Gender and Technology Spring 2009

Since I’m taking two gender courses this semester (the other is the English class Women and Law in the Middle Ages), I knew they would start speaking to each other eventually.  Our reading for that class for today was from John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, about how gay people lived and were treated in Europe during the Middle Ages.  The part that stuck out to me was his very clear breakdown of the words “nature,” “natural,” and “unnatural,” especially in relation to how they’ve been used in prejudiced ways against gay people.

First he points out that the meanings of the words depend on which socially constructed concept of nature you’re referring to.  He points out three different “natures” and their respective explanations of what constitutes “unnatural”:

• Nature as ‘realistic’ or related to the physical world, e.g. “human nature.”  So “unnatural” would be “uncharacteristic,” as in “It seems unnatural that she would give away her car to a stranger.”
• Nature as the observable universe, e.g. “the laws of nature.”  This “unnatural” would refer to ghosts or miracles.  He has a great footnote here that explains the words “supernatural” (more than, better than nature), “unnatural” (not “natural” and thus feared; the uncanny), and “nonnatural” (no value judgment).
• Nature as opposed to humans and what we make, aka nature vs. technology, which is the most obvious Nature for this class.  “Unnatrual” in this case either refers to something only humans do (read and write), or something artificial, e.g. synthetic fibers and ‘artificial flavoring’.

According to Boswell, then, the argument (prejudice) against homosexuality as “unnatural” is totally unfounded in reality for two reasons:  1) Some animals do practice homosexuality, so it’s not “unnatural” in the last sense, and 2) Even if humans were the only species that practiced homosexuality, why would that make it wrong?  We don’t consider literacy a sin, and that is arguably what most makes us human.  I think the same explanations for prejudice have been applied to transgender people, and can be broken down in this same way.

Since we’re trying to deconstruct the categories of “normal” and “natural,” I thought these observations would be really useful for thinking about exactly what we mean and want to say when we refer to nature.  Overall I think the words “nature,” “natural,” and “unnatural” can be hugely misleading, and they should always send up red flags when we read or hear them, especially when they “naturally” (unthinkingly) come out of our own mouths.

Anyone interested? It’s open to all…

The Gestalt Therapy Institute of Philadelphia and The Women’s Therapy Center is offering a 1/2-day workshop about Gender Identity: From Pathology to Celebration, on March 13th at Arch Street Meeting House. The presenter Alison Gerig leads  the WTC and is a graduate of the Institute.

We hope you’ll join us for a thought provoking dialogue on how to work with gender from Gestalt, feminist, and non-pathological perspectives.

Alison is a licensed clinical social worker with 10-years experience working with gender identity and sexuality. She spent many years helping to build the transgender health program at the Mazzoni Center. Currently, she provides individual, couples, and group therapy to the transgender and  queer communities in Philadelphia.

We encourage pre-registration, as the room has a maximum capacity.

See below for complete flyer details and registration information. We hope you will join us.

OVERVIEW:
Historically, the mental health field has pathologized the notion of gender non-conformity. Most clinicians lack adequate training and familiarity around how to approach gender variance and are left feeling confused and cautious when these issues emerge in session. This results in clients feeling unsupported and even shamed around their experience.

Co-sponsored by GTIP and the Women’s Therapy Center, this two-part workshop will explore how to approach gender identity from a non-pathological, non-shaming perspective. Part one of the workshop will introduce terminology and definitions regarding gender identity and how feminist and queer-based theories can be applied to working with gender in a therapeutic context. Using Gestalt therapy principles, skills and interventions will be introduced through case presentation. Resources for families will be provided as well. The second portion of the workshop will discuss clinical issues that emerge such as disclosure, partners, body awareness, transphobia, dating, legal issues, and family. Ways to manage our own agendas and biases as they emerge in the work will also be discussed.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
•    Anyone working with clients exploring their gender identity in a counseling setting
•    Those wanting to learn or deepen their understanding of how to use Gestalt therapy theory when working with gender identity
•    Participants are welcome from diverse social service backgrounds
•    Anyone interested in understanding gender identity and transitioning experiences from non pathological and non binary frameworks

CEUS:          4
DATE:          Friday, March 13, 2009
HOURS:       9:00 am  –  1:00 pm
TUITION:      $45; $40 GTIP members and associates; students
LOCATION:   Arch St. Meeting House, 320 Arch St., Free Parking

PROGRAM LEADER:
ALISON GERIG, LCSW is a licensed clinical social worker with 10-years experience working with gender identity and sexuality. She has been a psychotherapist in New York and Philadelphia and worked at the Mazzoni Center for seven years as the Director of Health Services, helping to build the transgender health program. Alison provides individual, couples, and group therapy to the transgender and queer communities in Philadelphia and is also the Executive Director of the Women’s Therapy Center, a nonprofit serving low-income, self-identified women in the Philadelphia region. She attended GTIP from 2005-2008.

CEUs (4):
This session is co-sponsored by Bryn Mawr College Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research for a maximum of 4 credit hours. Bryn Mawr College GSSWSR, as a CSWE accredited School of Social Work, is a pre-approved provider of continuing education for Social Workers in PA and many other states.

GTIP is approved by the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology to offer continuing education for psychologists. GTIP maintains responsibility for the program. The Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology requires Psychology workshop participants to furnish their license number to receive a certificate of attendance.

PRE-REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Refund, less $20 fee, will be issued with cancellation notice by calling 610.668.5177 by Wednesday, February 18, after which, cost is non-refundable, but can be applied to a future GTIP offering.

GENDER IDENTITY REGISTRATION

Fill out & mail this REGISTRATION FORM with a check made payable to:
Gestalt Therapy Institute of Philadelphia
GESTALT THERAPY INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA – P. O. Box 961 – Bryn Mawr, PA  19010-0961
Name:
Daytime Phone:
Address:
City:
State:        .
Zip:
Email:
Check here to receive directions:
Highest Degree:
Psychologist’s License Number:

To receive CEU certification, circle one:      LSW        LCSW        PSY        LMFT        LPC        GENERIC

Completed evaluation prior to departure is required to receive CEU credits.
Psychologists, please note your license number is required to receive C EU credits.

Check fee enclosed:
______      $45

______      $40 GTIP members and associates; students

Questions?  Call 610.668.5177 or e-mail: adminGTIP@gmail.com

Gender Identity is co-sponsored by the Gestalt Therapy Institute of Philadelphia and the Women’s Therapy Center

—
Laura Henrich
GTIP Administrator
o: 610.668.5177
h: 610.664.8731
c: 484-467-4315
PO Box 961
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-0961

In the “My Right Self” website, I was intrigued by something Val said.  Ze (I’m not sure what gender, if any, Val identifies with, so I’m gonna use “ze/zer” for now as people in previous posts did) said that patterns are inscribed onto the body, patterns from social forces to dress a certain way for instance, and patterns from “natural” processes like our DNA.  Thought that was interesting, thinking of DNA as a “technology” itself that inscribes itself on us.  The other day, Professor Bernard Chazelle gave a talk “What an iPod, a Flock of Birds, and Your DNA have in common”.  He pointed out how many different processes that can be thought of as “programs” and “data”.  For instance, take DNA.  After all, DNA is just a code (the data for a program, if you will!) that gets acted out by proteins (running the program).  So even DNA which we think of as natural, is a sort of cyborg, and DNA, like other social factors such as how we dress (as discussed by Ruth and others earlier), is inscribing itself on us as a type of technology.

“It is my job to help people weigh the benefits and the costs for themselves, and make decisions based on the best possible information, not on stereotypes.” — This is Val talking about how he assists people with HIV.  It really reminds me of Erik Parens’ article, suggesting that parents should in many cases, let children decide for themselves, and that doctors should help parents to think about what they want to do, to give the parents the _information_ and _resources_ without telling them what to do.

Val goes on to say that after weighing the costs and benefits, ze decided to out zerself.  That related back to the discussion aaclh had regarding passing, and how we must weigh up the benefits and costs when we make decisions to pass or not.

My apologies for being technologically and physically absent recently…I had a nasty case of strep throat. But I’m back and ready to talk.

Going back a few classes to the discussion of cosmetic surgery, I found the short article about hymenoplasty and the ensuing debate about virginity really interesting. I have this very distinct memory of one of my older cousin’s bridal showers, her sister bought her a gag gift that was basically a ‘Relive Your First Night’ kit. At the time I didn’t find it very funny because I was only about 10 and didn’t quite get the joke but now (and after reading this article) I’m not sure I can even find it funny. Many women go to great lengths to stay attractive and young, to stay prominent and fresh in the eyes of others but at what costs(besides the obvious monetary costs ones)? For me, cosmetic surgery has always seemed superfluous. The idea of men and women spending thousands of dollars to fix an ‘unsightly’ bump on their nose or ‘imperfect’ cheekbones or ‘too small’ breasts has always escaped me. Cosmetic surgery for medical reasons is another boat, but surgery to ‘perfect’ a person’s ‘flaws’ seems to me downright ridiculous. When did someone draw a picture of the perfect face, the perfect body, and decide that that would be the model? That major cosmetic surgery would be the cure for our self esteem issues? That it’s impossible to be happy with the face and the body that you have?

I digress from my main point obviously. The idea of hymenoplasty deals with other issues entirely – the importance that certain religions place on virginity is still striking to me. It is especially striking when it occurs in Europe, as Davide Sordella, the director of a film about this specific operation comments, “These women live in Italy, adopt our mentality and wear jeans. But in the moments that matter, they don’t always have the strength to go against their culture.” One woman describes that not being able to prove her virginity as a trauma so intense she borrowed money to pay for the surgery to obtain a certificate of virginity for her boyfriend and his family.

Dr. Jacques Lansac, the leader of The French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians states that, “We had a revolution in France to win equality; we had a sexual revolution in 1968 when women fought for contraception and abortion. Attaching so much importance to the hymen is regression, submission to the intolerance of the past.”

Other than this article I don’t have much previous knowledge on this subject and I am always hesitant to make statements about cultures and religions I don’t know very much about but I have to agree with Dr. Lansac. Women have fought for sexual freedom everywhere and it feels like placing so much importance on virginity (the reacquisition of it anyway) is taking a step backwards. Why should women feel ashamed of their choices sexual, or otherwise? And putting religion and culture aside for a moment could hymenoplasty be the hot new thing for cosmetic surgery addicted individuals in America? A new nose, nicer cheekbones, a more defined chin and a restored hymen…something about that just doesn’t sit right with me.

Ruth’s post reminded me of a campaign that was going on a while ago in my hometown, Montgomery County, MD a while ago. A conservative group called, “Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government” launched this campaign called, “Not my shower!” in response to a law that was being discussed that would allow transgender people to use the restroom of the gender they identified with. I originally heard about this campaign when I was in high school and my friend told me that people called her house to rouse up support for “Not my shower!” and my first reaction upon hearing about the law being discussed was, “Wow, how scary. Anybody could pretend they’re transgender just to get into a particular restroom and abuse or mistreat the other men or women, or children in the restroom…” Upon reading Ruth’s post, I was reminded of the campaign and googled it just to refresh my memory, when I found the following two articles, reflecting VERY different attitudes towards the law and its reactionary campaign:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/02/nation/chi-transgender-backlash_bdaug03 (

This is a Chicago Tribune article which tells the details of the law, the campaign, and other reactions to transgender issues, by opening with a story of a transgender woman who has endured many injustices relating to her transgender identity)

and THIS:

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7611

is an article from a newsletter/blog called “Breakpoint: Changing Lives, Minds, and Communities through Jesus Christ” which offers a conservative view of the law and its issues, and frames it as a threat to our safety and privacy, which, embarrassingly enough, in some capacity harkens back to my initial reactions to the law: 

“And what is to stop non-transgendered men from entering the ladies’ room? Nothing. A child molester or rapist could put on a dress and go right in. So could pornographists. It is an appalling, shocking law. ”

Coming from where I stand now, after having deconstructed and learned about (or touched the tip of the iceberg of) gender identity and its complexities, it comes easily to me to find the latter article appalling and overly-simplistic (as a whole. Admittedly, parts of it sound like my initial fears and reactions). However, this binary addressed in the juxtaposition of these two articles is telling in that it shows that there is a spectrum of reactions, and both ends are founded in some kind of legitimate fear or belief. I won’t say much about the law itself because I still haven’t arrived at any conclusive opinions, and I guess that’s what I’m trying to say: I’m trying my very best to get my head wrapped around all of this, and I believe that defining what I do not believe perhaps brings me closer to locating my true and thoughtful opinion. In the meantime, though, I do enjoy observing the back-and-forth.

P.S. The law was passed.

tomorrow (feb 10) at swarthmore college, there will be the opening of an awesome photo exhibit, “transgender photo narratives.” there’s a lecture at 4:30, and the reception begins at 5:30.

it’s awesome that this is event is happening right at this moment in our classroom discussions. it’s going to be awesome and no doubt very relevant to our interesting ongoing conversations on trans experiences.

swarthmore gazette announcement 1/
swarthmore gazette announcement 2
facebook event posting

it’s at swarthmore college, in the scheuer room, kohlberg hall (right behind parrish hall, the main building on campus). just to reiterate, there’s an hour-long lecture by the photographer (i think), starting at 4:30, and then there will be a gallery reception starting at 5:30. you can take the 3:30 (or 4:55) shuttle from Bryn Mawr, or the 4:05 (or 5:15) shuttle from Haverford to make it on time.

hope to see you there!!

I am very grateful to both Ryan and Alex for taking the time to join us, and to talk with us, and to answer (some!) of our questions today. Some of my notes (recorded here as an archive for myself, and for anyone else who might find them of use):

• “I am not attracted to ‘a gender.'”
• “mistaken for”–whatever that means!
• the ability to “pass” can affirm a gender identity
• “I embrace ‘trans’ as an identity (“not en route to somewhere else”)
• identity “stealth”
• “I have no interest in passing; I embrace the complexity of a female body using male pronouns. I am not transitioning. I am trans.”
• “I disagree with Sandy Stone. Not every one needs to be completely performative. I don’t put myself into a box; I dislike labels.”
• “what does it feel like to be trans? ” there’s no one experience
• labels are imposed; they are not personally adopted
• I use labels, and I define them for others.
• labels are important for making sense
• “labels reduce”: they ignore the other “normal” parts of me
• “I don’t think my body was a mistake”
• “there’s no rectification needed; no need to “fix it!”
• I embrace the process. I embrace the ambiguity.
• not wanting to be male, but wanting to be seen as boy: an aesthetic
• difference between what you are, and what you present
• “Bryn Mawr requires a documented commitment to womandom”
• questions about insurance fraud: are we talking breast reduction or gender reassignment?

Here’s a link to the Baltimore Team Trans blog, which was recently formed in response to a popular gay club’s bathroom policies. A trans man who had been performing at the club was removed by security from the men’s bathroom, which the head of security claimed was justified because he “hadn’t had surgery yet.”

The story presented on this blog challenges the emphasis which Hausman places on the possibility and the availability of surgery in the formation of a trans subjectivity. It points out that, for many, surgery really isn’t accessible – as it can cost upwards of $100,000 – and yet these individuals can still be considered trans subjects.

I know that I should have posted this a week ago but it just came to me as I was reading the posts about cosmetic surgery. I remember watching a TV show called ‘The Swan‘ that dealt with transforming women who were ‘ugly’ (I put that in quotes since I’m not comfortable with calling them that – who am I to judge?) into ‘beautiful creatures’ through cosmetic surgery, exercising, eating right etc. etc. This show took in two women at a time and were given 3 months to change, at the end of which one of the two would be chosen to proceed to the beauty contest based on their progress, their attitude, their determination. Also, they weren’t allowed any mirrors at all during the 3 months so they had no idea what they looked like. Any woman found with a mirror would be disqualified.

The contestants who made it to the beauty pageant in the first season.

What is interesting is the opinion my friend expressed when I mentioned the show to her. She was angry about the entire concept because she didn’t understand how some people could spend all that time trying to make a woman who considered herself ugly into a ravishing creature and then tell her that SHE STILL WASN”T GOOD ENOUGH! How can you crush someone like that and live with your conscience??
For more thoughts on the show, I found this article.

well, i got three hours of sleep last night and woke up at 5am, so please forgive this post for any rambling or incomprehensibility! 🙂

i’ve been thinking about the stone and hausman articles all weekend; i’m going to write my paper about them. there is so much to those articles… so much that’s really rad and progressive, especially in stone, but also quite a lot of assertions i found troubling. many other people have mentioned these on the blog so far… here’s my takes.

both of the articles were rooted in an attempt to trace the historical development of transsexuality in relation to technological developments, both discursive and practical. hausman seemed to proceed primarily from a critique of the mainstream acceptance of gender as an ahistorical totality and, like the academics mentioned by stone, deployed the transsexual body/condition as a discursive “battlefield” on which to pitch her arguments. hausman attempted to create a new and “potentially threatening” (p. 9) account of transsexualism not as a disorder but as a technologically-mediated and technologically-en”gendered” set of self-manipulative practices by agentive subjects. while i was fascinated by hausman’s detailed accounts of the relationships between trans patients and the medical establishment, i felt that her overwhelming focus on arguing for technological advancements as the ultimate source of transsexualism, as well as her completely unequestioned reliance on a monolithic “transsexual narrative” (as critiqued by stone), denied the complexity, emergence, and multiplicity of trans subjectivities while paternalistically allowing them a homogenized “demanding subjectivity” (her terminology).

i felt stone’s focus was much more radical, and yet was plagued by even more problematic assumptions than hausman – unfortunate, because i really really liked her article! as attentive as hausman to the constructedness of “the trans narrative,” stone was far more commendable in the range and radicalism of her critique, noting both the flimsiness and the repressive function of the established “transsexual narrative.” furthermore, stone was much more attentive to the silencing and repressive origins of that narrative, which she insightfully described as heterosexist, cissexist, heteronormative, and privileging of whiteness. ultimately, i found a certain liberatory promise in stone’s thoroughly feminist indictment of the patriarchal dualistic gender system.

however. there were just so many things that made stone’s article difficult to fully endorse.

stone definitively states that passing is lying, and that trans people who pass and who attempt to pass are deluded by, and buying into, patriarchy’s gender binary system. this statement is, bizarrely, almost reminiscent of janice raymond’s absolutely horrifying statement to which stone’s essay is a response! (you know, that “transsexuals are men who “rape” genetic women” bullshit.) in asserting that passing is lying, stone does the following:

a) asserts that “truth” is inscribed on bodies, even when they are modified;
b) cites subjective human experience is the source of that truth;
c) thus infers that trans women are not real women, and trans men are not real men;
d) assumes that passing is a privilege which all trans people possess, or want/try to possess;
e) demands that trans people to take up the political burden of deconstructing the gender binary.

i was really shocked by this last assertion, which is the essence of stone’s posttranssexual manifesto (at the close of her article). not only does stone’s “gender bender” ideology assert a trans specificity, linked to a universal transsexual narrative of passing; not only does it demand that trans people define themselves as gender variants, and politicize their bodies in opposition to patriarchy; more than all of these, it is shockingly insensitive to the extreme violence, persecution, and exclusion most trans people face in contemporary society. passing is, for many trans people, the only refuge from society’s constant cissexist violence.

i don’t have much time or energy right now to articulate my response to these deep deficiencies in stone’s critique, so i’ll just sum it up in a simple sentence: All identities, and all expressions of identity, are legitimate and valid.

i’ve been waiting for the right time to post this video, but i think it’s now. this is the trailer for an amazing documentary which will be released this spring. it’s jules rosskam’s against a trans narrative – i can’t wait for it!

i think the most relevant part of the video goes from 3:40 to the end.

against a trans narrative trailer

If transgender is of sepcial interest to you, you might want to watch “Transgender MD,” which airs on Discovery Health on Thursday.  I’m planning to record it, so if anyone wants to watch it, let me know.

One of the things I found interesting about the Sandy Stone article was how much was unknown about transsexuals in the 50s and 60s and how it needed to be ‘corrected’. Lothstein’s observations on aging transsexuals, despite being blatantly negative and on subjects that were not ‘typical examples’, were recorded as characteristics of transsexualism. And the feminists’ interpretation was even worse – “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves.”(p. 324) I can see their point of view but I disagree with it. I doubt that was anyone’s objective in any way.

Going along with what Hillary was saying, the root of the problem is societal definitions. It is society that defines what is masculine and feminine, what men and women should look like, what they should wear, how they should behave, who they should love. Things are unfortunately not as clear-cut, not as black and white as that. From what I understand, transsexuals want to be able to do what is most comfortable for them, what feels natural to them, but society tells them that what they’re doing doesn’t conform to their characterization of gender. Hence they need to change the way they look if they are to be allowed to do what feels right to them. What are the other reasons for wanting to be a member of the opposite sex? Even with society becoming more accustomed to it, how difficult is it to change?

Reading this article reminded me of a movie called “Ma Vie En Rose” that I had seen in a French class I took my freshman year. It deals with a 7 year old boy who thinks he’s going to grow into a woman. What I found interesting was that he couldn’t understand why everyone was telling him to stop playing with dolls, dressing up in girls’ clothes, and why it was wrong of him to think of marrying his neighbor’s son because it seemed so natural to him. According to the boy, the extra X chromosome landed in the trash when he was born and he ended up with a Y chromosome instead. The transsexualism caused the boy’s family enormous trouble within their neighborhood and at the father’s job. Their way of dealing with it – sending the boy to a psychologist to ‘cure’ him. Ultimately, they learned to accept him for who he was.

When I read the Hausman article, I immediately had a problem with her idea that transsexuality is merely a product of modern technology. From her words, it seemed to me that she doesn’t think the concept of transsexual existed before doctors were able to completely remove all genital traces of one sex or the other.

However, these links between medical technology, medical practice, and the advent of “sex change” in the twentieth century have been ignored my most scholars who study the subject, who more usually understand transsexualism as representative of a transhistorical desire of some human subjects to be the other sex. In contrast to this view, I argue that developments in medical technology and practice were central to the establishment of the necessary conditions for the emergence of the demand for sex change, which was understood as the most important indicator of transsexual subjectivity.

At the end of the article, she discusses Lili Elbe and Christine Jorgensen as the first in a line of many who would “become women” through the use of technology. This is another case of defining what makes a woman by the ability to bear children or the possession of ovaries- something I don’t agree with. Lili Elbe’s final surgery, just months before she died, was to transplant an entire uterus into her body, to allow her to bear a child. Indeed, her death is believed to have been caused by the rejection of that organ. But does that mean that someone born with a uterus and ovaries who is subjected to a hysterectomy later in life is no longer a woman? Or that a victim of breast cancer who undergoes a double mastectomy and chooses not to have reconstruction is also no longer a woman? Having known someone who has undergone the latter and still considers herself to be a woman, it’s hard to understand people who would think of her as less than that.

I guess my real question is: how are we defining “transsexual”? Is it necessary to have a desire for SRS? What of those people who will never have the opportunity to even consider SRS, or those who are unaware of its existance? I think that, in our collective human need to define and label, we have created a category that may just be impossible to define.

On a side note, the story of Lili Elbe is set to become a movie starring Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron, due for release in 2010. It’s adapted from the novel That Danish Girl, by David Ebershoff.

Hausman’s article left my head reeling with questions.  Here are the two which struck me the most.

Why is it that Bernice Hausman’s article made a point of stating that all transsexuals were not homosexual.  I hope I misunderstood or misread this “fact” within the article.  It seems to me that if transsexualism is a state which has nothing to do with one’s sexual desires but is about the way one identifies himself as a certain sex/gender, then whether or not the individual is homosexual or heterosexual is not a mutually exclusive factor.  If one is born with male genitalia but knows oneself to be a woman (a transwoman, if you will) then why does the Hausman article seem to make it an impossibility for her to also be attracted to women?

The other question the article posed for me was this:  If television is an important technology which has played a role in proving transsexualism is “normal” (all questions of ‘normal’ vs ‘natural’ aside), then how can it be that Hausman places the sole importance of the categorization and understanding of transsexualism within the context of the medical community?

Ok… I wasn’t sure how to word this post.. so it’s ended up being an eensy bit on the late side.

In my mind it seemed to me that crossdressing is a milder form of expressing “transsexual”. Well… that could mean anything, so unpacking a little… since I consider gender to be a construct, clothes or body really doesn’t make a difference. One of the most awesome webcomics is Khaos Komix with reference to Transsexual and gay/lesbian issues. I like the idea of body crossdressing… it actually brings up a question of whether or not there might be people who felt that they were a man, but preferred wearing a woman’s body or visa-versa. Then if they are “body” cross dressing, are they actually “crossdressing” if they thereafter wear a tuxedo? Aren’t these the best crossdressers? (I actually am an acquaintance of a heterosexual male who wears skirts better than I do… sometimes I feel a little jealous that he can carry off skirts so well!)

I realize that in drawing lines between what is comfortable and what is disturbing, one has to keep making judgment calls (as we discussed in class with the comfort levels of certain words like: liposuction, makeup, braces, etc). In the readings, I find it heartbreaking that to be transsexual would be considered a “disorder” or “medical condition”. Granted, on a purely semantic level, this wording might have truth in that “dis” is against the “order” that society has striven for, but on a purely emotional level, I feel that it is complete bull to call all differences disorders. Then again, (and here I realize I’m almost verbally playing tennis with this idea) if society fails to draw any lines at all, we have the fear that people will not have any boundaries at all (“oh no, she’s gonna marry a monkey!”).

In terms of questions for our guests on Monday, I guess the main question (which I was almost not sure if I should post) is since gender seems to be such a fluid ideal based on physical appearance and societal construction, what does it mean to be transsexual and homosexual? Transsexual and heterosexual? If people can construct their bodies to be physical representations of their psychological manifestations who is to say that there is even “transsexual”? (in other words, if we agree that gender is a construct, is it not therefore true that transsexual might be viewed as art of the body similar to a tattoo or piercings?)