I don't like to write about stuff like this because I don't care to be involved in it. But I saw something that truly bothered me today... I saw this post on T-Central titled "2nd Call for Transgender/Intersex/DSD/Cross-Dresser/Gender Variant/Gender Queer-Identified/First Nations/Non-Western Gender Survey Participants." Do you see what term or descriptor is missing from this title? Well, it's me. Or people like me. "Transsexual" is missing from the title. It's a call to a survey by a Dr. Tarynn Witten, on the aging of the population in question. When I read the accompanying article, here is what is says about "transsexual:"
research survey aimed at understanding how individuals with non-traditional gender identities (transgender, transsexual, cross-dresser, trans-queer, gender queer, gender variant, intersex, DSD, First Nations and other non-Western gender identities)
Um, hello? "Transsexual" is not a gender identity. Transsexualism is a medical problem. Female is a gender identity. I am a transsexual due to the conflict between my gender identity and my body. It doesn't make any sense to refer to transsexualism as being a gender identity. But I digress.
I can't deal with all of this overly-politically-correct bullshit. Especially when it puts me inside an umbrella... an umbrella I *do not* want to be under... the "transgender" umbrella. I'm not "transgender." I'm not confused about my gender, or who I am, or who I want to be. I'm not in between genders. I'm female. I've had to go into my son's preschool and fight to be allowed in the school. I am uprooting and changing my entire life out of the need to live genuinely. I face completely different issues and have a different perspective than a cross-dresser. If you want to cross-dress, great! Live in the way that makes you congruent and content. But we're not the same and I do not like when academics imply that we are.
The survey is looking to help the groups it mentions "prepare to address traditional later life challenges such as retirement, health care, money challenges, housing, caretaking and other later life problems." When I read this, it bothers me even more that transsexuals are marginalized in this article... as who do you think has the most problems with "later life challenges such as retirement, health care, money challenges, housing, caretaking and other later life problems" ?? Not crossdressers, or some of the other terms that I frankly don't know what they mean. By and large, the people who face these issues are transsexuals.
This sort of thing is an example of why I am going to get away from all this as soon as I'm able and live as myself... a woman. I will not live as the latest politically correct term du jour. But Dr. Witten doesn't care, you see. I'm not a part of her target demographic.
9 comments:
Argh! That site is horrible! It's talking about supporting all those minorities, but it's got Google ads in it, and that means "ladyboys" and "Russian girls." Yikes! What a bloody mess. Plus the list isn't just an attempt to be PC. It's confused. She meant to put in something like "two-spirited," not just "First Nations" (which means all North American natives). This is someone who's been working in this area for years? More work needed!
Aw, c'mon, Ariel. The ladyboys over at "ladyboykisses.com" need love too. Admit it, you were soooooooooooo tempted to click on the ad. :P
I'd be much more likely to click on an ad with a hunky firefighter or something similar. ;-)
I will admit, at first. I thought that it might be fun to do.
Then, it was no more than just a few pages in that I found the questions to be a bit weird, upsetting, and then insulting.
So I quit.
Leaving trans related issues behind is a good idea. I get why so many people want to "blend" after transitioning. And like you, I will be assimilated into society as quietly as possible.
To quote Tom Waits, "I never buy umbrellas, because there's always one around."
Maybe I want to get wet. If I want your cover, I'll stand under it willingly.
I think the problem for us is that we know something they don't and they really don't want to learn new things (which aren't really all that new), but confirm old ones. It's frustrating because we can write it down, but they won't read it.
xoxo
Were's the like button? Personally, I don't want a label. I'm not confused about my gender, and I'm not variant in any way. Perhaps at one time these things applied as I was searching for answers, but there's no confusion on my part. If I must have one, the only label I care to have is the one on my license, passport, SS, and my birth certificate. All of which say I'm a person, and I'm female. How I got here is irrelevant.
That said, I know the hell it took to get me here, and I wouldn't for a second neglect the opportunity to help others who have also struggled with this. That whole thing is too fresh in my memory. If I have to have a label, or work with other people who want labels just to help a sister out, then by all means, label away, because at the end of the day, I'm not defined by what anyone else calls me. Maybe some day in the future I'll feel differently, but for now c'est la vie.
After I poked into the survey, I remembered that I had started it at one time. I think I found it on Helen Boyd's site. The survey itself is actually done pretty well. It's got "other" when you need it, and I often need it, because as you might expect it's very transgender etc. oriented. I didn't have a problem with the survey until it got into the actual point, which is all the stuff about aging. I should think about it, especially at my age, but I don't like to! As I recall, the questions got to be too much and I bailed. My partner and I do have retirement savings and a house. I figure that despite oddities like me having a prostate, our elder years will be pretty much like everyone else's.
Ariel....FYI...
Your prostate will soon fade into obscurity. I ad a psat test, (just for S&G). I had to ask for it specifically and it raised a few eyebrows, but I had it done. The results? <0.001...not measurable.
And as for the absurdity of the survey...Here is my thinking. In short, Garbage in, Garbage out.
This is a shining example of what "researchers" do. They do not RE-SEARCH as in actually SEARCH for FACTS. What they do is RE search for DATA that substantiates or "proves" their theorem.
In this case it is just some psuedo-intellectual re-hash of some old tired and hackneyed "gender theory". In other words, "PSUEDO-PSYCHO/SOCIAL GENDER-BABBLE".
The reason that TS is NOT part of the survey is that we do NOT FIT their 'PC" theorem.
Why do I use the term, "PC"? I use it because this is in FACT, like MOST Federally Funded studies, a politically motivated survey.
It is done to garner NUMBERS which translate into $$$. Try getting funding for a TS oriented study, FORGET IT! Never happen. Try getting $$$ for TG or LGBT oriented study, NO PROBLEM, lots of resoureces.
It is a simple question of numbers. Lynn Conway puts the incidence of GID, or GD, or GV at 1:250. Why so high? She casts a very wide net. Honest to goodness, R/D, (classic/true) TS's are MAYBE....1:30,000. Most likely in MY estimation, closer to 1:100,000.
Pretty rare, yes. But consider. 1:100,000 would equate to 30,000 in a population of 300,000,000. (or is it 3,000?)....Anyway SAME QUESTION. Do you know of 30,000 or even 3,000 bona fide "true blue" women of history in the USA?
That would equate to 600 or 6,000 per state. I personally only know of maybe 5 or six and they are all over the WORLD!
But "trannies"? They are a dime a dozen. They are everywhere. Just watch Ophrah or SNL. Or you can just ask Autumn Sandeen, or Monica Roberts or check with PHB.
Great post girl and I really liked how you pointed out that FEMALE is the gender identity. Being a transsexual is purely the medical problem that confuses gender identity with sex.
Post a Comment