Transgender Basics and Using The Master’s Tools

As mentioned in my précis, one of my issues with the video “Transgender Basics” was that it interviewed only transgender folk who passed incredibly well. My initial (and extant) concern was this was grossly misrepresenting the transgender community (albeit when only four or so transgender folks are featured in a video discussing the transgender community as a whole, it is likely impossible to avoid some degree of misrepresentation). However, this seemed like a deliberate misrepresentation for the sake of marketability; in other words, the creators of the video wanted to present an image of the transgender community with as little cognitive dissonance as possible. To say it another way, they wanted to minimise the chance of the viewer passing into the Uncanny Valley. 

All in all, I think the intent of the video was to communicate that our limited conceptualisation of gender has precluded our ability to realise that transgender folks are “just like you and me.” Though I certainly agree that transgender people are just that - people - and ontologically operate in the same way as you and I, it feels like the simplicity of the video’s message teeters on erasing (or at least hiding) the very real (and sometimes life-threatening) struggles that so many transgender folks experience, in particular those who do not pass as well as those presented in the video. As such, though the video certainly asked that viewers reconceptualise the gender binary (through the discussion of the “authentic gender model” and through interviewing someone who is genderqueer), it nonetheless seemed to uphold the corroborating sex binary, or at least the perception therefor. I caveat that statement because one of the opening lines of the video is “I know...lots of men with vaginas.” Nevertheless, because all of the interviewees pass so well, it is very easy for the idea that one’s sex presentation not match their gender presentation to be confined in abstraction. Moreover, the genderqueer person's presentation was somewhat tomboyish, the familiarity of which would not require a viewer to substantially reconceptualise the relationship (or lack thereof) between sex and gender.

Therefore, given the accessibility of both the platform of the video (YouTube) as well as the attempted accessibility of the messaging, it would appear the creators of the video are attempting to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. Again, the video poses no real visceral challenge to the corroboration of sex and gender, but rather poses only a theoretical one. Thus, the master’s tools in this case are familiar sex presentations, in which the video couches its messaging. As expressed in class, I’m certainly not unilaterally opposed to using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. That being said, in this case, it appears that the master’s tools are used at the expense of whitewashing the sufferings of transgender folks who do not have the privilege of passing or affording medical modification or simply those who do not wish to alter their bodies at all. 

Hendrix v Rhodes

Being from Little Rock, many of my high school friends and acquaintances decided to go to Hendrix after we graduated. Hendrix, much like Rhodes, is a small liberal arts school 30 minutes north of Little Rock, located in the small town of Conway. When people ask for the differences in the two schools, I usually oversimplify and say that Rhodes is a little bigger and has Greek life. However, a glaring difference was just pointed out to me. Our discussion on queer friendly versus queer tolerant campuses got me thinking about the status that the small LGBT community is granted on Rhodes campus. Hendrix is generally known (at least in Arkansas) as a mecca for hipsters and hippies. A lot of pot is smoked and a lot of people don't shower for whatever moral reason they have, but people are also much more receptive to anything out of the norm. I guess that goes with being a modern day hippie. As a result, Hendrix hosts "Ms. Hendrix" every year, a cross dressing competition for the men of Hendrix. And it's a really big deal. Guys are elected on campus to dress up and compete, and front row seats for the event have sold for $400. The guys that compete are usually heterosexual, and I've heard it been described as "an honor" to be elected to compete. Hendrix is also one of few colleges that has gender neutral housing. Evidently, Hendrix is very open to anyone who identifies outside of the typical female/male dichotomy. Students can live with whomever they want in certain on campus apartments, regardless of the biological sex of each roommate. Hendrix also has many seminars and events about sex, AIDS, and other topics that Rhodes usually avoids (unless it's V week).

Trying to find what makes Rhodes and Hendrix so different is hard. What makes LGBT people feel more comfortable attending Hendrix, rather than Rhodes? The city of Memphis offers so much more than Conway, the schools cost about the same, the campuses are both beautiful, and the course difficulties are essentially equal. The only thing I could think of was Greek life. Is the prevalent heterosexual norm surrounding fraternities and sororities (that so obviously dominate the social scene) scaring away potential students that could add diversity or change to this school?

And then I thought, what if Rhodes just attracts a certain type of person? What would happen if I randomly selected a group of Hendrix students to attend Rhodes for a semester? Would they conform to the norm of Rhodes, join Greek life if it was an option, turn their back and begin ostracizing the few LGBT friendly people on campus because that's what everyone else does? I think many would. Not because they're bad people, but because it's hard to stand by your views on this campus without receiving backlash or being ignored, particularly if your views are seen as being radical. Without Greek life at Hendrix, there are fewer cliques, more fluid groups of friends, and more accepting attitudes concerning basically everything (personal hygiene included).
I think it is safe to say that Hendrix is most definitely a "queer friendly" campus, whereas Rhodes could hardly be called a "queer tolerant" campus.  

Method vs. Content

After reading Mackinnon’s essay on sexuality, I felt a lot of things. I was mostly angry and kind of frustrated.  I primarily viewed this as a response less to the fact that I disagreed with her ideas and more to the fact that her ideas gave very little room to discuss sexuality and sexual desire as the painfully complex thing that it is.  Perhaps to theorize something as complex as sexuality, one has to simplify it, but I don’t see this as a necessity.  While the theory I’ve read is nowhere near exhaustive, I have read enough to know that there is plenty of thorough sexuality theory that manages to make concise and interesting points while still acknowledging the sweeping inconsistencies that the theory can have when attempting to apply it to living, breathing humans.

None of this is to say that I find all theory regarding sexuality useless because of the complexity of the subject matter because after all, theory is there to help us make sense of it. However, I find Mackinnon’s particular theoretical approach extremely problematic. The way she reduces physical (sexual) acts to certain personal and psychological dispositions doesn’t sit well with me.

I am conscious of the fact that there may be a disconnect here between my understanding of Mackinnon’s thoughts as reductive and any potential purpose that reductive nature might have in the context of theorizing. I do, however, have general confidence in my understanding of other theory related to gender and sexuality from outside this class by several of the same authors, such as Butler and Fausto-Sterling.

My general question, especially to our more philosophically inclined classmates, is how justified am I in being angry about the narrow scope of McKinnon’s logic? Second Wave theory on this matter is bound to be antiquated in certain aspects, but the fact that it is so widespread here is pretty astounding. I know that this was a frustrating read for many people, but I’m not sure if it was for the same reasons and I’m curious as to where other people who disagreed with her fell on this spectrum of content vs. theory.

"And I can't change even if I tried, even if I wanted to."

In line with some of our more recent discussions: former lesbian denounces Macklemore's Same Love, saying she can change when she wants to? Check it out.

How Progressive is Our Campus and Others?

   In class, we touched upon our personal experiences on campus. We were asked whether we believe our campus is gay friendly. Given the distinction between tolerant and friendly, I believe that most students would conclude that it is only tolerant. While tolerance suggests that we are moving in the right direction, there are many things that hold this campus back from its potential.

   It is important that colleges become LGBT friendly. College is a time for self-expression and discovery. While that is such a cliché, it is more true than false. Now, LGBT friendly is a student recruitment selling point. While I am glad that it is becoming an important issue for school administrations, it is only a reflection of student views. This is really suggestive of how times are changing. A recent survey claims that 70% of Millennials support (more or less) gay rights. Here is the link:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/

   Upon that and other things in the survey, I am quick to wonder what is the reason for this really large generation gap. As well, I wonder how can we move the 70% from tolerant to friendly. When I mean friendly, I mean where there is no longer a need for a safe zone. Specifically, I think of Rhodes College. What at Rhodes can we add or eliminate to make our experiences and interactions more LGBT friendly? While I have some suggestions, what are some of yours?

Chris Cuomo believes that it is imperative to have laws and rules protecting the LGBT community. The initiatives that schools and governments make today will be important in the future. Therefore, some of the bills that we talked about in class are destructive to the progress that society has made. The progression is clear (refer to the link); however, it is our duty as Millennials to actively take part in the change.  

   

   

The Commodification of Feminism (or How Beyoncé Changed America’s Mind

 Lately, I have been overwhelmed with the “feminist” articles shared on my Newsfeed. Granted, a lot of my friends on Facebook lean left or are activist types, but feminism has never been more mainstream than it is now. Twenty years ago, a lot of female liberals would not have described themselves as “feminists”—even if they believed in equal rights, it was still a four letter word (and that’s not to say that there are not people who still believe it is today, but the amount is much smaller). My own mother, who talks openly about the inequality of women in the workplace and how ridiculous it was that some members of congress did not support birth control being covered by health insurance, never called herself a feminist. When I asked her about it, she would shy away from the question and dismiss it by saying it means something different to me than it did to her (which might be true if we are thinking in terms of third wave vs. second wave). And although I think she is beginning to change her mind due to many long phone conversations and pressing questions, I have still never heard her say those three words that everyone wants to hear, “I’m a feminist.” Personal stories aside, feminism has become trendy for our generation. People who I went to high school with who go to college in Middle-of-nowhere, Arkansas and are not studying anything remotely resembling Gender Studies post articles about male privilege from Upworthy or videos of slam poets speaking about the importance of pro-choice. Not to mention that most of these people were very socially conservative when we were 16.

The reason for this sudden surge of "girl power" can be attributed to many things, like the natural progression of society or the fact that social media does allow us to share ideas quickly and change our minds about issues just as fast. However, if I could point a finger at one person in particular, it would be everyone's favorite superstar, Beyoncé. Her new visual album has a feminist message, though it is very problematic at times (see my short post from two weeks ago). And because of Beyoncé’s openness, the backlash against female celebrities not claiming to be feminists has become more intense (I’m looking at you, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga). And, believe me, I am not saying that Beyoncé is the perfect feminist icon, but if the biggest celebrity in the world promotes an idea that has been taboo for years, I will definitely take it. But another question remains: is feminism becoming a commodity? This question is hard to answer (I mean, is it even wrong to make something a commodity if it’s promoting an important idea?), but Beyoncé is right in the center of it. Is her new album only “feminist” to appeal to her twenty-something audience? It’s also just as important to ask if her twenty-something audience is becoming more progressive because of her. It’s kind of like the chicken or the egg; the world may never know. But for now, I’m just glad the Queen is on our side. 

Hijras

A helpful way of understanding just how artificial gender performances are is to examine the way they manifest themselves cross-culturally.  The different ways in which we are each enculturated greatly impact the way we view our experience of our own bodies.

My experiences in India spoke greatly to this.  While I was on a train, a woman who was wearing a sari roughly tapped me.  She clapped her hands and stuck them out and forcefully beckoned to me, clearly waiting for me to give her money.  As I looked closer, I saw that her features were very traditionally masculine.  As I watched him/her continue on down the row of seats to each person and repeat the same clapping and demand, I was surprised to see many people reach in their pockets hand him/her some money.  Often, I had seen people wave beggars away, but these people were not as dismissive of this particular beggar.  I asked my neighbor about this phenomenon, and he explained to me that this person was a hijra: a man-woman who begged to make money.  It is inauspicious to refuse them.  The man seemed derisive, so I did not pursue the topic further with him. 

Later, in my psychological anthropology class, we were invited to examine a cultural phenomenon of our choice, and I decided to study hijras.  I discovered that they are born biologically male, and choose to remove their penis and testes in order to become sexless.  They often live in communities with other hijras, but some live alone or with partners.  Their origin is found in Hindu scriptures, in a creation story, and although they are sworn to be celibate, many become prostitutes to earn a living.  This is what fascinated me most about studying hijras is the idea that other religions than Christianity allow for much more fluid gender identities than simply “Adam and Eve” male and female binaries.  In Hindu stories, the gods switch between the genders, as they desire.  This leaves space for people like hijras, who consider themselves to be neither male nor female.  Often people are confused about this identification.  They wear women’s clothing; so many assume that they are attempting to become female.  In fact, this ambiguity allows them to behave in ways that Indian women would be punished for.  For example, some particularly mischievous hijras will flash their genital area to offending individuals.  This bodily exposure would not be tolerated from a female, but since they are not females, they often get away with it.  In this way, they make a commentary about the rigid sexual taboos that Indian women often face. This is not to say that they do not face their own persecution.  They are harassed and abused by other Indians for being different for the norm. 

I wanted to ask the class a few things: Why do you think that modern Indian society has such a strong dislike of hijras?  Why do you think they fear them so deeply?  Are there any passages of Christian text that support gender fluidity and reject binaries?  

Just wanted to cite my source for the information in the second paragraph:

Nanda, Serena. Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1990. Print.