TRANSGENDER
Tragic Trans? Nope!

The American series “Transparent” makes the subject gender identity now also popular in Germany. In America, the debate is far more. A visit to the transgender center in Queens, New York.
By Claudia Steinberg
Die Zeit
9 April 2015

A rainbow flag between Isabel’s Hair Salon and the mini supermarket shows the way to Pride House: the center for queers and transsexuals on 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens. There sits on voluminous sofas and office chairs a group of transsexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. The atmosphere is relaxed. Until a woman of indeterminate age dressed in black with a glamorous Chinese shawl draped around her shoulders, takes her place. Pauline Park is the founder and director of Pride House. The group discussion includes dramatic tales of family disputes and unease with their assigned gender identity that feels wrong.

Everyone has known for a long time about Laura’s attempted suicide. Gene reported on the visit of his beloved grandmother from China and how she did not understand the transformation of her granddaughter into a boy and the difficulty she was having accepting his new gender identity. Dylan is computer programmer and longs for acceptance from his ex-wife and his children as he contemplates his transition. June wants to find a new job as a woman, but her doctorate and all her excellent work experience is under her male name.

Since the debates of the 1970s, gays have been able to integrate into the mainstream, leaving transgendered  individuals as an exotic community of outsiders. Their stories of redemption still have entertainment value in a way that the story of a gay couple with a dog and a house in the suburbs has lost. Meanwhile transgender has become the new hot topic, even among the general public, as a civil rights issue, as glamor factor, as a television series. In universities, transgender is challenging gender boundaries under the flag of queer studies. In October of last year, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio called for the ability to change one’s gender on birth certificates without sex reassignment surgery. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has demanded that health insurance companies pay for sex change operations. The New York City jail, Rikers Island, one of the largest prisons in the world, set up a special department for transsexual inmates because prisons are dangerous places where they often have to endure violence and sexual attacks. Ten years ago a film like “TransAmerica” – in which heroine Bree transitions from man to woman – was still exceptional. Beginning this week, you can go to Amazon.com to find a German-language version of the series “Transparent” (as in, a parent who is transsexual); it has already won a Golden Globe award and has a good chance of attaining cult status.

The writer and director of “Transparent,” Jill Soloway, was inspired by the gender metamorphosis of her own father to create a funny and empathetic call for gender freedom: As Mort’s three daughters are grown up, he risks his coming-out and suddenly comes through the door as a woman with a long hair, in high heels and in a pretty dress. The astonishment is great, especially since Papa Mort surprises his daughter in an intimate embrace with her girlfriend. The series celebrates not just “the birth of a new mother from the female I of the Father,” but also “boygirl, girlboy, macho princess and officer slutty sweet bear,” encouraging them to affirm the identity of their choice. With this anti-dualistic conception, Soloway has wiped away the stereotype of the tragic tranny, the audience of millions demonstrating the possibilities of bold self-determination.

Pauline Park has situated her Pride House in one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world: In the school kitty corner, 84 languages are spoken. At Pride House, there are clients from Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Each year, the site provides approximately 6,000 interactions with residents from throughout Queens, New York’s second largest borough in population. Pride House has a database of lawyers and doctors accumulated over the course of two decades from whom transsexuals can hope for respectful behavior, working with psychotherapists or psychiatrists together. Immigration and health care are the most important issues. Pride House provides HIV tests, distributes 50,000 condoms a month, and helps homeless clients to find accommodation. “Transsexual teens often end up on the street,” says Park.

Pauline Park’s compassion for people like Laura or Gene is based on her own complicated biography. In 1960, American adoptive parents took two malnourished twins from Seoul. The boys were only eight months old and were the only non-white children in their elementary school. They found themselves in a Christian fundamentalist Republican family. In the first semester of her philosophy degree at the University of Wisconsin, to Park came out as gay. But that was only half the story. The other half came to light when Park took a scholarship to London and there increasingly appeared as a woman. She calls it the most liberating experience of her lives: “For the first time, I presented myself as I saw myself.” Finally, there was her reading of Michel Foucault, through which Park freed herself from the burden of supposedly inauthentic Korean identity and the sex/gender binary, unmasked as a social construct. “I started to accept me as” a male-bodied woman “and as Korean adoptee.”

At home in the sexual and cultural ambiguity, Pauline Park makes a radical theorist and activist who is at loggerheads with the “transgender establishment” in America and the “classic transsexual transition narrative.”

Page 2/2: The gender identity disorder still has the status of a mental illness

After conducting hundreds of training sessions and workshops at universities, hospitals, government agencies and companies Pauline Park is very familiar with all the prejudices that circulate about transsexuals. “Most participants expect me to tell them something about hormones and surgery. But while I begin by talking about that, I focus on trying to explain how many barriers a transsexual must overcome in a hospital visit.” Since 9/11, almost every public building has required showing an identity card. If one’s ID is in a male name, but the person appears as a woman, she will not be able to get beyond the guards. The next hurdle is the form on which you have to check ‘male’ or ‘female.’ If the patient Joanna is sitting in the waiting room, but the name John is called, it can expose her to astonished glances.

The linear transformation from male to female and vice versa is presented to the public on countless talk shows, from Oprah Winfrey to Barbara Walters – with guests who talk about being trapped in the wrong body and want to corrected that state of affairs through hormones and surgery. A change in legal sex designation can actually reinforce the sex/gender binary if it is based on the disease model of transsexuality. In 1974, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual of mental disorders, which instantly ‘cured’ millions of gays. At the same time, the American Psychiatric Association introduced the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, which was recently changed to gender dysphoria, but which retains its status as a mental illness. Consequently, all transgendered individuals are still considered mentally ill.

Park conceded that the dissonance between the assigned gender identity and internal feeling, especially coupled with transgenderphobia, can lead to depression. But that would implicate a diseased society rather than the individual. She wants more than a few crumbs from the table at the Department of Health and isn’t willing to accept them at the cost of pathologizing the community. She regards transgender identity rather like left-handedness, with transsexualism as a natural variant of the dominant gender identity, not a form of deviance. Whoever would like sex reassignment surgery should have the opportunity to get it, says Park. But in contrast to the traditional transgender discourse only a tiny minority would undergo these serious interventions. The majority is situated on some point in the wide spectrum between masculine and feminine. A subversive concept that can result in open conflict in the choice of a public toilet in New York as elsewhere.

NB: This article appeared in the 9 April 2015 issue of Die Zeit under the title, “Tragische Transe? Nö!.” The original German text is below. The above English translation is mine. ~Pauline Park

TRANSGENDER
Tragische Transe? Nö!

Die amerikanische Serie “Transparent” macht das Thema Geschlechtsidentität jetzt auch in Deutschland populär. In Amerika ist die Diskussion längst weiter. Ein Besuch im Transgender-Zentrum in Queens, New York.

Von Claudia Steinberg
Die Zeit
9 April 2015

Eine Regenbogenflagge zwischen Isabels Haarsalon und dem Minisupermarkt zeigt den Weg nach Pride House: ins Zentrum für Queers und Transsexuelle auf der 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens. Dort sitzt auf voluminösen Sofas und Bürostühlen eine Gruppe von Transsexuellen, Lesben und Bisexuellen. Die Atmosphäre ist ausgelassen. Bis eine schwarz gekleidete Dame unbestimmten Alters, glamourös einen chinesischen Schal um die Schultern drapiert, Platz nimmt. Pauline Park ist die Gründerin und Direktorin von Pride House. Sie weiß, gleich wird die Stimmung abstürzen, mit dramatischen Erzählungen von Familienstreit, dem Aufflammen von Unbehagen an der zugewiesenen Geschlechtsidentität, die sich falsch anfühlt.

Alle wissen längst um Lauras Selbstmordabsichten. Gene berichtet vom Besuch seiner geliebten Oma aus China, die über die Verwandlung ihrer Enkelin in einen Jungen so verzweifelt war wie er über ihre Unfähigkeit, seine neue Identität zu akzeptieren. Dylan ist Computerprogrammiererin und sehnt sich nach einer “Rückwärtskompatibilität” mit der Ehefrau und den Kindern aus ihrem früheren Leben als Mann. Ihre Kollegin June sollte sich bei der Suche nach einem neuen Job einfach als Frau vorstellen, findet Dylan – doch Junes Doktortitel und ihre ganze exzellente Berufserfahrung laufen unter ihrem Männernamen.

Seit sich die Schwulen nach den Debatten der siebziger Jahre in den Mainstream eingliedern konnten, sind Transgender-Individuen als exotischer Rest der Außenseitergemeinde übrig geblieben. Ihre Erlösungsgeschichten besitzen noch immer jenen Unterhaltungsfaktor, den ein schwules Paar mit Hund und Haus in der Vorstadt längst verloren hat. Inzwischen ist Transgender das neue heiße Thema, es ist sogar in der breiten Öffentlichkeit angekommen, als Bürgerrechtsproblematik, als Glamour-Faktor, als Fernsehserie. An den Universitäten rüttelt es unter der Flagge von Queer Studies an den Geschlechtergrenzen. Im Oktober des vergangenen Jahres plädierte der New Yorker Bürgermeister Bill de Blasio für die Möglichkeit, das Geschlecht auf Geburtsurkunden ohne operative Umwandlung ändern zu können. Der New Yorker Gouverneur Andrew Cuomo hat verlangt, dass Krankenversicherungen für Geschlechtsumwandlungen aufkommen. Das New Yorker Gefängnis Rikers Island, eine der größten Strafanstalten der Welt, richtet eine Sonderabteilung für transsexuelle Häftlinge ein, weil Gefängnisse für sie zu den gefährlichsten Orten zählen, wo sie oft Gewalttätigkeit und sexuelle Attacken erdulden müssen. Vor zehn Jahren war ein Film wie Transamerika mit seiner vom Mann zur Frau transformierten Heldin Bree noch eine Ausnahme. Von dieser Woche an kann man über Amazon auch auf Deutsch die Serie Transparent sehen (parent wie Eltern und trans wie transsexuell), sie ist schon ausgezeichnet mit dem Golden Globe und hat beste Aussichten auf einen Kultstatus.

Die Autorin und Regisseurin von Transparent, Jill Soloway, hat sich von der Gendermetamorphose ihres eigenen Vaters zu einem witzigen und empathischen Aufruf für die Geschlechterfreiheit inspirieren lassen: Als Morts drei Töchter erwachsen sind, wagt er sein Coming-out und kommt plötzlich als Frau mit langer Haarmähne, auf Stöckelschuhen und im hübschen Kleid durch die Tür. Das Erstaunen ist groß, zumal Papa Mort dabei seine Tochter in inniger Umarmung mit ihrer Freundin überrascht. Die Serie soll nicht nur “die Geburt einer neuen Mutter aus dem weiblichen Ich des Vaters” feiern, sondern auch “boygirl, girlboy, macho princess and officer sweet slutty bear” zur Identität ihrer Wahl ermutigen. Mit dieser antidualistischen Auffassung hat Soloway das Klischee der tragischen Transe mit Schwung hinweggewischt und einem Millionenpublikum die Möglichkeiten kühner Selbstbestimmung vorgeführt.

Dieser Artikel stammt aus der ZEIT Nr. 15 vom 9.4.2015.

Dieser Artikel stammt aus der ZEIT Nr. 15 vom 9.4.2015.  |  Die aktuelle ZEIT können Sie am Kiosk oder hier erwerben.

Pauline Park hat ihr Pride House an einem der ethnisch vielfältigsten Orte der Welt angesiedelt: In der Schule schräg gegenüber werden 84 Sprachen gesprochen. Im Pride House erscheinen Klienten aus Kolumbien, Ecuador, Mexiko, China, Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesch oder von den Philippinen. Die Einrichtung verzeichnet jedes Jahr rund 6000 Interaktionen mit Bewohnern aus ganz Queens, New Yorks zweitgrößtem Stadtteil. Pride House hat in zwei Jahrzehnten einen Katalog von Rechtsanwälten und Medizinern angesammelt, bei denen Transsexuelle auf respektvollen Umgang hoffen können, man arbeitet mit Psychotherapeuten oder Psychiatern zusammen. Immigration und medizinische Versorgung sind die wichtigsten Themen. Pride House vermittelt HIV-Tests, verteilt pro Monat 50.000 Kondome oder hilft obdachlosen Klienten, eine Unterkunft zu finden. “Gerade transsexuelle Teenager enden oft auf der Straße”, sagt Park.

Pauline Parks Mitgefühl für Menschen wie Laura oder Gene ist in ihrer eigenen komplizierten Biografie begründet. Im Jahr 1960 nahmen amerikanische Adoptiveltern zwei unterernährte Zwillingsbrüder aus Seoul in Empfang. Die Jungen waren erst acht Monate alt und wuchsen nun auf als die einzigen nicht weißen Kinder der Umgebung. Sie waren in einer christlich fundamentalistischen, republikanischen Familie gelandet. Im ersten Semester ihres Philosophiestudiums an der University of Wisconsin offenbarte sich Park als schwul. Doch das war nur die halbe Wahrheit. Die andere Hälfte kam zum Vorschein, als Park mit einem Stipendium nach London zog und dort immer häufiger als Frau auftrat. Sie nennt es die befreiendste Erfahrung ihres Lebens: “Zum ersten Mal präsentierte ich mich so, wie ich mich sah.” Schließlich war es die Lektüre von Michel Foucault, die Park von dem vermeintlichen Fluch einer inauthentischen koreanischen Identität befreite und die binäre Geschlechtsbestimmung als gesellschaftliches Konstrukt entlarvte. “Ich begann, mich als ›körperlich männliche Frau‹ und als koreanisches Adoptivkind zu akzeptieren.”

Dass sie sich in der geschlechtlichen und kulturellen Ambiguität so beheimatet fühlt, macht Pauline Park zu einer radikalen Theoretikerin und Aktivistin, die mit dem “Transgender-Establishment” Amerikas und seiner “klassischen Version der Geschlechtsumwandlung” auf Kriegsfuß steht.

Seite 2/2: Die Geschlechtsidentitätsstörung hat immer noch den Status einer Geisteskrankheit

Nach Hunderten von Schulungen und Workshops an Universitäten, in Kliniken, Regierungsstellen und Unternehmen ist Pauline Park bestens mit allen Vorurteilen vertraut, die über Transsexuelle kursieren. “Die meisten Teilnehmer erwarten, dass ich ihnen etwas über Hormone und Operationen erzähle. Aber das Thema berühre ich kaum. Ich versuche zu erklären, wie viele Barrieren ein Transsexueller etwa bei einem Krankenhausbesuch überwinden muss”. Seit dem 11. September verlangt nahezu jedes öffentliche Gebäude das Vorzeigen eines Ausweises. Wenn der auf einen männlichen Namen lautet, die Person jedoch als Frau erscheint, wird sie möglicherweise nicht über den Wachtposten hinauskommen. Die nächste Hürde ist das Formular, auf dem man “männlich” oder “weiblich” ankreuzen muss. Wenn die Patientin Joanna im Warteraum sitzt, aber als John aufgerufen wird, ist sie verwunderten Blicken ausgesetzt.

Die lineare Transformation vom Mann zur Frau und umgekehrt wurde der Öffentlichkeit in zahllosen Talkshows von Oprah Winfrey bis Barbara Walters nahegebracht – mit Gästen, die sich im falschen Körper eingesperrt fühlten und diesen Missstand mit Hormonen und Operationen behoben. Mit der Umkehrung der genitalen Vorzeichen bleibt aber nicht nur die Weltordnung der polaren Geschlechtsidentität erhalten, sondern die Transsexualität weiterhin dem Krankheitsmodell verhaftet. 1974 wurde die Homosexualität aus dem diagnostischen Handbuch psychischer Störungen gestrichen, das führte mit einem Streich zur “Heilung” von Millionen von Schwulen. Gleichzeitig definierte aber die American Psychiatric Association eine gender identity disorder, Geschlechtsidentitätsstörung, die zur gender dysphoria abgemildert wurde, ohne jedoch ihren Status als Geisteskrankheit zu verlieren. Demzufolge wären alle Transgender-Individuen geisteskrank.

Park konzediert, dass die Dissonanz zwischen der zugewiesenen Geschlechtsidentität und der eigenen Empfindung, vor allem aber Transgender-Phobie zu Depressionen führen kann. Das wäre allerdings eher eine Krankheit der Gesellschaft als eine des Individuums. Sie will mehr als ein paar Brotkrumen vom Bankett des Gesundheitsministeriums um den Preis der Pathologisierung eines Zustands, den sie als so natürlich betrachtet wie Linkshändigkeit. Transsexualität ist für sie eine Varianz der dominanten Geschlechtsidentität, keine Devianz. Wer eine operative Geschlechtsumwandlung wünsche, sollte die Gelegenheit dazu haben, meint Park. Doch im Unterschied zum klassischen Transgender-Diskurs wolle sich nur eine winzige Minorität diesen gravierenden Eingriffen unterziehen. Die Mehrheit siedele sich einfach an irgendeinem Punkt auf dem breiten Spektrum zwischen maskulin und feminin an. Ein subversives Konzept, das bekanntlich schon bei der Wahl einer öffentlichen Toilette Konflikte eröffnen kann, in New York wie überall.

In der Serie “Transparent” wählen “MaPa” (Jeffrey Tambor” und seine Töchter die Damentoilette.

The post Tragic Trans? Nope! (Die Zeit, 4.11.15) appeared first on Pauline Park.

Trans-Form the Occupation

Pauline Park

at

Occupy Wall Street

13 November 2011

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I’m Pauline Park, chair of NYAGRA, the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy, and president of the board of directors of Queens Pride House, an LGBT community center in the borough of Queens.

I’m honored by the invitation to speak here at Occupy Wall Street, which I think is one of the most exciting recent developments in American politics. People are finally standing up to corporate greed and the powers that be. And that includes transgendered people. I’m a transgendered woman who was born in Korea. I’ve lived in New York since 1995 and I’d like to talk about the people who make up my community.

1) The diversity of the transgender community.

We need to recognize the full diversity of the transgender community. There are as many different ways of being transgendered as there are transgendered people. Do not assume that sex reassignment is the end point for every transgender transition; most transgendered people do not want sex reassignment surgery, and most people who do never get it.

2) ‘Transgender’ as an umbrella term.

There are literally hundreds of descriptors and self-descriptors that people use to identify or self-identify. But don’t confuse the label with the person. ‘Transgender’ is an ‘umbrella’ term that is widely used to bring together a wide variety of different subgroups within the community, including transsexuals, crossdressers and genderqueers. The term ‘transgender’ can be used in three different ways: as a term of self-identification, as an analytic term, or as a political term. There are many people who don’t identify with the term ‘transgender,’ including a lot of immigrants and transgendered people of color.

3) Sexual orientation vs. gender identity.

It’s important to understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual orientation refers to who you’re attracted to; gender identity refers to how you identify and express your gender. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity per se. There are transgendered people who identify as heterosexual as well as those who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual. Don’t assume someone’s sexual orientation from their gender identity or presentation. What do you know about someone’s sexual orientation if you know that they’re transgendered? Nothing~!

4) Discrimination.

In this society, transgendered and gender-variant people face pervasive discrimination, harassment, abuse & violence. Even with a transgender rights law in place since 2002, transgendered people regularly report discrimination in this city. Fortunately, the transgender rights law enacted by the New York City Council in 2002 prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit. If you experience discrimination, contact NYAGRA through nyagra.com or the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund through the TLDEF website at transgenderlegal.org.

5) Bullying, harassment & violence.

Transgendered and gender-variant youth face pervasive bullying and bias-based harassment in our public schools; and the rate of teen suicide among trans and genderqueer youth is astronomically high. Many trans and genderqueer youth drop out of school because of such bullying; and without even a high school diploma, the chances of finding a well-paying job are very slim. Last year, the New York state legislature enacted the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), which prohibits bullying and bias-based harassment in public schools throughout the state.

6) Housing & homelessness; health care.

Many transgendered people find themselves homeless because of discrimination and abuse, including domestic and intimate partner violence. Many are forced into sex work, with heightened risk of HIV infection, police brutality, and street violence. Many transgendered people lack health insurance and even access to basic health care.

7) GID.

Many transgendered people access hormones and surgery through the diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID). But the GID diagnosis pathologizes everyone who is gender-variant as a gender deviant. As I like to say, I do not have a gender identity disorder; it is society that has a gender identity disorder. We need to eliminate the pathologizing of transgender and gender variance.

We need to create a society in which no one is denied employment or housing or health care because of their gender identity or expression. We need to recognize the multiple oppressions that face transgendered people of color, including immigrants of color. We need to recognize that the root of our oppression as transgendered and gender-variant people is the sex/gender binary — the policing of rigid gender norms by the police and public authorities, corporations and other employers, and conventionally gendered people in our society. We need to bring feminist consciousness to the project of challenging, deconstructing and dismantling the sex/gender binary.

We need to create a society characterized by social and economic justice, not governed by rigid gender norms and corporate profits. And as a step towards that goal, we need to make sure that this space is safe for everyone, including our transgendered brothers and sisters. As the Mahatma Gandhi said, we need to be the change that we want to see in the world.

Thank you.

The post Trans-Form the Occupation (Occupy Wall Street, 11.13.11) appeared first on Pauline Park.

Chelsea Goodwin

NYAGRA history: 1999

NYAGRA’s first crisis was precipitated by Chelsea Goodwin and Rusty Mae Moore, who joined the working group in early 1999. I had warned Donna, Paisley and David that Chelsea’s membership of the working group would pose a significant challenge for the fledgling organization, but they would not listen to my warning. Paisley insisted that since transgendered people had historically been excluded from American society, it would be wrong for a transgender advocacy organization to exclude anyone from membership, even membership in the leadership of the organization. I argued that this was a false analogy, as the two types of ‘exclusion’ were fundamentally different in kind. To my mind, the argument that Paisley made was a fallacious one: the exclusion of a marginalized population from mainstream society simply could not be equated with the ‘exclusion’ of a disruptive individual from an organization advocating on behalf of that population. As I saw it, if an individual so seriously disrupted an organization that it threatened the organization’s ability to do the advocacy work for which it was formed, then the group not only had the right to keep that individual out of its leadership but the obligation.

Chelsea’s disruption of the organization began from the very first NYAGRA membership meeting that she and Rusty attended in the spring on 1999. By that point, we had established bi-monthly membership meetings at the Center, beginning in January and continuing through the odd months of the year (March, May, July, September, Novermber). Chelsea’s attempts to disrupt the May meeting became even more aggressive at the July meeting, where she shouted and screamed at everyone who dared disagree with her.  After the meeting was over, Chelsea even followed me into the women’s room to continue to harangue me about my views on gender identity disorder (GID), a diagnosis that I find very problematic but which she supports. Chelsea was shouting and screaming at me so loudly that Donna, Paisley and the others who by that time were in the hallway outside could clearly hear Chelsea’s hysterical tirade. A number of newcomers were so put off by Chelsea’s behavior that they never returned.

At the same time that Chelsea was disrupting our membership meetings at the Center, she was flooding the working group’s e-mail listserve with posts forwarded from other lists that had nothing to do with NYAGRA’s work. As Joann Prinzivalli (another member who joined the group in 1999) recalled, when Chelsea posted a multi-page message about AIDS in Kenya forwarded from another list, even Joann realized that this must be part of a deliberate attempt to disable the listserve. With members now no longer even bothering to read messages posted to the NYAGRA listserve and with Chelsea driving people from our bi-monthly membership meetings, it was clear that we were now in the midst of our first crisis.

Paisley, Carrie, David, and Melissa Sklarz – who had joined the group around the same time as Chelsea – were ready to give up on the organization. My warning about Chelsea had proved prescient, as had my concern about the ‘come one, come all’ policy that Paisley, Donna, David and Carrie had insisted on; that policy – of allowing anyone to join the working group and its e-mail listserve – was precisely what had led us to this impasse.

Chelsea’s attempts to disable the working group listserve by flooding it with messages irrelevant to NYAGRA’s organizational business seemed obviously to me aimed at deliberately disabling the working group itself, and in that larger aim, she was successful. The business of the organization all but came to a halt, as WG members gave up on the listserve and members stayed away from in-person bi-monthly meetings at the Center because of Chelsea’s repeated disruptions. After one membership meeting in July 1999, Paisley, David, Carrie, Melissa and I walked out of the Center feeling despondent about the situation and everyone but me was muttering about the end of NYAGRA; no one seemed to have any ideas about how to put a stop to Chelsea’s destructive behavior, nor would anyone acknowledge that the ‘come one, come all’ policy that founding members had insisted on had brought us to this juncture.

Worst of all, there seemed to be no collective will to do anything about the situation. No one else was committed enough to the organization to take the proverbial bull by the horns. It became clear to me that something had to be done in order to save NYAGRA from an early grave, and if I did not act, the little organization that had begun with such high hopes would be dead within a year of its founding.

I proposed a board election, an idea that Donna, Paisley and everyone else readily accepted. Fortunately, members of the working group were able to reach consensus that Chelsea’s behavior was destructive and that she must be voted out if the organization was to continue. The only question was whether or not her partner should also be voted out of the working group. On the face of it, of course, Rusty Mae had done nothing herself to warrant expulsion from the WG. But Rusty had supported Chelsea throughout, and defending Chelsea when she flooded the WG listserve by telling members that they could simply delete them if they found them annoying. Most any disinterested observer would label Rusty’s behavior co-dependent; a psychotherapist would say that Rusty enabled Chelsea’s dysfunctionalities.

In any case, the working group did vote decisively to remove Chelsea; but unfortunately, a narrow majority voted Rusty onto the new board, thus unnecessarily prolonging the conflict until the end of 1999.

On October 19 of that year, David set up a new listserve to replace the old list that Chelsea had so effectively disabled. Posting the following message to the ‘NYAGRA-WG’ listserve at 1:01 p.m., David wrote:

Hi folks,

so far Paisley, Pauline, Lisa, and Billie Jo have joined one list (and

so you are the only ones getting this email). Please continue to use

the old cc: list until everyone has joined for messages that you want to

go to the entire list.

David

But a new listserve was no match for Chelsea’s talent for disruption. Just as I had predicted, Rusty’s election enabled Chelsea to continue to make trouble, and throughout the fall, Chelsea would use Rusty’s e-mail address to continue to flood the WG listserve with irrelevant e-mail and Rusty refused to limit Chelsea’s access to a board list that she no longer had any right to post to.

In December, a misunderstanding between Donna and Rusty over NYAGRA’s approach to a viciously transgenderphobic article (“Suddenly Susan”) in the Village Voice by the notorious right-wing lesbian Nora Vincent led Donna to press for Rusty’s removal from the board.

Rusty had joined the NYAGRA-WG listserve on December 2. Three days later, Donna sounded the alarm, informing WG members that there had been a breach of the confidentiality of the list. In her message on December 5, Donna wrote:

Well, gang, I am upset . . . late last week, in a note to the working group

list about organizing the Voice action, I happened to mention a conversation I had with Wonbo Woo of GLAAD about the issue. The text of what I sent around follows:

> FYI, I happened to mention the action to Wonbo Woo of the GLAAD New York office yesterday . . . He seemed a bit taken aback on the phone, and today he E-mailed me suggesting that a demo might be counterproductive, piss off sympathetic people at the Voice, etc. I think he is wrong, for a number of reasons: primarily, this is hardly the first time the Voice has treated us with gross insenstivity — it goes all the way back to the Donna Minkowitz/Brandon Teena controversy five years ago; secondly that my own contact, a former Voice staffer, suggests that there is unhappiness among staffers there about current management and we might touch a sympathetic nerve among some of them; lastly, I think making a little public noise may “get their attention” in a way that nothing else can. I will E-mail Wonbo back, making these points. But given the uneasiness of even close allies, I think we should be mindful of the need to conduct the action in a relatively polite, helpful way.

I think I made perfectly clear here that I would handle responding to Wonbo, and that I only mentioned it to stress the possible delicacy of our position, even relative to our allies. Today when I came to work I picked up my Voice mail and got a message from Wonbo, saying he had received an E-mail from Chelsea Goodwin in which she “seemed upset” at Wonbo’s reservations about the Voice action. I was appalled by this breach of discretion and just plain good manners.

1. My original message was to the Working Group, of which Chelsea is not a member. She has no business picking up or acting upon Working Group business.

2. My ability to have frank and forthright conversations with Wonbo (and

GLAAD) has been compromised. I went to some difficulty to cultivate a good working relationship with GLAAD; I don’t know how bad the damage is, yet, but I am very concerned.

3. My conversations with Wonbo are my business, and no one else’s. If I choose to share some of what I find out, I expect at a minimum that people will use that information in a sensitive and reasonable manner. I will not allow this to happen in the future. If that means I cannot discuss things in confidence with the working group, then I guess I will have to limit my dealings with the WG and with NYAGRA.

Best

Donna Cartwright

(Re: Voice, GLAAD, and discretion, NYAGRA-WG message #39 of 6568, 1:42 p.m., 12.5.1999)

I responded less than an hour later, posting to the NYAGRA-WG listserve the following:

Dear NYAGRA colleagues,

Chelsea’s communication with Wonbo Woo constitutes a breach of ethics and of the rules of this organization, since she had no authority to communicate on behalf of NYAGRA. Since the listserve is closed, one can only conclude that Rusty shared the message with Chelsea, in direct contravention of the bylaws and of the stated consensus of the working group. I would therefore like to survey the working group on whether we should proceed to suspend Rusty from the working group’s listserve and/or to expel Rusty from the working group for her breach of confidentiality.

I also believe, given Rusty and Chelsea’s breach of confidentiality, that

neither should be allowed to take part in the demonstration against the Voice, and I’d like to hear back from other working group members on this issue as well.

Pauline

(Re: Rusty’s breach of the bylaws, NYAGRA-WG message #39 of 6568, 2:35 p.m., 12.5.1999)

Rusty responded defensively and indignantly the next day, in one of several messages insisting that “I made no breech of ethics,” but adding that, “Regardless of this, I am getting angrier and angrier as I read this correspondence.”  (Re: Rusty’s breach of the bylaws, NYAGRA-WG message #46, 10:33 a.m., 12.6.1999)

In a subsequent message, Rusty tried to explain (in my view, explain away) the breach of confidentiality of the NYAGRA-WG listserve with reference to her long-term relationship with Chelsea, writing,

Those people who have had long term love relationships may understand that there are issues of boundaries and respect which come up and are difficult to deal with. This has certainly been true in the three long term

relationships of my life.

(Re: Rusty’s breach of the bylaws, NYAGRA-WG message #47, 11:01 a.m., 12.6.1999)

It was precisely the lack of boundaries in Rusty’s relationship with Chelsea that had provoked the breach of confidentiality of working group communications, and from this message, it was clear that Rusty simply did not understand the responsibility that she had as a member of the working group – our de facto board of directors – after having been retained through the election. That responsibility meant that whatever her relationship with Chelsea, it was Rusty’s obligation to the organization to keep confidential the e-mail that she received through the WG listserve and above all to keep Chelsea from accessing those communications and using them for her own purposes, whatever those may be.

Some members (including David, Carrie, Joann Prinzivalli and Sophia Pazos) temporized, expressing their unhappiness with the breach of confidentiality but stopping short of considering Rusty’s expulsion, though Donna made clear to me in a phone conversation that day that she would resign if Rusty did not resign or were not removed from the working group post haste. I communicated Donna’s ultimatum to other members of the WG (including David, Carrie and Melissa) in phone conversations while messages were still being posted to the WG listserve.

In the end, Rusty left voluntarily before her colleagues had the chance to consider expelling her, posting a brief message of resignation at around noon on December 6 (Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #49, 12:08 p.m., 12.6.1999).

Even then, David posted a message to the WG list urging Rusty to reconsider and rescind her resignation (Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #50, 12:23 p.m., 12.6.1999), and Sophia joined David in pleading with Rusty to stay (Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #53, 6:48 p.m., 12.6.1999), as did Carrie (Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #58, 7:39 p.m., 12.6.1999) and Joann (Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #59, 7:42 p.m., 12.6.1999). But Donna remained adamant, writing,

To the NYAGRA working group:

I spent some time on the phone with Wonbo Woo of GLAAD this morning.

Although I am still not entirely clear on how it happened, he did tell me

that last Friday he got an E-mail from Chelsea Goodwin that said she had

“learned through the grapevine” about the reservations he had expressed to me privately about the Voice action (and that I then mentioned, assuming confidentiality, on the WG list). He said he was quite concerned last Friday about how this happened. I have repaired things with him to the

extent that they can be repaired.

(A fuller and franker report would, of course, be more informative, but

in view of the lack of confidentiality on the NYAGRA Working Group list, I

don’t feel that I can elaborate.)

I must say that beyond the breach of confidentiality last Friday

(SOMEHOW what I said on the WG list was passed back to Wonbo via Chelsea), I am disturbed by the fact that a majority of the WG members who have expressed an opinion so far (Sophia, Carrie, David, and Rusty) don’t seem to feel that confidentiality on the WG list is of any great concern.

In view of the lack of confidentiality on the list, I don’t feel that I

can feel any confidence in it. Therefore I will use it only for the most

routine or formal communications (i.e. voting, making motions, etc.)

Necessarily, this will involve sharply reducing my role in the WG and in

NYAGRA. That is unfortunate but at this point unavoidable.

I will send a separate e-mail about NYAGRA’s participation in the Voice

action (which I think we should cancel at this point).

Sincerely

Donna M. Cartwright

(Re: NYAGRA, GLAAD and confidentiality, NYAGRA-WG message #51, 3:44 p.m., 12.6.1999)

Despite Donna’s message and intense phone conversations, David seemed oblivious to the true significance of the breach of list confidentiality and the crisis that it provoked, writing,

My dear friends,

Can’t you see what’s happening here? NYAGRA seems to be in danger of falling apart, just as we were beginning to do something interesting. And this is what happens in grassroots organizations so often and so sadly Here’s what I think:

1. First, Rusty is not responsible for Chelsea reading her messages. At the same time, I think that Rusty should (as she intimated she would) look into a hotmail account that would be hers alone to read to prevent such future issues. I *have* to take Rusty’s word for this — in that I have to take all of your words. We are all in this because we believe in some ultimate goals of social justice, and on that good faith principle alone will NYAGRA flourish.

2. At the same time, there was clearly a breach of conduct and ethics on the list, and I understand Pauline and Donna’s concerns. I did not at all mean to minimize the impact of this either for Donna personally or for NYAGRA in general, and I think that if possible, it would be good for Rusty to reaffirm her commitment to maintaining the privacy of NYAGRA working group mailings. I apologize to Donna and Pauline for any implication that I don’t see this as an important issue. It certainly is, which is why I worked so hard on getting everyone onto Onelist in the first place.

3. Whether the demo goes ahead or not, I am concerned that the long (or short) term effect of this current event will be the dissolution of NYAGRA in one way or another: a. either by people not posting to the group stuff that is “sensitive” in some way or another or b. the resignation of one or more members who become tired of the in-fighting. Either way, it means that the efficacy of the organization simply dies. If Rusty resigns, or anyone else, NYAGRA will become characterized in trans-circles simply another clique disinclined to democracy. If the list stops being an effective tool for exchanging information because of distrust among group members, the same thing will happen: “power” (whatever the hell that means in a group with virtually no budget, and little clout) will be seen as being in the hands of a few and no-one will bother coming to any of the events that NYAGRA tries to put on. I’ve seen this happen time and time again in many organizations, both in the US and in South Africa.

In other words, and with great respect, love, and admiration for all the work you are all doing, I would ask that everyone take a deep breath,

TALK to one another, and let’s not let this polarize our group. There is simply too much work to do. I sense that the underlying issue for everyone is Chelsea, and I don’t think we should let the actions of a person who is not even in the working group pull apart what is and has been a great group with lots of potential. My suggestion is that we take our passion, direct it into respectful conversation with one another rather than to everyone on the list, and try and move forward.

I would ask publically that Rusty, Pauline, and Donna (all of whom I respect very highly) attempt to heal the wounds that are threatening the group by talking to one another privately in the spirit of the goals we all hold dear.

I hope that you all take my words as they are intended: with love, with respect, and with an intense desire that NYAGRA remains an effective and viable group.

Yours hopefully,

David

(Re: Re: securing the NYAGRA working group listserve, NYAGRA-WG message #61, 9:05 p.m., 12.6.1999)

David did not seem to recognize that his attempts to keep Rusty from resigning could only serve to prolong the conflict over Chelsea’s involvement with NYAGRA. The breach of the confidentiality of the list in December 1999 would foreshadow a much more serious breach of list confidentiality the following year. But the conflict-avoidant behavior that several working group members engaged in throughout the December 1999 crisis bode ill for the resolution of future conflicts.

For me, the lesson was clear: conflict-avoidant behavior could only make future conflict more likely. The larger lesson was this: conflict is inevitable; it is how an organization manages that conflict that determines whether it succeeds or fails.

Fortunately for the cohesion of the group, Rusty herself confirmed her resignation, despite pleas from WG members to reconsider it. While Rusty never seemed to have grasped the significant organizational issues involved with the breach of WG listserve confidentiality, to her credit, Rusty did at least recognize that the compromise regime that WG members had sought to maintain from the board election until Rusty’s resignation – namely, keeping Rusty on after tossing Chelsea overboard – was ultimately untenable:

I resigned from NYAGRA essentially because Chelsea and I are a team, and it is too artificial for us to separate our involvements in trans-activism.

(Re: NYAGRA and the Voice action, NYAGRA-WG message #63, 7:49 p.m., 12.7.1999)

It simply cannot work for me to be a member of NYAGRA’s Working Group because it is more important to me to work closely with Chelsea.

(Re: Resignation, NYAGRA-WG message #65, 7:54 p.m., 12.7.1999)

Despite having incurred Chelsea’s eternal animosity for having challenged her dysfunctional and destructive behavior, I now felt confident that we had a real board of directors and a future as an organization. NYAGRA had survived its first real crisis and the foundation for growth could now be laid.

The post NYAGRA history: 1999 appeared first on Pauline Park.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Board of Health
public hearing on proposed amendment to Article 207 of the New York City Health Code
testimony by
Pauline Park, Ph.D.
Chair, New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA)
30 October 2006

My name is Pauline Park and I chair the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy. NYAGRA is the first statewide transgender advocacy organization in New York and we are perhaps best known for having led the campaign for enactment of the New York City transgender rights law (Int. No. 24, enacted as Local Law 3 of 2002).

On behalf of the board of directors and the members of NYAGRA, I would like to commend you for your efforts to make Article 207 of the New York City Health Code more transgenderfriendly. I would also urge you to reconsider the proposed amendment under discussion here because in many ways the language of the proposed amendment represents one step forward and one step back for the transgender community here in New York.

While we in NYAGRA welcome the removal of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) as a requirement for a change of legal sex designation on one’s birth certificate, and while we commend the change to allow a full change of legal sex designation from either ‘M’ to ‘F’ or ‘F’ to ‘M,’ we also would like to express our deep concern with other aspects of the proposed amendment that we view as misguided and even harmful to transgendered New Yorkers seeking a change of legal sex designation on their birth certificates.

To begin with, I would like to voice NYAGRA’s support for all of the points made in Michael Silverman’s presentation on behalf of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) and the Transgender Health Initiative of New York (THINY), a joint project of TLDEF and NYAGRA. We in NYAGRA share TLDEF’s concern with the onerous and unnecessaryrequirements that applicants for a change of legal sex designation live in the gender with which they identify for two full years before obtaining the change in gender marker; in practice, it may be difficult if not impossible to produce a precise operational definition of ‘living full-time.’

We in NYAGRA also share TLDEF’s objection to the requirement that the applicant prove medical intervention; most transgendered people do not obtain sex reassignment surgery, because most do not want it, and most of those who do cannot afford it. Also, many transgendered people either do not want hormone replacement therapy (HRT); for medical reasons, HRT may be ‘contra-indicated’ for many others. One can live fully in one’s desired gender without either HRT or SRS, and many transgendered people do. We in NYAGRA also share TLDEF’s concern with the onerous burden represented by the requirement of an affadavit from a physician “practicing in the field of gender identity disorder or qualified through board certification” in one of a number of specialties; there is no such thing as board certification in transgender issues, and board certification in areas such as plastic surgery, family medicine, or internal medicine may or may not be directly relevant to the ability of a physician to effectively work with a transgendered patient. I shall return to the vexed issue of ‘gender identity disorder’ (GID) later in my testimony.

The requirement of a legal name change is particularly misguided, as many names are not clearly gendered. Why should someone with a name such as Dale or Dan, Gale or Jamie, Leslie or Lynn have to change his/her name as part of a change of legal sex designation? Also, female infants in contemporary American society are increasingly being given names that were traditionally considered men’s names, such as Ashley (any fan of “Gone With the Wind” will recognize it as the name of the two leading men in the novel and the film of that name) – which, according to the Social Security Administration (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/) is now the tenth most popular girl’s name – as well as Brooke, Daryl, Hunter, Meredith, Morgan, and Shannon, just to name a few.

We in NYAGRA also share TLDEF’s concern with the open-ended nature of the discretion given to the Department of Health (DOH) to require “other information or evidence demonstrating the applicants transition to his or her acquired gender.” Such a provision could potentially allow an official at the DOH to delay action on an application indefinitely and for no apparent reason.

One final recommendation: we urge the Department of Health to allow for the continued possibility of a change from ‘M’ or ‘F’ to no legal sex designation for those who were born intersexed. It is crucially important that the new policy allow for newborn intersexed individuals to be issued birth certificates with no sex designation, in view of the widespread practice of intersex genital mutilation (IGM) imposed on such individuals in infancy or childhood by misguided surgeons and panicked parents who fear social ostracism for children whose external (and/or internal) genitalia do not appear to be fully male or female (see www.isna.org or www.bodieslikeours.org for more on intersex and IGM).

Our central concern with the proposed amendment to Article 207 is that it is rooted in a medical model of transsexuality that assumes that there is only one linear medical transition that all transsexual and transgendered people pursue. That medical model of transsexuality is a disease model based on the false diagnosis of ‘gender identity disorder’ (GID), which suggests that the mere fact of being transgendered – that is to say, the mere identification with the gender opposite one’s sex assigned at birth – constitutes prima facie evidence of a mental pathology. In fact, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis that identification with the gender opposite one’s sex assigned at birth (in the absence of any other mental pathology) constitutes mental illness per se. In many if not most pre-modern non-Western societies (as well as in many pre-modern Western ones), there was a recognized ‘third sex/third gender’ subject position, an identity formation that accommodated those who identified with the gender opposite their birth sex. Only with the development of psychology and psychiatry in the late nineteenth century were terms and concepts such as ‘transvestism’ and transsexualism’ constructed by European sexologists such as Kraft-Ebbing as pathological. And only with the development of HRT and SRS in the twentieth century were technologies developed that could ‘re-sex’ the body both internally as well as externally.

In other words, the proposed amendment to Article 207 of the New York City Health Code – just like existing policy – is premised on the notion that transgender constitutes a mental illness. Because a change in legal sex designation on one’s birth certificate may be a crucial step in obtaining a change of legal sex designation (or ‘gender marker,’ as it is often called) on other important documents – such as a driver’s license, Social Security card, passport, etc. – the policy that DOH adopts will have implications for policy and procedures at the state and federal levels as well. And because a change of legal sex designation on all of these important identity documents represents a crucial step in the transitioning individual’s ability to obtain adequate education, employment, housing, credit, health care, and social services, the proposed DOH amendment will have a profound effect on the quality of life for transgendered New Yorkers. But the requirement for a diagnosis of gender identity disorder in effect represents a requirement that
a transgendered person have him/herself declared mentally ill in order to legally transition and obtain adequate education, employment, health care, etc. No such requirement exists for any other group in this city or this society.

It is important to recognize that the pathologizing of transgender and gender variance through the GID diagnosis is in fact controversial, just as the listing of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was. As you may know, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1974 when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the fourth edition of the DSM. Unfortunately, DSM-IV introduced GID as a diagnosis, and that diagnosis has been used to pathologize gender variance in children and adolescents ever since then. There is an effort underway to remove GID from the DSM-V (currently under discussion) or at least to ‘reform’ the GID diagnosis (see www.GIDreform.org). It would be an irony indeed if the New York City Department of Health were to institutionalize the GID diagnosis in its policy regarding birth certificate change just at the very moment when the APA was debating removal or substantial revision of the GID diagnosis in the DSM.

It would also be ironic in light of the history of transgender law in New York City. In April 2002, the New York City Council passed Int. No. 24, the transgender rights bill signed into law by Mayor Michael Bloomberg later that month as Local Law 3 of 2002. That statute amended New York City human rights law by adding a definition of gender that included identity and expression (among other terms), thereby prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education throughout the five boroughs. The guiding principle of that statute was one of self-determination in gender identity and expression, rooted in a conception of gender that recognizes transgender identities as no less ‘natural,’ no less ‘normal,’ and no less deserving of full equality under law as are conventional gender identities. In light of the enactment of that statute in 2002 and the adoption of guidelines for its implementation by the New York City Commission on Human Rights in 2004, adoption of the proposed new amendment to Article 207 of the New York City Health Code by the Department of Health would represent a setback to the positive and affirmative concept of transgender identities embodied in that statute and those guidelines.

We in NYAGRA therefore urge the Department of Health to revise the proposed amendment to make it consistent with the broad and holistic concept of gender identity embodied in Local Law 3 of 2002 and its implementation guidelines. Following from such a holistic and affirmative concept, a regulation amending Article 207 would require only affirmation by an applicant of his/her intention to live fully in the gender with which s/he identifies, along with either a letter from a physician documenting significant medical intervention or a letter from a psychologist, psychotherapist, or psychiatrist documenting his/her opinion verifying the self-declaration of gender identity. The treating mental health professional should be licensed, but there should be no specific requirement that s/he be recognized as having expertise in gender identity issues. The medical intervention mentioned above should allow either HRT, SRS, breast augmentation or breast removal as a sufficient condition for approval of the application for
a change of legal sex designation on the applicant’s birth certificate.

Officials at the Department of Health should understand that the decision to live in the gender different from the sex assigned to one at birth is not a decision entered into lightly but indicates a profound identification with that gender, but that there is no one way in which a transgendered individual actualizes that gender identity; instead, there is a great diversity of paths that transgendered people choose to realize their gender identities, and public policy must reflect and accommodate that reality.

The Department now has an opportunity to help further the advances represented by Local Law 3 of 2002 and the guidelines for its implementation. We in NYAGRA urge the Department of Health to substantially revise the proposed amendment to Article 207 along the lines recommended in my testimony, and we stand ready to work with Department officials in drafting language for that amendment in a manner consistent with the broad concept of gender identity and expression and the progressive ethos informing existing transgender law and regulations in New York City.

Thank you.

The post New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene appeared first on Pauline Park.