No let me get this straight...the person suing is a female? and she's suing the person who won because voters are more likely to vote for females??? under that line of reasoning her and Ms. Bruce would have an equal chance to win based on gender and perhaps (gasp) their political stance and beliefs caused one to be voted over the other....she is just filing this lawsuit to get the news out about Ms. Bruce's transgender "status" and is probably hoping for a public outcry

"You know, because Fuller is the arbiter of who is female and who isn't."

No, God is. Those He gives vaginas to are female. Wearing a gorilla suit doesn't make me a gorilla.

I live in Georgia and unfortunately they'll probably get the public outcry. I guess the only thing that could save her is if she's had her status legally changed to female. However, if the judge the case goes before has any legal conscience she should still be okay. Fraud is intentional misrepresentation that significantly affects the decision of the person you're defrauding. Even if she weren't a woman(which I believe she is if that's how she identifies)running for office is essentially applying for a job in which the "people" are the hiring employer. And employers aren't supposed to discriminate based on gender so no matter what her gender it ought to be irrelevant. It ought to matter as much as if she told voters her eyes were blue when in fact she was just wearing color contacts.

Oh, buffy. "Because God said so" is a valid argument only under theocracy. It has precisely the same amount of logical weight as "my daddy can beat up your daddy."

Wait...all it takes is a vagina?

Well whew, guess I can stop pulling all those hairs out of my face and just scream "I have a vagina" when people tell me I'm not a "real" woman (which has happened).

I'm glad God makes things so clear cut and gives everyone completely unambiguous genitals and all the appropriate secondary sex characteristics that come with those genitals (as well as the appropriate feelings or sense of identity that come with those genitals).

*rolls eyes*

buffythewhite,
As far as lived reality goes, something is only a gorilla because we say it is. Just like something is only a chair because we say it is. Nature and biology are extremely fluid, no one can really pinpoint what makes someone feminine or a woman. We see it across the species spectrum. And who are we to say what God intended?

"You know, because Fuller is the arbiter of who is female and who isn't."

No, God is. Those He gives vaginas to are female. Wearing a gorilla suit doesn't make me a gorilla.

1. That pretends that the illusion of binary sex is justifiable in this day and age, when it's simply not. There are people who are born with vaginas but who are chromosomally XY. Are they female because they've got a vagina, or male because they're XY?

2. Why does it matter what plumbing someone is born with? Ignoring the fact that we can change that, why does it matter? If she says "I'm a woman" who the hell are you to tell her otherwise? It's your business... why?
3. Last time I checked, dying your blonde makes you blonde, regardless of what color your hair "naturally" is. If I have all of the hair on my body zapped off, I can say "I'm bald." Doesn't matter what my "natural" state is, because nobody gives a damn what our "natural" states are, because we're not, well, natural.

Oh no, I'm at a disadvantage again because I don't believe in DaddyGod.

If you show me a picture of a cat with the caption "Ceiling Cat says ur councilman is not a gurl" I might give the argument serious consideration. Or, on second thought, maybe I won't because I learned all about logical fallacies in college.

Wow - yeah, because it's SUCH an advantage being female and running for political office, right? Give me a fucking break.

If that were the case, the majority of politicians in this country wouldn't be white men, but rather, black women.

Somebody better give Hillary Clinton a grope check - according to this reasoning, I think it's just Bill wearing a wig and trying to run as a woman in order to get voted into office.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

The election might not be fair because someone...identifies as female and started out biologically male?

So...we're assuming that the voting populace was voting based on someone's biological sex and/or their identified gender, not on, say, the platform the candidates were running on, or the issues they found important?

Wow.

My understanding is that she was born a hermaphrodite and has identified as a female her entire life. Makes the whole lawsuit even worse than the reasons espoused above. Looking for link...

My understanding is that she was born a hermaphrodite and has identified as a female her entire life. Makes the whole lawsuit even worse than the reasons espoused above. http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=61074

Wanting the world to be made of up women and men (and only those two) won't make it happen. Needing binary genders to keep your world view organized cannot change the reality of many humans with many varities of sex (at the chromosomal level as well as at the primary sex characteristic level (plumbing), and at the secondary sex characteristic level). So BTW and the rest of the world who cannot take ambiguity, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

Ariane, your comment lays bare the reality of our entire patriarchal, racist culture. People vote (as well as hire, fire, serve, address, etc) on the basis of race and gender, not on the basis of ideas, worth, performance, etc. It. makes. me. want. to. cry.

Sorry for the double post. Also just wanted to say that I have been lurking here on and off for quite some time, but the recent Lusty Linda (disgusting rape promoting pen holder)finally brought it to a head for me and decided to occasionally comment. As a male, y'all have really opened my eyes to how pervasive this stuff is. I can't even watch animal planet now without noticing these gender biases coming through in the narration...

KidCharlemagne - once your eyes have been opened it's impossible to close them. And it's bittersweet.

This story is maddening.

Some good news on this indeed totally ridiculous case:

The Georgia Secretary of State's office will not investigate allegations of election fraud in Riverdale.

"The inspector general will allow the issue to proceed through the legal process," spokesman Matt Carrothers said Wednesday.

Also check out Pridesource, calling the woman suing their "Creep of the Week." Indeed!

buffy, I'm not going to tolerate antitrans comments. consider this a warning.

"If you show me a picture of a cat with the caption "Ceiling Cat says ur councilman is not a gurl" I might give the argument serious consideration."

ahahahahahaha WIN!

there should totally be a counter-suit where Michelle Bruce sues Georgia Fuller because she ran as a blonde (instead of the "natural" brunnette she is) or as a blue-eyes person (instead of the green eyes she "naturally" has). im not sure if either one of those are true as i am speaking hypothetically for humour's sake here.

and jessica: thank you for giving them a warning

this story seemed specially relevant coming so soon after the trans day of remembrance. that day focused on violent attacks and assaults on trans individuals, usually by people angry about being "tricked" about the trans person's "real" gender.

i've been thinking that it's better that michelle bruce is being sued, rather than physically attacked, by people who believe themselves to have been "tricked". but the more i think about it, it's almost more scary to involve our government and justice system in meting out "punishment" to trans individuals who "trick" others. (lots of quote marks in this post!) it somehow legitimizes the complaint of the "tricked" person in a way that a physical assault would not.

SarahMC - Tell me about it. Another item on my constantly expanding list of things to be angry about and help try to fix.

Let's say a black person who often "passes" for white wins a city council seat against two other folks. Can you imagine one of the losers finding out the winner has a black mother/father/grandparent and suing on the grounds that "He's actually black!!"

"buffy, I'm not going to tolerate antitrans comments. consider this a warning."

Brilliant. Heaven forbid the First Amendment should hurt anyone's feelings. It's all funny until someone loses a penis.

But that's any more relevant to this issue than Buffy's comment. What's relevant is this: if she was a transsexual transitioning from male to female, but had not yet gotten a change in her legal status, and she checked a box on some candidate application form that said "Female," then she might be in real trouble. Not from the lawsuit, which is probably without merit in any case, but because the lawsuit might bring this legal inconsistency to light, and thereby invalidate her candidacy.

In which case, the person who brought the lawsuit would STILL be in second place. So, yes, it's obviously sour grapes. There's probably some trans hate mixed in there: but I think this is just motivated by hate, pure and simple. She'd have found some other reason to impugn her opponent's character if this one hadn't been available.

The lawsuit is especially despicable if Ms. Bruce was born a hermaphrodite, and amounts to an attempt to exclude people from public office on the basis office on the basis of their birth gender, something which, I don't know about you guys, I didn't have any control over.

Let me understand: Riverdale, GA a small hickville suburb of Atlanta had 700 voters turnout to elect a city councilwoman, who was born a hermaphrodite, who the male dominated medical profession selected female at birth, now must past a genital inspection so she can hold public office in this disgraceful little burb? Which is why this transexual women moved from Atlanta and Georgia to Chicago, a much trans-friendlier place to live. This reminds me of one of the last scenes in the "Crying Game," where Dill confronts the 'breasts' used to recruit her man. Furthermore, GOd is a male creation, which we all should suspect.

I should probably clarify. If someone is born a hermaphrodite, I think they should be allowed to check any freaking box they want. But if this lawsuit goes through, then any hermaphrodite who runs for office can be accused of lying for checking either box.

Frankly, boxes like on legal forms are silly. I'm not saying that a society doesn't have the right to uphold a binary understanding of gender, however stupid or limiting that may be: we do live in a democracy, after all. I'm just saying that boxes for "male" and "female", as well as boxes for "black", "white", "hispanic", "other," outside of official censuses, are just silly. People should be given a chance to think outside of them.

The complaint, identifying Ms. Bruce as “Michael Bruce,� says she misled voters by identifying herself as female.

I know that, in this case, the whole thing is being used for a political smear campaign, etc., and it absolutely seems hateful . . . but I think it is also important to remember that outside of circles like ours, trans issues are not well understood. My grandmother (in her eighties) asked at a family dinner last year what the different between transvestite and transsexual was--it was so great that she was honestly curious!--and I've had to explain to other family members as well what all the different terms mean, and how to understand sex & gender identification along all these different spectrums. Again, this isn't to excuse hateful words and actions, but it seems like we should remember that sometimes hateful-sounding words are spoken out of genuine misunderstanding, rather than deliberate anger or fear.

"Brilliant. Heaven forbid the First Amendment should hurt anyone's feelings. It's all funny until someone loses a penis."

kapek, it's pretty lol when people think that the first amendment guarantees them the right to spew hate on an internet blog. it's jessica's site; she can do whatever she wants. OMG DIKTATURSHIP?!

You know, if the voters feel they were defrauded, they can vote Ms. Bruce out of office in the next election, which shouldn't be in too long considering that she won her council seat four years ago. Until then, Ms. Fuller should shut up.

Just an FYI for those using the term "hermaphrodite". The correct term is "intersex".

Some reading: http://www.isna.org/faq/hermaphrodite

Thank you, Xana! I was just about to point that out. Using the term hermaphrodite is ignorant and offensive.

Like, it's a city council seat in bumfucksville. Get over it, you classless bigot.

petralyn - From what I read this was something that the whole town knew about (it is a small town, after all) and that she identified as female. She STILL got voted in. I think it is a case of one asshole who has a case of sour grapes. Not the whole town gathering in front of her house with pitchforks.

Also, I was first to use hermaphrodite. Not meaning to be offensive. I was just ignorant about that, but I don't think I am alone in that regard.

While some intersex people seek to reclaim the word “hermaphrodite� with pride to reference themselves (much like the words “dyke� and “queer� have been reclaimed by LBGT people), we’ve learned over the years it is best generally avoided, since the political subtlety is lost on a lot of people. (from ISNA link above)

Thanks for the link, Xana . . . like KidCharlemange, I never realized that "hermaphrodite" is a loaded word with negative connotations. I think it's sad, because language with mythological/historical roots (eg "lesbian") can often be powerful in positive ways. But I'll try to remember for future reference!

But, but, but, EG, "my daddy can beat up your daddy." OK, maybe he can't. Your daddy could be like really strong and stuff.

Seriously though, when, oh when, will gender no longer matter? If the candidate is well suited for the job and the voters elect said candidate, why do we even care if said candidate is female, male, or anything else? When will the world figure out that gender is relative and that people, regardless of gender, can be well suited for a job (even in politics) no matter how they identify? It's ridiculous that we're even still having to discuss these things in the year 2007.

gender will always matter as people will most likely never reach the point where they vote only with their minds and not their emotions. People like to identify with their representatives and this is not necessarily a bad thing.

This case is absurd though, I cannot understand actually filing a lawsuit because of this.

Question though in regards to the intersex: What do they do when it comes to a specific gender benefit? A woman's college scholarship for example. If I have a child and it is intersex, when it turns 17 and we're looking at funding college, would we be eligible for all possible scholarships?(within our ethnic group)

If they are defined as one gender or the other at birth but reject that, how are they treated when it comes to legal or financial benefits? I find this fascinating, if anyone could direct me to a site with this kind of information I'd appreciate it.

dananddanica: You might want to check out the website Intersex Society of North America for some more info: http://www.isna.org/faq/patient-centered

Usually, a gender is assigned (though this doesn't mean surgery) to the child. This can change as the child grows up and feels either more male or female. That's a very basic explanation of something very complex, but the website has some more info that explains it in more specific terms.

gender will always matter as people will most likely never reach the point where they vote only with their minds and not their emotions.

That's somewhat of a defeatist attitude, isn't it? How can you say with any certainty that so long as our world exists, gender will forever evoke an emotional response? Sure, miles to go and all that, but I think someday, gender will be as important as eye color. Someday.

Yes, Xana, thank you for the link. It's a really interesting site, and although I had some familiarity with the issue, I still learned a lot (including why not to use the term "hermaphrodite").

Like Kid Charlemagne, I'm pretty new to this blog, and just starting to comment now and again. It's always interesting, often funny, and a real eye-opener at times.

I found another article, even older than KidCharlemagne's. It's from 2004. So the people of Riverdale have known about Michelle Bruce's transgendered status since at least 2004.

http://www.sovo.com/2004/9-24/news/localnews/riverdale.cfm

And they still voted her in! In this little town in a conservative part of the country, they elected a transgendered person! So maybe this town doesn't deserve to be insulted, just Georgia Fuller and her like.

And obviously Fuller has very little to stand on if Michelle Bruce's transgendered status has been public knowledge for at least three years.

To all the people calling Riverdale, Georgia "bumfucksville" or "hickville"... I don't think it is alright to use such terms simply because it is a small town. From what I can tell from the article, it is not the townspeople, but the losing opponent who appears to have the issue. As prairielily said, the town has been aware of Ms. Bruce's status for years.

Actually, KidCharlemagne, you weren't the first one to use "hermaphrodite" here. Michelle Bruce was.

"Me being intersexed or a hermaphrodite, born with both sexes, thinking out of the box, if I was to work for the city of Riverdale, I am not protected."

In continuing to use the term myself, I was giving Ms. Bruce the benefit of the doubt. "Hermaphrodite" implies two fully formed, fully functioning sets of genitalia: "intersex" describes a single set that lies somewhere inbetween male and female, usually with an enlarged clitoris and vestigial testes.

Now, true hermaphrodites are extremely rare, so Ms. Bruce, more likely than not, was born intersexed. If she was, then I don't know why she chose to use the older term: perhaps she was trying to reclaim it, perhaps it was simply more understandable to the people of Riverdale, Georgia, or perhaps she wasn't aware that it really implies something fundamentally different from "intersexed." By applying it to herself, it implies that her female gender is a choice she is proud of, since a true hermaphrodite could just as easily employ surgery to become a male.

That definitely gives her cachet as a woman, but I'm not sure it helps her argument. The fact is that she didn't choose to be born intersexed, she probably didn't choose to be assigned a female gender (most intersexed infants are given immediate, misguided "corrective surgery") and she certainly deserves protection under the law from workplace discrimination. But if she wants to suggest that she did have a choice, and that she's proud of it, then without knowing her personally, I'm going to continue to use her terminology.

pineapple,
I agree we are very far from that point but I'm not entirely sure we want to get to the point where gender is only as important as eye color. Our gender informs our experiences and our views, at least to some degree. Even if we are able to progress as a civilization to the point where all people are equal, ones gender will still shape us as people in some way and thats not entirely a bad thing. It may just be another physical characteristic at that point but it would still be more important than eye color. My husband (the Dan part of Dan&Danica), is 6'5 and quite large. That physical presence has helped make him who he is today and I would say his gender has had an even more profound effect and always will. This will always translate at least somewhat into our representatives.

I've read the links provided above and thank you for them, I need to look into it more, those sites are bit light on specifics as to how intersex as a category would be treated. Its amazing when you stop and think how divided our world is by the binary sex paradigm.

"buffy, I'm not going to tolerate antitrans comments. consider this a warning."

To say that those born with female parts are female is antitrans? You're a fraud. You don't have the guts to discuss a topic. You bloviate and then call people who disagree with you haters and ban them. Chickenshit.

See, now THAT's the kind of disruptive invective that you can ban. Of course, you wouldn't have to, if you hadn't provoked it with a threat.

You know I was just getting used to how *nice* it was around here without all the trolls.

Apparently they came back.
On the plus side, I guess we know their spawning interval now.

To dananddanica, while I think gender is important on a personal level, why should it be important on a public level? Gender for example has no direct impact upon job performance, and it shouldn't influence our social rank.

I do think it is important on a personal, social level (which I think is the vein you were thinking in), in that it does shape and distort (good, bad, and grey) our lives in so many different ways as we bumble along in society. But I don't think it should matter publically.

But OTOH is somebody's birth sex important ever? Fuck no.

Except of course for our society's stupid tendency to limit one's genderfluidity based off of what parts they have to accessorize it with...

I think that if the voters had an issue with Ms Bruce's gender, she wouldn't have been elected. It's that simple.

Also, buffythewhite, you have /no idea/ how offensive your comments are to some of us. This is Jessica's blog, and the comments are under her discretion.

See, now THAT's the kind of disruptive invective that you can ban.

Actually, it's Jessica's blog, so she can ban any damn person she wants.

The first amendment protects buffy from government action based on her ridiculous religious bigotry. It doesn't mean that anybody else has to provide her with a platform from which to spew it.

EG, thank you. Beyond that, I'm sure that BTW knows just exactly how offensive her/his comments are, and that is precisely why s/he posts them.

Faerylore, that's what I was trying to say, but apparently did it badly. Though, dananddanica, I know lots of people disagree with me, but I don't see gender as a physical trait. Sex is. But gender is a social construct; I can no more point to my femininity than I can to my liberalness. I hold certain beliefs, and people call that liberal. I walk and talk and wear my hair a certain way, and people call that feminine.

EG, thank you. Beyond that, I'm sure that BTW knows just exactly how offensive her/his comments are, and that is precisely why s/he posts them.

Faerylore, that's what I was trying to say, but apparently did it badly. Though, dananddanica, I know lots of people disagree with me, but I don't see gender as a physical trait. Sex is. But gender is a social construct; I can no more point to my femininity than I can to my liberalness. I hold certain beliefs, and people call that liberal. I walk and talk and wear my hair a certain way, and people call that feminine.

Well, that's embarrassing.

This suit is silly.

I have a theologically-based question that someone here might be able to answer.

If G-d created everything, wouldn't that mean that G-d also created gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, and intersexed people? Wouldn't that mean that those people are just as loved by G-d as any others? And wouldn't that mean that people who believe in G-d should treat GLBTQI people with the same love and respect?

I've never understood why people who believe in religions that promote love and peace could be so hateful.

KMP, I'm not sure but I think the website is having hiccups and that's why it's double posting so many of our comments... or not showing them at all. Or it could be my connect, I dunno...

But yeah, I understood what you meant the first time, so I'm sorry I just repeated it all again, lol.

And I concur EG, but instead of giving them a stand, can we put them in a box?

Sorry anomrabbit, those thrice-damned queers was made by and for the devil. Hence all them horns. And the tail.

And how did you get religion all mixed up with love and respect?

(though I'll admit to being slightly disillusioned by ancient and modern religion)

Anomrabbit, that's exactly what it means. (My favorite part of India Arie's "Video" was when she said "And I know my Creator didn't make no mistakes on me.")

Faerylore, I meant that as a thank you. :-)

anomrabbit,

In response to your question about religion. I grew up in a very conservative, religious community in Michigan and went to a liberal arts college with strong religious ties. I knew (and know) many, many Christians who are committed to social justice and would say exactly what you have: that we are beautifully made by God and sexual orientation and sex/gender identity is all part of creation that we should embrace and nurture.

However, for people who are conservative on the sexuality issues, there are a couple of problems with that line of thinking.

The first is that many read the bible "literally" and there are a number of passages which do, on their face, appear to be condemnations of sexuality that's outside the heteronorm. Sort of like the people who take injunctions against women speaking in church literally: that is, in fact, in the bible--if you want to cherry-pick and make the argument that way, you can.

The other problem is that in a lot of conservative circles people think of sexual orientation as a behavior that can be changed. (And because of their biblical views, it's a negative behavior that ought to be changed). I honestly don't know how they think about intersex people . . . I don't think I've ever heard conservatives talk about that--as opposed to transsexuality, which I think they would also argue is a behavior/mental illness. But in terms of sexual orientation, they equate it with other behaviors which one might desire, but are destructive personally and socially.

The very religiously conservative father of a gay friend of mine, for example, thinks about homosexual desires as equivalent to masturbation--and he thinks individuals need to exercise self-control over those behaviors in order to sustain healthy, mutual (hetero) relationships.

So for people who don't believe in a literal reading of scripture OR that homosexuality is either a) a behavior and/or b) something bad, it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about these issues with conservatives . . . because we're often literally talking past one another!

"buffy, I'm not going to tolerate antitrans comments. consider this a warning."

"To say that those born with female parts are female is antitrans?"

It absolutely is anti-trans, and it is hateful because it contributes to the atmosphere of non-acceptance that trans people have to live within every day. When a trans person visits a liberal blog they shouldn't have to encounter the same kind of ignorance that they must deal with everywhere else. And if Jessica doesn't want to harbor it, then woo hoo for Jessica.

You (Buffy) seem to have an incomplete understanding of the difference between sex and gender and the fluidity of those categories. You should probably read some books before you spew your hatred and ignorance over people who have really dealt with enough already.

but because the lawsuit might bring this legal inconsistency to light, and thereby invalidate her candidacy.

I'm not quite sure if I understand what you mean by "legal inconsistency"... is the inconsistency that only *some* people are allowed to choose their sex? If so, then I'd suggest the solution is to let anyone decide how they want to be legally defined. The effect of this, of course, is that sex will cease to have any legal significance. Huh, actually that sounds like not such a bad idea.

I agree we are very far from that point but I'm not entirely sure we want to get to the point where gender is only as important as eye color. Our gender informs our experiences and our views, at least to some degree.

But doesn't our eye color also inform our experiences? For instance, there are actors with piercing blue eyes who get roles (and are rejected) in part because of the appearance of their eyes -- actors with piercing blue eyes are more likely to be cast as villains because it is a noticeable trait that, although attractive, does not inspire trust for some reason. So I would argue that eye color *does* affect our lives and people's perceptions of and reactions to us to some extent -- so making sex carry about the same amount of import would actually still leave plenty of room for it to have an effect on our lives :)

annajcook, you're right that a lot of religious conservatives feel bound by a "literalist" interpretation of the Bible (this is a really imprecise term, though, because most of them actually *don't* take the whole Bible literally -- for instance, a lot of these same people are also the ones who will tell you that the book of Revelation contains prophecies told in parable or allegorical, rather than literal, form). However, the sincerely, *actually* compassionate conservative Christians really don't care all that much about homosexuality. They think it's probably a sin, but we're all sinners, and it's no worse than any other sin. An intellectually honest reading of the Bible compels the conclusion that the *worst* sins are greed, hatred, blasphemy/idolatry, and pride. Sadly, a lot of "literal Bible" Christians commit these sins on a regular basis. My mom is a conservative Christian who thinks homosexuality is probably sinful. Guess what? She really doesn't care. She gets along with and genuinely likes my gay friends (she's even met them for drinks/coffee even when I am not around), and I have never heard her make a judgmental comment. She even helped my sister move into her apartment, which she's sharing with her boyfriend (and therefore living in sin). Compassionate, sensible Christians understand that who you have sex with, while it may have moral or spiritual implications, really is not the most important factor in how well you follow Christ. People can live lives that please God even if they aren't angels in the bedroom. What a thought.

Law Fairy,

I agree with you that many Christians, even very conservative ones, aren't fixated on the sexuality issue. I was specifically responding to anomrabbit's question about why some Christians would have an issue with sexual orientation, etc.

I'm glad you added your thoughts. I think we could all use the reminder that "Christian" does not always equal "hateful."

Oh, definitely, annajcook, I think we're in agreement. My tendency on these issues sometimes is just to jump in an pontificate if I see a "buzzword" or two here or there ;)

And I'm always happy to spread the word that we aren't all hateful bigots (although I wouldn't really call myself a "conservative Christian" anymore, the "Christian" part has definitely stuck. Incidentally, my gay priests are among the kindest, most spiritually evolved people I've ever met).

As for Michelle Bruce, I feel for her. This whole lawsuit is ridiculous and it would be insane for it not to be thrown out... being a woman a political advantage? Suuure.

However there is something else that bothers me, and that is the shutdown of any discussion regarding transsexuality that is not extremely supportive, or that somehow seems to question the change to the definition of gender in any way whatsoever.

I agree that hateful comments warrant deletion but I don't think that discussion on the issue itself should be shutdown as transphobic. The entire issue is a very divisive one amongst us feminists. I don't deny the existence nor the rights of, nor the humanity of transpeople at all, and they are human and deserve to be loved just as the rest of us do. It just seems to me that there is this meme going around the feminist population here and elsewhere that has people wired to a knee-jerk reaction of "that person a.) doesn't understand the trans movement or b.) does not agree that transwomen should be allowed in women's only space or c.) is criticising an aspect of transsexuality or d.) knows nothing about the movement and is acting innocent but probing questions and therefore is a transphobic bigot from hell." The majority of people who visit feministing are very open people. I wouldn't write them, nor their curiousity, nor even their opinions as feminists off so quickly.

The idiots persecuting Michelle Bruce for something so personal, for her gender/crossing over! Now *that* is bigotry :\

Oh I should add: I'm not condoning buffythewhite's comments above, nor do I think they contribute to any sort of "discussion". That was pure, hateful trolling (obviously)

But I've seen conversation regarding transgender shut down elsewhere before, even when completely civil. Often completely innocent, though perhaps also ignorant, questions are responded to with a slew of "omg you transphobic bastard" responses. I just wanted to bring it up in case it happened here too. cheers ~ emmag

Frankly, emmag, anybody who is opposed to allowing transwomen into women-only spaces is indeed being a bigot. They're claiming that transwomen aren't "real" women, as deserving of women's safe spaces as cisgendered women. I've seen that argument advanced a number of times, and I've never seen it supported by anything other than "they're not real women and they give me the creeps."

my first comment: asking* innocent questions, not acting D:

EG: to write off a the feelings of a ciswoman who is nervous about allowing a person, even a woman-born-trans who is physically male into a women-born-women's-only space, particularly when such a space may be reserved for rape victims or those who have been targeted by violent males, is equally bigoted.

And we will obviously disagree on this.

My point is that the feminist community is hugely divided on this very sensitive issue, and you can't just silence people with whom you disagree by using the word "bigot". These issues need* to be discussed further in order for us to get anywhere.

I know what you are saying, emmag, but I'm not sure it's possible to have a civil, open discussion with a person who mistakenly believes "those [god] gives vaginas to are female." Vaginas are not the only physical characteristic "females" possess.
BTW compared being intersex with "wearing a gorilla suit" to masquerade as a gorilla, as though there aren't truly people born intersexed.

SarahMC... I said above I wasn't referring to buffythewhite

("Oh I should add: I'm not condoning buffythewhite's comments above, nor do I think they contribute to any sort of "discussion". That was pure, hateful trolling (obviously)")

KMP, lol, you're welcome. :)

Emmag I would like to believe that there is room enough in the world for everybody to have both their own space, and to be able to come together to celebrate what they have in common.

In my opinion a lot of times, transpeople are excluded as a means to itself, and are prevented from celebrating openly with the rest of the community.

That's where I have the problem, sometimes when they (or any other Othered group) are excluded it is done so knowing that they don't have anywhere else to go.

Or it is done using the excuse of women who are afraid of 'men', when the space or whatever isn't specifically for ciswomen who've been raped (I'm thinking of that one womens' music festival). I have issues with such exclusionary tactics then.

The thing to remember about the Michfest, Faerylore, is that it was in the minority; most women's festivals welcome transpeople and that is obviously not a bad thing, but the problem is that when women's-only groups or spaces are designated and needed (and when they are legitimately restricted to women who were physically born female), the outcry often ensues that they are bigoted against transwomen and often forces them to shut down.

I think that there is almost unanimous support for transpeople within the feminist community (which is a good thing!), but not, as you say, within society in general. However a transwoman is not the same (I am speaking in the physical sense only, of course) as a woman-born-woman, and it's unfortunate but true; which is what makes these discussions of exclusion/inclusion so sticky and complex and dangerous. I'm not even sure where I stand on all these points yet. But I don't think being reactionary is the solution.

Often completely innocent, though perhaps also ignorant, questions are responded to with a slew of "omg you transphobic bastard" responses.

emmag, this echoes something I was fumbling to say earlier by talking about my grandma's questions about transsexuality! As activists, I think it behooves us to remember that not everyone understands the permutations and language of gender identity issues. I managed to make it through a Women's Studies major (!) at my Midwestern liberal arts college without ever encountering the word "cisgender," for example (thanks Bitch magazine for introducing it to me in this past summer's issue!).

I know that there are legitimate reasons to be angry about the stereotypes, hatred, and violence surrounding sexual identity and sexual orientation--and that straight and cisgendered people (like myself) really do need to grapple with our unconscious privilege. Just like guys need to grapple with the unasked-for privilege that comes with being male. And I also realize that there are feminists who take a very gender-essentialist stand (or whatever we want to call it), like at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. So there's a history of conflict here.

But I really hope that, despite all of the reasons for distrust and animosity, that conversations don't get shut down often, even when they begin in places of ignorance . . . because otherwise, we aren't going to be able to have the sort of conversations that open minds and change the culture!

I think that there is almost unanimous support for transpeople within the feminist community (which is a good thing!)

That's just not true. I wish it were, but it's not. There is a history of violent ostracism within second-wave feminism, not only of transwomen, but of the women who love them, and those attitudes continue to the present day. UK mainstream press, including the left-leaning press, regularly runs screeds by transphobic feminists such as Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys.

Further, I'm not sure what rape has to do with whether or not transwomen are included in women-only events. A vanishingly small number of rapes are committed by transwomen. So what difference would their presence make? And I have no idea what you could mean by "equally bigoted." It's the anti-transwomen contingent that's setting itself up as gatekeepers over who gets to be a woman.

What it comes to is that I am opposed to groups that are organized around privilege. White-only, male-only, straight-only, cis-only--none of that is acceptable to me. We live in a society in which members of dominant groups are encouraged to think that they are the world. We don't need more of that.

EG: I've just found that on most blogs, there is a good deal acceptance towards transpeople. I guess I haven't thought of the opinions of individual communists as voices of mainstream feminism.. but I suppose I can't speak generalizations either, regarding what "mainstream feminism" is.

Annajcook: "But I really hope that, despite all of the reasons for distrust and animosity, that conversations don't get shut down often, even when they begin in places of ignorance . . . because otherwise, we aren't going to be able to have the sort of conversations that open minds and change the culture!"

Exactly... thanks for wording that better than I did :)

As an intersexual girl... or those of you that seem to hang onto old terms.... I would be a pseudohermaphrodite... I was born with a penis and ovaries...no testicles.... What does that make me, if I were the one who one this election? A freak? A boy? A girl? Does it really matter? I just wish that for one day, someone who wants to be so mean and hurt those like me and my sisters in the transgendered world... Maybe... just maybe, they could understand even a little... I live in Kansas, a very conservative bible belt state, and as you can imagine, before I could pass as a woman totally, I couldn't tell anyone... Thankfully I have the support of my family... I don't mean to get off topic here, but our society is so ignorant about us girls, and just what we go through, and the choices we have to make to even function as human beings.... I wouldn't be here right now, if I couldn't be me... Who would want to? I didn't ask to be born the way I am, but I won't complain about it either... I wouldn't be the woman I am now, if not for the hardships, and even violence i have gone through... I just feel like this is nothing but sour grapes, as so many of you have said... but also ignorance... I just hang on to the hope...that some day.... :(

WHOA

what is wrong with my brain tonight xD

columnists, not communists

and "I can't speak generalizations either, regarding what "mainstream feminism" is": what I mean to say is, I was speaking for my experience with other feminists only and cannot speak, logically, for all

so I was admitting that perhaps I am wrong on that point

Whoooaaaa.... wait a minute... My screenname is traci_tsgirl, and wrote the message as follows.....
"As an intersexual girl... or those of you that seem to hang onto old terms.... I would be a pseudohermaphrodite... I was born with a penis and ovaries...no testicles.... What does that make me, if I were the one who one this election? A freak? A boy? A girl? Does it really matter? I just wish that for one day, someone who wants to be so mean and hurt those like me and my sisters in the transgendered world... Maybe... just maybe, they could understand even a little... I live in Kansas, a very conservative bible belt state, and as you can imagine, before I could pass as a woman totally, I couldn't tell anyone... Thankfully I have the support of my family... I don't mean to get off topic here, but our society is so ignorant about us girls, and just what we go through, and the choices we have to make to even function as human beings.... I wouldn't be here right now, if I couldn't be me... Who would want to? I didn't ask to be born the way I am, but I won't complain about it either... I wouldn't be the woman I am now, if not for the hardships, and even violence i have gone through... I just feel like this is nothing but sour grapes, as so many of you have said... but also ignorance... I just hang on to the hope...that some day.... :("
It is showing me as someone else, by the screenname of "emmag".. That is not me, so I don't know what the deal is, but wanted to correct this.. And I did not write any of his or her messages on this forum, so please make note of that.. ty.... :)

The posts going by the screenname of "traci_tsgirl" are apparently from the person showing up as the screenname on my messages.... I would asssume its a woman, going by the name of "emmag" I have no issue with what her posts are, but that is not me... I wish I hadn't said anything now....

traci_tsgirl, I see your posts tagged correctly?

maybe it's a glitch on your browser? don't worry about it :)

traci_tsgirl, thanks for sharing your story :)

thank you Emma...I certainly meant no disrespect to your postings... Its just showing up as your name on my messages, and mine on yours... Thank you so much for your dear message..
I am even seeing a message before yours, saying not to worry about my messages... and they are showing up from myself... lol nutty internet... Thanks sweetie :) And to the other poster, thank you as well :)

Thank you for your story traci_tsgirl. I am so glad that this site is providing a space to discuss all of these issues.

Thanks for the response, annajcook. I appreciate it.

A friend of mine pointed something out to me, though: intersexed is not the same as transgendered.
A few of you (way above) mentioned that Ms Bruce might be in some legal trouble if she checked the "wrong box" for the gender category on some legal forms.
If Ms Bruce was "assigned" "female" when she was born, then she has considered herself to be "female" her entire life -- there would never be a problem with her checking the "wrong box" (for "male") on a legal document.

Whoops, I meant "sex category". Also, lots of tick marks in that comment :-)

It's an interesting argument and I agree with a poster above, one neednt be 100% "pro" intersex in this debate while fleshing out ones own understanding of the issue.

I discussed this last night with a few friends and while they are all understanding, there were quite a few people who were having a hard time working through some things. It may just be that the strict binary sex culture is so entrenched in our minds but the issue was, if you accept and legally codify "genders" outside of male and female, would there be only one other choice? Meaning would there be male, female, intersex or would their be several divisions within intersex? Moving past the idea of simple right and wrong and into the legal complexities of such an issue was quite befuddling to some of the group.

It's similar to an argument I've been having for years in regard to the hetero/homosexual debate. Should we just get rid of those two labels as human sexuality isnt contained simply in gay and straight but in a rainbow of sexual orientations? One can say that some people (1,5,10%, whichever study you like) are born gay but is sexual orientation truly fated? Meaning, and this is the argument that stuck in my craw but I really couldnt defeat it, if you took 100% of the people who at this moment in time described themselves as gay, would that same 100% describe themselves as gay in 1 month, 10 years? Its the problem with labels and defining people and groups by them.

Lastly one could say get rid of the labels but that will simply never happen, especially as some people are proud to claim them. It is all terribly vexxing.

Law Fairy,
I understand what your saying about the possible effects ones eye color could have on ones life but I do not believe it is nearly on the same level as ones sex.
Personal experiences shade everything, you mentioned the movie star with blue eyes, I do not think that compares to different experience men and women have with their own bodies in total.
I think if you were to add up all the things informed by your female body, a lot of them often forgotten about in day to day life, you will see what I'm getting at.

People almost always either want to identify themselves by gender or frame their personal understanding of the world on it. Hopefully in 50 years that may be different. (50 is an average, might take 200 here in the states, 10 in the nordic countries)

Meaning, and this is the argument that stuck in my craw but I really couldnt defeat it, if you took 100% of the people who at this moment in time described themselves as gay, would that same 100% describe themselves as gay in 1 month, 10 years? Its the problem with labels and defining people and groups by them.

dananddanica, I think the argument might not stick in your craw so much if we thought about it in terms of people who identify as "heterosexual" today and where they are in ten years . . . I've been pretty hetero all my life, but who know if I might someday end up in a relationship with a woman?

I, personally, prefer to use that example because it helps people avoid the trap of hetero=good/homo=bad thinking. It doesn't raise the spectre the "ex-gay" movement. Saying I MIGHT find myself in love with or sexually attracted to a woman is way different than arguing I should TRY to develop romantic feelings exclusively for women because that's BETTER than sexual/romantic feelings for men.

The difference between exploring concepts of gender/orientation fluidity and the ex-gay movements conception of mutable sexual orientation, is that they're saying one is RIGHT and the other is WRONG. Whereas you/we are just exploring the idea that categories are more permeable.

Does that help at all?

Dananddanica, I think you might also be using "gender" and "sex" interchangeabley, which they are not. That might help with some of the confusion. Although, technically speaking, I don't want either sex or gender to figure into my electoral decisions.

pineapple,
looking back at my post i did use them a bit haphazardly, sorry about that, quite a long day. I can understand you not wanting it to but I dont see how one can ever completely separate it from critical thinking decisions.

Anna,
That argument "stuck in my craw" because I couldnt readily counter it. You bring up a good step to that but still falls prey to the same argument, if we move away from the binary, what do we move to? not just in an idea sense but in a legal sense. The feedback is very helpful but I will still need some time to flesh out my thoughts not just on the ideas, but on their ramifications.

The complaint, identifying Ms. Bruce as “Michael Bruce,�

Since Ms. Bruce's legal name is and always has been Michelle (“I’ve always been Michelle,� she said.) then it would seem to me that she has no legal obligation to respond to the suit since she hasn't been named as the defendant.

"a transwoman is not the same (I am speaking in the physical sense only, of course) as a woman-born-woman, and it's unfortunate but true; which is what makes these discussions of exclusion/inclusion so sticky and complex and dangerous"

In what way? And if there were no such difference, what then? It seems to me that it's only technology. 100 years ago sexchange surgery wasn't available -

Thought experiment. A transsexual girl has sex change surgery at 10, pre puberty, and takes hormones from then. Ok, she has no ovaries or womb, but presumably the "womyn born womyn" types don't exclude everyone who has had a hysterectomy? What differences are there? And I don't accept DNA either, no-one's doing DNA swabs to decide.

I have been a woman all my life. I've been disadvantaged by having to live a lot of it with a male body, and I see that as a particularly severe birth defect, reinforced by a lot of social bigotry. People like Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel have had their argument repeatedly eviscerated on the UK Guardian's comment is free site, and we're not hearing so much bigotry from them lately. What's nice is that cissexual people on that blog - which is far from generally feminist - also disagree with Julie's views, maybe because she's just not logical.

As to buffy - God made me a woman, but with a huge challenge to overcome - and I do have a vagina, so - according to you, I can get out of the gorilla suit?

Am I missing something, or is the only way for the plaintiffs to win on this thing for a judge to declare that gender discrimination is legitimate in matters of public office?

I should probably clarify. If someone is born a hermaphrodite, I think they should be allowed to check any freaking box they want. But if this lawsuit goes through, then any hermaphrodite who runs for office can be accused of lying for checking either box.

Luckily, most of the laws regarding allegedly false official statements require the statement not only to be knowingly false but also material (i.e. of relevance to making the decision in question, in this case allowing an otherwise qualified person to run for public office).

In continuing to use the term myself, I was giving Ms. Bruce the benefit of the doubt. "Hermaphrodite" implies two fully formed, fully functioning sets of genitalia: "intersex" describes a single set that lies somewhere inbetween male and female, usually with an enlarged clitoris and vestigial testes.

Actually, "hermaphrodite" is an obsolete (and rather offensive) term that has been replaced with "intersexed". They are used interchangeably.

to write off a the feelings of a ciswoman who is nervous about allowing a person, even a woman-born-trans who is physically male into a women-born-women's-only space, particularly when such a space may be reserved for rape victims or those who have been targeted by violent males, is equally bigoted.

This is a rather odd statement, and could apply equally well to the exclusion of any group based on stereotypes. The same arguments, if one can call them that, have been used at various times to exclude gays and lesbians, anyone not white, and just about any Other you can name.

It is particularly asinine when only trans women are singled out for this sort of discrimination. It's quite odd that the Michigan Some Women's Music Festival is perfectly happy to allow people in who are physically male, enjoy male privilege, and identify as male to participate, while excluding women to whom none of the above applies.

There is no rational justification for this sort of thing. It is based purely on irrational prejudices and stereotypes; hence, "bigoted" is about the kindest thing one can say about it.