Oh! Emily! Oh!

It appears I struck a nerve.

Emily, someone I thought well of, is not holding me in high opinion. Stephanie confuses my dislike of her with a dislike of anyone trans. Clearly she needs to start reading lessons.

Stephanie: for your information, I have no quibble, no opinion, even, on how people live their lives. I don't want anyone commenting on my life, so I don't comment on others'. Get your frickin' facts straight. For once?

The simple fact is: I really don't give a toss if someone has a sex change, calls themselves a woman, a man, a leprechaun, or a ghost of Christmas Past. I do care when a claim either perverts the English language, perverts or confuses or corrupts the general understanding of a concept or is simply ridiculous politics. I also care when someone tries to interrupt a good, high speed, run on my Ducati. But for different reasons: when I'm on a motorcycle, and someone is disagreeing with me about geographic information, I'm likely to be loser. When someone, like you, issues an edict that relies upon the rest of the world agreeing with your delusions, I have to challenge you.

But you don't like challenge, do you?

Emily, Stephanie: You might not like me, but I'm not at all certain I care.

But it makes for a vaguely interesting post while I finish a nice dram of The Macallan. :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS I really did like Emily's writing. I'm sorry she doesn't like me. Still, at least I can say I'm honest, like she is. We don't have to like each other, we don't have to do anything. But I acknowledge her honesty. Whether she acknowledges mine? C'est la vie.

I *need* your affirmation!

Not really. :-)

Stephanie Watson accused me, the other day, of gloating when someone bans me from their forum or blog. This was, upon challenge, reduced to "not welcome".

I can't say she's right. I can say she's wrong. As she so often is. I don't gloat. Gloating is unbecoming. I criticize. (There's a difference? Oh... :-) )

So here it is: if you don't like my opinions, words or me, and you have a link to my blog: feel free to delete it. Freedom of expression contains no insistence that anyone listen. You do not have to listen to my mutterings, or read them. (Contrary to an argument Ms Watson put forth once upon a time. But what would she know about free expression? She apparently hates it. Or doesn't understand it. Or something.)

If you don't have a link to my blog: put one in. And then delete it. (Don't forget to tell me about it. And Stephanie. Don't forget to tell Stephanie.)

It's your blog, you do what you want. I won't criticize you, condemn you or castigate you. I might be heartbroken. I might be miffed. I might be crying, Okay, I won't be any of those thing. :-)

Stephanie needs the affirmation of others - I don't. But it is nice. :-D

Carolyn Ann

My advice to Sarah Palin

Mrs Palin, I know you're never going to read this, but I figured I'll write it, anyway. It doesn't matter - I don't know if many read my postulations, anyway. :-)

I'm guessing that you felt within reach of the most powerful office on the planet. You knew you could effect change, whether half the nation agreed or not. You were convinced you could make life better, not just for Alaskans, but for all Americans. Even those in Hawaii. :-) (Sorry.)

You want to be the President? How badly do you want that job? You've got to want it with every fiber of your being. You have to desire it, more than you desire your husband. You have to, not to be too crude, be more enamored by a Presidential memoir, or a foreign policy paper than any muscle-bound husband.

Here's what I think you need to do.

You need to make a list. That list contains three columns; later it will contain two, but for now, it can hold three. You need to write it on a pad of paper, and keep it close to you. No computers, no sharing, not much of anything. This is your ambition.

The columns are "non-negotiable", "negotiable" and "I'm not sure". It will take a few goes to make this list. Write down what is in each column. Spend a bit of time on this. If you are really, really serious about being President of the United States: you'll rewrite that list a dozen times. But not a single time once you're on the road to that office.

If an item on the list doesn't correlate with what the polls tell you - abortion, for instance - you have a hard choice. No one promised this would be easy. You either go along with Roe v Wade, or you don't. Don't, you don't get to be President. Agree to compromise, you stand a chance. Hard lines don't work, anymore. They didn't in the first place, but that's ancient political history. (In fashion terms: that's so Last Administration!)

Get to know a few gay guys. They don't bite, won't corrupt your husband, and might just help you learn something about civil rights. Seriously, you need to learn about the dichotomy between what you say American stands for, and what it does stand for.

Grab yourself a few books about the Constitution. Apart from Ahkil Reed Omar's seminal biography of it, most won't take too long to read and digest. It is essential you read, and comprehend them. You will be competing with a Constitutional Scholar. No one told you that, first time 'round. They told you, and you believed, that you were competing against Joe Biden. Your boss was competing against Joe - you were competing against Obama.

Speaking of which - find anything you can on political history. Read it. Comprehend it. Talk to Todd, and anyone else that will listen. Talk to them even when they won't. This is not Sesame St, this is the Presidency. Remember: you have to want it. You have to want it beyond anything you've ever wanted before.

It doesn't matter if you want it now, or just realized that you want it. You have to take a page from the most popular President in recent history: Bill. No, it's not Reagan. Half the country hated him. Only 15% of the nation hated Bill. Some didn't like him, but that's politics.

Bone up on economics. Figure out the failings of supply-side economics. You'll be assured the evangelical and fundamentalist vote if you can reconcile fair economic policy, and the New Testament. (That's 13% to 18% of eligible voters, by the way. Figure about half that will actually bother turning up.)

Stand true to supply-side economics, and you might as well try for local dog-catcher.

I have to say it: drop the hunting. Sure, go out and shoot a deer or two. It gives you credibility with those that see politics in terms of the 2nd Amendment. (No matter what the NRA tells you, they do not have a lock in on the votes of their members. Just look at the numbers for Obama if you need proof of that.) I feel bad for the deer. Don't invite me on any hunt. I hate guns, and I despise those who kill innocent animals.

Don't pretend you are Hillary. You are not even riding on her coattails. She broke the glass ceiling; you weren't even visible when they were cleaning up. Sure, use the "18 million cracks" in early speeches - but drop it as soon as you're able. Acknowledge that to many, Hillary was the first female President. Just don't confuse those who think that with a anything but a vote or two. Perhaps not even that many.

The best advice I can give you, if you decide to run for any public office, debate policy and pronounce views, solutions and highlight problems: Grow Brass Balls.

God [sic] knows - in politics, brass balls are the item politicians desire. And the public applauds. Not a lot has changed since the Greeks started debating the merits of invading Peloponnesia. Just remember that, and you'll be fine. You might not win - but you'll certainly overcome what the old white guys in the Republican Party can offer. Be the change you seek. As long as it fits with what the electorate wants. :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS I really do apologize for calling you a Bimbo.

PPS I really do apologize to the members of The Corn.

Palin quits? (aka Sarah might not be a bimbo...)

I'm not at all sure what's happening - but Sarah quit.

Ethics? Hardly.

Money? I wouldn't think so.

Presidential chances? Not likely.

Criticism? Hmm...

Her ethical conduct, while it was a bit dubious, wouldn't get to John Ensign or (heaven forbid!) Mark Sanford levels (somehow, I don't see Sarah Palin jetting off to Argentina to meet some curvaceous Latin bombshell... Kinky as that idea might be... :-) ) No, she's too straight-laced to have a substantial ethical charge hang over her. The daughter? Perhaps, but she's weathered worse.

She managed to get David Letterman to apologize. Now, in accordance with contemporary politics, she had an impromptu team figure out the details. But, in general, she's pretty good at the wounded figurine stuff.

We all know she's not wealthy. She's a bit like Bill and Hill, before they entered the White House - basically living as the rest of us do. Pay check to pay check. With perhaps a little on to save up.

An upcoming ethics charge? I don't see it. There's nary a murmur, and she's been rather obvious. So we can rule that out.

She can effect change from without, rather than from within? Yeah, right. The check is in the mail, too. She took on a corrupt Republican clique, and became one of the most hated figures in Alaska. She, somehow, got the nomination for Vice President - and she could attract crowds that were multiples of the ones McCain got. (She never achieved Obama, or Hillary, cult-status. But then again, she had to compete with Joe the Plumber. Tough job, lady!)

Presidential chances? No, not that. It's what, oh 3 years to the next election. She's not wealthy. Someone would have to bankroll her - to the tune of nigh on a million a year. Chump change in political circles - but a big enough chunk that it would attract attention, and be traceable. It would also open her to massive ethics charges - charges that would kill her hopes before they even had a weekend outing. I doubt anyone is bankrolling her.

She can't handle the criticism? Well, to be honest, she is the target of quite a lot of criticism. Some of it is even justified. A lot of it is highly personal. And not justified. Heck - I've dished out my fair share; more than my fair share, to be honest. It's politics - the personal is political, and fair game. Not that that is any excuse. I'd hate to see her learning international affairs while on the job, as the leader of the free world. Which she would be at this point in any nightmare McCain Presidency.

She took on Letterman, and won. And I think that might be her last hurrah. I can't help but think that she's quitting public life.

Which leaves... The one thing I would hope it isn't. She's fed up of it all.

That would be a pity. She's a tough broad. She shuck off the disastrous Katie Couric interview, she shrugged at the various other interviews, she has Steve Schmidt (McCain's campaign manager, sort of) batting for her. Sort of. Occasionally. And she has the interest of a number of far-right groups.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and I'm going to guess that she's not as tough as she wants to be. She might be, in a few years, but right now: I don't think she is. She needs to roll with the punches, and she's proven herself to really bad at that.

I feel bad. She's earned my respect, and I seriously looked forward to her being a valid Republican candidate in 2012.

I apologize to the ladies of The Corn: I was wrong. Seriously, and meanly, wrong.

(I was also amazingly wrong about the other things I said. I hope they can forgive me.)

She might be thinking that she could make some money doing the speeches crowd. But I doubt it. She's proven herself to be not that stupid. She's not going to put her financial future on the line for a series of "confirmed" talking engagements. She doesn't have the earning power - yet.

I think the criticism got to her. I think she needs to rethink what national politics are. That jerk that keeps filing ethics charges against her? He's a wannabe, a fool and a loser. No, he's not the problem. I can't help but think that she's either doing something game-changing, or she's going to fade away. She might think she's better fading away, remembering the days to her grandkids. But I think, for what it's worth, that she'd be better off showing her mettle - and fighting those who say she's an idiot, a bimbo ( erm, yeah, well...) I think she's the only one in the entire Republican line up that can give Obama a decent challenge. No matter what James Carville says.

She might have been John McCain's "Hail Mary" pass, but she's got gumption, she's got appeal, and she's got name recognition. All she needs is brass balls.

Carolyn Ann

Godwin's Law, the Trans Version

Godwin's Law is an age old favorite of many. (Full disclosure: I've invoked it, a time or two.) When someone says something, you equate their pronouncement to Hitler, the Holocaust or some other equally despicable component of Fascist Germany. It's highly effective at shutting down any further conversation and insulting your fellow debater, and his or her supporters, at the same time.

The Rancid Right is currently invoking it to describe Obama's policies. They seem to have quieted down a little, of late, but a few weeks ago you couldn't read a far right polemic without Godwin's Law being used. One or two commentators had the nerve to invoke communism and fascism in the same paragraph! As in "Obama's communist policies wouldn't be out of place in Hitler's Germany". That sort of nonsense.

Anyway, the trans community seems to have latched onto a new version of Godwin's Law. It invokes the tragic murder of the young Colorado transwoman, Angela Zapata. (Interestingly, while I confirmed the state, I saw a site, L. A. Late, that has a bit on the case, but the ad at the top of the blog was "Want to get as good with your guns as a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL?" It's an ad for a firearms trainer! Interesting, and the irony is funereal.)

As in "Angie Zapata died because of <insert_whatever_here>." It's used similarly to the actual Godwin's Law - to make the other person realize just how horrible and dreadful they are. It's also just as effective as a conversation stopper as Godwin's Law.

Its use isn't prevalent, but it's enough that I've noticed it. I first noticed it a few weeks ago, but didn't really have enough information to form a pattern. In the last couple of weeks, I've definitely seen the pattern. (No, I'm not going to go back and retrace what provided me the pattern. I don't spot patterns that way, and this is a blog. Not an academic essay.)

It would appear that Godwin's Law now has a trans confederate. Interesting, and not a little alarming.

Carolyn Ann

"In order to respect me"

While perusing the Qt blog for that 'cis' post, this caught my eye.

Specifically, his phrase:

First, in order to respect me, you need to work on completely deconstructing the conflation of masculinity and maleness.

It turns out to be from a reposted open letter from this blog, (trans)prose. (That's quite a clever name!)

The distinctive phrase "in order to respect me" was the bit that caught my attention. It was fleeting, and I had to scroll up and down to relocate it. (No, it didn't occur to me use "find"...) I thought "in order to respect me", did I read that right?" Sure enough - I did.

Wow. In order to respect Caleb, I have to do something or other.

Bullshit.

Why should I respect Caleb? Why should I comply with his demand that I separate out masculinity and maleness? What the hell is maleness? Why does Caleb think I want to respect him? Whatever happened to earning respect?

I respect Caleb's right to say he is whatever he says he is. I don't necessarily agree, but that's by the by. I do not respect Caleb's right to demand that I comply with his instructions on how to respect him. I do not respect Caleb's demand that he be respected.

Caleb, if you read this: earn my respect. Don't impose conditions on what it is, or how I shape that respect. Respect is not about being male, it's about being someone others can respect. Demand "respect", like some street-corner thug, and you'll find I have no respect for you - because that sort of respect isn't respect, it's fear.

Earn my respect, and I will give it, gladly. Demand it, or put conditions on it, and you'll find I have no respect for you. And I don't give a toss what you think being a man is. Not until you prove you can voice such with conviction. Why should I listen to you, when you require me to comply with something I can't even understand, because, to me, it's meaningless? To you it has meaning, to me it has none.

If you want my respect, if you want anyone's respect: earn it. Like everyone else.

Carolyn Ann

"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 4)

The whole thing seems to be dying down. Righteous anger (?) can be sustained for only so long. Here's what has been decided, or at least as much as I can figure it out from the noise, waling and general carrying on.

"Cisgendered is offensive to many of the cisgendered. But that's okay, we don't mind. Because we're not making any real effort to empathize, we'll keep calling you cisgendered. You'll get used to it."

It's not so much that these activists and bloggers don't mind that quite a few non-trans people find it offensive: they just don't care.

Typically, these individuals hate it when someone calls them by a name they find derogatory, but have no issue with calling someone else by a name they find derogatory. Oh - they'll be happy to not apply it, individually, upon request.

Despite the protestations of many, even some on this blog, there hasn't been any real effort made to understand why so many non-trans people find it offensive. Anyone pointing out that it is offensive has generally been told their argument is insufficient. And yet simply saying that "tranny" is considered offensive was enough to get it placed on the list of words we can't use. Go figure. Oh, that's right: hypocrisy! I knew there was some explanation.

There were a couple of very reasonable comments from Linus and Graceoflarkspur on this blog. This discussion with Renee was neat, and I really thought it could go somewhere. I just took another look at the Questioning Transphobia bit that "sort of" started it all. Oy vey. Talk about self-serving. A brief review of the history of this little spat. :-)

Autumn of a blog/forum called "Pam's House Blend" decided that one of her contributers had a point when he stated that he found "cisgendered" to be offensive. As this term is almost exclusively used by trans activists, it was decided that this was offensive, too. A scathing blog post was the result. A ridiculing of Autumn rapidly ensued. It was often couched in soothing language, but it features prominently on the first few pages of comments. Other than that - the staff decided that "cis" is not a derogatory term and that the cis-population should just get over it. In so many words. Nice, huh?

The plethora of comments was intriguing for its uniformity as much as its vitriol. About half way through, it becomes apparent that it's okay for the trans community to use "cis" to describe the non-trans community - because the trannys are oppressed, and the trans community needs to insult them to make up for it. (Seriously.) This was often stated as "cisprivilege", but whatever. Lisa Harney gave this one its most eloquent airing. (I think Ms Harney is a good writer, even as I think her views are questionable.)

Overall, the tone on QT reflects badly on the trans community. Not that I'm surprised: label-wars are common in the trans community. So is shrill vitriol. I don't think the QT admins did a very good job of administration and management of the debate on their website; they rarely do. Ah well. Pam, of Pam's House Blend put a very nice letter up, with an explanation of what, etc - and was roundly shouted down. It seems to me that many a feminist blog and/or forum will be looking at this whole debacle and asking themselves if they want to include trans-women in their membership, at all. I wouldn't blame them one bit if they said "I don't need this nonsense!" and banned trans women from their sites.

But, I must hasten back to the plot! :-)

Overall, if a group says a moniker is offensive, you can be fairly certain they're telling you this truthfully. If some in the group have no problem with it, but they seem to be in the minority, you can be fairly certain that the rest of the group does have a problem with it. To persist in using that moniker, because you decide that it's really okay and those who find it offensive were simply joking - the moniker is elevated to an insult.

Simple, really. Or does that smack of cisprivilege?

Carolyn Ann

There's a lot of idiots out there...

I often say "you've got to love idiots - there's so many of them!" But some, some I can't find the love for...

Like the jerk, on a blind uphill right-hander, who deliberately cut the corner. I was doing something in excess of 90, and taking a wide apex. Fortunately, I'd anticipated and actually had a backup plan. It involved profuse profanity and a dramatic change of line. At 90 to 95. (The rev counter, the instrument I was actually interested in, was hovering around 8,000, in 4th - which translates to 90. Or above... :-) )

Or the foolish few who decided that two lanes into one wasn't that important. After all - it was only a motorcycle where they wanted to be. Unfortunately for me, it was my motorcycle, and I was on it. I did avoid the two homicidal maniacs.

And then there's the woman in the coffee shop parking lot. She decided that looking at where she was going was just so, well, outré. Fortunately I'm paranoid about parking lots. Even small ones.

(There was one moment, which did not involve any idiot but the one controlling the bike (me). I spotted some sand on the road, as I went around a left-right-left set of curves. The front wheel was a little hesitant to continue on the required line, but snapped to attention when I refused to let it wander. That's what so wonderful about the Ducati - she attacks corners such with confidence!)

Ah, you do have to love idiots. But some, some I can't find any love for. As I said... :-)

Carolyn Ann

A frivolous look at the intersection of motorcycling, and being trans

Never mind being a motorcycling trannie!

Motorcyclists and trannies have a few areas of common concern. Here's an incomplete list:

1. Society generally frowns upon you. In fact, you really on find acceptance among your own kind, and perhaps in those who empathize with you. You suspect they want to be like you...

2. It's expensive. Motorcycling can be done cheaply, and putting on a nice frock need not cost the earth. But the enthusiast doesn't stop there - collections are developed, tastes are refined and costs have a habit of increasing.

3. The "only when I can" enthusiast can never be expected to be as good as those who do it often. Motorcyclists who ride only on summer evenings and weekends cannot expect anyone to believe them when they say they "live to ride". Likewise, we do not expect the Weekend Warrior to ride like Casey trying to win the Spanish Grand Prix. (I might have the race wrong). Crossdressers who put on a dress three times a year, or post no-face photos on Flickr, are often surprised when those who dress somewhat more frequently, and post photos showing their smiles disparage them. Likewise, transsexuals who are about to go "all the way" look down upon their less fortunate sistren. (My dictionary is telling me that's not a word. I guess it is now! :-D )

4. There are certain standards, don't ya know. In motorcycling, scooters are what Hells Angels (and their adherents and fans) drive. Or losers. Or worse: Italian (or even worse, French!) attired ponces and posers. In scootering, motorcycles are for knuckle-dragging neanderthals. (What? You thought we'd move away from the 1960's? In geological terms, we're still there! :-) [There's no tongue-in-cheek smiley that I know of...] Motorcyclists don't - that is DO NOT - wave at scooter riders. Scooter riders, in turn, refuse to acknowledge the primeval beings on fancy motorized bicycles.

In the transgender world, we have those who pass. We have those who doctor their Flickr photos to pass. We have those who steal someone else's Flickr photos to pass. We have those who might pass if the light isn't that good. And we have those who couldn't pass a bar, no matter how low it was set. (I'm one of those.)

5. Or 4a. There are cliques within the world you inhabit. Harley drivers look down on anyone not driving a tractor. Sports bike riders wonder why anyone would want to ride an updated antique. Those who drive genuine antiques wonder why anyone would ride a modern bike. (No character, you know!) Those of us who ride Royal Enfield's get tired of explaining why they're so much fun.

In the tranny [sic] world, we have those who castigate others for wearing jeans and/or pants. And then we have those who castigate those who don't wear jeans and/or pants. We have those who apply a little makeup, or those who apply the entire counter from the department store. There are those who leave a few stray body hairs, and those who spend an entire week shaving their entire body, three different ways. And then we have those put on a dress and try not to get caught because a pretty dress and two or three days of stubble just, well, don't go together. :-)

I'm sure there are other areas of coincidence, but right now I have to go do that thing that's in my DNA (being a chap, and all): I have to barbeque some burgers. Hoo-Ha! Or whatever it is. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Ah, I needed that!

The road was perfect - nice and quiet, for the most part. The bike was singing, the tires were quick to warm up, I was able to keep the brakes hot, but not too hot, and I nailed that series of curves! My previous best for this particular set of curves is about 80 to 85; today, I nailed them at around 100. Quite a thrill! :-)

Actually, I spent most of the ride at velocities that would interest a cop. Oops. :-D

It was a physical ride, too. At those sorts of speeds, you have to take an active part in the whole cornering process; you can't simply sit there and lean over. You'll run out of corner! So you find yourself bobbing and ducking, shifting and sitting. All very physical - especially when you're not used to it. I'm not! (I normally refrain from such velocities...) But today - oh what fun it was! :-)

Carolyn Ann

Trannies and language

No apologies for the title.

It struck me that the trans community is, not by any design, changing the relationship of themselves to the language. An underlying theme in the various trans language debates has been to change the words used to describe the transgendered. The general direction of the change has to been to ensure that it is impossible to discuss the transgendered in anything less than glowing terms.

What's next? A spate of grammatical reworkings?

Isn't this reminiscent of a certain novel?

Carolyn Ann

"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 3)

I can't help but think that I'm putting my thinking on display, here. Hey, at least it evolves! :-)

Okay, here goes - another take on the whole cis thing.

Not a single trans-person I've read can understand why someone might find it offensive to be called "cis". Not a one.

The usual question is "why do people find it offensive?" No effort is demonstrated in understanding why it might be thought offensive to impose a label upon others. Perhaps it's because they don't like the label? Perhaps it's because they don't want someone imposing a label onto others?

No one imposes "trans" - if anything it's a preferred term in the transgender community! It was debated, endlessly, for a few years, and it became the preferred term by general consensus. Other terms, like "transvestite", were deemed offensive. Usually because reporters consistently used the term derogatively.

Is it reasonable to impose a label, is it honest to not make any attempt at understanding why someone might object to an imposed label? Writing a blog post professing your confusion is not making an effort - it's asking others to think for you.

Of course, the answer has to conform to some underlying orthodoxy. Namely "we're called trans, and calling others "cis" is both accurate and equalizing" is the orthodoxy, in this case. What's neglected, not even thought of, avoided and generally run away from is that imposed labels are generally derogatory.

I can't make up my mind if the lack of consideration is a mass effort at irony, farce or ignorance. Especially coming so close on the heels of the whole "tranny" exhortation! People didn't like tranny, because it was derogatory. It was (eventually) deemed to be imposed. So why the false confusion when some say "cis", as an imposed label, is derogatory?

Mind you, that's not going to stop some from using it. They want to be victims, and will continue to assert "cisprivilege", or some other nonsense. Sure, transpeople are discriminated against. But labeling those doing the discrimination in a meaningless and offensive way is not the answer. Fighting for rights, and for equal treatment is the answer. Playing the victim simply invites more discrimination.

Anyway, I'm happy to do some thinking, but for me. Not for you.

Carolyn Ann

UPDATED: You know what's really offensive? The complete lack of effort. Every single trans blogger I've read - quite a few at this point - who looks at this issue makes the same effort: None. This is what they are saying: "Oh, I don't find offensive, so I won't bother trying to understand why it could be! But, seeing as some find it offensive, I'll ask why, which makes me look considerate, but forces them to do my thinking for me. If I don't like the answer, I can always ignore it!"

Is there any wonder I have a continual spat with so many? They jump onto the orthodoxy, I take a look at it. If I don't like what I see, I say so. They take a look at where the trans consensus lies, and run after that bandwagon. I guess it's easier to think through a self-validating point, than it is to truly question. (It's also much easier to shout "I can't hear you, na! na! NA!" than allow someone to point out a problem with the bandwagon they're on.) C'est la vie.

I wonder why she said that?

I just signed up for Ann Coulter's newsletter, and her introduction starts "Welcome Fellow Conservative". It made me smile - I'm not conservative.

I just want to know what Coulter is saying.

I think it's important to know what others are saying, especially those you vehemently disagree with. It's not just free speech, it's important to know how a debate might be shaped, how others view the same issue - indeed, if they view it as the same issue!

We'll see what happens. It might just happen, mostly likely will, that I'll end up setting up a filter that dumps her emails straight to the trash. (I don't trust any "unsubscribe" request. They get ignored far more than they are complied with.)

Arch-conservatism, straight to my inbox. A scary thought, indeed. But I'm man [?] enough! :-)

Carolyn Ann

The trans community, and honesty (etc)

It seems to me that the trans community has an "interesting" relationship with honesty, free speech and dissent. Two bits of writing, and a few minor moments, prompt me to say that.

The first was the condition that Renee imposed on the debate about "cis", and the resulting frivolity with one Stephanie Watson. I could keep commenting, as long as Renee liked what I said. Basically.

The other was a post about divorce, written by Helen.

And a few minor moments, as I said.

First, the imposition of conditions on a debate. I don't usually mind impositions such as "stay on topic", or "no profanity" - rules like that can assist in debate. A rule that says "I have to like what you say" is not of any assistance. It is an impediment.

The Republicans, currently, have a serious problem with dissent. They don't tolerate it. Suggest that you hold an idea different to the current orthodoxy - and you get castigated by the right wing blowhards. The transgender community has exactly the same problem - dissent is not allowed.

The problem is: the transgender community relies, exclusively, upon the idea of free expression for their existence, and their freedom to express themselves as they see fit. But if you have an idea that challenges the transgender orthodoxy - forget it.

Minor dissent, quibbles around the edges, is fine. Just like the Republicans. But substantial disagreement, about substantial issues? No. It's not tolerated! You are likely to be called "transphobic" or some other nonsense.

I do not know of a single other transgendered blogger who has a blog comment policy like mine, for instance. What I thought should be the norm, is an exception. Freedom of expression is limited, in the transgender community, to expression they like.

Let's take this "cis" debate. Not a single trans-person I've read can understand why someone might find it offensive to be called "cis". Perhaps it's because they don't like the label? Perhaps it's because they don't want someone imposing a label onto others? No one imposes "trans" - if anything it's a preferred term in the transgender community!

Is it reasonable to impose a label, is it honest to not make any attempt at understanding why someone might object to an imposed label? Writing a blog post professing your confusion is not making an effort - it's asking others to think for you. (This is going in its own blog post!)

Then there's this whole "I am a woman" thing. I actually don't have much of a problem with the claim - I have a problem with the underlying logic. Or, more accurately, the lack of. I've written about this before, and I won't hammer it again. Suffice to say: if you are a woman, what does that make your mother? If the definition of gender is so fluid, why is it so important to nail it down in relation to yourself? Gender definitions are a bit like trying to nail jello to a wall. It might be possible, but it's not going to be easy. Taking the short cut and declaring oneself something is not thinking about the issue, and it's not honestly appraising what that declaration actually means.

There's an uncanny similarity between the person who says "I feel I am a woman", when they are not exactly the same, and the person who says "I feel God spoke to me!" Both are making unprovable claims, both are relying on the tacit consensus of others to validate their claim. Both get upset when someone comes along and skeptically says "Really?"

Divorce. It's quite common in the trans community. The husband decides he needs to transition, and the wife is basically left picking up the pieces. This happens far too many times. Sure, someone can figure out that they aren't in the right body at any stage of their life. I figured it out some 39 years ago.

What I don't understand is how someone who claims they want to be a woman can not understand why the wife is upset because the other woman in her marriage is her husband! How does someone deal with that dishonesty? It's not like they have some pretty young thing to despise, and perhaps compete with - the pretty young thing is the man she married! Often, it's a shock to the wife to found out her husband has been slipping on a pair of heels for quite some time, now.

Dishonesty of this sort happens a lot, in the TG community. The guy heading up the Long Island Tri-Ess support group had never told his wife of his crossdressing. (I have no idea if he eventually did, or whatever happened to the group. He sent me a huge list of preconditions and stipulations, to which I thought "you've got to be kidding me!" And so I never went.) When I was friendlier terms with a number of transsexuals, one of the things I kept hearing was how the transsexual upped their hormones, but neglected to tell the wife. (They were often surprised at the vehemence of the anger when this was discovered. Astonishing, I know.)

It's unavoidable: the trans community has a distinct problem with honesty, free expression and dissent. Individual members might be honest; undoubtedly many are. But as a collection, as a group, there's ample evidence to doubt their veracity and honesty. Honestly!

Carolyn Ann

Motorcycling & trans terminology

One of the things I love about motorcycling is that I have to focus. I am responsible for my own actions. Sure, some idiot could come into my lane (it happens, and I recently read of some unfortunate chap who had just such an encounter), but in general - I am totally responsible for my decisions, my actions.

I fluff a gear change? The guy behind me doesn't know, and likely doesn't care. All he knows is that I've stopped accelerating. I find out the rear brake doesn't work? (This is a regular occurrence on a Ducati Monster. So much so, they no longer warranty it!) That might be a problem when I have to stop in a hurry. I screw up the corner? Hmm. The next few moments might be painful. Well, the final ones will be. Gravel magically appears in the road? I might have a problem, not having anticipated or seen it.

Some things you just can't anticipate. Things like a road cracking under you (I once saw a car that had just sunk into a fresh pothole, in Brooklyn. It was a really big pothole.) Or the aforementioned idiot, entering your lane. I had that the other day. Some jerk was looking something up, on the phone (naturally), and as his car did a waltz down the road, I tried to be nice and not dent the front of it. I barely got by.

When you're tootling down some lane, not much happening, easy driving, you get a chance to think a little. After all, there's nothing but you, the bike and the road. Pay attention, but you can divert some cranial resources to pondering the big questions. Things like "I wonder where I am?", and "If light is a wave, and a point of mass, does that mean I am an illusion, and real?" Other thoughts can occur: "where is the next corner?" "I wonder why that man has his shotgun pointed at me?" and "was that the Jersey Devil I just saw?"

I tend to think about engineering issues, and "things to do with gender". I wonder, for instance, what a big skirt would do if I wore it while traveling at 50MPH. On the Vespa. Most likely I'd be wondering why the world turned a pretty shade of pink and where the heck the road went. I ponder if I could ride in high heeled boots. I can't easily walk in them, why the hell would I be able to ride in them? (I should wear heels more often. I'm out of practice!) I also wonder about the terminology the gender activists use.

That's as complex a subject as the "am I an illusion?" one. But at least I can define what a photon is.

Carolyn Ann

People are strange, Mark Sanford is stranger...

Mark Sanford, the walking, talking, soft porn edition of the South Carolina governor, is telling all. And I mean *all*. I can't decide if he's rehearsing a love letter, or is just an idiot who doesn't know when to shut up. I'm leaning to the latter.

The calls for his resignation are multitudinous. The sentiment that he should be impeached, starting. He criticized Bill for dereliction of duty - and the man goes on a lovefest for a week, with no one, except perhaps his wife, knowing where he is? That's not merely dereliction of duty - that's a criminal act!

Perhaps I should be glad the Michael Jackson nonsense is knocking him off the air - I'm not at all sure which story is stranger. Jackson, at least, wasn't elected. Between the hysteria surrounding he death of Jackson, and the soft porn ramblings of Sanford, it's a wonder Fox News hasn't imploded!

Sanford should do an Ensign - quit. And hope that he can quietly fade away. At this point, I think the best we can hope is that he restricts his mutterings to one of Larry Flynt's publications.

Carolyn Ann

It's strange, isn't it...

How could someone would think I would be sensitive to personal attacks?

Goodness knows - I criticize enough people! For what they say, for what they do, and for what they stand for. Not necessarily for simply who they are. There's two exceptions, but they're increasingly irrelevant. :-)

For me to be offended by a personal attack, even one that is as dimly scribed as Stephanie Watson's recent one, I'd have to hold myself to same double standard my attackers have! Good grief. Whatever next? A parade? With me in shackles and a cage, holding my head in shame for not agreeing with the prevailing wisdom of the transgender community? Not gonna happen.

A highlight, because it made me smile, from Ms Watson's critique of me (knowing how much she likes to remove embarrassing words whenever she can, I also want to preserve these):

I feel I should point out that Carolyn Ann is a notorious troll who has been banned from numerous forums and blogs because he delights in causing offence and sowing dissension. He (and yes despite the feminine name that is the pronoun he insists on) is a heterosexual man who occasionally crossdresses.

Ooh. Such strong words. Lovely, aren't they? Unsupportable in fact, but who cares - this is the personal, and the political! Name calling is as much a part of that process as actual differences in opinion are. I must admit, it's nice to be "notorious", though. Notoriety becomes me. Don't you think? (You don't? Oops. My mistake. Sorry, Stephanie.)

I delight in causing offense? Not really. But who'd notice? Sow dissension? Well, I like to challenge the orthodox, especially if I think the orthodoxy is lacking. Heck, if I can poke holes in it, what could someone with an education do to it?

Yeah, I do prefer male pronouns, because I'm a man. The history of my name is not relevant, nor is it anyone's business. But criticizing someone for their name? Isn't that just a little desperate?

I am perplexed about the claim that I've been banned from "numerous forums and blogs". I can't recall being banned from anywhere except Questioning Transphobia. I could be wrong, of course. I wonder who else has banned me? It would be nice to know, so I can respond in some fashion. If they exist, I suspect it's individuals who hold the idea that disagreement is a personal affront. Still - it's not mine to wonder why Ms Watson should make such a claim.

Overall, it was a very good attack. Nicely phrased, vehement in its charges, the despise is clear, the points - while not sustainable - put in a coherent manner and it really does tell you something of the contempt this person has for me. Nice work, Stephanie. I was quite delighted.

Ah well, at least it was a decent attack. Unlike some of the more recent ones: inane insult is just so lame. I was actually getting quite concerned.

But I do have to ask: Why, oh why, should I be afraid of personal attacks on me? Why should I fear them? Or even be affected by them?

UPDATE: Stephanie called this little missive "pathetic". I'm astonished she read it. She remains, however, welcome to add to the discussion in any way she see fit. As is anyone else. :-)

Carolyn Ann

This gives me hope...

Diane Schroer won her case that the Federal government discriminated against her - and now the Justice Department seems to be backing off its (almost enthusiastic) anti-gay/anti-trans stance. They are not appealing the decision, or the penalty.

I "liked" the Bush approach: because being transgender is not a protected class, it's not discrimination to discriminate against the transgendered. Must have taken someone all of three seconds to come up with that one. Talk about reaching!

Maybe the gay/trans anger with Obama and Holder worked. Maybe now, they'll pay attention and not be able to pretend it's nothing much.

Right, onto getting transgender and gender expression into that hate crimes bill! I wish, I really wish, I could join that Facebook group "Inclusive ENDA", or whatever it's called. I can't - I'm not American. (There's no requirement for someone to be American, but my ethics are important to me. I can't join a political group that works directly for something in America, if I am not American. I'd object to an American meddling in British politics, and so the same applies to me!) But that's no objection to my commenting... :-)

Nice one Holder, and Obama. About time, too. Maybe someone in the Justice Department can reverse the government position on that ridiculous, discriminatory bit of pandering, "The Defense of Marriage Act"? It's an offense to what America stands for. The arguments the administration put forth were facetious, and insulting. I think it got missed, but also I think Obama is trying to placate, and somehow please, the evangelical and fundamentalist communities.

Obama: stop trying to please everyone. You'll end up pleasing no one. Do what is right, not what is popular. You'll need to do plenty of that in a couple of years - you don't need to do it now!

Carolyn Ann

"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 2)

Interesting discussion going on, over at Renee's "Transexual Ferox". There's little of the usual hyperbole, no insults being flung, no inane charges of transphobia, and so on. An interesting, reasoned and at times quite opinionated discussion. It's a refreshing change. I wrote a response, that was curtailed because it went over some unknown 4,096 character limit. (It was tough to change it to fit into this limit!)

I am not about to deny anyone the ability to call themselves whatever they want. But when we label ourselves, we do open that label to scrutiny. We might not like the inspection, but there's little we can do to stop it. We probably shouldn't. Here's my latest comment, with a few minor changes. :-)

====

Lori makes the point that she doesn't need to be validated as a woman; I completely agree. I do think, however, the trans community does insist that women validate themselves as women... We had a brief, discussion about experience as a guide; it got a little distracted, and wasn't explored in any way. But I thought it important to explain why I use "experience" as a model. It's based on the nature/nurture idea, and it does have failings. Overall, I think it sufficient for at least starting a discussion of what being a woman is. Experience, after all, does make up a large part of who we are! In the trans community, the definition of "what being a woman is", is alternately plastic and concrete, usually driven on some arbitrary context. Ultimately, this means that "being a woman" is a thoroughly malleable concept, essentially meaningless. I dislike, intensely, the idea that being a woman is so plastic; it also means that being a man is meaningless. Especially when it is so obviously not! Gender is not a meaningless concept; it is a fairly plastic concept, but it has a base that is concrete. To demand that womanhood is a plastic concept, except when it's not, is a hypocrisy. It's lazy thinking, too: "I am a woman, but I refuse to define what that means, but it includes me!" All too often, especially in the "cis" debate - the discussion is not about empowering transwomen, it's about reducing what being a woman means. The demand that none-trans individuals carry the label "cis" is ridiculous. As one person on my blog said, they see it as an equalizer. "You label me, I label you". Which neglects the fact that the trans community labels itself! When the trans community insists on the feminine, it puts that concept on a pedestal. It then transforms what being a woman is, temporarily, so that the pedestal momentarily disappears, only to reappear later with the claim "I am a woman". Isn't there something wrong with that? (Not to get sidetracked, but I keep thinking about the whole "do I need to transition to be a woman" thing. It gets to the core of the argument: a man, biologically male, can claim to be a woman?) (Again, not to get sidetracked: if being a woman is so plastic, what does that mean for a man? Does being a man become so meaningless that it's difficult to perceive why a change from that gender is needed? If gender is meaningless, why is it important to become a woman, in the first place?) When the trans community denigrates individuals like Julie Bindel with cries that she is transphobic - because she disagrees with the ideas the trans community puts forward about what a woman is - they neglect to consider that she is trying to preserve what being a woman means to many women. Her view is that a man, no matter his personal history, is not a woman. Instead of listening, and thinking about what she says - angrily flung insults and childish tantrums become acceptable behavior. Is there any wonder Ms Bindel's position hardened? Is there any wonder that I get told I'm transphobic and a "self-important moron" when I point out the problems with both the argument and the response? I don't care what people call me - I do care that the trans community is not making any real effort to think about the many claims they make. Why do I care? Because the road to equal rights, proper legal protections and societal tolerance (acceptance is, perhaps, a little too high a bar, right now) is not through angry insults and easily pricked arguments and dubiously defined definitions. It is through honest appraisal, especially of the tough bits around identity. It is about having a suitable response - it doesn't have to be universally agreed to, or liked - to the charges that typically come from right wing religious organizations. It is about having a reasoned response to feminist charges about what being a woman means. It is about so much more than childish tantrums and immature denunciations and the ridiculously stupid attaching of unnecessary labels such as "cis" to others. Hiding behind, and it is hiding, academic labels such "cis" does not do anything to help further anyone's cause. Hiding behind angry insults and childish tantrums is not the answer to anything - we usually learn that as children, but it's commonplace in the trans community. (I should know, having been on the receiving end of so many such tantrums!) [It is perfectly acceptable to use "cis" in academic discussion, but it should not be used as a crutch, which happens far too often.] Yelling that someone is horrible because they disagree with you is not likely to gain anyone respect. And insisting "I am a woman" and not noticing that a lot of women might, do, have objections to that? Well, suffice to say - it's not likely to garner anything but skeptical glances. Carolyn Ann

News magazines

Michael Hirschorn reports, in this months The Atlantic, on why newsweeklies are failing, but The Economist is still succeeding.

Here's my tu'pence ha'penny's worth on it. I can read Newsweek over a coffee. If I need more time than that, I'll buy the paper. (I haven't really looked at Time magazine in ages. Sorry. I should.) Mr Hirschorn notes that newspapers, in their transition to the web, have become more like the weeklies - they provide analysis, commentary and opinion. Heck, some of them are moving into multi-media presentations! YouTube meets the New York Times. (About time, too!)

With a browser, it's possible to keep track of tons of stories, nations and events. As Mr Hirschorn points out, though, you need to about 20 hours of Googling, per week, just to keep track of what one edition of The Economist provides. And blogs don't even begin to compete with the serious journalism and opinions provided in that newspaper.

I try to stay abreast of what's going on in the world. Even when I'm out on the road, for weeks at a time, I'll keep up with the really important stories. (Michael Jackson's death is not one of the important stories.) If I ventured into parts of the world where there aren't any newspapers or sources, I might have a spot of bother, but I haven't been there, so far. I can nearly always find something to read, somewhere.

(One interesting observation: I've noticed that more and more, the motels, hotels and other places where they play continuous news programming, the TV's are tuned to CNN. Not Fox News. It's as if people are getting fed up of the vitriol and shrillness of that station.)

I love auto racing (as any regular reader of this blog will know), and I miss not getting much news on that sport. I don't get Autosport anymore, because of its cost and the fact that it was always a week or more behind. I miss it. Their website is a mess of bad design, coupled with pay-for and free content. I can never figure out which I have to pay for (and can't afford), and which is free, but invariably useless as news.

We can't get either the Philadelphia Enquirer, or the New York Times delivered. Fetching a copy is at least a 45 mile round trip. That being said, the NY Times has a world-class website, that's getting better and better all the time. What the website lacks, however, is a comfy chair where I can enjoy the physical aspect of opening, and reading, that broadsheet. (The breakfast room table and its matching chair aren't quite the same...) Reading a broadsheet is an experience, I fear, that is going the way of the dodo. At least it saves trees!

From Britain, I enjoy the Guardian, and I used to read the Guardian Weekly religiously. But getting a copy of that is all but impossible, and it's also expensive. I read what I can, the Guardian's often mysteriously designed webpages notwithstanding, on the web. (I notice they still retain their ability to make astounding spelling errors... It's just not as prevalent as it used to be.)

But I do enjoy lying in a hot bathtub, glass of beer (and/)or a single malt by me, reading The Economist or The Atlantic.

The Economist has superb global coverage; sure, its reporting can be a bit haphazard, but I always feel a little wiser at the end of the magazine. Its economic views (moderately right wing) match my own, and its social progressiveness and libertarian streak do, too. But mostly I like the fact that I can read about different regions and am able to connect-the-dots. The NY Times doesn't provide the same global coverage, so it's impossible to connect any dots - you simply aren't aware of them! The British papers are better at that; as is the BBC website. But even there, you have to be your own filter - and it can be difficult. The Economist filters it all, and tells you only the things that are important. That the editorial staff get this right so consistently has to be one of the mysteries of modern reporting.

One curious thing: I never hear, or read, a right wing wind-box denigrate The Economist. Which is astonishing, because so many of its economic and policy positions are the same as the NY Times'.

The Atlantic, on the other hand, is not a news magazine. It is a commentary on the important events, trends and people of the day. For instance, this month it covers Google, William F Buckley, drinking laws and a host of other subjects.

They also have a reasonably well designed website, and some superb bloggers. I don't always agree with them, but I do enjoy reading their words. I often learn something that makes me stop and think, and I've been known to change my mind after reading some post or other. But, again, no comfy chair or hot bathtub. I can't take my MacBook into the tub, at all.

A copy of The Atlantic might take me well over a month to read. But that's okay - their stories tend to maintain relevance for quite some time. Likewise, Vanity Fair and Foreign Affairs. I still read the New Yorker, but we couldn't renew the subscription. I read it in the store, and figure out if I want to buy it, then.

So, between the New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Economist, Foreign Affairs and Vanity Fair, there's really no reason to not feel informed about the world we live in. I feel wiser for staying atop of domestic and international affairs; I feel a little more informed knowing who some of the key players are, and I definitely feel it is important to understand not just what's going on in America, but in the rest of world as well.

Newsweek and Time just can't compete with that. On the other hand, I do buy Newsweek to read Fareed Zakaria. Anything he says is just worth listening to. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Seeing the light...

Mojoey has an interesting post about an encounter he had with some Christian bikers. I wrote a fairly inane (okay, totally inane) response...

But I did get to thinking about "seeing the light" when you're on a bike. Seeing the light is usually an explanation for a religious epiphany. You know, like the one Jake had in the Blues Brothers. It's a message from God.

On a bike, when you see the light, it's going to be the sun. And it's going to be in your eyes. You won't be able to see a damned thing! This is usually okay for a moment, but it's not what you'd call a "good thing". How will you explain it to St Peter? "I saw the light, but it blinded me and I didn't see the stone wall?" Never mind you explaining it to St Peter - he owes you a hell of an explanation! ... ... ... ... And a really big apology.

What would be the message from God on that? "You need better shades, my friend?" He puts you in danger, perhaps kills you - just to tell you he doesn't like your sunglasses?

If it's at night, the light isn't anything special. It is a moron who hasn't dipped his headlights. Maybe he has, and because bike headlights are generally higher and brighter than car headlights, he's showing you the error of your ways? I've had that, a lot. They're already dipped, you idiot! What am I supposed to do? Switch the lights off? You can't do that on a bike sold in the States! Another one for St Peter - if God is so powerful, how come he can't get morons to dip their lights? Perhaps the Devil stayed their hand? Perhaps they forgot to dip their lights. Perhaps they really are a moron, wanting to teach you a lesson about dipping the light you can't switch off.

So while you're now driving along, in the dark, you're blinded by the light. Perhaps now would be a good time to start praying? You know, send God a message. You could say "help me out, here!" Instead, he sends another idiot your way, followed by a curve that you can't see because the most recent idiot didn't dip their lights until the last possible moment. Asymmetrical messaging - you pray, he sends idiots.

One woman I read about had a big crash on her bike. She was blinded by the sun, hit a cow, and a fence! Bang! Down she went. After two years of recuperation, she said she saw the light - God had a purpose for her! Couldn't he have picked a less painful way of telling her? Which light screwed her up? God must be either amazingly inattentive, or a hell of a sadist, to show her the light and put her in a cast for two years! But - but, she saw the light! It's a pity she didn't see the cow - she might not have hit it. See the light, hit the cow! What sort of message delivery is that?

Seeing the light on a bike is what I'd call "not good". It's nearly always painful, or nerve-racking. If God wants to send me a message, perhaps he could use email, like everyone else?

Carolyn Ann

The NRA vs Common Sense

The National Rifle Association, in its ongoing efforts to make life dangerous for everyone, has helped usher in some strange laws. Their latest effort, in Georgia, Tennessee and now Arizona, is a law that allows people with concealed weapon permits to carry those handguns into a bar. You know: a place where they serve alcohol.

Guns and alcohol. Right. A spokesperson for the NRA described the measure as "common sense". What?!? The NRA sees bad guys, with guns, everywhere. Their answer? Give the good guys guns... More guns.

Like I say, the NRA has an adversarial relationship with common sense.

Carolyn Ann

"Cis" is a derogatory term...

There's a neat debate flaring up about the prefix "cis". :-)

It's becoming apparent that a few people object to this term being applied to them. I can't think why...

Here are a few links:

Transexual Ferox

Questioning Transphobia (have a guess what their take is... No, I didn't have to guess, either.)

Pam's House Blend

and last, but not least:

Julia Serano on the subject.

The basic issue is that "cis" is an identifier, even though some writers claim it isn't. Julia Serano makes this point:

Cis is not meant to be an identity. Rather, it simply describes the way that one is perceived by others.

Really? Ms Serano basically says it's not about identity, it's about identification. Hmm. Telling someone they are a "cis woman" is not about imposing an identity? It's the imposition of a descriptive label: if that's not saddling someone with an identity, I'm at a loss to explain why it isn't! As I suspect Ms Serano would be, too, if she thought about it.

Ms Serano, and a few others, look to race for inspiration. It's not a place to go: the term "African American" has two components to it: the former adjusts the definition of the overall phrase. The use of "African" provides an indicator of identity; otherwise, "American" would be more than sufficient to describe an identity. "African American" says "I am American, I am also black-skinned" It's a clarification to the identification, and as such is a more complete description of an identity.

The same goes for "cis woman". The term indicates that the woman in question was born female; it fully identifies her so. "Trans woman" is not quite as precise: it tells us of a history; the person was born male, but in some way has taken at least some steps to be as physically feminine as it might be possible. The prefix "cis" is used as a qualifier, and as a means of narrowing down an identity.

One aspect that Ms Serano neglects in her justification is that the black community, when it was trying to gain (and maintain) civil rights, didn't insist that white Americans be called "caucasian Americans". Besides which, the term "African American" is exclusively American; I don't believe there's any equivalent anywhere else. No one says "aboriginal Australians", for instance.

Ms Serano basically contradicts herself.

She did this earlier in her essay, too. In complaining about the attitude "why can't we just speak [plain] English?", she notes that she metaphorically (I hope) hits the complainer over the head with a "stack of George Orwell books." George Orwell used plain English to describe to us the dangers of manipulated, overly-qualified, language. When the trans community insists on a certain modifier to describe men and women, they are doing exactly what George Orwell warned us about. In an effort to prevent offense, they offend.

I like plain English. I do not feel any burning desire to write "Trace Adkins, a cis country and western singer"; indeed, I resist such language. It is ridiculous, arbitrary and complicating. But according to what I have read about this debate, I should write that, just to comply with the trans community's insistence on unreasoned exactness. When then trans community insists that "cis" be used as a differentiator, they also insist that we modify our thinking. Just as in 1984, the goal appears to be to prevent anyone from saying anything that might be offensive to someone else. Ms Serano might do well to rethink her invocation of George Orwell.

The prefix cis is often used to denote someone who is not trans, in academic, or wanna-be academic, trans writing. It seems to be used to "de-centralize the dominant group" (Emi Koyama; link from Ms Serano's essay). The trans writers who insist on its use seem to decentralize the dominant group, just so they can place themselves front row, center.

The QT folk seem to think that denying the identity "cis" is about power. It's not, but since when did the QT writers ever stop to really think. They prefer profanity-laden invective, which can be construed as a childish way of asserting their own power. Queen Emily makes the point:

More commonly, cissexual just means people who are not transsexual, and cis means people who are not trans. It’s terribly complex, you know.

I am astounded: something she and I can agree on! It's truly astounding. I can live with "cissexual" being those who are not transsexual. It's when the prefix is applied to describe someone like, oh, a mother. A "cis mother"? Please, get real.

"Cis" is not an attempt to "decentralize the dominant group". It is an attempt, a blatant attempt, at redefining an entire conversation so that it can't stray into areas that might be uncomfortable. It's being able to cry about "cis privilege"; it is not about leveling the linguistic playing field.

Any civil rights cause needs articulate, reasoned argument. It needs impassioned speech, and it demands a proper feeling of being oppressed. It doesn't need people saying that they are "oppressed" because women talk about some exclusively feminine issue, and they, as a trans woman, don't, can't, have that same experience. The debate about trans discrimination does not need the unwanted, unwarranted, imposition of a prefix onto those who are not transgender.

On a simple, practical note, the insistence that "cis" be used also plays, quite nicely, into the hands of those who insist that the fight for equal rights isn't about equal rights. Because it implies, bashes over the head, more like, that it is about imposing a view, a way of thinking. It becomes not a debate about equal rights, and some much-needed legal protections, for trans people, but a debate about who is imposing upon whom. And what is being imposed. And that's a debate the people who insist on "cis" will lose. Because they insistently impose language that is intended to shield one group from offense.

Attempting to change what people feel about themselves, especially via arcane language, is not just impossible - it's stupid, too.

It is enough to simply use the prefix "trans". The trans community does not have to redefine what it means to be a man, a woman, a boy, or a girl. In fact, it should stay well away from that debate - because it is one they cannot hope to win. It's one that demands exacting definitions that are impossible to supply. Stick with "trans" to describe the transgendered; don't try the impossible, and try to change how men and women feel about being men, or women. Cis is not exactly derogatory (even if it is sometimes used in such a way), but it is inexact, inexplicable, and is changing the debate from equal rights to thought-control.

Let's stick with equal rights, and legal protections for the transgendered. Let's not try to redefine the personal identity of almost everyone.

Carolyn Ann

Trace Adkins & soccer

Trace Adkins, a popular Country & Western singer, doesn't "get" soccer. He also, apparently, thinks NASCAR is the premier auto racing series. He doesn't like soccer because it's soccer moms and he doesn't "get it".

Might I suggest he actually watch a game?

I recently perused his book "A Personal Stand" - and I can't say I read anything that surprised me. Blatant ignorance of a sport loved by millions, a myopic view of pretty much everything, and no effort to understand, or even acknowledge, the issues confronting America, today.

It was, basically, John McCain's political platform [Added: and the GOP's political platform, now].

More, later. I'm trying to recall if I read anything about the Dixie Chicks. For someone so opinionated (... :-) ), I'm surprised it didn't immediately spring out to me. Maybe I missed it. I'll let you know.

Trace Adkins might be popular

Brazil 3, USA 2

So far it's the beginning of the second half, and Brazil has just scored their first goal. (It's a repeat. I know the score.)

The US team is coming apart, and Brazil has spent their few minutes of rest well - they've figured out Howard's weaknesses for this game. They already knew his general weaknesses, but each game is different.

The US team played well, initially - and for some strange reason seem to be arguing amongst themselves what to do with this ball they've been presented with. Brazil is together. I don't get it. The US team needs to play as a team, but they are devolving a collection of superstars. It's when the going gets tough that a team really needs to cohere. That's not the US team I'm watching.

Aha. Brazil, at 52 into the game, test Howard. The US players have decided to play "can you catch this?" Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "not really, old chap!"

I do have to observe that the ESPN commentators are rubbish. They don't report the game at all - they volubly endorse the US team. It detracts. (As do the air horns. I think they were banned at Formula 1 races and Le Mans, but that might be wishful thinking. Irritating things, they are.)

I miss soccer.

Carolyn Ann

Added: Im watching Cesar, the Brazilian goalie, and I can't help but think someone had a chat with him. He seems to be awake in the 2nd half. On the other hand, the US team has really devolved into a bunch of individual players.

500th Save!

According to the guy on the TV, Mariano Rivera is the second player in the history of baseball to have 500 saves! He's the only with an RBI!

And I got to see the final few pitches!

(He's always a pleasure to watch, especially when the Catcher is Jorge Posada.)

500 saves. WOW! :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS My Mrs is now mentioning her favorite bad guy, Roger Clemens. You know what - that man should be ashamed. He took steroids, changing himself, and his game. Because he was vainglorious, and wanted accolades. A fool, and a cheat.

New thrillers?

I've just finished James W. Huston's excellent semi-action/legal thriller "Marine One". I can't give the plot away, but I will mention that it's better than any episode of "Law & Order"! A synopsis might be in order: Marine One crashes in the middle of a violent storm, the world goes to hell - at least for the attorney hired by the helicopter's builder. All the suspense of a good John Grisham, with some of the derring-do we normally associate with Tom Clancy, John Ringo and others of their ilk.

One thing I have to mention... In thrillers, we get set up - and then the author reveals, in a manner that would make Agatha Christie cringe, all the bits he (always a he...) left out. The 'trivia' that makes or breaks the story. Or at least allows it to be told. With many writers, you're left with the feeling "that's It?!?" Others, you're left thinking "I wondered when you'd get to telling us that". Other writers are more honest - yes, honest. Stella Rimington, Karna Bodman and James Huston come to mind. Eric Flint, he of the wildly alternative histories, is a borderline player in that little game. John le Carré, of course, showed us all how it should be done in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy". It's not explained - because the hero or heroine doesn't know it.

(You know, if anyone could write the next Tinker, et al, it would be either Karna Bodman, or ... erm, well, hmm, now isn't that interesting. Okay, if anyone could write the next Tinker Tailor, it would be Ms Bodman. :-) I'd still like to read the uncensored Ms Rimington. Perhaps in a few decades?..)

Why is that writers feel a need to hold back dramatic information? Mr Huston has a goal - and the reader is not included in it! His hero, Mike Nolan, doesn't trust anyone. Anyone. The reader included! All is revealed, in a fine bit of writing that reminds me of classic Mason Perry shows (?), with a dash of the Paperchase (perhaps?). Mr Huston uses the device of court-room drama in a way that reflects the best of Law & Order. And those episodes usually take a team to write! I thoroughly enjoyed the drama - if Law & Order could depict the defendants' view, they'd learn a thing or two from Mr Huston.

After reading "Marine One", I had to wonder: are thrillers moving out of the neanderthal period, where a single superman saves the world? (Against the odds, and Washington bureaucracy? Hmm.) Are we moving into the genre of "liberal" thrillers? (John Ringo: watch out! They're not out to get you, but they sure would like your sales! :-D ) I'd like to think that we're moving into an era of thriller stories that are less Reagan-esque, and more realistic. You know, Rambo doesn't save the world by brute force. He saves it by being clever, working with a team that's just as dedicated, but perhaps not as (superman) talented, and the clever application of brute force. More "Behind Enemy Lines" than "Rambo". (Clive Owen's performance in that is one I continually look forward to. Gene Hackman's is one I try not to fast-forward through...)

Are thrillers becoming more realistic? Certainly. The market for the brain-dead hero has gone; it went out with the plummeting neocon. It's so "last week", it has no relevance whatsoever. The clever thriller writer doesn't write about a temporary enemy - they piece together long term trends and figure out a suitable protagonist. They read "Foreign Affairs", and refrain from the stupid, incoherent, obvious and simplistic opponent. They put long term policy and national interests ahead of short term power struggles. In short, their stories reflect the world we live in. Not the one they wished existed.

Carolyn Ann