Author Archives: vannanyc
Breakthrough in Transsexual Brain Studies
Breakthrough in Transsexual Brain Studies
January 26, 2011 by Diana_W
The New Scientist reports a potentially groundbreaking study for the early identification of transsexuals. The new study, about to be published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, identifies a new method for identifying transsexuals before puberty and before hormone treatment by a newly discovered brain scan technique.
Antonio Guillamon‘s team at the National University of Distance Education in Madrid, Spain, think they have found a better way to spot a transsexual brain. In a study due to be published next month, the team ran MRI scans on the brains of 18 female-to-male transsexual people who’d had no treatment and compared them with those of 24 males and 19 females.
They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). “It’s the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised,” Guillamon says.
While it’s far too early to blow this out of proportion, the potential clinical implications are significant.
If the new technique is verified the identification of transsexualism would no longer need to remain solely in the variable hands of psychologists, who currently take from months to years to arrive at such diagnoses, and even then allow great latitude for their own individual interpretations. Quicker diagnosis means quicker access to treatment which means much greater overall health – mental and physical – for affected patients.
What’s more this study may prove the tip of the iceberg, allowing clinical identification of a host of related (or perhaps even unrelated) conditions. However it wouldn’t be wise to see this as a panacea, as the lead researcher notes:
Guillamon thinks such scans may not help in all cases. “Research has shown that white matter matures during the first 20 to 30 years of life,” he says. “People may experience early or late onset of transsexuality and we don’t know what causes this difference.”
In other words don’t look at this as a “catch all,” or “litmus test,” but rather one more tool by which science is building toward better understanding and treatment of this previously mysterious condition. Even if some of us (I’m looking at myself here) are pretty excited by the potential of this particular tool.
Spillane: Bathroom scares compete with transgender protections
“The Bathroom Bill.”
That’s what some of the “Christian” people, whose lives seem to be all about defining for everybody else what is “normal,” like to call it.
“The Bathroom Bill.”
They’ve designed this catchy little phrase as if they were high school bullies with a whole lot of experience about how to reduce the “weird kids” to tears. They’ve designed it, in fact, so they can smear the lives of women and men whose lives are already more than hard enough as having no more value than a dirty little slur.
How very “Christian” of them.
The Massachusetts Family Institute (which has a mighty narrow definition of the word “family” ) is leading the charge.
You know these folks. They believe they hold the exclusive rights to what it means to be a “family” and sternly warn John and Mary Q. Average about how they will be in great danger if society ever decides to be humane to the “less than” people.
In this case, the “less than” people are transgender men and women.
So The Family Institute website very seriously warns that the “Bathroom Bill” will put women “at risk since access to sensitive areas such as single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms and … women-only fitness facilities will be open to anyone.”
Huh?
You mean transgender people don’t already use the public bathroom or locker-room of their choice? I didn’t know that.
You mean that right now a straight guy wanting to dress as a woman and enter a ladies room to leer at, or assault women and girls, can’t already accomplish that?
I didn’t know that.
You mean we’re going to deny the estimated 33,000 transgender residents in Massachusetts their right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, housing and public accommodations so we can protect ourselves from bathroom threats that don’t even actually exist?
Here’s a bathroom threat that actually does exist.
A transgender person whose sex is hard to tell — or who has difficulty “passing” for the sex he or she identifies with — is stared at or harassed when using a public restroom.
This Wednesday, June 8, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold a public hearing on H00502, the Transgender Equal Rights Bill. The proposed law would ban discrimination against transgender men and women, and Dartmouth’s freshman state Rep. Chris Markey, the region’s only member of the Judiciary Committee, will be a key vote.
For the past four years, the Judiciary Committee has refused to report the bill out to the full Legislature. So Massachusetts, supposedly a leader on social issues, doesn’t have the transgender protections that 14 other states have already enacted.
Gov. Deval Patrick, by the way, signed an executive order in February giving state workers transgender protections and so far there have been no reports of Statehouse bathrooms being flooded by molesters in bad drag. Or even good drag.
Keep your fingers crossed.
The transgender bill seeks to protect “gender identity and expression,” and Rep. Markey said he wonders if that would open the doors for other types of expressions to receive civil rights protection.
Fair enough.
But activists argue that “expression” needs protection because transgender people often convey their identity through things like clothing, makeup, behavior, speech patterns and mannerisms.
You might be surprised at who else is pushing the Dangerous Bathrooms view. In addition to the “Family” folks, there’s Dartmouth’s own best-known Republican activist, Brock Cordeiro.
Cordeiro, legislative aide to Sheriff Tom Hodgson and Southeastern Massachusetts regional chairman of the state Republican Party, in 2009 put up an alarmist online message under the byline, “BNCordeiro” on the right-wing web site “Red Mass Group.”
Under the heading: “Keep Men Out of Women’s Bathrooms,” he wrote that if the transgender bill passes, “Any man could legally gain access to facilities normally reserved for women and girls simply by indicating, verbally or non-verbally, that he inwardly feels female at the moment.”
Cordeiro is concerned that the bill’s “vague” wording will lead to men harassing women in bathrooms.
Really?
If we do the humane thing for transgender people, men are going to try to get into women’s rest rooms claiming they “inwardly feel female at the moment?”
Wow, I wouldn’t have imagined that would be a big problem, given that we already have strong laws against voyeurism and sexual assault on the books.
Transgender is a term that applies to men and women whose gender identity doesn’t match the sex to which they were born. The term includes both cross-dressers and people who have had sex-reassignment surgery. It’s about people whose sense of sexual identity is different from the nature of their bodies.
From Chaz Bono to tennis player Renee Richards, there’s been lots of stories over the years about transgender people as they’ve gained the courage to come out of the closet.
But there’s still plenty of prejudice out there.
Cordeiro described people who have undergone reassignment surgery as “self-mutilated” and victims of “gender identity disorder.”
That sounds like a pretty antiquated psychological diagnosis in this day and age.
On the one hand, Cordeiro says transgender people deserve “community compassion,” but on the other hand, he said he “probably supports” making surgically-reassigned individuals use the bathroom of their birth sex and just deal with “the stares.”
If only it were just the stares.
A survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that 79 percent of transgender people have reported being harassed; 31 percent being physically assaulted and 11 percent being sexually assaulted.
Some Massachusetts Republicans, however, think they have a corker of an issue with this “Bathroom Bill.”
After all, there’s no shortage of sympathy for continuing to make transgender people little more than a joke. Raise the issue of a transgender man or woman in your office or at your Fourth of July picnic and wait for the snickers, the double entendres, the winking jokes. You won’t wait long.
You would not take that attitude, however, if you realized more about the reality of life for the transgender men and women among us.
Joan Stratton, a 60-year-old transgender woman from Mattapoisett, said that’s why she speaks out publicly about her own story.
The former manager of her family’s boatyard business, Stratton, now a mental health counselor, has worked with transgender people suffering from emotional issues connected to societal rejection.
She herself had a tough time finding a job, she said, when she first received her degree. The required CORI (Criminal Record Offender Information) background check for social workers turned up a couple of traffic violations under her former male name, outing her.
She didn’t get jobs she was well-qualified for, she said, and has always wondered why.
Stratton is living her life publicly in the hopes that as more people come to personally know a transgender individual, their prejudices will decline.
Most transgender people, Stratton said, go out of their way to keep a low profile because of the rejection they’ve lived. And in order for them to feel like it’s OK for them to be who they are in any circumstances, they need the same civil rights protections as others.
“We just want to be treated the same as everybody else,” Stratton said.
And that, not bathrooms, is what the transgender bill is really all about.
Contact Jack Spillane at jspillane@s-t.com.
The Death of the ‘Transgender’ Umbrella
If you’ve traveled anywhere among trans or LGBT blogs in the past year or three, you’ve inevitably come across an ongoing battle over labels, and particularly “transgender” as an umbrella term. 
It seems to be a conflict without end, without middle ground and without compromise.
Yet for discourse on human rights and enfranchisement for transsexual and transgender people to move forward at all, at some point that discussion needs to have some sort of resolution, and some thorough dissection of the argument will need to take place. Could an alliance-based approach be a solution? Or more accurately, could enough people on both sides of the argument be willing (that is, to not see their position as immovable) to seek an alliance-based approach for it to make a positive difference in the discourse?
I don’t know. But something that has become clear to me over the past while is that the language is changing. And I don’t have to like it, but I have to understand what that means.
I only speak for myself. In the end, it’s all I really can do anyway. I don’t speak for any trans-related community, don’t speak for The Bilerico Project or any of its other contributors, don’t speak for any other place I’ve posted or published writing, don’t speak for Alberta trans people — just me.
I say that because the international trans community is in a state of flux. As the community defines itself, we’re discovering just how diverse “trans” really is, and just how inadequate any one single definition is when it tries to cover everyone.
A result of this is that in 2011, while the mainstream world is just starting to twig on to trans anything, trans and LGBT forums are finding nearly every conversation on trans issues, trans rights, gender studies and identity disintegrating into a debate about “transgender,” its use as an umbrella term, and whether there should even be an umbrella at all. It’s reached the point that it’s stalemated any and every other discussion.
Ultimately, I realize that nothing some writer and blogger from Southern Alberta says is going to change that, but I can make my own declaration on the matter. And in that, I speak for myself.
Because our language for trans issues is changing.
Some Background
Years ago, as I found community in the developing Internet (it took much longer to find any local community), I watched the language we used to communicate our experience change as we fumbled from flawed term to flawed term trying to figure out which word was a better fit. From Usenet newsgroups to UBB forums, contact sites to support message boards, the language metamorphosized.
Back then, sometimes the banner was “transvestite” or the abbreviation TV (which I never liked, but it seemed to sometimes be the only option on trans-friendly discussion forums or contact sites), until the medical definition’s emphasis on clothing fetish became the predominant cultural meaning and consequently the word was no longer appropriate. Other times, the word was “transsexual,” but many felt that even though it was technically correct (that is, about physical sex), it too generated a public perception that gender identity was about sex (as an act or orientation) rather than about who we are. Some women even used the porn industry’s “shemale” for awhile, until it became obvious that the “she’s really male” undertone of that term was inappropriate.
It was clumsy and it’s more than a little weird to look back on now, with people having once gathered at places called “Trannyweb” and the like, since those terms were often the only words we had. Terms like “GG” (which meant alternately “genetic girl” or “genuine girl”) weren’t any better in what they insinuated than the word “normal,” so they’ve gradually disappeared (although they regrettably pop up from time to time from people who’ve never heard of an alternative).
Even in moments of our history that are looked back on as being classic – like in the songs “Lola” or “Walk On The Wild Side” – you’ll find things that were well-intentioned or fun at the time, but would be button-pushing now. Consequently, many of us gravitated to “transgender.” It seemed to have far less baggage – although we would later learn otherwise, since the person who coined it – Virginia Prince – had meant for the term to to be exclusionary too, applying only to non-transsexual crossdressers who were attracted to women.
In the past couple years, the “don’t call me transgender” rallying cry has gained in volume. It seems as if there’s always allegations of misrepresentation, annexation and invalidation at the mere suggestion of having anything at all in common with anyone who willingly wears the label “transgender.” The language is changing.
Looking Past Assumptions of Bias
I still (and probably will always) see some of this coming from bias. There are folks who believe that if transsexuals could divorce themselves from a “transgender” umbrella term and make the public at large see a black and white difference between them and other trans people, then finally we would be able to obtain human rights, respect, dignity, access to medical care and legal name changes, and more.
Homophobia is sometimes in the mix too, with heterosexual-identified trans men and women resentful of being characterized as anything but straight. These are distinctions that a person certainly has a right to clarify, but when it’s accompanied by disavowal and outright disparagement of others, it becomes exclusionism, it’s throwing people under the bus, and it’s bigotry. And it’s clouded even more by the fact that many of the folks with this prejudice are entirely blind to it.
But separatism is not the only reason that the term “transgender” has become no longer viable, and it’s also not the motive of everyone who takes this position.
Some of the division has formed because of fears of being associated with radical ideas. Those who embrace a gender binary don’t always understand those who see various shades of gender. A March 2011 move by the Australian Human Rights Commission catalogued over 23 different genders, including “transgender, trans, transexual, intersex, androgynous, agender, cross dresser, drag king, drag queen, genderfluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, third gender, third sex, sistergirl and brotherboy.”
I’m not even sure what a couple of those mean, myself (although I’m prepared to listen and respect). But not everyone is comfortable with ideas more radical than their own.
There is also some backlash coming from the literalist perspective, in the same way that other terms used to describe trans experience have evolved and changed. “Trans” means across, or indicates a transition of some sort. Technically, if someone transitions and obtains surgery, it is their sex that changes — not only have they not changed gender, but they’ve aligned everything else to it.
There is also a difference in emphasis that we as individuals put on the terms “sex” and “gender” — driven by seeing our issue as a question of biology versus social construct, physical versus mental. But although sex and gender characteristically differ and can be in opposition — as happens with transsexuals — I doubt the two concepts can ever be completely decoupled.
Post-Transsexual
Don’t get me wrong: I do believe that a transsexual man or woman who reaches a point of relative “completion” (often seen as when surgery happens, but as far as I’m concerned not always requiring that) and slips into the gender binary is entitled to call themselves a man or woman, and should no longer be “required” to identify as trans in any way. Indeed, my own experience is that trans issues and memories fade as time passes, so it wouldn’t make sense to force anyone to continue to identify as transsexual, although that does rob us of role models and pioneers.
Personally, I have no issue with those who do wish to leave “trans” anything behind, as long as (again), it’s not done so in a way that invalidates. Transsexual, transgender, trans… there is a serious problem if we start viewing these as rigid boxes that have no escape clauses — indeed, the whole concept of trans-anything is (at its core) about thinking outside the boxes.
Erasure and Crossed Purposes
As said, the characterizations above aren’t the only reasons that a case is being made that a “transgender” umbrella is no longer viable. We are remiss if we fail to look at some of them, because there are some reasonable issues to consider. Ironically, because of the level of anger and volume, the “don’t call me transgender” conflict unintentionally erases some of the very issues it attempts to raise.
One of these is the subject of erasure, and the idea that by including transsexuals under a “transgender” umbrella, transsexual-specific issues such as medical care, identification issues, legal status and surgery disappear into a fog of gender theory. And depending on where one lives, this may in fact be true.
In my experiences in Alberta, Canada, though, if you say “transgender,” the general public thinks first of transsexuals (and usually specifically transsexual women), so from where I stand, it would seem more like we’re in danger of erasing everyone else.
There are also, at times, some very real conflicts between what transsexuals who are fully-identified as men or as women need and what people who identify as a third gender or third sex need. We’re seeing this especially in gendered spaces, where transsexuals simply need to be accommodated as the men and women they are and live as, while genderqueer, third-gender and/or third sex people might require independent acknowledgment.
In 2010, for example, Australia’s norrie mAy-welby became the first person (possibly in the world) to be officially designated “gender not specified” – a designation that was sought at norrie’s initiative, but probably wouldn’t sit well with many other trans folk. In India, this also became clear with their 2011 Census, which was hailed as the first to have an option for trans-identified people:
“But while some like Sarita succumbed to family pressures, many others deliberately chose the `female’ option on the Census sheet, claiming that it was their real identity. They said, “For the last 15-20 years, we have been living like women and that is what we want to be known as and not `hijras'”.
Sometimes, these conflicts result in even larger groups of people having someone else’s will imposed upon them, such as in Unidos da Tujuca, a famous samba school in Brazil which went a step further:
“Moves by Brazilian samba schools to provide separate toilets for gay, lesbian and transgender people have divided the GLBT community in the country.
“… However the head of the Brazilian Government Program to End Homophobia has compared the move to racial segregation.”
It’s not hard to imagine what that kind of sudden “othering” feels like to people who’d already settled into everyday life without always having to be singled out.
There are also concerns at the medical level. Some fear that any alliance with non-operative trans people creates the impression that transition is optional, when the reality is that for those who require surgery, it is often an absolute need. The cost of surgery and the barriers that we encounter during medical transition are incredible, and obtaining insurance coverage similar to that available for any other legal medical procedure (short of abortion) is becoming almost impossible.
But that has a flip side: when there is emphasis on surgical intervention, this can also work to invalidate genderqueer people by implying they “just need to be fixed” somehow, as well as to push intersex people toward a surgical “correction” that they might not need.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and that’s what makes any sort of alliance daunting.
Speaking For Myself
In the end, though, I can only provide part of the picture as to why it’s now largely felt that “transgender” is no longer viable. I don’t represent that position. I also can’t claim to represent a genderqueer side of the debate. I can speak only for myself.
My first major blog article was about transmisogyny within the community (although we didn’t really have a name for it at that time). Since then, I’ve listened to the reasoning, even if I’m still not inclined toward division. Regardless of the rhetoric, we do have a responsibility to consider any valid points that might be behind the fight, if we’re to grow as a community or communities.
Should There Be An Umbrella?
Like the language, I guess my thinking has changed on this somewhat. I still have no personal dislike for the term “transgender” and have said before that I don’t really care what the term is, just as long as there is some point where varying trans communities can meet on any shared issues, and shared healing during shared tragedies.
When it comes to human rights, I still strongly believe that if we work for the inclusion of gender identity/transsexuality in legislation and leave behind gender expression/transgender (or whatever term one prefers), then we have only accomplished half of what is needed, and have perpetuated exactly the same kind of abandonment that we once experienced – it is not a responsible or socially-conscious action.
I don’t believe the naysayers who claim that binary-identified transsexuals don’t need explicit human rights and already have adequate rights as men and women, since I’ve seen it happen time and again where we are redefined according to other peoples’ standards, regardless of how “complete” our transition and documentation may be. With every day’s newsfeeds come some new incident where any revelation of trans history has sparked discrimination.
Is there an umbrella? Well, if transsexuals are separate from “transgender,” then who does the latter term include? Crossdressers, genderqueer people, non-gender or dual-gender expressions, maybe a few people involved with drag (although many drag performers are otherwise cisgender/cissexual, and wouldn’t characterize themselves as trans)… if “transgender” today covers such a widely diverse range of people, then it can only possibly be an umbrella term. Whether there is an umbrella is not the issue, but rather whether or not transsexuals belong and/or are willing to stand under it.
But in the current argument, though, there is a tendency to see “transgender” as a depository for everyone who is trans in some way but non-transsexual. That doesn’t really work, either. If concerns about erasure and misrepresentation justify designating transsexuals as distinct and separate, then we have to consider whether an umbrella for “everyone else” does the same for anyone else trans.
Given the number of times I’ve seen “genderqueer” conflated with “fetishist,” the “gay agenda” and more as though these are elements of some singular whole – even by trans people – I’d have to conclude that that’s indeed the case. At that point, “transgender” as an umbrella becomes an outmoded concept, and an alliance-based approach or total division are the only possible outcomes.
And in the end, where there are conflicts between what binary-identified people need and what third-sex or third-gender people need, if we can’t broach them as a “community” of trans people of every stripe and find some kind of equitable resolution, then how can we expect cisgender and cissexual legislators to figure it out? More likely, if we can’t devise something that makes sense within the social order and if we do get past society’s insistence on cisnormativity, then we’ll probably have one perspective thrust upon the other. And at that point, someone has become further disenfranchised, and we have failed them as a community or communities. Or betrayed them.
We Are Different, With A Few Sames Between Us
The trans community is emerging, self-defining and shaping itself, and making the same mistakes that most disenfranchised groups do, including the creation of divisions. What is happening right now in trans culture is really nothing new to any emergent social movement. The need to self-define as a community causes us to self-define as people, and discover that while we sometimes have similar needs and aspects, we are not all the same. Inevitably, some are going to feel threatened by that, or react negatively to those perceived differences as we struggle to emerge from the margins.
And we are emerging from the margins. It’s just not always easy, not always perfect, and when we look back in hindsight, there will have been errors — and probably some of them will have been hurtful. It’s not always easy to see them when we’re standing in the middle of change. But we have to try to be diligent to avoid what we can foresee.
So “transgender” seems to have become the latest casualty in trans self-definition. At this point, I don’t see how I can proceed under the assumption of a single community, considering the division and rhetoric. At the same time, I’m still not prepared to leave anyone behind, let alone villainize them to make myself look better. If I have to jettison the terminology in order to keep involved with issues surrounding both gender identity and gender expression, then that’s fine. Because the language is obviously changing.
So what’s new here?
Some of this I’ve said before, and I’ve made no secret about walking away from discussions on labels and terminology over the past couple years because of the way they all inevitably turn into something like a shark feeding frenzy for everyone involved. My own language has changed to utilize “transsexual” for those specific needs and “trans” for shared issues because I simply got tired of being clubbed over the head about words.
I still believe that medical verification is neither some magical event that’s going to suddenly legitimize transsexuals in the eyes of transphobic people, nor is it clear whether there might also be a similar biological origin for other trans people. Nor should the biology-or-choice question even be the basis upon which which we decide who is “worthy” to be equal in the first place.
An Alliance-Based Approach
What’s different is that something needs to be jump-started now, so we can move beyond this. Because we desperately need to move beyond this. And if that means divorcing transsexual from transgender, and if that means asserting that we need to forge an alliance in which each party at least tries to respect the other (even if we don’t understand each other) and work toward our mutual enfranchisement, then it’s past time to propose that that is what we need to do.
Part of this will require us to stop making assumptions about everyone else and start listening to how they define who they are, what they need and what their life experiences mean. Which means to stop assuming that everyone who isn’t exactly like us should be dismissed as “not real.” And means to stop assuming that third-sex or third-gender identification is any less valid than binary identification or that accommodation of both is irreconcilable.
And if the “transgender” umbrella has to die, then so be it. But if we’re negotiating a separation of terms, then it’s important to define the borders in such a way that both can co-exist and seek solutions to the problems of legal accommodation, conflicting identification and anything else that we come into conflict on.
I fully expect that after this post I’ll have offended absolutely everyone on either side of the question, and be accused on the one hand of having spinelessly acquiesced to separatism, and on the other be told I’m still drinking the Borg kool-aid. So be it. For me, the issue is done and past relevance. Semantics aren’t going to help someone find a doctor, devise a workplace policy with their employer, or find a shelter. So to me, the labels are barely a sliver of what is important in order to achieve positive change where it matters.
And in that, I suppose, I can only speak for myself.
Transgender children have specific needs!
Transgender children have specific needs
Founder of Trans Youth Family Allies speaks in Troy
By Crystal A. Proxmire
Originally printed 5/19/2011 (Issue 1920 – Between The Lines News)
Shir Tikva in Troy welcomed Kim Pearson of Trans Youth Family Allies on May 3 for a presentation on recognizing and helping transgender youth.
The Arizona mother of three has been a strong voice for transgender children since her youngest child revealed himself to be an affirmed male five years ago. She spoke about what she’s learned as a transgender parent and as the co-founder of TYFA, which has helped more than 300 families nationwide.
“You cannot take what you know about transgender adults and downsize it to transgender children,” Pearson began. Although some transgender adults might be able to say they “feel like they are born in the wrong body,” young children don’t express themselves in those terms, she said. “They’re not confused about their gender identity. They know who they are. They are confused why other people don’t get it.”
Pearson and volunteers around the country step in to provide resources for parents with gender variant children. They help facilitate discussion with school districts that may not know how to properly respect a transgender child’s rights. They provide legal, medical and counseling referrals, and they work to educate the public and the media.
Another key aspect of TYFA’s work is educating the public about how to respect children who do not meet society’s expectations for gender expression.
Pearson explained that even among men and among women there are varying levels of femininity and masculinity – a continuum, she said. People are likely to be punished if they express themselves too far from what the “gender rules” are.
Children who have a gender that is different from their biological sex often get frustrated, Person told the audience. Some even try to hurt themselves by attempting to remove their genitals – which they see as the cause of their problems. “This situation comes up over and over again,” she said.
Pearson encouraged people to be more open-minded and aware of the ways they may enforce gender stereotypes. “The rules are socially constructed. If you don’t buy into this then the rules change. When you stay quiet things stay the same.”
Pearson and Shannon Garcia of Holland, Mich., formed TYFA together. The nonprofit will open its first brick and mortar office in Los Angeles soon.
For more resources about gender variant youth, visit the TYFA website athttp://www.imatyfa.org.
Bill Seeking to Expand Transgender Rights Could Be Harmful to the State
Bill Seeking to Expand Transgender Rights Could Be Harmful to the State
By Chris O’Brien
May 23, 2011
While the state grappled with a multibillion-dollar budget crisis, some state legislators, including Sen. Beth Bye of West Harford, Reps. Holder-Winfield of New Haven and Geoff Luxenberg of Manchester want to allow men to use women’s restrooms. Their bill, intends to extend the current protections for housing, workplace and other facets of life to those who are confused on whether they are male or female. The bill is misguided and I think most legislators are just as confused as the public is on this topic.
Transgendered people suffer from Sexual Identity Disorder, a problem recognized by the American Psychological Association and listed in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM-IV (4th Edition) is the medical authority on brain and behavior disorders. The manual lists the symptoms and suggested treatment for problems ranging from sleep walking, ADD, Alzheimer’s and bulimia to severe depression, PTSD, and schizophrenia. Twenty-two sexual disorders alone are listed, however, only one is targeted for the treatment by legislators in Connecticut. Having some of these sexual disorders would disqualify one from obtaining a job involving children or in public safety, such as a prison guard. This begs the question, why prohibit ‘discrimination’ against only this one classification and not other people with mental health problems?
Sufferers of Sexual Identity Disorder are described as ‘having discontent with the biological sex they were born with.’ A person who is transgendered actively wishes to be accepted as and live as a member of the opposite sex. It should be made clear that the definition is not given to someone with questionable or mixed biological anatomy. Hence, it is strictly a disorder of the mental state of the brain.
First of all, the General Assembly should avoid considering this bill because it is a medical condition. Transgendered people go through great lengths to ‘correct’ the biology they were born with so it conforms to their mental state. This means hormonal therapy and often surgery and years of psychological counseling. When something is wrong with your body, you don’t declare it ‘normal’. And you don’t seek surgery for something that is normal either. So then why do elected leaders like Mrs. Luxenberg, Holder-Winfield and Ms. Bye want to pass this bill to normalize these abnormal behaviors?
If passed, the ramifications would be felt throughout society. In a compassionate way, the General Assembly needs to reject this law. If we normalized the abnormal psychology of transgendered people, there is no incentive for them to get help. Advocates for the law who spoke at a March public hearing say that sexual identity disorder begins around age 10 or 12. If the law were passed, we would need to accommodate them from high school onward. Let’s say you are the parent of a female field hockey player. Would you accept the fact that a 16-year-old adolescent boy wants to join the team AND insist on changing and showering with your daughter because he believes he is a girl?
Or if you are in a public place and see a man from walking into a female restroom at a mall. Today, a security officer would be expected to stop and investigate the man and his motivation for walking into the restroom. If this bill passes, however the security guard and mall could be sued for discrimination. Police would have disincentives to investigate such a complaint. Transgendered prison workers with this problem could not be weeded out even if they were helping other sexual offenders. Speaking of prisons, would a transgendered person go to a male or female prison? Does this all sound backwards?
Schizophrenics often feel most ‘normal’ when they don’t take their medications. Yet, they realize they should when their behavior becomes anti-social. People with other disorders are often provided with help when necessary. Yet, if this bill were passed – essentially normalizing sexual disorders as race or religion – there would be no incentive for them to get help. This puts society at risk, and diminishes the need for sufferers to seek treatment, ultimately harming the sufferers themselves.
Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of CT was one of only three people to oppose this bill at a daytime public hearing in Hartford because almost no one knew about it. While dozens of trans-gendered people testified about how adolescent behavior should be accommodated instead of corrected, Peter Wolfgang saw the harm to our state: “This would be a direct assault on the right to privacy,” he told the Judiciary Committee. I would add that it would harm those who most need help. Sometimes the best way to love someone is to say no. Contact your legislator and urge them to vote “no” on HB 6599.
Transgender Rural Californians Face Hate Crimes
Transgender Rural Californians Face Hate Crimes
Sandra Hinojosa, a transgender woman, shares her story of tribulation and triumph as an agricultural worker
Sandra Hinojosa was raised along with her 10 siblings by her single mother. A native of Santiago, a small town in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico, her mother “washed other people’s clothes, made tortillas to sell, and sold dinner at night,” says Sandra. ““It was she that helped us move forward. But none of us went to high school.”
Like most immigrants, Sandra arrived to the United States looking for work and new opportunities. A little over ten years ago she moved to Gonzalez, a rural town 20 minutes outside of Salinas, California, and found work as an agricultural worker with the help of her older sister. “My first job was cutting lettuce,” she says, “I worked 8 years for the same company.” It is also around this time, that Sandra began transitioning from male to female, with the support of her family and friends.
At work Sandra proved herself to be an exemplary worker and was promoted to the position of manager, overseeing a little over 100 employees. While it seemed as though Sandra had finally earned the opportunity she had been looking for, her success couldn’t protect her from transphobia in the work place. Although the vast majority of the workers she oversaw liked her, she quickly realized not everyone shared similar sentiment. Her supervisors would often direct homophobic or transphobic slurs at her. The abuse, however, eventually escalated into violence.
“There was a man who was my assistant manager. This man began beating my partner, who also worked in the packing company. Once, he hit my partner from behind and bathed him in blood.”
The day following the attack, Sandra was removed from her post as manager and returned to the main floor. “I felt that they were trying to pressure me into leaving the job because they would make me complete tasks that normally take two or three people.” Since it was a temporary job, Sandra stayed on and endured the abuse until the very end. After her stint at the packing company finished, she went to The Citizenship Project who referred her to the Center for Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). She shared her story with the CRLA attorney and ultimately brought and won the civil case against the company.
Sandra’s story, although remarkable, is not unique. Workplace discrimination and transgender unemployment continue to be major obstacles, and hate crimes in the state and throughout the nation are on the rise. In 2008, there were 1,397 reported hate crimes in California alone with over 20% of those directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LBGT) people. Yet transgender people are more susceptible to discrimination in the work place. Last year, the Transgender Law Center issued statewide survey findings where two-thirds (67%) of the transgender (male to female and female to male) people surveyed reported some form of workplace harassment or discrimination directly related to their gender identity. But an accurate number of hate crimes and discrimination in rural California doesn’t exist because often they go unreported and because the total number of LGBT people living in rural communities is unknown.
“In California, there are more than 800,000 agriculture workers,” says Lisa Cisneros, CRLA attorney. “But we don’t know how many of them identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The truth is that LGBT people live everywhere, but rural areas are more conservative.
Cisneros, who also leads Proyecto Poderoso, a joint project of CRLA and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), has helped many LGBT identified individuals in need of for legal advice and assistance. Proyecto Poderoso focuses on educating and empowering LGBT people in rural communities. Last January, Proyecto Poderoso hosted a conference, “Orgullo y Poder Latino,” in Fresno, California that had an attendance of over 100 participants from through the state.
“The ideal would be to choose where we live, with whom we live, and where we work. The reality is that poor people depend on the work provided by agricultural and packaging companies. These folk live in devastating poverty. For them, it is very difficult to avoid homophobia and trans-phobia because of the lack of economic independence.”
People.com Editor Comes Out as Transgender
People.com Editor Comes Out as Transgender
Janet Mock is an editor at People.com, a popular blogger, co-host of the podcast The Missing Piece, and the author of a new memoir in which she’ll share another piece of her story – her journey to come out as a transgender woman. She told her story to writer Kierna Mayo for a very personal and touching article published by Marie Claire.
After high school graduation, many of my classmates were throwing big graduation parties and buying new cars. Those kids went looking for good times and great memories, but I was desperately searching for one thing only: a chance to be in the right body for the first time in my entire life.
(…)
Two weeks after the surgery, I was in class at the University of Hawaii, finally focusing on something other than my gender. Four years later, I left Hawaii, a beautiful, confident woman armed with a journalism degree and bound for graduate school and a career in New York City.
Janet talks about how she decided to tell her story on the latest episode of her podcast, and she has created a video for the It Gets Better project talking about her life.
Janet’s story should be an inspiration to parents and young people around the world, and we applaud and thank her for sharing it with all of us. Hopefully she inspires more LGBT people to tell their stories.
HRC: A Note on Transitioning
Transgender Visibility Guide: A Note on Transitioning
It’s important to remember that “transgender” is a broad term describing many different people who express gender in many different ways, each as authentically as the next.
For many transgender people, the process of transitioning, and the period of time when a person changes from living in one gender to living in another, is when we feel most exposed and the decision to disclose becomes most critical to our lives.
Transitioning does not always involve medical treatment. By dressing in preferred-gender clothing, changing their bodies through exercise, adjusting mannerisms and speech patterns or requesting that friends and family address them with preferred names and pronouns, transgender people can use non-medical options to live their gender identities or expressions.
Others who transition pursue medical treatment — hormone therapy, surgery or both — to align their bodies with the gender they know themselves to be.
In many parts of the world, the accepted clinical guidelines for those who undertake medical transition are known as the Standards of Care. These standards are developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH (formerly known as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association), a widely recognized professional organization devoted to the understanding and treatment of gender identity disorders. Information on the WPATH Standards of Care can be found at www.wpath.org.
Another increasingly common treatment protocol is known as Informed Consent. Through this protocol, transgender people are made aware of the effects of medical treatment and then asked to provide consent, much like with other medical procedures. Some doctors supervise medical transitions through a combination of both protocols.
Regardless of how a person lives his or her gender identity, transitioning can be a very public “outing.” It involves disclosing to family, friends, employers and healthcare providers. For most transgender people, transitioning by its very nature is not something that can be hidden from everyone.
When it comes to transitioning, a broad range of medical personnel — from psychologists or psychiatrists to surgeons, endocrinologists and/or voice therapists — may be consulted. If possible, it’s very helpful to find healthcare professionals in your geographic area who are experienced in serving transgender patients. If there are no such providers in your area, an open-minded provider who is willing to learn about the specific health needs of transgender people and who is willing to speak with more experienced providers may be sufficient.
Questions for Healthcare Providers:
- Have you treated transgender patients in the past?
- Do you understand hormone regimens appropriate for transgender patients?
- What treatment protocol do you follow for transitions?
Remember: Do your research first. Even doctors who have had transgender patients in the past may not be experts on transitioning. Many websites and advocacy groups can offer guidance on medical transitioning. It’s key to be your own health advocate.
While this guide is primarily for transgender people who are in the early stages of disclosure, some of us may confront the issue again after transitioning, among new friends, family and co-workers. Some transgender people choose to lead “stealth” lives. While they may or may not disclose their transgender status to healthcare professionals, they either do not discuss or are very selective in disclosing their transition or gender assigned at birth with others.
Other transgender people find that being more open about their lives and stories can be safe and affirming, as many lesbian, gay and bisexual people do.
Some even choose to speak out publicly about being transgender, becoming advocates for other transgender people by sharing their stories in media interviews or by speaking to students at local colleges and universities or to business and community groups.
Justice For Angie Zapata
Man guilty of hate crime, first-degree murder in transgender slaying
A Colorado judge sentences Allen Andrade to life in prison for killing Angie Zapata. Gay, lesbian and transsexual groups hail the landmark verdict.
A Colorado man who says he bludgeoned his date to death out of rage and shock after discovering she was biologically male was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder and a hate crime.
Jurors deliberated about two hours before finding Allen Ray Andrade, 32, guilty of killing Angie Zapata, 18, of Greeley last July. District Judge Marcelo Kopcow swiftly sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of parole — the state’s mandatory sentence for first-degree murder Zapata, a transsexual, had dressed as female for much of her life, her family said. The case was among the first uses of a hate-crimes statute that protects transgendered people.
The victim’s mother, Maria Zapata, told the judge before sentencing: “It’s been so hard, so hard for my family and myself. . . . I lost something, somebody so precious.”
But she said Andrade could never take away “the love and the memories my family and I have of my baby — my beautiful, beautiful baby.”
Gay, lesbian and transsexual groups hailed the jury’s decision.
“Today’s verdict was about justice for Angie Zapata, although no verdict will ever be able to heal the tragic loss experienced by Angie’s family,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “The past few months have offered Greeley residents, as well as people throughout Colorado and across the nation, an opportunity to better understand transgender lives and the horrifying reality of anti-transgender violence.”
Activists noted that the conviction occurred in a conservative, largely rural county.
“Finally, a rural county sheriff and prosecutor step up to the plate,” said Kate Bowman of the Gender Identity Center of Colorado. “That’s got to make people think it’s time to do something.”
Bowman is among those who advocate a federal hate-crimes statute. A bill introduced in Congress this year would give the federal government the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes in which the victim was selected because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Colorado is one of 11 states with hate-crimes laws that protect transgendered people. In California, a similar high-profile case involved Gwen Araujo, 17, of Newark, who was beaten and strangled in 2002 after two men with whom she’d had sex learned she was biologically male. They were convicted of second-degree murder, but not of a hate crime.
Justice For Lateisha Green
Conviction in shooting death of transgender woman
The manslaughter and hate crime verdict and Congress’ recent moves to expand hate crime law bolster activists’ hopes that the country will become more understanding of transgender people.
A New York man who shot and killed a transgender woman last year was convicted Friday of first-degree manslaughter and a hate crime — a conviction hailed by advocates seeking greater protections for transgender people.
Dwight DeLee, 20, of Syracuse, faces 10 to 25 years in prison for killing Lateisha “Teish” Green, 22, outside a house party in November.
In April, a man was convicted of first-degree murder and a hate crime in the death of a transgender teen in Colorado. And on Thursday, the Senate approved legislation to extend federal hate crimes protections to those attacked because of their sexuality, gender, disability or gender identity. The House passed a similar bill in April.
These moves, along with President Obama’s declaration that June was Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, suggest that the government is embracing a more comprehensive understanding of gender identity, activists say. And that, they hope, will help the rest of the country become more accepting of differences.
“The great thing is these [developments] are not just about hate crimes,” said Mara Keisling, the director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “They’re about transgender people, and about gender in general. This is about educating the public.”
For transgender people, their sense of gender identity does not match their birth-assigned sex.
Lateisha Green was such a person.
Green was born and raised in Syracuse as Moses Cannon, a boy. At age 16, Green came out as transgender and began living as a girl, Lateisha. She faced bullies and threats at school but had a supportive family, said Michael Silverman, director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, which has worked closely with Green’s family.
Last year, on an unusually warm November night, Green and her brother, Mark Cannon, drove to a small house party. When they arrived, several guests started yelling slurs about Green’s sexuality, witnesses later testified. Green was sitting with her brother in their car outside the house when DeLee walked up, raised a .22-caliber rifle, and fired a single shot.
After her death, Green’s family pushed prosecutors to bring hate crime charges.
New York, like more than half of the nation’s states, has hate-crime statutes that include protections based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity.
The Power Of Trans 