Being Genderfluid (For Country Folk)

I have moved from a big city to a small town. Being that some people from my old town have grown up knowing me, I think it is useful to answer some questions. So I’ll do a Q&A on myself. Being in the big city, I have come to realize that I don’t really have a beef with either place, while I do have a beef with corporate culture. In a small town, my LGBT status is more the issue, so if I want to be happy anywhere, I need to clear up some things.

Are you gay?

There are several categories of LGBT: Lesbian, gay, bi, and trans. I am transgender.

Further, there are several types of transgender: Transsexuals, drag queens, crossdresser, nonconforming, and genderfluid. I will explain the difference.

Transsexuals legitimately want to become the opposite sex. In this way, they are actually gender-conforming, but to the opposite sex. They generally see themselves are trapped in the  wrong body, and are heterosexual with regard to their new sex, and homosexual with regard to the old.

Drag queens are typically gay men, who are attracted to other men. I am not typically categorized as such. The typical drag queen is doing performance art, for money, and possibly to impress other guys. A drag queen typically makes no effort to realistically be a woman, and is known for bad makeup and gives the entire trans community a bad name. Yes, I know this is coming across as harsh. But the reason thousands of transgender women get hurt and killed? The assumption that transgender people are trying to trick straight men into gay sex. The reason basic human rights (such as I dunno, being hired for a job based on merit) are denied to trans people? Because Hollywood sees transgender problems as a comedy angle, and confuses it with drag.

Most transgenders do not want public attention, they want to live their lives, find love, and be employed like everyone else. Moving on…

Crossdressers are part-time presenters as the opposite sex. Typically, this is a sexual fetish (but not always). They run the gamut from straight, to bisexual, to gay. Typically, the defining characteristics of a crossdresser is that they are not really involved with being transgender, it is mainly for them. Because of this, many of them only crossdress within the privacy of their own home, and have a secret stash of clothing somewhere. Over time, some crossdressers stay crossdressers, some decide to become transsexual, and some start to live out in the open as genderfluid people.

Nonconforming is people who identify as neither male nor female, or both. This also includes intersex people. Yes, they do exist. There are people who may walk around with a shaved head and androgynous look, or even some weird mix between appearing male and female.

I am likely genderfluid. I would like to like full-time as a female, but at the same time, there are perks about being male. I have change my identity information to female because I was tired of people saying “Well, you’re just a sensitive guy, but you’re really a male.” No, I’m not.

I am straight or a lesbian, depending on how I see myself. I generally do not like men, because over the years, I generally have been at worst manipulated by women (and everyone else), but bullied by men. It’s men who usually try to tell me what I want, it’s men who might beat me up, women generally don’t hurt me. I also do not like men, as they literally have nothing to offer me. I don’t care for anal sex, the wikipedia article on frottage made me puke inside my mouth, and while oral sex would be okay in theory, I would much rather have my mouth licking something than someone tell me “here, swallow this.” Plus, I have a gag reflex.

You’re part of the liberal agenda, aren’t you?

Actually, I’m personally slightly conservative, except for love of environment and LGBT rights. I don’t like the idea of transgender rights being civil rights. This should be part of natural rights, that as a transgender woman, I am treated like a woman. But it isn’t. Because under the current laws, I am in fear that one day someone might take my life. Yes, it’s that simple.

Also, so far as I know, there is no overarching “agenda” so much as alot of people trying to live their own lives, and called freaks or sinners for it. If my party saw the environment as a civic duty rather than a political thing (whether global warming exists or not, shouldn’t you be making cleaner factories? Better farms? Preserving wildlife?), if my party saw giving human rights to people who need it as a moral imperative, and if both parties understood that marriage is a matter for each church and not the state, I’d vote.

No, and because they don’t I’m not voting for them. I don’t like the leftist communism of the liberal party, and I don’t like the idea of a welfare state. Righteous living, and not government mandated redistribution, should be the solution. We should give charitably of our own free will, not be taxed to death. So I’m not in favor of voting, period. Maybe libertarian party, but it seems like a waste of vote. So, nobody can have my vote, and I won’t vote.

Are you born this way?

One of the statements of the left is that LGBT people are born that way. One of the statements of the right is that LGBT can change.

I was not born this way, I can recall a specific incident when I started thinking about this stuff (my brother crossdressed me as a kid for a play). That said, the course of my life has led me to the conclusion that this is very much a part of me. It may be symbolic of something, and in theory having certain other needs met might reduce the need. But I would feel unhappy if I could not do it period, any more than if I decided I should not do it, as years of depression have shown. That said, no, I do not believe in the “God made a mistake” idea. God, as far as I’m concerned, made the events that shaped my life.

One of the beefs that I have with the whole LGBT can change thing, is that there is an unsaid assumption, that because they can change, that also means that they must. Barring the logical fallacy here (LGBT have a choice, therefore, LGBT don’t have a choice), there are some serious situational problems with this. The chief one that it is the equivalent to telling a girl who wants to be a priest that “only men can be priests.” Suppose she puts her feelings aside, and chooses to go along with this. Is there any guarantee that she would be happy? What if no sooner does she decide to become a teacher than someone else comes along and tells her to become a doctor? At what point does the ability to change stop being a choice?

If we have a choice, we have a choice. We need to respect the choices of others.

Now that the big stuff has been mentioned, I’ll talk about the smaller questions.

What is genderfluid?

I am a transgender woman. This means that in the eyes of the law, I identify as female. This is correct.

But there are times when I identify as male, and possibly present as male. There are times when I feel like a mix between genders, and the are sometimes weeks or months that I’m okay with whatever gender I’m in. But generally, I’m not happy with other people defining those terms.

Generally, I want my hair to grow out without male pattern ever setting in. I want to rid myself permanently of my beard and chest/neck/back hair. It’s gross. My body shouldn’t be doing that, and I’d be fine with gene therapy to prevent it. Would I ever take hormones or do the surgery? No. The hormones have some serious side-effects (like cancer), the surgery traps me in a body which doesn’t function sexually (when a sex change actually involves gene replacement, and gives me a real vagina, maybe) and I want kids at some point.

What I would want is electrolysis, possibly shaving off my adam’s apple, and to have long hair that I could tie or braid. To be able to be male or female, with nobody making demands on what I should be. I should be myself. There is nothing less that a person should be, than what they feel inside.

What does this mean, in a small town?

Well, I’m extraordinarily shy, so to start with, I’m wanting to just find a few jobs, and work at the library and such. Generally, the trickiest part of this is that I have trouble approaching people and knocking on doors.

After that, since my paying stuff seems to be landscaping and odd jobs, and it is logistically difficult to work in a skirt pulling weeds, and doing dirty stuff, I would say that I would probably be presenting as male with long hair.

Working indoors, I would want people to accept me, and to slowly be able to work progressively more as female.

The nature of a small town is such that people don’t always understand what life is like elsewhere. But likewise, it doesn’t have to be a cruel place. Part of rural culture means that if I want to live my life a certain way, I should be able to as long as I don’t directly hurt you or your livelihood. So, yes, there are people here that will worry about reputation. But reputation works both ways. If you accept people and show this as an example, this works as good reputation. The employer comes across as someone who has stuff figured out, and treats workers well.

I would like to bring who I am to the town that I grew up loving, without the sense that I’m not welcome anymore, or that I have to hide significant portions of myself to fit in. I don’t want to step on any toes, but all the same neither do I want to live my whole life defined by others. I believe it would be reasonable to assume in a small town, that people show the sides of themselves they want people to see, and adjust to rural life.

I also want to visit the city on occasion (some of that is for electrolysis, some is to visit friends), provided I can afford to do so. But my home is here.


On Anarchy

A few years back, I used to be big on anarchy. I would get into debates with my dad about it. He would show stuff like Doctor Zhivago as “examples” of what anarchy looked like. Actually though, this is not anarchy. I’ll explain what is, and why it isn’t.

First, right, Doctor Zhivago. The scene in question was when the tsar’s regime was brought down. We see people doing whatever. Raiding and looting, and so on. Anarchy right? No. It was a lapse in power, what we call “chaos”. The word “chaos” does not mean “random” despite what we’d think. It comes from a word meaning “void” and is essentially that. It’s a gap in power, an emptiness, while the ruling power is out of power, and the rebels are trying to make the case why they should be the ruling power (they usually do, making some claim of how they are worth it to rule). The disorder and lawlessness you see is not an example of anarchy, so much as people taking advantage of the gap to get what they want. As in, not so much disorder, as people knowing very much what to do, and doing it, because they are opportunists.

So then, what is anarchy? Well, it’s “no rule” but first, let me explain what it isn’t.

We see movies every year, that have so called anarchists blowing stuff up. It’s almost like Hollywood is either projecting from their own idiocy or “paid for by the the US voting system”TM. In fact, the only film that actually got it right what anarchy is, was V for Vendetta, and this was mainly over most of the audience’s head (and he still blew up some major British buildings). In this film however, between despotic neo-fascism and anarchy, the audience usually preferred anarchy to despotism. Typically in movies, however, in an effort for “patriotism” anarchists blowing up things is a bad thing because of our wonderful democratic-republic. I’ll get to later how it isn’t, but for now, let’s start with the fact that most anarchists, who aren’t certifiably insane, see terrorism as a type of force, and thus part of a rulership mechanism, to say nothing of the fact that most of them are pacifists.

Second, I was on OkCupid looking for matches. Almost without exception, under Anarchist, all of them tended to men, with heavy beard stubble, and very conservative views. In other words, alot of men, who are tired of women ruling them, maybe? That sounds less like legitimate anarchy, and more like guys that were extraordinarily sexist, and didn’t like the idea that they had to be forced to work or maintain an image, or be decent people. Personal responsibility, however, is at the heart of anarchy. Not it either.

Third, I saw a number of links about anarchy that appeared to be tying it together with something else. Anarcho-communism. Anarcho-capitalism. Nice try. Anarcho-capitalism is a business government. Anarcho-communism is still communism, just without a leader. Neither of these are actually anarchy.

What then, is anarchy? Well, picture this. A school’s 5th grade has money and resources to show a film in class, or go to a water park. The water park involves a great deal of coordination, more money, and is more risky but is more fun. The class film requires bags of popcorn, and some pizza, is fun in its own way, but saves money for the school. A monarchy would be the teacher deciding this without input of the students, an oligarchy would be the school board deciding (they’d probably decide to stay in). You’ll notice that neither of these actually ask the students. Which brings us to the idea of voting, what formed the basis for our society (because of this article, we are going to call this democracy rather than republic). You’ll notice too, that from the outset, this system is worlds better. You’ll note that in parentheses, I mentioned this as a democracy vs republic. A democracy is a rule based on the group, republic is based on the individual. Our society, likes to call itself a democratic-republic, but it really isn’t, except that we vote for a single individual, who may or may not serve our interests. It also, as I pointed out in movies, likes to paint anarchy as much worse than democracy. But is it? What is anarchy?
Back to the example. Suppose the class is big, like 100 (just for percent). A democracy would take a vote, and we assume 49 of those people are introverts/like the movie, and so 51 outvote them. This means 49 pissed off kids. Anarchy is saving whatever money you can, and as a teacher, allowing a substitute for the kids staying in, and supervising the kids that vote to go. Anarchy is the concept of a republic to its logical end. So actually, even this wouldn’t be a good example, but it would be a start. A better example would be teaching the kids math and reading, and the basics, then in middle school onward, the kids choose which classes to pursue. They can apprentice themselves to prospective companies if they know what they want, can get a broader liberal arts education, or whatever. The kids can screw themselves over, but it’s understood that they make their own choices.

Btw, I actually had some of this happen, in college. They put it to a vote, test Friday or Monday, with the other day off. I wanted to get it out of the way, and not have tension all weekend, so I chose Friday. Everyone else was choosing Monday, so I abstained. The teacher was like “we need everyone to vote.” I’m like, I don’t care, I don’t want to be bullied into a decision. So I alone took the test (it was horticulture, and I was getting C’s) and with just me, I had the peace and quiet to think (small classroom meant I could hear coughing, tapping with the pencil, etc. and I was having trouble with ADD at the time) and aced the test. This is how society should be run, with nobody imposing their will on another.

The question is, how do we do this? Well, we have a few models.

The first is Switzerland, which is very much into small state. They arm their own citizens by selling them guns, and seem to be very (pardon the expression) anarcho-capitalist. The model works, I suppose, it’s just not what I’d call true anarchy. More like a commercial government. That said, the people appear free and happy. They appear to be good neutral territory for world leaders to come up with theories of how to improve the world, while at the same time, able to maintain their sovereignty by being well armed and good in business.

The second, is a more true version to the concept that I want. Both during early (pre-tsar) Russia, and during the Holy Roman Empire, the essential model was city states. So long as the city state has the same currency as nearby areas, and the ability to protect itself from outside attack, it is both connected to the whole, and sovereign, without needing a president. You can have an elected mayor, you can have a town council, you can have companies that run roads/water/electricity. Regardless of how you do it, that’s your Sim City, so to speak. In a true anarchy, this also means weirdness like Culpeper attacking Warsaw in Virginia. But yes, that’s part of the deal. If we have free government, towns are self-governed, versus having people decide for others. And people are also self-governed. If the place turns into a bad place to live, take responsibility. Ideally, in a true anarchy, you have an unelected town council, made entirely of volunteers. Their term lasts as long or short as they want, or even random people can show up and make suggestions. Of course, if nobody else likes your idea, it’s up to you to implement it.