Children and gender

[dawbs]

Why would you? Is it really all that important which pronoun you use, so long as your kid is happy?

My 3 year old (who, barring this, is pretty into pink sparkles), refers to herself as "Diego" a lot of the time. When she is Diego, I refer to her as 'he', because that's what she wants.

It's not really any different to me than when I say "Okay baby Kitty, Momma kitty says that you have to sit at the table and drink your kitty milk" (which I believe I did tonight)

If it turns out that she's transgendered or anything along those lines (I don't see that in her, but I'm not really 1-knowledgable on it or 2-concerned about it or 3-looking for it in a preschooler), I'll have a lot of practice at referring to her as 'he'.

[JesusFightClub]

I've started to be really fucking confused.

I thought I was female from age 8 (when I got some very obvious proof) onwards. Was I wrong? Am I not, and a man with a penis who wears a dress is a woman? And I am not, because I do not look as female as that person does?

"Knowing one is female" doesn't make much sense. I know I am, but the man with a penis is apparently just as female as I am. All the boundary markers which convinced me I was female (growing breasts, menstruating, being able to be impregnated) are transphobic. I have no clue anymore.

I also got a link today from someone who describes (himself? herself?) as "genderfluid". TBH, that looks like something men get to pick to become. I am not that. I am actually a woman who is a woman, and it seems that I don't exist.

To quote from the genderfluid guy:

So I guess without blowing any sort of trumpet, you should absolutely stand up, come the hell out where you feel you can against an oppression you face, or something others will pick up on. I wish I had done that at school. I’m sure as anything never going to lie again about who I am and everyone else can get to fuck if they think they can make me. It’s only by doing that and doing it collectively with others do backward opinions change, that uneven consciousness (to use the Marxist expression) gets resolved.

No. It's not correct. I can be as bold as I like about being female, and all that will make me is more rapeable. I am not the same person as the man who says he's genderfluid and everyone should just learn to deal with it. Men have male privilege. I don't.

[Terrie]

Basically, there's a leap in understanding the difference between sex and gender that makes this topic confusing as hell before hand and fairly easy after. It's okay if it hasn't quite "clicked" yet, as long as you're open to trying to understand. It took me some time as well to wrap my head around it. Some random bullet points:

* Biology is not identity. Part of the issue is that we don't have nice, neat separate words to talk about this. English uses male/female and man/woman and masculine/feminine interchangeably. Personally, I try to use male/female to talk about biology, and man/woman to talk about identity, and masculine/feminine/androgynous when talking about behavior. Just so I can personally keep the concepts straight. It's only transphobia if you insist that biology and identity and behavior have to be related in some manner. A man with a penis is a man (even if he wears a dress). A woman with a penis is a woman (even if she doesn't wear a dress). Both can be considered biologically male.

* "Genderfluid" people may be male or female. I know at least one who is female. It generally just means people who don't have a stable identity of man or woman.

* All women are women, be they male or female, just as all men are men, be they male or female. You are (if I understand how you identify correctly) a (biological) female, (behaviorally) masculine (self-identified) woman, but are now questioning if that should be a (biological) female, (behaviorally) masculine (self-identified) man. (Which is also perfectly valid -- there's also no rule that you HAVE to stick with a single identity, though many people obviously do).

* People will mix and match these categories in ways that make them the most comfortable in their own skin. I have spoken with one guy who was a (biologically) female, (behaviorally) androgynous-to-feminine (self-identified) man.

* The only way to determine "This person is a woman" or "This person is a man" is to ask them.

[Terrie]

I hate to hijack this thread, but this issue just hit really close to home for me.

A little background...

A dear friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter who was severely bullied in school this year. The bullying got so bad, that my friend has pulled her daughter from school and enrolled her in a private school where she will finish out the school year. Obviously, her daughter has been depressed about this and has been seeing a therapist to help her deal with the situation.

Today the daughter (let's call her Eliza) announced that she is transgendered and wants to start at the new school identifying as male. My friend loves and supports her daughter, and has no issues with transphobia or anything. The thing is, and I agree with her, is that Eliza has never displayed much gender variant behavior. She has always been into girly things and has never expressed any desires to be male...until today. My friend is trying to figure out if she is truly transgendered, or if she has some other motivation behind claiming she is transgendered. She and I are just rather perplexed by this announcement. If any of you have any advice on how to handle this situation, I would really appreciate it. I want to support my friend and her daughter as best I can.

If I were the mom, I'd tell her "I'm not saying no, but I don't understand why you want to do this. You've never mentioned this before, so why do you want this now?" I'd also probably want to talk about it with the therapist, to get a neutral third party involved, because part of a good therapist's job is to look at things objectively.

[Terrie]

Something that suddenly occurred to me, and I'm going to give this it's own post, rather then editing in an addition to my older posts, because I think its just that important.

If anyone, not just JFC, is reading this thread and wondering "Well, what am I? What is my gender?" I can't tell you. No one else can tell you. There is no check list that says "All women/all men/all people who don't consider themselves either, look like this, act like this, dress like this, share these exact traits." I can say, "Well, you're describing where you fall on the spectrum, and here are the words I use to describe that part the spectrum" but you are not obligated to adopt those words as your own. And it works both ways. No one gets to say someone else isn't a man, a woman, whatever. The entire point of gender is that it comes from the individual, not other people.

[Mama Mia]

This whole thread is only making me much more concerned about the whole issue of little kids being identified as transsexual. From what JFC described of her experience as a child, today the adults around her would of decided she was transsexual....even though she is very clearly saying that she is a woman. 3 year old Little boys who happen to like purple or wearing bracelets have people wondering if they might be gender variant or transexual. Identifying as the opposite gender at 2 and liking to wear the opposite genders clothing at that age are strong signs? Coy's parents having it even cross their minds that a five month old picking a pink blanket, even in-retrospect, means anything. Seriously all of this sounds like much more rigid sex stereotyping than the fundies would dream up. You see little Duggar boys in purple shirts and playing in toy kitchens for heavens sake.

[Terrie]

Seriously, can someone please give me a link that shows Coy's PARENTS equating the blanket incident as proof of her being transsexual? Because people keep saying that and I've seen nothing in all the stories I've looked at beyond the fact that they did mention it at some point, but no context, no direct quote, no claim it was proof, nothing. In fact, everything I'm finding states that the parents didn't even consider that Coy was transsexual until she was at least 2 or 3.

3 year old Little boys who happen to like purple or wearing bracelets have people wondering if they might be gender variant or transexual.

Well, personally, I'm more concerned that you still don't understand that gender variant children and transsexual children are not the same thing than I am about that little boy. The term "transsexual child" is being used (at least by me, and honestly, I'm the main one talking about here) to describe a child who has a lifelong, stable, consistent, pervasive gender identity that is the opposite of the gender identity assigned at birth and who shows distress due to body dysphoria. That is a VERY specific category. So the little boy you just described is NOT transsexual, would never be classified as a transsexual, and no one has claimed that he ought to considered transsexual. He might be gender variant, or he might just be a little boy who likes purple. He might be androgynous or feminine, but you'd need to look at his behavior as a whole, not just one little thing, so we can't really say. In fact, not a single example of "This child would have been called transsexual and it would have been wrong!" that you have offered has actually met the criteria for being transsexual.

As I already noted, I don't know if JFC would have been considered transsexual as a very young child under the current use of the term. She almost certainly would have been considered gender variant and possibly, even probably, transgender, but I can't speak for her as to if she experienced distress due to body dysphoria. She mentions that she wanted a penis, but not if the idea of not having one was distressing. She might have been considered for social transition if she were a child today, but since she has stated she concluded at age 8 that she was female, she would have never been considered for hormone blockers to delay puberty for transitional purposes. And unless she has completely failed to mention it before, she has no distress at her female body these days, so she is not now transsexual. I would say she is still gender variant, but based on what she has said, I'm not sure if I would group her under transgender.

As I already said, she might have been in the small portion of non-transsexual children who they currently can't screen for until they turn up by changing their mind. It's all speculation, because we don't have any sort of record of "This is what was happening at the time" only what JFC remembers and what her mother has told her.

Frankly, I'm tired of you twisting the term "transsexual" to cover your concerns and equating it with the category of gender variant. If you think I'm being overly dramatic, consider the fact that, from my point of view, your failure to use these terms correctly spreads misinformation that is harmful and even dangerous to people I know and care about. I have a close friend who is a transsexual woman, and I count a variety of transgender and gender variant people among my circle of acquaintances, as well as being gender variant myself, so I am aware of how misconceptions can feed the culture of violence they already face. When you equate gender variant and transsexual, you're indirectly telling transsexual people "You're wrong about who you are."

I really wish I could go back and carefully define all these terms from the get go so there was less opportunity for people to try and fudge the concepts (myself included, really -- looking back I used transgender when it would have been better to use the more narrow transsexual, for instance), but I prefer to use the terms that people use to describe themselves and those are not very consistent.

Just so we're all on the same page, in addition to the useage of male/female, etc. that I mentioned earlier, I will be using the following terms for the following concepts from now on (these are broadly how I've been using them, but I'm going to be extra careful and specific from now on):

Gender identity: How a person thinks of themselves.

Assigned gender: What people assume is someone's gender based off of their biology.

Gender variant: Anyone who does not match-up with "traditional" gender expression (we're talking behavior, not identity) in the majority of their lives, but their gender identity matches the gender assigned to them. So, flamboyant male men, butch female women, androgynous people of both types, etc. I would not consider a boy whose sole "girly" trait was that his favorite color was purple to be gender variant. Now, a boy whose favorite color was purple, who liked wearing his hair in pony tails and played with dolls, him I might consider gender variant.

Transgender: People who don't match on sex and gender. Male woman, female men, female genderfluid people, male bigendered people, etc. People in this category may socially transition, may ask people to use pronouns aren't associated with their appearance or biology, or they may not. It's up to them. Some of them may chose to socially transition, but many do not, because it would create as many problems as it would solve. For instance, a person who is agendered will be no more happy presenting as a man than they would as a woman, because they're not either.

Transsexual: Transgender people who have a gender identity that is the opposite of the gender identity assigned at birth. So, very specifically, male woman and female men. In addition, they consider their bodies to be "wrong." How this is handled varies, depending on factors like a person's generation, family situation, financial situation, fear of discrimination, etc. Many will socially transition. Some will medically transition through hormones and sometimes surgery. (This is the group I've been focused on in this discussion).

I'm not saying everyone has to use these exact terms, but please be clear about which group you're talking about. This is a complicated enough topic without playing fast and loose with terminology. If you don't understand these concepts, I am (obviously) willing to answer questions to the best of my ability. I also welcome any input from other people, because I'm running out of new ways to try and explain these concepts, and if people don't understand these different categories, they're vulnerable to dangerous misinformation. I'm passionate about this, because I want the world to be a better, safer place for those I know.

As far as socially transitioning young children, my take on it is this. I have never seen a single case where this was done on a whim. Despite claims made here about Coy, it looks like his parents followed the same path as all the cases that I've read about (Coy's family's path is found described in http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/new ... r-20131028). They thought it was a phase, then they tried to keep it at home, and then they went full transition only when the child was distressed by being forced back into their "public" persona. Given the tiny number of kids involved and the threshold on full social transition, I just ask myself "If living as the wrong gender is harmful, which will harm more kids? Transsexual children shamed into living as the wrong gender, or 'we-thought-they were-transsexual-but-they-turned-out-not-to-be' kids living as the wrong gender in a supportive environment that will also support their detransition?"

Now, if someone has a case that deviates from the standard path I mentioned, I would honestly love to hear it. Because if such a thing has actually happened, it is an important part of the discussion. But, please, no speculation about what someone "might" do. Someone "might" decide to raise their child as a sea otter, but until it happens, I'm not going to speculate on the harm that might cause.

[RachelB]

This whole thread is only making me much more concerned about the whole issue of little kids being identified as transsexual. From what JFC described of her experience as a child, today the adults around her would of decided she was transsexual....even though she is very clearly saying that she is a woman. 3 year old Little boys who happen to like purple or wearing bracelets have people wondering if they might be gender variant or transexual. Identifying as the opposite gender at 2 and liking to wear the opposite genders clothing at that age are strong signs? Coy's parents having it even cross their minds that a five month old picking a pink blanket, even in-retrospect, means anything. Seriously all of this sounds like much more rigid sex stereotyping than the fundies would dream up. You see little Duggar boys in purple shirts and playing in toy kitchens for heavens sake.

Um, if you're talking about my nibling, as your descriptors suggest, W is 6, not 3. In kindergarten. Not an emotionally or mentally young 6, either-- enviably verbally adept and communicative about emotional needs. And not that you asked me, but it's the fact that W plays as a female avatar in every video game where that's an option, and as a female character in make-believe superhero games, that made me initially wonder whether there was something about those female characters W identified with. (To myself. Not to W, though I did say to my brother, "If you're ever tempted to gender-police W, remember how much you hated it when Dad did that to you." How does that come across as rigid stereotyping?)

And you know what? Neither you nor I are going to determine whether my nibling is gender variant, trans*, experimenting, going through a phase, or whatever. My nibling will figure it out at some point. It is my goal to be a supportive auntie, no matter what, because Kiddo is probably at some point going to need a friend to help counter gender-policing bullshit from one source or another. Can you explain why on earth that is such cause for concern on your part?

[JesusFightClub]

Personally, I think this is a good discussion about a difficult issue. I'm pleased that we are all women and are talking about this.

I've been arguing with transsexuals about this and about my "cis privilege". Right now, I am bleeding like a stuck pig. I've actually passed out twice because I was bleeding so much. I was also sexually assaulted when I was ten because I had breasts and a vagina. My sister in law died, horribly. for being female. She was stabbed 27 times and what actually killed her (and I have nightmares about this, to this day) was that her throat was slit.

I couldn't sleep because I know where and how my sister in law died. She died looking at her phone. I hoped, pitifully, that she didn't die with the possibility that she knew she could be saved.

I do not feel privileged at all.

[Terrie]

Cis privilege does exist. It is a separate category from male privilege, just as heterosexual privilege and white privilege are also separate categories from all the others. The existence of one does not negate the existence of the others. To quote an essay on the topic by a gay man, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-clay ... 27064.html) "Just because I have experienced one kind of oppression does not mean that I understand all oppression."

In the US, at least, there are laws preventing women from being fired for being women. But transgender men and women are not always considered men or women under those laws, making it legal to fire them for just being them. Consider that for all your masculine behavior, if you were arrested, you would not be placed in a jail for men. Transgender women have no such guarantee. A significant portion of transgender people have been denied medical care because of their transgender status. Studies put the rate of physical and sexual violence against transgender individuals at 60% or higher. The end result? Well, one study (http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/r ... s_full.pdf) found that transgender individuals are more than 25x more likely to attempt suicide than the general public. (Plus, on top of everything else, transphobic people try to claim that their suicide rate is proof that being transgender is the problem, not rampant discrimination).

Oh, and transsexual is an adjective, not a noun. Saying you've been arguing with transsexuals is like saying you've been arguing with browns.

Unrelated to that, if people are concerned that we're going to somehow manage to change a child's gender identity by telling them they are something they're transgender, google David Reimer. And prepare to cringe.

[JesusFightClub]

But the things which happened to me happened because I was female. What happened to my sister in law happened because she was female. I'm not seeing my or her cis privilege in all of this.

I didn't lose my job, but I was sexually assaulted. My SIL didn't lose her job, but she lost her life. Neither of us was sentenced to stay in a men's prison, this is true.( Because I am being very honest here, I was arrested and released without charge, and my sister in law had a criminal record before she died) But TBH, if it had occurred, it would have actually been less horrible than what did happen to us.

I do not know better how to explain what happened. It was the most fucking horrific thing I have ever dealt with in my life, sitting in the High Court listening to a detailed description (post mortem) of how someone I loved died. If you sum it up, she was killed because her male partner suspected she had been unfaithful with another man.

Where's my cis privilege in that? Where was hers?

Basically, women are an oppressed class. I suspect (awfully and horribly) what happens to transwomen is to do with them identifying with an oppressed class.

[Terrie]

"Privilege" in this context does not mean that nothing bad ever happens to you or you're never oppressed or even that good things happen to you. It means that you don't experience certain types of oppression. For example, you have the "privilege" of not having to worry that doctors will refuse to treat you.

While transphobia, sexism and homophobia certainly all have the same root cause of thinking there is a "right" way to things, I don't think you can just say "Well, it's because they identify with the oppressed class of women." That implies that the issues the transgender community faces that are unique to them are less important than those they share with cis women. After all, a lot of those experiences aren't limited to transgender women. They are also experienced by transgender men.

It also gives the impression that once men and women are totally equal, transgender issues will completely disappear. This is very common among some groups of radical feminists. They claim that since they think gender is purely a social construct and does not actually exist, there is no such thing as being transgender. To me, that's like saying "Well, race is a social construct, so I don't think there's such a thing as 'black.'" It also ignores the body dysphoria experienced by transsexual people.

[Conuly]

JFC, your last two comments sound an awful lot like me saying "I guess I don't benefit from white privilege because I happen to be poor" or the Christians saying "I have no idea what you mean, Christian privilege, last year we had to share our 20 nativity scenes with a menorah!" or a man saying "I have no idea what you mean about straight privilege, I don't have that, and when my kid accidently kneed me in the crotch, it really hurt!"

Yeah, okay, bad things have happened in your life because you are female. But that has nothing to do with transgender individuals unless bad things have happened in your life because your body and your gender identity match. Which I just don't believe is the case, or you would have mentioned it.

[Terrie]

JFC, another example that might help you understand this issue. You did mention male privilege earlier in this thread so I assume you believe in that. So imagine a man of color told you "I don't believe in male privilege. I was beaten up because of the color of my skin. My brother was shot by police. How can I be privileged? I don't feel privileged." The answer is that his skin color and the oppression he faces because of it have nothing to do with his male privilege. The oppression you face as a female has nothing to do with cis privilege.

[RachelB]

But the things which happened to me happened because I was female. What happened to my sister in law happened because she was female. I'm not seeing my or her cis privilege in all of this.

I didn't lose my job, but I was sexually assaulted. My SIL didn't lose her job, but she lost her life. Neither of us was sentenced to stay in a men's prison, this is true.( Because I am being very honest here, I was arrested and released without charge, and my sister in law had a criminal record before she died) But TBH, if it had occurred, it would have actually been less horrible than what did happen to us.

I do not know better how to explain what happened. It was the most fucking horrific thing I have ever dealt with in my life, sitting in the High Court listening to a detailed description (post mortem) of how someone I loved died. If you sum it up, she was killed because her male partner suspected she had been unfaithful with another man.

Where's my cis privilege in that? Where was hers?

Basically, women are an oppressed class. I suspect (awfully and horribly) what happens to transwomen is to do with them identifying with an oppressed class.

I agree that bad things have happened to you-- and happened to your sister-in-law-- because you were both female. And I can't even begin to say how much that stinks, and how sorry I am that those things happened to you. Misogyny hurts cis and trans women.

There's an experience my trans friends have had, though, that I haven't: Even though I've been told in all sorts of ways that I perform "female-ness" wrong, I've never had someone dispute my right to call myself female. Certainly not anyone whom I trusted and with whom I'd believed I had common cause. And I think that's a mark of my privilege as a cis woman, even if a somewhat non-Beauty Standards-compliant one.

[JesusFightClub]

I wrote a huge angry reply because I couldn't actually believe listening to a report of your sister's stab wounds was treated as the equivalent of seeing a menorah or being kicked in the balls. It's really not. I've seen loads of menorahs and even been kicked in the groin once or twice (perhaps deservedly ;)). It is completely different from learning that someone you loved died horribly because the man she was with decided "If I can't have her, no one else can."

Truthfully, I would have preferred seeing one million menorahs (which I like anyway) or being repeatedly kicked in the groin to hearing the fiscal read out the post-mortem report or living through the moment when my mum said "I don't quite know how to tell you this but....I still don't know how to tell you this, but very unfortunately SIL is...I, look, she is dead and X, well, he, well anyway he was angry and we think he did it." It's not the same level of experience as seeing something you don't like. And she died because she was female and made a man angry.

I am not sure how to explain this, because the only word I have is "horror". I put in my original post a lot of graphic details, which I deleted because I didn't think was fair. You don't want to know them. I didn't, either, but I had to. I will tell you one thing, though - my SIL's mum wanted to come and see her body. She was only allowed to see one of her eyes and a little patch of her cheek (which was scarred). The rest of her was covered up because it was too badly damaged.

Seeing that was just like being a fundie Christian seeing a menorah. Right.

That aside, though, I think I definitely might be wrong about privilege. I need to reassess my assumptions - I think you guys are right and I have made a mistake. I can't accept that the violent death of my SIL was the same as "yeah, lulz, whatevs, like seeing a menorah" because it kind of wasn't for me and the rest of my family.

She died because she was female. This is something accepted by the fiscal and the judge.

I have misunderstood cis privilege, and perhaps its intersections with class privilege, certainly. But my sister in law died violently for upsetting an angry, jealous man who said in his defence that if he couldn't have her no-one could. Where was her privilege there?

[Terrie]

JFC, what happened to her was horrific and wrong. But ultimately, it had nothing to do with cis privilege or her possession of it any more than it had to do with the weather in Australia that day, because they are separate issues.

[JesusFightClub]

I think, however, it meant that she lacked privilege, or at least she possessed it in a different way from both men and transsexual women.

Bear with me while I try to understand this and if I say anything too wanky, tell me about it, but I think my SIL belonged to an oppressed class and that she was killed by a member of an oppressor class. She was killed because the person thought he owned her and he had a right to both possess her and get rid of her if she got too "uppity". His jail sentence is less than Ian Watkins got by quite a lot - he won't get parole on his first attempt, but he will be out, and he will not be particularly old when he is.

I did a bit of googling about cis privilege and found this:

"Well, the main perpetrators of trans oppression are cisgender people. Thankfully we're pretty bad at oppressing our own kind, so the sole source of oppression faced by trans people if from cis people.

For example, if I'm kicked out of my job after they find out I'm trans, it won't be a trans person making the decision, it will be a cis person. When I'm stabbed or bashed on the street, it won't be trans people doing it, it will be cis people. When I'm turned away from a nightclub because they don't want any 'trannies' confusing their male patrons, it won't be a trans bouncer denying me entry, it will be a cis bouncer.

So it's pretty safe to say that 99.9% of the oppression we face comes from cis people. Oppressors have a position of privilege because their power allows them to deny us basic things that cis people have, like being able to use the changing rooms or toilets in a department store, or gaining employment without being discriminated against. Cis privilege is invisible to most cis people, because these things are NORMAL to them - things that they have never questioned their right to have - like the right to piss and poop in the toilet that fits your gender expressions, or the right to not be fired for wearing clothes appropriate to your gender identity."

I think you could replace "cis privilege" here with "male privilege". Women have never been able to gain employment without being discriminated against, and the stabbing and bashing is basically done by blokes (who find the idea of someone actually choosing to be female repulsive). Same with the cis bouncer - most bouncers are men (I used to work in security and I couldn't have been a nightclub bouncer because physically I didn't fit the role, most women can't). I am also confused by the idea that anyone would be chucked out of anywhere for their gender identity - it was the last thing I thought about, in fact if someone seemed sane (not having a psychotic episode, which makes customers unpredictable), sober and I had no reason to believe they were doing or going to do anything they shouldn't, they and I had no problem. This, again, seems to be a man who was worried by a woman and reacted aggressively.

The biggest one which I have difficulty is is the toilet one (and this may be a source of my cis privilege, or maybe not). I would have a problem with a man using a women's toilet, because I would not feel safe. I wouldn't have a problem with a trans woman using a women's toilet. This would seem normal. But if someone who, to all intents and purposes, seems to be a man but says they have a female brain and because of that needs to use the woman's toilet...well, what then?

(Unisex toilets seem to be the way forward here, and single stalls.)

[Terrie]

I think you have the broad strokes of it, yeah. :) Most of the missing details seem to come from your unfamiliarity with this particular population and the unique issues they face. So a couple notes:

* Violence towards transgender people does not come solely from men. Most of it, probably, but not all of it. A few years ago there was a horrific case of a transgender woman beaten so badly by two other women that she had a seizure. (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-0 ... nty-police)

* While transgender women are often more vulnerable because of their higher visibility, transgender men are also at risk.

* The bathroom issue... While men have attacked women in public restrooms, none of them have ever used the claim of being transgender to gain access. They've just waited until no one was looking and walked right in. If it ever does happen, I suspect that the perpetrator will have gotten the idea from people always bringing it up.

The problem is that some transgender woman will never looked feminine enough to please all people. "Passing" is simply not an option for some transgender people, and other cis people don't even want masculine-looking cis women in their bathroom. This, in my experience, is why many transgender women, more so than even transgender men or cis women, are very traditional in their gender expression. Anything less than obvious femininity opens up yet another line of attack.

Personally, I think it's better to design bathrooms so that people aren't vulnerable, no matter who they are or how they identify, or who else is around. Single stalls solve this issue, and are good for many groups, such as parents with young, but not that young, children of the opposite gender (such as dads with daughters, who are forever stymied on if they should take their five year old girl into the inevitabley grungy men's bathroom, or stand outside the women's like a creeper) or disabled people who may need assistance, or, hell, people with shy bladders who can't pee if there's someone else in the restroom.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think, however, it meant that she lacked privilege, or at least she possessed it in a different way from both men and transsexual women.

Bear with me while I try to understand this and if I say anything too wanky, tell me about it, but I think my SIL belonged to an oppressed class and that she was killed by a member of an oppressor class. She was killed because the person thought he owned her and he had a right to both possess her and get rid of her if she got too "uppity". His jail sentence is less than Ian Watkins got by quite a lot - he won't get parole on his first attempt, but he will be out, and he will not be particularly old when he is.

I did a bit of googling about cis privilege and found this:

"Well, the main perpetrators of trans oppression are cisgender people. Thankfully we're pretty bad at oppressing our own kind, so the sole source of oppression faced by trans people if from cis people.

For example, if I'm kicked out of my job after they find out I'm trans, it won't be a trans person making the decision, it will be a cis person. When I'm stabbed or bashed on the street, it won't be trans people doing it, it will be cis people. When I'm turned away from a nightclub because they don't want any 'trannies' confusing their male patrons, it won't be a trans bouncer denying me entry, it will be a cis bouncer.

So it's pretty safe to say that 99.9% of the oppression we face comes from cis people. Oppressors have a position of privilege because their power allows them to deny us basic things that cis people have, like being able to use the changing rooms or toilets in a department store, or gaining employment without being discriminated against. Cis privilege is invisible to most cis people, because these things are NORMAL to them - things that they have never questioned their right to have - like the right to piss and poop in the toilet that fits your gender expressions, or the right to not be fired for wearing clothes appropriate to your gender identity."

I think you could replace "cis privilege" here with "male privilege". Women have never been able to gain employment without being discriminated against, and the stabbing and bashing is basically done by blokes (who find the idea of someone actually choosing to be female repulsive). Same with the cis bouncer - most bouncers are men (I used to work in security and I couldn't have been a nightclub bouncer because physically I didn't fit the role, most women can't). I am also confused by the idea that anyone would be chucked out of anywhere for their gender identity - it was the last thing I thought about, in fact if someone seemed sane (not having a psychotic episode, which makes customers unpredictable), sober and I had no reason to believe they were doing or going to do anything they shouldn't, they and I had no problem. This, again, seems to be a man who was worried by a woman and reacted aggressively.

The biggest one which I have difficulty is is the toilet one (and this may be a source of my cis privilege, or maybe not). I would have a problem with a man using a women's toilet, because I would not feel safe. I wouldn't have a problem with a trans woman using a women's toilet. This would seem normal. But if someone who, to all intents and purposes, seems to be a man but says they have a female brain and because of that needs to use the woman's toilet...well, what then?

(Unisex toilets seem to be the way forward here, and single stalls.)

I think you're doing a good job of thinking through the issue.

Cis privilege isn't exclusively a male issue, but there's certainly a tie-in under the umbrella of "things that threaten to upset the apple cart of patriachy". Along with variations of gender identity, we've also got homosexuality, feminism and even economic factors that reduce the need for women to be financially dependent on men under that umbrella.

The "threat to patriarchy" angle doesn't address every issue of cis privilege, but it does seem to drive much of the anger and violence. That's what your SIL had in common with many transgender individuals - the fact that men who perceived a threat to their power would react with extreme violence. [i don't think that every violent douchebag thinks this through rationally, of course. They don't say "the existence of transgender people and homosexuals and feminism threatens my identity and male power". They just feel threatened and react with anger and violence.]

There's a separate issue of transpeople feeling uncomfortable in their own bodies, and not having their gender identity recognized. That's something that cisgender people don't face. FWIW, I'd also say that there's at least a recognition of the threats that women face. Cis-women can get help from rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, not all of which will accommodate transgender individuals.

d

[Mama Mia]

Um, if you're talking about my nibling, as your descriptors suggest, W is 6, not 3. In kindergarten. Not an emotionally or mentally young 6, either-- enviably verbally adept and communicative about emotional needs. And not that you asked me, but it's the fact that W plays as a female avatar in every video game where that's an option, and as a female character in make-believe superhero games, that made me initially wonder whether there was something about those female characters W identified with. (To myself. Not to W, though I did say to my brother, "If you're ever tempted to gender-police W, remember how much you hated it when Dad did that to you." How does that come across as rigid stereotyping?)

And you know what? Neither you nor I are going to determine whether my nibling is gender variant, trans*, experimenting, going through a phase, or whatever. My nibling will figure it out at some point. It is my goal to be a supportive auntie, no matter what, because Kiddo is probably at some point going to need a friend to help counter gender-policing bullshit from one source or another. Can you explain why on earth that is such cause for concern on your part?

This is exactly the sort of thinking that concerns me. If your six year old niece only chose male avatars and wanted to be Batman for dress up and favorite color was blue and preferred jeans to dresses would it even cross your mind that she was in any way gender variant, gender fluid, transexual or any other term to describe her? I would wager that it is likely that it wouldn't even cross your mind or be noticeable to anyone. It certainly wouldn't have crossed most people's minds that it was something noteworthy 10 or 20 years ago.

But because it's a boy child who is preferring female characters and "colors" , it might somehow mean something other than this particular boy likes these particular things. Because no matter how subconscious it is, the assumption is that female and feminine are different and less than, and male is the default. And I think that this rush to put small children into these supposedly enlightened boxes is only promoting further gender stereotyping. This entire discussion has only strengthened my reservations on this topic.

I don't doubt that you're a wonderful Auntie who will be supportive of your nephew no matter what, I just think that in the quest to be enlightened and up to date people seem to be missing that little kids may like or dislike a variety of objects, activities, colors and clothing that are ascribed to one gender or the other and it doesn't usually "mean" anything ......whether their preferences are entirely in line with or opposite their biological sex. Or even appropriately " balanced" whatever the hell that is.

[SpeakNow]

California has just passed a law so that transgender students can choose the bathroom and sports team that matches their gender identity.

"SACRAMENTO, California California on Monday became the first state to enshrine certain rights for transgender kindergarten-through-12th grade students in state law, requiring public schools to allow those students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown announced that he had signed AB1266, which also will allow transgender students to choose whether they want to play boys' or girls' sports. The new law gives students the right "to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities" based on their self-perception and regardless of their birth gender."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california- ... tify-with/

[Mama Mia]

Seriously, can someone please give me a link that shows Coy's PARENTS equating the blanket incident as proof of her being transsexual? Because people keep saying that and I've seen nothing in all the stories I've looked at beyond the fact that they did mention it at some point, but no context, no direct quote, no claim it was proof, nothing. In fact, everything I'm finding states that the parents didn't even consider that Coy was transsexual until she was at least 2 or 3.

.

It's the fact that they even brought up a 5 month old choosing a pink blanket as meaning ANYTHING that has many people questioning Coy's parents understanding of child development. Obviously if they brought it up as even a cute story they have to think it has some sort of significance, even if it's only as a possible early indicator of Coy not having traditional preferences. But what kind of rational person thinks a five year old preferring a particular blanket could possibly be relevant to, well, anything?

Saying they didn't even consider that he might be transexual until the advanced age of two says nothing more about their awareness of child development. A two year old will pick toys and clothes that they find fascinating, often it's the toys and activities that their older sibling has that are most appealing, because most toddlers want to be like an older sibling. InCoy's family the older sibling is a girl. Coy preferring his older sisters shiny tutus and sparkly wands is hardly surprising, or even noticeable to most people. Why would his parents start going down that road at that age?

[Terrie]

This is exactly the sort of thinking that concerns me. If your six year old niece only chose male avatars and wanted to be Batman for dress up and favorite color was blue and preferred jeans to dresses would it even cross your mind that she was in any way gender variant, gender fluid, transexual or any other term to describe her? I would wager that it is likely that it wouldn't even cross your mind or be noticeable to anyone. It certainly wouldn't have crossed most people's minds that it was something noteworthy 10 or 20 years ago.

10 or 20 years ago, we'd have used the term "tomboy." Today, we might still use the same term, but a "tomboy" is an example of being gender variant, so, yeah, the child you just described WOULD cross my mind as gender variant. Of course, most of us also understand the difference between being gender variant and transsexual, while you seem to insist on equating them to manufacture proof for your fear mongering.

[RachelB]

10 or 20 years ago, we'd have used the term "tomboy." Today, we might still use the same term, but a "tomboy" is an example of being gender variant, so, yeah, the child you just described WOULD cross my mind as gender variant. Of course, most of us also understand the difference between being gender variant and transsexual, while you seem to insist on equating them to manufacture proof for your fear mongering.

Yup. I was a card-carrying tomboy. For a while in and following college I was what I would now consider genderqueer, though didn't have the vocab for it then. My mom is a lifelong tomboy / butch. Her father referred to her as being "one of my three sons," which didn't make her feel insulted, it made her feel understood and loved. (Her mother, who wanted a little human doll to dress up, didn't know what to make of her at all-- granny and my uncles certainly did treat mom's preferred attire and activities as noteworthy.)

Because my mom was so irritated by one of her parents trying to make her fit into very narrow gender norms, she didn't police me or my brother. I appreciate that, and it's part of why I see gender variance as a non-problem. I'm in my late 30s, and it has not ruined my life yet.

I'd like to point out, also, that without the benefit of some of the insights that trans* and gender variant friends have suggested, I might still have a visceral, pre-critical negative understanding of traditionally girly trappings (i.e., buying right back into the patriarchy via the back door). My upbringing gave me a strong sense of why a smart, feminist woman might want to be butch, but it didn't give me any sense of why she might want to be femme-- not out of false consciousness, but out of conviction, or because she's read some Tara Hardy.