marjaerwin: (Default)
If this stands up, this is as important as the BSTc and INAH3 studies, and from people who have maintained that transness is social, psychological, and/or a fetish, rather than partly biological.

I am unsure about the ethics of identifying Gallus Mag. But in the Gendertrender discussion complaining about (mis)identifying Gallus Mag, some commentators including Fabfro, Jane, Smits, and Jo comment about what they see as a characteristic "smirk," and Miep adds that "It’s my personal theory that you can even spot the ones who will wind up trans, by the smirk."

I know that personally I have a slightly asymmetrical face and somewhat asymmetrical smile.

It is certainly possible for facial features to reflect neurodevelopmental features. Subtly distinct features have been suggested for some autistic people, just as here for trans people, and substantially distinct features are known for Downs' and Williams' people. It is also possible for spurious theories to lead to discrimination, harassment, and worse, as with physiognomy. It is sad that the original discussion was quite ableist.

It would also help explain why some trans womyn face transmisogynistic harassment and even violence before transition, if the bullies/bashers have noticed the facial features, though for many of us the bullies/bashers could have or did notice breast and/or hip development anyway.

Peak Trans

Jul. 19th, 2012 11:15 pm
marjaerwin: (Default)
First the patriarchy destroyed itself in an ill-conceived attempt to eliminate male homosexuality.

In the 1950s and 1960s, having discovered that certain progesterone analogues could increase attraction toward womyn and reduce attraction toward men, various offices used these on 'suspected homosexuals' and the military used these on their own soldiers in the Cuban War, eventually introducing these progesterone analogues into the water supply of Miami, New York, and several other major cities. In typically male-minded fashion, they focused on the short-term foreground changes in sexual attraction in men, but failed to study the short-term changes in sexual attraction in womyn, assuming the same drugs would increase attraction toward men. In addition, they ignored the gradual increase in depression and headaches, which are now known to be the product of a long-term background change in sexual identity and the resulting neuroendocrine incompatibility with male hormone levels.

In the 1960s and 1970s, underground pharmacists began to produce the same progesterone analogues, as well as regular and emergency contraception, estrogen, and progesterone. The progesterone analogues became a symbol of liberation and solidarity for some womyn, increasingly many womyn, and were eventually nicknamed lesbian concentrate. The Kennedy administration was unable to shut down the hormone trade, and the McCarthy administration was unwilling to continue the failed policy.

In the 1970s through 1990s, as more and more womyn embraced lesbianism, heteropatriarchy began to break down. Womyn were able to control their own bodies, rejecting penis-in-vagina, and ending forced birth. Owing to widespread social separation between womb-bearing and most wombless womyn in the WSA, womyn who chose to bear children generally chose in vitro fertilization over traditional 'baster' fertilization, but early in vitro techniques led to significantly more wombless [Wolffian] births than womb-bearing [Müllerian] births. At the time, most wombless children were believed to be boys and were expected to grow into men. Owing to strict restrictions on transition, and later criminalization of transition, less than 20% of the camab population had transitioned by the beginning of the Civil War.

In the 1990s through 2010s, after the Civil War, with fewer barriers to transition, and fewer barriers to transitioned womyn's participation in society, cissexism began to break down. More than 80% of the camab population had transitioned within 15 years of the end of the Civil War. At the time, some were concerned that a growing trans majority might lead to neglect of cis-specific concerns, and cis-specific coverage in the Womyn's Health Service. Owing to substantial immigration, however, trans people have not exceeded 70% of the population.

At present, with improved techniques for in vitro fertilization, the revival of traditional 'baster' fertilization, and the birth assignment lottery, most demographers believe that the present situation is at or near 'peak trans,' and expect the rate of transsexualism to gradually fall to 50% of the population.


Although this was written in response to an anti-trans site, this is intended to parody my own attitudes, and my own trans-womon-specific approach to feminism, not theirs.

Also, I know gender stereotypes are strange now, and I expect they will get stranger if people never, or hardly ever, meet the genders they're stereotyping. It would create some strange ideas about what men are/were, hence the comment about male-mindedness above. I don't intend any offense.
marjaerwin: (Default)
Some possible reasons:

- She isn't a butch, but she is somewhat butch.

- She is a butch, but she doesn't feel bound by how others define butch and/or she wants to mess with how others define butch.

- She might be a butch, and isn't far past transition, and is still figuring out whether she is a butch, or not, or is just working out her style.

- She might be feeling insecure about her body and/or her life. She encounters images of femme beauty, and few images of butch beauty. She might get a confidence boost by being able to match femme beauty, if and when she chooses.

- Or she might be feeling pressured by other people's beauty standards. She might need a confidence boost from knowing she can match those beauty standards, if she ever needs to.

- She might be feeling happy about discovering/reclaiming her womonhood. She might use clothes, arbitrarily associated with womyn, not with men, to celebrate. It happens.

- Or it might be laundry day.

Really, I don't see why anyone should need to argue about it.
marjaerwin: (Default)
It's interesting to contrast the politics of hormones and surgery, for trans womyn.

Hormones are relatively cheap. Surgery is far more expensive. A few hundred dollars a year isn't cheap, but the main limits on access to hormones are medical-institutional. Surgery is far more expensive. In America, the main limits on access to surgery are class-based; it may be more complicated elsewhere. Surgery is risky. Any surgery has its risks and genital reconstruction surgery is no exception. Hormones are safe. Assuming an individual is in good health, and her hormone schedules reflect her medical needs, having hormones is safer than not having hormones.

Hormones are effective, too. Most womyn, cis or trans, are happier with typical female hormone levels.

Yet there's this emphasis on surgery in the medical literature, pro-trans lit, anti-trans lit, and the popular media. The medical systems holds up transition for people who are undecided about surgery or are deciding against it. The legal system often denies rights to people who have not had surgery or cannot afford surgery.

Many trans advocates and pro-trans advocates run from people who haven't had surgery or don't want surgery. There are "women-born-trans" who declare they were not "women" until they had surgery. But there are many trans womyn who were womyn from birth who are transitioning to become themselves, with or without surgery.

Many trans advocates and pro-trans advocates build surgery into this critical moment when someone suddenly becomes "reel." This can make it harder for trans people to recognize already being *real.* This portrays having the right hormones, the right body-feelings, etc. as the prologue of something greater.

Maybe for some it is something greater.

Maybe for others it is a let-down.

I remember my parents teaching me that the only important difference between girls and boys is that girls have an innie and boys have an outie. Throw in the culture-wide emphasis on heterosexual intercourse, and it can be hard for people to quite learn that some womyn have tab a, and it doesn't necessarily go into slot b.

This gets me angry. Not at my parents. I love my parents and thank them.

But at the trans advocates who turn their backs on non-op and can't-op sisters. At the medical and legal empires which pressure people into surgery instead of letting people decide what's right for themselves as individuals. The range of cultural, medical, and legal pressures seem almost custom-built to focus the desire for completion, including gender congruence, on the idea of the "right" parts, and into a desire for surgery.

At the same time, the emphasis in surgery diverts people's attention from the effects of hormones. It scares some people. It makes the hurdles to transition seem infinitely higher than they are. It convinces other people that transition is purely or primarily cosmetic. If these people are trying to be good male allies, they may try to avoid entangling themselves in cosmetics and beauty standards, and they may not admit their own feelings and needs.


marjaerwin: (Default)

August 2017

13141516 17 1819
27 28 293031  


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 07:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios