Feelings or Actions, Condensed

grvsmth9 Comments

I recently came across an interesting blog post about the MTA’s weird practice of having its commuter railroad conductors mark the gender of passengers on their monthly passes. My friend Donna has experienced this on the Long Island Rail Road, and last week a blogger named Bobby posted his experience from the conductor’s point of view. I posted a comment to Bobby’s blog linking to Donna’s post, but I couldn’t help adding a correction to another comment by someone named Laser72.

Laser72 had tried to gently correct Bobby for referring to his passenger as a “cross dresser,” saying that since the passenger had a monthly pass, she probably spent a significant amount of time as a woman, and therefore “transgendered woman” was more appropriate.

A crossdresser is a man or woman who dresses up as the opposite gender on a more temporary basis, usually just for fun, or as a sexual fetish. A transgendered person is someone who dresses and lives as the other gender on a much more permanent basis, usually full time …

In response, I considered linking to my Feelings and Actions post, but I realized that that was way too in-depth and detailed for a casual blog reader to digest in one sitting.  I tried to write just a few sentences saying that I disagreed with Laser72’s categories, but Laser72 asked for clarification.  So now I’m trying to write something that’s shorter than the Feelings and Actions post, but still says enough.

The main problem with Laser72’s categories is that the terms don’t always mean those things.  They’re ambiguous, and that ambiguity causes problems.  For example, when people say that they’ve “always been transgendered,” they don’t mean that they’ve always dressed and lived as the other on a permanent or full-time basis.  They mean that there are particular feelings that they’ve always had, and it’s quite well documented that many people who say that they’ve “always been transgendered” have in the past dressed up as the opposite gender on a temporary basis, for fun or as a sexual fetish.   If these people have really always been transgendered, then it’s not just possible but common to be transgender and a cross-dresser.

The term “cross-dresser” is also problematic.  It was invented by people who cross-dressed but were uncomfortable with the term “transvestite,” which to them suggested cross-dressing just for fun, or as a sexual fetish, or even for prositution.  It was originally used to refer to anyone who dressed as “the opposite gender,” regardless of motivation.  Therefore, it could refer to transgender people, either before they start living full-time as their chosen gender, or when they dress as their birth gender temporarily, like Bobby’s passenger.

This is why I think it’s better to use terms like “transgender” and “fetish” for feelings and motivations, and terms like “cross-dresser” for actions.

Christina Sforza’s experience

grvsmth1 Comment

Blogger RachelPhilPa linked both to my post about Ian Harvie’s bathroom experience and a YouTube video of Christina Sforza describing her assault by the manager of the McDonalds on Fifth Avenue and 34th Street (which I also reported). The video was taken a year later and nothing has been done. Sforza’s story is very disturbing. I admire her courage for pursuing justice after that kind of treatment.

Last year I emailed the staff of Council Speaker Quinn (the McDonald’s in question is in her district) and got some encouraging responses. This Amnesty International report says that Quinn’s intervention allowed Sforza to file a complaint (it’s not clear whether against the manager or the police officers). However, I have not heard anything since last year. The report also gives contact information for Commissioner Kelly, an advisor to District Attorney Morgenthau and Speaker Quinn.

Reformers want to cut Grand Central bathroom budget

grvsmth

You may remember New York Daily News transit reporter Pete Donohue’s insensitive take on the Grand Central bathroom ruling last year.  Well, the News is at it again.

This time I really believe that they’re trying to do something good: root out the Three Corruptions of waste, fraud and abuse at the MTA.  Most of their findings and implied recommendations are spot-on: the MTA doesn’t need a completely separate administrative hierarchy in every sub-agency, with its own set of lawyers, for instance.  And if, as Aaron Donovan admits, the “housing allowance” for executives is not actually for housing but really just a part of their salary, it shouldn’t be counted separately.  But one thing struck me as bizarre:

BATHROOM ATTENDANTS

There are 21 bathroom attendants at Grand Central making $16,270 to $53,867 a year. Says Metro-North: “700,000 pass through each day, 10,000 meals are sold and they all have to pee.”

This is simply stated by the News reporters in a sidebar without any comment; the implication is that it’s either waste, fraud or abuse.  But come on: Grand Central has at least three sets of bathrooms (although I can’t remember ever seeing more than two sets open at once).  I think the Metro-North response is more than reasonable.  With 700,000 people passing through every day, you’d expect at least, what, 35,000 to use the bathrooms?  There are only 21 people to clean up after them, and given that the terminal is open seven days a week, 20 hours a day, that’s really at most two people working at any given time.  Most of the time, probably only one person.

Is the “waste” in the salaries?  I really, really don’t get all these people who have a particular idea about what certain jobs should pay.  In October we had the Subwayblogger arguing that people scraping gum off the subway platforms shouldn’t make more than $38,000 a year.  Now we’ve got the Daily News who seem to think that people who wipe shit off the floor don’t deserve to make – what? it’s not clear because they just leave it unsaid.  Certainly not $53,867.

In my book, someone who spends their days cleaning bathrooms, and frequently has to wipe up some bum’s diarrhea, or some Scarsdale party girl’s vomit, deserves every penny of that $53,867.  That’s about as much as I made when I was a full-time computer support tech, and a bathroom attendant job is at least as demanding and deserving as the job I had.

This is the same kind of thinking that gets people blabbering about illegal immigrants being required to do “the jobs Americans won’t do.”  As this Slate article succinctly argues, it’s not that Americans won’t do those jobs, it’s that they won’t do them for the small amount of money the employers are offering, at the long hours, oppressive conditions and humiliating environment they demand.  If you pay them decent wages, give them decent hours and safe, pleasant environments where they’re not being insulted all the time, Americans will be happy to mine coal, pick strawberries or mop pee off the floor.  But apparently Subwayblogger and the News reporters think that people who mop pee don’t deserve that.

Let’s say that the Metro-North execs, scared by this News report, cut the Grand Central budget in half.  It would be an absolute disaster.  Unsafe stalls, broken facilities going unreported for hours, messes not getting cleaned up, you name it.  But most importantly – and here’s why this is in my Trans Blog – lower salaries for bathroom attendants.  Lower salaries means higher turnover, which means less experienced attendants.  Anyone who says this is a “semi-skilled” job is talking out their ass.  One important skill for a bathroom attendant is judging who’s a threat and who’s not, and knowing that trans people belong.  If you’ve got high turnover, that means that every couple of weeks you’ve got a new bathroom attendant who’s going to blow the whistle on some trans person in the bathroom.  Just what we need.

I don’t see any waste, fraud or abuse in this aspect of the MTA.  If anything, $16,270 is low for even a part-time bathroom attendant.  Imagine if we quadrupled the budget for Grand Central bathroom attendants.  That means that bathroom attendants will actually be able to support a family in a decent apartment, and will probably stay on the job longer and take pride in their work.  It means less overtime and less stress for the attendants, which means they’ll do their jobs better and probably be nicer to the patrons.  It means that Grand Central will be able to open more than one set of bathrooms at a time, adding to convenience and cutting down on the lines that can sometimes get waaay out of hand.  I’d pay 4% more on my ticket to Irvington for that.

NYC-area readers: take the Center Survey

grvsmth

There’s an issue that’s important to me, but that I haven’t really had much time to discuss here on my blog: safe places to change gender presentation.  I would love it if some day we can all leave our houses dressed as any gender (or combination of genders) we like.  In the meantime, it really helps to have a safe place where people can change gender presentation away from home.

When I first asked about this at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in 2000, I was told that changing clothes in the bathrooms was not allowed.  Things have changed significantly since then.  In 2004, Donna from the My Husband Betty message boards posted that there was an unofficial policy allowing people to change clothes in the “All-Gender” bathrooms on the second floor.  Within the next two years, that policy was made official and the rules against changing clothes were removed from the lists.  I have changed gender presentation several times in those bathrooms over the past three years, and the staff and other visitors have always been perfectly supportive.

This, to me, is one of the most important “transgender community services” that a center can offer.  I hope you will agree with me, and tell that to the Center management when you take their Community Survey.

Blinding me with Neuroscience

grvsmth

Perusing Mark Liberman’s Language Log, I came across a post about an awesome study (PDF).  Yale psychology student Deena Skolnick Weisberg and her colleagues noticed that people seemed to like psychological explanations that contained a certain amount of neuroscience.

Weisberg and her colleagues came up with a list of interesting psychological phenomena.  For each one, they created two explanations: a “good” one corresponding to the usual explanation given, and a “bad” one, which was usually circular.  They found that their subjects (who were not particularly knowledgeable about psychology) were capable of distinguishing the bad explanations from the good ones.

The researchers changed the explanations, adding a few words of neuroscience that was consistent with the explanation.  They were very careful to ensure that it was identical to the explanation given, so that it added no new information.  The subjects who received the explanations with neuroscience were much less capable of distinguishing the bad explanations from the good ones.  Specifically, the researchers write, “the addition of such neuroscience information encouraged them to judge the explanations more favorably, particularly the bad explanations.  That is, extraneous neuroscience information makes explanations look more satisfying than they actually are, or at least more satisfying than they otherwise would be judged to be.”

The study was repeated with students taking an introductory neuroscience course; unfortunately, “a semester’s worth of instruction is not enough to dispel the effect of neuroscience information on judgments of explanations.”  It was repeated again with experts in neuroscience, who were found to be immune to this effect.

The authors conclude, “Since it is unlikely that the popularity of neuroscience findings in the public sphere will wane any time soon, we see in the current results more reasons for caution when applying neuroscientific findings to social issues.”  In other words, be skeptical and try to compensate for this effect.

Gender, Safety and Desirability

grvsmth

Streetsblog recently featured four different articles that highlighted the role of gender in the success of public spaces and practices. In the first post, traffic psychologist Ian Walker attached proximity measuring equipment to test how closely (i.e. how dangerously) motorists came when overtaking him. He found that they came closer when he wore a helmet than when he was bare-headed, presumably because they felt he would be protected if they hit him. But they gave him the most space when he wore a long wig and (he assumed) passed for a woman from behind.

In another post, the New York Observer reported that a new group of women are seen riding bikes in New York: young, attractive, and most importantly, forsaking jocky spandex for a host of femme signifiers: dresses, skirts, high heels, long hair, baskets, perfume, pink, Hello Kitty. They include famous actresses and models such as Naomi Watts, Chloë Sevigny, Gisele Bundchen and, most recently, Sarah Michelle Gellar. Streetsblog pointed out, however, that Copenhagen, um, women are way ahead of New York, riding bikes in skirts and heels in great numbers.

Today, in a discussion of the soaring popularity of cycling in Portland, Oregon, the comments turned to Portland’s concern with the numbers of women cyclists. “Women cyclists,” the city’s transportation office asserts, “are the indicators of a healthy bikeway network.”

Bryant Park (1960), Charles W. CushmanStreetsblog commenter Gretel pointed us to a New Yorker report about Danny Gordon, whose job is to count the numbers of men and women in Bryant Park, every day at lunchtime. The idea comes from a man named Holly Whyte, a sociologist and founder of the Project for Public Spaces. “Women pick up on visual cues of disorder better than men do,” Gordon’s boss, Bryant Park Corporation president Dan Biederman told the New Yorker. “They’re your purest customers. And, if women don’t see other women, they tend to leave.” New Yorker writer Nick Paumgarten added, “Presumably, a female preponderance not only emboldens more women but also entices more men.”

Paumgarten acknowledged that it’s not always easy to classify people by gender. “Sometimes I’ll make it a man, sometimes I’ll make it a woman,” Gordon told him. “And, if I realize afterward that I was wrong, I’ll change the next person.” For Biederman’s purposes it doesn’t matter if Gordon gets it slightly wrong, because what really matters is how many women are perceived to be in the park.

Biederman’s assessment of the role of women in the success of a public space is probably correct, but I would guess that when safety is an issue (as it was in Bryant Park in the ’80s, and as it is in cycling now), the critical issue is that women, overall, are more vulnerable than men, and are perceived that way, by themselves and by others. They pick up on visual cues of disorder because those are likely to be cues of danger for them. When people see a place full of women (who aren’t being held captive in some way) they take that as a signal that the place is safe. When people see women engaging in an activity, they take that as a signal that the activity is safe.

I’ll even go further than Biederman and argue that the women aren’t all equal in that regard: the femmer the women, the more vulnerable they appear, and the more femme women, the safer the space appears. If I see Bryant Park at midnight full of leather-clad women with crew cuts, I won’t get the same feeling of safety as if I see it full of women with long hair wearing high heels and dresses. (Of course, there’s no feeling of safety if the women appear to be prostitutes.) Similarly with cycling: a few frail-looking women in dresses indicate safety much more than a lot of athletic-looking women in spandex.

How does transness fit into this? I think it has a lot to do with passing. An FTM once told me that he knew he passed when he saw a woman cross the street to avoid walking past him. I knew I passed late one night when a strange woman curled up next to me on the subway and fell asleep. Maybe some women would be reassured by seeing a non-passing MTF in the crowd, maybe they wouldn’t. Something to look into, perhaps.

Larry Wachowski still not transitioned

grvsmth

Gothamist has summaries of the gossip that came out in 2003 about Larry Wachowski, one of the creators of the Matrix series. After learning that he was dating a dominatrix who was Buck Angel’s ex, and started appearing in public with more feminine grooming (clean-shaven, long hair, make-up, fancier clothes and jewelry), the gossip columnists figured that there was only one explanation.  He’s getting a sex change (not that there’s anything wrong with that)!

Of course, in November of that year Wired ran a story with this quote: “One source who knows the couple and the scene dismisses the sex change rumor, explaining that Larry is merely a cross-dresser, not a transsexual.”  But apparently this did not stop the rumors, and a Fox entertainment reporter was fully expecting to find a woman on the set of Speed Racer.  He didn’t.  He didn’t find Wachowski either, but everyone he interviewed said that Larry was still a guy.

If Wachowski wanted to transition four years ago, with as much money and power as he has I’m guessing that he probably would have by now, but he hasn’t.  Maybe his girlfriend influenced his fashion sense.  Maybe it’s some BDSM thing.  Maybe he really is a cross-dresser.  The idea that The Matrix was partly written by a transgender person makes a lot of sense to me.

Of course, it’s none of my business if he’s a transsexual, a cross-dresser, or something completely other.  But geez, will some people get it now that being trans doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to transition?

Sam de Brito on cross-dressing

grvsmth

Metafilter featured this interesting blog sponsored by the Sydney Morning Herald (and apparently named after this Nick Lowe song). The guy may be a jerk, but he’s got some valuable insights, I think. He did one of those “non-TG journalist cross-dresses for science!” pieces, which is more interesting than it might sound. I was also impressed with how sensitive he was to trans people. Also, he hooks up with a woman while cross-dressed, which (although not unheard of), is pretty cool.

  1. My life as a woman
  2. My life as a woman: in the beginning
  3. On the town: Samantha gets lucky
  4. Samantha: getting deeper, getting out

(Bonus YouTube link in case you were wondering what Nick Lowe looks like when he’s really singing and playing – although I’ve never seen anyone play a bass with a pick before. The guitarist and drummer are pretty sharp too.)

“Policing in Queer & Trans Communities” at Queens Pride House

grvsmth

An interesting event at Queens Pride House in Jackson Heights. Too bad I can’t go!

*stay ALERT series* June Event

Activism, Leadership, and Education for a Radical Takeover presents:

“Policing in Queer & Trans Communities” with FIERCE!

Thurs. June 14, 7-9pm, FREE

F.I.E.R.C.E! will lead an interactive workshop and discussion that focuses on the history of policing in queer and trans communities, particularly in New York City, and what we can do about it. The workshop will be in English. Please RSVP to Lyndsey at 718-429-5309 or Lbeutin@queenspridehouse.org

F.I.E.R.C.E! (Fabulous Independent Educated Radical for Community Empowerment!) is the 5th presenter in the new series at QPH called “stay ALERT!” which focuses on radical queer organizing and the intersections of oppressions. stay ALERT stands for Activism, Leadership, and Education for a Radical Takeover. Look for a new stay ALERT event each month. Are you staying ALERT?

THE LADIES ROOM/ BAÑO DE DAMAS at Thalia

grvsmth

It’s a play about bathrooms and drag queens … being performed in my neighborhood! I hope I get a chance to see it.

THALIA SPANISH THEATRE presents the
AMERICAN PREMIERE BILINGUAL PRODUCTION OF

THE LADIES ROOM/ BAÑO DE DAMAS
By one of Venezuela’s most prestigious playwrights RODOLFO SANTANA
English translation by CHARLES PHILIP THOMAS
Directed by PEDRO DE LLANO

starring
ANGELICA AYALA, ALMA D’CRUZ, LAURA PATALANO, LAURA GOMEZ, JENNIFFER DIAZ, ANGELICA GUVERNEZ,ELKA RODRIGUEZ, ANGELA PEREZ, MARTHA OSORIO, LORENA JORGE, and FRANCISCO FUERTES as “The Seagull”

Ever wonder, “What do they DO in there that takes so long?” Here’s your chance to find out!

Carmen is the attendant of a ladies room at an upscale dance club, where the elite of the social, artistic, and political scenes meet to get seen, hustled, seduced, and smashed. She confronts a crisis in her marriage as a parade of lovely ladies streams in and out, sharing makeup, advice, secrets and more. Meanwhile, the club’s waiter, a drag queen named “The Seagull”, plans to make the most of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to perform for his idol, the inspiration for his act, when she pops in to freshen up.

SIX WEEKS ONLY!

FROM MAY 18 TO JUNE 24, 2007

alternating performances in English and Spanish

Performances IN ENGLISH: Fridays at 8 PM and Saturdays at 3 PM

Performances IN SPANISH: Saturdays at 8 PM, Sundays at 4 PM

TICKETS: $25 STUDENTS & SENIORS: $22 Special group rates

INFORMATION & TICKETS (718) 729-3880
At THALIA SPANISH THEATRE, 41-17 Greenpoint Avenue (Queens)

Subway # 7 Local to 40th St. Station. Buses Q60, Q32 to Queens Blvd & 41st St.