Saturday, July 10, 2010

Gwendolyn Albert on Anti-Roma Violence in Europe

 
[image of three Roma young women is from here]

This is a cross post. Please click on the title below to link back.

Anti-Roma Violence in Europe: A Q&A With Gwendolyn Albert

Posted in Anti-Roma, Europe by Alexander Zaitchik on July 6, 2010


On Friday, 26 June, CNN International broadcast a documentary called “Scars of Racism” (videos here, here and here). It told the story of a young Czech Roma (commonly known in the U.S. as a “gypsy”) named Natálka Kudriková and the neo-Nazis who almost burned her to death in an arson attack committed last year in the Czech town of Vitkov. It was a rare look by the international media into the anti-Roma violence that has plagued Central and Eastern Europe since the fall of communism two decades ago.

Violence against Roma has emerged as a leading human rights issue not just in the former Soviet bloc, but also across Europe. The perpetrators are often ideologically driven neo-Nazis, sometimes with ties to established political parties. Other times, they are local vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. In the past five years fatal attacks have been reported from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey. In Italy, six arsons over the last three years have resulted in multiple fatalities, including children.

Gwendolyn Albert is an American living in Prague who consulted with CNN on “Scars of Racism.” A resident of the Czech Republic since 1990, Albert has been reporting on the human rights situation of the Roma minority in Central and Eastern Europe for the past 15 years. She is currently consulting on research in this area for the Council of Europe’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner and the European Roma Rights Centre. Hatewatch recently spoke with Albert about the rise in far-right violence against Roma, and whether international media attention like CNN’s recent documentary is making a difference.


Anti-Roma violence and racism has been a defining feature of post-communist societies since the early 1990s. Are governments finally getting more serious about tackling it?

No government is doing enough, not in Central and Eastern Europe, and certainly not in Western Europe. This violence is not limited to the former communist bloc. France and Italy are probably the worst places in Western Europe to be Roma right now. Italy has been the most publicized and most discussed case, but France has a number of discriminatory institutions in place that disproportionately impact Roma.


What are the most obnoxious elements of Italian policy?

Starting in 2006, cities across Italy have been adopting “Security Pacts” which give local officials the legal powers to target Roma for removal. These forced evictions of Roma have increased during 2010. The Italian police have been using disproportionate force during their evictions of Roma camps for at least five years. This has all been in response to Bulgaria and Romania acceding to the EU [European Union] in 2007 and the large outflow of Roma from both those countries to the West [migration within the EU is unrestricted].

In 2008, the Italian government declared a “state of emergency with regard to nomad community settlements”—this was a legal action unprecedented in post-WWII Europe, the declaration of a state of emergency with respect to a particular ethnic group. Their presence alone is defined as constituting the emergency and local authorities are empowered to fingerprint and photograph all residents of any “nomad community settlement,” including minors, to expel whom they choose, and to open up new camps and order people to live in them. Freedom of movement — of citizens, human beings, not just money and goods — between EU member states is one of the founding principles of the EU, but not where the Roma are concerned, at least not in Italy or France.

Are there societal shifts occurring with regards to anti-Roma sentiment?

It depends. Here in the Czech Republic, for example, there has been a shift in society recently. The fact that an infant almost died a horrible death in the Vitkov attack generated unprecedented empathy for her and her family. This doesn’t mean the Molotov cocktails have stopped flying, quite the contrary. In one of those attacks, a full-scale criminal investigation apprehended several suspects relatively quickly and there will be a trial. Again, this is an advance; usually law enforcement takes a “no harm, no foul” approach when these attempts are unsuccessful (no larger fire, no injuries) and classifies them as misdemeanors, which means homicide investigators never get involved — and they are the ones with the resources to really track perpetrators down.


Historically, how ingrained is the tolerance for anti-Roma violence?

Anti-Gypsyism is a deeply engrained European cultural touchstone, from Ireland to Russia, from Greece to Norway. It has persisted for centuries. It comes from the same place all prejudice comes from, and that is fear. For those who understand how to perpetuate and exploit fear, the Roma have always been the scapegoats par excellence in Europe.

Tolerance of violence per se in Europe is quite high — you have only to look at domestic violence statistics for any country there to see the degree to which violence remains culturally sanctioned in Europe (irrespective of strict handgun laws). As for racist skinheads and neo-Nazis, some people consider them super-patriots and openly cheer them on, but most people probably consider them a pathetic, irrelevant counter-culture group. Much of Europe has pretty strict laws (which are under-enforced) regarding defamation and racism. Because of these laws, many European neo-Nazis actually house their organizations’ websites on U.S.-based servers. That’s something I wish would change.

How does anti-Roma violence track with the rise in anti-Semitic violence?

Anti-Semitic violence has been on the rise all across Europe as well, specifically violence against Holocaust sites and memorials and against synagogues and [Jewish] cemeteries. Holocaust denial websites have mushroomed on the Web — Facebook had to deal with it last year. This violence has nothing to do with the size of the Jewish population in any country. It’s part of the ideology of Holocaust denial, which becomes more and more open and prevalent the further east you go. You would be surprised how little is actually taught about the Holocaust in most of the former Soviet satellites.

What needs to be done?

Generally speaking, Europe first needs to take all forms of violence very seriously and devote resources to reducing its incidence. As for the perpetrators of neo-Nazi violence, the media have a huge role to play. They should investigate and report on who these people are and why they make the choices they do. They should investigate the ties between the various groups and who funds them, and they should investigate whether they are linked to established political parties.

What is up with the White Dudes-in-Denial about being SEXIST and RACIST. Case # 1,635,758: John Madriarczyk, the libertarian leftist

 [JohnTripPhotoCropped.jpg]

[image of libertarian "leftist", "anti-racist" 
blogger John Madriarczyk is from here]

[There is an update here, which may be taking a more constructive turn. I've posted the latest batch of comments, exchanged between John and me, below. This was updated on 12 July 2010.]

Background:
I wish that the few libertarians who aren't sexist-racist jerks would hold accountable those who are.

I remain convinced that libertarianism is in service to the PPP and WHM supremacy. And I've seen so many examples of it reinforcing white and male supremacy, and ignoring Indigenist philosophies and politics, that I've got the same reaction now to someone saying "that isn't what libertarianism really stands for" that I do to hearing about someone proclaiming there is such a thing as feminist pornography. Which is: nothing about your version of libertarianism/pornography, in the context of WHM supremacist libertarianism/pornography, convinces me that what you stand for isn't in alliance with the WHM supremacist libertarians/pornographers.

And, if you oppose them, why do you use the same terms they use to describe what you do, when what they do has academic and industrial strength and power--when what you stand for, according to you, does not? Reclaiming libertarianism and pornography as possibly radical or even liberatory in social contexts in which, even if it were progressive or radical, will only be a drop in the toxic ocean of oppressive libertarian and pornographic gross hostility to women of all races. So isn't detoxifying the ocean more important that adding drops of something that merges with that ocean as soon as it makes contact? And isn't "libertarianism" and "pornography", because of the alliances you make by using the same terms, a form of irresponsible ideological assault against the Global South by the Global North? That makes no emotional or political sense to me. But call me "fucking insane". Oh, wait: the MRArsenals already have, so check that off the "to do" list.

And the same holds true for white het men on the Left. [<--Warning: that link goes to a site with some very triggering bigoted imagery.] U.S. Leftist white men, based on their political objectives and acted out values, are intellectually thugtastic gang of anti-Indigenist misogynist-racists, with a couple of notable exceptions. But even the exceptions don't centralise women of color from the Global South, or Indigenous women globally, in their analysis of "what's wrong" and "what the solutions are". Here's one part of the solution, whiteboys: CAREFULLY LISTENING TO RADICAL ACTIVIST WOMEN OF COLOR!!

So a couple of days ago I post to my blog the video and transcript from Democracy Now--the exchange between Dr. Vandana Shiva and some white dude with the last name Dyer who is all about geoengineering as the solution to our problem of running out of time--it is his solution to "buy time". HIS time, mind you. White men's time. Because women--particularly poor women of color--ran out of time a long goddamned time ago! And their dead bodies are proof of it. So when white dudes get nervous about THEIR lives, then it's an emergency. And this is partly what I hear Dr. Shiva addressing, but white dudes can't fucking listen their way out of a paper bag. What isn't evident, is that Democracy Now ALREADY gave him a whole segment of their hour to speak his mind and argue his views. And then they invite her on to debate him, or leave him there to debate her. Because, even in progressive and alternative media, the woman of color, especially if she is Indigenous or from the Global South, is rarely allowed to speak without some white fool cutting in. Seriously. Why isn't Dr. Vandana Shiva the primary guest? SHE'S the expert, not Gwynne Dyer. (See this for more proof.)

I heard the tension in the debate, with the white dude doing his condescending and patronising best to appear cool, calm, and collected. He's got to come off as the more "rational" one, the more "objective" one, the more "logical" one, after all, because we can't have things like passion and emotional investment--because we know who is dying and where, get in the way of our "objectively stated views". No. We can't have that. Truth is, white dudes get emotional and "irrational" all the damned time. It's called being condescending. It's called rape. It's called battery. And it's called using women and girls as "sexual service stations". What do men call those behaviors? "Logical"??? I'd argue that in the discussion/debate on Democracy Now, there's nothing more irrational that what this dude is proposing as a solution to buy white men more time.

I wondered how this debate would get framed up by fellow bloggers. And I checked. And below is what I found. I offer to the court this piece of sexist-racist "political analysis". It was recently written, two days ago, by a white dude named:

John Madziarczyk

About [John]

From the Michigan to the Northwest via Florida. Contact me at J dot Madziarczyk at gmail dot com.

[John's blog is called:]
___________________________________

Hi. My name is Julian Real and I'm Intergender. Now, what the hell does THAT mean?

[image is from here]

(For part one of this discussion, please see *here*.)

I SOOOO feel like I didn't get the memo that there was such a thing as being intergender. Did you get that memo? (And, if so, why didn't you forward it to me??) I'm utterly amazed there was this graphic in the internet, above! And there's something else later on in this post that I found out about just a little while ago.

The whole of this post was written assuming I'd invented the term myself--that's how out of the loop I am!! (And I do like coming up with new terms but usually I DO check, to make sure anything I come up with hasn't already been invented!) I'm feeling kind of silly right now. Like seeing snow for the first time and calling everyone out of their houses and apartments to see it, and all of them saying to me, "Yes. That happens every year." Anyway, here's the post:

My problem with identifying as a "man" is that I just don't feel like one. I barely felt like a boy. Or, mostly I didn't. I didn't see boys as the same group as me. I felt more kinship with girls. But what I felt was something else, not like being a girl and not like being a woman, or a boy or a man, exactly. I didn't want my genitals to show and longed to have genitals that were different, but not explainably different. The best I can do now it to say that I've wanted to have intersex genitals. In my twenties I wanted to have breasts and to not have facial hair. I wanted very much to breastfeed, if I had children with someone. I didn't and still don't want facial hair and if I could magically make it go away, it would have been long gone years and years ago, with me never missing it one bit.

I'd also get rid of most of my body hair--and I'm not an especially hairy-bodied person. It would help if society didn't make women remove so much of theirs, I suppose, because then body hair wouldn't be so associated for me with "being a man". Many women are hairy, including facially hairy, but the codes on what is acceptable are very strict in this regard, and few women I know, including lesbian feminist women, escape the mandate to shave or tweeze some hair somewhere, usually and most often on the face.

In general, I think what testosterone seems to do to males is kind of unattractive, although I don't think it's unattractive if women have higher levels of testosterone. I don't like the effects it has on men but that's partly because of associations I have with other dimensions of being a man--political ones, not physical ones. I notice this as males grow from high school through to their forties and fifties, how much their bodies and psyches change. I'm assuming that's due to testosterone, and also diet and lifestyle of course, as well as increasing years of living with certain privileges and entitlements.

Physically, more or less, across the board, men seem to get more massive with age, and I'm not speaking here of getting fatter, which is a U.S. phenomenon more than anywhere else. I mean "beefy" or "muscular" but it includes how men's skeletons change shape too. Like rib cages seeming to getting larger or broader. I am not attracted to bulky men, and I don't desire to be bulky in those ways, because it is associated for me with being like a man.

Not too long ago, I got myself down to my lowest weight ever, as an adult. I have since gained some weight back, but I am trying to get back to that lower weight. I have eating "issues" which some might call an eating disorder, but as I know people with very serious eating disorders, I don't really feel like my struggles are similar enough to their own. For one thing, I can't die from mine. They can. I am capable of getting into an anorexic-like frame of thinking and behaving, for sure. When my weight drops to a certain point, that thinking moves in. And I have to be careful then, to not let that "anorexic mind" take over.

I know that for many people with class privilege, in the West, where there is plenty of food available to be eaten, some of us limit what we eat in order to take up less room, or to not appear as adult-like. I don't want the body I had when seventeen, or fourteen, or ten. I just want the secondary sex characteristics to go away, permanently, because they don't seem or feel like me. I can barely REALLY look at myself in a mirror, because I'm confronted with this fact: that how I look isn't how I feel and that has primarily to do with secondary male sex characteristics. With matters that having different levels of various hormones would have possibly taken care of. Maybe just less testosterone. If getting "fixed" would help me achieve the body I want, I'd do it. And this isn't about cosmetic changes to suit the public. I don't imagine showing off my body no matter what it looks like.

I just would like a body that fits with my sense of who I am. Right now, and for as long as I can remember, mine isn't it, but it's not so far off that I can't tolerate it. If it were, I might be more motivated to do something about it. But I really am frightened by taking hormones and even more so by surgery. I don't trust the dominant medical establishment, including around matters of gender re-assignment, in part because they really do try and make everyone look "male" or "female" and some of us would be just fine being intersex. And, I say that as someone who didn't grow up intersex and I don't know the struggles and hardships that can come with that journey from childhood into adulthood.

On the matter of degrees of inner distress or dissonance: I object to "being transgender" being determined by non-transgender people. I object to non-transgender people telling me, "You're not like what I understand transgender people to be, and so you're not transgender." I'm willing and eager to discuss my experiences with other transgender or intergender people, to compare notes, to discuss the stresses and the ways of coping.

Some might call me genderqueer, and for a time, for a few years, I called myself that. But now, for me, that term is too class, race, and era-specific. I associate it with a very particular white, middle or upper middle class, academically trained sub-culture, and I'm not actively part of that sub-culture. Maybe if I were, I'd be okay with that term.

I suspect I'm under the umbrella of being "transgender" but am not what dominant society tells me that means. "Transgender", according to dominant media, implies or assumes the desire in someone to move from one point to another along a supposedly linear spectrum of gendered being. This might go from being female-assigned at birth, raised as a girl and then being a woman. Or being male-assigned at birth, raised as a boy, then being a man, to becoming a woman. That's how it is presented, and the more the "finished" person appears to be their new gender, the more successful the process is understood to be, by talk show hosts, for example. Most people I know who are transgender who have had lots of hormone injections and many surgeries, do not really pass, to me. They appear "transgender" and I wish society were okay with people not fitting into what "men" and "women" are supposed to look like. I know some non-transgender people whose gender presentation--physically, not in terms of adornment or attire--is not what dominant society most welcomes and wants of its citizens. And that is a particular struggle that is not mine.

Once, though, a four year old girl looked up a me, as she stood near her mother who was selecting items off a shelf. She stared and then tugged on her mother's clothes and said, "Mommy, is he a boy or a girl?" The woman was embarrassed and seemed to want to apologise, or maybe she did. But it made my day. I felt like that little girl was the only one who has seen me as I want to be seen. Curiously, she used the term "he"--"Is HE a boy or a girl", so I think she registered my maleness on some level. But she also saw something else.

Most transgender-ignorant people assume that being transgender means one goes from being man to being a woman, or from being a woman to being a man. That's not true of most transgender people I know, and I question "transgender" as the term for what they are, but of course they are entitled to name themselves, and I am not entitled to name anyone else's subjective experience of genderedness and selfhood.

One female-bodied person I know, who is not intersex, identifies as transgender and prefers to go by male pronouns. Is it the fact of using male pronouns that makes them transgender? Because, basically, they are genderqueer, and may well be intergender, not transgender. But "intergender" hasn't been an option, and my experience is we make due with the categories that are available to us, that are enforced or generated against the weight of dominant society. This person has not been transitioning at all over the years I've known them. Not at all. Nor do they speak about "transitioning". To me, if there's no "transition", you're not transgender. You're possibly intergender or genderqueer, but I think there is currently a kind of internal peer pressure within some queer communities to identify as either queer or transgender, or both.

I see transgender reality as existing against the force of dominant society. I know some non-trans people believe transgender people are choosing to reinforce gender stereotypes, but I don't think this is the central matter in being transgender. I think the central matter is "feeling like oneself" both subjectively and when looking in the mirror, and possibly also when interacting socially. It's achieving a kind of internal-external, psychic-social harmony in basic being where before there was greater dissonance and dissociation. The degrees to which transgender folks assimilate is both a function of the pressures of dominant society to do so, and the desire to avoid a kind of scrutiny that is especially painful, as one has already invested a lot of energy in trying to pass relatively unnoticed in a world where one feels like one doesn't fit, psychologically and physically, and in other ways. So blaming transgender people for trying to pass is, to me, an expression of transphobia or, a term I prefer, transgender bigotry.

Another transgender person I know who is has lived life up until recently as a girl then a woman, is taking hormones, is experiencing voice changes and looks forward to the time when their voice isn't registered by others as "gender-nonspecific". And they are looking forward passing as a man. We have had some discussion about this: about this matter of wanting to be able to pass as one socially mandated and enforced gender or the other, in the gender hierarchy/binary that exists in the West. This should not be dismissed as insignificant to the decision to transition in ways media stereotypes transgender people transitioning. Without an enforced gender binary, someone might feel "done" transitioning" with less effort or procedures done, or they might not feel the same need to transition in the same ways.

Another myth about being transgender is that it is ONLY a subjective thing. That it is ONLY how one feels inside. Every transgender person I know is negotiating how they will be and be perceived in social spaces. This cannot "not matter" and it is influential as one deals with so many other issues that can accompany being transgender. And there are tons of issues to deal with, so many more than non-transgender people realise, in my experience. So many, in fact, that I've pushed away the whole matter away, on and off, for all of my adult life. I've reconciled being in the body I have, and then I notice that it's not the body I want.

Coming out as gay, for me, was not primarily a matter of figuring out how I felt, as a male-bodied person, about other males. I grew up knowing I was attracted to other male people. But I didn't exactly feel like I was attracted to "the same gender as me". I also didn't feel heterosexual at all. I've never understood heterosexuality. And, on some level, I've never understood anyone--male, female, intersex, or transgender, being attracted to men as a group. To individuals, yes. But not to men generally. Because so many men are so inhumane in fundamental ways. So I don't gets what's all that attractive about men.

I've always been more attracted to "androgynous" men or men who don't have lots of muscles, who are slight or thin, who are not terribly athletic, and who aren't "into" dominant male activities. Acceptable dominant male activities, such as working on cars, working out at the gym, homosocially bonding over putting down women, and being into comic books, sci-fi, or men's team sports, bore me.And, I know women can be into some or all of those things too. I once knew a lesbian-feminist who was into watching football. I didn't get it at all. I know het men who are into it: I don't get it. But I like the Olympics and I do like some sports, like beach volleyball and diving. And I like chess.

Does the degree to which my interests match up with some dominant standard of what men are supposed to enjoy help determine my own sense of myself? Of course. I am intergender because, in part, a lot of my interests, values, behaviors, and attitudes are NOT shared among men I know but they are shared among a whole lot of women I know. I find women infinitely more intelligent than men. The kind of intelligence I see men valuing is one that is dissociated from social reality or any understanding that the personal is political. And the intelligence I see in men, when it is there, is also terribly influenced by the many things Dr. Marimba Ani writes about in Yurugu. Things like "objectivity" and "rationality" and "logic". OMFG: the men that want to argue in those terms!!! I just want to give a copy of Yurugu to them and say, "Let's talk after you understand THIS book." Because if they can't understand that book, they aren't very intelligent. And if they can't understand what feminists are writing about, they aren't very intelligent. And if they are white but don't know what it means to be white, then they aren't very intelligent. That's how I see it.

Social, interpersonal, and emotional intelligence is very valued by me, but not so much by most men I know. So that's part of me feeling intergender. Residing somewhere between what society offers as the two genders is where I live, with a fair amount of male privilege and plenty of male entitlements. But the entitlements and privileges alone do not a gender make. That's something it has taken me a few years to work through, because my non-biological understanding of gender used to go like this: if you were raised with and maintain male privileges, you're a boy or a man. If you weren't, you're a girl or a woman. Or, if you were stigmatised negatively and seen as inferior and socially subordinated due to your gender, you were a girl or a woman. If not, you were a boy or a man.

I was seen and treated by many in my family of origin as an intergender child. I know they didn't have language for it, and it has taken me until last night for ME to have language for what I am that feels truest to my experiences, physical and emotional, internal and social, personal and political.

Wouldn't you know... I just Googled "intergender" to see if anything came up, and most of it had to do with being intersex, or with language issues. But, kind of excitingly, there was this:

What Is Intergendered?

By: Donna Lynn Matthews, October 1998

So I'll leave you, and me, with that to read. (Click on the title just above to link to the website with the whole discussion.)

Friday, July 9, 2010

I'm Here. I'm a Gay Male and May Be Transgender. And I'm Not Used to it.

http://gender-sphere.0catch.com/aniyinyang.gif


SPHERE

 [image/symbol and name of non-gender-conforming web-group is from here]

We live inside someone's realised idea. 
We live inside someone's realised physical idea 
for what the home or village or town or city you are in 
was be designed to look like. 
We live inside someone's realised social and economic idea 
of what the civilisation you live in was designed to do. 
We live inside the political idea 
of gender, race, and human being 
designed by those 
who want the oppressed 
to serve the oppressor, 
or just die off altogether.

 -- Julian Real, 9 July 2010 ECD

This post concerns the matter of choosing the terms which best apply to our subjective experience of ourselves, which fit with how we are seen by society, which resist how we are seen by society, and which locate oneself in particularly personally important political struggles for human liberation from WHM Supremacist societies and Patriarchal Palien Paradigms. (No, I won't say--or write--that five times fast. I realise the A.R.P. Glossary is expanding and I'm trying to be mindful that a blog post filled with self-generated acronyms and made-up terminology can be very, very problematic, especially for people for whom English is not a First Language.)

Sphere is a group I've never belonged to. As noted elsewhere, I'm not likely to be part of a group that would have me as a member, and I do believe Sphere would welcome me with open cyber-arms. I like and appreciate Sphere, but also haven't spent much time there.

Hey, I've got blog posts to write!

Am I transgender? It's a question that has surfaced in my body and psyche--which is one, not two, things. It is a question that has been slowly shoving its way onto a  front-burner, so to speak. And plenty in my life is already burning.

To answer the question is to get into the thick of what gender is--what being non-transgender is, let alone what it is to be transgender. I'll tell you this: I've never been adequately or even remotely comfortable identifying as a man. I was confused about identifying as a boy. I identified more with girls when a child, but did have some close male-boy friends. I played on the elementary school playground with girls, and was forced to play with the boys. I never wanted to, but I was made to. Even the principle of my elementary school noticed this, and sought to properly, and not unkindly, socialise me to play softball, which is a sport I despised with a passion. I liked jumping rope and kickball. And, let's note, there were girls who hated jumprope and kickball, and just wanted to play softball, basketball, and U.S. football. Soccer wasn't a big grade school sport yet. Middle class U.S. "soccer moms" didn't exist yet either, and if they existed in other countries I doubt the sport was called "soccer". I remember children walking to elementary school or being brought there by school bus, not being driven there by parents. There were no SUVs then, only station wagons. And yellow buses.

I have never felt comfortable identifying with gay men, even though, to some extent, I do. It's not the man-ness I identify with. It's the being male-bodied and being attracted to male-bodied people including some men that I identify with. I would never, ever, tell you "I'm a man" unless I was coerced or forced to. Even my profile to the right identifies me as "a gay male" because that's the best I can do, for now.

I've not been sure what to do with my body during sex, although I learned how to have dominant heterosexual sex. I've also learned how to have standard heterosexist gay sex. But I've practiced very little of each. What I have often felt like I was having was non-patriarchal sex, which is to say it has been non-heteromale sex that isn't phallocentric and more often than not, didn't involve my genitals, unless a man (or woman) wanted the sex to do so. I've never been heterosexual or bisexual. I've had sex with a very few girls and boys as a child, with a few women and men as an adult, but have never dreamt of having sex with a woman, ever. I've never "desired" sex with women. This isn't at all to say I haven't enjoyed being sexual with women, but it is to say that enjoyment was more emotionally based enjoyment than physically based. And most, and possibly all, of the female women I've been sexual with have been friends of mine. Most of the time I've had to dissociate to some degree to be sexually active with people. For about the last decade, I've not been sexual with anyone else, out of choice, and out of a desire to be asexual, which I've mostly accomplished.

The connecting between "being sexually active" and being gendered has to do with how my body feels, and the attention to it that is usually required to be sexually active. To be sexually active is to be engaged with a gendered body--my own, and with someone else's too, if that's what's going on.

This post mostly consists of me stating some positions, or beliefs, or stances, or analysis, about society and gender. This post also gets deeply into one person's story of being transgender. I'm going to tell you about the guests on a talk/chat show about being transgender. I've taken the time to type out the dialogue, and will use it as a point of discussion for later posts on this topic.

1. I believe gender is entirely a social-political phenomenon. It is cultural. It isn't natural or biological, which is to say that non-human animals, not a one of 'em, have anything resembling "a gender". They may be sexed in ways English-speaking humans call "female and male". And there may be some "role play" but that doesn't equal "having a gender", to me. And, there may well be, and probably are, naturally occurring intersex non-human animals. We do know that some animals are asexual and do not reproduce through the combining of a sperm cell with an ovum. Parthenogenisis happens.

It is foundational to Patriarchal Palien existence and politics to see the world in dualistic ways, usually also hierarchical. Gender is both in such societies: dualistic and hierarchical. To pretend it is only the former is to betray human rights battles for liberation for women and effeminate and feminised people from male supremacy and the gross domination of the planet by men.

To be a patriarchy-denier is to support gynocide. To embrace a politically activist view that renders patriarchal harm invisible, is to throw women under the CRAP-loaded bus.

2. Queerness is a relatively new prominent term used by many non-heterosexual people as an umbrella term that currently popularly includes lesbians, gay men, woman-loving women, same gender loving men, transgender people, and, increasingly, intersex people. It also often includes heterosexual non-intersex people who are "gay-friendly" or "queer-friendly" or who are genderqueer or gender benders or gender transgressors. It also often includes friends of all the above. It is so inclusive that the only people it seems NOT to include are anti-queer bigots.

BUT, a group within queer society is anti-lesbian, anti-feminist, and, especially and increasingly, overtly anti-radical feminist.

One reason some people, trans and non-trans, reject or are hostile to radical feminism, as it is accurately or inaccurately represented by its opponents, is that it is "transphobic". I would argue radical feminism is no more or less transphobic than liberal humanism, than non-radical feminism, and than patriarcal political philosophies and politically pro-activist perspectives. I'd argue dominant political perspectives, philosophies, and societies are more transphobic than "radical feminists" are, per capita. And that focusing on radical feminists as THE population of transphobes is misogynistic, anti-lesbian, and pro-patriarchal.

3. Transgender identity is not fixed. (In  some sense, by it's very social nature, it is unfixed! Hence the "trans" prefix.) There is no agreement among those who are transgender about what that term means. It is not seen as essentially a biological phenomenon or reality, by many transgender people. It is seen as a reality or condition--depending on how much one accepts medical, psychiatric, or dominant media representations of what being transgender is--that both challenges and reinforces dominant views of gender. It does both.

Being transgender doesn't tell anyone anything about one's political views. One can be transgender and homophobic, anti-lesbian, woman-hating, man-loving, or none of the above. Transgender people are lesbian-identified, gay-identified, bi-identified, heterosexual-identified, and none of the above. Some transgender people change their sexual orientation if they surgically transition from female-appearing to male-appearing. Some do not. This is a source of endless curiosity for talk show hosts. The question often arises, to those transgender folks who are usually white and class-privileged, if "going from being a man to a woman means one is still heterosexual" (if said person ever was, in fact, heterosexual).

I've heard one transgender activist state, quite truthfully and impactfully, "I'm transgender: what does being attracted to 'an opposite sex' mean for me?" Being transgender can, but doesn't necessarily, interrupt the gender binary which, in the White West, is always a gynocidal woman-hating political hierarchy and never not a this kind of hierarchy.

I've heard some MtF transgender activists identify as women, who, when born, were accurately or inaccurately male-assigned, and boy-raised. And I've heard some MtF transgender activists identify as transwomen or transgender, stating they are not "women" in the sense that a female-assigned-at-birth, girl-raised women are women. There is no agreement within transgender community about whether or not transgender women are and ought to be considered exactly the same as "non-transgender women".

I find transgender community to be about as diverse as community gets; it crosses class, race, ethnicity, age, ability/disability, sexuality, and, obviously, gender. Unlike non-transgender community, transgender community is comprised of people who have been or are wrestling--deeply, profoundly, and with great effort--with what their own gender is, what it means, what it feels like, what it requires, and what the consequences are for changing it. I see this as a particularly and uniquely transgender issue and experience, with some overlap with gender-non-conforming non-transgender people, and some, but by no means all, intersex people, as not all intersex people know they are intesex. This is also to say, not all non-transgendered people and not all non-intersex people know they are definitely NOT transgender or intersex.

4. "Gender transgression" is a social stance, a set of actions, a mode of being, that has been embraced as "revolutionary" and "radical" within some queer communities. By and large, I consider it neither revolutionary or radical, and in fact find most of what I see from people who identify as "gender transgressors" to be liberally reinforcing the status quo, or, at least, doing nothing at all to uproot or transform white supremacist (palien) heterosexist patriarchy. Speficially, "drag shows", "burlesque", "queer porn", pro-BDSM politics, and other aspects of both heterosexual and non-heterosexual societies, are, to me, utterly PPP-serving and "politically correct", not at all transformative. I support the politics of radical social transformation, not liberal transgression.

5. For me, coming to terms with being transgender is similar, but not the same, as coming to terms with being gay. But I'd like to outline, below, how they are similar, possibly also noting how they are different, for me.

I'm next going to take you through a program I just watched, about being transgender.

I am carefully watching an Oprah show, with a guest, former U.S. high school football (not soccer) player born with the name Paul McKerrow. Paul was the Montana-born and raised high school quarterback and captain of the boys' football team, senior class president (at that time, misogynistically and typically chosen to be a student who was a boy, and most likely also male). Paul grew up wanting "to be one of the girls". Paul began cross-dressing, appearing as a woman in some social spaces, and as a man in others. Paul began taking "female" hormones, and in Paul's 20s, she transitioned surgically from male-appearing to female-appearing, at least to doctors doing the surgery, and to Kimberly (formerly Paul).

Oprah and others in the media discuss this as "being in the wrong body". It needs to be pointed out that even post- surgery, one is still in the same body--there is no such thing as a "body transplant". And it needs to be noted that having saline or silicone breast implants, or a non-cancer related mastectomy, or a hysterectomy, or a vagina-like structure fashioned from the skin of a penis, or a phallus constructed in any number of ways, or intersex genitals, doesn't make or not make someone the gender they are.

When media reinforces an idea that some transgender people who have "gender re-assignment therapy", including "sex-reassignment surgery" genitally, as "finally being in the right body" are misrepresenting a whole helluva lot about what gender and sex are. Dominant social designs flourish, and those of us who do not fit or don't wish to fit, are left out... again. Surgeons do not make people intersex on purpose, as a "final goal", usually. Surgeons do physically and emotionally traumatic things to children's bodies to fashion them into someone's design, some society's idea, of what "the male sex" and "the female sex" look like. As if that's all there is.

If I have the money to pay for it, and I want to have male genitals fashioned into something that is neither male, female, or intersex, which surgeon would you suggest I contact? If I want my gender to be neither manly or womanly, with which social-political architects would you have me consult?

Under Kimberly's name, the words "born a boy" are written. Kimberly (birthname Paul) was not "born a boy". Paul was assigned at birth to be "the male sex" ("as opposed to the female sex"). Paul was made into a boy, through socialisation, which includes decisions and force and fear.

As a male, in Kimberly's words, she was with males and females, or what dominant society calls "bisexual". She didn't really like being a boy, but is glad she grew up being a boy, so as to be given social permission to be bold, and not withdrawn. She felt an "unearned" "license" "unearned" to behave in ways not so allowed if one is a girl. When doing a paper route as a child, Kimberly dressed as a girl.

I'm never entirely sure what that means, personally. As girls I knew dressed more or less like boys. Same with women and men. When some white sexist gay men wondered if I'd ever "done drag" I asked them: do you mean dressing up like a woman?" When they said "Yes", I said, wearing a t-shirt, sweathshirt, and bluejeans, "I am right now". The women I knew wore those clothes, and didn't consider THEMSELVES to be "doing drag".

As many people in the non-heterosexual community have noted, everyone is in drag. Straight white boys are "in drag" if in football gear, for example. Or if in t-shirts and jeans.

First part of her life was denying being a girl, second part denying I was ever a boy. Now it's about embracing both parts of my life. She wishes girls had male entitlements boys have in a patriarchal/male supremacist societies.

Went to college in the San Francisco Bay area, where "anything goes". She tried dating men as a man. She kept feeling "I have to be female." And describes "a female life" on one side of the bridge, and a male life on the other side of the bridge. She was, when Paul, an exchange student in Norway. She realised she always there: her transgender self was always there and her need to be female was always there.

She's in a documentary film about her life called "Prodigal Sons".

Kimberly Reed is white, "pretty"--made up with cosmetics to be "pretty", and blonde, and is someone who isn't fat. She is wearing black high boots, and a black outfit that isn't overly femme but is not butch.

Oprah describes Kimberly as "the quarterback who became a woman". She went to her 20th High School Reunion in Montana. The party is at the man who was the teenage boy who was the co-captain of the football team. She meets up with Claire, who Paul dated in high school.

Tim was Paul's best friend in high school, and friend since first grade, actually. He's joined via satellite from Missoula, MT. He is still a best friend of Kim. He told Kim, "Wow! You went ALL THE WAY!!" "She was good at basketball and other sports. Mark, a brother, wanted to excel at sports like Paul, but never did.

Oprah, to Tim: "I heard you were kind of attracted to her [Kim]."

Tim: "Well, sure... I mean... LOOK at her!" Everyone chuckles. He goes on "I didn't know if she was gay or straight..." and tried to "just be in the moment, and take it as it comes".

Kimberly recalls how these former football players show up with cases of beer, and felt "this is going to be all right; this is going to be okay".

"After a while there comes this point... that [old friends] realise "I am the same person". Even while she acknowledges she looks different.

Oprah: "She is more authentically herself now".

Kimberly: "I was having so many problems trying to figure out my gender. I used to have these games, I'd play. If you don't [win the game of the day], you'll have to be a girl tonight", and then would lose on purpose to be a girl. Reflecting on watching footage of old high school football games, Kimberly says: "It's a shame that I just had to forget half of my life." "I wish I had done it [transitioned MtF] earlier.

Oprah: "Kimberly [is] a woman from head to toe, and also a lesbian."

Mark was adopted, held back, and was in the same grade with Paul throughout grade school. At 21, he got into a car accident, and has suffered brain injury, clinging to the past. "I was more popular than him!", Mark exclaims. He asks Kimberly if she's been reading the Bible (some unidentified version and translation of the Christian New Testament).

Mark was taken to jail. "There was all this jealousy about you being 'the golden boy'." Kimberly agrees. Their mother strongly felt the sibling rivalry, partly because Mark was adopted, "but also because he had his own strengths, but single-mindedly wanted to be Paul."

Kim's mom says, of Kim's gender transition, "I knew this was a decision that was painfully arrived at."

"I had been this perfect son" to my dad. "I was afraid to take that away from him." Kim was reluctant to tell her, and his health was an issue so Kim's mom postponed telling him. She got herself into therapy and on the third visit brought her husband and told him. She was also juggling the whole extended family.

Kim: "I put her through a lot". "I'd do it differently now." (By coming out earlier). Maybe in the future--due to Kim and others being out about being transgender--someone can come out at fifteen. And then maybe earlier.

Claire is Kimberly's girlfriend of ten years.

Oprah [to Claire]: "You say Kimberly is more feminine than most women you've met?"

Claire: "Well, let me put it this way... I think we're all a little bit in drag, and trying to project ourselves in one away or another. And for women, that's 'feminine'. And I know I tried real hard to match up to a standard of what feminine was. [Oprah interjects: "what femininity is. Yeah."] "But what's striking to me about Kim, and attractive, was that she was so comfortable [with] herself. And that, to me, is feminine. That's a female strength that is really attractive."

Oprah: "It's all about what is authentic, what is true for you, isn't it? [Oprah nods and also says "Yeah." Sort of affirming the validity of her own understanding and words to herself.] Claire nods in agreement, saying "Yeah" or the equivalent.] And I imagine that when you... 'cause you're a lesbian, right? You had to be lesbian, correct?

Claire says, very affirmatively: "Yes." And nods and smiles.

Oprah: "So when you're lesbian, are you trying to strike a balance between 'what is feminine', 'what isn't'"?

Claire: "I don't... I had some gender struggles of my own. Certainly nothing like..."

Oprah: "How feminine to BE, how feminine NOT to BE?"

Claire: "Yeah. And I liked a lot of boy things. Certainly not to the degree that Kim did."

Oprah: "Mm hmm. You weren't playing football."

Claire: "No. But yeah... I think I even overcompensated a little bit. I was afraid that people would look at me as lesbian. I mean I've grown out of that."

Oprah: "I think it's also evolving, isn't it? Isn't it changing?" (I assume Oprah means here that society is getting less homophobic/lesbophobic.)

Claire: "Yeah... yeah." (I wonder if Claire takes this to mean "how one's own identity, and comfort with it, is always evolving and changing.)

Oprah: "So that people can just be who they are."

Claire: "It's amazing how much time it takes and how much work it takes, to just shed that... that false exterior."

Oprah [back to Kim]: "Yes, but don't you find that when you shed your false exterior, that the world and your perception of the world also changes?"

Kimberly: "Oh absolutely."

Oprah: "When you change here, it changes."

Kim nods and says "yeah".

Oprah: "Yes, 'cause it responds to you."

Kim: "Yeah." [And she nods throughout what Oprah says next.]

Oprah: "And all the things that you were afraid of, the people you thought would reject you, the people who wouldn't love you any more, still did. The people who were upset and enraged and jealous of you, still are. None of that's changed."

Kim: "Yeah." 

Oprah: "It takes a lot of courage to stand up for who you really are. What I'm hoping is that this hour, number one, inspired you to see the movie--and if you would like to see where it opens in your city, throughout the country, you can go to oprah.com, but also to inspire you to dig in and figure out what's keeping you from being 'the best that you can be', 'cause that's really what we all are here to do--is to become more of ourselves. Thank you for watching today. Thank you."

This is but one snapshot into dominant media's view of transgender experience. To me, it is a typically liberal one, and humanistically liberal in its unquestioned acceptance of being transgender. For a largely non-transgender and middle class audience, I'm happy to see that. I think many white middle class transgender people may feel a bit more validated, if they are in the category of being transgender that Kimberly is.

But most transgender people are NOT like Kimberly. Most are not white, are not middle class, are not "pretty" are not blonde, and are not media-friendly and media-savvy. Kimberly chose to have a film made about her, which indicates a level of comfort with "the camera" that, I, for one, do not share. So what about us? Most people who are termed transgender are not Western, are not EFL speaking, are not educated in the academy, and do not graduate from high school or the equivalent of it. Where are the poor or illiterate white transgender voices? Where are the Asian-born and African-born college-educated transgender voices? Where are the dark-skinned transgender people? The transgender people who are ALSO genderqueer and gender non-conforming? Where are the butch women, period? (Transgender or not transgender?)

What seems clear to me from the program, which is a snapshot that is tossed on a pile of similar snapshots I've seen on network and cable TV, where are those of us who question what gender is as a hierarchy primarily? I was very happy to hear Kimberly address male privileges and entitlements, that she had as a boy. I was thrilled to hear Claire discuss what SHE meant by struggling with her own gender issues.

But does this hour illuminate the lives of most transgender people, who will not seek out surgical or hormonal solutions to their gender dysphoria or transgender identity issues?

What about those of us who are transgender who don't LOVE the term "transgender" because it implies going from male to female or female to male, from woman to man or from man to woman, and that's not the gender journey WE'RE on?

What if "going all the way" doesn't mean getting our genitals reshaped surgically and presenting publicly as the gender we DIDN'T get assigned as a child? What it it means something else altogether?

See Sphere for more. I don't make any claims about it being a person of color-friendly space, a woman-friendly space, a lesbian-friendly space, or a feminist-friendly space, although I suspect it is most, if not all, of those. I also suspect it is comprised mostly of Western white, class-privileged, college-educated people, in part because it is an English-written site. It is designed to be most comfortable for people who do not speak ESL.


In a new post, coming soon, I'm going to compare my own struggles around coming out as gay, with coming out as Jewish, with coming out as white, with coming out as transgender, if, in fact, that's what makes the most emotional/psychological/social/political sense for me to do. Welcome to my coming out process.

It's now a few hours after this post was written, and I've decided, with all my privileges in tact, that what I am is "intergender". I'll explain more of what that is next time the issue of gender and sexuality is discussed here.