In February, Rhodes is hosting Kye Allums to
speak on campus about being an out transgender athlete. While Rhodes is usually
attempting to progress on LG(B?) issues - attempting is the key word - there is
absolutely zero effort to be an inclusive campus for transgender or genderqueer
students. Housing is gender segregated, there is little infrastructure for
changing one's name or gender that is used in documentation, gender neutral
bathrooms are not clearly advertised. And don't even mention how deeply rooted
the ignorance about trans issues is on this campus, even (maybe even
especially) in queer spaces. This talk is a very small step toward awareness on
transgender issues, and there will be a concerted effort to continue this work
past this one event.
With that out of the way – As a part of the
publicity for Kye’s visit, the company which contracted him as a speaker sent a
few suggested titles for his talk. One of the suggested titles was “A Man with
Balls: Coming Out as a Trans Athlete.” For those of you who know me, this
pissed me off beyond belief. The problem with the title simply comes down to misogyny
and cissexism.
Equating having balls with being brave is misogynistic, as
it assumes that the state of having balls predisposes you to
bravery/confidence. It equates bravery with a masculine nature, therefore
denying women the ability to be brave. In this situation, women are weak and
inferior.
Cissexism is the belief that transgender people
are inferior to cisgender people. (Cisgender people are people whose gender
identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth.) Cissexism is often
expressed when one’s genitals are conflated with one’s gender. For instance,
the Vagina Monologues’ title assumes that everyone who is a woman has a
vagina/everyone who has a vagina is a woman. This is not true. (Eve’s attempts
to include the narratives of transgender women are a shitty effort to address
this problem. It does not change the fundamental problem with her
title/marketing that she is equating vaginas with women.) Cissexism is also
expressed through the invasive focus on transgender folks’ genitals. Asking
questions such as “Have you had the
surgery yet?” is basically asking the state of someone’s genitals. Would
you ask this of any cisgender person? “Hey,
man. Just wondering how your balls were doing today?” “Hey, I know I just met
you, but do you have a vagina or a penis?” Katie Couric made this mistake
recently when she had Laverne Cox (star of Orange is the New Black) and Carmen
Carrera (of RuPaul’s Drag Race) on her show. Watch Laverne Cox blow her away
here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/laverne-cox-carmen-carrera-katie-couric_n_4555080.html
The title of Kye’s lecture, although it is meant to be in good fun, reminds us
to think about Kye’s genitals in relationship to his trans-ness. He is so much
more than this. Needless to say, we will not use that title for his talk.
Preach.
ReplyDeleteSo, what did you all decide to make the title?
We're still trying to think of something original. Let me know if you have any thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a really good point with the conflation of genitalia and gender. Oftentimes - if not all the time - when transgendered folks are spoken of, I find myself clarifying in my mind what genitals they were born with and what genitals they now have. Clearly, this is a fallacious and problematic way of conceptualizing trans-ness, for the reasons you delineate in your post. But given that our society ubiquitously assigns children's gender based on their sex, and that therefore this sex=gender paradigm has been instilled literally from birth, this is one of the most difficult conditionings to wrestle with.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was a really well written post... You back up your claims really well and in an efficient manner and have made me second guess my own personal use of the term "balls" as a signifier of confidence or bravery. This is going to be really off topic, or at least really general, so please forgive that, but this class has been like a secret code so far. In the same way that the Philosophy of Race opened my eyes to layers and layers of oppression and the subsequent (active) ignoring or (passive) ignorance of that oppression against non-whites, this class is doing the same for non heterosexual males. Except, from my point of view, this is even more mind bogglingly entrenched in our society. Which brings me to my point-
ReplyDeleteI wonder if our class is, as a whole, too knowledgeable about these issues already. It seems as though a large portion of people already understand that there is a problem (and, to different extents, how alarming that problem is) and are promoting change on campus. At this point, at the risk of depriving them of more information on the theoretical history behind some of their beliefs, I almost wish I could halve the number of these students and replace them with students as oblivious or more oblivious than I am.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?