Transgender LA Times sportswriter Mike Penner dead in suspected suicide

November 29, 2009 6:49 AM

Veteran LA Times sportswriter Mike Penner dead in suspected suicide, a sad folo-up to this 2007 post about his bombshell column announcing his transsexuality and his decision to take a leave of absence and return to the newsroom as Christine Daniels.

It got more complicated later on. He took another leave and returned a year ago as Mike Penner again.

posted by planetkyoto to MetaFilter-Related at 6:49 AM (99 comments total)

In my former life as a SoCal sportswriter/editor, I remember him as a friendly and likable guy in the pressbox and on the sidelines, and a very good sportswriter. I couldn't even wrap my head around his announcement, and didn't comment in that thread, even though I'd talked with him many times. He must have gone through hell with this gender confusion, transgender regret, or whatever it was. RIP, Mike.
posted by planetkyoto at 7:05 AM on November 29, 2009

Why don't you FPP this? It's an interesting and worthwhile post. It would also be better if you included a link for as to why he detransitioned.
posted by Sova at 7:45 AM on November 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

.
posted by lukemeister at 8:20 AM on November 29, 2009

.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:49 AM on November 29, 2009

Very sad. RIP, Mike/Christine.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:08 AM on November 29, 2009

I think this is a good article: "For some, shadow of regret cast over gender switch" from USA Today, written about Mike Penner after he re-transitioned but before his death.
posted by Houstonian at 9:10 AM on November 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

So very sad.

And I vote that this deserves to be posted on the blue.
posted by marsha56 at 9:39 AM on November 29, 2009

And I vote that this deserves to be posted on the blue.

Ditto. Why is this here?
posted by SPrintF at 10:04 AM on November 29, 2009

.

Tragic. And yes, let's move this to the blue!
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:22 AM on November 29, 2009

another vote for FPP. I read about this on can't stop the bleeding last night.
posted by minkll at 10:26 AM on November 29, 2009

I can't begin to grok the difficulty of being transgendered, either in spirit or making the choice to align one's physical self with one's mental picture of self. I know I've had plenty of problems as a member of the GLBT community, but it's all been with me wanting the plumbing I was born with. The struggle be accepted as transsexual is uphill all the way; even within the community the "T" portion is the least understood and often the most neglected.

I feel for this man who was making difficult decisions all under national public scrutiny.

.

And yes, please. Flesh out the post a bit and let's get this as a FPP. It is more than just a followup to a story, I think.
posted by hippybear at 10:41 AM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

.

why is this on talk and not the blue?
posted by krautland at 10:48 AM on November 29, 2009

Horribly sad. I hope zie had some time feeling happy and whole.
posted by kathrineg at 10:49 AM on November 29, 2009

Another vote for a post to the blue. Follow-ups can get their own posts when the new event is sufficiently big or it's been 2½ years since the previous one.
posted by Plutor at 11:34 AM on November 29, 2009

.

So fucking sad. Makes me remember that what Tolstoy says about unhappy families is true for unhappy individual souls too. No one can understand what it's like to go through the mental anguish that he did in his too short life, but I hope he's found peace now.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:05 PM on November 29, 2009

.
posted by theantikitty at 12:15 PM on November 29, 2009

folo?
posted by amro at 12:42 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

I am irate that the obit uses the wrong pronoun throughout.
posted by Rudy Gerner at 1:31 PM on November 29, 2009

As extensive therapy and testing have confirmed, my brain was wired female.

What kind of test is she talking about here?
posted by phrontist at 1:34 PM on November 29, 2009

I am irate that the obit uses the wrong pronoun throughout.

It referred to the person as "he," as did Mike Penner himself, after he re-transitioned from female to male. From one of the last lines: "He returned to using the Mike Penner byline in October 2008."
posted by Houstonian at 1:39 PM on November 29, 2009

I am irate that the obit uses the wrong pronoun throughout.

No, it doesn't. Mike Penner returned to a self-identification as a man named Mike Penner, after having lived as a woman named Christine Daniels. Someone who self-identifies as a man is properly referred to as "he".
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:40 PM on November 29, 2009

Oh, snap, Houstonian.

I agree that the obit isn't well-written; "He returned to using the Mike Penner byline" isn't obviously the same as "He returned to self-identification as a man named Mike Penner both in work and life," which is what he did.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:41 PM on November 29, 2009

Hatred kills.
posted by Avenger at 1:47 PM on November 29, 2009

I kinda wanted to leave this to planetkyoto to post to the blue, as it's his and I don't want to step on his toes. But he doesn't seem to be around, and I think a proper discussion on this would be worthwhil/interesting. Should I just post it anyway, or will somebody else do it?
posted by Sova at 2:02 PM on November 29, 2009

You should post it.
posted by kylej at 2:15 PM on November 29, 2009

Some real gems in that previous thread:

"Well, it's fucking sick, that's what. This isn't about sexual preference or identity, it's about carving up your body like a turkey because you think you'd be more comfortable as a man or a woman or a anthropomorphic giant squirrel. It's just goofy -- it's humankind on the cliff, confused & horrified. We -- I mean, those of use not in the Starving Class yet far away from the Ruling Class -- clearly can no longer figure out what to do with ourselves, because there are no real challenges to life and no real importance to what we do.

Oh, and Mr. Glen/Glenda has a wife (and perhaps a family). His wife is also a sportswriter at the LA Times, from what I've heard. Any thoughts for her, unmentioned in Frank 'n Furter's outrageously selfish announcement?"
posted by hermitosis at 3:25 PM on November 29, 2009

folo-up?
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:30 PM on November 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I also would like to see you craft an FPP for this, Sova.
posted by tyrantkitty at 5:23 PM on November 29, 2009

You know, as much bitching as there seems to be about FPP obits, this might be a nice compromise. Delete the first obit, make a meta, let people post links, etc. Delete any other obits for the first 24 hours, and if the original metat poster doesn't want to make the post, someone steps forward. Much meatier and worthy obits.

Win all the way around.

I am guessing this made it here because there was the whole, "How soon is too soon for it to not be a follow-up and deleted as a double?" thing going on. My rule of thumb is if the last thread about something is closed to comments, I feel free to make a post (and not worry if it gets deleted), but someone always comes along as says, "Double," and links to a thread from 1875.

I also make sure I post comments in open threads even if they are weeks old.

Anyway, just being dumb.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:30 PM on November 29, 2009

I'd also like to see a post for this.
posted by lalex at 5:41 PM on November 29, 2009

Ok, hold on, I'm doing it.
posted by Sova at 5:45 PM on November 29, 2009

Morning here in Kyoto, sorry I missed your comments and exhortations to move it to the blue overnight. I posted it here because, AFAIK, that was our policy from way back. One use of MeTa is follow-ups to older stories with closed comments, and I like that. Is there something confusing about it being here? If someone else wants to do it, go ahead, I certainly don't mind. There are more links in the LAT story, and I'm sure a longer obit sidebars will be coming. Here's a February 2009 story about transgender regret featuring Mike/Christine and a large picture of Christine.

About his wife, Mike and his wife (also a veteran LAT sportswriter) split up as I understand and her busy Twitter feed of NBA insider stuff has gone dark for now.

Sorry about the spelling of "folo-up," that's newsroom spelling like "lede."
posted by planetkyoto at 5:48 PM on November 29, 2009

Done.
posted by Sova at 6:20 PM on November 29, 2009

I am not going to post this over in the actual obit thread, since it could be taken out of context.

For the first 12 years of my life my name was Christopher Lynn Frisbie. Kids are cruel, so there were the obvious lame jokes. "If someone threw you, would anyone catch you?" or "Hey, look it's a Frisbee, someone catch!" Like I said, lame, but they still hurt.

When I was 10 or so I read "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh," and I was so upset my last name was spelled differently. I loved that book, and there was no way to make even a mental comeback to the idiot joker kids by pointing out my name was the same as a lab rat's.

When I reached the age of 12 my mother had been remarried for 6 years or so. Her new husband had the last name of Jorgensen. He wanted to adopt me. My overriding motivation for saying "Yes," in the face of an older sibling's opposition to the change was how much I hated my last name.

So at the age of 12 I was adopted. No one could make fun of my new name:

Christopher Lynn Jorgensen

This worked well for me for another 7 years or so. In college I was once again faced with idiots that insisted on mocking my name. "You ever hear of Christine Jorgensen?" or, "Were you named after a transexual?" or, "Hey, you do have a penis, right?"

To this day, to my overriding shame, the reason I agreed to change my name was because of people making fun of it and comparing me to a thrown toy. To my personal sense of pride...well, being compared to a toy bothered/bothers me a whole lot more than being compared to a person of conviction, a person that was willing to blaze the way for others. That I can admire.

So fuck it, make fun of my current name only if you want to make me smile. Make fun of my former name if you want a split lip. I'm as happy to buy someone a drink as I am to pop him in the mouth. Your call.

And no, I am not trying to say I understand the plight of a transexual, but rather I can more admire this struggle than I can anyone that thinks because they are different, because they have something different like a dumb assed last name, that somehow they understand someone born with a penis she was never meant to have.

I have no idea what was going through this guy's/chick's head. I'm sorry about the suicide. I am glad there's an obit post.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:56 PM on November 29, 2009 [5 favorites]

From the way that post seems to be going, it's sure handy that there's already a MetaTalk thread open...
posted by hermitosis at 9:25 PM on November 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

"I don't understand transgenderism, yet now I shall hold forth on it."
posted by fleacircus at 11:03 PM on November 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: I don't understand this sensitive and nuanced topic, yet now I shall hold forth on it.
posted by liketitanic at 12:59 AM on November 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

Christopher Lynn Jorgensen

Oh, man, I totally thought people were making fun of you because you middle name is Lynn!
posted by crossoverman at 12:59 AM on November 30, 2009 [2 favorites]

From the way that post seems to be going, it's sure handy that there's already a MetaTalk thread open...

It's difficult, and understandably so. I would have liked people to explore the question of whether Mike Penner was still conflicted about his gender, and if so, what our (the general public's) reaction to transsexualism means to the mental health of transitioners. Even if we bully them back into their old gender (assuming that could have happened here), the problem just becomes less visible, it doesn't go away. Even if we are for some reason opposed to transsexualism, the alternative of an unhappy or even dead person is surely worse.

Needless to say, I don't get to decide how a thread develops, and nor should I.
posted by Sova at 6:50 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

From the way that post seems to be going, it's sure handy that there's already a MetaTalk thread open...

Ugh, yeah. I'm glad someone decided to go the full-post route, since this seems like a case where it's substantial enough to justify it (though I don't think there was anything wrong with going the Metatalk Updatefilter route, planetkyoto, so no worries), but it's one of those things that tends to be pretty bumpy. I wish I could say I was surprised that the thread on the blue is going the way it is.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:15 AM on November 30, 2009

I would have liked people to explore the question of whether Mike Penner was still conflicted about his gender, and if so, what our (the general public's) reaction to transsexualism means to the mental health of transitioners.

Me too; that's a fascinating topic -- sparked by an extremely sad event -- that I would welcome the opportunity to discuss in a cis-centric place like mefi. It's talked about a little in trans circles, but a) there's sometimes a taboo about even mentioning the possibility of "detransitioning" (because most trans-centric discussion sites double as support centres) and b) we're not cis, and much as we can guess at the confusing and befuddling world of the cis people, we're probably wrong a lot. Detransitioning does happen, of course, and by many is not seen as a failure, but as one of the two desirable outcomes of the "real life test": you have feelings that may be transsexual in nature, so you transition, and if you get on with it you stay that way, and if you don't you go back; enormously simplified, naturally.

Unfortunately this topic is way beyond trans 101, which is the black hole at the centre of any trans discussion in cis space: all light is swallowed, and all that exits is radiation and swearing.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 7:47 AM on November 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

by many is not seen as a failure, but as one of the two desirable outcomes of the "real life test": you have feelings that may be transsexual in nature, so you transition, and if you get on with it you stay that way, and if you don't you go back

That's a great, smart way of thinking about detransitioning; there are plenty of strong emotions that must accompany the decision to turn back (an acquaintance years ago did just that, and we did our best to support him), but shame over not being able to go through with it doesn't have to be one of them.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

My bad, thank you for clarifying and correcting.
posted by Rudy Gerner at 9:42 AM on November 30, 2009

People think about "de-transitioning" as being about oh, I made the wrong choice, I regret it. I even thought that when I first started hearing about this. But now I think it's about the limitations of the available choices for many trans people. The transitioned person still lives in their body (however modified or not) and mind, still lives in this world. This might be hugely better for one individual, and a mixed bag for another individual.

I want a better world for trans people.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:02 AM on November 30, 2009 [4 favorites]

One of the articles mentioned that 5% of people transition back. I thought that was fascinating and much lower than I would have guessed. Not that I discount the impact of the year of intense therapy, but it must be incredibly difficult to make the transition. It's not a magic cure; the problems of not having clear identification or acceptance are still there. The person is going to carry some of that personal and societal baggage no matter which gender they are.

That it"sticks" with 95% is something to give some research and consideration. I can't think of any behavior change with similar results. (Behavior change is probably the wrong wording, but I can't think of a clearer description.)
posted by 26.2 at 10:39 AM on November 30, 2009

I'm terrible at remembering/paying attention to specific users who I dislike, based on their comments, but man, commentary in that thread makes me want to talk about Thanksgiving without specifying what country's holiday I'm talking about.
posted by NikitaNikita at 10:41 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

oh man, that thread.

it reminds of classes I took in school, where someone's viewpoint was catastrophically combative, though couched in terms of "I'm just trying to learn/understand..." when I say catastrophically, I mean that it dominated class time and prevented actual discussion by acting bullyish and basically fighting some basic lesson with every breath they have. I did it myself, unfortunately, and I imagine everyone has that moment in their education. whether it's in math class or lit or whatever. basically, it's like "this doesn't make sense to me, shouldn't it be like this?" and then the teacher tries to explain, is quickly interrupted or responded to with "yeah but that doesn't make any sense" and what follows are a series of changing "common sense" arguments that fit the student's worldview, but don't follow any sort of rigorous logic or method. ostensibly, it's in the name of learning, but it's so combative that it defies learning.

unfortunately, few people in that mindset (however temporary it may be) will hear anyone saying "look, just come at this with a more open mind, and be prepared to change how you look at the topic. then it'll make sense."
posted by shmegegge at 10:51 AM on November 30, 2009 [10 favorites]

when I say catastrophically, I mean that it dominated class time and prevented actual discussion by acting bullyish and basically fighting some basic lesson with every breath they have

This is beautifully put.

I am afraid to go back there. This is a good instinct, right? I said what I had to say, and it was probably excessively lengthy and fighty, and now I need to stay out of it. Yes?
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2009

Sidhedevil: "Yes?"

if you're asking me specifically, I'd say yes for your own sanity. I don't know if you were excessively fighty. from what I remember (I skimmed more than I usually like to) you were being pretty civil, but I just don't see much good coming from trying to change anyone's mind any more. and for what it's worth, phrontist DID apologize, in a way.
posted by shmegegge at 11:00 AM on November 30, 2009

Oh lord, the news of Mike Penner's death makes my heart hurt. And that thread made me see red pretty quickly, so I'll just say here:

.
posted by scody at 11:38 AM on November 30, 2009

Huh. I guess now is a good time to jump in there with what I can.

Sidhedevil, for what it's worth, I don't think you were excessively lengthy or fighty, it's obnoxious doing trans 101 for people who can't like, google, or even be quiet and listen after they ask a question
posted by kathrineg at 12:23 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Thanks, folks, for the validation, and I am so sorry if that seemed like a plea for validation because that actually wasn't what I had meant to write at all. I am trying to be less fighty on here and unfortunately the whole "I am opposing gender essentialism by saying that trans women are doing femininity wrong" thing broke my brain and I had hoped that things might have improved in the thread. But I will save my Sanity Watchers points for the future.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:26 PM on November 30, 2009

Sidhedevil, when I read what you posted, I honestly thought "I should've said that". So yeah, don't worry.
posted by Sova at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2009

Sidhedevil, if you haven't looked at that thread since you stepped out, it's not going as badly as I was afraid it would, but it's certainly well short of awesome. I would not recommend going back in if you're saving your sanity points in this holiday season of love and happiness - you said your piece (and I also don't think you were over the line) and other folks are holding up the side of the discussion you were on - if your instinct is you don't need to be in that thread, go with it.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2009

If I can say so respectfully, I think you all were/are seeing hatefulness and bigotry where there wasn't any.
posted by Commander Rachek at 2:27 PM on November 30, 2009

I was seeing a lot of ignorant stuff which tends to crowd out thoughtful stuff in a really frustrating way.
posted by kathrineg at 2:35 PM on November 30, 2009

And I have to wonder about the virtues of getting frustrated and angry at good faith questions and legitimate opinions. An ignorant opinion can still be expressed thoughtfully and in good faith with the intention of learning something.
posted by Commander Rachek at 2:47 PM on November 30, 2009

I didn't think it was going that poorly, though I guess I've never been through trans 101 before.

The discussion people want to happen can't really happen because we simply don't know what part TG played in Mike Penner's suicide. We can guess that it was large, we can imagine what he had to go through, but we don't actually know much of anything about his decision to detransition or take his own life. There's not enough information to speak intelligently, so I'd rather have the discussion we were having than one that was based on a disrespectful assumption.
posted by fleacircus at 2:55 PM on November 30, 2009

An ignorant opinion can still be expressed thoughtfully and in good faith with the intention of learning something.

it's not the expression, it's the continued defense, after which the "intention of leaning" starts to look more like the intention to stave off learning.
posted by fleacircus at 3:07 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

r
posted by fleacircus at 3:08 PM on November 30, 2009

starve off learning?
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:03 PM on November 30, 2009

And I have to wonder about the virtues of getting frustrated and angry at good faith questions and legitimate opinions.

Meh, people deal with stuff differently. I don't really get angry, just sort of puzzled when people keep asking certain questions when there is a whole internet out there full of information.
posted by kathrineg at 4:10 PM on November 30, 2009

Meh, people deal with stuff differently. I don't really get angry, just sort of puzzled when people keep asking certain questions when there is a whole internet out there full of information.

Well, you certainly came across as angry (to me, anyway), but I understand if that's unintentional; lord knows I've been unintentionally angry-sounding my share of times. I don't see what's wrong with asking questions or stating and defending a dissenting opinion, though.

it's not the expression, it's the continued defense, after which the "intention of leaning" starts to look more like the intention to stave off learning.

I don't think that's what happened, but I also think phrontist (I assume you're referring to him) is perfectly capable of defending his own actions if he wants to, so I won't say more on that.

I didn't really want to get involved in a lengthy discussion about this, and for that reason, I probably should have kept my mouth shut in the first place. Nonetheless, I felt it should be publicly stated that not everyone thinks this is the clear-cut case of Good versus Evil you all are making it sound like here in this thread.
posted by Commander Rachek at 4:42 PM on November 30, 2009

Frankly, it makes no sense for people who don't want people to discuss a topic (discussion = not every disagrees) would make posts about it that contain links to controversial issues within that topic- the obvious purpose being to spark discussion on that topic.

It makes no sense for people who feel as if their opinions are the only valid ones on a topic, and nobody else has anything valid to say about it, to make a post about it on a website that is for everyone.

If you think anyone who is cis having any opinions about gender, sex, and society in the context of a conversation about transexualism, that conflict with any opinions a trans person has, are per se bigoted, do you think any opinions a black person has in the context of a discussion about switching racial identity and passing/identifying as white or black are bigoted?

I'm female and not allowed to participate in a conversation about what being female means, except as a student, or I'm a bigot? Really? You wouldn't say that about ANY other kind of group.
posted by Ashley801 at 5:02 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

ashley801, you rubbed me the wrong way in the thread on the blue and i'm having a hard time figuring out how to explain it.

i guess when you start like this "When I first met MtF transsexuals as 13 year old, tomboy feminist, the idea that wearing a lot of makeup and simpering was what made someone a woman, or more of a woman, was deeply, deeply offensive to me." and then say "I begin to have a problem when someone says those superficial things = woman."

you are the one that held the transexuals of your story up to the ideal...they weren't doing anything but existing and expressing themselves how they wanted and you took that as their statement for all of womenkind. just because you don't choose to wear make up and high heels, to align anyone else who does as sexist comes off as abrasive. then you tried to back peddle and say that you only had a problem when they said they were more female for doing those things, but as was pointed out by a lot of people - it seemed to be a strawman of your own making.

i don't think you should stop expressing your ideas, but when a topic is as tender as someone committing suicide who also had a world of problems with identification, maybe you could watch your tone just a little bit or consider the words your using and how they might come off...
posted by nadawi at 5:24 PM on November 30, 2009

If you think anyone who is cis having any opinions about gender, sex, and society in the context of a conversation about transexualism, that conflict with any opinions a trans person has, are per se bigoted, do you think any opinions a black person has in the context of a discussion about switching racial identity and passing/identifying as white or black are bigoted?

I'm female and not allowed to participate in a conversation about what being female means, except as a student, or I'm a bigot? Really? You wouldn't say that about ANY other kind of group.

Um, who said that? Because you keep asserting things like this, but I have not seen anything even remotely close to that actually happening.
posted by EmilyClimbs at 5:27 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sidhedevil, I really appreciated your contributions to that thread. I was just going to post that there but then I saw this thread. Seriously, thank you.
posted by prefpara at 5:42 PM on November 30, 2009

I think the leap you're making, Ashley801, is that you think trans women's performance of gender is saying something about "what being female means," but -- for example -- the fact that I grow my hair long and wear skirts and makeup doesn't. But really, I'm just as much making a statement about what it means to be female.
posted by palliser at 5:43 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

EmilyClimbs: I'm referring to the posts that have said my participation is unwelcome, that I'm stifling discourse, and that not changing one's opinions on an issue despite others providing disagreeing views is tantamount to bullying.

Palliser: I specifically said more than once that- *assuming* doing such things is a statement about what it means to be female, in general- that I think exactly the same things about it as when it's cis women doing it.

Nadawi: I completely appreciate what you say about watching tone and considering words, and I do not want to rub you the wrong way if I can avoid it. But it seems as if there are many things that offend some people no matter what tone is used (and that's to be expected).

then you tried to back peddle and say that you only had a problem when they said they were more female for doing those things


But in the section of my first post that you even quoted, I had said that what bothered me was "the idea that wearing a lot of makeup and simpering was what made someone a woman, or more of a woman"

That's not backpedaling, that's exactly what I said from the very start.

Respectfully, it rubbed me the wrong way for you to talk about all the "handwringing about feminism," just because it's very common among groups of otherwise "liberal" guys to act like women's issues and how things affect women are besides the point, and are or should be just an afterthought, even when women are directly affected.
posted by Ashley801 at 6:58 PM on November 30, 2009

Ashley - you saw a group of transsexuals when you were 13 who were dressed to the nines (and were they even transsexuals or were they drag queens or transvestites? not that it matters, really, but just pointing out that bioguy in a dress isn't automatically a transsexual and isn't automatically trying to pass) and then you decided that they were dressed/acting the way they were because they felt it made them more of a woman and then you got really, really offended at their alignment in the whole context of femininity. they weren't doing it to define all women, they weren't doing it to define your womanhood. they were dressing and acting in ways that they had carved out for themselves. you are the one that constructed the story around them. you are the one that decided that their manner of dress/actions reflected on you or your ideas about gender.


also - you realize i'm a woman, right? a women who considers myself a feminist, even.
posted by nadawi at 7:15 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ashley801, why does the performance of 'woman' by a transitioned or transitioning woman carry more weight in representing normative gender performance than that of a cis woman?
posted by notashroom at 7:21 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ashley801, why does the performance of 'woman' by a transitioned or transitioning woman carry more weight in representing normative gender performance than that of a cis woman?

Like I said at least 3 times, including two posts ago in this very thread, it doesn't.
posted by Ashley801 at 7:24 PM on November 30, 2009

they weren't doing it to define your womanhood. they were dressing and acting in ways that they had carved out for themselves. you are the one that constructed the story around them. you are the one that decided that their manner of dress/actions reflected on you or your ideas about gender.


So if I, a half Cuban person who looks really, really white, went to East Harlem and performed a fairly extreme stereotype of Cuban-ness, everyone there who saw my actions as a comment upon them somehow would be totally wrongheaded?

Let me give you another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Early in college I had a an acquaintance who was starting to question his gender identity and experiment with it. He talked about wanting to have, with me "a typical girlfriend relationship centered around gossiping and doing each other's hair and makeup." That is pretty close to verbatim what he said.

Did I have a problem with him wanting to do that, no. Did I have a problem with him expressing his identity in that way, no. Did I have a problem with his characterization of that as a typical girlfriend relationship, yes.

Is that what every trans person thinks or wants? NO! Do the majority of people fall under that stereotype? NO! I'm not saying that. But there are people who DO have ideas like that, and it's far from unheard-of.
posted by Ashley801 at 7:37 PM on November 30, 2009

Ashley801, it wasn't there when I loaded the page and I didn't hit preview.
I begin to have a problem when someone says those superficial things = woman.

This, and prior comments you made, implied that the performance of woman by trans women carried more weight, in my reading. I'm really not sure how else to construe those comments.
posted by notashroom at 7:41 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

This, and prior comments you made, implied that the performance of woman by trans women carried more weight, in my reading. I'm really not sure how else to construe those comments.

Another college story. At my college, all the different student groups competed to build floats. I was in an an all-female group. One of the all male-groups built a really awesome float with a lot of pyrotechnics.

One of the girls in my group said, "Wow, there's no way a bunch of girls could ever build a float like that."

She was performing "woman" as someone who was not capable of building an awesome pyrotechnic float.

I find that just as problematic as anything else. She characterizes herself as a woman, fine. She characterizes herself as someone who could not build a float like that, fine. But it bothered me that she conflated the two.
posted by Ashley801 at 7:47 PM on November 30, 2009

your cuban story isn't really on par with what we're talking about here, so i'm just gonna assume you've inflated another strawman. while gender/sex/race often get mushed together due to the struggles of minorities, there really isn't an analogous relationship to the struggles of transfolk in race relations. also, for all your lipservice that this isn't about trans women in specific but females in general gets questioned again with you bringing up "really, really white" in your story - as if to say that if you were somehow browner (or more cuban looking) then it would be more ok, as if they were more of a women it would be ok.

in discussions of feminism and females in society in general, male privilege gets discussed a lot. we talk about how there are things that men will never even recognize that they get because they were fortunate enough to be born in a 1st world country male and white. when you see people who do not fit into the sex they were born with, maybe you could try to realize your own cis privilege and cut them some slack if they're chasing a stereotype. maybe keep in mind that they have to fight for every single thing you get to take for granted and then cast off. your college friend probably had to pretend to care about sports and transformers in the 3rd grade while he watched the girls in their pressed dresses gossip on the lawn while braiding each others hair and swapping lip gloss. when he expressed wanting that, he wasn't challenging your story or your role or your ideas about gender. he was speaking to something he felt he missed, something that seemed typical from the outside looking in.
posted by nadawi at 8:02 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ashley801, I really trying to understand your point.

I don't understand the Cuban example and I don't under your float example. You've got an issue is with one woman in a group of float builders. There are plenty of us who believe we could find females fully capable of pyrotechnics.

Having read your comments here and in the other thread, I don't understand. Why does it offend you if someone identifies traditionally femme behaviors with women? It's not the only possible expression of being a woman, but it one valid expression. If you don't like girlieness or Paris Hilton, that's your option. Do you feel that their choices somehow diminish you or women in general?

I'm not being an ass. I just genuinely don't get your point.
posted by 26.2 at 8:12 PM on November 30, 2009

Let me give you another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Early in college I had a an acquaintance who was starting to question his gender identity and experiment with it. He talked about wanting to have, with me "a typical girlfriend relationship centered around gossiping and doing each other's hair and makeup." That is pretty close to verbatim what he said.

So if I understand correctly, you had a friend who was also a young college student who was beginning to explore gender identity and what it would mean to have a gender identity of 'woman' or some more feminine identity than the one s/he'd grown up performing? And he took a trope from countless movies and tv shows about a dynamic s/he'd never been able to experience personally - that of 'best girlfriends' and how they behave when there are no boys around - and he built a fantasy around it because he had no knowledge of its inaccuracy, and you found this offensive to your gender identity?
posted by notashroom at 8:28 PM on November 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

Just to second the people who are bringing up the idea of experimentation - what defines womanhood is different for different people, and one of the ways you figure out what being a woman means to you is to try out different things and see what clicks. And then you think about what you felt and try to identify where those feelings come from. But trying out different behaviors - masculine and feminine - is natural and healthy.

Also, when I think about what I would do if I embarked on a path of transition, I think I would want to go really far in the direction of the other gender and then pull back to a comfortable place. And some people might want to take baby steps forward. I'm just trying to say that I think it's very understandable, and a powerful symbolic statement, to dive into the deep end of gender performance, like bursting through a closed door. Can you imagine wanting something all of your life and finally getting it? Wouldn't you want to just celebrate, overindulge, pour it all over yourself, jump up and down? I wanted a strawberry shortcake for my birthday from this one specific bakery for two years and when I finally bought it for myself I literally put my face in it and ate my way out.

I am not saying it is like this for most people or for anyone. I am trying to say that when you're confronted with a behavior you don't understand, you can think of a charitable explanation for the behavior as easily as you can condemn the behavior. So if you're not going to ask the person and actually try to understand what is going on with them, I suggest you look for the most charitable explanation. That makes everyone's world better.
posted by prefpara at 8:35 PM on November 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

I really need to thank everybody who has chimed in to the discussions in both threads. It's super to know such great allies exist and care enough to understand a minority which is often misunderstood. It's definitely appreciated.
posted by Sova at 8:39 PM on November 30, 2009

Ashley801, why does the performance of 'woman' by a transitioned or transitioning woman carry more weight in representing normative gender performance than that of a cis woman?

Like I said at least 3 times, including two posts ago in this very thread, it doesn't.

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?
posted by hermitosis at 9:30 PM on November 30, 2009

Also, Ashley, what you're saying to trans-women who aren't performing gender according to your taste is that they are wrong about what it means to be an authentic woman. That's exactly what everyone else is telling them too. You're adding your voice to that chorus. That is what people are reacting to. Because we want to protect trans-women from everyone who wants to tell them that they are not real women, don't know what women actually are, don't behave the way authentic women behave, don't look right, don't talk right, don't do right... Let women be women! You are not the authentic womanhood police!
posted by prefpara at 9:35 PM on November 30, 2009 [3 favorites]

Having read your comments here and in the other thread, I don't understand. Why does it offend you if someone identifies traditionally femme behaviors with women? It's not the only possible expression of being a woman, but it one valid expression. If you don't like girlieness or Paris Hilton, that's your option. Do you feel that their choices somehow diminish you or women in general?

I will tell you why: because I think we shouldn't tie gender/gender roles to sex.

Why should we identify traditionally femme behaviors with women and not with men? Why do they have to be a woman thing and not a man thing?

I don't feel like it diminishes me for someone to act femme. I don't think it diminishes me for a person to say they are a woman and a femme and being femme is how they express themself. I feel like it diminishes all of us to tie gender or gendered roles or behaviors to sex.

And he took a trope from countless movies and tv shows about a dynamic s/he'd never been able to experience personally - that of 'best girlfriends' and how they behave when there are no boys around - and he built a fantasy around it because he had no knowledge of its inaccuracy, and you found this offensive to your gender identity?

I didn't find it offensive to my gender identity. I found it to be sexist.

A person can be innocent, well meaning, naive, inexperienced, and still be sexist.

Why can I not find a sexist trope to be sexist just because the person who has it is naive, developing his identity, and in the process of growing up?

If this were about race- if I had never seen a black person except on TV, and, upon meeting one, told him I wanted to bond with him over *insert stereotype here*, would he be wrong to find that racist?

when you see people who do not fit into the sex they were born with, maybe you could try to realize your own cis privilege and cut them some slack if they're chasing a stereotype.

Yes, cis privilege exists and is powerful. Yes, naive people who are developing their identity should be cut a degree of slack. But they should still have their stereotypes questioned, like everyone else.

You've got an issue is with one woman in a group of float builders. There are plenty of us who believe we could find females fully capable of pyrotechnics.

I wasn't giving an example of how plenty of us perform gender and relate it to sex in a sexist way. I was giving an example of an individual ciswoman doing it, because I was told it doesn't seem as if I think ciswomen do it too.

Also, Ashley, what you're saying to trans-women who aren't performing gender according to your taste is that they are wrong about what it means to be an authentic woman.

I said over and over in that thread that I'm not presuming to tell anyone they can't identify themselves as anything. I think it's clear that if someone sees themselves as a gender or sex, that's the gender or they are.

However, once you tie gender to sex and say woman = this, it becomes bigger than just you and what you are. It becomes about what women are. And yes, I do think I have the right to weigh in on that.

Ashley801, why does the performance of 'woman' by a transitioned or transitioning woman carry more weight in representing normative gender performance than that of a cis woman?

Like I said at least 3 times, including two posts ago in this very thread, it doesn't.

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?


Because that's what the post that I first replied to was talking about.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:42 PM on November 30, 2009

also, for all your lipservice that this isn't about trans women in specific but females in general gets questioned again with you bringing up "really, really white" in your story - as if to say that if you were somehow browner (or more cuban looking) then it would be more ok, as if they were more of a women it would be ok.

that WAS my example about transwomen like my other story was my example about ciswomen. i made it directly in reply to what you said about the transwomen i saw in the east village. god, i really don't have ulterior motives here.

the whole point of bringing up my white appearance is to make the analogy of someone who from their bodily appearance might be considered to be "other" but is not ACTUALLY other.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:50 PM on November 30, 2009

I said something along these lines in the blue thread, but I'll reiterate here, perhaps a little more clearly.

It is considerably less dangerous for cis women to explore what you might call less typical expressions of their gender identity than it is for trans women. That's not to say that there aren't trans women who don't do this -- there are loads! -- but they are, knowingly or not, putting themselves at greater risk by doing so. A glance at the staggering number of trans women who are killed each year, in incredibly violent ways, will demonstrate this: for trans women, the punishment for failing to appear sufficiently feminine is death.

Cis women have the luxury of being able to explore gender more safely than trans women. To attack the gender presentation of a trans woman from that comfortable vantage point is crass, cruel, and an expression of privilege.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 11:41 PM on November 30, 2009 [8 favorites]

EmilyClimbs: I'm referring to the posts that have said my participation is unwelcome, that I'm stifling discourse, and that not changing one's opinions on an issue despite others providing disagreeing views is tantamount to bullying.

So this may well be pointless because I'm getting the sense you want to see yourself as a victim here, but just in case:

-- who said your participation was unwelcome? all I see is that one person said that a particular point you were making was unwelcome, because it implied that others were saying something they weren't actually saying;
-- who said you were stifling discourse? one person said that phrontist was stifling discourse (and responded with taunting disbelief to your suggestion that it was brave and ground-breaking for phrontist to bring out the same old tired arguments that come up all the time in these discussions by saying that transpeople "seem to go out of their way to fit rigid stereotypes of gendered behavior" and hence undermine feminism);
-- by bullying, if you're talking about shmegegge's comment, surely you recognize that the personal story of how the discussion made shmegegge feel had way more nuance than saying that if you don't change your opinion, it's bullying? that it was a reference to people who dominate and overwhelm a discussion by insisting over and over again that something must be wrong because it doesn't make sense to them, even though it makes sense to other people, and claiming to want to understand but coming off like they're way more focused on proving others wrong than in considering whether others are actually wrong or right? and that it wasn't an attack or an attempt to shut anyone up, but an expression of frustration and a desire for people to interact in different and more productive ways? (Besides, I read that comment as mostly being targeted at phrontist rather than you, anyway.)

In the meantime, it is still really unclear to me what exactly you're arguing against here. You keep saying that you don't have a problem with transpeople being trans, you just have a problem with "the idea that wearing a lot of makeup and simpering was what made someone a woman, or more of a woman." Who do you think disagrees with you on this? I am pretty sure that the vast majority of us are pretty resoundingly in agreement that that's ridiculous and offensive. So who are you arguing with? "I don't think there's wrong with any of the above people performing, as self expression the most extreme, stereotypical kind of femme there is, with all the giggling, superficiality, pretending to be stupid, and makeup and high heel wearing they can muster. Saying, "this = ME." I begin to have a problem when someone says those superficial things = woman." Yeah, me too. Again, that's pretty obvious and non-controversial. But who is saying this? (That giggling and pretending to be stupid, etc, makes someone a woman/more of a woman.) And if no one is saying it, why do you keep bringing it up?
posted by EmilyClimbs at 11:51 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

If this were about race- if I had never seen a black person except on TV, and, upon meeting one, told him I wanted to bond with him over *insert stereotype here*, would he be wrong to find that racist?

I don't think this scenario is really analogous to this one, and I hope that my explanation as to why I don't see it that way might shed some light on the opposing view.

You're setting up a parallel where you, a non-black person who has had no exposure to black people other than (apparently racist) TV, attempt to bond with the first black person you meet with something along the lines of, "Gee whiz, I sure am glad to meet you! Can we have watermelon and fried chicken now, oh boy oh boy???" This, of course, would be offensive to said black person and probably seem pretty damn racist, too, even though you wouldn't mean it as such. That's how you see your "let's be girlfriends!" gender-questioning friend. This, to you, seems like an accurate parallel and explains why you were somewhat offended by his expectations of girlfrienddom—because he's from the outside looking in and making assumptions about how you and yor girlfriends live.

Now, what I see as an accurate parallel to the situation is more like this: You, a black child, were adopted as an infant by a white family, had all white friends, and had very little contact with or exposure to other African-Americans except what you gleaned from the culture. Then you grow up, move away to college, make a black friend, and attempt to bond with him by suggesting you celebrate Kwanzaa together, because that's what you think all black people do and you're excited to start realizing your "black" self. In this scenario, I doubt your black friend would think you were racist—confused, maybe, making broad assumptions, sure, but probably not racist—because you were trying to figure out how to express a part of yourself you never could before. You're not Whitey trying to act Black; you're trying to figure out what it means to be black and how to embrace that. In that same vein, your friend wasn't trying to be a guy playing at being a girl, he was trying to figure out how to be a girl, because in his mind, he always was.

I hope that made sense and didn't come out as something offensive. I'm not saying you're wrong, really, but just trying to point out that to me, at least, it sounds like you still see transwomen as guys trying to pretend to be women, at least a little bit, whereas some of the rest of us see them more as women who don't have to pretend to be guys anymore. Could be that I'm wrong about that, but I just wanted to try to explain the vibe that I, personally, have been getting.
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 12:47 AM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

*gleaned from the culture presented on TV. Where's my 3 minute edit window already?
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 12:50 AM on December 1, 2009

However, once you tie gender to sex and say woman = this, it becomes bigger than just you and what you are. It becomes about what women are.

Ashley801, I'd like you to cite one comment or link in that thread that points to an example of a trans person doing or thinking this. Look closely and I suspect you'll find that this is an idea that you injected into the dialogue, apropo of nothing. That's what makes it such an unwelcome discussion point and why people are bemused that you continue to harp on it.

It's like Reagan's bringing up "welfare queens" anytime someone tried to discuss programs for the poor. He was so hung up on the idea of this theoretical woman out there who was making a sturdy living off of other hard-working Americans and buying champagne with her food stamps that it kept him from being able to grasp the real issue.

And yes, I do think I have the right to weigh in on that.

Yes, you have the right to weigh in on the point you raised. And we have the right to think that it's the wrong point at the wrong time in the wrong place.
posted by hermitosis at 6:49 AM on December 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

>And he took a trope from countless movies and tv shows about a dynamic s/he'd never been able to experience personally - that of 'best girlfriends' and how they behave when there are no boys around - and he built a fantasy around it because he had no knowledge of its inaccuracy, and you found this offensive to your gender identity?

I didn't find it offensive to my gender identity. I found it to be sexist.

A person can be innocent, well meaning, naive, inexperienced, and still be sexist.

Why can I not find a sexist trope to be sexist just because the person who has it is naive, developing his identity, and in the process of growing up?

If this were about race- if I had never seen a black person except on TV, and, upon meeting one, told him I wanted to bond with him over *insert stereotype here*, would he be wrong to find that racist?

I think this brings up an interesting question: for women, where is the line drawn between "sexist" and "offensive to my gender identity"? Sexism is about power-over, and although a perceived male college student is certainly a person with privelege, I'm having a hard time identifying where, in this scenario, that privelege might have been being leveraged as power over the other student, or laying the foundation for future exercises of power over her or others of her gender.

I suppose, if you assume that gossip and style as regular focuses of time and attention in a relationship preclude inclusion of pyrotechnics, mechanical engineering, in-depth analysis of current events and their historical bases, comparative analysis of Wittgenstein, or other pursuits of greater intellectual vigor, then it could be viewed as sexist, but that presumption is in the mind of the listener, for all I can tell from your anecdote.

As Captain Cardanthian explained so well, it distinctly comes off as you relating to your friend not as emerging-woman, like you might with an 11-year-old girl, but as an actor preparing for a role of "woman." If you'd had the very same thing said to you by a student raised as a girl who was a homeschooled only child or child of missionaries serving in the remotest quarters or the only girl amidst boys or otherwise not personally familiar with the 'best girlfriends' dynamic, can you honestly say that you'd have had the same reaction? If you recognized her as authentically woman but with a significant different upbringing from yours, I suspect you might not have been as inclined to categorize it as sexist.


P.S. Apologies to all for the pronoun soup of last night's post. I was posting from my tablet and didn't realize what a mess I'd made until it was posted.
posted by notashroom at 6:58 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'd also like to point out that no one was playing up to the "stereotypical" woman--working as a sportswriter is not very stereotypical! But what can I say...

When someone says "women are like this", they mean a lot of different things and I try to take it in context. That statement can be oppressive, annoying, invasive, commercial, personal, many things. It's used to oppress so much that it can be hard to hear it in any other context, but we have to try, because we don't want to dismiss the very personal and valid ways that individual women define "woman". Because then we end up telling women how to be women, and if there's one thing that women don't need, it's more people telling us what to do.

I think that not everyone gets the pain and anger that is tied up in strictly bounded femininity, and some women do and say stupid shit about "all women". And that sucks. But at the same time, it sucks to be told that you can't wear a skirt if you want to wear a skirt because some fuckhead at some other place in some other time told someone that she HAD to wear a skirt. So let's not be like that.
posted by kathrineg at 7:11 AM on December 1, 2009

Also, yeah, let's call other women out when they say some bullshit like "women can't do math, lol", but let's wait for them to actually, you know, say some bullshit instead of acting like their very existence as women gives us the right to critique their most personal choices.

I mean, fuck, if someone wants to wear pantyhose and I get pissed off by that, I'm really just following the grand old tradition of policing some woman's underwear. And it's not my place to police ANYONE's underwear unless we're in some sort of consensual underwear policing arrangement.
posted by kathrineg at 7:17 AM on December 1, 2009 [6 favorites]

MetaFilter: Some sort of consensual underwear policing arrangement.
posted by hermitosis at 7:26 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ashley801: "I'm referring to the posts that have said my participation is unwelcome, that I'm stifling discourse, and that not changing one's opinions on an issue despite others providing disagreeing views is tantamount to bullying."

little late, here, but I assume you're talking about my comment farther upthread. EmilyClimbs seems to have done a decent job of addressing this, but let me just say that what you're doing here is taking what I said and changing it to sound more like an attack than it really was. I never said your participation was unwelcome, and I never said that not changing one's opinions on an issue, etc... was tantamount to bullying. I said that there can be bullying tactics involved in stubbornly maintaining one's worldview, which I do believe is what you were doing. I don't know if you were bullying, but I do believe you're being unnecessarily stubborn in defense of your worldview. I did say that you and phrontist were stifling discourse a little bit, and I maintain that you were. here's my line of thought on this:

-a thread is about a transgendered man, and his suicide.

-phrontist, and later you, says that it's kind of sexist for transgendered women to act all giggly and vapid, as if that defined what a woman is.

-other mefites chime in with varying responses to this. among them:
      -for varying reasons, some transwomen have come to think of themselves that way. they're not trying to be women, they're trying to be themselves.
      -not all transwomen behave that way
      -yes, it's sexist to act like all women are that way, but it's not fair to transwomen to assume that transwomen are trying to act like "all women" instead of "themselves."
      -if we allow ciswomen to behave in stereotypical fashion without accusing them of sexism, we should do the same for transwomen.

-you have basically not bothered to really consider these arguments. you've pretty much just decided to say that everyone else is now accusing you of sexism, and trying to shut you up, meanwhile you've continued to repeat your same arguments as though no one had yet responded to them.

so, yeah, I think that stifles discourse. so I will stand by having accused you of that. your opinions, and your diagreements with other peoples' opinions, are always welcome and it wouldn't even be up to me to say otherwise if I wanted to (and I don't want to). but... people are going to try to engage you when they disagree with you, and in this case you've been engaged with in good faith. some people on any side of an argument get nasty, and that sucks. but for the most part you've been heard and responded to thoughtfully. I just don't think you've been as fair.
posted by shmegegge at 8:08 AM on December 1, 2009 [6 favorites]

Respectfully, it rubbed me the wrong way for you to talk about all the "handwringing about feminism," just because it's very common among groups of otherwise "liberal" guys to act like women's issues and how things affect women are besides the point, and are or should be just an afterthought, even when women are directly affected.

Judas H. Priest, I am not a guy. I am a woman who was a feminist before you were born, probably.

If you think feminism is about policing how other women express themselves, you are Doing It Rong.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:40 AM on December 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

If you think feminism is about policing how other women express themselves, you are Doing It Rong.

But it's self defense! They are, after all, making statements about her personally.
posted by hermitosis at 9:19 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

But it's self defense! They are, after all, making statements about her personally.

This sums up what I saw as the Bizarro World logic of the whole thing, because it was hard for me not to parse the argument as anything other than:

- When women are expected to present themselves in a certain way (heels, makeup, dresses, giggling, etc.), that's sexism and it sucks
- Some trans women present themselves in a certain way (heels, makeup, dresses, giggling) (a
Therefore
- Those trans women are sexist, or exemplifying sexism, or something

This is missing the entire point.

Sexism isn't inherent in a dress or a pair of heels or a tube of lipstick. The sexism comes in when someone starts policing how women present themselves and defining what is and isn't "acceptable femininity."

So replicating the sexism of policing women's behavior with a different rubric is also sexism, and focusing more on the behavior of trans women than of cis women is transphobia.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:38 AM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

hermitosis, I did know you were being sarcastic, but your sarcastic statement helped me unpack what I saw as the flaw in Ashley's argument.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:38 AM on December 1, 2009

Sexism isn't inherent in a dress or a pair of heels or a tube of lipstick. The sexism comes in when someone starts policing how women present themselves and defining what is and isn't "acceptable femininity."

This.

Choosing to wear heels or makeup or a pretty dress because it helps you feel more like who you are? That's not sexist. Suggesting to someone else that "if you'd just doll up a little bit, you'd be really pretty", that is sexist. The movie 9 to 5 comes to mind, actually.

Equally sexist? Telling someone "you're insulting your gender if you insist on dolling up like that."

(Yes, I know "dolling up" is a loaded phrase. Chosen deliberately in this case.)
posted by hippybear at 12:40 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]