Check out this story from the Advocate about a transgendered pregnant male!
And I thought having my kids call me 'Baba' was radical! One of the things I love about this whole transformative process in our society is how we are creating language to deal with it. For example, he calls himself his own surrogate!
Can you imagine how brave he has to be?
He closes with this: . . . our situation ultimately will ask everyone to embrace the gamut of human possibility and to define for themselves what is normal.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Gender Police. . . Literally
This is a real live story of gender police that cornered and interrogated a friend of mine and her son.
I've told you about these friends of mine on this blog before, but I took the entry down because it was a low-moment of processing out loud on my behalf, so I'll introduce them again.
We (us four and their four) met at a GLBT ECFE class a bit over a year ago. Our girls were 3 and 6 respectively, and our boys were about 18 months and 13 months respectively . Over the course of the past year and a half or so we've spent some time together and gotten to know each other, our kids get along well, as do the adults and I've been following one of the adult's experience while being "on the market" in academia--a long and arduous process that takes a toll on the best of us.
Anyway, their son, I'll call him "The Prescient One" or "TPO" for short, has always seemed, at least to me, well beyond his age in awareness. So much so that when we met I literally could not even comprehend that a child could be that aware at that age. Even now, I am often astounded at his composure (particularly relative to Big) in certain situations. They are able to do things and take him to places (at two-and-a-half) that I wouldn't dream of taking Big.
So, while I would not describe TPO as being particularly feminine in how we usually understand the term, he's got two things going for him that make the casual observer interpret him as being a girl: 1. he enjoys wearing dresses and pink clothing, usually associated with girls of his age and 2. his parents are observing the Jewish tradition of "Upsherin." Meaning "cutting off", it is a haircutting ceremony (Kabbalistic in origin), held when a Jewish boy is three years old*. So, his hair is getting quite long and, again, such a length is usually associated with little girls of his age, despite the fact that longish hair is now "in" for boys.
Now, on to the story, retold by me. So the other day, somehow, the kids broke the the Stay-At-Home-Mom's (SAHM) glasses. Because they are so requisite to her daily living, she added the chore of going out to the MOA to some hour-eyes joint to replace her glasses quickly.
I couldn't dream of taking Big within a half-block of a glasses store, that is, unless I wanted to go into debt from having him break most of the merchandise in the store. Big is the etymology of the saying "bull in a china shop".
So, they went to the store, TPO in tow as she had an eye exam and chose a pair of glasses. Being two, he got bored at some point, and she (being the very present mom that she is) paused her agenda to play with him and refocus his attention to another matter while she finished up her business.
While waiting for the glasses to be created in the promised one-hour, she had planned on passing time riding the rides with TPO and maybe getting a snack or something. They headed out of the shop and asked the three mall police approaching them where the nearest elevator was.
Curiously, one of the three police then started asking her questions.
Why did you come out to the Mall today, Ma'am?
She explained, though it must have been obvious, with her beducktaped glasses, and their proximity to the glasses store, that they were there to buy glasses, ride some rides, spend some greenbacks and be on their way.
They pursued their questioning.
We noticed that you keep referring to your daughter as a 'boy'. . . .
She insisted on his sex, and at some point even offered, to their dismay, to prove it to them.
At that point they backed down.
I'm not sure exactly what followed or how they all moved on with their business, but they eventually did.
I wondered what TPO felt about this interrogation, but my fellow SAHM assured me that he was focused on the rides. The damage was felt, certainly, by her, at least. This just goes to show you how deep our expectations about gender go. We're not exactly sure of their motives, but those police were seemingly checking her out regarding her sanity and, possibly even for some child abuse or neglect. I mean how awful a parent she must be, referring to her girl as though she were boy! Thank God it wasn't the other way around! They'd have had to call Child Protective Services and cart her off to the nearest detention facility!
Horrifying. When are we going to let our boxes go? Does TPO have to wait until he gets into Barnard College to be free to be himself anywhere outside of his own home?
*The irony here is that this tradition has historically been one of inculcating gender into the child's ideology. According to Yoram Bilu (a professor of anthropology and psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), "As in the rite of circumcision, and even more so, the ideal of gender differentiation prevails in the ritual haircut. At age three, after the biological, mother-supervised functions of weaning and sphincter control have been achieved, the child is appropriated from the female world and placed in the center of male territory. ... the first haircut at age three is a powerful social statement that the permissive nongendered, undersocialized period of early childhood, under the protective cover of the mother, is over. The first haircut is viewed as the beginning of the child's education, the first step in the all-encompassing, primarily male world of the commandments and Torah" (italics, mine).
I've told you about these friends of mine on this blog before, but I took the entry down because it was a low-moment of processing out loud on my behalf, so I'll introduce them again.
We (us four and their four) met at a GLBT ECFE class a bit over a year ago. Our girls were 3 and 6 respectively, and our boys were about 18 months and 13 months respectively . Over the course of the past year and a half or so we've spent some time together and gotten to know each other, our kids get along well, as do the adults and I've been following one of the adult's experience while being "on the market" in academia--a long and arduous process that takes a toll on the best of us.
Anyway, their son, I'll call him "The Prescient One" or "TPO" for short, has always seemed, at least to me, well beyond his age in awareness. So much so that when we met I literally could not even comprehend that a child could be that aware at that age. Even now, I am often astounded at his composure (particularly relative to Big) in certain situations. They are able to do things and take him to places (at two-and-a-half) that I wouldn't dream of taking Big.
So, while I would not describe TPO as being particularly feminine in how we usually understand the term, he's got two things going for him that make the casual observer interpret him as being a girl: 1. he enjoys wearing dresses and pink clothing, usually associated with girls of his age and 2. his parents are observing the Jewish tradition of "Upsherin." Meaning "cutting off", it is a haircutting ceremony (Kabbalistic in origin), held when a Jewish boy is three years old*. So, his hair is getting quite long and, again, such a length is usually associated with little girls of his age, despite the fact that longish hair is now "in" for boys.
Now, on to the story, retold by me. So the other day, somehow, the kids broke the the Stay-At-Home-Mom's (SAHM) glasses. Because they are so requisite to her daily living, she added the chore of going out to the MOA to some hour-eyes joint to replace her glasses quickly.
I couldn't dream of taking Big within a half-block of a glasses store, that is, unless I wanted to go into debt from having him break most of the merchandise in the store. Big is the etymology of the saying "bull in a china shop".
So, they went to the store, TPO in tow as she had an eye exam and chose a pair of glasses. Being two, he got bored at some point, and she (being the very present mom that she is) paused her agenda to play with him and refocus his attention to another matter while she finished up her business.
While waiting for the glasses to be created in the promised one-hour, she had planned on passing time riding the rides with TPO and maybe getting a snack or something. They headed out of the shop and asked the three mall police approaching them where the nearest elevator was.
Curiously, one of the three police then started asking her questions.
Why did you come out to the Mall today, Ma'am?
She explained, though it must have been obvious, with her beducktaped glasses, and their proximity to the glasses store, that they were there to buy glasses, ride some rides, spend some greenbacks and be on their way.
They pursued their questioning.
We noticed that you keep referring to your daughter as a 'boy'. . . .
She insisted on his sex, and at some point even offered, to their dismay, to prove it to them.
At that point they backed down.
I'm not sure exactly what followed or how they all moved on with their business, but they eventually did.
I wondered what TPO felt about this interrogation, but my fellow SAHM assured me that he was focused on the rides. The damage was felt, certainly, by her, at least. This just goes to show you how deep our expectations about gender go. We're not exactly sure of their motives, but those police were seemingly checking her out regarding her sanity and, possibly even for some child abuse or neglect. I mean how awful a parent she must be, referring to her girl as though she were boy! Thank God it wasn't the other way around! They'd have had to call Child Protective Services and cart her off to the nearest detention facility!
Horrifying. When are we going to let our boxes go? Does TPO have to wait until he gets into Barnard College to be free to be himself anywhere outside of his own home?
*The irony here is that this tradition has historically been one of inculcating gender into the child's ideology. According to Yoram Bilu (a professor of anthropology and psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), "As in the rite of circumcision, and even more so, the ideal of gender differentiation prevails in the ritual haircut. At age three, after the biological, mother-supervised functions of weaning and sphincter control have been achieved, the child is appropriated from the female world and placed in the center of male territory. ... the first haircut at age three is a powerful social statement that the permissive nongendered, undersocialized period of early childhood, under the protective cover of the mother, is over. The first haircut is viewed as the beginning of the child's education, the first step in the all-encompassing, primarily male world of the commandments and Torah" (italics, mine).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Gender Nonconformance on College Campuses
Alissa Quart's article "When Girls Will Be Boys" in this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine discusses how college campuses -- particularly wommen's colleges -- are dealing with gender, its fluidity, and when college kids transition from one sex to another within their single-sex institutions.
There is a "growing population of transgender students at the nation's colleges and universities."
The author suspects that this may be due to parents who, as opposed to those of a previous generation, "now allow their kids to choose whether they are referred to as 'he' or 'she' and whether to wear boys' or girls' clothing."
Additionally 147 colleges and universities now include "gender identity and expression" in their nondiscrimination policies.
The conventional thinking is that trans people feel they are 'born in the wrong body.' But today many students who identify as trans are seeking not simply to change their sex but to create an identity outside or between established genders — they may refuse to use any gender pronouns whatsoever or take a gender-neutral name but never modify their bodies chemically or surgically. These students are also considered part of the trans community, though they are known as either gender nonconforming or genderqueer rather than transmen or transmale.
I wonder if this is one logical conclusion of choice feminism in conjunction with the breakdown of traditional gender roles. People can be free to 'perform' any gender that suits them.
'I think gender is a spectrum — gender is more complicated than sex,' Rey continued. He sees everyone, and not just transmen, as having 'their own gender,' just as they might have their own personality or temperament. Rey’s point isn’t merely academic. A good number of gender nonconforming students I spoke to at women’s colleges agreed with him. Most did not have operations but rather defined gender simply by how they experienced it, seeing themselves as existing on a 'gender continuum' with their more conventionally feminine college friends. I met with one such student, Jordan Akerley, a 22-year-old senior at Wellesley. As we sat in the student-run on-campus cafe where Akerley works, Akerely explained what it is like to live out a theory of identity that doesn’t exactly conform to one gender or the other.
I applaud these new freedoms, but worry about what will replace the social shortcut that gender roles allowed for us in the past. Sure, gender is confining, but it also had meaning and served as a discourse and bargaining shortcut. As people become more comfortable with gender fluidity, does that mean that gender roles disappear or will they just morph into something else?
There is a "growing population of transgender students at the nation's colleges and universities."
Today a larger percentage of transitions occur in adolescence or young adulthood. The National Center for Transgender Equality estimates that between a quarter of a percent and 1 percent of the U.S. population is transgender — up to three million Americans — though other estimates are lower and precise figures are difficult to come by.
The author suspects that this may be due to parents who, as opposed to those of a previous generation, "now allow their kids to choose whether they are referred to as 'he' or 'she' and whether to wear boys' or girls' clothing."
Additionally 147 colleges and universities now include "gender identity and expression" in their nondiscrimination policies.
The conventional thinking is that trans people feel they are 'born in the wrong body.' But today many students who identify as trans are seeking not simply to change their sex but to create an identity outside or between established genders — they may refuse to use any gender pronouns whatsoever or take a gender-neutral name but never modify their bodies chemically or surgically. These students are also considered part of the trans community, though they are known as either gender nonconforming or genderqueer rather than transmen or transmale.
I wonder if this is one logical conclusion of choice feminism in conjunction with the breakdown of traditional gender roles. People can be free to 'perform' any gender that suits them.
'I think gender is a spectrum — gender is more complicated than sex,' Rey continued. He sees everyone, and not just transmen, as having 'their own gender,' just as they might have their own personality or temperament. Rey’s point isn’t merely academic. A good number of gender nonconforming students I spoke to at women’s colleges agreed with him. Most did not have operations but rather defined gender simply by how they experienced it, seeing themselves as existing on a 'gender continuum' with their more conventionally feminine college friends. I met with one such student, Jordan Akerley, a 22-year-old senior at Wellesley. As we sat in the student-run on-campus cafe where Akerley works, Akerely explained what it is like to live out a theory of identity that doesn’t exactly conform to one gender or the other.
I applaud these new freedoms, but worry about what will replace the social shortcut that gender roles allowed for us in the past. Sure, gender is confining, but it also had meaning and served as a discourse and bargaining shortcut. As people become more comfortable with gender fluidity, does that mean that gender roles disappear or will they just morph into something else?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Is Maureen Dowd an Idiot or Am I Missing Something?
Check out Maureen Dowd's recent tripe at the New York Times: "Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?"
In the article she reports on a recent study by economist, Fisman of Columbia in which he ran a speed-dating experiment at a local bar.
His results?:
"We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did. We also found that women got more dates when they won high marks for looks."
He continued: "By contrast, intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women’s choices as men's. It isn’t exactly that smarts were a complete turnoff for men: They preferred women whom they rated as smarter — but only up to a point ... It turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own."
While I love reading about this kind of 'evolutionary biology' in gender roles (mostly because the studies themselves are usually straw men or straw-women, if you'd prefer), I can't stand how Dowd seems to have a personal vendetta against Clinton, offering her whimsy advice from the safety of her job as NYtimes columnist. Check out a great comment by Katha Pollitt on Dowd.
In the article she reports on a recent study by economist, Fisman of Columbia in which he ran a speed-dating experiment at a local bar.
His results?:
"We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did. We also found that women got more dates when they won high marks for looks."
He continued: "By contrast, intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women’s choices as men's. It isn’t exactly that smarts were a complete turnoff for men: They preferred women whom they rated as smarter — but only up to a point ... It turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own."
While I love reading about this kind of 'evolutionary biology' in gender roles (mostly because the studies themselves are usually straw men or straw-women, if you'd prefer), I can't stand how Dowd seems to have a personal vendetta against Clinton, offering her whimsy advice from the safety of her job as NYtimes columnist. Check out a great comment by Katha Pollitt on Dowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
