vikingparty

My Transsexual Summer is a TV show that has recently begun airing on Channel 4 in the UK. With Episode 1, the show plays out like a cross between a Reality TV show and a documentary that follows seven trans people (Drew, Sarah, Karen, Donna, Fox, Lewis and Max) and the individual journeys they take in order to live out their true identities. The show largely aims to provide cis people with a better perspective of what being trans means and the various challenges trans people face.

Over the last few years there have been a number of shows, documentaries and movies about trans people that have attempted to humanize and/or explain trans people to a greater cis audience, and in many respects all these shows also take on the role of reaching out to trans people who find themselves feeling alone or isolated. Among those, TransGeneration (2005) was perhaps the most successful at portraying the diversity of the trans community, its challenges and experiences, and even giving some perspective of how those challenges and experiences change or remain similar between cultures with its inclusion of TJ, an Armenian-Cypriot transman.

In many respects, My Transsexual Summer is like a more extensive TransGeneration, promising a lot more material and being much more focused than its predecessors. It does a great job of narrowing in on key issues that trans people commonly face across the globe, issues such as isolation, suicide and depression, personal safety, body image, familial relationships, and privacy.

Isolation, in particular, is a major theme that was visited in the show's first episode and we're given a great example of how isolation affects trans people in very similar, as well as very different ways. For example, Drew talks about how she's never encountered another trans person in her town, and how, even though her family is supportive of her, she wishes that she knew other trans people with whom she could talk about trans-specific issues. She also talks about her experiences with depression and suicide as a result of her discomfort with her socially assigned sex. Sarah voices a similar experience as far as never having encountered other trans people before she left her home in Jersey, and also expresses coming to a similar point where she felt like she could no longer continue to live her life in the male role assigned to her by society. She very honestly expresses that there is no future for her as a guy, that in order to be happy she needs to continue to live her life as her true self. However, unlike Drew, Sarah says that she hasn't come out to her family yet, and that she doesn't necessarily expect support from them.

The two experiences shared by Drew and Sarah already highlight the diversities and similarities of trans experience; the isolation and depression that are frequently driven by shame or guilt, and the large degree of variation in familial support. However, both women also show early on that no matter the extent of familial support, trans people commonly face a disproportionate amount of social intolerance when they enter the public sphere as their true selves, which can hinder their success in employment and academic pursuits.

However, the experiences of many of My Transsexual Summer's participants are in some respects generational. The majority of the show's participants are in their 20s, and as such grew up in an age where trans resources are much more accessible than they used to be even if you don't live within close proximity of an active lgbtq community. Because it was only in the last decade that trans people have become more visible and accepted within mainstream Western society, many cissexed people remain under the impression that being trans is some form of new trend, or as The Guardian put it: a new view of gender, suggesting that trans people did not exist in the past outside of a very modern Western context. Karen really brings a much needed perspective to the show as far as why trans people were not as visible during much of the 20th century, why they struggled to transition, why many decided to suppress their true feelings, or why some made the decision to live stealth. Karen tells us that she knew since childhood that she was a woman, but that she struggled desperately throughout her life to "take the female away from [herself]," by being excessively masculine and taking on stereotypical masculine jobs. Her isolation is a different kind of isolation, still, and yet also speaks to a common trans experience that carries over generations.

Along with isolation, My Transsexual Summer also takes a look at body image, dysphoria and privacy within the trans community. Again, among the seven participants, there is a great deal of diversity as far as how each participant views his/her body. Through Fox and the feelings he expresses in reaction to the photo shoot, viewers are given a perspective of how body image and dysphoria can negatively affect transmen, and the photo shoot in general demonstrates the self-consciousness with which many trans people view their own bodies. Fox's "beard envy" and his envy of Lewis' transition also addresses common sentiments of not being "trans enough," "man enough," or "woman enough" within the trans community, in addition to the severe reality of dysphoria in trans people who experience it and the necessity to correct one's body in order to improve one's life and happiness.

On the other hand, there are participants like Donna who express a great deal of pride in who they are as a trans person, as well as in existing outside the sex/gender binary. Donna's brief discussion on not being either male or female is one that I hope to see the show expand upon. I think it's definitely an important discussion both trans and cissexed people alike need to be made more aware of considering how fixated society (and even certain components of the trans community) remains upon the currently existing sex/gender social binary.

The show also shows the diversity in how different trans people view surgery, which is a welcome relief from the usual portrayal of trans people on mainstream television. On the one hand we have Karen who represents those with a great deal of dysphoria who require surgery in order to feel as though their body now matches their minds, while on the other hand there is Drew who expresses her uncertainty and skepticism on whether or not she feels she needs bottom surgery.

Yet with or without surgery, the issue of privacy affects all trans people, and Lewis quite aptly describes how cis people often feel they have a "license to ask you whatever they want" when they know a person is out and trans. It really is moments such as these that make this show much more accessible to trans people than many past movies, documentaries and shows. I feel that many of the issues brought up in the show spoke to my own experiences, a lot of what I've heard in conversations with other trans people, and generally resonates with the type of discussions occurring within the trans community.

There were only two aspects of the show that I didn't particularly enjoy. The first and most prominent aspect was the language used by the narrator to discuss the participants' transitions. When referring to their transitions, the narrator often talks about a participant "becoming" a man or a woman, for example talking about how Fox is "just starting to become a man," while Max has "done the most to become a man." I think that sort of language neglects the fact that hormones and surgery do not make the trans person any more of a "man" or "woman" than a trans person who has not had surgery or undergone HRT. The participants themselves touched upon how "a beard doesn't make a man," which conflicted with the narrator's language, which appeared to lie outside the world of the participants, adhering to popular social beliefs on sex/gender. Additionally, it ignores the fact that many trans people choose not to undergo surgery and/or hormones and that they are just as much their true sex as someone who does undergo surgery and/or hormones. A similar sentiment is expressed when the narrator talks about the participants and their "new identities," again subscribing to the view that trans people are not trans from a young age (though many participants stated that they did feel like their true sex from a very young age).

I did not see the above as mistakes made with any malicious intent, but as an example of the problems the trans community continues to face in expressing communal diversity and explaining it in terms that those still entrenched in a cissexist framework will understand. In many respects it feels like we in the trans community are speaking a myriad of languages incomprehensible to the cis-dominant world, and we must find a way of conveying ourselves and our struggles to the mainstream world without compromising ourselves.

The above issue also comes into play with the participants' use of the word "tranny." Within the trans community, there is generally an understanding that the word "tranny" is one that some trans people embrace, while others despise. The problem is that the cis world is not at all aware of that diversity of understanding, and continue to use the word in a derogatory sense. While I understand that documentaries on trans people often are solely meant to express the identities of the trans people portrayed within them, I also think that we, as a community, need to understand how individual trans people come to represent the community to the cis world. Unfortunately, as an extremely marginalized group we don't often have the same luxuries as the cissexed world in so far as one of us will always be taken to represent all of us, in much the same way as racial/ethnic and sexual minorities have experienced. However, I recently noticed that there is a page on Trans Terminology on the Channel 4 site that addresses the use of the word "tranny," explaining that "while still a term that may be used within the trans community (with understanding, or ironic affection), use by those outside it has come to be seen as highly abusive by most trans people." I was happy to read the page, and its presence does make me feel much more comfortable with the use of the word "tranny" on the show as a form of personal identification rather than as reaffirming its use by cis people.*

Overall, the first episode of My Transsexual Summer did a great job at showing the diversity of the trans community, as well as the very real challenges of safety, isolation and intolerance the community faces. Yet while addressing some of the brutal challenges many trans people face, the show manages to keep a very upbeat and positive outlook on the trans community. This is a huge change from the past tradition of trans portrayal in the media, where the outlook is almost unvaryingly negative or bittersweet. While it largely addresses cis viewers, it's very obvious that trans experience played a huge role in shaping the show and what the show talks about, which I believe really differentiates it from most past representations. It's a show that trans people can watch and sympathise with the situations, whether funny, sad, or angering, discussed by the show's participants. Its surprisingly realistic and really reflects a lot of the discussions going on in trans communities worldwide. This isn't a show that alienates its trans viewers, but seeks to provide support for trans people who may feel isolated, depressed or without community themselves, while also educating cis viewers on the existence and experiences of trans people. I was also happy to see the inclusion of support information present at the end of the first episode.

While I was admittedly initially skeptical about the show (as I am with any new series, movie or documentary about trans people), I'm really pleasantly surprised. My Transsexual Summer is a huge step forward in how trans people are portrayed within Western media, and I tip my proverbial hat to all who took part in its creation.

*I've also discovered since initially writing this, that there was an interview with Donna where she discussed her own use of the word "tranny," and her identification with it, but that it was edited out by the show's creators. Unfortunate, but of no fault of the participants.

Links:

My Transsexual Summer Channel 4 homepage: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-transsexual-summer

Channel 4 Trans Terminology Page: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-transsexual-summer/articles/trans-terminology

While queer couples getting kicked out of restaurants, bars, stores and just about everywhere as a result of rampant heterosexism isn't exactly new or rare, I've noticed that the media over the last year has at least decided to start covering them more often. The media outlets reporting on these cases have taken a variety of stances, from more conservative to more liberal. Largely, the major newspapers and magazines that have covered these cases seem to be taking a fairly neutral stance, yet at the same time the same pattern in each case shines through and no journalist or reporter of a major media source has dared to actually ask some very obvious questions.

The main accusation that keeps popping up is that the queer couples in question were supposedly participating in "inappropriate" public displays of affection on company/franchise property. The problem is that no managers responsible for kicking queer couples off company property came forward to actually describe, in detail, what the couple had done that was inappropriate in any of the cases I've read. The common features are that: 1) the couple was accused of "inappropriate" displays of public affection that supposedly went beyond "just kissing," 2) that they were violating the company's "family friendly environment," and that 3) the reason the managers approached them to begin with was due to the complaints by other patrons that the couple was being "excessive" in their displays of affection.

In each case, the couples have denied any "excessive" displays of affection beyond a kiss.

One of the most high profile cases this year involving a queer couple being kicked off company property, was the case of L-Word actress Leisha Hailey and her girlfriend, Camila Grey, who were kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight for "inappropriate" public displays of affection. Neither the flight attendant who approached them, the airline itself nor the witnesses went into detail as far as what constituted "inappropriate," but the couple were readily informed that Southwest Airlines was a "family airline," that other patrons were complaining, and that their displays of affection were not "appropriate." The couple deny that it their affections went beyond a kiss or two. Afterwards, Southwest Airlines issued an apology to the couple, but still maintain that they were participating in "inappropriate behaviour" that went beyond "reasonable" displays of affection, but still failed to go into any detail.

Some might say that the airline bears no burden as far as providing details to prove that they did the right thing, and that the same thing would have happened to a heterosexual couple. The question then becomes: How far does a heterosexual couple have to go before being deemed "inappropriate" vs. a queer couple? In 2005, Southwest Airlines were criticized for arresting a heterosexual couple on one of their flights due to inappropriate touching. However, the headlines claiming that the man could face jail time due to inappropriate touching were incorrect, when one goes on to read the details of the case. In fact, the couple were arrested until landing because the husband threatened the flight attendant who asked him to remove his head from his wife's vaginal area. In this case, Southwest Airlines went into quite a bit of detail to describe what the couple was doing. They did not simply accuse them of "inappropriate" public displays of affection, but stated that Carl Persing had his face pressed to his wife's vaginal area during the course of the flight, and that the couple was participating in inappropriate touching while he had his face pressed to his wife's vaginal area. The flight attendant warned the couple twice, and after the second warning Persing threatened the flight attendant, resulting in the couple's arrest.

But we don't have this kind of detailed testimony in the case of Hailey and Grey. We don't know exactly what went on beyond the fact that certain patrons believed they were being "inappropriate."

Recently, another queer couple was kicked off company property by a employee who believed they were being "inappropriate." In this case, a queer couple were having coffee with a large group of family (including the mother of one) and friends outside a Tim Horton's in Blenheim, Ontario when the manager approached them and told them to leave the property for "inappropriate" public displays of affection. They, like Hailey and Grey, were informed that Tim Horton's was a "family friendly environment," and their public displays of affection conflicted with that "family friendly environment." When the couple protested they were told to leave Tim Horton's property or the police would be called. The complaint about their behaviour was reported to the manager by assistant pastor Reverend Eric Revie of the pentecostal Glad Tidings church, who later claimed that the couple were "straddling" each other and shoving their hands down each other's pants. All that the pastor reported supposedly took place in front of their family (including Pattenden's mother, brother and cousin). You would think if this couple were "basically having sex" in front of one of their own mother's she might have been the first to say something? It paints a very improbable picture of the pastor's story to say the least. The couple also stated that the pastor and his youth group had a prayer circle in the parking lot of Tim Horton's following the incident. Again, no details were given by Tim Horton's as far as what constituted behaviour that went "beyond" public displays of affection. The reverend Eric Revie is the only one who has gone into detail, and at this point his account seems to have been extremely exaggerated in response to public criticism, and doesn't seem to match the fact that the couple were there in a large group of family and friends. According to Duckworth and Pattenden (the couple), Revie and his church group held a prayer circle in the parking lot in order to pray for the couples' souls.

Earlier this year, another queer couple was kicked off company property by a landlady who believed they were being "inappropriate." In this case, a gay couple were on a first date at a local bar in central London. The couple shared a kiss and shortly afterward were told by the pub's landlady that they were being "obscene" and asked to leave the pub. In the process, an unidentified man grabbed one of the men by the lapels in order to threaten him to leave the pub. The pub did not go into detail as far as the "obscenities" that occurred, but, again, a kiss seems to have triggered it. Yet  how many heterosexual couples go on date to pubs? Share a kiss at pubs? Are much more intimate than that at pubs? Is it only "obscene" when a queer couple does it? Are people not more likely to see it as "obscene" when a queer couple kisses in public?

A fourth and more blatant case was reported by the media this summer and took place in Kentucky. A gay couple with developmental disabilities were swimming at a public pool in Kentucky when they were kicked out of the pool by an employee for being gay. When their aid workers asked the employee why the couple were being removed, they were told that it was because gay people were not allowed to swim in the pool because the Bible said so. The aid workers reported that the couple were doing nothing inappropriate, and that nothing in particular had been done to trigger their removal other than their being a gay couple.

All these cases aren't exactly earth-shattering and this is the sort of thing (and worse) that happens every day around the world. But finally the media seems to be beginning to pick up on it. However, it seems to be doing very little as far as making society question why these couples were asked to leave the property. Heterosexism requires that heterosexual couples be considered "the norm," and that queer couples stick out and get labeled "inappropriate" simply because they're more visible. The claim that these couples violated "family friendly environments" was especially troubling, since it symbolizes the systematic exclusion of lgbtq couples and families as legitimate "families." Instead, they are "obscene" and not "family friendly" by the very nature of their existence.

There is also the troubling trend of company managers and employees kicking queer couples out of "family friendly" environments at the request of other patrons. It suggests that these managers and employees are unaware of the prejudice that these couples face, and that these individuals don't realise that it is not uncommon for patrons to complain simply because a queer person is in their environment doing something that a heterosexual couple does without garnering a second glance.

It's about time companies, and society as a whole, come to realise that acceptance of the lgbtq community does not simply mean claiming to be accepting, putting anti-discrimination policies in place or acknowledging the existence of homophobia and transphobia, but understanding how entrenched heterosexism is within our society. Realising that they may encounter occasions where other customers are supporting a homophobic double-standard. Realising that their use of "family friendly" excludes many families, and that they are employing a heteronormative use of the word. Realising that homophobia is not just gay-bashing and using slurs. Realising how their support for bigoted patrons is alienating lgbtq customers.

These cases are not only related to the denial of service on the basis of sexual orientation, but also reflect what happens in all the other places in society where lgbtq folks are denied jobs, housing and services. Often, those who deny the community these necessities are not doing so by calling them "fags" or "trannies" or "dykes" and stating that they are being fired/denied housing/service because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. More often than not the homophobia and transphobia are buried underneath any number of excuses. Just as the heterosexism that occurred in many of the above cases was buried under unfounded, unsupported claims of "inappropriate" behaviour.

It's time this stops, and I can only hope that increased media coverage will help make a difference.

Update: The case of Riley Duckworth and Patricia Pattenden mentioned above is one that's still ongoing. In a recent article put out by the CBC, Duckworth tells us that the couple were sitting on the bench next to Pattenden's mother. The fact that they were doing so makes it seem even more unlikely that they were straddling/putting hands down pants/having a make-out session as the reverend Eric Revie claims.

At the end of the article, there is a wonderful little section on Revie's feelings about the lgbtq community:

"I’m not against the gay community," Revie insisted. "I'm not against them as individuals. I don’t agree with their lifestyle, and they know that. I'm trying to understand where they are coming from. I want to reach them through Jesus Christ. I want to see God touch their lives and impact their lives."

This last part, especially, seems to support Duckworth and Pattenden's statements that Revie's church group were seen holding a prayer session in the Tim Horton's parking lot, praying for the couples' souls.
Sources:

'L-Word' Star Removed For Excessive Kissing, Airline Says:
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/1060198--l-word-actress-escorted-off-flight-after-kissing-girlfriend

California Man May Go to Prison For Inappropriate Touching On Plane
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=3143566&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Lesbian Couple Booted From Ont. Tim Horton's:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111024/tim-hortons-lesbians-kicked-out-apology-protest-111024/

Pastor in Tim Hortons Lesbian Row Fears For Safety:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2011/10/26/wdr-pastor-reacts-tim-hortons-lesbians.html

Gay Couple ''Kicked Out of London Pub For Kissing':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8452789/Gay-couple-kicked-out-of-London-pub-for-kissing.html

Disabled Gay Couple Kicked Out of Kentucky Pool Because "It's In the Bible":
http://www.care2.com/causes/disabled-gay-couple-kicked-out-of-kentucky-public-pool-because-its-in-the-bible.html

Great writer's block question for this week! I would certainly take to the streets to fight for transgender rights and equal rights for all people. Here in Canada, we are lucky to live in a country that supports equal rights for many minority groups. However, we should remember (especially during Pride Week) that the fight is not over. There are still Canadians in this country who have not been granted the same rights as the rest of the population. The transgender community is one of these groups. Throughout the history of the struggle for LGBT rights, it has more often than not been a struggle for LGB (though even the B was often thrown by the wayside in the past) rights, and the transgender community has been thrown under the bus in favour of non-trans gay and lesbian rights. The hierarchy of "other-hood" that exists in the LGBTQI community today needs to be abolished. Equal rights are not only for those who fit the heternormative mould the best, nor for the mainstream perception of what the LGBTQI community is. From the transgender community, to the less accepted sexual expressions and queer expression that don't fit the mould of the L Word and other stereotypical representations of the queer community, to the butch/femme community and every other queer person who is "too radical," "too masculine," "too feminine," "too kinky," "too androgynous," who doesn't love in "the right way," or love "the right people" or love "the right stereotype." Equal rights need to be fought for on all fronts, for all groups.

Today we've managed to come a long way, but the transgender community is still not protected against discrimination according to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Criminal Code. Neither of these documents include gender identity and gender expression, and when trans people in Canada experience discrimination, the event is either ignored entirely as a transphobic event or it is shoved in with sexual orientation or disability. Except that being transgender is not a sexual orientation, nor is it necessarily a disability. By not adding gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canadian Criminal Code, the Canadian government continues to perpetuate the misunderstandings that exist on what being transgender is; namely that it is a sexual orientation, which it is not. Transgender rights and the transgender community can no longer be ignored!

And it is obviously necessary for the government to take transgender rights more seriously than it does today. As I wrote in my last entry, transphobia (and homophobia, for that matter. the difference is that sexual orientation is "officially" protected, though that doesn't always stop politicians like Ford from making homophobic remarks unpunished) is still rampant in Canadian politics today, which has been so wonderfully demonstrated by Toronto's current mayor, Rob Ford, and other city councilors.

Yet most mainstream Canadian media outlets still ignore transphobia when it exists, and most even cut out the "transphobia" when reporting on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. In most mainstream news reports it became strictly the International Day Against Homophobia. I've heard many argue that transgender rights are served by combating homophobia and misogyny. While that is partially true, ignoring transphobia in its own right ignores the unique struggles transfolks face. It denies transfolks their experiences by telling them that they must forget themselves and what they feel is a unique struggle. Yes we must fight alongside our allies in the LGB community, but transphobia must be a word as internationally recognised as homophobia; and not only must it be recognised, but it must be taken seriously.

So in short: every time I participate in an event during Pride Week it will be to celebrate the fight for equal rights for all people and the human rights victories that have been so bravely fought for and attained over the decades. Yet transgender rights that have yet to be acknowledged will surely be in the forefront of my mind, not to mention the rights of all LGBTTQQI2SA folks around the world who are not legally protected from violence and discrimination. We are lucky to even have a parade while others around the world are arrested or even killed for not hiding who they are. So while we celebrate Pride this week, let's remember all those who don't have this basic and necessary right.

Happy Pride Week, everyone! But never forget!

As many Torontonians have likely noticed, there's been quite a stir recently in light of the news that mayor Rob Ford will not be attending Toronto Pride. That's right! Yes, the man who has continuously attempted to defund Pride and deny grants to groups or projects catering to LGBTQI rights and ending homophobia and transphobia, will not be attending Pride! I can hear the collective gasps now as LGBTQI folks across Toronto go slack-jawed over this completely unpredictable revelation!

Seriously, though. Are any of us really surprised by this at all? Let's take a wee jaunt down memory lane, shall we?

June 13th, 2001: "I have no problem giving money out to physically or mentally handicapped children or seniors, but spending $5,000 on this video is disgusting, it is absolutely disgusting to spend this amount of money on this, whatever it was called, video." Rob Ford's statements regarding a grant for a video about homosexuality in Toronto's South Asian community.

Some would say: "Well why do you consider this homophobic? Why spend money on something as frivolous as a video? Isn't this just gay agenda pushing?" First of all, not only does he call people with mental or physical disabilities "handicapped," but he is essentially saying that he would rather put money toward any other minority group that is not an LGBT group. He appears to be pitting minority group against minority group by implying that money would be better spent toward physically and mentally disabled people. I agree 100% that Torontonians (and Canadians) with mental and physical disability require more monetary support and overall resources than they are currently getting. We live in a very ableist society where people with physical and mental disabilities are not taken into consideration more often than not. And if Ford had really been suggesting a grant that would provide those with disabilities with greater resources, then that would have been fine. Yet, Ford himself doesn't have the greatest track record when dealing with disadvantaged people, including those with mental or physical disabilities. It's another instance where he attempts to pit one minority group against another in order to divert attention from his own discriminatory displays (just as he tried to do with the QUAIA fiasco). Additionally, since when do minority rights and funding have to be an either/or deal? Why can't people with mental and physical disabilities, and LGBT folks have the need for funding and rights addressed?

Ford also fails to see the importance of not only addressing homophobia and its harmful effects in society, but the importance of discussing homosexuality in communities where LGBT folks might receive more discrimination than in others. Many people who oppose LGBT rights seem to have this idea that homosexuality is a "Western/progressive/liberal problem," that it is an imposition on "traditional values and culture." As such, society often ignores homosexuality within other marginalized communities in Toronto, or in non-Western nations across the globe. People do not often talk about homosexuality in the South Asian community, in the Middle Eastern community, in the North African or African community, in the disabled community, in the Muslim community and so on. I would argue that it is, in fact, very important to discuss homosexuality within these (and other) communities. It's important to show that homosexuality is found in all cultures and nations, among people of all abilities, among people of all creeds and ethnicities across the world, and that supporting diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity means addressing and supporting LGBT issues and interests globally.

June 14th, 2005 Mr. Ford strikes again, this time with some transphobic statements: "People might think this is funny but I don't know what it means. I know what lesbian, gay, bisexual [is]. Transsexual and transgendered, can you explain what that means? Because there's a group here that says Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans-sexual Transgendered Pride Toronto and I don't know what a transsexual or transgendered is...I gotta hold down 'cause I can't just blindly approve this...I'm a little confused. I'm not getting the answers. I don't understand. Number one, I don't understand a transgender. I don't understand. Is it a guy that dresses up like a girl or a girl that dresses up as a guy? And we're funding this?... We're funding this for, what does it say here, we're giving them $3,210?"

The above statements came during Rob Ford's attempt to reopen the topic of community grants in 2005 so that he could bring into question the $100,000 Toronto Pride received from the city that year. All under the auspices of "looking out for the taxpayers," of course.

Again, some might claim that his statements were not transphobic, that he was genuinely asking what being transgender was. Yet you really can't escape the ridiculing tone of statements like "is it a guy that dresses up like a girl or a girl that dresses up as a guy," which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and acceptance of the transgender community. Additionally, his final statements directly imply that transgender groups, or groups that have the audacity to even include transfolks are ridiculous and do not deserve city funding. Again, we get a complete lack of interest or support for LGBT rights from our current mayor. Once more, it is also demonstrated that even within the scope of LGBT rights, the transgender community continues to be the portion of the community that is most acceptably discriminated against.

June 28th, 2006, Mr. Ford comes out with another brilliant homophobic statement regarding funding for AIDS prevention: "It's very preventable...If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn't get AIDS probably, that's the bottom line." In his own defense after being questioned about these homophobic remarks, he said: "These are the facts," suggesting that he truly believed AIDS only affected drug addicts and homosexuals.

The fact that Ford does not support funding AIDS prevention programmes for the reasons he stated demonstrates a number of things about him: 1) He is unaware of the fact that, according to UN reports, the majority of those infected with AIDS are heterosexual and are not drug addicts. 2) He does not think disease prevention is important if it only affects homosexuals and/or drug addicts. 3) He does not believe the LGBT community has a place within the rest of Torontonian society, seeing them as second class citizens and, essentially, not taxpaying citizens with the same right to disease prevention as any other community in Toronto. Essentially, he sees the LGBT community as not worth helping. Just as with his prior statements on the video about homosexuality in the South Asian community, he seems to think LGBT issues are second to all other issues and he does not take them seriously at all.

August 4th, 2010, Mr. Ford, then hoping to be elected Mayor of Toronto, publicly supported the anti-same-sex marriage statements of pastor Wendell Brereton, who said that same-sex marriage could "dismantle" a "healthy, democratic civilization." In support, Ford stated: "We're together. We have the same thoughts...I support traditional marriage. I always have. But if people want to, to each your own. I'm not worried about what people do in their private life. I look out for taxpayers' money."

Now, again, some might be saying: "But look! He said he isn't bothered by what people do in their private lives! He's entitled to his own opinion, and has the right to support traditional marriage!" Yes, while people have the right to support traditional marriage, we also have to look at what that means in Western society, and the basis for supporting "traditional marriage."

As far as I've ever read, no one supporting same-sex marriage has ever stated that traditional marriage should be abolished in favour of same-sex marriage. There are those who believe that the institution of marriage is harmful to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. There are those who think LGBT folks shouldn't be granted the right to marry because it would be pushing a community that has traditionally been supportive of all consensual celebrations of human sexuality and gender to conform to rigid heterosexual norms as far as gender roles and "traditional family values." However, the argument supporting same-sex marriage is not built upon an opposition to "traditional marriage," and more often than not support for "traditional marriage" is about holding the same beliefs as Brereton: that same-sex marriage could "dismantle" a "healthy, democratic civilization."

If Rob Ford was truly vested in the interests of all Torontonian taxpayers, he would be interested in supporting all Torontonian taxpayers regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. As such, standing in solidarity with a man who staunchly opposes gay marriage, and opposing it yourself does not suggest an interest in the rights and diversity of all Torontonians. Additionally, he's made it clear in past years that "taxpayers' money" should not be going to LGBT groups or events. Looking at his use of the term "taxpayer" over the years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that "taxpayer" in Ford's mind means white, heterosexual, male and upper middle class/upper class. You can bet your bottom dollar he isn't looking out for the money of LGBT taxpayers.

During his 2010 campaign, Ford also funded a wonderful little campaign ad that appeared on Tamil radio (Canadian Tamil Broadcasting Corporation). In the ad, one of the reasons given for supporting Rob Ford over his opponent, George Smitherman, was that Ford's "wife is a woman." It also provides a helpful disclaimer informing listeners that it was a paid advertisement.

Perhaps also why it was important to promote awareness of homosexuality within Toronto's South Asian community...

After being elected mayor, Mr. Ford took it upon himself to once more be a thorn in the side of Toronto Pride. He and his sidekick, Giorgio Mammoliti (yep, the same guy Ford called a "gino boy" a few years back), decided to try to defund Toronto Pride 2011 by claiming that Toronto Pride was supporting a "hate group." The "hate group" in question are QUAIA (Queers Against Israeli Apartheid); a group that has never voiced contempt for Israelis as a people, nor for the Jewish people as a culture, religion or ethnicity, but for the Israeli government's colonial occupation of Palestine and its discrimination and violence against the Palestinian people as a people. It is a group that does not support the Israeli government's more recent attempts to justify its own goals of occupation, discrimination and genocide by claiming itself as a haven for tolerance and support of LGBT rights. It argues that Israel's stance on LGBT rights should not be used as an excuse for the occupation of Palestine and violence against Palestinians when that is clearly not why Israel began its war on Palestinians, nor why it maintains it.

Ford's argument against Pride and QUAIA was that the term "Israeli Apartheid" was a hateful term, and that Pride would not be funded by the city if QUAIA took part in the parade or any Pride events. Ford continued to call QUAIA a hate group even after City of Toronto staff concluded in a report that the term "Israeli Apartheid" did not violate the city's anti-discrimination policy. After QUAIA released a statement saying that the group would not march at Pride, Ford and Mammoliti went on to claim that they didn't trust QUAIA, and continued to make outrageous demands; namely that Pride should be responsible for assuring that no member of QUAIA partook in any Pride events. Pride responded that it could not police every one of the festival's attendees, and that asking Pride to do so was unrealistic. Ford then came to the conclusion that Pride would only receive funding after Pride, and only if he was satisfied that no member of QUAIA had been present.

All this from the mayor who not only has a history of making homophobic statements, but racist statements as well. It is hard to believe that he was overly concerned with QUAIA's name beyond being a reason for him to withdraw funding from Pride.

Beyond attempting to withdraw funding to Toronto Pride and refusing to attend any Pride events (he claimed it was because he was going to the cottage with his family, yet even refused suggestions made by the LGBT representatives to hold an event he would be able to attend), he was also a no show at the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, which took place just outside his doorstep at City Hall. Of course, he was in a "meeting" at the time.

And of course we'd be remiss if we ignored Giorgio Mammoliti's transphobic remarks about drag queens. When he asked if "the drag queens" had come to his office, he followed up his question stating that he was glad he wasn't in his office at the time because there would have been "lipstick everywhere." When other councilors responded negatively he stated: "What? Oh did I offend the drag queens? I'm sorry if I offended the drag queens."

The fact that we still live in a society where it's considered acceptable for a city councilor to make jokes about transgender people, without so much as a squeak in reaction from the mayor of a city as diverse as Toronto, is another testament as to why Pride is still relevant. Rob and Giorgio only prove we've still got a ways to go before we are rid of homophobia and transphobia, not only on the social scale, but on the political scale as well.

But all Rob Ford's homophobic and transphobic shenanigans aside, there are far more pressing reasons out there that are testaments as to why Pride is still important in Toronto today.

Primary Sources and Related Links:

City TV report on the Ford's AIDS prevention comments: www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/17952--councillor-rob-ford-under-fire-over-aids-comments

Xtra article - Rob Ford Just Doesn't Get It: www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Rob_Ford_just_doesnt_get_it-642.aspx

Globe and Mail Article - Rob Ford and a Decade of Controversy: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/rob-ford-and-a-decade-of-controversy/article1678543/

QUAIA Mission Statement: queersagainstapartheid.org/who/

Canadian Tamil Broadcasting Corporation's Ford campaign ad: www.youtube.com/watch

Xtra article - Is Mammoliti Scared of Drag Queens? www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2011/05/19/Councillor-Giorgio-Mammoliti-talks-drag-queens-at-city-council.aspx

I recently finished watching Becoming Chaz for the second time, and I'm finding myself rethinking my initial reaction. The first time I watched the film I was a little annoyed with it. There were many points where I thought Chaz's attitudes were misogynist, negative and not representative of transguys as a community. While they didn't make up the whole documentary, they kind of soured the whole thing for me at first.

On the one hand, it's good to have the mainstream public exposed to the idea of transguys. While transgender issues rarely make it into films, documentaries or TV shows the public are likely to watch, when they do the material usually deals with transwomen. Additionally, the films/documentaries/shows that do deal with transwomen tend to be misleading or outright negative more often than not. So, as I said, on the one hand it's good to have some transguy issues in the spotlight for once. But, on the other hand, negative, overgeneralized or inaccurate representations of transguys can cause more damage rather than do any good.

The first 30 minutes of the documentary do a pretty good job at bringing many primary trans issues to the forefront. The documentary starts off discussing Chaz's childhood memories, to which he answers that he doesn't really have many memories before he is 5 or 6 years old. It's around this time that the film really begins to articulate the kind of response a lot of transguys get from their families. Many families will continually try to reaffirm a transguy's early female identity and/or femininity, instead of listening to what he has to say about his early childhood. There is often talk of specific occasions or pictures where the family believes the guy looked or acted "really feminine" or "like a little girl." It comes off as though they are trying to change the transguy's mind about his male identity...as though they could change his identity.

Though Chaz doesn't try to contradict his family too much on the issue, he does mention a few times that what he was experiencing at the moment in question (that it was not as his family thought or portrayed), that he never felt like a little girl, or that he wasn't really happy in the photos in question. Yet that seems a reoccurring theme with transguys' families; trying to reaffirm a childhood female identity when the transguy claims he never understood himself that way.

I hope, at least, that the parents of transguys who watched the film take away from it how erasing it can be for people to ignore or downplay a transperson's childhood memories or identity. Or to state have another individual state that they knew your childhood sentiments better than you did. I understand that family often go through a grieving process when another family member transitions, yet at the same time a transperson should be able to tell their story without being told that their feelings or their memories about their sex/identity are wrong. Hopefully, as society becomes more accustomed to transgender issues, parents will no longer feel so vested in the gender of their child. It shouldn't matter what your child's gender is, or if they don't identify with the sex they were assigned at birth. In the end, they are the same person they always were.

Chaz also articulates many transmen's relationships with their prepubescent bodies quite well. I know many of us remember childhood as a time when our bodies were not so damningly female. There is still some conflict during that period, but not to the degree of the negative relationship we begin to have with our bodies during puberty, when suddenly the physical differences between XY-born  and XX-born  become more prominent. In that respect, Chaz was a good spokesperson for transgender childhood, especially since he was frequently in the spotlight and expected to act accordingly more than most children who don't have celebrities for parents.

The effects on one's ability to function in society were also brought up, which I think was a positive. Bringing up depression and isolation in the transgender community is important and statistics show that many transpeople suffer from depression, suicidal ideation and isolation. At the same time, with some of the responses expressing disgust toward Chaz and his documentary, some see fit to use the depression and isolation experienced by many in the trans community in order to claim that being transgender means being mentally ill or unstable. This is, of course, untrue. You'd have to put out a whole series of documentaries to address that issue.

Chaz's path towards top surgery was also well articulated; both the nervousness and the joy. As well as communicating what it feels like to have something alien attached to your body, that causes great psychological strife, and the elation one feels upon having it removed. I think giving the public a window into that part of the transition was important. Often I hear cisgender men claim that if they woke up in a female body they'd "go to town." I think the public still has a lot to learn about how they interact with their own gender identity and the privilege gained by a lack of physical/psychological conflict, as well as what it would truly feel like to wake up in the body of the opposite sex.

But then as the film goes on after his surgery, Chaz starts to look and sound as though he's trying to overcompensate and overemphasize his masculinity and status as a man. He begins (or at least, that's when the viewer starts to see it) to set himself definitively a part from the women who supported him throughout his transition. It's there where I begin to have a problem with the documentary. I realise that the documentary is supposed to be about his transition, but at the same time Chaz is the first visible FtM to hit mainstream television and he's made clear that he's pretty aware of that. At the end of the documentary we also see that he is involved in trans activism, and so he is evidently aware of the problems sexism and promoting the popular gender binary causes the LGBT community and the larger human community. He was also probably aware that many people out there would likely take this film and generalise it; making it not just about Chaz, but about all tranguys/FtMs. It's really their only frame of reference, their only window into the world of transmen. Knowing this, I think that Chaz should have realised that showing the public certain negative or misogynist traits that are really only specific to certain transguys and their transitions and not representative of transguys as a group, would support negative stereotypes and erroneous generalisations that do the trans community not good.

For example, at one point Chaz brings up that he thinks it's too bad that women can't feel what men experience as far as a higher sex drive. That comment doesn't accounts for variation within the human species and human sexes in general. Many transguys will experience a radical increase in sex drive upon starting testosterone, that's true. But other transguys will only notice a slight increase, while others, still, might not experience an increase at all. It's all individual, and I think it would have been a good idea to talk about that in the documentary. Saying that women are not able to experience as high a sex drive as men, that a woman can't have a higher sex drive than a man, or that all women have the same low sex drive is perpetuating the age old myth of female sexuality; that women don't, as a rule, have high sex drives and that they don't want sex as much as men. Conversely it tells society that men must all have high sex drives when compared with women, which is not true.

I don't think that the measure of any man amounts to how different he is from women or female stereotypes, nor in how similar he is to male stereotypes. Chaz's sponsor articulates a similar sentiment when Chaz talks about feeling awkward about being the "only guy" in the group of women. His sponsor says that she doesn't feel his transition was really about gender, but about saving his own ass. She says a few times that transitioning is really just about having the courage to be who you really are. I think she's 100% right on that one.

To his credit, Chaz does address some issues of overcompensation and stereotypical masculinity later on. At one point he says that now that he's come out to the public random radio stations/TV networks/magazines etc. geared towards a male audience have come and asked him questions like what kind of beer he drinks, what strip clubs he goes to etc. The footage shows their reactions to Chaz's replies (that he doesn't drink etc.), and those reactions suggest that one isn't a "real" man if one doesn't do these things. Chaz addresses these male stereotypes and how damaging they can be, and what was perhaps the attempt of those radio stations etc. to subtly (or not so subtly) try to dismantle Chaz's maleness. So I do think Chaz is aware of the problems regarding male stereotypes and expectations present in Western society. But I still think he might have some of his own soul searching to do as far as some of the overcompensating and misogyny hinted at in the film. Especially when he tries to separate himself from women who appear to have been very supportive of his true identity.

That said, many negative aspects of Chaz's own personality as it was portrayed in the documentary were passed off as byproducts of testosterone. There are many transguys out there who haven't noticed an increase in aggression and argumentativeness upon beginning testosterone shots. Others do experience it to a large degree. I think the level of maturity and argumentativeness have a lot to do with the individual personality. Testosterone may play some role in lowering one's tolerance for irritating stimuli, but it won't often cause previously self-confident and non-argumentative people to become overly aggressive and argumentative. I think the key is self-confidence, which is easier said than done.

On that issue I think that part of the problem is that many transguys were prevented from expressing their true sexuality and gender identity from a young age; especially older transguys, like Chaz, who grew up in a time where masculinity in XX-born individuals was frowned upon more heavily than it is today. XY-born, heterosexual males have had the opportunity to express their sexuality and identity in ways that are deemed socially acceptable for pre-teens or teenagers. A teenaged boy can express his feelings for females in public without worrying about being reprimanded or made fun of, or worrying about a girl his age expressing disgust in him and his body. He can also do so while being understood as a male, rather than a masculine female. The latter is a big part of the puzzle: being perceived, socially, as male vs. being seen, socially, as a masculine female.

An XY-born male can express his immature masculinity without fear of being mocked or worse. Many transguys do miss the fact that they didn't have the opportunity to express or develop their true identity or sexuality as teenagers or young adults, and many try to make up for it. Finally they get the body they always wanted, but years too late. As a result, many may be trying to relive their teenaged years as they wish they would have been. I don't think it's the increased self-assurance and aggression as side effects of testosterone that transguys need to be especially careful of. Instead, transguys need to keep in mind that even though they were essentially robbed of their childhood and teen years as they wish they would have been, that they also need to accept that certain behaviours and attitudes are not progressive or beneficial at all in creating a better future for transgender children or for dismantling heterosexism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. in society.

In other words, I think the increased aggression, argumentativeness and immaturity in some may simply be a response to finally feeling free enough to express themselves as their true gender. You've been denied being seen as a man for so long, that now that it's in your grasp you try to experience everything you were denied as quickly as possible. You try to play catch-up. You overcompensate, you try to shove your masculinity in other people's faces, you want to be referred to as a man as often as possible, and sometimes try to fit as many male stereotypes as possible; even if you don't really believe in them. I can understand why that might be really true for Chaz, too. Dealing with gender identity issues while being the child of celebrity parents couldn't have been easy. But that is where true confidence comes into play. Sit yourself down and realise that you've always been a man no matter what experiences were denied you, and that you don't need to act any different now that you've finally attained what you've always wanted physically and socially.

Overall, kudos to Chaz. It took guts to put himself out there for the world to see like that. Despite that I had some issues with the documentary, I also get how hard it can be to balance representing your personal journey and struggle in conjunction with the immense pressure of being the first FtM to really hit the mainstream media. I do hope that Becoming Chaz will help raise awareness of transgender issues among the general public. It's about time the mainstream public were made aware that transguys exist. The amount of misinformation on transgender people out there is incredible and kind of scary, and I can only hope this film helps dispel some of those myths.

So recently there was some controversy over Rihanna's new music video for her song, Man Down. First I'd like to say that this isn't the ravings of a Rihanna fan running to her defense. I don't really listen to her music or mainstream music in general, so I really can't be counted as a fan. These are strictly my thoughts on the controversy and why I think that controversy exists.

Rap is not only one of the most popular genres listened to today by mainstream audiences, but is also one of the genres that typically displays some of the most violent, sexist and controversial lyrics and music videos in the mainstream. Rihanna may not be rap, but considering that she has enjoyed a lot of mainstream popularity herself, those who've seen this video have likely also seen many of the rap videos out there depicting violent acts, violent lyrics, not to mention domestic violence. Eminem, anyone?

Knowing this, when I read in the Toronto Star that Rihanna had come out with a "violent" music video that had Paul Porter (co-founder of Industry Ears) claiming he had "never witnessed such a cold, calculated execution of murder in prime time," well...I was expecting something a little more extreme than this. I went onto youtube and watched the video for myself and after watching it I gotta ask Paul Porter this one question: have you never watched prime time television? MTV airs more offensive material than this to its after school audience. And what about other popular shows on prime time? CSI? Criminal Minds? Law & Order? Any of those ring any bells?

This is not a violent music video. The only violence contained therein is in the intro to the video where Rihanna shoots a man walking down a crowded street. Funny enough nobody's complaining about the depiction or insinuation of sexual assault that occurs at the end of the video. Or in countless rap videos out there where violence against and general disrespect toward women is pretty much a staple. I think the major problem here is that society in general is desensitized to domestic violence.

While most will agree that domestic violence is wrong, we aren't particularly shocked by it. Same with rape. Most will agree that rape is wrong, yet rape is continuously portrayed on prime time television, in various movies and so on without regard as to how it might trigger victims. We call it "wrong" yet there seems to be some kind of unspoken understanding that "hey, it happens. Women just need to be careful." And of course, in the majority of films women are victims, men either rape and/or beat them or sweep in to save them from other men who beat and/or rape them. We are OK with music videos showing mostly naked women dancing around for no pleasure of their own or in sexually compromising situation, men degrading them, lyrics degrading them. MTV and co. will censor some of those lyrics, but, really, who do they think they're fooling?

If this weren't a case of misogyny those criticizing the video could have just as easily suggested that the visual aspect of the shooting itself be censored out, since it occurs at the beginning of the video before any music starts up. But no, the entire notion of a woman killing a man who sexually assaulted her is too scary a display of "cold blooded murder" to even contemplate, apparently. Yet none seem to mention that while she does kill this man, the lyrics are largely voicing her remorse, and in many respects reflect the conflict many women who have been victims of abuse or rape have felt.

What about music video's like Eminem's Stan, or his song/video featuring Rihanna, Love the Way You Lie? Both videos show domestic violence. In Stan, the protagonist of the video (Stan) is shown acting out violently against his pregnant girlfriend and eventually puts her in the trunk of his car and drives them both off a bridge. In Love the Way You Lie, there are various scenes showing a couple violently hitting each other. A girlfriend discovers another woman's number written on her boyfriend's hand. She attacks him, he attacks back throwing her onto the bed and sitting on top of her and holding her down. Not only do you see her hit him, but you also he him hit her. In every physical altercation he comes out on top, and eventually there's the make up sex and the romanticism of abusive relationships.

The thing is that we are used to men hitting women. Some have commented that "oh, if the video showed a man shooting a woman, people would find it totally unacceptable!" Excuse me? How many rap videos have we seen with lyrics about "smacking that bitch" (oh sorry, I guess it makes it better if it's "smacking that *bleep*" or "putting [a woman] in her place" or generally joking about crimes against women? Objectifying women? Especially by major rap artists like Eminem, Dr. Dre, Jay-Z and so on. But that's OK, right? It's "just a joke." Or maybe sometimes she "deserves" it? I think sometimes that's the underlying sentiment, and when it came to the abuse Rihanna suffered, there were certainly many men online who thought she "deserved" it for being "such a slut" and dresses so "provocatively." So please, don't try to make it sound like we, as a society, do not tolerate violence against women. We, very overwhelmingly, tolerate it. In fact, we seem to expect it, despite whatever finger wagging goes on, or how much "remorse" the perpetrator displays.

Yet how often do we see anything on women fighting back? There are cases of women fighting back against their aggressors in real life. Some women do end up killing their abusers and on many occasions it isn't just while the abuse itself has happened. This is something many victims struggle with, and Rihanna is right about that. But people like Paul Porter would seek to erase that struggle or pretend it doesn't exist. That abused women have not struck out at their abusers; murdered their abusers. That there is little protection for abused women within Western legal systems, and that many victims are too afraid to seek out help. For some, dispatching of their abusers in a violent way seems like the only way out. For others, it is impossible to live with the humiliation. Porter's and other "family values" groups reactions to this video highlight a major problem in our society, and that is hiding anything from public view that does not live up to a certain ideology on what youth should or should not see.

That would be all fine and dandy if youth were not frequently the victims of sexual assault, harassment or domestic abuse. But they are. And many of them are shamed into silence, and so their feelings fester. That's when they are more prone to either fall further into victimhood or to lash out violently against their aggressors. With someone like Rihanna in the spotlight who has experienced this kind of assault and who has written a song about the very real sentiment of wanting to take revenge on her aggressors, this may actually be helpful to young people who have experienced similar abuse. It will help them realise that not only are there other people out there who feel the same way, but that a high profile person has also felt the same way. Sometimes just having someone sympathise with you is enough to set a young person on the right track to receiving the help they need when they find themselves in abusive situations. To not resort to violence out of revenge for the wrongs done to them.

While I'm not a Rihanna fan, I do think that what she's pointing to with this particular song and video is important. We, as a society, can not simply ignore the feelings the victims of abuse may have. It's not uncommon to have feelings of revenge. We should not isolate and shame victims further by condemning this video as "cold-blooded" or "unacceptable." By doing so, you are telling the countless victims of abuse worldwide that the natural feelings of anger and hatred they have are unnatural. It continues to further put the blame on the victims for expressing their feelings regarding their abuse. That they should not talk to anyone about their feelings for fear of being shamed. 

But it is not the victims who should be ashamed of themselves. It's people like Paul Porter and all these "parent" or "family values" groups that silence victims. That shame victims. They should, instead, be supportive of giving victims a voice. Perhaps these critics should take a look in the mirror.

I went to see World's Best Docs today at Inside Out film festival. Unfortunately, I was about 10 minutes late so I missed a lot of the Decoding Alan Turing mini doc, but the rest of the film more than made up for it.

Since I didn't get a chance to see the majority of Decoding Alan Turing, I'll start with The High Level Bridge. The High Level Bridge was a short documentary on the bridge of the same name in Edmonton. Early on it takes on a bit of black humour, while beginning with a story of the bridge's history. Apparently the association of death with this bridge began during its construction, where workers who had worked on the bridge died there, and one was entombed in the cement of one of the piers. From then on the narrator recounts the stories of acquaintances or known individuals who had committed suicide on the bridge. There was also the story of how a lost cellphone helped to stop one guy from jumping, since a passer-by was able to talk him down while calling the police. The documentary ended with the camera being dropped from the bridge. Overall I actually really liked it, even though it was short. It had a tinge of black humour that kept film almost superficially light and entertaining while, at the same time, that humour made it even eerier and more sombre than if the narrator had kept a solemn voice throughout. In that respect, it was very effective at paying tribute to those who had ended their own lives on the High Level Bridge.

The next documentary was on a photographer, William Yang, called William Yang - The Art of Seduction. The doc was light and funny, but also gave an interesting perspective on how photography can be used to observe and interact with others, as well as to gain a different kind of intimacy that might not be present if the camera were absent. A great deal of the film was showing the relationship between Yang's photography and his lovers or those he was attracted to. He told the story of his attraction to a man at a particular event, and how being behind the camera gave him the courage to engage in a sexually charged interaction that would not have created the same dynamic without the camera, and that might have sounded more threatening without the camera present, rather than seductive. His photography really does become the art of seduction.

Next came Close (Pod Bluzka), which was about a group of Polish friends, the development of their friendship and love for each other. The film was a bit disjointed and didn't have much flow to it, so at times it was difficult to follow exactly what the director was meaning to convey here. That aside, it was cool to watch the girls interact each other, to watch and listen to their experiences and feelings; the expression of those feelings. At its root, it expressed the feeling of love found and love lost that most would be able to sympathise with. Despite that I mentioned earlier that I found it a bit disjointed, it was great to see a perspective in coming into one's own identity and sexuality in eastern Europe since that isn't an aspect often shown in Slavic films.

En Bondes Längtan was probably the best documentary out of the series, for sure. It was about an MtF working on her own farm in Sweden. She spent most of her life living as a man named Knut (she expresses that she wants to retain her birth name, because she will always be Knut), and it was only at age 50 that she learned what being transsexed was. Since then she began to live full-time as a woman. The film follows her through various aspects of her life, from going clothing shopping to a trip to the doctor's. While at the doctor's she brings up her desire to get SRS, and the doctor constantly tries to discourage her. Finally, Knut leaves feeling frustrated, and upon returning home is asked what would happen if she regretted her surgery after the fact. She replies that she has lived most of her life at this point, and only really has her retired life left. When asked if she wants to die as a woman, she says "yes, of course." The film has its humourous and light moments, where Knut is laughing, joking, going about her daily life, but there is also a strong undercurrent of sadness and frustration. It was an excellent film and I would highly recommend it.

The next film, I actually can't remember the name of, which is really too bad. The programming on the Inside Out website says it was supposed to be a doc called Happily Ever After (or Felizes Para Sempre), but instead it was a Portuguese (sounded like Portuguese) film about a mother who had just lost her son. Following his death, Alberto's (the woman's son) boyfriend comes home to find the locks to their apartment changed. The film then follows Alberto's mother coming to terms with her son's death and his sexuality, which finally leads to her to allow her son's boyfriend (Rafael) to remain in the apartment. It was a very touching film and I wish I could remember the name.

The last documentary was George and Brad In Bed, which was light comedy about the relationship between George Takei and Brad Altman. There isn't much to say about it, beyond its humour. It focuses on how they've aged together, remembering their youth as runners, but also treasuring their present and future life together as a married couple.

If you ever get a chance to see World's Beat Docs definitely go for it. It was a great watch.

World's Best Docs: www.insideout.ca/21/program_details.php

Today, Inside Out film festival will be kicking off with a screening of Loose Cannons, the story of a young Italian man faced with a difficult decision on whether or not to reveal his sexuality to his father. Unfortunately, the screening was sold out, so I won't be able to watch it tonight.

There are still so many films featured at the festival that I'd love to see:

World's Best Docs this coming Saturday May 21st includes Decoding Alan Turing (about the persecution of Alan Turing) and En bondes längtan (about an MtF Swedish farmer and her self-discovery) among others.

What's the Name of the Dame Sunday May 22nd - A documentary following a group of drag queens reworking popular ABBA tunes.

Lost In the Crowd Sunday May 22nd - A documentary on the lives of a various LGBT homeless youth.

Transplanetarium also on Sunday May 22nd - Stories from various trans artists about their experiences as transfolk in Canada

With Love from (Lez)banon and Pa(lez)tine on Monday May 23rd - "This program of film and video shorts is from artists living in Lebanon, Palestine and their diasporas." Overall looks very interesting, and I really hope nothing comes up that day so I'll be able to go see it.

Black Boxes also on Monday May 23rd - "This cinematically charged program doesnt try to raise questions about what is black queer identity, instead scintillatingly repudiating conventional notions of how race, sexual orientation and gender collide with black body politics"

Against All Odds on Wednesday May 24th - A series of stories on the challenges faced by various lesbian couples.

Renée on Thursday May 26th - the story of MtF athlete Renée Richards and her fight to play her sport as a woman.

Cameroon: Come out of the Nkuta on Saturday May 28th - Film about homphobia and the struggles of homosexuals in Cameroon, while also placing it juxtaposition with the effects of colonialism on Cameroon and Cameroonian homophobia. Really excited about this one.

Circumstance on Sunday May 29th - A story about two young Iranian women, their sexual exploration and the challenges they face.