By Loree
Cook-Daniels
Reprinted with permission of the author.
The article originally appeared in the True Spirit 2001 Conference
Program Book.
_____________________________________________________
Yet again, this year's TSC organizing committee struggled
to reconcile two of TSC's long-time, primary goals: providing “safe
space” and “inclusion” for everyone. Although these discussions have
always been extremely painful to me, this year they cut even more
deeply than before. This year, they took place in the context of
my life-partner Marcelle's suicide.
Marcelle took his own life two months after TSC 2000
in part because he felt we had failed in our primary goal within
the FTM/trans/butch/SOFFA community: to get community members to
see that we are NOT two separate groups, that FTMs+ and SOFFAs can
and must be viewed as a unity; as equally valuable and worthy of
attention, support, leadership, and an unquestionable assumption
of inclusion and respect. In Marcelle's suicide note, he apologized
because his transition put me into a community where people still
questioned my place and validity, where we could never assume I would
be welcome, where we felt we must always be prepared to have to fight
for SOFFA inclusion.
At True Spirit, which has always had integrated programming and
worked hard to have SOFFA presence and perspectives on workshop panels
and in workshop content, some may be surprised to hear that Marcelle
felt we had failed. The fact that we had to fight yet again this
year over whether spaces would be “closed” indicates that so far,
Marcelle was right.
What does “closed” space mean? By definition, it means SOFFAs are
excluded. Not SOFFAs in the sense we've (unfortunately) begun to
see them: partners, usually female, usually non-trans. The actual definition
of SOFFA – significant others, friends, family, and allies – not
only encompasses much more than partners, but also it is not FTM-centered. All of
us are SOFFAs in dozens, if not hundreds, of ways. When we are addressing
partners of FTMs, FTMs are the SOFFAs, as are our children, friends,
in-laws, therapists, and employers. When the group being discussed
is people of color, SOFFAs are the white people who were raised and/or
now live in multi-racial households, who are perceived as “of color” even
if we don't fit the current racial/ethnic definitions, or who have
devoted our lives to battling prejudice. (Not to mention the 100%
of white people who are affected by racism….) When it is sexual assault
survivors who are the “center,” SOFFAs are our sexual partners (both
trans and non-trans) whose own sexuality may well be affected; the
rape crisis volunteers who want to know how to be appropriately supportive
to those survivors who are also part of the trans+/SOFFA community;
and the sensitive, well-respected expert who daily thanks hir lucky
stars that sie never experienced the hells those sie's devoted hir
life to serving have.
When we discuss making space open only to those who look like us,
identify like us, or have had the same direct experiences we have,
we are excluding SOFFAs. We are also diminishing ourselves – in many,
many ways.
We feel more alone and different .
This is the
paradox of gatherings that are open only to those who we think understand
our experience because they have also lived it. There is an
undeniable joy in that moment where two people beam at each other, “ohmigod,
that's how you felt, too?” But when such ah-ha moments
only come in the context of a group that's tightly bounded within
a specific identity/experience, they subconsciously reinforce the
idea that the only people who “get it,” who can relate,
who can be supportive, who have experienced the same feelings and
struggled to solve the same problems, are those who have exactly
our same identity/experience. Paradoxically, by finding those who “get
it” only in an exclusionary setting, we teach ourselves that the
world is actually smaller and more unsafe than
we'd thought before. Yes, there are those who understand, but everyone
outside that room who didn't experience what we have don't get it
and aren't safe for us. An “us” versus “them” mentality is created
or reinforced.
Our sustaining relationships are diminished.
Intimacy
grows in a context of loving exchange of experiences and feelings,
in the process of living through and resolving together difficult
times, in the process of partnering : of facing and taking
on together issues that may, at first, seem to only affect
one of us. When we bare our most difficult struggles only in the
company of others we believe are like us, away from those with whom
we share our day-to-day lives but not this particular experience
or identity, we rob ourselves and our loved ones of crucial opportunities
to deepen the love and strengthen the commitments we hold for one
another.
We perpetuate misunderstandings and slow
growth.
Some
of the most powerful, life-changing experiences Marcelle and I had
as a couple came in the context of our public presentations. Although
Marcelle and I constantly talked about gender issues, my most memorable “ah-ha's!” concerning
his feelings about his gender came when we were preparing articles
for publication and when I listened to him tell his story in public.
Perhaps because he was focused on making strangers understand
his internal process, he said things in these contexts in ways I
hadn't heard before.
We lose perspective on what others are living through.
In
a recent review of the novel Trumpet , an FTM suggested
that this book could be seen as “[Joss's] story…told by others in
their own ways.” It's not. It's his widow ' s and
his son's story. It tells how Millie coped with
facing down the registrar who didn't want to record her husband's
male gender. It tells how Colman struggled with reviewing
his whole life story in light of a newly-revealed secret that might
change his understanding of what he'd lived through. It tells how Millie managed
her early widowhood in literal isolation because others were too
busy rewriting her and Joss's life stories to remember that she was
still alive and in need. It tells how Colman had to redefine
his own gender and sexuality in light of the news that manhood is
far more complex than he'd ever imagined. When we get too habituated
to talking only to people who've experienced life the same way we
have, we become blind to how people with different identities and
experiences are still in our same boat, facing very similar struggles.
We lose the chance to help ourselves through others' work.
I
am myself neither transgendered nor a chronological “elder.” I do,
however, have nearly three decades' worth of experience in aging
services and public policy and I've run a national aging resource
center. I therefore have access to resources that many transgendered
persons and elders do not know of or can't access directly. I've
used those resources to create the only organization in the world
devoted to transgender aging issues, and to found and host the only
e-mail support group for older transsexual, transgendered, and intersexed
persons (and their SOFFAs, of course!). Both of these organizations
have led to concrete changes: the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's
aging policy paper actually reflected transgender issues because
of our work, and there is a married MTF/FTM elder couple currently
writing a book on their experiences who met through the e-mail support
group – to name just two examples. As a (non-aged, non-transgendered)
SOFFA, I could easily be banned from discussions about the new concerns
and learnings old transgendered persons are identifying. Although
I agree it is extremely valuable to have trans people represent themselves
in public settings, I disagree that this goal is worth sacrificing
effective organizers, advocates, and trainers who are not themselves
trans but who are known, trusted peers of the audiences we're trying
to reach, influence, and educate.
We stifle the emergence of new understandings .
The concept and term “transsensual” developed out of discussions
that included diverse partners of FTMs, butches, and genderqueers.
As we compared and contrasted experiences, some of us realized that
we had always been attracted to gender-crossers and -benders, while
others of us simply fell in love with someone who was, incidentally,
transgendered. Similarly, I believe we're in the midst of creating
a new understanding of what “fem” may encompass, due to the challenges
fem FTMs and biomales are making to “femme-only” space. When groups
are completely homogenous in experience and identity, there are fewer
challenges to what “everyone knows,” so new ideas and theories become
more rare.
We burn-out leaders faster, and frighten away potential
new ones.
When our definitions of who is “us” are tight, the number
of those who can help shoulder the load is smaller. I firmly believe
that the reason True Spirit is the only FTM+/SOFFA conference annually
sponsored by the same organization is that we are able to draw on
many SOFFA organizers who appreciate the fact our leadership structure
includes and welcomes everyone.
Still, there is the issue of “safe space” and the fact that most
(if not all) of us have been misunderstood, discriminated against,
denigrated, and even abused by those who do not share our experiences
and identities, and who do not understand us. We want a place to
feel safe in who we are, where we will be accepted and understood
and not made to explain ourselves. That means we need to be surrounded
by people who have had the same experiences and claim the same identity
we do, doesn't it?
In a word, no. In fact, defining “safety” as being surrounded only
by “people like me” is a very dangerous error. How many of us have
been trashed by someone with our own identity, be that FTM or butch,
heterosexual woman or lesbian, genderqueer or “stealth” transsexual?
Thinking that having the same identity automatically means someone
who will agree with us prepares us to be blindsided, hurt, and disappointed.
Marcelle upset several FTMs who expected his experience to be the
same as other Black FTMs' experiences, and to result in the same
viewpoint.
So if being surrounded by people with the same identity/experience
that we do doesn't automatically make us safe, what will?
Ultimately, the only thing that can make someone “safe” from others'
accidental or willful misunderstandings and hurtful comments is for
that individual to not care what anyone else thinks, feels, or says.
Personally, I don't know anyone who has reached this advanced state
of detachment, and I'm not sure I'd want to! However, there are things
we can do to help create space that feels “safe” for individuals – even
a gathering of very diverse individuals -- to explore feelings and
ideas, pass along knowledge, and plan changes.
Define your goals carefully.
If you are organizing
something, be clear about what it is you want to accomplish. Are
you trying to introduce people to others with common interests? Identify
new issues? Show new people the ropes? Find out who has resources?
Strategize how to make social change can happen? Create a space for
people to relax and “let their hair down?” Carefully and explicitly
focusing on what you want to accomplish, rather than who you want
to have there, will help you attract people who will be delighted
to help you achieve that goal, regardless of their own identity or
experiences.
If you are considering attending an event someone else has organized,
make sure you understand the organizers' goals. Be honest in checking
your own expectations against those goals. If what you need or want
isn't exactly what the organizers want, be respectful and let them
have the chance to be successful at what they've set out to do. Organize
a second meeting that is better focused on what you are concerned
about. TSC 2001 has set aside a block of rooms and times to facilitate
organizing such ad hoc meetings.
Make sure topic limits and discussion rules are clear .
Respectful interactions aren't attached to an identity label, they're
created by human behaviors. Make sure you state (if you are leading
the group) or understand (if you are “just” attending) what sorts
of comments are welcome, and what sorts of interactions are out of
bounds in this setting. Ensure that everyone present agrees to a
specified level of confidentiality (usually, at a minimum, participants'
names are not to be used in any post-event discussion).
Remember your responsibility to the group.
Far
too often, in all sorts of settings, people tend to feel that if
there are one or more designated leaders, how the group runs is the leader's responsibility.
To some degree that is correct; leaders can and should take responsibility
for creating and maintaining the appropriate tone and discussion
boundaries. However, participants fail in their responsibility to
themselves and to each other if they do not help a group that's in
trouble. Last year some members of the TSC Organizing Committee came
up with a list of specific ways presenters or facilitators can ensure
that discussions sound respectful of the tremendous diversity of
identities, experiences, and views TSC participants represent. Many
of these “re-framings” can be used by audience members if they sense
some comments are continuing to cause offense and the presenter(s)
have not taken action:
• Ask if someone would like to represent a different
perspective.
• Say, “I've heard others say that, too. On the other
hand, I've heard….”
• Say, “I'm glad that's worked for you, but it may not
work for everyone here. Does someone else have a different solution?”
• Rephrase the speaker's comment: “I want to make sure
I understood what you said…(then rephrase taking out the offensive
phrases or suggestions).”
• Question, “Gee, it sounds like you are saying that
all XYZ are ABC…that's not my experience. Is that what you meant,
or did I misunderstand you?” [Warning: only use this when you're
confident the person doesn't mean what it sounded like!]
• If it appears someone has taken offense at something
someone else has said, you may want to ask if the objector is willing
to help the group out by rephrasing in a way that helps address the
issue “without shutting anyone out of the discussion” or by asking, “How
could we address the question without being offensive…or did we really
ask the wrong question to begin with?”
• If you think there's widespread dissatisfaction with
how the discussion's going but no one is offering “opposing” views,
try, “it feels to me like we're missing discussion of some crucial
identities/experiences. What are some of those?”
Use more unusual ways of structuring discussions.
If,
for example, what you want is for youth to define how youth issues
differ from those set by an age-diverse majority, you may want to
ask participants who are not themselves youth to yield the floor
when youth wish to speak, only ask clarifying questions, or even
not speak at all. To help remind people of the different levels of
participation you want, you can physically arrange the participants
so that the youth sit in a “fishbowl” circle surrounded by the “observers.”
If, on the other hand, you want to brainstorm how to make sure more
stories of trans persons of color are represented in the media, you
may want to ask people to save their stories of discrimination for
sharing in other venues and concentrate on who in the room has access
to media, and who has stories they're willing to tell. Having a flipchart
on which you're visibly recording the “who” and “how” will again
help participants focus where you want them to.
As a third example, if you are trying to facilitate difficult discussions
across identity or experience “lines,” consider having people write
their comments on cards that are then shuffled and passed to other
people to read aloud, or have small groups generate a list of comments
(none of which are associated with any given person) that can then
be shared with the other small group(s).
Consider hand-picking your audience.
If you think
you may want to show your chest for the first time post-surgery but
you are nervous about how people will judge the surgeon's work and/or
your body, invite to your room for your grand opening only friends
whom you've told about your fears and whom you trust to be gentle
with you. This is emotionally far safer than blindly trusting that
a group of strangers – of whatever identity and experience – will
intuit how sensitive you are and refrain from making any comments
you might find upsetting.
Work with (or around) your partner .
Many discussions
about closed space revolve around couples, where one or both want
somewhere to talk about their feelings without their partner being
present. This is not necessarily a bad desire, but dividing couples
into identity-based groups is bad policy, for all the reasons discussed
above. In addition, many couples do not fall into the “typical” divisions:
how do you determine, for instance, who is the “FTM” and who is the “partner” in
an FTM/FTM couple?
Far better, in my opinion, is for each couple to design its own
best solution to the desire to have discussion without the other
partner being present. There are many possible ways to do this. Many
couples have trust and communication levels strong enough to permit
open discussion of the need for separate space, and mutually agree
to go to different concurrent workshops.
If you are not able to state your preference openly and
find that your partner intends to attend the same workshop you do,
you still can find a way to benefit. Some individuals find that simply
listening to others without revealing their own feelings fills many
of their needs for “comparing” experiences. You may also attend a
workshop with your partner and make mental or actual notes about
who you want to hook up with privately later in the conference to
discuss similar issues (TSC maintains a message board to help facilitate
such meetings). Finally, you may benefit by examining your assumptions:
what does it mean if telling a roomful of strangers something about
your feelings or relationship is safer than telling your partner?
Should you actually be looking for a couples' counselor rather than
(or at least in addition to) a conference workshop?
It is important for us to find people who understand and
share our experiences, and to be able to express ourselves in environments
that are respectful of whom we are – that's what TSC was founded to
do! But we fool ourselves when we believe exclusionary space equals “safe” space.
More importantly to Marcelle and to me, we as individuals and as a
community lose way too much when we exclude SOFFAs (of all sorts) from
at least listening to our discussions. In Marcelle's honor, let me
state yet again that there is no inherent contradiction between the
values of inclusion and creating safe space. Safe space does, however,
require each and every one of us to take responsibility for our own
behavior and for helping create and maintain structures and tones that
encourage and support respectful exploration of our differences and
similarities .
_____________________________________________________
Loree Cook-Daniels holds a graduate degree in conflict management
and served on the TSC organizing committee for four years. She would
like to thank michael munson for his ongoing help in developing some
of the ideas in this article.
_____________________________________________________
Copyright © 2001 Loree
Cook-Daniels.
