XXBOY REBLOGS

sliker816:

Interesting series of events, and now my mother and I are going on Anderson Cooper’s daytime talk show.  Along with several other transpeople and their supportive families.  The purpose of the show is to show the transcommunity in a positive light, and show that trans individuals aren’t just isolate, lonely, people — we have support, family, friends, and lives like every other human being.

I’ll keep ya’ll posted as far as air time goes, but filming is on Tuesday.  I’m excited to meet the silver fox — is it tacky to ask for an autograph?

I’m really excited to hear how this goes.

thisgenderedlife:

[All information included is from an individual who was present at the meeting, during which the policy was announced by administrators to the small handful of students.  I have intentionally not included the individual’s name.]

Tonight I found out that Smith College is planning to invoke a new, unofficial policy that will affect the entire student body.  No one is talking about it, because no one is being told about it.

Male-identified students will be asked to opt out of hosting prospective students.  They will be asked to act in the spirit of the Honor Code, and opt out of hosting.  Because of their identity.

Attention World. I, Sebastian Barr, am a Smith College alumnus. I am a (trans) man who transitioned at Smith. I completely support the college’s (or the admission office’s) decision (if we have all the facts correct and this is in fact a decision) to ask male students not to host prospective students.

Kai at thisgenderedlife discusses some problems with the rumored unofficial policy, some of which include issues of self-identifying and “drawing the line” which certainly would be an issue if this were ever an official policy (and I think is likely why it cannot be an official “you are not allowed” situation). He also says this (I’ve removed his emphasis -bolding- but you can read his original post here):

This new policy, which has only been shared with a small handful of students thus far, will create a hierarchy within the student body.  It limits the access of a marginalized group to rights, privileges, and opportunities afforded the rest of the student body.  It’s blatant discrimination, and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future generations of Smithies, as well as for the overall institution of higher education.  The Smith College administration says other schools are looking to them to set a precedent.  So I ask this of the Smith College administration:

Please do not be the first women’s college to actively display its disregard for what trans* students have to offer their campus community.  In fact, please don’t ever display your disregard for what trans* students have to offer their campus community.  Trans* students partake in many aspects of student life on campus. Do not trample their right, as students, to participate in an opportunity open to the entire student body.  They participate because they love the college and everything that it stands for.  They participate because they want to share what makes the college unique.  Don’t treat them as second-class citizens at an institution that was founded on the very principle of gender equality. 

I disagree that the decision (again if we have the facts correct and this is a decision) means everything Kai says it does (disregard for trans students, discrimination, second-class citizenry).

Frankly, I have always supported the idea that male Smith students should not host “prospies” for one main reason: These prospies are female high schools students, many of which are under 18 and, unlike at some (very few) co-ed schools with policies allowing students to host prospies of different genders, at Smith, female prospies and their parents expect that they will be staying with female students. It is an issue of responsibility to those expectations and an issue of the comfort of the prospective students and their parents. Not comfort/discomfort with the trans nature of a trans male student, but the discomfort of a female high school student staying with a male college student they don’t know. We could have a discussion about whether or not that should be uncomfortable, why it is or isn’t, etc. But the bottom line is that most families would not be okay with this and because Smith is a women’s college (and it is, by the way, despite its gender diversity) there is a rightful assumption that women will be hosting these other women.

The admissions office decision is old-fashioned at the worst. I truly don’t think it is based in transphobia, as they have willingly allowed (and even encouraged) transgender gold key members (tour guides) - see screenshots below. And I truly don’t think it is a bad decision.

I am concerned that the negative focus some students and alums are placing on this issue will take away from the fact that Smith is actually pretty wonderful to its male population. Though its PR publications often slant away from representing queer-looking students (and this upsets me), I never felt like I or my trans male peers were discriminated against. One trans guy served as the president of his class. Male-presenting students were featured in my class year’s official Ivy Day photos on Smith’s website. Et cetera.

If anything, this policy shows that Smith College affirms its transgender students’ gender identities. If they allowed male-identified (I HATE that term) students to host prospies, they would likely have to explain it to prospective students and their families, and I imagine the emphasis would be on “identified” and the overall sentiment would have to be “well all our students are female-bodied (ew hate that term too!) so really it’s not a big deal for a female prospective student to be staying with a male-identified (cringing) female student.” Thank you Smith and thank you admissions office for not falling victim to this ignorant and offensive line of reasoning. Thank you for seeing us as men, even if that means you cannot support us hosting female prospective students.

As inkhead put it, they’re treating trans male students as they would non-trans male students. “And that’s a problem how?”

I wanted to also include some additional support from other trans students and alums that I’ve found online or who have contacted me:

A trans alum:

The whole things reminds me of the Michigan Womyn’s Festival Policy. I chatted with a couple of the organizers, who’ve worked there for decades now, and they support the idea of voluntary self-inclusion or exclusion. If you think you belong there then attend— just be ready to engage in dialogue about your identity politics with other people [which is a given at the fest anyway]. I think Smith is trying to do the same thing— they aren’t banning anyone from hosting, they are simply asking the potential hosts take into account the college’s reasoning for requesting they abstain.

Plus, they are navigating Title IX, which does not understand gender-variance or transition or… well really anything about these issues. They are, rightfully I think, afraid of the slippery slope.

Finally, Smith was so unbelievably respectful and appreciative of its trans*male student leaders and representatives. […] went to the Seven Sisters Conferences as Class President, for Chrissakes. And I spoke a section of the keynote before the Board of Trustees. Hosting is about an entirely different level of comfort, intimacy and legal-navigation.

From a facebook group on this issue:

tangible-boy:

Swirling Insanity: You Know You’re A Lesbian When…

skankassqueer:

Most women don’t have penises, so wouldn’t most lesbians not be attracted to penises?

Most women don’t have red hair, so wouldn’t most lesbians not be attracted to red hair?

I think what I’m trying to say is: If a lesbian can be sexually attracted to a woman with a penis, why couldn’t she be attracted to a man with a penis? And then in that case would she be less of a lesbian? Probably not, but I’m just confused here.

If the shape of potential partners’ genitals is the only factor in someone’s patterns of attraction, then they are clearly not a lesbian, or a gay man, or heterosexual, or anything because genitals are not gender. I hate how people blatantly discriminate against trans people and say “it’s just a preference!” Would you do that with a different body part? Is there anyone whose sole factor for attraction the color of someone’s eyes? I.E. they will only date people with green eyes? Or an innie belly button? What is so fucking important about genitals that they’re the one body part that people [I - Sebastian - replaced the word bigots because I’m a little uncomfortable labeling people this based solely on ignorance and unconscious conforming to societal norms] define their patterns of attraction around? 

oh yeah, it’s not because they actually have that preference

it’s because they were indoctrinated to believe that trans people are disgusting and subhuman

I think this is a really good point (the part I bolded in particular). I’m never sure how to respond when people talk about preferences for certain sets of genitalia. And when I say preferences I don’t mean like “I prefer women who like this or who dress this way” because people use the word “preference” about genitalia when they really mean “rigid requirement” (as skankassqueer mentioned). I used to stop and wonder if people really can only get into penises or only into vaginas or perhaps only into testosterone-affected penises or specific surgically constructed genitalia or intersex genitalia, etc. 

It strikes me as an odd thing to say when explaining (cissexist) non-attraction to trans people because I’ve heard so many straight girls complain about penises being gross or something they’re not really into. Same with straight men and vaginas (though this often takes a misogynstic tone and we could have a whole other conversation about pussy hate/shame). It’s just that rarely do I hear people talking about the importance of genitalia or “attraction to” genitalia unless it is in the context of not being attracted to a trans person because of their genitalia.

I think skankassqueer is totally on point. What people are “not attracted to” is not the genitalia itself, it’s the fact that it is unexpected or seemingly “mis-matched” based on their socially-informed notions of what is male and what is female and it is about their culturally-informed (and often subconscious) reaction of disgust or humor to trans bodies.

And I say this not only as a man with a vagina who hopes (and, when feeling assertive, expects) straight women will accept that part of me as male and be into it/me, but also as a man who is attracted to women and has truly considered the possibility of being involved with a pre- or non-op trans woman and decided that I could definitely be satisfied in a physical relationship with a woman who doesn’t have a vagina (though admittedly it would take some navigating as it would be a new experience for me).

sanaatamir:

kiriamaya:

[warning for cissexism]

The Fundiegelical: “You may think you’re ‘happy’ by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, but you’re living in sin and you’re going straight to hell! Jesus loves you.”

The “Enlightened” Liberal: “But gender doesn’t even matter, because deep down, we’re all the same. So why is it such a big deal what I call you?”

The TERF: “By embracing a gender role opposite your assigned sex, you are reifying gender/privilege and thus making it that much harder for us to smash gender. I know that sounds contradictory but, if you’d been a feminist for as long as I have, you’d understand.”

The Proto-TERF: “Of course I don’t have anything against trans people, but abortion/sex work/breast cancer/ovarian cancer/whatever is and has always been a women’s issue! Why do you want to take it away from women?”

The Ungendering Fetishist: “Hey, I don’t have anything against sh*m*les! I think you’re hot! I watch sh*m*le porn all the time.”

The Clueless Oppression-Olympian: “Transness is just a white/abled/Western issue, so why should I care about it?”

The Incrementalist: “Look, people just aren’t ready to accept trans folks yet. So instead of arguing about what pronouns to use for you, we should focus on something we can actually accomplish, like [insert other tenuously-related SJ cause here].”

The Genital-Focused: “I totally respect and support trans people, but I would never date one. Because ewww.”

The Broad-Stroke Painter: “I once met a trans person who was selfish/mean/creepy/bad in general, so you’re all like that and I won’t respect any of you.”

The Inveterate Essentialist: “But… you can’t be a woman, because you have a PENIS! And chromosomes! And… a PENIS!”

The What-About-Teh-Cis Whiner: “I know my refusal to call you ‘she’ hurts you, but you have to understand that your demand to call you ‘she’ hurts me, too. What about my feelings?”

The Pig-Headed “Skeptic”: “Do you have actual evidence that you’re really a woman? No, of course you don’t, because it’s impossible by definition. No, shut up; I’m right and you’re wrong, PERIOD.”

The “Free Speech” Whiner: “Don’t you think that, in the spirit of free and open discussion, you should listen to my side of things instead of just dismissing it out of hand as ‘bigotry’?”

The Devil’s Advocate: “I’m not saying prejudice is right, but, to be fair, it is a little weird for someone to present as a woman and yet have a penis.”

The Self-Proclaimed “Ally”: “How dare you say I’ve been cissexist? Don’t you know how very supportive I’ve been of you and your causes? Why aren’t you grateful?”

The “Edgy” Comedian: “Look, it was a joke. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand why it’s funny; I guess I’m just too edgy for you. Maybe one day, when you grow up a little, you’ll stop trying to censor humor.”

(Hint to cis people: don’t do any of these things.)

I’ve encountered most of these in some form, either in person (god, that was a bad day…), online, or uh, observing wild RadFems in their um, natural habitat (various forums or offline groups).

Absolut Vodka release a limited edition label free bottle to celebrate diversity and challenge Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender prejudice.