Queer this! Trangender kids

This post and the article linked to it bring up differences between gender perception and gender identity, how the socially constructed portions of gender are heavily policed as they are mutually (nor are they binary). It also makes me think of how little agency youth have in self-identifying. At what age, if Bobby continues to identify with feminine genders will her identification be taken seriously rather than as a phase? And if she is simply going through a phase, perhaps we could then form the question asking why a person’s gender cannot fluctuate throughout their lives? I will identity Bobby as a girl in my queer this response, because that is how she personally identifies. I believe continuing to call Bobby a boy, despite her wishes disrespectful as it privileges one’s own opinions on gender over those of the person being gendered. I also believe that an intense focus on one's genitals is a form of objectification as it reduces ones personhood to their genitalia.

First, I would like to discuss the difference between gender identity and gender perception as the two are often conflated. Gender identity is how one personally identifies their gender. In this example, Bobby Montoya identifies herself as being a girl. Gender perception is how others perceive this person. Gender perceptions are formed through knowing one personally or, more simply, gendering someone you see on the street or briefly interact with. Internalized assumptions of what certain gender looks like are informed by secondary sex characteristics (clothes, hair, way a person carries their body, inflect their speech etc).

Bobby’s mother refers to her as a boy as she was assigned “boyhood” at birth (or maybe at ultrasound). In this brief quote, I recognize possibility for confusion, for unease. Values are assigned to bodies: how they are shaped. What genitalia they have. How the bodies take up space. What space these bodies take up. The “role” assigned to gendered bodies is both specific to cultural context and individual situations.

A Girl Scout troop leader denied Bobby access to sharing space with girl scouts for having ‘boy parts’. By this reading, genitals define ones gender. What is the fear this troop leader is responding to by expressing concerns of how parents and her supervisor would respond to Bobby’s presence? I raise this question largely because the troop leader seemingly does not believe there is a reason to believe the girls who are Bobby’s age would find this experience nearly as unsettling. If Girl Scouts is for social development of female identified youth, what is being stated when folks within gatekeeper roles deny her access? Is Bobby not a girl? Would it be detrimental for Bobby’s self-identification to be nurtured? Bobby’s wellbeing is not addressed by this troop leader’s response, however, I do believe her mother allowing Bobby to join the Girl Scout’s is addressing this. Implicitly, there are underlying assumptions about the symbolic meanings of children’s genitals that have little to do with Bobby’s life at present, as they are more related to heteronormative kinship and reproduction later in life.

Further complicating this, policies for joining the Girl Scouts do not speak of genitalia. I am impressed with the statement issued by the Girl Scouts of Colorado: “Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” What does it mean that an organization such as the Girl Scouts of Colorado recognize self-identification and family’s presentation as indicative of eligibility for participation in the Girl Scouts? What would it look like if this degree of ambiguity were taken up by organizations that provide community empowerment for adults? Non-profit organizations that provide services? Employment, School and housing applications? Medical forms?

This story makes me sad. It is obvious after reading this story that the GSA made the right move in putting out a statement expressing the inclusive nature of their organization. However, the bummer here is twofold. One, it is entirely possible that statement was released just to save face. Two, even if the GSA really does believe in the statement, Girl Scouts is still a community based group in terms of local troupes. No matter what the organization thinks or says, those thoughts and words are not nearly as impactful as what really happens in each troupe under the "supervision" of parent volunteers. Gay teens do not commit suicide over bullying because it is the policy of schools to ignore or persecute them, but that DOES happen, sometimes because of adults who do not enforce or support school policies. After reading this article, I was checking out the thread of comments (which was pretty scary)and one thing that kept getting brought up was "How will the other girls feel? Shouldn't their feelings be taken into account too?" I feel that is akin to asking how white people or men would feel if black/women citizens were allowed to vote or hold property. It will have no negative impact, other than possibly equalizing privilege and/ or access. I am continuously surprised in how trans issues are presented in the media and how, and my whom, they are received. Not only are audiences excessively obsessed with genitals and birth names/wrong pronouns, which are things considered private and rude within most trans communities, but people are still surprised and unaccepting of even the idea of a transgendered individual. When I say that I was scared by the comments, I do not mean this in the superior intellectual sense it may had sounded. I am genuinely afraid of people who could say such cruel things about any individual, let alone a child. I applaud the people who responded to some of the negative comments made throughout the thread, because such casually hateful and violent rhetoric cannot be left unchecked to evolve into hateful and violent actions.