JK Rowling and Posie Parker

You can think of this article as JK Rowling part 1.5 if you like, but it involves a significant digression which I thought deserved an article of its own.

I've worked through the whole of The Witch Trials of JK Rowling, and there's a lot to talk about. My initial thoughts about the podcast are this:

1. Megan Phelps-Roper, the presenter, has an absolutely beautiful voice, which is a complete pleasure to listen to. Interestingly I had never heard JK Rowling's voice before I started listening to the podcast, and it wasn't quite the voice I expected.
2. The podcast has a very American slant to it. It presents many of the events of Rowling's life and career set against a backdrop of American cultural trends and events. There is some discussion of things which happen in the UK or the wider world, but not very much. This is understandable--but disappointing.
3. The Guardian reviewer (that I quoted in my previous article) is right: the podcast is too long and meandering. JK Rowling herself isn't actually in it very much--certainly not as much as I thought or hoped--and doesn't appear at all in Episode 6. I found myself wishing they would skip past what Americans all thought about Harry Potter and get back to what JK Rowling was actually saying. And I wished that they would stop cutting away from what Rowling is saying to put in little asides and quotes from other people. Thankfully there are transcripts available, which feature only what Rowling says, at the Rowling Library.

Posing as Parker: Keen-Minshull

New Zealand had a recent visit by a British woman who calls herself Posie Parker. Her real name is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, and she is a mother of four who styles herself as a woman's rights activist, and an anti-trans activist. I had never heard of her before a couple of months ago. It turns out that her star seemed to start to rise in 2018. She's very active (and vocal) online, and also takes part in rallies and other events, in Britain and, increasingly, the USA.

Keen-Minshull announced in January of this year her intention to travel to Australia, and across here to New Zealand, in March. This stirred up some pretty fierce opposition, both from the Aussies (they let her in, and neo-Nazis came to her rallies) and the Kiwis. Various petitions were made.  Immigration Minister Michael Wood spoke about her “inflammatory, vile and incorrect world views”. Ultimately, however, it was agreed that Keen-Minshull was not considered a risk to “public order or public interest”.

Gender Minorities Aotearoa, InsideOUT Kōaro, and Auckland Pride filed for a judicial review in the High Court. They sought an interim order to stop Keen-Minshull from entering the country until the judicial review could take place, but the following day a judge ruled that it was unlawful to keep her out.

Keen-Minshull had planned two events: one was going to be in Auckland, in the large Albert Park on 25th March; the other in Wellington.

Keen-Minshull: They [the rallies] are outside because too many venues will cancel us.

Hounded: Keen-Minshull

Nobody was under any illusions about what was going to happen. She was going to get up on a podium, with a microphone, and make anti-trans speeches, and that's what she tried to do. However, there were large organised protests against her (some of my friends went in carloads to Auckland to protest) and they chanted loudly and blew whistles and trumpets before her appearance. While she had 150-200 supporters, the protesters were far more numerous, thought to be about 2000.

Ultimately she never got to speak. A protester called Eliana Rubashkyn poured tomato juice over her hair and she was escorted away by police and security officers. Watching the events on YouTube, the mood of the crowd was angry and hostile, and it definitely looked as if the protesters outnumbered the supporters. Keen-Minshull was jostled and jeered by the protesters, and the YouTube footage shows her security team had quite a hard time getting her through the crowd to the police and safety.

Keen-Minshull decided to cancel her Wellington rally the next day, and left New Zealand instead, announcing that it was the "worst place for women she has ever visited", and apparently vowing to return to NZ to "win this war". And JK Rowling voiced support, tweeting that a mob had "had assaulted women standing up for their rights".

There was general rejoicing here; certainly among the rainbow groups. A bad lady from another country had come here to spread hate speech and was sent packing with her tail between her legs. There seemed to be general congratulation aimed at an unrepetentant Eliana Rubashkyn, who was charged with common assault but is still awaiting sentencing. No other arrests were made; no injuries were reported and no property was damaged. My impression is that the general feeling is that no great harm has been done, as this cartoon from the Otago Daily Times suggests.

But was this the right outcome after all?

One of my correspondents expressed disappointment with the way Keen-Minshull had been treated, and said she should have been allowed her platform to speak. At first, I have to say, I disagreed. However, a few things made me reflect about it a lot more.

The first was that, while trans people and supporters were in great evidence at Keen-Minshull's rally, and officials seemed to be on our side (Finance Minister Grant Robertson wrote "As a country we need to keep our trans community close, and support them through this time"), there was a sharp rise in anti-trans hatred online in this country. Was this because she was perceived to have been maltreated here? Would the hatred have been worse if she had been allowed to speak? I cannot say.

Otago Daily Times cartoon

The second thing was something JK Rowling herself said, in episode 3 of the Witch Trials podcast (which was made before Keen-Minshull's NZ trip). The italics are mine for emphasis of particular points.

Rowling: I was starting to think about this a lot, subcultures that have their own rigid rules, acceptable beliefs, non acceptable beliefs, everything becoming very reductive. (...) And I was becoming really concerned.

I think the first time I became really interested in what was going on, sort of culturally, it was Milo Yiannopoulos. The alt-right provocateur, I suppose you would call him. And I’m watching from across the pond as he tries to speak on various campuses, and there are protests, riots. You know, "We want him de-platformed, we don't want him to speak at all". And I thought it was a terrible strategic error.

And my feeling was, you are giving this man way more power than he deserves by behaving in this way. It made Milo look sexier and edgier than he deserved to look. I thought it was a strategically appalling turn. Get on that platform and eviscerate his ideas. Get on that platform and expose him for the charlatan that he is. You push back hard, but you’ve given him so much power by refusing to talk.

(...) In fact, I thought they were serving his purposes, because he was able to walk away from that saying, “Look, they don’t dare debate me! This is how dangerous and edgy I am!". And I don’t think we want to cast the alt-right in that light. But inadvertently, [that’s what they’re doing].

And this is definitely true. Immediately after returning to the UK, Keen-Minshull gave an interview with (conservative-leaning) Spectator TV, where a very sympathetic interviewer (musician Winston Marshall) gave her a very free platform, and every opportunity to spin the narrative entirely in her favour without challenge. For example, they both speak of the "violence", when there wasn't any (nothing like what happened with Milo Yiannopolous's rallies in the US). They play a clip (starting at 0:44) of Keen-Minshull being jostled by the crowd, which was filmed by her own phone. In the image, you can see a hand firmly around Keen-Minshull's neck, appearing as if she is being choked--but the NZ Herald footage shows that the hand round the neck was one of her own security guards. It makes it very easy for her to claim that she was the victim, when to trans people and our supporters, she was the aggressor.

Keen-Minshull: I don't know if some latent trauma [from these events] is going to come along and bite me soon, but I'm OK. (...) 

What they inadvertently did, they did two things. Number one they whipped up a frenzy, but the other thing they did is they told everybody my name on a repeating--like so many times that people were like "Well, what is this woman? What does she stand for? How can I-- like, why are we stopping her from coming into the country?" And then they look me up, and then they agree with what I say, and what I stand for. So it had, em, you know, they did me many favours".

Oh dear! How could it have turned out like this?

How could we have done this better?

As always in my articles, a little discussion is in order.

Mysterious: Posie Parker

First, where does the name Posie Parker come from? I assume it's some sort of online identity, so that Keen-Minshull can't be identified, although since she has come out so publicly, everyone knows her real name and identity now anyway. So why keep it? Is it because it's plainly easier to say than Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull? Is it a play on the name Nosey Parker? The closest I can come to is a series of mystery novels set in the 1920's, written by L.B. Hathaway, which feature a female protagonist called Posie Parker. I can't imagine that either LB Hathaway, nor the actress Parker Posey are all that thrilled by the potential association with Keen-Minshull.

Second, I am forced to agree with Keen-Minshull (and JK Rowling): by not letting her speak, we have empowered her. We have given her publicity. We have given her an enduring image: looking upset, hair covered in tomato juice (symbolic blood!). As sure as eggs is eggs, she will display that image whenever she wants to appear like she is the victim of those violent, dangerous trans activists. In short, by not allowing her to speak, we've done her "many favours".

Third, where does free speech fit into all this? In retrospect, I think the decision to allow Keen-Minshull into the country was the correct one. She has a right to freedom of movement, and freedom of speech. That freedom exists, as several government officials have pointed out, even for people whose views we may disagree with. What she is not entitled to is a platform; she is not entitled to an audience; she is not entitled to not have protesters at her events (although clearly the protesters seem to energise her). NZ Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, would not respond directly to her comments, except to say that he thought they were the "comments of someone who just wants to get a headline", and I think he is right.

Self-made martyr

How could we have done it better? I'm not sure. In retrospect, it's always clearer to consider what we should have done. If nobody had made a fuss, and Keen-Minshull had turned up to a crowd of twenty people with placards, and given a speech, and then nobody would really have taken much notice. Instead, she got a large jolt of publicity in her favour.

I think it's right to protest against speech we disagree with. JK Rowling's solution is "Get on that platform and eviscerate his ideas. Get on that platform and expose him for the charlatan that he is." That sounds so easy; so reasonable. But Keen-Minshull didn't come here for a debate! She didn't come here to listen to opposing views, consider them respectfully, and potentially modify her opinions--and she certainly didn't plan to share her platform with her opponents. Instead, she came to stir up trouble. It was made very clear to her that she was not welcome, and she chose to come anyway.

And she's vowing to come back to "win this war"--a war that she, and people like her, are perpetuating, rather than suing for peace. Instead of listening, debating, discussing, they are on the offensive. We cannot simply ignore her: she is too vocal now; too well-known online; too active, and with quite a large following. How can one counter an adversary, civilly and with dignity, who isn't being either civilised or dignified? It's an election year, so it's very likely that the government--and the opposition--will be very careful to try to position themselves favourably on issues of both trans rights and free speech.

I have no easy answers; feel free to add your own in the comments. Click here for the final part of this series.

Seriously not helping - Part Two

In a previous post I talked about some people whose behaviour is seriously not helping the cause of trans people. These are people whose antics and conduct are so unreasonable that they are creating a backlash of resentment which is making things worse for the rest of us.

Aaaaaand I've come across some others. The first person I've heard about lately is Jessica Yaniv, a 35-year old Canadian transwoman, described on her Wikipedia page as a "transgender activist". Yaniv has been causing all sorts of trouble in British Columbia.

Jessica: seriously??

The issue I first came across was hearing that Yaniv had brought a series of lawsuits against beauty salons in her district who had refused to perform waxing of her genitals.

The salons were all small businesses run by a single beautician, most of whom were immigrants to Canada. Yaniv sought damages of up to $15,000, alleging transphobic discrimination.

Yaniv hasn't had genital surgery, which is pertinent to this article in that the beauticians stated (very reasonably) that they didn't advertise waxing for male genitalia, that they hadn't been trained to perform it safely, and that they objected to working on male genitalia for personal or religious reasons. They all said they didn't refuse on account of Jessica's transgenderism.

So here's the thing. It's quite possible to find salons who will wax any part of you, no matter who you are. For a hilarious example from Scotland, you can read about Miss Twist's experiences here. It's just a matter of phoning around first, and asking politely. Speaking for myself, I get my legs and chest waxed regularly by a lovely woman called Lynne, and I've never had any trouble (mind you, I don't go for genital waxing).

Jessica Yaniv deliberately targeted small businesses (rather than the large beauty chains), run by women whom she knew would be uncomfortable with the request, and who would be unlikely to be in a strong position to mount a defence against legal action. In other words, her behaviour was predatory. The lawsuits were all dismissed, but the associated costs and inconvenience caused two of the beauticians to go out of business as a result, even though she was ordered to pay damages to them.

You might think that such a resounding legal defeat would deter Yaniv from further similar antics--but she's no quitter! The next thing which came to my attention was that she was protesting that a gynaecologist had refused to see her. Yaniv posts frequently on Twitter, and she wrote:

Yaniv: So a gynaecologist office that I got referred to literally told me today that 'we don't serve transgender patients', And me, being me, I'm shocked.. and confused... and hurt.

Gervais: twittering

But the thing is, any reasonable doctor looking after Yaniv would know not to refer her to a gynaecologist. A gynaecologist just isn't the right sort of specialist to be dealing with any potential problem with her equipment. She might as well complain that her electrician refused to fix her plumbing. The right doctor would have been a urologist, or maybe an endocrinologist. Although as I have written before, the Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is demonstrating willingness to treat transwomen.

And my second comment is that she, being her, isn't shocked... or confused... or hurt, but delighted that she now has another excuse to play the despised victim, and kick up another ruckus.

But this time her comments came to the attention of comedian Ricky Gervais. I have never really enjoyed his comedy, although I came to view him in a new light as an actor. Like many comedians he can be quite vitriolic in his material, and lately he's been disappointingly transphobic very openly. In exactly the same vein, he lays into Jessica Yaniv via his Twitter account. Here's one example, but there are others.

It doesn't bother me if Jessica Yaniv annoys Ricky Gervais--but it does bother me when her antics are causing harm to the wider trans community, and they undoubtedly are. Canadian media say trans people have reported a sharp upturn in online hate toward them as a result of the publicity around Jessica Yaniv.

I find myself wondering what Jessica Yaniv gets out of all this controversy. I sense that she is using transgender rights as a shield, behind which she hides while lobbing rocks at everyone within reach. She craves attention, she craves publicity, and she enjoys exchanging Twitter insults with adversaries. I wonder what her next stunt will be--I'm sure we shall all hear about it in due course. But I'm prepared to predict that it seriously won't be helping.

Lemieux: seriously??

Still in Canada (!) we turn to the case of teacher Kayla Lemieux, who has been teaching woodwork in the Oakville Trafalgar High School near Toronto. The problem is Lemieux wears colossal prosthetic breasts (unfailingly reported as "Z-cup", although I don't know what that actually means), complete with very prominent artificial nipples, while teaching students. Understandably, this has provoked "months of debate" about her appearance.

Things seemed to develop when the New York Post reported it had followed Lemieux and discovered that she doesn't wear them all the time, and in fact usually presents as a man. Naturally, there is photographic evidence, and the testimony of a neighbour in further support.

I don't really think the New York Post represents the pinnacle of investigative reportage. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that Lemieux has been well and truly busted (geddit?). Lemieux has finally been suspended from her job (though without being sacked), and the New York Post is taking the credit.

"Oh, that's not me!"--seriously??

When you're discovered doing something you've been trying to keep secret, you have two options: you can come clean, or you can double down. With a weary sigh, I note that Lemieux has doubled down. She insists that the man in the New York Post's photos isn't her. You can judge for yourself here.

She insists those boobs aren't fake; that she is intersex, and has gigantomastia, although she admits she is "in transition" and has been on hormones. She also insists there's nothing wrong with the way she dresses, although there have been other complaints about her clothing, not just her boobs.

Lemieux: I don’t think there’s any problem with how I have dressed. It’s the personal opinion of other people. I don’t think I have dressed unprofessionally.

There's so much to discuss about Lemieux that I'm not quite sure where to begin!

First, let me state quite clearly that Lemieux's ginormous bazooms are plainly fake. Oversized breasts just don't have those prominent nipples. Second, large boobs are heavy, and women with very large boobs struggle with neck pain and back pain, and often have surgery to reduce their size. Only people who can take off their boobs at the end of a hard day can cope with boobs like those. (I'm also sure the man in the picture is Lemieux).

Oh wait--that's an airship!

You would wonder why a teacher in a woodworking class would be wearing huge boobs, which must surely get in the way and present a genuine hazard when using tools and other equipment.

Second, nobody (not even the New York Post) has reported that any of the complaints about Lemieux were because people objected to a transgender teacher; in the middle of all this, I think that's a positive thing to remark upon. If Lemieux just wanted to be a woman, and work as a teacher, she already had that: all she needed was to just wear what ordinary teachers wear, and buy a reasonable pair of boobs.

The fact that all that wasn't enough makes me think that there is something else going on with Kayla Lemieux. If she only presents as a woman when working at a high school, then there must be something about that which tickles her pickle, so to speak. And the parents (and staff, and school board) of the Oakville Trafalgar High School must really think so too. How did she get the job in the first place? If she was already employed, and then transitioned, it would be obvious that the boobs didn't grow gradually. If she wasn't already employed, whose idea was it to give her a job?

And if Kayla Lemieux is the only trans teacher in her locale, how much harder is she making it for the next trans teacher who comes along? If Lemieux is the only example of a trans teacher they have come across, who is going to want another?

Like Lemieux, I only present as a woman sometimes. But the difference between me and Kayla Lemieux is that I'm always very conscious of the scrutiny that I receive from other people, and I'm aware that I may be the first trans person they've encountered close up, which makes me a sort of ambassador for trans people in the cis world. And my goals are to look fabulous, feel wonderful, and enjoy the company of friends. It definitely seems that Lemieux has some other goals. I don't know what they are, but they are seriously not helping.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold with Kayla Lemieux, although I don't see those colossal melons appearing in a woodworking classroom again any time soon.

If you come across any other people out there whose antics are seriously not helping, please drop me a comment below!

That Whole Bathroom Thing

One of the issues which seems to really face trans people who are out and about in society is what toilet they should use, and what reaction they might face when they get in there. Can it really be that much of a big deal?

Unequivocal: Bathroom Sign

This topic entered my mind the other day when I went to work and noticed a sign which looked a bit like this one. It might be worth a discussion of what this sign actually says.

This sign is an example of what linguists call proto-writing; the sort of thing you see on road signs and the like. The idea is that the sign conveys a message which is clear even to people who cannot read, and is designed to be culture-independent. It contains a diagrammatic representation of two figures. One of the figures is a rudimentary outline of a human body, where the other has a triangular body to represent a dress or skirt.

Nowhere on this sign does it say "Men" or "Women". Genitalia are not depicted. Chromosomes are not discussed. The presence or absence of any characteristic is not questioned, other than some vague depiction of clothing.

It would seem quite reasonable, according to this sign, for people wearing skirts to turn right, while people wearing trousers should turn left. So why should anyone object if a man dressed in a skirt wanted to turn right? But how many women, wearing jeans, would turn left?

Different cultures

I know, of course, that this sign is a convenient shorthand. We know what it means, even if what it means isn't quite what it says.

This sign isn't quite as cross-cultural as it purports to be. In some countries, robe-like garments are common for both men and women. On a trip to the Middle East once, I was amused to see a toilet sign which had identical images for male and female, wearing robes, except that the female one was pinched in around the middle to represent a waist, where the male one wasn't.

I didn't take a picture of the sign, but this one is reasonably similar. It is a reminder that our Western cultural norms are not shared worldwide; that some cultures would look at the figure on the right (above) and decide the skirt was indecently short.

Trans people can find themselves in a real pickle about bathrooms. For example, Victoria Askey says of her transwoman spouse Treva:

Victoria: I hate the fact that she has to go through... wondering which toilets she can use without causing problems. I mean, use the men's and get beaten up, use the women's and get some female complaining, use the disabled and get someone complaining, and this can all be in front of my children. Some people don't seem to think before reacting. I hate the fact we are stared at. What happens if we go some place and she needs to use the toilet but there is no option to her? Then we have to come home just so she can pee.

Meanwhile, Rachel in Auckland reports this:

Rachel: After my drink, I need to visit the ladies room, weaving in and out amongst all the tables, a pretty blond woman stood (6ft 2 in heels to my 5ft 11) and motored her way to the ladies, just beating me. After she entered, she held the door open for me and smiled.

And Megan, one of my correspondents, writes:

Megan: To my surprise, women are somewhat friendly and just assume you're gay and have no interest in them. One particular outing, a young lady about 22 or so noticed the stall door lock was broken and asked me to guard it while she was in there. Fox watching the hen house came to mind! As she left, she guarded it for me.

Victoria is in the UK, Rachel in New Zealand, and Megan is in the US. So perhaps there is a cultural aspect to it. Perhaps some countries (or cities) are fine, where others are not. So hard to know for sure. Why do I have to rely on the word of my correspondents? Because I don't (yet) go out dressed, so I have never had to face up to this problem in a practical sense.

The solution?

I don't doubt that there are dozens of stories, good and bad, about trans people in bathrooms. I found myself in a debate with some radical feminists on the Gender Trender blog about this issue. Though I tried to be reasonable and balanced, it didn't work; I was roundly flamed, and everyone had plenty of fun calling me "Mr Vivienne" and so on. I suppose some people resort to insults because they can't argue articulately.

Nonetheless, some of them had a point to make, and I think it's worth bringing out that point here. How would a woman feel if she went into a public bathroom and found someone who was clearly a male-to-female transgender person?

Some women, such as the women that Rachel and Megan met, seem to be genuinely untroubled. It seems no big deal to them. But I am reasonably sure this isn't true of everyone. Some women might feel really uncomfortable. Some women might feel threatened, or in danger. How do those women react? Most likely they say nothing, avoid eye contact, hoping that this unwelcome interloper will quietly go away. That reaction may be misinterpreted as acceptance. In other words, just because the women in a public bathroom don't run screaming when a crossdresser walks in, doesn't mean they are all comfortable and accepting.

Random Radfem:  It is also not the responsibility of any woman to object to your presence. Most woman are not going to confront a man- probably a much physically larger man- in an enclosed private room. No matter how uncomfortable they are made to feel, it is safer to get out than to risk the chance of being physically attacked if the man in question is mentally unhinged.

Seriously inclusive

I think that some male-to-female transgender people deliberately seek to insinuate themselves into spaces which are traditionally women-only, as a means of validating their identity as women. The radical feminists see this as a violation, a masculine act: the imposition of male privilege on other people, whether they object or not. Nonetheless, I don't see this. I see it as being essentially a personal thing, perhaps even a selfish thing:  I think the transgender people are trying to say: “look what a real woman I am”; rather than saying “women do not deserve legal recognition”. I don't accept the radical feminists' express accusation, which is that any trans person in a women's bathroom is a sexual predator with the intention of molesting its occupants.

(I am reasonably certain that a crossdresser visiting the men's bathroom while dressed, would provoke anger, outrage and bewilderment. Mind you, this isn't a subject on which I have read much at all).

Why is it that bathrooms have become the battlefield upon which these bloody conflicts are played out? In this wonderful article from The Atlantic, journalist Julie Beck analyses our attitudes to public bathrooms.

Beck: The public collides uncomfortably with the private in the bathroom as it does nowhere else, and the unique behaviors we perform stem from a complex psychological stew of shame, self-awareness, design, and gender roles. This culturally agreed-upon separation creates unique single-sex spaces. There is perhaps no other arena that so stridently reinforces gender separation and difference.

Biologically speaking, men and women don’t need separate bathrooms—they’re using them for the same reasons. While there are a few functional differences—many men prefer to pee standing, women need receptacles to throw away tampons and pads—it’s not hard to imagine a unisex bathroom that would, at least in theory, work for everyone.

The public bathroom is therefore a focal point in the behaviour of men and women. Beck comments that men and women behave very differently in public bathrooms. Women are more relaxed, chatting, sharing makeup, where men avoid eye-contact, don't speak to each other, and don't even stand near one another if they can help it.

This cartoon came from a website for librarians.

As an aside, I am indebted to Beck's article for making me realise that I am not alone in being too uncomfortable to pee in the presence of strangers. Where possible, I choose a cubicle in public toilets, because I need privacy, otherwise I can't go. It seems there are plenty of people out there who are worse than me in this regard!

Overall, then, these are my thoughts about the whole bathroom thing. First, I think that men who wear women’s clothing in public are, in general, politely tolerated. While I completely welcome this, I think this tolerance is a privilege; I do not see it as a right. (And, as I have mentioned on this blog, there are some people who are not helping the cause here).

Next, I think that women should be entitled to safe, women-only spaces, for any reason they think fit, or even for no reason at all. For me, this means that they are entitled to object to the presence of a trans person in the women's public bathroom. If someone objected to my presence in any public space (e.g. a mall, an airport, a library) I would quietly leave without making a scene or causing a disturbance. If someone objected to my presence in a women-only bathroom, I would immediately leave without question. I do actually worry that it might offend someone or make them uncomfortable, and for me at least, this would not be OK.

I think that things are changing. I have noticed several restaurants in my town which just have a series of unisex cubicles. No problem. Beck's article says that gender-neutral public bathrooms are now mandated by law in any new or renovated building in Philadelphia. In addition, see here for the story of parents using the law to force a school to allow their transgender daughter to use the girls' bathrooms. Once again, the tip of the iceberg.

While transgender people are trying to get into the women's bathrooms, women themselves now have access to a range of devices which allow them to pee standing up. Nonetheless, I suspect it will be a while before women are elbowing men out of the way at the urinals!

===
My thanks to Tasi, for drawing my attention to Julie Beck's article and Lexie Cannes' article, and to Melissa Lyn for the Unshelved cartoon, which came from this webpage. See also here for my comments about the tampon advertisement featuring a meeting between a woman and a crossdresser in a public bathroom.

Addendum 27th April 2016

The bathroom debate continues to feature prominently in public media, with several US states enacting laws which restrict which bathroom trans people can and cannot use. Other states have had similar laws thrown out.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post has produced this interesting article which summarises and synthesises the status quo. In addition, Lexie Cannes has written this eyebrow-raising article which contains reports of several women being thrown out of public bathrooms for being mistaken for transwomen. Ouch!

Seriously not helping - Part One

In this blog, as you know, I celebrate all sorts of human expression, particularly if it's to do with clothing or gender role. I am all for relaxation of societal attitudes and acceptance of men (in particular) who want to wear women's clothing in public. But a few items have lately caught my eye on the Internet, and reminded me that there are people out there who are seriously not helping.

Howard: seriously??

The first incident is this one. A grey-haired man wearing female heels, underwear, and basically nothing else, fronted up at an airport to board a plane for an internal flight across the US. Passengers complained about the man, but the airline (US Air) allowed him to board the aircraft because they "don't have a dress code policy".

The man, identified only as "Howard", says he is a business consultant, and "does it for fun". As can be seen here, he willingly poses for photos taken by other passengers. This incident is not isolated; it seems Howard, from Phoenix, likes to fly around the US wearing ridiculous female attire, and there are quite a few pictures and videos of him out there.

Howard asserts: "It has never been my intent to put people in a situation where they feel uncomfortable. I try to respect other people's opinions. As long as my dress is not indecent from a legal perspective, and so long as the airline does not object, I have the right to wear what I wear. And others have the right to wear what they want to wear. This is just something I do for fun. I don't mean any harm."

Seriously, though, what is he thinking? As a crossdresser myself, going out dressed in public is desirable and pleasurable. But only (and here is the important bit) if people behave decently. Howard may be having fun, and acting within the law or his rights-- perhaps only just-- but his behaviour is awful. This sort of thing is exactly why I don't want to be associated with crossdressing. He is setting out to deliberately provoke outrage, and by doing so, he is giving the rest of us a bad name. If I saw him dressed like that in an airport, I would protest, loudly.

Rob: seriously??

Okay, the next incident is a few years old now. Rob Moodie, a New Zealander, joins the police force as a young man, rises to the rank of inspector, retires, takes a law degree, and subsequently a PhD. He sounds like a man of irrepressible competence. Then he starts turning up to court wearing girly frocks, then officially changes his name to Miss Alice.

His motivation for this ridiculous behaviour was reported to be "a gender-bending protest against the male-dominated corruption of New Zealand's judicial system".

The NZ Police does mention him on its website, but is uncomfortably tight-lipped about his biography.

Even if New Zealand's judicial system is male dominated (aren't they all?) and even if he isn't the only lawyer in the world who likes to wear women's clothing, how could he possibly do anything other than undermine his own arguments, and attract scorn and contempt? I mean, would you take him seriously? Would you hire him to defend you against criminal charges, or to plead your case in the High Court? (Although just maybe, the judge would throw out the case on the grounds of insanity-- of the counsel, not the defendant!).

What Rob and Howard are doing is not harmless fun. It tarnishes the rest of us by reputation. Members of the public, looking at them, might conclude that all crossdressers are flagrant, disturbing and unrestrained. And I have to say, that would be a hard point to refute. Men like these may be few in number, but they have an influence out of proportion to their number, by their memorability and deliberate visibility.


Bradley: seriously??

The third incident is the most recent, and is very different in tone. Bradley Manning, the US Army soldier who leaked the largest cache of secret documents ever released to the public, to WikiLeaks, was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison for his trouble.

I know next to nothing about Bradley Manning, although he has been at the centre of a very, very large media storm.

As a young military officer, he must have surely known that if he violated his duties of secrecy, he would be severely punished. Was he amoral, treacherous, and malicious? Was he acting defiantly, out of an unshakeable moral sense that what he was doing was right? Or was he a disturbed and volatile young man who should never have been allowed anywhere near national secrets? (And I bet there has been a lot of uncomfortable discussion behind tightly-closed doors: "Okay, whose idea was it to give Manning the passwords?")

I can't answer those questions. All I can say is that it was brought up in the trial, in his defence, that Manning is a young man of uncertain sexual orientation, who has deliberately dressed as a woman. In fact, a photo was shown in support of this point. It's not a very good photo, but it makes the point.

Whatever you may make of Bradley's actions, or his punishment, the association between Manning's actions and his crossdressing carries extremely uncomfortable implications. For me at least, it seemed to be saying: of course this young man is unstable! He likes to dress as a woman! He must be crazy! Any man who dresses like that can't be OK.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter to me whether Manning is a transvestite or not (but see below!). What matters is the way this has been portrayed in the court, associating crossdressing with mental instability, moral weakness, and dangerous national disloyalty. In this case, it's not Manning himself who is not helping, but his defence. (Though I must admit I would clutch at any straws, even this one, if I thought it would keep me out of prison).

In any event, I suspect that Manning's next few years in prison at Fort Leavenworth will be uncomfortable. And I mean, seriously.

===
Addendum

Sometimes events can change pretty rapidly. In the last couple of days, Manning has released this statement:

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).

Just a couple of comments spring to mind. The use of the phrase "I am Chelsea Manning", not "My name is Chelsea Manning" is a powerful statement of identity. The statement "I am female" is less clear-cut, partly because it's hard to argue that it's true. Finally, Manning's remark about "except in official mail" seems to be an overt recognition that she can insist who she is, all she likes, but the Army will not recognise that insistence.

The Army's statement is as follows:

All inmates are considered soldiers and are treated as such with access to mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, social workers and behavioral science non-commissioned officers with experience in addressing the needs of military personnel in pre- and post-trial confinement. The army does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder.

So that's that, then. Paris Lees, herself a transwoman who has spent time in prison, comments that Manning hid her gender-identity disorder because she feared she would be treated more harshly by the military justice system. I admit, I can see this angle (but why then bring it up at the trial?). On the other hand, I am somewhat more cynical. I can see that a young man, facing 35 years of military detention, might try to do anything-- anything-- which would mitigate the unpleasantness of that experience to some degree. To announce a desire to change sex, right now, would seem to be a desperate plea to be treated a little more gently, by what is clearly going to be a very harsh and punitive prison environment.

My concern is that this strategy backfires, and that Manning ends up being treated even more harshly. I don't blame Manning for what she is trying to do, but I believe that she is nowhere near in the right place to be taking decisions of this magnitude.

===
Addendum 11th October 2013

For the detailed accounts and pictures of someone who regularly flies crossdressed, and does so responsibly and with circumspection, I suggest Kimberly Huddle's blog here.

===
Addendum 18th July 2014

Tyler: seriously??

The BBC has just reported that Chelsea Manning is to be allowed some "gender treatment" while incarcerated.

===
Addendum 9th May 2016

My thanks to Megan Martin for drawing my attention to the case of Tyler Grant, who identifies as genderqueer (and prefers gender-neutral pronouns), who was thrown out of their local fast food outlet in Texas by a police officer when they tried to get a burger wearing this leopardskin number, with stockings and heels. The whole thing was recorded on video, so we know it happened.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that it was transphobia driven,” Grant says. “I explained (to the manager) that… (my outfit) was no more revealing than yoga pants and a tank top.”

Grant's friend adds another layer: “Now I don’t know if there are dressing regulations at <burger outlet> or not, but the officer didn’t seem to intend on enforcing any (regulations) while under the assumption that Tyler was female. The fact that he suddenly had a problem with it after finding out that Tyler was a ‘dude’ is what I find to be discriminatory. It appeared that he was okay with a girl wearing such clothing, but for (Tyler) to wear such clothes was suddenly crossing the line.”

I have to say, Tyler looks a knockout in that outfit. I wish I looked half that good. But seriously, wearing that to go out for a burger? Megan points out that any woman might easily face difficulties going out in the evening wearing that outfit, and Grant's innocent denial seems hopelessly naïve at best. For this, Tyler Grant gets admitted to the Seriously Not Helping Hall of Fame. Ta-daaah!

Further applicants welcome!

===
Addendum: 15th September 2017

Chelsea Manning since release

Chelsea Manning was released from prison back in May 2017. She has left the army. Before she was jailed, it seemed that the only picture anyone had seen was the fuzzy monochrome selfie in the car. It's definitely not the most flattering picture in the world.

However, since release, Manning has appeared on TV and given interviews to several media sources. She looks a lot better, and I thought, in the interests of fairness, that I should put up a more recent picture of her, to set the record straight.

I think that selfie will be associated with Manning for ever more, but it's only a matter of time before much more flattering pictures of her become the accepted norm.

===

Addendum: For more people who are seriously not helping, take a look here.

Tracie's Story

This is something I had heard about at least a couple of years ago, when the story came out that Sean Bean, a British actor traditionally known for playing hard men and villains, was cast to play the part of a transvestite in an upcoming drama. (I wonder if they auditioned Vinnie Jones for the role?) You might know Bean from Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, or even James Bond. So naturally I couldn't wait to see it. However, down here in the bottom right hand corner of the map it's just been screened for the first time on terrestrial TV.

The drama in question is part of a UK serial, Accused, created for the BBC by screenwriter Jimmy McGovern. More specifically, it is the first episode of season 2. I haven't seen any of the other episodes, but I was so taken with the subtlety and brilliance of this one that I will be sure to take a look.

Sean Bean as Tracie

Let me say right up front that I think this is one of the best pieces of television featuring a crossdressing character that I have ever seen. It is clever, fresh, compelling and sympathetic. The dialogue sizzles (every one of Tracie's one-liners is a gem), and the characters are rounded and complex. It tackles all the issues you would expect, head on, but in ways you wouldn't expect. I am not going to spoil it for you, because I think it's just too good, but there are some points which are worthy of comment.

Tony: You get that a lot, do you? Aggro?
Tracie: Unfortunately.
Tony: So why do it?
Tracie: Because it's who I am, darlin'!

We join the action as Bean's character, Tracie Tremarco, gets all dolled up for a night on the town (Manchester), in what I wincingly regard as over-the-top drag: the long blonde hair, the short skirt, the sparkly dress, the long nails. But then we see Tracie expertly (if a little wearily) deflect the critical and mocking abuse she gets from the taxi driver and from some drunken lads in the pub. Later she picks up an apparently straight man, Tony (Stephen Graham), and they go back to Tracie's flat where they have sex.

Tony: What do you do for a living?
Tracie: Nothing, doll. Tracie's a good time girl.
Tony: So who pays for this place?
Tracie: Simon, love. The most boring man in the world.

A crossdressing academic, you say? Whatever next?

By day, Tracie is Simon, a bored and lonely English teacher, plodding through his lacklustre life, trying to interest his disengaged students in poetry. The writer makes a reasonable effort to weave the poetry into the narrative, particularly the Lady of Shalott, Tennyson's romantic ballad of a lonely and beautiful lady who looks out of her tower window and falls in love with "bold Sir Lancelot".

Tracie is surprised and delighted when Tony turns up at her flat unexpectedly, and the two embark on a relationship, somewhat hesitantly at first. Gradually, Tracie begins to fall in love with Tony, and wants him to take her out:

Tony: I haven't got the balls to be seen out with you. But shall I tell you why? It's because you make no bleedin' effort to look like a woman. A real woman!
Tracie: I never claimed to be Cheryl bloody Cole!
Tony: I never expected you to turn into Cheryl Cole. But you're going to have to do a lot better than Old King fucking Cole if you want to be seen out in public with me. So just have a go. Eh?
Tracie: What, and you'll take me out?

As the relationship deepens, Simon gradually rediscovers his zest for life. His students look up in surprise as he reads the poetry with fire and passion. Later there is a powerful scene where Simon, walking along the street, sees Tony coming the other way, and realises Tony does not recognise him. Simon's distress is played out perfectly by Bean, without a word of dialogue being spoken.

Did anyone ever tell you you look a bit like Cheryl Cole?

Later still, Tracie visits a shopping mall for a makeover. A beautiful young woman leans in close to apply the makeup, and we follow Tracie's eyes looking at each feature of this young woman: her pearl earring, her eyes, her lips, her figure. Though we, the audience, know what's really going on in Tracie's mind, the expression on her face mirrors a recurring feeling I have often had when I compare myself to real women: how could I ever possibly hope to look half as good as that?

The theme of the series Accused is legal drama. In each episode, there is a different lead character, and we see scenes from their life as they become involved in something illegal, interspersed with tense courtroom scenes. So I am not letting any cats out of any bags by letting it slip that Bean's character ends up in court. But here is where my revelations end: if you want more, you will need to see it for yourself! It seems to be available on YouTube here. Trust me, though. You won't see all the subtlety on a single viewing.

Reviews have been extremely favourable. The Huffington Post said "Bean has rarely been better, showing a vulnerability and complexity many miles away from his usual tough-man". Metro said the show "could have played out like a cliché but thanks to a gritty, chip-on-the-shoulderpad turn from Bean, matched every uneasy flirt of the way by Stephen Graham as the tightly wound Tony, these characters worked their way under the skin. It was a little heavy on the melodrama but these emotional wounds were palpable".

Bean's performance is a triumph, especially given his background playing hard men and villains. The British tabloid press breathlessly reported that Bean had gone out dressed as a woman to research the role, as if this was somehow a surprise. However, the broadsheet press was a little more enlightened in its reporting. The Independent interviewed Bean and quoted him:

Bean: I got pretty good at [walking in high heels], walking on cobblestones and all sorts. I had a full body wax, the high heels, short skirts, bras – everything – it was proper full-on. I became totally absorbed: it was wonderful being involved in it, I just didn't want to leave it, the character. I became very close to Tracie. It's a brilliant script: very moving, very dark humour.
Who would have thought I'd have been dressing up as a woman and embracing that? It just came out of the blue and it was one of the most enjoyable things I've ever done, one of the things I'm most proud of. I just think I could never have invented that.

I congratulate Bean on his courage taking on this role, and for his ability to bring it to life. He manages to avoid the obvious farcical elements and provides us with a character which is portrayed sensitively and with subtlety, but with moments of wry comedy nonetheless. His performance won him the title of Best Actor at the Royal Television Society Awards.

I mean, do I look like a man in a dress?

So finally, what do I think? First, this programme is seriously bleak. Manchester is dull and grey and hostile. The only places which have light, colour and warmth seem (perhaps deliberately) to feature cosmetics, clothing, or transvestites. The character of Simon-Tracie is sordid and pathetic: a transvestite who looks ridiculous and brings home a series of men for sex. In a very real sense, Tracie had to look grotesque: we, the audience, just wouldn't have bought it if they had cast a pretty man (or a less accomplished actor) in the part. It speaks tremendously of the production team that they were able to bring this off and make us sympathise with the characters.

Second, there are aspects to the character of Tracie which don't quite sit comfortably with me, though it is plain that the writer has tried extremely hard to do his homework on the subject (hitting several nails squarely on the head with powerful lines about married men who are "curious" about transvestites). There is an odd separation between Simon and Tracie: each talks of the other in the third person, as if they were separate people. For some crossdressers, this might indeed be how they compartmentalise their lives; for me, I know it isn't.

Thirdly, Simon dresses as Tracie because he is a gay man.

Tracie: Young Simon... realised he had to tell his parents he was gay, or kill himself. So he decided having a dead son was slightly worse than having a gay one, so that's why he told them.

One of the main themes of this blog is that crossdressers are not gay, and there is plenty of justification for this view. On the other hand, I have a DVD of a 2002 documentary filmed in Manchester's gay community called The Queen's Wedding. The crew interviews several gay crossdressers, some very attractive, and some very unattractive, and the documentary culminates in the wedding of two men, one of whom wears a bridal dress for the occasion. In any case, a theme of that documentary is that some gay men do crossdress for the purposes of amusement and sex. So Tracie certainly seems to fit into that mould.

Finally, by bringing the character of Tracie to a mainstream audience, the writers are belting out a powerful and welcome message: you might find them repellent, but transvestites are human beings too.