More people are liking our content

Aaarrrgghhh

And some aren’t. That’s just how society is. Especially the transgender community. We are steadily gaining accolades for our work. More people are beginning to follow what we do, which is great, because there is no reason why the approach we advocate for living can’t be practiced – to beneficial results – by anyone.

But I’m not stupid.

Not everyone is ready for this approach. By that, I mean some folks are just too deeply wedded to their stories, stories which convince them that life (as Remy has put it) “happens TO them”. We’re having a conversation with such a person right now on one of our YouTube shows.

The momentum of one’s stories can be seemingly irresistible. Particularly stories that have been repeated many, many times…to the point they become beliefs. Beliefs are simply hidden stories. They are hidden from the storyteller.

But the results aren’t. Everyone can with relative ease discover what stories they are telling, simply by looking at two things:

  1. What’s happening in their lives.
  2. What’s coming out of their mouths.

There are quite a few illustrious stories in that YouTube conversation. Worth a read.

So while our numbers continue to rise, it’s no surprise there will be those who are turned off by something we publish and stop following our work. That’s ok.

It can be for everyone. But it doesn’t have to be.

When a playmate means something

Ines Rau
Playboy’s newest playmate: transgender model Ines Rau.

There have only been a few times when Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine used it’s societal prominence to score a strategic win for human rights. The first was the magazine’s debut itself. For it recast women as sexual beings deserving of a right to sexuality. Ironic. Because the magazine is regarded by some as a sexist objectifying rag.

Everything can be seen in multiple fashions depending on your story.

As an icon of early American sexuality, Playboy used it’s culture-shaping influence, literally, to influence a number of women’s causes, including abortion rights in the 60s and 70s. So says a University history professor in a recent Fortune Magazine article on the subject.

“In its heyday in the 60s and 70s, Playboy was supportive of mainstream liberal feminist causes,” says Carrie Pitzulo, an adjunct history professor at Colorado State University and author of the 2011 book Bachelors and Bunnies: The Sexual Politics of Playboy. The magazine “was considered an empire; a cultural leader at that time.”

The magazine’s stance on women’s reproductive rights, Pizulo says, “helped move the culture in a freer direction for everyone.” And its advocacy reflected Hefner’s personal espousal of sexual freedom in every form.

Right around this time, eight years before Roe v. Wade, Playboy took another daring move: featuring a black woman for the first time, in March 1965, as playmate of the month. 1965! Ballsy approach Hef, for we know at that time the civil rights for African Americans was in full swing. As it was announced that Jenny Jackson would be the March playmate, as you’d expect back then, cis-het white males were up in arms:

cis-het-white rants

Today it’s the same thing as Playboy prepares to make history again, again at a crucial social moment, by featuring transgender model Ines Rau in its pages. As the second quote above shows, history is repeating itself. There are a handful of people lambasting the magazine, pulling their subscription or threatening to do to. But you can bet there are just as many Playboy subscribers (and likely far more) salivating for the upcoming issue so they can feast their eyes on the beautiful Rau. Just as there probably were cis-het-white men secretly salivating to feast their eyes on a naked Jenny Jackson.

History does repeat itself it seems. But there is always ALWAYS progress.

Lying isn’t going to work

Ladies: There is no way you are going to form a strong relationship foundation on a lie. Lying about who you are is not only disrespectful to any guy you might meet, it is disrespecting  you.

What kind of story are you telling yourself to feel like you have to lie about who and what you are?

“No men will ever want me.”  That’s just a story.

“Straight men don’t want to be with a transgender person.” That’s just a story too.

“I have to lie to get around being transgender.” so is that one.

Ok, so you consider yourself a Woman. Great. But you also have a unique path to being that which you are. And some men aren’t ok with it. That’s not a big deal! There are many who are!

But if you’re asking a guy to accept you as a person, but you’re not willing to share all that you are as the person you are, so the guy can make a fully-informed choice about being with you, then what’s the point?

There is no reason you have to lie about who and what you are in order to have what you want. Be yourself and be proud of that. Be patient and before you know it, in your integrity, you will find what you’re wanting. But you’ll never find it so long as you’re telling yourself that you need to lie about what and who you are.

This story is sad. But not because of what happened to her. It’s sad because of what she is doing to herself.

The PROCESS called trans attraction

tranny chaserThe term “tranny chaser” is often thrown at men who are attracted to transgender women. Usually by the very women the men are attracted to. We talk a lot about stories here at The Transamorous Network. A story is a thought a person repeats to themselves until it becomes a belief. Beliefs are stories a person repeatedly thinks until it becomes “unconscious” – it becomes so familiar to the person, they don’t have to think about thinking about it. It just is.

When a story becomes a belief, it is very powerful. Long before that point, such stories are attracting to themselves physical phenomena – events, people, circumstances – which match the story’s content. Of course, there is evidence disproving, or not matching, the story. But the storyteller cannot see that evidence. The predominantly only see matching evidence. The more the person repeats the story, the more difficult it is to see contrary evidence. That’s why, for example, some transwomen claim they will “never” find a guy, while pointing to the mound of her failed relationships. So long as she continues to believe that story, she continues to have that life experience.

At some point a story, particularly a negative one, has so much momentum behind it, it becomes automatic or knee-jerk. For example, a woman who happens to be trans can have an experience with a guy who definitely is NOT a “tranny chaser” observe some behavior that “triggers” her “tranny chaser” story and, in no time, that story becomes active in her mind. When that happens, the guy becomes a chaser. Even if he really isn’t one.

There are, of course, plenty of transgender women who do not have such stories. So guys, you’re in luck! For those women who do have such stories, there’s little you can do to defend yourself against them. Other than, of course, changing your stories about transgender women so you don’t encounter them.

What’s fascinating about transgender women who do have this story, or any other which demeans the men naturally attracted to them, is the state of hypocrisy involved. This wonderful Medium story by Julia Serano, which I’ll refer to several times in future posts, characterizes the state of being “transgender” as a process. Serano brilliantly describes how a person who is “cis-gender” could at any time become “trans” as soon as that person decides to coincide their appearance with an already existing or emergent internal identity:

…in discussions about trans identities and trajectories, [the words “transgender” and cis-gender”] often give the false impression that “cis” and “trans” are immutable and mutually exclusive categories, when in fact they are not.

For example, there are many people out there who (at this particular moment) would describe themselves as cisgender or cissexual, but who in the future will identify as transgender or transsexual. And (in the case of those who detransition) some people who self-identify as trans today may not in the future.

In fact, when discussing matters of identity and gender transition, people are by default presumed to be “cis” until they say or do something (e.g., voice a trans identity, express gender non-conforming behavior) to denote otherwise. This point is crucial, and I shall be returning to it shortly.

Furthermore, there is no test (medical, psychological, or otherwise) to determine whether or not a person is “really trans.” The terms transgender and transsexual are experiential — individuals have an internal experience of gender that they can either try to repress, or outwardly express via being gender non-conforming, or transitioning to their identified gender, respectively.

The same can be said for a man who exhibits “tranny chaser” behavior. As I said above, first, just because a guy speaks or acts in a way that looks like “chaser” behavior, doesn’t make him a chaser. And even if he consistently behaves that way and therefore may be accurately called such a person, that doesn’t mean he will remain that way. To the degree the observer continues to refer to that person as a “chaser”, it is impossible to see evidence in his behavior that is not  “chaser”-like.

Got it?

Why am I defending men who “tranny chase”? If you think I am, then you’re missing the point.

The point is, your stories determine the reality you experience. That includes how people behave in your life experience. Giving grace to others (men, transwomen….anyone) is a overt act of countering stories which create realities we prefer not to have.

And in giving that grace, not only do you free others to be human BE-ings, which is decidedly a process rather than some fixed state, you free yourself from a limited life experience where only those things you dislike are your reality.

DOD weighs in on Trump’s trans-ban-tweet

dodlogoIn a word, I’d say the interim policy is “reasonable”

So last week, Defense Secretary James Mattis came out with a four-point “interim guidance” on how Trump’s transgender “ban” would be implemented. In my opinion, as a nine year military veteran, the guidance strikes a balance between what the president decreed and honoring our service members who happen to be trans.

The guidance’s four points begin with a direct statement from the defense department, which speaks volumes about how defense department considers and respects transgender service members. This is straight from the policy, quoted word-for-word:

“First and foremost, we will continue to treat every service member with dignity and respect,”

It then lists the four points:

  1. Accessions: The procedures dated April 28, 2010, which generally prohibit the accession of transgender individuals into the military services remain in effect, because existing or history of gender dysphoria — a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life — or gender transition does not meet medical standards subject to the normal waiver process.
  2. Medical care and treatment: Service members who receive a gender dysphoria diagnosis from a military medical provider will be given treatment for the diagnosed medical condition. As directed by the memorandum, no new sex reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel will be permitted after March 22, 2018, except as necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment to reassign his or her gender.
  3. In-service transition for transgender service members: The policies and procedures in DoDI I300.28 dated July 1, 2016, remain in effect until the defense secretary puts into effect DoD’s final guidance.
  4. Separation and retention of transgender service members: Service members who have completed their gender transition process, and whose gender marker has been changed in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System will continue to serve in their preferred gender while the interim guidance is in effect.

Now, I’ve learned, and heard it said, that a policy is a good one if both sides leave the negotiations table unhappy. This means both sides had to “give” in order to reach a compromise. It should be noted that these four points are a perfect example of that.

For one, it offers a reasonable rationale for not allowing transgender people suffering from “gender dysphoria” to enter into the service. There are of course, gradations of what gender dysphoria looks like or how it is experienced. I do understand many markers of gender dysphoria are exacerbated by an intolerant society. In many cases, a person suffering from gender dysphoria is not in a condition to whether battlefield conditions or the stress of being in the military. The same is true for other mental issues, including depression or schizophrenia example.

There are policies in place in the DOD to screen out people suffering from all kinds of  conditions. These policies are not an indictment of individuals. The DOD is not saying a schizophrenic, or a person without a high school diploma for that matter, is a bad person, for example, or morally unworthy, so he can’t serve. I think the same would be the case for a transgender person.

This would be a great test of this new policy —-> if a person already has had their GCS and can show he or she or they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, can they then serve? It seems, according to this interim policy, that there will be room for these kinds of people to serve with no problem. It is a critical distinction that will have to be tested in real life.

For example, a potential recruit who is transgender would have to test whether what I’m saying here would work. I think it might.

I’ve written the DOD the question. Here’s what I wrote:

I have a question about the interim guidance on transgender people in the military. I’ve read the interim guidance news release. I’m a former Marine (9 years 1st MarDiv).

So let’s say a transgender person shows up at the recruiting station. They already have had their surgeries and possess a medical document attesting a clean bill of health vis-a-vis “gender dysphoria.” All other factors being equal, can that person join the service of their choosing presuming they are otherwise qualified?

I’m eager to see how they respond.

The second guideline relates to all this. It seems a bit contradictory when the military will gladly, for example, pay for someone to go to college. Such an expense is high in many

384px-James_Mattis_official_photo
Defense Secretary James Mattis

cases.

Service members who become higher-educated are better service members. Can’t the same thing be said for providing GCS surgeries? I think they are comparable in price. And it could be argued that both not having a higher education and requiring GCS are pre-existing conditions. But I can also see the other argument here.

The good news of the second guidance point is the DOD isn’t cutting off current service members who are in the midst of transition. Such military personnel have until 2018, and, if the procedure is needed for life-threatening reasons, it can still be performed after that.

I’ll skip point three because it preserves the status quo.

Which brings me to point four. The interim guidance allows existing trans service members to continue to serve – for now – once they have “completed” their transition. I know, “transition” lasts a lifetime. But in the world of policy making, more distinct definitions must be drawn to come to agreement.

Intrestingly, the guidance also allows existing qualified transgender service members to reenlist if they desire. That’s a plus.

Then there’s this:

As directed by the memorandum, no action may be taken to involuntarily separate or discharge an otherwise qualified service member solely on the basis of a gender dysphoria diagnosis or transgender status. Transgender service members are subject to the same standards as any other service member of the same gender: They may be separated or discharged under existing bases and processes, but not on the basis of a gender dysphoria diagnosis or transgender status.

This is the coolest part of the directive. It prohibits any current service member being involuntarily discharged from the military because of their status. I think that’s great. It’s nod to honoring those currently serving.

You can read the press release here.

I’m eager to hear what you think. I’m not suggesting my view is the right one. It is one though that comes from seeing the positive side. If you do respond, please be prepared to elaborate on your statements. I prefer a dialogue, not drive-byes.