skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Phew - just got home from the hospital and back again tomorrow morning so barely got time for this update!!
So, apparently I am very far ahead where they would expect me to be. I think basically they're surprised that I have already done my two years - but that was because I did it while waiting for appointments to see them!!
I realised it had to be done as soon as possible - and it's paid off because they think I can now apply for my gender recognition certificate and I will probably get one! yay, yay and double yay!!
Apparently I should have had the testosterone depletion treatment before now so I have a letter to give to my doctor asking for that - it will take my testosterone level down from an outrageous 17 to about 3 - the normal female level. woop! I have to have the injection in my bum though - boo (ouch).
And my oestrogen dose will be doubled in about another month! yay again!
So I have a lot to be getting on with - I really hope the GRC thing is okay as that will be a massive step. My legal status will then be female and I can even change my birth certificate... or correct it (as I see it).
Back tomorrow for an appointment at ENT - I will be finding out what they can do about my adams apple...
I believe the appropriate thing to say at this point is :
WARNING - CONTAINS SPOLIERS
Or one spoiler actually : in this film, The Mist, what I watched last night, the kid dies. OK now that is out of the way, I found it raised some interesting questions.
It's a general rule of the cinematic idiom that kids don't get killed - the innocent usually survive. There are exceptions to this - such as if the film in question is depicting an event that actually happened in which children died. It would be a bit mad to show all the children being counted out of the wreckage in this case - all safe and well! Phew!
Also I suppose if the death is unavoidable - like if you were depicting a nuclear war.
But in a film like 'The Mist' - which is basically about a bunch of people being besieged by very nasty creatures that accompany the titular weather condition - there is a choice about who survives and who dies that the story-teller can make.
Now basically, I thought the death of the child in this film was unnecessarily cruel. Of course the 'rules' of cinematic vocabulary may be synthetic, and this may be reason enough to break them, but then the whole medium is synthetic anyway, isn't it?
I think most parents find the death of a child unbearable enough to make its use as a plot device unjustifiable in this case.
The film - which is fantastically well executed - has a frivolous theme really. Let's face it - weird monsters eating people and grand guignol violence in general is... fun. It's a laugh to watch a scary film and scream and feel the adrenalin buzz of safe danger - like on a rollercoaster.
The genre demands that this frivolity is wrapped up as something serious - but I think the horror genre shouldn't get carried away with its own seriousness. Take itself too seriously, I suppose.
Basically, you can't have big silly monsters and kill children in the same film - the ridiculousness of one doesn't sit with the appalling reality of the other.
Now my reaction to these things has changed greatly since I became a parent. In fact when Freddie was a baby I wouldn't even have been able to watch a film like 'The Mist' at all. I suppose this is a natural parental instinct - it's very interesting. Now he is a bit older I find I can bear these things a little more. I just say this because, as with all criticism, the individual POV of the critic must be taken into account.
Also, I am not talking about censorship here - that's a whole different debate. A film like 'The Mist' should not be censored - on the contrary I would encourage you to watch it and see what you think.
I am glad I did watch it and that it raised these questions - because I am interested in my own reactions to things and in these moral questions. I like being challenged by a film - so in that sense I enjoyed the harrowing experience of watching 'The Mist'.
I don't sit there in front of any work of art and demand to agree with what it does...
I find these Penguin book covers very pleasing.
Anyway, I was just watching a programme on BBC4 about British novelists in the 20th Century. I knew it would be good - and indeed it was. The Beeb do that kind of thing better than anyone else.
I have read quite a lot of the books they talked about - because, well, I am a rather well read lady. When I was at university I set about the task of becoming well read, without quite realising how futile this can prove to be. You forget books you see, that's the trouble. That's why any good book demands to be read more than once, or even more than that.
In the programme they mentioned 'A Passage to India' - which I have read and pretty much completely forgotten. Same with 'Brave New World' and 'Mrs Dalloway' - forgotten, forgotten.
Much better to read fewer books better than embark on a futile quest to become 'well read'.
I suppose if you look at the list I am well read, as it goes. Tolstoy, Cervantes, Laclos, Defoe, Dickens, Forster, Waugh, Greene, Kafka, Nabokov, Bulgakov, Fitzgerald, Woolf, Steinbeck, Hardy, Powell, Melville, DH Lawrence, Golding, Burgess ...
And that's before we get to Ulysses, which I've read twice, and Proust's 'In Search of Lost Time', with its million and a half words... and I read every one... and it still didn't seem as long as some much shorter books.
Like 'The Odyssey' - promises so much but boring as shit.
Like 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' - I gave up halfway through, so confusing and complicated.
And 'The Man Without Qualities' - Robert Musil's enormous brick of a novel. I'm sorry but it defeated me - it was just boring.
Proust on the other hand was vivid, gorgeous, gossipy, beautiful and actually full of sex and jokes.
So yes, I am well read - but a lot of those books I honestly can't remember.
Overall the writer I have enjoyed reading most is definitely George Orwell. I've read pretty much everything he ever wrote - and it's all wonderful. He was the master of the plain prose style, the guvnor of putting words together to produce a soothing, edifying effect on the mind. My favourite.
Oh... and Milan Kundera - he deserves a mention.
There are still gaps in my reading too. Never read :
Dostoyevsky
Milton
Balzac
Flaubert
But I have read and enjoyed Jacqueline Susann, Ian Fleming, JK Rowling, Stephen King, Noel Streatfeild...
You know it's really hard to write clearly, to write a popular novel that lots of people want to read. I know, I wrote an awful novel once - it's not easy.
So, my conclusion is that becoming 'well read' has been enjoyable - and I have by no means finished yet... but I would probably have been better to read some of those books twice instead of ploughing on and on through the classics with pedantic glee.
What can you say to all this? Maybe quote Philip Larkin at this point and just say 'books are a load of crap'.
Or maybe that other great poet, Morrissey : 'there's more to life than books you know - but not much more' ?
When I was at school a bunch of us discovered Queen through our older brother's and uncle's record collections. We went absolutely crazy about them and dug out all those old vinyl albums - we listened to no other band and eventually we all learnt musical instruments and became a band ourselves - just so we could be like Queen.
At that time we were of course ridiculed for liking an old shit band like Queen - by all the 'cool' kids. If you can imagine - liking this band was actually a rather eccentric choice... we were pariahs.
Since Freddie Mercury's death Queen have gone on to become without question the most popular band in this country. I really can't believe what has happened - they even eclipse The Beatles. There's a certain amount of backlash with The Beatles, with some people making the (clearly untenable) argument that they were not as good as everyone makes out...
With Queen there seems to be complete consensus - everyone loves them.
And everyone doesn't just love them... apparently they always did! Hmm... that's not the way I remember it from school.. ? All you new Queen fans who crawled out of the woodwork - did you ever slag them off when you were trying to prove your cool credentials? Because let me tell you - I never have.
Until now maybe.
No, I wouldn't really slag Queen off but I don't agree with the current prevalent attitude that they were unquestionably wonderful. I'm sorry but they were around too long to never make any mistakes or make any shit albums.
The Beatles split up before they fucked up - as a band anyway. Queen didn't - and unfortunately the 'Queen' that most people think they know are the band when they were beginning to decline.
The facts are these - as I see them. The first five Queen albums are pretty much perfect. I don't think any other band has ever had a run of such astonishing albums - such high quality, so ahead of its time. So that's :
Queen
Queen 2
Sheer Heart Attack
A Night at the Opera
A Day at the Races
If you aren't vaguely familiar with the songs on these albums (apart from the obvious hits) for gawd's sake don't sit there and blabber on about how much you love Queen - it's horseshit. You just don't know the half of it. But if you like the Queen you've heard then go out and buy these five albums and you will love them - I promise.
Anyway, 'News of the World' which came next was their first patchy album - but still pretty bloody great. Same goes for 'Jazz' which came next.
Then we get into the 80s - which is the Queen period most people are familiar with, I think. When you say Queen they think of this :
I just think it would be better if they automatically thought of this :
And I'm sorry but most of those 80s albums like 'The Works' and 'Hot Space' veer towards downright bad. 'A Kind of Magic', the best known Queen album, is also a bit poor - but even then it still had some great songs on it. Queen never did an album without something good on it.
And please remember, this is poor but their own high standard. Queen on half power were still better than most other bands, and always interesting.
The 90s albums (Innuendo and the posthumous, for Freddie, Made in Heaven) well, I'm not that interested but, well, I'm not that interested in what David Bowie does now but that doesn't mean I don't love him as an artist. And STILL there were some great songs there - made even more poignant by Freddie carrying on through his terrible illness.
Since his death I think he's been beatified in much the same way as Princess Diana - although maybe even more than her in the long run. He was an amazing frontman - although I think he became a parody of himself during the 80s, he was playing the part of Freddie Mercury. He was, in my opinion, not the most amazing live rock singer - he got too out of breath and couldn't hit those notes. Quite honestly a lot of the time Roger Taylor is doing some of that work... and playing the drums as well.
And these words of criticism come from me... who named my own child Freddie !??
You know, it wasn't really his music that made me want to name my son after him as his astonishing bravery in the face of his illness and death. I think that put all his musical accomplishments in the shade. He was, basically, an incredible person - a true triumph of will.
I do get a bit annoyed, as you can tell, by people harping on about wonderful Queen - maybe it's my proclivity for disagreeing with the majority! Queen are now mainstream - and I have to deal with that strange fact.
Whatever anyone else says - there will always be a place in my heart for them. Maybe they could have been more emotional and a bit less clever, maybe that's the line of criticism to take. Maybe 'These are the days of our lives' reveal a passion and heart they could never quite express before they had to - maybe they were too clever for their own good.
Whatever. They were so very, very clever - that bunch of graduate smart arses...
But really, when all is said and done, what a fucking good band they were. That's all the legacy Freddie would want. He wasn't a saint - he was a singer.
One aspect of transition which I don't often get asked about - even though it's an important thing - is the whole voice issue.
People who've known me for years haven't particularly commented on my change of voice - maybe it's pretty subtle or maybe they just don't like to mention it. Mind you, people don't mind asking me when I'm expecting to have my penis removed. Or 'the' penis I should say - it's not mine as such.
Anyway - after I went through my big 'I can't stand living as a male any more' crisis my voice was just another thing I couldn't live with. It pretty much altered itself, because I was unable to bear anything male looking or sounding I found myself speaking naturally softer.
That's not to say I don't think about it. I do sometimes concentrate on keeping the deeper notes out of my voice - especially if I've got a few moments to compose myself before I talk to someone. Sometimes it slips and a deep note slips out. I also notice when I'm at home with just Becca and Freddie my voice slips and can get quite deep sometimes. Basically just male-sounding.
I often clear my throat before I speak as it helps me eliminate the deeper notes, but people don't seem to notice. All this goes out the window if I've got a cold though - then it's very difficult to control my voice.
Other times I amaze even myself with my ability to 'do' a girly voice - I can usually convince people on the phone and in person and my clinician at Charing X said voice alteration surgery wasn't indicated in my case - so he obviously thought I was getting away with it.
I mentioned the phone - that's the hardest bit. The phone receiver tends to deepen your voice anyway - or at least remove the subtleties of it so I have to try quite hard with it.
Sometimes people say 'are you the gentleman I spoke to before?' or 'Oh sorry I thought you were a girl'. It's a bit upsetting.
Also of course people just start to call me 'Mr Butler-Moore' even though I've already said my name is 'Mrs Butler-Moore'. It's a tricky one because you can't decide whether it's worth correcting them or not.
I will at some point be having my adams apple done - it is possible to have voice alteration surgery at the same time, as I said, but it's a bit of a lottery I think. Variable results.
Once your voice has broken surgery, or vocal therapy, are the only options - all the hormones in the world won't 'unbreak' it. So this is something that I'll have to live with.
But in this, as with so many other things, I'm pretty lucky. I reckon I don't sound too much like the gentleman in the picture above...
I read something about films that make men cry - unsurprisingly they are pretty similar to films that make women cry! What a daft thing.
Most men these days don't mind shedding a little tear do they?
It's a shame if they don't have a little cry - come on boys, we love it when you get emotional!
Like 'The Railway Children' - there are several crying flashpoints for me throughout the whole film : Perks's birthday, Bobbie's birthday, the bit when they get medals for saving the train... just all of it really!
But, come on, you'd have to have a heart made of polystyrene to not cry at the end. It's so perfectly done - the way Jenny Agutter dreamily drifts out of the house and down to the station... the music is equally dream-like... the smoke surrounds her... it clears... then she says it, in her breathy gasp :
'Daddy... my Daddy!'
Of course you cry because you can hear the emotion in her voice - the way it catches. Actually I might cry now thinking about it!
Another film that made me not just cry but sob was 'This is England'. When the little boy at the end throws the union flag into the sea - it was such a powerful moment. He had been so let down by the concept of nationhood - and throwing that flag away was so sad because he was throwing away everything good about being British. Everything that had been polluted for him.
I dunno - it just really got to me.
Let me see - what other films? I managed to hold it together during Toy Story 3 at the cinema. Clever girl. But most of those disney / pixar type films have weepy bits. Oh yes - 'Up' of course... another film that doesn't save its weepy moments till the end but stuffs the whole story with them!
The 'Feed the Birds' song from Mary Poppins. 'Truly, Madly, Deeply' of course.
Doctor Who - that'll make you cry quite a bit these days. Especially the one with the little boy who asks 'are you my mummy'... glub.
hmmmm...
Life is Beautiful
The Chorus
Ma Vie En Rose (for obvious reasons - it's about a boy who wants to be a girl)
Dead Poet's Society
Notting Hill
I could go on and on - so many films make me cry. Whereas I often don't cry at things in real life. Shame because I love a really good cry - there's nothing like it is there? It's a wonderful, transcendent thing.
So, better put on 'The Railway Children' again. You know, I think that is my favourite film for a really good cry...
I don't know where I'm going with this - it could be random.
I was just thinking earlier about society. I have a sociology degree so it's not an entirely uninformed bit of thinking. But really these studies are a beginning, not an end.
I am quite interested by the term 'anti-social'. Behaviour which is outside of society and a threat to it. I wonder how much of this behaviour is actual necessary for the development of society - in order to prevent stagnation.
In a totalitarian society, anti-social behavour is entirely suppressed, and such societies don't ever work (in a purely totalitarian form) possibly for that reason.
Take punk. At the time a threat to society - and yet now considered to be an essential part of the history of the late seventies, in anyone's textbook. The angry impulse was subsumed by society and became part of society - to such an extent that John Lydon can now appear in a butter advert and parody the punk idiom. Same goes for Iggy Pop.
These people get a fair amount of flack for this, but then are they selling out any more than any of us when we buy into the capitalist lifestyle, as we all do? Maybe it's no bad thing. It's worth remembering that capitalism is the most successful way of organising a society yet devised, by any terms. Isn't it?
I am also interested in the urge we all have to destroy society - an urge which expresses itself in stories of apocalypse and destruction. I am fascinated by these scenarios, I think because part of me is attracted to the idea of no society at all - the freedom that comes with breakdown. Maybe it's the raging, anarchic toddler in all of us?
I am also fascinated by cold war / nuclear paranoia stuff for the same reason. I went with some friends of mine to Kelvedon Hatch Nuclear Bunker and I was absolutely thrilled by the whole outing - rather oddly I suppose. I went back the next week for another look. And yet I find the whole thing terrifying as well so I suppose there's the adrenalin rush of fear associated with it too.
Finally, there is the whole transgender business. For most of human history my desire to be a girl would have been considered beyond the pale, as well as being impossible to achieve. Now it is widely accepted, entirely accepted in an official sense.
But not necessarily in the informal realm. When people gossip and joke there is a release of tension - and anti social impulses are indulged.
Funny how anti-trans / homophobic attitudes now seem to come from outside society. Of course they don't - they are part of the conflict which pushes society forward.
Even though I say I am accepted by society - there is one area in which people like me don't make an appearance. In the realm of consumerism proper.
For example, the existence of trans-women isn't acknowledged by advertisers or by the consumer world generally. But the same is shamefully true of gay and disabled people - they are not represented either.
In a consumer society you know you are really included when people try to sell products to you according to what you are.
