The use of the word stealth has lost it’s meaning in the last decade. I here people who go to TG support group meetings, activities and who run TG websites claim to be “stealth” now. When I came out, going to TG support group meetings, activities and running TG forums was the definition of being out in a big way! Some now say that “stealth” means one thing and “woodworking” another. I call BS. You can’t woodwork without being stealth. It’s like saying that the word “hide” and “conceal” are fundamentally different. If you’re going to conceal something, you have to hide it; if you’re going to woodwork, you’ve got to be stealth. Some say “stealth” means privacy. Privacy is not telling my sex partner that I had my appendix removed; stealth is not telling my sex partner that I had my penis removed.

Pretending that being “out” now means telling the everyone you meet you’re TG is BS. Associating with others in the TG community while claiming to be stealth is a mischaracterization of what stealth is.

Stealth is pretending to everyone that you’re a biological female. It means living in fear that the husband you lied to will find out that you didn’t actually have a hysterectomy. It means always wondering if your friends would really like you if they knew the truth. Stealth is running away from or verbally running down your trans brothers and sisters so that others won’t make the connection. Stealth means that you hide being trans.

Stealth is about shame and nothing more. Not telling the grocery sacker that you’re trans is not stealth. Trying to get your parents to lie to your new boyfriend is being stealth. Not telling every co-worker in the building that you’re trans is not being stealth. Not telling your best friend is being stealth.

If you associate with other trans people, you’re not in stealth because your putting yourself in a position of allowing more and more people to know the truth about your past. Isolating and hiding your past is what it means to live in stealth.

Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough. The problem is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was just a medical problem that was fixed. If you believe that, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband, your boyfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied.

Anyway… pretending to be a biological female is stupid and never works. You can never destroy every piece of history documenting your true past and you certainly can’t kill everyone how knows the truth. Choosing stealth is a shame-based way to live because it supports the belief that being trans is bad and should be hidden. Being a transwoman is just another way of being a woman. If you want to save yourself a lot of misery, be truthful about the history that made you into the wonderful person you are today to the people who matter to you. You don’t need to tell the gas station attendant, but the point of transitioning is that you get to live authentically. Don’t put yourself into a position that you have to go back to living a lie; don’t go from one closet to another.

First of all, the type of arguing that I’m referring to here tends to only take place on rather large sites or lists where the users are unlikely to ever meet each other in real life. I’ve noticed that there exists a correlation between the level of anonymity enjoyed by users and the level of vile rancor the user will seek to inspire. I am, of course, talking about “trolling.”

Second of all, if you are going to argue on the Internet, you have to realize that the person you are arguing with is probably arguing because it’s fun and for no other reason. Some refer to it as “Lulz” – that is, being obnoxious in order to inspire anger and frustration from the reader. Doing something for the lulz is a form of Schadenfreude. People who are antagonizing you for the lulz are usually known as “trolls” and the act of seeking lulz is usually referred to as “trolling.” You have to realize this key point if you wish to “pwn” (metaphorically kick their ass) your the troll and thus win.

Here are some points to remember:

1. If you’re angry, upset or frustrated, you’ve lost because you forgot that the person you’re wanting to argue with is only seeking the entertainment of Schadenfreude.

2. The best way to win is to realize that Schadenfreude is the game the troll is playing and do not reply. “Don’t feed the trolls” is an idiom that’s common on the Internet.

3. If you really, really have to engage an internet troll, then do it for the lulz and for no other reason. In other words, reply because you want to troll the troll. You do this by:

• Being flippant: Whether the post is long or short, reply by posting, “tl;dr” – If the troll is inexperienced, they will have to waste their time looking up what tl;dr means and when they learn what it means, it is irksome. Tl;dr means, “too long; didn’t read.” Similarly, you can respond by replying simply, “fail” – which generally irks them into attacking you in a diatribe… at which point you respond again with, fail. One word, nothing else. The tl;dr and fail response says so much in so few letters. There’s practically no way to argue against it and will drive the troll to distraction.
• Poke them with a stick: If their syntax is particularly good, respond with: “Grammatical errors: 4.” When you do this to a troll with great grammar, they feel compelled to read and then reread their post over and over again searching for those errors. If you have a friend, they can join in by posting something like, “I think you missed one. I counted 5.”
• Be funny: If you made a post and someone corrects your spelling (usually the same person from the above point), accuse them of being a “Grammar Nazi” with a funny image:

• Be their shadow-self: This usually works on the obnoxiously religious. When they have condemned you to hell, respond by using a bible verse to condemn them as well… But do it in a way that is far more obnoxious than their condemnation. Use a lot of old tyme hellfire and brimstone speech. There are a lot of firebrand speeches online from around the turn of last century – use them After a while, the religious troll will run away because the type of Schadenfreude they are into requires that you argue for your soul while they condemn it from on high.

• Turn a troll into a ghost: This only works if you have a friends that will back you up. The objective is to relegate the troll to a 2-dimensional abstract-like ghost status. When the troll posts, pick apart their logic, syntax, diction, etc as if you were serious entomologist discussing an interesting bug that you are about to stick a pin into. Never acknowledge the troll directly. The object is to have a critical discussion about the troll, in the troll’s presence without ever acknowledging the troll.

If you have decided to engage the troll, never, ever engage them seriously. Always, always, always treat them like the jokes they are. In order for a troll to feed, they must inspire you to feel anger, frustration or contempt. If you engage the troll, do it because you want to make them dance like a monkey tethered to a hurdy-gurdy and never because you want them to take you seriously.

I wanted to see what sort of countries spend the most time searching for the term “shemales” on google. To make it interesting, I compared the search trends between “transgender” and “shemale.” What I found was interesting:

First of all, people look for the term “shemale” a lot more than the rather innocuous term, “transgender.” The red line represents the number of searches for shemales and the blue line represents the number of searches for transgenders. This trend didn’t surprise me since “shemale” is a keyword used when searching for transgender porn. However, what did surprise me is who’s looking for the so-called shemales:

The darker the shading, the greater the number of searches. Here’s a list of the top-10 places that’s looking for “shemales” on the internet:

Note that many of the above places are the most repressive places a transgender person could have the misfortune to live.

Libya is the #1 place on earth that looks for shemales. In Libya, it’s against the law to be GLBT (punishable by up to 5 years in prison).

Here’s more on the top 10:

Pakistan: While transgender people just won a major equal rights victory, anything deemed to be a “homosexual” is punishable by death.

Sudan: If you are found to be GLBT in Sudan, you can receive up to 100 lashes and/or death.

Czech Republic: The Czech Republic is actually relatively good on TG issues.

Afghanistan: The penalty for being TG is death. Period.

Yemen: offers torture, public flogging and death to it’s queer community.

Bangladesh: The penalty for being TG can range from ostracization, torture, life imprisonment and death.

Syria: Homosexuality is illegal and TGs are often viewed as being homosexual. However, the government has allowed a few TS people to transition.

Sri Lanka: While being TG is not illegal, TGs are often victims of harassment and discrimination.

Egypt: While the government has allowed a few TS women to transition, it has outlawed music by the Israeli transsexual, Dana International and the topic is very taboo. Individuals suspected of being gay can be locked up, tortured and sentenced to hard labor.

It should also be noted that all of these countries are exceedingly religious. So, here’s a question: Does living in a hyper-religious culture predispose one to TG porn?

Since we use words to think, I think the emotional connections we each have to those mental labels are important. TransHouston has had a number of debates (some of which were quite emotional) about definitions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

The name game recently started up again when Bilerico editors allowed Ronald Gold (an old California/New York gay rights activist) to post an article questioning the existence of transsexual people.

“Let me state it categorically. There is no such thing as a male or female personality. Personality is not a function of gender. So where does that put the concept of transgender? In my view, down the tubes! And that leaves the further questions of how transsexuals got to think the way they do, and what to do to resolve their dilemmas. I hope I’ll be forgiven for rejecting as just plain silly the idea that some cosmic accident just turned these people into changelings. What happened, more than likely, is that, from an early age, when they discovered that their personalities didn’t jibe with what little boys and girls are supposed to want and do and feel, they just assumed they mustn’t be real little boys and girls.”

Bilerico later pulled the article, canned Gold and apologized for allowing the article to be published. If you’d like to see what started all of this, you can see Ron’s original post on Pam’s blog.

(Note: a community member took it upon themselves to educate Ron about transsexuals. It now seems that Ron accepts that transsexuals are basically biologically intersexed and that we are not, in fact, drag queens.)

One of Ron’s apologists, Wayne Dynes (also an older gay California activist) made his own blog post in response to Bilerico’s actions. A few days later, he suggested that the trans community’s effort for GLBT rights is basically negligible and that the TG community tries to make it seem more than what it is. Between the two posts, the author seemed to infer that the gay and transgender community should not be lumped together because:

- they are two different things that should not be talked about together

- that people need to stop using the acronym GLBTQ to refer to him because it offends him

- that transgenders are crossdressers and drag queens

- transgenders drag the gay community down

- transgenders didn’t do any of the political work and are riding on the coattails of gays.

I responded to his post pointing out that the entire modern queer movement was launched by the transgender gay man, Magnus Hirschfeld (was a crossdresser). In support of the point that transgender people were intertwined and at the fore of many social justice movements, I pointed to transgender people like Mary Edwards Walker who did a lot of work on behalf of the suffrage movement by challenging gender archetypes. I noted that Christine Jorgenson was the first to use mass media (a 1958 LP) to talk about GLBT rights. I also pointed out how well the Houston GLBT community works together and pointed to the tangible results this produced.

This lead to an older California transsexual responding to my reply saying that transsexuals and transgenders are:

- two different things that should not be talked about together

- that people need to stop using the word transgender to refer to her because it offends her

- that transgenders are crossdressers and drag queens.

To which I replied that Houston has a different culture and that we tend to be really okay being GLBT, working together and having all the gender atypical people work together under the transgender umbrella. This didn’t set well with many of those replying.

“Christine Jorgensen was not transgender. Just as I am NOT transgender. She was like I am transsexual. Transgender is a social construct. A political identity that grew out of the heterosexual transvestite movement founded by people like Virginia Prince.”

“I matter not one whit to me that a bunch of people came along years later and invented a social construct, a political identity that they embrace. I expect my definition of self to be as much respected as they expect theirs. That does not mean a retroactive hegemonic colonization of my life experiences under the rubric of transgender.”

“For what it is worth I do not consider myself part of any sort of “Transcommunity” either.”

“I find it annoying to be lumped into the alphabet soup. The TG movement would like to try and count me as part of their “T” But I am not a “T” There needs to be dialogue that Transsexual doe not equate to transgender.”

“Many transsexed people, myself included, reject transgenderism as an ideological construct. We argue the need for empirical evidence and do not accept the TG narrative, which we interpret as a pseudo-science, drawing what little substance it has from John Money’s theories.”

All of this back and forth spawned other blog posts about language and labels. Jillian Weiss made a recent blog post about terminology the other day at Bilicro and reflected:

“This reminds me of the problems that occur with other types of categorization. Is it right to call someone “Hispanic” who does not identify that way, and who has problems being associated with some of the other groups lumped in that category? After all, the term “Hispanic” was a term invented by the government, and it lumps together colonizers and the colonized. Is it right to insist that someone who identifies as multi-racial, but whose complexion is dark, must be okay with being considered “African-American?” If my mother was Jewish, and the traditional Jewish law considers me Jewish, is it right to insist that I am Jewish even if I consider myself a Christian?”

I think this sums up the problem. I believe people choose to personalize terminology. I think folks tend to build a weak sense of self upon a term like “transsexual”. I notice that these folk tend to require consistent outside reassurance of their sense of self as a this or a that and take it personally (ie, don’t feel respected) when someone says transgender instead of transsexual, crossdresser, interesexed, gender-queer, etc. I think the problem with all of this is that the English language is not a dead language; terms evolve and become ever more complex through nuanced usage over time. When people use a term as their personal permanent avatar, the can’t see that the concept is more important than any label. I think that people don’t notice that when their sense of personhood is rooted in a term they expect to stay fixed, they set themselves up to be at odds with future generations of GLBT-people. I think  think this practice does real harm.

Personally, I think that everyone whose history transcends their assigned gender is transgendered (trans – crossing | gender – cultural sex stereotypes). To me the term transgender, as descriptive term, makes a lot of sense and doesn’t steal away anyone’s identity. I can be a transgender with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (even though the HBS website sates that this is an impossibility) or a transgender who is a lesbian that doesn’t want to take testosterone. For me – and I would say, for Houston - it seems that we all understand that the term transgender refers to our historical actions and not to our innate selves.

It seems, however, that our view may be radically different than the view of other communities nation wide. Folks who are cross dressers, stone butches, intersexed, transsexuals don’t seem to mix together the way they do in Houston. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Ray Hill and Phyllis Frye were the significant Houston queer leaders in the 70s. However, this fact begs the question: What was it about the Houston culture that allowed a gay man and a trans woman to lead marches together, hold rallies together, organize together and fight together when people like Virginia Prince (also from California) was fighting hard to keep divisions within the queer community clearly delineated? What was it about Houston that made the cultural grounds fertile enough to create a concept like the Transgender Unity Committee?

I think that it has a lot to do with the words we use. In Houston, a fag was a fag. In the 70s Phyllis was just as much of a fag as Ray was – and both of them knew it. I think that when the Houston trans community began to coalesce under the transgender banner, we became stronger and more effective. I think there is little or no evidence to show that relying upon the ties that bind us together has harmed us in any way or diminished anyone’s sense of self as a transsexual, intersexed person, crossdresser, lesbian, bi and/or gay.

I think labels are really important in that they can be used very constructively. I think that Houston is probably the most organized, effective and productive transgender community out there and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that we do have a collective identity. I think that we elected the first openly gay mayor because the GLBT community is a community. Phyllis Frye was the first person to give Annise Parker a campaign contribution when Parker first ran for office. Additionally, Parker’s first campaign was largely staffed by TG people who were organized by Vanessa Foster (who was on the board of the GLBT Political Caucus). The Caucus was open to Vanessa and Vanessa pulled a lot of TG people into Annise’s campaign and here we are today.

1997: Annise Parker and some of Parker’s TG campaign workers

I think being GLBTQI(xyz) is fine. I think that I am a transsexual who is also transgendered and queer. I think that working together and being inclusive has worked really well for all of us in Houston. I wish the rest of the country would catch up! I think that we are proof that inclusion, diversity and common purpose works while working to purposefully segment a community into it ever smaller parts works against us.

I think it is a waste of time to define the TG community by what we aren’t. Each of us can easily point to what separates us and in this way, I think it is intellectually lazy to engage in that practice as a means for self or communal identification. The bottom line is that skillfully using our common bonds for the progress of the entire GLBT community is noble, compassionate and – most importantly – effective.  I think the fact that Houston, Texas elected an out lesbian who makes no bones about her ties to the trans community is proof that recognizing that we have more in common than we don’t works… and works really well.