Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue

by Nicholas M Teich

Transgender 101 does what it says on the tin--it's a simple explanation geared mostly toward family, friends, and significant others of transgender people explaining what being transgender is. It gives the best clear-cut, non-judgmental explanation of 'feeling like' some gender that doesn't match up with your assigned sex is, with a detailed explanation of the differences between assigned sex, gender identity, and gender expression, and their interactions. It gives descriptions of the hormones and surgery trans people can choose to take/undergo and their physical effects while emphasizing that everyone is different and not everyone will want hormones, surgery, or both. It's also useful for newly out (to themselves) transpeople who want a clear-cut explanation of their choices, the limitations surrounding those choices, and what is likely to be going through the heads of family, friends, and coworkers as they start to come out. Finally, it provides a brief history of the understanding of transgenderism and touches on the intersections with class, race, nationality, and sexism.

Its only flaw was some debate about terms--I'm not sure it's accurate in its definitions of 'transgender' and 'transsexual', and it didn't mention that these terms are used differently by different people. Also, it gave outdated definitions for 'pansexual' and 'asexual' and didn't touch on the romantic spectrum at all, but I thought it could be forgiven for that since sexual/romantic orientation wasn't its focus--in fact, it repeated several times that they were not the same thing and should not be treated as such. It used permutations of'gender assigned' and 'natal sex' but focused on the concept that the letter on a birth certificate is assigned by a medical professional or a parent, not something inherent and immutable. It's current, which is really nice--it provides descriptions of both the just-outdated DSM-IV and its Gender Identity Disorder and the just-in DSM-V and its Gender Dysphoria. Definitely recommended for anyone with basic questions about what it means to be trans, both in the 'definition' sense and the 'now what' sense. It focused on MTF and FTM transpeople, but did acknowledge other gender identities, specifically genderqueer, and other types of queering the gender binary which may or may not be tied to transgenderism for any given person, specifically, gender variant/gender nonconforming, crossdressing, drag, and disorders of sex development/intersexism.

Overall rating: 4.5/5

Project upshot: Not eligible for use in the paragraph I need for the conference, this book will still be helpful in terms of what Leandra's going to find as s/he starts to do research, and for informing the reactions of various people in the story. I think I won't give it back to the library just yet.

Marriage legality

I was reading the New York Times today, and came across this article. It's about the fight for gay marriage and the new donor pool it has. The really interesting thing, though, was that I recognized the name of the Republican lawyer, Theodore B. Olsen. I came across him while writing my research paper. He stood out for writing about why conservatives ought to support gay marriage, something I think needs to be a central point in changing minds. You can't change many minds just by saying 'this is right' and 'your way is unconstitutional', you need to add a 'this is why you should want this' to the mix. People are selfish, and often won't do anything unless it benefits them or their values in some way. Anti-gay people know that refusing to pass ENDA and similar laws (not marriage--by legal definition, we have exactly the same right as straight people: to marry the opposite sex*) is pretty unconstitutional. They probably know they haven't got any decent arguments. But the whole idea of gay marriage and gayness at all hits their gag reflex. Plain and simple, they don't like it. So they throw everything they've got, like money and religion, against it. We need to make them like it. We need to tell them why they should want equality for all.
Here's Olsen's article.

*This confuses a lot of people. If you're one of them, I'll put it in black and white.
Susan is straight. She has the legal right to marry a man, whether or not she loves him. She couldn't marry a woman for whatever crazy reason. She doesn't have the right.
Annie is gay. She also has the legal right to marry a man, even if she doesn't love him. She couldn't marry a woman even if she does love her. She doesn't have the right.
There's no actual legal difference. Gay and straight (and bi) women alike have the right to marry a man, not a woman. Gay and straight (and bi) men alike have the right to marry a woman, not a man.
Straights don't actually get any special privileges--they're just lucky enough to have the people they're attracted to/people they're capable of loving in the same category as people they're legally allowed to marry, while gay people aren't.
This is not to say I support this. Yes, I think the federal legal definition of marriage should be changed. Point is, this is how things stand. We can't really shout 'equal rights' on this because we have them. What we're asking for is more rights--the right to marry any legal adult human being we please. It'll extend to straight people as well, who don't have that right either, although they generally don't want to marry someone of the same sex, so no one sees them as missing out.

Sweet support

Aww. Vermont is for lovers! Check out their gay marriage themed ice cream.
http://www.benjerry.com/hubbyhubby/

And according to polls, more and more Catholic voters support gay marriage. I'm very proud of my church.
New York Times

Thinking Straight

Well, I WAS going to go to bed on time last night. I WAS only going to read for half an hour or so. Then my mother comes up the stairs, I look at the clock...quarter to one. Oops.
I was reading Thinking Straight, by Robin Reardon. I have to say, this is one of my favorite books. When Taylor comes out to his family, they ship him off to an institute called Straight to God, which will, they hope, make him realize that he is sinning and turn back to God and being straight. (The things some people come up with.) Taylor is young, intelligent, passionate, and convinced beyond a doubt that there is nothing sinful about his love for his boyfriend. Not that he's given up on religion. He simply reconciles the two. He's also arrogant. He walks into Straight to God determined to survive, but not change. But Taylor has so much to learn, about God, those around him, and himself.
I think anyone could enjoy this book, Christian or not, gay or not. If you happen to be both, you should definitely read it. But why is it my favorite book? I read a review somewhere which said the climax was a tad unbelievable. It was, just a tad. But in no way does that dampen the sheer reality of it. The emotion. Taylor is so real to me, because he is me. Intelligent, passionate, gay and proud, and arrogant.
Sometimes I think that in this day and age it is better to think too highly of yourself than too lowly. Yes, you Christians: it is possible to be too humble. Or is it yet another form of pride? These are the people who believe they are not good enough, for God or for society. These are the people who drastically change themselves to be their idea of prettier, cooler, or more righteous. These are the people who go to bed feeling like dirt because of the way they were treated that day. To escape this state, I am proud. I imagine myself better than those around me. It strikes me as very how Kurt from Glee once put it: "The only way I get through the day is with the certainty that we are superior to all of them." It isn't an exact quote because I can't find it (don't own the discs, internet is being unhelpful). If I have to be high on life first to get back to a normal level, that's what I'll do.
Off my soapbox now. Read this book. For the spiritualism? Yes. For the completely real and believable main character? Yes. For the sweet yet smokin' boyfriends? Yes.

Pride and Prom

I've got to say, this is adorable. Cute Nebraska couple wins a wedding package! And, of course, given the nature of this blog, they're both men. :)
It's been a big semester for me. I went to the DC Pride Parade a few weeks ago. What an amazing feeling. It put me in mind of that Glee song, because after all the people who hate on me, or my people, anyway, these people were literally, so I'm told, screaming our name. I couldn't hear them, but the adviser for our LGBT club could! They were cheering, slapping our hands, screaming for beads, which we ran out of long before we got to the end of the walk. And we each had three dozen. We had giant rainbow flags, which were fun to twirl, but heavy. Twice I shouted, "Do you love me?" to the crowd, and got cheers back!
Not one week later, I went to a GSA prom with a few (straight-ish) friends, hosted by their church. They are Unitarian Universalists. I asked one of them to define Unitarian Universalism.

"To understand Unitarian Universalists (UUs), it is necessary to understand the difference between a creed and a covenant. With most churches, there is a creed, a sacred doctrine that one must believe in order to consider oneself as part of that church. In Christianity, there is the bible, in Islam, the Koran. In creedal churches, one can strive to understand ones creed more thoroughly, but the same basic belief is always there. In UUism, there is no creed. Instead, the members of a UU congregation make an agreement, or covenant, with each other, based off of the seven UU principles. These principles are:

· The inherent worth and dignity of every person

· Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations

· Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations

· A free and responsible search for truth and meaning

· The right of conscience and use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large

· The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all

· Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

Under those principles, each member of a congregation is free to worship whoever/whatever they believe in and search for what they find truly meaningful and divine to themselves. Many UUs believe in a god. Many do not. Others believe in multiple gods, spirits, divine energy, or the love of the universe. What is important in a UU congregation is acceptance and support to one another in ones search for ones own spirituality. When people come together in love and trust and a willingness to learn and be surprised by faith and joy, then one has a UU congregation."

It was from these people that I felt acceptance. It was here I could be flamboyant and flirtatious, around complete strangers, without fear. I went to prom in dress pants, a silk shirt, and a top hat, and, perhaps given my short hair, felt far more natural, debonair, and just plain good-looking than I ever do in a dress.
My church is Christian, and the root of our belief is love. So it's supposed to be. As I study history, I find myself wondering whether the Christian church doesn't need another Reformation. Where is the love I am promised? Why do I find it at my friends' church instead of my own? Why do I break down crying, for I can see that their church loves them, unconditionally, and me? They don't care that I am not one of them, much less that I am gay, and accept me completely.

Born This Way

So, I'm going to be a fangirl or possibly just a flaming proud lezzie for a minute and tell you about Glee Tuesday night. It was called Born This Way and about loving yourself. They brought Kurt home to his old school (they just couldn't resist giving him more amazing outfits, I'm sure. At the other school, he had a uniform). Meanwhile, the closet lesbian, Santana, hooks up with the other gay guy, Dave, to pretend neither of them are. Kurt's prerequisite for coming home was that Dave would start a PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) group at school with him.
Everyone is told to make a shirt with a word or a phrase on it that sums up the part of them that they're most ashamed of, the thing that makes them different, and they'll sing/dance the title number by Lady Gaga. I've never listened to the original of this song before, only a different cover of it that has half the words removed. While most of the kids have shirts that say things like "Can't Sing" or "Brown Eyes" on them, the class idiot, Brittany, who's the only one who knows about Santana, gives her a shirt that says, "Lebanese". Santana says, "I'm Hispanic. Wait. Is this meant to say, 'Lesbian'?" Brittany replies, "Yeah. Isn't that what it says?" The funny thing about this is that Lebanese is mentioned in the song itself.
Kurt struts it on stage, singing the opening words in a shirt that says "Likes Boys" (I'd take a "Likes Girls"), the only shirt that's completely unashamed. Santana sits out, wearing her shirt
where no one can see her. The Trevor Project asked its Facebook fans whether they would buy or wear Kurt's shirt--I and 1,707 people 'liked' it.
And the song! It's amazing! I bought it and put it on single repeat. I'm up to a play count of 27 already. It's bouncy and it has a great message.
"A different lover is not a sin"
"No matter gay, straight, or bi/Lesbian, transgender life/I'm on the right
track, baby, I was born to survive"
"I'm beautiful in my way, 'cause God makes no mistakes"
"There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, she said, 'cause He made you
perfectly" (not in order)
A church near me holds a LGBT prom, which they've invited me to. If they play this song, I am so dancing on stage. I'm saying this out loud (well, you know what I mean) so that I can't chicken out.
Hey, look! Someone managed to post that scene. Watch! I'll admit Kurt looks a bit insane, and they cut my second quote above (it's in the version on iTunes, though) AND it's backwards and blurry, but it's worth it!

Related: I met a new friend on Facebook (become a fan) and started stalking her profile. Everything I read made me like her more. Now, her profile picture was Kurt and his boyfriend Blaine kissing.
Further down, I saw an event she attended that was about posting a same-sex kiss picture as your profile picture to protest one being marked as inappropriate content. I started looking at the pictures. My favorite? A picture that says at the top, "Jesus Loves You", and at the
bottom, pasted in, a picture of two guys kissing.
I cried. The next morning my glasses still had spots. It was captioned, "If you are a believer, I am not, but I leave this Christian image of a kiss and love." This has always been an issue for me, as I have always believed that I was, indeed, born this way.

Choices

Why anyone would think people choose to be GLBT is beyond me. And this is why.
Science indicates that genes and hormones both have to do with being gay. And it is definitively not classified as a mental illness.
Or, if you're the sort of person who doesn't trust science, here's some logic.
Why would I choose:
1. To risk my family ties and my friendships, and even be kicked out of my house
2. To make it more difficult to get/keep a job (it's still legal to fire me in most states)
3. To limit my dating options to less than 10% of the population
4. To be called names, teased, bullied, and even beaten and killed
5. To face such depression I commit suicide
6. To be persecuted by people who say they're of my own religion
7. To be stereotyped
8. To feel unable to talk about dating/crushes/love with friends, acquaintances or coworkers
9. To worry about moral issues, whether I'm unnatural or immoral or somehow not good enough
10. To face the incredibly painful pressure of coming out when anyone I love could turn against me, tell me to go away or get out, or start spreading the news around.

If people want to rebel, they do drugs, drink, smoke. Maybe, just maybe they hook up with someone of the same sex. But they certainly don't 'decide' to be gay.
If people just want more sex, they keep their options open! There are far more straight people to be found than gay people. And if you're going, well, what about those bisexual people? Then let me tell you bisexuals are often discriminated against by gay and straight alike. How's that for limiting?
And specifically for transgender people:
First, who's ever heard of being transgender? That's even harder to accidentally find information on than being gay. It's an awful lot of work to go to for a 'phase' or to punish someone.
Second, transgender people experience the feeling that they are actually in the wrong body (gender dysphoria). Not just dating the wrong people, but in the wrong body. How'd you like that?
Third, if a transgender person decides to dress as their gender identity, that can be quite obvious to complete strangers, much more so than someone's sexual orientation.
It's just too much to go through if you're not absolutely serious and positive, from my perspective. Combine the fact that transgender rights are even less prevalent than gay rights and you have a recipe for a life that people just would not choose lightly. Why go through any of that...unless it's something much more than a choice to you, unless the only choice involved is to stop hiding and lying to yourself and others and be who you really are?

It's really beating us over the head that it's not a choice. Just open up your ears and listen.

This is ridiculous.

Why can't same-sex couples be married?
Seriously. Give me one good answer.
Is your proposed answer that the Bible condemns gay people? Or that marriage is between a man and a woman? Go and read the facts.
As far as I can see, the only problem Christians ought to have with gay people being together is sex before marriage. And isn't the logical step to offer us marriage? Legal and spiritual?
Updated Jan. 13 (which may be slightly out of date, but can't be too far out of whack) the Human Rights Campaign shows us the big picture.
Computer won't read it?
It says:
29 states have "constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman" 18 of which are "states where the law or amendment that does, or may, affect other legal relationships, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships".
12 states have "law restricting marriage to one man and one woman".
Wikipedia tells us that "same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one federal district, and one Indian tribe:

• In Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed.
• The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex marriage."

I'm guessing they mean Native American tribe, not strictly Indian.

Five. As opposed to 41 states that strictly forbid it.

Wikipedia also says that, "In New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, same-sex marriages are recognized, but not performed",
"As of June 1, 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions".
Go ahead and check out this article. It has a lot to say on the subject.
Makes me wonder what all these people have to say about New Mexico. The map shows it as not having law or constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, yet the Wikipedia article doesn't talk about it, despite having been updated today.

Seriously. Not evil.

A Christian pop star coming out as lesbian...
A man who "earned [his] master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary" telling us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality...
There is hope for Christian gay people.

This is why we have to fight

"'Loving! Lusting, you mean. Read your Bible... Read Leviticus, read Romans 1:26.' I don't know what I said then. Maybe I didn't say anything. I'm not sure I was able to think any more. I do remember, though, that I went home and read Leviticus and Romans, and cried again."
~ Garden, Nancy. Annie on My Mind. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1982. (Place of publication unknown)
It touches something deep inside me and makes me feel like crying to think of kids being read Leviticus and Romans and told that they are abominations. Why must What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality be so little known that my local library system doesn't have it?
This is why I have to do this. This is what to keep in mind. This is why apathy won't cut it. This is why we have to fight.
Because apathy won't cut it. "I don't care what you do in your own time." "Why can't gay people do what they want and leave us alone?"
Because we aren't a disease, to be hidden away and forgotten about. In recent memory, I heard a conversation in which a girl had never heard of gay girls. She seemed to think it only applied to men. I had never even heard of the concept of transgender until a few years ago. How can we expect our teens to feel good about themselves, when as far as they know, nobody else is like them? When a girl likes other girls and assumes it's just friendship love and that it will always be better than romantic love? What will happen when she's engaged, or even married, and realizes the truth? When a boy who is biologically a girl, or vice versa, assumes that something is wrong with them--or flat out assumes they are gay, when that isn't necessarily true? How can we expect teens to grow up well-adjusted when they are seriously confused? When there is no obvious support, or anyone they know they can turn to with questions? When everywhere same-sex couples are still denied marriage, not to mention marriage within their faith? That isn't going to work. We have to fight if we want any of that. No, apathy won't cut it. If you're not against us, please, join us.

You're not evil.

That's the short version. You're not evil.
But there you go. If you read my previous post, and you should, to get more out of this one, you now see why just saying it isn't enough. Even if you already don't believe you are evil, you should read this anyway, so you have something to say to everyone who thinks you are, and so you get a good idea of the value of a good argument.
Yes, it may be a breath of fresh air. Finally, a break from being called an abomination all the time. But still, it's just words. How do I know? What makes me right, as opposed to everyone who says the opposite?
This is where a good argument comes in handy.
I'm not going to present an entire argument. First, I'm going to cover a couple things that I talked about before: definition of terms and premises that everyone agrees on.
First, definition of terms.
Let's start with evil.
I have to clarify something now. I do not pretend to be all-knowing, or able to speak for religion in general, or any specific religion. All I can say is this: The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a whole.
See what I mean about definition? Now that I've clarified this, you can't argue that my argument doesn't cover what isn't in the Bible or what other religious texts say, because that's not what I'm trying to prove.
For this argument, I define evil as being something that is hateful to God, as presented in the Bible. No offense meant to all of you non-Christians. This just happens to be, as far as I can tell, a common argument, that I'd like to nip in the bud.
Okay, now for premises.
We'll revisit the definition section a little here. I know we just left it, but hey, bear with me, okay?
Some premises that you'll have to get your opponent to agree to in this argument are that:

• For us to condemn homosexuality based on religion, it must be clearly condemned in the Bible.

Again, some of you may be saying, "No, that isn't true!" But the point of premises is that they aren't already proven. Nowhere does it say that you have to accept the premises. But if you do, and if you agree that logic can be used to prove things, then you must accept the conclusion.
Here are some more premises:

• A doctor who studies the Bible in Hebrew (its original language) is a reliable source for information on the Bible. And finally,
• For us to make an informed statement, we must have all or most of the available, relevant, information on the subject, and if we find a reliable source with new information contrary to our previous statement, we are obliged to read/listen to/find out about this new information before we can again say we are making an informed statement.

This may sound like legalese, and I'd like to call it logic-ese. All it boils down to is,

• Someone with a PhD who studies the subject likely knows more about it than we do, and
• Before we can say something, we have to see the other side of the argument. If we find a new side of the argument, we need to see that too. Otherwise, it's not an informed decision, is it?

Talking like this, as in legalese, helps to leave out the loopholes.

If you get it, then I'm going to leave it at that with a request for you, and everyone you may be arguing this point with, to read a book called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak, PhD.
If you accept the premises and read the book, I can all but promise you you'll find yourself convinced. He presents an excellent argument.
So please, don't be tearing yourself up over Romans and the others. Read the book. If you can't, then you don't entirely have to take my word for it. I'm not going to recreate the argument, but here are two sections of the Bible you can read to set your mind at ease which stories it mentions.
1 Samuel 18:1, 3-4
Ruth 1
Aren't these unusually strong bonds? Maybe they were not openly declared as homosexual. But all the same, they were powerful bonds between two men and two women. And were they cursed for it? Far from it!
That's all I'll give you for now. I hope it did some good.