Don't want to seem like a hater, but does anyone else feel like she's making trans people seem radical and so out there? I understand the concepts she's trying to shed light on, but a lot of people who aren't aware or in the lgbt community just react negatively to her.
Discuss.
No, I feel the same way. I wouldn't say that I dislike her, but I feel like she definitely rubs me in the wrong way, so I can't imagine how she must come across to cisgender people with no knowledge of transgender issues. I appreciate what she's trying to do and I think the trans community is better off on the whole as a result of her efforts, but she doesn't give me the same warm fuzzies that I get from Laverne Cox.
That said I will probably still buy her book to see where she's coming from a bit better.
I have no problem with Janet. Well, except for the fact that she's much younger than I am, and her experiences differ greatly from what I've gone through.
I lament the fact that the last prominently accepted, and older American spokeswoman for trans issues was also the first American spokeswoman. In her later years Christine Jorgenson spoke so eloquently about trans rights, public perceptions, and our responsibility to be true to ourselves first. I realize the changing generations have left me behind, but that doesn't mean I can't respect the views of those who now stand on the soap box. The girls now days don't dictate a specific representation for me in their words, but I also don't speak for them.
Peace
Until I saw her on Colbert recently I'd never heard of her. Sometimes you need people to rock the boat a bit otherwise the status quo remains. Same could be said of certain women's rights activists in the early 1970s or the suffragettes before them. It's hard to gauge how good she is or isn't from her Colbert appearance, his 'interview' style frequently wrong foots his guests, but she handled herself well enough.
What I'd like to know is if she's had vocal surgery because her voice was great!
I agree with Grace, Being "nice" doesn't exactly get the job done.
I think frustration got the better of her after the Piers Morgan interview. It kinda left a sour taste with some. In my opinion the same thing happened with the Carmen Carrea & Laverne Cox interview with Katie Couric. These journalists tend to ask the same typical questions surrounding surgeries or they can't seem to get past "So you were born a boy" angle. So I understand where they all were coming from.
I love Janet I think she's amazing and so is her story. I read her new book cover to cover and I enjoyed it. I also love the fact that her story is one that I can relate to in a lot of ways. We need more experiences and stories to be told. A lot of times the media only highlights certain types of trans experiences that I and girls I know can't relate to. For example, Janet is 29, I'm 30, and were both African American. Her's is really the only real lived experience that mirrors my own. I don't know what it's like to be married with kids while transitioning later in life . I also don't know what it's like to transition as a child or tween, something the media has been focusing on a lot lately. In reality most trans people fall in between both those scenarios, yet you rarely if ever hear those kinds of stories.
I thought her appearance on the Colbert Report was fun and light hearted, way better than the uncomfortable and typical one done by Piers Morgan.
Quote from: Ave on February 20, 2014, 09:30:59 PM
Don't want to seem like a hater, but does anyone else feel like she's making trans people seem radical and so out there? I understand the concepts she's trying to shed light on, but a lot of people who aren't aware or in the lgbt community just react negatively to her.
Discuss.
Like Kathy said, she is young.
I do not think she knew the power of her tweets when she retaliated against Piers Morgan, and they both looked pretty bad in their second interview.
That was a missed opportunity for a teachable moment.
So, I have mixed feelings, I just wouldn't hang on every single word that comes out of any 29 year opd's mouth.
I like her.
Haven't read her book yet but I thought she did pretty good during her interviews with Piers Morgan. The whole twitterstorm after was a bit much though. I agree that there was a missed opportunity there and things could have been handled better. The Colbert appearance was funny, I just wish it had been longer and they could have discussed more issues.
I do think she is very beautiful. Her hair is amazing and I'm tempted to draw or paint a portrait of her just so I can get creative with that hair. But, I digress...
I think Janet has been more an influence of good for the community. She sometimes makes mistakes... welp, go figure, she's human. And not all her opinions are shared by everyone in the trans* community. But you know what, at least she's putting her best foot forward and trying to make a positive difference.
I liked her but she looked bad in the piers Morgan interview and yes, it agree, people do then think that we are all radical.
I think Janet is exactly where she needs to be right now.
She has brought the issues of trans people everywhere into the mainstream discussion. She has declared that talking about our genitals is off limits (I would have loved her to ask: "Tell me Piers, how did your vasectomy go? Have you healed from your hemorrhoid operation?"). She has shown the spotlight on the tragedy of trans youth.
We need some radicalism in order for others to take notice.
People, we are a minority within a minority. The ONLY way we will make progress for equality as a group will be with the assistance of our allies. The only way we can get allies is to make others notice us.
I have not read her book yet (but now I think I will) because I have read so many other books about trans persons transition and lived my own. In many ways they are all similar because we follow much the same path on our journey. However, I hope it becomes a best seller. Because it would mean that other people are finally beginning to take notice.
Both straight and LGB folks have the same misunderstanding of what being trans is. It is NOT drag and outrageous outfits, but so many think it is. And Janet is letting everyone know what it really is.
More power to her!
-Sandy
I cant help but like her. She was and is an inspiration to me and her activism has made the message clear for young trans* that its ok to be who you are. With Peirce Morgan she reacted to the tagline "Was a boy until 18", which she felt sensationalized her story. I think her message to Peirce was that she was always a girl and that the Cis*gender community is missing the point.
Quote from: Ave on February 20, 2014, 09:30:59 PM
Don't want to seem like a hater, but does anyone else feel like she's making trans people seem radical and so out there? I understand the concepts she's trying to shed light on, but a lot of people who aren't aware or in the lgbt community just react negatively to her.
Discuss.
Yes. I had the same thoughts. IMO, using non-binary pronouns for until they correct her, comes off as nutty.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 21, 2014, 06:53:58 AM
Yes. I had the same thoughts. IMO, using non-binary pronouns for until they correct her, comes off as nutty.
There's also a clip of her around the Internet talking about how there is no such thing as passing because to refer to "passing" implies that one is passing as something that one is not. So (her example) a transwoman does not "pass" as a woman because that implies the transwoman is not a woman. The transwoman is just a woman. She (Janet Mock) seems to miss the point that if you are "passing" then you are taken as cisgender when you are not. So there still is such a thing as passing. But there are some trans* people to whom her view of the issue is very appealing.
I think she's young and a little half-baked at times. She's obviously very inexperienced. The thing about pronouns for children seemed like she got drawn into saying something that comes across as nutty because she just didn't know any better. The Piers Morgan interviews likewise showed that she is being put into spotlights that she is not yet ready for.
I consider her (and Laverne Cox and Carmen Carerra) to be the trans* celebrities du jour. They come and they go. Hopefully we make some progress thanks to them before someone else comes along. Time will tell if Janet Mock or any of the others become long lasting, serious voices for equality. But they all need some maturation before I'll be very interested in them.
Quote from: Ms Grace on February 21, 2014, 12:46:42 AM
What I'd like to know is if she's had vocal surgery because her voice was great!
Although I don't know the details, I do know she transitioned extremely young (SRS at 18, which suggests other things may have happened earlier). She may have transitioned before her voice changed fully.
The problem is that rather than explaining why he had done something wrong, she attacked him after. He was trying to be respectful but failed so education is what was needed not hate.
Quote from: Akira21 ♡♡♡ on February 21, 2014, 08:14:28 AM
The problem is that rather than explaining why he had done something wrong, she attacked him after. He was trying to be respectful but failed so education is what was needed not hate.
I think hate is way over stating what she actually said if you actually read the tweets.
Actually, I would say the Problem, (with a capital P) is that we allow our celebrities to speak for us rather than choosing and supporting intelligent, articulate leaders, the way many other marginalized minorities do.
Of course celebrities will get their share of talk show attention. But they are not experts and they only know their own situation.
I think their media presence needs to be balanced by transgender leaders who are knowledgeable about all our issues and have thought deeply about solutions.
Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 21, 2014, 08:37:36 AM
I think hate is way over stating what she actually said if you actually read the tweets.
You are right, I was using it in the more modern sense - hating on someone.
Still.... this does sound pretty harsh for someone who was all smiles and grins on the show:
"Was a boy until 18." @PiersMorganLive get it the f*k together."
All I am saying is she should have adopted the role of an educator, rather than adopting a confrontational stance. It will make people think that they shouldn't talk to us because they might get things wrong and we will do *that* to them.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 21, 2014, 06:53:58 AM
Yes. I had the same thoughts. IMO, using non-binary pronouns for until they correct her, comes off as nutty.
Maybe, but then so did feminists when they said using "Man" to describe collective men and women was wrong, that titles like Chairman applying to both men an women, etc was part of language making women invisible.
Quote from: Ms Grace on February 21, 2014, 11:08:14 AM
Maybe, but then so did feminists when they said using "Man" to describe collective men and women was wrong, that titles like Chairman applying to both men an women, etc was part of language making women invisible.
I don't think that came off as nutty at all. Especially as women proliferating in the professional workforce. It was quite clear that chairman, fireman, policeman, etc. was very obviously not descriptive and contrary to reality.
Not so for using "they" for someone who gives no outward signs of being unhappy with a binary identity.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 21, 2014, 11:12:51 AM
I don't think that came off as nutty at all. Especially as women proliferating in the professional workforce. It was quite clear that chairman, fireman, policeman, etc. was very obviously not descriptive and contrary to reality.
Not nutty to you perhaps, which is great, but it sure was for a lot of people (men and women) at the time and took well over fifteen years to shift the common parlance and official titles in many areas of daily life. And I can't believe "mankind" persists when "humanity" will do the job equally well.
I personally use they/their only if I'm unsure what gender a person is presenting/identifying as.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 21, 2014, 09:42:35 AM
Actually, I would say the Problem, (with a capital P) is that we allow our celebrities to speak for us rather than choosing and supporting intelligent, articulate leaders, the way many other marginalized minorities do.
Of course celebrities will get their share of talk show attention. But they are not experts and they only know their own situation.
I think their media presence needs to be balanced by transgender leaders who are knowledgeable about all our issues and have thought deeply about solutions.
I generally agree. But it is difficult to find those leaders and thoughtful persons. Not many are willing to step up. Frankly, getting trans* people off their butts to do anything, no matter how easy and safe, is a huge challenge. And we're talking about finding good ones, which are even more rare. Maybe someone should start a thread about finding, building up, and supporting good, strong leaders. :) We need them sorely.
The media doesn't know how to deal with Transfolk, especially Transwomen. People are just barely accepting Chaz Bono. Now, we've recently had Transwomen on Katie Couric and Piers Morgan and it's all over the news. Until recently, Transwomen were practically invisible to the public. Janet Mock is doing a pretty good job. I think she lacks a little experience, but yeah, she's kinda young. But if I had to choose a single rep for Transwomen, it would definitely be Laverne Cox. Just be glad there's ANY exposure for anything TRANS with the media. More exposure means more acceptance. Yeah, it's slow, but it is getting better.
1. I like Janet Mock.
2. Piers Morgan, despite claiming to be an "ally", started off completely in the wrong. You don't say things that he said and still claim to be an ally unless you are a clueless dufus or seeking sensationalistic ratings. Now is he a clueless dufus or seeking sensationalistic ratings? I'd say the latter because I've watched him do this with other topics. He's a big step down from Larry King, in my opinion and his constant pursuit of sensationalism is what caused me to stop watching him long before the Janet Mock interview. (I had to go look it up precisely because I stopped watching him a while back.)
Piers Morgan knew what he was doing and then that panel after the second interview? All cisgender people? And only one woman? WTF??? That was deliberately set up to be inflammatory.
Piers Morgan is a jerk.
Quote from: Akira21 ♡♡♡ on February 21, 2014, 08:14:28 AM
The problem is that rather than explaining why he had done something wrong, she attacked him after. He was trying to be respectful but failed so education is what was needed not hate.
This. And I think it's understandable for Piers to talk about her having been a boy given that she allowed that headline in the Marie-Claire piece. I think Piers Morgan is super-privileged but Janet bears some responsibility for not giving him enough information. That said, I think she's important because she's able to put the issues out there.
I have a funny Janet Mock story. I went to a reading of hers and was about the fifth person to ask a question. All the previous questioners seemed to be cis-gendered. I raised my hand and asked her how she thought large numbers of trans women coming out would affect the trans community as a whole. She asked for clarification and I said something like, "You have the privilege of passing. How would more women like you coming out positively affect trans rights?"
She got a bit defensive about my use of the term "passing" (I tried to avoid it but it was the only way I could clarify) and said that when she walks down the street she doesn't pass, she just is (similar to one of her videos). And then she looked around and asked: "So is there a trans person who wants to ask a question?"
And I was like, wow, so ironic that Janet Mock thought I'm cis when I asked her a question about passing!
I actually thought the Piers Morgan interview was not bad. Yes it was a little blunt, yes it had a bit of a focus on her before and after but it was such a golden opportunity to have a real teaching moment about transgender issues. Janet Mock sorta blew that, and I think she acknowledged that in the follow up interview where she said it was her first big national interview and she was scared to rock the boat as it were. She could have immediately come out and pointed out where piers was going wrong and I very much doubt piers would have given her a hard time over it. He's blunt and a little buffoonish sometimes, but not a hateful person.
I don't think either was a heinous unforgivable crime. Piers morgan isn't anti transgender, and Janet Mock will move on and be a better advocate for trans issues in future interviews. Her interview on Colbert was better although I agree with some that said that using gender neutral pronouns for kids is probably a little unnecessary.
Kia Ora,
"You can please some of the trans-people some of the time, but not all of the trans-people all of the time!"
Metta Zenda :)
Perhaps Janet Mock mistake was that she went on Piers Morgan's show looking for a thoughtful discussion. This guy is tabloid scum. I'm shocked that CNN would have someone like him as a host after his exploits in the UK. But I guess that says more about how far CNN has fallen.
IMO Piers got exactly what he wanted sensationalism and controversy. It was more about drawing attention to him than anything to do with Janet Mock. Celebrities like him need to grab the media's attention every once in a while to promote their shows. Do you really think he wants a nice discussion on the issue?
Overall, I like Janet Mock. Just getting trans issues out there is a good thing, and she does a good job. Not a bad ambassador, if you will. Unfortunately however, she is not without her faults (as are other humans!) We often times scrutinize those in the lime light. Could she do a better job? Obviously. But you know what? So could any of us. Think you can do better than her? The world is your oyster, go out and set the example!
I think its weird that people use the term 'male to female transexual' and then object to being described as being 'born a boy'.
Erm, doesn't 'male to female transexual' say that explicitly?
If the claim is that we were always women because our minds are female then isn't the term 'male-to-female' wrong and even 'transsexual' and 'transgender'? If we were always women then there was no trans-ition to 'trans' us in the first place.
Surely if we want people to get over the idea that we changed from male to female we have to stop using the term trans* and start calling ourselves something like gender-body-incongruent.
Could he not have been meaning body-wise born a boy? Is it so wrong for them to say born a boy and be referring to the body? I think it is at least understandable, considering how we as a group label ourselves!
But hey, what do I know? My body was born a boy and my mind was born a girl. I am confused by that, how the hell everyone else is supposed to understand it I have no idea! lol
Great point. I had not thought of it that way.
I think the primary issue for most was how, "Born a boy until 18" or something like that, was on the screen the entire time she was interviewed.
That didn't only suggest she was trans, it suggested she had her penis surgically inverted, to everybody who watched, before they even had to listen to a word she said.
I am MTF, but I don't wear a gold MTF chain around my neck to advertise it to everyone.
Quote from: Tori on February 22, 2014, 10:11:49 AM
I am MTF, but I don't wear a gold MTF chain around my neck to advertise it to everyone.
They have those on Ebay if you're interested. I have one ordered. :o
Quote from: mandonlym on February 21, 2014, 08:34:19 PM
I have a funny Janet Mock story. I went to a reading of hers and was about the fifth person to ask a question. All the previous questioners seemed to be cis-gendered. I raised my hand and asked her how she thought large numbers of trans women coming out would affect the trans community as a whole. She asked for clarification and I said something like, "You have the privilege of passing. How would more women like you coming out positively affect trans rights?"
She got a bit defensive about my use of the term "passing" (I tried to avoid it but it was the only way I could clarify) and said that when she walks down the street she doesn't pass, she just is (similar to one of her videos). And then she looked around and asked: "So is there a trans person who wants to ask a question?"
And I was like, wow, so ironic that Janet Mock thought I'm cis when I asked her a question about passing!
Wow
That's really funny when you think about the fact that she thought you were cis.
I think your question was a good one. I understand what she means by she "just is", but she can't not acknowledge her passing privilege. It's there after all. When cis-people look at her and learn she's trans the first thing they say is wow I didn't even know. She says something similar in her book about the term passing being a way of insinuating that those who do aren't real or are putting on a front as something they aren't.
It would've been interesting if you had said that you were in fact trans. I think she would've had no choice but to answer the question further.
Quote from: Ave on February 20, 2014, 09:30:59 PM
Don't want to seem like a hater, but does anyone else feel like she's making trans people seem radical and so out there? I understand the concepts she's trying to shed light on, but a lot of people who aren't aware or in the lgbt community just react negatively to her.
Discuss.
I think she's doing a fine job of responding to the cisnormative and arrogant Piers Morgan. He really did mess up pretty badly in all of this.
She strikes me as a shrewd business woman. That she didn't correct Piers during the interview when he was saying uncomfortable things and how readily she drops the name of her book, puts me off.
She also does not speak for me. That bit of, "I was born a baby" really rubbed me the wrong way. I tried to build a life for 34 years as a guy. Even though I've always been female, saying "she" in reference to the me of that prior time feels like a disservice to who I was and what goals I had. After all, trying to pass as a guy was in my head and heart. I inevitably failed and became the woman I was always destined to be, stuck with the good and the bad fallout of that prior life, but for 34 years I was trying to live my life as a dude.
My experience is mine, and I wouldn't dare to project it onto anyone or ask them to take on my interpretation. I also have no doubt she speaks for many and I do think there are more important things to talk about than our genitals. However for me and my transition, Janet can feel like the old guard asking us to practice revisionist history on our past. I won't. I also don't appreciate her tone because I don't want people tiptoeing around me, choosing their words carefully, afraid they might anger me. I mean, wouldn't causing people to filter who they are when interacting with me/us be "redefining realness"? On realizing that last, I'm left longing for the next generation of spokesperson.
Quote from: Misato on February 23, 2014, 08:49:04 AM
My experience is mine, and I wouldn't dare to project it onto anyone or ask them to take on my interpretation. I also have no doubt she speaks for many and I do think there are more important things to talk about than our genitals. However for me and my transition, Janet can feel like the old guard asking us to practice revisionist history on our past. I won't. I also don't appreciate her tone because I don't want people tiptoeing around me, choosing their words carefully, afraid they might anger me. I mean, wouldn't causing people to filter who they are when interacting with me/us be "redefining realness"? On realizing that last, I'm left longing for the next generation of spokesperson.
I suspect it might work out better if trans* people were allowed to choose their own spokespersons. As it is, it seems that spokespeople are ordained by cispeople! who often choose people that are not necessarily respected within the trans* community. That's a huge problem that many of us deal with in my local area. One person who is a tireless self promoter is seen by outsiders as our leader and by insiders as kind of a joke. By the cisgender outsiders won't listen to anyone else.
I like her. She is a very young person that has a lot more courage than I had at her age, getting out there and doing TV interviews and writing a book. So she self promotes, maybe a little heavy handedly - good for her. Make that money while you can sister.
Because of her age and inexperience she'll most likely make mistakes as she goes along, but hopefully she will learn from them. I look for her to get a lot more polished in the future.
And piers morgan is an arrogant...... well, I can't say that here ;) I have no idea why CNN has him on the air. I find him grating and irritating.
Quote from: Janae on February 23, 2014, 03:16:44 AM
It would've been interesting if you had said that you were in fact trans. I think she would've had no choice but to answer the question further.
I wish I had gotten the chance to do that but I kind of had a delayed response so the moment had passed by the time I realized what had happened. Similar things have happened to me a couple of times. Once at a drag show I sat next to this guy who started talking to me. And then her trans girlfriend came and gave me the stink eye. Then he said, "Don't worry. She knows I prefer trans women so she only gets really mad when I talk to trans girls."
Passing privilege is weird. It's good to have but can lead to awkward situations, especially for non-stealth types like myself.
Quote from: mandonlym on February 23, 2014, 11:38:35 AM
Passing privilege is weird. It's good to have but can lead to awkward situations, especially for non-stealth types like myself.
We could have a very interesting thread about that. I've thought about starting one, but been afraid that some would take offense as it might seem like bragging or privileged people whining.
Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 23, 2014, 11:41:47 AM
We could have a very interesting thread about that. I've thought about starting one, but been afraid that some would take offense as it might seem like bragging or privileged people whining.
You have more of a history here so maybe it would be good for you to start it and I can definitely talk about some of my experiences. And we can talk about the whole perception of bragging or whining too, because I think that would be good to address. Because as much as it makes it easier for us, there's also the part where it alienates us from our own community. Because I do perceive the trans community as a community in the sense that even though we're not exactly the same, we share a common set of experiences.
I don't agree with everything she's said or done recently, but she had the opportunity to live a happy life in stealth and chose to reveal she was trans in order to become an advocate. No matter what missteps she makes, she deserves respect for that.
QuoteI don't agree with everything she's said or done recently, but she had the opportunity to live a happy life in stealth and chose to reveal she was trans in order to become an advocate. No matter what missteps she makes, she deserves respect for that.
hmm, that did not occur to me but you are right.
I didn't know her until now, but I like her a lot.
Piers Morgan is a pompous moron who invites guests on his program to insult and demean them. He said right out of the gate that because she passed that he could believe she was really a woman. That's not anything close to being pro-transgender at all. He telegraphs his anti-transgender bias all throughout their discussions.
Good for her. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2hjrQmp2d10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2hjrQmp2d10)
Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 23, 2014, 09:02:02 AM
I suspect it might work out better if trans* people were allowed to choose their own spokespersons. As it is, it seems that spokespeople are ordained by cispeople! who often choose people that are not necessarily respected within the trans* community. That's a huge problem that many of us deal with in my local area. One person who is a tireless self promoter is seen by outsiders as our leader and by insiders as kind of a joke. By the cisgender outsiders won't listen to anyone else.
Who is an example of a tireless self promoter who is seen by insiders as a joke?
I so identify with her position on the issue of who you are. I was forced to adopt a role because I was misgendered at birth... yes, I did acquired some male traits by indoctrination and by biology (testosterone) but no I was never a boy or man or a male I was always a female...
We need her, to voice our angst, to dispel the myths and stupidity... Kudos to Janet Mock
Quote from: Thylacin on February 23, 2014, 06:22:44 PM
Who is an example of a tireless self promoter who is seen by insiders as a joke?
Donald Trump
Quote from: Tori on February 23, 2014, 06:36:19 PM
Donald Trump
Not really within the scope of the discussion though.
It was a direct answer to a specific question posed within this discussion.
Also, it was a joke... just like The Donald.
;)