Words Matter, So Use Them Correctly

I've got a pet peeve folks.

Well, to be honest I've probably got a lot of them, but this one in particular is making me cranky today. I'm sure other people have written extensively about it (though cursory googling does not produce any results).

It's this: Don't use "GLBT" or "LGBT" (which are the two most common iterations of that particular acronym) if you don't actually mean Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual. and Transgender. Each. Specifically.

I'm frankly pretty sick of the label being used when really it should be "white cis gay men, and maybe a few lesbians."

Things that are not *actually* GLBT friendly: the Human Rights Campaign (when the only trans person on your board quits in protest of how thoroughly you fuck over the trans community, you are NOT an organization focusing on the GLBT community, you are, at best focusing on the GLB community), the Advocate (when only 1 of the past 21 covers you put out have a picture of a lesbian on them, and none have pictures of anyone identified as trans, or even bisexual... this is not a magazine for anyone other than the G in GLBT, let's not delude ourselves here), "LGBT panels" (that are invariously described as being about writing "gay" characters, that focus on slutty evil bisexual male characters, and that have no mention of lesbians or, wait!, this seems to be a theme!, trans people... OK, sure sounds REALLY LGBT friendly, uh huh, do you happen to have any bridges?, I'm especially interested in purchasing the Brooklyn one I've heard it's pretty), you get the idea.

Apparently some time a while ago, after Gay orgs got called out for being exclusionary, they decided that calling themselves GLBT (or LGBT) would do to fix that particular problem. And it probably helped for about 5 minutes. Trans and Bisexual folks would walk in the door and be struck by the fact that it had an acronym that included them. Yay!

These days, I think it does a whole hell of a lot more harm than good, because like Gender Bending fiction that doesn't actually depict our lives, it gives the veneer of respect and inclusion. It tells allies (or potential allies) who don't yet know about the issues going on, that "this" (whatever "this" it is, which is almost invariably a more powerful organization, and thus less likely to actually be engaged with the more marginalized of our populations) is what is trans-friendly, or bisexual inclusive looks like. So that people working on a project about the trans community use statistics from an organization that had their only trans board member quit in protest of their transphobia.

So please. If you are a safe space for gay men, fine, call yourself that. If you are a safe space for gays and lesbians, say that. But if you tack on an extra letter, MEAN IT. Don't insult us by using our letters to pad your inclusive cred.

Compare and Contrast: A Study in Two Blogs

Oh blog reading folkz, I'm rather pissed right now. The other night I noticed that a queer/gay blog I usually like had posted yet another post about Tiwonge Chimbalanga that said she was a man.
So, being pissed at the time, I wrote a comment on slap upside the head saying as much (and explaining that it was angering to have her misgendered and having the struggle of trans* people coopted and erased by queer/gay people).
The comment was in moderation (it was technically in a "guestbook" area since the blog doesn't have commenting enabled), so I went to bed.
I check my email last night and get:

Hi there!

Aw, give me the benefit of the doubt before you chew into me, alright? :)

I do trans* stories whenever I see them, and certainly would have
mentioned that Tiwonge isn't a man if I had known. As it stands, I've read
multiple mainstream news stories about the couple, but your angry letter is
the first I've heard of this, so I think it's unfair to say that I'm
"misgendering" or "falling into the erasure" of anyone. I haven't met the
two, after all. :)

I'll look a lot more into this tonight; having the mainstream media
misidentify Steven and Tiwonge's relationship is a story in itself!

So I wrote back in INCREDIBLY even tones. I didn't call him on the tone argument, or the "but be nice to the 'allies' or else we can't possibly be allies,"-ing or the fact that the story isn't that the "mainstream" media is reporting badly, but that ALL MEDIA (other than explicitly trans* friendly media, and frankly including lots of "GLB, supposedly T" media) has been doing this, OR the fact that maybe he needs to learn to read trans* friendly blogs to learn true information about trans* people (dude, if you want to be an ally, GO TO WHERE THE OPPRESSED ARE).
Nope, I recommended a blog post that would clear up his misconceptions and then wrote:

It's great that you're interested in doing perhaps a post about misgendering by the mainstream media (and just about all the activist orgs that publicized this in the first place).

However, you did misgender Tiwonge (since you said she was a man, and she isn't), and you did contribute to the erasure of trans* identities/people (since she's a trans woman and you implied she was a cis man), even if you didn't intend to. It sucks (I'm sure you're not someone who likes to think you're contributing to oppression), but it happened, and saying it was unfair of me to point it out doesn't make it better, and ignores that truth.

I will say that my tone last night was angry. It was angry because yours is one of the few explicitly queer/gay blogs I read with any regularity, (since I generally enjoy it, and generally don't enjoy many others for their explicit and implicit transphobia), and it was a big frustration for me to realize after seeing this "gay marriage" narrative played up in Every Single media report on the topic of Tiwonge that you were doing it too, and that all the gay media seemed to also be doing it. So I suppose you could see it as unfair that *your* particular blog became the "straw that broke the camel's back" but I see it as far more unfair that even on a blog that I normally feel comfortable on, I (and presumably any other trans* person who knew about the truth of the story) was made to feel unwelcome.

In other words: you stepped on my metaphorical foot (and quite a few others), it's great that you didn't mean to, but that doesn't make it stop hurting.

Thanks for listening,
The Deviant E

This morning I awake to this piece of flaming pile of nonpology crap:

Hey there,

Factual errors happen now and then on the site; particularly ones like this which are present in multiple, reputable news sources.

Blogging is not terrifically rewarding for the amount of work involved, especially when it involves original full-colour illustrations, paid hosting, etc. I admit there was an error, but the accusitory language is unfair.

I do welcome all factual corrections, and unfortunately there will be opportunities for more, but please be friendly about them and give me the benefit of the doubt. (At least until I prove otherwise. ;)

AND I go to check the website and find that
A) my initial comment was not approved from moderation, so no one knows that he was called out on this
B) he has posted another post about Tiwonge, this time burying her gender till the end to make a dramatic reveal about "mainstream media"
C) he has not posted an apology or acknowledged that this was information he could have had weeks ago, had he *looked*
D) he has said that "word has gotten out" that Tiwonge identifies as a woman, without mentioning where possibly such word could have come from (it's like magic "word" that appears on it's own)!

Contrast that my friends with something from Shakesville:
On a blog post about a study finding that children raised by lesbian couples are more well adjusted then their peers raised by straight couples, someone wrote something talking about how fundies would hate it because there needs to be "penis owning person" in the house.

I wrote a comment reminding people that penises and xy chromosomes do not a man make (and lack of penises and xx chromosomes do not a woman make). It was published.
The response?

TheDeviantE:Thanks,for the privilege check,comment fixed now.-;-@ a rose to say sorry.

And what do you know, but the comment has been changed (to indicate cis-male manly man man-ness as opposed to "penis having"ness) but the person very explicitly put in there a tag saying "Edited for gender-essentialist language"

There was no foot stamping, no "but we're on the same side, [smiley that feels really insincere because I'm rejecting your points]". The comment *went through*, it was fixed! and in a way that acknowledged the fuck up in the first place.

It's almost like... on this *other* blog, people are actually allies and respond accordingly when called out.

So, what to do folks?
I've already posted in public some of the private correspondence (not that the email address of his is secret or anything), which some might deem a breach of ettiqutte. I do so because slap upside the head won't acknowledge his own culpability in his blog either by posting my original comment or by acknowleding it in a post of his (oh, in my comment I asked him to please post a *retraction*, you know, something that acknowledges information was wrong by saying "we done screwed up"?). So I really feel like any ettiquette breach is a tiny little piss beside his ocean of othering.
So question time: Do I continue trying to dialogue being OH SO FUCKING REASONABLE? Do I remain silent and stop reading his blog, since I doubt he'll acknowledge my reasons if I give them? Do I tell him off in an email, getting angry again and telling him I'll not be reading his blog (and a whole other set of things), in the hopes of giving him a parting shot of information and a reminder that it isn't all just peachy? Do I juggle elephants?

You tell me.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga Is A Woman

Ok folks, I'm a little tired, a little behind on schoolwork (ok, a lot behind on school work), needing to have laid my head down on the pillow hours ago, and more than a lot pissed.

Because: Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman and she has been for years.
Say it with me folks! Tiwonge Chimbalanga, the (sole) female partner in a couple who were recently convicted of "homosexuality" in Malawi is a woman. Her nickname is "Aunt Tiwo." Notice the "aunt" in "Aunt Tiwo?" Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman.

FUCK. I mean, how many times do I need to repeat this until it sinks in in the mainstream, (and more importantly damnit, gay) media? I'm so sick of this cooptation of the struggles of trans* people (and let's be honest with ourselves, it's actually mostly the struggles of trans* women that are being coopted, and it's mostly trans* women of color who are at greatest risk of physical violence).

10 times? 100 times? I'll do it! You won't like it but I will. Because Tiwonge Chimbalanga deserves to not have one more slight thrust upon her. It was wrong of the Malawi government to attempt to jail her and her partner Steven, and it would *also* be wrong for the government to have done that if she was man. But she isn't. She's a woman. Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman.

Should I write a fucking song about it? I'm afraid it's pretty boring, I haven't really worked out the chord structure, melody line, or the verses, so far it's just aproximately 20 choruses of "Tiwonge is a woman" (3 times each chorus) and then at the end when performing you're required to get really angry and throw a vase full of flowers against the wall on the last line. The flowers represent humanity's attempts to pretty up bigotry. Ok, so it's mostly a performance piece. It'll be opening in NY in a month, along with my other piece "ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH: A Musing on Things that Piss Me Off"

A partial rundown of what I'm talking about: Questioning Transphobia quotes numerous articles that totally misgender Tiwonge Slap upside the head continues to repeatedly post about "gay" couple in Malawi that Tiwonge is part of (which is what set off this particular tirade), and now a random list of blogs that are queer/gay identified that just popped up when I ran a quick search that all either report on the "gay" couple without explaining the truth, or actively call Tiwonge a man.

Why yes. I am angry I just searched and found not a single LGBT (a lot of them say they are fucking LGBT on them!) blog that even mentioned preferred pronouns or the fact that "gay" is the wrong way to describe a straight relationship between Tiwonge Chimbalanga (who is a woman) and Steven Monjeza.

Anti-Atheist Bigotry and Being an "Ally"

You are not an ally of trans people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-trans bigotry, that we need to be less out, but have no idea who Angie Zapata is.

You are not an ally of queer people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-queer bigotry, that we need to be less out, but haven't heard of the 11 year old Massachusetts boy who committed suicide less than a week ago, after months of homophobic bullying.

You are not an ally of atheists if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-atheist bigotry, that we need to be less out, but don't know about the various laws that say we can't even give testimony in court (in some U.S. states), don't know about what happens to out atheists in the military, and haven't even heard of the recent (2007) Gallup Poll which says that of all of these groups: Catholics, African-Americans, Jews, women, Latinos, Mormons, people married more than twice, people over the age of 72, homosexuals, and Atheists, that Atheists alone are the group that a majority of people in the U.S. would refuse to vote for, regardless of our qualifications (by the way, that list, it's in order of decreasing "electability").

You just aren't. Even if you're a family member of us. Even if you think of yourself as an "ally." Until you not only know about the various prejudices and dangers out there, but are plugged into our communities, until you can literally run circles around the knowledge that I have just bouncing around in my head (because yes, I DO pay attention to the way that my communities are stigmatized, and victimized, and implying otherwise if fucking patronizing as hell), then you can tell me fuck-all about how dangerous it can be out there.

Because this is the shortest fucking post I could write about the hatred out there for queers and trans people and atheists. That's right. At this moment, I could call up 10s, maybe hundreds more stories and factoids and statistics about MY communities. So don't tell me that I don't understand. Because I do.

This next bit is a nice little display of more anti-atheist bigotry put out by our friends the AiG.

The entire ad is a kid in an *ahem* A-Frame shirt coming up on a dusty road to shoot you, the viewer. The voice over helpfully explains: If you don't matter to god, you don't matter to anyone.
So the ad is implicitly condoning violence against atheists, while explicitly implying we are all murderers.

Here are some peachy fucking comments:
cadborasaurus (3 months ago): "crisis123456789", what's horrible is that because of evolution this is true. If we are just a product of chance and are accidents, then what is the standard of good? We are. We make our own standards of good and are no different then animals. If evolution is true, then there is nothing wrong with something like murder because it is just an accident eliminating another accident. tumordoctor (7 months ago): Kids are bombarded with the ideology that they're nothing but animals. So they see nothing inherently wrong with behaving like animals. This is a product of 20th/21st century secular humanism.
zogshill (2 days ago): If the soul has no place in the kingdom of chirst, what rights can the body have on earth?


And for some old school, straight up hatred:
ChrisWestaway(2 days ago): this is fucking awesome, kill all atheists
cassetteaddict (2 days ago): athiesm is evil and the truth path of monotheism is far from finished... even in western europe we will come back and make you all pay for creating sin and lechery
all the evil in the world was done by athiests - stalin hitler kissinger - two hundred years ago christians would hang you for not believing and our time will come again just you wait and see
X0XPWNER123 (2 days ago):fuck you athiest peices of crap.
God will make sure you all burn in hell
muldurag (2 hours ago): Nice stance and good handling of a beautiful weapon...what's the problem here?

The upside? The vast majority of people who commented on it weren't bat-shit insane. The downside, these people spent quite a bit of money to make this, it all came from someone/where, and those someones believe this crazy.

Trigger Warning

The Magic Penis

This alternately should be titled: If You Don't Want to Hear About My Sex Life in College, You May Want to Stop Reading (But Don't Really Stop Reading, Because There is an Important Philosophical Point to be Made).... oh fine, do whatever you want


I don't want to step on anyone's precious, precious toes but.....
Newsflash: Penises are not magic.

As some of you who are familiar with this blog may indeed know, I briefly sort of dated a bioboy while in college (and identifying as not-het). I had with him, probably what I'd consider my first positive sexual experience(s) with a guy. I can't remember ever feeling unduly pressured, and while thinking of our relationship as straight totally fucked with my head, it had nothing to do with the fooling around, which was on the whole very enjoyable (as sex/relationships should be). Which is why it was so damn ironic he told me in all honestness that Penises Are Magic.

Ok. Those weren't his exact words. It was something a lot closer to: "see, I don't want to have [penetrative penile/vaginal]* sex with you because I've heard that the first time a girl has [penile/vaginal] sex, she becomes really attached to the guy. It's a chemical thing."


Uh. Yeah. So orgasms, shared affection, respect, intelligence, whether or not you are cute.... None of that is as important to whether a "girl" (nevermind that not everyone with a vagina is a girl and that not everyone who is a girl has a vagina) becomes irrationally "attached". "Attached" for those keeping score at home, is code word for Clingy, (when reading this aloud, please be sure to say this in a sing-song voice).

What does it say when an all-around cool (I'd say feminist, but I don't know if he identifies as such), somewhat gender non-conforming, politically engaged guy, honest-to-Loki believed that his Magic Penis would turn me "clingy"?

To me it says that something is wrong with society. Whoever originally told him this (he passed it on not as opinion, but as semi-scientific fact imparted by others) believed that lesbians, gay men, and apparently straight men, all can't become attached to their partners. Because they don't have the magic formula of 1 penis + 1 receiving vagina.

To me, it says that we as a culture view Penises as the be-all and end-all, so much so, that any sexual pleasure one derives from non-penile pursuits (including of course, orgasms derived from oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, self-love, or just thinking really hard) couldn't begin to emotionally affect an individual the way that sticking a penis in a vagina can.

Which brings me to another point. This idea is inherently anti-women's pleasure. While there are definitely women who orgasm through solely penetrative vaginal/penile sex, many if not most (I'll have to look it up in I <3 Female Orgasm when I get home) women CANNOT orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some can't even orgasm while being penetrated (or do so much less easily). So in effect, this idea implies that the act of penetration is more central to sex than the actual orgasm of the woman engaging in the damn relationship. Does this mean that women who are raped are then going to go through this "chemical process"????? I mean, if it's the first time a penis is inside of them!!!! Who knows?

Plus, it seems the height of disrespect to men, implying that they are so callous, that they won't get overly attached to the first partner they have sex with. Especially since boys are taught that they should shuck their virginity at the first possible moment. You'd think then that it'd be some amazing gift someone else could give them: helping them lose their virginity. Instead, someone is out there floating the idea that chemical reactions take place only in female bodies only in the context of having a penis attached to a male bodied person stuck into only the vagina for only the first time, and that these chemical processes will override just about all rationality.

Let's hear it for thinking women are irrational!


For real.

*As an attempt to make the world safer for queer and trans folk, I am constantly using "penetrative penile/vaginal sex" as the way that I refer to what everyone else thinks of as "real" sex/"sex". You'd be fucking surprised at how many MEDICAL DOCTORS have been like "oh, that's a handy way to describe it!/I've never thought of it that way" when I try to answer their questions about whether or not I have "sex". And yes, I DO believe it is a safety thing, because for every doctor/person who believes that only some types of sex are "sex" that's one less person who acknowledges the presence of us queerbos, and who thinks to include our experiences as a normal medical issue.

"A Boy's Life" or "My Seething Hatred of Bigots"

So I was reading my mission statement post. Apparently I'm happy on this here blog a lot less than I previously indicated I would be.

I was gonna try to change that too, you know? I thought I'd post some awesome recipe or something that made me gleeful and happy.

And then I had the misfortune of hearing about this odious little piece of shit "news" article.

It's called "A Boy's Life" and is (surprise) about a young trans girl. She had apparently told people that she was a girl SINCE BEING ABLE TO TALK. Yet the author of this horror uses the wrong pronouns and names for the entire story. That is, up until the young girl's mother decides that she's going to quit fighting the inevitable. So, just more proof that children aren't actual people, but tiny mobile extensions of their parents.

Here's a gem from the end:

It’s not impossible to imagine Brandon’s

Her name is Bridget, which we find out in the last damn page, and which the author obviously knew well before printing the damn article

life going in another direction. His

"Her" you fucking idiot

early life fits neatly into a Zucker[rhymes with Fucker] case study about family noise. Tina describes [Bridget] as “never leaving my side” during [her] early years. The diagnosis writes itself: father, distant and threatening; mother, protector; child overidentifies with strong maternal figure.

Oh yeah,that's totally what happened, since the kid was identifying as a girl since age TWO. I personally base all of my gender identity on my memories of being two, don't you? Hello, paging Dr. Fucker, Freud's a crackpot, and you are too.

If Tina had lived in Toronto, if she’d had the patience for six years of Dr. [F]ucker’s therapy, if the therapy had been free, then who knows?

"Who knows" indeed!, perhaps 'poor' Bridget could be 'cured'. Especially if her mom had just had the patience. What a tragic fate to be subjected to, just because her mother didn't live in range of a psychopath with a degree. Come to think of it, how did you Ms. Hanna Rosin, manage to get a journalism degree? Did you??????

Yet [F]ucker’s approach has its own disturbing elements.

Other than refusing to acknowledge a child's gender identity? Do tell!

It’s easy to imagine that his methods—steering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes in

tell that to the hundreds of survivors of sexual violence that posted in the past 49 hours on Shakesville's survivor thread, or how about the women of fucking Afghanistan, who currently have legislation making it possible for their husbands to refuse to them medical treatment, oh and gives them no legal recourse against rape. Yeah NO ONE believes in the patriarchy.

—could instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls [trans boys] who had been seen in [F]ucker’s clinic showed positive results;

What do you think of as "positive"?

22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesn’t mean they were happy

oh, silly, I thought that "positive" and "happy" were related!

I spoke to the mother of one [F]ucker patient in her late 20s, who said her [son] was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still suffering—[he’d] become an alcoholic, and was cutting [him]self. “I’d be surprised if she outlived me,” [his] mother said.

You heard it folks, apparently none of these young transmen are trans anymore! They just want to/are trying to kill themselves. Sounds like a peachy fucking cure.

I literally couldn't read through this entire article. Maybe one day I'll have the stomach to give it the editing (for intelligence) it so clearly deserves.

The Privilege of Recognition

"Passing" is a pretty big concept in the trans (and gay, and many others) community. Seriously, it's like, kind of a big deal. Some people really want to, others don't, some think that the word has a lot of fucked up meaning (for instance: implying there is a deception going on) and other don't.

There is the privilege of passing, and there is the privilege that allows passing. Both of these are frustrating to be on the other side of.

I use the word because a) it IS a common word, and b) it's less unwieldy than some longer phrases*. Also I use "passing" to indicate being perceived as the appropriate gender, and thus use it to talk also about the way that cisgendered** people operate in the world.

If you've never been inappropriately gendered by someone (assumed to be the wrong gender) then you've had the privilege of passing your whole life. Part of the "privilege" of that situation is the fact that you can not even notice when you invoke it. One generally only notices when other people don't pass. We hardly notice when people do (that's the whole point, it's invisible!)

Equally frustrating, from a class stand point is the fact that passing itself is a function of privilege. A lot of what facilitates passing is money. Money and time. Money for new clothes, new haircuts, surgeries, hormones, voice lessons, name change forms, etc.


But all of this is tangential to what I wanted to get to. The fact is, in the trans community I interact with most, these are already understood on some level and discussed. I want to talk about something else, what I think of as the privilege of recognition.

I really enjoyed Julia Serano's book, it gave me a lot of really exciting and challenging things to think through. A whole shit-ton having to do with the way that masculinity is privileged in our society, and how masculine/male identified trans individuals are given a whole hell of a lot of privilege within the queer/trans community that is TOTALLY UNFAIR (ok, I know that's the whole "privilege" schtick!) just because we in line with our misogynistic society's standards for what is supposed to be admired. And especially how, as a feminist and a trans guy, I need to start being way more aware of the ways that my actions/community/lack of action may be exclusionary for trans women.

But Whipping Girl also gave me a couple: "you're overlooking things" moments. As I've mentioned before, I don't pass. When people look at me or talk to me, they invariably gender me as female. Part of the privilege of passing is that I, as a non-passing trans guy feel like I need to justify other people's inability to accurately assess my gender. As if it's my fault. I don't pass for a variety of reasons: a) I'm a very femme-y guy (this will be a whole post unto itself someday soon), b) I have a large chest, c) I am not taking hormones, probably a whole bunch I don't even think to think of ('cause it ain't my job to folks!). But one thing that I DO is wear entirely men's clothing.

In case you're wondering, clothing does JACK SHIT for a trans man (at least in the experience of this trans man). As Ms. Serano points out, feminism has made it possible for women to wear items that traditionally were reserved exclusively for men. So when I, as a trans guy, walk down the street, I'm just one more female bodied person wearing pants. Which is where the privilege of recognition comes in. There is not a day that goes by that I didn't wish that people who looked at me could/would ascertain what gender I was attemping to be seen as. Which is different from passing. Right now, I could give a rat's ass if people who looked at me thought I was a boy. What I long for is for them to at least recognize that I don't see myself as a girl. In fact, as a genderqueer who never wants to be unequivocably gendered male, by (one day, maybe) being gendered male, I won't be "passing". Either I, or society will have overshot the damn mark.

So I'm extraordinarily aware of a privilege that I believe often doesn't affect trans men, and often does affect trans women. It's a symptom of the fucked up misogyny in our society, and it's that trans women wearing women's clothing have a much higher percentage chance of being recognized as gendering themselves female/not gendering themselves male. Regardless of if they pass.

If they don't pass, this puts them in danger. It makes them highly visible. It's perhaps weird and fucked up that I think of this as a privilege. But this is the thing: I would RATHER be stared at and worried about my safety than constantly aware that not one person on the street even realizes that my self-identity is not female. This constant awareness has been wearing away at me as long as I can remember**. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it'd be much worse to be stared at and worried about whether I was in danger.
But... just like when trans activists ask cisgendered crowds whether they'd give up their gender for some amount of money, my roommate (a trans woman) has said she'd rather die than have everyone passing her on the street assume that she sees herself as a man.

Maybe I'm just mistaken about what "passing" means. But I don't think so. I think there is a distinct privilege in knowing that you are indicating to society what you mean to, even if society is an ass and refuses to agree with your assessment of yourself.

Since nothing I will do will be "male enough" until I actually am perceived as exclusively male, "recognition" is going to be a process that I can only approach from one side (supposed maleness). I can't sneak up on having my gender identity perceived from where I am now. That frustrates me. Maybe I'll start wearing a giant pin that just says: "I'm not a girl" or "Trans GUY".

Anyone got a giant pin making machine?


*That said, I'm hardly uniform in my use of it. So if I start using other phrases, tough ganoogies.
**Everyone is born, but someone who is cisgendered is someone who is: born, gendered at birth, raised in that gender, and throughout their life feels comfortable in that same gender. Born, raised, happy (or if not happy, at home).
Whereas someone who is transgendered is: born, gendered at birth, partially (or fully) raised in that gender, and starting at some point (or throughout) their life feels EXTREME discomfort with that erroneously assigned gender.
***There are whole months of my life (post coming-out) that I've lost; too upset at knowing that if I went out I would be not only gendered incorrectly, but not even recognized as trying to gender myself differently, and therefore stayed in my apartment, and on bad days, not even leaving my bedroom.

The start of a blog

Here are my thoughts: no one in the world is quite like anyone else, to suggest otherwise would be fallacious. However, there are people, many in fact, who are perfectly content to believe that they are in the Norm. Normal. I don't know any of them personally, but I'm positive they exist.

Why?

Because they have blogs. And they comment on youtube videos and internet articles. We see them (as characters) in movies, tv shows, and books, and listen to their love songs. Clearly there is a Norm because there are top ten and top 100 lists. Cultural norms are pervasive.

I want to look at the things that we: read, write, listen to, watch, and supposedly love. And study them. I want to question why I am a deviant from the norm. I want to have those who do not deviate in the ways that I do be informed, and those who do have one more voice speaking for them.

This blog will be a: review and summary of media made for and about trans populations. It will be a critique of straight society's (un)spoken rules. It will be angry and sad and often happy. It will discuss my opinions much and my life sometimes. It will offer information. It will do a whole lot more that I don't even know yet.



Hopefully.