Both women report discriminatory treatment by a feminist case worker who lied to them and used manipulative tactics to delay the cell transfer, as well as the RN monitoring their vitals who allegedly is reporting false information about their health and in one case refusing to provide medical treatment. As a result Amazon and Kat have been keeping their own records of their health information.

Amazon and Cat wrote a detailed account of their ordeal which you can find under the cut, along with how to send supportive letters to them. Additionally, they are urging people to call the warden.

Call Warden Paramo the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility: (619) 661-6500

Demand that Eva Contreraz (C-45857)and Catarina LaPre (K-67313) be take off single-cell status and be allowed to share a cell. Demand that an end to the discriminatory housing policy against trans women in the correctional facility. Continue to call every day until you receive word that their demands have been met. The calling system may be confusing, but when in doubt press 3 at the first menu, then 5, and then 1. Also, if you do that and you get a recorded message instead of a person, it is an answering machine -- just wait for the end of the recording if you want to leave a message.

The below statement by Amazon and Cat was written on October 11th, the 6th day of the resumed hunger strike, and posted to the Gender Anarky webpage on Oct 18th. You can find more updates about their situation there.

What follows is a detailed summary of the Gender Anarky hunger strike thus far, written entirely in the words of Amazon and Cat. Read it, and be ready to keep calling every day until their demands are met:

"In September 2012, Sister Amazon and Cat began a hunger strike to protest the prison's refusal to allow them to be cellmates, while allowing male gender-identity prisoners to cell up with whoever they want. The strike began when Amazon's case worker, Ms. Lignell, began to give sham reasons for not initiating the administrative process that would make it possible for Amazon and Cat o be cell-mates. Amazon has been on single-cell status for 14 years due to in-cell abuse and violence on her by men. Upon her arrival at Donovan in early August, the warden advised her to "find a partner" so that she may be double-celled. Apparently, the prison wanted as many beds available as possible, and making it possible for Amazon to have a cellmate would lend itself to this. Otherwise, she is the sole occupant in a cell with two beds. Amazon was agreeable. Soon, she informed case worker Lignell that she and Cat wished to be cellmates, and requested committee action for double-celling. She also corresponded this to the yard captain, whom the warden had advised to review Amazon's cell status.

Once case worker Lignell saw that it was two transwomen who wanted to be cell with each other she began a series of deceptive maneuvers to avoid and prevent the process of taking Amazon off single-cell status. It is the political opinion of Amazon and Cat that Lignell is a feminist of the type hostile to Transsexual women. For example, at one point Lignell told Amazon that all committee hearings had been cancelled for two weeks, for the entire yard. She had no explanation for this, stating she did not know why this happened. However, when Amazon's therapist called Lignell about the situation Lignell said that she needed two weeks to do an evaluation report before Amazon can appear at committee, and that this was the delay. When questioned about the inconsistency, Lignell assured Amazon that she would be the first to go to committee in two weeks and that her and Cat would be celled up. But the girls were not persuaded, and at this point began their hunger strike, on Sept. 21. They submitted medical form 7362, Health Care Services Request Form, to the Clinic to inform of their strike and asked for daily monitoring of their health while on strike.

On September 23, a sergeant and psychiatrist interviewed the two girls, who reiterated their strike reasons and what was needed to resolve it- their celling together. Daily monitoring of their vital signs began. On September 24th, three days into the strike, Cat began to vomit liquid, as the girls were only drinking water. On Sept. 25th, Cat vomited green bile (possibly due to her medication) shortly after vital signs were taken by an RN in the nearby medical office. Amazon immediately informed a guard of Cat's condition, and the guard informed the RN on duty, Roucher. However, the RN refused to see Cat again, requiring her to fill out another 7362 form to be seen. But daily monitoring of the girls' health was covered by the initial 7362 form informing of the hunger strike. RN Boucher was simply trying to cover up the incident, hush it, and was punishing and harassing Cat for being on a hunger strike by requesting another 7362, and to delay treatment to cause her to suffer more and to charge her an additional $5 for medical services with a new 7362. The girls refused to go along.

On Sept. 26th, he fifth day of the strike, the warden, who was aware of the strike since day one, appeared at the girls' housing unit. Warden Paramo heard the girls out, Amazon reminding him of his instruction to her to find a partner for double-celling, that her and Cat were in agreement to cell up, and that Lignell was unduly delaying and avoiding the process. Warden Paramo then gave his word to the girls that he would look into the situation and take appropriate action, and asked the girls to begin eating in a good faith gesture. That night, the girls ended the hunger strike and ate dinner.

By the following week, however, no action had been taken, and while committee hearings were being held Amazon was not summoned. This flew in the face of Lignell's promise that Amazon would be taken off single-cell status, and flew in the face of the Warden's promise to resolve the matter. Therefore, on October 5th, 2012, the sisters once again went on strike.

As of this writing, Oct. 9th, the girls have been on strike for five days. On Oct. 9th, they also stopped taking water, informing medical via 7362 of this escalation of their strike. On Oct. 5th, Amazon weighed 202 lbs. at 6'1?. On October 6th, she weighed 195 lbs. On October 7th, 192. On October 8th, she maintained 192 lbs. On October 9th, 189. A loss of 13 lbs in four days. Cat has also lost weight drastically, and is struggling with disorientation and fatigue.

The girls have noticed that RN Boucher has been fudging the entries of their vitals, inaccurately recording their actual weight, misstating their reason for hunger striking, and not entering in the flow sheet that records hunger strike information that Amazon is no longer taking liquids. When she pointed out this omission to Boucher, he left a "yes" response to the question of whether liquids were being taken by her and entered in the brackets that she claims she is not drinking water. A couple of times Boucher forgot completely to weigh the girls. So they have taken to recording their vitals themselves on notepads for their own information, and keep a strict log of everything going on with them while on the strike. Depending on the course of things, they may eventually file a lawsuit about it, and the accuracy of the facts will be critical.

It is worth noting that the guards have been trying to entice the girls into ending their strike. One guard offered to let them visit in Cat's cell for a few hours if they start eating. The insinuation was not lost on the girls, that their real motive for the hunger strike was to have sex with each other. They considered the proposition an insult and utterly rejected it.

For decades hundreds of Transsexual women throughout California prisons have been undergoing brutal violence and rape because prisoncrats refuse to implement a Transsexual housing policy wherein such girls are safely housed and celled among themselves, and instead house them in dangerous environments where they will be abused and hurt, possibly killed, driven to suicide, going to solitary confinement to preserve their lives. Or stuck on single-cell status for endless years. For many girls it is a life of desperation not worth living. It is a genocidal policy, intentional, meant to punish and terrify the girls just because they are girls. We will not allow this happen or continue unchallenged. We will take up the challenge and resist with all our might, tooth and nail, and with our minds, sustained only by our kind and by an uncompromising spirit that glows within and keeps our resistance aflame, alive, throbbing, vibrating. The struggle for safe housing and for exclusive Transsexual housing for those who prefer it is a single aspect of Transsexual resistance in the California prisons. It is a human rights issue.

Gender Anarky Party stands for the union of all oppressed genderfags and for aggressive resistance against our oppressors, whatever disguise they wear. In this we will not take one step backward. The Transsexual resistance movement that is Gender Anarky advocates militant uncompromise and daring measures in the endless struggle for our peace and freedom. We are in the trenches of society, in the trenches of prisons, zealous in our confrontation with the oppressor, assured of victory, welcoming Martyrdom.

We urge our supporters to continue to confront Donovan Prison Warden Paramo and the Secretary of Corrections in Sacramento, California, to allow Transsexual women to cell with each other, and to establish exclusive Transsexual housing units for their safety. Join this resistance. Make your voice heard.

Resist for Transsexual Human Rights, Transsexual Peace, and Transsexual Freedom!

Action builds resistance! Build up the resistance!

To Transsexual Women Everywhere:

Do you resist? If not, why not? If so, join Gender Anarky. Begin a Gender Anarky column in your area. Dare to struggle and dare to win."

You can write to Amazon and Cat at the following addresses:

Eva Contreraz C-45857
PO Box 799003 (C15-223)
San Diego, CA 92179-9003

Catarina LePre K-67313
PO Box 799003
San Diego, CA 92179-9003

According to a statement released yesterday, the hunger strike began on Friday September 21st and they are asking their supporters to call in and help:

Call Warden Paramo the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility: (619) 661-6500

Demand that Eva Contreraz (C-45857) and Catarine LaPre (K-67313) be take off single-cell status and be allowed to share a cell. Demand that an end to the discriminatory housing policy against trans women in the correctional facility.

Isolation has commonly been a discriminatory practice prison's have used against trans prisoners, and many confine trans prisoners to solitary confinement in order to avoid having to place them with either men or women. Often, such solitary confinement ends up being over extended periods of time or even throughout the duration of incarceration, despite many indications that extended solitary confinement can cause lasting psychological damage and may be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Being restricted to a single cell appears to be a different practice than solitary confinement. Nonetheless, it is a discriminatory practice where trans prisoners are subjected to additional punishment that other prisoners do not have to deal with.

Earlier this year the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations put out by the Obama administration acknowledged the increased risk trans prisoners are at and put in place regulations to deal with the problem. Enforcing isolation for all trans prisoners against their will is not a recommended practice for reducing violence.

Update: The original posting did not include mention that both women are a part of a trans self-defense prison organization, Gender Anarky. It has been suggested that their affiliation with this political party may be part of the reason for this mistreatment. This hunger strike is both about the immediate issue of discriminatory treatment and to protest prisons in general. For more information about Gender Anarky you can visit their webpage.

(Female prisoner graphic via Bigstock)

The image is a protester wearing a towel with legs and a penis drawn on it and a sign that asks "Does this dick make my rights look bigger?" It may seem glib and silly, but this is not just a hypothetical question for the plenty of women out there who do have dicks - or at least what other's might interpret as such.

The suggestion that such women gain access to rights because of it is flat out insulting. It is made to sound as if trans women experiencing street harassment or unfair workplace treatment could clear it all up by revealing that they are trans. In reality, trans women are specifically targeted for harassment, discrimination, and violence on top of the harassment, discrimination, and violence we experience as women.

I know plenty of women who refuse to work with feminist groups altogether because of the frequency of things like this. I'm not talking about the hate-filled anti-trans activists who attack trans people in the name of feminism. Micro-aggressions such as these images quietly reinforce assumptions and stereotypes about trans women and can be a real problem, especially when they are so frequent.

I responded the first 2-3 times I saw that image posted, but after that I was too fatigued to do it anymore. It may seem expedient for feminist communities to ignore these problems, but that is at the cost of alienating a significant population of women who desperately need feminism in their lives.

This problem becomes even more pronounced when dealing with women's health and reproductive rights. There is an argument to be made that the discussion of abortion should be limited to those with a functioning and fertile uterus and ovaries. But in most cases that's not what is actually being argued.

Rarely are infertile cis women ever told to "shut up" on the issue of abortion. That's because the issue of choice and a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases affects all women. While trans women are often told (intentionally or unintentionally) that the inability to have need for abortion disqualifies us from the discussion, reproductive rights covers a lot more ground than just abortion.

Women of color feminists have been pointing out for decades that the right to have children is just as much a reproductive right as is the right to not have children. Forced sterilization is an issue with a long and horrific history as well as an often ignored present. This directly impacts trans women as most states still require trans people to be sterilized before being granted legal gender recognition.

This past year access to hormonal birth control has become a major political issue. Many insurance companies exclude birth control from their plans and a large political movement has been fighting to make such discriminatory practices illegal.

Those same insurance companies also discriminatorily exclude access to hormone replacement therapy for trans people, but unfortunately there has been comparatively very little movement to end that discrimination.

As conservatives push towards making hormonal birth control illegal, you can bet such an outcome would impact trans women as well, as the hormone pills we take are made from the same synthesized hormones, just in different doses.

As conservatives seek to defund Planned Parenthood and shut down clinics that offer abortion in the struggle over reproductive rights, it increasingly puts access to basic services at risk. Just as cis women seek services at these clinics unrelated to abortion, so do trans women. In fact, in some areas Planned Parenthood is one of the only service providers willing to prescribe hormones and related care for trans people. (In other areas Planned Parenthood refuses services to us for being trans, but that's another issue).

So it is true that I will never have personal need for an abortion. However, I have relied on Planned Parenthood and other women's clinics. I have lobbied my state legislature for insurance coverage of birth control. I have lobbied city governments to adopt insurance plans for their own employees that cover hormones for trans people. I have personally been sterilized because the government demanded it (a requirement my birth state of California rescinded just this last year). And I continue to fight for access to women's health care - both cis women and trans women.

I would like to see all my sisters, regardless of their genital configuration, do so as well. And for that to happen we need to build a feminist movement for all women.

Dear Tobi,

I have a cousin, who let's call Shane. Shane is young, attractive, and generally pleasant to be around, except that Shane holds some prejudices around transgender people. You wouldn't be able to tell it just by looking, and it isn't a topic that comes up very often. It's nothing major, and I would never expect it to come to violence or even open hostility, but it's been made clear to me that Shane does not want to ever be in a relationship with someone who is trans.

]]>

I understand that is not actually too uncommon, and many people live their lives that way without ever having it become an issue. Now Shane's had several partners over the years, but none of them have been very serious. However, over the past several months, Shane's started dating a co-worker of mine, River. I had assumed that because things were getting serious, Shane would have told River about this desire not to be in a relationship with anyone who is trans. However, Shane said that River wasn't trans so there was no need to bring it up. But how could Shane know if they never talked about it? Perhaps River is trans, or will later come out as trans, or has a trans family member or close friend. I think Shane is hiding a serious issue that could potentially create a big problem for them. Because River is my co-worker, I feel responsible. I know that only a handful of people know about Shane's preferences, but what if this were to blow up and River were to get hurt? Should I insist on telling River, or just stay out of it?

Thanks for writing me, my nameless friend. To begin with, I must state that there is an amazing parallel between your scenario and a problem another person recently wrote to Dear Prudence about. But we'll have to chalk that up to coincidence I suppose.

Now, in general, individuals are entitled to some degree of privacy, especially towards the beginning of a relationship. Additionally, with so many potentially important issues to discuss, it's just not possible or reasonable to have a specific timeline of when one should be obligated to disclose. Political affiliation, religious history, survivor status, food allergies, voting record, and of course, prejudices, are all things that might be important to share in a relationship. But a first date shouldn't become a laundry list of check-ins, warnings, and disclaimers. So I always err on the side of letting people set their own timeline for such things.

It's true it becomes more difficult when you are dealing with things that might reasonably come out before you get a chance to deal with them. What if Shane lets something slip while watching Dancing with the Stars? River will eventually meet more and more of Shane's friends and family, will it be possible (or reasonable) to get them all in line to help keep this secret?

Perhaps this is something that River won't have a problem with. But whether you call it a "preference" or a "prejudice," it's entirely possible it could be a deal breaker. Ultimately, though, the same could be said about any number of issues, and you simply can't police them all.

So I would recommend that you don't jump into the middle of this or out Shane on this issue. If you do want to do something, you have a couple of options. You can check in with Shane about the process, mentioning that disclosure is often for the best - if it creates a problem, it's more fair to address it now than five years into things, and if it doesn't create a problem, then no more having to hide things.

Or you could discretely try to ascertain River's thoughts on the matter through general questions about trans politics. But whatever you do, remember that they are both grown-ups and you are not responsible for them. Dating always involves risk of heartbreak and that is their risk to take.

So there's my first advice column. Let me know your thoughts and if I should try to do this more often. If you have questions for me, you can use the Bilerico contact form to get in touch. And while it's unrelated, I simply can't publish anything this month without mentioning my Kickstarter campaign for my next film, which is about halfway to the extended goal with less than a week to go. Please take a moment to check it out if you can.

What the f*ck, guys?

It seems like most women's spaces are falling into two categories these days:

They are either conservative anti-trans spaces that actively exclude all trans people. Or they are progressive trans-positive spaces that decide that the most progressive thing they could do would be to dismantle themselves as women-only and become gender neutral.

With either option, trans women are denied access to women-only space.

Now it appears the few women-only spaces that are actively "inclusive" of trans women are facing pressure to become gender neutral.

I mean, we can all hang out in our all-genders spaces. I'll volunteer to keep them going. My partner can bring a batch of hir awesome cupcakes.

But whether we are talking about a dyke march, a women's conference, or localized feminist organizing, exerting external force to dismantle or destroy women's spaces is never anything but misogynistic. And taking away an important resource from trans women is the truly transphobic act in this situation.

The controversy is becoming increasingly burdensome for the paper. A petition was circulated last spring, and calls for a boycott have been growing since Danny Glenwright's statements in December. Queer musician Rae Spoon was set to be on the cover of Xtra in January, yet they refused permission to be included in the paper when they learned about the boycott and discovered that their pronoun preference would not be respected. Rae wrote a compelling account of the experience on their personal tumblr. This week Ivan Coyote, a columnist for Xtra, wrote a column for the paper pleading with them to change their policy.

I humbly request that Xtra do some serious thinking about what it means for a queer paper to refuse to honour such a fundamentally basic issue so important to many of its readers, or potential readers. All of its trans, gender non-conforming, gender-queer readers and all of our many allies. Call us what we wish to be called.

The complicated back-and-forth is well documented in an article by Morgan M. Page, the organizer who arranged the interview. However, what gets lost in the drama of who said what to whom, various accusations, and who's apologizing or not apologizing for what, is the fact that a policy has effectively just been created. Glenwright reserves the right for the paper to use the birth name of a trans person, not only in social media promotion, but at any time in the paper.

When trans people choose to be interviewed by Xtra, they now have to consider the possibility that their birth name may be printed without their consent, and if they use gender-neutral pronouns, they will have to choose between having the wrong pronouns used or being dehumanizingly referred to with no pronouns at all. Clearly, those who choose not to be interviewed have more complicated motives than simply trying to bully or hurt the paper's editor. When a columnist at the paper, especially one that has been there for 11 years, feels their only recourse is to write a column criticizing their own paper, clearly, something is wrong. Hopefully these concerns can be resolved quickly, but in the meantime, it appears likely that trans people connected to the paper will continue speaking out.

img src

I've seen people try to deal with this in different ways, one of my favorites being queer community dinners to create new family and traditions. Another response comes in the form of "An Open Letter to the Woman Who Gave Birth to Me in Honor of a Holiday I No Longer Celebrate," a poignant and moving letter by Sadie Vashti.

Sadie writes:

This letter is addressed to the person who used to be my mother. I wrote it completely on a whim. I'm pretty narcissistic, and this letter may seem a bit self-indulgent. (It's also somewhat bitter, sarcastic, funny, vindictive, and potentially very triggering.) But this is because I've been feeling very powerless and alone, and writing this was therapeutic. Zoe described it as "broken and triumphant and scathing." It was empowering to write, and has already been empowering for some to read -- so I'm sharing it here. (I don't actually know how to contact my former mother, but maybe she'll google search me some day...)

Sadie has touched a nerve and her story is compelling. She may have written it in a personal attempt at self care, but it's clear that many others can identify with what she's written and find it very meaningful. The letter itself is too long to excerpt, so follow the link and read it.

DAN: [READING FROM CARD] My boyfriend is straight but he enjoys anal sex and he asks me to make love to him in his butt all the time. [ASIDE:] You have no one to blame but yourself. [READING FROM CARD] Also, he likes watching she-male porn. Could you tell me why he is acting like this? [ANSWER:] Um, I'm gunna go out on a limb here and say it's because he likes shemale porn and he enjoys anal stimulation. He's acting like this because he's a very freaky boy. If you're into him, and you're willing to go there for him, there are a lot of straight guys who are into transexual sex-workers, transexual porn, she-males for lack of a better term, although some people think that's very offensive--

He does claim that he was about to address the problem with the term before being glittered, and I certainly want to give him props for using the terms "transexual sex-workers" and "transexual porn," all of which is much better than the last time I heard him discuss the subject. He spends the rest of the article parsing through the events of the evening without mentioning any of the other concerns that have been raised about him.

But here's the thing, I am pretty certain those individuals had planned this in advance. They weren't fans who just happened to have glitter on them and were so shocked by his words that evening that they jumped into action. I could point out that he wasn't simply reading from the card and used the term "she-male" twice after finishing the question, or that his phrasing "transsexual sex workers... she-males for lack of a better term," implies that he believes it is the better term, and that that's not a bad assumption to make given that previously he has preferred to use that term rather than "transsexual sex workers."

However, I've repeatedly been saying that while his use of derogatory slurs is one of the most visible issues, it is also one of the most minor. For some reason, it's the issue that everyone has been focusing on. Perhaps people are more used to discussing slurs. Perhaps it's easier to understand. Perhaps it's easier to claim people are being over sensitive. But the other transphobic assumptions and teachings are the more impactful ones. And these assumptions are still present, at least to a minor degree, in his statement today.

...his behavior has already been well documented by other bloggers, such as Masculine Toast, Bi Furious, Greta Christina, and FuckNoDanSavage...

While he corrects my source and points out that he never used the phrase "freaky tranny porn," he does point to where that perception came from: he said that a straight guy attracted to trans women was a "freaky boy." He also discusses how he is freak-positive and encourages people to embrace their freakiness. I can certainly agree with the sentiment, but again, this is a double standard. I don't believe I've ever heard him call someone a freak solely for being gay, and he certainly never called a straight guy a freak for watching lesbian porn. He may have been about to explain it how watching porn or anal sex is what makes him freaky, but we are left with impression that trans people are freaks, and anyone attracted to them are freaks too. It's a sentiment that is not hard to pick up from his other statements on the subject, and freak positive or not, that's a double standard.

Dan also gives the impression that he believes that trans people are so different or freaky that he will always be able to identify them as trans just by looking. He states definitively and without question that none of the glitterers were trans. Yet despite his certainty, he is quite wrong. My source at UC Invine recognized one of the two glitterers as a local trans-identified activist. Also, the Dan Savage Welcoming Committee from Oregon has posted their own response:

This is a bald-faced lie. Every member of DSWC Eugene is trans, including the woman who glittered Dan on November 1st. If we were to hazard a guess, we'd say that Dan probably harbors a lot of cissexist assumptions about what a trans person looks and sounds like (protip: there's as much variance among trans people as among cis people).

In response to the media about Dan, and as comments to his response, several of his fans have been slamming both trans activists and trans people in general. In an update he asks them not to -- again a great step in the right direction. But he needs to be acknowledge and be accountable for the fact that he has encouraged this type of response and many of them have learned it from him. In episode 207 of his podcast, he takes a call from someone who is exploring her attraction to trans and genderqueer people. She encounters someone who sounds like either a femme trans man or a non-binary genderqueer femme who only uses gender neutral pronouns. The caller accidentally uses the wrong gender term for them and after getting mad they avoided the caller. Dan then explains the "appropriate response" to being called out by trans activists.

He apparently didn't understand the situation here, because he seems to assume the individual involved is a trans woman. You would think Dan would know the difference between femme and female, and perhaps be aware that there are femme men out there who would prefer to spend their time with people who understand that they are indeed men (same thing for non-binary genderqueers having their gender understood). Yet he is so blinded by his preconceived notions of trans women who are hypersensitive and overreacting that he makes this response all about these hypothetical trans women rather than the actual people involved.

In his response he sites a lot of columns where he offers some pretty good advice around trans issues and trans people, but that doesn't change that his negative statements are still having an impact, such as all his fans who still believe this is the appropriate response to being called transphobic. In the discussions I've had in the past weeks, several people have tried to defend some of Dan's old work -- work that I'm pretty sure is what he was talking about when he says that he used to be transphobic. Yet his fans are still taking it as gospel and arguing that it is the right way approach trans people.

This is why Dan needs to be a part of a larger discussion. If he's grown as an ally in the past year, he needs to show it. He needs to spell out, for his fans and for his critics (and those of us who are both), which pieces of advice he gave that he now see as transphobic. He needs to spell out that people shouldn't take that advice anymore. He needs to make at least one actual apology - and I'm not counting the time he apologized to a non-trans person for calling them trans, he needs to apologize to actual trans people. He needs to do the hard ally work, be humble, sit down and listen to what people have to say. I went into detail about one instance here, and even now I'm cutting it short for space limitations. He needs to have conversations that can go as deep as necessary and cover as much as possible and so far he has cut off those conversations with his critics.

In closing, I want to give one piece of advice to the famed advice giver. Admitting your wrong is not the end of the world. Being criticized doesn't mean you are a horrible person. The best allies I know often gain more respect for how they handle themselves in situations where they are wrong than they do for how they handle themselves in situations where they are right. When it comes to steadfastly refusing to admit wrong doing and trying to discredit and dismiss your critics, sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime. Sometimes the coverup is the crime itself.

Travelingman Rick commented that he was opposed to the use of the word "cis" to describe non-trans people and said that it was slur.

The people doing this to Dan don't have a problem throwing around the word Cis, a word that was created by and pushed onto non trans people by the trans community. A term that I and many others find offensive yet trans people continue to push this word and attempt to foist it upon us. Maybe you should think about that before you blame others for simply using words that have been around for ages that were not directed at any one person in particular but were simply being repeated by Dan that were part of a question he was asked. I am going to start glitter bombing the next Trans person I hear use the term Cis to describe me.

Patrick Farley responded saying:

"Cis" is a Latin prefix that means "on the same side as". In other words, you aren't "trans". It's not a slur. Tranny, and shemale, are slurs.

Why on EARTH would you find "cis" offensive?

I also asked if there were any other value-neutral terms that he would prefer.

John Aravosis at Americablog has made a post focusing on this issue. I'll post my response below. I'd love to hear serious responses to my concerns, and it would be great if this conversation stops taking over the other thread.

We absolutely need a value neutral way to refer to people who are not trans. If you only insist on being referred to in terms that denote superiority, no one will take your request seriously. Right now cis is the only term that denotes neither superiority or inferiority. It was derived the same way as -- and is as value neutral as -- the term heterosexual (which, by the way was forced upon people who had previously been referred to as "normal" by gay activists).

I would add that there is also a pretty serious difference between people who are not trans using the term "she-male" and other people using the term "cis."

1. Available Alternatives. There is no reason not to use the value neutral term, "trans," instead of "she-male." However, there is no value neutral term other than "cis" that can be used.
2. Anger vs Slur. Just because a term is used with anger does not make it a slur. I've seen plenty of people dealing with racism respond "God damn white folks!" Or "I can't stand those fucking straight men!" That does not mean that "white" "straight" and "men" are now slurs. Because someone dealing with transphobia said "You're just acting like a typical cis person!" doesn't mean that cis is a slur.
3. Power Difference. Slurs against oppressed groups hold more power than slurs against majority groups. If a bigot yells the N-word, "Faggot," etc, on the street, it has a much stronger impact than someone yelling "breeder" or "cracker." That's not to say that slurs against majority groups are not rude or hurtful, but that it is inappropriate to place them on the same level as slurs against oppressed groups.

If a group of people who have been called cis got together and came up with another value neutral term for themselves that they wanted to popularize, I would go right ahead and use it. However, it would only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere used the term with anger and we'd be in just about the same situation.

And in the meantime, the people opposed to using "cis" can only suggest alternatives like "don't call me a man or a woman" - as if trans people aren't men or women. Or "call me a biological person" - as if trans people are not biological. Or "Just call me non-trans" effectively meaning that we don't call them anything at all - as if they are simply normal and being trans is an aberration.

I can't help but have visions of a person who says "don't call me upper-class, call me a man of capability," "don't call me straight, just call me not perverted," "don't call me able-bodied, just call me normal or non-sick," or "don't call me white, call me someone with good breeding."

I would much rather refer to someone in a respectful way they'd prefer to be referred to, but if they insist the only way for me to respect them is to imply denigrating things about myself, that's where I draw the line.

(img src)

According to my source at the event, Savage was in the middle of answering a question from a student who was wondering if her boyfriend was a freak because he watched porn featuring trans women. Savage suggested that her boyfriend was a freak, while freely using the terms "shemale" and "freaky tranny porn." That is when two individuals ran up and threw glitter on him yelling "Transphobe!" Someone from the MTV tech crew muttered "Oh, not again!" Savage laughed it off and said that being gay he loves glitter.

Later, when another student was asking him about the incident, Savage answered, "I'm used to it."

Savage's use of the terms "tranny" and "shemale" are a minor part of the complaints being lodged against him, however, the use of those slurs is the most visible and most discussed part of them. Savage has claimed that he was transphobic 15 years ago but isn't anymore, however, if that is true than why would Dan choose to use those same derogatory slurs knowing how much anger it draws from the trans community and so soon on the heels of the first glitter stunt?

Was he being antagonistic or just oblivious?

Considering that he is being called transphobic so frequently that he now says he is "used to it," it's hard to understand how he can continue to see himself as a spokesperson for the LGBT community rather than solely a gay spokesperson. Especially when he apparently has begun bringing police to his events to protect him from the community he claims to represent.

After the first glitter stunt, many reported on the fact that it was being used to criticize a gay man, calling it a queer-on-queer glitter bombing. Unlike previous glitter bomb stunts, the message was clearly based on anti-trans actions rather than anti-gay ones. In this light, calling it a queer-on-queer would be akin to calling Michele Bachman a target of a white-on-white glitter bombing. The shared identities are besides the point, Bachman's glitter bombing was not about whiteness and Savage's glitter bombing was not about gayness.

There is still significance in the fact that gay and trans communities are supposed to be in coalition together and that infighting can damage that coalition. However, for those concerned about infighting, it is vitally important to see the whole picture and acknowledge Savage's anti-trans actions as unprovoked infighting that this is responding to.

As a movement, we have to be able to criticize our allies or else they are not really allies. That doesn't mean beating upon them like a punching bag as a way to vent our frustration with the world. That doesn't mean the good things they are doing don't count. It's not about who they are deep inside or their value as a human being. It just means that something they did was unacceptable and has to change.

It was hard not to notice all the cis (non-trans) people rushing to defend Savage's transphobic actions and argue that he should be free to continue them. In many cases, this was based on an appreciation of the good work he has done with only a minimal understanding of the complaints against him.

As our community has a conversation around this issue, I would suggest that those who consider themselves allies to trans people and feel the urge to aggressively defend Savage may benefit by prioritising listening to trans people's voices on the matter. And it goes without saying that no weight should be given to those who do not consider themselves allies to trans people and insist on telling trans people that their concerns are not valid.

Update: Dan Savage has responded via text message to Joe My God. He dismisses the criticism against him as "ridiculous" and notes that he was only mirroring the language a cis audience member was using and did mention that "some people have a problem with it."

It is disappointing that he continues offer excuses and be unwilling to listen to the concerns of the trans community. It was that unwillingness to listen that prompted activists to resort to these stunts to the community's attention. As I note in a comment below, if a white audience member used a racial slur, that would not be an excuse for him to nonchalantly use the slur after mentioning that "some people have a problem with it." It should not be an adequate excuse here, either.

Further Update: Dan Savage has posted a response and a copy of the transcript from the event. I would like to apologize because, as if often the case with eye witnesses, my source appears to have gotten some of the details wrong. Here is the actual transcript

DAN: [READING FROM CARD] My boyfriend is straight but he enjoys anal sex and he asks me to make love to him in his butt all the time. [ASIDE:] You have no one to blame but yourself. [READING FROM CARD] Also, he likes watching she-male porn. Could you tell me why he is acting like this? [ANSWER:] Um, I'm gunna go out on a limb here and say it's because he likes shemale porn and he enjoys anal stimulation. He's acting like this because he's a very freaky boy. If you're into him, and you're willing to go there for him, there are a lot of straight guys who are into transexual sex-workers, transexual porn, she-males for lack of a better term, although some people think that's very offensive--

It's important to remember that the criticism about Dan Savage's behavior was not about his words that night but about his ongoing and recent behavior over an extended time period. I will write more regarding this response later today.

As they turned tail, they added, "Glitterbomb courtesy of the Dan Savage Welcoming Committee," and just before they got out the door, "He's a racist and misogynist and a rape-apologist, too!" The operative then fled the scene.
--Statement by Dan Savage Welcoming Committee

Dan Savage has made it clear that he intends to be an ally to trans people, but he's certainly been a very inconsistent ally. Sometimes he apologizes for his transphobic actions, such as when he was criticized for saying that a Republican politician was trans as a way to insult him. Other times, he ridicules those who point out his transphobic actions, depicts them as over-sensitive, irrational, and so forth. He occasionally uses the power of his popularity to bring attention to important trans issues, but he refuses to listen to trans people when they tell him what he is doing is causing harm.

"How do you disprove a charge like you're transphobic? I'm not afraid of trans people." Savage then goes into a mimicking voice, knowing not to say, "One of my friends is trans," but does say that he has a friend who is trans who comes to his house for Christmas. "We hang out all the time," Savage says. "I certainly have had a journey in the last 20 years--as have we all--on trans issues. When I started writing Savage Love 20 years ago, and you can yank quotes 15, 18 years ago and flat them up today and say, 'You know, that's transphobic,' I'd probably agree with you. 15 years ago I didn't know as much as I know now--nor did anybody."

The problem I see here is that an ally in any anti-oppression movement should not be focused on disproving the fact that they are influenced by prejudice. In doing so, he paints himself into an adversarial relationship with the trans activists who he tries to discredit in order to prove his worth. I would argue that it's probably impossible to avoid internalizing prejudicial messages. The best thing any ally can do is take responsibility for those influences and seek to be accountable for them. Yet Dan Savage is too busy dodging responsibility to actually internalize an understanding of what he is doing that is wrong.

Because while it was 8 years ago that he titled a column "Bad Tranny" where he admonished a trans woman for coming out, it was only two years ago that he used the term "shemale" to refer to trans women. Just one year ago, several weeks in succession, first when a caller discusses watching trans porn, he admits that he knows he shouldn't use either derogatory term, but declares that it's okay to do so when referencing porn and proceeds to joyfully sling around the word "tranny" ten times in about two minutes and tosses in "shemale" a few times for good measure. Then repeats his previous assertion that men who are attracted to trans women cannot be considered completely straight. A week later he verbally thrashes a trans person who got upset at being mispronouned. Then finally, he reassures a man who likes women with strap-ons that he is 100% straight as long as the cock that he's attracted to is attached to a woman - which apparently means he doesn't consider trans women to be women, or else he would have said the same thing to the guy who watches trans porn.

I have to wonder, with all that Dan Savage claims to have learned in the past 15 years, has he learned how to be less transphobic or has he only learned how to sound less transphobic while still putting out equally damaging statements?

I could go on, but his behavior has already been well documented by other bloggers, such as Masculine Toast, Bi Furious, Greta Christina, and FuckNoDanSavage. The bottom line is that when challenged on his various prejudicial influences, Dan Savage tells his critics to patiently wait for him while it gets better. This glitterbomb is one of many responses that demand, "Make it better."

(img src)

Production companies might skirt the line by allowing performers to use up to four fingers, but will often check to make sure the thumb stays out. When fisting does happen, it's creatively edited out or obscured to the point that there's reasonable doubt that not all five fingers are in.

With all this effort to keep fisting off the porn shelves, you've got to wonder, "Why?"

As a porn producer, I have to be aware that if I include fisting in a film, most distributors would refuse to distribute the film solely on that basis, and it would be very hard to get into a store. To explain this, they often point to the incredibly vague restriction on "obscenity."

It's so vague the best I can tell is that sexual material is deemed obscene if a jury decides it is obscene. Because that could include anything that is not common and because fighting obscenity charges can destroy a business even if you win, distributors and retailers have to guess what might be obscene and avoid it.

That makes sense, but there's still little reason to guess that fisting might be interpreted as obscene. There haven't been any major obscenity cases against fisting, and many of the retailers who refuse to carry fisting still carry things that have been the focus of major obscenity cases.

Ultimately, when you think about the less desirable elements of the porn industry, I don't think anyone places fisting on that list. Clear depictions of consent and pleasure are a lot more important to me than how many fingers are used for penetration.

Anyway, I feel there is an important compromise to be had here. One side feels that this obvious couple should come out of the closet with a New York same-sex marriage, and the other side insists that they aren't a couple at all and are just friends.

Because the truth is always in the middle of two extreme viewpoints, the solution should be obvious: Bert and Ernie should be friends with benefits.

Others have already pointed out how extremely close the two are, how they seem to buy matching sets of furniture for themselves, and wondered how many platonic friends they know of who share a bedroom? Sure, I can buy the "close friends" part, but is the "platonic" all that likely?

Still, does that mean they are marriage material?

Besides, if they were a monogamous couple, heaven forbid Bert ever walks in on Ernie in the bathtub singing, "Rubber ducky you're so fine, and I'm lucky that you're mine," "Rubber ducky you're the one." I suppose it could be a great way to teach about affairs and the reality of how couples deal with them, but I'd prefer to see the pair as positive role models engaging in ethical non-monogamy rather than a negative model of what not to.

Regardless of what you think is most likely, the facts are that Bert and Ernie have a very unique relationship that isn't commonly represented in the media - including in LGBT media. Setting them up as friends with benefits is a good way to explain the facts, but most importantly, is a politically expedient way to resolve the growing tension between Sesame Street fans arguing over the nature of their relationship.

We all know that liberals are very much in favor of recognizing gay relationships, and conservatives absolutely love no strings attached clandestine gay sex. This way you can have the long term relationship and domesticity alongside occasional physical gratification free from a commitment to monogamy and without the need to discuss what the relationship "means." Certainly everyone can get behind that.

Especially when so many youth and young adults are struggling with these very issues, perhaps it is worthwhile to have a set of role models for how that can be done in a long term successful way.

Further Update: OUT!wear has posted a statement and an apology (http://www.facebook.com/notes/outwear-pridewear-accessories/an-open-letter-to-the-lgbt-community-and-its-allies-re-the-wbw-product-line/171857096212704)

Yesterday the news spread through Facebook that OUT!wear, a company that produces gay and lesbian designs for shirts and clothing - including a line of PFLAG merchandise - has released a new design in preparation for the Michigan Women's Music Festival to promote the exclusion of trans women. Several people complained that the shirt, which reads "100% WBW," is in contradiction with their mission:

"OUT!wear™ is quality custom Pridewear and Accessories "WORN WITH PRIDE" to promote visibility, unity and self esteem amongst Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gendered persons.To promote a positive image within our community, whether bold or discreet."

However, all negative comments on their facebook page were quickly deleted.

I can only assume that PFLAG is unaware of this situation, so I wrote to them to inform them of it. My email follows below.

I have worked with my local PFLAG off and on for almost a decade and was always very proud of how strongly supportive of the trans community they were. There are little to no trans resources in my small town and PFLAG stepped up to the plate. Many of the trans people coming out have found care and support from PFLAG -- it has literally been life saving. And I remember just after the turn of the millennium when PFLAG was among the first national organizations to declare that they would only support non-discrimination policies and other civil rights legislation if they are trans inclusive.

That's why I find it so disturbing to recently discover that the company OUT!wear is spreading a message frequently used to deny equal rights to and justify discrimination against trans women and it seems they have enjoyed a long term partnership with PFLAG, developing and promoting a line of PFLAG merchandise.

A recent addition to their designs is a t-shirt that announces "100% WBW", which stands for women-born-women or womyn-born-womyn. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it was developed as a way of justifying discrimination against trans women by insisting that we are not born women and declaring spaces to be WBW-only. It's designed as a more palatable way of proclaiming the right to discriminate against trans people and has been used to justify such egregious cases as denying trans women access to women's clinics and rape crisis support.

I understand that some people value a community of women around them (that they assume includes no trans people) and want to proclaim their support for that community. However, by framing the value of that community around how it excludes trans women, the positive aspects of those communities are forgotten and only the discrimination is left visible. Regardless of the motivations of OUT!wear, I keep coming back to the personal impact this situation creates. Now, when a trans person is just coming out and finds PFLAG as a resource, they might find this PFLAG merchandise page or run into them at a pride celebration. When they see the PFLAG logo right next to "100% WBW" t-shirts they will have to wonder why PFLAG supports an organization that seeks to create spaces 100% free from trans people. I'm pained to consider those who are at their most vulnerable not feeling like they can't turn to PFLAG because of this.

I understand that Out!wear helps fundraise for PFLAG and that you may wish to salvage this relationship. I would also encourage you to engage in conversation with them, perhaps they will listen to you. However, knowing how long such things can drag out, I would hope that you ask them to remove their PFLAG merchandise and any PFLAG logos from their webpage until the issue is resolved. I'm certain you would ask that of any partner organization that began selling "Ex-Gay" t-shirts or something thinly veiled like "100% Straight and Proud", and you should do the same here.

Please keep me informed of how you plan to address this situation.

Thanks,

--Tobi

Also, for reference you can see some of what people are saying about this situation at:
http://transgender.livejournal.com/2490694.html
http://www.facebook.com/pridewear?sk=reviews

(img src)

What bothers me the most is when someone spends a great deal of energy insisting that it is incredibly inappropriate to be called transgender, and they turn around and spit the label at others like it is a slur. If it is wrong for a person to be called transgender when they are transsexual, it should not be okay for that same person to throw the term at others who also identify as transsexual. When making the distinction between the two terms, I can see a variety of issues of personal experience, such as social transition, legal transition, medical transition, binary or non-binary identity, and so forth that some people may want to reference. But instead I keep hearing a bunch of litmus tests that don't properly address those distinctions.

(Both personally overheard and collected from friends)

• You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't had vaginoplasty (the more generous version allows for women who haven't had vaginoplasty so long as they never give up on pursuing it)
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't pass as a cis woman 100% of the time
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you transitioned after 45 (or 35, or 25, or 18 depending on who you ask)
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you ascribe to feminist gender deconstruction theory
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you buy clothes in the men's department
• You're not a real transsexual woman if mainstream transphobes wouldn't respect your gender if they somehow found out everything about your body and medical history
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't know - with certainty - from birth
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't have a GI/GID diagnosis or can't afford the process to get one
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't fit your therapist's definition of a "real" woman (no exceptions even if the only therapist in your area is incredibly sexist)
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you are caught without makeup on
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you don't shave
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you have to shave
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't wear dresses and skirts all the time
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you never crossdressed before transitioning
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever identified as a crossdresser
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you become sexually aroused while wearing women's clothing (Does this mean those who present as women all the time can never be sexually aroused? Probably not, but it's not clear where that crossover happens)
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with men
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with women
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not sexually available to men
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex using a strap on
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything that others might consider a penis
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you masturbate involving your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything else others may consider a penis
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you allow yourself to be seen naked before vaginoplasty or with anything others might consider a penis
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever done sex work
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't considered suicide
• You're not a real transsexual woman unless your only alternative to transition is suicide
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you're still attending Southern Comfort
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't keep up with your dilation
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not stealth
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you are stealth
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you've been to camp trans
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you perform as a drag king
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever performed as a drag queen
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever yelled "suck my dick" (even if you are only referring to a metaphysical dick)
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you ever pee standing up
• You're not a real transsexual woman if you play sports (no exceptions for being on the women's rugby team, but maybe for softball)

Looking at this list all together, it is clear that no one can meet all these requirements and several are contradictory. Even many cis women would fail to meet these standards, which are ultimately based on what a "real" woman would do (One of my moms fails almost a dozen of these, not counting the trans specific ones of course).

Whether you see transsexualism as a birth defect or an extension of natural diversity, it stands to reason that if there is something non-transsexuals regularly do, then there will be some transsexuals who do it as well. There are cis women who get turned on by their lingerie, wear men's clothing because it's more comfortable, fuck with strap ons, sing odes to their cocks, have facial or body hair, and do practically everything on this list. Why wouldn't there be at least an occasional transsexual woman who does some of the same?

Honestly, when I was first coming out and my trans world consisted of less than a dozen people, "transsexual" was the word used by those telling me that I should go back into the closet if I didn't have an identical experience as they did. "Transgender" was the word used by those who offered me support as I was figuring things out regardless of what decisions I were to make. Of course I felt more solidarity with the transgender crowd.

However, as I started researching surgeons, puzzling over the legalities of surgeon letters and birth certificates, and struggling with doctors and insurance claims adjusters who had no clue how my body worked, I began to notice that the folks without those experiences were making very different decisions than I would.

I want gender neutral bathrooms for my friends, but I will use the women's room every time, meanwhile some activists in their zeal for gender neutral bathrooms would fight for policy that would allow employers to require all trans people to use an isolated gender neutral facility. And while I truly am grateful that passport rules have been changed, there is a selfish part of me is grumpy that I went through such incredible effort to update my passport and one year later it doesn't matter anymore (of course I'm not so selfish to complain and fight against such expansion of rights).

Alternatively, I've known other activists who would fight for policies allowing anyone to ask for ID before letting you in a public bathroom. I've heard people advocate requiring medical/legal documentation or even surgery before one can be covered under anti-discrimination law, with apparent lack of awareness for how it would affect those without money or the undocumented population. While I wouldn't personally be hurt by such policies, thoughts for my friends, my family, and even just plain social justice demand that I challenge them.

These are differences in experiences that are very important to identify and name and support those who push back against the erasure that happens when we are all lumped together under an umbrella. But as our umbrella splinters into sub-groups, it's important we recognize that we're not all using the same language to mean the same thing.

I've heard the exact same concept discussed in terms of genderqueer vs trans, transvestite vs transgender vs transsexual, binary vs non-binary, and so on. Ultimately, such words are only placeholders for our intended meaning and don't necessarily match up with the intended meanings of others.

They are also treated as mutually exclusive options when that really isn't the truth. While plenty of cissexual people deconstruct their experience of gender within binary expectations, engaging in such a thought exercise does not inoculate one against having a brain sex that does not match their assigned sex. As a result, there are plenty of people who are both transsexual and genderqueer. For another example, I know a good dozen or so trans men who love to wear panties and a corset in the privacy of their own bedroom (or a good dungeon), thus showing a perfect example of being transsexual and a transvestite at the same time.

I worry that as some of these debates are happening, the words are becoming more important than their meanings. And I worry that in the struggle for group autonomy, other concepts like individual identity and complexity are being trampled. I grew up with the mantra "Girls can do anything boys can do, don't let gender hold you back," and now I'm twisting it into "Trans women can do anything cis women can do." And no one can tell me that being a butch woman, finding creative solutions to my dysphoria during sex, or breaking any other rules makes me any less of a real transsexual.

(img src)

The oppositions main arguments were "But it's not medically necessary!" and "Not with my tax dollars!" However, both of these knee-jerk reactions are uninformed to say the least. Here is a quick, four point, refutation.

Ultimately this is a huge victory and part of a larger wave of change as employers recognize both how significant this form of discrimination is as well as how cheap it can be to fix. The city of Seattle is in the news for looking into obtaining trans inclusive health insurance for their employees, and the HRC Corporate Equality Index is going to require trans inclusive healthcare for employers to get a 100% rating starting in 2012.

(img src)