Transfixed on the Prefix, 'Trans-'

"For although the thinkers say that actuality is annihilated possibility, that is not entirely true; it is the fulfilled, the active possibility. Here, on the contrary, the actuality . . . which is thus also a negation, is the possibility annihilated, rendered impotent. Usually the relation of the actual to the possible is one of confirmation; here it is a denial."

– Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death

In my last post I discussed one writer's perspective on the debate over what to call “intersex” people, those in possession of bodies which are neither male nor female. I'd like to begin this one by instead thinking on what we should call those who display hatred or fear towards these people. “Transphobia,” says Kate Bornstein, “is one term in vogue with some transsexuals” (74). The intended meaning of this term seems obvious enough; fear of transgender = transphobia. But etymologically this word wants to take on a broader meaning than the one it was made for.

Collins English Dictionary contains the following entry for the prefix:

trans- or (sometimes before s-) tran-

— prefix
1. across, beyond, crossing, on the other side: transoceanic ; trans-Siberian ; transatlantic
2. changing thoroughly: transliterate
3. transcending: transubstantiation
4. transversely: transect
5. (often in italics) Compare cis- indicating that a chemical compound has a molecular structure in which two groups or atoms are on opposite sides of a double bond: trans-butadiene

[from Latin trāns across, through, beyond]

So, we can clearly see that although “transphobia” is intended and taken to mean something like “fear of transsexuality,” the word itself resists that circumscription. Bornstein briefly discusses this potential: “Fear of crossing? Fear of transgressing? If this term were allowed that sort of breadth—that is including the fear and hatred of any kind of border-dwellers—then it might have some possibilities” (74). As the dictionary entry shows us, the etymological possibilities for trans- far exceed the limited scope of transphobia's coinage and usage. Seen in this light, “transphobia” comes to bear a plurality of related meanings; fear of crossing, fear of change, fear of going beyond, fear of the other side, fear of being situated or extended across something, fear of being or going beyond, across, or above limits or boundaries of any kind—fear of surpassing, overcoming, rising above, or notable extension beyond ordinary limits. In Kierkegaardian terms, we might say that transphobia is a fear of possibility, that in the case of gender, we witness transphobia whenever we see the annihilation of possibility in protection of a gendered actuality, the binary of male and female.

Bornstein (79) poses a series of questions which I will transcribe here:

What's your gender?
When did you decide that?
How much say do you have in your gender?
Is there anything about your gender or gender role that you don't like, or that gets in your way?
Are there one or two qualities about another gender that are appealing to you, enough so that you'd like to incorporate those qualities into your daily life?
What would happen to your life if you did that?
What would your gender be then?
How do you think people would respond to you?
How would you feel if they did that?

I encourage anyone reading this post to seriously consider these questions, keeping in mind the above discussion of 'trans-'. I would add one more question to this list: Do you display qualities belonging to a gender other than your own? For instance, are you a man who considers himself sensitive? A woman who could be called competitive? Do you enjoy sex? Not enjoy sex? Have you ever been afraid? If we take this line of questioning to its logical extreme, it seems fair to say that there is no real person who displays only and all of the qualities assigned to his/her gender. I assert that everyone is transgender insofar as every person falls somewhere between the binary of man/woman, that no matter how we define “woman” or “man” there will be someone who identifies as such that will be left out by our definition. Also, I think it is fair to say that everyone is transphobic, that is, no matter what your views on gender, there is someone who exists in such a way that their very presence, the very possibility of their being what they are, will challenge those views and provoke in you an unavoidable feeling of fear.

Is this a productive way to think? It certainly deprives “transgender” as a category of any political salience, and likewise deprives “transphobia” of any kind of ad hominem function. The latter clause probably isn't a bad thing, and if nothing else allows us to recognize the fear of change and subscription to normality that is present in every single one of us, no matter how radical we think we are. Likewise, recognizing the ways in which each and every person resists characterization as their gender identity can do wonders for consciousness and solidarity within social justice movements surrounding topics of sex and gender. Ultimately, of course, people who identify with the T in LGBT are the ones who should decide what their trans identity means, and the kind of reasoning I'm presenting here can result in dangerous, homogenous social ontology; I call myself “transgender” if and only if such a term can rightly be applied to everyone, and not otherwise.

Works Cited:

Kierkegaard. The Sickness Unto Death. <http://bit.ly/1aSfOxa>

Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw. <http://bit.ly/NzIKQz>

"trans-." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers.        11 Feb. 2014. <Dictionary.com | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans->.

Fluid Identities in a Solid World

Kate Bornstein in her natural habitat.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3gj7mnRxW1qhjtufo1_500.jpg

"In my case, however, it's not so clear. I identify as neither male nor female, and now that my lover is going through his gender change, it turns out I'm neither straight nor gay. What I've found as a result of this borderline life is that the more fluid my identity has become, and the less demanding my own need to belong to the camps of male, female, gay or straight, the more playful and less dictatorial my fashion has become -- as well as my style of self-expression."
-Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaw, page 4

In my previous blog post regarding intersex bodies, I challenged the notion that another person's genitalia should not be the business of others, and that our obsession with other people is passe and, for a lack of a better word, downright annoying. In this blog post I will continue to complain about this invasive behavior so many of us like to indulge in from time to time, as well as offering insight from a transgender woman's perspective as opposed to the intersex.

Kate Bornstein wrote Gender Outlaws in order to tell her story as a queer trans-woman dating a trans-man and how it has affected her life. She starts off reflecting on her own love of fashion and how she uses clothing and accessories as yet another means of self-expression, especially when it comes to her feminine identity. She details how she rigidly stuck to stereotypical feminine styles of dress when she was less comfortable with her identity and felt the need to prove herself to the rest of the world that she is, in fact, a "real" woman. Whatever that means. However, she tells the story about how her lover, transitioning from female to male, has helped her come to terms with her identity. She began to recognize for herself how unnecessary the binaries are in terms of sexual identity and gender identity. Her life, as she recalls, is a mix of a little bit of everything: biological male body and female mind for her, and biologically female body and male mind for her lover. Her own style begins to reflect this mash-up as she cares less and less about sticking to the rules of gender, happily going about things her own way.

Her words are peppered with confidence as she briefly tells her story. She admits to being a great fan of accessories and says that they are the most important part of her wardrobe: essentially, the smaller details make up the most vital points in the big picture. Perhaps I am reading too deeply into her piece, but metaphorically speaking, this is a great representation of how much happier one can be when one rejects the large concepts of the binary and instead invests interest in doing little things to express how one may feel on a particular day. She embraces the fluidity of her identity and, as a result, the fluidity of her fashion sense. It is clear that she has become much more content with her life as a result. Instead of rigidly following the rules, she blatantly breaks them and frees herself from the grips of cisgender society in the end.

Stories like these are always a delight to read because it is always a pleasant surprise to see someone break the rules of our two-gender society and reap the benefits from that lifestyle change. We have heard too many stories countless of times of people who differed from society's expectations of what a "real" man or woman should be: two names that stick out particularly are Brandon Teena and Larry King, both of whom were murdered because outsiders felt threatened by their expression of identity. Brandon was a twenty-something transgender man living in Nebraska and Larry was a flamboyant schoolboy. Though their expressions were different, their tragedies were the same. When the media covers stories of people like Brandon and Larry, it is almost as if they are using their faces of examples of what not to do: "stick to the binary or else you will suffer like these people" is ultimately the message that they deliver. While the voices of people like Kate Bornstein are so hard to find, it is always vital to listen nonetheless in order to see that, yes, you can be happier if you do what you want instead of what people want you to do.

A woman like Kate Bornstein is the perfect threat for the gender binary. She is strong, confident, and almost reckless in her rejection of heteropatriarchal standards for what is normal/acceptable and what is wrong. Her briefing on how her fashion sense reflects her fluid identity is short and sassy, but her message is clear: when I accept myself as I am, I am much more content with my life and I am not afraid to inform others of my newly found confidence. When people like Bornstein come out of the woodwork and declare their brand new liberation as exciting and useful, others will begin to follow suit and down comes the binary.

Fluid identities in a "solid" world are hard to celebrate because so many people try to crucify anyone who falls outside of the norm. Too many Brandon Teenas and Larry Kings have been thrust in our faces as examples of what happens when you try to challenge the system. For the longest time, it has been enough to scare non-binary people into silence, but people like Kate Bornstein are able to break the silence, come out as fluid, and inspire those who were previously frightened to gain their own self-confidence and approach the world with a more fruitful outlook. Whether your outfit is fashionably tacky or your gender expression varies day by day, Bornstein and others will embrace your differences and accept you the way you are, just as society should. Those who benefit from the binary will always be out for the blood of those who do not conform, but it should not be something that silences and suppresses those who seek liberation from these norms. All bodies are created equal and equally beautiful, which Kate Bornstein celebrates in her writing.

Gender and the DSM - Stigma, Insurance Money, and Morality

While reading Stryker's piece, the part about Gender Identity Disorder (GID) really resonated with me. In the article, she defines it as "feelings of unhappiness or distress about the incongruence between the gender-signifying parts of one's body, one's gender identity, and one's social gender (a condition sometimes called 'gender dysphoria')"  She mentions in the piece that "Generally, a person who wants to use hormones and surgery to change his or her gender appearance, or who wants to change his or her legal bureaucratic sex, has to be diagnosed with GID.”

This description stuck with me as someone who is a psychology and women’s studies double major. When learning about this disorder in abnormal psychology last year, I remember feeling so awkward. Normally when something is not widely accepted or just not PC, the professor will include it in the curriculum so that we know about it, but also comment on the fact that it’s problematic. When we got to the GID slide in class, the professor just discussed it at the same level of legitimacy as the other sexual disorders (most of which are also problematic). My first reaction was to cringe at labeling transgender as a mental illness, but it was presented as truth. Now that I have done more research on the subject, I understand where both sides are coming from.

Psychology thinks that if they diagnose it, then insurance will pay for psychotherapy. The insurance companies don’t, however pay for transition surgeries. In class I learned that the recommended treatment for GID is surgical transition. Why then, would this not be paid for like neurosurgery would be paid for in the case of other types of mental illness? It seems like there isn’t much evidence for why this is in the DSM IV as a disorder if the only reason it is in there is to charge insurance companies that aren’t going to pay.

Is this justification enough to label an entire community of people as diseased and disordered? A good way to look at it is to compare it to homosexuality. Up through the time of the DSM III (1980s) homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. Today, it seems absurd that we would call it a mental illness. Maybe in 40 years, we will be able to say the same thing about transgender or GID.

            The writers of the DSM V had a lot of pressure to eliminate this disease from the newest edition of the book. They ultimately decided not to remove it entirely, but to change it to Gender Dysphoria. They are very clear to point out that they don’t want to stigmatize people with disorders. They also make it known that crossing the lines of gender is not disordered. Only the feelings of dysphoria associated with it are disordered. Something I have been thinking about is that if people are being treated for the depressive symptoms that sometimes come with transitioning, then why aren’t these people just treated for depression? It is extremely common for people to seek counseling for minor bouts of depression throughout their lives. Also, any client’s depression (or any other mental illness) can be caused by societal or cultural influences or pressures. By the DSM’s definition, being a woman is just as much of a diagnosable disorder or cause for feelings of dysphoria as being transgender. If we start looking at it more like homosexuality in its post DSM years, then we would see that many people become depressed as a result of being homosexual in a heterosexist, homophobic society, and by no means is this a reflection of their mental health. Transgender people could move better through the mental health system if they weren’t labeled with a diagnosis.

Many individual psychologists understand this, or at least how harmful the stigma can be, and that treatment gender dysphoria is not focused on fixing transgender people. I honestly believe that generally, they treat clients with gender dysphoria no differently than they would treat depressed women, women with eating disorders, or people who are homosexual and depressed. Feelings of depression (or feelings at all) in people who aren’t aligned as a masculine male who identifies as a man, and is sexually attracted to women, are linked to gender and sexuality. That is simply a part of being outside the norm. But this is all on the individual level.

A discussion on morality in my junior seminar lead me to begin believing that it is a lot harder for huge structures and corporations to be moral, but the people working within those structures are easily capable of being moral. The same goes for psychology. The APA (American Psychological Association) is problematic in labeling sexual disorders, but many individual psychologists reject that, and practice the way that they see fit. Or they see the flaws in the APA system and use the DSM with a grain of salt.

Attached below is a link to the DSM V page about gender dysphoria. It explains thoroughly what the APA is trying to accomplish by including it in the book. Whether we think that is a sufficient definition is up for discussion, but I thought that at least I should let the plead their case. 

I also, included a poster from a protest of GID that has a website at the bottom. This could be an interesting source to pin against the DSM's defense of gender dysphoria because it protests GID. It would be interesting to see how the DSM answered the call for change in the DSM V, if they did at all.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Bathroom Talk: Sh*t to know about trans-identity and gender-neutral bathrooms

Just a heads up, I use potty-talk not in an attempt to disgust you, the reader, but I feel it is important to flush out some things that we don’t always discuss regarding the bathroom and its subjects, which would be everyone who is privileged enough to use one.  Also, an easy way of breaking the ice is often with humor.  Furthermore, I feel that in order to talk about making the bathroom safer and more accessible to people who do not conform to a prescribed gender or sex, we should be more comfortable talking about the bathroom as well—not in too much detail though—and also acknowledge what happens when we use the toilet; for instance we say I have to go to the bathroom because it is human necessity. 

I will draw on the section “An Introduction to Transgender Terms and Concepts” from Susan Stryker’s book Transgender History to help unpack the terms:  sex, gender Identity/presentation; in order to get a better understanding of their meaning.  Stryker specializes in theories of gender and sexuality, and is the author of The Transgender Studies Reader. 

Sex:  One’s biological assignment as either male or female (sometimes intersex) at birth.  Sex is not synonymous with gender.  “Sex is generally considered biological, and gender is generally considered cultural.” Sex also refers to genitals, which can be a vagina, penis, or a variation of these (intersex).  “The words ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex.” (Stryker 4.)

Gender:  Gender is not the same as sex, “gender is generally considered to be cultural, and sex, biological.”  Gender identity is one’s internal sense of identifying as masculine, feminine, neither, or a variation of both, and so on.  Gender presentation is how one portrays their gender identity through signs like clothing, hairstyle, consumption patterns, etc..  It is something that you do, as if it were an action—a naturalized one that we aren’t always aware of.  “The words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ refer to gender.” (Stryker 11-13.)

This is a description of how Stryker defines these terms, but in the context of the rest of the section of her writing it is also important why she is defining them.  These terms are very naturalized as she puts it, “we simply experience these things without thinking about them too much—as we do with gravity, for example or breathing” (Stryker 7.)  She says it is important when talking about these definitions they “should not be taken to mean that there are only two kinds of bodies (male and female) or that all bodies are either one or the other of only two possible kinds of bodies” (Stryker 8.)  Gender and sex have a tendency to become conflated in everyday speech or conversation and it is important to separated them and break them apart to better understand their meaning.  By conflation I mean it is assumed, for example, that if someone is female (sex) then she (gendered pronoun) is also a woman (gender identity) who acts feminine (gender presentation) and is expected to use the gendered bathroom that matches to that.  However, these categories do not always line up to the perceived assumptions.

Contextualizing that, Trans- is generally conceived to be an umbrella term that covers identities that do not conform to the male/female, man/woman binary.  Transgender is then “implies movement away from an initially assigned gender position. It most generally refers to any and all kinds of variation from gender norms and expectations” (Stryker 19.)  And transsexual refers to the same premise but is changing of sex, which involves surgery.  To my interpretation of this it seems that the word transition can also apply to this concept, as if a person’s identity was in transition, possibly from one gender or sex to another, but not limiting that transition—if it has an end, to two ends.

As stated earlier, going to the bathroom, in the sense of the removal of waste from the body, is necessary to sustain life.  Gender and sex also tend to get conflated with bathroom assignments.  In which people are perceived to be a particular gender by the signifiers that they wear on their bodies, which are all too often conflated to the person’s sex and other intersections of identity, and don’t always match up to the norm.  Bathroom assignments based on the conflation of gender and sex usually reduces a person to their body parts, or what they are perceived and then expected to have.

There is a dichotomy with privacy and public restrooms; we are all entitled to our privacy when doing our business and everyone should be able to it in a safe and accessible (also clean) space.  I would find it difficult to use the facilities if I were nervous or under pressure.  The most common, or normalized signage for public restrooms in US culture are typically assigned and separated by gender, as men’s and women’s restrooms; rather than biological sex, in terms of body parts.  Most likely because gender rather than sex has to do with image and perceived body parts.

Why separate bathrooms based on sex? We will hopefully in the future look back on this time and wonder why we separated them by gender segregation.

So what is a “gender-neutral bathroom”? When searching the web on Wikipedia for “Gender-Neutral Bathrooms” the online encyclopedia presents it as:

A unisex public toilet, or unisex toilet, unisex bathroom, family toilet, or gender-neutral bathroom, is a public restroom or toilet that people of any gender or gender identity may use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_bathrooms

But, what is a gender-neutral bathroom at Allegheny?  Residence Life offers “gender-neutral” housing options for some first year students and cohorts of upperclassmen.  There is a gender neutral section in Baldwin Hall and all of Allegheny Hall is labeled as “gender-neutral” by the office of residence life.  Below is the description for Allegheny Hall listed under housing information for the campus community:

“The Gender Neutral- Residence Hall located in Allegheny hall will focus on Gender-neutral lifestyle. Restrooms are gender-neutral and students are paired by expressed gender. This is an intentional community for those who promote inclusivity among all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, gender-expression or sex.“ 

Possible miss use of the term “neutral”—as in presenting no particular characteristics—compounded with the term gender possibly suggests that in these spaces there is no perceived gender.  However, after living in Allegheny Hall for the 2012-2013 academic year my experience living in that space has revealed that even in these spaces gender happens.  The bathrooms are gender neutral in the sense that the toilets, sinks, showers, and anything else that one may find in a bathroom are shared by the residents that live there.  It does not conform to the male/female gender binary or its other boundaries.  In other words it is just a restroom that does not segregate; people of all identities can pee (preferably in the toilet), poop (please flush after), wash their hands (with soap please) and wash.  And turn of the light when you leave.

When in doubt...

Stryker, Susan. "An Introduction to Transgender Terms and Concepts." Transgender History. Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2008. 1-29. Print.

Grasping A Concept

            This week in class, we reviewed and reflected on, specifically, three articles in regards to transgender. One article, “Transgender History” by Susan Stryker, posed as an introduction to transgender, creating an atmosphere of understanding and need for rights. In all honesty, I have never read, been exposed to, or discussed transgender prior to attending college. I was raised in society’s deception of a traditional family; meaning I have a mother, a father, and an older brother, with my father being the primary provider. I grew up in a prominently Caucasian, suburban community. My high school lacked a variety of electives, extending as far as broadcasting; however, not critical media studies. At times, it felt like I lived in a bubble, barely scratching the surface. Everyone was properly positioned, perfectly fitting in the sex/gender binary. An individual’s sex usually matched his or her gender. Anyone who deviated from his or her position was viewed differently.

With that said, college was highly different from what I was accustomed to. There is no filter here. Students are freely able to express themselves and learn as much as possible. As much as I love being exposed to new concepts it is sometimes difficult to fully grasp them. I struggle because I want to completely understand. I believe that it is important to understand. In a way, this blog entry is my way of working through confusion and taking a step closer to understanding.  

Stryker has made me realize that transgender extends further than just moving “away from an initially assigned gender position” (Stryker 19). It digs deeper through the gender binaries, subtly redefining an individual’s identity.

In the section, Transgender Issues in the Spotlight, of Stryker’s article, “Transgender History,” she gravitates towards the influence of media. This section, specifically between pages twenty-four and twenty-eight, is intended for the technological generation, such as myself, who are constantly surrounded by social networks, digitally altered advertisements and search engines such as Google. She offers historical and developmental examples to relate how there is a “window” for the integration of transgender issues in this type of society (Stryker 28).

Internet has provided a “steady increase in transgender visibility,” receiving “roughly 7.3 million hits” on Google (Stryker 25). This increase of curiosity and popularity is a reason why adults, young adult, teenagers, and/or preteens, should grasp a better understanding on transgender. Society is in the middle of a transition, drifting away from a traditional structure; one that does not just involve a male, who identifies as a man and is heterosexual or a female, who identifies as a woman and is heterosexual. The transition calls attention to “how our foundational assumptions about what the world is like are just that—assumptions, not always true for other people” (Stryker 26).

Gender moves deeper than the binary of male and female. Stryker uses examples of past and present “ideas about how representation works” to explain the “transgender gender representation” (Stryker 26).  In the past, images were not altered, straightforward, and completely pure or real. Today, that is obviously not true due to Photoshop. A digital image or sound may “be a complete fabrication built up pixel by pixel or bit by bit—but a fabrication that nevertheless exists as an image or a sound as real as any other” (Stryker 26). In regards to this metaphor, I translated it to mean that transgender is not narrow. It is a wide spectrum based upon multiple variables. It is not subjected to the strict conformity of the gender binary and rejects the idea that gender has to fit perfectly into that binary.

I found an article from Fox News that addresses the new law in California, which allows “transgender students to choose which restroom and locker room they use” (Associated Press 2013). A Republican state lawmaker, Tom Donnelly, decided to pull his children out of their local public school because of the newly instated law. He stated “his 13- and 16 year old sons were “horrified” to learn they might have to share a restroom with female students” (Donnelly qtd in Associated Press 2013). This is their first mistake; they connected sex and gender. Even though the student has female genitalia, does not mean the student identifies as a girl/woman. His second mistake refers to his belief that the law “will encourage inappropriate behavior among hormone-driven teenagers” (Associated Press 2013). This insinuates the student’s sexuality, either homosexual/heterosexual or other sexual tendencies. This anecdote relates to Stryker’s concept that transgender is not formatted to the gender binary. Transgender is a spectrum that does not have or follow a clear-cut path and accepts that not every individual is the same. This provides evidence that gender is deeply rooted and much more complicated than most people ever thought.

            I enjoyed Stryker’s examples because it was easily understood and I could make connections to other readings. The importance of understanding is acceptance. According to the Fox News article, supporters believed the law was meant to “reduce bullying and discrimination against transgender students” (Associated Press 2013). Knowledge can lead to understanding and acceptance. “It’s not as big a deal as it used to be” and our culture must continue with this statement (Stryker 28).

Bibliography

Stryker, Susan. Transgender History. Berkeley: Seal Press, 2008. Print.

Associated Press. “California Lawmaker Pulls Son From Class Over Transgender Law.”

Fox News. Web. 17 August 2013. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/17/california-lawmaker-pulls-son-from-class-over-transgender-law/>

Fashion as Identity: Bornstein and Barneys New York Campaign

"I see fashion as a proclamation or manifestation of identity, so, as long as identities are important, fashion will continue to be important." --- Kate Bornstein

I find the fashion world to be amazing and beautiful, as well as infuriating, all at the same time which is why  I was really struck by how Bornstein compared identity to fashion. It's something that people have always talked about, but have never really went deeper into the meaning of it. We express ourselves through what we wear and we put ourselves in fashion categories, such as "prep", "boho", "mod", and "classic", but I don't think we are ever really just one. Magazines have started clumping together categories for different fashion styles and trends such as "classic mod" or "boho chic". This really reminded me of what we have been talking about in class: that gender isn't just male or female and people don't fall neatly into those two categories. Bornstein says that her identity as a "transsexual lesbian whose female lover is becoming a man" is part of her fashion statement, which is a "collage". I think that everyone has an identity collage, mixed with different pieces of identity that represent a different part of the person....just like different pieces of clothing expressing the person as a whole. She does touch on that these "collages" do not fit the culture norm of the binary categories, so when these "collages" are made public, the binary becomes jarred.

I know that I am rambling right now, but I recently found out that the fashion world is shaking this binary. I am a very lucky person that I read this piece of the Bornstein article the day I found out about the Barneys New York Spring/Summer 2014 campaign. The campaign "Brother Sisters Sons & Daughters" features 17 transgender models from around the world. Not only will they be featured in photo shoots for the store, but they will also be filmed in mini-documentaries that tell the story of their transitioning and will be shown online and around the store. Barney's has also promised to donate 10% of its sales, in stores and online, to the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center today! (Awesome coincidence). According to NY Daily News, not only is Barney's contributing to the public awareness of equality issues but they are also following a trend that has been becoming more apparent in high fashion, and that is using androgynous and transgender models. Of course, Barney's and other companies that have been using transgender models have come under a lot of scrutiny because fashion tends to eroticize human bodies. But with the Barney's campaign, I don't think that this is the case. I looked at a bunch of the photographs and watched a couple of the videos (some posted below) and I didn't get that sense at all. Instead, I think that Barney's and Bruce Weber did an excellent job at showing how normal this group of people, who are mostly seen as "other" because they upset the binary, really are. But I still wonder if this campaign is going to make the impact it is meant too. Barney's isn't necessarily somewhere that a middle class person would shop so I'm wondering how many people will actually see this campaign. I also ask the question whether or not this campaign and the use of transgender models in high fashion advertising will eventually spread to other stores, such as American Eagle or H&M? That I am not sure of. There's major backlash surrounding the campaign because people feel it markets to teens and young adults that transgender is something to "strive for" and will become part of popular culture. I'm sure we all have some words for these people, but why is it a bad thing for transgender to become part of popular culture? It will of course upset the binary, but I think the world needs a little bit of a shake up. I highly recommend checking out the videos and photos from the campaign. Not only are they beautifully shot, but they carry a lot of impact.
Here are some links to the articles talking about the campaign:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/barneys-features-transgender-models-article-1.1596741#commentpostform
Barneys New York: The Window Brother Sisters Sons Daughters Official Film with links to other videos of the models

"That's how I shift from one phase of my life to the next - first I try on the accessories." I really resonate with Bornstein on this statement. She doesn't define her "fashion" but just one article of clothing or one bracelet, but she collects them and tries them on as she goes through life. This I think is a very good mantra to live by. Her tanssexuality doesn't define her, but is a part of her identity as a person, her "fashion sense". The videos of the models portray this idea as well. I think that as a culture we need to start looking at people in this way and realize that the binary just isn't "in season" anymore.

Weber, Bruce. "Brothers Sisters Sons & Daughters - Introducing Katie and Arin." Barneys New York. Youtube, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Weber, Bruce. "Brothers Sisters Sons & Daughters - Meet Valentijn." Barneys New York. Youtube, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014

Works Cited
Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Print.
n.a. "Barneys Campaign Highlights Trials of 17 Transgender Models." Daily News. New York Daily News, 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Why does gender identity have to be associated with mental illness?

One of the issues that I have with the field of psychology is the social stigma that builds up around people who have “mental disorders” as a result of studies that psychologists have conducted. An Introduction to Transgender History by Susan Stryker caused me to think more about one of the stereotypes that all transgender people are suffering some time of mental illness. I have heard people generally say that they  think that it is this sort of “chemical imbalance” within someone’s brain that is the reason behind them wanted to act outside of conventional gender roles. Gender roles are defined by Stryker as an unwritten rule that “tells us that if we don’t perform the prescribed expectations, we are failing to be proper men and women” (12). In my opinion, categorizing transgender as a mental disorder has repercussions in our culture which negatively police transgendered bodies and stigmatize them into bodies born with brain defects.

Stryker includes a passage in her novel about transgender history on Gender Identity Disorder. She begins with explaining the meaning attached to the label which include, “feelings of unhappiness or distress about the incongruence between the gender-signifying parts of one’s body, one’s gender identity and one’s social gender (a condition sometimes called “gender dysphoria”) are officially classified by medical and psychological professionals in the United States” (13). This is the definition provided by the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders from its 4^th edition, published in 2000 which Stryker talks about on page 14 into further detail. Before I go on to discuss the implications of these ideas, I want to dissect exactly what this definition entails. I think that people looking at the DSM definition would probably assume that this has to be a real mental disorder, considering the fact that it says that feelings of unhappiness occur as well as becoming distressed because your biological parts identify with the social norms of what gender is and is not. When you say that someone suffers from “dysphoria,” you claim that the person is not doing well. Why does the DSM have to say that people are suffering from “gender dysphoria” if they want to identify with whatever gender makes them feel the most comfortable?

I found an argument from two doctors of psychiatry who argued the pros and cons of classifying gender identity disorder as a mental illness. Dr. Robert L. Spitzer argued that, “surely something remains profoundly wrong psychologically with individuals who are uncomfortable with their biological sex and insist that their biological sex is of the opposite sex. The only diagnosis that is appropriate for such cases is GID.” Dr. Spitzer makes assumptions that there has to be something wrong with someone if they think they are transgendered. Dr. Dan Karasic discusses cons of the GID label. He believes that, “gender behavior outside of traditional role is not mental illness”.  He then says “patients would be better served by a narrower diagnosis that describes psychological distress about one's gender but does not pathologize transgendered people who have adjusted well by modifying their bodies and/or presentation of gender”.

From reading Stryker’s passage on GID, I believe that she would most likely agree with Dr. Karasic’s side of the argument. He believes that the detailed diagnosis of gender identity disorders are not suitable for transgender people that might actually go through distress because of the gender roles that have become traditionally followed. The labeling of these “disorders” dictates that transgendered identifying people are abnormal. According to Stryker, “some people resent having their sense of gender labeled as a sickness, while others take great comfort from believing that they have a condition which can be cured with proper treatment” (13). Stryker continues to talk about how even though GID is listed officially as a real “ mental illness”, transgender people are discriminated against because it can be hard to get access to the surgeries they want to receive because they are seen as for “cosmetic” purposes. She says that if GID “is to be considered psychopathological, its treatment should be covered as legitimate” (15). Perhaps this narrower focus in the DSM that Dr. Karasic is talking about would allow for those who are transgender to have better access to health care because they wouldn’t be pathologized.

As of May, there is a now a new definition for those with “Gender Identity Disorders” in the DSM 5, which is now the most recent edition. Huffington Post recently wrote an article about it titled Gender Dysphoria: DSM-5 Reflects Shift in Perspective on Gender Identity. This article quoted Robin Rosenberg, who is a clinical psychologist who described that the “shift reflects recognition that the disagreement between birth and identity may not necessarily be pathological if it does not cause the individual distress.”  The new definition of GID rather than claiming that it is an “abnormal mental illness” as it does in the DSM-4, now is aware that someone doesn't have to be labeled as abnormal cross the gender boundaries in which they were born into. Rosenberg also explains how the distress that was originally thought to have caused by being transgender is actually because of how culture places a stigma on people that are.

This new definition to me sounds a lot better than the old. However, why should gender identity be categorized as a “disorder?” Even though this definition also explains that distress is not inherent to being transgender, doesn't it further label those who are as a sort of cultural enigma that needs to be figured out?  Maybe transgender people would be better able to access the surgeries they desire if we stopped trying to say they are abnormal. Why can’t the procedures they want become a new norm, especially if people in our society do have cosmetic surgeries like nose jobs? Stryker ends her piece on Transgender History saying that “struggles revolving around GID form an important part of transgender political history and contemporary activism” (16). GID keeps being redefined through contemporary activism, but having it labeled as such keeps the stigma of abnormality in place.

Power to the people! If you're interested in learning about GID reform, this link provides some awesome information on attempts taken to try to remove the stigma of mental illness associated with gender identity and remove the pathologization of transgendered people. 

Justification of a Stigma

As a society we have a tendency to crave normalcy, even if it means marginalizing human beings at that expense. Class discussion pointed out how ridiculous it is to determine a persons characteristics, dreams and abilities by their biological make up. When we are born, we are not innately prepared to lead a life defined by our body, but rather we are conditioned by society and its expectations. The importance of gender is limited to the label. Labels provide comfort because if we know enough to give something a name, it is safe to assume we will know what to expect. Not being able to give something a label admits we don’t know everything, and uncertainty makes people uneasy and afraid.  

The dependency for a label is a reflection of a flaw in society rather than a flaw in those they have marginalized. In this case the marginalized are those who could be described as intersex. Reis explains in great detail their struggle with the stigma that was forced upon them. It starts with, and is perpetuated by the language that people use to describe these people.

Initially intersex people were viewed as being monstrous. Aristotle was very straightforward with his artwork and portrayed a message that would “explicitly linking inhuman monsters and hermaphrodites.” (Reis 5) The puritans believed that every event was a sign from God, that the birth of a monster and consequently a hermaphrodite was a warning of sorts.

As time went on people abandoned the idea that hermaphrodites were monstrous, and were able to accept that they too were people or human beings. But because they were “different” they still carried the stigma with them. There were documents that showed that people were able to look passed the “flaw” in their biological make up, to the person inside. One was characterized as being honest and loyal and punctual although he also had a temper. He was described as ambiguous by sexuality terms and even his personality stopped him from being able to be identified as either gender. The idea was presented that he shouldn’t interact with people beyond that which was necessary to make a living and support himself.

Although this progress had been made it was hindered by the fact that intersex people were accused of fraud. The idea of fraud tells that a person isn’t acting in a way that is true to what they are. By using the term fraud, it insulates again that society is claiming that gender defines them as a person. That the ambiguity is wrong, that the person with this biological make up is wrong about however they chose to act, rather than ever entertaining the idea that the need to know and control another person and their lifestyle simply because it is different is what is wrong.

The stigma changed again to the idea that intersex people were perverts. This idea was rooted in two fundamental notions. First being the importance of marriage and the second being the fear of homosexuality. The idea that intersex people should be celibate was emphasized at this point. “he recommended eliminating sexual desire altogether through surgery: “So ill-fitted for the generative function and so prone to psychical perversions and moral degradation, such cases should be castrated early in life.”” (Reis 69)

When Psychology was in it’s early stages they used extensive personality tests in the attempt to reflect a persons “true” gender. However although it was considered a science, at that time it worked similarly to how religion did because the researchers had an intended result they were aiming to “prove”. The idea behind personality tests was that the person was able to choose their own answer, and their answers would reflect the ideas and concerns of either a boy or a girl. The problems with these tests were that they still promoted the idea that only two roles were acceptable. Although they were choosing the answers they had they could only end up being feminine or masculine. Today we know there are so many more options that a person could be, so to confine people to such limited options is simply self deluding and unrealistic.

People crave a sense of normalcy and were able to find it through justifications of religion and science. It was important because people were afraid of the unknown. They were able to continue the stigma through different justifications. It is important to recognize that although they were able to claim they had evolved and left such prejudice behind, the stigma had simply changed form and shape, but it was still just as present and apparent.

In todays society language presents a lingering stigma. A lot of research time and thought has been done to truly move forward in this regard. However regardless of intention ignorance of the issue continues to marginalize those of intersex orientation. Certain names such as hermaphrodite reflect times when other terms such as hybrid, or sexual pervert, or creature were also relevant and it perpetuates that stigma.

Language has a lot of power. Language is what reflects your thoughts, and your thoughts reflect the kind of person and essentially who you are. In the effort of making a society where everyone is understanding and open, it important to understand the stigma in every form, recognize its flaw and take the personal responsibility to do what you can to remove it from society. 

Equal Pay for Equal People

Today, in 2014, 94 years after women gained the right to vote, there is still much discrimination and inequality amongst genders. According to USA Today’s national study, women earn 7% less than men in the same jobs (Christine Dugas, USA TODAY, 2012).  If women are payed 7% less than men, what happens when you factor in transgender? Should a transgender man be payed more than a transgender woman? How does our current binary gender system effect transgender people in the workforce? Questions like these arose while reading Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw and her discussion male privilege. 

Before delving into transgender issues, I think it is important to discuss male privilege and how it affects our society on a daily basis. Kate Bornstein in her book, Gender Outlaw,  addresses the problem of male privilege. Bornstein says that there is no place for male privilege and she is right.  This link http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf will bring you to a list of 29 benefits of male privilege. It is a rude awakening to something that occurs every single day in our society, and most men are unaware of their privilege and power over females. Some of these privileges for men include, being far less likely to face sexual harassment at work; being aggressive without fear of being called a bitch; not having to sacrifice a career after having children. This happens every single day, without question. Men are paid more, respected more, and assumed to be more qualified for jobs. 

Now, how does male privilege map to transgender? In 2011, it was reported in a national survey that transgender people were twice as likely to be unemployed than the general population and 15% of the transgender population reported a household income of under $10,000 per year,” (Sears, Mallory 2011). It is blatantly apparent that there is extensive discrimination against transgender people, especially in the workforce. This shockingly high rate of unemployment and low income leads me to think that transgender people are fearful of entering the work force; they may be fearful of being discriminated against by bosses and co-workers, fearful of not being paid honest wages, and a multitude of other emotional fears.

This injustice reveals how trivial gender is and how it problematic it is because of it’s social construction. It is simple to suggest just paying every person a fair salary, but that is easier said than done. Our culture is so attached to our identities-especially gender. Without our gender, who are we? What is going to happen in the workplace if a person’s gender isn’t easily identifiable? What happens if the transgender man acts too feminine or too masculine? What if a transgender woman is capable of a high leadership position, but has the anatomy of a woman, will she be denied the job even though she identifies as a man? When we apply transgender to the unequal pay of men and women, the problems with gender itself begin to unfold.

If the real problems with gender begin to unfold, then our entire culture as we know it is at stake. In our current binary system, men are expected to hold the higher paying jobs like CEO, doctor, or senator; and likewise, women are more commonly secretaries, nurses, or teachers. So, if a transgender person occupies one of these jobs, he/she is challenging the binary system and that is causing unrest in the workplace. If transgender employees start pushing up against the “gender defenders” (Bornstein pg. 74) then what will happen? It is quite possible that gender politics will have to be redefined. Our entire culture of gender is going to have to change to make way for a new, inclusive and accepting culture. Male privilege is going to have to be ended and equality in the workplace must replace it. 
There has been some progress made, but there is far more work to be done. Currently one of the only things being done is the addition of “gender neutral” bathrooms to buildings on college campuses and businesses. This is a step in the right direction. But it is not enough. Yes, people will feel more comfortable using the restroom at work, but they are not being paid fair wages, and that is the issue I struggle with. Male privilege and the binary gender system seems so archaic after reading Reis, A Body in Doubt, and Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw. So, after so many years and generations, why is this rigid system still controlling our society? Why is gender allowed to deny people jobs? Why is gender allowed to decide a person’s salary?

There is no answer for this problem-only more questions. It is unfair and unjust that anyone should be paid unequal wages for the same work. But it is even more unjust for a boss to have to analyze what gender a person “really” is before assigning them a salary. Transgender people in the workforce are being discriminated against. Gender is controlling the workforce today. Something that has been socially constructed is inhibiting people from living their lives openly and is making it impossible for some people to express their true selves. Another damaging aspect of this problem is how gender is ruining the American Dream. There is an entire population of people, of American citizens, that are being denied their chance at the American Dream. If transgender people are discriminated against in the workplace, they will never have the chance to make a living for themselves and their families. When addressing a solution to factoring out male privilege, Bornstein says, “A better solution to this situation would be to point out what’s going on, and to talk it though,” (Bornstein pg. 76). I think she is absolutely right. This is a subject that receives very little attention, and if nobody starts the conversation, there is no hope in finding equality in the workplace for transgender people. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/

 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.pdf 

Bornstein, Kate, and Kate Bornstein. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.