Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy
Subway Suicide Statistics Released
Days of Carltons Past
Humane Society officials charged with cruelty to animals
Each weekday morning(ish), we pick a recent image from the Torontoist Flickr Pool and feature it here on the site. It's our way to give the many excellent photographers in our pool the attention they deserve!
Just over six months ago, we featured Torontogal Photos's work as one of our very first Daily Photoist. Her shot of a police officer leaning over (and almost off of) his horse was a great way to kick off the regular feature. Since the pool was created, Torontogal has been one of our most active contributors, with 208 great photos submitted so far...so she's long overdue for another Photoist.
One of Torontogal's latest and most captivating photographs is this untitled shot. The viewer's attention is immediately drawn—rightfully so—to the woman standing just off-center in what can only be described as one hell of a dress. In a photograph obsessed with looking (everyone is, including Torontogal and her camera), the subject's look is the dominant one: her gaze is stoic, defiant, determined, proud. In one shot, it's the ordinary and extraordinary all in one, a gray-scale embodiment of Toronto urban life in a few thousand pixels.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Woman" just off-centre?
The Flickr crowd seems to believe the subject is TS.
Does Torontoist have any additional info on this? I've had a few girlfriends that skinny and non-busty, and the belly piercing seems to say female, but we don't have sufficient information. The amount of makeup means that it's hard to tell.
Thanks for the great write-up David. This is one of my personal faves. Much appreciated.
If she's transgendered and presenting herself as a woman, than a woman she is. I knew the point'd be somewhat contentious, so anyone can feel free to correct me on this. It's admittedly hard to say if I'm in the right or not since I don't know the subject of the shot.
Nothing's been done to take care of those veiny manhands.
I know nobody *really* cares, but the Torontogal shot was actually the second Daily Photoist. The honour of the first one went to Flickr user Uwajedi.
First one here:
http://www.torontoist.com/archives/2006/12/the_daily_photo.php
I wish my abdomen was that flat.
GaryC... you read my mind. :)
My mistake gents, sorry about that.
"If she's transgendered and presenting herself as a woman, than a woman she is."
Maybe...if you want to be politically correct about it. But that assumption kind of erases all the gender issues this picture raises so provocatively! It ignores all these other layers of meaning!
I think the photo is more interesting when it makes you think about the questions of what gender signifiers we look for, and why a person potentially shifting from male to female would wear a garment most females wouldn't. I wonder if it is a statement, or supposed to be sexual...it's all very interesting.
It's not a matter of being politically correct. Transgendered people usually want people to call them by the gender they identify with, and to not honour such a simple courtesy is somewhat disrespectful. That's taking into account the obvious and expected pronoun slip-ups when getting to know someone, which are bound to happen naturally, and the learning process about gender identity, which is still a very fresh and misunderstood concept for most people.
You can call a genetic male "her" if she identifies as female and still discuss the same provocative gender issues...it doesn't erase the "layers of meaning," as they can still be examined just as much.
The garment comment is valid and interesting. I've noticed (and spoken to) a couple people recently who kinda fall in the middle, or identify as the opposite gender but aren't interested in "fully passing" or making a surgical transition. Some identify as both, but don't put a percentage on it. The subject of this photo obviously isn't trying to pass as a genetic female, but she looks fantastic and unique. I think the key is that the rest of us don't necessarily need do define her gender, even though we're bound by language sometimes.
Granted, my knowledge and experience on transgenderism is relatively limited, but it makes me crazy that trangendered people get such an excessive amount of disrespect (not talking about you, Alex) for something that is not only hard-wired, but really nobody else's friggin' business. I was speaking to an MTF person once, and she said, "Do you know how many job interviews I've been to? I've got a university honours degree, impeccable references and I haven't been hired for one job I've interviewed for in my field [which would entail dealing with the general public]." This person had a fantastic personality, was whip-smart, reliable and had all the qualifications, so by the process of elimination, I think it's safe to guess what the reason was.
Hmm... is it perhaps presumptuous to assume this person even identifies as trans? It kinda seems like the entire point of this person's outfit is to draw attention to both "male" and "female" physical and fashion traits.
Ascribing "woman" to a person who very pointedly is not trying to pass as one is probably missing the point. Would you call Brian Molko a woman? Or Annie Lennox a man? I would kinda say that in this case, the most appopriate term might be genderfucker.