Meanwhile, I have been on testosterone for about 14 months, grew some gnarly sideburns and an Adam’s apple, got a legal name change (although I still haven’t been able to afford to get a new license or passport to go with it, since every time I manage to save up $100, either my car or a pet gets sick and needs repairs. every. damn. time.) and since about June I’ve been consistently read as male by strangers in public. Sure, they usually think I’m about 17, but at least they get my gender right, even if their estimated age is off by a decade.

Except I’ve noticed a funny thing: when I am in more liberal/progressive/lefty spaces I am misgendered far more often than when I am just out and about in, say, a big box store like Home Despot or Target, where I am basically never misgendered. Huh. There is something very… complicated.. about that.

Anyhow, there is another post coming later tonight, but right now I have to catch the bus and go to work!

This is good news for a number of reasons, and a good place to point out cis privilege.

For a long time, I’ve been putting off legally changing my name and the gender marker on my state-issued driver’s license. Part of it was that I wanted to wait until I was out to my parents (which I am now), but another huge reason was also because I didn’t want mismatched i.d. documents when it came to traveling, or even for something as banal as applying for a job. (You know, when a new employer asks for multiple forms of i.d. so they know you’re eligible to legally work in the U.S.?) But also, some people don’t even have a driver’s license or a state-issued i.d. card. A cis friend of mine uses her passport as her i.d. in bars, because she moved here from another state and doesn’t drive.

I am really getting to the point where, as soon as I can afford it, I am going to change my i.d. documents. For months now bouncers at bars have been giving my license a good hard look before finally almost reluctantly letting me in. This has made me somewhat terrified every time I drive — what would happen if I get pulled over, with an out-of-state driver’s license that doesn’t look like me, has a female name, and “female” as my gender marker?

The downside to this new policy change is that it seems like it is going to exclude trans people who do not medically transition, no matter whether they might “pass” as their gender or not. In this way I am privileged enough to be on T, despite my lack of resources for any surgery.

Tumblr has become more and more popular as a blogging platform, and I love it myself as a way of easily sharing found photos, videos, artwork, and music. (I always credit my sources, although some people are not so nice about that.) One particular style of “tumblog” seems very popular with adolescent girls (and I admit that it’s kind of my favorite too), where the whole blog is based around pretty pictures, often nature-themed, dreamy and surreal. But all too often, that style is infected with cultural appropriation: context-less images of “primitive” people and/or skinny white cis girls “playing Indian” with feather headdresses and face paint. Ugh. But there is definitely resistance and criticism of this trend as well, see also: Fuck Yeah Cultural Appropriation. (For those not familiar with tumblr, a widespread trend on the site is for themed photo blogs to have “fuckyeah[x]” as their title.)

If the cultural appropriation wasn’t bad enough, there’s some seriously problematic shit going on in the queer and trans tumblogosphere.

For example, Genderqueer very often features binary-identified trans people, and people who may or may not even identify as trans or genderqueer (e.g. andro/butch cis dykes, drag kings/queens). Cute Boyish Lesbian Girls is a parade of young, thin, white, cis women, with many people who may be genderqueer or trans men who are being misgendered by being featured on the blog. Fuck Yeah Femmes seems to barely hold to its theme of queer femmes, and focuses, again, heavily on conventionally-attractive white cis women, many of whom may not even be queer (I think they might have gotten femme as an identity mixed up with femininity in general). Gender-Bender posts strap-on and some “shemale” porn. (I fail to see how a cis woman wearing a strap-on cock is an act of “bending” gender in and of itself. And can I also say I kind of really hate the phrase “gender bender”?)

Seeing a pattern yet? There’s a tendency toward de-contextualized objectification (regarding both race and gender identity), lumping real people into fetishistic categories, regardless of consent or self-identification. I would not be shocked to see photos of myself from my flickr showing up on one of these tumblogs. It would trigger some nasty dysphoria, but I really wouldn’t be shocked.

In contrast, other queer tumblogs, like Girls Who Love Girls, seem to have a better format — relying heavily on submissions from people who self-identify with the theme (and I also like the title of that one, which is inclusive of queer women who are not strictly lesbian). That seems like a much better idea, rather than just assuming what someone’s identity is, and posting/reblogging their photo because you think it fits your theme and you don’t actually care that you’re misgendering anyone as long as they’re sexxxxxxxy and subversive (and let’s not forget the busted presumptions about AFAB vs. AMAB trans people regarding sexiness and subversiveness), amirite??

So what makes tumblr any different regarding cultural appropriation and trans fetishization, versus other blogging and social networking sites? I think it’s the ease with which material gets spread around, especially via the “reblog” feature. That spreading of ideas and imagery can be a really awesome thing, or it can serve to perpetuate busted shit like bacteria reproducing.

All I want is to fade into the background. I don’t want to be just like everyone else. I just want to be seen as unremarkable as the next counterculture cis guy. All I’m looking for is a way to feel comfortable with myself and live my life.

I’m just some dirty hippie dude, you know?

Hi blog, what’s up? I know we’ve been distant, blog, but I promise that I still care, it’s just that I’ve been out of the blogosphere loop for several months now.

Something that’s been bothering me lately, is how black-and-white even trans and genderqueer folks can be about this whole business of Being Trans. I find myself occupying liminal, outsider spaces even among other trans people. On the one hand, my gender identity is non-binary. I’ve dropped “genderqueer” as a label for myself, as I kind of see it implying a certain type of androgyny, of presenting a certain gendered queerness, that I don’t identify with. My gender/sex is male or it’s neuter. I don’t see myself as androgynous. I don’t see myself as transgressive or subversive or special.

I can definitely see why many trans people want to feel special and celebrate being trans. Every day our cissexist society (both hetero and LGB), tells us that we are sub-human, that we are disgusting abominations, that we are at best the butt of a dirty joke, that we’re “mutilating” our bodies, going against god’s will, or going against nature, so on and so forth, you get the idea. Barf. It feels good to counter all that venom with “STFU I’m awesome and you can’t tell me otherwise.” It’s good not to internalize or get worn down by the oppression(s) that we experience.

I mean, I like going to Pride marches and I’m really looking forward to going again this year. And I’m all for increasing visibility in positive ways, fighting for equal rights, and challenging cissexism. I’m not an assimilationist or HBS’er.

I guess my form of trans pride comes as more of an attitude of, “hey, I’m a person, you’re a person, we all have a gender that we express in certain ways that are all valid (as long as it’s not appropriative). great, awesome. ok now what am I gonna cook for dinner?”

Here is where I’m influenced by Zen Buddhism: the idea that everything is sacred, and nothing is sacred, both at the same time.

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

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.

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.

*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.

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–

• Support feminism, womanism, and/or woman-centric reproductive rights
• Call out other men on sexism and misogyny
• Enjoy looking even sometimes femme, effeminate, feminine, or androgynous (e.g. wearing makeup ["guyliner"]; having a hairstyle longer than a crew cut, fauxhawk, or fade; wearing clothing bought in the women’s section because it fits better or just… because)
• Have a personality, hobbies, or mannerisms that are not “masculine” (e.g. being bubbly, compassionate, sympathetic, cry at movies and funerals, take part in handicrafts like knitting and sewing)

–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”.

Will be back soon. Cheers.