Putting a face to Calliope Wong

image

After a single-query google search, and skimming a few links, a new picture of Calliope Wong formed in my mind. When it comes to trans*, pictures are important. In fact, they’re increasingly important, now that the term “transwoman” has been thoroughly coopted by men - eg Jennifer McCreath, Michelle O’Toole, Alexis Star etc.

image

When you read a sympathetic news article about “a young woman denied entry to a women’s college”, you tend to picture a young woman in your mind. As in, female. (At least, I do.) But Calliope is clearly, unambiguously male. It’s hard to believe that based on her appearance, anyone would classify her as a young woman.

Why does this even matter? Am I just being “looks-ist”? It matters because gender is a socially-assigned characteristic. Calliope is obviously a male, and is going to immediately, obviously stand out in an all-female environment.

Would things be any different if Calliope passed? A little, but not very much. If Calliope looked female, her presence would certainly be less disruptive. On the other hand, the point of female-only schools is to counter the effects of socialization under patriarchy. Female socialization is something that Calliope, who is obviously male, could not possibly have experienced.

Notes

  1. yoursocialconstructsareshowing reblogged this from snowflakeespecial
  2. fem1naz1 reblogged this from sexnotgender
  3. sexnotgender reblogged this from snowflakeespecial and added:
    “the point of female-only schools is to counter the effects of socialization under patriarchy. Female socialization is...
  4. snowflakeespecial posted this