Doing Heterosexuality
Screen grab from Vice.com.
Yesterday, Vice posted a heartwarming story about Marco and Sadie, a Williamsburg pair whose sexual orientation identities are “in limbo.”
See, Sadie fell in love with Marco when he was Erica. And for two and a half years, the couple identified as a lesbian one.
Since Marco began transitioning — he has removed the top, and is scheduled for bottom surgery in 2013 — he now identifies as a man. More importantly, for the purposes of this post at least, he identifies as a heterosexual man. Vice’s Lilly O’Donnell writes:
“Suddenly, at age 25, when Sadie thought she had a pretty good idea of who she was and had become comfortable identifying as a lesbian, she has found herself in a committed, heterosexual relationship with a man. And not just with any man, but one who wants to distance himself from any queer identity he once had, taking Sadie with him.”
The article goes on to reveal Marco’s childhood diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder, a term found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that describes the condition of a person who identifies as transgender or who fails to behave as the gender to which he or she was assigned at birth. The piece also articulates how the sex-reassignment of one person in a relationship can impact how both partners view their sexuality: Sadie looks for answers and advice on how to navigate her situation and emotions, and seeks out support groups (which ultimately don’t work) and friends (who do). She eventually enters therapy, and seems to have an enviably clear mind about her position, approaching it in a healthy, reasonable, and open way. That levelheadedness is important, because sexual attraction and sex (the erotic kind) are, well, a big fucking deal. As Jezebel’s Laura Beck points out, “to ignore the implications that it has on the other person seems like not attending to a potentially very problematic situation.”
In short, Sadie seems to be doing everything right. (Sure, calling herself a “failed lesbian” raises a few flags, but I’ll cut a sister some slack for trying to keep it light-hearted.) I don’t worry about their relationship one bit.
However, there are some complex questions — a lot of questions — the piece touches on that deserve further exploration. Sadie raises one of them when she talks about her and Marco’s relationship qualifier: “He wants to be in a heterosexual relationship, but I feel like presenting it that way is inauthentic. We’re not. We’re just not.”
She brings up kids, and the importance of being honest about their father’s history. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, she adds.
So we wonder: Can a formerly lesbian couple label themselves hetero? The most obvious, simple answer is yes, of course. After all, everyone is different and not all want to be recognized as trans. (It’s no wonder. As the Vice article points out “90 percent of transgender people report having been harassed and mistreated, according to a 2011 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality.”)
But it’s problematic. As a term, heterosexuality isn’t just a way to organize erotic encounters. It covers a wide swath of social life, bringing with it an ideology and practice that marginalizes and polices those who step outside its prescribed, limiting boundaries of gender and sexuality. By identifying themselves as a straight couple, Sadie and Marco align with and live within heteronormative notions of sex, gender, and sexuality — precarious constructs that are sustained only by defining “normality” and in turn inventing a marginalized other. Is that what they want? To assimilate to hetero and cis domination?
This institutionalized vision of the normal is demonstrated in the way the pair felt when they would go out during the earlier stages of Marco’s transition:
Sadie and Marco both recall occasions when they were out together and a stranger would wonder aloud whether Marco was a man or a woman. That kind of gawking could ruin an evening. “It was weird,” Sadie describes. “I had gotten comfortable being out in public as a lesbian couple, but I wasn’t comfortable being out in a visibly trans couple. People stared.”
To be clear, gender can be subjective, and a person should feel free to gel with whatever number of the gazillion cultural images that have been imprinted onto his or her unconscious. (Side note: Why non-trans people often display so much discomfort when they can’t decipher one’s sex and/or gender has to do with terms of social interaction set by heterosexuality. Every encounter in a compulsively hetero environment is gender-encoded. People are constantly proving their womaness or manness with small social cues. When people deviate from those terms, others often don’t know whether to treat them as a man or woman. Gasp!)
There are arguments positing that transitioning is a shame act and misogynistic. As one Vice commenter points out:
The whole “trans” thing is a myth and is perpetuated by a rigid gendered society … If this wasnt such a gendered society, people woudnt endure surgery and hormones to mutilate their healthy bodies.
But that is a whole other think piece, and not my point. (For the purposes of this piece, if there is a gulf between the way one feels on the inside and outside, that person should feel free to fix that. If they are doing it because of cultural expectations, we should change such impositions so those who are not good candidates for surgery don’t feel pressure to go under the knife.)
Instead, the problem is Marco distancing himself “from any queer identity he once had.” It’s a problem first because it’s impossible: having “the surgery” still defies gender norms imposed by the hetero industrial complex. But it’s also an issue because those who are subjugated have to take charge of how society views them. By heternormative standards, he’s trading up. So this complete disavowal of his former self perpetuates the problems associated with how heteronormativity limits people’s ability to realize their full selves. As an institution that reaches far beyond who’s got what under the sheets, it enforces things like what’s “natural” and what’s “deviant.” It is a political system, maintaining identities that reflect positions of power.
By crossing over, Marco questioned all of this. However, by identifying as heterosexual, Marco reinforces the same heterosexist social norms and oppressive structures that he subverted/violated in the first place.
Surely, part of the problem is language and its limitations — we like to neatly categorize gender, sex, and sexuality when there are many, many shades of gray and many, many contradictions. We’re compulsive labelers. For instance, bisexuals often claim a big umbrella for transpersons in relationships. But that’s problematic, too. Take a MTF who only has sex with men. Is she bisexual? And are we talking cis men, transmen, queer-identified, all of the above?
To be clear, Marco and Sadie obviously aren’t living in the shadows of hetero privilege. They’ve shared their story with the world. But labeling as heterosexual — probably labeling in general — does a disservice to those facing situations similar to their own. Furthermore, Marco was socialized as a woman. To ignore that insight is not helpful to the larger community. How the pair define their relationship may be up to them, but ultimately, it’s not about only them.
For the record, I’m trans, a woman, and pansexual (with a heavy lean toward lesbian).
“There are arguments positing that transitioning is a shame act and misogynistic. As one Vice commenter points out:
“The whole “trans” thing is a myth and is perpetuated by a rigid gendered society … If this wasnt such a gendered society, people woudnt endure surgery and hormones to mutilate their healthy bodies.”"
It’s not a myth, that vice commentator needs to actually learn what they’re talking about before talking, and you should probably avoid quoting ignorant cis people and then addressing them like they’re saying something sensible.
Our bodies don’t match our minds. That’s all. If I’d been born in a society with total freedom of gender expression and orientation, I’d still have wanted to alter my body. Hell, I spent years altering my appearance without giving much of a shit about cultural expectations. If I was going to cave in to “culture” I’d have caved in by living a male life instead, since that would have been much much easier.
“By crossing over, Marco questioned all of this. However, by identifying as heterosexual, Marco reinforces the same heterosexist social norms and oppressive structures that he subverted/violated in the first place.”
It’s not his job to fix the serious gender problems in out society. And telling him that it is is volunteering him for a lifetime of strife and harassment, possibly ending in murder. So don’t do that.
“For instance, bisexuals often claim a big umbrella for transpersons in relationships.”
Pics or it didn’t happen.
There are fewer issues if you’re trans and you have relationships with people who are bi (or poly/pan/sapiosexual, to pick labels that don’t enforce that pesky and inaccurate binary notion). But the two things are different issues (albeit with some overlap).
“Take a MTF who only has sex with men. Is she bisexual?”
No, she’s heterosexual. Because she’s a woman having sex with men. Why are you making an issue of that?
“And are we talking cis men, transmen, queer-identified, all of the above?”
It doesn’t matter. If they are men, and she exclusively has sex with men, then she’s heterosexual.
On the cis/trans front, why would that ever be relevant?
On the queer front, why would it matter? They’re men, so her having sex with them is a heterosexual act. If some of them are not hetero, so what? The only potential issue would be them claiming to be totally homosexual (and therefore claiming that she was a man), but that’s not what bothers you.
Also, why have you missed the space out of the phrase “trans men”? You managed to get it in “cis men”.
“How the pair define their relationship may be up to them, but ultimately, it’s not about only them.”
It isn’t anybody else’s business. Get over it. If you accept the notion that a trans man is a man then there is no issue here and your entire article is a waste of words. So either you haven’t accepted that or you haven’t thought through the implications. Either way, telling binary hetero trans people that they aren’t allowed to be hetero is a remarkably hostile move, and the implications of it are going to put binary queer trans people against you too. I don’t have any hetero privilege to protect, but here in this article you’re denying my womanhood.
Hi aumentou,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. To your first point, I include that quote just to address the issue/get it out of the way to keep the comment section from getting hung up on it. I don’t think I write anything disputing your point about surgery. 2-4) I am defining heterosexuality as bigger than the sum of body parts, something that dictates nonsexual relations as well.
Furthermore, I’m not sure where you get I’m volunteering Marco for a “lifetime of strife” since I quote the harassment statistic earlier in the piece as a very real reason why one would not want to live openly as a trans person. The point I’m making is some labels, created by the heteropower structure, are problematic, limiting, and oppressive. Let’s avoid them. (Why do we feel compelled to use labels in the first place?)
Why my FTM example is relevant is because institutionalized heterosexuality denies the sexual fluidity that your comment expresses. I define the term trans men as female-bodied persons who identify with masculinity/manhood and may or may not have SRS. I agree that a trans man is a man, but heterosexual norms often do not recognize it that way.
I don’t deny the couple or anyone else the choice to identify any way they see fit. I just agree with Sadie when she says that using the term heterosexuality is not authentic; granted, I don’t think “authentic” is the most constructive word choice, but let’s not deny the hierarchical social relations on which heterosexuality depends. However, if you want to argue that I am conflating a critique of heterosexuality as an institution with a condemnation of heterosexuals, including binary hetero trans people, I’d say that’s a fair point (even if I don’t agree with it).
“Hi Remie,”
First I wondered why you said that. Then I realised you were taking it off my email address. First, oddly enough, “Remiel” isn’t my real name. Second, giving out my name or part thereof (if it were my real name in the email adress) is pretty problematic. I might not want that splashing all over the net. Why not use the name I put up there, the one I chose to put in the “name” box?
“I am defining heterosexuality as bigger than the sum of body parts, something that dictates nonsexual relations as well.”
Then I think one problem is your definition. If you take labels which were made as adjectives to describe orientations and start using them to describe non-sexual lifestyle choices, then they will lose some, possibly most, possibly all meaning.
“Furthermore, I’m not sure where you get I’m volunteering Marco for a “lifetime of strife” since I quote the harassment statistic earlier in the piece as a very real reason why one would not want to live openly as a trans person.”
But you are demanding that he not describe himself as heterosexual. Since he is a man who is (as far as we know) exclusively attracted to women describing himself as heterosexual is simply honest. If he stops describing himself as heterosexual what is he going to say instead? Either he describes himself with some other orientation, thereby claiming attractions other than women that he does not actually feel (and hence lying), or he outs himself as trans.
If you don’t want him to out himself as trans, and you don’t want him to lie, then the only option left is to describe himself as heterosexual.
“The point I’m making is some labels, created by the heteropower structure, are problematic, limiting, and oppressive.”
The label isn’t limiting for him if it’s accurate for him. As for being problematic and oppressive, that’s a fault with the structure, not a fault with the label (in this case).
“Let’s avoid them. (Why do we feel compelled to use labels in the first place?)”
Well, one genuinely useful reason is to rapidly narrow the pool of potential relationship partners.
“Why my FTM example is relevant is because institutionalized heterosexuality denies the sexual fluidity that your comment expresses.”
If the “sexual fluidity” referred to is my own, then yes, I’d noticed. But here’s the thing: it’s not his fight. It’s my fight, and maybe your fight (I’m assuming yes), and a bunch of other people’s fight, but for this heterosexual guy it isn’t his. It would be nice if he was a supporter, an ally, whatever you want to call it. That would be good. But we can’t make him do that, because ultimately it’s not his fight. If he chooses to walk away from it that’s his business.
Trying to make him join in is counter-productive for two reasons: One, because it’s likely to be really obvious to him that it isn’t his fight, and telling him it is will insult his intelligence and probably make him pretty angry with you (and hence less inclined to support your/our cause). And two because the way you’re doing it looks a lot like degendering him, which will piss off a lot of trans people and any cis people who’ve been paying attention to what we actually want.
“I define the term trans men as female-bodied persons…”
The phrase “female-bodied” is rather problematic, partly because it defines bodily sex purely in terms of cis people and partly because at some stage in a medical transition it ceases to have any meaning.
This guy has a flat chest and a T-level that would bar him from the “female” sections of the olympics. How then do you call him “female-bodied”? And where in transition will you stop? Apparently never, since you also say:
“…may or may not have SRS.”
So someone with a high T level, flat chest, beard, no gonads of any type, and a penis is “female-bodied” in your view?
And if you never stop calling them “female-bodied”, what precisely does it take to get you to stop viewing trans men as something other than men? Since in your view they will always be “female-bodied” men, which is obviously different from “male-bodied” men (which would be the assumed default if you just said “men”).
Also, I’m going to take a moment to point out how wonderfully high-handed you’re coming across here. You’ve looked at the knotty problems of what constitutes “(fe)male-bodied” and just run with whatever takes your fancy, without even trying to draw a line in the complicated plethora of options that exist and without even acknowledging there is a problem with the term. Not cool and not helping.
“I don’t deny the couple or anyone else the choice to identify any way they see fit. I just agree with Sadie when she says that using the term heterosexuality is not authentic;”
There is a contradiction between the first sentence and the second one here. If this relationship is between a man and a woman then it is a heterosexual relationship*. You aren’t disputing that she’s a woman, so you must be disputing that he’s a man. Do you really not see the problem with that?
*though the relationship being so doesn’t preclude the people involved not being so. In this instance we can be pretty sure she’s not heterosexual.
“if you want to argue that I am conflating a critique of heterosexuality as an institution with a condemnation of heterosexuals”
No, actually, although that would also be bad.
My point is that you don’t seem to have understood that this man is a man. Your entire article is based on this degendering, because if you accept that he’s a man the question of his orientation just goes away in one word. So you’re degendering him, and presumably by extension me and every other trans person in the world.
To put it another way, Marco is a heterosexual man and therefore not on team queer, while I am a mostly-lesbian woman (who happens to be trans) and therefore on the team! If you try to keep Marco on the team you deny his gender, which by extension denies me my gender, and leaves me out in the cold wondering who the fuck has my back. Let him go and he will be able to make the choice to be an ally (or not, such is the risk). Try and keep him in this way and you will probably make him hate you, while simultaneously alienating trans women who would otherwise be quite enthusiastic about flying rainbow flags.
I hope that explains the problem.
Sorry about that, fixed!
I don’t think Erika is being “remarkably hostile” here. I think she is, rather, critiquing the fetishization of sexual identity period: “By identifying as heterosexual, Marco reinforces the same heterosexist social norms and oppressive structures.”
These polarized and polarizing identities–queer, lesbian, bi, trans, whatever–enact the same violence that marginalizes those identities in the first place.
I acknowledge the need for identity politics in their proper sphere, which is of course the political realm. We need queer and trans identities to secure queer and trans rights. But in other contexts, such as social critique, it doesn’t make sense to get up in arms about “I’m not this, I’m THAT” or “He had sex with her, so that makes him a _____!” What’s at stake here–agreeing with Erica’s comments–is the dissolution of a violent sexual identification at the level of hegemony. Let’s not squabble over pink or blue.
*”These polarized and polarizing identities–queer, lesbian, bi, trans, whatever–enact the same violence that marginalizes those identities in the first place.”*
So by being trans I am enacting violence upon myself?
Interesting claim. I could have sworn the “enacting” part was done by the big drunk dudes in the street.
You know, I think the problem here is the word “identity”. Of the examples given, “queer” is arguably an identity and arguably an orientation (which is to say, an adjective relating to the set of people someone would have sex with for fun). “Lesbian” and “bi” are both orientations, while “trans” is an adjective not relating directly to orientation. None of them have to be “identities” and talking about “identities” seems to lead to some really weird assumptions.
Missed a bit:
“I don’t think Erika is being “remarkably hostile” here.”
She is saying that Marco is not allowed to call himself heterosexual, because he’s trans. So she’s describing his orientation as though he is female, despite him being male. In other words, his maleness is being utterly ignored.
Trans people experience this attitude as hostility. “Degendering” is the word. We experience it as hostility because it takes away something crucial to our lives.
“By crossing over, Marco questioned all of this. However, by identifying as heterosexual, Marco reinforces the same heterosexist social norms and oppressive structures that he subverted/violated in the first place.”
I think truly that Marco can identify his gender and sexual orientation any way he so desires. If we start telling him that he’s in some way wrong for being what he now is (a straight man, a man who was a woman who is with a woman, whatever), then WE become the victimizers. We’re the ones then who are perpetuating these “heterosexist social norms” and we’re oppressing him. That’s not feminism where I come from. That’s advancing no one.
If homeboy went through all of that to become a Mitt Romney wannabe (not that that’s the case), that’s his biz. And if we tell him otherwise, we’re the gawkers on the street ruining their evening.
But if he identifies as hetero, does that make Sadie hetero, too? The point is with heterosexuality comes privilege, a privilege that benefits only cis men and cis women. (Actually only cis men, but well you know.) Reducing heterosexuality to sexual orientation is harmful, because it reaches far beyond that. For practical reasons — healthcare, marriage, divorce, child custody — sure, identifying as heterosexual makes sense (at least for now while our laws are Draconian). But I’m trying to deal with bigger issues here: Why do we want to be part of that structure? Why do we want marriage? Instead of getting playing into the system to be on your partner’s healthcare plan, why not healthcare for all? Why maintain a power structure that is destructive?
“But if he identifies as hetero, does that make Sadie hetero, too? “
Why is it not obvious that the answer is no?
Her orientation includes at least one man (the one she’s with). Other than that their relationship makes no statement about her orientation. We can conclude from the fact that she’s with a man that she isn’t homosexual. We can guess that since she used to be attracted to women she probably still is, which would mean she’s not heterosexual. But it’s not like those are the only two possible orientations!
Like you said in another statement, the word is identity. She identifies as a lesbian in the Vice article. (A “failed lesbian” because most of her former partners are in various stages of transition.) Are you telling her that’s wrong? I think that the qualifiers lesbian, gay, heterosexual (esp.) carry more meaning than the genitalia of the person you sleep with or than you acknowledge. I don’t think she should have to change her identity as a lesbian because she sleeps with a man. But it is problematic because it would out him as trans. I know a couple FTMs who sleep exclusively with women who feel more comfortable identifying as lesbians and/or gay men because of the baggage associated with heterosexuality. Are they completely wrong in doing so? (That’s an honest question, not rhetorical.) So, in short, I think you’re being too reductive with the term heterosexuality.
Just in case I wasn’t clear, being gay, lesbian, bi is not just an orientation. They are also identities, especially within a heteropower structure. That is why I put “sexual orientation identities” in the first paragraph. Just like race is often part of one’s identity for minorities.
“I don’t think she should have to change her identity as a lesbian because she sleeps with a man.”
Identity? It’s an adjective, and since she started sleeping with a man it’s no longer true.
She could call herself queer, or pansexual, or any number of different words, none of which make her heterosexual. Or she could stop sleeping with a man. But if she’s sleeping with a man, she isn’t lesbian!
Imagine this: a cis man claims he’s heterosexual. Yes, he does sometimes have sex with other men, but he’s definitely heterosexual because he’s into sports and other manly stuff and so that’s his “identity”.
And you’d call bullshit, because hey, man on man action.
Well, that’s the situation we’ve got here. There’s woman-on-man action going on, and that precludes lesbianity.
The problem with your position is that either it’s transphobic (because you’re denying he’s a man), or it’s biphobic* (because somehow it’s important for Sadie to keep being “lesbian” despite breaking the conditions that define the word).
Why does it matter that Sadie stops being lesbian? She found someone she finds attractive who isn’t a woman. Why does the “lesbian” label matter more than the honest truth of who she finds attractive?
*/panphobic/polyphobic/etc, we need better adjectives
Yes aumentou, we understand for you, penis + exclusive attraction to vagina = hetero
For me, that is way too simplistic.
I know a few women who identify as lesbians but sleep with men every once in a while. They definitely don’t consider themselves bi or pan, and they’re hardly biphobic. According to you they should say they’re bi. According to me they shouldn’t have to. The difference with your example above is that he is maintaining hetero privilege. If you had said a gay guy, who sometimes has sex with women but still says he’s gay, I wouldn’t say bullshit. It’s about not identifying with the privileged class rather than marginalizing trans people. I think Sadie should be able to label herself as she pleases, like Liz said above. (Only problem is, that outs Marco, but I’m going into hypothetical territory here.) To use a racial example — which isn’t alway analogous to sexuality but here I think sheds light — Pres. Obama identifies as black. But he’s mixed. Why does he do this? Because it’s more than a trait in his biological makeup (in reality it’s a total construct, like sexual orientation, but digressing). It’s an identity. Same thing with my lesbian friends who sometimes sleep with a guy. Your definition of man and heterosexual are very narrow. I wish heterosexual was as clinical and simplistic as you want it to be, but it’s not. Hetero/cis assimilation is a step in the wrong direction for all of us.
” we understand for you, penis + exclusive attraction to vagina = hetero”
I didn’t say penis, I said man. I didn’t say vagina, I said woman. It’s interesting that you conflate gender with genitals. I don’t.
It might be something to do with having the difference proven, on my own body, for a while.
“For me, that is way too simplistic.”
Yes, it is simple! Wonderfully, wonderfully simple. It has words that are accessible because the definition is written down and consistant. People can communicate easily.
Whereas in your model, the words are not consistant in meaning. Lesbian means one thing in one person’s usage and another thing in anothers. This does not facilitate useful communication.
“I know a few women who identify as lesbians but sleep with men every once in a while. They definitely don’t consider themselves bi or pan, and they’re hardly biphobic.”
Then why don’t they call themselves bi, or some other polysexual label? If there is no problem with bi/panphobia, why would it matter if they called themselves bi/pan?
And how would you know about their prejudice or lack thereof, when you’re approaching them (presumably) from a lesbian perspective and therefore avoiding it?
Odd coincidence: there’s a ton of biphobia in gay and lesbian environments. It’s weird, but when you talk to bi/pan people they all have a story about that time they were outed as not-homosexual-enough and then irritating things happened.
“According to you they should say they’re bi. According to me they shouldn’t have to. The difference with your example above is that he is maintaining hetero privilege. If you had said a gay guy, who sometimes has sex with women but still says he’s gay, I wouldn’t say bullshit.”
It’s still about maintaining privilege. Within a predominantly gay or lesbian environment the state of being “lesbian” is often privileged over being “bi”. Result, people who aren’t strictly speaking homosexual just carry on calling themselves that in order to avoid the shit bi people get in such environments. It’s exactly the same thing, albeit repeated on a lower privilege level.
You’re going to an awful lot of trouble to say people shouldn’t have to say they’re bi/pan. If they are, you know, technically, and if there really isn’t any problem with people being bi/pan, why do they want to avoid doing it? And why are you trying to help them avoid those labels? What exactly is wrong with being bi/pan in your world?
“It’s about not identifying with the privileged class rather than marginalizing trans people.”
Two problems:
1) “Privileged class” singular misses the rather important point that there are multiple layers and intersections of privilege.
2) What you end up doing is marginalising trans people. If you are trying to avoid marginalising trans people you need to find a different route forward, because the one you’ve got isn’t working.
“To use a racial example — which isn’t alway analogous to sexuality but here I think sheds light — Pres. Obama identifies as black. But he’s mixed.”
I don’t think that sheds light. I think the analogy breaks down because the state of being bi/pan is not the same as the state of being lesbian. Now, if Obama’s mixed heritage meant a significant proportion and possibly even majority of black people said he wasn’t black enough and proceeded to want nothing to do with him, then that would be a closer state.
But then, if that happened, he might not declare himself black.
To return to the first point, because it all hangs together, this idea that my method is too simple does rather imply that you are on some wonderful elevated method that achieves so much more! And that would be great, if you were doing so.
But the issue is that the result of all your supposedly-complicated theorising is basically a return to the expected default themes of society: trans people people are liars*, assigned-at-birth sex is everything**, and anyone that isn’t either hetero- or homo-sexual needs to make up their mind because there is no middle ground***. You’re shitting on bi/pan people, you’re shitting on trans people, and then you’re claiming this is something complicated and clever when all you’re really doing is rationalising the same prejudices that we see every day. And then trying to suggest I don’t understand your amazing cleverness. No, I get it! In the interests of someone’s sacred lesbian “identity” being maintained (so she doesn’t have to join the ranks of those filthy bi/pan people!) it is very important that her male partner not be considered male, even by her. Even by you. But you’ve got to maintain your “progressive” stance, so talk about “identity” and claim you’re being misunderstood or misrepresented… while still doing all the things everybody else does when they’re busy shitting on trans people.
Wow, it’s almost like this is not the first time I’ve had this conversation, or something.
*because if we weren’t, this conversation wouldn’t exist
** “female-bodied” forever!
*** because if there really was a middle ground, and you really thought that was a valid place to be, why would you give a shit about some women going from lesbian to bi/pan?
The penis referred to Marco because he has (or excuse me will have) one and vagina to Sadie because she has one. I wasn’t referring to anyone else.
To be clear, I’m a bi cis woman, so well aware of the not-really-a-lesbian/she must just be doing this for heteromale attention/on-my-way-to-being-a-lesbian oscillation pinned on bi women. (fucking annoying)
What you missed with the racial analogy is that white people deny a mixed heritage as white, at least in the States. The privileged class denies mixed heritage. I understand and agree when you say being bi and lesbian are different. But being black and mixed are different. There are definitely racial hierarchies that people with mixed backgrounds face (you’re not black enough, but not white enough). But what brings them together is a common experience as marginalized other.
Same with heterosexuality. It denies the existence of trans men and trans women. There’s a reason LGBT exists as an abbreviation, not HLGBT.
“Same with heterosexuality. It denies the existence of trans men and trans women.”
There’s nothing about an orientation that does that, and Marco still needs a word to accurately describe his orientation. Of course, you’ll say you’re speaking of the wider phenomenon of a heteronormative oppressive society, but that doesn’t fix his problem of how to describe himself when the only accurate word is “heterosexual”.
You could take the word “heterosexual” out of your writing, replace it with “patriarchy”, and declare that Marco shouldn’t identify with maleness because that makes him part of a gendered system of oppression. You would be advancing exactly the same argument and I’ve seen that version too, but you’d still be missing the point:
Marco (and trans people generally) are not making their transition-related decisions for political reasons. He isn’t in this to gain hetero-privilege. We do it because of Gender Dysphoria, which is a potentially fatal medical problem. We make our decisions because for us dealing with this problem we have (that you don’t have and don’t understand) can be a matter of life and death. Our personal dysphoria problems utterly overwhelm any political considerations, because they are simply too powerful.
We transition or take whatever other action we need to in the teeth of a society that constantly criticises us for doing so. It should be obvious then that no amount of criticism is going to stop all of us. It will stop some, and trap them in pain-filled lives. It will add pain and irritation to the lives of some it doesn’t stop. But it won’t succeed.
Now, here’s where you come in. Marco has made his decision. He’s transitioned, and found a word that accurately describes his post-transition orientation. You’d rather there was one more homosexual woman in the world and one fewer heterosexual man, but that isn’t your decision and it’s not gone the way you wanted. So now you have two options. You can wish him well and leave him be. Or you can write articles that degender him and criticise his decision, thereby making the lives of trans people worse.
One of these options is being a good ally. The other isn’t. Pushing “the LGBT cause” in a way that hurts trans people is not helpful to trans people and does not make you our friend. Degendering Marco to keep him on Team Queer is harmful to me, even though I will always be on Team Queer, because it is also degendering me.
If you wish to be a friend to trans people, start by not harming us.
And that is all I have to say.
1. I think that it must be really weird for Sadie, but she doesn’t have to identify as a straight chick . She can still be a lesbian in a relationship with a transexual partner that is now identifying as a hetero dude, whew. That’s the thing, she can be her any which way, but to explain all that is something only the residents of Northampton would wanna hear about.
And honestly… I don’t give a shit if you were a woman are a man, were a man are a woman, you’re pan, mono, homo, bi, whatever sexual, you’re a human. I mean, unless I wanna sleep with you, then I want to know what’s the deal downstairs. Otherwise, you’re a person, and if you want to share that info, that’s great and you can, or not, and we can be friends, or not.
2. I get the political oppressive nature of hetrosexuality. Currently, with heterosexuality, privilege comes with regard to the law and sometimes socially. But ok, the reason that people live their lives within the system is cause it’s easier, and that’s ok. I mean, you can live within the structure and fight the political and legal injustices that are part of it. These two up there will do a better job changing things by being in them than if they ran away from reality. They’re letting people know how complex things are and they are actually changing the rules. It’s not like people should change their sex to have hospital visitation rights. The system sucks but you can’t change it unless you’re a part of it, and working from within. Showing the difficulties get changes started not trying to define yourself in one way or another. Words mean so little sometimes, titles are so irrelevant, what matters is how we live our lives, and respecting each other’s decisions to be themselves and to work toward getting everyone equal rights in actions.
“She can still be a lesbian in a relationship with a transexual partner that is now identifying as a hetero dude, whew.”
No, because lesbians explicitly don’t have sex with men – that being the point. If he’s a man, she isn’t lesbian. Conversely, if she says she’s lesbian, she’s saying he isn’t a man.
See the problem there? The solution is easy! She can be pansexual and carry on dating him. Or she could decide her lesbian label is more important than her relationship and dump him, but I think she’d already decided not to do that.
Thank you for an amazing and thought provoking article. I think it is easy for us to get caught in labels and semantics. Your story gives a unique perspective of this issue by highlighting a very personal human interest story interspersed with poignant subject matter. Job well done.
Thanks Liz! <3