Okay, Here is a Quandary

That is awesome!

As one of the groups of people who often has people force labels and identities upun us, if we ourselves don't have the right to self-identify, we've lost a very fundamental right.

Many people don't have the means to surgically augment their genitalia even if they wanted to, let alone those who identify as "gender ambiguous" who don't want genital augmentation. They should be able to identify as their gender identity just the same.

That's a really interesting point, AK. I don't believe it's likely that we're going to be overrun by het men posing as trans at women's events. I do think it's possible that situations like the one that I described may lead to some in the women's community reinstating the old "dick in a drawer" parties. (Where the criteria for attendance is that you are able to leave your dick in a closed drawer.) I'd prefer not to see that happen because I'd like to keep things inclusive, but I also can see that this kind of incident is more and more likely to happen in the future.

Everyone has different triggers, and there are some for whom a penis, no matter to whom it's attached, signals oppression by the patriarchy. While I believe this to be primarily older members of the women's community (like me), I haven't taken a survey on the matter. As I did mention before, I wasn't the only one who was surprised and made uncomfortable by this happening. And there have been incidents in the past where trans and gender neutral people have been denied access to parties or at least given a hard time about possessing a penis. So excuse me for being honest about my reactions to someone waving around genitalia that I see as "male." And for my seeing the behavior as "male" because I've seen het males behaving in just that fashion. I've stated that I am no doubt out of step with the times, but we're all products of our experiences. No doubt if I were thirty or forty years younger, I'd be just as militantly PC as Theo. Unfortunately, much as I try, I'm not there yet. I may never be.

Domina

I want to respond here to several points folks have been making.

1. Fear of the guy in the dress: I appreciate being informed not only that this a common mistaken assumption but also that “heterosexual men posing as trans” has not been a problem. I was not of the opinion that there would be “flood” of heterosexual men, only that there would be an allowance for it. And I agree that a whole group of women should not be excluded for fear of one guy in a dress.

I am going to take the risk of thinking out loud here for a moment (yikes), which means exposing myself to arguments I’ve not thought of rebuttals for. For me, I think this concern about the “het man posing as trans” stems from being required to read or understand what is in someone else’s mind/heart. If we take the example of someone who attends a “trans-friendly woman only” party but seemingly does nothing on the outside to reflect identification as a woman or transwoman (dress, mannerism, surgery, etc.--perhaps a butch transwoman who could be mistaken for a man?), then those who do not know this person are basically having to read this person’s mind and recognize that ze/she considers herself a transwoman or a woman, regardless of outward appearance.

I understand that there should not be any requirement of a transwoman or woman to dress in traditionally feminine clothing or have surgery, etc. I am just noting that some of us non-trans folks are not yet skilled in interpreting or reading or registering that what seems to be a man (based on our socialization to dominant society’s norms) is actually a transwoman or woman. Obviously, blindness to this distinction is a function of non-trans people’s privilege, and the ability to reframe can be learned. Of course, the more non-trans and trans folks get to know each other, the more non-trans people will know the gender identities (fluid or not) of particular trans people (and vice versa).

I do recognize that party organizers screen people, but that does not mean that our socialized responses to gender norms will not kick in. Also, when I say non-trans folks will "have to" read someone else's mind, it sounds like I am putting a burden on non-trans folks. I do not intend this meaning; more, I'm saying what is entailed for a non-trans person in this situation (no doubt some fill find it a burden but not all will).

2. Transguys at the party: I appreciate knowing that there are both transguys who find it disrespectful to be at a “trans-friendly woman-only” party and those who do not entirely identify as male and therefore feel they still belong or have been invited to attend.


Other remarks:

I also said a previous post: “With these various scenarios, it seems to me that "woman-only" becomes really meaningless here.”

I’d like to reflect on this statement a bit more. It seems to me that at one time “woman only” was pretty much synonymous with “lesbian” (at least this was my experience when I lived in the SF Bay Area as a lesbian in the 1980s). If I remember correctly, a “proper” lesbian at this time did not use strap-ons or “like” penetration (due to associations with heterosexuality and masculinity). However, as we have deconstructed the word “woman,” the meaning of “woman-only” has changed. I don’t know for sure, but I’m thinking “woman-only” may have changed to mean lesbians, lesbians who engage in strap-on play, and bisexual women and has eventually changed to include these plus transwomen and transmen and gender-fluid and gender-neutral people. So, interestingly, the original definition of “woman-only” and the current definition of “woman-only” are somewhat opposed to each other (from the point of view of those who knew the term in the 1980s or earlier)—it’s gone from a space in which there would be no penis of any kind to penises of every kind. This difference in frames may account for some of the confusion in expectations of what “woman-only” means. I’m not sure, but I’m wondering. And, of course, terminology often changes in meaning over time.



I might be totally off base here, but it seems to me that the situation with the transwoman at the party can be read in two different frames:

A person is masturbating with a penis in the open at a “women’s-only” play party. I can see that this behavior can be read as consistent with insensitive heterosexual masculine behavior, especially in the greater context of a society that is patriarchal and homophobic.

A person is masturbating with a penis in the open at a “trans-friendly” play party. I can see that this behavior can be read as consistent with trans people's freedom of sexual expression, especially in the greater context of a society that is transphobic and gender-fixated.

Perhaps one outcome here is our becoming more knowledgeable of each others’ frames. My assumption is that trans folks already know non-trans folks’ frames because those who are oppressed always have to know dominant society’s views in order to survive. However, as a non-trans person, I am becoming more aware through this discussion not only of my own (dominant) frames but also of trans folk’s frames on this situation. Regardless of whether we agree with each other’s readings at this point, at least we can be more aware of how we are looking at the situation.

So I would like to thank all the people who are contributing to this discussion.

Meryl