For the past five years - five years! - I have been embroiled in an academic feud. It has been one of the nastiest, dirtiest and ugliest wars I have ever witnessed, short of those actually fought with bombs and guns.
Recently, another academic write a "history" of this war, setting out the horrible tactics used by a group of three "politically correct" types. A brief outline is from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?ei=5070&en=c422d8ed38d5dcb2&ex=1189569600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1189447254-8i1nceAu9Ty+KsQT2rlYyA
Alice Dreger's epic paper on the war is found here:
http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf
After being attacked with "yellow journalism" tactics similar to those of McCarthy, I wrote an article back in 2004 concerning this war. That article was printed in "Transgender Tapestry" by then editor Dallas Denny. It may be coincidence, but that was the last edition that Dallas edited. The next edition with a new editor published several attacks on me. My article may be found at:
http://www.ifge.org/Article298.phtml and
http://www.autogynephilia.org/I%20AM%20ARUNE.htm
After years of watching professionals being attacked by rabid politically correct "activists" it is a relief to have media focused on the foul means used to stifle expression of opinion. My own article details the methods used against me for merely supporting a theory. One of these "activists" uses an interesting technique. Andrea James, or someone action on her behest, writes an accusation to an e-group or newsgroup under an assumed name. The accusation is then picked up and broadcast over the Net as "truth" and spread as widely as possible. In my case, the accusation was that I was a "registered sex offender". Not true. But once posted on a newsgroup, that accusation took on a life. Andrea James then coyly reprinted it on her web pages and spread it to the four corners of the planet. Others - the "cohort" or herd - repeated it endlessly. I know of at least three times that the same tactic was used. Alice Dreger points out other similar tactics used against Dr. Bailey by James, McClosky and Conway.
Ugly. No other word comes even close.
Alice Dreger’s analysis of the “Great Transsexual War” (commenced with the publication of J. Michael Bailey’s “The Man Who Would be Queen” in 2003) has generated the anticipated reaction from some transsexual advocates and their followers. Wherever they gather on the Internet, Dreger has now been added to a long list of professionals and others who may be attacked at will.
Reason, that great capability mankind has to sort out issues, seems to be absent. Instead, raw emotion pours out from those who attacked Bailey in the past and now focus on Dr. Dreger.
Perhaps no one of these screeds is more illuminating than that posted by a former lawyer and current grad student, Katerina Rose from Texas. In the past, Rose has “reviewed” Bailey’s book. Her review (in “Transgender ‘Tapestry’”) ended on this note:
“The Man Who Would Be Queen is a quintessential example of the kind of disingenuous, misrepresenting, anti-scientific, life-threatening atrocity that can be perpetrated by someone with balls.”
One might conclude she did not like it.
Her current screed on Bailey starts out by a statement of her neutrality: “I have no personal connection to the controversy….” This conveniently overlooks her review (which is later quoted). Page Two leads her to arrive at a conclusion. “…There’s a bad smell in the air – the smell of the fix being in”. Remember, this is a supposedly neutral paper. Immediate after comes the comment that “we” must defend ourselves, for if we do not no one else will. The peril is Bailey’s book and the ideas it contains.
So much for neutrality.
Following that, a page or two which may be summarized as “You can judge a book by its cover” followed by “Our ends justify any means”, both rather strange positions for a lawyer, now a student of history, to take. Rose rehashes her objections to the theory as if this were the issue that prompted the NY Times, the National Post in Canada and other media to focus on this issue.
That is not the issue. Some may wish it was and many will try to make it the issue now, but it is clearly not.
Matters of religion and politics are barred from some tables. In our new age, we might include sexual orientation and gender identity. All of these are products, in one way or another, of how we think at our core. We use our religious and political “glasses” to view the world as we also do with sexual orientation and gender identity yet none have a litmus test for science to use. No lab results will conclude that a person was Christian or Muslim, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, or considered their brain to be male or female. Each of these is critical to our “core identity” yet are all products of the mind. Those products cannot be distilled down to a chemical test. Rather, they are expressed as ideas as we speak or write. So important is each of them that many have and will die in defense of their ideas or because of them. For these issues, mankind has reserved special horrors. Torture as in the Inquisition, religious wars, hot and cold wars, and hate crimes. We alone of all the species on this earth have the ability to create these divisions amongst us and the need to fight between ourselves as a result.
As it concerns Dreger’s article, this premise is seen as a motivation for the ugliness of the attacks both on her paper and on her personally.
A reading of the negative comments that now attack Dreger shows a strong need to shift the paradigm from the issues she writes about back to the topics of Bailey’s book or, more recently, Dreger's own work with the Intersexed. The article by Rose is typical. She almost totally ignores what Dreger presents as the issue and instead tries so hard to drag her readers back to the matter raised in Bailey’s book. The antics of Conway, James and McClosky are totally ignored. What she is doing is clear. “Hey! Look over here! This book was so very bad - “disingenuous, misrepresenting, anti-scientific, life-threatening atrocity” - that we will not even mention the tactics used to attack it”. In fact, not only was the book none of these things, her attempt to change the issues is lame and false. She, in common with her allies, is really saying, "Don’t look at what we have done. We saw a greater good. Our good justifies all the means we used to attain it”.
If that greater good was universal, perhaps that position, bad as it is, might hold merit. But others, many others, have found the book to be insightful and informative, as a search of comments on Amazon on Bailey's book clearly shows. Rather, there are many “good ends” that all could justify any means. Amongst nations, we see war as a result. Emotion and not reason (perhaps with motives not yet discovered) govern in such a case.
If one now reads almost all of the posts that attack Dreger one quickly finds that they all share this approach. Rose is not alone – she is simply the best of those targeting Dreger. Dr. Conway, the Lord of these Flies, remains mute; Dr. McClosky demands the right to censor before answering questions and refuses to look at the tactics used by his two co-leaders saying only – and carefully – that “I did nothing wrong”, clearly leaving the blame to James and Conway and all that followed. Need we say that none of these three remained mute when they filed charges against Bailey and made his life hell.
The issue is not Bailey’s book, Blanchard’s theory, or anything else from Nazism to conspiracies. Not now. The issue is the smear tactics and false charges made by Andrea James, Lynn Conway and Deirdre McClosky. They made these slanderous comments not simply against Bailey, but against any person, transsexual or not, who either supported the premises in Bailey’s book or his right to speak and publish. They promoted others to attack as well and a great many transsexuals did indeed do so. They all behaved like spoilt children, politically correct zealots who demanded total acceptance of their idea while repressing other concepts in a malicious and evil manner – by lies, half-truths and slander repeated endlessly.
Certainly the over-the-hill response in this instance demands some consideration. Might it not point to the lack of self-confidence and esteem of those who so relentlessly attacked? A person secure in their own concepts of self does not have the need to vilify and disparage other ideas in this manner. To me, if me alone, this speaks more of a deep insecurity of the inner being of such people. As a transsexual woman, I have no need to reinforce my being by attacking those who might express ideas about the reasons for gender identity issues. I am not threatened (as the mob here so clearly felt itself to be) by alternative ideas.
Conway and McClosky are both professors, retired to be sure. They especially should have known better. Andrea James, the transgender advocate and consultant, has made a business out of being transsexual, selling trinkets and self-published books and tapes from her web site to the unwary. One can only hope that this has been her moment of fame.
Those who followed the threesome worked into a mob-like frenzy by mythical monsters and threats to their being and not excused. As with any mob, one can only hold the leaders accountable. The allies of the threesome – and there were many – were simply mindless drones manipulated to do as mobs do. One always hopes that they have learnt a lesson. Mayhaps so. Some will go to their graves convinced of the nobility of their cause and see their ugly tactics as “necessary means”. Others might reflect that the next time they might even read the book or article condemned before denouncing it and attacking others.
One is drawn to the images at the close of several old Western movies. The sheriff and a few trusty helpers have defended against a mob. The three ringleaders have been shown to be false and misguided. The mob shuffles its feet, heads down, recognising that they have been led astray and sheepishly regretting what they have done. A few still want to or need to believe even when shame and shame alone would put that thought from their heads.
Sheriff Dreger has done her task well.
Religion, politics, gender identity and sexual orientation. Not topics for the dinner table…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
In my view - for what it's worth - Bailey took a hypothesis which he believed was true, and wrote a deliberately controversial, inflammatory, and entertaining fictionalised account that initially pretended to some scientific rigour.
The firestorm that it ignited was out of proportion, though the fact that he could not see how a deliberately hurtful screed would be upsetting is strange. It's one thing to present unpalatable facts (as he sees them) without fear or favour, but some of the language in his book was unfortunate. It positively invited TS women to be treated as rapists, paedophiles, and psychotics, and they certainly have been in the press at least. I've been refused an Australian passport based on this. The Transgendered are classified with criminals being extradited, deported, passport traffickers and suspected terrorists.
This has been enshrined in legislation, available on the web.
With respect, the issue *is* the worth of Bailey's Book, Blanchard's Theory, and the value of plethyseismography. The book, with its only partly deliberately inflammatory and sensationalist tone caused hurt where a more measured statement of the evidence would not have.
The... words fail me... vile events that have followed are fruit of this poisoned tree, and I don't wish to discuss them, other than to unreservedly condemn them.
I'm more interested in such matters as a comparative study between cisgendered women and transgendered ones. It's not even been suggested that women are not all, or mostly, autogynaphillic (under the Blanchard definition). The question hasn't been asked. It has been assumed that all TS women are mentally ill men - homosexuality being a mental illness according to Blanchard if I understand him correctly. All results of experiments have been interpreted in that light.
Hi Willow,
Although I disagree with you about Bailey, feeling it was shoddy work that essentially turned normal healthy female acceptance for her own body into a pathology (I come from these things as a feminist rather than a trans-whatever), you know I've always liked and respected you. People do not have to agree on everything to be friends.
And like you, I've been the victim of rabid, scorched earth, ends justify the means reactions from trans people because they don't like what I say and write about.
Hang in there Willow......and be thankful there is an actual world out there other than the looking glass world of trans.
Cathy Platine
Zoe,
Bailey did *not* do the research. Blanchard did - and I suggest you read Blanchard's papers. Bailey used anecdotes to explain Blanchard's research.
Nor did Bailey's book do any of the things you state, although I have always believed that a better editor would have taken away some of the rough spots.
The book most certainly *did not* invite others to view transsexuals as rapists or other such nasties, nor did it have any effect on your passport. That is demonization. To suggest that the book was the reason - the sole reason - why you were denied a passport is simply not true. Transsexuals have faced discrimination for decades and if your passport was denied as you say, it was not due to the book, but many other causes.
"Out of proportion"? Yes, indeed. Vile and ugly. Conway, James and McCloskey would have it that their good end justified using the horrid tactics they employed. Look to the USA in Iraq. Does a supposed good end justify torture, the destruction of civil rights in the USA under the PATRIOT Act, and the deaths of over a million Iraqis? Not to me.
A very small number of the books were sold (although readership on the Internet was vast). In Austrailia, you have a court case that will be far more important to the rights of transsexuals than Bailey's book.
Willow
Zoe,
Please specify the section of the Austrailain passport legislation that you say was (1) based upon Bailey's book, and (2) was used to deny you a passport. Where does it say that transsexuals or transgendered are to be classed as criminals? I certainly cannot see that anywhere in the legislation you cite...
Willow
Hi Cathy!
Long time, girl!
It seems I did take that title you bestowed on me years ago - "The most hated...".
The issue here is not the theory - the NY Times and such could care less about that. It is the ugly manner that Conway, James and McCloskey attacked Bailey and others.
I don't understand it. You were attacked (albeit for other reasons) by the "angry herds of trannies", I was attacked the the TS cohorts. Could it be that many TS are so lacking in self-esteme that they have to attack other TS who express opinions that differ from the currently "politically correct" formula?
What makes this "interesting" is that instead of attacking their own they attacked one from "outside the circle" thus exposing their actions to a broader world. Hence the attention of the NY Times.
As always, I wish you well and hope that the years have been kind to you and your wonderful projects. Friends need not agree. Indeed, one of the joys of friendship is the ability to discuss differing views with civility and respect.
Willow
Where are we treated like those being extradited etc?
Section 6.3 – Documents of identity
· A document of identity is normally issued to Australian citizens in relation to whom the Minister (or a delegate of the Minister) considers it is either unnecessary or undesirable to issue a passport (paragraph 6.3(1)(a)).
87. An important example of when a document of identity may be issued when it is unnecessary or undesirable to issue a passport is when a person has lost or had stolen two or more passports and the Minister (or a delegate of the Minister) has decided to refuse to issue another passport. The person may be issued with a document of identity for international travel for a particular purpose. This enables the Government to balance the competing policy priorities in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1980 ATS 23, Article12) ensuring freedom of movement for a person while enabling the Minister (or a delegate) to act where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is allowing others to use the passports for identity fraud or other criminal activity, or that the applicant is simply not adequately protecting his or her passport.
...
89. Other examples include:
...
· Australian citizens who are transgender, that is are living in the identity of a member of the opposite sex; and
· Australian citizens being repatriated or deported to Australia or extradited; and
...
· Australian citizens to travel until the Minister (or a delegate of the Minister) is satisfied the person meets all the requirements (such as citizenship, no refusal requests, or full consent of all persons with parental responsibility for a child); and
· Australian citizens whose travel the Minister believes should be restricted.
...
92. Validity periods are expressed as maximums and may be reduced depending on the circumstances of the applicant. In most cases, a document of identity is issued for a short-term or single journey. For example, for a document of identity issued to a citizen of another Commonwealth country, a maximum validity period of three months is normally sufficient. Documents of identity for travel to and from Norfolk Island have a validity of three years.
Initially, I was refused any form of travel document. Then a 3-month validity DOI was offered, to have emergency medical treatment not available in Australia, at a country and on dates specified in advance.
It took me 9 months, lawyers letters etc before an unrestricted (apart from a 3 year validity) DOI was offered.
After 18 months from my application, I still don't have an Australian travel document that would allow me to enter the US - despite a letter in support from my PhD supervisor. My PhD study has suffered accordingly, not being able to attend conferences etc.
It's important to realise that this restriction is relatively recent, it has no precedent in the past. It was introduced some 12 months after Bailey's book hit the shelves here. From talks with gays in DFAT, it was influential. Being fair, it was not the only influence: Paul McHugh deserves, if not equal, then significant credit. So my sources tell me.
I have redacted the other circumstances - such as travel to Norfolk Island, which is Australian Territory but not part of Australia, and to allow non-Australians unable to get travel documents the ability to cross a specific border.
You even get a letter with the DOI as follows, to warn of the likely consequences if you intend to use it:
Documents of Identity and transgender people
1 Applicants who are living in the character of a member of the opposite gender may apply for the issue of a Document of Identity.. Personal details on a Document of Identity do not include gender. Because of the possible disadvantages in using a Document of Identity for travel, the applicant should be advised in writing that:
* Some countries do not regard a Document of Identity as a valid travel document;
* Customs/immigration authorities in some countries may view the possession of a Document of Identity in lieu of a passport with suspicion and consequently delay or harass the bearer at entry points; and
* Should customs/immigration officers decide to conduct a body search there is a very real risk of embarrassment to the bearer (this may also occur to a pre-operative person issued with a limited validity passport).
See what I mean?
Zoe,
So, if I understand this correctly, a post-op transsexual can obtain a passport in their post-op sex. No problem (which is was years ago, by the way). A "transgender" (a pre- or non-op) as defined in other Australians legislation, cannot get a passport in their "living" sex. They would either (1) obtain a passport in their birth sex or (2) obtain a DOI in their "living" sex. Is that correct?
What was the prior situation?
Now, I have not had occasion to check recently, but in BC and Canada generally, you cannot obtain a birth certificate change until you have had SRS. As a birth certificate is submitted with a passport application, it follows that a passport would not issue under your "living" sex until the birth certificate is changed. The same applies in the USA, as I recall. So the “new” Australian policy falls into line with our long time practise.
So my question is what in Australian law allowed you to get a passport as female while you were still "biologically" male? Was this policy or statute? In other words, was this "change" a change in fact or simply a confirmation of prior policy? I do not believe you could have had a “female” passport in Canada or the USA while still biologically male. There was, I recall, a passport that could be issued in the USA for those travelling to get SRS, but I cannot recall the requriements.
After that, it the issue of “They said…”
“They said” it was due to Bailey’s book and McHugh. Well, “they” have said lots of things, both true and not true. To me, it seems as if Australia may have had a policy of issuing passports to TG in their “living sex” which was not in conformity with the USA, Canada or other countries (which require SRS before a birth certificate and hence passport change). After 9/11 Australia might simply have had to conform to prevailing practise elsewhere.
Willow
A thought after posting...
Is it possible/probable that the DOI was proposed *in addition* to the normal right to have a passport in your birth gender? In other words, that this was added to Australian legislation as a possible alternative, and thus intended as an additional benefit?
So in that case, the addition of a DOI was done as a way of assisting those travelling not as their birth sex. I assume that you could easily obtain a passport if you ticked off "Male", n'est-ce pas?
That does put a different shade on matters. Far from being a way of discriminating against TGs, it was a way of assisting them.
Of course, that depends on what the policy or law was before this provision. If Australia was liek the USA and Canada, you did not loose, you gained.
Willow
So, if I understand this correctly, a post-op transsexual can obtain a passport in their post-op sex.
Not quite. Not always.
See http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=7029
The APO's definition of "Transgendered" is particularly obtuse.
If someone cannot change ALL their documentation - say because they were born in Tennessee or Ohio - then they are permanently "Transgendered" if they are post-op, no matter what appearance they present with. (I'm in that situation, I was born overseas)
Post-ops cannot get their Australian BCs changed if they are married. So they are considered "Transgendered" too. (I'm in that situation as well - I've been told that even if my foreign BC changed, I would still be "Transgendered" because of this).
If someone is Intersexed, then they are "Transgendered" as long as their somatic form doesn't match their birth record. They can be receiving treatment for "severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman", and as long as their birth certificate says "boy", they are "Transgendered". (I'm in that situation too, and was before my surgery)
Those who are merely part-time TVs or CDs are not "Transgendered". They are not "Living in the role of the opposite sex", not having had their electoral records etc changed.
Please note that it is "Unneccessary or undesirable" to give TG people passports under the legislation. They could not get a passport in either gender. It's a mandatory substitute, not a voluntary alternative. Also note that the DOI still has the field for "Sex". It's just blank, not M, not F, not X for unstated, so that in itself means that it is not a valid travel document by International Convention.
In summary:
Before 2005, one, and later two, letters from Australian medics saying surgery had been performed were adequate for a passport in the target gender. Marital status was immaterial. From 1986 a Limited validity passport in the target gender was available for those pre-ops going overseas for surgery. Other pre-ops had to use a passport in the original gender.
The pre-Bailey APO office manual on the subject is at
http://www.tgfolk.net/sites/gtg/lg-mapi.html
This is similar to the current situation in the USA, and I believe, Canada.
From 2005-May 2007, a pre-op could only get a passport if and only if they were travelling overseas for SRS. Otherwise they would only get a DOI.
Once they had SRS, if they were unable to get their BCs changed, their passport would be confiscated, and a new one would never be issued in their lifetime.
The immediate post-Bailey APO manual section confirming this is available at
http://www.webone.com.au/~aebrain/MAPI2005.pdf
Note that although according to the official report of the APO, it is available to the public, policy is that it is not, and applications to see it are always refused out of hand.
Since May 2007, the situation has changed, in some ways better, in others worse. The legislation is still there allowing Limited Validity Passports, but they just don't issue them now as a matter of policy. On the other hand, it appears that despite the legislation I quoted, legislation which has not been changed, the Passport Office will now issue passports in the BC gender.
The latest Manual is at
http://www.webone.com.au/~aebrain/MAPI2007.pdf
I can't mention the names of the whistleblowers inside the APO who gave me the information about Bailey's book. I will say that their advice on how to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act has been invaluable. Just knowing what documents to ask for was an immense help. The PDFs above are the result - that and a lot of persistence, looking up official reports on what is public and what is secret, etc.
Finally... it appears that the situation *may* change again, as the result of the court case I alluded to above.
The chair of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the case was heard was a former Justice of the Family Court. In the "Re Kevin" decision, the court gave a definition of gender that made all post-ops of their target gender.
The APO has ignored that definition, as has the Minister, substituting a most eccentric definition for "transgender" instead. The Chairman did not appear impressed, from what I have heard.
Note also that despite having had my Immigration records changed on the basis of medical evidence about a year ago, before surgery, and despite what is written in the 2007 manual, I still don't have a passport, 18 months after my initial application. I'm still working on it though.
Most hysterical outbursts about transphobia in bureaucracy are just that. Most bureaucracies, especially Australian ones, are human, rational, even sometimes compassionate. If I hadn't had written records, if I hadn't kept a blog about it, I would have been sceptical myself. Were they *really* that obtuse? The records say Yes.
I assume that you could easily obtain a passport if you ticked off "Male", n'est-ce pas?
Au contraire, for then under the Australian Passports Act 2005 I would be knowingly making a false statement. Both myself and the witness attesting that the facts are true would be liable for up to 10 years in jail.
There's a mountain of medical evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I'd also lose my security clearance, and thus my livelihood, regardless of the verdict, or even whether it came to trial. I think the prospects of the latter would be extremely remote, but given past APO attitude, non-zero.
It would also be wrong. The rest are just excuses for my being insufferably honest, a prig in fact.
Should somehow I manage to get off, I could be charged with contravening the Foreign Passports Act 2005, as I have an "F" type foreign passport, based on the medical evidence. Making a knowingly false statement on a foreign passport application is subject to the same penalties as for an Australian one.
I *know* based on case-law that if that one came to court, providing I didn't make a fraudulent Australian passport application, I'd win. And get them for malicious prosecution.
A "transgender" (a pre- or non-op) as defined in other Australians legislation
There is no "other Australian legislation" that defines it. It's whatever they say it means, those words are the *only* definition to be found in any Federal Legislation.
"Transgender" includes (some) post-ops, according to the Minister. But not occasional cross-dressers like him.
No, not joking, the photos have been published in the newspapers. Like Giulinani though, it was for charity. As far as I know, he doesn't do it for fun.
Zoe,
To say the least, you have a unique problem.
Statute law and regulation, by their very nature and purpose are “broad brush” measures. Humans are, as your situation makes clear, unique. A conflict in some cases is invevitable.
And yes, at times social policy becomes part of statute law, as in the case you cite where a person married one of the same sex. If that had happened in Canada, where same sex marriages are legal, no problem. The social policy of Australia is to recognize only male/female marriages and until that law is changed, the result is automatic.
Your circumstances have created another “perfect storm”: (1) Birth overseas, presumably in a state or jurisidection that does not allow BC changes, (2) Married to a person of the same sex and (3) intersexual.
Now, legally you are boxed in. In similar situations, when I was in practise, I looked for anything in the legislation that represented a “captain’s cloak”. This was a provision that entitled the Minister to do things that were specific rather than general. A provision that states “Notwithstanding the above, the Minister may…”. This may be unstated at times but is often still available. So, make an appointment with your MP and if possible, the Minister for Immigration. Have a short summary with exhibits attached – the summary being no longer than two pages. This is like lobbying, but with a specific purpose in mind for one individual in unique circumstances.
Given the law in Australia, that might represent a route for you but your marriage is the breaker. Matters beyond your control can be fixed in this manner suggested above. Matters within your control and against current public policy cannot.
You situation as being unique in this matter is not unique in respect of any statute law. There are always some situations that simply do not fit in the nice word boxes in a statute. That is one reason why a well drafted statute normally has a “captain’s cloak” provision.
Good luck!
Now, to the other matter…
“I can't mention the names of the whistleblowers inside the APO who gave me the information about Bailey's book.”
I am very leary of “facts” you suggest arise in this manner. Especially when the matter is one that has been subject of heated debate. Bias is normal. A coincidence in timing is all that is required before one person assigns blame in the manner that their own bias directs. One person is all it takes to make a thought a "fact", especially if it is politically correct. Frankly, it seems highly improbable that Bailey’s book could cause any change as you suggest. Offhand, I can think of at least ten issues that might be more appropriate as causation – and there are many more.
To me, having worked with one level of government in drafting legislation, I always bear in mind that rarely have I seen any “evil intent”. More likely is the desire to assist or solve a problem. With the whole arena of transsexuality and transgendered, there is a minefield of issues that arise in public policy, social norms, and even language that are hard to deal with in any manner that all will find acceptable. That makes isolated situations even more difficult. Birth certificate changes became universal in Canada (exclude some strange rules in Quebec) well before TS had any lobby to “fight” for such changes.
Amongst transsexuals, there is also the “presumption” of discrimination clearly shown in the whole Bailey bruhha. An innocent slip of pronouns and the reaction might be tears or anger; an honest question can be taken as an insult. In such circumstances, it is necessary to be rational. An attempt to help, totally rational when viewed from an outside perspective, can be turned into an attack by those on the other side. The nature of the beast…
Willow
I think we're close to a meeting of minds on this.
The people who gave me the info were not TS, nor TS supporters: they were gays, who really didn't know a lot about TS issues. They just knew they'd been told by those higher up the food chain that a scientific book had been published by the US Academy proving that older TS people were dangerous psychos, and policy was being adjusted to contain them.
Bailey's book said no such thing of course. But that is the way it was *inevitably* misinterpreted by those who already had prejudice in place. The comparison of AGP to "other paraphilias" such as paedophilia was particularly damaging, it seems. This was at a time when some highly publicised cases of Australian paedophiles operating overseas were on the front pages. The imprimatur of the Academy set the seal on it.
As regards "Captain's Cloaks" - the story, the letters to MPs, the personal appeal for ministerial intervention, they're all documented at http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2006/09/great-passport-fiasco-summarised.html
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is goodwill at the highest levels, that the transphobia is at the bottom. The truth appears to be exactly the opposite.
I might also add that the situation at Immigration was quite different, chalk and cheese. There I didn't just get treated fairly, they went out of their way to help, having confirmed the discriminatory treatment by the APO.
I left the immigration office after hours on a Friday, administrative re-entry visa in hand, in tears, and to the applause of all in the office. I will never forget their kindness, nor the outrage they felt when they saw the way I'd been treated.
The areas where the APO acted contrary to the law where the ones that I found most difficult to deal with, though of course, they provided ammunition in case of an appeal to the AAT.
As regards recognition of same-sex marriages, the letter at http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2006/03/from-attorney-general.html from the Australian Attorney General should clarify that this is not an issue. Well, not in Law anyway.
Of interest is that when the Stanhope Government subsequently introduced - and passed with bi-partisan support - legislation to amend the Birth Registration legislation to remove the problem, Federal Cabinet vetoed it. Only the second time such emergency reserve powers have been used in Australia's history. Some at the highest levels feel that strongly about it.
Looking back at how tired I've become at the whole mess, I must take the opportunity to offer my sympathies at the rubbish you've had to put up with from some of the Big Names in the Trans community. That can't help but hurt.
We may not agree on the damage that "The Man Who Would Be Queen" has done. I may not have overcome the credibility gap that outrageous (and uncharacteristic) governmental behaviour creates.
But we can agree that you didn't deserve *any* of the rubbish you have born with such dignity and grace. Rubbish piled on you by people I respect, who should have known better. And the reason I say "Rubbish" rather than something scatalogical is out of a misplaced sense of propriety.
Zoie,
Firstly, thank you for your comments in your second post. Yes, there were indeed times when the actions of those three and their allies hurt very deeply.
Before Conway's "post to the world" I had been an active member of several groups. In each, if someone had dared to call another TS or TG by her prior name or use incorrect pronouns, such a person would have been thrown out and shunned. Once Conway and her crew started up, such insults became commonplace. Whatever "sisterhood" there may have been was destroyed. That was and remains the biggest hurt, for the interaction amongst ourselves was a joy. Now, we are ruled and separated by fear - fear of saying anything that might be taken and distorted. Indeed, a caution to you directly. You might consider deleting your second post in case James or her friends sees it. That little comment might well reuslt in attacks on you - and regretfully, I am not joking.
As to the passport issue, one can only offer best wishes. A very difficult situation. Hopefully, the changes you speak of will assist your efforts.
As Cathy pointed out earlier on this thread, friends need not agree to remain friends. If her website is still up, you might read her history of the founding of a Trans organization in the USA. Why we persist, as a group, in "killing our own" is beyond me, but I think it speaks of a commonly found insecurity.
In all events, keep well, keep happy, and best wishes...
Willow
If I do get attacked - well, I'll be in good company :)
Few who go through being TS do so without being damaged by it in other ways, and sometimes the damage takes a long time to heal.
We have to be charitable to one another, even tolerating the intolerable sometimes, because we've all been so deeply hurt. Sometimes that makes the most rational and reasonable people irrational and unreasonable. It's something we also have to look out for in ourselves, and I'm referring to me rather than you here.
I've never been in the "Trans scene" as such. There isn't one where I live, transition tends to be a very solitary, even private affair. So I won't felt the deep loss that you have, should I be made a pariah.
The Big Names helped me - Lynn Conway's site was a huge morale boost, and Andrea James' site gave practical tips. For that matter, I had significant help from Anne Lawrence too, and have made no secret about that. Her data collection is flawless, though I have cavils about her conclusions.
Before May 2005, I'd never heard of Transsexuality, and the only data on Intersex I'd researched concerned a member of my family. I was TS, but I'd also come to some modus vivendi with it, by basically ignoring it. I didn't see a big difference between being a man and a woman anyway, I was a man, and women thought like I did, whereas men didn't. (Spot the logical fallacy). I just had to be careful never to wear anything but a white or blue shirt (others were too feminine, someone might suspect), never go to a cross-dressing party (I wouldn't have been able to revert afterwards) etc. The full River in Egypt, both Blue and White so to speak..
What made it extra difficult was that I was (as thought at the time) mildly Intersexed - PAIS-1, diagnosed at a Fertility Clinic in 1985. "Undervirilised Male Syndrome". I had a body far too male to pass as female, yet not adequate to be fully biologically male either.
Then some weird stuff happened, and we're still not sure exactly what. It nearly killed me, the medics were very concerned, and I had thousands of dollars worth of tests during it. It's a simplification, but I had changes the equivalent of at least 3 years of HRT in 3 months. I lost 1/3 of body mass, over a pound a day.
Given the extreme hormonal swings, my assessment of that period is about as reliable as that of any woman suffering post-partum hormone-induced psychosis. i.e. not at all.
One of the first things that happened though was that the denial shattered. That was days before the first physical symptoms showed, though there's evidence that the hormone levels were berserk before then.
Anyway, even before I'd accepted that I was TS, I decided that transition was the only practical way forward, assuming I wasn't totally insane. An assumption I considered highly unlikely. I took a lot of convincing by medics and eyewitnesses that the changes were real, and not some psychotic episode.
The weirdest thing was my eyes changing colour. I didn't notice that, but my GP did.
On July 28th 2005, less than 3 months after the first symptoms, I was fulltime. The day before, I'd had conclusive evidence I didn't pass as male, but as a "Butch Dyke", with threats of violence as the result.
The reason I'm giving TMI is because I was so green, so ignorant, I didn't realise how rare this kind of thing was. I assumed it had to have happened to many others, so I went to TS support sites asking what others in the same situation did.
You can imagine my reception. :)
Zoe,
My very best friend, next to Sonia that is, is a woman we shall call X. She brought Sonia and I together years ago and subsequently caused us to look north, to Prince George. So many stories we share.
Anyway, X grew up here in PG. She is very feminine in appearance and had what is called a "micro penis". That made high school a thing of terror.
Cutting the story short, years later, after the age of 30, she (then a "he") decided to do some checking. Hospital records disclosed that her birth was recorded as "F?". She was given (without her informed knowledge) hormones during her teens, following the then accepted rules not to tell the child. As a result, she developed facial hair and other male characteristics.
So, when she turned for help to the Vancouver Gender Clinic, they tell her that (1) if she had come in when under 19, they would have done everything to help, but (2) as she was over 18, they only helped transsexuals and she was not one of those, but rather intersexed. They could therefore do nothing.
So for the next few years, she had to *convince* they that she was transsexual!
So rules are stupid, when enforced in a rigid manner by those who forget they have brains. As a lawyer, I used to delight in challenging this type of bureaucrat and still do so on occasion.
You wrote:
“Few who go through being TS do so without being damaged by it in other ways, and sometimes the damage takes a long time to heal.”
Very true. In fact, some become downright nasty types, a danger to themselves and a horror to others. Perhaps they pick on other TS as they are afraid to try it with others? I have noted that along with GID, many are very insecure and defensive often to a point beyond reason. A type of bitterness is evident in much of the TS “community”, one that takes the form of attacking others within the circle. A tactic of Lenin if you like history. The Internet seems to push these types into their most flagrant abuses as they are safe. This is in total contrast to the sweet attitude that many display in face to face meetings. In fact, one o fthe most viscious of the Internet TS pit bulls is apparently a nice person in 3D.
"We have to be charitable to one another, even tolerating the intolerable sometimes, because we've all been so deeply hurt. Sometimes that makes the most rational and reasonable people irrational and unreasonable. It's something we also have to look out for in ourselves, and I'm referring to me rather than you here”.
True. Strange as it may seem, after the bitter nastiness of the “primary” and “secondary” battles, things were actually rather nice for a time in the ninties. Oh yes, we had our disagreements, but at the start of my transition and before the Internet was in full flower, there was indeed a bond of “sisterhood”. Cathy might disagree a bit there but she was in the centre of activism then. If anyone had dared to call another sister a male, or sue incorrect pronouns, they would have been mud for that was not done even in the heat of a verbal battle.
That all changed with Conway’s first blast. Suddenly, it was nasty and nastier. It became and remains common for some TS to call others “male”, use former names and male pronouns. Those who followed James and Conway made it a “thing to do”.
As with Dreger, I do not deny that Conway and James have provided assistance on their websites. Conway does it for free; James is more the “professional transsexual” written of in various tomes. Both, and McCloskey, have unhappily damaged their credibility by the use of terrible and hurtful tactics. Moreso, as Dreger points out, the vicious nature of these attacks have been interpreted by many outsiders to be typical of TS.
As with you, my transition was largely spent isolated form other TS. I was in Kelowna and was the only TS known. A visit from another was a treat, a chance to exchange news and views. My only connection to the “community” was via the Internet until I moved to Vancouver for a time.
Post a Comment