In case y’all haven’t noticed, I’m on a bit of a blog hiatus again. Sorry, life keeps getting in the damned way and once again I got overwhelmed and needed to just stop overthinking this whole Being Trans thing. :P
Anyhow, I mainly wanted to post here to link to FetLife’s kinky holiday giveaway extravaganza, because don’t we all want some extra Giftsmas presents? (Especially if those presents are kinky as fuck?)
ciao,
-geopunk
…In every trans context I’ve been in lately (referring to in-person encounters, as in, meatspace), everyone has been using “cis” naturally in the context of the conversation, and I don’t think I’ve heard anyone use phrases like “biological [male/female]” or “real [man/woman]“. Some folks may have said “non-trans”, but the vast majority of folks? They use “cis” when they’re talking about cis people.
I mean, I’m just sayin’.
It’s not that hard to let the word catch on. It’s not awkward or overly academic, nor is it used solely in the context of online conversations and blogs. So the next time someone says, “But I’ve never heard anyone in real life use cis!” I’m going to start feeling like they’re just not trying hard enough.
So this is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, seen it brought up in various conversational contexts, but haven’t fully explored, yet. I was prompted to post while browsing NoFauxxx for free (you can still browse the members-only section for free for the rest of today, Oct. 1st, until midnight Pacific time… if you want to take a peek really quick to get a frame of reference for this post… login=friend/ password=fauxxx). I tried searching for more conversations on this topic and failed to find anything remotely recent. If anyone has links they’d like to share, please do.
First, I wanna say that I love porn and I really do want to see more non-mainstream porn that isn’t based in misogyny, shows marginalized bodies as sexy without exotifying or fetishizing them, and is marketed toward a wider audience than straight cis men.
But… consider this a constructive critique. A way of saying, “good start, keep it up, but there’s some pretty major ways you can improve what you’re trying to do.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
My main issues with alt-porn that is marketed as “indie”, “feminist” or “made by women for women” are as follows:
1. I have yet to see one trans woman on an alt-porn site. There might be some MAAB genderqueer folk modeling on NoFauxxx (I’m not sure, since the only models that are identified as GQ all seem to be FAAB), but NoFauxxx and indie porn in general seems to be dominated by cis women, with some FAAB genderqueer folk, trans men, and a few effeminate cis men. Alt-porn is still heavily cis-centric, despite claims of being trans inclusive. (It’s not trans inclusive if it excludes trans women.)
2. Alt-porn very often sets up a virgin/whore dichotomy by specifically marketing itself as not starring “professional” porn actors (and, hmmmm, how convenient that is, if they’re not “professional” they don’t have to get paid as much!). The models on alt-porn sites are marketed as “real” or “authentic”. So… mainstream porn models are unicorns, then?
3. Much of what I’ve seen of indie porn is more artsy than actually sexy. Sure, I enjoy artsy erotic photos that depict nudity moreso than actual sexual acts, but I still want to see dirty smut! To me, the lack of smut (which includes the framing and composition of shots which do contain sexual acts, but the acts are somehow obscured in the shot) seems to feed into the idea that real feminists don’t like smut. I once bought a mag which featured cis male models and marketed itself as “porn for girls” — it was touted by reviewers as being feminist porn, because it was marketed toward women instead of men. I was sorely disappointed in the magazine, because all of the photos were so… tame. Sure, the men were naked and there were boners, for sure. The fact that porn that is marketed toward women (queer or straight) is so much less explicit, less likely to contain “hardcore” scenes than mainstream porn marketed toward men, and more focused on soft, “artsy”, romanticized compositions, only serves to reinforce sexist stereotypes about women.
4. The marketing tactic of claiming that it is “made by women for women” is a misnomer. It would be more accurate to say that it’s made “by cis women for cis women”. If it really was made “by women for women” then there would at least be some visible trans women. And I really don’t like hearing “but no trans women have come to us to ask to be in our porn!” or “but there’s no trans women in my hipster dyke scene, how can I get them to model/act for my site?” as a defense. People should know better than to throw that one out there. It’s terribly reflective of the transphobia that presents itself in queer “women and trans” scenes in general. The message is clear and cissexist.
5. Marketing binary-identified trans men (e.g. non-genderqueer-identified) as “subversive” or otherwise radical. *shudder* I’m just not going to get into the exotification and fetishization of trans men by cis lesbians and queer women… But suffice to say — masculine, non-genderqueer trans men are not “challenging gender norms” just because they were assigned female at birth. Also, need I point out that feminine, non-genderqueer trans women are not so readily labeled subversive and radical? The latter are more often than not challenged for “reinforcing the gender binary”, while the former are lauded for “challenging gender norms”. Privileging masculinity much? — And also, labeling a scene between a non-genderqueer trans man and a cis woman as “queer porn” is just.. really….. just, no. Don’t even.
ETA: 6. The overwhelming majority of alt-porn bears a distinct lack of melanin. This is important to mention, and I’m sorry it slipped my mind when I first wrote this post. That’s my white privilege showing right there. And I suppose I could expand this point by saying that the overwhelming majority of alt-porn features temporarily able-bodied people, as well (actually, I have yet to see any indie porn models who have a visible/physical disability). Adding on the layers upon layers, alt-porn really isn’t remotely close to being as “inclusive” as it claims to be.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
I mean… I really wanted to like indie porn sites like NoFauxxx (and I don’t mean to single them out, but that’s the only site I ever had a subscription to, so I’m more familiar with its contents), I really did. But indie porn has really left me wanting, and it’s got some major issues that need to be examined and patched up before I’ll be willing to actually call it feminist.
So… that’s all I’ve got for now. As usual, I welcome respectful discussion.
No, I’m not talking about being attracted to cookware, nor horny goat-men. (Okay, I might indeed be attracted to the latter, but that’s not the point.)
*sips coffee*
When I first heard the term “pansexual” and its given definition, I was excited to discover a word for a sexual orientation that did not erase (or imply exclusion of) non-binary-identified, genderqueer, and intersexed folks. I personally define “pansexual” to mean, “attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to men, women, and androgynes/genderqueer folk/neutrois/any other non-binary-i.d.’ed people”.
Unfortunately, some time later I found out that pansexuality as a sexual orientation/identity is tied to chasers who define it as “attracted to men, women, and trans people” (and it seems to be particularly associated with transmisogynist applications of that). See the difference in definition there? The first I gave does not differentiate between cis men/trans men and cis women/trans women. The second definition sets up binary-identified trans people as “other”, separate from cis men and women, and doesn’t even acknowledge genderqueer folk (or categorizes all non-binary-i.d.’ed folk into their respective assigned sex).
That is not what I mean when I personally say I’m pansexual. For the record, I define my sexual orientation as pansexual, bisexual, and queer. I don’t see why I need to choose only one of those terms, as they all apply. When asked, I say I’m queer. But I identify with all three of those.
I’m kind of bothered by the backlash against pansexuality as an identity. Sure, it’s used by chasers, who set up trans men and women as “other”. And, indeed, there is a good argument that “bisexual” does not inherently imply there are only two genders, that one may only be attracted to binary-i.d.’ed men and women. But the backlash stings, as a non-binary-i.d.’ed person. As long as pansexual is used by an individual in a way that neither others binary-identified men and women, nor excludes genderqueer folk, is there still a problem with it as an identity? I know many genderqueer folk who identify as pansexual, specifically because they feel excluded and erased by bisexual and, for whatever personal reasons, they just prefer pansexual over queer.
Is a thing inherently problematic because it is associated with chasers? And, if so, what is the solution? Stop using pansexual? Find a new word? Would that really stop chasers from being… well, chasers?
No, really, I’m honestly asking these questions. Consider this an open thread to discuss, if you’d like.
Just a little frustrating thing I’ve been mulling over lately and thought I’d post about. This post is speaking from the perspective of a genderqueer trans guy assigned female at birth.
When I speak out against sexism and misogyny, especially when addressing a cis man, the responses have an extremely strong tendency to ungender and emasculate me (“you’re just an angry, man-hating, oversensitive lesbian!”). Apparently if trans men support feminist and/or womanist causes, they/we’re Not Really Men. Because, naturally, Real Men™ are all sexist, misogynist, and anti-reproductive rights, amirite?
And yet, when cis men speak out against sexism and misogyny, they’re often given asspats and given (metaphorical) cookies, or even just plain argued with, without having their gender itself challenged.
Something is rotten here.
This ties in to the frustration that I and many trans men I know have, where we are judged as Not Really Men if we’re not total macho dudebros. And y’know, it’s absolutely fine if some trans men feel most comfortable with that kind of masculinity, really, I don’t blame other trans people for looking or acting at one end of the gender binary. I’m just overly bothered with the standards of maleness that are set by our cissexist society, that say that if I don’t fulfill these standards I must really be a woman. Feh.
So for a trans guy or even a FAAB genderqueer person to do any of the following–
–apparently these things mean we’re “really” women. Angry, man-hating, oversensitive, humorless women.
I know that occasionally cis men will be emasculated for doing any of the above (or get called a f*g), but the degree of ungendering that cis men receive versus the degree trans men and FAAB genderqueer people receive, is just incomparable. Nobody says that a cis man who does any of the above is “just an angry d*ke”. Nobody looks for the above things as proof that a cis man isn’t really a man.
I guess that, where sexism and misogyny are present, there’s a pretty damn good chance that cissexism and transphobia are also present.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
ETA: I just realized how this all ties into, also, “positive” ungendering, that is, when trans men are assumed to be special, feminist, decaf-men — the idea that we support feminism because, of course, we’re “really” women. While it may be true that many trans men may indeed be more likely to speak out against sexism because they know what it feels on the receiving end, there are a great many other trans men who are just as likely to have a misogynist mindset as cis men are, who have no idea what it’s like to experience sexism as a woman, and who are just as likely to fall into the trap of thinking “Real Man™ = sexist”.
I moved to a new city at the beginning of the month, and have been busy settling in, searching for a job, all that… “fun”.. stuff. I’ve also been a bit burnt out about trans stuff lately, and overthinking things like passing and identity has been leading me to Trangst Street.
Will be back soon. Cheers.
For more than the past decade, I have known that I am queer. At various points during that time, I have had a tendency to speak in absolutes, e.g. once or twice when I said I was most definitely a dyke and would never ever be interested in cis men ever again. (Okay, I was in a very insecure state and had just been hurt and scared by one to many male-i.d.’ed chasers who didn’t give a damn about consent, so I freaked out and suppressed my trans/GQ male identity while hiding in the perceived safety of a dyke identity and the idea that trans men are special feminist decaf-men.) And lately, I’ve been having this tendency to think and speak in absolutes as well, but at the opposite end of that previous absolute; claiming either to myself or others that I’m definitely a fag and not all that interested in women or female-i.d.’ed GQ folk.
I know damn well that sexuality is fluid and may change over time, so why are absolutes so comforting? Is it internalized biphobia, femmephobia, or gynophobia? Is it a desire for my gender to be seen as more genuine (because somehow being bisexual interferes with being Really Trans™)?
I’m not entirely sure. But I realized something in the past couple days: I have been basing my sexual identity on the kind of person that I fantasize about when I jack off, rather than the kind of people that I would actually be attracted to in person.
Because, really, if I actually based my sexual and romantic relationships around the imagined people in my masturbatory fantasies, I’d be dating scruffy cowboys 20 years older than me. That, and I’d also be werewolf-sexual I guess, but alas, werewolves just don’t exist. (Sigh.)
I also find it interesting that I have been in a state of pondering my sexual identity, seeing as I have been in a (mostly) monoamorous relationship with the same person since January 2003 (♥). In those past six and a half years, I have swung amongst various sexual and gender identities. And, I don’t want to speak too soon, but I think I am finally arriving at a point of equilibrium.
Equilibrium, but not stasis.
I used to feel, erroneously, that identity should be static; that an identity is only “real” if it is immutable. This belief, of course, caused a heckuva lot of self-doubt and insecurity, since my lived experience was one of ever-evolving identities.
Overall, my sexual identity is bisexual and queer. Whether I go through phases where I prefer dyke porn or het porn or gay male porn or genderfucked queer porn, I am realizing, doesn’t matter to my overall sexuality. And overall, my gender identity is genderqueer neutrois male. Whether I go through phases of feeling more binary-male or more gender-neutral doesn’t matter to my overall identity.
I remain in a state of equilibrium, not stasis.
It feels like this stuff should be obvious, but… I’m just kind of working out issues of self-doubt, here, to prove to myself how silly that doubt really is.
Peace.
The tl;dr version: BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW
The full version:
First we are presented with a quote from a comment thread.
Uh, hey, some of us were there when Aravosis publicly made the case that we [transgender people] don’t belong in his cisgender gay-rights movement.
It’s not ancient history for us. It’s the way Aravosis treats trans people. We’ve borne the scars; we’re the ones who had our comments deleted or edited, earned our bans from his site.
And you wonder why we hate the guy? …
And then Autumn goes on to say:
In that comment, the term cisgender wasn’t used to explain privilege to people who didn’t understand it, but instead used to angrily — accusatorily — pointing a finger at John Aravosis for being a gay white male who doesn’t care about the civil rights of transgender people. It was that weaponized use of that cis- term that began the current Pam’s House Blend debate over cisgender and cissexual terminology here at The Blend. When I’ve mentioned repeatedly that the two cis- terms have been weaponized at The Blend, this is the is starting point as to where I feel the term was weaponized against gay white men.
Frankly, my transgender peers, this is where I began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam’s House Blend threads. When, in my opinion, these terms should be used to teach — as Julia Serrano and others use the term — I saw the term cisgender used to express anger and hate.
Excuse me, but…. what? A weapon?
I’m trying really hard to see the other side, and frankly, there’s no way I see “cisgender” being used as a weapon in the first quote. It’s as much a “weapon” as any woman stating that a man has male privilege. Seriously, someone tell me how it was meant to be an insult. Pointing out privilege, even in anger, is not a fucking insult. I thought that was part of Privilege 101, for fuck’s sake.
So because some trans people are justifiably angry that we are being completely overlooked by the mainstream GLB movement (except when it’s convenient to do something easy, like write letters of complaint to a certain radio station in Sacramento), we’re being too mean to the privileged cis gay men, oh noes. We should stop being so damned uppity and just accept our proper place in The Movement, right?
Excuse me while I vomit into a trashcan, kplzthx.
Cue some more baaaaawwwwwww’ing and “omg uppity trans people” rambling. And then this gem:
But at least in the short term, I know I can’t effectively use the terms here at The Blend, and I’d strongly recommend trans people stay away from those terms here at The Blend for awhile. Frankly, the cis- words are just too emotionally charged here at The Blend right now for neutral use of the terms here in our diaries, or here in our threads. I take a portion, but not all, of the responsibility for how those terms have become emotionally charged here at Pam’s House Blend.
What. Oh fuck that. Fuck. that.
What about words like heterosexual, able-bodied, neurotypical, and white? Is “white” too “emotionally charged” to use, because some people of color might have *gasp* ever been angry at white folks?
After that I just kind of skimmed the rest of the post. (It is, after all, pretty damn tl;dr.) Autumn baaaaaawwwww’s about being “the most hated trans person on the internet” or something, talks to her cat, posts a Hedwig video and some MLK Jr. quotes, and honestly I have no idea wtf that is all supposed to mean. That she’s just a poor, misunderstood, sensitive, nice trans person who just wants to make good with our cis overlords?
And I don’t even care, because whining about “tone” and stifling and censoring discussion helps nobody.
Yes, many trans people are angry about a lot of things.
And yes, our anger is fucking justified.
We will not just shut up and politely wait our turn for justice and rights until after the white cis gay men and lesbians get theirs. Trans people’s lives are at stake every day.
I will leave you with a collection of links with the intent to educate, because these links can’t be spread around enough:
Now, see, after reading all those links (which were quickly and easily found) it really is pretty fucking insulting that so many cis LGB folk can claim ignorance. Just goes to show how much they give a shit about us, huh?
Formed as a sort of last-straw response to the blatant cis-centrism and transphobia in major LGB(t) news blog/community sites, The Spectrum Cafe (whose motto is “Putting the T in LGBT News”) opened today. It seems different from other trans-centric news sites, such as Transadvocate, in that it focuses on the larger LBGT community through a trans lens (as opposed to the focus of news being on “trans issues” alone).
I just wanted to share.
There has been some *ahem* “discussion” about the validity of the terms cisgender and cissexual at Pam’s House Blend in the past few days. (ETA: there is a post over at Questioning Transphobia about this as well.)
I put “discussion” in quotes because there’s less actual discussion; more like a bunch of cis LGB people whining about how they’re offended at being called cis, and while there are some very well-argued comments from some trans people, many of those cis folks are pointedly refusing to get it. And I somehow continue to be surprised at cis LGB folks’ ignorance of terms that are extremely commonly-used among trans people online (I really really really want to calmly post a link to Let Me Google That For You over there, but I’d probably get smacked with “omg you’re being so meen!”)…
The comments reminded me of the countless white people who I have seen try to claim that they are “beyond race” or that they don’t identify as white (and I’m not talking about mixed-race people who pass as white but have some PoC ancestors, I’m talking about people every bit as white as my own Scandinavian ass) so therefore their privilege doesn’t exist, or some shit, and every damn time it is a vain attempt to avoid being held accountable for privilege.
So the folks at PHB feel that some trans people sometimes use “cis” pejoratively? (First of all, merely pointing out privilege, even angrily, is never an insult.) And they believe that is a well and justified reason to reject cis as a term?
Look, I understand that not every cis person is entirely comfortable with the gender roles that have been assigned to them by their culture. And I understand that many people fall in-between the categories of cis, trans, or genderqueer, and don’t entirely fit into any one of those. I get that.
But that is no reason to reject language that makes a point of avoiding othering trans people.
Y’see,
1. There is a difference between being cissexed and being cisgender. Falling into either or both of those categories doesn’t mean that a person is required to embrace every culturally pre-determined aspect of their assigned sex or gender.
2. The whole “stay civil!” rule really gets to me. Not so much because I find the language kind of… eh.. (colonialist verbage?). I understand and respect that the blog owner has every right to lay down rules of discussion in her space, but I hate that the rule was enforced to allow the feelings of a privileged person (in this case, a cis man) to trump the feelings of trans people collectively.
ETA #2: Welp, it looks like they’ve shut off commenting on one of the posts at PHB. Wow. I’m pretty fucking speechless and appalled. Good going, cissupremacists, good going.
