A Dahl’s House

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.

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/GVwJKOAUnnI&rel=1&border=0″></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/GVwJKOAUnnI&rel=1&border=0″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent”width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

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 have to say I’m disturbed by the latest profile on Susan Stanton. First off I’m really sorry that she’s lonely. That sucks no matter what. And for someone who undoubtedly is ambitious (you don’t get to be a city manager if you’re not) applying for 100 jobs and not getting one of them has got to be crushing. And facing a massive loss of male privilege is a tough thing. But I’ve far more disturbed by this:

“…Susan has said all along that she’s not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some, “like I’m seeing a bunch of men in dresses.”

Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. “The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn’t that ironic?

“But I don’t blame the human rights groups from separating the transgender people from the protected groups. Most Americans aren’t ready for us yet,” Susan says. Transgender people need to be able to prove they’re still viable workers — especially in the mainstream.

“The biggest issue against the federal legislation is that politicians think the ladies’ rooms will be invaded by guys in drag,” Susan says, “instead of someone like me.”

Oy…

I’ve heard from those who know Stanton that she’s distressed by the article and feels that many of her remarks were edited or taken out of context. It’s possible she was misquoted, and I’m willing to hear her version of it. But the thing is… she’s said these sort of things before, albeit not as bluntly. She’s been chided about the “men in dresses” comment before, and at a Human Rights Campaign event last month she defended Barney Frank pulling gender identity from ENDA, implying the community hadn’t done enough educating.

At best Stanton appears to be woefully unprepared for the position of spokes-trans that she’s intentionally put herself in. As a post-op acquaintance noted, much of what she’s been through is typical for transitioning MTFs: the unexpected support and the unimaginable cruelty, the loss of work and marriage, the feeling (of various durations) that you want to be thought of different that those folks who give you the creeps. But the thing is… if you’re going to be a “community leader” you’ve got to have your shit together. In my non-trans life I once led a major grass-roots lobbying effort and it’s hard because in many ways you have be a Jackie Robinson — always be calm, cool and collected in public; as well as always careful with your words (to minimize them being misquoted or taken out of context) and aware of their impact. And if you can’t do that, then you don’t belong in the job.

If I’m being harsh on Stanton, it’s because having been a city manager she ought to have known that. (While city managers are careful not to outshine their city council members, they’re definitely political critters who deal with the press and public regularly, and know the weight that their words carry.)

I’m sure she’s well-intentioned — and as I said earlier I’m sorry that she’s having such a rough personal time of it. But there’s a saying that you can’t manage others until you’re capable of managing yourself — and frankly I’m not sure she’s doing the latter at the moment. In other words, she shouldn’t be trying to represent the trans communities until she’s sorted out her own issues, including what appears to be a fair amount of self-acceptance issues that are getting projected outwards. So in suggesting that she needs to step out of the spotlight — both for her own good and the communities’ good — I don’t think I’m being any harsher than Stanton as city manager would’ve been on an employee whose personal problems were getting in the way of doing their job effectively.

At worse, Stanton could cause a lot of damage for the trans communities, given that she’s reportedly being courted by HRC, who’s seemingly eager to anoint a “trans leader” without bothering to consult the trans communities. Barney Frank has already said he plans to strip gender expression protections from the next ENDA because the American public Frank finds trans people too icky and the last thing we need is Stanton giving Frank and the HRC political cover. But again, Stanton appears to be incredibly naive about LGBT politics and unwilling to listen to those who’ve been in the trenches.

I guess one of the things I find saddest is that Stanton doesn’t seem to be reaching out to other trans people for support, nor listening to the advice of people who’ve got her best interests at heart. To be honest, I think she’d benefit tremendously from being part of a place like the My Husband Betty forums (even if she felt the need to do so pseudonymously).

BTW, I just finished reading Steven Seidman’s “Beyond the Closet,” which looks at gays and lesbians and the closet — but which is applicable to trans people as well. Seidman notes that the gay rights movement has had two competing schools of thought: the assimilationists, who have typically framed things in narrow terms of civil rights; and liberationists, who’ve sought to change the system entirely. Seidman sees faults with both positions and advocates a blend of rights-based agenda as the starting point with a push towards changing society (since legal equality can co-exist with social discrimination). Seidman critiques the “we’re virtually normal” argument made by folks like Andrew Sullivan:

A narrow rights agenda ignores the way ideas of sexual citizenship establish social boundaries between insiders (good citizens), and outsiders (bad citizens). And, while same- or opposite-gender preferences is surely one boundary issue, there are many other dimensions of sexuality that are used to separate the good and bad sexual citizens… In particular, a rights-oriented movement does not challenge forms of social control that sexual victims and outsiders of individuals who sexual preferences are between consenting adults. By narrow its agenda to gaining equality and integration, a rights-oriented movement leaves the dominant sexual norms, other than gender preference, in place and removed from the political debate.

The strength of a liberationist perspective is its understanding of hetrosexual dominance [as in being the "default"] as being deeply rooted in social life and as part of a broader pattern of sexual and social inequality… [A] rights agenda can’t avoid being implicated in broader patters of sexual and social inequality; it should, then, be blended with a liberationist politic.

To which I’d add is that the “virtually normal” argument invariably leads to tossing someone over the side — or at least distancing oneself — in an effort to prove one is not like one of them.

I think it’s worth noting that the article mentions Stanton was a “conservative man” before her transition. I’d be willing to bet she’s still got a lot of self-acceptance issues, and her statements are all-too-reminiscent of the “we’re virtually normal” crowd of gay conservatives.

Anyway, if you’re reading this Susan, please step out of the spotlight for the time being, for your own sanity and for the good of your peers.

Bill O’Reilly and other right-wingnuts are in a lather because the Archbishop of San Francisco gave communication to two members of the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence. In its coverage, the Chronicle interviewed a local theologian, who pointed out that you don’t deny the sacrament to those who ask for it, unless they’ve been excommunicated, adding:

While I can see Bill O’Reilly and others might be offended, the sisters do not meet the criteria the church has for denying Communion. Over-accessorizing and poor taste in makeup is not an excommunicable offense.

Not to mention that the Sisters practice what others only preach — and I’m talking about you, Bill.

I may not always agree with the Jesuits, but I do respect priests who are not only smart, but have a sense of humor.

In Silicon Valley, few women reach top jobs: New UC Davis study suggests little has change in decades

Sadly, I’m not that surprised…

Yes, I got a bit weepy watching this television commercial, titled “Perla,” from Argentina….

[Man interrupts two women who are engaged in a conversation in a small-town sidewalk]

Perla (surprised): “Don Luis, strange to see you around here..”

Don Luis: “I wanted to know… when they gave you the loan from the bank to open your hair salon, did they ask for ID?”

Perla: “Yes”

Don Luis: “The document says that you are a man…”

Perla (turning less friendly): “Yes.”

Don Luis: “They still gave it to you.”

(woman nods)

Don Luis: “It’s the same bank that gave me the loan for the car…”

Perla: “Hm.”

Don Luis: “It made me think.. and it made me come to ask for forgiveness for having treated you badly all this time. For not knowing how to treat you… Take this, keep it” (hands the woman a figurine of a ballerina)

Perla (surprised): “For me?”

Don Luis: “Forgive me.”

Perla (smiling warmly): “Thanks so much, Don Luis.”

Don Luis: “Good-bye.”

Caption: Your life changes when there’s a bank that dared to change.

Voice-over: “You have a life, you have your bank.”

Bravo to Banco Provincia and their ad agency El Cielo Buenos Aires!

(Thanks to Blabbeando for the translation and to Autumn for spotting it.)

When I’m flying, all I really care about is that the air traffic controllers keep me from crashing into stuff, I don’t really care what they’re wearing…

An air-traffic controller in Oberlin was reprimanded because his aquamarine pants were “not gender appropriate.”

The dressing down came after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed a dress code for controllers, and the two now have added a fashion fight to their already strained relationship….

[Union spokeswoman Mellisa] Ott said the case of the veteran controller admonished about the color of his pants was just one of several incidents nationwide. A couple of women with knee problems hurt themselves when they were ordered - despite doctor’s orders against it - to wear dress shoes.

Another Oberlin controller was disciplined because he wore an orange shirt that a supervisor said “looked like a highway traffic cone.”

The man in the aquamarine pants was warned he would be disciplined further if he wore them again.

“He was angry. He said they were questioning his sexuality because of his pants,” Ott said. “And aren’t there laws against discriminating against someone because of sexual orientation anyway? Does that mean a woman can’t wear brown because it’s a ‘guy’ color?”

She noted that controllers work in a dark room in a secure building, far from the public. It’s rare that members of the public ever get into the building and even more rare that they would get into the area where the controllers work.

“So, who are we dressing up for?” Ott asked….

The department’s seriousness about the dress code was apparent in a speech widely distributed by union members made by FAA Vice President of Terminal Services Bruce Johnson before agency managers. Johnson said managers should not be afraid to put a controller’s “career on the line” for dress code violations.

“If you need to terminate someone, you terminate him,” Johnson said.

Among the shenanigans that angered Johnson were the male controllers who showed up to work in dresses. National Air Traffic Controllers Association spokesman Doug Church said the controllers wore dresses to point out “the silliness of a dress code.” He noted that as written, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits male controllers from wearing dresses.

The San Francisco Chronicle profiles About-Face, a local non-profit “determined to equip women and girls with the knowledge they can use to dismantle these messages that tell them they must be tall, thin, blond, tan and sexually available to have any value.”

This year, About-Face plans to sponsor four San Francisco-based action groups — two groups of teenage girls, ages 13 to 17, and two groups of women 18 and older. Each group would be responsible for brainstorming and creating a campaign against a negative message in advertising or the media.

Finally, About-Face will step in and help them execute their plans.

“We have to stop thinking about it as men doing it to us,” Berger says. “Actually we as consumers, we as shoppers, just by letting this stuff get to us, we’re complicit.”

I wish them well. Because I can relate. Crossdressers’ fondness for mirrors and photos is well-known. But I think it’s more than simple narcissism — although I’ll be the first to admit that one reason for my crossdressing is a desire to feel beautiful in a way I don’t feel like I can as a guy. But the flip-side of that is that many of us crossdressers have also bought in to the “beauty myth” and yet we’re even farther from the supposed ideal than most females. And so the mirrors and the photos (usually carefully posed to show our most flattering profiles) are attempts to reassure ourselves that, yes, we are pretty.

From an article about the media circus surrounding Stanton’s unsuccessful interview for the Saratoga city manager’s job:

I try to make myself available as much as possible,” she explained. “For most people, a transgender person is not something you see every day. It’s important for them to see that I’m not a freak, I’m not a pervert, I’m not a crossdresser. I’m just me.

I realize what she was probably trying to say — this is who I am, it’s not an act — but dammit, that sort of thing hurts when said by someone who ought to know better, especially in such a high-profile situation.

Zoe, soap opera’s first trans character on “All My Children,” headed back to London this week (in time for actor Jeffrey Carlson to start rehearsing for his stage appearance in “Hamlet.”) Like a lot trans people, I was a bit skeptical initially given both the publicity-stunt manner in which the story line was introduced, and the choice of Zarf — a one-named David Bowie-esque flambouyant rock star — to be the character who transitioned. But like a lot of AMC fan, I was won over.

It was far from perfect, AMC wasted a lot of time setting up Zoe as a red herring suspect in their “Satin Slayer” serial killer story line, and then rushed through many aspects of Zoe’s transition. (For example, Zoe’s mother went from trying to convince Zoe she was delusional to accepting PLAG mom in a mere two episodes.) Would be it were that easy. Then AMC pissed off a good chunk of its lesbian audience by having a budding romance between Zoe and Bianca, AMC’s resident gold-star lesbian (more about that in a bit), and the “live and let live” message was a bit heavy-handed at times.

But on the whole, I think it did a tremendous amount of good. I’ve been hanging out at the message boards over at Soap Central and was pleasantly surprised at the warm reception that Zoe received from most people. Of course it probably helped that 1) Carlson is a hugely talented actor, who a lot of the hetro female viewers seemed to have a crush on, and 2) for long time viewers the story line was an interesting change of pace from the usual cheating lovers, stolen babies, amnesiacs, etc. The fans were far more unaccepting of poor writing than of Zoe.

Speaking of which, one of the major missteps was the budding romance between Zoe and Bianca — which Zoe put the brakes on, out of concerns that with her transition it wasn’t the right time to start a relationship (although seemingly the door was left open for something down the road). Which upset a number of lesbians who’d been supportive of Zoe previously. It’s hard know how widespread the discontent was, but those who were opposed to the relationship were pretty vocal

A bit part of the problem is that Bianca is apparently the only lesbian in Pine Valley — and one of the few gay or lesbian characters on any soap opera. So rather than being seen as a lesbian, she’s seen as the representative of the lesbian communities, so needless to say, people are quick to say “that’s not me!”. Whereas if there had been more lesbians on AMC, people might have been receptive to the idea that some lesbians do fall in love with transwomen — which in fact happens.

Now the lesbians critics did have some good points. Bianca’s only sexual experience with a man came when she was raped by one, so yes, it was less likely she’d be attracted to someone with a penis, even if Zoe saw herself as a woman. And this is where AMC’s shortcuts with the storyline showed. It would have been truer to Bianca’s character (and to real life) if Bianca had gone through a bit of “I never thought I’d be attracted to” soul-searching. But I doubt some of the lesbians would’ve accepted the romance under any circumstances: since Zoe had a penis, no “lesbian in good standing” could possibly be attracted to her. To which I think the male partner of a transwoman (featured on the MSNBC program called “Born in the Wrong Body”) had the best reply: “Say you like hamburgers but you don’t like fries, and someone offers you a happy meal — you’re not going to turn down the whole thing just because there’s one part of it you don’t like.”

Ironically, the hetro female fans didn’t have a problem with the relationship, in fact many of them were entranced by it. Part of it was that Carlson and Eden Riegel, the actress playing Bianca, had real chemistry. Part of the difference simply may have been the visuals. Although Carlson is on the androgynous side, the lesbians viewers seemingly were stuck on seeing a man in a dress and couldn’t get past it. Whereas the hetro female viewers may have been unconsciously attracted by the same thing.

It’s hard to say, but Zoe may have also helped paved the way for the warm reception given Mike Penner, a prominent sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times (whose columns are reprinted in a number other papers), who on Thursday announced to readers that she was a transsexual and would be returning in a few weeks as Christine Daniels with the full support of her editors. (Daniels apparently was just taking some time off, rather going for surgery, since follow-up articles indicated that she was just beginning hormones and cross-living.) The reaction: The highly personal column became one of the most heavily viewed stories in the last year, with about half a million page views. Nearly 1,000 readers commented on the LA Times’ website, the vast majority overwhelming positive. Daniels personally received 538 emails, only two of them negative.

In additional to continuing her sports column, Daniels will also be blogging about her transition for the Times. Daniels put it best: “I want to thank all of you for transforming a day I had feared for decades into a day that will carry me over the bumps and potholes that doubtlessly await as I move forward on this journey.”