"The Gendercator" and Transphobia

Image Via

Tonight I went to a screening of the independent film The Gendercator at the Center on Halsted. This film has been causing quite a stir amongst transpeople across the country and in the queer blogosphere. The film has actually been banned from a few LGBT(qai...) film festivals for supposedly being anti-trans.

I will say that I do not think that this film was anti-trans. I do not think it had anything to do with transgender issues AT ALL. Before I go into an analysis I will give you a brief synopsis. A young non-gender normative lesbian woman falls asleep at a party in the 1970s after smoking much marijuana (or what appeared to be marijuana). She wakes up 75 years later to find that the religious right has taken over. A person can only be a man or a woman and MUST fit into rigid gender categories, brave-new-world-style.

One can have surgery to fit the gender that they prefer but once they are in their new body they MUST comply with the rigid gender roles. This young woman is forced by medical professionals to be surgically transformed into a man. This petrifies her because while she likes women she also likes her androgynous body. In something of a cop-out (on the director's part) the sequence ends up being a dream and she wakes up again to find the 'real' world. Fin.

Anyway, the controversy has arisen because many people see this film as being transphobic. I do not see that. I think the film is a dystopian fantasy in which we see what would happen if the religious right had their way and choice was taken away. This film is very much about force and removal of choice. The surgery in this film was not a result of some deeply felt yearning or life long struggle with one's body image not matching her/his gender identity. This surgery was about a woman being forced to become a man because of her clothing and her sexual object choice. That is something very different indeed.

After screening the film there was a panel discussion with the director, Catharine Crouch, and five other activists/theorists in the gender queer field. The discussion was fascinating. Judith Halberstam was on the panel! She had the most insightful comments, I wish I could have heard more from her. I have long been a fan of her work.

The director defended her film saying that it was meant as a resistance to medicalization of bodies and that straight women are socialized to believe that if they do not look like Barbie they are value-less and that plastic surgery is a way to fit into that norm is scary. She also said that transmen are forced into FTM surgery in order to fit into a gendered norm. Because their bodies are not stereotypically masculine they are not valued as males in our culture. Her argument seemed to be that people should be content with their bodies and not seek surgery as a way of copping out of dealing with non-normative gender.

This is where she got herself into a bit of hot water. NONE of the above things were in her film. These are statements that she has made while on her national tour with this film. The other panelists were rightly upset at the notion that transmen are somehow depoliticized just by virtue of their maleness. Choosing a male body is not a way of avoiding feminism! It is not a way of gaining privilege. It might be a side-effect sometimes, but I seriously doubt that that is the reason many transpeople transition.

One of the things that I enjoyed the most was the reappropriating of the directors notion of medicalization as a tool of the patriarchy. While I agree that it has been used that way (especially in the case of intersexed peoples) it seems to deny transpeople the agency that they deserve. Halberstam argued that medicalization is just a much a tool for trans liberation as it is a tool of the patriarchy.

Image Via

Halberstam was clearly annoyed with Crouch. Crouch seemed to be rather ignorant on trans issues and this is what is getting her into trouble. She is going around the country in the name of starting a dialogue and than openly admitting that she has no idea what trans identity is! She certainly should not be a spokesperson for this community by any means. The film was not anti-trans but the director might well be. As Halberstam suggested, she would do well to read much, much more queer theory before taking on such an ambitious tour.

Finally, I want to say that I think this film is mis-named a satire. There is nothing satirical about it, it is a dystopian fantasy about an extraordinarily conservative regime. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Probably not. All I know after listening to this panel is that Crouch ought not claim to have made a movie about transpeople when it clearly is not. And she probably would do well to pick up some queer theory.

Parenting and Masculinity on Cable TV

Tonight I had the pleasure of catching an episode of Showbiz Tonight on CNN. I had no idea what to expect of an entertainment news show on cable. The ones I get to see on broadcast TV at home are just wicked and I supposed I shouldn't have expected much more of CNN.

Anyway, one of their feature stories was about the actors in the new film American Gangster which I have not heard much about but I am sure it is another pornographic display of romanticized male violence (perhaps I will write more on that film later). Showbiz Tonight interviewed Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Well, mostly it was Denzel lecturing Russell (and anyone else watching) on how to be a father.

Now I should warn readers that I recently finished reading bell hooks' The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love and it has influenced me. A lot.

Denzel Washington talked about a few key things in child-rearing. He said that "Sports...is the best thing I did." Suggesting that engaging in hyperviolent organized and professional sports is the best thing for children upsets me. Violence is a disease and institutions like professional sports (and I am talking about the football, hockey type sports here) are huge perpetuators of violent behavior.

hooks talks a lot about how men are damaged by patriarchy. She suggests that boys and men are told to turn off their emotions and turn inward at a very young age. Masculinizing institutions like professional sports encourage and reward that type of behavior.

This is only the beginning of Washington's terrifying, patriarchal advice. He also said that he put his son on an inner-city football team and his son hated it. He got a call from the coach saying "Your son is crying." To which Washington said "Be ten times harder on him, if I hear about another tear another whimper I’ll be back down there and put a foot in his behind in front of the team.”

Because when a male child has the audacity to show emotion, to express himself, to dislike absorbing physical violence without a wince, the best thing to do is to kick his ass. I was horrified. That child now knows that men are violent and that he is not a man unless he is violent and if he strays from that hegemonic masculine ideal that he will be harshly punished. I cannot think of worse advice. That is not tough love as Showbiz Tonight so graciously called it, that is abuse.

hooks mission is to teach men and women that their sons need and want love and that when they don't get it they learn a very painful type of masculinity. And it is this blogger's opinion that masculinity is destroying men.

See the video here.

Terrorism for Women is Different (adapted from an assigned project)

When I moved to Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood nearly two weeks ago, I had no idea what I was getting in to. My roommate and I are paying an astronomical amount of rent to live in this ‘upscale’ neighborhood with trendy stores, well-lit streets and comparatively low crime rates. We were ill prepared to discover that there is a rapist lurking in our cozy neighborhood. In the past three weeks three women have been accosted. Two others were raped earlier in the summer. Chicago police currently do not have enough evidence to believe that the incidents are related. However, the victims’ descriptions of their attackers are eerily similar. Between 2 and 2:30 a.m. on July 23rd a young woman was thrown to the ground and nearly raped by a man she described as Hispanic, 25-30 years old with short hair. At 4:30 a.m. on July 29th a young woman was attacked as she was entering her apartment building. The attacker struck her in the back of the head, took her into her apartment and raped her. She described him as being 25-30 years old and Hispanic. The most recent attack occurred on August 3rd at 2:30 in the afternoon! On a busy street, this man offered to help a young woman with her grocery bags. When she declined, he followed her up to her apartment and attempted to assault her. She described him as being about 175 lbs., between 28 and 32 years old, and white.

In the past few years “terrorism” has become quite a buzzword. It is in the news on an almost daily basis from local ‘terror-alerts’ to terrorist activity abroad. When many of us imagine terrorism we think of September 11, 2001. We think of foreign men attacking us, we think of religious extremism, we think of war. But how often do we think about the terror that we live with every single day? I am talking about the terror that all women live with; the fear of assault and attack that shapes our daily lives and our entire experience of this world. I ask you, why is sexual assault not considered to be terrorism? Why are rapists not considered to be terrorists? And why is punishment of sexual assault so lenient?

Only in a society that eroticizes hierarchy and power can crimes like this continue to be so pervasive. One need only watch television for a few hours or flip through a Maxim magazine to see that women’s bodies are the erotic toys of men. This is the ideology that nearly every member of American society is inundated with. It is not surprising then that we have so many attacks on women’s bodies and on their bodily sovereignty. This is a culture that does not believe that women’s bodies are their own. Our bodies are tools of the patriarchy: tools for reproduction, tools for male sexual pleasure, tools to make the lives of men easier at whatever cost. Our bodies are tools but they are not our own. That is the message that we get over and over again. Is it really so surprising then that men use our bodies that way?

FOX news reported on March 15th that a forty-two year old man convicted of raping a young women, a man who plead guilty, mind you, is being released after only spending six months in prison. Why, you ask? Because he apologized. He said he was sorry, he was an alcoholic at the time and is now in AA. Could you even imagine that happening in a murder case? I can sense the chiding ‘rape is not the same as murder’ response. Women who are victims of sexual assault never get their lives back. Do you think a woman who was raped can sleep at night knowing her rapist is free, enjoying his life? According to Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), rape survivors are three times more likely to suffer from depression, six times more likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, thirteen times more likely to abuse alcohol, twenty-six times more likely to abuse drugs, four times more likely to contemplate suicide and many suffer from sexual dysfunctions for the rest of their lives. It hardly seems fair that all he got was six months.

The BBC reported back in June that an English man got a two-year sentence for raping a ten-year-old girl. What was the rationale behind this sentencing? The man said that she was ‘dressed provocatively.’ And we are back to victim blame. This time the victim was a child. It seems too barbaric to be true, but in phallocentric society, little girls' lives have significantly less value than adult men’s.

On March 3rd, in San Jose, California, a seventeen-year-old girl was gang raped. There were plenty of eyewitnesses and even airtight DNA evidence. The San Jose District Attorney wouldn’t even try the young men in this case. Why? Insufficient evidence.

Do you need more proof that rape is not taken seriously in much of this country?
How about this doll. Or this 'joke.' Or this fashion advertisement.

Not long ago, I discussed this case in which a young woman who was raped by her boyfriend's brother. She gave 'consent' to having sex with the man she thought was her boyfriend not to the man who tricked her. Again, the man was not prosecuted because women who say that they are raped are not taken seriously. RAINN reports that of "the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison." Message to rape victims: do not bother reporting your assault.

Women who hear these news reports night after night, women who live in Lakeview who see signs with drawings of rapists all over their community, women who have survived rape only to have their attackers walk free live in terror every single day. This can be evidenced by the existence of rape schedules. Many women do not know what a rape schedule is, but they all have one. Ask any woman you know what she does to make herself less vulnerable to sexual assault (because we are taught that that is our responsibility. It is not a man's responsibility not to rape, in fact sating his sexual appetites is encouraged). You will get a lot of responses like these:
-carry pepper spray
-don’t walk alone at night
-carry keys in hands
-don’t wear low cut clothing
-have a cell phone buddy for walking
-cross the street when a strange man is approaching
-don’t stop, don’t answer questions, don’t make eye contact
-lock doors immediately
These are things that women do every single day without even questioning. These are things that years of living in terror has taught us to do without a second thought. These are things that restrict our movement in ways that (heterosexual) men never have to.

The Chicago Tribune and local news channels are covering this topic on an almost daily basis. Because Lakeview is Chicago’s “upscale” neighborhood, a rapist on the loose is huge news. Until this man (or men) is caught this issue is going to be on the minds of women living in this community. Because the rapist(s) has not yet been apprehended, residents, especially women, in Lakeview are still on high alert. There are flyers all over the streets, in coffee shops, grocery stores, and college campuses, there are concerned groups handing out pepper spray and instructing self-defense courses. The underlying theme of this discussion is male violence against women. These rape cases are just another example of it. Because Lakeview is a wealthy (white) neighborhood, these attacks are incredibly newsworthy. But we cannot forget that sexualized violence is an ever-present threat whether it be in Lakeview or Back of the Yards.

I suspect there will be some disagreement as to whether sexual assault is an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence committed for political or ideological gain. I would argue that keeping women in a state of constant terror serves the patriarchy by keeping women in prescribed roles. Our very lives are in danger if we challenge the status quo or if we step out of line. The “she was dressed like she wanted it” line of defense has worked in enough cases to tell women that we are deserving of sexual violence if we step out of line. This is a form of psychological terror, enforced by physical terror.

Thousands of women (approximately 50,000) live in Lakeview and all of them are on guard following these attacks. We can never forget our position as second-class citizens. We can never forget that men are more powerful in this society. Rape is a crime that proves it. There is no male equivalent. At least, men are not terrorized in the same way that women are by this gender specific crime. Nothing forces women back into their homes, into invisibility, into less revealing clothing, into earlier bedtimes, into hiding quite like the threat of sexualized violence. Rape reminds women of their place. By keeping us scared, they are keeping us weak.