Kate Pierson issues non-apology for "Mister Sister" - Doubles Down on Transphobia

Many of you are probably aware that Kate Pierson's single "Mister Sister" was met with quite a bit of criticism from the trans community, if for no other reason than I trashed "Mister Sister" for being an awful "trans anthem" and highly problematic (because the song and video had multiple issues).

She's doubled down on her ignorance and used her position in the LGBTQ community as an excuse. Here's the apology she issued to Jamie Holland, who wrote her an open letter after the song was released.

(Link to actual post on FB)

Her response to Holland (because this isn't an apology) is that she was misquoted by Huffington Post and that she meant to use "trans" in a way that no one in the trans community, let alone the LGBTQ community, would use the word.

To Kate, "trans" apparently means "transcendent" or "transformation" - instead of being an abbreviation for the broader trans umbrella (transsexual/transgender/etc.) - which is how everyone else uses the the prefix. Sorry Kate, you don't get to change the meaning of a word. If you intended "trans" to mean something other than a transgender/transsexual person, you should have used a different word. You should not call something a "trans anthem" if it is meant to be about everyone. If this is a song for anyone/everyone, why does it focus so narrowly (both in the lyrics and the visuals) on someone male assigned at birth expressing a female identity?

There's a reason you didn't say, "I hope this becomes an LGBTQ anthem" or "I hope this becomes an anthem for anyone who feels like they're not valued by society" - because those types of messages aren't as "in" right now as "teh trans" is. This was clearly a ploy to pitch the song as something it wasn't/isn't in an attempt to get some free press and sell some records.

If she meant this as a song about "the power of transformation" and "becoming who you were meant to be" - that's not a bad message. But the delivery is awful and it destroyed that message by articulating it with a bunch of problematic stereotypes and transphobic tropes. Transformation isn't about make-up and clothes (outside of the drag community).

"Transformation" is also problematic for trans people because it implies we're becoming something we weren't - ie, we are "transform" from a man into a woman - rather than we unlearn all the male socialization and allow ourselves to be the woman we always were. Similarly, not every trans person "transcends" gender boundaries, nor do they want to, because many of us are fine with gender - we're just not fine with the one we were assigned at birth.

While there's plenty of space in the trans spectrum for a variety of approaches and ideas regarding gender and gender identity - as a cis woman, it's probably not your place to discuss any of them because you're clearly failing by any standard. You are not "promoting greater understanding" by using a misgendering title and problematic lyrics that offend the trans community. You are not participating in "dialogue" when you choose to ignore the bevy of criticisms leveled at you by saying, "Oh that's not what I meant, I meant something else [that is also wrong]." And by failing to address ANY of the numerous points trans people (and our actual allies) made, you are showing us that you don't think dialogue is "important" because we were just wrong if we took offense.

"Trans" is not something that applies to everyone. It's an umbrella term for people who fall on the "trans spectrum." Just because you happen to be gay yourself does not mean you get to or are capable of speaking for the broader LGBT community, and it definitely does not mean you get to speak for the trans community. If anything, being part of the LGBTQ community means you should know when to talk about an issue and when to let someone else lead that discussion. You say you wouldn't presume to speak for us, but in your non-apology do exactly that by telling us not to get offended by your song because that's not what you meant.

This proves everyone's original interpretation was correct. This is what "trans" looks like to the gay cis community, and this is the voice that real trans people get in the community - "oh sorry honey, you're overreacting." This is why there is a rift between the LGB and the T - because you clearly don't get it and don't care to try.

Because if you didn't "presume" to speak for trans people - you would've never said "trans anthem" and you would not have used trans related themes in your lyrics or video. By talking about us, you talk for us.

Please stop.

EDIT: It appears that Kate (and/or her social media PR team) have taken to removing critical comments from her FB page (and possibly her YouTube video). Naturally, this leaves her looking wonderfully 'progressive' as the only remaining comments are positive/supportive. So much for "dialogue" (I guess she doesn't know what that word means either).

"Mister Sister" is a transphobic ballad, yet declared awesome "trans anthem" by Huffington Post

The Huffington Post has fallen in love with this self-declared "trans anthem" by Kate Pierson, but the video and song are actually more transphobic than anything else.

HuffPo writes:

"Kate Pierson is slated to release a solo album, called "Guitars and Microphones" and executive produced by hit maker Sia, on February 17, 2015. In anticipation of this release, Pierson dropped her first single and video for "Mister Sister" -- a track that she is dubbing a "trans[gender] anthem."

"'Mister Sister' is inspired by all who are transgender and LGB, multi-dimensional and still transcending," she told The Huffington Post in an email. "I hope it becomes a trans anthem, but it's really meant to empower anyone who feels 'betrayed by the mirror.'"

We're loving this new single from Pierson and as an added bonus, the video features Fred Armisen of "Saturday Night Live" and "Portlandia" fame."

By the way, that's Fred Armisen, who did the hilariously transphobic Estromaxx skit on SNL several years ago that was criticized by GLAAD and other organizations. Some have said Portlandia is also transphobic, but I've never seen the show. Meanwhile, Alyson Palmer, who is also involved in the video, has previously spoken out in favor of "women born women" spaces [and how trans women don't belong]. Those are some questionable choices to cast for the video, which would be plenty problematic if that's where the criticism stopped - but we haven't even begun.

NEWSBREAK: After getting roundly criticized on social media by actual trans women (and some real allies), HuffPost added a blurb at the bottom of the article how this video *might be* viewed as problematic, linking to this blogpost by Jamie Holland that criticizes the video and the song. That post is also on HuffPo, so nice job collecting extra ad money from all the clicks while keeping the discussion around what is offensive to trans people "fair and balanced."

Some people will argue this isn't a video about trans people specifically, and those people are derailing the conversation. Especially when a trans person says, 'this is offensive to me.' Even if the defenders are correct and this is in fact a song for some other group - then Pierson should not have called it a trans anthem. An anthem for anyone who feels betrayed by the mirror is not a trans anthem, but it *is* an anthem for trans appropriation when that's how you sell it.

"It's not transphobic, it's gender critical!" they might say. She didn't intend any offense, so trans people should be happy she's an ally and leave it at that! Etc. etc. etc. We get what you're doing. Stop before it gets to #notallcispeople.

Even if this is intended for drag queens, or genderqueers, or anyone who feels 'betrayed' by the mirror not reflecting who they truly are - then why does the song focus almost exclusively on appearances? How is saying, 'nothing hurts when you're a beautiful girl' getting the message of 'be yourself' across? I didn't realize hearing "you're a beautiful girl" was the best thing in the world - I've always thought it was something like being your full authentic self. Self-actualization doesn't start and end with appearance, does it?

There are much better 'empowerment anthems' (both in terms of message and production), like Sara Bareilles's Brave. Or Christina Aquilera's Beautiful. Or a dozen other options.

Meanwhile, Pierson's Mister Sister (and the music video) over emphasize being a beautiful girl, as though that's what trans women need to or should hear in order to be validated and feel good about themselves. It suggests all transition is about is appearance and how society treats you. The make up, the reference to fishnets, what is this, Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is that what a trans anthem is about? The stereotypical performance of femininity by men? That is what mister implies. Speaking of men, where are the trans men in this trans anthem? Oh right, they're not as marketable.

In the lyrics the song's subject grows up into "Debbie Delicious" (yeah, not touching that choice). Debbie's is the entertainment, which is why she's on everyone's party list. Sing and dance for the cis mainstream Debbie! Be fun, be faaaabulous! Cis folk love to watch and consume transness even though they sit by silently while trans women are oppressed in their day to day lives. But that's ok because you get to go to the after party now!

While we're talking about ignoring the problems of trans women, the video overlooks the experience of trans women who are visibly trans. They are less likely hear "you're a beautiful girl" - and they may even have trouble telling themselves that because society can be pretty cruel toward them. They'll likely hear many worse things instead. And if nothing hurts when you're a beautiful girl, what does that mean for those trans women who aren't considered beautiful and/or a girl by society? Are they just supposed to deal with the hurt? Pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

Because there is plenty of hurt that happens to trans women, even the beautiful ones. Cis people can be transphobic if/when trans status is made known, and sometimes that transphobia is manifested as violence - even murder (particularly if you're a trans woman of color). 

Finally, the title - it's obvious misgendering. While it's ok for someone to fuck with gender norms and pronouns, if this is a trans anthem about beautiful trans girls - mister doesn't really belong in the song. If you were assigned 'mister' at birth, you want nothing to do with it if you identify as a sister later. Someone writing a trans anthem should probably know that.

No thanks, I don't need a cis woman to write a "trans anthem" for me, nor do I need HuffPost or anyone else to declare it as such. The only thing the song says is what cis people think being trans is like. Although to be fair, maybe it also says what cis people are willing to do to make a quick dollar. You know, because trans is so "in" right now.

The differences between sex, gender identity, and gender expression - and how RuPaul's Drag Race fits in

Sex, gender identity, and gender expression all sound like they describe the same general idea (especially if you're an unenlightened heterocisnormative individual). I think this problem arises because these labels are not mutually exclusive and generally refer to relational traits.

When I talk about 'sex' - I mean your 'assigned at birth' or 'biological/natal' sex. Typically you are assigned "male" or "female" based on external genitalia, but individuals can also be intersex (and that can manifest itself in very different ways).

Gender identity is similar in that people generally either identify with a "masculine" or "feminine" gender identity. However, many non-binary individuals reject this framework/concept altogether, genderqueers often identify as neither, and bi-genders identify as both. Sometimes people call this your "brain sex."

Transgender typically refers to the relationship between the sex you were assigned at birth and your gender identity. You are "cisgender" if your sex matches your brain sex, and "transgender" if they don't. Transsexualism generally refers to people who take medical steps to align the two, whereas transgenderism has typically been used as an umbrella term for gender non-conformity. As a point of clarity, I will use "trans" to refer to 'transgender' rather than 'transsexual' since I want to be inclusive of pre-transition individuals who identify but may not have started HRT yet, etc.

If we wanted to represent the relationship visually, using gender identity as the Y-axis and assigned sex as the X-axis, it would look like this:

As you can see from the above, regardless of how you were born (and how you identify sexually) - if you identify as a woman, you are a woman. Same goes for men. That should be obvious and a given, but a lot of transphobic individuals refuse to accept that the words "men" and "women" really refer to gender identity (rather than sex).

As a result, most cisnormative people assume that your gender expression (and/or gender identity) is representative of your birth sex. We call this 'gender conformity.' For the sake of consistency, I'll represent this visually with gender identity as the Y-axis again, but replace birth sex with gender expression on the X-axis to get this:

Because birth sex alignment is now an assumption, intersex and trans status disappear from our chart (because they could apply to any of the four quadrants, as could sexuality).

Instead we now have "gender conforming" and "gender non-conforming" - both of which are scalar values (a matter of degree). For example, Bill Gates doesn't strike most people as being as masculine as Arnold Schwarzenegger. Similarly, Liz Lemon is seen nowhere near as feminine anyone from Sex and the City. But regardless of how far they go, if they follow gender norms, they're considered gender conforming.

Similarly, you can be a tomboy with a pixie cut, a butch lesbian, or a drag king - but you're still a woman. You could also be an effeminate straight man, a 'flaming' gay man, or a drag queen - and still be a man. 

This appears to be why some (like Zinnia Jones) argue that drag queens don't belong under the trans umbrella. The argument is that even though drag queens clearly break gender norms, since they [usually] identify as men, they don't count as trans because they're not really representing their gender (even though they are sometimes trans, such as Carmen Carrera). It is important to note that many trans people will NOT identify as transgender from the outset.

People may start exploring their gender identity and expression simultaneously via drag or cross dressing before they come to understand/accept/act upon their trans status. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 56% of crossdressers express a desire to transition eventually (but they self-identified as crossdressers and not as transgender).

Does that make them "not trans" and/or cis? Of course not, that's just a function of the trans journey/experience being a linear "coming of age" type narrative (you have to realize you're trans before you can transition). So what about transgender individuals who never express themselves as their true gender (or never do so in public)? We would NEVER police their identities, right? WRONG!

The trans community is doing exactly that with this whole "shemale/tranny/RuPaul/drag/LGB/T" umbrella argument. The argument has long been that the "T" doesn't belong with the LGB because sexual orientation is independent of gender identity. Now the argument is that gender non-conformity doesn't necessarily imply trans status, so we should make sure to make a distinction there as well (and with that comes the "right" to use/reclaim words like "tranny" and "shemale" - but let's not go there).

Parker Molloy argued that the "man in a dress" trope will be perpetuated by this perceived ambiguity. After all, the cisheteronormative mainstream audience is too dumb to understand the distinction, right? To those obtuse cishets, gender non-conformity, transsexuality, and even homosexuality all go together into one big queer bucket (and if that bucket is then filled with water so that we all drown, all the better in their minds).

As a result, we better make sure that we are crystal clear about our identities lest we get confused with gender non-conforming cross dressing perverted cis men (or something like that). Because even if we ignore the oppression olympics argument (that trans women have it worse than gender non-conforming men, regardless of their sexuality) - no one is going to let us use the right bathroom if they all think we're just creepy men trying to get a peak at the womenz in there, right? These "men in dresses" are holding us back, so we need to separate from them, right?!?

I disagree.

Arguing about what label(s) apply to which person(s) in what context(s) seems like a very difficult conversation to have (think John Kerry policy wonk type talks). No one can do it in less than 140 characters, let alone in 1,000 word essays. There's no easy way to talk about all of this intersectionality. 

It seems much easier to say gender expression should be respected regardless of how it is done by whom. That's not "assimilation" - that's reframing the discussion with palatable/understandable terminology. That's also the legal position the EEOC and some federal courts have taken by applying the 14th amendment's equal protection clause (protection against sex discrimination) in trans-specific court cases (as well as a case of a cis woman not "appearing feminine enough").

And all of that ignores the blatant hypocrisy of this whole conversation when considering the context of the HBS/"true transsexual" gatekeeping era and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. It's also the same "think about what will happen if we allow this" slippery slope argument cis bigots use when lobbying against pro-trans legislation. It's the conversation opponents want us to have, because as Franklin pointed out centuries ago: united we stand, divided we fall.