[Disclaimer: as ever, I don't speak for everybody, and I most certainly don't speak for all trans* people. This one, though? This one is for me.]
I'm not female.
Nor is my body.
Describing me as "female-bodied" forces dissonance and incongruity: it forces me to dissociate, if only briefly, and there's no real way for it to do anything else.
"Microaggression" doesn't really do that sensation justice.
Of course, we can go more in-depth: we can talk about privileging "biology" over subconscious sex; we can talk about the wide range of characteristics lumped together under "biological sex", not all of which "agree"; we can argue over the primacy of chromosomes (and how very few people know theirs), or over genitalia (and how, unless you live on a nudist colony, you are likely to have first-hand experience of the genitalia of only a very small proportion of the people you regularly interact with), or over hormones (and how easy it is to alter an individual's endocrine system), or over reproductive tracts (and what this means for people who've had surgery); we can talk about the insinuation of the question "but what are you really?"
There is one rule, and it's very simple: use accurate language. If you need to talk about the fact that I have endometriosis, say "person with endometriosis". If you need to talk about the fact that I (currently) have a uterus and ovaries, you can describe me as "a person with ovaries", or a "uterus-owner".
Because that's what I am really.
I'm not female, and neither is my body.
I'm not female.
Nor is my body.
Describing me as "female-bodied" forces dissonance and incongruity: it forces me to dissociate, if only briefly, and there's no real way for it to do anything else.
"Microaggression" doesn't really do that sensation justice.
Of course, we can go more in-depth: we can talk about privileging "biology" over subconscious sex; we can talk about the wide range of characteristics lumped together under "biological sex", not all of which "agree"; we can argue over the primacy of chromosomes (and how very few people know theirs), or over genitalia (and how, unless you live on a nudist colony, you are likely to have first-hand experience of the genitalia of only a very small proportion of the people you regularly interact with), or over hormones (and how easy it is to alter an individual's endocrine system), or over reproductive tracts (and what this means for people who've had surgery); we can talk about the insinuation of the question "but what are you really?"
There is one rule, and it's very simple: use accurate language. If you need to talk about the fact that I have endometriosis, say "person with endometriosis". If you need to talk about the fact that I (currently) have a uterus and ovaries, you can describe me as "a person with ovaries", or a "uterus-owner".
Because that's what I am really.
I'm not female, and neither is my body.
It is strictly inaccurate.
Well, except when I use straps for postural support - and in practice that's still a hypothetical at this point in my life.
A wheelchair is not a tragedy: it is a tool. The answer to "oh no, what happened?" is "I got funding!" I am not stuck in my chair; I do not need furtive glances and discreet lowered voices; what I would like is basic accessibility.
Chairs are, for me, less good than getting to walk without pain or fatigue - but I don't get to walk without pain or fatigue. Making my illness visible is emphatically not the same as making my illness worse: my chair means I can move at "normal" walking pace again. It means I can spend a day wandering around London with the only consequence being spending the following day asleep. It means I can go shopping and attend concerts and visit museums and art galleries.
I'm not bound to my chair. It's not a weight to be spoken of in hushed tones. My chair is not, and never has been, the problem: I am a wheelchair user, and it sets me free.
This posting brought to you by the phrase "getting a wheelchair is giving up on getting better", the lift outside that one department being broken again in hilarious intermittent-hardware-fault fashion, and the charming gentlemen who heckled me aggressively in London when I got out of my chair, bumped it down three steps, then got back into it - rather than take an additional round trip of a quarter of a mile.
Well, except when I use straps for postural support - and in practice that's still a hypothetical at this point in my life.
A wheelchair is not a tragedy: it is a tool. The answer to "oh no, what happened?" is "I got funding!" I am not stuck in my chair; I do not need furtive glances and discreet lowered voices; what I would like is basic accessibility.
Chairs are, for me, less good than getting to walk without pain or fatigue - but I don't get to walk without pain or fatigue. Making my illness visible is emphatically not the same as making my illness worse: my chair means I can move at "normal" walking pace again. It means I can spend a day wandering around London with the only consequence being spending the following day asleep. It means I can go shopping and attend concerts and visit museums and art galleries.
I'm not bound to my chair. It's not a weight to be spoken of in hushed tones. My chair is not, and never has been, the problem: I am a wheelchair user, and it sets me free.
This posting brought to you by the phrase "getting a wheelchair is giving up on getting better", the lift outside that one department being broken again in hilarious intermittent-hardware-fault fashion, and the charming gentlemen who heckled me aggressively in London when I got out of my chair, bumped it down three steps, then got back into it - rather than take an additional round trip of a quarter of a mile.