Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Penis

Two little stories from across the pond which are victories for the Trans community in the USA dears.  Anti-Trans Bills defeated in both Arizona and Texas.

In April 2013 an ordnance was approved in the city of Phoenix, Arizona, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity.  Needless to say this made the hackles raise on a few opponents and Republican Representative John Kavanagh introduced a bill which would make it a crime for any person to use a public restroom or washing facility associated with a sex other than that assigned at birth, as stated on a birth certificate.

Silly boy Mister Kavanagh.  Just what did he expect?  For people to produce their birth certificates along with other proof of identity at the door of a public loo?  Hmmm, seems so.  Read on.

Kavanagh’s Bill caused uproar with claims of government overreach and intrusion into privacy.  Was he deterred?  Not for one moment.  In fact Kavanagh then re-introduced his Bill with an inclusion to enlist citizens and businesses to monitor the gender of those using public restrooms.  Basically he wanted private enterprise spying on people’s privates.

However members in Kavanagh’s own caucus group have voiced concerned about his definitions and he has now shelved his Bill, he says until next year.  Frankly, I can’t see this one getting out of the starting gate (or should that be stalls dears?).

Meanwhile, deep in the heart of Texas (no dears, I’m not singing with a pair of chaps on my knees), it is law that trans people can marry if they can provide proof of a sex change.  The Texas Legislature meets every two years and in April Senator Tommy Williams (Republican – gosh, shock horror, who would have thunk it?) attempted to remove this trans-positive law.

Stating the case of Littleton vs Prange (1999), Senator Williams tried to argue that ones gender is determined by sex at birth and this can never be changed.  Headed up by former Transgender Foundation of America board member (now with Equality Texas) Daniel Williams, Senator Williams’ anti-trans Bill was roundly defeated and the pro-trans Texas legislature stands.

Silly man.  Senator Williams should have learned when he tried to table exactly the same Bill in 2011 – and lost then on exactly the same grounds he lost this year.

What’s in a name?

Hello dears.  I have been deep in thought recently over terminology concerning gender and sexuality.

Particularly I have been thinking on the terms cisgender and non-trans and just what they mean to me, you and the dog next door.

Already I can hear some of you groaning “Oh no, not another bloody label.”  Please bear with me dears, as I do believe it is important.

More and more people are beginning to use and accept the term cisgender which can be defined thus;

“A cisgender person is someone who identifies as they gender/sex they were assigned at birth. For example, your birth certificate says female, and you identify as a female woman.” (source: Queer Dictionary – yes, I was surprised there was one too: http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/)

Some of you may think why this is important.  Well I’m sorry dears, but it is.  I am trusting that none of you think like the character Baldrick in the BBC sitcom Blackadder the Third when he defined a dog as “Not a cat.”, are you?  Look it another way lovies.  Ladies, how would you feel if women were described as “non-men”, and boys, how would you like to be called “non-women”?  I would argue therefore that to describe cisgender people as “non-trans” is immediately making a distinction whereby one is considered the “accepted norm” and the other is not.

It is a reverse in a way however.  In South Africa and the USA up to the mid to late 20th century, anyone who deviated from a white European ethnicity was often called “non-white”, and this suggested that white people were somehow superior.  I would argue that to refer to cisgender people as “non-trans” is immediately saying that cisgender is the “accepted norm” and anything which deviates from that is abnormal and, by inference, inferior.

The simple truth however that when it comes to gender and sexuality, there is no “norm”, and anything is only “accepted” through public perceptions and fears.  There is no such thing as a wholly heterosexual man or woman; we are all somewhere on a spectrum.  Any man who doubts that is denying that they have a certain amount of eostrogen in their bodies, just as women who doubt it deny they have a certain amount of testosterone.  Trust me, any man or women who was like that would be abnormal.  That is a chemical and biological fact.

And even in sexual behaviours there is no such thing as normal. Each and everyone of us has our own little peccadilloes and kinks we like.  Oh yes you do, you putting your hand on your heart and saying “Oh no, not I.”, stop that right now.  You maybe think you can fool others but you don’t fool little Xandra – and deep down you know you can’t fool yourself.  And want to know what?  As long as you are not hurting anyone or any creature, that is fine, nothing to be ashamed of, and it also means that not one person has the right to judge you, just as you have absolutely no right to judge others.

Whether you are are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual for that matter, that is just the way you are and it does not make you any less of a person – or any more for any of the bigots out there.  You didn’t choose that, it is the way you were made.  In fact the only sexual states I can think of which are a “lifestyle choice” to use a thankfully now aged phrase are abstinent and celibate.  And those who practice them tend to be hateful bigots in any case, so tits to them.

I would not even judge anyone, of either or whatever gender, who has more than one spouse and/or sexual partner, so long as all concerned are happy with that arrangement.  A friend recently stated on Facebook that “Monogamy” is boring, to which I asked “I thought it was a type of hard wood?”, which brought the reply “Yes, and wet beavers love hard wood.”  Then I thought that monogamy was lack of variety and interest; tedious repetition and routine, before I realised that is the definition of monotomy.  Hmmm.  Some would say that’s the same thing really.

Joking apart, we human beings are fickle and I know that labels can be tedious.  To my mind however, in a world which is becoming increasingly accepting of the huge diversity which makes up mankind, I feel that cisgender is the acceptable term for heterosexual people who do not in any way identify with the gender opposite to them.  I would be interested to hear what others think?

Loves

Xandra. xxx

Justine / Scott McNally: a Sledgehammer to crack a Walnut

 

I have been following the rather unusual case of Justine McNally in the press dears.  It is deeply sad to the point it has all the makings of a Greek tragedy.

The case concerns a Scots transgender teenager, Justine McNally, now 18 but 17 at the time of her offence, who disguised herself as a goth guy named Scott in order to have sex with a girl. “Scott”, from Glasgow, went online to seek out partners and entered into a relationship with one teenager in London who cannot be named.  At this time Scott was 13 and her victim was 12.  They met in 2011 when the girl was 16 and they had consensual sex.  The girl was a virgin at the time and they had sex twice more.  It is understood that Scott claimed to be shy and their sex sessions took place under the covers in a darkened bedroom.  Scott further promised to marry his victim and talked of them having children.

Scott’s identity was exposed when a family friend of the victim went into his backpack and found a bra and a strap-on.  The friend told the girl’s mother who after dropping McNally at a train station, told her daughter that her boyfriend was actually a girl.

Justine McNally was thereafter arrested for Sexual Assault.  Her defending counsel, Keith Thomas, described Justine as “confused” about her gender issues, whilst David Markham for the prosecution stated ” She obtained consent to physical intimacy between them by fraud. The case involves a very serious abuse of trust.”  Justine plead Guilty and on Friday, 22 March 2013 she was convicted of six accounts of Sexual Assault by Penetration at Wood Green Court, London.  Judge James Patrick sentenced her to three and a half years imprisonment and ordered her to be placed on the Sexual Offenders Register for life.

“You put your feelings before those of anyone else”, said Judge Patrick, summing up, “You have had a troubled history, but without wishing to minimise the effect of that on you, it’s no more remarkable. You found the process of puberty complicated and had problems coming to terms with your sexuality.  Clearly you didn’t appreciate the seriousness of what you were doing.  You are an upset, distressed young woman, but the offence is so serious that a custodial sentence must follow.”  The judge further ruled that she would serve her whole sentence before being released on licence.

I have several problems with this case.  Whilst in no means demeaning the trauma McNally caused her/his victim, I would immediately take issue with the wording of the defence counsel, that McNally is “confused”, and that of the judge when he stated “You found the process of puberty complicated and had problems coming to terms with your sexuality.”  Both utter nonsense.

Anyone who goes to the lengths of asking for sex under the covers and in darkness in order to use a prosthetic penis to disguise their biological gender is neither confused, nor do they have problems coming to terms with their sexuality.  The fact here is simple, Justine McNally is a man trapped in a woman’s body.  To all extents and purposes, Justine IS Scott.

Without a doubt the judge was right in handing down a custodial sentence.  I question however whether three and half years is proportionate to the crime.  I further question the need for Justine McNally to be released on licence after the sentence.

As to placing Justine on the Sex Offenders Register for life, that just angers me.  This means that in future, wherever she goes, and even if Justine McNally undergoes gender reassignment surgery to become Scott (which she may now be refused under the terms of her licence), she will have her name on the same register as convicted paedophiles, rapists, and other sexual offenders.  Consider that some of those in the latter categories are not kept on the register for life, but can be cleared from it after a period of time.  Why then should Justine McNally, whose crime appears to be lesser and who admitted her crime, suffer a harsher penalty?  Consider also that those who find out anyone is on that register do not look into the reasons why but immediately jump to the, often mistaken, conclusion that they therefore must be a paedophile.

Without a doubt Justine / Scott is a manipulative individual who betrayed the trust of a young girl, and no doubt broke her heart into the bargain, and duly deserves to pay for that.  But in sentencing her, I believe that the judge has shown complete misunderstanding of and possibly prejudice towards transgender people.  Justine McNally may have destroyed her victim’s trust but Judge James Patrick has just destroyed her already tragic life.

I know many will disagree with me but it seems to me that Justine / Scott is a victim here too.  S/he is a victim of a society which shows open prejudice towards anyone who dares to veer the slightest from the heterosexual “norm”.  This is particularly true in Scotland where men are always expected to be “real men”, which all too often results in said men being brutal, unthinking, dare I say uncaring, thugs whose behaviour can at times border upon the psychopathic.

Perhaps had Justine McNally been brought up in a more caring and understanding society, she would have been able to explore her sexuality and gender further, been freely able to become Scott, and this tragic case would never have happened in the first place.