It’s an utterly dreary January night, and inside a community meeting room at First United Methodist Church in Southwest Portland, members of the local chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) are settling into folding chairs for their monthly get-together. A modest crowd of around 30 waits beneath the glaring ceiling lights for the evening’s two keynote speakers. Tonight’s topic: “Transitioning on the Job”—or, perhaps more to the point, how to come out as transgender in the workplace without losing your mind.
The crowd is made up of a few older gay men, gay teens paired up with their parents, and a smattering of men and women in various states of gender transition. More than a few of the burly, formerly male physiques are draped in anachronistic dresses from the early 1980s, clangy arm bangles, and costumey wigs (one recalling the muumuu-and-pearls-wearing title character played by Vicki Lawrence on the sitcom Mama’s Family). One female-to-male attendee is dressed in a green T-shirt and Carhartt work pants. She later tells the group that she’s worried about coming out as transgender to her boss—though it’s hard to imagine it will come as much of a shock.
Around 7 p.m., one of the speakers, Nicole Kintz, enters through the side door. She’s all smiles in a cropped khaki blazer and knee-length black skirt, red plaid scarf and slip-on black flats. Thin and trim, her formerly muscular baseball-player’s body has assumed a more lithe form. Her blue eyes are accented by dark eyeliner and light lipstick, and her brunette bobbed wig appears to be unfazed by the rain outside. Kintz exchanges some handshakes and hugs and, after introductions, assumes a teacherly stance at the front of the room.
Published: June 2010
The comments to this article do certainly give credence to the belief that if one asks ten different people their opinion or their perspective on a particular event, or in this case, article, one will receive ten different opinions or PO V’s.
I found one perspective particularly interesting in that it was quite critical of the author’s tone or method of writing. The individual who offered that criticism has their own somewhat biased perspective in that they consider SRS or “the surgery”, to be a non-essential or unnecessary component to transition.
This highlights, (IMHO), the pitfalls and drawbacks of the casual use of the term “trans” as a descriptive adjective. This recent deconstruction of the English language is just a further compounding of the confusion cased by the original conflation of what originally were two distinct words with clearly defined distinctions.
Now I realize that there will be some strong feelings in regards to this issue, but unfortunately ignoring it will not make it go away anymore than ignoring cross gendered feelings made them, go away.
To say that SRS is not a required or necessary component to the successful transition of a transgendered person is a valid position. As “C” pointed out, she is quite happy and accepted in her role as a woman.
On the other hand, to say that SRS is not a required or necessary component to the successful transition of a trans-SEXUAL person is NOT a valid position, in my opinion. On this point , I speak from personal experience.
Unfortunately, there has been superimposed on this distinction some sort of hierarchy or value system where the transition of a transgender is seen as more or less valid, or “worthy” of more or less legal protection than that of a transsexual. AGAIN, in MY personal opinion this is the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot. To try and deny that distinction is to argue that domestic cats and tigers are the same because they are both felines; that homo sapient is “just the same as” a gorilla because they are both primates. UH UUH. Doesn’t work.
If one goes back and reads the article again, and then the comments, it seems obvious, at least to me, that HUGE assumptions are being made as to motivations and personal needs and perspectives. Add to this the fact that most people have absolutely NO dysphoria or disconnect with their morphological sex and the results are the complete misunderstanding of what it means to be transsexual or transgender. Until this distinction is made clearly and definitively, the circular firing squad will continue as the modus operandi du jour
“Secondly, Nicole was on board with every detail I used and shared in the piece. Making her happy was my main goal and she is very pleased for the story. Feel free to direct your comments to her directly on this forum, if you’d like.”
Many trans people who have been the subject of news stories have been witness to reporters completely disregarding what they’ve said in order to write the typically bad piece on trans people. Hence you have readers jumping on you. Nicole may be fine with this piece, but it is typically bad journalism about trans people.
“Third of all, the woman I met at the meeting literally had on a nametag that said, “Probably Andrew.” As a rule, I don’t make things up.”
The truth of a thing is not as important as why the author feels it necessary to include the thing in the first place.
“Fourth, this story is about one trans woman, not all trans people. I didn’t have time to interview thousands of people for the story. If I wrote a story about you, then the story would be about you, and not all trans people.”
Actually, trans people so rarely appear in the media that every story about a trans person really is about every trans people. Because there is so little out there, every bad article, film or book provides yet another piece of media that misinforms people about who trans people really are, while nothing comes into the mainstream to counterbalance that. Also, let’s pretend I wrote a story about a woman who was bad at math, couldn’t change a tire, was overly emotional and terrible at logic. And let’s pretend that the only women who are ever written about fit along those lines. Clearly writing another article in this narrow focus is a big problem.
You could maybe fix this by learning more about other trans people and writing an article about how things have changed. Instead of this piece.
“Fifth, we were careful to be accurate with our pronouns because Nicole had a distinctly previous life as a man. She wasn’t Nicole 10, 20, 30 years ago. That is a fact.”
Most of the people who wrote to you are at least familiar with trans people, if not trans themselves. They know what transition is. They also know that many people consider trans people to not be the gender they identify, which is a source of anguish for many trans people. Their coworkers, family, friends, etc, often just don’t get it. When someone in authority talks about a trans person, it is imperative that that person explains correctly (They nearly always do not.)
For example, I am friends with a psychology teacher. I don’t know how to get her to stop saying ‘he’ when referring to a trans woman who hasn’t transitioned and then saying ‘she’ after the trans woman has transitioned. But she is a friend and so I can’t say anything. You are close to this person, so tread carefully.
Additionally, the older generation is different than the newer generation. They think about things differently. The newer generations demand that you refer to them as they identify whether or not they’ve had surgery or have plans for it. Learn to deal with it.
“Seventh, wigs and genitals are central details to one’s transition. If you fail to mention the minutiae, then you’re missing the details that make these transitions important. Just ask Nicole.”
They may or may not be important, but most people think that these details are the only thing that matters. They think a trans person is made up by the things they wear to pass. I give talks about being an FtM, and students often give me comments later that I didn’t talk about fake penises or breast binding materials enough. Blind people always have to be represented by their canes or dogs or electronic equipment. This is a way of simply not caring about the real person, satisfying curiousity, and never going beyond the usual explanation. So yeah, the details might be important and interesting, but the way you wrote about them, you aren’t giving any new information or ideas. So this is a fluff piece. So it isn’t helpful. Therefore people are pissed off.
“Eighth, I wrote this story to honor Nicole, not to please the masses. If journalists pursued the latter, we’d never get anything done.”
You are pleasing the masses. You are annoying the small and beleaguered group known as trans people. If you were to write a story about black equality back in the day and filled it with talk about watermelon and fried chicken, you wouldn’t be satisfying the masses of black people who might read it. You would be satisfying the white people.
And by the way, writing something detrimental to trans people is no way to honor a trans person, even if they are fine with your story. Learn more about being trans as a way to honor her. Or don’t. But don’t use that as justification for your story.
I was directed to this article with a reference to how horrible it was. But honestly, as a transwoman myself, I don’t find it that bad.
What I think so many in the community fail to realize is that there is a desire by a lot of people to know and learn, but there needs to be a starting point. Articles like, this, telling stories like this, are (I think) the start of a good movement of education amongst the general populous (interesting that it would be about a teacher then, I’ll note).
Stacey, allow me to be a change in the usual voice thus far and say that I actually enjoyed this article, and while it didn’t present any new information TO ME, it probably helped someone, and it was nice to hear such a successful story.
hey rachel,
everything you just spewed is offensive to me. the only reason this story may be remotely okay is that nicole seemingly feels okay with the way it’s written—the details you suggest would be irresponsible to leave out are classic examples of things that boring, rubbernecky cispeople drool over and have come to expect from any self respecting transition story—things that leave the subject flat and objectified. i’m not talking about ms. kintz, i’m talking about a trope that’s so far outdated and backlashy that it makes me cringe to read you defending it so. read another few stories about transpeople and then you’ll understand. hopefully.
@Nacirema
But there is the problem: this isn’t a “starting point” at all. Middle-aged transitioner, married with x kids, “becoming the new me” etc. etc.. All of this has been done ad nauseam in various media forms before. Which is why a “trans documentary drinking game” (hint: google it) even exists in the first place. So the article adds nothing about trans people that hasn’t been done a hundred times before.
@Stacey
Thankfully Arsen said mostly what I wanted to say. But there are a few things I wanted to add:
2) With all due respect to Nicole, she’s only been out for a year, and based on quotes from your article, she sounds like she’s still high on the fact that she could even do this. I have a feeling that a few years of playing the role of “that transgender person” to the people around her will be replaced with a feeling to be just another one of the girls. Or she might just be one of those people who loves the attention of it all (to be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if she was just happy you were writing an article about her… I mean, how many edits of this piece did you have to do based on her criticisms of earlier drafts?). In either case, basically what Arsen said.
3) Yeah, but as Arsen said, you chose to include it: you made conscious decisions to include certain things or portray them a certain way. For example, why is the title of this story “Becoming Nicole” rather than “Saying Goodbye to Nick”?
4) But here’s the problem. In your 7th point, you end your statement with “just ask Nicole” as a qualifier of the validity of your generalizations. Which is basically just taking the experiences of one trans person and projecting it onto all trans people. And if you’re wondering why we’re all so aggravated about the portrayal in this article, you needn’t look any further than this: if you’re doing it, imagine how many other people will.
7) These statements are beyond problematic. Not necessarily wigs, but genitals: it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what transition is all about. Because my genitals had absolutely nothing to do with my motivation to transition, which is why after years of doing this, I still haven’t bothered with “the surgery”, and yet I somehow still manage to live a happy and fulfilling life as a girl… go figure. It’s a detail that’s lost on a lot of trans people as well: I can’t even begin to tell you how many trans women I’ve known who think SRS is the solution to all of their problems, and then after they get it, they’re still lonely and depressed a year later.
And how much do genitals matter anyway? We interact with thousands upon thousands of people throughout our lifetimes, and yet we never see what’s in their pants: we just assume because, for the most part, boys have one thing and girls have another thing. In reality, you never know what genitals 99.9999% of the people you meet have, so the idea of genitals somehow making transition important is nonsensical. They can be important to one’s physical sense of self, but not to transition.
Congrats to Nicole Kintz on her transition go well!
Still this article is written like the author wanted to make an example of how to not write about trans women. The transphobia of this article, intended or not, is disgusting.
yay another article that MUST include pictures of trans girls putting on makeup, getting on their woman face.
hey rachel,
everything you just spewed is offensive to me. the only reason this story may be remotely okay is that nicole seemingly feels okay with the way it’s written—the details you suggest would be irresponsible to leave out are classic examples of things that boring, rubbernecky cispeople drool over and have come to expect from any self respecting transition story—things that leave the subject flat and objectified. i’m not talking about ms. kintz, i’m talking about a trope that’s so far outdated and backlashy that it makes me cringe to read you defending it so. read another few stories about transpeople and then you’ll understand. hopefully.
Hi.
…noeleena…Nice to read of one more who joins our ranks, very well wrtten & a good read & for those who are struggling to come to grips with us as people we are just human like every one else ,
we are just different thats all, & all we ask is we would like your acceptance, as people who can be a part of the community,
I have & have been accepted as a woman in our village in new zealand of Waimate.
@AnnaRosa
Well right off the bat, I’m not sure how your comment relates to the article or the discussion following it. Aside from one person commenting that they came out as transsexual, and a random mention in the article about Harry Benjamin was the first to write about transsexuals, the word “transsexual” doesn’t appear anywhere in the article or in the comments. It seems to be a tangent for its own sake.
And while I’ve heard the “transsexual vs. transgender” debate in various forms before, you don’t really seem to lay out any real argument (outside of your cat analogy), or specify any reasons why it even matters. At the same time, if you’re going to argue from such an egalitarian position, why make the distinction at all? I mean, I understand that the “transgender umbrella” is very big, and there’s a far cry between a trans woman and a “weekend crossdresser”, but we already have terms for describing people’s various surgical situations: pre-op, post-op, and non-op. Furthermore, what about the multitude of FTM’s who never bother with bottom surgery (outside of getting ride of the uterus and ovaries) because of the ridiculous price tag and lackluster results? Clearly there’s more to their non-op status than lack of wanting to have a penis.
Which is something I’d like to point out about myself. Because this is a real problem among trans people, one that we hardly ever address: the conflation of SRS with wanting the right plumbing in our pants. FWIW, my avoidance of surgery is hardly due to lack of wanting a vagina (something which I’m finding harder and harder to ignore…). It’s about the the inherent dangers of surgery (re: loss of sensitivity), the important differences from a cis woman’s vagina (no development of mucosa, lubrication, etc.), and the fact that I’m a REALLY busy person and simply cannot afford to be at anything less than 100% for more than a month. So even though I am not happy with the current situation, I’m not yet sure if the cons of this situation outweigh the (potential) cons of surgery. But this is why I specifically said that while SRS is not essential to transition, it CAN be essential to one’s physical sense of self. I.e., I can still live happily as a girl even if I’m not 100% happy with my own body (you know, like how most women aren’t 100% happy with their own bodies =D).
Wow that was odd. I just wrote an really long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyways, just wanted to say superb blog!
I had just came out as transsexual when the school year was geting ready to start lat year and the press brought out this story again.
I found her fortitude to transition in such a public way to be a serious motivator and helped put my own non public transition into perspective. If she can transition in front of everyone I am prety sure I can handle transition in obscurity. Women and men like Ms. Kintz who have the guts to live true to self are an asset to the comunity.
Way to go Nicole, and thanks to Stacey Wilson.
I’m just about to do the same thing. It’s nice to read success stories.
Here’s a link to the Trans Documentary Drinking Game. I feel wasted.
Congratulations to Nicole. I’m glad she’s happy and relishing her role as an activist.
I am thoroughly disgusted by the article however. If this were any other woman’s story about overcoming an obstacle or conquering a medical issue, there is no way the author would have spent so much time obsessing over the clothes and make-up the person was wearing. The important parts of the story are missed because of the author’s myopic, sexist views about what makes a woman.
Nicole transitioned in a public school. Her colleagues and the students at the school consider it a non-event. That’s important. She was prepared to lose everything and “scared shitless” about transition but found a way to move forward despite the challenges she faced. That’s important. She lost the love of her life because of the depression and mood swings she suffered from pre-transition. That is important. Her child still loves her. That is important as well.
Saying her consumption of Heineken Light is a sign of womanhood is offensive. Is the author actually implying that men don’t drink light beer? Has the author seen the equally sexist Miller Lite ads on TV or realize that Lance Armstrong is the spokesperson for Michelob Ultra?
I am also offended by the constant incorrect usage of pronouns in the article. Nicole is a woman. She should be referred to as such, and not by the pronouns he, him, and his that are used throughout the article.
Finally, the second paragraph in the article shows an incredibly ignorant and insensitive world view. Playing up the stereotype of gender variant people as men in dresses with no fashion sense is simply appalling. This is a horrendously sexist and shallow article about someone who deserves better treatment than she received from the author.
Hope, Hazel, Rebecca: I completely disagree with you.
To ignore the constructs and expectations of gender in modern society (yes, they include: hair, jewelry, clothing, mannerisms) in a story about gender identity would be hugely irresponsible for any journalist or storyteller of any kind. This is a story of gender transition and expression, of functioning in society as a woman, and the details of that are hugely important—to call exploring what it means to be a woman in modern American society “misogynistic” is, in my opinion, quite confusing. And backwards. Likewise, to ignore the biological and surgical realities of sexual reassignment in this article would have been equally irresponsible. The point is that it’s all part of this story of reinvention; of discovering one’s true self—from the biology to the makeup to the Heineken light. “Details that should have been left out”? As a journalist myself, I find that offensive. Not to mention calling the author’s interest in these details “freakish.” Extremely offensive.
As for the title and pronoun usage, what you’re arguing is a matter of tense…and therefore accuracy. It was after 30 years that Nick turned his THEN unrealized life as a woman into HIS most important lesson. Nicole, now a woman, was at one point Nick—a man, who, grammatically, requires a male pronoun. That is a fact. But then again, what a shame to be discussing semantics, as if that was what this article was about…
Hi all,
Thanks for your comments.
First of all, I appreciate you reading the story.
Secondly, Nicole was on board with every detail I used and shared in the piece. Making her happy was my main goal and she is very pleased for the story. Feel free to direct your comments to her directly on this forum, if you’d like.
Third of all, the woman I met at the meeting literally had on a nametag that said, “Probably Andrew.” As a rule, I don’t make things up.
Fourth, this story is about one trans woman, not all trans people. I didn’t have time to interview thousands of people for the story. If I wrote a story about you, then the story would be about you, and not all trans people.
Fifth, we were careful to be accurate with our pronouns because Nicole had a distinctly previous life as a man. She wasn’t Nicole 10, 20, 30 years ago. That is a fact.
Sixth, Nick Kintz made the choice to come out publicly as a Nicole. If you ask Nicole, she will tell you the same thing.
Seventh, wigs and genitals are central details to one’s transition. If you fail to mention the minutiae, then you’re missing the details that make these transitions important. Just ask Nicole.
Eighth, I wrote this story to honor Nicole, not to please the masses. If journalists pursued the latter, we’d never get anything done.
Again, thanks for writing! Getting critical feedback is better than getting none at all, I always say.
I would like to thank “C” for responding to my comments and allowing me the opportunity to comment further. My initial premise was that given the wide variety of commentary and the very different and opposing points of view offered it just seemed pretty obvious to me that the individuals making these comments were coming from widely divergent points of view. Hence the opposing view points.
For some…“To ignore the constructs and expectations of gender in modern society (yes, they include: hair, jewelry, clothing, mannerisms) in a story about gender identity would be hugely irresponsible for any journalist or storyteller of any kind. This is a story of gender transition and expression, of functioning in society as a woman, and the details of that are hugely important—to call exploring what it means to be a woman in modern American society “misogynistic” is, in my opinion, quite confusing. And backwards. Likewise, to ignore the biological and surgical realities of sexual reassignment in this article would have been equally irresponsible”
On the otherhand….“You should really learn a little about trans people before you write articles about them. Why do you constantly misgender Ms. Kintz (and Probably Andrew)? Why do you have a bizarre and fetishistic need to constantly focus on her clothing? And can we talk about your genitals and surgical past and future?
This is seriously the most misogynistic article I’ve come across in a long time. Your freakish obsession with Ms. Kintz femininity serves to reinforce the notion of trans women as artificial and fake.
This article is really all about you, Stacey! Your outdated, 1950’s notions of women and your prejudiced, cis-centric view of trans people. You have done a huge disservice to trans people and your readers. Disgusting!”
YOU SEE….What exactly is being debated here, (quite heatedly, in fact) is what “TRANS” actually means. Is it about a sexual/physical/morphological transition or is it about a gender role/lifestyle. Obviously a major difference exists, but until it is clear which “transition” is being discussed, the conversation becomes lost in confusion and misunderstanding.
As Jennifer Lewis pointed out…“There’s a lack of real-life perspective that occurs when people become immersed and intertwined with the politics, and a similar rigidity that prevents us from seeing how other “average people” might view and approach the things we’re complaining about and where they need to enter the conversation at.”
This highlights, (IMHO), the pitfalls and drawbacks of the casual use of the term “trans” as a descriptive adjective. This recent deconstruction of the English language is just a further compounding of the confusion cased by the original conflation of what originally were two distinct words with clearly defined distinctions.
And while I’ve heard the “transsexual vs. transgender” debate in various forms before, you don’t really seem to lay out any real argument (outside of your cat analogy), or specify any reasons why it even matters. At the same time, if you’re going to argue from such an egalitarian position, why make the distinction at all?
In addition to that, you have made some other statements which indicate a possible lack of up to date information. One I can address directly from personal experience and I really hope you will not take this as any way other than my attempt to convey MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. This has to do with the…“no development of mucosa, lubrication, etc”. There DOES infact exist a surgical procedure which does address this. While it is more complicated and inherently higher in risk for complications, I can say that I am very, very pleased with my results.
This is another poorly based and mistaken assumption…." because of the ridiculous price tag and lackluster results?" This is just one of the comments resulting from assumptions made, similar to yours.
“Yes, I think it’s time to retire the meme about FtM surgeries being so poor. I know many trans men who are extremely happy with the outcomes of their metoidioplasties (which are no more expensive than MtF SRS and often cost less) and I know a few transmen who are very pleased with their phalloplasties and even had them paid for by insurance or the Canadian government.”
The commentor then went on to conclude"…which is what I hear a lot of conservatives/transphobes who think SRS is mutilation, Queer ID’d peeps who think it’s buying into the binary and societal body images, and a sizable portion of non-ops who rag on SRS as a way of answering what they view as attacks on their own choices concerning their bodies. "
If you would like to read up on the entire discussion, which I highly recommend, the link is here….http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/sex_reassignment_surgery_when_things_go_wrong.php.
I think you will find it very enlightening, especially considering …." FWIW, my avoidance of surgery is hardly due to lack of wanting a vagina (something which I’m finding harder and harder to ignore…). It’s about the the inherent dangers of surgery (re: loss of sensitivity), the important differences from a cis woman’s vagina (no development of mucosa, lubrication, etc.), and the fact that I’m a REALLY busy person and simply cannot afford to be at anything less than 100% for more than a month."
But as I said in my original comment, I am happy that you are "…quite happy and accepted in her(your) role as a woman.
Comments like these remind me why I don’t spend a lot of time in transcommunity anymore. There’s a lack of real-life perspective that occurs when people become immersed and intertwined with the politics, and a similar rigidity that prevents us from seeing how other “average people” might view and approach the things we’re complaining about and where they need to enter the conversation at.
In other words, lighten up a bit, yes? Think a bit more about where the lay person needs to enter the discourse, not about what socio-political nuances you feel were neglected here. If you don’t, you’ll lose your ability to be heard by the people you’re seeking to win support from, I can guarantee that.
WARNING: for those of you playing the trans drinking game, stop on page two or you may risk permanent dain bramage!!!
Dear Stacey,
You should really learn a little about trans people before you write articles about them. Why do you constantly misgender Ms. Kintz (and Probably Andrew)? Why do you have a bizarre and fetishistic need to constantly focus on her clothing? And can we talk about your genitals and surgical past and future?
This is seriously the most misogynistic article I’ve come across in a long time. Your freakish obsession with Ms. Kintz femininity serves to reinforce the notion of trans women as artificial and fake.
This article is really all about you, Stacey! Your outdated, 1950’s notions of women and your prejudiced, cis-centric view of trans people. You have done a huge disservice to trans people and your readers.
Disgusting!
Stacey,…. I hope you went over this article with Nicole before you published it. I like your writing style, but there are a lot of… details that should have been left out. For one, why mention the wigs? Two, was Nicole seriously OK with you writing about her genitals? Three, like Rebecca stated; you kept misgendering her in the article. You even failed at the title.
The title should be changed to "After more than 30 years of teaching high school math, Nicole Kintz turned her unrealized life as a woman into her most important lesson. "
Nicole, if you read this… thank you. I’m glad to hear that things are going well for you.
I’m sorry, “Her LIFE as a woman”
Good Luck. I think you made a wonderful choice and you are an inspiration to the whole community. I transitioned 5 yrs ago and it has added joy to my life and to those around me.
Yes, the information and the blog are very valuable. A prospective transitioner can see reality hit her or him right smack in the face! Nicole and her situation is her real life, what’s really happening to her. Stacey and her “lay” observations are what the “lay” majority truly see and notice. And the hyper-paranoia of many members of the trans-community is reality also. Thank you Nicole and Stacey for the lesson.
It is rather valuable information