TRANSGENDER BORG VS. SEPARATISTS

I'm fairly new to the great Borg vs. Separatists crisis currently boiling within the transgender community. So I'm not at all certain of the totality of arguments put forth by either side of the equation. I'm wading my way through a few of the lengthy diatribes of some of the proponents of the dichotomous positions. I find the issue entertaining and quite informing of the breadth and depth of the transgender experience. I'm glad the discussion is taking place because it calls upon us to think deeply about who we are, where we come from and where we are going.

It is, however, important to keep in mind that the transgender population is a very young constituency, really only about 20 years old as a viable social and political movement. We're just now finding our footing and our voices. Everything is changing all around us: how other people think about us, and how we think about ourselves. And it's good. This is growth. This is evolution. This is progress. Yet, when things change, when new awareness and ideas come along, old ideas and old terms get shoved aside. Some people have a real problem with that.

By even using the term "transgender" in the way I have here already my position on the matter becomes instantly clear to those who are familiar with the arguments. For it seems that the term "transgender" as an "umbrella" term for just about anyone - including casual crossdressers - who transits or transgresses or transforms along the great gender divide sticks in the craw of those individuals who consider themselves serious "sex changers." They reject the word "transgender" for themselves, and prefer the alternative term "transsexual," which defines and separates them from all other wannabes. So these are the separatists.

The "Borg" is the transgender collective or "LGBT Dictatorship" who are intent upon forcing the separatists, against their will, to join them under the despised and unrecognized umbrella.

I recently stumbled upon a manifesto, a "Declaration of Independence" of the separatists, apparently penned by Teresa Ellen Reeves, a Northwest resident, about a year ago. I found it fairly well written, at least grammatically, and quite illuminating as to the full gamut of the separatists' concerns. I thank Teresa for her contribution to my understanding. I refer you to this link for her full text: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150216872276837

I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on many of the principal points that she makes.

In this piece, Teresa declares "independence, secession and liberation" from both the transgender umbrella collective and the LGBT collective, which in her view have variously sought to erase the identities, silence the voices and render "transsexuals" invisible and powerless. She argues that those who have undergone a "sex" change are entirely different from those only engaged in some sort of "gender" bending or changing, and that this differentiation renders any type of commonality futile.

The first thing I'm going to do is to throw out the word "umbrella" and substitute the word "rainbow." Though well-meaning, "umbrella" is a clunky description, conjuring a huddled throng of possibly disparate individuals, whereas "rainbow" connotes a smooth continuum of incrementally different individuals who nevertheless are grounded in unique commonality. This metaphor is far closer to the truth of transgender reality.

Now let's examine the first paragraph of her declaration: "We, the transsexual people, hold these truths to be self evident. We are an independent and distinctly different people who were born of a mind in contrast with our physical bodies. We have a neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body, and through our transition we relentlessly pursue the remedy and correction of our birth defect through hormonal and other therapies and sex reassignment and other surgeries."

Notice how she admits that this condition involves a "mind in contrast with our physical bodies" and a "neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body." This portion of her statement could well apply to any person on the transgender rainbow continuum. Even crossdressers have "a mind in contrast" with their physical bodies, and "neurobiological imperative" to cross the gender divide, if only temporarily. So she has established a firm framework of transgender commonality... with a brain/body incongruency issue at its core. But then she immediately seeks to diminish that commonality by separating out the "transsexuals" as different because only they relentlessly pursue a remedy for their "birth defect" through hormones and surgery.

Now her definition of "transsexual" is set: one who is relentlessly pursuing a "sex" change. But when does this relentless pursuit begin? When does one become "transsexual?" Before birth? At birth? In childhood? Adolescence? Young adulthood? Middle age? The senior years? The answer, of course, is that it can begin at any time of life. So then, what is the person before they begin their relentless pursuit? Not a "transsexual" according to the declaration's definition. Then no one is innately "transsexual," but rather must have both the mind/body incongruency AND the wherewithal to begin the relentless pursuit. Those who will not or cannot make this commitment need not apply to the club. And what about those whose commitment waxes and wanes? While they are dutifully taking their hormones and having electrolysis, are they "transsexual," while if they cease to do this for awhile, they lose their membership? In other words, are all preoperative "transsexuals" probationary, subject to having their TS status revoked at the first sign of weakening? Meanwhile, Teresa makes it clear that once one is post-op, the "transsexual" definition can be dropped for good. According to Teresa, the post-op M-t-F "transsexual" is now a real woman. The only transsexual aspect remaining is their history (which now they must hide). So it would appear that the state of "transsexuality" is quixotic and temporary.

This is clearly quite messy and irrational.

Teresa imagines a great transgender and LGBT conspiracy against "transsexuals," those who have a "bona fide medical condition." These conspirators want to depathologize and normalize the transgender experience, and claim that gender variance is natural. To the separatists, this is an afront to their mindset. They fear that if gender identity can be all over the map, and people can come and go as they please upon the masculine-feminine scale, then perhaps medical solutions aren't really necessary.

Teresa explains: "Since 'sex' in their view is between the legs only and 'gender' between the ears, all that has to be done is convince transsexuals that they only have to change their concept of gender and role and that they should be content with their original birth sex. Meaning it is better to change your mind than your body and better to change gender rather than sex."

This leaves me scratching my head. I've been around the transgender community for over 30 years, and I've never heard anyone suggest such a thing. Perhaps in the bad, old days psychiatrists proposed such a solution. Today, maybe some fundamentalist Christian program offers such an ideology. But I have never perceived any transgender or LGBT conspiracy to encourage "transsexuals" to not transition or to discourage them from obtaining medical and psychological assistance through that transition. Quite the opposite is the current reality, with most transgender support groups filled with knowledgeable pre and post ops, happily detailing their experiences, and a medical system that has never been as large, varied, accessible and welcoming as now. The facts simply don't support the separatists' claim of wide-spread repression and discrimination; actually they have never had more opportunities and rights than they have garnered as an important part and parcel, indeed leaders, of the transgender community.

I just believe that Teresa and the separatists are confused about sex and gender. They seem to assume that everything gender-related is in the head, while everything physical is sexual. They cling to outdated terminology and conceptualizations of 40 years ago that were themselves based upon shoddy differentiation between gender and sexuality. Changing your sex is impossible for humans. Yes, you can add hormones, which will induce some physical and psychological changes; you can surgically alter your genitalia and other body parts. So you've changed some aspects of your biological sexual components, but you haven't changed your sex. To do that, you would have to transform your chromosomes in all 100 trillion of your cells, as well as your gamete-producing apparatus. That's what sex really is all about: reproduction. If you haven't changed that, you haven't changed sex.

Even after the "sex" change operation, you may not have even changed your sexual orientation in terms of which gender you prefer to be with. Only about 30 percent of post-op "transsexuals" change their sexual orientation. It would seem that Teresa is among those whose actual sexual orientation was not changed by her "sex change." As a man she was attracted to women. It was XY on XX sex. Now as a transwoman, she is attracted to women. It's still XY on XX. Chromosomally, she was heterosexual, and she is still heterosexual, because there really wasn't a "sex change." But from a gender standpoint, she was straight, and now she's a lesbian. It was masculine/feminine sex, now it's feminine/feminine sex. So she is transgender, not transsexual. She should embrace the mind/body equation that actually affirms her feminine gender identity, not fight against it while trying to square the circle of the biological equation that actually refutes her proclaimed sexuality.

Alas it seems sexuality is the end-all and be-all for the separatists. Yet it's an impossible dream. They must bend themselves into pretzels and redefine words to form some semblance of logic to defend their position.

Teresa says, "Today there have been oxymoronic constructions of words used as a substitute for sex reassignment surgery including gender "reassignment", "affirming" or "confirming" surgery. Oxymoronic because it is a sex change and not a gender change operation-- as surgery is performed on primary and secondary sex characteristics, and not on "gender" organs."

The terms she describes as oxymoronic are actually just a bit clumsy, but not inaccurate. "Sex reassignment" or "sex change" are inaccurate. The surgery itself can be construed as a "reassignment" by oneself, or as some kind of official cultural initiation, graduation or correction. The terms "gender affirmation" and " gender confirmation" were coined as potential replacements for "reassignment," and may be more accurate, but haven't really caught on yet. This demonstrates the flux that our language is in as we evolve as a community.

The "transsexuals" are simply wrong in asserting that altering the sexual organs equates to a sex change. Altering primary or secondary sex characteristics still does not undo underlying sexual biology.

What is very possible is gender change. And gender is what it's important anyway, not sex. Gender is how you self identify and how you present yourself to society... at all times. Sexuality is about fucking... and from a genetic standpoint, reproducing. If it doesn't involve fucking or reproducing then sexuality doesn't actually have a lot to do with it.

Teresa vigorously disagrees (we can tell because she is shouting): "I AM NOT A TRANSGENDERSEXUAL! ...NO MATTER WHAT MY PHYSICAL, GENETIC & BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ARE, THEY DO NOT MAKE ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN, SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN A WOMAN. I DID TRANSITION TO FEMALE SEXUALITY- AND IT IS MY SEXUALITY-- AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK MY FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOR IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER WOMAN?"

She just doesn't get it. She's not going to win any friends among genetic women by claiming that she is just like "any other woman." That's just bullshit. She has no idea what it is like to be a genetic woman. That's a dishonest, ignorant and ignoble insult to individuals who were born female, grew up little girls, felt the subjugation and discrimination of male privilege and patriarchy every day of their lives, experienced the hassle and pain of menstruation every month starting around age 11 or 12, and lived in a state of constant vulnerability and disadvantage in a "man's world" without any relief all their lives, and also experienced the authentic magic of the holistic biological female self. Teresa is very definitely something different from this, and certainly not just "any other woman."

She continues: "We terminate our membership in our sex of birth and end our ability to function in that sexuality and instead have enabled our sexuality as the sex we have transitioned to. 'Sexual Identity' is whether you agree or disagree that you are a member of the assigned sex and whether or not you accept the sexuality and the sexual and reproductive role of that sex."

Teresa is so factually off base here that the mind boggles. Only if you change the words "sex" and "sexuality" to "gender" does this statement not grate like fingernails against the biological blackboard, and even that falls apart when she brings in the concept of "reproductive role." Reproductive role? You really want to go there, Teresa? Female sexuality is all about producing large gametes, eggs. Once Teresa is able to produce large gametes, then we'll talk about her "female sexuality."

So we can't change sex, and we can't steal the history, thought process and feelings of the opposite sex. But we can do the next best thing. We can change gender, as much or as little as we want to, and start building our own catalogue of experiences and history. We can wear the clothes of the other gender. We can style our hair like the other gender. We can wear the accessories of the other gender. We can gravitate toward the same interests as the other gender. We can learn to walk and talk like the other gender. We can learn to think somewhat like the other gender. We can get jobs as the other gender. Other people will treat us as the other gender. Sometimes, if we are good enough at all of this, most people will never even know we were not always of this gender!

None of this has anything to do with sexuality. But there's good news on that front as well. If we want to, through hormones and surgery and other methods, we can approximate the sexual characteristics of the other gender, to the point of even doing the sex act. We haven't completely changed our sexual biology, but we have to the extent we can copulate, or "have sex," in our new gender, perhaps with a new partner, or with the same old partner. Now that is really great for those who want it. And what happens is that the mind, the seat of gender identity, is greatly relieved and enlivened by this new physical congruency. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what it was. In fact, it's a rather beautiful thing. So the "neurobiological imperative" that Teresa mentions at the beginning of her Declaration, is fulfilled. The body can be transformed to better match the gender identity, and then the individual can more effectively and more happily transit the gender divide in their own self-perception as well as in culture-at-large. So the transgender pathway is available to any who would take it, for as far as they wish to take it. There are both capitalist merchants and medical professionals and governmental officials who will help us go as far as we want to go. And there is no conspiracy standing in the way.

Teresa herself has been the beneficiary of this ever widening system, but she sees enemies everywhere: "A major faction of the transgender dictatorship seeks the deconstruction of the dichotomy of human sexuality and abolish the sex binary of male and female to suit a minute portion of the population and to create a legal classification of persons other than female or male that some call a third gender (sex), including transgender, genderqueer, bigender, gender neutral, gender fluid, polygender, etc. They would like to desegregate single sex-only spaces and establish gender neutral or multigender restrooms, locker rooms, schools, jails, etc. where all must be allowed in."

Again, "sex" is foremost on her mind. I've not encountered this "major faction" of the "transgender dictatorship" that is seeking to deconstruct the sexual binary of male and female. The gender binary, yes. The sexual binary, no. It is a biological fact that the basic template of sexual reproduction is based upon the polarity of male and female. If there are people out there disputing that, then they are as confused as those who think they can change their sex. It's in the realm of gender where people should be free to blend masculine and feminine energy, perspective and identity. In other words, to be themselves.

Transgender people are free to do whatever they want with their gender identity and presentation. They can play around with it, or they can go all the way to full gender transformation, including the physical self.

Teresa and the "transsexuals" are afraid of this freedom in the hands of the rabble. They are the sex changing aristocracy, the ones who are strict and serious and conformist and traditional about this mind/body dichotomy business, to the point of needing medical attention (as they keep reminding us). They are not free to decide for themselves where upon the gender spectrum they are most comfortable. They are commanded to proceed full speed. The "transsexual" Grand Council will revoke their "transsexual" membership in good standing if they don't get a move-on down Sex Change Road. And they don't like any posers muddying the water for them within the greater cultural pool. So they feel they must create a clear line of separation between their higher aim of "sex change," and the lesser and often aimless objectives of the transgenders. To create this division, they wish to sever all ties to the transgender community, and its motley collection of queers and crossdressers and pre-ops who don't have what it takes to become a real woman or man. It's basic clan mentality.

"To be trans- "gender" is to change gender role. Gender is a sociocultural role construct that is a cluster of roles played that conform to the societal expectations of behavior and identity by those sexually assigned female or male."

Well close. Gender is personal identity and cultural presentation in addition to societal expectations of roles and identity. Almost always it matches up with biological sex. But, as we are discussing here, not 100 percent of the time.

"Change of gender is the last word in the transition of those whose journeys stop-- ending midway to becoming unified in body and mind. Transgender people are willing to settle for less than what transsexuals are seeking."

Absolutely wrong. Here Teresa and the separatists are simply taking it upon themselves to make up a new definition for "transgender," so that it will no longer include them. This is the same creative license they utilize to presume that modifying one's genitalia magically changes one's entire sex. They don't want to be under the umbrella, or on the same rainbow spectrum, so they are taking their identities and marching off. But it's rather like California declaring secession from North America. Nothing in the definition of the word transgender, either etymologically or within common usage, implies that a transgender individual cannot pursue and fulfill the same mind/body unification that a "transsexual" achieves. They don't have to, of course, but they can. I did. And I am proudly transgender, not "transsexual." And there are tens of thousands of other post-op transmen and transwomen who also consider themselves transgender.

Now, Teresa and the separatists charge that the "transgender Borg" are out to erase their identity and history. Nothing could be further from the truth. The transgender political movement is trying to save their true identity and history from those that would destroy it: the "transsexuals" themselves. But there is great irony in this tiny minority of "transsexual" reactionaries telling a much larger collective that they aren't what they think they are. According to them, you can't be transgender and have had surgery... or even want surgery. You can go midway, but stop right there, transgender person! You have no right to go any further. The "transsexual" Grand Council declares you unqualified!

It's a ridiculous assertion. Anyone is free to think of themselves in any terms they want. I will not say you don't have a right to think of yourself as Jesus or Cleopatra or a purple wallaby. Out of a desire to help you understand reality a little better, I might attempt to point out the delusions in your interpretation. Or I might just choose to ignore you. But I do have a right and duty to counter your attempt to set up a cultural meme that is blatantly in error, divisive and destructive, not just for others but for yourself as well.

The "transsexual" separatists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as a sex change, and therefore the word transsexual is inaccurate. There is no conspiracy. There is no Borg, though there is a welcoming, inclusive and powerful Rebel Alliance: the LGBT community and transgender community within that larger spectrum. No one is trying to erase their history or their identity, except themselves. No one is trying to prevent them from getting their surgery. No one is denying their difference from a crossdresser or gender queer or drag queen or any of the other people upon the transgender spectrum. Those who want surgery hold down one side of the transgender rainbow, and those who only want to dress up now and again hold down the other. They are certainly not the same, but they certainly are related.

Teresa and the separatists (who seem to be overwhelmingly M-t-F) see enemies and repressors everywhere. They are suspicious of and angry at the transgender community, gays, lesbians, the straight people, normal society, even F-t-M "transsexuals" (because by typically not undergoing the all-important surgical initiation, they are dubiously "transsexual"). In this embattled state, as well as in the incoherency of their doctrine and dogma, they are like the fundamental Christians and political conservatives, at war with the world and reality.

The pity is that these people cannot embrace all of the grand and wonderful diversity of the human rainbow, and accept their own unique and special qualities, and the sacredness of their individual journey. In their fervent wish to be the other "sex," the "transsexuals" have missed the epiphany of being something far more profound. They think they have a birth defect, something to be corrected and then forever hidden, rather than a challenge-gift of sublime meaning. They are the ones struggling so desperately to erase their own history and true identity in flailing pursuit of an impossible dream. In dreamlike seeking of "sexual congruence" they end up losing their authentic, holistic self. They are doing themselves, and all who come behind them, no favors.

I would imagine that this way of thinking will soon largely die out. Younger trans people are much more open to embracing their authenticity as a blend of masculine/feminine energy and perception. Giving up the impossible dream of ever becoming, deeply biologically, the opposite sex/gender, and opening up to the possibilities of forging your own unique gender identity, and bringing your physical self into the best possible congruence with that self is the true pathway to wholeness and happiness.

The mystical word transgender conveys the essence of this journey. Long may it inspire and unite those who would accept the challenge to understand it, explore it... or to be it.