Jump to content
tegan

QUILTBAG Thread of Flagrant Homoeroticism

Recommended Posts

"I have not been a person who has been very successful at conventional relationships, but loving well and loving deeply has been the most important thing to me."

 

I wish we were in a place, as a society, where this was an okay thing. Regrettably, queer sexual politics since the emergence of the HIV crisis have been all about pushing a heteronormative relationship dynamic that meshes with the late capitalist idea of the nuclear family as a reliably, predictable spending unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got back from a vacation where I spent basically all of my time in a large, vibrant gay community last night, and had to staff an 8am meeting today. After the meeting, one of my many bosses pulled me aside to ask how my vacation was and made the comment that my voice sounded "much gayer." Nothing to really say it was good or bad, just a comment.

 

Years ago, I made a concerted effort to separate my professional voice and my social voice so I could present how I felt was appropriate in different settings. I've come to realize that this isn't really a healthy thing to think or do but my "professional" voice kind of took over as a consequence of conservative office settings being where I spend 40 hours a week. I'm immensely bothered by someone pointing out that I present as more queer than usual, and then I'm bothered that I'm bothered, and it's a huge cycle of anger and shame!

 

Also I went full twink this weekend (basically just let myself finally be who I was when last I was in a city with a vibrant, diverse, and open queer community) and I am 29, that should not be allowed (oh well, still fun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I THINK this is one of the more right threads to post this?

 

On Giant Bomb's Danswers, Samantha Kaldan gave an answer to a question that bothered me, and I want to unpack it and see where everyone else stands.

 

For those that don't know of her, she is a post-op transgender woman. The question being answered was from a lesbian woman, asking for advice in a relationship with a pre-op transgender woman.

 

The framing of the question was basically, the two of them get along fabulously, share interests, love spending time. However, whenever things start to get physically intimate the writer gets uncomfortable and disengages, because even though they both know and see each other as women, her girlfriend's physical form still has body parts she is uncomfortable and not interested in engaging with. The writer's question seemed to be how to talk to her about it, because her girlfriend has a history with bi-polar disorder.

 

However, the question that got answered felt like one that wasn't really being asked? SHe basically said the writer should maybe step out of her comfort zone and see if she could please her partner. Which stuck in my mind as, hey please just give your girlfriend a blow job ok.

 

It can be hard to find a partner when you're part of the overwhelming majority of how sexual relationships play out in current society, forget the difficulty of anything outside the "norm", let alone gender reassignment. I could hear the frustration in her voice, being rejected for being seen only through the lens of what she used to look like and now doesn't. However, I don't think it's ok to tell someone they should try something sexually they're not ok with, regardless of other feelings they have for someone? Some people have no interest in penises, and some have no interest in vaginas, and that's ok regardless of gender presentation. I felt like my answer would have been you need to talk to your girlfriend about why you haven't been intimate, and maybe it either needs to wait until post op, or exploring other avenues of physical intimacy that don't make you do something physically you're uncomfortable with?

 

I realize I'm biasing the description by running it through my head and back out in my words, but am I crazy off base in this? It felt like her answering a cisgender heterosexual question with "if you love your boyfriend, you should do anal" about how to talk about sexual tension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't listened to the 'cast, but perhaps Samantha's suggestion was her recommendation out of the implied alternatives?

 

a) step outside your comfort zone, see if it's something you can get used to and enjoy

sunglasses) have a non-sexual romantic relationship

c) break up with your partner and don't get into any more relationships with pre-op trans women without clarifying that it would be non-sexual

 

(Although yeah, sounds like she didn't actually answer how the discussion of any of these should actually be approached.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really say because I didn't hear the episode in question, but you make it sound like the writer was already strongly implying that stepping outside her comfort zone was a problem. In that case, just saying "Yeah, but for real though, I bet it'd work out if you just really tried." is shitty and unhelpful.

 

To an extent all relationships are a series of compromises, trying to adjust to each other's needs and expectations. But I find that for really big stuff, like sexual incompatibility, trying to thread the needle of "Well I really don't like this at all but I don't want you to leave, so..." just ends up causing more problems, tension and resentment. And often sex/relationship advice takes on the approach of a doctor saying "How can we best preserve this and keep it alive?" when often the best answer is just that most relationships don't work out, for some reason or another.

 

Also no one outside of non-sexual romantic relationships ever seems to view them as valid choices, because sex-positive means "I am positive that if you aren't having sex something is wrong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really say because I didn't hear the episode in question, but you make it sound like the writer was already strongly implying that stepping outside her comfort zone was a problem. In that case, just saying "Yeah, but for real though, I bet it'd work out if you just really tried." is shitty and unhelpful.

 

To an extent all relationships are a series of compromises, trying to adjust to each other's needs and expectations. But I find that for really big stuff, like sexual incompatibility, trying to thread the needle of "Well I really don't like this at all but I don't want you to leave, so..." just ends up causing more problems, tension and resentment. And often sex/relationship advice takes on the approach of a doctor saying "How can we best preserve this and keep it alive?" when often the best answer is just that most relationships don't work out, for some reason or another.

 

Also no one outside of non-sexual romantic relationships ever seems to view them as valid choices, because sex-positive means "I am positive that if you aren't having sex something is wrong."

 

Yeah, many of my friends have given me the side-eye for being open about sexual incompatibility being a dealbreaker. I'm not saying that I won't make compromises, but sex is such an important part of how I conduct a relationship that "no sex" simply isn't a compromise that I can make. Regardless, "try harder" is the worst kind of advice to give about virtually anything, in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you strip all of the extremely complicated, important details out of it, it read like this (to me):

 

Q) We are two people who care about each other. When we try to be intimate, I pull away because I am uncomfortable with a major component of that intimacy. How do I talk to my partner about this, because I am concerned how they will take the discussion?

 

A) Well maybe you should actually just try the thing because they're a person, too?

 

I think there is an additional layer of complexity here that pushes me (besides the fact that no one answered the writer's actual question). I have a partner, and we are sexually compatible. If my partner brought up adding new sexual interests to our intimacy, I think that is a different question and worth exploring the possibility space because that is not a barrier to intimacy. That is a different question from having a partner and not already being sexually compatible, and suggesting that because you love someone part of that love is crossing your personal sexual preference boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have no answer for that particular reader's question, here are my thoughts on the subject.

 

It's ok to talk to your partner about what makes you comfortable and what doesn't.  In fact I would encourage it otherwise it's going to be an issue that festers until it can no longer be ignored which is usually when it's the worst time to deal with it.  The important thing to realize is that saying you are uncomfortable or unwilling is OK.  Love does not mean you have to love every single thing about that person.  People are different and like different things.  No one is going to agree on everything.  Sex is certainly a more delicate area than something like movies or games but saying "no" does not mean you don't care about that person.  The fact that the conversation is occurring at all means that they matter.  Like Patrick and Gormongous said, sometimes it results in irreconcilable differences.  But I don't think forcing yourself to do something you are seriously uncomfortable with is going to have positive results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to jump in and say that "pre/post-op" is sorta outdated terminology because it implies that all trans women undergo genital surgery for gender confirmation and some don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an accepted term for a trans person who hasn't had genital surgery (regardless of whether they might in the future)? Presumably post-op isn't so problematic as it doesn't imply that as strongly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that it really isn't part of the equation ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think the person who posed the question to GiantBomb would disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that someone's GF hasn't had genital surgery is germane to the question but keeping that binary as a term we use for all trans women is reinforcing the fact that we need to know what trans people's genital configuration or surgical status is and we really don't need to because it's someone's personal choice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we do need to know that the partner has not had genital surgery in order for the question to be asked. I understood your previous post, but now it sounds like you and dibs are saying that no one should ever mention whether anyone, including themselves,  has ever had genital surgery or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we do need to know that the partner has not had genital surgery in order for the question to be asked. I understood your previous post, but now it sounds like you and dibs are saying that no one should ever mention whether anyone, including themselves,  has ever had genital surgery or not...

 

Using those specific terms is a specific kind of classification that enforces the idea that trans people are in one state or the other. You can talk about what genitals a trans person has when it's relevant, but pre-op/post-op are terms that are most often used with the idea that they're always relevant.

 

Note that from what badfinger posted there's no actual mention of there is a planned change in genitals, but because of those terms it's been assumed as a future event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so:

-Don't use any term, unless it's actually relevant

-Don't use "pre-op" (unless an op is planned?)

Okay, so if it is relevant to a conversation, is "not had genital surgery" a good alternative to use? Or is there a less clunky term to use that doesn't have the implications of "pre-op"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was kinda questioning the same thing when I was reading this on my phone somewhere, and started to do some research before something in real life demanded my attention and I didn't end up coming back to it. 

 

It's just that the pre-op/post-op verbiage implies that genital surgery is a major milestone for all trans people, when the decision on whether to have such a surgery is very much an individual one and not something that should be assumed that anyone must be planning to undergo. 

 

My gut feeling (which could be totally wrong, and I will appreciate a correction if I'm being a jerk) would be that you avoid mentioning anything about a trans person's genitals unless the circumstances absolutely warrant it (which the question described does sound like).  If you do need to mention it, you can just say that the person "has not had genital surgery" or the other way around.  Outside of certain academic or medical settings, it's probably not something that needs to have shorthand like "pre-op"/"post-op".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, just specifically mentioning if they had genital surgery if the conversation demands it, which in a lot of cases, the conversation does not!. Pre- and post-op are very old, antiquated terms, like right up there with "transsexual" vs. transgender and indicate that a person only jumps to their "new" gender when they get genital surgery, which isn't the case for every trans person. You are trans whether or not you have genital surgery and you might feel comfortable with your gender, no matter what genitals you have. 

 

In this particular case, it was relevant to mention that someone's GF had a penis, but that's a good way of putting it versus having to put it into surgical terms. This is one of the few times someone's genital configuration should really even come up, I mean, how many times do you want other people to talk about your junk, ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for mentioning that. I used that terminology because I believe that's what the write of the email used and I was following suit to try to keep the original point as clear as possible. Like Ben, if it's germane, I don't know what to say. Transitioning? I 100% agree that there's no need to talk about someone's junk under most circumstances, but at the same time it feels (possibly incorrectly) as if something like this comes up more frequently with transgender issues because it's so new to the common audience and so it's a focal point. I'd at least like to put my foot in my mouth as little as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for mentioning that. I used that terminology because I believe that's what the write of the email used and I was following suit to try to keep the original point as clear as possible. Like Ben, if it's germane, I don't know what to say. Transitioning? I 100% agree that there's no need to talk about someone's junk under most circumstances, but at the same time it feels (possibly incorrectly) as if something like this comes up more frequently with transgender issues because it's so new to the common audience and so it's a focal point. I'd at least like to put my foot in my mouth as little as possible.

 

 

"Transitioning" can mean a lot of different things. Again, the reason that transitioning doesn't work here is the same reason that "pre-op" and "post-op" don't work. If you use "transitioning" to mean "has not had genital surgery," it incorrectly positions genital surgery as an implied and necessary endpoint. But that's not everyone's plan for their genitals, so saying that someone is "transitioning" doesn't really tell you anything about their genitals at all. You don't know what their endgame is, and unless you've very close to them, you probably won't and don't need to. 

 

Unless you know a lot about the specific circumstances of the trans person in particular, it's just basic etiquette to avoid terms that accidentally strongly imply what you think they should be doing with their genitals. Maybe the letter writer knows her trans girlfriend intends to get genital surgery, and that's why she's using that term. Or maybe the letter writer is insensitive or uniformed about trans issues and is just using the term too broadly. We don't really know, so it's best not to repeat it just because someone else said it. (This is the same way that, if a racist white uncle told a story about his new black girlfriend using racial slurs, I wouldn't repeat those slurs.)

 

The solution here is really simple. Just mention the specific situation that's going on: She is dating a trans woman, and her trans girlfriend has a penis. This makes her uncomfortable sexually, and she's not sure what to do. That conveys all the necessary information without accidentally making any judgements about what anybody should be doing with their genitals. If the trans girlfriend is planning to have surgery but hasn't yet, just say exactly that. 

 

There's nothing complicated about this! Just convey the information simply, without making assumptions or judgements about anyone's plans for their genitals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Transitioning" can mean a lot of different things. Again, the reason that transitioning doesn't work here is the same reason that "pre-op" and "post-op" don't work. If you use "transitioning" to mean "has not had genital surgery," it incorrectly positions genital surgery as an implied and necessary endpoint. But that's not everyone's plan for their genitals, so saying that someone is "transitioning" doesn't really tell you anything about their genitals at all. You don't know what their endgame is, and unless you've very close to them, you probably won't and don't need to. 

 

There's nothing complicated about this! Just convey the information simply, without making assumptions or judgements about anyone's plans for their genitals. 

 

I don't want to be contentious about this, but there appears to be quite a lot that's complicated about this. It has nuance. I  am trying to figure out the right things to say or not say, and apparently "transitioning" means something to you that it doesn't to me. It does not mean "a process in which surgery is necessary" to my ears, but you are implying that's what I'm implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently "transitioning" means something to you that it doesn't to me. It does not mean "a process in which surgery is necessary" to my ears, but you are implying that's what I'm implying.

 

Was this below asking if "transitioning" would be a term that you could use instead of "pre-op" to describe the a situation where the girlfriend had a penis? That was my reading of this statement: 

 

Like Ben, if it's germane, I don't know what to say. Transitioning?

 

If so, then yes, you were implying genital surgery as a necessary endpoint. Someone can be done "transitioning" and not have genital surgery. If you want to use "transitioning" instead of "pre-op" to describe the situation, you aren't addressing the basic problem here, which is an underlying assumption that there is a shared endpoint to "transitioning," and that endpoint is genital surgery.

 

The rule, I still think, is simple: Instead of looking for label, just explain what the situation is. Again:

 

She is dating a trans woman, and her trans girlfriend has a penis. This makes her uncomfortable sexually, and she's not sure what to do. Her trans girlfriend [is/is not] [<--pick one as appropriate] planning to have genital surgery.

 

No confusing terminology or nuance involved. Just the situation described in plain language. If you aren't comfortable with what various terms mean, luckily there is no reason to use them in this case! And, again, this is a pretty crazy edge case and in most circumstances there's really no need to talk about it.

 

But calling someone "pre-op"/"post-op" or using "transitioning" to mean "has not had genital surgery" does carry with it an assumption of genital surgery as a necessary endpoint. This isn't an assumption that exists at a confusing level of nuance that requires a complicated context. It's at the most basic level of language usage and etiquette.  Just take a moment to think about it: If you are saying "pre-op"/"post-op"  without knowing someone's plans for their genitals, you are assuming that an operation is in the cards, which it may not be. If you  "transitioning" to mean "has not had genital surgery," you are assume their transition will involve genital surgery, which it may not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I was asking what language I should use for someone who was going through the process of changing genders. No mention of surgery whatsoever. You have twice now added assumptions and inflection to a question I asked so I could try and learn something and improve the way I talk.

 

 

 

Following up, is that what transitioning is assumed to mean? That wasn't my understanding. Am I stumbling around that blindly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×