When is a man… not a man?

Sometimes – whisper it low – even tawdry rags like the Sun can do minorities a favour. Nah. Not by coming out in favour of, well, coming out. But by giving issues a good airing – or perhaps, more accurately, public kicking – and in the end moving debate and attitudes on.

So it was recently with their front page shock! horror! exposé to the effect that a woman who claimed over 1,000 sexual partners was actually… a man!

Cue outrage! Cue cliché! Cue free rein to a bunch of gender essentialists who were seriously icked by the whole idea., and were pretty sure that “other blokes” would buy in to their ickness.

The essential debate

But also, in between the disgust and reaction and just general Sun readerishness were two other voices, both, with every passing month, getting louder. First up were interventions from the trans community: p[roviding a nice factual counter-balance; expressing outrage at the outrage; just generally making people aware of their presence.

Second, and I’ve seen this across pretty much all papers and – I don’t believe I’m being altogether too biased in this – coming increasingly from women, a view that is more a shrug and a “so what”: if Crystal – the woman in question – is happy, its her life. Get over it!

Which is all healthy. And necessary. Because I have never believed that papers are themselves intrinsically evil or slanted. Rather, the majority of papers are tarts, happily sleeping with millions of readers at any one time, avidly saying, doing whatever it takes to ensure a positive response to the eternal question: “was that good for you?”

Some see anti-trans agenda. I tend to see irresponsible populism in pursuit of circulation at almost any price.

T’fear of t’gay

And this ickness about transition is not something they’ve made up. Somewhere deep within the grown male psyche – however it arrived – is a sort of fundamentalist fear both of being thought gay and of doing anything that might give rise to that idea.

Once upon a time, I wondered if it was just disapproval of the mechanics of gay sex – the way some old-fashioned types go all “yuk!” at the very mention of anal sex. Its there, certainly: but I think it goes deeper (if that’s not an unfortunate turn of phrase in the context).

There really is some sort of male trope that regards sleeping with a guy, touching a guy, doing anything emotional with a guy as itself unmanning, demeaning. Not for all men. Not everywhere. But it does exist – and it is much more fundamental than women’s attitudes to lesbianism, which for many seems to be something you might just occasionally do out of curiosity, without doing quintessential damage to your femininity.

Underpinning this male fear seems to be two things. First, a degree of ignorance. One commenter rather touchingly inquired about the mechanics of having sex with a post-op trans woman. He seemed genuinely curious, unaware that, at base, the mechanics are pretty similar.

Confusion, too, I thought, about the difference between pre- and post-op trans bodies. Some commenters, I am sure, genuinely believe trans is all about “chicks with dicks”.

Deception – the logical result of essentialism

And there is this idea that whatever you do a trans woman is still, “really” a man. That plays to two issues: pure essentialism. And the idea that therefore, trans women “deceive”.

Do they? My own view, drawn from experience pulling pints of lager for truculent and pedantic customers many years back is: if you can’t tell the difference, what IS the difference?

If all you are after is sex and…the body you end up in bed with is, for all practical purposes, female, and you can’t tell? I dunno. Though then, I tend to be interested more in the thinking that goes on inside than the bits hanging outside.

I don’t see myself as heterosexual, because mostly, I find men.. . difficult, socially. Whereas their “bits” are both peculiar and, to some degree, fascinating. So if I were looking for a bed partner, its how they think that counts.

I digress. I commented on the piece and was pleased that the Sun carried my views. Less pleased to find my opinion of their agony aunt, Deidre censored. For she had pole position when it came to comment – and managed to observe both cattily and, I think, unhelpfully, that anyone sleeping around as much as Crystal was still thinking in male mode.

Hmmm. Wonder if she says that to cis women who also happen to be sex addicts?

In the end, though, a rough debate, a raw debate. But the sort of debate that needs to happen from time to time. Because without exposing these issues to the cold light of day, nothing will ever change.

jane xx

8 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    BeauDeJour said,

    You spoke my mind. This is really great, lovely even. Thanks for that.

    -Beau

  2. 2

    misswonderly said,

    “There really is some sort of male trope that regards sleeping with a guy, touching a guy, doing anything emotional with a guy as itself unmanning, demeaning. Not for all men. Not everywhere. But it does exist – and it is much more fundamental than women’s attitudes to lesbianism, which for many seems to be something you might just occasionally do out of curiosity, without doing quintessential damage to your femininity.”
    This may be so. It may even be innate in some men … I have no idea. But what is very clear to me is that it is not a trope which needs ever to be projected onto other people or onto relationships between other people. Not wishing to engage in gay sex oneself does not mean that others doing so or the thought of others doing so should or need cause revulsion unless there is a cultural taboo around it. As you do, I’d say the same thing about a woman who has a thousand sexual partners … not for me thank you … too much effort, too painful … but it’s her business.

    I am very much with you on ‘if you can’t tell the difference, what is the difference’, to which I’d add if you find yourself sexually attracted to somebody, you find yourself sexually attracted to somebody … no matter what their configuration or the history of their body sex.

  3. 3

    ‘Once upon a time, I wondered if it was just disapproval of the mechanics of gay sex – the way some old-fashioned types go all “yuk!” at the very mention of anal sex. Its there, certainly: but I think it goes deeper (if that’s not an unfortunate turn of phrase in the context).’

    anal sex isn’t gay sex. I love anal and I’m a girl!

    • 4

      janefae said,

      hehe! Sometimes, methinks the lady doth protest too much. And not just about the anal sex!

      I’m well aware that it ain’t just gay guys who do it…and it may be that i’m a bit old-fashioned in this way. When i was growing up, i think that the straight objection to gay placed far more reliance on this facet of gay sexuality. Not just unnatural, but dirty too.

      I think that’s faded in recent years, not least cause it seems to happen a lot in hetedro relationships…though not having figures to hand, i have no idea whether the prevalence is smae, higher or lower.

      jane xx

  4. 8

    My antipathy to the term ‘gay’ used as widely as it is, is very heartfelt and deep -rooted. If you are interested in the issue I recommend Anti Gay edited by Mark Simpson (1996). He wrote a whole book on the subject so it must bother him too. He is not a lady either but sometimes he acts like a girl.


Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: