A Conflict of Identity

A Conflict of Identity, Parts I and II: Gender Expression and Acceptance Daniel Shull California State University East Bay

Author Note: Daniel Shull, Communication Major, California State University East Bay, as part of the Communications 4880 Course Conflict Management, taught by Dr. Gale Young. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Daniel Shull, Communication Major, Meiklejohn Hall, California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA 94542. E-mail: dshull@horizon.csueastbay.edu

A Conflict of Identity A Conflict of Identity: Gender Expression and Acceptance

For my case study on conflict, I will examine two people. E. identifies as male and is in their late 30s. G. identifies as genderfluid, and is about the same age as E. For readers unfamiliar with the term genderfluid, it means that an individual identifies themselves as moving between genders (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_fluid, retrieved October 2011). For example, a genderfluid individual might identify as male one day, and female the next, and want to present (appear) as the appropriate gender. The simplest description of their conflict though I will examine it in more detail is that G. has a very strong desire to be able to express physically their gender identity (to present male or present female depending on G.s circumstances), regardless of whether the culture would accept it or not. E. believes that G. is not being realistic, or indeed even safe in pursuing this desire, and worries that G. risks censure at the very least, and violence at the worst. This is a very recent conflict between E. and G., having emerged within the past six months. In analysis, I will explore the roots of the conflict between E. and G. At the most obvious level, this is a conflict centered on identity (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) because it involves the expression of gender as identity. However, there are certainly relational issues between E. and G. (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011), and interactions between the two that involve wounds of unlove on both sides of the conflict (Welwood, 2006). At the surface of the conflict are questions such as, should G. dress female when she is in female mode, and how does E. raise objections in a constructive way. But the central question in this conflict is one that resonates at the deepest personal levels for both E. and G.: How does an individual express a core aspect of their very nature in a way that they can live with from moment to moment or day to day, or even over longer periods of time?

Description As described above, E. is a male-identified individual in their late 30s. He is a student at a university in the San Francisco Bay Area, pursuing a bachelors degree with the intent to work in the field of interpersonal communications. E. would describe himself as liberal on the political spectrum and is a firm believer in human rights for everyone, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual / romantic orientation, faith or ability.

A Conflict of Identity

G. has just come out as a genderfluid individual. For the purposes of this case study, I will employ a gender-neutral, constructed set of pronouns (ze is equivalent to s/he, zer to him/her and his/hers, and zerself to him/herself) when referring to G. so as to differentiate zer from E. This description also involves G.s history, but to maintain a coherent narrative, I shall use the constructed pronouns for G. throughout this paper. G. is also a student at a San Francisco Bay Area university, and is working toward zer bachelors degree in Communication. Ze would like to use zer degree in mediation or liaison work in the LGBTQIA (lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans/queer/intersex/asexual) community. G. would also describe zerself as a liberal. G. has not yet been the target of genderphobia, as ze has limited zer expression in female-mode to a very limited set of individuals (E. included), and has only told a few more people than that about zer gender identity. E. and G. consider each other friends, and have known each other for quite some time. They are not necessarily in constant contact with each other, but G. is comfortable enough with E. to be honest with him, and the reverse holds true. The conflict began about six months ago, as G. was slowly coming to realize zer gender identity. Prior to this point, G. would have identified as male when asked; G. used the term emotional male to describe zerself in conversations when gender was raised as an issue or a question. G. also had experience with people (from close acquaintances to strangers) wondering whether ze was gay. As of the present, G. has almost fully accepted zer gender identity. E. has no problem with G.s identification, and has been generally supportive of G.s explorations in this area. E. has remained one of G.s closest friends through this process of acceptance. The conflict manifests when G. expresses interest in physically manifesting zer changing gender identity. So far, this has been limited to the idea of wearing female clothing and/or using makeup to present female, but E. cannot help but criticize G.s expressed desires. G.s perspective For G., E. is reacting almost exactly the same way a stranger would. The things E. says primarily involve looking ridiculous, making yourself a target, and similar comments. G. reacts almost instinctively in a defensive manner to this criticism; these reactions are the first two aspects of the four horsemen of destructive conflict: criticism and defensiveness (Wilmot &

A Conflict of Identity

Hocker, 2011). G.s usual responses target E.s lack of empathy or awareness, or how E. only supported me when this was all internal. G. realizes that this cycle is occurring, and depending on zer state of mind, ze has tried to make the effort to reach out to E. Sometimes this involves apologizing to E. for zer extreme reactions, and sometimes it has involved confronting E. about his choice of language. This approach has not been as successful as G. would like; E. will apologize and state that he is trying to be better, only to react similarly when the issue comes up again. G. is struggling to keep the conflict from continuing the destructive spiral into stonewalling (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011), as G. suspects that from there, the friendship will quickly disintegrate. G.s ultimate goal for this conflict is to receive the same level of acceptance from E. that ze previously received. For G., the coming out process has been very difficult; while G. has revealed zerself to certain sympathetic people, G. has been having trouble with coming out to a wider group. G.s efforts in this direction include joining zer universitys Queer/Straight Alliance and coming out on a private social networking site that is used by a more accepting percentage of the population. At the end of G.s note, ze said, I get to do this here, because I can't do it anywhere else. :( E.s acceptance would go a long way toward supporting G. in zer process. G. is very hurt that E. has apparently changed his mind, or at least makes comments that sound like he has changed his mind. G. has enough self-awareness to suspect that E. does not mean those comments in a hurtful way, but because this is such a sensitive topic for G., ze keeps feeling hurt. Because of this, G. is beginning to practice avoidance of the conflict (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011), primarily by not sharing zer plans with E. G. is aware that this is at best a stopgap solution, but until E. demonstrates a more supportive attitude, G. is not sure that ze wants to explore zerself any further with E. as a friend. G. is not entirely sure how to proceed. E. is still a good friend, but on more than one occasion, G. has expressed how difficult it is to have a friend who does not accept zer as ze is, and how difficult it is to be a friend to someone who is apparently that judgmental.

A Conflict of Identity E.s perspective E. is quite honestly torn.

E. cares for G., and is excited to see how G. is progressing in expressing zer gender identity. From E.s point of view, G. is finally being honest with zerself, and this has made a tremendous difference in G.s general behavior. At the same time, E. has heard a number of horror stories about people who are revealed as different and what happens to them. As G. was exploring zer identity, E. couldnt help but think of people like Matthew Shepard (a gay male, killed in 1998 in Wyoming) or Gwen Araujo (a transgender woman, killed in 2002 in the SF Bay Area) as evidence that there were people in the United States who would think nothing of causing physical harm to someone different. Unfortunately, this fear for G.s safety has manifested as criticisms of zer thoughts and ideas about presenting female. E. is very disturbed at his criticism, seeing it both as a betrayal of his friend and of his ideals; but when G. discusses wearing a skirt or using lipstick as an overt signal of zer gender identity that day, E. reacts without thinking. E. is also aware that this has been escalating into destructive conflict. When G. has approached E. about this, E. is himself apologetic about his reactions. E. hopes that G. understands that he is reacting out of fear, but has not yet been able to actually express that to G. And as G. has been practicing avoidance of the conflict, E. has also been avoiding it both with a sense of relief (he is no longer reacting with criticisms) but also a sense of dread (as G. seems to withdraw, E. is concerned for both his friend and the state of their friendship). E.s goal in this conflict is to shift from being negative to supportive again, but at the same time make sure that G. is aware of the risks inherent in demonstrating zer differences. E. does not know how to accomplish this without repeating his previous criticisms, and so far is focused more on keeping his mouth shut so as not to trigger further destructive conflict between the two friends. E. and G. share similar goals, but because of repeated patterns of interaction between them, these goals are not being clearly expressed. From G.s point of view, it seems like E. wants zer to remain closeted; from E.s point of view, it seems like G. has disregarded zer safety in the excitement of being true to zerself.

A Conflict of Identity

At issue, therefore, is the question of how to address this conflict when both sides are experiencing difficulty in expressing themselves clearly. This situation is not made any easier by the fact that both individuals see conflict as a struggle not just in this instance but as a pattern across their lives that originated in their families. The larger question at the root of the conflict as raised at the beginning of this case study involves how G. can express zerself in a way that ze can live with; that is, how can G. find a balance between extremes and still be able to express this very central aspect of zer life.

Analysis As noted at the beginning, this conflict involves questions of identity, one of the most fundamental goals of a conflict (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). G.s goal of acceptance of zerself is very much a who am I question. Wilmot & Hocker (2011) focus on the face-saving and on this particular interaction, but for G. this is not simply a one-time event or conflict. Even when (or if) ze resolves zer conflict with E., G. will still have to ask this question and evaluate this goal on a moment to moment, day to day basis. Being genderfluid means that the face, the identity, which G. presents to the world in any one interaction may not be the same identity presented in any other interaction. As this is an analysis of conflict, I will briefly state that both parties in the conflict are of the belief that as with sexual / romantic orientation, gender identity is not a choice, a view I share as well. Therefore, this goal of identity is one that G. will struggle with for the rest of zer life, and therefore explains zer desire to keep E. as a friend.

The Conflict Defined Using Wilmot & Hocker (2011) as a starting point for my analysis, I will begin with the definition of a conflict. Their definition is broken into five parts: the expressed struggle, interdependent parties, the perception of incompatible goals and of scarce resources and interference from others. The struggle expressed in this conflict is clearly identity, but at the same time it is a struggle between the desire for acceptance and the desire for safety. G.s need for acceptance encounters an overt conflict when E. expresses his desire for G.s safety in a destructive rather

A Conflict of Identity

than constructive manner. As this expression of conflict continues, both people experience hurt, anger and loss and the destructive spiral escalates. E. and G. remain friends, and this friendship and support demonstrates that they are interdependent. E. relies on G. to provide friendship and a viewpoint that E. himself does not have (of being queer), and G. relies on E. for friendship and support. While their goals appear similar from outside examination, G. and E. perceive the other persons goals differently. E. sees G. as having the unsafe goal of living zer life, expressing zer gender identity completely free of consequence; G. perceives that E. has the goal of shutting down zer gender identity expression (and even exploration) completely. In this case, the perceived scarce resource is their friendship. Because the conflict has escalated, G. believes that E. may not be able to be friends with zer; E. fears the loss of the friendship he has built with G. over the past several years. Interference from others is perhaps the most difficult aspect to quantify, but when other is defined in terms of either the LGBTQIA community (from G.s perspective) or the culture surrounding them both (from E.s perspective), then it becomes easier. G. receives support from zer community, but at the same time there is a subtle bias against people who are outside that community and are unwilling or unable to support someone on the inside. E. is surrounded by his culture, with continued and repeated messages that being a little different is okay, but being different on the level that G. is different is unacceptable.

Individual Roots, Intertwined Welwood (2006) describes what he calls the mood of unlove as the deep-seated suspicion most of us harbor within ourselves that we cannot be loved, or that we are not truly lovable, just for who we are. This mood, this wound, is easier to illustrate in G.s case. Ze was raised male, has believed for most of zer life that ze was male-gendered (as separate from zer biology, which is male), and now finds that ze is not male-gendered only. Ze was raised in the same culture as E., and learned early on that being different translated into being a target for the bullying of others. Simply for being an emotional male, ze was verbally attacked for much of zer time in school. At a very deep level, ze learned that this meant ze was essentially unlovable.

A Conflict of Identity

And now that G. has begun to accept zerself as being genderfluid, this same wound causes difficulty when G. interacts with others. For example, G. has not informed zer roommate about this shift in identity, even though zer roommate is a good friend, because the roommate is somewhat conservative. G. is acting out of the belief that ze is not lovable, and could not be considered a friend by zer roommate. G. also finds zerself selecting to whom ze will come out with extreme caution, because ze is avoiding the wound of unlove. E.s case is different, but shares some characteristics. E. was also raised male, but he has come to accept that there are genders different from the culturally accepted male and female. A great deal of his identity is based on his ability to accept others regardless of their differences from him. And in part, this is because he was (and remains) an introvert, withdrawn from the society that surrounds him. E.s wound of unlove centers around being introverted and having difficulty interacting with more than small groups of people at a time. In his mind, it is easier to only have contact with a limited number of people than risk interacting with larger numbers of people, only to be rejected; this feeds back into his identity as an accepting individual. Because of these parallel wounds, E. and G. get along quite well with each other. At the same time, however, when these wounds cross (as they have in this conflict), old grievances have a greater chance of running amok as Welwood (2006) puts it. E. finds that being alone is easier and safer than the risk of encountering unlove, and G. finds that limiting zer friendships to those people who will accept zer is easier and safer. Their grievances run amok because each participant in the conflict is experiencing their specific wound all over again when the conflict becomes destructive. G. discovers that E. does not accept zer, E. discovers that G. is willing to dissolve their friendship because E. is not supportive and they enter into that destructive cycle of conflict with criticisms and defensiveness. So far, they have managed to avoid letting it go further. What has remained unspoken between them is that both are viewing the other as the bad other (Welwood, 2006). E.s apparent lack of support conforms to G.s image of those people who cannot accept G. as ze is. G.s apparent disregard for both zer safety and the friendship (in E.s perception, G. does not regard the friendship highly, and is therefore willing to end it) conforms to E.s image of those people who reject him and what he has to offer. These wounds have become intertwined with each other over the course of E. and G.s friendship and therefore have manifested far more strongly in this conflict. E.s support (and

A Conflict of Identity

apparent withdrawal) and G.s need for acceptance (and not receiving it) have become the triggers for a conflict centered on identity.

Shame Blocks Understanding, Obscuring Goals As Welwood (2006) says, shame denies the vital truth that our basic nature is intrinsically beautiful and good. The shame in this conflict is triggered by the wounds and actions both E. and G. have experienced: E. feels shame over the fact that he is apparently not as accepting as he had previous believed himself to be, and G. feels shame over wanting acceptance in expressing zer gender identity (instead of conforming as ze believes E. is suggesting). This shame resonates through the conflict, preventing either person from seeing past the surface of the conflict. Both E. and G. are having trouble understanding one another, resulting both in the destructive spiral of conflict as well as in the style of avoidance (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) both are currently engaged in. This understanding is actually essential for both parties in this conflict, as understanding is part of acceptance a key need for both E. and G. What is even clearer from an outside perspective is that both parties currently lack clarity on their goals, as well as goals held by the other person. As Wilmot & Hocker (2011) note, (G)oals that are unclear or hard to specify usually produce more conflict. Over the course of the conflict and into the present, neither party has clearly stated their goals to each other. In E.s case, his goal of G.s safety is unclear because of how he expresses it; at the same time, that goal has changed due to the conflict into something closer to G.s safety and our mutual acceptance. G.s goal of acceptance by E. loses authority when ze defends zerself by attacking elements of E.s strongly held identity (that E. is accepting and understanding). These goals are further obscured by the feelings of shame engendered by the conflict. As both E. and G. behave poorly toward each other, each feels shame for having reacted inappropriately, rather than being in a place of what Welwood (2006) calls kind understanding: a mode of compassion that originates from emotion, rather than intellectual comprehension of the issues involved. This kind understanding is lacking at the external level of the conflict and the internal level of the participants; both E. and G. have trouble being compassionate toward themselves and each other.

A Conflict of Identity Power Dynamics

10

I must touch on the power structure in this conflict because it holds further levels of the conflict between E. and G. At first glance, these friends seem to have an equivalent level of power in the friendship. Neither E. nor G. has (prior to this conflict) talked about what power they have in the friendship. Now that there is a conflict with perceived incompatible goals, that has changed in terms of how they act toward each other. In this conflict, G. has the appearance of having more power. Not only does G. have the currency of Expertise (that is, ze knows more about gender identity and gender politics than E.) but E. is in some ways dependent on G. for friendship and social connection. However, E.s friendship is very dear to G., which suggests that E. has more Interpersonal currency, and G. has learned that E.s acceptance (current circumstances notwithstanding) is a Resource G. likes to access. Neither party has clearly stated that this is the dynamic in this conflict, but E.s avoidance of G. and the conflict demonstrates at least an unconscious awareness of his apparent low power in their friendship. G.s avoidance of E. suggests that ze feels much the same way that ze has low power in comparison to E. The Outsiders View From outside this conflict, I have to wonder: what is it about this situation between these two friends that makes the situation so unclear? They are very good friends, they share common interests, they are generally supportive of each other and have so much to offer each other. Their conflict seems absurd at times, because it is rooted almost more in miscommunication than actual differences between E. and G. I believe that the miscommunication between E. and G. is the cause of the continuation of the conflict. The identity issues for each person are so essential that even a slight lack of clarity in communication could cause previous issues and baggage to manifest; E.s reactions to G.s desire to physically present female trigger G.s own fears and wounds because they are expressed without any clarity as to why E. reacts that way. At each point in their conflict, I have wondered what might have happened if one person or the other was able to step back from their immediate emotional reactions before saying

A Conflict of Identity

11

anything. Even a momentary pause before responding could very well have shifted the focus of this conflict in a more constructive direction. I believe that if E. or G. had had access to the Wilmot & Hocker or the Welwood books, either he or ze would have a better idea of how to explain their perspectives, and would then be able to reach that core conflict: G.s self-expression in a manner that G. can live with.

Conclusion G. and E. are in conflict not because they are actually opposed to each other, but because they have reacted in certain situations without taking at least a moment to reflect and consider. Both are striving toward goals of identity G.s expression of zer gender identity and E.s maintenance of his acceptance identity. The conflict has escalated to where both parties avoid each other because of their expressed reactions. G. does not feel accepted by E. anymore, and E. feels like G. does not understand his concerns for G.s safety. Each person has triggered a wounded reaction in the other, leading to a mood of shame that obscures their perceptions of the conflict and rubs up against their previously unacknowledged power dynamic. The most important thing for me to take away from this, in preparation for the next phase, is that this conflict has come about because of a lack of clarity in communication, in expectations and in presentation. Both sides need to communicate more clearly, both sides need to express their expectations of each other more clearly, and both sides need to present themselves as clearly as possible. The central question for me to pursue in the next phase is, How can a resolution to this conflict be accomplished before either avoidance or the destructive spiral damages the friendship beyond repair?

A Conflict of Identity A Conflict of Identity II: Recommendation on Expressing Gender Identity

12

As I detailed in the initial section of this particular case study, two individuals E. and G. have become embroiled in a conflict over G.s expression of zer gender identity. While G. strives to meet zer needs of identity, to express who ze is (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011), E. has expressed worry over what G. is doing. Unfortunately, E. has done so in ways that have directly impacted G.s wound of unlove (Welwood, 2006) specifically, by making comments that are critical of G.s choices. The fact that these comments are based on fear is apparent to E., but not to G. G. therefore feels rejected by E. and his behavior, and sees this as a clear demonstration of how ze is unlovable. E. is also encountering his wound of unlove, in that he has been introverted for the entirety of his life, making friends only slowly and with great difficulty. G. has been a friend for a very long time, and when E. has expressed his worry, he has done so in a more destructive than a constructive fashion. Since G. has begun to avoid E., E. feels that he is unlovable especially as he has based a great deal of his identity around being accepting. Ultimately, this is a conflict centered around a lack of clarity in communication. Both individuals are quite similar to each other, but because of the issue at hand, their relational needs (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) are suffering due to this lack of clarity. Therefore, the central issue to be addressed is this lack of clarity. My central question from the conclusion of the previous sections is, How can a resolution to this conflict be accomplished before either avoidance or the destructive spiral damages the friendship beyond repair? Description E. and G. are quite similar in that both are in their late 30s, are attending universities in the San Francisco Bay Area majoring in communications, and consider themselves liberal. As of this writing, G. started working toward zer current gender identity about seven months ago, and has finally identified as genderfluid. E. normally considers himself to be very accepting, but over the course of G.s identity work, he has grown more and more concerned for G. This concern, while in some ways legitimate (over issues of violence toward essentially queer individuals) has been expressed extremely poorly toward G.

A Conflict of Identity

13

G. has reacted poorly. Given that E. has been a longtime friend, his seemingly sudden about face has led G. to lash out initially and begin avoiding E. Ze is uncomfortable around zer friend, because ze feels ze cant be true to zerself, whether that means that one day ze is female and presents as such, or even switches modes over the course of a day. Therefore G. has been avoiding E., at the very least not talking about subjects such as presenting female in public. E. is aware that he is not helping the situation, but remains frustrated because he seems unable to get through the miscommunication and truly express his fears for G. and zer safety. He too has been avoiding the conflict, mostly by not saying anything at all to G. Both E. and G. consider themselves outsiders in a sense, they are outliers among the (apparently) normal population that surrounds them. They are older than most of the students they encounter, they are distinctly introverted than most of the students around them, and perceive themselves as being quite different in many other regards. For G., this feels even more difficult; identifying as genderfluid has led G. to feel like ze stands at the edges of the available LGBT community at zer university. Analysis As noted in the first portion of this case study, the core of this conflict is identity (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Both G. and E. are experiencing circumstances that impact their beliefs around who they are as individuals. G. has come to terms with being genderfluid, but ze is still dealing with the aftershocks of this fundamental change of identity. E. has based a great deal of his identity around being the accepting one, and has found that his difficulty in dealing with G. shakes the foundations of that pillar of his identity. At the same time, however, this is a relational conflict (Wilmot & Hocker). Both E. and G. consider themselves friends, but their difficulty during the past several months has tested that friendship in a way that neither of them would have considered previously. By being the accepting one, E. has encountered more difficulty in this one interaction than he might ever have guessed in his dealings with others. This has led him to question himself about whether G. is actually right, that he isnt as accepting as he believes. This in turn has led E. to question his relations to others, to see whether he has based his friendships especially with G. on something this uncertain. G. has treasured E.s friendship from the beginning, but cannot conceive of being friends with someone who cannot accept zerself as ze is. G. worries about

A Conflict of Identity

14

losing E.s friendship, but is not sure how to reach out to a person as seemingly unaccepting as E. Because of their wound of unlove (Welwood, 2006), they have previously leaned on each other for support, a fact that makes their current situation more difficult for them both. G. has made friends who are supportive of zer and zer gender identity, but still wants E. as a friend and supporter. E. has more difficulty making friends, and does not want to lose G. as a friend; E. has said on occasion, I dont have so many friends that I can afford to lose one. Neither one has been clear about their goals in this conflict, either to each other or themselves. For G., zer goal is to rebuild the friendship with E., but a deeper goal is to become more comfortable in zerself, to the point of being more accepted by both zerself and others. For E., his goal is also to rebuild the friendship, but at the same time he wants to reaffirm his identity. However, neither E. nor G. have sat down with the other person and openly expressed these goals; they have gone far enough into the pattern of avoidance that each feels that it is difficult to even approach the other individual and broach the topic. Recommendation Plan Both E. and G. want to maintain their friendship but are uncertain how to go about it. I propose that each must first acknowledge their hurt feelings, then enter into a dialogue with each other with clearly defined boundaries, working toward a goal of collaboration using compromise as an intermediate step (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). At the same time, both E. and G. must come to the understanding that they do still care for each other (Welwood, 2006), and will need to engage in the process of forgiveness (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) for the unintended damages done to their friendship. Welwood (2006) speaks about the idea of owning your anger. In this instance, both parties are angry about the situation and how they have handled it, so the first step is for each of them separately to acknowledge the hurt feelings and make friends with them (Welwood, 2006). In E.s case, he has not fully acknowledged his anger to himself: his difficulty in communication (another part of his identity is centered on being good with interpersonal communication) and how that has affected both his friendship with G. as well as his core sense

A Conflict of Identity

15

of identity; his fear for G.s safety when G. chooses to present as female (as G. is male-bodied); and how this issue seems to have caused a tremendous rift in a friendship he holds dear. G. has acknowledged zer anger somewhat more, at least to zerself. Ze is angry because: E. is not as accepting as he has seemed to be in the past; ze feels like this is a very important friendship that seems to be fading; and at this time, more than any other, ze wants to be accepted by those ze considers friends. A direct acknowledgement of these issues cannot take place until each one has owned all of their anger. My initial suggestion would include writing these issues down somewhere and taking time to ponder them and ultimately accept them; Welwood (2006) is very clear that the process of owning anger is not a means to eliminate it, but to come to terms with it, accept it and therefore reclaim the energy invested in it. Once E. and G. have owned their anger, the next step must be direct communication. Wilmot and Hocker (2011) suggest that in engaging emotions in conflict, it is necessary to find a mid-range so that conflict resolution is more likely to be productive. Therefore, both G. and E. must approach this situation with awareness, fluidity and compassion (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) both for themselves and for the other party. At the same time, when they sit down together to address this conflict, both must be aware that they will be working with some very powerful emotions. Wilmot & Hocker (2011) suggest steps such as express anger responsibly, use the X-Y-Z formula for clarity (When you do X in situation Y, I feel Z), and actively listen to emotional communication. While these are excellent steps to follow, a more specific way of approaching this is needed. E. and G. should meet in a neutral place, or one that both consider safe whether this is a mutual friends house or a coffee shop neither one uses. Given the nature of this conflict, privacy is important, so involving a third party (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) is not recommended at this time. It might help to have both sides write down their points of anger in a responsible fashion and bring those notes to the meeting, especially if E. and G. use the steps expressed above. Both sides must have their time to speak, clearly and understandably, without being interrupted. A particular tool that a mutual friend has used in the past is a talking stick, but some token or object could be used to allow each side to express themselves fully. Each of them

A Conflict of Identity

16

must make the effort to listen actively, to be present for the discussion, and to take time to think before responding (as that has been an issue in previous encounters). Wilmot and Hocker (2011) ask a question: whether forgiveness is a decision or a process? In this instance, I would suggest that it is both. E. must decide whether to forgive G. for zer reactions to his statements, but at the same time engage in a process whereby he forgives himself for having those reactions. This is especially important because E. is, at heart, a truly accepting person, and forgiving himself for reacting will help to stabilize his identity issues. G. must also decide whether to forgive E. for the things he said. With a clearer understanding of why E. said those things, it is more likely, but ze may have to engage this as a process of understanding and then forgiving. This is very important for G. because ze will hopefully be able to see that E. does accept zer identity, and was expressing concern and fear in a reactionary way. In the course of the process of forgiveness, it is likely that E. and G. will re-encounter what Welwood (2006) calls caring for others. That is to say, both E. and G. have cared for each other in the past, and when taking these steps, are likely to understand this concept again. G. cares for E. as a very dear, accepting friend, and E. cares for G. in much the same way. These are only first steps, however. Owning their anger is obviously important, as is clear communication about their worries and their fears, engaging in forgiveness for each others actions, and returning to the state of caring for each other. The issue of G.s gender identity and how both E. and G. encounter it still remains. Disclosure This is where full disclosure must enter the picture. E. and G. represent aspects of myself as author: E. is the enculturated self the person who is adapted to society, follows the rules well enough to not stand out (especially in self-presentation), and sees the dangers of being different from the standard, accepted norm. G. is the genderfluid self the person who is trying to express zerself as truly as ze knows how, who rails against the boundaries created by a society that holds the binary division of gender as axiomatic, who struggles each and every day with not being able to be zerself. Both sides of myself are completely valid, and in part, this analysis of my conflict with myself has served the function of the first steps I have outlined in this paper. I have owned my

A Conflict of Identity

17

anger both directed internally as well as at society in general for not being universally supportive of non-binary gender identities. I have used this paper to express my feelings in constructive fashion, learning a great deal about who I am and how I present myself to myself. I find that forgiveness and caring for myself as other is an ongoing process, one that comes up each time my gender identity rises to the surface. The next steps, however, are more difficult, especially as there is no effective way to involve a third part, as mentioned previously. I must negotiate with myself in collaboration rather than competition (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) I dont want my enculturated self to win at the expense of my genderfluid self, and vice-versa. Among the many issues are things like: when and where can I present as female; how do I do this without risking my safety; and with whom I can share my evolution of identity. Presentation is a difficult issue for me. I am male-bodied, I am very unlikely to pass as female out in public, and therefore that puts me at risk. For right now, I have engaged in some degree of compromise as a style of conflict resolution (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) instead of wearing female clothes out in public when I am shifted more toward female mode, I wear underclothes such as socks. I can also wear more obvious female clothing or even makeup in the privacy of my apartment or my room, depending on whether my roommates are there or not. This compromise also comes up in who I have told about my gender identity. I have specifically chosen people who are more likely to accept me as I am; in every case that I can think of, the response has ranged from a supportive neutral (People are people, and youre people) to a distinct positive (Youre amazing/brave/powerful for doing that). I can think of at least some people I cannot come out to, no matter the circumstances, and even that aspect of me that wants to be fully out understands that my parents (for example) would not handle this very well. Collaboration another style of conflict resolution (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011) has come very slowly. Primarily it has entered the picture through the support of friends who are also allies. While that number is small at the moment, these friends and allies have already made it clear to me that I am welcome to come to them in any mode, dressed however I need to be, and that they will do their best to support me. To an extent, therefore, this is an external process because of these friends and allies.

A Conflict of Identity

18

At the same time, however, I must learn to bring my enculturated and genderfluid selves together to collaborate on how to reach my goal. I have purchased some clothes and some makeup with the understanding that I will use them. I have found places and times where I am not likely to stand out or attract attention; in fact, I attended the Folsom Street Fair earlier this year, presenting more toward female mode and did not attract any negative attention. I have found ways to express myself that will not put me at risk yet still enable me to remain true to myself. And as a final step for now, I very much need to engage in what Welwood (2006) called the work and play of relationship. Yes, this is a work in progress, accepting myself and coming to terms with my gender identity and therefore honoring my experiences. At the same time, I absolutely must retain a sense of play I cannot separate my selves and remain whole. This kind of intimacy is easy and difficult at the same time: I am physically one person, but love for myself means that I am called to love the physical as well as the spiritual and emotional. Critique There are essentially two stages to my recommended plan to myself for resolving this conflict: first, to meet myself and realize that I am loved, whether I am dealing with my enculturated or my genderfluid self. The second is to negotiate with myself for ways to resolve this issue over time, or at the very least to come to peace with myself about being genderfluid in a society that adheres to a binary definition of gender. First Stage From the position of an outside observer to my internal conflict, I find that the first steps outlined before Disclosure are an ongoing process, one that is likely to take years of practice. The enculturated self has over thirty-five years of experience and exposure to society. That self is fully aware of how difficult it is to be different, and tends to react in fear when I approach the boundaries I have created for myself over that time frame. The genderfluid self is younger in some ways, and has not yet learned how to effectively stretch boundaries without triggering the fear reactions of the enculturated self. As an example, even though I can wear socks that are more likely to be seen as female a compromise at this point in time, since I usually wear pants I want very much to be able to

A Conflict of Identity

19

wear a skirt with those socks. This leads to conflict yet again between enculturated and genderfluid selves. I am also not good at approaching conflict. As demonstrated by how E. and G. avoided dealing with this conflict especially after a series of unclear communication I have trouble in engaging with something that is so deep, that stems from the wound of unlove. If it were not for this class, I would very likely not have even though of this as a conflict. I most likely would have continued on, gradually becoming more adjusted to being genderfluid but still experiencing moments of shame and uncertainty as I went through that adjustment. Having read Welwood (2006), I have begun to see that loving myself all aspects of myself is an essential step toward accepting who I am, and therefore being able to face up to the conflict in my very nature. I also realize that constant reinforcement of these principles and practices will be necessary: owning my anger, expressing my emotions in a middle range, listening honestly to myself, and coming to forgive myself and care for myself. This kind of conflict cannot be solved in one effort, never to return again. This is where the greatest risk to this stage of my recommended plan comes into play. I may well forget these lessons, or even revert to an earlier stage of conflict if I do not remember to practice this on a regular basis. Second Stage The second stage of the conflict resolution will likely be a lifetime undertaking. As I make more and more friends who accept me as I am, I will have more and more space to express myself fully. I can therefore begin to practice presentation as female in safe space and learn possible ways of presenting as female out in the world. But even with this there are still risks. I am very fortunate in that I live in the San Francisco Bay Area an incredibly liberal place with a history of accepting the unusual. I have heard about locations where I could go presenting female and not draw attention. But at the same time, incidents like the murder of Gwen Araujo (as noted in the first portion of the case study, Gwen was a transgender teen who was killed after being identified as biologically male) which took place in Newark, California show that even the San Francisco Bay Area is not a completely safe location to practice going out in public. In truth, there may be no location that is completely safe aside from the privacy of a home or apartment.

A Conflict of Identity

20

This is an external risk to the suggested course of action, but there are internal risks as well. I may experience a backlash within myself as I try to stretch my boundaries, triggering another round of conflict. After all, this is a very new thing for me, and managing internal conflicts is also something that I am not practiced at. I could conceivably lose ground because of a negative experience; if that experience was negative enough it could even sabotage the level of internal conflict resolution that I am currently experiencing. And unfortunately, while I have been very selective of the people to whom I come out, there is always the possibility of rejection. While I dont believe that I would fall back into the destructive patterns of self-conflict because of one rejection, I am more likely to withdraw internally and therefore avoid dealing with the rejection. As with the first stage, there is the danger of forgetting about these practices. Even though I intend to make a career out of communication, I am human. I may well have periods of time where this issue either fades into the background or becomes so very large that I cannot ignore it, and I may also forget how to resolve my own conflicts due to external factors. As this is an ongoing process, practice on a regular basis is much more likely to internalize the lessons I will need to learn, but that means that I have to remember to practice collaborative negotiation with myself. And lastly is the issue of relationship in both work and play. What I have detailed so far is primarily the work of the relationship. As my therapist is fond of saying, this is the Via Transformativa: the road by which we transform ourselves. But the play absolutely must enter into this, and has its own share of difficulties. First, I am not in love with my body. I like it well enough, and Im reasonably happy with the genetic expression of my biology. But even with that, I have moments when I wish I could be more androgynous, more easily able to present as male or female or some place in between. It is a source of frustration for me that my body doesnt allow me to do that. This also means that being physical and intimate with my body presents problems. I am very conscious of how I look when I try to present female, which leads to disconnects in selfimage that I can ignore somewhat but still need to resolve as part of the play that Welwood (2006) talks about. Second, in being physically intimate with myself, another issue rises to the surface. What if I am not genderfluid, but actually a trans person? The issue is not with being trans, but with

A Conflict of Identity

21

whether that is what I truly am yet another facet of my need for identity. I dont seem to have a problem with my physical body, but could that be from years of being in it, forced to adapt to it? I have had this discussion with a trans friend of mine, who has offered the opinion that it will only be a year or two before I acknowledge my identity as a trans-woman. The difficulty here for me is whether this is a legitimate concern or simply a case of seeing trans and cis as the normative states with genderfluidity as outside that particular binary. I must therefore take great care with myself in becoming intimate with my physical state, so that I can learn who I am and accept it, whether genderfluid or trans or somewhere else in the range of expression.

Reflection and Inquiry Conflict is not at all what I expected it to be. My metaphor of this conflict as a struggle is not entirely accurate; in some ways it might be better expressed as a dance, or perhaps even musical improvisation (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). While the end goal of identity remains the same, the means of achieving that goal will change over time. The ideas I have presented toward resolution may change drastically over the next few months, the next several years, the entire course of my life. I believe that part of resolving a conflict must include a certain flexibility in how that occurs. Otherwise, I run the risk of trying solutions that are no longer workable, instead of using the appropriate methods at the appropriate time. Processing this case study has also led me to ask some very deep questions around how I view my gender identity, and those questions certainly are not going anywhere anytime soon. For example, even though I do use the term genderfluid, and there does seem to be general acceptance of that definition in places like Wikipedia, what does it really mean to me, especially when I examine myself in terms of the conflict between my enculturated and genderfluid selves? Another question that comes up in discussion with other genderqueer individuals is this: what exactly is gender? I do not doubt that I will be examining this for a good part of the rest of my life.

A Conflict of Identity References

22

Welwood, J. (2006) Perfect Love, Imperfect Relationships: Healing the Wound of the Heart. Boston, MA: Trumpeter Books. Wilmot, W. & Hocker, J. (2011) Interpersonal Conflict (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.