As the first Transgender woman to run for U.S Congress I feel that it is appropriate for me to respond to the recent interview by Diane Sawyer with former Olympic Decathlon champion Bruce Jenner about his transgender identity. There will, of course, be intense debate about his legitimacy and motives particularly with his long standing presence in the media on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” which attempts to create a modern day montage of the ideal American family.
It is significant that Bruce Jenner presently is identifying himself as male. In essence, he is presenting his experience as it has been. After the transition she will discover what her life will be. As a transgender woman myself and a visible representative of the community I empathize with her and I know the challenges she will face as a woman.
It is equally significant that Jenner is not presenting himself as a representative of the transgender community. Still the interview has profound implications for a more enlightened discussion of transgender issues, both in the way the media approached the subject and the openness of Jenner’s responses. It is from my experience a very realistic representation of the struggle faced by transgender persons; the internal, social, and family conflict that surrounds it. There was emotional intensity portraying the challenges, the social pressures, and the difficult choices. It is for the general public a window into the soul of that internal struggle.
The interview also brought emphasis to the divergence of sexuality and gender. The transgender community has long been associated with the Gay and Lesbian community but sexuality and gender identification are distinctly different when relating to the broader issue of gender equity in our society. Unlike the Gay metaphor of coming out, transgender women have been forced into the social spotlight because of rapid and dramatic changes in family structure and gender roles. That dramatic shift is driving an exaggerated interest in a small and largely invisible group of individuals.
Jenner is, for now, announcing his intention to transition. He will endure tremendous public scrutiny in a very public way. Transgender women, like myself, know that we have experienced both genders in a culturally significant way. It is that knowledge and that experience that we offer to society at large.
As a political candidate it was not my intention to gain social or political acceptance as a transgender woman. Nor was it my intention to gain social or political parity as a woman. Gender was not an emphasis and never central to any discussion. What I emphasized was parity for traditional feminine values: the future of our children, the support of family values, the restoration of our communities, and social engagement. In our two major political parties I found those traditional values displaced by the relentless pursuit of wealth and a reckless disregard for future generations: the national debt, the budget deficit, student loan debt, environmental neglect, outsourcing of jobs, and the institution of a visa work force. I see two political parties that have abandoned the economic strength of this nation in favor of military domination.
I see in the Independence party a transformation of political values with a focus on the future of our young people. I see a party shedding the political rhetoric of the past in favor of a new political agenda based on accountability, transparency, individual liberty and “We the People”. The power of a great campaign is in the message we create and the impact it has on our culture. That’s how we win. Transition is not about boys becoming girls. It’s about a fundamental realignment of our cultural values.
Here is a little different perspective. I wrote this for the Twin Cities Men’s Center back in 2012. The photo is from two years earlier when I was still presenting as a man in a dress, defending Men’s rights. http://www.tcmc.org/mentalk2/mentalk1210.html
I really appreciate the dialogue. This is the problem with language and more importantly the evolution of language. I don’t think that is anywhere more apparent than under the transgender umbrella. The word was originally popularized by Virginia Prince to describe male cross dressers, the Society for the second self. It replaced Transvestite which had definite sexual connotations. Today it includes any gender expression that is not archaic. The word “traditional” was probably very misleading. I view family more like some cultures view kinship. I have Asian sisters though I don’t believe there is any Asian in my bloodline. Kinship can encompass any family structure. This is a significant divide between the GLBT community and the majority. There is a lack of generational continuity. Certainly, Lesbian women still have children and more male couples are adopting but it is not central by any means. This is a major problem for aging GLBT. If you were around for the aids epidemic you know that it was a very different experience for the women than it was for the men. Gender was clearly more than a stereotype. I know that we are not as culturally advanced here in Minnesota but I’m certain we are farther along than many states. The entire point of the blog is exactly what you are suggesting about gender, the options are infinite. It’s a very diverse culture. As to my main point. Do you believe in; “relentless pursuit of wealth and a reckless disregard for future generations: the national debt, the budget deficit, student loan debt, environmental neglect, outsourcing of jobs, and the institution of a visa work force.”?
Umm, Paula, I kind of agree with Carol. I grew up in Southern CA, where perhaps people are somewhat more evolved (SOME people), but I’ve experienced very little of men minimizing women’s ideas. I’ve also never hit a glass ceiling. I talk about kids and issues regarding them, but I don’t think I do more than the men here. Your comment ” What I emphasized was parity for traditional feminine values: the future of our children, the support of family values, the restoration of our communities, and social engagement.” doesn’t resonate with me, especially the “support of family values”, which usually means to me that if you’re not a husband-wife-kids arrangement, you’re not a valid family. My son and I were every bit as important as any other family–just a little smaller.
I don’t mean to give you a hard time, except to say that things aren’t as bad in this category as you might think. You’re welcome here, and we’d love to have your input on some of the many things we discuss here.
Works well for a man That’s how men minimize women’s ideas and values. It’s less pronounced with younger men but the problem has not gone away. The stereotype that women talk too much descends directly from the idea that she shouldn’t talk at all. Carolmoore absolves her gender conflict by calling it stereotypes, socially contrived. It’s a popular perception but hardly universal. Then of course she establishes a male to trans stereotype of her own choosing. There’s plenty of room for discussion about gender and values in this culture., Ask any trans woman.
It seems to me that the transgender community (to the extent that such a community exists. I’m not a big fan of grouping people together like that.) would be best served by transgender candidates keeping their gender out of the discussion except when specifically asked about it. Inserting it into the discussion may lend credence to claims that gender is a legitimate issue on which to judge someone. In reality, it should not be important to anyone other than the individual and those close to them.
Thank you Gene. I certainly did look at her political engagements but that’s not really what makes her so interesting to me.
Does anyone else think this person looks a bit like Scott Bakula?
The LP had a transgender woman run for Congress from California back in ’96.
As you might imagine, it caused a small firestorm among the “we aren’t taken seriously” crowd.
IIRC, she was very articulate.
Karen Ann Kerin also ran for Vermont Attorney General in 2004 as a Libertarian; in 2008 as nominee of the Republican & Libertarian Parties, and in 2010 as a Libertarian. All this information is @ http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=1882
Thank you Gene for bringing forward this rather interesting piece of history. It is sad to see that she passed away in January of last year as there is little doubt that she lead a complex and complicated life and much has been lost. I hope that I may come to know her better. Obviously, the social significance of transgender persons and transgender women more specifically remains a complex and controversial issue.
Actually, in 2000 Karen Ann Karin was the Republican nominee for U.S. House from Vermont, in an unsuccessful challenge to Rep. Bernie Sanders. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=1882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Potts
I don’t know if she was the first, either.
IP of MN would not have been my guess for the partisan affiliation of the first trans candidate for Congress, if she is correct about that.
A lot of women would have problems with a male to trans trying to impose gender stereotypes on us, i.e., “What I emphasized was parity for traditional feminine values: the future of our children, the support of family values, the restoration of our communities, and social engagement.” Gender is just another word for stereotypes and stereotypes suck big time.