Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I think the reason why society has such a hard time understanding and accepting trans people is because they tend to focus on what is tangible and concrete as opposed to abstract concepts. In this case, our genitalia is something that is tangible and concrete, and our identities are abstract. People see our bodies as physical "proof" whereas our identities are something that cannot be proven in such a direct manner, and as they see it, what we are physically overrides who we are as a person since the way we are physically can be proved in a tangible way, whereas our identities cannot. Of course, that kind of thinking is wrong since gender in of itself is an abstract concept, and the only thing that our bodies can definitively prove is whether we are merely an "innie" or an "outie" and nothing else. What are your guys' thoughts on this?

I can't say societies are good at focusing at things with concrete evidence, but can observe the denial of gender identity, the dehumanization if one will put it, of trans people (and the rest of the LBG set).

I suppose the abstract nature of gender is a catalyst for the reaction, but I don't think it causes the problems.  I will look at two particular components with special emphasis on MtFs.

1) Sexuality and sexual orientation.  What is it that draws a "heterosexual male" to women?  Is the gender, a characteristic that is not necessarily visible?  Is it their sex, which is something more visible?  Are they looking mainly at primary sexual characteristics, or are they looking at secondary sex characteristics as well?  The answer will naturally vary, and it is the sort of thing that challenges what sexual orientation really means.  However, if you look at what society emphasizes, at least for what a man ostensibly likes in a woman, there is a substantial emphasis on physical appearance -- at least with respect to sexuality -- and this can make things somewhat difficult for an MtF achieving romantic acceptance (as a "woman" rather than a "man" and/or a "->-bleeped-<-"), particularly during transition.  The pervasive philosophy of "love at first sight" (parroted in countless ads, TV shows, movies) exaggerates obsession with physical appearances hurts TSs further... although it can easily hurt any target of infatuation just the same.

2) Social roles and stereotypes.  Whether someone is taken as a woman or as a man can shape the way most people approach the person and how they make sense of the person's actions and appearances (what are their strengths, personalities, motivations, etc....)  Of course, a key catalyst here is how other people think of and act towards people with respect to gender.  Other behavioral dimensions (of the observer/interpreter/judger) can shape this as well.  If a person believes in differentiated gender roles and stereotypes, the person is prone to consider possibilities of both gender for the target.  If this observer tends to be neurotic/paranoid/negative, then the person may select negative characteristics (from the two genders) to project on the target... and then "bad stuff happens."  Even without the neurotic/paranoid/negative angle, believing that women and men are rather different will lead the observer to reprocess the better part of everything they "knew" about the target... even if the target otherwise changes very little.

It's a partial answer with limited scope, but hopefully it helps.  I have a deep-seated belef that sex roles and gender roles do considerable harm and distort the truth of who people are by providing a narrative that at best projects trends onto everyone (very dangerous in its own right) and at worst exploits everyone involved and denies them their humanity.

i think it's because they've been brainwashed into gender stereotypes their entire lives and when someone challenges their core beliefs they ignore it and say it's wrong and that's not how it's supposed to be. i don't know really, i'm sure there's tons of reasons. it makes me sad though to see people so unaccepting of other human beings.

I suppose it could depend a bit on how secure one is with oneself.  If one's identity is tied to social roles (religious, family-specific, "mainstream," etc), that foundation can get rattled when the person observes someone else ostensibly challenging those roles.  I could argue that a great number of institutions and media rely on people remaining insecure.  Advertising generally needs TV viewers who are mentally vulnerable and susceptible to its persuasion techniques, and TV programming will often cooperate (local news emphasizing crimes, political shows that issue orders/slogans/speculation/personal attacks rather than critically considering issues, reality shows that humiliate contestants in order to attract and provide temporary satisfaction to insecure viewers).  Some political/religious leaders find that instilling fear is a convenient means of suspending thought and rallying people to a desired action.  These devices are quite profitable, but they are often, to varying degrees, abusive to the targets and abusive to any punchlines/scapegoats used along the way.  They distract their targets by channeling frustrations against said punchlines/scapegoats while extracting money/power from the small fortunes of many people to enhance their own larger fortunes.

But then, the natural question seems to be "what can we do about it?"  I'm going to bounce around some popular ideas just to get things started.

1) Civil disobedience.  Disrupting public meetings or people chaining themselves to object is something that tends to draw ridicule, but the sit-ins of the 1960s are something, at least in retrospect, considered to be brave and honorable.  Perhaps a reason sit-ins are looked at favorably now is that the disobedience itself precisely embodies the change people want.  They sat waiting to be served at a restaurant not for the sake of breaking a rule/law, but so the restaurant would sell them food.  Civil disobedience is perhaps at its best when it is conducted in this way.  The restroom issue for certain TGs (unfortunately) can sometimes be a problem because *some* fears surrounding it are understandable on some level, but defying other elements where you are denied rights/service when the public is generally expected to receive them are suitable for working for change.  Plus, getting your case in the court system will get the courts to deal with your issue (the "crime") rather than something unrelated, so you can possibly even work up the court system and have the law/rule thrown out.

2) Social interaction.  You can talk with individuals as the matter comes up, but just being a reasonably competent example of your "group" can win some hearts.  If they ask questions, give answers.  It won't work with everyone you encounter, but you can probably get some relatively moderate figures to sympathize.  There aren't that many voices speaking on behalf of TGs or with direct understanding of TGs, and we are in a pretty good position to do so.  It's easier to hate someone without actually having to see and know them, so TGs even putting on a mediocre presentation is better than nothing.

I don't think seeking out opposing leadership and organizations will particularly help, because they will have considerable difficulty relating to your issue, and they aren't about to mess with the foundation that their empire rests on.  As it is, many of them will remain impetuous even against overwhelming evidence and disapproval, and our "niche" group is not about to do any better.  I think #1 and #2 are our best hope.

I wonder what other ideas people have.

In my personal opinion, I think a vast majority of people have what I call a "wall."  I know a lot of very accepting people, even if they don't 100% understand, they can atleast accept it; However there are a lot of people with this "wall" that have beliefs and feeling set in stone and have been brought up being told right and wrong, boy or girl and it's where all discimination comes from.  homophopia, transphobia, racism, it all comes from people being undereducated, or tought that its wrong, or general stereotypes.  People fear what they're not used too.  It's like if you look back to highschool at the preppy kids and the punk kids.  Preppy kids are afraid to look different than what they see on tv and in the media, and punk kids don't want to come across as weak or soft (Please no one take offence to that last statement, this is my personal opinion)

I think the problem people have is the concept of trans - of trangressing boundaries that keep people feeling safe. That to see people transgress these barriers and boundaries are a sign of other boundaries being transgressed and eventual chaos.

Many people like the feeling of a place for everything and everything in it's place - and trans people are just untidy in this respect.