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.