai chi let alone walk around the block.

I've had this damn illness more than half my damn life and I'm so sick of it!
What happened to that medicinal chocolate stuff I once heard about having promising effects on CFS? Why is it almost everyone I meet knows someone with this debilitating life destroying illness and yet there's just about no resources or support?

Its a constant drain on my existence making every single thing more difficult from the largest to the smallest.

In other news the AHRC has put out an initial proposal for reforming sex documentation law... an improvement over the current situation but far from actually being consistent with Human Rights! Being able to have documentation changed to be recognised as male or female now would require some medical or surgical treatment rather than full SRS which is good for many but its not good enough! However they've added a third sex.. and they have called it Intersex! That understandably has a few people quite upset at this sudden new meaning of the word. And thats just for starters on the human rights issues in this proposal cause there will be gatekeepers of one sort or another in the process too.

They really should instead be looking into doing away entirely with sex markers on documentation! They are hardly used at all except for the purpose of unjust discrimination.

Meanwhile Intersex (by the original meaning of the word) children are still at risk of unethical permanant surgery! I'm still not covered by antidiscrimination and antivillification legislation and there are huge amounts of issues yet to cover.

Meanwhile I am stuck having to change into guy-clothes to visit friends I'm out to and change once I'm there because some of the local taxi drivers are substantial gossips so until/unless I am ready to be out as a crossdresser entirely then I have no transport unless I conform my appearance to at least androgynous, thank goodness for being a Goth!

So here I am with not enough strength and energy for most basic tasks, cognitively impaired, trying to manage to relax my 'act like a guy' survival habits when I have the opportunity to be social with people who know, trying to work out how to judge dangers and safety, trying to cope with loneliness frustration and the cornocopia of issues that being disabled and transgender combine to create.

I wish someone would hurry up with an effective cure or treatment for my disability so I could get back to fighting for my rights, the rights of others and making the most of my life and contributing to society!

More tha 16 years I've been suffering a bad case of this. It's like being only half-alive and I have a lot of catching up to do!

Goth Human Rights!

2008-09-24T17:46:00.000-07:00

For a very long time I thought the main fight was over. I thought us Goths had won our major battles. While I'm still not out as a crossdresser in public in my own town I've been wearing Goth clothes here since I moved here (except for a brief anti-conformist reactionary period when Goth became fashionable) over a decade without a problem. It's been years and years since the last time I was insulted for wearing a black velvet cloak or the like. I've gone out wearing eyeliner, black lipstick, painted nails with skull decals on them etc and got compliments on my appearance from little old ladies.

Once Goths were greeted with fear and revulsion. We were thought to be a dangerous bunch of suicidal satanists. Slowly though society calmed down about us. Studies came out to show we were generally above-average IQ mentally healthy balanced decent people that contributed to society and liked old literature.

Slowly Goths started turning up in the media outside of the Horror genre. Goth themed childrens shows emerged, not just the genre-humour stuff like the Danger Mouse spinoff Count Duckula but ones featuring Goth children as legitimate expression in cartoons like Mona the Vampire about a girl who dresses as a vampire and battles imaginary monsters and this trend has continued with shows like Growing up Creepie, Edgar and Ellen, Frankenstein's Cat, Ruby Gloom and the live-action Young Dracula.

Here's a little taste of my current favourite

Spanish and German language versions of the theme can also be found on youtube.

The current generation of goth-inclined kids have their culture and interests on tv! At one point on ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) afternoon programing on Fridays there was well over an hour of Goth programming back to back!

Then in the USA the Colombine Shootings were blamed by some on the music of Marilyn Manson and on Goth culture but that didn't seem to have that great a lasting impact overall on Goths, there were enough of us out there for many people to know that we aren't all going to go on shooting sprees.

But I was unaware of what has been going on internationally.
That was untill I heard of the Anti-Emo violence in Mexico (and yes I count Emo as related to Goth) and the hate-murder and bashing of a Goth couple in the U.K.

Now I hear of extensive anti-Goth discrimination in Russia. Plans to ban Goth and Emo looking kids from school, plans to ban Goth and Emo clothed people from government buildings, plans to ban Goth and Emo music!

Goth is not a new phenomenon, it's just a new name for it. People who find beauty in the shapes of skulls, the maligned creatures of the night, in stories of ghosts and vampires, people who love the dramatic, the old and the strange are not new. Centuries ago it was Poets rather than Musicians, people were reading penny dreadfuls about Varney the Vampire and Spring Heeled Jack and the Gothic Novel was decried as leading young women astray.

And it is hardly surprising that Goth and Emo and Transgender rights go hand in hand, not just because they are both about freedom of expression and self identification but because there has been a tradition of greater acceptance of broader gender expression in the Goth community.

I'm not a Goth because of that. Its not for aceptance of being transgender that I'm a goth, nor is it a reaction to bad life experiences. I don't wear Goth clothes and style to be identified as Goth or as some sort of uniform or to fit in with others or as an act of rebellion. I do so because I like the style, it expresses me. I'm not morose, I smile a lot. I'm not some sort of cliche.

And sure I look like a vampire sometimes, the long canines are natural, an inherited feature as is the pale skin (my brother got the tanning gene but I missed that one) and the family condition with the history of being missdiagnosed as dead with close relatives waking up on the way to the morgue and some in the past buried alive would all justify that... only it needs no justification!

Because I have a human right to free expression no matter the motivation or causation! So whether it's black lipstick or purple or red, whether it's worn with a Frock-coat, lace cuffed white shirt with Jabot and knee-high boots or torn t-shirt black cargos and chains or whether its a womens top with a velvet and lace skirt the same right applies to all.

Being Goth and Transgender are both parts of who I am, deep parts of me not just some surface bit of casual fashion. However my human rights to free expression involve the word FREE. It's a right not just to express what I feel deep in my heart but for those for whom such things could be 'a phase' or just surface fashion that is their right!

Alas I can't embed this one (minor language warning) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T092sZWH4z8
But to continue the International/Ruby Gloom theme I'll add this

I expect the anti-Goth and anti-Emo Russians think of death-metal listening satanists when they look at Goths, and death-metal listening satanists also have human rights but theres a lot more diversity to Goth and Emo culture than that stereotype.

Difference is valuable, difference is good. Diversity is valuable, diversity is good.

Sex and Gender Diversity Human Rights Project in Australia

2008-09-23T04:17:00.000-07:00

I'm confused.

Very confused. Downright vexed and discombobulated even.

So the Australian Human Rights Commission (formerly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is concentrating it's sex and gender diversity issues project on Documentation.

It's an important issue but as far as I can tell there are far more important issues and I wonder why this one has been focused on. Still I have pondered and discussed the issue.

For starters there is the issue of genital surgery as a requirement for legal recognition of sex. That seems reasonable to many folk at first but is an utter catastrophe under examination.

For one thing it's discriminatory against FtM transexuals for whom surgery is still behind in results compared to MtF surgery, that then makes such a requirement an unacceptable discrimination.

Also it's discriminatory towards those who are denied surgery or who choose not to have surgery on the grounds of increased risk of complications caused by other health issues. That can include many things from diabetes, obesity and haemophillia or family history of near-death coma resulting in missdiagnosis of death such as runs in my own family. Discrimination based on health issues is a form of ablism and not acceptable.

Then there is the matter of reproductive rights! Making documentation amendment predicated on surgery means coercivly enforced sterilisation! There is a huge difference between a person choosing to undergo a procedure that will result in loss of reproduction and a state denying essential services to someone unless they are sterilised! Also I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that many types of sex and gender diversity including crossdressing is hereditary! That would make requiring sterlisation genocide! So then such a requirement could be a crime against humanity!

So far the best solution seems to be removal of sex markers from documentation! I considered this: "What is the functioning purpose of sex markers on documentation?"

As a tool to verify the identity of a specific person it functions only to rule out around half of the billions of humans on the planet the person might otherwise be, so without a long list of other visual descriptor traits for identification purposes it is utterly useless.

As a security marker it is also useless, the advent of female suicide bombings shows that using sex markers as screening tools might help female terrorists pass through security measures. Therefore as a security measure it is useless.

As a key to sex segregated spaces it is useless. This is because these documents are not used to access these spaces!

So then what is the actual function of these documentation markers?

Well if someones appearance does not match the expectations of an official interacting with that document then they will act accordingly... in other words the primary use of sex markers on documentation is to discriminate against sex and gender diverse people, to deny them essential services or make those services more difficult for them to obtain.

Thats what they do! Thats their actual purpose whether intended or not that is the day-to-day function!

But while considering these notions and discussing them at the Human Rights Comissions discussion forum I've been raising other issues. I'm not the only one to do so of course with a number of people objecting to the way the commission chose to do things.

As important as the documentation issues are, and they are very important, there are other issues as or more important!

Ending unethical surgical procedures on Intersex children
Ensuring access to both basic services and vital services (from general healthcare to SRS)
Removing the risk of genocide from potential targeted abortions
Patching holes in antidiscrimination and antivillification legislation
Improving protection from bullying and improving services for S&GD school children
Increasing public education and media representation
Addressing poverty and economic disadvantage

So, along with others I have been raising these issues. Alas some have thought it more important to object to having their issues related to other groups issues.

It seems a reasonable objection considering the current narrow focus of the project but for some key points.

Firstly each group shares at least some of their issues with another group.

The HBS Transexuals share issues of somatic sovereignty with the Intersex and with cissexuals! The same right of maximising later choices of a child once they are considered capable of doing so at once makes the unneccessary surgery on intersex children wrong, the denial of hormone blockers to Transexual children wrong and also circumcision of all children wrong!

The needs of those who don't fit binary views of Sex and Gender effects members of the Intersex community, Crossdressers, the Genderqueer and in some cases transitioning transexuals too.

The gaps in Antidiscrimination legislation effect various groups state by state and is one of the issues that effects me directly but sex and gender diversity is largely absent from antivillification legislation making it everyones issue.

Hate-crime protections, public education, suicide prevention, anti-bullying strategies and resources in schools etc are all issues that effect all involved groups.

So in fact dealing with each group seperately does not ensure that each groups needs are met. One reaction of one of the participants is here: http://joanneproctor-hbs.blogspot.com in the Open Letter To HREOC post (sorry for my poor comp skills for not linking directly to the post)

Lets consider some of the points raised...

Commissioner,
As anticipated the inevitable has occurred. Your discussion has been colonised by individuals with gender role transgressive behavioural issues: individuals with disorders in sexual formation have been completely sidelined and have given up trying to place their circumstances before you.

Actually AFAIK I'm the only one who is involved in the discussion 'fitting' the 'gender role transgressive behavioural issues' description, though the fit is a poor one at best. Individuals with disorders in sexual formation seem to have posted a significant number of times though and their issues and needs raised and discussed at length, that hardly seems sidelined except by the narrow documentation focus which also sidelines my personal issues, the lack of protection of me in my state under antidiscrimination legislation. So laying any blame on me for being involved is mistaken.

Nobody, male, female, or somewhere between, is born with knowledge of gender roles and cultural gender role expectations. Not clothing, hairstyles nor makeup! These are all acquired!
The way the brain functions in the context of its body is not learned. The confluences are biological. And you have chosen to place the performative wants of the learned behaviours in advance of the physical wellbeing of those people with biological disorders.

Well as to the first thats a matter of dispute in behavioural biology circles, certainly cultural gender role expectations exhibit wide variety and few would dispute they are learned, however that does not rule out the possibility that there are some aspects of gender-behaviour that are biologically determined. There is an assumption that there are no gender identity issues that lead to variations in gneder behaviour.

As this open letter goes on to complain about the fundamnetalist adam and eve view of sex might I suggest that the possibility of more variability of neurological sex development than is taken into account in the 'behaviour' argument. That just as there are variations in genital anatomy sex development issues then so too should we predict and expect likewise variation in neurological sex development issues! So that suggests that without concrete evidence either way the safe bet is that crossdressers, the genderqueer etc are but other forms or variations of the same form of neurological diversity as transexuals.

The anecdotal evidence I've heard of crossdressing running in families (often taking the form of crossdressing children finding evidence after a parents death amongst their belongings but also including people coming out only to discover that living parents, siblings or cousins are also crossdressers) certainly supports a biological causation.

Also important though is that human rights are not dependant on the causation! Religion is not biologically determined yet plenty of human rights apply to it, same for culture and expression making gender expression part of the purvue of the comission regardless of hypothetical causation!

It is important that no group that is oppressed or discriminated against on sex and gender diverse issues should be left out! That means that just as people with sex development disorders should not be left out nor should those whose gender expression is discriminated against!

The issues of targeted abortion is raised then as well as unneccessary genital surgery on children and those are important issues.

Then we get this:

Still, you have clearly absolved your conscience and given the floor to a variety of self professed cross-dressers, gender F+++kers, drag queens and transvestites of various persuasions. Choosing to turn away from the genital mutilating, the shoe-horning, the force-fitting, the redefining, and denying that takes place as western cultures attempt to make all human beings fit their fundamentalist Adam and Eve model of biological sex.

Huh? WTFH? Huh? Something must have seriously gone wrong with my communication skills these last months. Why? Because I'm the crossdresser there whose been given the floor and yet... and yet...

I've been advocating for the rights of the Intersex children! I've been speaking out about ending the uneccessary surgery and stating it as being more important than the documentation issues and even my own issues!

So I really can't understand this.

Why am I being blamed for, as the vocal self professed crossdresser involved (and I wonder who all the others are!), taking these issues off the floor when I've been one of the main ones raising those very issues? It's truly vexing and confusing that someone who, going by the issues we both clearly feel are vital, should be a strong ally working with me is instead accusing crossdressers (i.e. me) of the opposite of what I'm doing!

And why is the Australian Human Rights Comission still concentrating on documentation when clearly calling for a cessation of such permanant surgery that robs the child of their right to determine for themselves later in life is clearly a vital issue that many on the forum including myself think should be the first priority?

It's really important that all the human rights needs of all sex and gender diverse poeple are addressed fully. All people involved have a responsibility to that.
And this crossdresser, whose male aspect is rather genderqueer anyway, is intent on just that!