So, as many of you know, I take a Gender course at my college.  Well, in class yesterday we watched two YouTube videos that I haven't been able to get off my mind.  Today in math class, I wrote the long reflection that's written here (underneath the YouTube videos).  These videos are the exact ones we watched in class.  We unfortunately didn't talk about them (boy would I have talked) because we ran out of time.  But yeah.  Here ya go. 

When we say a man is "stereotypically" gay, we are almost always referring to effeminacy (male femininity);  we never say "wow that was really gay" to two men kissing, more often we say "that was really gay" about a man speaking with his hands while wearing pink.  Similarly, we don't read women as gay unless they are in some way masculine: they either present masculine or have masculine mannerisms or have a very deep voice or short hair.  It is the individual's inability to adhere to gender stereotypes that has them labeled "gay" and in actuality has *nothing* to do with their orientation.  Most statements speaking of one's homosexuality (most things that would have you label a person "gay" -- or even straight) have nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with how well they adhere to the gender stereotypes for their gender.  In my experience in the GLBT (LGBTQQIA?) community itself, even queer folks can't get over the reality that some "stereotypically gay" (ie. marginally gender deviant) folks are actually heterosexual.  Why is this.

It is masculinity and femininity that are the stereotypes, not homosexuality and heterosexuality.  We understand the latter group to be more of a... life foundation, and the lives built off these orientations are understood to be varied and diverse with nothing in common between them except for, well, the gender of interest. (We have no "straight" stereotype, do we?  If there is no "straight" stereotype, how can there be a "gay" stereotype?)  Femininity and masculinity, however, as stereotypes cannot be so "varied and diverse" else they would not be stereotypes; stereotypes are, by definition, fixed and rigid perceptions -- in this case, gender stereotypes are fixed and rigid (and pervasive; especially to those who believe there is a biological foundation to them).

So a little while ago now (maybe a month or two at this point) the MighTMenFTM YouTube channel chose "Manhood: What does it mean to be a man?" as their topic.  I've been wanting to either VLog or blog about it since then, but I haven't quite been sure of what to say, and I've also kind of been lacking motivation.  Well, recently a weblog was featured about not wanting to be the "bigger man".  And now I'm motivated. 

Note 1:  I have nothing against the blog owner or his post or his position.  It is simply what motivated me to finally write about manhood.

Note 2:  This is not about the difference between men and women, but between boys and men. 

So, I've thought about this long and hard (harder than anyone ever should, having not been born into this role but choosing to have this role as part of my life) about what some requirements for "manhood" are.  I don't agree that all twenty-five year old guys (as an age example) are men.  I firmly believe that some of them are still boys.  Society may not recognize them as boys because of their physical presence, but if they don't match the following criteria, I personally don't consider them men. 

(In my opinion,) A man exemplifies the following:

• Identification as a man
• Financial responsibility
• Personal responsibility
• Some sort of career or job (even if it's being a parent)
• Emotional maturity
• Control of his aggressiveness
• Self-control in general
• Worthwhile/meaningful/positive goals
• Listening instead of waiting for his turn to talk
• Servant leadership ("leading by serving others, while staying focused on achieving results in line with one's values and integrity")

Being a man is not about:

• Being in control of those around him
• Being in control of the women in his life
• His penis size/length/girth
• Physical strength
• Achieving more than a woman
• The number of women he's slept with (or could get)

Being a man is about being the "bigger man" every time.  In every instance a "man" is acting as the "smaller man", he is simply being a boy or adolescent and loses his title as a "man."  Being a "smaller" man suggests immaturity, irresponsibility, poor control of one's emotions, and a lack of direction.  Being a "smaller" man is what society seems to be all about: taking no responsibility for your actions, behaving with a short fuse and playing a short game, and then blaming everything that happens on that damn Y chromosome.

I'm not saying you need to have your shit entirely together (does anyone?), I'm saying you need to be working o improving yourself constantly.  I'm saying you need to be working towards positivity.  I'm saying that it's unacceptable to hit someone and write it off as the effect of testosterone or "male aggressiveness".  That is total bullshit, for one.  You hit whoever you hit because you can't control your emotions and/or don't value that other person as much as you should.  But you can't write it off as the effect of testosterone.  While testosterone does cause slightly heightened aggression, it's not substantial enough for you to blame your outburst on.  I've studied both gender studies and biology; if it seems I'm making claims that are outrageous, know I'm making educated outrageous claims here.  Male aggression is not a biological condition; boys are taught that masculinity equals violence.  Every time we turn on a TV, pop in a CD, turn on the radio, open a magazine, or watch a news clip that features storylines about male dominance it's right there.  Pop culture relentlessly tells boys they'll become "real men" by using/abusing power and control.

Being told that "real men" behave violently (and can get away with violence because they're "men" and have testosterone) brings us to the following sad reality: 

• More than 90% of serious domestic violence is perpetrated by men
• Men are involved in more than 95% of all instances of road rage
• One in nine black men are incarcerated
• School violence like the killings at Columbine and Virginia Tech have come at the hands of males 

Yet gender and masculinity is often ignored by the media, school administrators, psychologists, and other experts tasked with responding to these problems.  The message society sends out is that being a male in our society means being tough and invulnerable, over and over again, even in the face of statistics like these.  And for men who behave differently, they hardly have a road map for direction.  There are plenty of guys (like myself) who are trying to pave out lives of meaning and integrity.  But the "real world" is constantly throwing curveballs and contradictions.  It's hard not to give in and just, hit a bitch.  Actually, I'd never hit a bitch; I just like that expression.

It's interesting, with the amount of trans men I have seen transition, to see just how much aggression really is culturally learned.  Men who were socialized as female who now have the exact same hormones running through their body as as any of you biological men (and in some cases higher levels of these hormones) don't behave half as poorly.  Likewise, biological men who were raised by parents who devalue aggression don't generally behave aggressively.  I'll never be okay with a man writing off his verbal/emotional/physical/sexual outburst as something that resulted from his "being a man."

Real men put responsibility before reaction, friendship before fists, and patience before their phallus.  I could keep going with this alliteration, but you get my point.  Being a man is, essentially, the exact opposite of what society would like to have you believe it is.

I am sick and tired of everyone blaming our problems on the feminist movement.  The feminist movement cares just as much about men as it does about women. 

Data for this post provided by Bitch magazine.

Feel free to agree or disagree with me.

My public response to this comment on the version of my poly post featured on Datingish.  (You don't actually have to click the comment, I included everything she had to say in bold.)

Well.  It's a good thing I'm not easily offended or feel I deserved any of the names you called me or I might struggle with having an intelligent response to you.  I'd like to clarify a few things upfront, though.  1) Calling me a hippie is not an insult, I am (proudly) some sort of hippie; 2) Calling me stupid couldn't be any further from the truth; 3) Calling me a whore couldn't be any further from the truth; 4) I'm possibly one of the most honest and self-sacrificing people you will ever meet and I truly feel that I am being completely honest with myself and all people in my life by practicing polyamory; 5) I will never stoop so low as to call you names just because we have differing opinions.

That said, let the rebuttal begin.

"You're taking a term that has a common definition among the society at large and breaking it down into technical' terms which you know aren't even relevant to what it really means.  Sure 'intimacy' can be loosely defined; but having multiple intimate partners means you're nothing but a WHORE.  I'm going to respond to each of your little self-serving 'points.'"

The word you have the biggest problem with, in this whole post, is my use of Intimacy?  Sexual intimacy is only one of the definitions for intimacy, see for yourself.  Other definitions include close familiarity that is usually affectionate or loving, detailed knowledge or deep understanding, and the quality of being comfortable or warm [with someone].  Apply these qualities to relationships, apply them to friendships, I don't care, but don't tell me the only way one can be intimate with a person is sexually.

If you are subscribed to me, I expect for you to answer this question.

No excuses.

I won't blog again until a decent chunk of you have commented.

Like a third of you.

That's a shit ton of comments.

Do it.

What did you appreciate today?

Woohoo!  Finally something that is not about homosexuality or being a tranny or my religious beliefs!  I mean, I'm sure those things are good, but I do have more to me, I promise.  So let's talk about polyamory: What it is and what it isn't and why I practice it. 

What is Polyamory?

Polyamory very literally means "many loves" as poly = many and amore = love.  It is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.  It can reference to the status of a relationship ("I am in an open, polyamorous relationship") or be used as a description of a lifestyle or philosophy ("I practice polyamory"; "I have a reasoned argument behind why I can't or don't want to practice monogamy").  Polyamory is also sometimes described as "consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy."  I call it any or all of this, depending on my mood.  Or sometimes just "poly" (cuz it's easy).  Poly relationship, poly person, poly philosophy, etc.

Because people can't agree on what "intimate relationship" means, the term can be used in terribly broad ways by some people (like me), referring to just about any sexual or romantic relationships that are not exclusive.  It's an umbrella term, basically; it gives you a vague idea about how a person approaches relationships, but since it covers many modes and models of relationships, more explanation is needed.  And this is why I like it.  I like it because there is fluidity in its definition: many colors, many layers, many shades.  I can't throw the word out and not use details to describe the way I practice it; it's something that demands honesty and communication.  It is a philosophy, and the relationships that form out of this philosophy are just as varied as the word itself.  There are a lot of poly people, but not all poly people share the same reasoning for why they're poly.  It makes for interesting, fun, new and exciting relationships.

Common Misconceptions

Poly people are polygamists (or polygamists are poly people).  False.  Polyamory differs from polygamy in major ways.  Polygamy generally refers to specific structures of relationships and generally doesn't have the "free will" air that polyamory does.  Polyamory is a personal outlook grounded in such concepts as choice, trust, reciprocated freedom and compersion (taking pleasure that one's partner is experiencing pleasure, even if the source of their pleasure is not you).  This outlook varies greatly from the religious and cultural traditions of polygamy, which are generally very... patriarchal.

Poly people are just really horny and want a lot of sex.  False.  Not all poly people define their relationships by whether or not people are sleeping together.  A polyamorous relationship isn't about sex; it's about building intimate (generally romantic) relationships with more than one person at a time.  Some people involve sex in their relationships and others don't.  With polyamory, we're talking about more than one romantic relationship, not just more than one sex partner. The social dynamic can be very complex, and goes way beyond who's having sex with whom.

Poly people just can't commit or are commitment-phobic.  That doesn't even make sense.  You're telling me someone who can't commit to one person will be able to make a lasting commitment to two?  That sounds a little backwards; correct me if I'm wrong.  Poly people are poly because they think it's a little unrealistic to have one person who meets all their needs.  But that doesn't mean that some of them don't want to be primarily with one person, that they don't want to work hard in that relationship, or that they're all just "free floaters."  Many poly people have high standards, and many poly relationships have strictly defined "rules."  An example of a "rule" is that Person A permits Person B to have outside lovers under the condition that the outside lover is approved of beforehand and that both Person A and the outside lover understand the nature of the relationships between everyone involved.  I'll be honest, that example sounds more complicated than it really is.  But yeah, regardless, that seems like commitment to me.

If you love someone, you shouldn't want anyone else.  This is nice, in theory, but it doesn't always play out that way.  I'd venture to say most if not all of you reading this have loved more than one person in your life, or are understanding that there is more than one person out there you could potentially spend the rest of your life with; most of you just have a "who gets there first, wins" mentality.  Because the majority of people operate on the assumption that they have to give their "whole heart" to a person (and in having more than one lover, you can't do this) they also assume that if you love multiple people your love is divided between the people and you don't love anyone "fully".  This is based on the "starvation model" of love -- that is, the idea that you have a finite amount of love and if you give your love to one person there is none left to give to anyone/everyone else.  Essentially, this model demands that when you fall in love with another person, you have to "pay" for it by withdrawing your love from all other people.  And people do this.  (In my opinion, they're missing out.)  Love is not the same thing as money.  With money, yeah, you only have a limited amount to spend, and when you give a lot of it to one person you naturally have less to give to another.  But love is an entirely different character and behaves in wonderfully unpredictable ways, often replenishing itself.  When you love more than one person, you soon realize that they more love you give away, the more live you have to give.  Sure, you can give your whole heart to one person.  But you can also give your whole heart to multiple people.

It's not possible to love more than one person at a time.   The people who believe this generally feel that, if you're in a position where you're in a relationship with one person and find yourself falling for someone else this "proves" you don't love the person you're with.  After all, we're all put on this earth to love only one other person, our one true soul mate in a world of six billion people... the single person who is right for us, and who by some astounding coincidence happens to go to the same school as us, work in the same place as us, or attend the same church as us (or write on the same blog as us?).  I hope you can see why I find this line of thinking ridiculous.   This is the "scarcity model" of love -- the notion that love is rare, that we only have one true love, and that once we've met that person, the part of our brains which take notice of other people shuts off.  I don't think this is true.  I think we can love many people.  It's just important to be upfront about it.  If you're in a poly relationship, it's important these philosophies are understood and that the "rules" are clear and everyone abides by them.  Successful poly relationships require trust and security from all involved.  If you can't abide by the relationship's rules, you can't except for the relationship(s) to work. 

Why and How I'm Poly

Growing up, I never had a best friend (some people feel the need to express sympathy over this? I don't know why).  Girls in this society are pretty much expected to have one other female that they do everything with, or a group of females they do everything with, etc.  I never had that.  Sometimes I thought I wanted it, but in the few times that it actually came to formation, I resented my friend for being "clingy."  I was friendly with anyone and everyone, and I had a hard time distinguishing between acquaintance, friend, and best friend.  It was hard for me to see lines between my friendships; it was hard for me to see the people I told all my secrets to as any more valuable than the people who made me laugh (for example).  Without the people who made me laugh, I'd be miserable, and if I was miserable I wouldn't want to share my secrets with the people I was sharing my secrets with.  It was very clear to me from a young age that everyone was important and that a particular individual's role in my life couldn't honestly be dismissed as "less than".  I still feel this way about friendships, strongly.

In middle school, when I was dating boys as a heterosexual female (no comment), I often liked four or five guys at once and dated whichever one of them reciprocated interest.  I dated about six guys between 7th and 9th grade*.  When I first fell in love with a girl, I was dating a boy at the time and had feelings for the best friend of this girl I loved.  Out of the three people I was interested in at the time, I commonly only speak about having been in love with this one girl, but in reality, I definitely did love my boyfriend and was thankful for both him and the relationship, and I was also majorly in love with the friendship I had with this other girl (if not the girl herself).  This is just an example from one short period of one year of my life; of course, I have other examples.

Slowly I've come to recognize that I don't do well with having "favorites."  I really struggle prioritizing relationships because I see everyone around me as unique and amazing.  I've never done the "best friend" thing and I think it would probably be difficult for me to have only one lover, using the same logic.  If I did have a (single) lover, I would probably be happy with them, though.  Because if they are my lover, it means that they are just as amazing as my friends, meet my (admittedly, really high) standards (which I have blogged about and would happily blog about again), and make my life substantially better by being in it.  I expect emotional, intellectual, physical, spiritual, and sexual compatibility, and I expect their being in my life to reflect back on me favorably.  If I settled for anything less it would be hypocritical to much advice I've given recently and contradictory to my entire philosophy of life.

Presently I divide myself among my friends and those I venture to call lovers.  Talking, flirting, cuddling, sharing, deep and emotive conversations, affirmation, affection, quality time, and even sex (on extremely rare occasions) all happens.  I have so many people in my life who mean so much to me on so many different levels (some who live nearby and some across the continent) that none of my relationships are even remotely similar.  And I like that.  It is fun to love and nurture more than one relationship and enjoy them in all their differences.  Different people have different energies and bring out different aspects of my personality; we share different interests and activities, develop different connections, and wind up with entirely different levels of intimacy.  I'll admit I don't know if I'll live this way forever, but the philosophy behind it is something that resonates with me.  And right now it works. 

*Serial dating:  Dating one person after another after another because you are lonely or miserable or bored.  Not any more ethical than polyamory.  (In fact, I would debate it's less ethical, if there's someone who is up for the challenge and wants to argue on the Pro Serial Dating team?)

How One Friend of Mine Lives  (She's 38)

"I am *very* poly, I have been for years now. I have both a biologically male boyfriend and a trans-male boyfriend. We all live together and it works very well. Without them I would not be able to be both a full-time student and mother.  They both decided to support me and my kids and send me to school.  I am a huge believer in the poly lifestyle.  I just don't feel it's "fair" to expect one person to meet our needs.  That said, I have other loves besides the two I currently live with; they all are on different levels of intimacy, mostly female (but some male), and not all sexual -- but they are my loves all the same. I don't see them all the time and that could be one of the reasons this all works for me.

"It's weird to be sharing this with you because it is not something I announce to the world for reasons I most likely don't have to explain to you. (Basically, because the situation is not "traditional" most "friends" just wouldn't get it... or worse, they wouldn't approve.)  The hardest part about living this way is finding someone to talk to that actually understands on an emotional level.  Most people just can't grasp the concept."

For more information, or to see where I stole a lot of information from, check out:  Polyamory? What, like two girlfriends?  For information about jealousy click here. 

It is important for all of us to watch what we eat -- for our health and our waistlines. Studies have shown that an intake of less calories helps us live longer and the less that goes in, the less that stays on.

While big snack companies are capitalizing on this knowledge and packaging their snacks in 100 calorie bags, and while this is convenient, it is not exactly healthy.  There are better solutions.  Like doing it yourself.

Three reasons why doing it yourself is a good idea:
 - You can make perishable snacks, thereby using fresh foods that are healthier.  (Woohoo fruit salad!)
 - Packing snacks in reusable containers saves waste and money and helps the environment.  (Woohoo environment!  Woohoo money!)
 - Choosing your favorite snacks and counting them out into 100 calorie portions is an eye-opener! When forced to think about what a portion should look like, we see how much we overeat.  (Woohoo eye-opening!)

Plug:  Calorie Count is a useful tool for getting the approximate amount of calories for foods that don't have a package label to check.

My friend Troy just made a video about it, so I'm going to post his video.  This way I can still blog about something else later on.  

He only mentions one of a handful of recipes that I know are out there for quick and easy meals, so if anyone wants suggestions on others say so in a comment.  When you do things his way, it's a lot of work on the one day you're preparing the food.  In one day you can go shopping for the food, cook the food, portion it out, and put it away.  Estimate two to three hours on this day.  But for the rest of the week (or even two weeks) you can sit back and enjoy low-calorie, low-cost, high-protein meals that you yourself made and can completely trust. 

Plug:  Ziploc® Brand Snap 'n Seal Containers.  Good for dividing foods into 100-calorie servings; perfect for taking perfectly portioned snacks on the go!  Yeah. I plugged Ziploc.

Other things that are really useful to have around (low calorie, too!):  Frozen vegetables, frozen pasta, jasmine rice, brown rice, garlic, onions, teriyaki sauce, soy sauce, ginger dressing/sauce, eggs, bread that isn't white (I like Arnold 7-grain bread and Arnold multi-grain rolls), pre-cooked bacon, fruit (bananas, strawberries and apples particularly), baby carrots, peanuts, almonds, granola, oatmeal, almond butter, peanut butter, yogurt, hummus, cucumbers, celery, pretzels

Things I personally like to keep around for snacking (other than what's mentioned above): Diced fruit cups (Dole is the leading brand, but there are store brands), Dannon "Fruit on the Bottom" yogurt, and sunflower seeds.  Sunflower seeds have single-handedly saved me from gaining weight when I eat out of boredom.

Also, if you like eggs but don't have time to cook them, this little bugger saved my life (or at least made it possible for me to eat breakfast in the little time I allow myself to do so).  I now make bacon, egg and cheese sandwiches every morning, in less than two minutes. 

Yeah, that's all.

Don't forget to package these snacks in reusable containers instead of disposable bags or containers!

You've now saved some money, saved some time, saved the environment, and saved yourself a larger waistline.

My aunt is on Xanga.  Go say hi. 

WifeofaGayHusband just blogged about this so I thought I would too, because I left novels for comments and want a place to keep track of all of them together.  Also because ya'll can learn something.

Shortly after I came out to my community of queers as transgender, I was exposed to another somewhat similar yet entirely different category of individuals I hadn't previously been exposed to:  Those who are intersex. 

I'm sure many of you haven't heard of these people before.  I hadn't.  And it's a tragedy, too, because it's said that approximately 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 babies born is born with this condition (source).  So, if we have eight billion people alive on our planet, that means that at any given time, there are about 4,000,000 (four million) intersexed folks around.

But what does this word "intersex" mean?  Well, a number of things.  Basically it means that either an individual's sex chromosomes (appearing XXY instead of XX or XY), genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics (stuff that comes about in puberty, like breasts and penis growth for example) are ambiguous as to whether they are female or male.  An intersex individual cannot be classified as biologically female or male because of these conditions.  In other words, the individual has biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes.  (And if you thought the number for these conditions was high, I failed to mention that there are people born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life, and that number is closer to 1 in 100.)

For years past and unfortunately continuing up into the present day, doctors would try to determine a sex for the child at birth most frequently by speaking with the parents and trying to decide with them what the child should be created into.  (It's appropriate to note here that they felt gender was learned and didn't have much of a genetic backing, if any, so they felt that whatever they told the child about their gender, the child would be happy in that identity.)  Since it is easier to turn a little baby who has a small penis (or enlarged clitoris, depending on how you look at it) into a girl (it is easier to perform a surgery forming a vagina than a penis), the majority of little intersex babies were made into little baby girls and raised as such.  Except that did not go over so well.  Later in life, mostly around the onset of puberty, many of these girls began to identify as male and struggle with their gender identity.  Now, chromosomes are looked at too, and hormone levels are checked best they can be so that the gender can be predicted more closely -- but no one is yet predicting correctly every time what the child is going to grow up to be. 

(And, sickeningly, one or two babies out of every one thousand born undergo some kind of surgical procedure at birth to "normalize" genital appearance today.)

Where I stand on the issue: 

Well, I'm trans, so obviously I am extremely biased on this issue.  As a member of the queer community, and a student of psychology, I have come to recognize androgyny as something both incredibly attractive and psychologically beneficial.  I understand not everyone feels this way, however, and I also understand that, even while androgyny is healthy, you can't raise an androgyne; you have to raise an androgynous male or female, if you raise a child that is androgynous at all. 

Knowing what I know about surgery and medical transition, I can say that unless there was a significant medical advantage to assigning a gender to my child immediately I would wait and let the child decide.  There are plenty of hormone-blockers out there now that delay puberty for intersex and transgender children so they have longer to decide.  Many states don't want to prescribe hormones like estrogen, progesterone or testosterone until after age sixteen -- but puberty begins around age eleven and is accompanied by irreversible side effects making it imperative that it be delayed.  And it is the secondary sex characteristics that accompany male puberty that are the hardest to "un-do." (Things like the deepening of the voice, broadening of the shoulders, height, muscle growth, growth of the Adam's apple and so forth.)  Whereas a female is, in many regards, a male who has not yet gone through puberty.  (And even then, when testosterone is introduced to the female body it responds in the same way a pre-pubescent male body would: the voice deepens, the clitoris grows, muscle grows, fat redistributes in a male pattern, facial hair begins to grow, bone structure shifts a bit, etc.)  So I would not want my intersex child to go through male puberty unless they had stated that they were male.  Transwomen go through so much with their bodies -- laser hair removal, hormone replacement (a testosterone blocker and estrogen and progesterone), voice feminization, facial feminization, shaving of the Adam's apple, so many things.  There will always be short, feminine men who were born men in every regard.  Very rarely are there female-bodied individuals who are over six feet tall, have broad shoulders, a square jaw, etc.  Spare your child and delay puberty.  With the technology out there to administer the hormone of choice at the age of puberty to encourage bodily formation into the gender of the child, why would you not? 

But what about their life leading up to puberty?

Well, I would check chromosomes and hormones and do as many things as I could to try to predict what the child is most likely to grow up into, but either way, I don't want to raise a stereotypically male or female child.  Even if I had a child who was not intersex I would still want to raise them as androgynous as possible.  I would support my intersex child, as I would my biologically male or female child, in whatever gendered behavior they were exhibiting, and encourage them in independent thinking and remind them that they are their own person.  If my child was indeed intersex, I would explain to them in ways that are age-appropriate how their body functions uniquely to either recognized sex, and explain gender roles in the same fashion, reminding them that they do not need to conform.  I would have no problem explaining my child to family and friends, sending a note in to teachers explaing the situation, whatever.  It may not be the norm, but it's not a huge deal either.  Masculinity and femininity are stereotypes.  You don't have to be either.  Obviously you are going to eventually have to choose to present as one or the other.  In which case, as I've already stated, I am an advocate for delaying puberty until the kid explicitly expresses a desire to exist as one of the two recognized genders.   Also I am already an advocate that there need to exist "I" (Intersex), "T" (Transgender), and/or "N/A" (Not available) on licenses, birth certificates, and passports.  It is not fair for only two sexes and genders to be recognized when tons of people exist outside of those markers.

What not to do:

- Decide the gender arbitrarily at birth because you've "always wanted" a child of that gender, and perform some kind of surgery to arrange that.

- Decide at birth that a surgery is necessary for them to have an "easy life."  (To spare them from getting made fun of as a child.)

- Fail to be upfront and honest with your kid about how their body is different.

There is very rarely ever an instance when deciding at birth for the child is the right thing.  And it is not your decision to make as a parent. Gender identity is intrinsic.  You have no idea at birth what that child is going to grow up to feel like mentally. 

It's very important in these instances that you closely monitor child behavior and let them choose.  A decision does not need to be made at birth, and the thought that one does is what has had some children growing up being very upset with their parents and the doctors present at their birth for making a decision that was not theirs to make.  There are many (many) stories about children who were assigned a sex at their birth that they did not later identify with and very much resented, feeling like their body betrayed them in puberty, feeling like their entire life was a lie.  There is no "easy" way to live as intersex in our society, because we do gender things to a great deal.  But if you support and encourage your child in making their own decision, being honest with them from the very beginning, that is what is "easiest" and causes the least pain and winds up being most rewarding. 

I'll admit upfront, I am writing this one for me alone.  You can read it, but don't rec it.

I wonder how many things I do for other people.  I wonder how many things I do for myself.  I wonder in how many acts that I think I am being sincere and heartfelt I am really just blinded by emotion, or how many times I think I am being selfless and humble, I am actually self-centered and full of pride.  I wonder how much of my motivation for transition is external and how much of it comes from within. Society has assigned fairly rigid roles, with people of every background and orientation clinging to some label or another.  Who am I to think I am beyond that?  Who am I to think people can see me beyond them?

I only ever fall for straight girls who consistently prove that they can't like me back, that they don't see me that way--that I am still, in their heart and mind, female--and they are not gay.  I have never seen, even when I looked like I belonged in a beauty pageant, my attraction towards women as something that should be perceived as gay or queer.  Only when I like queer women do I find it queer.  Only when I like gay men does my attraction make me feel queer.  I'm like a chameleon, taking on others' labels and identities.  Heterosexual females don't make me feel gay.  They make me feel... stereotypically heterosexual: chivalrous, ready to take charge and comfort and listen and lead.  Straight females makes me want to slow down a little bit in this queer life I lead and recognize heterosexuality as something beautiful, which I'll admit I often lose sight of.  Monogamy as something beautiful.  Getting dolled up and wearing elegant dresses as something beautiful (girls, I mean, not me).  I could go on, but this is like, not the usual Eli, and I don't want too leave too lasting an impression on those reading this.

People have been yelling at me lately, telling me that my polyamory and my long list of reasons why I wouldn't or shouldn't date are cop-outs, I have commitment problems, I'm just "too queer."  I've even heard a lot of "I understand."  But they don't.  How could they when I don't even.  Days when I want to go back and relive high school as the trans male I exist as now, so people could have memories of me that are of Eli and not of my birth name -- and certainly not my senior yearbook photo.  So that girls I loved could see me as someone worth fighting over and asking to prom, so that I could be free to be me and not forced into a dress to so no one thinks the friend I took is a lesbian for being with an "out" queer (complete with tux).  Visiting my old high school is like a breath of fresh air and a slap in the face at the same time.  I always forget how much I miss the place... I also forget how petty the drama is.  And my past involvement in it all.

My life has unfolded in a way where the only people really expressing interest in me right now are gay men.  This really doesn't have much significance, considering how scarcely I have any interest in men... but maybe it has significance sociopolitically.  Maybe it's something to note that while I am making strides in the queer community and look male enough to hold the interest of gay-identified men, I'm still stuck spinning in circles in straight society.  Maybe I should reflect on that.  Would I really want to go back to a place where I felt stereotypes were meaningful or necessary to perpetuate in any way, anyway?  When I kept fractions of myself hidden away so I could "fit in"?

I don't know who I am sometimes.  I completely lose sight.  Sometimes I think that I am cool with my body and not transitioning, and then something happens and I freak out.  The mirror, usually; my physical body not being what I've come to perceive it as.  But sometimes it's a circumstance.  Something as silly as seeing high school seniors cry about not having prom dates, and wishing I could just one time go to prom as a guy.  Ray asked me to be his "man-date" for his queer prom, in response to today's emotional state, and I suppose that would be my chance, and I love him for it.  But it's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about normal high school stuff that every kid goes through.  And I had it, I guess.  I went with this guy I dated and broke up with a year before.  We broke up when I told him I was bisexual and struggling with feelings for my best friend.  He expressed disgust that I would "choose" that lifestyle.  But we made up and found ourselves at prom in terribly stereotypically male-female roles.  We were actually placed on a pedestal by people who knew us; we were just "too cute."  There are pictures of him and I littered all over my house.  My mom loves to look at us.  I cringe.  This isn't the prom I am talking about, where I was coerced by society's strange demands to behave outside my comfort zone.  I want to accompany a girl to prom, and show the world the person I have grown into, the person I am not ashamed to exist as.

Maybe this whole thing seems stupid.  I'll admit, it does to me. 

I'm just a little emo today.  A little bit "high school."

Quoting someone I love dearly:  "As I continue shedding my layers, I don't like to be associated with that previous person. I reflect and learn and grow from who I used to be, but it makes me uncomfortable when I encounter people who knew that person. I always feel like they see the old me, and that makes me uncomfortable."

Oh, there's a lot going on.

I received the following message this morning, and I thought I would respond to it publicly so I could get feedback from others:

I am a lesbian. Recently, in my place of work, there has been a lot of rather directed gay-bashing. I work in a bank, so it's not like a retail store where you can just walk away or hide from the people. I'm still pretty new to the place and I don't want to cause a huge uproar. Any thoughts?

Assuming that you are not the target, and that no one is attacking you personally....

1) Keep your cool.
This is hard to do when a statement triggers a negative response in you because it is so blatantly offensive, but it's imperative you don't react to it on an emotional level. You need to stay calm and approach them with a logical, considered, constructive comment. Some examples include:

2) Decide when to confront them.
Is it in your best interest to confront the person the moment the incident occurs or wait until later? 

3) Dos v. Don'ts.
   DO: 

   DON'T: 

If someone is attacking you personally it should be mentioned to management.  Go to management.  It's not your fault you are experiencing the negative end of intolerance and it wouldn't be fair for you to get in trouble for any confrontations that may arise.

FEEDBACK?