why bruce jenner matters

A lot of trans activists and commentators are going to be getting out their MacBooks over the next couple weeks to dissect the Bruce Jenner interview. What does it mean for the trans community? What doesn't it mean?

His interview (and I use "his" because during the interview those were the pronouns he requested) is great for trans visibility. However, visibility is not tolerance, and tolerance is not acceptance. Trans people still have a long way to go - something acknowledged during the interview. It's important to not succumb to "victory blindness" and ignore all the issues facing the trans community.

Which is why a lot of people wrote about how they weren't going to watch it, didn't watch it (because it's not important), or didn't think it would matter for TWOC. Then Zoey Tur jumped on CNN to dissect it a second time because she wants to ride the Bruce Jenner relevancy train as long as she can before people realize she's Trans Fox News.

People claimed Bruce's choice of male pronouns (friendly fact: some trans people, especially early in transition, prefer to use their old name and pronouns until they're ready to switch to a new name and pronoun) would confuse the public. Or that it triggered them. Some were disappointed when they realized the 'big reveals' of name and appearance won't come until the reality TV show airs on E!

Then Jenner said "I'm not gay." Oops. Apparently that'll confuse everyone about sexuality, even though he did say sexuality and gender identity aren't related. Admittedly, he could've covered that better - and he'll get better at articulating his identity with experience. Most cis folk probably took that to mean he's never been with a man and only has been and will be with women, and those who are confused will eventually figure it out. Well he should've called himself a lesbian or a gay woman, but he's also still using male pronouns for the time being, so technically that's.... not really the point. Expecting the general public to "get it" the first time they hear it is just as unreasonable an expectation as it is to expect Bruce to say it right the first time.

Some argued that Bruce would make it look like trans women sit around and suddenly declare "I'm a woman" and expect the world to treat them like it when they look, sound, and talk like a man. Yikes. Makes those those critics who use whatever pronouns they want when talking about Jenner because "they just can't" sound a lot more amicable. And these are trans women making these arguments, by the way. The self-righteous ally from Slate didn't even have a chance to weigh in.

After it was over, many questioned the value of visibility, reminded us how much privilege Jenner has, and how we have so many other more important things to talk about. Like the standard trans talking points of death and discrimination, many of which were covered in the interview. Just to be sure though, let's make sure we discuss death and discrimination again just so you get it. Heaven forbid we talk about Bruce Jenner's story or how Kanye was supportive and what that means for mainstream America. Could we see pro-trans hip hop in the future? I mean, if someone wants to win a Grammy the trans experience seems like it'd be the best source material of all time.

The interview went about as well as a trans interview can go and some described it as a challenge to us to raise the bar on trans issues. 17 to 19 million people watched it Friday night - and I'm sure many have watched it on some streaming service since. #BrucerJenner trended on twitter all weekend and into Monday. I've heard several people share stories of transphobes in their lives, often fathers, who have contacted their adult trans children to try to make amends. That is powerful stuff. That matters. Who is in the conversation and how they're participating is changing, both of which are important steps forward.

CNN said it's the culture's 'transgender moment' but it's not entirely clear what CNN means, especially when that moment includes anti-trans legislation, lack of health care access, difficulty updating legal documents, and violent discrimination. It does seem hard to see how this matters in light of so much marginalization and mistreatment.

And that's a reminder that this was largely for a cis audience. The interview wasn't "who can be the best trans spokesperson" - it was about Bruce - the Olympic decathlete who beat Soviet Russia - now the most famous person to ever come out as trans. The audience wanted to know about the secret struggle of the person who they looked up to and admired for a decade. Or they wanted to keep up with the Kardashians. Maybe both.

I get that the trans community has been burned by celebrity personalities in the past. I get that there's a lot more to do. I get the coming out will come with more frequent and more negative criticism of trans identities. There will be lots of triggering media and people will still bully trans women to death on the internet. The struggle is real, and the struggle is inevitable. So dismissing and downplaying this event, doing pre-emptive damage control, talking about what those 2 hours should've been used to say instead - how does that make things better for anyone?

Critics argue that Jenner is so unlike average trans people that he's an awful example. They argue he has not and will not be marginalized in the ways that large portions of the community are (as though publicly transitioning isn't its own version of hell). They point to his wealth, Republicanism, age, status, and life as the perfect embodiment of cisnormative supremacy. But isn't that subversive? Is there a better sleeper cell? Think about that Wheaties box sitting on every breakfast table: Jenner was America's hero, he had reached the pinnacle of success, aaaaannndd he was just as scared/human/fucked up as everyone else until he spoke his truth.

What happens next and how he uses his platform, if at all, remains to be seen. In the meantime, how are we as trans individuals and the trans community going to use this 'moment' to build momentum?