Thank you for this article. It sheds a lot of light and perhaps healing on the pain of concretizing others and ourselves into rigid, unhelpful and, not to be diminished, unfriendly identity straightjackets. Also, I did wonder a bit about this line: "As for claims of deceit, there is nothing about having sex with someone that requires disclosure about one's trans status." Being on red-flag alert by training around assertions of absolutes like "nothing", I already am concerned for this claim. Beyond that, more importantly, I wonder if it is a necessary move. It strikes me as defensive (and perhaps that's warranted), especially when conjoined with a question that frames the one who didn't know they were physically intimate with a trans person and having a subsequent discomfort at the discovery, as perhaps paranoid or hyper-vigilant about the stakes of their own identity (and, again, the question may be warranted). What I mean to ask is, what is the objective of this rhetorical strategy? Or, would it be undermining to the general advancement of trans celebration and conscious ally collaboration to say something like, "Actually it can be sorta complicated and thorny to determine when it's "right" to reveal the stakes and stages of one's identity journey and it is another in a chain of intensely personal choices around unfolding your innermost self before the other. Simply put, when it comes to sexual/emotional intimacy sometimes people, on all "sides", get hurt or feel confused and that can sometimes feel like it adds to the overall sense of pain."?
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation