In the discussion over at Bilerico, about what I and others found to be an offensive ad, someone argued that I and others who were upset were vilifying sex workers.
To clarify… I don’t think sex work is something to be ashamed of, nor should be ashamed of trans hookers. (Although I do have problems with people feeling they have to turn to prostitution because they’ve got no alternatives, as well as the human trafficking that’s frequently tied to prostitution.)
But the premise of the joke was that Jen (the mom) was utterly blase about something that we the audience are supposed to find freakish and probably shocking. You could’ve substituted a talking dog and the premise would be the same. Even in my rewriting of the ad (in my prior post), the joke remains premised on Jerry (the lawyer/hooker), being a “freak,” but at least my version tries to show something unexpected about someone who’s perceived that way. Similar to a “Sex in the City” episode I once saw where one of the characters was upset about boisterous trans hookers outside her apartment, but through some plot twist that I don’t remember ends up getting to know and discovers that they’re human too.
Now the objector did raise a fair point, that the ad could be viewed as “hey there’s nothing wrong with being a crossdressing lawyer/hooker.” And if there were a lot of other kinds of portrayals of trans people in the media I might agree with you. Or the scene had been played straight and not for laughs. But let’s be honest, the vast majority of Americans (even New Yorkers) do see prostitution as disreputable, and the ad clearly seems to be making her a hooker for the additional shock value.
But the other part of what makes the ad problematic is that it’s trafficking in stereotypes, i.e. someone’s trans, well obviously they must be a hooker. It’s similar to the historical complaints about blacks and Latino only getting roles that depict them as crack dealers and gang members, gays only getting roles that depict them as stereotypical caricatures, etc.
A friend of mine, who’s the wife of a crossdresser, recently commented that she thought it’s a fantasy of many trans people to change gender, knowing they never would. From what I’ve seen in a variety of online forums I think there’s an element of truth to that.
I think the flip-side of the “joke” that the difference between a crossdresser and a transsexual is a couple of years is the notion that transsexuals are just who can’t handle ambiguity. I don’t mean that literally, but riding the kiddie roller-coaster1 for eternity can be exhausting and so I think a number of crossdressers dream about being “normal.” And since they know their trans-ness isn’t going away, transitioning and going stealth is the only way they can dream of doing so.
Combine that the with the fact that the vast majority of crossdressers don’t get a chance to be en femme as much as they want to—so unlike me, they’ve never gotten the chance to find out what their satiation point is (i.e. when they’ve been en femme enough that the urge gets satisfied for some period of time). So they’re never quite sure if they’re not transsexual.
1 “Riding the kiddie coaster” was a phrase coined by a good friend of mine, back when she thought she was a crossdresser. The ups-and-downs of being a crossdresser may not be as dramatic compared to the potential sturm und drang of transitioning, but it’s one we have to ride endlessly for the rest of our lives. Unlike transsexuals who take a ride on the full-size roller-coaster, but who have the possibility of getting off at the end of the ride.
While this ad for the 2006 festival (which recently resurfaced on YouTube) was undoubtedly meant to be edgy and funny, it’s belittling and reinforces stereotypes that all trans people are prostitutes. The key is that we’re not laughing with the crossdressing lawyer/hooker, we’re meant to be laughing at her.
And yeah, it hurts more when it comes from folks who undoubtedly would be horrified at equivalent humor aimed at minorities. Do you think they would’ve done an ad showing a black lawyer who moonlights as a crack dealer? Or a female attorney who moonlights as a hooker? I thought not.
The truly sad thing is that the ad’s joke about jaded New Yorkers could have just as easily been accomplished with a positive portrayal (and just a few minor changes in the script). For example, the crossdressing lawyer could have been out for a walk with her wife, who she introduces to the the mother with her kids, who’s just as blase about it all.
OK, maybe I’m being humorless, but having two trans people (Cameron McWilliams and Simmie Williams) and a gender-variant kid (Lawrence King) who might (or might not) have later come out as trans gunned down in apparent hate crimes within less than a month kind of leave me not in the mood for this sort of “humor.”
I’ve been reading a book of essays about the supposed decline and fall of gay culture, and there was an interesting discussion about how retailers like International Male “de-gayed” their catalogs as they attempted to broaden their market to adventurous hetro men.For example, the language used to describe their thong underwear was no longer about being sexy—something women’s retailers like Victoria’s Secret never have been shy about—instead the new language played up how sensuous the clothing was supposed to be for the wearer. The author argues (rightly) that these retailers were trying to remove the specter of admiring male gazes. But (being a gay man) I think he missed that there’s still an overall societal discomfort with “pretty men.” As someone who perused International Male because I wanted to be able to wear sexy underwear too (back when I was actually young enough and in shape enough to look decent in it)—I sadly knew that it wasn’t likely I’d find a woman who’d appreciate it.As I said at the last outreach panel I did, I grew up in an era where male beauty wasn’t discussed let alone valued. (Which is good in some ways, because I didn’t end up with the body issues that most women have.) But it does hurt to have something you care about not being valued—a bit like women who want to be valued for their intellect and find people only care about their beauty. Sabara Star put it nicely, folks like me feel we were starved of something many women feel they were force-fed an overdose of. So it’s not surprising that MTF trans people and feminists are often on totally different wave-lengths when it comes to the issue of “looking pretty.”Admittedly, the issue of appreciation of male beauty is changing these days, but still there’s the whole “look handsome, but don’t look too pretty” dynamic that men face. (At least those who care about their appearance.)
Over at My Husband Betty, we’ve been having a discussion about the “down low” phenomenon, and how men on the down low generally do not consider themselves gay—and potential similarities to the “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” crowd—a small but extremely vocal groups of transsexual separatists who vehemently deny any link the trans communities (who they see as icky men in dresses), and who seem to think that they’re somehow oppressed by people saying that many transsexuals do consider themselves part of that community.
Anyway, I’ve been reading up on LGBT history and it turns out that folks in earlier decades had far more subtler approaches to sexuality than we give them credit for—and arguably more subtle attitudes than today.
For example, from the late 1800s through the 1920s in certain working class cultures in New York City it was acceptable for men to sleep with (and be in relationships) with “fairies” (effeminate gay men, who cross-dressed to a greater or lesser degree) and these men weren’t considered homosexuals. In part it’s because gender trumped sexual orientation, in other words, if you were “womanish” it was assumed you’d be attracted to men, and conversely as long as you assumed the “masculine” role, you weren’t perceived as homosexual, even if you were “trade,” i.e. masculine “straight” men who were willing to have sex with “fairies.” (“Trade” contrasted with “queers,” who were the “straight-acting” homosexuals of the day, and who were more apt to seek out other “queers” as partners.) While today we’d consider “trade” to be gay, the author notes that “trade” weren’t interested in having sex with men, rather they were interesting in sleeping with “women” who happened to be female bodied. (The overall shortage of women and strict segregation of the sexes in these communities contributed to “fairies” being an acceptable substitute for females.) So modern-day concepts seeing them as “closeted gays” or bisexuals, don’t really fit with how they saw themselves.
Another author raised the interesting point that intense prejudice against gays and lesbians during what he called the “closeted era”—the 1950s through 1980s, which were far more intense than earlier in the century—led those who came of age in those years, and particularly those who came out, to often see their homosexuality as their central defining identity. In contrast to both those who grew up earlier and later, for many of whom being gay or lesbian is part of their identities, but the not their core identity. (Albeit there’s a big generational difference—those who grew up before the “closeted era” usually compartmentalized their identities, a la those on the down low, while those coming of age in the 1990s and later, usually don’t compartmentalize.)
Anyway I thought there were interesting parallels on both counts to issues of identity with trans folks. For example, I see “crossdresser” and “drag queen” as parts of my identity, but while important identities, neither is the defining part of my personality—any more than my chosen career is.
Likewise, when I spent time at Crossdressers.com there were several lengthy discussion about the “attracted to men only when dressed” orientation that some folks there professed to. While I think there’s something to be said about being en femme allowing folks to acknowledge same-sex attraction, I also always felt it was a little simplistic to just chalk it up to “closeted bisexuality.” Since it it’s way, it seemed a bit parallel to the trans admirers (male and female) who explain their attraction in terms of finding the mix of masculine/feminine looks/energies appealing. (Again, I don’t deny that for some admirers there’s an apparent “plausible deniability” aspect, I’m just saying that attributing it to everyone seems simplistic.)
One other interesting historical tidbit—a number of New York’s drag balls were widely popular with the general public in the 1920s and 1930s. The largest drew thousands of spectators, including the socialites (the Rockefellers, the Astors, etc.)
There’s an interesting question—how many of the “fairies” might’ve been folks who today might see themselves a hetro-ish/bisexual sexual crossdressers? (Given the conceptions of the time presumed that if one was interested in presenting oneself/behaving as a woman, then one would “naturally” be attracted to men (and vice versa for women).) One of the books quoted extensively from the writings of one “fairy” who uses language strikingly similar to the common memes among crossdressers, i.e. having a female self, etc. It’might have been similar to how today some FTMs go through a period assuming they must be butches because they’re masculine female-bodied people who are are attracted to women, and how some FTMs who are attracted to men can have even more trouble realizing that they’re trans because they don’t have way to conceptualize what they feel.
I guess the difference I’d see is that those of the down-low may not see themselves as gay because there are other identities trumping that. (I’m presuming that they take the insertive role—which ties into older concepts of only being homosexual is you’re the “feminine”/receptive partner—which is also pretty common in other cultures.) Whereas the HBS crowd seems to be outright rejecting an identity they aren’t comfortable with—as the HBS crowd puts it: they were “always women,” they just had a birth defect.
Well it’s official… got back from the doctor’s to review my sleep study and I have very severe sleep apnea.
Essentially it means I stop breathing for 20 seconds more than 80 times an hour, and probably had it for years, since I only looked into it after my girlfriend spent the night and (after being woken up by my snoring) noticed it.
Apparently it’s bad enough that my doctor mentioned the possibility of surgery (where they break and reshape your jaw to prevent your soft palette from closing off your throat). My oxygen levels dipped as low as around 60%—90% is normal and below 85% is considered problematic. It’s really bad for your heart (which has to work harder to try to keep oxygen in your blood stream), as well as potentially causing high blood-pressure and weight gain (which can worsen the sleep apnea).
But the first step is a breathing mask, which uses air pressure to keep your airway open. It usually takes a week to get one, but since they’re putting a rush on it (yeah, it’s that serious) I’m hoping it’ll come before Friday—since my girlfriend and I are going out of town for a romantic weekend (and while the CPAP mask is utterly unromantic, it means she’ll get a decent night’s sleep).
The good news is that the doc says the CPAP mask worked extremely well during the sleep test—and that resolving the sleep apnea can be “life changing” in her words. I certainly hope so… I’ve felt low-energy for years, which isn’t surprising after being chronically sleep deprived.
Anyway, just wanted to say if you suspect a loved one might have it, it’s definitely worth getting checked out.