Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright doesn't dislike LGBT people, he just threatens to physically assault trans women

So Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg County, South Carolina (a county that sits on Interstate I-85, the major corridor between Atlanta and Charlotte) apparently decided to weigh on the "whole bathroom issue" - and his comments are not, shall we say, gracious.

Generally this type of news would make the rounds in the pro-trans sources like LGBTQ Nation, but even local stations are reporting on Sheriff Wright's violent rhetoric. 

My personal favorite is at 1:00 where he says:

"Gay people are people too, and I'm not into this making people feel bad about themselves because they make bad life choices - I make bad life choices."

He then goes on to say he doesn't dislike gay people, but I don't understand how he thinks people can't or won't feel bad when you tell them they make bad life choice, especially when considering that being LGBT isn't a choice. Plus, do you really need to point out how someone is messing it up? It's one thing to help out a friend who is making bad personal choices like abusing alcohol or drugs, mistreating their partner, being financially irresponsible - and pointing out those problems and helping with solutions. It's another thing to talk about sin and hypocrisy, as the Bible does in Matthew 7. But being LGBT isn't a sin. It isn't wrong. It isn't a choice.

He then double downed and defended his comments after they started to go viral. He clarifies his position by saying:

“I'm not worried about the LGBT community, I'm worried about those who use that as a disguise to assault women and children,” he said.

Ah, citing the old hypocritical people will take advantage of this to break the law argument. The one that Republicans say doesn't work when it comes to handguns. I also addressed gun violence among many other public safety argument hypocrisies in a previous series about how the HB2 debate is an exercise in right-wing hypocrisy and really just about discriminating against ideas they don't like.

However, all those arguments aside, what does it mean when a sheriff says he makes bad life choices? Is that the kind of person you want policing your county?

You can watch the original video below:

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown - President of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina, director of the Coalition of Conscience, and host of the nationally syndicated daily talk radio show, “the Line of Fire”

This is an open letter to Michael Brown, who recently published a poorly argued open letter to Bruce Springsteen after Bruce cancelled his Greensboro concert in response to HB2. I have decided to respond to his letter section by section, as that will be easiest for the reader to follow. Everything in italicized quotes are Brown's own words, I have not edited for format or anything else.

Dear Bruce,
As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.  

Since residency status matters (for whatever reason), I would like to point out that I was a resident of North Carolina from 1994 to 2010, and a product of the North Carolina education system, as I attended the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, While I was not born there, having spent half my life in North Carolina, I consider myself Tar Heel bred.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.” 

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.” 

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation. 

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.” 

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

This all seems well and reasonable enough - commending someone for taking a position on morality over money. I do however, wonder how Dr. Brown feels about preachers like Joel Osteen or the Christian music industry, neither of whom have problems collecting millions selling morality messages. But let's table that for now, because the rest of the letter is nothing more than an example of poorly executed logic.

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)

I actually have read HB2 and I understand what it means. Several of my friends, who are all lawyers, have also read HB2. They agree with my criticisms of HB2, which is also backed up by non-partisan organizations like Politifact. However, simply reading something does not mean someone understands it. Depending on the source, anywhere from 32 million to 45 million American adults are considered functionally illiterate. These variations are due in part because of different definitions of 'functional illiteracy' - but the basic idea is that while someone can read and understand the vocabulary in a chunk of text, they can't necessarily identify or apply the meaning/implications of that chunk of text.

So while Dr. Brown and others have 'read' HB2, that doesn't necessarily mean they understood it. For example, many supporters of the bill argued it would make all bathrooms unisex - which Politifact rated as false. So perhaps Bruce actually reads at a higher level than North Carolina lawmakers - or is just more honest. Either way, let's move on:

So, please allow me to ask you some questions. 

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Medical professionals can help people figure out if someone is transgender, so this is fairly easily answered. The American Psychological Association has provided multiple resources on transgender issues. Regarding laws about how people feel - many of these already exist. Threats can make someone feel unsafe, and so many forms are illegal. Sexual harassment laws often include hostile workplace provisions precisely because victims feel threatened, intimidated, or offended. So to answer Dr. Brown's question - yes it's possible to make laws about how people feel - and many people, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have contemplated that very question. 

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

There's a reason the DSM changed from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" - mostly because they do not view gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. So the comparisons to schizophrenia and other psychological conditions are inaccurate - yet Brown is using them to suggest trans people are crazy. Since he's not a medical doctor, maybe it's best he leave those questions to people more familiar with the subject.

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term? 

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males? 

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

The APA describes a psychological state as mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Since not all trans people experience distress or disability, it is therefore inaccurate to describe being transgender as a psychological disorder. If that is not "definitive scientific literature" by Brown's standards - then he needs to kindly point us to the credentials that prove how he is remotely qualified to make such an assessment.

Regarding "celebrating" trans people - I'm not exactly sure when/where this has happened, unless he's referring to the expanded coverage of recent trans celebrities like Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner. When has the cisgender ('non-trans') mainstream really ever celebrated trans people? By targeting them for hate crimes? By discriminating against them in just about every aspect of their lives? Moving on:

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman. 

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

How does that little girl feel when a 6'4 cis woman built like a WWE wrestler enters the bathroom? How does that little girl feel when a tattooed woman and an angry scowl on her face enters the bathroom? How does that little girl feel when a woman carrying a handgun on her hip enters the bathroom? What determines what is/isn't threatening to a little girl's feelings? Also, it seems we've caught some hypocrisy in Dr. Brown's argument, because just a few paragraphs ago he was questioning how we can make laws dealing with feelings! Did he ever stop to think about that?

So moving past feelings, if he wants to talk about "practical" ideas, let's hear some! Does he have a single suggestion? Here's a thought: maybe that little girl's parent(s) could explain that people come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, including women? Why should we promote the idea that all women are the same? How is that healthy? 

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

Ah, it's a choice that the "gentlemen" is making to live her life as a woman. The "it's a choice" argument was used against gays and lesbians not too long ago, and it's just as invalid now as it was then. No one would choose to subject themselves to this kind of ignorant bullshit from society if they could, which is part of the reason why suicide attempt rates are higher among the LGBT population than the general population.

Meanwhile, people are forced to deal with other people's choices all the time. A cis man doesn't have to "choose" to rape a woman, pay her less than her male peers, call her a slut, etc. - but a lot of them do. A police officer doesn't have to "choose" to shoot an unarmed black man in the back - but sometimes they do. A drunk driver doesn't have to "choose" to drive himself home - but a lot of them do. So why is a trans person's so-called "choice" (which again, isn't a choice) the most important "choice" we need to address right now? Oh. because it's the one Dr. Brown chooses to care about. And how is it fair for him to impose his struggles on innocent trans people? 

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't realize that women with children have never seen penises before. But on the subject of unwanted exposure to penises, why do so many cis men share pictures of their dicks with women who don't want to see them? Why do so many cis men pull down their pants and expose themselves to women who don't want to see them? Why is revenge porn even a thing? How is any of that fair to women? Why isn't he concerned about that?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms. 

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

Spotlight is a movie that people should watch instead of the one Brown cites. While the church (Catholic or otherwise) is not unique in having sexual predators among its population, if the question is what do to we do to keep sexual predators away from women and children - this is a conversation that goes far beyond bathrooms (and churches). If 82% of rapists know their victims, keeping strangers out of bathrooms doesn't seem like the best opportunity to keep the ladies and children safe. But instead Dr. Brown asks what Bruce's plan is. Why does Bruce Springsteen and the rest of the world have to do Dr. Brown's thinking for him? Does Dr. Brown even have a plan, other than trying to keep transgender people from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity? Wouldn't it make more sense to address rape culture's prevalence in America? 

And one final question. 

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place?  

Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?
Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

Ah, he ends with a logical fallacy (tu quoque, or accusing Bruce of being a hypocrite). Strong way to finish to a poorly argued letter. Especially since it's preceded with a lie. You see, North Carolina law previously never required people to use the bathroom that corresponded to their "biological sex" - because if that statement were true, the Charlotte ordinance could not have passed because it would have violated state law. Or it could have been challenged in court and easily overturned. But it wasn't, because that wasn't the case.

So in in conclusion, Dr. Brown is a self-righteous sanctimonious anti-trans bigot who can't even come up with a single valid point that he himself has any thoughts on. Maybe he'd have less questions if he bothered to read more. But instead I'm fairly certain he'll write something about being "attacked" and "called a bigot."

caitlyn jenner is not the hero we deserve but the hero we need

Shameless plug for my most recent video.

Visibility is obviously good for the trans community. A recent HRC survey found that 22% of people know a trans person in real life, and that of those individuals - 66% view trans people favorably. So visibility obviously matters, but we (the trans community) still have a long way to go. Those survey results were released a little more than six weeks before Caitlyn Jenner's now infamous Vanity Fair cover and the 20/20 interview with Diane Sawyer watched by 19 million people.

While it's probably safe to say more people know what "transgender" means than ever before, visibility isn't everything. Much of the commentary from the trans community since her coming out has been how Jenner's transition story doesn't really match that of the average trans person. "She's a billionaire with access to anything she wants and no worries about anything the typical trans person faces" they say, before rattling off any of a variety of issues such as:

• being kicked out of your home for being trans by your parents,
• experiencing bullying and discrimination at school,
• trouble accessing health care (because the doctor won't take trans patients or lacks the education to properly treat them)
• expensive surgeries (that are almost universally excluded from insurance coverage)
• non-medical transition expenses (hair removal, new wardrobe, legal paperwork, etc.)
• being fired or discriminated against at work,
• navigating an indifferent legal system, 
• encountering transphobic/hostile law enforcement,
• being assaulted for being trans
• all of which is in addition to rent, student loan debt, and any intersectional considerations (race/ethnicity, disability, etc.) experienced by the average person.

So tl;dr: Caitlyn's struggle is real, but it's not real hard.

Caitlyn would be the hero we deserve if she took on even just a few of these issues, throwing her support behind trans organizations to make progress on these causes (none of which are especially easy). Instead we get I Am Cait on E! Who knows, maybe that will be groundbreaking. Or maybe it will just be more superficial reality TV, this time with a trans lead. Yay? Yikes? We'll see.

To be clear, it is asking a lot of anyone to take on those issues, so her lack of activism (especially this early) as a point of criticism seems a bit unfair. However, it does seem equally difficult to praise her for transitioning in public simply because she's the most famous person to do it so far.

The general feeling in the trans community is that we've had enough transition stories play out in the media over the past few decades. They're so formulaic there's a drinking game based on them (that you should probably never play if you're attached to your liver), created by trans writers and directors who are guilty of using the tropes themselves. Maybe this helps explain why #beyondcaitlin blew up - we are ready for more serious conversations about more important issues and don't want this story to displace them. 

What we forget is how determined society is to steer the conversation in their own direction. People continue to falsely claim trans people pose a threat in bathrooms (doesn't seem so credible coming from a Duggar), that trans identities aren't valid, that we don't deserve any "special treatment", etc. Caitlyn Jenner's transition is a lightning rod for conservative hate, and she has now been drawing their fire for weeks.

In addition to all the criticism she gets for just being a woman

Obviously, there's the whole knee-jerk conservative/right-wing "this is wrong" response. There's also the concern trolling from the pseudo scientific fringe of psychology that claims we should be careful about letting kids transition and banning conversion therapy just because trans people are in the news. Naturally there's a radfem (radical feminists who exclude trans women from feminism) response that claims trans women exist to spite feminism or something like that - and the responses ranged from a "fair and balanced" selection of letters to the editor to the piece they should've printed that completely dismantled Burkett's argument.

Though the negative reactions were totally expected, some of the responses are surprisingly tolerant. Religion has never been a strong supporter of the community (the Pope compared us to WMDs!) - but some are starting to think that this isn't a fight conservative Christians will win, so they're suggesting they stop now before they lose all credibility. Conservative sympathy (and even indifference) is driving the other conservatives nuts, leading their arguments to become increasingly desperate.

Which might be why they quickly latched onto the invalid Rachel Dolezal comparisons, because now they could question her "transracial" identity and attempt to use it to invalidate transgenderism, even though transracial isn't a thing (at least not like that). Those comparisons have been beat down, perhaps no better than by Kat Blaque. Even People is rolling their eyes.

It's not new that people won't acknowledge our identities as valid - that they consider us 'deceptive' and 'liars' or pray that we die - but no one has drawn them out into the mainstream like Caitlyn Jenner. And as these arguments surface, trans activists, our allies, and Caitlyn's army can beat them in public forums - dismissing them once and for all.

We don't have to convert every bigot, but we've yet to quiet the bullies enough to let the rest of the class pay attention - and here's our teachable moment. Then we can move on discussing solutions for all those issues like healthcare access, barriers to updated identification, etc.

So while Caitlyn Jenner isn't the hero we deserve [yet?], maybe she's the hero we need right now. 

what does baltimore have to do with TBLG rights?

The recent events in Baltimore contrast sharply with Bruce Jenner's coming out interview and the Supreme Court hearing arguments on same-sex marriage. That juxtaposition has led some people to call out the LGBT mainstream (again) for not being inclusive and not addressing the issues faced by blacks and other racial minorities, regardless of their TBLG status. 

I noticed many people took exception to this in the comments or when it (or a similar sentiment) was shared. "How dare you!" or "How short-sighted!" were common responses. Some claimed that homophobia is more common in the black community , a myth that has been addressed repeatledly over the years. Others compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, as though being denied a marriage license in Alabama is analogous to the Selma March (sorry SFGate, the two movements are not that equatable). Notably, the Stonewall riots were led by queer and trans women of color - though the history of Stonewall (like most history) was whitewashed, but let's move on...

I'm pretty sure the deaths of trans women of color (TWOC) are being covered by LGBT mainstream groups (and that they will comment on Baltimore soon enough, just like they did with Ferguson). The LGBT mainstream also points out that more than half the deaths [in the US] of TWOC are the result of domestic violence. When people discuss the murders of trans women they often suggest they were murdered *because* they were trans when that's not usually the case. Which isn't to say trans status doesn't play a part, because it often does, but once you start to examine how those deaths could have been prevented (collectively or individually) you realize.... 

Trans women [of color] are routinely denied access to shelters, jobs, education, and other things that would allow them to live a relatively 'normal' life instead of being left with the [state] criminalized world of drugs and survival sex work due to a lack of other opportunities. As a result of the criminalization of socioeconomic disadvantage, trans women [of color] often encounter a law enforcement system that doesn't care about them, so they stop calling the police altogether to avoid additional harassment and humiliation. And this is on top of the problems caused by a lack of access to medical care, the difficulty of updating legal documents with correct gender/names, geography, and transportation (or lack thereof) - all of which play a part in worsening outcomes.

That right there is the compounding effect of systematic discrimination. That shit is fucked up, and that's the over-simplified version. Of course gay marriage is conservative when compared to that, because while being able to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the state is important, it's not life or death - so why are we focused on that? 

Maybe some role play will help:

In Scenario A, you're a 16 year old black trans girl. Your parents kick you out because you're trans, your school doesn't protect you from bullying so you drop out, and you can't get a decent job. When you finally find a job [that doesn't challenge or reward you] - unreliable public transportation (if it exists) and time consuming commutes chip away at your job performance until you're let go. Then you can't pay your rent and you start doing survival sex work. You're assaulted. You use to escape and eventually end up in jail. The subsequent criminal record makes it even more difficult to break the cycle. 

Incidentally, this is why some younger trans people loath older ones (like Jenner) because they had the privilege and resources to avoid most (if not all) the above. The response is that older transitioners lose friends/partners/children, jobs/careers, the ability to 'pass' or 'blend' due to decades of the wrong hormones, the psychological trauma associated with decades of repression, and so on. Many people who experience part (or all) of Scenario A think those costs pale in comparison, so they're dismissive of the rebuttals. (Hold that thought).

In Scenario B, you're a gay pair of white men who can't get married. As a result, you pay more in taxes, your partner can't share your health care plan, and your relationship creates some additional legal burdens around estate planning.

Doesn't Scenario B look a lot more manageable than Scenario A? Of course! That's because people in Scenario B have already gone through Scenario A and survived, so why would someone dismiss that struggle? Because that couple has socioeconomic privilege, duh! The economic benefits of same-sex marriage (taxes, healthcare, etc.) presuppose the existence of income and wealth - things people currently experiencing Scenario A struggle to obtain - so of course Scenario B pales in comparison.

I think most TBLG organizations understand how intersectionality works. While they may not appear (or be) as inclusive as they could be, they recognize Scenario A is very similar to the realities faced by minorities beyond the TBLG. That they choose to discuss societal issues through the lens of LGBT rather than the lens of race or class doesn't seem that problematic.

What appears much more problematic is that the average person (and the average LGBT person) doesn't seem to fully appreciate how intersectionality works. Many of them have personally experienced parts of Scenario A - they've lost family, jobs, got beat up - and it got better. If they could overcome why can't everyone else? (See: fundamental attribution error)

Naturally activists are unsurprised when the 'more privileged' express their indignation at seemingly being called racist and indifferent to Baltimore. Yet I think some activists miss the valuable distinction between education and vilification. Ending racism/white supremacy does nothing to end other issues like sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, classism, fundamentalism, etc. How do you honestly tell someone which one of those is the 'worst issue?' Is it some formula like "number of people oppressed (n) multiplied by the severity of oppression (x) raised to the number of years of oppression (t) divided by the quantity of total possible privilege (P) within a given society minus the actual privilege (p) enjoyed by the sub-group?" Then does the identity with the lowest score get everyone's time, money, and attention? Or do you ration resources based on some other formula?

This is why some are critical of identity politics, not because they are against the actual identities themselves but against attempts to "win" the oppression olympics. Intersectionality theory is important to describe different groups and the interplay between different forces/oppressions - but it's not as useful when it comes to political theory. 

There are unsavory political considerations too. Conservative's dollars and votes are just as valuable as progressive's, so picking single issues like same-sex marriage and ending military discrimination appear more expedient than the minefields of political issues that come up when you start discussing socioeconomic intersectionality. Single issues are also easier to communicate and simpler messaging helps with fundraising. This is the somewhat inevitable byproduct of a political system that prioritizes action based on campaign contributions rather than justice, a system that ignores that a large part of the population can't afford influence, either with their wallet or their ballot. It can be difficult to vote assuming you're even allowed to vote and aren't burdened with needing to obtain an ID - this is how the compounding effect of systematic discrimination works.

We can and should discuss how various forces like racism and economic injustice combine with other oppressions. That helps us understand why the citizens of Baltimore are upset and how the trans experience can be difficult. But what we do to address one problem or the other or both goes far beyond "my/these politics are more important than your/those politics."

why bruce jenner matters

A lot of trans activists and commentators are going to be getting out their MacBooks over the next couple weeks to dissect the Bruce Jenner interview. What does it mean for the trans community? What doesn't it mean?

His interview (and I use "his" because during the interview those were the pronouns he requested) is great for trans visibility. However, visibility is not tolerance, and tolerance is not acceptance. Trans people still have a long way to go - something acknowledged during the interview. It's important to not succumb to "victory blindness" and ignore all the issues facing the trans community.

Which is why a lot of people wrote about how they weren't going to watch it, didn't watch it (because it's not important), or didn't think it would matter for TWOC. Then Zoey Tur jumped on CNN to dissect it a second time because she wants to ride the Bruce Jenner relevancy train as long as she can before people realize she's Trans Fox News.

People claimed Bruce's choice of male pronouns (friendly fact: some trans people, especially early in transition, prefer to use their old name and pronouns until they're ready to switch to a new name and pronoun) would confuse the public. Or that it triggered them. Some were disappointed when they realized the 'big reveals' of name and appearance won't come until the reality TV show airs on E!

Then Jenner said "I'm not gay." Oops. Apparently that'll confuse everyone about sexuality, even though he did say sexuality and gender identity aren't related. Admittedly, he could've covered that better - and he'll get better at articulating his identity with experience. Most cis folk probably took that to mean he's never been with a man and only has been and will be with women, and those who are confused will eventually figure it out. Well he should've called himself a lesbian or a gay woman, but he's also still using male pronouns for the time being, so technically that's.... not really the point. Expecting the general public to "get it" the first time they hear it is just as unreasonable an expectation as it is to expect Bruce to say it right the first time.

Some argued that Bruce would make it look like trans women sit around and suddenly declare "I'm a woman" and expect the world to treat them like it when they look, sound, and talk like a man. Yikes. Makes those those critics who use whatever pronouns they want when talking about Jenner because "they just can't" sound a lot more amicable. And these are trans women making these arguments, by the way. The self-righteous ally from Slate didn't even have a chance to weigh in.

After it was over, many questioned the value of visibility, reminded us how much privilege Jenner has, and how we have so many other more important things to talk about. Like the standard trans talking points of death and discrimination, many of which were covered in the interview. Just to be sure though, let's make sure we discuss death and discrimination again just so you get it. Heaven forbid we talk about Bruce Jenner's story or how Kanye was supportive and what that means for mainstream America. Could we see pro-trans hip hop in the future? I mean, if someone wants to win a Grammy the trans experience seems like it'd be the best source material of all time.

The interview went about as well as a trans interview can go and some described it as a challenge to us to raise the bar on trans issues. 17 to 19 million people watched it Friday night - and I'm sure many have watched it on some streaming service since. #BrucerJenner trended on twitter all weekend and into Monday. I've heard several people share stories of transphobes in their lives, often fathers, who have contacted their adult trans children to try to make amends. That is powerful stuff. That matters. Who is in the conversation and how they're participating is changing, both of which are important steps forward.

CNN said it's the culture's 'transgender moment' but it's not entirely clear what CNN means, especially when that moment includes anti-trans legislation, lack of health care access, difficulty updating legal documents, and violent discrimination. It does seem hard to see how this matters in light of so much marginalization and mistreatment.

And that's a reminder that this was largely for a cis audience. The interview wasn't "who can be the best trans spokesperson" - it was about Bruce - the Olympic decathlete who beat Soviet Russia - now the most famous person to ever come out as trans. The audience wanted to know about the secret struggle of the person who they looked up to and admired for a decade. Or they wanted to keep up with the Kardashians. Maybe both.

I get that the trans community has been burned by celebrity personalities in the past. I get that there's a lot more to do. I get the coming out will come with more frequent and more negative criticism of trans identities. There will be lots of triggering media and people will still bully trans women to death on the internet. The struggle is real, and the struggle is inevitable. So dismissing and downplaying this event, doing pre-emptive damage control, talking about what those 2 hours should've been used to say instead - how does that make things better for anyone?

Critics argue that Jenner is so unlike average trans people that he's an awful example. They argue he has not and will not be marginalized in the ways that large portions of the community are (as though publicly transitioning isn't its own version of hell). They point to his wealth, Republicanism, age, status, and life as the perfect embodiment of cisnormative supremacy. But isn't that subversive? Is there a better sleeper cell? Think about that Wheaties box sitting on every breakfast table: Jenner was America's hero, he had reached the pinnacle of success, aaaaannndd he was just as scared/human/fucked up as everyone else until he spoke his truth.

What happens next and how he uses his platform, if at all, remains to be seen. In the meantime, how are we as trans individuals and the trans community going to use this 'moment' to build momentum?

the appropriation of black and hispanic trans deaths by white trans women and political opportunists

I think the trans community overstates and appropriates trans murder victims (especially black and hispanic trans women) to advance a political agenda that ignores many (if not most) of the urgent needs of the people actually being victimized. Said differently, transphobia isn't killing trans people as much as institutionalized racism, misogyny, and classism is killing trans people.

When you read about trans violence, whether it's in an op-ed in the NY Times or even my own blog, you often find a phrase like: 'trans women, especially trans women of color, are disproportionately subject to...' [discrimination, violence, etc.]. Especially undersells the problem so I'm going to stop using that phrase ("women of color" can also be problematic for different reasons, so I'll try to avoid it too).

When I started working on this blogpost in early February at least 4 black and Latina trans women had been murdered. Since then, more names have been added to the list. At the end of February there were 11 queer/trans victims in 2015 - ten of whom were black or Hispanic. Now in mid-March the list is up to 13 LGTBQ victims. Seven or eight were 'trans' in the typical transition narrative sense, which raises the question why all gender identities seem to count in death but not in trans politics, but let's move on....

Janet Mock has discussed how trans women of color 'fall between the cracks' at the intersection of race, class, and gender and that's a point a lot of people miss when they make transphobic violence a rallying cry.

We often describe trans deaths as the result of deadly transphobic bigots running into trans people on the streets because that's exactly what happened in the murder of Islan Nettles. However, sometimes trans people die for reasons unrelated to their trans status. Half of these women were killed in intimate partner violence incidents. Golec's dad had a violent substance abuse filled past. Jessie Hernandez was killed by the Denver police while operating an automobile, so calling that a murder may not even be accurate (though it is suspicious).

Of these victims, only one (Ms. Edwards) seems to be clearly a victim of transphobic violence. For the past two months most people in the LGBT space thought she was a gay man who sometimes dabbled in drag (so her name isn't even on some of these 'trans only' lists). Her story is proof that transphobia doesn't end with death. Transphobia is why the media doesn't pressure police to solve trans crimes, why victims are misgendered (and reluctant to file reports), and why victims are blamed for being a sex worker, involved with drugs, or not disclosing their trans status to someone who invokes the 'gay panic' defense.

In these other cases, trans status may or may not have played a part. Maybe the murderer was ashamed of his/her relationship with a trans woman. Or maybe violence in queer relationships is just an issue that needs to brought out into the open and discussed more honestly. Yet here they are named as murdered transgender victims with the implication being they were murdered because they were trans. Maybe, just maybe what we're actually seeing is better visibility of victims who happen to be trans. After all, if trans people are some percentage of the population, that means we should expect to see our fair share of murder victims too.

So I think it's time we stop with the 'trans' death count and focus instead on telling the stories of the black and Latina trans women who are murdered - stories of individuals - not numbers. Any amount of trans violence is unacceptable, but that doesn't mean we should embellish and exaggerate it just because it's politically expedient (trans people are not 400x more likely to be assaulted or murdered).

As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy but 10,000 deaths is a statistic. So lets look at that math more closely before we get back to focusing on the real tragedy:

There's not a lot of information out there regarding the trans prevalence rate, or how many trans people there are in any given population. I've previously used a 1:3,000 rate that represents the estimated prevalence of post-op or SRS seeking trans women (based on work Lynn Conway did with SRS data from western European studies). That's an extremely conservative lowerbound (a bare minimum) that undercounts the trans population as not all trans people can access or even want SRS. Conway thinks 1:500 is probably a better guess, but the Williams Institute's .3% rate is even higher at 1:333. The range for 'transitioning in some part' seems to be somewhere between .1% and .5%, while the broader gender non-conforming umbrella could be as high as 1-2%. If we use .3% that'd mean there are about 800k trans people in the United States over the age of 12 (320m Americans * 84% who are over age 12 * .3% trans prevalence rate).

According to the FBI, the violent crime rate in the United States is 387 for every 100,000 people while the homicide rate is 4.7 per 100,000. And yes, I'm aware hate crimes are known to be under reported - and that trans crimes are poorly covered (if at all) in the media, making other forms of tracking pretty difficult.

Applying the FBI's 4.7 homicides per 100,000 means we'd expect to see ~38 trans murders a year if the rates were identical to that of the general population (4.7 * 8). That's three times as many trans deaths as were actually recorded in 2014. Keep in mind that if you use a higher trans prevalence rate, you'd expect even more murders. Doubling the prevalence rate from .3% to .6% means you'd expect there to be ~76 trans murders per year.

If you adjust those numbers for race and gender it becomes obvious how some trans women are obviously at higher risk. Blacks and Hispanics are about 29% of the general population, and women are about half the US population, which means ~15% of the trans population should be TWOC - and those black and Hispanic trans women account for more than 90% of all trans murder victims.

Notably, white trans women were killed less often per capita than cis white women. Yes, there are issues with applying one white trans death per year against the white trans population, and yes, there are other forms of violence (in addition to murder), but the point is that transphobic murder appears to be an issue almost exclusively affecting trans women of color.

(Note: All of this analysis is constrained by data sources of limited accuracy, which when applied against large population sets can cause wide variance in the output of the model. The big question is the trans prevalence rate since that sets our denominator. While there could be unreported deaths, such as murders of deep stealth trans women, it seems reasonable to assume those would be non-trans related and/or not frequent enough to significantly increase the count). 

Nevertheless, this should raise the question: Why do white trans women keeping talking about how they'll end up murdered for being trans?

I think we (white trans women) need to stop talking about how 'victimizing' it is to be trans and instead talk about socioeconomic oppression. Parker Molloy speculated that the deaths of TWOC don't get as much coverage Leelah Alcorn's because of racial bias in the media, but that's only half the story. This goes beyond media bias because there's just as much prejudice and racism in the trans community as there is in the heteronormative mainstream. Euynbul Lee was on point when she called out those in the trans community who "failed to recognize how their combined power and prejudice produce undeniably racist ideologies, as if their trans identities erase their systematic privileging over trans POC."

I think a lot of trans people need to paint themselves as victims in order to justify their otherwise ridiculous politics.

The most cited source for trans victimization is the National Trans Discrimination Survey - that's where the infamous "41% of trans people attempt suicide" statistic comes from, even though it was 41% of the survey respondents - which included cross dressers, drag queens, and other identities that trans women typically want nothing to do with because they're nothing like us, right? Right! (Oops, there I go talking about inclusion of gender identities only when expedient again - I'm looking at you Zoey Tur).

To be clear, any percent of a population attempting suicide is too much. However, the NTDS was distributed online and through trans/LGBT networks and support groups, so there's probably a degree of selection bias since the people taking the survey were the people closest to the trans community. It seems unlikely that there were a lot of stealth respondents or individuals who transitioned and moved on, so 'positive' or 'neutral' trans experiences are likely undercounted. The survey respondents also don't reflect the general demographics of the United States, so the data is neither random nor representative, yet many cite it as though it represents the entirety of the trans community. Also worth noting is that the survey methodology reports that the 'attempted suicide' count itself may be inflated, as many people 'count' non-serious attempts, etc., which isn't to say that the NTDS isn't useful, but that we should be careful when playing the victim card.

That individuals appropriate these statistics and deaths is not an accusation so much as it is an observation of overall community dynamics and how they lend themselves to fear. A fear that is not rational when there is no deadly backlash for the white, middle-class, trans community.

This fear is so irrational that it even lead some to defend a someone who raped a 15 year old cousin because that was the past and she was doing important work tracking trans violence. Think about that: a convicted sex offender running an organization that tracks violence against vulnerable members of society. That is indefensible, yet some ask, "who will track the violence now?" as though that's more important.

It's undeniable that transphobia plays a role in many of the deaths of trans people - but it doesn't in all of them. Yet if I were to question the motives of people overplaying the 'trans violence' card (especially white trans women), I'd be accused of some variation of victim blaming and kicked out of the trans club. Someone said to me that I shouldn't be surprised that the trans community can have messed up politics just like everyone else - but I often feel like our politics are more messed up because we should have better perspective on these issues.

Then again, what's a better platform to prove "trans people are just like you!" than political opportunism, racism, and fearmongering?



EDIT: Since this came across a little harsh I'd like to elaborate a little. 

This is not a some people have it worse argument or a demand that white trans women (or white trans people) should simply check their privilege and shut up. The point is that on the issue of trans murder, white trans people should at least have the courtesy to read the stories of the victims whose deaths they cite in articles talking about trans discrimination and oppression.

Trans discrimination is a real issue that affects all trans people in a variety of ways. The 'perfect' transition does not exist and being trans is often hard even when socioeconomics aren't a concern. Being trans can be violent, painful, and frightening - I understand that. I've been there. I did not intend to diminish or downplay any trans/queer person's experience but should've put a disclaimer making that clear (so I'm preemptively calling myself out on that). 

A lot of factors play into trans discrimination and it is compounded by race, wealth, family support, employment, access to medical care, access to housing (including homeless shelters), criminalization of drugs and sex work, age, disability, and a lot of other things. The trans population mirrors the general population - and so do our issues. Trans* is not a monolith - we are a .5% to 2% slice of the entire world, we just happen to be trans. Being trans is an issue on its own, but we shouldn't let it be the only one we think about when it comes to discrimination. In addition to thinking about things like trans inclusive ENDAs we should also be thinking about how to make the judicial system [that would enforce such a law] more accessible and fairer so that all may benefit from the law. 

Said differently, there is a difference between equality and justice.

coming out in the new york times

So I was in a story in the NY Times this week. No big deal, right?

The article talks about my coming out as trans to my classmates at Vanderbilt's Owen Graduate School of Management, something I blogged about in my Queering the MBA series on OwenBloggers (see link widget to the right). The article also talks about other trans MBA students and their experiences in business school (one of which is described in a little more depth in the Atlantic Monthly).

Revisiting that letter and moment in time brought back memories of how I felt after coming out to them and what they said in response. It's kind of nice to have all of that documented because it's easy to forget how far I've come. When I reread the letter and those blogposts I notice things I'd say differently or leave out, things that were probably the result of internalized transphobia. As that fades further into the past it's harder and harder to remember and relate to the person I was then.

When the reporter asked me if there were any reactions that 'stood out to me' for their notoriety, I thought back to all those emailed responses that I saved and the people who sent them. The southerner with the jacked up truck who said he'd kill anyone who gave me shit. The emails I received from Owen alums who were the only LGBT person in their class when they were students. The girl who left me a tube of Laura Mercier tinted moisturizer in my locker after I'd asked her how she managed to never look tired. The girl who'd worked on a GOP campaign who used female pronouns during a presentation when I wasn't expecting it. The girls who took me out for my first birthday as Danielle. The one who asked me 'what took so long?' when I finally started using the women's restroom instead of the single-stall bathrooms in the library (that was my own choice rather than any position of the school). The professor who pulled me out of a session to demand that I not let the boys talk over me and went out of her way to help me figure out how to be a young woman in business.

The reporter also asked me about coming out work, and that wasn't nearly as interesting (as the video I made about it probably shows).

He asked a lot of questions about a lot of things, stuff I will think, write, and vlog about over the next few months. Stealth came up, as did identifying as a woman instead of as a trans woman (as others described in the article). I replied that I didn't see the two as mutually exclusive but that I recognized it was a personal choice. I also pointed out that stealth isn't a choice available to everyone and that it's hard to help someone wondering if they'll be able to have a successful transition or even figure out how to transition if there aren't many (if any) examples in the media.

I talked about why I thought there were so few trans people in business school and how the numbers (and the circumstances around discrimination against trans people) make it unlikely to see too many of us in the top MBA programs, let alone any program. I discussed how I thought we could fix that problem - by reaching trans youth to help them overcome and/or avoid those issues.

I emphasized that I'd had a a privileged experience as a trans person, which is why I felt a sense of obligation to be engaged in the community. Others may not feel the same way and that's okay. Some people don't have the choice or the means to attend business school and receive the benefits that it brings with it in both the short and long term (like access to employers with trans inclusive policies and benefits).

So it goes without saying, but I think it's our job to help them get there.

my coming out letter

As written and sent at some ridiculous time like 2:36 AM in the middle of the week. Looking back on it, there are some things that I would word differently. I definitely don't feel as though I need to 'justify' my decision to transition anymore, though I'm obviously in a very different place now than I was back then. Anyway, without further ado: 

Dear Friends,

I’ve debated how I’d say this for quite some time now, when I’d say it, and to whom – and now I’m at the point where I’m just going to do it.

I have been struggling with something my entire life and have finally started addressing it. I am transsexual. My mind does not match my anatomy. Most people don’t have to deal with these discrepancies, but I do. This isn’t a feeling, a wish, or a choice – it is something hardwired into me, my gender identity, my innate sense of who I am. This will never go away, and as I’ve grown older it has only grown worse. It is not something that can be “talked out” or treated with psychoactive drugs and/or therapy (I speak from lengthy experience). My body and mind are simply a mismatch and I am pursuing the only known effective treatment: transition.

For the last two and a half months I have been taking female hormones and testosterone blockers. You might’ve noticed changes in me over that time. I’ve slimmed down, shown up at Owen earlier in the morning, drank less, and felt better than ever before. Things are changing, for the better. I am still going to be pretty much the same person – just different, happier, and more open. I am not going away, I am growing into myself.

So when will this take place? It’s a gradual process so it will take several months, but I hope to complete my transition before we graduate. There is still a lot for me to do, and the hormones will take several months to really produce noticeable effects.

What is going to change? Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive and accurate list of hormone replacement therapy effects here. 

Who else knows? My family, my friends from home, my roommates, and now most of the class of 2012 (BCC’d in this email).

Why am I coming out now? Because I am tired of being one person when I talk to those who know and a completely different one when I’m at Owen. The façade is too much for me to maintain any longer.

I know this is a big shock and a lot to take in. It took me 20 some years to really make peace with it and start what I have to do to be happy with myself, so I don’t expect it to be something you will immediately embrace. If you need some time and space to process this, I understand.

If you have any questions, even ones you might think are stupid, or want to talk, I’m more than willing to do so. I have nothing left to hide.

I’ve also CC’d [redacted] from the Vanderbilt LGBTQI Center, who has graciously volunteered to answer questions you might have (which might be helpful if you don’t feel comfortable asking me just yet).

If you’ve read this far, thank you. I look forward to spending the next year together.

the lessons for the transgender community from leelah alcorn's suicide

Leelah Alcorn's suicide and her haunting note have made headlines everywhere. It is finally too hard for the cis-hetero mainstream to ignore a trans death.

Make no mistake about it, her death is tragic. The fact that trans people die because they're trans is awful and heartbreaking. Many are saying we shouldn't make Leelah's suicide (or her note) the subject of national conversation, because it's triggering, can lead to copycats, or ignores the trauma induced by being forced to kill someone (like the driver, let's hope he gets through this). They're also largely trying to derail the conversation with concern trolling.

That a trans person needs to commit suicide in order to be heard has horrifying implications. So does not talking about how we can prevent it from happening again.

It is easy to point out that parental support/encouragement could have or would have changed the outcome, because the outcome could not have been worse. Data from the National Trans Discrimination Survey (NTDS) and the Family Acceptance Project shows trans and LGBT individuals who live in supportive households tend to have more positive outcomes than those who don't. Data also suggests there's a high correlation between how religious a family is and how likely that family is to disown their LGBT child.

Some think the parents should be blamed, even prosecuted, for sending Leelah to Christian based reparative therapy and using religion as justification to keep her from transitioning. Her parents did not help her much beyond the basic necessities they're legally required to provide (food, shelter, etc). Reparative/conversion therapy is obviously wrong, but unfortunately the law doesn't think so in most states. So maybe her parents' religion will help them grow from the involvement they had in her death. Or maybe their God will punish them for not loving her unconditionally. Either way, focusing on them and their religious justification for intolerance seems to miss the point.

Parents are given wide latitude in how they raise their kids, including medical care, and that's the case regardless of religion.

• What is the appropriate age or circumstance is to give a minor agency over their body? 
• Where/when should the state intervene on a child's behalf?
• What is the best way to end reparative/conversion therapy?
• How should parents react to an LGBT child coming out to them?
• How should the church react? (Hint: like this Catholic preacher)
• How can we make the entire spectrum of gender expression and identity less taboo?

These are questions worth discussing. Accusing parents of murder (or manslaughter) because they did not properly treat a condition and that may have subsequently contributed to someone's suicide... I don't know. Just because I don't want that to become the narrative doesn't mean I am empathizing with bigots or misplacing my sympathies, it just means there are other things to talk about too.

Suicide is complicated. It is sad that Leelah wasn't able to talk to someone to get the help she desperately needed. Support could have saved her life. Hopefully the ensuing discussion can help save others, because 41% of trans people reported attempting suicide in the NTDS. For reference, that's 10x to 20x the attempt rate for the overall population (2-4%, depending on the source). In the NTDS, 45% of trans youth reported attempting suicide - which is more than 5x the overall attempt rate for youth (8%).

While 51% of respondents who experienced family rejection attempted suicide, another 32% of respondents who did have family acceptance also attempted suicide. Family support clearly helps, but it's not always enough on its own. There are many factors correlated with suicide among trans people in the NTDS, including:

• Experiencing physical assault - 61%
• Experiencing sexual assault - 64%
• Experiencing discrimination in the workplace - 51%
• Lack of acceptance in school environment - 51% (59%-79% if it's from teachers)
• Not visually conforming or 'passing' (being seen by others as your true gender) - 44%
• Being generally out - 44%

Trans suicide has been a problem that the mainstream has not really discussed until more recently. This is why it's disappointing that people (especially cis people) focus on attacking religion and its impact on parenting. While those things can play a part - they also ignore other aspects of the trans experience that put pressure on our youth.

Transition is medically necessary. Unfortunately, access to care is still limited and often difficult to use when/where it it is available. Many of us believe like Leelah (reddit username: nostalgiaprincess) that we're not as pretty/passable as we could have been if we transitioned earlier. It is exceptionally painful to go through male puberty as a trans woman and see your body change in ways you don't want it to, especially when some of those changes are irreversible. When you're a young trans woman, one more year of male puberty seems like being sentenced to a lifetime of hell. It is the ultimate fear of missing out, especially when you can see beautiful young trans girls increasingly becoming success stories in the media. If you know that transition is right for you, you should be allowed to access it, regardless of your age, regardless of what a therapist thinks. This is the premise for informed consent, and I fully support it. It is not the end of the world if you start late - but you shouldn't be forced to wait.

Hormones, surgery, romantic partners, starting young, passing, privilege - these things don't change the fact that we are trans. However, they become much more vital after we're told that if you pass, then you can avoid some or even a lot of the bad stuff that comes with being trans.

It seems Leelah believed she would never be beautiful, and that as a result, she would be lonely and unlovable. Transition was trading one set of problems for another. Leelah (nostalgiaprincess) wrote: 

This is another one of her comments in the same suicide watch thread:

Leelah's suicide note said it didn't get better for her, it got worse. She, like many trans people before her, looked at the entirety of transition and was overwhelmed. Maybe this is why people have taken to saying "it doesn't get better, it just gets different." When I googled that phrase, I was surprised to find it's an expression used in grief/loss counseling to deal with death.

Maybe that's fitting though. Sometimes it feels as though the trans community mourns trans status like one would death. After all, if you're trans and you don't kill yourself, someone else will, right? In another post on reddit Leelah said:

I have to point out that 1:12 is inaccurate. If 1:3,000 or so people are trans, that would be ~8,300 trans murders per year (22+ per day) in the United States. That's not the case. But to be clear, any violence is wrong regardless of how often it occurs. Trans people, especially trans women of color, are disproportionately impacted by violence and discrimination compared to both the general population and the broader LGBT population. The point isn't that Leelah was exaggerating - it's that Leelah (and many of us just like her) view being trans as an inescapable punishment.

Being trans isn't easy, but it isn't a death sentence either. Her parents could've told her that. They should've worked tirelessly to dispel these thoughts. They didn't. Then again, her parents, like most cis people, don't really understand the trans community.

Many passable trans women "go stealth" (hide their trans status from the public) because it is easier and safer if you blend in with society. This seems logical because you can't be discriminated against for being trans if people don't know you're trans. However, humans are bad at predicting future happiness. When we say things like "if only I was passable, post-op, hadn't been robbed of my female childhood, more attractive, etc; then life would be so much better" - we don't know that for sure. We are miswanting.

If only fuels the kind of internalized transphobia Julia Serano and Laverne Cox write about, that just about every trans woman feels at some point. If only we were more feminine - wouldn't our lives be great? But even stealth and passing come with their own versions of hell. If you rely on passing you often spend your time worrying about what will happen if/when your trans status becomes known. Maybe you even worry that if your status is disclosed to a lover, you'll end up as one of the names on the annual Trans Day of Remembrance. Your murderer, if brought to court, will get off after using the gay panic defense.

Many trans people (myself included) argue that stealth helps perpetuate the condition that trans people find themselves in because it tacitly condones it. The response is usually, "We are women, not trans women; transition is something we do, not who we are" as if these two things must be mutually exclusive. Stealth is a personal choice and people who choose it don't deserve judgment. The idea that trans people should disclose their trans status is wrong as that robs them of agency. But how can trans people make distinctions between 'trans woman' and 'woman' that aren't also inherently transphobic? What message does this send?

Keep in mind that not everyone can pass. Not everyone can be stealth. Not everyone can access surgery. What happens to them? Tough shit, bootstrap it? Live the rest of your lives as visibly trans women? It's not quite the same if you're only treated as a woman on paper.

Experiencing transphobia from anyone, especially your parents, is devastating. However, many experience it from/within the trans community. Trans women insult other trans women by deliberately misgendering them. Post-op transsexuals argue pre-ops "aren't real women." Non-ops call trans vaginas mutilated genitals. We complain that older/manlier/uglier transitioners make us look like "freaks in dresses." We suggest that maybe they stick to using the men's room, or at least a gender neutral one. That they're not trying hard enough with their presentation. That they're spending their money on the wrong things when they get sexual reassignment surgery instead of facial feminization surgery. We argue who should (and shouldn't) be included under the labels "trans" and "transgender."

It's one thing to hear "God hates you" from all the cis people you know, it's another to hear "you're not one of us" or "you're not good enough" from people in the trans community.

This doesn't mean trans people oppress ourselves, because we don't. This doesn't mean the internalized transphobia within the the trans community is more toxic than the external transphobia forced upon us by the heterocispatriarchy, because it isn't. This doesn't mean we should shift or absolve blame in the case of Leelah Alcorn or any trans suicide, because we shouldn't.

If we want trans lives to matter, trans people need to change the narrative. That means we need to start living more out and openly. We have to show, not tell, that being trans is ok regardless of whether or not you're beautiful, pass, have surgery, or meet any other arbitrary requirement.

We don't have to make it all sunshine and rainbows, but if we want to fix society, it's not enough to just call out everyone else on their bullshit transphobia. We have to call it out among the LGBT community and the trans community too. That's being a #RealLiveTransAdult.

Organizations such as Trans Lifeline offer support to transgendered people seeking help. Their crisis hotline is 1-877-565-8860. If you're thinking about suicide, you deserve immediate help - please call the Trevor Lifeline at 866-488-7386. Resources for supporting transgender and LGBT children can be found at the Family Acceptance Project and PFLAG.