- The largest U.S. outbreak of measles to occur in 15 years – affecting 214 children so far – is likely driven by travelers returning from abroad and by too many unvaccinated U.S. children, according to new research. (From MathMike.)
- Linda Harvey, Mission America radio host, warns parents of dangers of children seeing gay doctors. (From dav_301.)
- Breaking down barriers for women in the workplace: insight from men who have worked as women.
- Via PZ, an interview with Dame Jocelyn Bell-Burnell about her career in science. (From siveambrai.)
Oh noez! Gay doctors! They’ll give the kidz teh gay! What if they also use science instead of praying or sacrificing livestock??
Why does Linday Harvey stop at just gay medical staff? I recommend she support all out discrimination by including *gasp* Athiests and any other minority group that offends her.
The trans article is really interesting. I would also like to see the reverse study where the Thomas’ become Susans.
The transgender article is quite interesting. I find that experience amazing.
A couple of points that I’m wondering about as I think about it: the transgender folks who were interviewed, were their employers aware of their transgenderness? That could explain some of the favoritism that the transgender folks noted they experienced. Obviously, a company that is progressive enough to be open to and accepting of open transgender employees would be more likely to give favorable reviews, and promotions to the transgender person.
Also was any analysis done as to whether the transgendered person was not only promoted quickly ahead of women, but also other men (and what those other persons’ qualifications were and weren’t)? It seems that if a department had say 3 women, 3 genetic males, and one transgender female to male, and then the transgender employee is promoted, instead of the others, that there might be a non-sexist explanation.
Maybe someone who has the nerve and strength to not only come out of the closet, but also to go through the difficult and taxing process of transitioning, has some qualities that make them a good worker? Perhaps focus, dedication, tenacity, strength of character, and a personality conducive to seeing difficult things through to completion. I think it’s at least conceivable that in this day and age, transgender persons may well tend to be better employees.
I can’t say as I have ever noticed in a meeting – over the last 20 years – a woman ignored or dismissed because she is a woman. I have seen women and men with irrelevant or poor ideas ignored and dismissed, and I have seen men and women both treated abysmally in the workplace.
Thinking of my past experiences, and trying to empathize with what was said in the article, I can say that I have noticed women being patronized in the workplace more than men, and more comments toward women on their physical appearance, and that kind of thing. I have many times seen women treated with more or excessive “kid gloves” than men, probably as overcompensation by management and supervisors. And, I’m sure that can be viewed as condescending.
I can’t deny other people’s experiences, and if these folks say they have witnessed a woman raise an issue in a meeting and be ignored and then a man raise the same exact issue and be lauded for it, well, I can only take their word for it. I can only say that I have never seen that happen, but I suppose I could have missed it. I wonder how many other folks notice this sort of thing.
Quite an interesting topic, though, and I never thought about how transgender people could expose such issues in the workplace. If indeed they can be in the workplace unnoticed as transgendered, then indeed I expect that with a sufficient sample size some data could be obtained that would be illustrative.
I would also like to see more information on this study (e.g. how did they deal with cognitive bias, etc). Additionally, I would imagine that a trans’ headspace would be different pre & post (e.g. happier? more positive?). I don’t know. I would like to see some more transparency in the study, and I freely admit I have no experience with what it must be like to be a trans.
You raise some interesting points re: the progressiveness of a workplace if they are actively promoting trans-gendered people, and the tenacity required to undergo such a change. That second point might be related to what society deems “positive” masculine traits (e.g. “he’s a go-getter”).
I’m really sorry, but the idea that trans people may be receiving positive discrimination on the basis of being trans is…well…it’s just absurd. We’re still widely regarded as an acceptable target for discrimination, our unemployment and poverty rate is through the roof, we have trouble just not being laughed out of the job interview, and there aren’t even any legal protections in most jurisdictions against on-the-job or hiring discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.
Besides, I’m pretty sure the guys in the article were stealth. Otherwise the whole premise wouldn’t really make much sense.
As a bigendered person this is mainly the reason I choose to, and probably will continue to, not make a transition. The identity mismatch just isn’t large enough to wanting to endure all that comes with it.
It is sad that this is the way society works :/
Not sure if this counts for anything, but I can confidently say that despite all the sacrifices, hassle, pain (physical, emotional), stress, discrimination, etc. I think it was totally worth it.
Is it wrong that I had to read the word bigendered three times before I realized it didn’t say bigendered?
@natalie1984
Yeah, it might very well be worth it. Problem is it’s hard to know beforehand :)
@mrmisconception
lol. Yeah, maybe why some people spell it with a hyphen :)
I’d sort of hate to de-rail this into a transgender pep talk session… but… you know it doesn’t have to be an all-at-once kind of thing, right? You don’t have to make a choice between “transition” and “don’t transition”. You can just take baby steps, see if that works for you, and just gradually inch forward until you reach a point where you feel comfortable with things as they are. The choices can be as simple and basic as “go see a therapist”, “go get laser treatment” (I’m assuming you’re mtf spectrum? Sorry if I’m wrong!), “start asking friends to use different name/pronouns”, “consider starting a mild dose of hormones”, etc.
@natalie1984
You’re absolutely right, It is pretty much what I’m doing too, baby steps until I get to a point where I’m happy with things.
I myself am littlendered, having been brought up on the PDP-11.
@Buzz Parsec COTW (even though that seems to have long since gone away :( ) That was exactly what I saw the first 2 times I read the word, and was sitting here wondering what endianness had to do with gender :P (bigendian here, cuz it’s all about the pentiums, baby)
Er, doh, got my endianness all wrong, pentiums are also little endian. But, with my current emphasis on working with mobile processors, I am beginning to delve more into the world of big endianness. Alright, enough nerd based derailments. (that video regarding the research was a rather interesting watch, seems to flesh out the research a bit more).
The article specifically stated that the female who transitioned to Thomas was already working for that same employer as a woman, and continued working for that same employer as a man.
Regarding treatment of transgender people, I would agree with you, generally speaking transgender people are more likely to receive poor treatment than favorable treatment. HOWEVER – that being said – in a specific instance where a person is working for an employer and while employed by that employer comes back to the same employer and continues working there, it stands to reason that that particular employer has a positive outlook on transgendered people.
That is not to imply that transgendered people are generally favored in employment statistically speaking. That would be ludicrous.
A tolerant outlook towards trans people wouldn’t necessarily imply a positive outlook.
If an employer, Natalie, is accepting enough with transgender people that they will accommodate a transgender person, including allowing all the time off for medical care and keep the job open for that person, I think it is substantially likely that that same employer would be of the mind that it ought not disfavor transgender people and there is at least a reasonable possibility that that same employer would take some extra care to act favorably toward that transgender person.
Is it necessarily true that they would prefer a transgender person for a promotion. but, it is also not necessarily true that because the male is promoted over a female that it is because of sexism
Yes, but nothing in the article says anything about the size of the company or the conditions of the transition as far as the workplace goes. While an employer may be fully aware of the transition, there is nothing that suggests other employees are. It would be horribly unprofessional, if not outright illegal, for an employer to publicly make known an individual’s personal medical situation. In a large company, it would be fairly easy for someone to return presenting a different gender and be assumed by others to be an entirely different person and be treated accordingly.
The fact that the article is silent on that is precisely my point.
And, unprofessionalism on the part of the organization, if not downright illegal behavior, is what is assumed when one attributes post-transition advancement to discrimination against women. Surely, an organization that is willing to be unprofessional that way, might well be willing to be unprofessional in other ways…
No, that actually wasn’t the point you made. Your point entirely hinged on the possibility of positive discrimination on the side of a transgender-favorable employer and how that undermined a determination of sexism. If your point was really that there are many factors that we are unaware of that could influence the conclusion, I think you expressed it badly.
It is not irrational to accept a conclusion of underlying sexism in this instance. This was a psychological study conducted by an academic and and published and presented to a group of her peers. The sample size, while small, was not negligible, and did in fact show a variation in treatment that is outside normal statistical expectations. The research suggests there are complicated issues surrounding gender in the workplace and that sexism plays a large role in it.
Notice the mention that the data also show that white, tall transgender men fared better, on the whole, than gender-ambiguous, racial minority or short trans men. If a positive outlook on trans men is a more important impetus of promotion than sexism, you would expect the results to be the same for all trans men. Instead, treatment was still found to conform more to accepted male standards, which is very much in line with a theory of underlying sexism.
This is not the same thing as saying the only absolute conclusion we should come to is that sexism, and sexism alone, is to blame in every single one of these situations. But, given the evidence, it makes sense that sexism is a factor. There is far less evidence to support a theory that it is not. It is not a mistake to accept the theory of sexism at the same time we discuss alternate theories, question aspects of the study that we don’t know and encourage more research into the topic.
I think it’s fair for you to conclude, based on the evidence that sexism may be a factor. I too acknowledge that sexism may be a factor. But, may main point was that we don’t know certain things from the article posted, and I wondered if those things were known or not considered in the study.
Moreover, just because the study is an academic study done by a professor, etc., doesn’t mean it is unassailable. On another thread, Dr. Horwitz’ study was not only questioned, but, frankly, skewered and vilified. All I’ve suggested is, basically, what BeardofPants also suggested was relevant – that we look at the study in detail and see what is and is not known about the persons studied to determine what other factors might have been at work.
Not to mention the fact that trans people are highly discriminated against even within the LGBQT community, which is supposedly progressive and accepting (bisexuals are also discriminated against, though clearly to a lesser degree). Just because a company or organization is progressive when it comes to lesbians and gays does not mean they will be progressive when it comes to trans folks.
“Icky trannies are holding back gay rights! We should drop the T! They’re making us look bad! I don’t know what I, as a gay man, as supposed to have in common with some freak who wants to cut his dick off!” :p
Relevant cartoon:
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/6078998367/1/tumblr_lm1tdwPRsZ1qhocqh
That is a fantastic cartoon, Natalie! And it brings my point home.
Even gay and lesbian humans are prone to discrimination.
Yeah, I get pretty irritated by the transphobia and biphobia within the queer community, as well as the racism and sexism (particularly from gay men). Some of the most racist and sexist people I’ve ever interacted with have been gay men.
More than biphobia, it seems like the narrative usually trotted out in the gay/lesbian community just seems to be the claim that bisexuality doesn’t even *exist*. Like that everyone who identifies as bi is “in denial”, or “indecisive”, “just kissing girls for attention”, “lesbian-until-graduation”, and all that. Sort of like how trans men got treated until the last ten years or so.
And speaking of sexist attitudes in the gay community…
I don’t how prevalent those attitudes may be in the actual community (I didn’t interact much with the gay scene even when that was how I identified), but I’ve definitely noticed a pretty creepy trend in the media lately in that they’ve been repackaging old sexist, binary ideas with a gay veneer and selling them back to straight people with queer culture being used as a bit of a trojan horse. Like, “it’s totally okay for a man to tell a woman how to dress, behave, please her man, and say when she is or isn’t a ‘whore’…as long as he’s gay.” And it cuts both ways, too, with very conventional gender roles being marketed to men under the auspices of gay advice on fashion/dating/etc. It really creeps me out. I wonder about the degree to which gay culture is being exploited for hetero-normative purposes, or whether there’s a strong degree of voluntary participation in that model…
However, the company that knew and employed the woman who transitioned to Thomas, both before and after she transitioned to Thomas, is not very likely to be discriminatory against transgendered people. They hired her as a woman. Kept her employed pre-transition. Kept her employed during transition. And, kept him employed after transition. So, would it really be all that surprising that the post-transitioned Thomas would be promoted or given good reviews? It seems at least as reasonable to suggest that it was because of the company’s effort to be accepting of transgendered people than it is to say that it was because he was now a man. Their knowledge that this person was female and transitioned to a man doesn’t go away at the next performance review.
What I’m suggesting is caution – a modicum of caution – in automatically attributing this to sexism. It may not be. It may be. But, it may not be. And, if the employer is one of the few employers that would be positive enough about transgenders to see one through from pre- to post- transition, might well be positive enough to promote her/him over women (and men).
And, the article doesn’t specify how many men were passed over as well. Just because a man is promoted or rewarded at work doesn’t mean it is because of sexism. It may be, but not necessarily.
I’m not trying to draw any conclusions in that vein. :) I’m just interested in further details of the study. I thought some good points were raised, and I’d like to know more about their study methods. That’s all. No offense intended, and always happy to be informed by those who know better than I do.
No worries. No offense taken.
You seem to draw a lot of conclusions about how women experience the workplace based on your non-experience with it. Just an observation.
The story in the article addresses another issue that sometimes pops up in such discussions. White men are often subjectively assessed as being more competent than women and non-whites. There have been a few studies on this. This may very well be the case in Thomas’ case too.
Each of our anecdotal experience in this regard is no less valid than anyone else’s. You aren’t ruled out from commenting on what you’ve noticed about the treatment of white males just because you’re not one. We’re all in the workplace, and we all have our perspectives. It’s not particularly useful to dismiss other people’s views out of hand.
I haven’t dismissed it, just pointing out you seem to rely on it a lot.
Instead of assuming how people experience the workplace, maybe you should actually talk to people about it?
Don’t assume that I don’t talk to people about it.
I rely on my own experience no more or less than you and everyone else relies on their own experience. Our own anecdotal experiences are our own anecdotal experiences. If I say “I never saw a woman bring something up in a meeting and have it discounted, only to have a man bring up the same idea and have it applauded,” then that’s my experience. It is no less valid that a person who claims to have witnessed just that. Neither one of our anecdotes is sufficient to suggest the prevalence of such events.
It also doesn’t mean that my experience is less valid than someone else’s.
I also did not invalidate anyone else’s experience – in fact I expressly – very clearly – stated exactly the opposite, that I have listened and take their word for it that it happened. I am surprised by it, but I don’t try to tell other people what they have and haven’t experienced.
“Don’t assume that I don’t talk to people about it.
I rely on my own experience no more or less than you and everyone else relies on their own experience.”
Then I suggest you make your comments reflect that as no one here (I assume) know you in person. At the moment most of your comments tend to come across as sexism-apologetics.
He’s a known troll. Don’t give him the time of day.
He’s actually being pretty respectful today. Don’t create an opening for another big fuss with like two hundred posts!
I’m not replying directly him on purpose, but he still is using his basis as a man in a male-dominated society for his opinions and how he frames things, though, which is getting tiresome as hell, and of course, even when it’s pointed out to him (AGAIN) he doesn’t get it. So maybe he’s not a troll, exactly, but he’s clearly not listening to the majority of the people (women) who are trying to point out why what he says is so problematic. He just gets defensive and then implies the woman (in this case, Veronica) has the problem. He’s gaslighting, again, just in a lighter form.
Yeah, there’s still stuff I’d consider problematic about his opinions and perspective, and I think he has some strong bias, but right now he’s expressing those opinions in a respectful way, and I just, personally, would like to reciprocate that change in tone and the effort he’s apparently making towards being more considerate.
Like… I just think we should try to demonstrate that actually, yeah, the reason we got frustrated and said he was trolling *wasn’t* simply because he held contrary opinions. And we should try to avoid conflict when there’s not really much there (at the moment) to justify it. You know what I mean?
Marilove has to be joking.
I’m a man. However, my opinion is no less valuable than a woman’s opinion. And, particularly on transgender issues, there is no reason why a woman’s opinion on the subject trumps a man, because of that woman’s gender.
And, Marilove tries to say here that someone has tried to “explain” to me on this thread what is “problematic” about what I’ve said. Nothing I have written here is “problematic” in the least. All I’ve said is that it is important to know whether the employers of the transgendered people referred to in the article knew or did not know of the transitioning. That’s important to the data. It is. It’s not “problematic.”
It’s also not problematic to suggest that if an employer knows a woman and employs a woman in a position, and knows that woman is going to transition to a male, and keeps that woman employed during the transition, and keeps the post-transitioned man employed after transitioning, that that same employer may well not be acting favorably to that transitioned person as an act of discrimination against women. It may be because that employer has heightened sensitivity toward that transitioned person.
I did not say it MUST or NECESSARILY means that sexism wasn’t involved. But, by the same token it is NOT correct to conclude based on what we know, necessarily, that sexism is the reason either. It might be.
What would be important to know, and I’m not the only one who said this, is whether all the transitioned persons referred to in the article were known or “out” to their employers. That matters, doesn’t it?
Marilove, you can chase me around sniping at me and calling me names. But, if anyone deserves some moderation action, it’s you. Look to yourself and stop badgering me, please. Thank you.
And, Natalie – it is fine and dandy that you find my opinions “problematic.” I invite and welcome you to tell me what is problematic about them. I would love to hear your reasons. Am I wrong? What did I say that was wrong? If I am wrong, I’ll certainly admit it. I hope others will do so as well.
You and I already managed to clarify an important point — the word necessarily, vs something being possible or likely – you mentioned that it was not “necessarily” some sort of positive viewed toward transgendered people that was the cause of Thomas’ favorable treatment. I agree with that 100%. 100%. Unequivocally. That is true – it is not “necessarily” that.
However, by that same token, I would ask you to acknowledge that Thomas’ promotion was not “necessarily” due to sexism against women. Isn’t that also true. It may be. But, not necessarily.
And, then, doesn’t that lead us to the same conclusion that BeardofPants came to. It would great to know more about the methodology of the study and what the employers knew and didn’t know about the transgendered persons (did they know the people beforehand – were they especially tolerant or positive toward transgendered people, etc.).
Obviously, if they had no idea that a man had actually transitioned from a female, then one can disregard any notion of being positive toward transgendered persons as factoring into employment decisions. For someone to take positive action towards a trangendered person because of their transgenderedness, the employer has to at least be aware that the person is transgendered. So, if the employer is not so aware, then that would be a point in favor of the sexism explanation.
Other points – like – maybe the employer had just promoted three women, and the transgendered male they promoted is the first male promoted – that would be a point against sexism being the explanation. That’s by way of example.
Now, I am certainly open to you or marilove explaining what’s wrong with any of that. Declaring that it is problematic, however, is not the same as explaining why it is problematic. And, suggesting that I’m male and coming from a male bias also doesn’t make what I said problematic. It’s still either correct or not correct.
And, as for biases – we all have them. It is o.k. to say I’m biased – I grew up male and from immigrant parents, so I have perspectives based on that. I’m heterosexual too. But, by the same token, someone who is female and white, or a transgendered person, comes from that perspective, and such persons have their own biases. If having a bias disqualified discussion, then all blogs and forums might as well shut down.
You’re the only one trolling, marilove.
Are you going to call me names again?
If you’re going to start pissing and moaning again because I don’t hold an opinion you find acceptable, then have at it.
What’s it going to be today? We’ve got “troll” under your belt again today. What’s next? Fuckwit? Anything else?
Knock this off, now. I don’t know what goes on in other threads, but this one is mine, and nothing I just read merited a response like that. If I read a response to you that similarly crosses the line, it will get the same treatment. That’s enough of this, period.
Alright, Jen. Please let me explain why that response was merited. Marilove has on previous occasions called me a troll, told me I ought to be banned or that the “Mod Hammers” should come down on me. She has also called me a “fuckwit” and other such namecalling.
In her post to which I responded, she said “He’s a known troll. Don’t give him the time of day.” That doesn’t appear to have any relevance to the thread or the topic, and is merely a personal attack on me. I was discussing the topic without any sort of attack on anyone. Mariloves ad hominem came out of nowhere.
She then said, after explaining that I’m using my male bias to voice opinions after being told by women what I’m saying is wrong (and therefore should just shut up or agree), that I “then implies the woman (in this case, Veronica) has the problem. He’s gaslighting.”
Point of fact: I never said anything to or about Veronica here, and I certainly did not suggest, state or imply that Veronica has a problem. I don’t think Veronica has a problem.
And gaslighting? So, marilove accuses me of engaging in psychological abuse by using false information to make someone doubt their perceptions. So, that’s another attack on me, which is false. I’ve not done that.
As for my response — after she called me a troll, I pointed out that she is, in fact, trolling me. I asked her if she was going to keep doing what she did in the past – calling me names like “fuckwit” and the like.
So, I certainly understand your desire to keep the discourse civil, but please look to marilove here. I’ve not done anything but try to reasonably and rationally address the issue.
I’m certainly willing to let it drop, and adhere to your instructions. So, this is the last I will say on the matter, rest assured.
“And, Natalie – it is fine and dandy that you find my opinions “problematic.” I invite and welcome you to tell me what is problematic about them. I would love to hear your reasons. Am I wrong? What did I say that was wrong? If I am wrong, I’ll certainly admit it. I hope others will do so as well.”
I’ll decline that invitation. I don’t enjoy debating you.
Yes, of course we all have biases. The question is the degree to which we allow them to dictate our beliefs and conclusions.
BTW, it is indeed entirely possible for trans people to go unnoticed. It happens all the time.
Sometimes I hear people say “I’ve never seen a trans woman who passed as female”. Well, yeah… obviously. You just assume they’re female. I’d say it’s extremely likely that every person reading this has, at least one time in their life, met a trans person without knowing it.
Obtaining sufficient sample sizes for proper sociological studies is where things get tricky. We’re a TINY minority of the population. Even the most liberal estimates place us at around only 1 out of every 2500 people.
I certainly agree with that. I’ve seen transgendered people (not many, but some) who were obvious, and I’ve seen men in drag (some, not many) who were obvious. I can certainly see how it might not always be obvious or apparent, though.
The lack of sample size data is generally a reason to be cautious about drawing firm conclusions on a study. It’s one of the ways that studies are criticized by critics – if the sample size is too small, then it is often characterized as inconclusive.
Jen,
I hope that story leads to more people getting vaccinated.
“…writing a letter that you file with your pediatrician that should your child ever be hospitalized, you do not want your child to be treated or cared for by one of these members of the Children’s Hospital gay employees group except in the case of an emergency situation. But for routine in-hospital care where contact with your child would be required, your values should be respected.”
Isn’t that fucking nice. “Don’t touch my child … unless he/she is about to die. Then I’ll make an allowance and allow you icky, icky gay people to save him/her.”
The cognitive dissonance here is large. They are blatant hypocrites, and even admit it to the world at large.
If they don’t want icky gay doctors to care for their children, they shouldn’t have icky gay doctors care for their children for any reason. Emergency situation or not.
You have to wonder what their reaction would be if someone were to replace the word gay with theist.
I think that would light up their RADAR.
Radar and Gaydar are well known.
A third rhyming term needs to be added: KKKdar.
As in, “Linda Harvey lights up my KKKdar.”
Also, neighdar – the ability to detect horseshit. Linda Harvey sets that off too.
It’s kind of funny, just last night I made this comment:
“In a funny way, I sometimes consider it almost something of a blessing-in-disguise that I’ve had the opportunity to DIRECTLY experience the difference in how a woman gets treated in our society versus how a man gets treated. My perspective on male privilege, and what it entails, is granted a lot of focus and clarity by the fact that I had it but sacrificed it.”
It seems odd to me how feminism and the women’s movement, as a general thing, are often so reluctant to turn to the perspectives and experiences of trans people, and how some (Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, MichFest, even Germaine Greer) go out of their way to exclude us and refuse our presence as allies. We’re uniquely well-positioned to understand the gender inequalities that still exist in our society, and more than anyone else, we embody the concept that biology isn’t destiny.
I’d be interested to see more studies like that done. And not just in regard to things like social treatment of gender…
Mhm. There is a lot of value in researching the people who fall in the area between genders. Not just on the social issues, but also on the biological and psychological level.
I have looked a lot around the net for good information, but there isn’t all that much. Not that I have come across at least.
Natalie, I just want to say how much I have come to value your contributions here. The opportunity to hear the perspective of a transgendered person like you is one of the many reasons I come back to Skepchick day after day. My whole perspective on gender bias in society has evolved tremendously because of what i have read during discussions like this one.
Thank you! I really appreciate that. :)
Natalie,
I second Steve’s sentiment.
And thirded. I think I’ve had my outlook challenged more over the last few weeks than any time recently. :)
You guys are WAY too nice. Thanks. But I’m really just a geek with too much spare time on her hands. :p
Same here as well! The skepchicks and my fellow commenter’s have educated and altered my thinking on a number of issues over the years. It seems to me that the notion of being “uneasy” with someone is an interesting redefinition of the basic foundational emotion that I’d associate with being prejudiced, racist, misogynist, bigoted etc. toward other people. And that has everything to do with not being like that person; or more specifically ignorant of that person’s life experience such that empathy is not an option or even a consideration.
It struck me when reading the breaking down barriers article that there is another possible explanation for Thomas glowing feedback. His co-workers don’t realise that not only does he have relevant experience(most jobs expect this) but he has exact experience. He actually did that job for a period of time.
Its plausible his co-workers were thinking something along these line of “that Thomas guy is amazing, He’s just as good as Susan after 1 week as she was after 2 years!”. I’d be impressed with a new employee who was as competent as someone who worked there for years.
Maybe I’m being overly pedantic. I don’t doubt the ftm transsexuals would start feeling privilege, and that it would be more obvious to them as it was not one they had grown up with.
I’ll chime in with my anecdote on seeing both sides of workplace sexual politics. I worked in my chosen industry for a number of years as a man, then dropped off the radar for a few months, moved to another country, and rejoined the same industry. The difference was striking. Despite being in a far better place psychologically, and having a newfound zeal for life, I was treated universally worse. I’ve now been working as female for nearly twenty years, and I still get less “automatic respect” than I did as a young punk male just out of school. I’ve always quietly mused to myself about what a unique perspective trannies have on feminism, and it’s nice to see that idea get a serious look. Most men don’t believe women when they talk about this issue. They really really don’t. I certainly didn’t. I felt the world was mostly a meritocracy, and belief otherwise was mostly whining. Holy cow was I wrong. It’s taken me twenty years and $30k worth of surgery to learn it, but learn it I have. I now have my own company, because I was tired of hitting the glass ceiling everywhere I worked, and having everything I said treated less seriously than people half my age and half my experience level. I still get worked up just thinking about it.
Male-To-Female Transsexuals are genetic-womens’ best friends in the workplace. You should be dragging all of us into feminism, because we can make the best possible arguments for it.
Wow. Thank you for sharing this. As an advocate for women and other minorities in technology, I make variations of this argument a lot, and the transgender viewpoint is invaluable when discussing it. The article about this study immediately jumped out at me, and I’m glad it resonates with others, too.
Thanks for sharing that story!
I too work in technology, web and IT, though not at the moment. The bonus with that industry is that it is fully possible to work from home. I’m way to social to manage that though. I did try for several years.
While we’re sharing…. I’ve also learned a lot about how men and women relate to each other in the workplace. For example, people often accuse women of being passive aggressive, and I’ve always disliked that way of relating to others. The longer I live as female, though, the more I notice myself doing it. Why? Because it’s the only thing that seems to work in male-dominated workplaces. Asserting myself and expressing my opinion when I know what I’m talking about is viewed negatively. However, speaking with very submissive language with a lot of unconfident-sounding qualifiers (maybe we could perhaps… if you think it’s a good idea….I heard some people like to sometimes do something similar….) works much better. As a man, the reverse was true, and I have the pre-and-post-op performance reviews to prove it.
The Toupee Fallacy! My absolute favourite logical fallacy.
Carry on :)
I always wondered if there was a name for that fallacy. Awesome! :)
Toupee Fallacy. That one gotta go in my “useful terms” bag :)
Sorry, that was supposed to have blockquotes…