Last weekend, students and community members gathered in New South’s Riverside Lounge for GU Pride’s annual GenderFunk. It’s a night of fun, dancing, friendship, and yes, drag. This year’s line-up was particularly impressive, headlined by a star from RuPaul’s Drag Race (and a local celebrity for those of us from Western New York). Even so, I still couldn’t bring myself to go.
It’s difficult for me to shake the feeling that GenderFunk is pushing the gay community further away from transgender inclusivity, excepting those in attendance. The annual event occurs in its own safe bubble, challenging gender norms only within the confines of Riverside Lounge. I’m sure that if I had attended in drag I would have had to take a stern look in the mirror to get up the courage to walk to the event, and I would venture to say that many of the attendees would have had similar feelings.
That’s nothing compared to the true bravery that belongs to our transgendered brothers and sisters. To dress each day, not in drag, but in clothes that mark one’s true gender, regardless of one’s ability to pass transitional status, is both courageous and dangerous. The Washington, D.C. transgender community—its female members in particular—has endured an onslaught of murders in recent years. The worst waves of killings happened recently, from 2011 to 2012, and in 2002, when two teenagers numbered among the victims.
By comparison, the casual, one-off transvestism of GenderFunk leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I recognize that the event is a remarkable demonstration of good faith from our hardworking leaders in the queer community at Georgetown.
Still, if I wasn’t cisgendered, I would have felt singularly mocked by the event. The gathering of mostly cisgendered individuals for an enormous party in the name of gender-bending rings hollow, for it reduces the courageous lives of transgendered people to spectacle.
Regardless of the good intentions of the organizers or the personal lives of those who attended or performed at GenderFunk, the event could easily be interpreted as reducing gender to a game. There even was a contest for attendants dressed in drag. It was practically a show for the entertainment of cisgendered individuals.
I’m gay, and I remember straight high school classmates who pretended to be queer. They had plenty of excuses, but it was still the worst kind of mockery. My fear is that we in the queer Hoya community are doing something similar with this contest.
Moreover, GenderFunk runs the risk of creating complacency in the queer student population, as it builds a false sense of accomplishment. It is rarely easy for any cisgendered individual to dress in drag—when truly none of us cisgendered people could possibly know even the slightest taste of the challenges of being transgendered in a non-welcoming space.
GenderFunk is insulting to transgendered individuals, who already face a general environment here that is crassly ignorant and often outright transphobic.
For instance, some weeks ago, during a course discussion on tranvestism, a classmate shared his experience of sitting on the Amtrak next to a transman whose very existence enthralled and terrified him, leaving him unable to do anything but stare. I’m still kicking myself for not saying anything—I made the unfortunate assumption that the professor would step in. I remember well how it felt to receive similar reactions from others as an openly gay male before I came to Georgetown. I’m ashamed to think that the Georgetown community, myself included, has continued to treat transgendered individuals with the same ignorance. GenderFunk offers the message that gender is a game or party. It’s not. It may have performance aspects, sure, but it’s a deadly serious matter for the men and women who are transgendered.
As much as we Hoyas love our traditions, I’d like to see the casual transvestism of GenderFunk replaced with something better. Wonderful programming focused on trans-related issues has long been present on campus, thanks to GU Pride, the LGBTQ Center, and others. But, recent violence against the D.C. transgender community should have precipitated a more robust response from us on the Hilltop.
There’s plenty of work to be done—work that will bring us closer to a vision of trans-inclusivity. One day this university will graduate its first openly transgender student, and we need to start working more proactively to make sure they feel as welcome as any cisgendered student already does.
Many gays and lesbians are gender nonconforming, as are many straight people. To claim that “gender performance” alters biological sex is not brave; it’s false. What’s brave is to say the emperor has no clothes and recognize the harm that gender identity as a concept does to women and men seeking to break free from gender altogether.
What about Intersex people, Cathy?
You don’t seem to realise that biological sex is a social construct too. It’s based on observable objective facts, but how those facts are interpreted varies from place to place and time to time.
The unfortunate phrase “gender identity” encompasses that too. That’s because there’s no easy means of determining biological sex. You could have XY chromosomes for example, many women do. So do most men – but 1 in 300 don’t. We can only go by appearances. I wish there was a better way, but there isn’t.
The fact that you no longer make the claim that you’re a “trans ally” and as a millionaire law partner have even paid significant sums of money to re-elect those who’d deny basic human rights to Intersex and Trans people should not cause anyone to dismiss what you say unheard. Neither should your submission to the UN to repeal all human rights for Trans people be considered relevant. Nor should your legal threats and lawsuits for “harassment” against anyone who dares disagree with you online. Fortunately I live in Australia, so am immune from such SLAP suits. It’s obvious your agenda is not pro-female, but anti-trans, but so what?.
No matter what the source, we should consider what is said, not who says it.
Meanwhile, your strict binary model of biological essentialism has to confront situations like this : http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html,
Now hang on here, your saying that everyone else has to stick to there conventional gender boxes, and cannot challenge gender at all. Society imposes sex based presentation on people, one does not have to be trans to feel boxed in by gender. Lesbian and gay people have always been involved in drag acts. Why should they stop.
Plus what you write is not representing trans gender anyway, do you really think its all about wearing the clothes of your chosen sex. this is a side issue, its more about getting the body of the chosen sex.
Plus the more casual people become about breaking gender boundrys, the less taboo it will become.
What about those people who opt out of gender all together. Some do.
As for feeling mocked, do you not realize how mocked some women feel when men put womens clothes on and act out gender stereotypes claiming its there female persona.
I feel that on some level this article would be very different had you attended the event or considered the context in which Pride has held GenderFunk.
Before I talk about why the characterization of the event is misguided, I want to provide some context about what GUPride does all year to support the trans* community. If GenderFunk was all GUPride did to break down Gender barriers and support the Trans* community I’d agree that we were doing something wrong. But we try to include trans* people in other events as well. For Undocuqueer we had a non-gender conforming queer panelist, when we tabled all through the fall we raised awareness about obstacles faced by trans* people who try to vote, our general membership meetings have had discussions about the obstacles faced by non-genderconforming students, at Carpe Queer (our Ice Cream) social we included gender-nonconforming students on our introductory panel to voice concerns about the trans* community on campus. GenderFunk isn’t our substitution for support of the Trans* community, GUPride doesn’t just have a show once a year
But now, on to why the characterization of the event isn’t fair at all given what actually happens there
First of all, half of our lineup were Trans* individuals from the DC area, one of whom actually gave an extended speech about her experience as a transwoman, the discrimination she had faced, and how happy she was to see how far our community had come to celebrate our non-traditional gender expressions.
Secondly, one of the people I worked closely with on the event was one of the more visible Trans* members of the Georgetown community, who offered up real GenderFuck as opposed to straight drag, which mind you is not just a statement about the trans* community but about gender in general.
And there lies another key misunderstanding. GenderFuck (what the event would be called if not for SAC rules), as an art form, is not just about the trans* community, it is an established editorial artform that seeks to break down all concepts of what Gender is. I never once during the evening as MC, nor did any of the queens, claim that they were trying to pass along what the Trans* community experiences, instead I wanted the GUPride community, one that has faced many obstacles, to push itself further and question gender expression generally.
Gender expression isn’t just about the Trans* community. It can also be about “straight” acting gays that PLAGUE this campus. It is about “femme” lesbians and their invisibility to their own community. It is about the heterosexuals who feel bound by the societal demands of what their gender expression is “supposed” to be like.
This article also ignores the history of Drag Balls. Drag Balls emerged in queer communities of color and offered people a chance to live out a fantasy. Whether it be as an executive, a college student, a transwoman, a masculine presenting male. whatever. The point of the ball was to provide that safe space. This event is part of a history that is critical to gay history. Contests are part of that history. These balls were also central to the trans* communities throughout the LGBT rights movement.
The contests are there to encourage student participation, not to reinforce gender roles. Winners aren’t awarded for “being the most trans” which I agree would be absurd, but for being the most creative in the outlet to break down gender norms.
On some level, we have to walk a balance. What frustrates me is that there are people who attended GenderFunk and were uncomfortable just with seeing drag queens and transgendered performers because they had no exposure. But they came to GenderFunk because of its social aspects. They leave at least a little more aware of how stupid some gender norms are, and maybe with some more empathy given the stories of some of our guests. At the same time, there are people who would say inviting these people to our Catholic Campus is wrong outright, if you look at the protests in San Diego now over their drag ball.
I recommend the film “Paris Is Burning” as a primer to understanding Drag Balls, the contests, and their relationship to the Trans* community.
GenderFunk is fashioned in part after these balls, and I think maybe it could change your mind.
Did you two even read the piece……? At all?
He’s not saying that you need to stay in your birth gender. He’s saying you should be able to do whatever the hell you want. What he IS saying that us (gays and straights) “dressing up in drag in honored of transgendered people” IS ASSIGNING A STEREOTYPE TO THEM. I have transgendered friends and when people find out they are they make jokes like their some drag queen that’s going to put on a show. That’s not what it’s about, we all should be able to be whoever and dress however we want.
LABELING TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE AS DRAG DRESSERS IS THE SAME AS LABELING FEMALES AS DRESS WEARERS AND MALES AS TIE-WEARERS.
So, @bugbrennan, what you are arguing is exactly what he is saying. You just obviously misinterpreted him.
And, @Lyndorion – you’re saying Christian is arguing something that is 180 degrees opposite of what he is actually arguing. As a female, I do know what you’re talking about. … Do you actually think it’s any different than when people dress up in the way we stereotype gay male outfits and then act flamboyantly feminine. That’s insulting. It’s a stereotype. You can’t say it’s ok to be however you want and then give them a new stereotype…You’re also arguing his same point with the rest of your comment.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, everyone. First, a disclaimer. I obviously don’t speak for anyone besides myself, and in particular I certainly don’t speak for any trans* person. These are multifaceted issues, and I’m glad to see that my piece (however flawed you find it) is starting a conversation. I also apologize for any improper use of vocabulary (e.g., “transgendered” vs “transgender” vs “trans*).
I want to address Thomas’s response in particular. I don’t mean to minimize the good work of GUPride; I included the line “Wonderful programming focused on trans-related issues has long been present on campus, thanks to GU Pride, the LGBTQ Center, and others.” in the hopes of recognizing the good work that Thomas outlined.
That still doesn’t give GUPride a free pass. Thomas writes that he “wanted the GUPride community, one that has faced many obstacles, to push itself further and question gender expression generally.” The basic point I was trying to make is that the LGBTQ Hoya community’s focus on gender non-conformity – as exemplified by Thomas’s quote – can be exclusionary, facile, and unhelpful.
Gender norms are oppressive for some, but for others (especially in the trans* community), embodying (literally or otherwise) gender norms is a liberating experience. This is true of both trans* and cis individuals; some are gender-conforming, while others are gender non-conforming. Some can’t be bothered. For GUPride to devote their agenda to the gender non-conforming among us in such a way (GenderFunk is the largest event they’ll host in a given year) is to alienate enormous swaths of the queer community. When Thomas delineates “questioning gender expression” as the event’s goal, he ignores the sentiments and needs of many in the community.
Thomas defends this by adducing a trans* friend who “offers up real GenderFuck.” I won’t tell you how my trans* friends feel about my opinion piece – too many people have told me they “have a friend/relative who’s gay” in defense of their unfortunate views – but I will say that it’s no stretch for myself or many trans* individuals and their allies to recognize this comment as insulting. For some, being trans* is the opposite of fucking with gender, because being trans* turns upon true gender identity.
As Thomas points out, there are also many trans* who disagree. The key is to find a way to be respectful and inclusive of both, rather than exclusively promoting the “fuck gender” crowd, which only functions to alienate.
It may be helpful to situate this in a broader context that Thomas touches on when he laments the ” ‘straight’ acting gays that PLAGUE this campus.” It’s as if Thomas envisions GenderFunk as a safe space for all – including (or especially) those “straight acting gays” – to throw off the gendered shackles of their lives and to stop plaguing us with their damned gender conformity. The message, I guess, is meant to be welcoming but instead is alienating. Gender non-conformity is not a universal trait; if celebrating it is liberating to some but demeaning to others, why pick a side and alienate the other?
Worse, this plays into some very tired tropes of victimization and stereotyping. Thomas positions GenderFunk as the antidote to a “plague” of “straight acting gays” at Georgetown. The suggestion is that queer gender non-conforming Hoyas are victims of the cultural hegemony of queer gender-conforming Hoyas. Again, I don’t deny that gender conformity is oppressive to many. However, I won’t tolerate the suggestion that an appropriate response to this oppression is, well, more oppression. There’s a stereotype of the “str8 gay” as self-hating, femme-hating, and generally oppressive of other queers. Yet that’s just a stereotype, one that holds true for a few but leaves many gender-conforming queers tarred with the same image. So why attack them? There’s no way to use the word “plague” neutrally in such a conversation, and Thomas’s negative connotations tell the gender-conforming in our community exactly where GUPride thinks they belong. What an ironic choice of words: it used to be that queers were only called a “plague” by those on the far right.
This isn’t a new problem for the queer community at Georgetown, or even in general. Isn’t it time to stop insisting on our narratives and find a way to include both the gender-conforming and non-conforming, cis or trans*?
I’m pretty sure Thomas was being sarcastic when he used the word “plague.”
I think this conversation would be fruitful if everyone dialed back the attacking tones. Good points are being made, and this conversation is definitely needed, but I can practically see the missiles being launched from both sides.
Those people are sick we have to treat them. But not supporting them.!