A MOMocrats Fable for June, LGBT History Month

Once upon a time, there lived a child who was born anatomically female, but who insisted that everyone in kindergarten call her George. George never wore skirts. George loved to skateboard and scooter, and you couldn't really do that comfortably in a skirt. George ADORED race cars.

George also insisted he was a boy. A sweet kid, a dreamy, pale, ethereal kindergartener, most days George wore a favorite baseball cap to keep longish bangs from poking into his eyes.

On days when parents would volunteer in the classroom, George would tell the adults who weren't used to how things worked that while he had a girl's name, they most definitely should call him George. He said this with simple candor, signing 'George' with a flourish to the back of whatever craft project the teacher had assigned. And of course we all respected his wishes.

My son and I helped George celebrate his birthday at--of course--a race car driver-themed party. George and his father often walk to school just as my son and I are walking to school. We're neighbors; we always say hello.

One day the teacher who sat on the anti-bullying committee at the school, and was also the much-loved teacher of both my son and George and 18 other kindergarteners, had a chat with us during the semi-annual parent-teacher conference. Would it be ok, she asked us, if our son participated in a pilot program at the school? She showed us some permission forms. As I read them, I realized the program was to observe and teach children anti-bullying techniques. My kid isn't an aggressor by temperament, but I asked just in case his school personality was different from the one I saw at home.

No, the teacher assured me, our kid was a thoughtful and helpful gentleman, a delight. I realized that surely they picked children who were more aggressive and perhaps showed anti-social or dominance issues for the project at the same time as they picked children who were more pro-socially behaved. My son must fall into the second category. That sounded good to me.

We consented. There hasn't been any sort of special pull-out from the classroom or lab-coated scientific observers watching group dynamics behind one-way mirrored glass so far as I can tell. But what I do know, from spending time in the classroom, is that there are groups of children who prefer each others' company over others, which is only natural. But at the same time, there haven't yet formed those obstinate clumps of friends surrounded by a moat, with slightly lost children wearing the scarlet 'O' of Outsiderhood wandering wistfully nearby. Instead, the class feels fluid and groups will form and re-form to work on projects or do activities. No one says mean things to one another, or if they do, they are made to see the consequences of what their words are immediately on other people and make reparations. The teacher works hard to remind the kids, "Kind words, gentle hands."

No one pays George any special mind. Why would they, unless it's someone else's turn to use the scissors, or hold the duckling, push a few peas into a cup of dirt, or listen to a story on the headphones, and today it happens to be George who's a little slow to relinquish the item to a more impatient kid. Then you get a nudge that your turn's over. The rules are meant to be fair so everyone gets their time. Nothing personal; everyone is at least one time the impatient one and another time the footdragger holding up things.

The interesting thing is that my son, who was born anatomically male and seems settled in being a boy, has never asked me a single question about George. He simply accepts that George, is, well, George.

I think of how basic things are in kindergarten--so much so that an enterprising person wrote a book about having learned everything he needed to know there.

I think of how hard junior high is. For everybody. I think of how mean girls can be, and how I really appreciate that I've never seen George wear pink. A terrorist fist-jab of solidarity, kid! (It doesn't hide dirt.) I think about how 'tomboy' provides useful cover but at some point as kids mature they settle on a gender identity of some kind and a sexuality. And 'tomboy' isn't the fig leaf it once was.

I wonder how it is for the Tommys of the world who keep their fondness for dresses, pink glittery sparkles, and marabou feathers under wraps. How even wearing barrettes in your hair in kindergarten can attract cruel commentary--from adults as well as children--not to mention letting people know you'd like to be called Leticia, not Tommy.

And mostly I'm grateful for how hard my son's teacher works to have such a positive, constructive classroom, where almost all of the uglier dynamics are not allowed to take root. I wish I could clone her and put her everywhere a child like George or Leticia needs her, the beacon of safety that she is. Because while this fable is based in truth*, I have the terrible feeling the reality enjoyed by these particular children in my town might as well be fantasy to kids in much less hospitable environments...when it so desperately needs to be the reality for any child who's the square peg that doesn't fit the hole others intend for her or him.

Because you know what? It's an incredible gift to know the truth of who you are at a very early age. We should treat children who know what feels right for them on the spectrum of gender with the respect they deserve--we should celebrate them--because most people remain unfathomable, inert mysteries to themselves no matter how long they live. And the latter? What a loss that is.

Cynematic's neglected blog is P i l l o w b o o k. She wrote, directed and shot a film this spring. WTF, with what time? Maybe that's where the blogging went.

*The names and identifying characteristics of real children in my kid's school district have been changed and made into composites to protect their privacy.

Comments

[Kathleen]

Interesting piece. George's parents must also accept George for George and in this case it seems to be what keeps George more balanced than many children.

[Littlewmn]

I've got to admit, articles like this, and transgendered issues in general, really puzzle me. We decide that males should act a certain way and females should act a certain way, and then when someone doesn't we call them "transgendered" instead of questioning our definitions of gender roles. Why not tell "George" that she is, indeed, a girl...and girls can like race cars, and girls don't have to like wearing skirts, and girls can wear baseball caps and hate glitter and like sports and everything else that is a societal expectation of girls that is not true of everyone in every culture and that there is nothing wrong with them. And maybe girls will be more free, and "George" will not have to reject her born gender just because it has unrealistic restrictions imposed on it by society?

[Cynematic]

@Kathleen Yes, I think George's parents also embrace their child unequivocally, and that smoothes the way for everyone else to do so too.

@Littlewmn I think it's not just about blurring gender roles--goodness knows I gave my very boy-identified son dolls and stuffed animals to nurture, kitchens to "cook" in and clean, etc in addition to gender neutral blocks and "boyish" toys like trucks. Rather, I think gender dysmorphia, the strong conviction that your anatomical gender does not match your inner "felt" gender identity, is very pronounced at a young age in select children. I understand in some cases the children who experience this dysmorphia are toddler and preschool aged, well before gender roles are sharply defined (i.e., before much "nurture" has really set in). And it's that strong persistent sense of "mismatchedness" that can lead to sexual reassignment procedures later.

Also, in George's case, perhaps it's not the correct assumption that he's 100% anatomically female. There are various genetic anomalies that result in some people not having a clear-cut XX or XY chromosomal makeup. I'm not privy to that kind of extremely intimate information about the children (it's not for me to know), and George is a composite, anyway. I just put it out there to say that the science of gender identity is far from settled.

This is really a new frontier in terms of understanding gender--as feminists we're trained to be suspicious of socially-constructed binaries but what if biology is not even as binaristic as we once thought?

I do think you observe something interesting about gender binaries and how they seem reproduced, not made more complicated, by transgender performance of gender. But given that gender is socially constructed and we can't ever get away from being social beings, maybe this is a vestige of the ideas we inherited about gender--a starting point for something new evolving--rather than recapitulating the same old thing, despite that initial appearance. Maybe we just don't have the language and concepts yet to really wrap our heads around it as newcomers to the phenomenom? I know I have much to learn.

[discount paintings]

I think so, and want more. Keep it going and do on. BTW, I like the theme here on Pal Family News | Photohygiénique. Pretty clean and professional. Now I have to find some good info on how to start up and get this going in the right direction. Right tool for the right job after all.