June 24, 2018

"The original writer of the Village Voice story that inspired 'Boys Don’t Cry' looks back on her reporting — and the huge error she still regrets."

Here's how the original story looked in 1993:



See the problem? (From the perspective of today.)

Donna Minkowitz writes:
For years, I have wanted to apologize for what I now understand, with some shame, was the article’s implicit anti-trans framing. Without spelling it out, the article cast Brandon as a lesbian who hated “her” body because of prior experiences of childhood sexual abuse and rape. (One of Brandon’s acquaintances had told me he’d said he was “disgusted by lesbians,” and several friends said Brandon had said, “I can’t be with a woman as a woman. That’s gross.”) I saw this youngster’s decision to lead a life as a straight man as incredibly bold — but also assumed it was a choice made in fear, motivated by internalized homophobia.

At the time, I was extremely ignorant about trans people. Like many other cis queer people at the time, I didn’t know that there were gay trans men, trans lesbians, bisexual trans folks, that being trans had nothing to do with whether you were straight or gay, and that trans activism was not, as some of us feared, an effort to stave off queerness and lead “easier,” more conventional heterosexual lives.

Even in New York City, someone like me, a journalist who considered myself very involved in queer radical politics, could be massively ignorant about what it meant to be transgender. In particular, I conjectured that Brandon’s long-term sexual abuse by an uncle and a rape in high school had led him to abjure his “female” genitals and breasts. It’s the aspect of my article that makes me cringe the most today....
Ever wonder about what aspects of the article you're writing today that you will cringe at in 25 years? No, no, today is today's today. Yesterday was yesterday's today. The insights of today are good enough for today. Tomorrow belongs to somebody else, possibly you, but Alien You — Alien You who will look upon the You of Today as benighted and despicable.

I was electrified by the story — which, as I say, I assumed was about a lesbian. Lesbians had been talking for years about playing with gender, taking on different gender identities, and using and even eroticizing male signifiers and roles to take back power from a world that continually disparaged us as barely worthy of notice and boringly powerless. The conversation about genderplay among lesbians had started in the Eighties, when many of us had begun speaking once again about sexual role-playing, dildos, and other ways of freeing our sexualities from the vanilla, non-phallic, and non-penetrative limits the leaders of 1970s feminism had unwittingly placed on it....

[L]esbians and straight men had been in a kind of cultural competition for decades over who truly made the better lovers for women. I believe this is one reason for the fury some straight men have been directing at me since I began cutting my hair butch and short at 18. The screams of “fuckin’ dyke” with which large, hulking men have frightened me for years stemmed from their fear that I could take something away from them. Therefore, the idea that we — any and all lesbians, or any and all women, really — might be able to go out into the world and “become” men galvanized many of the lesbians who first heard about the Brandon Teena story in early 1994....

45 comments:

Kevin said...

“Ever wonder about what aspects of the article you're writing today that you will cringe at in 25 years?“

Not in a rational world, no.

In a politically-charged, post 1984 world, where the only thing that matters is whether you’re on the right or wrong side of today’s line?

Better to never write anything at all.

buwaya said...

Neurotic people seem to fly about in flocks, slaves to irrational fashions.
So this years whim will likely clash with last years.

This is the result of unmoored individualism and the collapse of organic community.
The unstable are not ballasted by the solid, but seek each other out.

buwaya said...

The bigger problem is that non-crazy people that control lots of money take such characters so seriously. Its a very strange thing for an elite to adopt the worship of madness, or at least certain categories of madness, as a religion, as a foundation of their system of ethics.

Decadence takes many forms, and expresses itself in many ways, but this one is unique to our time.

mccullough said...

Coverage is still always about a cause, never about a person. Never.

n.n said...

Sexual orientation is a gendered attribute: male and masculine (with a sexual bias for females), female and feminine (with a sexual bias for males)... and from thus Duck Dynasties. Transgendered individuals are divergent from the natural correlation between sex and gender. It's a transgender spectrum at the edge. So, now what? Normalization, tolerance, or rejection? Perhaps something consistent that does not have to be reevaluated in perpetuity. Let's start with individual dignity and intrinsic value, then reconcile with Nature's fitness function.

Fernandinande said...

See the problem?

The sex of the person who was named after a dog was correctly reported and that is a problem from the perspective of today.

rhhardin said...

Coleridge mocked the whole thing by calling them "moral discoveries."

The idea being morality is eternal or it isn't moral.

William said...

Apparently there are shades of difference between cross dressers, transvestites, trans gendered, and role players, and we are obliged to respect those differences. Where do furries fit in on this spectrum? I certainly hope that the LBGQT people find it within their hearts to accept their furry cousins as worthy of respect and dignity.

Loren W Laurent said...

This is what happens when a writer decides they see the Soul of their subject.

Althouse has written about Janet Malcolm's "The Journalist and the Murderer" (summarized by Malcolm in the statement about the relationship of journalist and: ""Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.").

It seems this is even more invasive when the subject is dead and unable to speak for themselves: the story is culled from acquaintances, the life twice-removed.

As such, the journalist's hook -- the idea that they find resonant and wish to bring to flower -- becomes the skeleton on which to flesh out the story.

In this case, the author is embarrassed about what she previously found intriguing: the motives she imparted to the subject change because she has changed; she has changed because the culture has changed, and she is updating the dead to fit her new view -- her corner of society's new view -- as Truth.

Unfortunately, the dead do not themselves update: their relevance to a society they never knew is the writer's appeal for relevance in her perceptions.

Most of society is no longer literate with Shakespeare; instead, the lives of others are employed to fill these archetypical roles.

Brandon Teena is Juliet, until she becomes Hamlet.

-LWL

Rigelsen said...

This writer is either a creature of intense self-delusion or a not especially sophisticated propagandist. I’m sure she’s just as good at reading the minds of her oppressors now as she was of the tormented girl/boy when she wrote the story. Well, it may not make a particularly coherent story, but it is certainly useful to her current aims, as she recognizes her original story was to her aims back then.

Michael K said...

Decadence takes many forms, and expresses itself in many ways, but this one is unique to our time.

It is probably unique in history as even in 1789 people had to function in the world.

Now, we have "smartphones" that allow us to imagine that food comes from Whole Foods and not from fields that are harvested.

Darrell said...

Did she get a piece of Boys Don't Cry?

Sebastian said...

"Ever wonder about what aspects of the article you're writing today that you will cringe at in 25 years?"

No.

I do cringe at prog insanity today, just as I did more than 25 years ago, and still will 25 years from now.

Example 1: Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth -- remember that?

Example 2: Michel Foucault celebrating gay liberation at the San Francisco bath houses -- remember that?

Example 3: "feminists" defending Bill -- remember that?

buwaya said...

The basic story really doesn't fit any agenda.

One person was raped and four people were murdered, by a pair of vicious criminals, who did as their kind do, act on a whim. The stories of the other three victims were not told because they didn't suit the writers purpose, then or now.

Dave Begley said...

Tina Brandon’s murder occurred in Nebraska. I read the opinion affirming the conviction. The guys who murdered Brandon threw the murder weapon off a bridge. But the creek was frozen and the sheriff found it right away. True story.

Paddy O said...

"Progressive suddenly realizes some of her current beliefs might render her an intolerant bigot ten years from now."

rcocean said...

Blah, blah Trans-gendered, blah, blah, SJW, PC, prejudice blah blah.

So, after Transgender, what's the next moral crusade?

Polygamy?

Two-eyed Jack said...

Isn't the fear of having retrospectively embarrassing takes in ones articles called "WenINoMo' Anxiety"?

gg6 said...

Althouse says; "Ever wonder about what aspects of the article you're writing today that you will cringe at in 25 years? No, no, today is today's today. Yesterday was yesterday's today. The insights of today are good enough for today. Tomorrow belongs to somebody else, possibly you, but Alien You — Alien You who will look upon the You of Today as benighted and despicable."
Brilliant, Ann! Thank you....

Sydney said...

The word “she.”

John henry said...

Tomorrow belongs to me?

Progressive = fascist

Sad

John Henry

Ralph L said...

I conjectured that Brandon’s long-term sexual abuse by an uncle and a rape in high school had led him to abjure his “female” genitals and breasts.

I'm absolutely certain that can't be why she was messed up, because no one ever cries or is scared after a sexual assault on TV. It's just another day for them. PTSD? Load of crap.

n.n said...

Polygamy?

For the progressive credibility of political congruence ("="), yes.

n.n said...

"Progressive suddenly realizes some of her current beliefs might render her an intolerant bigot ten years from now."

When you are selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent, sanctimonious hypocrisy is a feature, not an accident. Of course, it helps to have bullhorns in the press, culture, and schools, that aid and abet your unprincipled progression.

Anonymous said...

"Without spelling it out, the article cast Brandon as a lesbian who hated “her” body because of prior experiences of childhood sexual abuse and rape. (One of Brandon’s acquaintances had told me he’d said he was “disgusted by lesbians,” and several friends said Brandon had said, “I can’t be with a woman as a woman. That’s gross.”) I saw this youngster’s decision to lead a life as a straight man as incredibly bold — but also assumed it was a choice made in fear, motivated by internalized homophobia.
[...]
"I conjectured that Brandon’s long-term sexual abuse by an uncle and a rape in high school had led him to abjure his “female” genitals and breasts. It’s the aspect of my article that makes me cringe the most today...."


So yeah, I got woke, so now I understand that being sexually abused, traumatized, screwed up by adults/environment in formative years, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the development of the myriad fabulous sexual "identities" I listed.

Sure, toots.

Peter said...

The real problem isn't that her views aren't the same, it's that instead of just saying "I've changed my mind", she feels impelled to wander around apologizing and begging forgiveness from everyone.

YoungHegelian said...

Without spelling it out, the article cast Brandon as a lesbian who hated “her” body because of prior experiences of childhood sexual abuse and rape. (One of Brandon’s acquaintances had told me he’d said he was “disgusted by lesbians,” and several friends said Brandon had said, “I can’t be with a woman as a woman. That’s gross.”) I saw this youngster’s decision to lead a life as a straight man as incredibly bold — but also assumed it was a choice made in fear, motivated by internalized homophobia.

Just what exactly does a person have to do under the modern regime of sexual "openness" in order to be considered "mentally ill"? 'Cause, when I read what I just posted above, I don't see someone who's lesbian or someone who wants to be a different gender, I see someone who's mentally ill.

wholelottasplainin said...

Anyone who's spent time on YouTube looking at the illuminating behaviors of animals, within- and cross-species, might suspect that in the not-so-distant future we will have solid evidence that animals we eat are far more intelligent and self-aware than we know.

When that happens, will future generations adopt/mandate veganism? Will vegans despise our generation and all others before it for not being woke about animal sentience?

Will eating at a Chik-Filet or Red Hen require running a gauntlet of outraged and self-righteous herbivores? Will they scream that people who eat eggs are ripping children from the arms of their mothers?

Stay tuned.

wholelottasplainin said...

"I conjectured that Brandon’s long-term sexual abuse by an uncle and a rape in high school had led him to abjure his “female” genitals and breasts. It’s the aspect of my article that makes me cringe the most today...."

********************

I've always thought that if I were a "man trapped in a woman's body" I would be easy to spot.

I'd be the weird chick grinning and feeling herself up

(I denounce myself)

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

In writing about persons with conflicted sexuality, writers do disservice to the reader, the topic, and the individuals involved by not using clear and consistent pronouns.

A person born with male sexual apparatus is male; born with female sexual apparatus is female. Not apparel, not behavior, not wishful thinking, nor cosmetic surgery can alter that.

Muddling the pronouns makes reading the article more difficult. That is bad writing.

Oso Negro said...

@YoungHegelian - I think it's a tossup between pedophilia and relationships between older men and younger women. Congress has recently acted to ban child sex robots. This will probably take pedophilia all the way to the Supreme Court. I suspect the pedophiles will win there.

Freeman Hunt said...

Yesterday I found some old papers from school, among them an essay on a subject I'd forgotten everything about, so I read the essay.

I told my husband that it was very strange to think that I learned something, forgot it entirely, and then relearned it from myself, but not really myself, my past self who was not now myself but a very different person from myself.

I suppose we often do that.

Yancey Ward said...

Brandon Teena was dead when the original article was written. The author then, nor now really knows what Brandon Teena thought about her life at the time. It is also of no import what anyone in the LGB...XYZ movement thinks about it today. All this hand-wringing on the jounalist's part is nothing but attention whoring at the expense of Teena's memory. It is appalling.

chickfactor said...

Doesn't anyone on this thread understand that society changes and grows and context is everything? Back in the day, intolerance was more accepted because people were able to live within their own small boundaries and difference was feared. Today, not as much because of the continual progress and advancement of society and the human condition. Why is a trans person considered mentally ill? That would be a whole lot of mentally ill people walking around -- and it's just not true. It's demeaning. They were always here. Just living in hiding feeling like shit about themselves, probably more likely then to become mentally ill. That's what's so ironic about the "mentally ill" statement. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

RigelDog said...

[[ So, after Transgender, what's the next moral crusade? Polygamy? ]]

As it became clear that gay marriage was inevitable (not a problem for me other than the clash with first amendment), many speculated that the next big push would be for polygamy. And there is always going to be a next big push. I predicted instead, based on some developments in Europe, that we'd be plunging into transgender issues. Now, I think that we've gotten far enough into general acknowledgment of basic transgender identity that the next push is going to attempt No-Genderization. Awkward word I just made up there, but the trickle of stories you are hearing about parents who are refusing to identify their baby by gender at all is perhaps the beginning of a strong trend. So, here's my marker on what behavior we will be pressured to change within 25 years. Say a 30-something progressive mother were put into suspended animation today, and brought out in 25 years. She would possibly discover that she is judged to be a disgusting bigot because she named her daughter and son Charlotte and Jacob and was raising them as cisgendered. By the year 2043, woke folk will have abandoned the practice of giving their children gendered names and of referring to their children as boy or girl. So, sorry Emily---you are a child abuser and your grown children have been granted a permanent restraining order from being contacted by you.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Transgender/homosexuals are in competition with males and females?

For transgender/bisexuals and similar. The natural order born in nature is superior. It would require therapy including medical corruption or psychological indoctrination/conditioning to defeat genetic bias. Transgenders, whether homosexual (i.e. gender reversal), or otherwise, are in competition for others in the transgender spectrum. While there is a social pecking order, to their credit, homosexuals seem to be the elite in the spectrum.

chickfactor said...

Ugh.

JAORE said...

Its a very strange thing for an elite to adopt the worship of madness...

Not when the madness is a tool rather than a malady for the elites.

wholelottasplainin said...

Blogger chickfactor said...
"Doesn't anyone on this thread understand that society changes and grows and context is everything? Back in the day, intolerance was more accepted because people were able to live within their own small boundaries and difference was feared. Today, not as much because of the continual progress and advancement of society and the human condition."

******************************

Only a person utterly oblivious to the rabid intolerance of the left toward men (patriarchy, toxic masculinity), whites (white supremacy, white privilege), conservative blacks (Diamond and Silk, Ben Carson,Condoleeza Rice) and conservative women (Coulter, "bag of meat" Malkin, Tammy Bruce, Heather MacDonald, etc.) could make such a ridiculous claim.

Sweetie, we're not the ones denying conservatives speaking forums at university by rioting and breaking shit. We're not the ones kicking Trump employees out of public accommodations; we're not the ones forcing people to violate their religious principles ----YOU ARE.

Pianoman said...

"Yesterday's medical terms is today's hate speech" -- Steven Crowder

Mister Brickhouse said...

Progressives love to colonize. In the late 1800's it was special people in exotic locales. Now it's special people by some sort of identifier. The goal is the same - the theft of the special ones agency for the progressives own moral and political purpose.

Lucien said...

Agree with Hammond on this one. Enabling the mentally ill by using the pronoun for the sex they (think they) want to be rather than the sex they are obscures facts and is unhelpful generally.

Renee said...

The murder victim had a Catholic funeral, which normal and within Catholic teachings but in a 2018 would be scandalous.

Truthavenger said...

One thing that drives me crazy is when people judge the past by the mores and sensibilities of the present. Thus you get statements like, "How could the people back then do/think/say such horrible things?"

The past is a different country, and the people who lived there were quite different in their beliefs. When reading history you just have to take them as is. That's one of the first steps to wisdom--getting outside of yourself and your "presentism."