In Gay Rights at the Ballot Box, I analyze the long history of transgender smear tactics used by the Religious Right, a large social movement that opposes LGBT rights. One area where this occurs is the production of campaign ads addressing attempts to protect transgender individuals from discrimination. The ads almost always focus on either children or bathrooms.
Back in April, voters in Anchorage, Alaska, rejected Proposition 5, which would have created a law protecting residents from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Such laws are primarily to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) residents. Transgender inclusion in the potential law was the focus of two commercials by the organization Protect Your Rights.
In both of these political ads, figures of large, hairy male-bodied individuals in dresses, described as “transvestites”, represented transgender inclusion. They present transgender individuals as grotesque and threatening. At the heart of these ads and other transgender smear tactics is anxiety about bodies in gender-segregated spaces that are typically occupied by women.
The women’s bathroom in particular is a site where gender conformity is policed. According to scholar Judith Halberstam in her book Female Masculinity, women’s bathrooms “operate as an arena for the enforcement of gender conformity…a sanctuary of enhanced femininity, a ‘little girl’s room’ to which one retreats to powder one’s nose or fix one’s hair” (p. 24). In this ad, the locker room operates in parallel way, as a space where gender conformity and bodies are strictly policed:
The other ad focused on the possibility of a “transvestite” getting hired at a daycare facility:
In addition to the use of stereotypically-presented “transvestites” to represent all transgender individuals as grotesque and laughable, the ads also argue that employers should have the right to discriminate if they think their customers are prejudiced toward a particular group or uncomfortable with them in certain jobs — an argument that has been used to resist allowing racial minorities and women into various careers. The ads also suggest that Anchorage is already sufficiently tolerant and thus doesn’t need to address the issues Proposition 5 supporters claimed were a problem.
Ads that raise fears about transvestites teaching in the classroom have been used since the 1970s during ballot measure campaigns, and the Religious Right has been raising concerns about transgender women in women’s bathrooms since the late 1980s. These two ads from the Anchorage Proposition 5 campaign are among the newest additions to the long tradition of ads that rely on stereotypes of LGBT individuals as predatory, dangerous to have around children, and having ulterior motives.
—————
Amy L. Stone is an associate professor of sociology at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas.
Comments 125
decius — August 17, 2012
Crazy question: Does prop 5 contain any provisions regarding employer's dress codes? Is the use of the poorly groomed and dressed trans woman specifically intended to make the assertion 'Since all trans people are poorly groomed and dressed, it will be illegal to refuse employment to poorly groomed or dressed trans people.'?
Wondering — August 17, 2012
All I've got is rage at people who deny other people equal rights under the law.
nfq — August 17, 2012
Wow. The moment when the second video says "a transvestite who wants to work with toddlers" ... as though that's obviously a horrific prospect and the children would be in danger. The unqualified use of "he" is also revealing of how deep the misunderstanding/fear-mongering goes. I would love to see a response ad with a bunch of "normal"-looking people doing "normal" stuff and saying "I'm transgender" ... but I don't want to reinforce the assumption that only "normal" is okay, and I also doubt (in light of this ad) that trans folks in Anchorage would be super comfortable participating in such a video.
SalesmanHacksaw3 — August 17, 2012
http://goo.gl/Bx4TW
E. — August 17, 2012
Well, it seems that Anchorage is not a tolerant city...
Lily Queen — August 17, 2012
The naivete displayed in this kind of thing always astounds me. I really want them to come to grips with one really important concept. To wit, in their favorite daycares, women's bathrooms, changing rooms, etc. they ALREADY have
- lesbians
- bisexual women
- transgender women
- intersexed people of various kinds
- etc.
They just don't know we/they're there. (We're also in their families, churches, workplaces, etc. We just don't necessarily have cartoonish signs on us.) That's right, at any time the woman next to you might be different from you! (Actually, you might not have XX genes yourself and not even know it! It's a big, complicated world!)
Personally, I'd be more worried about the people in my daycares, bathrooms, and/or changing rooms who are
- shoplifting
- racist
- leaving pins on the floor where I'm likely to step on them
- too selfish to flush
- not washing their hands
- not vaccinating their kids
- not licensed or trained to take care of kids
- rude
- etc. etc.
Those people are often (though not always) a lot easier to spot, too!
Anna — August 17, 2012
"According to scholar Judith Halberstam in her book Female Masculinity, women’s bathrooms “operate as an arena for the enforcement of gender conformity…a sanctuary of enhanced femininity, a ‘little girl’s room’ to which one retreats to powder one’s nose or fix one’s hair” (p. 24)."
I really don't appreciate the snooty tone of this quote. Additionally, I don't see how this specific quote enhances our understanding of the policing of gender and sex segregated spaces. Perhaps Halberstam goes on to make some great insights where the context of her quote makes sense.
I agree with Lily Queen on her points below. But with regard to bathrooms, there is another valid argument. As a biological sex, women really do need to use bathrooms more frequently than men. Most of us need to change tampons or sanitary pads every couple hours for at least a few times a month; and on average we have to pee more often than men. Even if some men have to pee as often as us, it is more dangerous for women to withhold their urge to pee (urinary infections and such). Moreover, we can't pee as discreetly in open spaces as people with penises can.
Wouldn't all that information be a lot more insightful in understanding why some are against bathrooms that are open to all? It would add to the discussion, in the very least. No, really, what is the point of calling a toilet a "little girl's room"? If anyone goes to the bathroom to fix their hair and powder their nose, it is their fucking right to do so. It has absolutely nothing to do with transgender rights or smear tactics or bashing. In the context of this post, the quote does nothing but continue to contribute to the anti-feminine bashing that is running increasingly rampant on this blog.
Atasi — August 17, 2012
I live in Anchorage and remember seeing these ads, and while they were over the top they were absolutely telling the truth. Social justice warriors have been on a crusade to break down any meaningful definition of sex and this is the pushback. A man in a dress is not a woman, and pretending that he is so that you don't get called a "transphobe" comes at the expense of eliminating safe spaces for women.
Village Idiot — August 17, 2012
I bet the Talibangelicals are extremely agitated by anyone who falls or appears to fall outside of the narrowly-defined male/man female/woman heterosexual dichotomy because every person who does opens up a very awkward Pandora's Box of implications about God's "Grand Design." God wouldn't create a world that was too complex and nuanced for me to understand, would He?
Apparently some of the time God works in mysterious ways (why is there evil if God is all-powerful and good?) but other times some folks seem very confident that He doesn't (God didn't make you like that even though He's all-powerful; you're just wrong).
Why, God? Why?!?
Christine — August 17, 2012
Wow -- this is all kinds of horrible!
"Anchorage is ALREADY a tolerant city," eh? Clearly not tolerant enough!
ididthatonce — August 17, 2012
Here's what I don't understand: why should a sign on a door keep a bio-man who wants to spy on women out of a bathroom or locker room (and vice-versa)? I mean, masquerading as a trans* person and dealing with all the shit they deal with seems awfully far to go just to see a naked person.
On another note, I REALLY wish that people could get terms about gender and sex correctly. Trans* people are VERY different from transvestites/cross-dressers, who are VERY different from gay/lesbian/bisexual people, who are VERY different from drag queens/kings, who are VERY different from genderqueer people! It's really not that complicated, yo.
John Dean D. — August 17, 2012
LOL I came to this article from /r/transgender on reddit and realized after reading the first sentence that it's written by my Sociology advisor at school! Small world when it comes to academia and transgender issues.
Tom Megginson — August 18, 2012
Interesting, from a social marketing perspective. I shared on Osocio:
http://osocio.org/message/transphobic_ads_win_the_day_in_alaska/Please note the third ad, that actually tries to say that Prop 5 threatens both gay and straight employers' "right" to discriminate.
Andrew — August 18, 2012
Not disputing that transphobia and homophobia are at the root of the campaign; it's fairly self-evident.
But what I really see being demonized here, surprisingly enough, is men in general. The "villain" in both of the ads is really just a man, who crosses a line and does something women are "supposed" to do, and apparently the appropriate reaction - for grown women and toddlers alike - is to be fearful. The female voice-over assures us - men are dangerous people, they can't be trusted with young children, and they'd certainly be up to no good in the presence of unclothed women! The fact that the villain is wearing women's clothing only underlines his exaggerated masculinity.
I do wonder how the creators of the second ad would respond to the notion of hetero cis-men, in male attire, working in childcare. They haven't elaborated on how the pink dress poses a danger to the toddler.
Legolewdite — August 18, 2012
Why are bathrooms gendered at all? It's certainly not necessary. My work has a unisex bathroom, and more than three-quarters of its users are ostensibly female. We lock the door behind us; it's never caused a problem.
Briannaaustin.com — August 19, 2012
Fear is what it is, but sometimes becomes what we make it. The Right operate solely from fear and ignorance. It is only when they are confronted with LGBT issues in their own family-friends circle that get motivated to educate themselves.
sunandmoon — August 19, 2012
nice to see some deconstruction of transphobia up at sociological images!
sunandmoon — August 19, 2012
also - you might have done well to include the fact that trans people have a 26% rate of unemployment - this is no doubt a contributing factor to that unemployment rate!
KHW — August 19, 2012
they say between 1 in 4 and 1 in 10 adult males crossdress, so before anybody casts stones on trans people who want to live lives being true to themselves, they should look at themselves, their family and friends first.
You'd be surprised just how many closeted crossdressers there are
FX — August 19, 2012
But what will become of kids taken care of trans* people?!
...the President of the US, for example. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
mimimur — August 19, 2012
Sickening. Claiming to be tolerant while demonizing one of the most vulnerable groups in the western world? I hope this will work against them, but that seems like hopelessly optimistic.
On a side note, it really angers me that some is these discrimination grounds are so unnecessary- I've been to changing room and bathrooms that are fully functional without gender segregation, so obviously there is no actual use for it. All it does is to deprave people of the right so satisfy needs we all have as human beings.
QuERI — August 20, 2012
In our work with elementary schools and transgender students, we are finding that "fear" is the number one response of educators to transgender children and that much of that has to do with ideas about single sex spaces, predation, and conflation of gender and sexuality/sex acts. Even young children trigger these responses...
Ariel — August 21, 2012
As a cis hetero lady, I too would not be for a creepy man in a dress coming into a woman's bathroom. And if I, say, owned a gym and something like that happened, I would want the recourse to forcibly remove said creepy man.
And I don't see how Prop 5 would change any of that.
gillian — August 21, 2012
I would just like to say that I am as far away from stereotype as you can possibly get. I am not in the slightest bit interested in being anything other than the best generic 'woman' I can possibly be. I am good at it (everyone says so) so I have no reason to believe I am offending anyone because I really do look like a woman when I am dressed up. So bollocks to the Religious rights! I do it for the sheer pleasure of the disguise.....and getting away with it. I have no other motive,sexual or otherwise. Transvestites who are advertising on the internet for sexual services do genuine 'clean' TGs a dis-service. I actually despise all of them. Dressing as a women for me at least is harmless fun and that is what it should all be about. Not some sordid sexual perversion which gives these religious organisations the fuel to light enormous fires.