Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

Our Flag Means Death: the Importance of Representation

image taken from https://www.slashfilm.com/828215/jim-the-pirate-is-the-real-treasure-of-our-flag-means-death/

by Jay Samson

Please note that this article will discuss events in the television show Our Flag Means Death. To avoid spoilers, please do not read this article.

image taken from https://www.tvinsider.com/show/our-flag-means-death/

On March 3rd, 2022, HBO Max released Our Flag Means Death, a romantic “swashbuckler” action-comedy written by David Jenkins. The series is based on real-life pirates — with some pretty major alterations — and revolves around the sometimes comedic, sometimes dramatic, and all the time queer relationship between Stede Bonnet (played by Rhys Darby), a wealthy noble turned pirate-wannabe, and Edward Teach (played by Taika Waititi), also known as Blackbeard. The series overtook Book of Boba Fett as the United States Most In-Demand Show after Book’s three-month spot at #1, and then continued to defeat Moon Knight for weeks after Our Flag’s final episode was released. It also received a 90% critic rating and a 95% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Most importantly, it has been declared by thousands of fans to be one of the best LGBT shows to date.

Our Flag Means Death is a breath of fresh air in the romantic comedy genre. Most memorably, fans have noted that, unlike other shows, Our Flag prevents itself from falling prey to queerbaiting: it is obvious from the beginning which romantic relationships will be set up (specifically between Stede and Edward), and, by the end of the season, watchers are left knowing that the queerness they had picked up on is confirmed after a kiss between the two characters. In fact, the final point of the show is a confirmation of anti-queerbaiting itself: we see Stede Bonnet, after talking to his ex-wife about his feelings for Edward, board a small dinghy in search of his lover. 

The choice of closing out the season with an event so obviously queer is not only revolutionary for popular television but also highly dangerous. Our Flag was recently renewed for a second season — after months of silence from HBO Max while also renewing much smaller, less popular shows, a choice that many claim to be intentional. The silence from HBO Max in regards to advertising during and prior to the show’s release also has been noted as possibly intentional. It is not unlikely that HBO Max purposefully remained silent on the renewal until Pride Month, during which an announcement of renewal would bring forth increased funds to HBO Max. The phenomenon of queer media (and general products) being promoted and funded during Pride Month more than any other time of year has been entitled “rainbow capitalism.” An article on the queer site LGBTQ and All describes the phenomenon quite well:

Rainbow capitalism, aka pink capitalism, is the action of companies claiming to support LGBTQ+ causes and communities, but are actually making merchandise for-profit and capitalize on the trend. In other words, it centers on corporate interests and profit. (“What is Rainbow Capitalism and why is it Harmful?”)

If you’re interested in reading more about this phenomenon, check out our article “Rainbow Capitalism and Pride Month,” posted on May 24th by Megan Serceki.

The show’s premise, as it were, goes much further than simply being queer.

As previously mentioned, Our Flag takes inspiration from the histories of real-life people and changes it to include characters of color, such as Taika Waititi’s Blackbeard, a Maori man, or Samson Kayo’s Oluwande, a black man. It also adds queer characters, with openly gay relationships such as that between Nathan Foad’s Lucius and Matthew Maher’s Black Pete and the growing relationship between Blackbeard and Stede, the main couple of the show. Even transgender characters, such as Vico Ortiz’s non-binary Jim Jimenez, take a starring role in the series. 

image taken from https://ew.com/tv/our-flag-means-death-vico-ortiz-interview/

Vico Ortiz is a non-binary Latine actor. Jim has been their first major role in television, and, to many fans, Jim has also served as the first major non-binary representation in television or film — especially as one of the main characters. 

Not only that, but Ortiz’s role plays even more importance as Jim’s relationship with Oluwande progresses through the series. It is few and far between that shows adapt queer, trans relationships; much rarer is it for these relationships to be between people of color and for them to ignore all typical gender stereotypes. In one episode of the show, Jim is seen as the ‘big spoon’ in bed with Oluwande, holding him rather than him holding them — a reversal of what would be expected if Jim were to have their non-binary identity ignored or tossed aside for the gender roles of “man” and “woman.”

Ortiz embraces the effect the role has had on them and the show’s fans. In fact, Ortiz revealed in an interview with Out that one of the many influences the show has had on their journey with their transgender identity, top surgery,* saying: “I’ll thank you internet for giving me this beautiful gift… I can get that surgery and show my scars,” referring to showing their scars from top surgery on the character of Jim.

* the medical procedure to flatten the chest often done on AFAB transgender people to relieve dysphoria or provide a closer connection to their gender identity.

Despite popular belief, however, gender exploration throughout the past was not unheard of — especially during the time of Our Flag’s setting.

It would be foolish to apply 21st-century labels to people who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, the golden age of piracy. Labels and their meanings change; we never see Jim in Our Flag call themself “non-binary” or any of our modern labels — their gender simply is. Much the same, pirates of the 1600s and 1700s often simply “were.” One well-known example, pirate Mary Read, lived as Mark Read repeatedly throughout their life (I use ‘their’ here as a way to respect what their identity may have been, not to say that they specifically used they/them pronouns themself). This journey did not begin in piracy; Mary, or Mark, actually began presenting as a man during two terms in the British military. 

Although few pirates were noted as being non-male or “females presenting as male,” it is highly possible that many more followed both before and after Read; much history of the period has been lost. Still, Read’s experience is not singular.

In the late 1700s, Romaine-la-Prophétesse, a freed Black person, led a small role in the Haitian Revolution. Raised a male, Romaine grew, and, later in life, began to identify as a Prophétesse. Romaine is said to have claimed the “female spirit” and began to wear women’s clothes; however, he continued to use male pronouns in writing and would consider himself the “Godson of the Virgin Mary.” Much the same, Romaine had indicated in letters that he purposefully took the title of “Prophetess” for himself — it is unlikely that this was in error, as Romaine was literate and understood his own writings.

Throughout the mid to late 1800s, a man named Joseph Lobdell, born in New York, fled from state to state in an attempt to keep his identity as a man respected. He took on a wife, Marie Louise Perry, who helped him escape arrest on account of “impersonating a man.” In October of 1880, Joseph was admitted to a psychiatric hospital where he was considered a “case of sexual perversion.” Still, he maintained his identity as a man up through his death in an asylum in 1912. Joseph’s life, a dark reminder of how transgender people were treated throughout the 19th century, has been documented by his descendant Bambi Lobdell.

Lobdell was not alone. Roughly four-hundred people assigned female at birth are documented to have identified as men in order to fight in the Civil War, many maintaining that identity through death. Albert Cashier, one such example, joined the Union Army in 1862 and, after the war, continued to live as Albert. Much like Lobdell, Cashier was put into an asylum in 1913 due to an onset of dementia, where he was forced to wear a dress and be titled his birth name. Nevertheless, Cashier held many supporters in former soldiers and friends, and, upon his death in 1915, was buried with a tombstone engraved with Albert Cashier and his military service.

Much of this history goes unspoken. Our Flag Means Death does more than most to push for the representation that we as a community deserve — and it does so respectfully, encouraging watchers to engage with the history that it makes a comedy of.

Categories
Uncategorized

Earning a Living as a Man: the story of Frank Dubois

by Jay Samson

In the late fall of 1883, a series of articles around the United States were published regarding a man by the name of Frank Dubois. 

There was nothing particularly startling or unique about Dubois upon first glance; that is, as he said himself, he “wore pants… smoke(d)… and earn(ed) [his] living as a man.” He was cheerfully married to Gertrude Fuller, who by all accounts declared her love for Frank and the happiness she had in their marriage, the two of them having been wed not long after meeting one another in the spring. He attended balls and events with Gertrude — who he called “Gertie” — and, by working as an artist, was able to provide a comfortable income for her.

What was it that made Frank so important, then, as to have so many articles written about his endeavors? If he was not some elite businessman, thief, or celebrity, then who was he?

Dubois was what many articles described as a “female husband:” a man who had once been known as a woman and who had now taken a wife. The derogatory title was initially popularized by Henry Fielding in his 1746 book of the same name, and quickly became one of the most popular phrases to find in articles of the time; society was enthralled with the idea of what would now be considered transgender — or, in some cases, genderneutral — people, with stories such as that of Charles Hamilton in Fielding’s novel and, in this case, Frank Dubois, blowing up in popularity.

Who was Frank? He had been born as Delia Derthick, and, at 18, had married S. J. Hudson, a man twenty-three years his senior. While married to Hudson, Dubois had been known to wear men’s clothing and to have his clothes fitted to appear masculine, a behavior which, while Hudson found odd, went unquestioned. After thirteen years of marriage and the birth of two children, Derthick seemingly disappeared from the Hudson family home in Illinois; it was then that, in exchange, Frank Dubois appeared in Wisconsin.

Whilst living as Dubois, Frank asserted repeatedly that he was a man and that he would, as phrased in the article History of the Woman Claiming to be a Man and Marrying Another Woman published by the Benton Weekly Record on November 10th, 1883, “not going to keep house for that old man” (meaning Hudson) “any longer, and that [he] would marry a girl.”

For eight months, Gertrude and Frank had been married and living together as painters and lovers, and when Hudson appeared at their home in Waupun, Wisconsin, it seemed impossible that Dubois had once been Hudson’s spouse. Dubois had started quite the life in Wisconsin, and even his and Gertrude’s “most intimate friends” thought of them as a “quiet, happy honeymoon.”

When questioned after Hudson’s confrontation, Dubois continued to assert his masculinity, stating, “I am [a man]— [and] as long as my wife is satisfied it is nobody’s business.” And his wife was indeed satisfied; even past the “reveal” of Dubois’ birth sex, Gertrude also continued to proclaim Frank as a man, accepting of his transition and loving of him nonetheless. The couple eventually shared that Gertrude had been aware of Frank’s transition since the night of their marriage (if not earlier) and that she continued to see him as a man regardless of his birth gender.

Even further, Dubois said very plainly, “I will not return to live with my husband.”

Frank’s story was not singular. In fact, there were many men throughout the 1800s who had also been called “female husbands,” transgender men and non-binary people who had been brave enough to live as who they were.  In some cases, these husbands were forced from their homes and relationships in order to return to the life of a woman which they had found uncomfortable. In others, they were arrested, jailed, and, in some cases, treated violently or even executed. It was rare that such men were left to be the men that they proudly were.

Transgender history is often viewed as singular, transgenderism something new and modern. This is simply not true, and men such as Frank Dubois and other “female husbands” show this clearly. Frank’s story is important and so are the stories of those who faced similar struggles in their identity and the acceptance thereof.

Categories
Uncategorized

Drag Shows: More Than Entertainment

by Meghan Serceki

Legislative measures across the United States have sought to limit LGBTQ+ visibility, and now states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona are considering banning kids from being present at drag shows.

Drag, above all else, is an art form. It calls into question society’s preconceived notions about gender and sexual orientation, highlighting the fluidity of it and showing its socially-constructed nature. Anyone can participate in drag regardless of their sex assigned at birth, their sexual orientation, the way they identify. It’s simply about challenging heteronormativity and breaking the boundaries of what society might consider “normal.”

While yes, you might not want to take your child to a Trixie Mattel show after she’s talked about her dislike for kids her entire career, many drag queens use their art to uplift LGBTQ+ youth and to encourage kids to be their authentic selves no matter who others tell them they should be. Banning children from these outlets would prevent them from conveying this important message. 

The bans proposed, too, are very vague and wouldn’t just restrict them from spaces intended mostly for queer adults. Rather, it would likely include things like Drag Queen Story Hour which “captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”

Threatening to remove these safe spaces and experiences for children simply accentuates the fear, misunderstanding, and prejudice these legislatures hold towards the LGBTQ+ community. Some people just can’t comprehend or empathize with the feeling that you don’t quite fit into the box society stuffed you in, and we as humans tend to act out of fear when confronted with something we don’t understand. 

While the LGBTQ+ community has made great strides in the past years and more individuals have felt comfortable being out and proud, resistance to these freedoms has also increased. The attention now largely falls on the upcoming generation – some striving to create a more accepting future and others trying to maintain the status quo and squash a kind of independence that scares them.

Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill and other states’ legislative limits to trans* childrens’ access to care demonstrates this growing pushback and the attempts to hide the possibility of a more inclusive future which we have been fighting so hard for. This ban on childrens’ exposure to drag is yet another attempt to do so. While proponents of this legislation claim they are meant to “protect” children, they do little more than create an atmosphere of shame and isolation for the kids who might have found peers, environments, and forms of expression which allow them to be their authentic selves.

Gender is socially constructed. Heterosexuality is not the only orientation. Many of today’s children will grow up and find themselves not fitting into these boxes. They will grapple with being queer, with not abiding by heteronormativity. Preventing them from going to drag shows won’t change this. It will simply remove a space and an art form that might help them come to terms with their unique identity earlier.

Categories
Uncategorized

Rainbow Capitalism and Pride Month

by Meghan Serceki

It’s almost June which means that rainbows appear seemingly out of nowhere in shop windows, targeted ads, and (if previous Pride months are any indication) even on mouthwash?

This is all part of what we now recognize as rainbow capitalism — corporate shows of support for the LGBTQ+ community as a way to bolster their consumer market. Many people have a love-hate relationship with Pride collections, and we’re not telling you not to drop $20 on that rainbow fanny pack, we’re just trying to help you understand what pride truly is and what support for LGBTQ+ individuals genuinely looks like.

Why do we celebrate Pride?

In the United States, most Pride month activities take place in June in memory of the 1969 Stonewall Riots. After years of oppression, the Gay Liberation Movement was gaining momentum by the late 1960’s, but a violent police raid of the Stonewall Inn solidified the gay community’s drive towards political activism.

Nobody was killed during the six-night riot, but plenty of queer activists throughout history have lost their lives and their livelihoods due to unjust and inhumane laws. The simple fact that we can have Pride parades is testament to the sacrifices they have made to give us the freedoms we experience today — even if there is still a long way to go.

What does this have to do with corporations?

Honestly? Not much. Because this is America and we live in a capitalist society, Pride has been picked up by many corporations in their marketing campaigns and products, becoming increasingly commercialized in recent years.

Visibility is undeniably important, and sometimes something like rainbow shoelaces or a “Love is Love” shirt can help signal to people that you are a safe person to be themselves around. This is not the issue with these Pride collections. Where we run into trouble is when rainbow capitalism uses these symbols superficially to support the public image of their brand while engaging in other activities which harm the LGBTQ+ community.

How can we be consumers of rainbow capitalism?

Some of the most important things in scoping out this year’s pride gear are just being aware of where the products came from, who designed them, and what kinds of things the corporations support.

Ideally, buy from queer-owned businesses. A quick Google search will come up with queer-owned businesses to get you started, and other artists advertise their works through social media and sell on sites like Etsy for small independent artists. Pride is about uplifting members of the LGBTQ+ community, so do your best to support them and their mission.

Larger corporations have shown increased sensitivity to the importance of Pride by partnering with queer artists to create their collections. By doing this, large businesses are giving LGBTQ+ individuals the opportunity to showcase their work and are curating products that actually feel genuine and relatable to them, rather than just slapping a giant rainbow onto a shirt and calling it a day.

Actions speak louder than words. So, no matter how many times that shirt has “PRIDE” printed on it and no matter how large and colorful the font is, it doesn’t mean that the company selling it truly supports LGBTQ+ rights. Many companies participate in this virtue signaling but have actively supported anti-LGBTQ+ candidates. Before buying from any brand, do a little bit of research. Ask yourself where their profits are going and if you want part of your money going there, too. Consumers have power in this regard. Use it wisely.

With all this being said, go take a look at some queer-owned businesses, get yourself that fanny pack, and get ready to celebrate Pride and the people who got us here! 

Categories
Uncategorized

The Fourteenth Amendment and Trans* Rights

By Meghan Serceki

On May 2, 2022, Americans were shocked by a leaked Supreme Court draft document which stands to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court ruling known as Roe v. Wade. This case is important because it gives women autonomy over their bodies when it comes to abortion. But beyond this obvious protection, the 1973 decision set a precedent for other communities, including LGBTQ+ and trans* individuals.

Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of protecting people’s right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. The drafted court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson acknowledges that this amendment protects some rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but states that abortion access does not fall under these protections as it is not seen as “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” 

This raises questions, then, of what rights are in fact protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion access has a documented place in American society and has been protected for the majority of our nation’s history, so if it’s not considered a part of American history, what does this mean for LGBTQ+ individuals who have constantly been pushed into hiding and who have few and very recent protections for their civil rights?

Abortion access arguably does play a substantial role in U.S. history. Until the mid-1800s, medical literature and newspapers regularly advertised different abortion-inducing methods, which could mean that at the time the Constitution was ratified, abortion access was widely accepted and even supported. 

Abortion bans at the time were only truly imposed on Black women by slave owners, and after the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a way to protect their rights. However, at the same time, some people began pushing for abortion bans across the board in an attempt to maintain their control and privilege. A nationwide ban only went into effect in 1910 — a full 122 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The reasoning for the Dobbs v. Jackson decision is incredibly concerning for other individuals who have been made to stay hidden for the entirety of our history. LGBTQ+ individuals have always been here. Trans* people have always existed. But they’ve been pressured to hide their true selves and have faced persecution if they did not. 

Even during the Gay Liberation Movement, trans* individuals were largely excluded. Many gay rights groups wanted to be seen as normal and conforming to heteronormative society in all ways besides their sexual orientation, and trans* people didn’t fit this image.

When initial LGBTQ+ protections were passed, they focused mostly on the basis of sexual orientation and not on gender identity, leaving trans* people still more vulnerable and causing them to stay hidden.

The Fourteenth Amendment was also the justification for the Obergefell v. Hodges decision which affirmed same-sex couples’ right to marry nationwide. When the opinion was delivered and passed in a 5-4 vote, several judges wrote dissents claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable to the case of same-sex marriage — nearly the same argument now being used to overturn Roe v. Wade.

An astounding number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills make their way into legislatures every year, and the vast majority of those already introduced in 2022 specifically aim to restrict and override the rights of trans* people. (See: “Texas Threatens Access to Care For Trans* Youth” and “‘Don’t Say Gay Bill’: What Does It Mean?”)

The courts are meant to prevent unconstitutional legislation from being put into effect, and these decisions are made based on existing laws and legal precedents set by previous cases. If the Supreme Court reverses decisions establishing civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, this safeguard could be all but lost and many of these bills may come into law.

The draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson is not yet official, and there is time to speak up. This is a decision not only affecting people with the ability to get pregnant, it’s a decision which could undo and reverse the progress of recent decades and leave people more vulnerable than ever.

Trans* people have been forced to live in the shadows for far too long and should not be denied their civil rights and human rights because of others’ ignorance. Now is the time to act, to advocate for all those marginalized, and to demand that each and every person is granted their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Categories
Uncategorized

Safe Spaces Are For All

By Meghan Serceki

Controversy over a “safe space” decal in a Texas classroom has brought to light the extent to which the censorship of LGBTQ+ topics is affecting the educational system — obscuring messages of acceptance and security

Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill has drawn attention to attempts to censor LGBTQ+ visibility in schools, but as we fight against it criticism seems only to get harsher. While these laws have been around for years, over 20 states are now trying to pass new ones.

Amidst this, in September, MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas suspended educator Rachelle Stonecipher, pending dismissal, for displaying a “Safe Space” sticker on her door. Soon after, the administration began forcibly removing these stickers from other classroom doors.

Students staged a walkout protesting the act, pointing out that designating safe spaces is not a political act but rather a display of acceptance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “safe space” as “a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.”

Despite this being a call to accept and support all students, the district is moving forward with disciplinary action against Stonecipher and may finalize her dismissal this week. In an official statement, the district stated that “Labeling certain classrooms as safe havens for certain groups could communicate to students who do not see themselves reflected in that classroom’s decorations that they are unwanted or unsafe in those rooms.”

Schools should inherently be safe spaces, but unfortunately, queer students still don’t experience that. These simple signs signal support and a regulated environment where they can be themselves without fear of harm. Education is a human right. All people should be awarded a safe environment to grow and learn.

Categories
Uncategorized

Transgender Athletes: What is Fair?

By Jeremiah Ancheta

Plenty of anti-trans* bills filed in recent years involve prohibiting “trans students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.” According to the Human Rights Campaign, there were “7 anti-trans sports bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Montana, and West Virginia” in 2021. 2022 saw anti-trans* sports bans introduced, passed, or signed in Delaware, South Dakota, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Utah.

One case that has seen popularity in the news involves Lia Thomas, a transgender woman competing in collegiate swimming. Many who do not support Thomas’ participation in women’s sports teams claim that it is unfair and reject her trans-identity. According to CNN, “an anonymous letter written on behalf of 16 of her 40 Penn teammates criticized what they saw as her ‘unfair advantage.’”

These reasons for prohibiting transgender women from competing in sports go far back as the 1970s. In 1975, Renee Richards faced discrimination in tennis for being a trans woman. According to Sports Illustrated, “when she accepted [an invitation to play in the Tennis Week Open], 25 players in the field promptly withdrew, claiming Richards still had the ‘muscular advantages’ of a man.”

This post will demonstrate why the justification for prohibiting trans* women from competing in sports is problematic. In doing so, I will appeal to Andrea Bianchi’s paper Transgender Women in Sport and Ivy & Conrad’s Including Trans Women Athletes in Competitive Sport, both of which directly address the topic.

The “Problem”

As stated before, many who want to prohibit transgender women from competing in women’s competitive sports claim that it is ultimately unfair. Bianchi describes their argument, which she calls the Fairness Argument, as follows:

“This unfair advantage is because they are viewed as having certain aspects of male physiology. Critics often believe that having, on average, more testosterone gives them an unfair advantage that makes them perform immensely better than their female-born counterparts (Schultz 2011). Insofar as this is an unfair advantage, the argument goes, trans* women should not be permitted to compete in female categories.”

To clarify, this argument consists of three distinct empirical premises:

  1. The amount of testosterone one has is positively and causally associated with one’s physical performance.
  2. On average, trans* women have more testosterone than cis women.
  3. From (1) and (2), trans* women will, on average, perform physically better than cis women.

Given these premises, it is argued that trans* women have an unfair advantage when competing with cis women in sports. Since trans* women have an unfair advantage over cis-women, they should not be allowed to compete with each other.

If we accept the three empirical premises to be true, how does it follow that trans* women should not be allowed to compete with cis women in sports? According to Bianchi, “One explanation for this argument is the skill thesis, which says that sports are meant ‘to determine which opponent is more skillful’ (Simon 2007, 13). In order to test competitors’ skillfulness, the significance of unfair external influences needs to be mitigated.” 

In other words, the seeming purpose of sports is to determine which individual/team is more skillful – all else being roughly equal. So the idea is that trans* women perform better than cis women, not because of skill but because of the testosterone difference between the two groups. Since trans* womens’ alleged better performance is not due to skill, they should not compete in sports with cis women to maintain the skill thesis, as the argument goes.

Testosterone and Physical Performance

The first three empirical premises have been under contention, which undermines the fairness argument. According to Veronica Ivy and Aryn Conrad in their paper Including Trans Women Athletes in Competitive Sport, “all available scientific evidence suggests that there is no overall relationship between endogenous testosterone and sport performance.”

The scientific research that Ivy and Conrad cite challenges the aforementioned claims. Here are some notable findings:

  • “(e.g. Harper 2015, Harper et al. 2018) indicates that post-transition women have no competitive advantage over cis women.”
  • “Gooren and Brunk (2004)… the differences within a gender are much larger than the average differences between genders.”
  • “Guth and Roth (2013, 656) note, bodies are extremely complicated and it’s not as simple as isolating one or a few genetic or hormonal factors are predictive of athletic success.”
  • “In the full paper [Bermon and Garnier 2017] it is clear that they showed no relationship between endogenous testosterone concentration and performance in elite women athletes…”

Furthermore, “even if we granted the premise that there is a relationship between

endogenous testosterone and performance, we permit much larger competitive advantages than is being attributed to testosterone, such as height, metabolic mutations, socioeconomic status, coaching, access to facilities, etc.” In other words, testosterone levels are not the sole determiner in one’s sports performance. If we segregate groups based on testosterone to maintain the skill thesis, then why don’t we segregate groups based on these other factors?

However, even if we grant critics that their empirical claims are true, it does not follow that trans* women should be prohibited from competing with cis women. We will take this approach to show that, even in its strongest form, the fairness argument fails.

Permissible Biological Advantages

Bianchi points out that biological endowments that allow one to perform better than others are already present in competitive sports. Bianchi mentions Michael Phelps and says “it is plausible that his success is at least partially influenced by his ‘wingspan,’ the fact that he is double jointed, and his size 14 feet (Hadhazy 2008). Each of these characteristics is [sic] genetic attributes that many of his competitors probably lack.” 

Michael Phelps, whose success as a competitive swimmer we are fine with, has biological advantages that allow him to perform better than his peers in sports. But as mentioned before, the purpose of sports is to determine which competitor is more skillful – all else being roughly equal. If we should disallow trans* women from competing in sports with cis women due to an unfair advantage the former have due to biological factors (testosterone), then it seems that we should disallow Michael Phelps from competing in sports with other competitors due to an unfair advantage he has over others due to biological factors (wingspan, joints, feet size).

Since we allow many athletes to compete with others despite external factors that advantage them in seemingly unfair ways over others, then we should allow trans women to compete in sports with cis women. As Bianchi says, we should allow trans* women “to compete in female categories since natural genetic endowments are already a part of sports.”

Conclusion

Those who are against trans* women from competing in sports with cis women claim that the former have an unfair advantage due to their testosterone levels that allow them to perform better than the latter. However, such claims are under contention and the current scientific evidence puts doubt on them. 

But even if we grant these empirical claims to be true, it does not follow that we should prohibit trans* women from competing in sports with cis women. There are many acceptable instances in sports where some competitors have biological endowments, that others do not, that allow them to perform better than others. Since we accept such instances, then we should accept trans* women competing in competitive sports with cis women.

Categories
Uncategorized

Speaking Up by Staying Silent

National Coming Out Day

By Meghan Serceki

Friday, April 22 is the Day of Silence to decry the silence surrounding challenges LGBTQ+ students face. Students, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation, are encouraged to remain silent throughout the school day, ending the demonstration with a Breaking the Silence rally.

Established in 1996 by a group of students at the University of Virginia to highlight the issues LGBTQ+ students face at school — issues which often are silenced or ignored —he observance has been picked up and organized by GLSEN and remains vital today. 

LGBTQ+ youth experience bullying and other forms of negative treatment at disproportionately higher rates than their cishet counterparts. A 2021 study from The Trevor Project found that 52% of LGBTQ+ students reported being bullied, compared to 20% of the general public. This number was even higher for trans* individuals, with 61% experiencing bullying of any form.

The same study showed that LGBTQ+ students at schools which affirm their identities were 30% less likely to experience bullying than those at schools which do not. This is great news because it shows there is a way that schools can support their students and reduce bullying, but unfortunately many schools aren’t LGBTQ-affirming.

Bullying is one of the many issues faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in the educational system, but it reflects the impact of the inequities they face. Bullying rates have been directly tied to suicide rates, signaling reasons why these rates are significantly higher for LGBTQ+ individuals. New legislation like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” show a backlash to important affirming practices. The progress we’ve made is now being threatened, and, in turn, may be threatening the lives of many LGBTQ+ youth.Join the Day of Silence. Check out the website and make a pledge to participate. The GLSEN website has many resources for students participating in it, including virtual Breaking the Silence rallies, Zoom backgrounds, social posts, and more.

Categories
Uncategorized

Why Trans* People Need Feminism

By Meghan Serceki

The word “feminism” was introduced to the English language in the 1890s, but people still disagree about who the feminist movement seeks to protect.

Many official dictionaries define “feminism” as a movement based on the equality of sexes. While this is likely a more traditional definition of the term, feminism has come a long way, and so has our understanding of gender.

Saying that feminism seeks equality of the sexes inherently plays into the gender binary — the false notion that one’s assigned sex determines if they’re a “woman” or a “man” — and therefore erases the experiences of many trans* individuals. It makes feminism seem to be a fight only for the rights of cishet women, “othering” trans* people further and excluding them from participating in or benefiting from the movement.

Some “radical feminists” have used this distinction to openly support anti-trans* legislation, despite the fact that such prejudice directly challenges the progress that cishet women have made. They disregard the fact that all trans* people have faced sexism in one way or another — the very system feminists seek to overturn. 

Transgender women give up male privilege to live as their true selves and then find themselves fighting even to be given their full human dignity as women. Transgender men experience traditional sexism before transitioning and then feel the need to combat the abstract notion of “femininity” in order to be accepted as men. Nonbinary people strive to find their balance of “femininity” or “masculinity” in a world which belittles the feminine but also tries to box them into one or the other based on their chromosomes.

Every one of these stories is different, every one varies by individual. But the one constant is the pressures of sexism in the trans* experience.

Trans* people need feminism just as much as cisgender women do.

Including trans* people in discussions about feminism will strengthen the movement. Activist Petra Wenham asserts, “We do not want anything over and above anybody else…we will work with the women to lift us up to make sure that we are equal with men, but it’s kind of a long road, unfortunately.”

The movement towards a free and equal future must include all those seeking a free and equal life. So, instead, we might define feminism as advocacting for the equity of all genders.

Categories
Uncategorized

The Continuing Harms of Conversion “Therapy”

By Meghan Serceki

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson officially announced plans to ban conversion “therapy.” More accurately, though, they plan to restrict it. Because there’s one huge group excluded from the motion: trans* individuals. 

It’s a step, but not a sufficient one. Conversion “therapy” is still in existence throughout the world, and it continues to put queer people in harm’s way.

What is it?

Conversion “therapy,” put simply, is any organized effort to “change” someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

We put “therapy” in quotes because it is not, in fact, therapy. Rather, it’s a harmful practice often packaged and marketed as therapy to imply that queerness is a sickness which needs to be treated.

Many organizations like the American Psychological Association have spoken out against the practice. In an official statement, the APA deemed conversion “therapy” to be unethical, unproven, harmful, and unnecessary. Therefore, legitimate and ethical healthcare providers will not condone or promote these programs today.

What does it look like today?

The phrase “conversion ‘therapy’” might bring to mind images from American Horror Story: Asylum or Cable Girls, where lesbian Lana Winters or transmasculine Óscar Ruíz undergo torture to “correct” their “deviancy.” Images from these period dramas may distance the issue as they seem out of reach today. But, while the forms of this “therapy” have changed, the practice and its detrimental impacts on individuals’ lives have not.

A 2019 study conducted by the Williams Institute concluded that 698,000 people in the United States have received, or are receiving, conversion “therapy.” Of this, nearly 350,000 were adolescents at the time of “treatment.”

Each person’s experience varies. Peter Gajdics recounts being drugged and forced to smell his own feces when he had “homosexual thoughts.” Other efforts might at first seem more innocuous, marketed as counseling, treatment, prayer, or the like. But its psychological effects are damning.

In the Netflix documentary Pray Away, Julie Rodgers recalls being told that her gayness is a result of locked away trauma with men — an internal struggle she must overcome in order to be “saved” and return to heterosexual life. Her experience with this distorted “talk therapy” approach made her feel less than or unworthy, believing in the need to change a part of herself that is actually natural, beautiful, and enduring. 

“Talk therapy” is the most common form of conversion “therapy” today, and while it might not seem as immediately dangerous as “aversion therapy” or the like, it has lasting and devastating effects on its survivors.

How harmful is it?

LGBTQ+ individuals are already at the highest demographic risk of facing mental health challenges and suicide (see “The Stigma of Seeking Help”). Conversion therapy compounds the issue.

The Williams Institute found that cisgender conversion therapy survivors are twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who have not. That’s 34%. For the general population, it’s only 2.4%.

There is little data about trans* survivors, but given that trans* individuals already encounter challenges to their mental health at higher rates than other groups, it’s reasonable to conclude that the trend would carry over to those who have survived conversion therapy.

What now?

We need to continue to foster an environment of support and to advocate for all individuals. People’s lives are at risk, and everyone deserves support.

Survivors have vastly different experiences, and it’s important to listen to their stories. Some may have sought out conversion “therapy” or stay in it because they feel trapped; they feel like they need to change that part of themselves to be worthy and accepted. 

What we can do is show our support for them to be exactly who they are, to be there for them, and to support resources that truly help them. We need to leave the door open for those who have lost hope and let them know that they can live as their authentic selves. They won’t be alone.