Ok so for this whole photo shoot thing their were some questions that came up that I have herd a lot before. It seems there's a very big belief that one must be passable and present/ act a certain way in order to represent the trans community in a positive way. Also other questions brought up is so called mannish voices of many transsexual (MtoF) on tv and such. Other questions such as the why are some lesbians and so on. I won't tell you what I answered for all of my questions but will say I feel like ik may not be the best representation of the community like some of the other people I have found are participating. They are all way more involved with the community and out. How do you all feel about questions like these? Just curious. I know for me my motivation for participating in these is the extra cash and exposure to help get me in a much more progressive area

I don't know what photo shoot thing you are talking about or in what context you are asked these questions.  But I am strongly opposed to passing privilege.  I think all identities ought to be respected regardless of whether the person passes or looks a particular way. 

At the same time, I recognize that trans* people as a community face certain realities.  For example, when doing trans* advocacy one of the most commonly raised fears is the fear of men in dresses saying they feel like women and demanding entrance to the ladies restroom.  A non-passable transwoman who looks like a man in a dress and has a deep bass voice is probably not a very good spokesperson for rebutting that fear.  That person would reinforce it.  But a transman is, in part because those people who express that fear never think of him.  So is a passable transwoman.  Someone who looks, sounds, and acts like a woman is expected to look, sound, and act is a whole lot less threatening to many people and a lot easier to buy when she says "I am a woman and should be treated as such." 

Likewise, people with strange presentations also do no favors to the cause.  A recent support group meeting I attended included an otherwise relatively passable transwoman who failed to realize that panty hose are not meant to be worn as pants.  Had that been at tomorrow's legislative committee hearing instead of a trans* support group a couple of weeks ago, it could have been very damaging.  It would have fed the notion that trans* people are just a bunch if weirdos who don't really deserve protection.

Like it or not, gender expectations are out there and persuasive advocacy requires taking account of them.  We just aren't living in a world where we can ignore them.  In some ways it is not too different from going to a job interview.  One would not do well at a job interview by wearing panty hose instead of pants.  The difference lies in the fact that genetics affect this.  Sometimes people who genetically can't pass aren't the best advocates for a certain issue for that reason. 

^^

Depressingly, I find myself agreeing with that assessment. The more palatable the appearance of the person, the easier it is for people to not get distract from the message. Though I'll add that eloquence, etiquette, charisma, and a strong awareness of the issues is actually MORE important than being presentable. I'd say that currently Janet Mock is probably the best person out there that we've got. She's wickedly smart, charming but outspoken, and looks conventionally attractive. Really couldn't ask for a better spokesperson than her.

I do want to add though that someone's personal comfort trumps "the cause" every single time for me. Lana Wachowski stood up with her pink hair and her aggressive non-binariness and blew her audience away with her brilliance and charm. So there is that.

That's what I was thinking there is a lot if opposition from some about what called it "the passing privilege" I think? Like I said I jest feel like I'm not the best person to be answering all the questions that are being asked and will be asked in the next pre interview since I have never really been involved with the community. Heck they found it surprising that I had not ever actually been to meet another trans person prior to these interviews that's are being set up and shoots. I know since I seem to pass ok I have and started a little earlier than some half of the questions thus far have been rather difficult to answer. Anyways I just want to make sure I don't say anything to stupid and make us look bad. I know they only picked me because they think I'm a little cute and have been to college and can hold down a job. Apparently from what they were saying to many are either not passable or prostitutes . That they initially interview in large cities? Idk where  they were looking but obviously the wrong place. Anyways if this all goes good and we get a chance to do a cross panel by the end of the year I want to be prepared as it could possibly be with someone you all know and I'm sure hate.

Quote from: Sarah7 on February 03, 2014, 11:51:45 AM
The more palatable the appearance of the person, the easier it is for people to not get distract from the message.

Definitely true, but maybe the distraction IS the message.

Educating people to accept transgender is a process of teaching people to look beyond the surface.

It is impossible to understand us without understanding "I may look like a man, but my brain is wired to need me to be a woman."

When we are fully accepted, it will only be after the public understands that passability does not equal femininity. Until they do, there will always be discrimination against those among us who don't pass.

Understanding the inner life, challenges, and humanity of a non-passing trans woman may be the best way for people to become educated to that reality, and that message may be delivered most effectively and movingly by someone that does not pass.

I'm going to do my best to educate myself more on all of this and the best way to present the information so that maybe it can get out there. I know in the south it's going to be a hard sell but I'm at least going to try

There are so many expressions of transgender and all of them should be represented.

That's true there does seem to be a lot of types. I know in the south for sure that's part of the problem. Makes it hard to differentiate. PTAs def have a issue with it (the issue) well us as they group us all together

I guess what I'm mainly referring to is a certain kind of bias that a huge proportion of cis folks seem to hold. It's what makes my electrolysis go "oh, but you aren't like THOSE trans woman; you are serious; I mean you are obviously a woman." Setting aside the ironic fact that I'm non-binary and my identity is hardly so straightforward, that "compliment" basically just means: your voice sounds female, you look attractive, and when I search your face and body for clues of your origin I can't find any. And THEREFORE I am more willing to listen to you and believe you and see you as you portray yourself. Empiricism run rampant, sigh.

As much as we don't want to know this ->-bleeped-<-, it's there, and in the battle for trans rights in Canada... Jenna Talackova has had an impressive impact. Just for looking how she looks. It is very hard to look at that lady and think "that's a dude." It creates an impressive level of cognitive dissonance. So it is far easier to look at her and think "that's a woman with a birth defect." And in a heartbeat she makes a kind of society, grassroots level of progress that many trans activists have been pushing for for years and years. Sucks but it's true.

That hardly means I think that less attractive women should hide themselves away in a closet somewhere! But it does mean that the media spotlight and social attention is going to be unfairly and unreasonably drawn to people like Jenna, regardless. Which invariably is going to make them more successful activists if they are so inclined. So it goes.

Yesterday I spent the afternoon sitting in a hearing by the Maryland senate judicial proceedings committee (again) and hearing legislators question supporters of trans* rights about whether protecting trans* people will open the door to predators saying they feel like women and going into the ladies room to rape women and children (again).  I listened to opponents stand up and tell legislators (again) that they fear exactly that happening and claim (again) that they have personally been harassed by men in dresses in the ladies room.

Now let's pretend that you are me (last year, not this year) and trying to plan testimony to prove that these bathroom panic issues are nonsense.  Who do you put up there to testify about prove reality?

Do you put up a transwoman who passes very well, comes across as a woman in every way, and seems like she belongs in the ladies room?  Do you put up a transman to draw attention to the fact that what opponents are suggesting would force men into the ladies room?  Do you put up a non-passing transwoman who looks, sounds, and acts like a man in a dress? 

Remember that my goal is to get the bill passed by persuading legislators who don't see things the way trans* people do, who are highly ignorant about trans* people, and who may already buy into a lot of transphobia, including the bathroom panic nonsense.  My sensibilities as someone who lives on that trans* spectrum don't matter.  The only sensibilities that matter are those of the legislators who actually get to vote on the bill.

My colleagues and I decided that the first two options made sense.  It's easier to feel like someone belongs when they look like they matter in the eyes of the people I'm trying to persuade.  So the highly passable transwoman is a very good messenger.  Putting up a transman would show the legislators something they are oblivious too--that trans* people aren't all "men who want to be women" and force them to realize their position is untenable because if transwomen belong in the men's room the transmen belong in the ladies room. 

But the fear is of men in dresses and the non-passing transwoman looks to them like exactly what they are afraid of.  If we put her up to testify, then we will likely be scaring the people whose votes we need.  And once they are persuaded this fear is legitimate, it will be that much harder to ever convince them that it isn't.  It's always harder to persuade someone whose mind is made up. 

I agree that non-passing trans* people can (and should!) participate in advocacy, teaching, etc.  And I do not believe that anyone who passes is better than anyone else.  But we don't live in a world where everyone who needs persuading feels like I do.  And unfortunately there are times when someone who doesn't pass may not be the best person to convey a message. 

To be honest, I prefer to see transgender advocates that pass well whether that is right or wrong.  The fact is many in society have this notion that all transwomen are men in drag which often hurts young tran kids that are learning to cope with their condition.  The images of Jerry Springer and it's ilk tainted my own self worth and image at some of my most formative years.  Had their been a trans role model that showed me that it was possible to transition and live a normal life as a transwoman, including appearance wise, it would have helped me overcome my internal transphobia.  It also would have diminished my families concerns and some of the mockery that society makes about how we look. That's not to say there is anything wrong with not passing and I welcome all transgender people to get involved in advocacy if that's their wish.  They can play a positive role as well and they should get the same amount of respect. It's just, I can't help but acknowledge that I've been positively inspired by passable transwomen in the past and it showed me that my hopes were not in vain.  My whole goal is to simply transition and live life as any other women would.  The ability to pass and live stealth would best allow to do this with fewer roadblocks which is why that is my personal goal.  And honestly, my family wouldn't of been as negative about everything if they knew that there is a possibility for a normal life on the other side of things.  They only see trans people like Rupaul and assumed that's what I was going to become.  So yeah, I prefer seeing passable transwomen in the media as it gives hope and reduces the notion that we're men in dresses.   However, that's not to say that appearances are everything and that those who don't pass are lesser.  Just maybe not as effective in helping our image in society for right or for wrong.  In any event, I hope no one took offense as I really don't mean any.  It's just my own personal feeling on what's the best strategy to improve our status.   

Yes I have to say that I feel more like putting trans people in the spot light that pass right now is a good thing. Not agreeing with that is ok but but a lot of people think it's best for the face of us at this time. You have to start small and those who can pass help push that acceptance. Appearance is a big thing for every group and for transitioning transsexuals it's no different. At least that's how it was presented to me with this project. It's like I said before for those that for the textbook trans title and can pass they can help to get legislation passed. As opposed to as you said those that look like men in a dress. Like it or not those do not present the best picture of us. It's the same thing when they have tv shows like friends. Everyone is cute. You use those to push a point and right now getting people to understand we aren't Cross dressers, perverts, buffalo bill types, etc. that's why I'm doing this. I want people to know those of us who transition are not like that. I mean at least I'm not. I haven't been involved with LBGT activism or anything but I will imagine most aren't like any of those things. 

Gowiththeflow  - I agree with all your statements!

And its another reason why I believe that all RLTs (and the RLT as a concept) which issued to transfolk before they are allowed to take HRT should be banned. The fact that so many trans* people have to present as their target gender whilst looking so unavoidably like their birth sex not only puts the person at social and financial risk, but also further underlines the stereotype that those who are transgender are laughably flawed freaks who haven't even bothered to make themselves look like their target gender, they've just thrown some crossdressing on.

So now the stereotype is that trans* people who are transitioning always look like men in dresses or women with butch haircuts. And partly this is because health professionals have made non-passable people go out into the wide world knowing full well they're going to take sh*t for it. Thus the myth that transitioners do not care how "disturbing" or "laughable" they may look, continues.

I do honestly think that its not just society that's the problem, is the health professionals that are a massive part of the problem. Trouble is, so many are so desperate to transition that they feel forced into jumping through these insidious hoops in order to do what they need to do. And because of this fact, rarely is the actual stupidly of pre-hormone RLT's discussed. It damages not only the trans* individual but also the movement. Vicious cycles and all that jazz.

Quote from: "I'm Stella Stanhope, and that's why I drink". on February 10, 2014, 03:55:30 AM
Gowiththeflow  - I agree with all your statements!

And its another reason why I believe that all RLTs (and the RLT as a concept) which issued to transfolk before they are allowed to take HRT should be banned. The fact that so many trans* people have to present as their target gender whilst looking so unavoidably like their birth sex not only puts the person at social and financial risk, but also further underlines the stereotype that those who are transgender are laughably flawed freaks who haven't even bothered to make themselves look like their target gender, they've just thrown some crossdressing on.

So now the stereotype is that trans* people who are transitioning always look like men in dresses or women with butch haircuts. And partly this is because health professionals have made non-passable people go out into the wide world knowing full well they're going to take sh*t for it. Thus the myth that transitioners do not care how "disturbing" or "laughable" they may look, continues.

I do honestly think that its not just society that's the problem, is the health professionals that are a massive part of the problem. Trouble is, so many are so desperate to transition that they feel forced into jumping through these insidious hoops in order to do what they need to do. And because of this fact, rarely is the actual stupidly of pre-hormone RLT's discussed. It damages not only the trans* individual but also the movement. Vicious cycles and all that jazz.

I def feel the same way . It can make things so much harder. I know this weekend being around some of these other woman that are way hotter than me actually has me feeling like I don't pass. The RLE does seem like it needs to be adjusted in some ways. Although I have noticed that there have been a lot of people who say the are transsexual and want to transition and once they start hrt or do RLE they discover they are cross dressers or something different and it's more of a sexual fantasy. Talking with a lot of doctors lately that I have been talking too about facts have some not so nice things to say about us

I'm actually rather not a fan of only presenting completely passable trans people as the face of our community.

Because while it does indeed help shatter the notion that all trans people are just "freaks" who wear the opposite-gender's clothes and call themselves members of it without looking the part at all, it also makes those of us who are in transition, and who do not look that way, who want to be recognized as our identity gender but who aren't there yet appearance-wise, feel completely worthless.

Because for the actual trans person, it can put a tremendous amount of pressure on them, making them feel like if they don't "pass," they are somehow less.

Right now, my life would be a million times easier if there wasn't this stigma about needing to be passable in order to be a functional member of society. It makes me completely freak out every single time I think about going full-time before I blend in perfectly as my identity gender. So if you ask me, seeing some in-transition unpassable people in the media would be just as helpful... people who, although they aren't passable, are just out living their lives and actively showing that despite their "queer" appearance, they are not weird, not delinquents, not freaks, they're just normal people out living their lives like everyone else, and aren't a "threat" to anyone.

If you ask me, that is what would really help us. Presenting only passable individuals just furthers the cis-normal hierarchy where your worth in society is determined by how "passable" you are and how much surgery you've had. Very few of us have that kind of privilege.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 05, 2014, 04:48:02 PM
Do you put up a transwoman who passes very well, comes across as a woman in every way, and seems like she belongs in the ladies room?  Do you put up a transman to draw attention to the fact that what opponents are suggesting would force men into the ladies room?  Do you put up a non-passing transwoman who looks, sounds, and acts like a man in a dress? 

I'd like to see all of these, so the legislators can make an informed decision about the length and breadth of transitioning individuals.

As it was, at the organizing meeting, those of us who were going to testify were strongly discouraged from mentioning the bathroom at all. "Wait until the opposition brings it up" seemed to be the attitude. In the end the people who testified were only passable transguys and women who represented somewhat of a range of passability and femininity up to a point. By that I mean that the feminine end of the range was sorely underrepresented. Yours truly was the most feminine transgirl to speak, which unfortunately doesn't say much for the general level of femininity represented there.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on February 10, 2014, 11:58:58 AM
I'm actually rather not a fan of only presenting completely passable trans people as the face of our community.

I agree with this.  I still say that passing or not has much to do with pure dumb luck.  If your genes make it possible, that's great.  But some people have genetics that will never allow it.  One of the most articulate (and nicest) trans people I know is 6'6" tall and almost certainly will never pass well.  But her identity is no less sincere and deserving of respect than the trans* people who pass perfectly.  So passing privilege needs to be defenestrated.

Quote from: Carrie Liz on February 10, 2014, 11:58:58 AM
Because while it does indeed help shatter the notion that all trans people are just "freaks" who wear the opposite-gender's clothes and call themselves members of it without looking the part at all, it also makes those of us who are in transition, and who do not look that way, who want to be recognized as our identity gender but who aren't there yet appearance-wise, feel completely worthless.

Because for the actual trans person, it can put a tremendous amount of pressure on them, making them feel like if they don't "pass," they are somehow less.

But this is where I start to question what you are saying. I agree that non-passing trans* people can be terrific when it comes to education, teaching about trans* lives, and many, many other things.  In fact, most of the time, a non-passable person can be at least as effective as a passable one.

But there are other times (like the legislative hearings I talked about above) where whether a person passes or not matters.  The legislators I deal with are very obsessed with men in dresses going into the ladies room.  If I put someone up to testify on gender identity protection, especially about bathrooms, who looks to the legislators like a man in a dress, then I'm going to scare those same legislators and make it much harder to get legislation passed to protect that same impassable trans* person from being fired from a job, thrown out of a restaurant, or denied a place to live.

So let me ask the question:  what should my goal be?  Should I focus on getting the bill passed so that both passable and non-passable trans* people (and I'm including non-binary folks here) are protected?  Or should I focus on making trans* people feel like everyone is included and no one is left out by including everyone, passable, non-binary, or whatever else, even if it means that those legal protections are more likely to be lost?  What's most important here?

This is not an academic question.  I dealt with it last year.  I'm taking this year off, but I could easily find myself in the same spot again.  Ideally, no one would care about how anyone else looks.  But we don't live in that world yet.  So we have to deal with reality as it exists right now.  My question is how we should do that. 

Quote from: Carrie Liz on February 10, 2014, 11:58:58 AM
Right now, my life would be a million times easier if there wasn't this stigma about needing to be passable in order to be a functional member of society. It makes me completely freak out every single time I think about going full-time before I blend in perfectly as my identity gender. So if you ask me, seeing some in-transition unpassable people in the media would be just as helpful... people who, although they aren't passable, are just out living their lives and actively showing that despite their "queer" appearance, they are not weird, not delinquents, not freaks, they're just normal people out living their lives like everyone else, and aren't a "threat" to anyone.

If you ask me, that is what would really help us. Presenting only passable individuals just furthers the cis-normal hierarchy where your worth in society is determined by how "passable" you are and how much surgery you've had. Very few of us have that kind of privilege.

I agree with this subject to my question above. 

Quote from: gowiththeflow on February 10, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
I know this weekend being around some of these other woman that are way hotter than me actually has me feeling like I don't pass.

I just want to point out that there's a big difference between hotness and passability.  I am not good looking.  I am quite plain looking, actually.  But I am also "an elite super passer" to repeat a term that a trans* friend coined to describe me.  I have gone to trans* meetings with people who are way hotter than I am who ask my hotter friends about their transition and then say to me that they never thought to ask that because they thought I was there as a supportive ally.  See the difference?  I hope I'm making clear what I'm trying to say here.

Most cismen and ciswomen aren't very hot either.  Most are pretty plain looking.  But they still usually pass pretty well.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 10, 2014, 12:34:01 PM
I'd like to see all of these, so the legislators can make an informed decision about the length and breadth of transitioning individuals.

Even if that means you're more likely to lose? 

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 10, 2014, 12:34:01 PM
As it was, at the organizing meeting, those of us who were going to testify were strongly discouraged from mentioning the bathroom at all. "Wait until the opposition brings it up" seemed to be the attitude. In the end the people who testified were only passable transguys and women who represented somewhat of a range of passability and femininity up to a point. By that I mean that the feminine end of the range was sorely underrepresented. Yours truly was the most feminine transgirl to speak, which unfortunately doesn't say much for the general level of femininity represented there.

I think you already know I don't agree with most of the advocates here in Maryland about not mentioning the bathroom.  I think it needs to be dealt with head on.  The opposition is going to mention it.  It's going to be their central theme.  So if we ignore it, the silence is very noticeable and does us no favors.

I do want to point out for the record that I was helping to put together panels last year, not this year.  I had nothing to do with choosing this year's panels and only a limited amount of foreknowledge. 

I make it a practice not to publicly comment on anyone's presentation, passability, or femininity/masculinity other than my own, so I will not comment on that part.  But I will say that I agree that the panels were noticeably heavy on transguys and not transgals.  I don't know what led to those choices, but I can suggest that it reflects (1) a tendency of transmen to pass better and therefore be more palatable to the decision makers we were trying to persuade (legislators) (2) the (wrongful) tendency of LGBT orgs to employee only transmen and (3) who signed up to testify. 

I was more concerned because I noticed that the sponsors panels were light on trans* people in general.  I understand the reasons for that, but I'm not sure I agree with them.  I'm always criticizing the local advocates (mainly Gender Rights Maryland and Howard and Baltimore County PFLAGs) for excluding trans* people.  I like to compare it to trying to have the 1960s civil rights movement without any African Americans.  It just doesn't work.  I don't think the Coalition did that . . . But I do think that they came uncomfortably close to it. 

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 10, 2014, 12:51:27 PM
Even if that means you're more likely to lose? 

Well, it's off the topic, but I do want to answer your question. I think our best chance to make the kind of legislative strides that the gay community has made is by people understanding the reality and the humanity of what we go through. Gay marriage opponents put forth the most absurd points that went largely unquestioned. It's only when people understood the reality of why gay people needed to marry, and saw them with humans who had a lot of the same problems, that popularity shifted in favor.

When people understand what it really is like to be on various points of the passability spectrum and the unique bathroom concerns of each that they'll be able to understand why certain solutions work and other ones are absurd. There will always be fanatical haters, but practical voices won out in the marriage debate and I think they would for us as well.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 10, 2014, 01:00:48 PM
Well, it's off the topic, but I do want to answer your question. I think our best chance to make the kind of legislative strides that the gay community has made is by people understanding the reality and the humanity of what we go through. Gay marriage opponents put forth the most absurd points that went largely unquestioned. It's only when people understood the reality of why gay people needed to marry, and saw them with humans who had a lot of the same problems, that popularity shifted in favor.

When people understand what it really is like to be on various points of the passability spectrum and the unique bathroom concerns of each that they'll be able to understand why certain solutions work and other ones are absurd. There will always be fanatical haters, but practical voices won out in the marriage debate and I think they would for us as well.

This was part of what we were talking about at the panel today with some of the people from Fox News. Hopefully people with take something from all of this. What they could finally tell today as they admitted after the discussion was that we are all different within the community.  Just like every other community . Then they made some jokes about how it's unlikely to change the perception because of that variation and Frankenstein perception. That part sucked but looks like we at least made a crack in the wall or chipped the paint