"Lady" Korea's first female transgender band! Song: Attention

Add to My Profile | More Videos

That's Lady Bunny, Honey

by Bryan James Whitley



DJ Lady Bunny


Legendary drag queen, film star and DJ Lady Bunny returns to Buffalo this weekend for Summer in the City 2007: A Benefit for Pride Center of WNY. From her early days in Atlanta performing with RuPaul, Mr. Charlie Brown, and a host of others, to her meteoric rise to fame in the “Big Apple,” Lady Bunny has kept audiences entertained for more than 20 years.

I recently caught up with Lady Bunny to chat about her life, career, and her upcoming trip back to Buffalo…

Artvoice: First things first, where did you get the name “Lady Bunny”?

Lady Bunny: It was a bad joke that stuck! Southern drag queens often called themselves “Lady”—like the Lady Chablis. And “Bunny,” well, that’s anybody’s guess. I do remember that Sergeant Carter’s girlfriend on the TV show Gomer Pyle was named Bunny, but I also loved a rare late ’60s comic book called Bunny: Queen of the In Crowd that featured a blonde model in psychedelic outfits, which I’ve borrowed from heavily.

AV: I see. So, tell me about your first drag show?

LB: Well, I’m dating myself…but hell, why not? No one else wants to date me! I lip-synched to “Young Hearts Run Free” by Candi Staton at a party in the dump that RuPaul and I lived in in Atlanta. It was a fairly pitiful and drunken affair.

AV: How did you end up becoming a DJ too?

LB: Well, as dance music became more and more techno in the late ’80s—you know, pots and pans music with no vocals—I would often get hired to spin lighter music in a lounge off of the main dance floor to provide variety. Actually, Michael Alig (the axe-murdering “Party Monster”) gave me my first paying gig at a party called “Panty Girdles.” I’ve never really promoted myself as a DJ but there seems to be a demand. I think half of my appeal as a DJ is that I dance around and carry on, so they get a DJ and a clown both for the price of one!

But the other half is that I’m not afraid to play songs that people know and love…I’m not necessarily trying to be cutting edge. I don’t know a crowd who doesn’t love Whitney’s [Houston] “I’m Every Woman” and that song is over 10 years old! Especially at a gay event, who wouldn’t want to twirl to that? Ultimately, I play a little bit of everything based on the feeling I get from the crowd. I say, “Give ’em what they want. I can play what I like at home for free!” Making people dance is a celebratory sensation so it’s a job that makes you feel good. Or is it just the liquor? Whatever.

AV: So, what do you think is the most interesting thing about you?

LB: Since I’m so incredibly fascinating, I don’t think this interview is going to be long enough to list all of them. Ha, just kidding!

Seriously, I guess that a lot of people don’t realize that in addition to comedy, I actually have a very serious politically and socially conscious side. Gay people are under attack and it’s time to start fighting back. I’ve been writing a lot on my blog about current issues and have received good feedback from it. My blog even won a “Cybersocket Award for Best Personal Home Page” last year. So, I’m not just a potty-mouthed tramp. Although if a tramp is what your looking for…

AV: What’s your favorite thing to do when visiting Buffalo?

LB: Eating chicken wings! I actually had come directly from Wigstock [an annual outdoor drag-a-palooza organized by Bunny] the night before my last visit and since it was a daytime gig, I didn’t get to go sightseeing and had to leave the next day. So, perhaps some stud would like to show me around this time? Call me.

AV: Lastly, where can readers get more info on all things Lady Bunny?

LB: You can visit my Web site, Ladybunny.net, and check out my DVD trailer or press kit information with details on many of exploits, from Pamela Anderson’s Roast to Wigstock and more. I’m also thrilled to say that I was recently cast in the sequel to Another Gay Movie. So, keep your eye out for “Lady Bunion” on the big screen. I wouldn’t fit on a small one!. . .

I *AM* ARUNE

The title above is not really egotistical. As Lynn Conway now has a page on her web site titled “Who is Arune??” I thought to answer her in this essay.

There really is no need to discuss the basic question at any length. I am Willow Arune, a transsexual woman, retired lawyer and post-op, 57, happy as a clam and content with my life which I share with Sonia, our six cats and two dogs. Last November, we relocated to the wilderness of Prince George, in northern British Columbia, from Vancouver. How far north? Well, last night we watched the northern lights instead of television…

But that is not the story, really. The story is about Blanchard, Bailey, and the concerted efforts by some transsexual women to attack them and anyone who dares support them in any manner, fair or foul (and mostly foul). The real war started with the publication of a small book - “The Man Who Would Be Queen”, written by Michael Bailey. It contains three parts, the last of which deals in a popular science manner with the concepts of Ray Blanchard, of the Clarke Institute in Toronto, regarding transsexuality. Those leading the battle against the book, Blanchard, and anyone who crosses their sights, are Lynn Conway and Andrea James, both of whom have large web sites setting out their position and “investigations”.

Firstly, from the start of this mess, I have asked for calm - without much success. That first request can be found on the Web. As I found myself changing my initial opinion and seeking further clarification at certain points, I contacted Bailey, then Blanchard, Lawrence and Petersen, the major proponents of the autogynephilic concept. They have been most kind at sharing views and comments, including their participation in an AG support list of over 150 members.

In so doing, I became a target for James and Conway. Not that I wished to get fully engaged, but it seems that any supporter of Blanchard must perforce endure attacks by the two of them and their vehement allies. That has proven to be very nasty and at times, I must confess, I tend to lose my cool. At other times, I assume that the world must know of this situation and write accordingly, leaving some confused and lost.

Firstly, Bailey did very little "research" for the book, in the classical sense. It is an anecdotal explanation of Blanchard's concept applied to real situations of six women, and that only in Part 3. Bailey's own work is more truly reflected in Parts 1 and 2 - and Part 1 is what gives the book its title and cover. That was the publisher's decision, not Bailey's. I dislike both, but in the context of Part 1, it makes sense.

Blanchard did the research which Bailey reports on in his book, admittedly in a popular science manner. Blanchard started off in 1985, with 21 papers following, up to the mid 90s. His research is hard to find - and that is due in the main to the copyright rules of scientific publishers. At the time these papers were done, Blanchard was a psychologist at the Gender Identity Clinic of the Clarke (he joined in 1980); he is now the Head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, commonly referred to by transsexual women in Canada still as “the Clarke’. The availability of his research might soon change for the better. So my first comment is that most are dealing (sorry, Mike) with the monkey instead of the organ grinder. To understand Bailey in full, one must read the original material. Blanchard had a large number of subjects to participate in all of his studies. Other TS studies have had small numbers - the oft-cited Dutch brain study had but seven brains; Bolin had a sampling of 16 core transsexuals for “In Search of Eve”.

Secondly, Blanchard, Bailey and Petersen have been restricted in replying to their critics. They are bound by confidentiality - especially in respect of those that have been patients and who are now loudly critics. The temptation to reply in kind and with the true story must be overpowering - but they have not done so as they are professionals. Mike is facing one remaining (the others having been dropped) accusation at his university, where he is the head of his department. The merits of those accusations, or the remaining one, are suspect (reading about “Cher” - the major complainant - and "Robot Man" tends to dispel any aura of credibility that she may have, in my opinion). Any lawyer for the university would jump down hard if Mike were to respond to the vocal critics in any meaningful way. One recent article has dealt with the concerns, and the issues in a real sense, without the emotional rants. It is not a simple issue and as one sided as the critics seem to often suggest. I stress that such is an accusation, not proven, not yet determined.

That leaves Anne Lawrence, for long an icon in the TS groups. That she has done much to help is obvious; that she has been vilified - and no doubt deeply hurt - from attacks from the very ones she has helped must be mortifying. Most, I find, have rushed to judgement. . . .

The explosive rethinking of sex reassignment

MARGARET WENTE

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

August 24, 2007 at 9:19 PM EDT

At 50, Roy Berkowitz-Shelton was a caring, well-respected family doctor with a flourishing practice in Massachusetts. He was bald and had a beard. He and his wife, Allison, had a long and loving marriage and two nearly grown kids.

There was just one problem with his life. Ever since he could remember, Roy had been attracted to women's makeup and clothes. One day, on a trip to the grocery store, he blurted out: “Allison, I feel I'm a woman.”

Today, 21/2 years later, he has fulfilled his dream. He is now Dr. Deborah Bershel. Deborah dresses in dark skirts and teal tops and owns a dozen pairs of high heels. She loves to shop. Thanks to female hormones and facial surgery, which smoothed her forehead, reshaped her nose, softened her jaw line and shaved her Adam's apple, she resembles someone's kindly aunt. Now, she wants to take the final step: surgery that would amputate her penis and create a vagina.

“I feel like a whole person now,” she says.

Deborah's journey was sympathetically recounted this month by the Boston Globe magazine. It is not so unusual any more. Transgendered people now share equal billing with gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the ever-expanding panoply of sexual minorities. The standard explanation is that they are the victims of a biological mistake, born into a body of the wrong sex. The vast majority of transgendered people are biological men who wish to become women.

In liberal Massachusetts, Deborah encountered very little social disapproval of her sex change. On the contrary. Her patients and co-workers have been immensely supportive. Her Conservative Jewish synagogue never wavered. Most people in our tolerant, open society believe people should be able to follow their own path to happiness and self-fulfilment. If anything, they think Deborah is courageous. “It takes a lot of soul-searching to sacrifice the things you have to be true to yourself,” said Denise Leclair, executive director of the International Foundation for Gender Education.

But not everything has been smooth. Deborah was certain she would be able to maintain her marriage. She believed that after her transition, she and her family would begin a deeper and more honest life together. And indeed, her wife, Allison, tried to keep an open mind. She went with Roy to a cross-dressing convention. She took care of Deborah after her facial surgery. They went to marriage counselling together. In the end, it didn't work. Allison told Deborah there was a reason she had married a man, and asked her to move out.

Deborah's teenaged son is handling the adjustment well. But her 20 year-old daughter has become estranged and refuses to speak to her. Deborah's father seems resigned. “I'm heartbroken,” he says, “but he's my son.”

Deborah says she wasn't suicidal as a man – just restless and unfulfilled. She doesn't seem to have much remorse or guilt for the destruction of her family or the pain she's caused. She's exploring the singles scene and has posted her profile on a women-to-women dating site.

In the gay-rights movement and the academic world, nothing – but nothing – is more explosive than the science and politics of gender. And that includes the subject of transgendered women.

In the prevailing narrative, people like Roy are essentially women trapped in the bodies of men. But there is another theory, one that's deeply unpopular, to say the least. It holds that they are really men with an unusual psychological quirk: a male deviation called autogynephilia.

This theory is largely based on research studies conducted at Toronto's Clarke Institute during the 1980s and 90s. It found that some men who seek sex changes are driven mainly by an intense erotic fascination with dressing up as women. The researchers found that as they get older, these men (predominantly heterosexual) become increasingly eager to add more realism to their presentations through surgery. As women, they rhapsodize about being able to express their natural inclinations for shopping, makeup, domesticity and gentleness. But in other ways, they aren't womanly at all. They aren't interested in babies and children. And, like Deborah, they still find women sexually attractive. After their transition, they see themselves as lesbians.

One expert who supports this theory is psychologist J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. His 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, explains the biology of sexual orientation and gender. It has been called a compelling explanation of the science. But he has been bitterly denounced for his treatment of transgender issues. One prominent academic, a transgendered woman, compared his views to Nazi propaganda. Another well-known transgendered academic, Deirdre McCloskey, called his work “false, unscientific and politically damaging.” He has been accused of gross violations of scientific standards, and his research associates were warned by others in the field to keep their distance. He told The New York Times that the two years after he published his book were the hardest of his life.

Some people believe the crusade against Dr. Bailey is political correctness run amok. Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar brought in to conduct a lengthy investigation, exonerated him of wrongdoing and said, “What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field.” . . .