With Cindy Martin
Transgender Forum Publisher
© 1996 Transgender Forum
Got a news tip? Seen a story with a TG angle to it?
Don't assume we know about it already.
Email Cindy and she'll spread the news!
ust the facts, ma'am.
Last month I predicted that San Francisco's possible plan to insure city workers for the cost of Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) would become controversial.
It has, but what I didn't expect was how poorly this issue would handled, at least initially, by our local and national activists. If what I saw here is typical of the way we are doing things nationally, we've got tons of work to do.
In mid-September an article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle describing the insurance idea, how it originated and what its' impact might be. I read the story when it came out and thought it was a little snotty, but mostly I felt it was very interesting and pretty favorable to us considering the issue. But some people didn't like the piece at all, which I can also now understand. You can read the story for yourself at the Chronicle's web site.
A day later, the Associated Press came out with a truly ugly story that more or less described the whole thing as another "crazy San Francisco story." As I reported last month, I complained loudly to the writer of the piece and she did revise it, but it was too late. The original version had already gone out on the national wire.
Meanwhile, the local talk radio went buggy over the story and one of the original writers appeared on a local television news story. I did not see the interview, but I have been told that he did make some comments that were out of line. I'll assume that is true.
The story faded quickly away, but for reasons still not clear to me, about two weeks later the local Transexual Menace group called for a picketing and leafleting action in front of the newspaper.
I am not here to defend the San Francisco Chronicle. But I was very troubled when I heard about the action because of one very simple reason: no one ever bothered to call the writers or any of the editors at the paper to discuss problems they may have had with the article.
Now to me this is the FIRST thing you should do. It is always better to confront your "opponent" in a civilized and direct way if you can. Get all your issues out on the table, a real table. Show the "other side" that you are worthy of respect and fair treatment. You can always picket later if that doesn't work.
The "plan" of action, if that's what it was, was basically to have a group of people show up out of nowhere and walk in a circle around the building. The New York activist who wrote a press release announcing the event said the action would be against what she called the "transphobic" San Francisco Chronicle. Of course what this activist didn't know was the "transphobic" paper was the only major media outlet in the region to come out in favor of the 1994 transgender rights law in San Francisco. Just a minor detail I guess...
When I discovered all this, I got concerned and arranged a meeting with several leaders of TS Menace and a top editor at the paper. People on both sides who were present told me it was very productive and friendly. Next time there is a problem, and you know there will be a next time, everyone can put names to faces. That is REAL power.
Activists like taking "direct action". It's very public, and it can be effective. I have no problem with using demonstrations to make a point. It is definitely good that we finally have this important "weapon" in our kit bags. Think back just two or three years ago. Can you remember a single transgender demonstration?
The demonstration at the newspaper did go on as planned, despite the tête À tête the day before meeting. But the atmosphere of the event was very friendly and, I have to believe, quite different from what it might have been.
There were no confrontations. People were politely asked if they wanted to know more and, if so, were given a leaflet explaining how TS Menace felt the insurance issue was being unfairly covered. I was quite proud of the way our people behaved.
James Green, a great man who was involved in the action, told me that it was all about not letting people think they can treat us like junk any more. I agree. Our silence in the past has left us open to all kinds of disasters. However, and I told him this, that there are many ways for us to show our class and strength.
Megaphones aren't the only answer.
ennis Rodman was picked one of the ten worst dressed in the world by People Magazine last month. Transgender or not, he deserved it.
The only time I've ever seen Dennis look halfway pulled together was when he wore the wedding dress to a book signing. I guess if we get RuPaul and Lipsyncha we have to take Dennis too, but..."If he's going to cross-dress," said actress Holly Robinson Peete in the recent People article, he should "do it with style, not just be eccentric...He looks like Norma Desmond on steroids."
Meanwhile, Teri Hatcher of the "Lois & Clark" TV show (right) was one of the top 10 best dressed. One look at this photo will show you why. Style, clean lines and simplicity, even with the pattern in the dress. Notice the minimal jewelry. There are a lot of beautiful women in Hollywood. But there are not many who seem to understand how to really show off what they have. Teri Hatcher has it down.
If you can find a copy of this edition of People at your dentist's office (it came out in late September) ask if you can take it home. There is a lot of very good fashion advice along with the usual catty witticisms and cheap shots.
magine my surprise when I read in my local transphobic daily newspaper (or LTDN), the aforementioned SF Chronicle, a review about a movie called ``All Dressed Up and No Place to Go'' that co-starred a "a former NASA engineer" named Joe/JoAnn.
Hmmm, movie about crossdressers, NASA, Joe/Jo, could it be?
JoAnn Roberts, of course, is teamed with me and Jamie Faye Fenton in this little endeavor you're reading but she never said squat about it...On the other hand, once you get to know JoAnn you realize that she is so modest and shy it can almost be painful...
Anyway, the LTDN's review of the film was quite complimentary and friendly towards the film. It also contained this little vignette:
"At a Massachusetts meeting of the wives of cross-dressers, one woman recalls the shock of discovering 'that the other woman in his life is him.'' She adds that ``you can't imagine the kind of panic that happens when the doorbell rings and no one is expected, and your husband is in a dress. That mad clatter of noise going up the stairs.''
The review also mentioned that the film says "the average transvestite, we're told, spends $3,000 to $4,000 a year on his feminine wardrobe".
Geeze, no wonder Jamie Faye calls cross-dressing the "real sport of kings."
'll end the suspense: I'm going as a '20s flapper to Halloween events this year. "Besides, you can wear those fringe dresses to other things." Well, that's what Cheryl, my saleslady at Piedmont told me. Yes, so very practical. Great for the kids' soccer games.
When I think of all the female characters I've done for Halloween I still think my favorite was the year when I did Tony Perkins as "Mom" from Psycho for the "straight" party while my wife did Janet Leigh, with bath towel and "knife" in her breast (no, you couldn't see anything). The next night, I got to be Janet...
Which brings me to some random thoughts. Does anyone else think:
a) "Psycho" was actually a black comedy?
b) "Homicidial," the William Castle ripoff of "Psycho" with the transgender story line was pretty good?
c) That Jerri Hall wants to divorce Mick Jagger because he looks better in her clothes than she does?
weee!
A recent Associated Press story reports that "in the changing American male "chesthetic," men aren't so wild about hairy anymore. Fuzz, for now, is defunct; waxing, shaving, even the occasional furtive Nair bath are in.
"It used to be gay men doing it. Now it's all men," says Lia Schorr, who runs a Manhattan grooming salon and has written a book about men's skin care. Forty percent of her customers are men, and many want chest hair removed.
Okay, this might just another trend-of-the-week. We do have a lot of those, but catch this comment from a smart feller in academia. (You know, of course, that all trend stories must have someone like this...lends credibility, especially when we're talking a lot of BS) :
"Eric Silverman, a DePauw University anthropologist who studies body image in various cultures, describes an aesthetic that might be called Bijou Phillips Syndrome -- androgyny mixed with simmering pubescent eroticism to form "somebody who looks like a well-manicured boy." It's a tabooish "middle look," he says, between traditional male and female images.
" 'The ideal image -- for both men and women -- is a pre-pubescent woman who basically has the body of a boy," Silverman says.
Well, sure! Anyway, you now have a great excuse for your wife when she asks you when you suddenly have a hairless chest:
Hey hon, it's just Bijou Phillips Syndrome!
y now you may have heard that San Francisco's Human Relations Council (HRC) has proposed that the city cover the cost of Sex Reassignment Surgery for city employees who require the operation. The city is self-insured and transgender employees are recognized as a distinct part of the workforce under a charter amendment that protects us from job discrimination.
The proposal hasn't reached the City Council yet, but once it does it is certain to get plenty of attention. Even here in the liberal Bay Area, the idea of providing such insurance coverage to public employees is going to be fairly well-publicized and controversial.
Will the city do it? I cannot tell yet which way the local wind is blowing, though if Mayor Willie Brown gets behind it you can bet it will go through. Here is what I think is likely to happen:
Prediction #1: The local print media will be generally respectful, but the rightwing talk shows (yep, we got 'em too) will go nuts. You can also expect someone in the national media to use this story to poke fun at the city, and by extension, at us.
The first example of this was an Associated Press story that went out mid-week. It was nasty and smirky, another San Francisco is the "Land of Loonies" piece that was similar, though shorter, to the ugly hit piece the Wall Street Journal did two years ago when the city's transgender rights law was originally before the county supervisors (SF is a city and a county...sometimes one, sometimes the other...start to make sense now?)
Anyway, the story was toned down after the publisher of a Web-based transgender magazine called the writer and wondered if she would have written a "freaky San Francisco" story if gays or lesbians where the central characters. She agreed she wouldn't have done that, but said her New York City bosses wanted a mocking tone.
The publisher was aghast (think Margaret Dumont and Groucho Marx, that kind of aghast). New Yorkers saying that that San Francisco is weird? That's up there with Ted "I keep extensive notes about my mail bombings" Kaczynski writing that transexuals are a symbol of social decadence. Prediction #2. Those favoring the new insurance coverage will argue that SRS is a necessary, medical matter. Those opposed will say it is an elective procedure, mere cosmetic surgery and the city shouldn't be responsible for that.
Prediction #3. Someone is going to use this to try and stop transgender civil rights elsewhere.
Depend on it.
everal weeks ago we published a brief story about Dr. Ray Blanchard's study of men who admire and want to date transgenders. Most of these men claim to be heterosexual. We are doing much more on this whole issue and you'll soon be seeing a fine package of stories by TGF reporter Leslee Anthony.
I sure don't want to scoop Leslee, but isn't it about time that this community accept male admirers as legitimate members of our part of the world?
I've talked to a number of guys and have found that the oft-heard stereotypes about them simply are not true. Do some need to grow up? Hell, yes, but then so do quite a few of us. Do some make promises they don't mean to keep? Ask some our vendors about experiences they have with paranoid transgenders who make appointments and promises they don't keep. Are some of them predatory sleazeballs? Yes, a very few are, but you'll find that in any group of men. Being a slimebucket is not a universal character trait nor is it at all unique to men who admire TGs.
I've also found that nearly every guy every I have ever talked to or e-mailed about this subject has one basic complaint about us: we send mixed signals.
As my smart-aleck friend Elizabeth says, "A guy on your arm is the ultimate accessory". That's a joke, but some of us are teasers who get off on sending out these "I'm available" signals. Then, when a man picks it up, we get all scared and huffy that a guy has approaches us. How dare he think I'm gay and come on to me? Well, switch roles for a minute (you're good at that aren't you?). Imagine how the fellow feels when all he has done is to react in a natural way.
Yes, I know what you may be thinking. I don't send out signals and men approach me anyway. Okay, this happens, but I've found that with maybe one or two exceptions, the gentleman will withdraw politely after you politely let him know you're already taken and not interested. When that hasn't worked, I've used stronger language, but this is extremely rare. Of course if you like to hang around in hooker joints, it may be a little harder to convince the guy that you're only there to soak up the ambiance and color...
The men are not going away, nor should they. We need to recognize them as part of our community. We also need to make it clear that the same rules that govern relationships outside our community are in play inside it. No one should act in a disrespectful manner. We TGs aren't sex objects and they aren't slobbering sex fiends (except for those interesting moments that have their own context and I better move on to the next topic 'cuz I'm getting into the soup...)
reader recently sent in a note from a 23-year-old transgender who was wondering why support groups and the online TG community seem to be dominated by us oldies over 35. This isn't a new question, except for the online part, but let me see if I can answer.
Most people in their 20s and early 30s are busy getting their lives and careers figured out. This is not a time when people tend to be joiners. People traditionally become "joiners" in mid-life, after they've sorted out the big questions of marriage, family and job. For our community, young adulthood also tends to be a time when many people go through a lot of soul searching. They aren't sure what is going on inside them and often are afraid of exposing their true selves to others, including to those who may be the most sympathetic.
Also, to be frank, typical support groups don't offer a lot of activities for those young people who may have resolved some of their paranoia. ETVC here in San Francisco is one of the very best in the world, but it isn't exactly a party group. During the recent California Dreamin' event many of the visitors were totally perplexed that most of the ETVC people they met had no clue where the dance spots were in San Francisco, which is loaded with them. Happy feet are not what a support group tends to be about.
I'm not so sure that the young person is right about the online world, except that the typical online person is older than one might think. Every reputable survey shows that the average age of today's cybernaut is about 35-37. This makes sense if you think about it. While a lot of college students have temporary access, the heaviest users are people with their own machines or who have access through a machine at work.
Still, I find that the diversity of readers here at Transgender Forum is much greater than in any support group. Our readers are smarter and cuter too...
rag has always been a part of theatre, but certain playwrights have a real problem with it.
According to a recent New York Times story, Edward Albee forbids cross-gender casting in his works and the estate of Tennessee Williams specifically bans it. The story didn't explain why, but apparently it is to prevent the works from being turned into parodies. Hmmm, wonder what Williams' heirs thought of that great parody of "Streetcar Named Desire" in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" when he briefly does Blanche du Bois and Diane Keaton does Stanley?
The article was generated out of the objections by Robert Harling, author of "Steel Magnolias," to the casting by a Memphis, Tennessee theatre company of a man to play the role Dolly Parton played in the film of the same name.
Whether the actor, Mark Chambers, will be pulled from the role is not clear. The show's director, Jackie Nichols, wants to keep him in and has defended the choice saying that Chambers was not hired to do a campy job, but to play role as written. Interestingly, Chambers has previously played female parts for audiences in Memphis without incident and he played them straight...well, not campy anyway.
he CIA thinks we're OK! Yep, the spooks think that transexuals and transvestites are not security risks - unless we are closeted. Three years ago an internal report written by a Richard J. Heuer, Jr. discussed and assessed the risks of blackmail for CIA employees who had "nonconforming" sexual practices. The bulk of the report, interestingly, was about us. A copy of this remarkable report is available at the TOPS website. TOPS, or Transgendered Officers Protect and Serve, is a group of TG public safety officers.
Many thanks to Joanie Sheldon for the tip on this report. Joanie, by the way, is also the source of many of the "Gallery of Greats" photos we've published the last few months. Keep 'em flyin', Joanie!
've heard all the arguments about the Defense of Marriage Act, ad nauseum. We covered the issue and the reaction. Now I have just one question: doesn't anyone understand that this was simply a political trap? Gay marriage was, as Alfred Hitchcock used to put it, a "McGuffin." It was peripheral, like the "industrial diamonds" in Notorious. Yes, I know about the Christian Coalition and their power, but there was only one real goal: make Clinton look bad.
It turned out to be a pretty weak shot at Clinton, who is a master at this game. Politically there wasn't much to lose by signing this bill and potentially a lot to lose by vetoing it. If you are angry at Clinton for signing, then also be angry at all the other Democrats who backed this ridiculous law. Where were their principles when it came down to crunch time?
It was also very interesting to watch the reaction to DOMA in this community and in the gay/lesbian community. Yes, there were some very heartfelt objections and concerns raised by DOMA, we published some of these a few weeks ago. But the fact is that the leadership of the gay and lesbian community knew long ago that this issue was a loser. Our own leadership had next to nothing to say about it. Except for some pro-forma objections and yelling at the end by the leaders of advocacy groups, it was clear that they were not going to huge amounts of energy and political capital fighting this stinker.
The bald, barefaced truth is that politically, this just wasn't the issue to go to the wall on. Give it about five years.