 |
| Providing for the personal growth and fulfillment of those whose lives are affected by crossdressing |
|
August 2010
Newsletter |
November 2010
CONTENTS
What's in a Name? - Abigail, AO President (Just click on the title above to go directly to an article.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Abigail Grace
Let’s consider some of those words. “Crossdresser.” Who or what is a crossdresser? The Oxford English Dictionary [“the OED”] defines “crossdressing” as “the practice of wearing clothing usually worn by the opposite sex.” Helpful? Really I don’t find it so. Case in point: in our contemporary culture, most people wear pants or trousers of some sort on some occasions. These days we don’t consider a woman wearing pants to be crossdressing. (And what exactly is “the opposite sex?”) Dr Erin Swenson, a post-operative transsexual psychologist and ordained minister, writes that “Cross-dressers are individuals who simply enjoy, for a variety of reasons, an occasional retreat into the alternate gender expression. . . . Cross-dressers may be either male or female, and are usually heterosexual, many having normal marriages, families, and careers. Cross-dressers may encounter difficulties with unsupportive partners or spouses, and occasionally have encountered employment discrimination, even though their cross-dressing activity occurs solely outside the workplace.” A dear friend, Dr Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, a distinguished lesbian scholar who describes herself as a gender transgressor and transgenderist lesbian, wrote in her brilliant book Omnigender that “cross-dressing is an attempt to live the full truth of one’s nature in which the cross-dresser feels profoundly identified with both her/his own and with the ‘other’ gender . . . . [who] wants to explore the feelings and behaviors of the ‘opposite’ gender.” Note that Dr Mollenkott places the words other and opposite in quotation marks because, she explains, “I do not believe in a stark male/female opposition, but the limitations of language force the use of imprecise language at this transitional time.” Aha! I’m hearing an echo in my soul. Dr Mollenkott includes crossdressers along with intersexuals, transsexuals, drag queens, drag kings, androgynes, transgenderists and gender queer non-conforming folk as “transpeople,” that is, anyone “who feels ‘otherwise’ from society’s gender assumptions” whether or not they would define or describe themselves as such. However, it’s not easy to settle down into Dr Mollenkott’s beautiful description. Why? Because inside those words lies a ticking time bomb which threatens to blow apart “society’s gender assumptions.” In fact, she is part of a major assault, along with many others, on “society’s gender assumptions.” In 1993, Dr Anne Fausto-Sterling wrote an essay for The Sciences, entitled “The Five Sexes.” In that article she argued that the two-sex system embedded in our society is not adequate to encompass the full spectrum of human sexuality. In its place, Dr Fausto-Sterling suggested a five-sex system which included "herms" (named after true hermaphrodites, people born with both a testis and an ovary); "merms" (male pseudohermaphrodites, who are born with testes and some aspect of female genitalia); and "ferms" (female pseudohermaphrodites, who have ovaries combined with some aspect of male genitalia). If such variety of anatomical forms exist in the human body, might there not be even greater diversity of forms in the human heart, deep within the very core of one’s nature? Reid Vanderburgh writes, “I can’t claim either female or male as my gender identity, but
some combination of both. I live in a culture that tries to force me to check ‘Male’ or ‘Female’ on
any form I fill out, and has no option for ‘Other’ or ‘Both.’ There is no option of dual citizenship,
but I’d claim it if there were. . . .. In previous generations, expressing this attitude would have either
gotten me killed or locked up in a psych ward, . . . . I need to maintain this historical perspective,
bearing always in mind how far our culture has come from that seventeenth century period of crazed Not all of the challengers are new-comers. Rabbi Elliot Rose Kukla, a staff rabbi at the Bay Area Jewish Healing Center in San Francisco, writes, “The rabbis of the Jewish sacred text, the Mishna, who lived in the first two centuries of the Common Era, identify at least four possible genders/sexes: the zakhar (male) and the nekevah (female), as well as two sexes that are neither male nor female: the tumtum and the androgynos. They also had two other categories for gender identity that don’t appear at birth, but develop later in life. The saris is born male but later develops female traits; the ayloni is born female, but later develops male traits.” Summing up historic Jewish writings, the rabbi notes the following: All these genders appear frequently in classical Jewish texts: the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, midrash and halacha.. The tumtum appears 17 times in the Mishna; 23 times in the Tosefta; 119 times in the Babylonian Talmud; 22 times in the Jerusalem Talmud and hundreds of times in midrash, commentaries and halacha. The androgynos appears 21 times in the Mishna; 19 times in the Tosefta 109 times in the Babylonina Talmud and countless times in midrash and halacha. In a brilliantly detailed law review article, Attorney Dylan Vade, a transgender lawyer, activist and film-maker, has written a critical analysis of the terms “sex” and “gender.” Vade sees both concepts as constructed by powerful elements of society. Physicians, Vade argues, assign male or female “sex” at birth and with the power of the medical community behind it, this determination is “real,” especially as opposed to a transgender person’s self-identification as female or male or someone else. In further analysis, Attorney Vade argues that “sex” as assigned to us at birth, with its attendant social expectations in the binary system, is imposed rather than agreed to and claims to have medical/scientific objectivity. Vade calls upon readers to challenge that by asserting themselves. In her book Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex Dr Alice Domurat Dreger argues that medical science has often subordinated what is between the person’s ears and in the person’s heart to what is between the person’s legs. She challenges the assumption that sex comes in only one of two choices when in reality it is extremely diverse and rather complex. Not only “gender” is socially constructed, but “sex” itself. Dr Dregar concludes that nothing is “natural” as many physicians and biologists contend. Neither chromosomes, nor genitals, nor secondary sex characteristics like breasts, body hair, and voice, have meaning until people ascribe a meaning to them. Doctors, scientists, theologians and many others have participated in the social construction of gender and sex by portraying anyone that deviates from binary norms as a monstrosity. Taken in light of these scholars, the OED’s definition of crossdressing loses significance. If my mind and heart are comfortable when my body wears a dress and high heels–and they are–my doing so is not an expression of the “opposite sex” but rather an expression of MY sex. My selfidentification validates my self-expression. (In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that I identify more as a “transgenderist” or “bigender” person whom Dr Swenson describes as “individuals [who] live with permanent gender ambiguity because they live across gender expectations . . . and express a core gender identity that lies across the accepted male-female divide. Some live part of their lives in one gender expression and another part in the other.” To paraphrase the apostle Paul’s lines in II Corinthians 11:21-23, I dare to boast: Are they crossdressers? So am I. Are they androgynes? So am I. Are they gender queer ? So am I. Are they transgenderists? Happy I am to be one, too.) The challengers then clearly upset not only the definition of crossdressing but also terms like “heterosexual” which the OED defines as “sexually attracted to the opposite sex” with its root in the Greek word “heteros” meaning “other.” Too much revolution here? [Cue music, “You say you want a revolution? Well, you know We all want to change the world.”–the Beatles]. Not necessarily, though I confess a life-long attraction to mavericks, malcontents, heretics and assorted troublemakers. In the light shed by Dr Mollenkott et al, the definition of “other” and “opposite” must move away from the limitations of the binary “either/or”–the limited choice of black or white–and instead move into the varieties of hues and shadings of many sorts. In this light, my physical and spiritual attraction to my dear spouse of twenty-five years exists not because we are polar opposites but rather because we are each a mixture of similarities and differences, which may even shift like a kaleidoscope and which attract and hold us to one another. I steadfastly refuse to be constrained by biological determinism. Biological determinism is the idea or theory that biological factors such as an individual’s genetic heritage, as opposed to social or environmental factors, completely determine how a person behaves or changes over time. The anatomy given to me by my parents does not alone determine who I am, including what sex and gender I am. Rather, I find a place for myself in Attorney Vade’s non-linear alternative “gender galaxy.” Vade explains that “The gender galaxy is a three-dimensional non-linear space in which every gender has a location that may or may not be fixed.” Vade goes on to say that “I need a big space in which everyone's gender has a space, and in which our genders are not hierarchically ordered. Thus, a conception that works for me is a galaxy. A gender galaxy. It is big, and it moves.” That works for me too. This amazing, star-studded galaxy is neither merely androgynous nor gender-less nor hierarchical. Counselor Vade explains. “I propose a gender galaxy, a space with many genders, not no genders. The gender galaxy is a space with infinite gender options that can move and are not hierarchically related - a space in which each of us has a location, a space in which each of us can choose that location and where all locations are equally supported and respected.” I conclude with and underscore this discussion with this note. I am a person of deep faith in a particular religious tradition, the Christian tradition. I work hard never to devalue the faith and religious traditions of any person. In the light of my tradition, as I am given light to understand my tradition, I view my position in the gender galaxy not as a curse but a deliberate blessing from my Creator. When I consider the world around me, I am thankful, truly grateful, that I was born such a being, for I would never have been what I have become without that special blessing. Daily, I thank God for my uniqueness. Let us cherish each other. A fish does not drown in water The Wonderment By Gloria Although I was only three years old, I actually do remember the first time I put on lipstick. I was caught and scolded and told that boys were not supposed to wear girls’ things. I didn’t’ have any good reason for trying on the lipstick that I could think of then, or even now. But, somehow, I did feel a need to see and feel that lipstick on me. Whether or not I was supposed to wear lipstick, or anything else girlish, the need to see and feel lipstick on my lips did not go away. Deep inside me I remembered that I liked the way that the lipstick did look and feel on my lips. I didn’t understand it, but I had a sense of feeling pretty wearing that lipstick, and it felt good. By the time I was seven, I knew that somehow I was different from other boys because I found myself literally wanting and needing to see and feel a pair of nylons on my legs. Not getting caught became a priority because I knew I had to hide my secret. I was even more sure of that after I did try on a pair of my mother’s nylons and loved the way my legs looked and felt I them. Even as I took off the nylons, I knew I had to put them on me again. Needless to say, my mother was my most frequent source of feminine items, but not my only means of satisfying needs as they happened. If given time and means, if something feminine attracted me, there was a good chance I would try it on even when very risky to do it. I came close to getting caught a few times. To be honest, it didn’t really matter to me who a feminine item may belong to, if the need and means were there. I’m not proud of that, but it didn’t matter. What mattered was seeing and feeling the pretty things I seemed to need on me. To an extent, when I tried on something feminine, it felt good to think of it as mine. When I put those nylons on when I was seven, it was my legs that looked and felt so pretty in them. To that extent they were my nylons as long as I had them on. My mother had most of the firsts for feminine items I wore such as lipstick, a bra, a dress, etc. Many of her items were also the first feminine items to really fit me. As I gradually began to dress more and more like a real woman, I found myself wanting more than just wearing something womanly. Deep inside me I began to feel a need to do more than look like a woman. There became a need to go beyond physical sensations, and find a sense of mentally and emotionally feeling like a woman. There was much more than just putting on some pretty clothes and liking it. I did want and need to know how and what a woman felt, at least as I could perceive it. The first time I put on a panty girdle I knew to find a way to tuck my boy-ness so I did look like a woman in it. Learning to wear nylons with garter hooks, all of a sudden it was a part of me to think about keeping my legs together when I sat and being wary of the tops of my stockings showing, and garter gap. There I was thinking of garter gap in a way that no boy did, or was supposed to. And, even if it was wrong, it felt good, and felt right. Though it was a secret for me to keep, there was inside me a very real sense and knowledge that if I had the right things on me, that my body and my legs were just as pretty as any other girl or woman I knew of. Very secretly, I knew how to put on and wear a woman’s things like no boy was supposed to. And when I could dress, I found an even greater enjoyment of it, by doing my best to be as womanly as possible. I practiced how I stood, how I moved, and how I walked, as well as how I sat and crossed my legs or ankles. I may not have really known about looking or feeling sexy, but as I grew up I did gain a sense of what was considered attractive for a woman. Before long, even as soon as I began to put something womanly on, I seemed to feel a femininity inside me that felt very real and natural without even trying to do it. As I began to get older, there were things, like my mother’s shoes that I grew out of. Also a beard and body hair became items that made looking and feeling womanly not only harder, but nearly impossible. Even though I could still fill out a pair of nylons quite well, my leg hair took away from the effect. Chest hair above my bra didn’t help my self-esteem either. As I turned eighteen, I was close to a point of feeling that my secret being was something that I would never know again. That wasn’t easy to live with, as I sensed that the thoughts and feelings I knew and had known for years would not go away. I had no idea of what the future would be or, to a real extent, how I had even survived being the man I had become while knowing and keeping my feminine part of me secret. And so I was a very confused young man who knew he was different than other men, and yet had no choice but to keep going. I tried really hard to forget many things. But every so often I still remembered that first time of putting on lipstick and how good it felt. There was nothing easy about being me, and wondering who I was or what I was. Even forty plus year later, at times, I still wonder.
Fish Out of WaterBy Ginger Suzanne Burke and I were fortunate enough to be able to attend a screening in Oberlin of the movie “Fish Out of Water”. The screening was presented by Equality Ohio, The First Church in Oberlin, UCC, and Oberlin College Office of Religious and Spiritual Life. “Fish Out of Water” looks at the issue of homosexuality and the bible. Ky Dickens, the writer and director of the film, questions the most notoriously homophobic Bible passages (Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis Chapters 2 and 3, Genesis 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Timothy 1:9-10) and uses animation to depict historical scenes, and insightful interviews to inspire, inform and hopefully transform the accepted interpretation of the bible. A panel discussion followed the showing of the movie where representatives of the local religious and campus community shared thoughts and comments on the content of the film. Eventually the panel asked for questions and comments from the audience. It was refreshing to see that there was a mixed crowd that consisted mostly of supporters of the LGBT community but also some who were not supporters of alternative lifestyles, but yet, open (maybe not so much) to seeing and hearing what the LGBT community had to say. Suzanne whispered to me wondering if I intended to comment and I gestured back to her that silence is golden. I was just trying to blend in. Well, my companion for the evening couldn’t pass up the opportunity to get in a good word for the Alpha Omega Society and talked about a “paradigm shift” or a change from one way of thinking to another. She spoke about how we can help, little by little, to transform the way people think about the LGBT community in general and about us as crossdressers. After the microphone was wrestled away from Suzanne, the panel then took a few other comments from the audience. The program came to an end for the evening and a small group of people came over to chat with us afterward. They wanted to know more about how we found out about the event and wanted to learn more about Alpha Omega. I was actually happy for the attention. To create our paradigm shift, do we blend in or do we call a little attention to ourselves?
Sisterly Conversations:Making A Retreatby Abigail Grace
Sisterly Conversations is a program for lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied women and conducted by Dr Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. This year marked the twentieth anniversary of Sisterly. It was a special time indeed! For me it was my eighth consecutive time attending. Virginia Mollenkott holds a B.A. from Bob Jones University, her M.A. from Temple University, and her Ph.D. from New York University. Presently, she is professor emeritus in the English Department at William Paterson College of Wayne New Jersey. In addition to a distinguished teaching career, she has served as stylistic consultant to the New International Version Bible Translation Committee (1970-1975), as a member of the executive committee of the Milton Society of America (1975-1978), a member of the Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee of the National Council of Churches, and a member and officer of the Evangelical & Ecumenical Women's Caucus, among others. She has authored or co-authored 13 books, including several on women and religion. She is a winner of the Lambda Literary Award (in 2002) and contributed to numerous journals and magazines, including Christianity Today, Christian Century, The Other Side, Daughters of Sarah, Today's Education, Studies in Philology, and the Journal of English & Germanic Philology. Dr Mollenkott is a member of NOW, the Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, CLOUT (Christian Lesbians Out Together) and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She serves as a manuscript evaluator for the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Every year for many years, she has provided leadership for two conferences at Kirkridge: Christian People of the Rainbow in June and Sisterly Conversations in September. Frequently, she lectures on lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights and is active in the transgender cause, having authored the now classic Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach (2001) (new and expanded edition 2007) and served as co-author of Transgender Journeys (2003). She recently contributed a chapter titled, “Trans-forming Feminist Christianity,” to New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views, edited by Mary Hunt and Diann Neu (2010). This year, Dr Mary E. Hunt provided wonderful co-leadership at Sisterly. Dr Hunt is a feminist theologian who is co-founder and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) in Silver Spring, Maryland. A Catholic active in the women-church movement, she lectures and writes on theology and ethics with particular attention to social justice concerns. Dr. Hunt received her Ph.D. from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. She also received the Masters in Divinity degree from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and the Masters in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. Her undergraduate degree in Theology and Philosophy is from Marquette University. She completed Clinical Pastoral Education and is fluent in Spanish. She spent several years teaching and working on women's issues and human rights in Argentina as a participant in the Frontier Internship in Mission Program. She continues that work through WATER's project, "Women Crossing Worlds," an ongoing exchange with Latin American women. Dr. Hunt is the editor of A Guide for Women in Religion: Making Your Way from A to Z, editor of From Woman-Pain to Woman-Vision: Writings in Feminist Theology, co-editor of Good Sex: Feminist Perspectives from the World’s Religions, and the author of Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship, which was awarded the Crossroad Women’s Studies Prize. One of the joys of Sisterly is spending time with dear friends we have come to know over the years. That was true again this year as we spent time with friends from Texas, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Virginia Mollenkott establishes a schedule which includes key presentations [this year by both her and Dr Hunt], panel discussions presented by participants and quality time for visiting with each other. The theme this year included discussion of differences among LBT and allied women. I was pleased to be part of the Saturday afternoon panel, along with my friend Sue, an alumna of West Point. She and I presented contrasting [note, I say contrasting, not conflicting views] about women and the issues of peace and war. We agreed that the only problem was sticking to the eight minutes apiece we were given. Sisterly Conversations is a wonderful opportunity for rest and renewal with loving, lovely women, good food, wonderful singing, reflection, discussion and prayer. Great stimulation for the mind and the spirit. I highly recommend it.
Writing about the UnthinkableBy Diane Someone I don’t know died a few days ago. You can read a reasonable article about it here: Different people can find different reasons to be upset about this article. For some it’s a matter of pronouns. For others, it’s too much beyond crossdressing and going to an Alpha Omega meeting. Other people can find some things to celebrate. For some it’s nice to know that a trans-somebody, dead or not, can be recognized as an outstanding contributor in their profession. For some it’s noteworthy that the deceased’s dual identities were not a secret. And that’s where I’m going with this, because for me and for a lot of us there are secrets. ************************ If you are reading this, it means that I have died under circumstances that have revealed to you or made public parts of my life that you weren’t aware of. I regret more the social realities that warranted my decision to sequester parts of my life more than I regret who I chose to withhold from. For my parents, I have always felt that your need for a safe illusion about my life was greater than my need to be myself with you. One of me was enough. Your response to my brother’s openness about aspects of his life convinced me that there was absolutely nothing to be gained. Early discussions about your dislike of this age of openness, of people not keeping secrets set the path that you simply didn’t want to know too much about my life. In other words, I’ve tried to give you what you wanted. Now that you know, I think you may want some reassurance. First, it’s not your fault. Not that I think there’s anything wrong with me for a fault to be found. Second, beyond the mere fact that I have sense of dual identity and found a way to express it, there is nothing in that part of my life that you would find objectionable. The woman I might have been would have been seen by you as a good daughter and a responsible, caring woman in her community. I am absolutely confident that should you ever meet someone who knew your hidden daughter that that’s what you’d hear. And I want to assure you that my connection with the idea of myself as a woman isn’t a rejection of my father as a role model for being man. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just that parts of me didn’t fit into that, and needed someplace else to go. At the same time, I want to assure you that you didn’t miss much. None of this diminished my life as your son, and the father of your grandchildren and the husband of your daughter-in-law. They all, by the way, knew and accepted my duality, and they and those close to them had respected my wishes to keep some things private. For those of you from my professional life, I say only this. I know many of you would have felt comfortable with the idea, if not the fact of me. My notion of professional responsibility and my obligations in a client facing role meant that distractions weren’t in our company’s interest. That, and not any lack of regard for you was my motivation. I know our company had a LG policy that would have probably protected me. I chose not to make an issue out of it. I had no need to be a woman in a professional environment, although I’m sure I could have managed. For the few friends we have who didn’t know, all I can say is I didn’t see your knowledge as adding to our relationship in any meaningful way. I see too many people who get lost in this notion of coming out to everyone. I’ll never be sure that it was wise or not in fact a very selfish thing to do. If you thought you missed something of me this way, I’m afraid that’s the way it goes. For those who knew me only as an approximation of the woman I might have been, and are learning about my life as a man, I hope only that you will see more consistency than you might have expected. Finally, I must acknowledge my partner, love of my life, best friend and comfort for all these years. In many ways she recognized and encouraged my growth in this part of my life. She thus made my life more rewarding and fulfilling than I had any reason to expect. I hope that whatever incident took me from this world did not claim her too. Regardless, all should know my eternal devotion to her.
|
[