M
y
name
is
Emily
Kaufman.
I
am
transgender, and this
aspect of my identity is intrinsic
to my sense of self. But I am
more than that: I am a human,
a woman, a friend, a leader, a
writer and a poet.
In three separate instances,
The Michigan Daily has either
misrepresented or erased my
identity. I want to start, however,
with an example of accurate and
honest reporting that I expect of
the Daily. On Jan. 17, an article
was written about being trans
on campus that included a few
quotes I provided during an
interview. Other transgender
people
were
included
and
interviewed,
offering
an
array of opinions on the issue.
LSA junior Grant Strobl, the
infamous chairman of Young
Americans for Freedom was
mentioned, but not interviewed.
This is important to note
because in a later article I was
interviewed for, published on
Feb. 23, Strobl was interviewed.
This article was not about free
speech, something championed
by Strobl’s group. No, this was
about transgender people in
bathrooms, and seeing that
Strobl is neither transgender
nor a policy maker, I hardly
see why his opinion is relevant.
Should he wish to voice his
opinion, he has that right, but
for the Daily to purposefully
seek out Strobl for an interview
is not only offensive to me,
but it adds to the narrative
that transgender people need
cisgender
people
to
affirm
their right to exist, when I and
all transgender people do not
need — nor do we want — that
affirmation. I am here, I am
trans and including narratives
from people who do not respect
my identity is disappointing
and harmful.
An
article
published
on
Feb. 13 in regards to free
speech also included a small
portion from an interview I
participated in. This article
was many paragraphs long and
contained only five lines from
my interview, but included
an in-depth interview with
LSA junior Andrew Krieger, a
member of the aforementioned
Young Americans for Freedom,
who invited the now-notorious
Milo Yiannopoulos to speak
in February 2016. I went to
this event to try to be a voice
against Yiannopoulos and to do
my part to show that there were
many people at the University
of Michigan who didn’t want
him there.
After hearing Yiannopoulos
rant and rave about how rape
culture is a myth, that third wave
feminism is a travesty and that
women were the true “privileged
ones,” I waited in line, behind
lots of men, to ask my question.
I interrupted and asked him if
he thought rape culture was a
myth, how could he explain the
Ke$ha situation. (For those who
don’t remember, at the time, she
was battling her former producer
who raped and abused her, in
court). Yiannopoulos went on
to dismiss my claim and called
me “sir.” He is one of the most
vile people to roam this earth,
and the Daily needs to be
accountable when interviewing
people who support his “right”
to vilify and condemn people
like me.
The final straw for me was
when I performed in this year’s
production
of
The
Vagina
Monologues. I wrote my own
piece entitled “My Vagina,” in
which I explained the process
through which I got my gender
reassignment surgery this past
October. After the show, a Daily
report sent me a Facebook
message asking for my take
on The Vagina Monologues.
Instead of including a single
word of my response, the
author
instead
cited
an
audience member who said, “I
really loved the transgender
woman’s speech, and in general
all of the ones that they wrote
themselves
were
absolutely
mind blowing — but hers in
particular was really amazing.”
I am glad the student watching
enjoyed my piece and she felt
that it gave transgender women
a voice, because indeed it did. I
am upset because after asking
for my take on the show, the
author ignored me and instead
cited another person’s view of
me, and all I became was “the
transgender woman.” There was,
in fact, another girl like me in
the show, and it is upsetting that
people assumed I was the only
girl assigned male at birth who
performed. Because how could
there be any other transgender
women on campus?
I am constantly tokenized
as the only trans woman in
almost every space I occupy,
and many of my trans sisters
are not interviewed by the
Daily five times a semester. I
have the awesome burden of
representing my community to
the University community, and
I cannot hope to share the vast
array of voices trans-feminine
people possess, but I feel that
people look to me to see what
transgender women are, when I
am only one person.
I want the takeaway from
my criticism to be this: Do not
marginalize trans identities in
articles published in the Daily.
I would be happy to do future
interviews, but I ask that I
am covered by someone with
experience on social justice
issues so I can read some of
their prior work to ensure I
am
accurately
represented.
Additionally,
I
would
like
confirmation that, if I am being
interviewed for something so
relevant to me, I am not a side
note, but take up a fair portion
of the article. As a frequent
contributor to the Daily, I do
not want trans voices to be
marginalized — not again. We
will never go back and I want
everyone at the Daily to help
me fight for trans liberation,
instead of contributing to our
seemingly perpetual existence
in the shadows.
M
y therapist recently
told me about the
concept of FHBs —
fallible human beings. We all are
fallible. From myself to President
Donald Trump, we’re
all humans who will
inevitably mess up.
This concept was
originally shared with
me because I’m usually
hard on myself when I
struggle or fail. I tend
to be a perfectionist
who wants to be the
best to everyone, and
I kick myself when I
fall short. But I’ve also
been trying to use this concept to
accept my family and friends’ faults
and resolve conflicts we may have
with one another.
While it’s justified to be angry
about disagreements, the quickest
way to get past them is to accept
the person as human. When a
disagreement occurs, I try to
remember that the person was
doing their best in their own mind.
On the other hand, it’s difficult for
the person you’re quarreling with
to miraculously have a change of
heart or do something different
before you state your displeasure.
They can’t read your mind.
It’s very easy to blame someone
over a disagreement when thinking
about a scenario retrospectively.
This is why it’s good to discuss
personal disdain for a controversial
choice after it’s made. But there’s
a
difference
between
having
empathy while voicing concerns
and not giving a person a second
chance. Not everyone shares the
same backgrounds, perspectives
or thought processes. Opinions
don’t change unless we have
productive conversations.
At the same time, this does not
mean refutes should be weak in
nature. Refutes should be firm while
recognizing
everyone
is fallible. We all mess
up. However, I do think
increased
criticism
is
viable
when
the
decisions an individual
or group makes are
routine instead of an
isolated slip up.
The concept of the
FHB can be applied to
many situations. Before
I engage with an issue, I
take a deep breath and play devil’s
advocate. How would I feel if I
messed up something important?
I’m sure I would feel terrible and
would
appreciate
constructive
criticism.
Without acknowledging our
family and friends as fallible, our
concerns will not be heard. People
are much more likely to listen when
you meet them at their level and try
to understand their situation.
I’ve had conflicts with friends
and family when I messed up. I’ve
said things I didn’t mean to friends
and I haven’t always supported
my family as much as I would like
to. I was at fault. I’m sure you can
think of a time when you did the
same. What I appreciated in those
moments was some time to reflect
after someone met me where I
was at, by being firm in resolving
our conflict, while being honest
and loving. I was being seen as a
human being.
There is a difference between
forgiving loved ones and people
in positions of power or influence,
but that doesn’t make them any less
human or less likely to mess up.
Across many issues, people are
justified in their pain and desire for
change in a person or issue. I’m also
speaking somewhat from a position
of privilege as a Black man, where
I’m able to speak freely as a student
without an enormous amount of
ridicule. Other groups of people in the
United States and across the globe are
in situations where the circumstances
are much more dire. This message of
aspiring for reconciliation is not for
them because it may not be attainable
and is more complicated than just
recognizing that people mess up every
once in a while.
I’m
also
speaking
from
a
perspective where my conflicts
and concerns I have with my loved
ones have been minor. Others have
bonds that have been broken over
much more severe circumstances.
In those instances, it may be more
difficult or even impossible to
forgive, which is justified.
I just wonder what looking at
everyone as FHBs would look like
when there are disagreements.
Would potential denial or rebuttal
be less likely, or would a calm,
reasonable demeanor not quite
grab someone’s attention? I believe
our bonds with the people we love
could be improved in the present
and future if both see each other as
fallible. It may unlock a potential
to resolve conflict that resides in
the affected person’s mind and
with others. Seeing people as
fallible is freeing, personally and
relationally. It’s a path to self-
esteem and decreased anxiety.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 4, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Ibrahim Ijaz
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Fallible human beings
CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN
MEGAN
BURNS
Chris Crowder can be reached at
ccrowd@umich.edu
Represent trans people well
EMILY KAUFMAN | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
CHRIS
CROWDER
Support
for
international
students and faculty from university
administrators across the state is
urgently needed right now within a
political landscape that encourages
xenophobia. The University boasts
a
robust
international
student
community, which accounts for
about 15 percent of total student
enrollment. Furthermore, 1,277 non-
immigrant international employees
and
533
international
visiting
scholars worked on our campus last
fall, contributing immensely to the
University experience. When many
international students and faculty
may feel unsafe or marginalized
because of travel ban restrictions, it is
important for these administrators to
voice their support for them.
The op-ed highlights the value
international students and faculty
bring to these universities through
their contributions both to research
institutions
and
to
Michigan’s
economy. The university presidents
cite that international students at
their universities are almost as likely
as domestic students to continue to
work in Michigan post-graduation,
stimulating the state economy by
providing skilled work. Moreover,
attracting an international faculty
roster brings about economic benefits
not just in research funding for the
University, but also in the state as a
whole. One example of a person who
has brought economic prosperity
to the state offered by the op-ed is
Engineering Prof. Kamal Sarabandi,
an Iranian immigrant. Sarabandi
currently holds 14 U.S. patents and
has brought $60 million to the Ann
Arbor area by co-founding his first
company, EMAG Technologies Inc.
Though the op-ed highlights
the economic advantages of an
international campus, it neglects
to account for more immeasurable,
humanistic
value
a
diverse
student body and faculty bring to
the University. In our globalized
society, experience working in
internationally diverse communities
is integral, as students will more
likely than not interact on a global
scale throughout their careers.
Most students do not have exposure
to
international
communities
until coming to the University;
the University must foster an
environment
where
students
are encouraged to engage across
national lines.
Furthermore, nation of origin —
while of course not the only factor
influencing diversity — plays an
essential role in contributing to the
diversity on campus. International
students help bring diversity to
leadership roles when they engage in
organizations and classrooms across
campus, bring stronger advocacy of
certain marginalized communities
and contribute new ideas from
different worldviews. International
diversity in classrooms encourages
nuanced thought on difficult issues
and offers students many unique
perspectives to learn from those who
may have different life experiences.
One program that fosters these
ideals at the University is the Global
Scholars Program, which is a living-
learning community that encourages
the creation of globally-minded
citizens. Without students from many
countries, this kind of community
learning would be impossible.
An
internationally
diverse
campus community is valuable
for the state economy as well as
our University experience. The
University and its administration
should continue to support our
international community. In times
when our country’s stance on
immigration and diversity is called
into question, it is respectable to see
that our school administrators still
see the value in an internationally
diverse campus.
Feminine perceptions
MEGAN BURNS | COLUMN
Emily Kaufman is an LSA junior.
FROM THE DAILY
Stand by our international campus
A
t the end of March, Mark Schlissel, Lou Anna Simon and M. Roy Wilson,
presidents of the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and
Wayne State University, respectively, co-wrote an op-ed arguing the
three universities better serve society because there are international students
and faculty who study and work on their campuses. Though there is always more
to be done, this op-ed sends a strong message of solidarity with our international
community, which contributes to our campus not only through the economic
contributions described in the op-ed, but also through contributions to
diversity on campus. It is Schlissel’s job to advocate for the best interests of
the University community, especially in the midst of a federal administration
that promotes nationalistic values. The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board
commends Schlissel’s outspoken support for the international community.
I
n high school, no one
took me seriously. This
may sound bitter, angry,
perhaps even petty,
but it was true. I
was
a
bright-eyed
and
bushy-tailed
teenager.
I
came
to
school
(almost)
every day with an
overtly
positive
disposition. I took
AP classes and spent
hours longer than
required at school,
deep in the throes of
student council or drama club
or marching band practices. I
loved every moment, and I was
unwaveringly happy. But no
matter how hard I tried, I was
very, very rarely taken seriously.
For one, being inherently
optimistic and pleasant does
not predispose one to be seen
as academic. As well as I did
in my classes, my scores meant
nothing to my peers who saw
me as too sunny and cheerful to
be considered an “intellectual.”
I
was
girly,
happy
and
curious, and these traits were
perceived as conflicting with
intellectualism.
Having
an
affinity for young adult novels
or “unrefined” television shows
were
deemed
incompatible
with
high-brow
academia.
Even things I couldn’t change,
such as my body or my voice,
defined how others perceived
me. Clothes worn by other
girls without comment were
viewed as inappropriate on my
frame. Year after year I was
conditioned, like so many other
young women, into believing
my body was shameful and
hypersexual, something to be
covered and hidden away.
My community is perhaps
outdated in its views, but that
is by no means uncommon. The
University of Michigan is a far
more
accepting
community,
and I am no longer so negatively
perceived
on
the
basis
of
being feminine or optimistic.
However, our perceptions are
no clearer or less vindictive
than the perceptions of my
“outdated” community. While I
may no longer be as negatively
perceived
on
the
basis
of
my
appearance,
many
identities
at
this
university
continue
to
face
harsh judgment and
criticism on the basis
of their image.
For
centuries,
modes
of
gender
presentation
have
been
incredibly
particular.
Though
we’ve
progressed
from corsets and waistcoats to
Canada Goose and athleisure,
the
ways
humans
choose
to present themselves have
been influenced heavily by
how
others
perceive
these
presentations. Consider how
you would perceive someone
dressed
in
chainmail
at
a
Renaissance
festival
as
opposed to shopping for deli
meat at Meijer. Your perception
of this person would be deeply
influenced by their apparel,
appearance, gender, age and,
importantly, the context in
which they appear.
For some, perception and
judgment are not as influential
into
their
presentational
decision making. Some are
content to present themselves
as they please, regardless of
judgment or perception; yet for
most women, this disregard for
appearance seems improbable
and unattainable.
For
women,
particularly
women of color, non-gender-
conforming
individuals
and
individuals passing as women,
presentation
is
incredibly
important. Women in male-
dominated
fields
often
feel
compelled to downplay their
femininity to be successful. Men
are able to feel more comfortable
in
fields
such
as
medicine
or
computer
science,
where
appearance is viewed as unrelated
to the technical work being done.
The field of business comes with
its own dress codes and policies,
some requiring women to wear
high heels and makeup.
These struggles are only
exacerbated
when
another
identity, such as race, ability
or
sexual
orientation,
is
considered. This topic was
discussed in an early episode of
the show “Insecure,” created
by Issa Rae. On the show,
Molly, a young, successful,
Black lawyer is introduced
to a new summer associate
at her firm. The associate,
also a young Black woman,
is depicted as confident and
loud, and Molly is asked by
a senior associate to tell the
young woman to tone it down.
Not only must these women
grapple with being women in
a male-dominated field, but
they also must navigate their
field
as
racial
minorities,
taking care to avoid racial
stereotypes. The perceptions
of
their
coworkers
almost
entirely dictate their choices in
appearance and portrayal.
I am lucky to be able to
express myself as I please
without major consequences,
though I dread the near future
when
professionalism
will
trump (or restrict) my creative
expression. Others are not so
lucky. As liberal and open-
minded
as
our
University
claims
to
be,
perceptions
tainted
by
prejudice
are
still
incredibly
pervasive.
The age-old idiom of “don’t
judge a book by its cover”
remains applicable, and our
motivations to maintain a
particular
appearance
are
still influenced by a fear of
judgment. Not all judgments
on the basis of appearance are
unethical or unreasonable.
Consider your perceptions
of
others
and
instead
of
reprimanding yourself when
you judge another person on
the basis of their appearance,
ask
yourself,
“Why
do
I
associate ‘x’ appearance with
‘y’ personality trait? Is what
I’m doing helpful?”
Megan Burns can be reached at
megburns@umich.edu.