Women in dresses--reinforcing sexual stereotypes?

Why is a photo of trans man Lucas Silveira on a post about women in dresses and reinforcing sexual stereotypes? Because the lead singer for The Cliks was recently named Canada's sexiest man in the 15th Annual Year End Readers' Poll by Canadian music magazine Chart Attack.

I think it's great, and a lot of people will probably think it's great, that a trans man was voted sexiest man. And although Silveira doesn't always conform to traditional Western gender stereotypes, he is often photographed, as he is here, in a suit and tie (although a much more stylish ensemble than most stuffy businessmen). He is reinforcing a "traditional" gender stereotype for men, and it's sexy. But as I discussed in my last post, trans women often take more heat than trans men do when they conform to such stereotypes.

If a trans woman in a low-cut, form-fitting dress were to win a "sexiest woman" poll, she might take some flak, for two reasons--reinforcing the stereotypes surrounding women as sex objects, and reinforcing the stereotypes surrounding trans women as sex objects.

No one likes to be objectified. But the reality is that human beings are sexual beings (whether we're getting any or not), and human beings are going to look at other human beings and be sexually attracted to them, for a variety of reasons.

Different people are going to have different reasons, but there is a certain type of Western female sexual ideal--a "sex symbol" ideal--that involves cleavage, short skirts, high heels, makeup, and other accoutrement, and those who want to adopt this image, even for a special night out, are sometimes frowned upon for reinforcing the concept of women as sex objects. Trans women often take particular grief for this because some people (usually men) objectify a particular body type that they think trans women have.

But I have always felt that it was unfair to restrict women's clothing choices because of the significance that other people might ascribe to them. It has always made me angry that women aren't free to wear what they want to wear or be who they want to be because men might get the wrong idea, or men might not take them seriously, or men might fail to recognize the intelligence, skill, or ability behind the makeup or short skirt (or because other women might judge them in the same way).

By the same token, I think it is unfair to restrict trans women's clothing choices for the same reasons, while adding on the additional burden of being responsible for some men's sexualized idea of who and what trans women are.

I have been on testosterone for over 12 years. Testosterone makes you think about sex. Testosterone makes you look at other people in a sexualized way--not always, but often. But that's my problem. And for straight men, that's their problem.

Women should not have to bear the responsibility for what some men (or some other women) might think. Women--trans and non-trans--should not have to constantly monitor their clothing, appearance, mannerisms, and actions to avoid reinforcing sexual stereotypes--and to avoid looking "sexy."

Look at Canada's sexiest woman, Avril Lavigne. Even though she presents it in a very modern way, she stays close to "feminine" tradition--she even has her own fragrance. And she certainly meets many of the traditional expectations for her gender with regard to being "sexy."




I've not heard any criticism so far about Silveira's "sexy" male gender presentation. I don't know if Lavigne gets criticized for her "feminine" or "sexy" gender presentation.

But in my opinion, it's okay for everyone to be sexy--Lucas Silveira in a suit and tie, Avril Lavigne in a strapless, low-cut gown, a guy in a muscle shirt, a woman in jeans and a T-shirt, and a woman in a low-cut dress. People should be allowed to be sexual, and people should be allowed to be sexy, and the burden should not fall on women to control what someone else is thinking. They can't, anyway.

When we rejoice in who we are, whoever and whatever that is, and we rejoice in who other people are, without judgment, we might not be able to eliminate gender or sexual stereotypes--but they might not matter so much to us anymore. We might realize that everyone has the right to present their gender--and their acceptance of the fact they are sexual beings--in whatever way is most comfortable for them.

(Photo: publicity photo of Lucas Silveira by David Hawe)
Read more...

Women in dresses--reinforcing gender stereotypes?

At First Event last week, and at many other conferences I've been to, the Saturday night banquet is the highlight of the conference and the culmination of all the hard work on the part of the planners and all the fun on the part of the attendees, so many choose to get completely decked out for the event.

For some of the women, this means high heels, high hemlines, and low-cut necklines--and, as I said in my First Event post, I don't think there's anything wrong with this. And, as I also said, I would write more about this later, and it's later.

I've always thought that if you've got it, you should flaunt it, whatever that is--brains, talent, a sense of humor, muscles, great legs, a special skill. Whatever it is that makes you feel good about yourself or that you know is special, let the world know. If you don't put it out there, nobody else will, that's for sure. You're all you've got, baby.

But I think trans women get the raw end of the deal when it comes to complaints about either reinforcing gender stereotypes, reinforcing the sexual stereotypes that some people have about trans people, or both. So let's break it down.

Reinforcing gender stereotypes:

Almost all of the women who attended the First Event banquet (and most conference banquets that I've been to) wore a dress or gown of some type. Dresses and gowns, in our culture, are considered to be "women's wear," and they are also considered to be appropriate for a formal banquet. Most of the women fixed their hair, wore their makeup, and turned the evening into a special occasion where they could get dressed up.

So my question is this: Is it reinforcing a gender stereotype to wear a dress or gown or to wear special makeup or a special hairstyle for an evening out? Or is it simply being yourself? If you've waited 30, 40, or 50 years to be yourself, and yourself is a person who likes to put on a dress, heels, and makeup, should you be denied that pleasure and that right--the pleasure and the right to express your gender as choose--because it reinforces traditional gender stereotypes?

As I've said before, freedom of gender expression means freedom for everyone, not just for a select group who wants to defy gender stereotypes. And although my hope is that trans people can be a force in relaxing or eliminating traditional gender stereotypes, we are in no way required to do so.

The few guys who were at the banquet wore a suit, a shirt and tie, or, in my case, just a shirt and jeans. I gave up ties a long time ago--not because they were a gender stereotype, but because they make me look like a turtle with no neck. (Note: it's not unusual to see fewer guys than women at these events or at conferences in general, but First Event's TransMasculine Track brought in over 50 trans guys for a day of programming, thanks to planner Anderson Clark.)

Traditionally masculine trans men sometimes take heat for being excessively "macho," and I've met a few who might earn the slightly outdated label of "male chauvinist pig," but trans men rarely take as much flak for putting on a suit and tie--traditional "men's attire"--as trans women do for putting on a dress, heels, and makeup.

Why? Because of the whole "sex and sexuality" thing that surrounds women in general and trans women in particular--and that we will talk about next time.

(Photo--me decked out for prom. Give me a break--it was 1971.)
Read more...

Trans conferences: where are the men?

(Note: This post has been updated with some additional information from Anderson Clark and the First Event committee.)

Trans guys and trans conferences are not mutually exclusive--but sometimes it seems that way.

I wrote earlier this week about the First Event conference. I had a really great time, and I think conferences can be an incredible way to get back to our "trans roots," if you will, and to connect with people who have shared similar experiences. The TransMasculine Track at First Event, organized by Anderson Clark, brought in approximately 50 trans men, which is impressive for a new program--especially a program aimed at the guys.

Low to nonexistent conference-and-activity attendance by trans guys is a familiar complaint. I hear it here in Colorado, and I hear it pretty much wherever I go. At First Event, Anderson and I were asked why trans men don't attend trans conferences and what to do to get us there.

The reality is that trans men do attend trans conferences--but we tend to be scarce at many of them, for a variety of reasons:

1. Money: In the current economy, money is a problem for almost everyone, but historically, trans men tend to have less of it than trans women. This is a generalization, of course, and some trans men have a great deal of money, while many trans women do not. But examining this phenomenon overall, there are some more generalizations to be made:

• Trans men tend to transition at a younger age (although trans women are catching up), and young people, as a rule, don't have money.
• Trans men who transition later in life often have worked at "traditionally female" occupations, which pay less overall, have fewer benefits, and have less retirement and pension options.
• Trans men are more likely to be raising children as single parents, which is a major expense and leaves less money for "luxuries."
• FTM genital surgery is more expensive, and trans guys saving for surgery have a longer haul in saving up (although there are many expenses associated with MTF transition as well that can really add up).
• Because most people, men and women, attend maybe one specific conference a year or every so often, trans men who want to attend a conference and can swing it will generally choose one that caters specifically to us, or that has a wide variety of workshop options for us.
  

2. Time: For the same reason that money is short, time is short. People in certain occupations, particularly "traditionally female" occupations, don't get a lot of time off work, and sometimes lose money when taking days off. The combination of spending money to get to a conference and losing money by taking time off work doesn't allow for a lot of freedom and flexibility when choosing whether or not to attend a conference.

3. Programming: It's the age-old chicken-egg dilemma--men don't attend conferences that don't have programming for them, and women conference planners don't want to add programming if the guys don't show up. So it's a circular complaint--"There's no programming for us." "Why should we program for you if you don't come?" Both sides are right.

There are other reasons as well, but these are three primary ones. So for women conference planners who are hoping to expand their particular conference to include more men, here are a few suggestions from Anderson and myself:

1. Start small. If you have a week-long conference, don't try to plan an entire week for the guys. Start with the idea that Anderson had for First Event and schedule the programming for the men on Saturday. Men are more likely to have Saturdays free and are more likely to come for a day of special programming, where there are no lodging or related expenses. Once they start coming and enjoying the conference, you can gradually expand to two or three days with additional programming and see how it goes. Surgeons can do double-duty by having a women's surgery workshop during the week and a men's surgery workshop as part of the men's track.

2. Recruit trans men to plan the men's track. Women don't necessarily know what workshops and speakers trans guys would want, just like men would have difficulty planning a track for women. And trans men are more likely to respond when they see other men involved.

3. One big-name speaker will not necessarily get the men there. If you can get a recognizable trans man to speak, so much the better, but you need other programming to support that. Men will not always show up just for an expensive banquet, even if the speaker is someone they know of and admire. But if the speaker is part of an all-day program--say a Saturday program with a Saturday lunch speaker--he will be an additional draw. Anderson recruited several well-known trans men to present workshops at First Event, and your lunch speaker could also do a workshop if he so desired, allowing you to utilize his name even more.

4. Let the men have their space, especially when starting out. Anderson did a good job of this at First Event by recruiting a sponsor for a lunch just for the guys, so they could go to their workshops and have their own lunch together. Dr. Peter Raphael, a surgeon from Plano, Texas, who presented a workshop at the conference, also sponsored the First Event trans man lunch. Don't be offended by what might appear to be isolationism. It's not. It's just trans guys needing to be in their own space, for a variety of reasons. You've got them at the conference. That's the point in the beginning. Once they see that they like it, they'll come back.

5. Be aware of financial difficulties. Try to offer scholarships if possible. Try to offer lower-cost meal options or get a sponsor for a trans man lunch (see above). Offer a la carte workshops--in other words, have an option where people can pay for each workshop separately instead of paying for a whole day or a whole weekend. This helps everyone who is having financial problems but wants to attend workshops. Anderson and Jamie Haley, the chair of the First Event organizing committee, addressed this issue by reducing the single-day workshop registration fee by one-third for trans men who otherwise would not have been able to attend.

6. Try to find low-cost housing options off site, such as local trans men who are willing to share their apartment or house with visiting guys. Also, the conference Web site could offer ways for anybody to hook up to share transportation expenses. The first trans conference I ever attended--Forward Motion in L.A. many years ago--found three of us car-pooling from Colorado/New Mexico to L.A., taking turns driving through the entire night.

These are just some suggestions. Talk to your "local trans men" for others. And be sure to let them take the reins in planning their track, while you share your conference-planning experience with them.

It's hard to bring men into a conference that has historically been a women's conference. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Don't be discouraged if it doesn't. Just start small and see what happens.

The TransMasculine Track at First Event was a success because of countless hours of work by planner Anderson Clark. Yes, it can be tiring and time consuming, but the results are worth it. The attendance was incredible, the workshops were great, and the men will surely be back next year, since Andy will be taking the reins again. If you missed it this year, mark your calendars now.

(Photo: me signing books at First Event--photo by Anderson Clark)
Read more...

My first time at First Event: the importance of gender conferences

I just got back (late last night) from the Tiffany Club of New England's annual First Event conference. I have to congratulate the planning committee, because I thought the event was excellent, and I had a great time.

I'm sure there were plenty of glitches--having been on the planning committee of the Colorado Gold Rush in its early stages, I'm aware that glitches abound at every conference. But the attendees rarely notice them--they are all having too much fun. What the planning committee agonizes over, the attendees party right through. Kudos to the First Event committee for making it seem effortless when it was the result of blood, sweat, and tears--these conferences always are.

This year was a special year for the guys, because the event featured a Saturday transmasculine track that drew in an estimated 50 trans men, and trans men are notorious for not attending most gender conferences (more on that later this week). So congrats to Anderson Clark for the programming and for getting the guys there, which made for a better event for all in attendance.

Although I've been to some of the biggies across the country--Colorado Gold Rush (I live here--that makes it easier), Southern Comfort, Gender Odyssey, Transcending Boundaries, Forward Motion, and now First Event--both lack of time and lack of money keep me (and many others) away from such conferences. And that's a real shame, because every time I go to one, I'm glad I went.

I think this type of conference is tremendously important for people in our community. Even if you don't spend time in the "trans community" or the "gender community" on a day-to-day basis, there is really nothing like walking into a place and getting a sense that you are with "your people."

Especially for the young people just starting out or questioning what they should do or wanting to get more information, these types of conferences bring them into the fold and give them a chance to learn from their "elders."

And all of us get a chance to see what's going on in communities across the United States, to make new friends, and to meet those well-known people whose name we might have heard, but who we now get to see in the flesh (and there's a lot of flesh at these events, especially at banquet night, when some of the women don their slinkiest, most revealing gowns--they look great, and I have no problem with this at all, which I have touched on in the past and will also write more about at a later date).

Regardless of the parties and pageantry, I think these conferences are an essential part of our history and our community. I would urge everyone to attend a gender conference at least once. If you think you're alone out there, you're not. If you think everyone else is just like you, they're not. If you think everyone else is different from you, they're not. If you think trans people are unhappy victims to be pitied or shunned, we're not. And these conference prove all of these things.

Even an old klunker like me, whose been around the block more than a few times, gets something out of attending--I met fantastic people at First Event, I got to interact with some people I have admired but only heard of online, I got to see some old friends and to make some new ones. I always come away from these things with a real sense of community, and that's really what it's all about.

I'll be writing more about First Event for Examiner.com and TGLife.com (I'll make these links live when there are actually stories to link to--I have to write them first), but for now, I encourage all of you to start saving your money (or looking into scholarships) to attend a gender conference this year.

There are plenty coming up (in the U.S.--I'm not sure what's going on elsewhere, and non-U.S. commenters can let us know), but if you haven't been for a while, or if you've never been, step out for a few days and reconnect with your community. Even the hangover is worth it.
Read more...

The bizarre evolution of my trans language, part two

I think that trans language and meaning can be regional. Because there are certain areas that have gender centers, and because there are a limited number of medical doctors and therapists who treat trans people, people who seek information from a certain gender center, Web site, or group, and are then referred to certain doctors and therapists, will use the language and the meanings that they "learned" from those resources when they started gathering information about their transness.

As they become more aware of the larger trans community through various connections, such as the Internet, people's language, and their understanding of such, can change.

In part one, I talked about my early self-definition as a transgendered female, and how that changed to transsexual man or trans man as I started transition. But I find that some trans people are aghast when I mention that I saw myself as a transgendered female. (There are a lot of things in life that make perfect sense to me that seem to make others back up slowly and then head in a different direction.)

I no longer use that term (in public) to describe my former self, because it doesn't seem to be an appropriate reference. Current language usage dictates the use of transgender woman to refer to a transsexual woman, and transgender man to refer to a transsexual man. If I speak or write about someone who I would have referred to as transsexual, but who is publicly being referred to as transgender, then I use "transgender." It seems to be the accepted media term now. (I find it interesting that, at the time I write this, no one who has taken my little side poll uses both terms to refer to themselves.)

While my early trans mind separated the concepts of transgender and transsexual (but saw one as the possible result of the other), they are, in many circles, not separate at all, and in other circles, they are completely separate and have nothing to do with each other. So where does that leave me? As usual, out in the cold without a coat and hat.

Nowadays, I would be considered a transgender man as well as a transsexual man. But there are some people who would say that I am not a transsexual, because I haven't had genital surgery ($60,000 comes with great difficulty, and, for many people like myself, not at all). For the same reason, there are some people who would say that I'm not a man at all or that I am not male at all.

It's enough to give me a headache and an anxiety attack--pass the aspirin and the Valium.

If you broaden the definition of "transgender" to include anyone who transgresses gender norms, I would have to say, I guess, that I am a transgender person, because my gender expression is generally not traditionally masculine for the culture in which I live.

But if my gender expression were traditionally masculine, then I would not be trangressing gender norms--I would be transgressing sex norms, because my body is not a traditionally male body. So what is the word for people who transgress sex norms?

If it is transsexual, then that would broaden the definition of transsexual to include not just those who change their body to match their gender identity (or to correct a birth defect), but to include those whose physical body transgresses sex norms. That's a big leap. It could happen--but so far, it has not.

A very wise acquaintance told me last year that the language of trans people would eventually be legislated--that laws and policies would specify rights for certain groups of people and that those of us in the trans community who wanted to be covered under those laws would adapt that language to describe ourselves. I think that's a very shrewd observation, and that is probably what will eventually happen.

Until then, I just try to keep up with current language usage, and I mostly do that by seeing who is getting offended by what. At this point, I don't care if someone calls me a transgender man, a transsexual man, a trans man, a man, an FTM, a transmasculine person, or a male. Terms the right wing uses, such as "crazy," don't go down as easily.

But my head got so turned around by writing all this that I think I'm going to back off of the language stuff for a while--unless I keep seeing headlines like "Wife-killing tranny denied electrolysis for now." Stuff like that really makes me ... umm ... crazy.

(Off-topic note: for those who are attending First Event this weekend, I will see you there. Track me down and introduce yourself if I don't already know you.)

Read more...

The bizarre evolution of my trans language, part 1

Words are the tools of a writer, and, since I'm a writer, it shouldn't be surprising that I'm obsessed with language, although my constant ruminations on the topic might get boring for my readers.

But since it has now been 13 years since I started what I call my gender transition, a term that is increasingly unpopular with others; since gender and transgender issues are what I write about; and since we have started a brand new year that could lead to who knows what, I thought I would glance back over the evolution of my own trans language.

Two of the major changes I have made are:

1. Dropping the "ed" from "transgender," which I did kicking and screaming all the way. I did this out of respect for GLAAD media guidelines and the influential trans activists who prefer to present consistency to the non-trans public.

2. Separating "trans" from "man" or "woman"--"transman" is now "trans man" and "transwoman" is now "trans woman." I did this as the result of one blog post I read that I really liked and agreed with. It's amazing how exposure to one simple idea can change a person's mind.

There are some other concepts that have been more problematic for me. I'm definitely old school and tend to subscribe to a narrow definition of transgender as an adjective to describe a person whose gender identity does not match his or her physical body (or sex).

While I understand the broader definition--that of a person who transgresses traditional gender norms on a regular basis, either intentionally or unintentionally, and, as a result, often suffers repercussions--I have more difficulty with this one, because it often includes drag queens and kings, intersex(ed) people, and transsexual people who have transitioned (or corrected a birth defect) and do not consider themselves transgender at all.

I know quite a few people in these categories who do not consider themselves transgender, so I don't like to impose this definition on them from the outside. Therefore, when using this broader definition, I say that each person should decide whether or not he or she fits here and desires to use this label.

Now things really get dicey. Grab an aspirin or two--or a good stiff drink--and see if you can sort all this out. These are just a couple of language beliefs that I started out with 13 years ago that have not withstood the test of time:

1. Belief: When I started transition 13 years ago, I thought of myself as a "transgendered female"--a person with a female body who had a male gender identity (not a "man" gender identity or even a "masculine" gender identity, but a "male" gender identity--the idea that I should have been born male).

This, in my mind, is what made me transgendered ("cross-gendered")--I had a gender identity that did not match my body. This all rested on my personal and "learned" definition of transgendered (see above).

I believed (and still believe) that I was "born female." The appropriate terminology now is "assigned female at birth." I can live with that. But I believe that I was "assigned female at birth" because I was born female. I had a female body. There was no other assignment that could have been made. For certain people, this is not the case. For me, it was.

Because I was "born female" or "assigned female at birth," in my eyes, I was a "transgendered female." I didn't see how I could be anything else. This tends to bother people, and I don't say it publicly anymore (except right here, right now), but it still makes sense to me.

2. Belief: When I started my transition--started hormones, planned and eventually had chest surgery, and changed my gender/sex markers on my paperwork--I believed that I was then a transsexual--that I was "crossing sexes," because I was changing my actual physical body.

I also believed that I was a man--my paperwork, my identity, and parts of my body said as much. The problem for me was that "man" did not fit, which led me to adopt my current identity as a "transsexual man" or "trans man."

I also believed that I was "male"--again reinforced by my physical changes and my paperwork. I have sometimes referred to myself as a "trans male."

At that time, I no longer saw myself as transgendered. I felt that the gender incongruity had been eliminated. There was no "cross-gender" situation anymore. My body--as much as it possibly could--matched my gender identity.

Things have changed, however--maybe not for me and in the way that I see things, but in the way that I use language publicly, both to describe myself and others. And in order to make this post reasonably short--and in order to give readers time to get another drink or resolve the headache that all this has undoubtedly caused for some--I will save that for next time.

Why, I can feel the suspense building already ... : )
Read more...

Amanda Simpson can take it--but can we?

Amanda Simpson is a very strong, intelligent, and highly qualified woman who no doubt anticipated a great deal of negative response to her appointment to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

She's been in the public eye for a while, albeit on a smaller scale, and she's been out as trans, so she was probably well aware of the intentional slurs and misuse of pronouns that would occur in right-wing articles about her appointment; the condescending and offensive headlines that would be used; and even the late-night jokes that would take place at her expense.

It's likely that she steeled herself against this kind of garbage a long time ago. Plus she knows her qualifications, and she knows that she was the best person for the job to which she was appointed. She knows there's not some "trans quota" out there, as some on the right are saying. If only there were! A lot more qualified trans people would be employed right now instead of desperately searching for work, only to be rejected because of their trans status.

Simpson is tough--she wouldn't have gotten to where she is now if she wasn't. But what about the rest of us?

As we celebrate this major historic appointment, we have to sort through and be subjected to all the hateful garbage that's out there as well. Any time a trans person does something--anything--that's noteworthy or newsworthy, we each have to deal personally with the negativity that's out there, made even more visible by the Internet, where anyone can say anything and nastiness abounds.

This unrelenting emotional battery is definitely not good for the psyche, and it can affect us more deeply and seriously than we might even realize. The constant digs at who we are and the ongoing reminders that some people still hate us so fiercely can leave us exhausted and discouraged.

It's times like this that we have to look to our allies and know that they have our backs--or are at least trying. HRC and GLAAD, no matter how you feel about them, are responding to CBS and the David Letterman debacle. Even gay bloggers like Joe.My.God. and Andy Towle--yes, gay men, who some in our community want nothing to do with--are expressing outrage and educating their gay readers about why this is not okay.

It's times like this that we have to look to each other and find strength in our friendships and our own community, and to stop our internal wars long enough to offer support and stand together.

It's times like this that we have to look to people like Amanda Simpson and our other pioneers who have charted and are still charting the course for us to succeed and to eventually realize equality.

And it's times like this that we have to look inward and realize how much each of us has personally done in his or her own life and how strong we really are for doing so.

Sure, we can take it. Each misused pronoun, each hateful headline, each nasty blog comment, each sarcastic "joke" will take a toll. But we look at where we've been and how far we've come, and we keep moving--forward.

(Photo: Amanda Simpson, press photo)
Read more...

Amanda Simpson and the trans Catch-22

The Obama administration's appointment of Amanda Simpson, a trans woman, to the post of Senior Technical Adviser to the Department of Commerce is a major blip in the trans-history timeline that is being created as we speak for people to examine 50 or 100 years from now. But the announcement brings with it a kind of Catch-22 for trans people.

While Simpson identifies herself as "one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government," and the press release (linked to above) was sent out with a subject line of "Transgender woman appointed to Department of Commerce," I personally would have referred to her as a transsexual woman--but it's not my place to impose an adjective or an identity onto anyone.

Regardless, this is where the Catch-22 comes in:

There are transsexual people who have made the physical corrections that they needed to make and who live in the world as men and women--no "trans" prefix at all. Although I am not one of these people, this seems reasonable to me, and I can understand why they no longer identify as trans in any way.

Some people might even wish that Amanda Simpson was not identified as trans. It is obvious that she is a woman. Why single her out as trans?

The problem comes in because Amanda Simpson, as a woman, would not make headlines or be of particular note at all for her appointment. Amanda Simpson as a trans woman receiving this same appointment is huge.

This is a major step for the Obama administration or for any presidential administration. This is a major step for trans people. Simpson's appointment reflects positively on us all, and she serves as a wonderful role model for people in our community. It would be a real shame if Simpson's trans status was not acknowledged.

So while I completely respect people's desire to assimilate and to stop using a "trans" identifier, and I understand the argument and the science behind it, I'm also very happy that Amanda Simpson does use such an identification, whether it be transgender, transsexual, or both.

If Simpson had chosen to live her live in "stealth," our community would not have the benefit of having one of our own in a presidential post, and non-trans people would be deprived of another opportunity to see trans people as capable, intelligent, and successful.

As Simpson herself was quoted as saying in the press release: "(A)s one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others."

"One of hundreds." "Opportunities for others." These are the goals for many trans people--to be treated equally and have the same opportunities as everyone else. And these goals can only be reached when people like Amanda Simpson live openly as trans.

Thoughts?

(Photo: Amanda Simpson, associated with press release)
Read more...