Julia Serano's Blog, page 16

Trans people still “disordered” according to latest DSM

This morning, I woke up and found my Twitter feed full of article links celebrating that transgender people are no longer “disordered” according to the DSM (that is, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - often referred to as the "psychiatric Bible" because it contains all of the official psychiatric diagnoses). The DSM gets revised every 10-20 years or so, and diagnoses sometimes get modified, expanded, or completely removed. The change that people are now celebrating is the fact that the previous diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) has now been changed to Gender Dysphoria.



Admittedly, the new Gender Dysphoria diagnosis is an improvement over GID for a number of reasons - Kelly Winter of GIDreform.org describes some of these improvements, as well as many of the lingering problems with the new diagnosis. Despite the remaining drawbacks (for instance, that gender variance is still formally pathologized in the DSM), many people seem excited that transgender people are no longer described as being "disordered" in the DSM. But the problem is that this is patently untrue.



When the new DSM committee was chosen back in 2008, all the focus was on what the new committee (chaired by the notorious Ken Zucker) would do with GID. This is understandable, given that this is the diagnosis that trans people are required to submit to if they with to access the means to legally and/or physically transition. It has also been used to justify horrible reparative therapies against gender-non-conforming children. But the greater trans community gave short shrift to the other existing DSM diagnosis that affected transgender people: Transvestic Fetishism.



I was especially horrified when Ray Blanchard was named to head the DSM "Paraphilia" section, which historically contains several sexual crimes (e.g., pedophilia, frotteurism and exhibitionism) and a handful of other generally consensual but unnecessarily stigmatized sexual acts (such as fetishism and BDSM) that are considered “atypical” by sex researchers - including Transvestic Fetishism.



I sometimes joke that Ray Blanchard is my arch nemesis (after all, every trans narrative needs a good arch nemesis!). Much of his career has been spent psychiatrically sexualizing trans female/feminine-spectrum people, most notably via his theory of "autogynephilia." I won't go into all the details here, as I have written about Ray Blanchard's theories extensively elsewhere.



Being familiar with his work, I was worried that Blanchard might try to expand the Transvestic Fetishism diagnosis. He did not disappoint. As I outlined in my 2009 article "Why feminists should be concerned with the impending revision of the DSM," Blanchard sought to both expand the DSM definition of "Paraphilia," as well as expand the previous Transvestic Fetishism diagnosis, which he renamed "Transvestic Disorder." As I pointed out in my keynote for the Philly Trans Health Conference that year:



Ray Blanchard has been named to chair the Paraphilia subworkgroup for the DSM-V, and he has proposed changing the Transvestic Fetishism diagnosis to Transvestic Disorder with one of two modifiers: with Fetishism, or with Autogynephilia. While the diagnosis supposedly targets “heterosexual males” who crossdress, the psychological literature regarding autogynephilia (the bulk of it written by Blanchard) repeatedly claims that lesbian, bisexual and asexual trans women are really just heterosexual men with a fantasy problem. Therefore, according to Blanchard’s proposal, a queer-identified trans woman (such as myself) could theoretically be diagnosed as having "Transvestic Disorder" any time that I have any kind of sexual urge while wearing women's clothing. Since I wear women's clothing pretty much every day of my life these days, my sexuality would presumably be considered perpetually transvestically disordered according to this diagnosis.



I tried at great length to raise awareness of the Transvestic Disorder diagnosis when it was first proposed. So did a few other trans activists and advocates, most notably Kelly Winters. But for the most part, the trans community ignored the proposed diagnosis, probably because (in its original form) it was not applicable to trans male/masculine folks nor heterosexual-identified trans women. Personally, I stopped writing about it because I felt like the community was simply not concerned.



And then, when no one was looking, in mid-2010, Blanchard and the DSM committee expanded it even further, so that it now includes trans people of all identities, trajectories and sexual orientations. As it is written now, Transvestic Disorder can be applied to any person who is sexually active while wearing clothing incongruent with their birth-assigned sex . It also canonizes the term "autoandrophilia" as a sexualizing diagnosis that can be applied to trans male/masculine folks. And while GID/Gender Dysphoria are pathologizing, Transvestic Disorder is both pathologizing and sexualizing . And when you sexualize someone, you invalidate them!



So please don't say that transgender people are no longer considered "disordered" according to the latest DSM. It is simply not true.



post-note: here is a speech I wrote for the trans protest of the 2009 American Psychiatric Association (who write the DSM) called "Stop Sexualizing Us"

Bisexuality and Binaries Revisited

In October, 2010, my essay, “Bisexuality does not reinforce the gender binary,” first appeared on the internet. The main reason why I wrote the piece was to illustrate how the reinforcing trope (i.e., the notion that certain genders, sexualities or identities “reinforce” the gender binary, or heteronormativity, or the patriarchy, or the hegemonic-gender-system-of-your-choice) is selectively doled out in queer and feminist communities in order to police their borders. Since queer communities are dominated by non-feminine, cisgender, and exclusively gay and lesbian folks, these individuals are almost never accused of “reinforcing the gender binary.” In contrast, more marginalized identities (e.g., bisexual, transgender, femme) are routinely subjected to the reinforcing trope. While my “reinforcing” essay received many positive responses, it also garnered some harsh criticism, particularly from within certain segments of transgender and gender variant communities. All of the critiques that I heard or read pretty much ignored my primary point—namely, the underlying forms of sexism that determine who gets accused of “reinforcing” shit and who does not—and instead focused solely on the rote assertion that the word “bisexual” (and, by association, anyone who identifies as bisexual) really does “reinforce the gender binary.”



Since then, I have been considering writing a follow up piece to discuss the numerous problems with such claims (aside from the obvious fact that they single out bisexuals for being attracted to “two” sexes, but not the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians who view themselves as attracted to the “same” sex, but not to the “opposite” sex—a notion that appears to be just as binary). In addition, since my piece was published, I became aware of an excellent blog-post by Shiri Eisner called, ‘Words, binary and biphobia, or: why “bi” is binary but “FTM” is not.’ Eisner’s post made a number of points similar to my own, but also forwarded new arguments that had not occurred to me before, and which led me to think about this debate in new ways. For all of these reasons, I felt that it would be worthwhile to pen a new essay (this very one here!) to revisit this subject.



Before delving into this topic, let me state for the record that I am writing this piece from the perspective of a bisexual-identified transsexual woman. Since some people paint bisexual-identified folks out to be “binarist” in our partner preferences, I will mention for the record that I date and am sexual with folks who are female and male, trans and cis, and non-binary- and binary-identified. I most certainly do not speak for all bisexual, or all transgender people. My views on this subject are my own, and if you disagree with what I have to say, please consider the possibility that our disagreements may stem from our differing vantage points. Finally, over the course of this essay, I will sometimes use the word “we” to refer to transgender folks, and other times to refer to bisexual folks. Perhaps some may find this a bit confusing, but it is an unavoidable consequence when one straddles multiple identities.



Some preliminaries: monosexism, bi-invisibility  and bisexual communities (or the lack thereof)



In my previous essay, I used the word “bisexual” because (both historically and currently) it is the term most commonly used and understood to denote people who do not limit their sexual experiences to members of a single sex. Of course, bisexual is not a perfect word, but then again, neither is gay, lesbian, dyke, homosexual, heterosexual, straight, queer, asexual, or any other sexuality-related label. However, perhaps more so than with any of the other aforementioned labels, people who are bisexual in experience often fiercely disavow the “bisexual” label. For instance, many prefer the labels queer, pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual, multisexual, or even no label at all, over the term bisexual. Sometimes I use the phrase experientially bisexual to refer to people who, regardless of label choice, do not limit their sexual experiences to members of a single sex. But alas, some folks may also reject experientially bisexual because it contains the word bisexual. So an alternative solution, taking a page from the LGBTQIA+ acronym, is to describe experientially bisexual folks as BMNOPPQ folks, where B = bisexual, M = multisexual, N = no label, O = omnisexual, P = pansexual, P = polysexual, and Q = experientially bisexual folks who primarily identify as queer (arranged alphabetically).



Am I advocating BMNOPPQ terminology? Not necessarily. I think that it is rather clunky and confusing. Personally, I would prefer it if we all simply accepted bisexual as an imperfect, albeit easily understood, umbrella term for people who share our experience. But since I don’t expect that to happen any time soon, I will instead use BMNOPPQ here in the hopes that we can put aside the issue of label preference for a moment, and instead focus on what the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary accusation means for BMNOPPQ people.



Important disclaimer: Above, when I used the phrase “share our experience,” I am not in any way insinuating that BMNOPPQ folks all share the same sexual histories, or experience our sexualities in the exact same way. We do not. We are all different. We are all attracted to different types of people, different types of bodies, different types of gender expressions. We all fall at somewhat different positions along the dreaded “Kinsey scale.” Some of us are more immersed in queer communities, while some of us primarily exist in straight communities, and many (if not most) of us find ourselves constantly navigating our way within (and between) both queer and straight communities.



So if we are all so different, then why even bother to try to label or lump together BMNOPPQ people? Well, because the one thing we *do* share is that we all face societal monosexism—i.e., the assumption that being exclusively attracted to members of a single sex is somehow more natural, real, or legitimate than being attracted to members of more than one sex. Monosexism is also sometimes referred to as biphobia. While biphobia is clearly the more common term, I will use monosexism here, both because I am not a big fan of the use of the suffix “phobia” when discussing forms of sexism (as it seems to stress “fear” over marginalization), and also because monosexism avoids the pesky prefix “bi” that some BMNOPPQ folks seem to find objectionable (more on that in a minute).



Monosexism exists because most people, whether in the straight mainstream or in gay and lesbian communities, view sexual orientation as a rigid binary, where people can only ever be heterosexual or homosexual in orientation. This hetero/homo binary directly leads to monosexual assumption—that is, the assumption that all individuals are exclusively attracted to members of a single sex. (Note: the hetero/homo binary also assumes that all people are sexually attracted to *somebody*—an assumption that marginalizes asexual folks.) Because of monosexual assumption, most people automatically assume that BMNOPPQ folks must be heterosexual if they perceive us to be in an “opposite”-sex pairing, or that we must be homosexual (i.e., lesbian or gay) if they perceive us to be in a same-sex pairing. This is a foundational predicament experienced by BMNOPPQ individuals.



If we BMNOPPQ folks outwardly claim to be bisexual (or pansexual, or polysexual, etc.), monosexual assumption leads many people to doubt the validity of our identities, and to project ulterior motives onto us. This is why people will often say, “You’re not really bisexual (or pansexual, or polysexual, etc.), you’re just confused about your sexuality,” or “...it’s just a phase,” or “...you still have one foot in the closet,” or “...you’re *really* gay/lesbian, but seeking out heterosexual privilege,” or “...you’re *really* straight, but just sexually experimenting, or perhaps overly promiscuous” and/or “...you’re just a fence sitter. Choose a side already!”



In other words, monosexual assumption leads to what has historically been called bi-invisibility: we are presumed not to exist, and any attempt to assert our existence is immediately thwarted by accusations that we are hiding, faking or simply confused about our sexualities. Bi-invisibility is what leads many of us to simply blend into existing monosexual communities (whether straight, gay, or lesbian) rather than seek out or create BMNOPPQ communities. This lack of community has had a devastating effect on BMNOPPQ folks. For instance, even though we outnumber exclusively homosexual people, we have poorer health outcomes and higher poverty rates than gays and lesbians, and we are generally not acknowledged or served by LGBTQIA+ organizations, even the ones that have “B” in the name. Our invisibility is what allows straight, gay, and lesbian folks to regularly get away with forwarding stereotypes about us—e.g., that we are mentally deranged, predatory, hypersexual, promiscuous, deceptive and/or fickle—without being called out or challenged. But most poignantly, bi-invisibility leads many of us to identify more with the straight, lesbian or gay communities we exist in (and rely upon) than with other BMNOPPQ folks. This lack of identification with other BMNOPPQ folks, in combination with the external pressure placed on us to blend in with the monosexual communities we exist in, is a major reason why BMNOPPQ folks have historically tended to avoid calling ourselves “bisexual,” often by refusing to label our sexualities at all. In stark contrast, exclusively homosexual people do not tend to outright disavow the labels “lesbian” and “gay,” nor do they tend to get bogged down in philosophical battles over whether or not they should label their sexualities at all, to nearly the same degree that BMNOPPQ folks do.



I have heard countless BMNOPPQ people ask, “Why do we have to label our sexualities?” I do agree that we should not be forced to reduce our complex sexual attractions and orientations down to a simple moniker. But as an activist, I would argue that the most persuasive argument for why BMNOPPQ folks should unite around some kind of umbrella label (whether “bisexual” or otherwise) is to challenge monosexism and bi-invisibility. In this scenario, said label would not blithely detail who we are sexual with, nor claim that we are somehow inherently different from hetero- or homo- or asexual folks (because I do not think we are), but rather point out that we (and we alone) are targeted by a particular sexist double standard, namely, monosexism. Doing this would enable us to raise awareness about, and to challenge, monosexism in our culture.



Given that I am more well known for my trans activism than my bisexual/BMNOPPQ activism, I should point out that the case that I am making here is identical in form and structure to the case I made in Whipping Girl regarding cissexism. That argument goes as follows: we live in a world where trans people are unfairly targeted by a sexist double standard (i.e., cissexism, analogous with monosexism) where one group (i.e., trans people, analogous with BMNOPPQ people) is assumed to be less natural, real or legitimate than a majority group that does not share that experience (i.e., cis people, analogous with monosexual people). As I once wrote in a blog post called “Whipping Girl FAQ on cissexual, cisgender, and cis privilege”:



When I use the terms cis/trans, it is not to talk about *actual* differences between cis and trans bodies/identities/genders/people, but rather *perceived* differences. In other words, while I don’t think that my gender is inherently different from that of a cis woman, I am aware that most people tend to *view* my gender differently (i.e., as less natural/valid/authentic) than cis women’s genders. 



I would argue that the above paragraph also holds true if you were to substitute “mono” for “cis,” “bisexual/BMNOPPQ” for “trans,” and “sexual orientation” for “gender.”



So to sum up, from this activist perspective, the primary reason why I call myself trans or bisexual is *not* to communicate things that I have done (e.g., aspects of my gender transition, people I sexually partner with). After all, it should not be incumbent upon me to have to reduce the complexities of my gender and sexuality down to a sound-bite and provide it for other people at the drop of a hat. Nor am I insisting that I am “just like” other trans or BMNOPPQ people when I call myself “trans” or “bisexual,” respectively. After all, it goes without saying that all trans people and all BMNOPPQ people are different from one another. Rather, I embrace these labels in order to be visible in a world where trans and BMNOPPQ people are constantly erased by the male/female and hetero/homo binaries, respectively, and to build alliances with people who are similarly marginalized in order to challenge societal cissexism and monosexism, respectively.  



How might relinquishing the term “bisexual” impact bisexual/BMNOPPQ people?



OK, so with this background in mind, let’s go back to the recurring claims that calling oneself bisexual “reinforces the gender binary.” Mind you, this claim is not typically made against people who gravitate toward sexual identity labels such as gay, lesbian, dyke, homosexual, heterosexual, straight, queer, asexual, and so on. Just bisexual folks. And it puts us in the unenviable position of constantly having to defend our label choice.



For example, even though my “reinforcing” essay was focused on how the reinforcing trope has been used to delegitimize both trans and bisexual communities, I still felt compelled to begin the piece with an explanation as to why I call myself bisexual. To this end, I offered both a personal and political justification. The personal explanation related to the fact that, while I am sexual with both female- and male-bodied/identified people, I tend to be more attracted to the former than the latter, and perhaps for this reason, being sexual with a woman feels very different to me on a visceral level than being with a man. For this reason, labels like pansexual and omnisexual (which imply attraction to everyone) do not personally resonate with me, because they seem to erase a difference that I experience. While this continues to be an accurate description of how I experience sexual attraction, I now realize that this comment is somewhat superfluous. After all, all BMNOPPQ folks experience our sexualities somewhat differently, and if we each had a unique word to precisely describe our internal experiences of attraction, that wouldn’t necessarily help us challenge monosexism and bi-invisibility. So if I were writing the “reinforcing” essay today, I probably would have left that personal tidbit out.



It is worth noting that (perhaps unsurprisingly) a few people took this personal comment as evidence that I must hold essentialist and rigidly binarist views of gender, even though earlier in the essay I stressed that there is lots of variation among, and overlap between, female and male bodies (this includes the existence of intersex people, and trans who physically transition). In Whipping Girl (specifically pp.102-106), I made the case that one can acknowledge differences between female and male bodies without necessarily engaging in essentialism or binarism, so I won’t bother to relitigate that here. Suffice it to say, if simply recognizing differences between female and male bodies is tantamount to essentialism and binarism, then that means that *all* heterosexual and homosexual people are essentialist and binarist, because they are sexually attracted to one sex but not the other. It also means that *all* transsexuals who physically transition are essentialist and binarist, on the basis that we choose to be one sex rather than the other. Once again, calling out a bisexual person’s experience of sex differences as “essentialist” and “binarist,” while paying no heed to gay, lesbian and trans people’s experiences of sex differences, can only be viewed as monosexist.



The political explanation that I gave for why I choose the bisexual label stems from the fact that societal monosexism invisibilizes bisexuality, and ensures that we can only ever be read in one of two ways, namely, as homosexual or heterosexual:



...the “bi” in bisexual does not merely refer to the types of people that I am sexual with, but to the fact that both the straight and queer worlds view me in two very different ways depending upon who I happen to be partnered with at any given moment.



I admit that this is a relatively novel way of viewing the word bisexual, but it is one that I personally fancy, and it is consistent with the theme of challenging monosexism, bi-invisibility and the hetero/homo binary.



Here is another potential interpretation of the word bisexual: The prefix “bi” can mean “two,” but it can also mean “twice” (e.g., as in bimonthly). So while monosexual people limit their potential partners to members of only one sex, bisexual/BMNOPPQ folks challenge the hetero/homo binary by not limiting our attraction in this way, and are thereby open to roughly twice as many potential partners. My main point here is that the prefix “bi” has more than one meaning, and can have more than one referent. So claiming that people who use the term bisexual must be touting a rigid binary view of gender, or denying the existence of gender variant people, is as presumptuous as assuming that people who use the term “bicoastal” must be claiming that a continent can only ever have two coasts, or that they are somehow denying the existence of all interior, landlocked regions of that continent.



The truth is that there are many different ways one can interpret the word bisexual (or other sexuality labels, for that matter). The bisexual-reinforces-the-binary accusation is an attempt to fix bisexual to single meaning, one that is an affront to how many bisexual-identified people understand and use that label. As an analogy, what if cis people suddenly started claiming that they do not like the label transgender because (in their minds) it seems to imply that all people should change their gender. (I actually have heard someone make this bizarre claim once before.) How would we, as transgender people, react to that accusation? Personally, I would respond by saying that transgender is *our* word: it’s about transgender-identified people’s experiences with gender and gender-based oppression, and it makes absolutely no claims at all about what other people are, or how other they should be gendered. Similarly, my response to the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary accusation is that bisexual is *our* word (in this case, bisexual-identified people): it is about our experiences with sexuality and sexuality-based oppression, and it makes no claims whatsoever about what other people are, or how other they should be sexual or gendered.



But upon looking back on my “reinforcing” essay, my main regret is that I failed to explicitly mention what is perhaps the most important political reason behind why I call myself bisexual. Namely, the word bisexual has a long history, and it was the word that the original BMNOPPQ activists embraced several decades ago when they fought for visibility and inclusion within (and beyond) lesbian, gay and queer communities. This activism spurred the creation of now common terms such as “biphobia” and “bi-invisibility” that have played a crucial role in challenging societal monosexism since their inception. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the word bisexual is familiar to most people, both in the straight mainstream and within LGBTQIA+ communities. Having a familiar umbrella term is critically important given that one of the biggest challenges that BMNOPPQ folks face is invisibility and societal erasure.



I appreciate the sentiments behind alternative labels such as pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual and multisexual, and I respect the right of BMNOPPQ folks to choose any of these (or other) labels over bisexual. But from an activist standpoint, the notion that we should completely abandon the word bisexual in favor of some alternative label that is unfamiliar to most people does not seem to be a wise political move. Indeed, such a move would make it significantly harder for us to come out and gain visibility in our communities, and we would need to start from scratch with new activist terminology (panphobia? poly-invisibility?) to describe how we are marginalized.



Along similar lines, I respect the right of BMNOPPQ folks to choose to identify as queer rather than bisexual. (For the record, I identify as both bisexual and queer.) However, queer is a much broader umbrella term meant to include all LGBTQIA+ people, and as such, it does not seem to be the best position from which to challenge monosexism and bi-invisibility.



Now of course, language is constantly evolving. And if this mass fleeing from the word bisexual toward alternate identity labels was simply part of a natural progression—such as the historically recent shifts from the label “homosexual” to “gay”, or from “lesbian” to “dyke”—then I would not have any problem with it. However, it seems to me that the primary force driving these alternate label choices is not coming from within the BMNOPPQ community itself, but rather from external pressure exerted on us by other queer subgroups. As I’ve already discussed, there has always been pressure on BMNOPPQ folks to hide or subsume our identities in order to fit into existing gay, lesbian and queer communities. But these days, there is additional pressure placed on us by certain transgender voices that insist that we must stop using the term bisexual because it supposedly “reinforces the gender binary.”



Lots of folks these days (both transgender and BMNOPPQ) seem to be buying into this “reinforcing” allegation, which essentially accuses bisexual-identified people (such as myself) of propagating cissexism/transphobia. And yet, virtually no one is asking what should be a rather obvious question: isn’t this argument quite one-sided? Shouldn’t we also be considering what affect relinquishing the label “bisexual” would have for BMNOPPQ folks and our efforts to challenge monosexism and bi-invisibility? Genderqueer-identified bisexual activist Shiri Eisner (in the aforementioned blogpost) was the first person I heard make this crucial point:



“...a discussion focusing around bisexuality solely in relation to transgender politics performs structural bisexual erasure, as it prioritizes transgender politics over bisexual politics in a discussion about bisexual identity.” [emphasis Eisner’s]



When put this way, it becomes clear just how brazen it is for transgender folks to claim that bisexuals should abandon an identity label that BMNOPPQ folks have been using for decades simply because it is supposedly incompatible with transgender politics. Why stop there? While we are at it, why don’t we tell lesbians that they have to stop using that word? After all, few ideologies have spouted as much cissexism over the years as lesbian-feminism has. Come to think of it, what about people who describe themselves as a “woman” or a “man”—those labels most certainly reinforce the binary! Shouldn’t we be calling out anyone who uses those labels? Or what about trans people who self-identify as “MTF” and “FTM”—acronyms that imply that there are two sexes. Don’t they reinforce the binary?



Or, what if we put the shoe on the other foot? Cisgender feminists have long argued that gender is a patriarchal invention designed to oppress women. So what if cisgender feminists took a similar tactic and began accusing transgender people of “reinforcing the patriarchy” because the word “transgender” has the word “gender” in it? Isn’t this argument is structurally identical to the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary claim? If cisgender feminists made this claim, how might we react? Would we stop calling ourselves transgender (or genderqueer, or gender variant) as a result? What would that mean for us as a marginalized group that has only recently garnered visibility and a modicum of acceptance in our society? What would happen to all the policies that now include “transgender” people, or that prevent discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” (yes, that term also has that pesky word “gender” in it)? Would we, as a transgender community, really be willing to give up all that in order to accommodate cisgender feminist politics?



I didn’t think so. So how can we, as a transgender community, expect bisexual/BMNOPPQ folks to give up the same in order to accommodate our politics?



There is more than just one binary!



Nothing demonstrates the fact that the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary claim prioritizes transgender politics over bisexual politics more than the assumption that the “bi” in bisexual must automatically be referring “the gender binary.” This is a bold assertion given that BMNOPPQ folks have our own sexual orientation binary to contend with, and that bisexual activists have long argued that being “bi” subverts the hetero/homo binary. So how is it that a debate about “bisexual” (a sexual orientation label) can wind up being solely centered on the gender binary, yet completely ignore the sexual orientation binary?



This seems to me to be a fairly new development. Back when bisexual and transgender activism were first gaining momentum in the 1990’s, it was quite common for activists from both camps to point out the parallels between the way transgender folks challenge the male/female binary and how bisexuals challenge the hetero/homo binary. There was even an entire anthology (entitled Bisexuality and Transgenderism: InterSEXions of the Others) largely centered on this theme. Around the time that I transitioned (back in 2001), trans people referred to “the male/female binary” (which seems to acknowledge the possibility that there are other binaries out there) about as frequently as they mentioned “the gender binary.”



But over time, this perspective has shifted. These days, many transgender folks seem to be referring to an all “caps lock” version of THE GENDER BINARY, as if it were the one and only binary from which all gender and sexual oppression stems. This interpretation reminds me of the way many cisgender lesbian-feminists talk about THE PATRIARCHY, using it as the single lens through which they view all aspects of gender and sexuality. Viewing all forms sexism in terms of THE PATRIARCHY (i.e., men are the oppressors, women are the oppressed, end of story) is precisely what led many cisgender lesbian-feminists to misinterpret trans men as “female” traitors who transition in order to obtain male privilege, and trans women as privileged “men” who attempt to appropriate women’s oppressed status and/or to infiltrate women-only spaces.



When we view the world through any one single lens, we are bound to overlook many things. Viewing all aspects of gender and sexuality through the lens of THE PATRIARCHY has led many cisgender lesbian-feminists to condemn not only transgender people, but feminine and masculine gender expression, butch/femme relationships, BDSM, pornography, sex workers, sex toys that resemble phalluses, and so on. Similarly, viewing all gender and sexual oppression in terms of THE GENDER BINARY might seem to make sense to some transgender people, but it overlooks (and thus erases) numerous other gender and sexual hierarchies, such as masculinism (i.e., the assumption that masculine gender expression is more legitimate than feminine gender expression), trans-misogyny, subversivism, asexophobia, and of course, monosexism.



So, in other words, if we are going to have a cross-community conversation between transgender and bisexual/BMNOPPQ folks, then we have to talk about the male/female binary and cissexism, as well as the hetero/homo binary and monosexism. If we are not taking both communities issues and interests into account, then we are not having a conversation, we are merely engaging in one-sided slander.



One final note on this point: during the course of writing this piece, it struck me how strange it is that the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary debate, which prioritizes transgender politics over bisexual politics, has successfully proliferated for several years now, and has persuaded many BMNOPPQ folks to disavow the word bisexual without that much of a pushback. And I find it alarming that, even though the word monosexism was coined and used by bisexual activists at least a decade before the word cissexism was by trans activists, these days I find myself having to explain what the former means far more so than the latter. In other words, while the bisexual movement gained initial momentum prior to the transgender movement (which is why the B typically precedes the T in most queer acronyms), the transgender movement seems to have leap-frogged over the bisexual movement, at least within the context of queer communities. To be clear, I am not in any way insinuating that BMNOPPQ folks are “more oppressed” than transgender people (lord knows, there is nothing I loathe more than playing “oppression Olympics”). But I do think that transgender people have gelled more as a community than BMNOPPQ folks have. And this lack of cohesion among BMNOPPQ folks (in combination with the single-minded THE GENDER BINARY perspective) has certainly contributed to the one-sided nature of the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary debate.



One final observation



Finally, it must be stressed that this bisexual-reinforces-the-binary debate is not raging uniformly throughout all LGBTQIA+ communities. It seems to be largely absent from gay men’s communities, and among transgender and bisexual folks who spend most of their time in straight communities rather than queer ones. As far as I can tell, this debate is primarily occurring within queer women’s communities and among trans folks who also inhabit those spaces. And I think this specificity offers some insight into why this debate has surfaced and gained traction at this particular place and time.



This connection occurred to me after, on a couple separate occasions, I heard trans men claim that, in their opinion, bisexuals (as a group) tend to be more transphobic than lesbians. Frankly, this claim astonished me. Historically, transgender and bisexual activists often saw themselves on the same side of challenging exclusion within greater gay and lesbian communities and organizations. And in my own personal experience, I have found that the self-identified bisexuals in my queer community tend to be far more supportive of me (as a trans woman) than exclusively lesbian and gay folks. And while cisgender lesbians typically do not view trans women such as myself to be legitimate romantic or sexual partners, cisgender bisexual women often do. As a testament to this, *all* of my queer female sexual and romantic partners have been either bisexual and/or gender variant in some way. While I am definitely open to the idea of having a cisgender lesbian lover or partner, I have never once had a cisgender lesbian express interest in me in that way. And this experience is not specific to me—it is pervasive enough that trans women often refer to it as “the cotton ceiling.”



Of course, things are different for trans men and trans masculine spectrum folks. They often feel relatively accepted (as both individuals and prospective lovers/partners) by cisgender lesbians these days. So it makes sense that, from their point of view, bisexuals might appear more transphobic than lesbians (indeed, Eisner makes a similar point). In stark contrast, from my perspective as a trans woman, I find that cisgender lesbians tend to be way more likely to be trans-misogynistic than cisgender bisexual women. These are generalizations, of course, but they seem to account for our greatly differing perspectives on this matter.



Ironically, while lesbian-feminism is typically considered to be passé these days, its foundational premise—that cisgender men are inherently oppressive, and that women who partner with them are traitors to the cause—still lives on in today’s queer women’s communities. Elsewhere, I have referred to this mindset as FAAB-mentality. Because of FAAB-mentality, trans women are seen as suspect because we are viewed as being “really cisgender men,” and femmes are dismissed for too closely resembling heterosexual women. And of course, bisexual women are viewed as suspect because some of us choose to partner with cisgender men.



I believe that this FAAB-mentality is at work behind the scenes when trans male/masculine folks stress how different they are from cisgender men in order to be accepted in queer women’s spaces, and when queer women who partner with trans men (and who therefore fall under the BMNOPPQ umbrella) go to great lengths to avoid identifying as bisexual. While I respect any person’s right to choose pansexual, polysexual, queer, etc., over bisexual, I sometimes feel that these alternative labels function like code words in queer women’s communities, as if to say, “I am sexual with everyone *except* cisgender men.” While people are certainly free to choose not to partner with cisgender men, I am disturbed by the binary that seems to be developing here, one in which pansexual/polysexual/etc.-identified women are supposedly subversive and queer because they refuse to sleep with cisgender men, whereas bisexual-identified women are supposedly conservative and straight-minded because they do sometimes partner with cisgender men. And it seems to me that the bisexual-reinforces-the-binary trope exacerbates this binary, which is probably why this accusation has become so prevalent in queer women’s communities.



While it is true that some bisexuals are cissexist, it is also true that many lesbians and trans folks are monosexist. As a bisexual trans woman who is very active in queer women’s communities, I would like to see us all stop pitting ourselves against one another, and instead work together to challenge all binaries and all forms of sexism.

julia update November 2012

hey folks! just a quick update about a flurry of upcoming events I have!



1) San Francisco reading Wednesday (tomorrow/today) November 7th.

2) “Our Art is Our Advocacy” panel at the Transgender Leadership Summit on Friday, November 9th.

3) presentation at Boston College on Tuesday November 13th.

4) SF Dyke March forum on AGE DIVERSITY AND GENDER FLUIDITY on November 15th.



Below are details about all these things:



1) San Francisco reading Wednesday (tomorrow/today) November 7th.



Many of you know about this event already, as I have been Tweeting and Facebooking about it. But for those who don't know, here are the details:



Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive



Wednesday, November 7, 2012

7:00pm until 8:30pm

Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive

https://www.facebook.com/events/433105406750508/permalink/437852916275757/



What: Mettaversity Live Speaking Series -formerly Metta Dance

When: Wednesday, November 7th – 7:00-8:30pm

Where: The Women’s Building (18th btwn Valencia/Guerrero)



Cost: $10 at the door (No one turned away for lack of funds)



Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive



Women, and gender and sexual minorities, are all targeted by sexism—that is, double standards based on one’s sex, gender or sexuality. For many of us, our experiences dealing with sexism drive us to become involved in feminism and queer (i.e., LGBTQIA+) activism. We seek out like-minded people who share our goals to eliminate sex-, gender- and sexuality-based hierarchies, and together, we work hard to build new movements and communities with the intent that they will be safe and empowering for those of us who have been shut out of the straight, male-centric mainstream. And yet, somewhere along the way, despite our best intentions, the movements and communities that we create almost always end up marginalizing and excluding others who wish to participate.



In this event, Julia Serano (author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity) presents from excerpts of some of her newer essays and spoken word pieces focused on both critiquing this tendency toward exclusivity in feminist, queer and trans movements, and providing new ideas regarding how we might go about making more genuinely inclusive movements.



++++++++



2) “Our Art is Our Advocacy” panel at the Transgender Leadership Summit on Friday, November 9th.



For those going to this year's Transgender Leadership Summit in Berkeley, CA this upcoming weekend, come see this excellent panel:



7:20 pm – Plenary:  Our Art is Our Advocacy

Artists are important social activists because of their ability to reach all types of people across local and global communities. This plenary explores the work of popular transgender artists and how they utilize art to advocate for transgender visibility. Presenters:  Julia Serano (writer); Annie Danger (performance artist); Dana Morrigan (poet and comic); Kai M. Green (filmmaker); Tobi Hill-Meyer (filmmaker)



The entire conference schedule can be found here:

http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/events/leadershipsummit/summitschedule



3) presentation at Boston College on Tuesday November 13th.



Next week, Boston College is having a "Love Your Body Week," and I am giving a presentation on that theme on Tuesday, November 13, 2012, in Gasson 305. Those are the details I have, please come out!!!



4) SF Dyke March forum on AGE DIVERSITY AND GENDER FLUIDITY on November 15th.



This should be an interesting and relevant panel, and I'm happy to be a part of it. Here's the entire description:



AGE DIVERSITY AND GENDER FLUIDITY

A  FORUM SPONSORED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO DYKE MARCH

November 15, 2012  7-9 p.m.

GLBT History Museum

4127 18th St.

San Francisco, CA 94114

(between Castro & Collingwood Streets)



In its 20th year the San Francisco Dyke March is hosting a number of forums and events to celebrate the anniversary.  The theme for the year is “Dyke Space Continuum” reflecting the genesis of the Dyke March, its evolution, its revolution and the desire to embrace each and every "dyke" who makes up our community today.



Elana Dykewomon, Elena Escalera, Krys Freeman and Julia Serano will facilitate an open forum to trace the history of the “dyke space continuum,” defining the present state of gender politics and how it is related to/identified within different generations of LGBTQ individuals.



The Dyke March was founded by second-wave feminists with roots in the Civil Rights, Women’s Liberation, Anti-War, Anti-Racist and Anti-Imperialist Movements.  The initial premise of the Dyke March was to create a separate space for queer women.  Younger folks are often not aware of the history and events which have influenced the evolving continuum of any given community.  This is certainly mirrored in the microcosm of the Dyke March.  On the other hand, older dykes may not have personal interactions exposing them to new gender theories and the life experiences of younger dykes.



Beyond those general conditions associated with age and change, the widening of queer representations to include a greater spectrum of trans-identified or gender-nonconforming individuals creates some unique political and social divides.  In 1995 the Dyke March began redefining parameters, moving away from “woman-only space” and inviting all to participate with the exception of those who identify as men. (It should be noted that the S.F. Dyke March was/is consistently inclusive of Trans Women/MTF.) Although many welcomed the change, for others the reaction was mixed.  Some regret the loss of women-only space.  Others feel excluded and question whether there is unfair gender “policing.”



This panel seeks not to reconcile these groups outright, but to facilitate a conversation and head towards a place of understanding and progress in the 20th year of the SF Dyke March.



OK, that's it, hope you can come out to some of these! and remember:



here is my main website:

http://www.juliaserano.com



and I tweet fairly frequently:

http://twitter.com/#!/Juliaserano



for those interested in what I have to say when I have more than 140 characters to work with, I have a blog:

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com



I also post all my upcoming events and news on my aforementioned blog, and it also all automatically gets forwarded to my Facebook "writer" page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Julia-Serano/277728205577201?ref=ts

so I encourage you to follow me ( and perhaps "like me") there!



that's it, best wishes! -julia

Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive

Hello! So news about this upcoming event (a reading I am giving) has been getting around on Facebook. But for those who haven't seen it, here's all the details - hope you can make it! -j.



https://www.facebook.com/events/433105406750508/permalink/437852916275757/



Wednesday, November 7, 2012

7:00pm until 8:30pm

Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive



What: Mettaversity Live Speaking Series -formerly Metta Dance

When: Wednesday, November 7th – 7:00-8:30pm

Where: The Women’s Building (18th btwn Valencia/Guerrero)



Cost: $10 at the door (No one turned away for lack of funds)



Making Feminist, Queer and Trans Movements More Genuinely Inclusive



Women, and gender and sexual minorities, are all targeted by sexism—that is, double standards based on one’s sex, gender or sexuality. For many of us, our experiences dealing with sexism drive us to become involved in feminism and queer (i.e., LGBTQIA+) activism. We seek out like-minded people who share our goals to eliminate sex-, gender- and sexuality-based hierarchies, and together, we work hard to build new movements and communities with the intent that they will be safe and empowering for those of us who have been shut out of the straight, male-centric mainstream. And yet, somewhere along the way, despite our best intentions, the movements and communities that we create almost always end up marginalizing and excluding others who wish to participate.



In this event, Julia Serano (author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity) presents from excerpts of some of her newer essays and spoken word pieces focused on both critiquing this tendency toward exclusivity in feminist, queer and trans movements, and providing new ideas regarding how we might go about making more genuinely inclusive movements.

Thoughts on the election and “Romnesia”

So it probably won’t surprise too many people that I will be
voting for Obama in this year’s election. Like a lot of progressives, there are
certainly a number of things the Obama administration has done (or not done) in
the last four years that have disappointed me. He is certainly more politically
moderate than I would like, but then again, I am registered as Green, so basically
any president who gets elected will inevitably be to the political right of me.






Having said that, I am not naive enough to buy into the
whole “there’s no difference between the two major parties” line. Actually,
there is a huge whopping difference - all you have to do is compare the previous
8 years of Bush to those of Clinton (another moderate Democrat like Obama). The
difference between the two parties has become even more pronounced since the
Bush years, now that the Tea Party is pushing Republicans to become even more socially
conservative, regressive with regards to taxation, and ignorant with regards to
education, science (e.g., evolution, climate change, reproduction), and “facts.”
The next president will get to choose one, maybe several, Supreme Court
justices. If Romney wins, you can kiss Roe vs Wade (as well as other liberal precedents
and policies) goodbye...




Speaking of Romney, let me say this: I have paid close
attention to every election since 1988 (first Bush vs Dukakis). And I can say
that, hands down, I have *never* seen a candidate so blatantly lie and massively
change positions as Romney has. Granted, obscuring the truth, spinning the
facts, and flip-flopping on positions occurs with all politicians. But typically,
politicians at least have a few core beliefs, and will admit to, and usually
stand by, their previous positions. Romney has been utterly shameless in his
blatant lying, and in pretending that he never said anything that he has previously
said.




Even more frustrating is how the media (or much of the
media) is letting him get away with it. This whole charade is being described
by pundits as simply an “abrupt shift toward the center” or a “bold change in
strategy.” They’ll call Romney a flip-flopper, or an obfuscator, but they won’t
call him a liar, even when he pretends that he didn’t say the things he’s
previously said, and pretends that he does not have the policies he’s been touting all along. It’s like “liar” is somehow deemed beyond the pale—a word
too profane to use in polite company.




The profanitization (yes, I have coined another word!) of
“liar” has made it difficult for Obama and his supporters to actually call out
Romney’s lies (aka, his suddenly pretending that he hasn’t been running as a “severe
conservative” the last two years). So they have had to invent their own word to
describe the situation: “Romnesia.” It is catchy sounding. It is politically
expedient, in that it portrays Romney as a severe conservative who has
forgotten his previous ultra-conservative positions (rather than as a pragmatic
moderate flip-flopper). And it allows Obama to get in a funny “zinger” about
pre-existing conditions being covered under “Obamacare” (yes, Obama himself is
calling it that now).




But the whole “Romnesia” thing seems to me to be built on an
underlying premise of ableism. Sure, it’s a joke - Obama is not actually trying
to diagnose Romney with “Romnesia,” nor is it slated to be in the next DSM
(unless Zucker and Blanchard sneak that one in there when no one’s looking). But
when we laugh at “Romnesia,” we’re laughing in part because we’ve been
socialized to laugh at people that we see as mentally ill or mentally incompetent. That’s
built into the joke. And the sad thing is that somehow, the media has decided
that calling a liar a “liar” is out of bounds, but it’s OK (funny even!) if the
liar is portrayed as having a make-believe mental condition.




Like I said, Romney scares the hell out of me. And I will
definitely be voting for Obama. But I reserve the right to cringe every time I
hear that “Romnesia” joke. And I look forward to a day when we can call liars
“liars,” and not have to resort to the trope of mental illness to make our
case...




p.s., can we also please stop using the word “zingers”? it makes it sound as if we’re all in one giant Vaudeville act or something...

julia update September 2012

in this update:





1) consider bringing julia out to your campus!

2) julia will be speaking/performing in Peterborough, Ontario next weekend

3) website revamp

.....................



hello, and happy equinox weekend! here is what's new:



1) consider bringing julia out to your campus!



So a new academic year has begun, and as always, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to speak/perform at various colleges & universities this year!



If you are affiliated with a college - especially if you belong to a trans, LGBTQIA+, and/or feminist-related organization - please consider bringing me out to your campus! And even if you aren't associated with a college yourself, please feel free to forward this onto people that you know who are students, staff, or faculty somewhere.



For those interested, I have a recently updated "booking" webpage (http://www.juliaserano.com/booking.html) containing most of the pertinent info, including short descriptions of some of my most frequently requested talks. I have also added two new presentations for this year: "Recognizing the B and T in LGBTQ" (discussing bisexual/pansexual and transgender/gender-variant activism, within both queer settings and the straight mainstream), and "A Holistic View of Feminism" (where I discuss some of the central ideas of my next book, which I hope to be published sometime in 2013).



a PDF version of this booking info can be downloaded at this link: http://www.juliaserano.com/av/bookingJulia.pdf

.......................



2) julia will be speaking/performing in Peterborough, Ontario



speaking of events, I have one coming up next weekend!



September 28, 2012 -- I will be giving a keynote talk on Trans Feminism: a performance and discussion at TransForming Feminisms: Trans Access (the redux), at Sadleir House, 751 George St., Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. All the details can be found on their Facebook page.



The event is being organized by the Centre for Gender and Social Justice:

http://centreforgenderandsocialjustice.ca/?page_id=49



More details can be found on their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/TransFormingFeminismsTransAccesstheRedux/info?ref=stream

...............................



3) website revamp



After a long period of disregard, I recently revamped several pages of my website. There is much new stuff to be found! Here are some of the pages that have been updated:



http://www.juliaserano.com/about.html

http://www.juliaserano.com/writings.html

http://www.juliaserano.com/av.html

http://www.juliaserano.com/press.html

http://www.juliaserano.com/booking.html

http://www.juliaserano.com/events.html



enjoy!



That's it for now. And remember, between updates, you can always check out:



my main website:

http://www.juliaserano.com



and I tweet regularly (@juliaserano):

http://twitter.com/#!/Juliaserano



for those interested in what I have to say when I have more than 140 characters to work with, there's my blog:

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com



I also post all my upcoming events and news on my aforementioned blog, and it also all automatically gets forwarded to my Facebook "writer" page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Julia-Serano/277728205577201?ref=ts

so I encourage you to follow me (and perhaps "like me") there!



Best wishes, -julia

consider bringing Julia Serano out to your campus!

So a new academic year has begun, and as always, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to speak/perform at various colleges & universities this year!



If you are affiliated with a college - especially if you belong to a trans, LGBTQIA+, and/or feminist-related organization - please consider bringing me out to your campus! And even if you aren't associated with a college yourself, please feel free to forward this onto people that you know who are students, staff, or faculty somewhere.



For those interested, I have a recently updated "booking" webpage containing most of the pertinent info, including short descriptions of some of my most frequently requested talks. I have also added two new presentations for this year: "Recognizing the B and T in LGBTQ" (discussing bisexual/pansexual and transgender/gender-variant activism, within both queer settings and the straight mainstream), and "A Holistic View of Feminism" (where I discuss some of the central ideas of my next book, which I hope to be published sometime in 2013).



a PDF version of this booking info can be downloaded at this link: http://www.juliaserano.com/av/bookingJulia.pdf



Best wishes, -julia

going to Dore Alley Street Fair? consider volunteering on behalf of Girl Talk!

So as many of you know, I am one of the co-curators of the recurring show Girl Talk: A Trans and Cis Woman Dialogue. I just received the following post from Gina de Vries (also a Girl Talk co-curator) that may interest some of you:



BAY AREA GIRL TALK FANS! Are you free this Sunday? Do you wanna help Girl Talk make lots of money for our 2013 show? Volunteer on Girl Talk's behalf at Up Your Alley (aka The Dore Alley Street Fair). Every Girl Talk-related volunteer equals $100 for Girl Talk -- which equals AWESOME, duh! Please contact Kevin Seaman at the Queer Cultural Center at kevin.l.seaman@gmail.com for more info. Say you are with GIRL TALK & that you wanna volunteer on our behalf. Please DO NOT contact me, Julia, or Rose about it, as 2/3 of us are out of town, and anyway, Kevin is in charge of everything Up Your Alley fundraising related & can answer yr questions way better than any of us. Bless you & thank you & PLEASE spread the word! (Also, sorry for the late announcement -- I have been on writing retreat & only found out about this today.)



so if any of you are planning on being at Dore Alley & are interested in volunteering on behalf of Girl Talk, please contact Kevin at the above email address - we'd really appreciate it!



-julia

videos of Biggest Quake: New thinking on the San Francisco AIDS epidemic

So as I mentioned in a previous blog post, last month I had the honor of reading in Kirk Read's show Biggest Quake: New thinking on the San Francisco AIDS epidemic. The event ran 3 nights, with writers doing different material each night. It was one of the most amazing performance experiences of my life - my fellow performers' pieces were so beautiful, funny, intense, and moving.



For those who missed those shows, you still have the chance to see them, as they were all video-recorded and are now available on the web! Here are the appropriate links for each show:



For those who missed those shows, you still have the chance to see them, as they were all video-recorded and are now available on the web! Here are the appropriate links for each show:



June 14, 2012 - Kirk Read The Biggest Quake:  www.vimeo.com/album/1975177  

June 15, 2012 - Kirk Read The Biggest Quake:  www.vimeo.com/album/1976963

June 16, 2012 - Kirk Read The Biggest Quake:  www.vimeo.com/album/1977205



After clicking on each link, just scroll down the page to find video of each reader's performance that evening. If you like what you see, be sure to spread the word with others. Enjoy!

the Fully Functional Cabaret!

Happy Sunday! I just wanted to let folks know about what looks to be a *spectacular* show taking place in San Francisco next weekend. It's called "The Fully Functional Cabaret," and it features some of my very favorite trans women performers! All the details can be found below - I encourage interested folks to buy tickets in advance, as me thinks that it is very likely to sell out. And even if you cannot attend yourself, please help spread the word about the show (all relevant links can be found at the bottom of this post)...thanks!  -julia




The Fully Functional Cabaret

Trans Women's Secrets...REVEALED!

Friday and Saturday, July 6th and 7th

7pm

$12-$20 sliding, N.O.T.A.

African American Arts and Culture Complex, 762 Fulton Street

Starring: Annie Danger, Bryn Kelly, Red Durkin, Ryka Aoki, Shawna Virago, and introducing Star Amerasu




SAVE THE DATE! The world premiere of  The Fully Functional Cabaret , a thunderous, campy, beautiful love letter to trans womanhood, is just around the corner. Packed with a nationwide cast of trans luminaries, this giddily-awaited, deeply smart, and thoroughly entertaining show will change how you see trans women forever.

Advance tickets are recommended for this 2-nights-only engagement.




This all-trans-woman show is the culmination of a year-long collaborative engagement between Annie Danger (It's That Easy! With Terry VanWeen!, Sister Spit 2010, Great Church of the Holy Fuck), Shawna Virago (Fresh Meat Productions and the SF Transgender Film Festival), Ryka Aoki (LA's Transgivingand The Tranny Road Show), Red Durkin (New York's premiere trans woman comedian and Managing Editor at prettyqueer.com), Bryn Kelly (New York's Gay Ole Opry and Theater Transgresssion), and introducing the inimmitable Star Amerasu!




The Fully Functional Cabaret is a shining, campy, thunderous, and beautiful love letter to trans womanhood. Take a step back, and you will see a familiar story of people seeking healing by shining a light all up in society’s deepest crevides . Be it song, dance, or glowing genitalia, there's something for everyone at The Fully Functional Cabaret. Come for the comedic stylings of Red Durkin, the powerhouse voice of Star Amerasu, the poetic incandescence of Ryka Aoki, the dulcet tones of Bryn Kelly, Shawna Virago's razor wit, and the cunningly fun art of Annie Danger.




Written by collaborative process of its all-trans woman cast, Fully Functional was divined by taking our unheard, inappropriate, and deeply true stories and slathering them in a glittery coat of raw-hearted wit. We are women, whole and complete, and our lives are long obscured by the hideous apparitions of the medical industry, the mass media, and even some  feminists! Fully Functional takes these unfortunate mantles on its shoulders and runs with them, shouting “NO SOB STORIES!




Advance tickets are available at: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/246311

Contact Annie Danger at andrea.m.danger@gmail.com for questions, interview queries, hi-res cast photos, or further information.

FFC is part of the 2012 National Queer Arts Festival: http://queerculturalcenter.org/NQAF/performance/fullyfunctional/

FFC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/events/274147082680310/