Casa Susanna: The Story of the First Trans Network in the United States, 1959–1968

Today, CNN has an article: "In upstate New York, Casa Susanna was a safe haven for trans women in 1960s America," Suyin Haynes, CNN, June 26, 2024

"With coiffed black hair, pearls, a hand on her hip and a high-heeled pointed toe, a woman poses jubilantly for the camera on the steps outside her home. Her name is Susanna Valenti, and her home is Casa Susanna, located in the Catskills, in upstate New York. In the 1950s and ’60s, Casa Susanna served as a safe haven and a sanctuary for people to explore their gender identity and expression in ways they were not able to in daily life. ... Purchased in 2004 at a New York City flea market by two art dealers and later acquired by the AGO in 2015, this particular selection of 340 Casa Susanna images are part of a much wider archive, including some currently in the personal collection of photographer Cindy Sherman. ... In the last decade, Casa Susanna has inspired a Broadway play, Harvey Fierstein’s “Casa Valentina”; been referenced in the television series “Transparent”; and was the subject of an acclaimed documentary film released last year."

I hope to get a copy of this book, Casa Susanna: The Story of the First Trans Network in the United States, 1959-1968, to find out if Spanish was spoken there. As CNN says:

"Born in Chile in 1917, Valenti met her wife at a wig shop — popular with crossdressers — that Tonell ran in New York City. Casa Susanna was Tonell’s property in the Catskills; those who frequented the home included Gloria, a millionaire from Michigan; Jessica, a Colombian heiress; and Felicity, an airline pilot and World War II veteran who was the sibling of photographer Lee Miller."

Learn more about the book, a hardcover with 400 color illustrations, on the publisher's website.

Or buy it through Bookshop:

Just learned of this book, which has 400 color illustrations! "In the 1950s and '60s, an underground network of transgender women, gender nonconforming people, and men who dressed as women found refuge at a modest house in the Catskills, New York."

[image or embed]

— Tucker Lieberman (@tuckerlieberman.bsky.social) Jun 26, 2024 at 4:06 PM

Putting effort into ethics

A pithy way of saying that it's important to put effort into living an ethical life:

"When easy doesn’t bring ease

Ease is a simple concept in theory. For example, we might put beeswax on the tracks of a dresser drawer that’s sticking, so the drawer slides with greater ease. Things are more aligned, so they’re easier.

But in modern industry, easier usually means something more like, “less thought is required.” In MarketingSpeak that’s pronounced “convenient”. Ironically these easier choices often don’t bring ease. They bring misalignment with core values. They bring dis-ease."

— B. Lorraine Smith, "Putting ease into easy," email newsletter, June 21, 2024

False "ease" leading to "dis-ease": What feels easy in the short-term won't be in the long-term. Ease eats itself, inverts itself.

Cameron Summers: 'Technology is not the protagonist of history'

Cameron Summers writes for Broken Hands (What is Technology? (Contraslop, Part 1), June 19, 2024):

"Now, students, like most people, mean something very particular when they talk about technology: they always mean, specifically, digital, technology, and usually mean technologies that have been popularized in the last 5-10 years. Maybe they stretch it a bit older and include social media, but usually it’s a very limited slice of time.

My standard move here is to point out that things such as cars, washing machines, printing presses, and usable fire are all forms of technology and request that they refer to the category that they’re talking about as digital technology."

Why?

"This is actually a fairly important thing for me: I believe that discussing this is key to teaching students how to live in the world. One must not treat technology as a special category that only deals with the latest 0.003% of human existence."

Think:

"Here's a question, "broadly: if it offers no benefit, and no path to anything that clearly offers benefit, why are we spending time on it?

Technological determinism – the idea that there is some solid, continuous thing called technology and that this force, this entity, is the protagonist of our historical drama and the mainspring behind other kinds of change – is a false idea.

* * *

This isn’t to say that technology can’t drive change, simply that it doesn’t do that as a primary effect. It’s brought in to do one thing, and then it achieves something else as a side effect because it can extend its function in an interesting and novel way."

"My point is this: technology is not the protagonist of history, especially when we narrowly define it. It is, instead, the inventory of solutions that we have to our problems. Oftentimes they create a new set of problems, and require further solutions to keep using them, though if an alternate solution that lacks the new problems crops up and its own externalities are less pernicious, then people will switch over to the second technology."

It's a long article, and I recommend it.

If you wed yourself to the gender binary, you can't see past it

Regarding:

Claire Dederer. Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2023.

Unlike people who transform their outrage into art, where it can be a "powerful and subtle hammer," Valerie Solanas

“is like a rat in a trap by the end. She understands, on some level, that material circumstances shape our lives, and must be altered if we are to improve the world. But she’s held back by the limits of her critique—she can’t see past gender. In this way, she exposes the limits of radical feminism. Seeing the world through a binary lens—men versus women—has its uses, but she can’t build a revolution out of that schism. The divide between male and female becomes a kind of spectacle she loses herself in.”

And by “taking us to the farthest extreme of a certain kind of radical feminism, she’s given us a glimpse of its limits. She sacrifices a true vision of liberation on the altar of gender essentialism.”

As Dederer phrases it: “She makes me wonder: How much is my preoccupation with the crimes of men blinkering me? What am I not seeing when I monster the monstrous men?

But as I’d put a slight twist or reemphasis on it: When we think in terms of a binary, and we preoccupy ourselves with monstering one side of it, we blinker ourselves. There will always be much that we’re not seeing.

You may also be interested: Metaphorical Gender in English: Feminine Boats, Masculine Tools and Neuter Animals, Language Matters - October 2, 2017 - 4 min