Bigoted Housepaint!

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

What would a genuinely accepting society look like?

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?

Bigotry and Unscientific and Unethical Rot in the Heart of Psychiatry

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!

Censorship of Transsexual and Transgender in School Dictionaries?

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.

Fighting over who should be the Stereotype

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!

Is the crossdressing community held back by the concerns of hetero marriages?

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?

Antiseptic stings

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!