Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    If you are inclined to speak out against such expressions of hatred and
    prejudice, then you can write to the producers of the festival.
    
    Barbara (Boo) Price
    Lisa Vogel
    WWTMC
    Box 22
    Walhalla, MI 49458

Laura, though I disagree with the actions of the security personel, one
statement that you repeat several times is incorrect, and that is that you were
stripped of your rights.  "Rights" are, by definition, restrictions on the power
of government, the Bill of Rights serving as an example.

However, you were *not* dealing with the government, you were on private land;
just as you can ask someone to leave land that you own, these women could ask
anyone to leave their land, and they did.

Please do not misunderstand; I am *not* supporting whet they did, only that they
were fully within their "rights" to expell someone, and that you have no
"rights" to be on their land; they granted you permission and the priviledge of
being on the land, and in the case of your friend, they revoked that permission.

I would take a hard, long look at the "trust" that has been set up; it sounds
like somewhere along the line it took a very, very wrong turn...

                              Roak

    Roak,
    
    I see your point about rights.  I think that it is a fine line.  In
    this country, most/all land is either privately owned or held by the
    government (state, local, federal).  I think the thing that puzzles me
    about rights is that I wasn't aware that our civil rights went down the
    toilet just because we had our feet parked on privately owned land.  
    
    I have been giving a lot of thought about the rights issue, and I think
    it would probably be more effective to put the focus on the ways in
    which the land, its purchase, purpose and use, has been misrepresented
    to the festival attendees.
    
    The other point about the festival is that this event is publicly
    advertised in various newspapers around the country.  I don't know if
    that places this event in a different category.  
    
    I will make some modifications to the piece before I send it out. 
    Thanks for your comments and support.
    
    Laura
    

    This note is being posted for my friend, Nancy.  This is her analysis
    of what happened to her at the 1991 Michigan Womyn's Musica Festival.
    
    *********************************************************************
    

                        A Kinder and Gentler Festival?
                                   by Nancy


    I was expelled from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival by two festival
    security women on Tuesday morning at approximately 12:45 a.m.  While
    waiting at the main gate for a friend arriving on the chartered bus, I
    was approached by the security women who questioned me about whether I
    was a man.  I answered that I was a woman and I showed them my picture
    ID driver's license.  Then one of the women asked if I was transsexual. 
    I asked her what was the point of their questioning.  She replied that
    transsexuals were not permitted at the festival, that the festival was
    for "natural, women-born women" only.  I replied that nowhere in any
    festival literature was that policy stated and I asked her to verify
    the policy.  She contacted the festival producers, Lisa Vogel and Boo
    Price, and she told me that she verified that transsexuals were not
    permitted by festival policy.  When I asked to speak to the producers
    directly, she said that they would not speak to me, that she was their
    designated contact person.  Then she asked me if I had had a sex change
    operation.  I replied that my medical history was none of her business
    but that I was willing to submit to genital examination if that would
    satisfy her concerns regarding my sex.  She declined, saying she would
    not feel comfortable doing that.  I asked her to produce proof to
    substantiate her insinuations that I was transsexual.  Then she quoted
    more festival policy saying, "We are empowered to expel any woman from
    the land for any reason that we feel appropriate."  She said that I had
    to leave the festival at once and that I would not even be allowed to
    return to my campsite to retrieve my equipment.  Once I was outside the
    front gate, I was on my own to find transportation home.


    I believe the festival producers have disseminated misleading
    information regarding the exact nature of their festival.  The festival
    is portrayed as a "woman-only" event, but in fact they mean something
    else.  Apparently, there is a covert policy to exclude transsexuals
    that is not in any festival literature, advertisements or program
    guide.  The security women refused to take into account the irrefutable
    fact that I am a woman and they acted to implement their own version of
    a "women-only" policy.  During the course of our conversation one of
    the women acknowledged that there were transsexuals present at the
    festival but only because "we haven't caught them yet."  Since there is
    no conclusive way to determine if a woman is transsexual, I suspect
    that she targeted me because she perceived me as presenting an
    ambiguous gender identity.  Transsexuals who "pass" as born-female are
    safe so long as they stay in the closet about their transsexualism.


    The festival producer's unwillingness to put their policy in writing,
    while at the same time reserving their options to enforce their secret
    policy on innocent and unsuspecting festival participants is
    unacceptable.  The producers, in condoning the actions of the festival
    security women, have tarnished the image of women's values and
    community that they glowingly depict in their literature.  


    The festival expulsion process is an example of how absolute power
    corrupts absolutely.  The festival security women played prosecutor,
    judge and executioner in their process of implicating me, rendering
    their summary judgment, and executing their verdict.  I had no access
    to due process.  There is no "Festi-goer's Bill of Rights."  One could
    search back in history, say 50 years ago on the European continent, to
    find similar archetypes for their style of security enforcement.  I
    feel troubled that the security women have duplicated at the festival
    some of the most repressive structures from the dominant culture.


    The festival security women told me that the reason for their secret
    policy is for the protection of transsexuals and the festival
    participants.  When I hear this explanation I think back to when I
    attended my first festival in August, 1990.  During the five-day
    festival I met hundreds of women while performing two work shifts at
    the Sober Support Tent, going to concerts, standing in food lines at
    the kitchen, line dancing in the nude to the music of Two Nice Girls,
    bathing at the community showers, participating in workshops, and
    walking on the trails.  At the 1991 festival I met dozens of women in
    the 16 hour period before I was expelled from the land and, like last
    year, I encountered no hostility or negative reactions from any women.


    Who is the covert policy really designed to protect?  Judging from my
    experience with the women I've met, I have a hard time imagining that
    very many of them would want the kind of protection the policy purports
    to offer.  In my opinion the women who want the protection are some
    women in the self-defined, comfortable, "mainstream", who prefer not
    look at their own attitudes towards women different from themselves. 
    In the context of a dominant culture such people often play the role
    of oppressors.  Inside or outside the festival so-called "protection
    policies" serve and benefit the oppressors at the expense of the
    oppressed.  The policy protects oppressors from experiencing and owning
    their discomfort and the policy is used to justify their actions
    against the oppressed.  Women who are probably oppressed in their daily
    lives became the oppressors at a festival that portrays itself to be a
    "precious time when we see ourselves reflected in a cultural mirror
    where femaleness is honored.  It's one week when it is safe to walk
    alone under a star-filled sky, where we create a piece of the world
    defined by female values and love for life" (quoted from festival
    promotional material mailed to me).


    Although this episode has left me feeling hurt, offended, betrayed,
    outraged and a bit cynical, I am also trying to accept the actions that
    the festival producers and personnel have perpetrated against me with
    as much understanding, compassion and humor as I can find.  My highest
    hope would be to meet with the women in a nonthreatening, mutually
    respecting, and safe space--free from any vestiges of the "power-over"
    dynamics that prevailed at Michigan--where each woman could share her
    experience, perhaps further our individual process of growth and
    awareness, and maybe begin to heal the pain between us.  


    Sisterhood, good will and tolerance for our diversity are qualities
    that a woman may or may not bring to the festival.  Until the festival
    producers and personnel step forward to address the issues of gender
    diversity and oppression with honesty and open-mindedness, I have one
    parting piece of advice for women who are transsexual or who present
    ambiguous gender identity.  Be careful that you don't walk too near the
    main gate late at night where you might meet the "Gender Police";
    security women who are empowered to expel you from the land if you do
    not fit their definition of "woman."  Be aware that their definition of
    "woman" does not have to take into consideration the anatomy between
    your legs nor any form of legal identification you may possess.

	While the owner of private property is entitled to give and
	revoke permission for access to property, one should also
	consider whether any actions of the property owner, including
	the possible acceptance of renumeration for access which was
	later revoked, constituted fraud. If such is the case, Nancy
	may have grounds for legal recourse, should she desire to
	pursue it.

				(I am not a lawyer)

					Tom_K

   Roak,
   	
   The rights you refer to as being non existant are not correct to my
   understanding.  Tom_K has it right, to more completely understand the
   law of the land in this case one must recognize that land owenership
   confers certain rights to the property owners and empowers the owner
   to protect their land.  It does not allow for misrepresentation as
   may have been the case or commision of acts that are against civil and
   criminal ordinances.  It also does not allow for improper seizure
   of property either.  When this extends to semi-public functions it gets
   more complex as other local laws and ordnances take over.

   The questions that still remain are:
   	
       	-Is there a hidden agenda?  
   	-Is the policy legal if not public?
   	-Is the policy legal if it were public?
   	-Is the enforcement policy of the festival or the empowered
   	 security?  Or in plain english did security overstep their
   	 bounds?

   Allison
   	
   	

    I am so sorry you were subjected to this abuse, Nancy.  
    
    I can offer absolutely nothing constructive about the law, or anything,
    just many many soft cuddly hugs.
    
    E Grace

    Even in Holland where people sue a lot less than in the US, this whole,
    sad affair would be sufficient for a law suit.
    Not (in our case) one would be awarded a large sum of money, but at
    least the whole thing would be out in the open.
    
    Charles

    
    If the organisers have the right to hold a `woman only' event, must
    they accept Nancy's definition of what it is to be a woman?
    
    In general I could not support any discrimination against 
    transexuals.  However, if I were asked whether I believed that 
    surgery could change a man into a woman, I would have to say `no'.  
    If I were asked whether I thought it possible to be born a woman in 
    a man's body, I must also answer `no'.  It seems to me that Nancy 
    is a man who insists on being treated as a woman.  It seems that
    the festival organisers thought likewise.  I don't think the way
    they enforced their policy is at issue, as the treatment given to
    Nancy was probably the same as what a self-declared men would have
    received.
    
    Liam
    

Barbara Price and Lisa Vogel
WWTMC
Box 22
Walhalla, MI

                                                       August 27, 1991


Barbara & Lisa:

The purpose of this letter is to take an opportunity to describe the ways in 
which I have been adversely impacted by the inability of you and your staff 
to value diversity.

Since I have only had an opportunity to communicate my feelings about the 
events of August 12 to you through Chris C., I feel that it is critical that I 
have an opportunity to express my views in a more direct manner.

My week at the music festival was meant to be a fun and relaxing vacation.  
I did have plans to lead a series of workshops for women who have been 
impacted by adoption (as I have done for the past 3 years).  Leading those 
workshops is a certain amount of "work,"  but it is work that enriches my 
life and gives me great joy.

The festival was far from festive.  My initial shock at witnessing the attack 
against Nancy lasted for about 18 hours.  During that time I experienced a 
condition called disassociation.  During the hours that I was in this state of 
disassociation I was not aware of my body, my feelings or even conditions 
as basic as hunger, fatigue or the need to go to the bathroom.  Since I had 
never before experienced disassociation, I was terrified and confused at 
what was happening.

The friend that I had gone to meet at the airport shuttle bus on Monday 
night found we wandering around the land on Tuesday afternoon.  I was not 
able to answer the simplest of her questions to me.  She had the good sense 
to insist that I join her for dinner and in the process of eating and 
talking about things that were familiar to me I slowly came out of this 
state of disassociation.

I then experienced feelings of deep grief and sorrow.  Although Nancy and I 
made a mutual decision that I should return to the festival, it was very 
hard returning to the land.  I want to make one thing very clear.  I would 
not have remained at the festival if I did not have the workshops scheduled 
for Thursday through Sunday.  Because of my commitment to that group of 
women I felt that I had to return and make good on my commitment.

I had also planned to attend two of the intensive workshops on Tuesday.  
Since I took Nancy to the Grand Rapids airport on Tuesday, I missed both of 
these workshops.  And because I was now going to be driving back alone, I 
needed to leave the festival earlier than I had originally planned.

You may read these words and feel that I made choices as this event 
unfolded.  I don't believe that the illusion of choice constitutes real 
choice.  I did what I had to do given an horrendous and traumatic set of 
circumstances.

In short, my one week of vacation was totally ruined by the prejudicial 
treatment of Nancy, sanctioned by the two of you and executed by your 
security staff.

Additionally, there are many, many outstanding issues and questions that 
are raised by this one event.  I have addressed some of the issues and 
questions in the enclosed article: _Trouble in Paradise_.  Since I did not 
want to dilute the main focus of that article, which is meant to highlight 
the issue that our collective trust has been betrayed by the manner in which 
you establish and enforce policy, I have saved the remaining ones for 
this letter.

At one point your security staff expressed that expelling Nancy and not 
letting her go to her campsite to pack her own gear was an issue of "safety 
for both Nancy and the other festival participants."  Your blanket of 
protection seems to be applied in an inconsistent manner.  I would be 
interested in hearing your explanation of which women need protection and 
from what?  For instance, there is an excessive amount of drinking and 
drugging that occurs during the festival.  Do you not feel compelled to 
protect recovering addicts and alcoholics?  Why don't you expel women who 
use controlled substances?  What about women who get drunk?  What about the 
women who are recovering from compulsive over-eating or nicotine addiction? 
Cigarettes and foods containing sugar are now sold at the Saints Collective 
Stand and at the General Store.  Do you feel no responsibility for their 
safety?

How "safe" would I have felt when, returning to our campsite, I discovered 
Nancy and all her camping gear missing?

The fact is, women who attend the festival are responsible for themselves.  
If they have brought children to the festival, then they are the ones 
responsible for those children.  To pick and choose issues for which you will 
be responsible on our behalf doesn't wash.  If any adult has a problem with 
what she experiences while on the land, there are plenty of resources 
available to support her in working it through.  Sober Support, The Womb and 
Oasis are the available resources.  Thanks, but no thanks, I'd rather be 
responsible for my own safety.  In fact, the only time I have felt *unsafe* 
on the land was during the evening of Monday, August 12 when witnessing the 
sanctioned behaviors of your security staff.  The anger and hatred that 
fueled their actions was indeed quite scary.

I also know that once Nancy returned home she tried to get messages to me.  
None of her messages were communicated to me.  I wonder what would have 
happened if Nancy had been at the front gate by herself that night.  Who 
was going to take responsibility for telling me that my friend and 
traveling companion had been thrown off the land in the middle of the 
night?  Once your staff had executed their duties of dumping her at the 
Alpine Hotel, how would she have gotten to the airport or to a bus station? 
I have already discovered in my communications with you (through Chris as 
your spokesperson) that you would take no responsibility for Nancy's 
well-being once she had been expelled from the land.  How would I have ever 
found out what had happened to her?  

There is a larger question of responsibility to debate.  Based on Chris's
feedback to me as the voice that represented your decisions, it is 
apparent that you take no responsibility for the fact that this incidence 
occurred.  No where in your promotional materials do you explicitly state 
that this event is for woman-born-women only.  I understand that you might 
open yourselves up to taking some heat for making such a public 
proclamation, but you have been grossly negligent in not doing so.  
Contrary to the self-absolution that you have liberally dispensed for 
yourselves, I find that you are very much responsible for such an incidence 
taking place.  You have not been honest and up front about your policies 
and politics.  I can assure you that no sane woman would want to 
participate in an event where it has been explicitly stated that she is not 
welcome.

I have attended the 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90 and 91 festivals.  There 
have always been transsexuals in attendance.  It is a known fact that there 
are groups of women who take issue at this.  In all my years of attending 
the festival I had no idea that there was a hidden policy that these women 
were not welcome.  The debate around gender diversity isn't going to be 
resolved by covert policies and terrorist enforcement of those policies.  I 
want to make sure that these issues are dealt with in an open manner. 

Gay Community News (GCN) of Boston has already contacted me and asked me some 
questions about this incidence.  Their reporter has told me that you two 
have failed to return phone calls from GCN.  It seems very telling that 
under the cover of night you were willing to set policy and enforce it, but
in the light of day, where your politics and actions can be scrutinized, you 
are now silent and inactive.

Overall, I have found your lack of compassion and refusal to accept 
responsibility appalling.  I shall never again be able to view the Michigan 
Womyn's Music Festival as a place that is better than the day-to-day world I 
live in.  At least the fathers of patriarchy acknowledge the right to due 
process which, on *your* land, was denied to Nancy and has been denied to 
other festival participants in the past.
  
I will close this letter by spelling out exactly what you can expect from me, 
and in the best of circumstances, what I expect from you.

As I mentioned above, I have been leading the Roots & Wings workshop series 
for four years now.  I have a mailing list that contains over 100 names.  
The article I've written (which is enclosed) and this letter will be sent to 
that network.  I also intend to send the article and letter to several 
feminist newspapers and magazines and to several of the musicians who performed
at this year's festival.  One woman was singled out for a vicious attack 
motivated by prejudice and the inability of you and your staff to value 
diversity.  Regardless of what you do or don't do to rectify this 
situation, this story must be told.  This is my way of getting the issue of 
gender diversity out in the open. 

Finally, what I expect from you two is that you send a written letter of 
apology to my friend, Nancy, and a letter of apology to me.  I expect you to 
publicly state the exact nature of *all* policies that govern the attendance
and behavior of festival attendees and festival staff, both paid and work 
exchange staff members.  I expect a process to be developed for resolving any 
conflicts involving festi-goers that arise during the festival.  I expect 
that this process should include provisions for a decision-making committee 
comprised of festival attendees who are not involved in the conflict.

Legally, you may well be within *your* rights to "control" the festival 
participants, musicians and craftswomen with an anarchist fist.  Your attitude
of "if you don't like our policies, don't come back," (a proclamation you made 
to the craftwomen) is one of the most honest representations of your politics 
and policies that I have ever seen or heard.  Clearly, I will have some long, 
hard thinking to do between now and next August.

Laura Ervin

    Again according to Dutch law, a man after having had a sex change can
    become a woman legally. It takes some paperwork, but it's possible.
    On the other hand, organisations working on equality, should not claim
    that all people are equal, but some are more equal.
    
    Charles

   Re: .9
   	
   Your comment is not very relevent here, perhaps another note to debate
   that issue. 

   Peace,
   Allison

[Hmmm... should a man even comment at all on a womanspace issue?  Well, I'm
 running my "female" software today so I'll give it a shot 8-) ]

Re: .9

 > It seems to me that Nancy 
 > is a man who insists on being treated as a woman.

???!!!???!!!

Where did you get THIS from??

At no point in this discussion did I see anything by Nancy to indicate
whether she is or is not transsexual.  I think Nancy's whole POINT is
that it's really immaterial whether she's a transsexual or not, and that
her medical history is NONE of the security guards' business.

Just a SWAG here:  this whole situation looks to me like what bar bouncers
sometimes do when they don't like how someone "looks"; they invoke some
ad-hoc dress code or make up some other excuse on the fly to keep someone
out.  In this case, the security guards seemed to not like Nancy's "look"
for whatever reason, and would use whatever excuses they could to get her
out.  In other words, I don't think there's a "hidden policy" against
transsexuals... I just think it's one of the convenient excuses they use
when they don't like someone.  Think about it: it's the perfect excuse.
It's pretty hard for an average person to tell the difference between a
"natural born woman" and someone who is the result of competent transsexual
surgery.  So they can accuse someone of being transsexual and nothing
they can do (short of maybe DNA testing) would convince them otherwise.

A couple of other nits:  I think any LEGAL challenge to them should
concentrate on the fraudulent aspects of the land acquisition (i.e.
they acquired it on false pretenses; they SAID it would be a community
of sisterhood, but it's turned into Lisa and Boo's private playground).
"Civil rights" shouldn't be so much an issue as basic common courtesy.

In the larger sense, though, I think that the legal issues pale before
the larger ethical issues.  Before I became enlightened on women's and
gender issues, I figured that women created FWO space out of spite: "We've
got a place that YOU can't get into!!  Nyah, nyah, nyah".  Later on, I
saw the positive aspects of womanspace: in this society, women spend so
much time having to posture and mold themselve to male expectations that
(for the most part) only in womanspace can they truly be themselves and
build up their strength to assert themselves as humans and individuals.
Especially in =wn=; when I saw discussions of the positive aspects of
womanspace by intelligent and enlightened women, I tossed aside the "spite"
scenario as a bad stereotype.

Unfortunately, this incident brings home to me the fact that SOME
creators of womanspace haven't gotten beyond the "Gurls ownlee, no
boyz aloud" stage...

I think one lesson to be taken away from this is that the same range of
personality types exists in women as in men.  Unfortunately, womanspace
is not *automatically* safe space.  The social dynamics may be somewhat
different, but the social problems remain...

--jim

    
    When I questioned myself a while ago about what "womanspace" was, and
    who would be welcomed into it, I decided that I felt that a woman is
    anyone who lives and identifies as a woman NOW.  I don't care
    if they were born with four arms, chartreuse skin, and purple twinkies
    growing out of their ears - it doesn't matter. 
    
    As for the action taken at the festival, I think it's unforgivable. 
    Partly because they hadn't stated upfront this "new rule" and
    transsexuals.  Partly because they refused her the right to prove that
    she belonged there.  And partly because they did not give her the
    right to leave with her stuff, after arranging a safe ride out - that
    showed the utmost in non-respect, which indicates I think their
    prejudice on the matter of transsexuals.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    Laura,
    I don't know anything about the festival, and I know little about
    transsexualism, but you have my support.
    Best of luck with those producers.
    Alice T.

Re: <<< Note 999.3 by 32FAR::LERVIN "Roots & Wings" >>>

Re: <<< Note 999.6 by VIDSYS::PARENT "Kit of parts, no glue" >>>

Allison and Laura,

I think you both got my point; that there were some weaknesses in the original
letter/argument that should be corrected here rather than allowing them to go to
a larger distribution.

Since my knowledge of law ends here, I'll yield to the more in-the-know in the
file.  I wish you the best of luck in correcting this injustice.

                            Roak

re: .14 - Jody

Hear, Hear!

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's who you are on the inside that is the true
essence of who you are.

Laura - 

I'm appalled by the treatment that Nancy received.  Hugs to both of you...and 
strength stand up for who you are regardless of the labels others would force
on you.

Nanci

Although it is off the actual subject of this string, I really feel 
it necessary to reply to this. If the moderators would like to 
move these replies to another string, you may certainly do so as 
far as I'm concerned.

RE: .9

>If the organisers have the right to hold a `woman only' event, must
>they accept Nancy's definition of what it is to be a woman?

No, the organizers do not have to accept Nancy's view, but they 
should let their views be known so that the people they wish to 
oppress can avoid giving them money.

As for the rest, you call it an "issue," but it is actually 
people's lives. The issue is with those who do not or refuse to 
understand a reality that lies outside of their limited experience.

FLAME ON:

YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE SOMEONE ELSE UNLESS YOU 
HAVE LIVED THEIR LIFE AND YOU SHOULD DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TELL 
SOMEONE WHO SHE IS UNTIL YOU HAVE BEEN HER!!!!!!!

FLAME OFF. 

(If the opinions had not been stated in such a blanket 
fashion and in a way that REPEATS EXACTLY the hurt that was 
directed at Nancy and all transsexuals by the actions of the 
festival organizers, I would not be so nasty about it ... okay? :)

Now then, in my opinion, the opinions expressed in .9 and the 
actions taken by the organizers of the MWMF are both based on a 
fallacy that is much like all fallacies used to support 
discrimination.
 
In this case, the fallacy is that transsexuals do not know who 
they are. Because the transsexual's experience of the world is 
difficult, if not impossible, for those not so afflicted to 
understand, people often have a hard time believing such 
a thing could be possible. However, as is often the case, what 
needs to happen is an examination of assumptions. First and 
foremost is the assumption that you can determine a person's sex 
by making a cursory examination of their genitalia at birth. 
Second is that because a doctor said you were male when you were 
born, that therefore you are a man and should express masculine 
characteristics. 

In fact, birth sex is far from the final word. People are born with 
hermaphroditism and possess some but usually not all of the structures 
of *both* sexes. Some people appear normal at birth, but at puberty 
develop some of the secondary physcial characteristics of the opposite 
sex. In both cases, the individual may or may not see themselves as 
having been assigned to the correct sex (that is, the one which 
suits their psyche) at birth. Sometimes they wish to change their 
designated gender although they were raised to be that gender during 
childhood. In addition, animal experiments have shown that we can 
create females who behave sexually as males simply by altering the 
womb environment during the development of female fetuses to mimic the 
hormonal environment present in the womb during development of a male. 
There are no genetic defects present nor do are there any visible 
anatomical differences from normal females. People of course are not 
necessarily like animals in this specific way; however, many 
researchers do believe that transsexualism  results from a similar 
type of non-genetic birth defect. We certainly do not have the final 
word on human sexual development, but still, people insist on basing 
discriminatory behavior on these assumptions. (I do recognize that the 
author of .9 is expressly NOT amongst those people.)

Assumption the second says that biology is destiny, that female/male, 
woman/man, and feminine/masculine are the same thing or are at least 
nextricably intertwined. In fact, somewhere beyond simple biology, you 
hit culture-specific social constructs. Male and female are properly 
only biological terms for denoting sexual functionality. 
Masculine/feminine however, describe gender; they are social constructs 
involving behavior culturally associated with males and females. Man 
and woman represent the conjunction of these two ideas, males who are 
more or less masculine and females who are more or less feminine by 
cultural standards are recognized to be men and women by that culture 
(much to the detriment of those who don't fit the standard). But sex 
and gender are not the same thing! One involves your body and the other 
involves your identity. Since different cultures recognize vastly 
different standards of gender, how can sex possibly determine gender via 
the genes???? There may yet be shown to be biological aspects to gender, 
but they certainly still under debate. Once they are better understood, 
perhaps we will understand *how* transseuxuals can know that they 
possess a gender opposite to that of their sex. In any case, transsexuals 
who were born male run the gamut from feminine to masculine appearance, 
behavior, and social roles -- as do genetic women.

These two assmptions are then used to justify the attitude that 
transsexuals are "really" whatever sex they were born with and should 
do everyone a favor and either disappear or at least limit their 
behavior to someone's well-defined set of possibilities. But, this 
still the same argument that has been used throughout history to justify 
discrimination and to force people into patterns of behavior that may or 
may not suit their individuality. Does anyone still believe that women 
are not suited to work? That men cannot nurture children? That women 
cannot learn to throw a baseball? That black people are born lazy? To 
say that a person who insists that their sex does not match their gender 
is wrong, is to say that that person must be insane, deluded, that she 
is out of touch with obvious reality. They once put women insane asylums 
for wanting to be independent because they "knew" that that was out of 
line with obvious reality. It wasn't so long ago that they did the same 
to transsexuals. If you think that transsexualism is impossible, know at 
least that there are many doctors and psychologists who have studied the 
issue long and hard and who firmly believe that such operations are the 
correct thing to do because there is an irreversible mismatch of sex and 
gender without any metal illness. In fact, they extensive testing of 
transsexuals to make certain that there is no delusion or psychosis 
present before allowing surgery.  Yet there are still thousands of these 
operations performed every year worldwide.

I realize that this has been a long and involved argument. It is 
also by no means acomplete one. However, I thank you for bearing with 
me on this. I felt it was important that .9 get a response, because 
by defining people as something other than what they believe 
themselves to be, discrimination can be practiced and justified by 
those who create the definitions against those individuals who don't 
fit the definition. The opressors are aided and abetted by those who 
intentions are beyond reproach, but who simply do not understand 
something they have no experience of. This is same fight that feminists 
and civil rights activists began taking to the streets so loong 
ago. It is time it cougfht up with transsexuals too. And I do mean that, 
it is *exactly the same fight*, the fight for the right to be who you 
are and not to be defined by someone else's fallacious view of you and 
any group to which you may belong. Until our sexual and gender worlds 
are better understood, I would urge anyone who values human rights to 
stand with transsexuals in the fight for the basic human right to 
state who you are without fear of contradiction by those who have 
never been there. Until that understanding is complete, there is
no proof that transsexuals are correct in claiming to be born 
wrong, and leaves people of questionable sex or gender open to the
discrimination that awaits us all should we find ourselves in a 
group without power and facing an unsympathetic majority.

--Lillian

    re: .19
    
    Excellent reply, Lillian!  Many thanks for your energy and attention in
    writing such a clear note.
    
    re: .9
    
    Liam,
    
    >>I don't think the way
    >>they enforced their policy is at issue
    
    Why not?  On the one hand you claim that you could not support
    discrimination against transsexuals.  Yet, in the same paragraph you
    can find no problem with the manner in which a secret, covert and
    unpublicized policy was enforced.  
    
    Sign me,
    
    confused

    This is a revised version of my analysis, made shorter, to be sent to
    GCN, which is publishing Nancy's analysis in this week's issue.
    
    
    *********************************************************************
                     TROUBLE IN "PARADISE"

                       by: Laura Ervin

I am the friend and traveling companion of Nancy, the woman who was thrown 
out of the 1991 Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Nancy's story appeared in 
the "Speak Out" column of GCN issue: nnnnn.

In brief, Nancy was accused of being transsexual.  She was told that there 
is a policy that prohibits transsexuals from attending the event.  Without 
proof and without due process, Nancy was expelled from the festival, 
"guilty as charged."

Nancy has presented her analysis of these events, and the political and 
ethical implications of them, with eloquence and dignity.  However, there 
are a myriad of political and ethical issues yet to be discussed. 

The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival bills itself as a place where 
sisterhood abounds.  It is touted as being almost a utopia.  It is 
presented as an environment that is better than the "real" world, (meaning 
the big, bad patriarchy) a world in which our safety is practically 
guaranteed.  What I have discovered is that the behavior of some of the 
staff at the festival is a bad parody of the patriarchy wearing falsies.

Because the land on which the festival is held is privately owned, the 
security staff (as empowered by the owners of the land) has a right to 
expel any woman from the land at any time, with or without cause.  

What this means is that there are no civil or human rights for women who 
choose to attend the festival.  There is no such thing as due process. 

Perhaps Barbara Price and Lisa Vogel (the producers of the festival and the 
owners of the land) are totally within their rights to run the festival in 
such manner.  Since most property in this country is either privately owned 
or owned by state, local or federal government, I was shocked at the 
realization that a person's civil rights matter not when standing on 
privately owned land.  

Many questions have gone through my mind since I witnessed this emotional 
assault on Nancy.

Is an anarchy run by two women any better than the "rule of patriarchy?"  I 
think not.

Would the security women have been so brave as to engage in this same behavior
towards Nancy, or any other woman for that matter, in broad daylight, in the 
middle of the food line at the kitchen, in the middle of the crafts area or 
any other populated area of the festival?

It seems to me that because of the cover of night and because we were two 
arms-lengths away from the front gate, these actions are even more suspect. 
Nancy was an easy target.

At one point the security staff stated that expelling Nancy and not letting her
go to her campsite to pack her own gear was an issue of "safety for both Nancy
and the other festival participants." 

It seems that this attitude of protectionism is applied in an inconsistent 
manner, not to mention that it is extremely paternalistic.  There is 
excessive amounts of drinking and drugging at the festival.  Do the 


producers not feel compelled to protect recovering addicts and alcoholics?
Cigarettes and foods containing sugar are now sold on the land.  Do the 
producers not feel compelled to protect those women recovering from 
compulsive over-eating and nicotine addiction?

If Nancy had been confronted, alone, at the front gate, how "safe" would I have
felt when, returning to our campsite, I discovered Nancy and all her camping 
gear missing?

The fact is, women who attend the festival are responsible for themselves.  To
pick and choose issues for which the producers will be responsible on our 
behalf doesn't wash.  In fact, the only time I have felt *unsafe* on the land 
was during the evening of Monday, August 12 when witnessing the sanctioned 
abusive behaviors of the security staff.  The anger and hatred that fueled 
their actions was indeed quite scary.

I talked to many, many women about what happened to Nancy.  Every response, 
with the exception of one woman, was that this incident was horrible, 
outrageous and never should have happened.  I learned, in my conversations 
with women, that this type of guilty-as-charged behavior has happened before.
My friend, "Sally", spoke of her friend who was expelled from the 1990 festival 
for forgetting to return her shuttle sign.  Sally's friend was accused of 
purposefully keeping the sign so she could drive her vehicle around the land.
She was not allowed to explain herself.  Cruel and unusual punishment, in my 
opinion, for the "crime" of forgetfulness.

Lisa and Boo are responsible for the actions of their security staff and 
for denying women due process when on their land.  I hold them responsible for
their inability to act in good faith, their inability to trust the women who 
attend the festival and for their arrogance at having different standards and 
measures of acceptable behavior for festi-goers and staff.  They, and their 
staff, work off the assumption that every woman will try to break one or 
several of their covert/overt rules.  Other actions that I have experienced or
heard about indicate that Lisa and Boo feel that festi-goers and craftswomen 
are trying to rip them off for every nickel and dime of commission that they 
feel entitled to.

The reality is that our collective trust has been betrayed.  I remember 
when women dug into their pockets and deposited *donations* into coffee 
cans in order to raise money to buy the land.  And then there is the raffle, 
another vehicle used to raise money to buy the land.  Craftswomen, for many 
years now, have donated items to this raffle.  They have no real voice either.
When they have expressed differing opinions regarding policy, the have been 
told by Boo and Lisa, "if you don't like the policies, don't come back."

This is one of the most honest representations of Boo's and Lisa's politics 
and policies that I have ever heard.

Whatever happened to the land trust?  Is this Boo's and Lisa's idea of a 
bad joke or a less than subtle way of telling us that we've all been fools in 
donating money to their business venture?  The women who have given donations 
and purchased raffle tickets are without civil and human rights upon this 
land bought with their hard-earned money.  The irony of it is staggering.

The game is over.  Covert policies and terrorist enforcement of them is not 
acceptable.  We will not be bullied or shamed into silence.  No woman, for any
reason what so ever, should ever be thrown off the land in the manner that 
Nancy was and without due process.

It is high time that Lisa, Boo and their staff start living the politics they 
wax so poetically in writing.  

Re .20

>    On the one hand you claim that you could not support
>    discrimination against transsexuals.  Yet, in the same paragraph you
>    can find no problem with the manner in which a secret, covert and
>    unpublicized policy was enforced.  

This is because I think the exclusion of transexuals was a plausible 
interpretation of a policy excluding men.


Re .19

I accept your flames - I do not know what it is like to be someone 
else.  All persons must live their own lives as they see fit.  I agree 
with most of what you say.

I consider my reply .9 to be relevant to this string because one 
aspect to the discussion, from Nancy's point of view, (see .4) seems to 
be that it involved unfair discrimination against transexuals.  As I 
said above, it seems to me that the exclusion of transexuals was a 
plausible interpretation of a woman only policy.  

In general, I am opposed to all forms of discrimination.  I have, 
however, accepted the arguments, in this notesfile and elsewhere, of 
the value of womanspace, as it is called, at this stage in history.  

Whenever I have been banned or ejected from anything, by bouncers or 
whatever, I have been angry, and so I can understand Laura's and 
Nancy's anger.  I think, however, that Laura's .0 was unfair to the 
organisers and to the security people at the festival.  (The rewritten 
.21 is a more bablanced statement)  Nancy's friends were allowed to 
collect her camping gear and the organisers provided accommodation for 
the night.  She does not seem to have been badly treated except for 
the fact that her own definition of herself as `woman' was not 
accepted.  I do realise how deeply hurtful that must have been for 
her.  

There are boundary disputes in the male/female division, as there are 
in most other categorisations.  I am aware of some of the evidence 
concerning the effect of hormones on the development of animals, and 
of various types of hermaphrodism in humans and other animals, and I 
also accept the importance of self definition.  If a group decides to 
exclude men they find themselves up against this boundary issue.  How 
should they decide?  

The idea that they ought to have spelled out their definition of woman 
does not seem to be realistic.  Boundary disputes are extraordinarily 
complex.  A thorough statement would fill several volumes.  Self 
definition seems one solution, but that would would leave the 
organisers powerless to enforce any exclusion policy.  I think such 
disputes are often best handled on a case by case basis, with some 
room for subjective judgement calls.


Liam

    re: .22
    
>>The idea that they ought to have spelled out their definition of woman 
>>does not seem to be realistic.
    
    Liam,
    
    Since it appears that you are not familiar with the history and
    evolution of the festival, I can see why you would make a statement
    like the one above.  However, given the fact that the festival
    producers do take the time to make certain things explicitly clear,
    *especially* when it comes to men/boys, I think that it is quite
    reasonable to question their motives in having a covert policy
    regarding transsexuals.
    

   Liam,
   	
   You seemed to have missed the point... transsexual is a word that
   describes the transistion process and the people going through it,
   not what they were or currently are.  It applies for both cases
   female to male and male to female.  These people were in the case
   of male to female were never men.  Male does not equal man/men.  If
   they were men they would never consider the process.  

   Your use of the words,

"This is because I think the exclusion of transexuals was a plausible 
interpretation of a policy excluding men."

   is inflamitory to me.  It is based on your beliefs and assumptions.
   Why, your language suggests she _is_ a man.  If your logic is vaild
   then the festival people must admit female to male transsexuals as they
   are still women.  Since you stated  you believe a man cannot be changed
   into a woman, would it be fair for me to assume that the reverse is
   also something you believe?   Society only has to catagories men and
   women.  What's your name for the inbetweens?
   
   I feel sufficiently knowledgable to speak as an authority on the
   subject.

   Any questions?  
   Allison
                            

    I am posting this on Nancy's behalf
    *******************************************************************
    
         Hi Liam,

         Thank you for sharing your view.  I apreciate hearing a
         perspective that may be similiar to that held by the festival
         folks.

         Your view brings up some questions for me.

         I have a birth certificate that says "female".  When I
         interviewed for my position I showed Digital that
         certificate.  Digital accepted my sex at face value.  My
         driver's license, shown to the festival security women,
         identifies me as female.  

         Given the legal identification I posses, can you propose any
         basis for someone to decide/determine my origin sexual
         origins, and therefore to substantiate their decision to
         exclude based on transsexualism?

         There were exactly two women who made that determination and
         they didn't tell me their basis.  In fact, when confronted to
         show their proof, they were silent.  Then they fell back on
         "we can expel anyone for any reason."

         I don't think that even the federal or state laws can make
         that distinction in their treatment of me.  

I consider my reply .9 to be relevant to this string because one 
aspect to the discussion, from Nancy's point of view, (see .4) seems to 
be that it involved unfair discrimination against transexuals.  As I 
said above, it seems to me that the exclusion of transexuals was a 
plausible interpretation of a woman only policy.  

         I didn't say I was unfairly discriminated against.  What I am
         saying is that in the eyes of the law I am a woman. I
         self-identify as a woman.  I never self-identified at
         Michigan as transsexual.  The public festival policy is
         "woman-only."  In my accout I held the festival people
         accountable for having a covert policy that contradicts their
         public policy.

         Again, if you believe such an exclusionary policy seems
         plausable, then how does one enforce it?  How do one
         determine the difference between say, an androgynous woman
         and someone who "appears" transexual?  

         If a policy can't be fairly and consistently applied then is
         it a plausable policy?

         Nancy
    

RE: .22

>This is because I think the exclusion of transexuals was a plausible 
>interpretation of a policy excluding men.

I do NOT find it plausible, for many reasons. 

First of all, FEMALE-TO-MALE TRANSSEXUALS ARE NOT MEN!!!!! In your 
original reply, you stated that you did not believe it was possible 
to change a man into a woman surgically. You are quite right, it is 
not possible. Would any man who was not insane want his penis 
removed??? Transsexuals are not insane!! Transsexuals are people 
who were born with the outward appearance of one sex, yet possess the 
gender of the opposite sex. Adult F-M transsexuals have a fully formed 
feminine gender identity, which was set as feminine either before 
birth or certainly no later than the first few months of life. 
If it is not a birth defect, it occurs so early as to be impossible to 
separate from the individual. Whether or not this is a physical birth 
defect is irrelevant since medicine cannot change gender identity. 
In any case, to consider a male-to-female transsexual to ever have been 
a man is a mistake, and is tantamount to condoning discrimination 
because you are not recognizing the transsexuals right to name 
herself.

Secondly, as I tried to show in my previous reply, the biological 
situation is far from clear. At what point can you draw a line?
As Allison said, should female-to-male transsexuals be let in? 
Here you have people who, by the fesitival's defintion must be 
women, but who are bathed in testosterone and in possession of a 
fully erectible penis! Should hermaphrodites be excluded if their 
anatomy is questionable, even if they have always been 
self-identified as female, medically labelled as female, and 
raised as female children? What about those women whose genetic 
endowment includes an unexpressed Y chromosome? Or men who 
possess two XXs? Should the festival exclude all persons with 
sex-related birth defects, just to be safe? 

And the social situation is also far from clear. What about a 
genetic female who was raised to be a boy because her slightly crazy 
daddy wanted a son? Should the festival exclude females who were not 
"properly socialized" as women?

Finally, it's dangerous! In order to insitute a "women only" policy, 
they must have some sort of working definition of "woman." Right 
now, they are doing it apparently by letting security women 
determine who is and who is not a woman based on their perception of 
the person in question. That leaves vulnerable ANY woman, 
transsexual or otherwise, who does fit their stereotype of what women 
look like, how women behave, what women sound like. So what happens 
to a woman with a deep voice? One who chooses to present an ambiguous 
appearance -- like my friend who enjoys cultivating her rather 
extraordinary resemblance to David Bowie? One who enjoys drinking 
beer and belching loudly? What about the many women who have facial 
hair that rivals any male beard and have to shave every day? What 
about a perfectly ordinary but slightly flat-chested, tall, 
broad-shouldered, slim-hipped female who wishes to attend? Will all 
these women be attacked also? Isn't that just the kind of 
enforcement of sex stereotypes that the women's movement fights? I'll 
bet Tula, the transsexual who recently posed in Playboy, could get in 
with noproblems whatsoever, although the festival promoters would very 
likely disapprove of the obviously large extent to which she has 
bought into and takes advantage of the old feminine stereotype.

You seem to feel that, other than Nancy having her delusions trod 
upon, nothing much happened here. From what I have heard offline from 
Nancy, the security people didn't just disagree with Nancy's 
definition of herself, they approached the whole situation with an 
attitude of palpable anger and hatred that was truly frightening. Their 
tactics were inexcusable, as they leave any woman vulnerable to the 
security women's interpretation of physical and behavioral stereotypes 
about women. "First they came for the Jews, and I was silent, then 
they came for me, but there was no one left to see ..."

It is a boundary dispute, but they need a mechanism for deciding 
who should be able to attend. I believe a defintion is not only 
realistic, it's necessary. It must be kept as simple and direct as 
possible. If they wish to exclude transsexuals, their only alternative 
to explicitly say so ... otherwise, they leave themselves open to a 
myriad of interpretations of what a woman is. I would suggest that they 
simply use the same definition used to enforce laws about the use of 
public toilets -- if you have a penis, you don't belong in here. (Of 
course that still leaves out whole categories of women, such as 
feminine hermaphrodites, females with an enlarged clitoris, and 
pre-operative transsexuals, but you're right that anything else might 
require a doctor, a psychologist, two lawyers, and a judge and jury 
to sit at the gate. The bottom line is tell us up front!

Womanspace is valuable for transsexuals too. That does not mean that 
every organizer of womanspace has to admit transsexuals, but they 
should state that up front, so their "market" can decide for itself if 
that is the type of space they wish to support.

--Lillian

    I'm sorry.  I'm confused.  Shouldn't that be Male-to-Female
    transsexuals?  Or am I incorrect on the terminology?
    
    Thank you,
    
    E Grace

Re .24

Allison,

>   These people were in the case
>   of male to female were never men.  

If this is the case should they be admitted to woman only events 
before they receive any cosmetic, chemical or surgical treatment?

>   Your use of the words,
>
>"This is because I think the exclusion of transexuals was a plausible 
>interpretation of a policy excluding men."
>
>   is inflamitory to me.  It is based on your beliefs and assumptions.
>   Why, your language suggests she _is_ a man.  

I am sorry that my beliefs and assumptions inflame you.  I do not hold 
them in order to inflame, nor do I hold them without some (perhaps 
inadequate) scrutiny.

>   If your logic is valid
>   then the festival people must admit female to male transsexuals as they
>   are still women.  

No.  The position with transexuals as regards male/female 
categorisation is, at least at the level of visible signs, ambiguous.  
As with all ambiguous categorisations, there must be an element of 
convention in their resolution.  The festival may decide that anybody 
who is not unambiguously female must be excluded, or, alternately, 
they may rule that anybody who is not unambiguously male may be 
included.  Either rule is sustainable.  



I want to flesh out some statements I made in .9, statements that may 
have appeared to be arbitrary.

>    if I were asked whether I believed that 
>    surgery could change a man into a woman, I would have to say `no'.  

In my life I do not need a criterion to distinguish between men and 
women since, for the most part, I treat men and women the same.  In 
those situations where my actions are differentiated according to sex 
(flirtation, and so on, - I am pretty much heterosexual), ambiguity 
does not trouble me much.  However, were it the case that I had to 
specify an unambiguous objective test to make this discrimination, the 
best I can think of is chromosomal testing.  It seems less ambiguous 
than identity cards, organ inspection or psychological profiles.  
Surgery would not affect the chromosomes, hence my statement.  I 
realise, however, that such testing would not be very practical in 
most situations where a discrimination needs to be made.  

>    If I were asked whether I thought it possible to be born a woman in 
>    a man's body, I must also answer `no'.  

Why do I think this?  What can it mean to be a "woman in a man's 
body."  The only meaning I can put on it is that, though someone looks 
like a man, they think and act like a woman, therefore they are a 
woman.  

But hold on, what can it mean to think and act like a woman?  What is 
the set of particular thoughts and actions that define woman?  I don't 
think there are any behavioural tests that allow us to categorise a 
person as a woman.  I think it is dangerous (to any movement against 
sex stereotyping) to admit a belief which implies such a thing.  


Re 999.25

Nancy,

No, I cannot propose a basis on which they can substantiate their 
decision.  I do not believe, however, that documentation is 
sufficient.  I would have little difficulty in procuring documentation 
(driver's license, or whatever) stating that I am female, though I am 
not.  

>         If a policy can't be fairly and consistently applied then is
>         it a plausable policy?

Yes, since no policy can close all loopholes.  However, the organisers 
do have a duty to try to increase the fairness and consistency, as 
difficulties arise.  If they are to continue with a "woman born as 
woman" policy I would expect that to be stated somewhere in future 
years.  We can't expect perfection, but we must expect the best that 
the circumstances allow.


Re .26

Lillian,

>not possible. Would any man who was not insane want his penis 
>removed??? 

I don't know.  Do you?  However, I will say that in the past some men 
(boys) have chosen castration in order to continue to sing in a 
certain way.  Some men choose (with difficulty and trauma) to lose a 
penis as the lesser of two evils in cases of cancer.  The fact that a 
person with a gender identification problem opts for surgical removal 
of the penis does not seem proof that he or she was never a man.


>In any case, to consider a male-to-female transsexual to ever have been 
>a man is a mistake, and is tantamount to condoning discrimination 
>because you are not recognizing the transsexuals right to name 
>herself.

A person may name himself or herself and anything else in the world.  
My naming conventions may be different.  In pursuit of understanding 
we can try to construct a map to translate between my conventions and 
yours, but you cannot demand that I adopt your naming conventions as 
the only correct ones.  


Liam

>    I'm sorry.  I'm confused.  Shouldn't that be Male-to-Female
>    transsexuals?  Or am I incorrect on the terminology?

Yes, I'm sorry, I was typing too fast. That line should read:

... Male to female transsexuals are not men ...

Sorry!  

--Lillian

>However, were it the case that I had to 
>specify an unambiguous objective test to make this discrimination, the 
>best I can think of is chromosomal testing.  

Sorry, but there are many cases of women with Y chromosomes, and 
men with two or more Xs. Geneticists have not yet located the 
genes that determine sex, all they know is that the genes lie 
somewhere on the X and Y chromosomes. Since other kinds of 
prenatal developmental defects are possible, this will inevitably 
leave out some deserving individuals. For example, the Supreme 
Court of the United States decided that Renee Richards was 
appropriately classed as female for the purposes of prefessional 
tennis. It will cedrtainly leave out some individuals who I'm 
sure the promotoers of the festival would not feel should be 
excluded from attending. Perhaps it is the best we have, but that 
is only due to our limited knowledge. The antomical method I 
suggested seems better. Got a penis? No entry!

>>    If I were asked whether I thought it possible to be born a woman in 
>>    a man's body, I must also answer `no'.  

>Why do I think this?  What can it mean to be a "woman in a man's 
>body."  The only meaning I can put on it is that, though someone looks 
>like a man, they think and act like a woman, therefore they are a 
>woman.  

>But hold on, what can it mean to think and act like a woman?  What is 
>the set of particular thoughts and actions that define woman?  I don't 
>think there are any behavioural tests that allow us to categorise a 
>person as a woman.  I think it is dangerous (to any movement against 
>sex stereotyping) to admit a belief which implies such a thing.  

Ah, questions for the ages. How does a woman, a normal one, know 
she is a woman? Simple, look between the legs, right? But, if she is 
not so normal, then what? No one really knows how, but the individual 
almost always knows their own identity. Maybe, as I said in my first 
reply, someday maybe science can tell us, but meanwhile, what choice 
do we have but to take someone's heartfelt word on it?

These questions are really the crux of the matter. The bald fact is 
that we do not know the answers, we do not know what consitutes 
identity and how people are aware of it. I can offer you no proof, no 
explanation. I have my own inner experience, which you cannot 
contradict, as you have yours that I cannot deny either. I can 
attempt to communicate mine to you, and if you have an open mind, 
perhaps you can see some corner of it. If, as with transsexuals, that 
experience were to contradict your external constructs about the 
world, you could be very confused and wonder how it is possible.
Nevertheless, if you value human beings as different from one 
another, you will have to find some way to accomodate to it. If 
nothing else than just to realize that you have not experienced 
everything the world has to offer. My experience may enter areas 
that you have never had to question, and so feel very sure about.
If you have never seen Africa, you can deny the existence of 
elephants, but you would be wrong.

>I would have little difficulty in procuring documentation 
>(driver's license, or whatever) stating that I am female, though I am 
>not.  

It's not quite as easy as you might think, unless you are willing 
to step outside the law. Once you do that, you'd probably have little 
trouble crashing a festival. A birth certificate is quite difficult 
to change legally. It takes numerous letters from doctors and 
lawyers and psychologists. But once you have a truly legal birth 
certificate stating you are female, then legally you are female. 

>>not possible. Would any man who was not insane want his penis 
>>removed??? 

>I don't know.  Do you?  However, I will say that in the past some men 
>(boys) have chosen castration in order to continue to sing in a 
>certain way.  Some men choose (with difficulty and trauma) to lose a 
>penis as the lesser of two evils in cases of cancer.  The fact that a 
>person with a gender identification problem opts for surgical removal 
>of the penis does not seem proof that he or she was never a man.

Castrati and eunuchs are not really valid examples. It is of 
necessity done in childhood, they are opting for an important and 
rewarding social role, and it is only the testicles that are removed.
They retain the penis itself and are actually still capable of 
sexual pleasure, even intercourse.  However, your example of cancer 
goes to show that, as with transsexuals, such a step requires some 
really serious motivation. 

I was trying to show that transsexuals are not doing this on a 
whim or to suit some strange sexual fantasy. It is a matter of 
deepest identity. Your statements imply that a transsexual must 
be seriously out of touch with reality, and that is just not the 
case. It is a path to happiness that requires immense sacrifice 
and pain. The reward is to integrate one's inner and outer 
selves, to match one's identity and one's physical self. Again, how 
does one explain ones inner experience? How do you identify 
yourself? Can you explain the aspects of identity that make you 
yourself? Can you tell us why you are yourself? Can you tell us how 
you know anything at all about your own experience? Philospically, 
it is impossible. You cannot prove that I didn't just imagine 
your existence for my own amusement. This is a question that 
philosphers have debated for centuries.

Transsexuals function better following surgery, are happier, and 
most integrate quite well into their chosen social role. Thank 
God that there are doctors who were willing to believe, they have 
saved an immense amount of human suffering. They studied the 
phenomenon every which way before deciding that the transsexual 
person is correct in their belief. Maybe if you knew some, you'd 
have an easier time believing it yourself. If you lived it, you 
would know for sure.

>A person may name himself or herself and anything else in the world.  
>My naming conventions may be different.  In pursuit of understanding 
>we can try to construct a map to translate between my conventions and 
>yours, but you cannot demand that I adopt your naming conventions as 
>the only correct ones.  

I can deamnd that you not use INCORRECT names. Do I have the right to 
name all black people Lazy Person? Do I have the right to name all 
women Incompetent Person? Of course not! Nor do you or anyone else 
have the right to name all m-f transsexuals Man Person because of 
anatomical defects at birth. It doesn't matter if there are no 
scientific studies "proving" that black people are energetic and it 
does not matter that we do not yet understand how transsexuals know 
what they say they know. What matters is accepting the validity of 
experience that must of necessity lie outside what is possible for 
you. You can question someone's veracity but you cannot disprove 
their contentions. If the experience is validated also by thousands 
of others and by the experience of others who have intimate knowledge 
of that person, then shouldn't you at least wonder if you might not 
be wrong?

--Lillian

>Castrati and eunuchs are not really valid examples. It is of 
>necessity done in childhood, they are opting for an important and 
>rewarding social role, and it is only the testicles that are removed.
>They retain the penis itself and are actually still capable of 
>sexual pleasure, even intercourse.


	I watched a documentary a couple of months ago which covered eunuchs,
	and their place in religion in India.

	These eunuchs had their penis and testicles removed, and there was not
	a specific age for this, however most of the people interveiewwed had
	this done in their early twenties.

	The total idea was that this made them neither male nor female, and 
	therefore not tainted by and sexual desires. They could be looked upon
	as special people, who anyone could turn to for help.

	Heather

    -.1
    
    Heather,
    
    I watched that programme also, it was actually very informative.
    (turned the stomach a bit though).
    
    Tracy W

RE: .31

That's interesting. I had read about eunuchs in China and the 
Middle East who were created in childhood, by removal of 
only the testicles. This was done well before puberty, so that 
they would have no bodily effects from the hormonal changes of 
puberty. That was also important for castrati, in order to 
preserve the high voice.

In the Middle East, many eunuchs "serviced" their mistresses, 
whose sexual desires often went unmet because of the sheer number 
of wives in a large harem. The husbands turned a blind eye, since 
they could still count on the certainty of their paternity of 
children born to their wives, and didn't have to worry about as 
much dissatisfaction and unrest in the harem.

Obviously these Indian eunuchs do play a special role in religion. 
Can you remember any more about what that role is? It sounds as 
though they are more similar to the American Indian bedarche, 
people who choose to take the opposite sex role at puberty, and 
who, like similar people in other cultures, were belived to people 
of great spiritual power with shamanistic significance, able to 
contact spirits and so forth due to their greater wholeness as 
sort of male and female combined in one. These folks were not 
operated on in any way, they just chose to live as the other 
anatomical sex. There is one protrayed rather well in the movie 
Little Big Man, where she ends up as one of Dustin Hoffman's 
wives. There's a wonderful scene where Hoffman "services" all his 
wives in turn, including the one with the male anatomy.

Could it be that transsexuals are not strange but are actually
special?!  "I've looked at life from both sides now ..."  ;)

--Lil

    Re: Castrati
    
    The newest book by Anne Rice, I think it's called "The Witching Hour",
    as about the life of a eunuch.  I have to wonder about people who
    come up with these types of ideas for books... ;^)
    
    Jim

    Ann Rice also wrote Cry to Heaven which is also about Castrati.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

    Yup, that's the title.  My poor mind gets confused, sometimes (no
    chortles from the peenut gallery, thank you very much ;^).
    
    Jim

>>   These people were in the case
>>   of male to female were never men.  
>
>If this is the case should they be admitted to woman only events 
>before they receive any cosmetic, chemical or surgical treatment?
>

Liam,

   I do owe an answer on that.  NO they don't have to.  I hold that 
   position as my belief.  That would be too open to abuse.  In most
   treatment programs the process is set up to test the individual to
   verify that they are indeed true in their belief.  Generally a few
   months of low dose hormones cull out the uncertain ones.  I did make
   the statment without setting context so your question is fair.  In 
   the stated case I differentiated male from men as in a M->F transsexual
   may be outwardly male but exhibits few native masculine characteristics.
   In most cases I am would be talking about a pre operative transsexual
   who is grossly uncomfortable with their anatomy and is also woman 
   identified enough they themselves would feel uncomfortable in a
   uncertain situation like that.  Most likely they would not attend
   unless it was known up front that this was an safe situation for
   everyone.

   Maybe a topic on exactly what the process is is in order.  Once the
   process is understood it would be clear the differences between a
   male to female transsxual and a man.  The process is not trivial nor
   a weekend thing.

   Did this help?

   Allison

    Liam,
    
    Had I not *known* about Allison before I met her, I would have
    thought her a slightly masculine woman, but definitely a woman.
    
    The more that I have learned of *her* story, the more I think
    *she* is one of the bravest *women* I know..
    
    sort of the ultimate "being captured in the enemy camp" sort of 
    story..
    
    I love Allison  very much and regard her as my younger sister.
    
    
    Bonnie

>Obviously these Indian eunuchs do play a special role in religion. 
>Can you remember any more about what that role is? It sounds as 
>though they are more similar to the American Indian bedarche, 
>people who choose to take the opposite sex role at puberty, and 
>who, like similar people in other cultures, were belived to people 
>of great spiritual power with shamanistic significance, able to 
>contact spirits and so forth due to their greater wholeness as 
>sort of male and female combined in one. These folks were not 
>operated on in any way, they just chose to live as the other 
>anatomical sex.......

>Could it be that transsexuals are not strange but are actually
>special?!  "I've looked at life from both sides now ..."  ;)

	The programme was in two halfs, one was about the role of eunochs in 
	religion, and these people were considered neither male nor female and 
	were celebate.
	They were considered pure as they had no sexual organs or desires.
	They are someone to take your problems, and to be given solutions to 
	both spiritual and everyday problems. 	

	The other half was about males who became eunochs because they could
	earn a lot of money as prostitutes. They fed of the religious Eunoch 
	perception and were heavily and gaudily made-up , and wore very 
	colourful saris.

	Heather	

    
    
I want to thank you all for taking the time to discuss this issue with 
me.  While I think some of my quibbles still stand, I increasingly 
see them as just that, quibbles and minor technical points which are 
not important when set against the transexuals wish for acceptance of 
his/her choices/position.  I have no wish to pursue them further.

I wish Laura and Nancy luck in their dealings with the festival 
organisers.  I hope that it results in, shall we say, a "more 
inclusive exclusionary policy" at future festivals.  
    
    
Best wishes,

Liam
    

Could it be that transsexuals are not strange but are actually
special?!  "I've looked at life from both sides now ..."  ;)
    
    My ex-girlfriend is very taken with the belief that those of ambiguous,
    altered or otherwise non-standard genders have a direct link to the
    spiritual world...her view is sort of modified from that of certain
    American Indian tribes.  She refers to herself as a "bisexual woman in
    a bisexual man's body" (though, frankly, I think she's full of it...but
    that's another story entirely, and has to do with *her* rather than the
    concept) and considers herself a "shaman".  She's rather fascinated
    with the whole realm of androgyny, transexualism, transvesticism,
    homosexuality and related things.  So that isn't the first time the
    "specialness" of non-standard genders has been suggested...
    
    D!

>        <<< Note 999.41 by TLE::TLE::D_CARROLL "A woman full of fire" >>>
>                       -< a link to the spiritual world >-
>
>Could it be that transsexuals are not strange but are actually
>special?!  "I've looked at life from both sides now ..."  ;)
    
A very dear friend who is homosexual has claimed for years that the most
well adjusted of us all are the true bisexuals....they have learned to 
experience the pleasure from the action, while not cluttering up their
brains with "you can't touch him/her" because of gender.  I think he may
be right, however, I am stuck with my limitations on the heterosexual side 
of the fence.

at any rate, to get back to the subject of this string, I am amazed that women
would treat one another like this.  A transsexual IS a woman - and always HAS
BEEN a woman - she has simply spent some period of time in a man's body.  That
is the definition of transsexualism, after all.  For that matter, how dare
anyone go around deciding HOW the correct body looks on a woman...I mean, how
else were these women deciding who was a transsexual except by determining who
had an "acceptable" body?  Isn't that what MEN are always accused of doing to
us?????  I wouldn't let this one lie.  I'd be writing some scathing letters
to a whole bunch of people on this one.

         "...once you are Real, you can't be ugly, except to people
         who don't understand."
         
         from _The Velveteen Rabbit_ by Margery Williams

    Hello folks, 
    
    It's me, the Nancy kicked out of the festival.  I've held back from
    coming out here becuz I was afraid.  I want to thank *all* the folks
    who have participated in this string.  Your support and your courage to
    openly discuss what has been one of my most challenging life's issues
    is helping me to embrace my whole self and step forward now in this
    public forum.  I've heard the expression that closets are only good for
    storing clothes and tennis rackets, but up till now I figured that
    somehow it didn't apply to me.  

    Two weeks ago a Boston gay paper printed an editorial I wrote.  Last
    week a Washington, DC, gay paper wrote a story and, with my permission,
    divulged information that I had previously withheld.  I answered the
    question I refused to answer for the Michigan security women.  I'm
    growing more comfortable with seeing my name and the word "transsexual"
    in the same article and even the same sentence.
    
    My experience at Michigan has shaken up a whole bunch of my life's
    perspectives.  For almost all of my 38 years on this planet I believed
    I had to hide all the parts of myself that were at odds with the values
    of the dominant culture.  I believed that if I shared this information
    I would lose all contact and be shunned and hated.  What I've
    experienced in the last 38 days is that when I share who I am I
    actually strengthen and expand my connections with my community.  Just
    the opposite of what I expected.  I lived for a long time with the
    inner vision that I played absolutely no part in the affairs that
    transpired on this planet.  I was some kind of separated, invisible,
    non-essential entity.  More and more I come to see how much in error my
    view has been as folks have opened their lives to me, supported me, and
    validated my experience.  Today it's not so easy to believe that I
    don't have an effect on the folks in my community.

    I don't have any magic answers for folks who can't or won't recognize
    me for the person that I am.  I realize that their viewpoint doesn't
    change who I am or how my friends and the majority of the people I meet
    every day relate to me.  In my attempts to create meaning in my life,
    to seek some measure of happiness and a sense of belonging, in
    embracing my part in the "passion play" on this planet, I have made
    some choices that offend, frighten or confuse some people.  Other
    people respect my choice and they honor me by relating to me as a
    woman.  Others have no idea about the choice I've made and in their
    reality I am a woman.  

    Thanks, everyone, for your help and support.
    
    Nancy
    

Nancy,

In my personal reality, I now know that you once had a male body.  That
doesn't alter who you are (or were) in my reality.

Whast you have done by writing .43 does alter who you are in my reality.
You have told me (us) something about who -- and *what* -- you are, and
that makes you not a person I heard about but a person I have listened
to.  I am touched.  Thank you for sharing yourself in this way.

-d

I have never believed that the physical aspect of the human defines what
the human is.  We are defined by our own sense of "self", our own
personality, and our own intelligence.  By any definition, if YOU feel
like a woman, you are a woman.  I know the decisions a transsexual must
make are difficult ones - a "man" I worked with for 7 years has recently 
made it clear that "he" had been living a painful lie and began the process
to gain her true physical identity.  I am supportive of Kim's decision
because it IS her decision.  I am amazed that anyone else would set themselves
up as the judges of "right" and "wrong" in such a personal issue - how can
it possibly involve them in any way?  How can they possibly understand?

It is a symptom of how incomplete our feminist education is when we show
ourselves still carrying around the baggage of racial hatred, homo/bisexual
phobia, and fear of "those others" handed to us by our parents and 
neighbors...

How can we call ourselves feminists unless we can address the concerns, 
fears, and needs of ALL women.

For that matter, how can we call ourselves human if we cannot feel compassion
for the needs/fears/hopes of ALL humans.

Thank you Nancy, .43 is one of the most beautiful, life affirming 
statements I have ever read. You are a courageous and wonderful 
person, and I'm proud to know you!

=Lillian

Nancy - 

You are what you are, no more, no less.  I embrace you for your courage to be
vulnerable enough to tell your truth.  That's probably the most difficult and
risky thing anyone can do.

much support,
Nanci

    Hi Folks,
    
    Thanks for your support here and in mail.  I don't know why it's
    important to share stuff about ourselves, it goes against all that I
    learned growing up.  Yet, for whatever reason, it feels like the right
    thing to do now.
    
    I'm amazed at where I am today.  I started my transformation process 11
    years ago this fall.  I uderwent surgery 8 years ago, in October.  I
    remember thinking at the time that after surgery I'd never tell anyone
    about myself, and that somehow I'd be able to forget the first 28 years
    of my life.  I guess that's not the way things work for me!  It's taken
    me a while to come around.
    
    One hope I have is that by sharing who I am, I can better participate
    in this forum and elsewhere.  I've always stayed on the fringes of
    groups, and never wanted to be deeply involved in any kind of community
    affairs.  Although I have been very successful in my endeavors this
    strategy of being on the outside was never satisfying.  Some part of me
    wanted more, but in my mind I had no idea what or how to get it.  I
    feel like I've dropped a lot of barriers by coming out.  For the first
    time in my life I'm not really sure where I'm going.  It's as if some
    very rigid structures have been dissolved and suddenly I'm free and
    open...to what, I'm not sure.
    
    Anyway, I know I'm different now than I was two months ago.
    
    ...feeling the warm loving support and *HUGS* (yeah, I like hugs!),
    
    Nancy

   Nancy,

   Brave people like yourself traced the path I take.  I'm happy that
   your path is a growing one.  I for one also feel secrets don't help
   they just complicate things by getting in the way.  I amazed by the
   supportive and accepting people I meet every day.

   Huggs,
   Allison

    Nancy,
    
    When I first knew this was about you, I thought "What's this ambiguous
    gender sh*t?! I've met Nancy and she's a woman."
    
    Although I do not know you beyond very mere acquaintance, I think you
    are courageous and strong and beautiful.
    
    [also very tall ... :^} ... but then I say that about a lot of people]
    
      Annie
    
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    HUG!!!! 8-).
    
    with love,
    cheyenne

Nancy, in a strange way it seems you've passed another boundary. In your note
you mentioned how hard it was to share these parts of your personal self and
that now that you've done it you've been changed. That's one of the primary
communication differences between men and women. Women share those inner parts
with each other. Perhaps there was a silver lining after all. The ultimate joke
on those who tried to steal your womanhood is that they strengthened it. 

For myself, the first thoughts I'd had were, "women don't act like that, we're
supposed to be different". I felt a personal sense of disapointment at facing
an unpleasant reality however far removed I was. hugs, liesl

    Hi liesl,
    
    You're absolutely right about my michigan festival experience that it
    strengthened my connection to my womanhood.  I guess I ought to write
    them a thank you letter!
    
    I feel a lot of gratitude and amazement around all the events of the
    past few months.  I could never have figured out what I needed to do to
    get to this place of acceptance, and yet here I am.  In fact, as a
    friend observed, my skepticism (and my reliance on my mind to figure
    things out) blocks me from seeking out the experience that I most need.  
    
    The physical transformations with my body took about 10 months, and the
    inner transformations have been going on for almost 10 years now.  The
    past six weeks have felt like a free-fall.
    
    Nancy

    
    Nancy--
    
    	Hugs.... :-)
    
    I feel this way; if I don't learn *something* new every day, then it 
    just hasn't been a good day.  I've had a lot of good days these past..
    oh, eight months or so, and learning about and from you has been part 
    of that.  And I'm sure there are others out there that feel the same 
    way.  Thanks for sharing and for teaching.  :-)
    
    
    
    Love and hugs,
    
    Debbi