Some 39 years ago
Paul Simon recorded the iconic 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover
(yes, 1975!). This was of course in the
pre MTV age so we had to listen to the lyrics to get the images portrayed. You could “Hop on the bus, Gus” or “Slip out
the back Jack”. I find it interesting
that those contemplating a hasty departure all seemed to be men. I suspect it
was merely an artifact of the times but it also spoke to whom Simon wrote the
song for.
This past week
the folks at FaceBook gave us another 50 ways.
Actually, more than 50. This time
though it was ways
to express your gender on FaceBook.
I had many friends pinging me about this in an excited way saying “Isn’t
this great!” or “Wow what progress”.
When I responded with less than unbridled enthusiasm they seemed very
perplexed.
Let me start off
by again reiterating my feelings regarding labels. Last week I wrote about how labels seem to be
defining LGBT candidates as opposed to what their positions are. I think this is the same kind of thing except
worse. Let me be clear, I am all for you
self-identifying any way you wish. By
all means please do so. Realize, however
that in doing so you allow others to also define you and what those labels
mean. In our already fractured,
stratified and diminutive population I fear it creates the opportunity for
abuse, discounting and a caste system of sorts.
A few columns
back I expressed concern about names and what we call ourselves. This FaceBook
change once again brings that forward. Now, a “knowledgeable” Cisgender
(non-transgender) person can assert his/her Cis-Pride (or privilege) by
declaring they are a Cis Male or Female.
And the rest of the world who largely only know “Cis” folk and now point
with indifference to those who are “other”.
By “other” I mean some 50+ others such as Bigender. Gender Fluid,
Neither and Neutrois. And somehow
“other” can translate to “less worthy”.
I am not saying it has to, just that it can.
I think there is
a natural human tendency to use taxonomy and categories to help us understand
the world. We like tidy boxes for
things: Republican/Democrat, Fat/Thin,
Rich/Poor, and more recently Gay/Straight, and of course very traditionally
Male/Female. We do the same in the wild
with things such as Mammal/Reptile or Fish/Fowl. Of course nature is not so binary, so “black
and white”. Yes we get tossed things
like the Duck Billed Platypus,
or carnivorous plants,
or human tinkered photosynthetic
fish. We somehow view those things
as exceptions but they happen to humans too.
There are intersexed persons, and trans persons, and gender non-conforming
persons as well.
I personally view
myself as female. I made some effort to
make that so. It is what is marked on my
driver’s license and passport. I do not
view female as any one thing. I enjoy
watching baseball, working with wood, fixing my own car, launching rockets,
working with robots, etc. etc. There is
no male monopoly on that stuff and if you tell me otherwise then I would be
probably be looking at a misogynist.
When pressed, or asked about my history, I sometimes will say I am a woman
of Trans history (not one of the gender options on Facebook). That differentiates who I am today vs where I
came from. I recently had a business
meeting where a colleague asked me in a roundabout way about such things and I
stated that we all have interesting histories but that such matters were not
pertinent to the business we were discussing.
He left it at that.
There is a lot
more to say on this topic but let me get to my immediate concern. Legislators.
You see, as I have previously mentioned some of them have hang ups with
names and conventions. We have worked hard to get them to comprehend Trans, as
a nice “black and white” perspective that there are male and female and there
are some persons who must make life changes and may be “in between”. Of course some of you are going to charge me
with only supporting the gender binary. I am not. But if we make too much fuss
about all the other variations we lose the legislator’s attention or scare
them. Let me be totally clear -- Gender
identity legislation includes all of those people on the FaceBook list but I am
concerned that offering too much detail here, which may add to their confusion,
is just 50 ways to lose your legislator.
And in this case we only need one Senator to have concerns, and two did and
expressed so in the last Senate JPR hearing on SB212. Just sayin’.
