Transsexuality sometimes presents a problem for feminists. On the one hand, many feminists come from an intellectual tradition of sympathy for the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the discriminated-against, and transsexuals certainly seem to fit the bill.
But on the other hand, a major tradition in feminism is that gendered behavior is not inherent. That is, one does not have to be biologically male to be an effective leader; one does not have to be biologically female to be a good nurturer of children; and so forth. Transsexuality can seem like a slap in the face to all that. “I was a woman trapped in a man’s body; I wanted to be soft, I wanted to express my emotions, I couldn’t relate to any male things.” One of feminism’s Big Projects, arguably, had been to give society a slap on the face and say “snap out of it! Gender’s not a big deal! Sex does not predict behavior!” And along comes transsexuality, with exactly the opposite notion – sex does predict behavior, so much so that if you “behave” like the “wrong” sex, you might consider surgery to bring your behavior and your private bits into accordance.
Some feminists saw something even worse in transsexuality: double agents. Men who dress as women and then try and take over the feminist movement from within. Challenges to women-only space. Other feminists – including me – tend to see the opposite danger: some feminists using such fears as a way of legitimizing anti-trans bigotry.
The real story is more complex. Which brings me to Dean Spade’s article Mutilating Gender, which I’ve been meaning to blog since I read it via Blargblog last week. It’s a terrific article (although if you read it I do recommend following “Ampersand’s rule,” which is to skim right past any paragraph that mentions “Foucault”).
The article admits forthrightly that transsexuals – and, particularly, transsexuals seeking help from the medical community – have been extremely dedicated to maintaining and supporting gender stereotypes. However, that dedication is a response to the desires of the medical community. Doctors, in effect, latched onto a biography of “the life of a transsexual.” In this biography, little Billy Pre-Transsexual was Always Miserable as a boy. He was No Good at sports (because he’s a girl inside, and we all know girls are never good at sports). Little Billy played with dolls and makes drawings with lots of flowers and hates his penis… and, eventually, Little Billy gets the surgery he wants without any ambiguity at all and becomes happy Suzy Transsexual, a woman who is entirely feminine and not even slightly butch, since we all know butch women aren’t real women.
If you wanted SRS (sexual reassignment surgery), then you’d better have a biography just like little Billy Pre-Transsexual’s (or just like his opposite-sex counterpart, little Wendy Pre-Transsexual). The doctors will test and interview you to make sure you have little Billy’s biography; and if you don’t have it, then they won’t help you.
With hindsight, the result of this medical requirement was predictable. Sooner or later, everyone wanting SRS learns that there was only one set of “right” answers doctors wanted to hear. Of course, some patients really did have a “little Billy” or “little Wendy” biography. But other patients learned to manufacture those same biographies; tell the doctors what they want to hear, and the doctors will give you the medical treatment you want. From the article:
In effect, medicine said to transsexuals: “Be as conservative about gender as you can. Conform to all the gender stereotypes you can think of; if you want to be a woman, be a stereotypical woman, if you want to be a man, be a stereotypical man. Wipe all traces of ambiguity from your life story. And if you do that, medicine will be willing to help you.”
The alternative is difficult to imagine – but it’s worth a little effort. From the article:
Even those of us who support SRS can – and should – question the way that the medical community has used SRS to enforce very conservative views of gender on patients. Gender is a spectrum – and everyone, including people seeking SRS, should be free to place themselves where they want on the spectrum.
Pingback: Feministe's Journal
Pingback: feminist blogs
I had the chance to read the mentioned article, Mutilating Gender, and I’m glad you mentioned it. I would like to make some comments regarding that article.
I agree with Dean, that they have a right of choice; many women have breast augmentation and are not forced to answer such intrusive questions, as one might be to have them removed.
I do have to say that most of the points of view are based on how “Western” society does things and not all other societies. For instance one can go to a corner store and purchase hormones in many countries. In countries like Thailand, residents are not required to be “pshrinked” to death in order to have procedures done on their bodies like SRS.
But even in the west, the idea that one must adhere to the old stories is going out the window. No longer do you have to follow the story line that you played with dolls or hated dolls and dresses.
There are now many therapists out there that disapprove of the old system and have seen the guidelines as they were meant to be.
When the SOC was created one large reason was to protect TS people from the many unscrupulous doctors out there that saw a way to make a quick buck.
Something else that has come and gone, as far as usefulness goes, and that’s the DSM listing. It is that listing that allows for those same gatekeepers to continue playing with lives, least in the “west”.
Fortunately, as once was, there surgeons outside of the U.S./Canada/U.K. power hold that are willing to look at the person instead and allow the person to be treated with respect that they know who they are and what treatments they need.
Most transex people I know do not consider themselves suffering from a mental illness, and do not consider that they have a gender disorder. Body disorder maybe but that’s a whole different topic.
As I mentioned the HBSOC was designed to be a helpful guideline, not a, “this way only”, rule. Yet so many have gone further then that, they have made it the bible that had to be followed without deviation. Some even worked to increase the “guideline restrictions” to further create that strangle hold.
The story of Agnes, shows just how many other Eastern countries do things, only this happened in the west.
Rachael’s comments echo my own. The very idea of true and secondary transexuals is a foolish one. “True transexuals” are named such because they transition younger, secondary older. My own theory on the differing ages has more to do with orientation of the person.
For instance a straight transexual woman, or man, would be attracted to boys, or girls, in their youth.
Gay transexual people are in a double conflict. Society sees them as one sex and in that sex having relations on people of opposite “genital” sex is approved of. In fact speaking for myself, it was that constant confusing which kept me not going forward earlier. I loved women, not men, and I had no idea that the way I felt was not typical for other “boys”, after all I liked girls.
As I aged that attraction continued, never waned, and each time I feel in love I thought that maybe she was the one that would “cure” me.
There is no such cure of course and so eventually I had to come to accepting who I was.
Rachel Pollack writes: What sense does it make to label some people as true transsexuals, and others as secondary, or confused, or imitation? Whom does such an attitude serve? I can think of no one but the gatekeepers, those who would seize the power of life and death by demanding that transsexuals satisfy an arbitrary standard. To accept such standards, to rank ourselves and others according to a hierarchy of true transsexuality, to try to recast our own histories to make sure they fit the approved model, can only tear us down, all of us, even the ones lucky enough to match that model.
Rachael’s comments echo my own. The very idea of true and secondary transexuals is a foolish one. “True transexuals” are named such because they transition younger, secondary older. My own theory on the differing ages has more to do with orientation of the person.
For instance a straight transexual woman, or man, would be attracted to boys, or girls, in their youth.
Gay transexual people are in a double conflict. Society sees them as one sex and in that sex having relations on people of opposite “genital” sex is approved of. In fact speaking for myself, it was that constant confusing which kept me not going forward earlier. I loved women, not men, and I had no idea that the way I felt was not typical for other “boys”, after all I liked girls.
As I aged that attraction continued, never waned, and each time I feel in love I thought that maybe she was the one that would “cure” me.
There is no such cure of course and so eventually I had to come to accepting who I was.
I never played with the dolls; I was out hiking and dirk biking with a friend of mine who was designated female at birth.
I hate that studies and people think that there are “Boy and Girl” toys and games. The Clarke Institute, now CAMH, has a list of questions they use for parents who end up dealing with their Dr. Zucker in the Child Gender area. He asks parents such questions like, does your child play with boy toys and girl toys. I have their list of questions here with me.
A child plays, that’s it end of statement. Kids like to play all sorts of things. Some love playing house some love playing sports. Just as once before all doctors were men, nurses women. Lawyers had to be men, secretary’s women. Hell there is actor and actress. I hate the term actress and refuse to use it.
So if we as a society can grow and understand that there are jobs that people do, then isn’t it time we realize there are toys and games that children like, just because they enjoy it and no other reason?
But all that said I don’t see how a transexual person is mutilating gender, we are just living as close to how we feel our gender is. My core gender is female, my orientation is lesbian, always was just took me a while to accept it and correct my body. I did that or me, not for society or for some confused notion that life would be easier or that I could now live my erotic fetishes. (autogynophilia http://www.antijen.org/cantor.html )
I caught this post because of the late comment from Femme. I know a number of transgendered folk, and what strikes me like thunder is the spectrum of viewpoints on transition and how they sort chronologically A good friend of mine is a young man who started transitioning only a few years ago, and in his early adulthood. He’s unapologetically swishy and regards it clearly as a charming trait, nothing to hide or be ashamed of — and the people in his social grouping have a similar attitude towards gender traits. Male and female are treated by this group as subtly different ways of being in the world, and body types, and not far-reaching social codes.
I like this new ethic quite a lot. It’s a good sign.
When a local library acquired some guides to transitioning, I was startled by how limited and utterly stereotyped was the ideal that the trans-t0-be was urged to shooot for. Just another pigeonhole.
That was 10 or so years back, but newer guides have not yet appeared. Keep up the good work and maybe they will.
I’m not completely sure which guides you’re referring to, but bear in mind:
Print media is no longer where people turn for information, particularly if they have a lot of questions and require a little anonymity. They go online. Transpeople also have more access to information from medical professionals, including resources for things like passing tips; and to RL communities and support groups, which would obviate the need for a print guide.
I find that the modern on-line community is a disaster. There’s a lot of emphasis on passing though an uncritical embrace of highly stereotyped behaviors.
I’m bi (like, Kinsey 5.9 :) ), but I mostly date women and in the lesbian community there is no shortage of women who are called “Sir” on a regular basis. The women that happens to understand why it happens and aren’t anywhere near as offended as transsexual and transgender women are when someone calls them “Sir”.
So, yeah, while there is an on-line trans universe, I don’t think it’s providing helpful or particularly feminist information to people contemplating a sex change.
I think that asymmetry might be at play here. Passing tips are available per the ftm communities I’ve hung out in, but they tend to exist firmly in the context of, “If this is what floats your boat, go for it!” If someone asks for passing tips, they’re available. And there’s a contingent quality to them; like binders, they’re what you use until you no longer need them. But two/three times a week, someone will put up an, “I don’t want to pass! I don’t want to adopt stereotypically male behaviors! Is that okay?!” and fifty people will reply with, “But of course. Here: I just started livejournal.com/~ftfemme for guys like us.” There are also discussions about feminist viewpoints as affected by transition.
…Of course, then you get into problems with getting earlier-transition ftms to understand that, “You’ll look like a guy. People will think you’re a guy. No, really. No. REALLY.”
OTOH, I went through the early stages of transition dissociating from everything around me, and am now in rather a settled position wrt passing, so I’m probably shielded from some of the discussions.
I’m bi (like, Kinsey 5.9 :) ), but I mostly date women and in the lesbian community there is no shortage of women who are called “Sir” on a regular basis. The women that happens to understand why it happens and aren’t anywhere near as offended as transsexual and transgender women are when someone calls them “Sir”.
Again, not something that seems very common in reverse. Most of the transguys I know tend to be figuring out how to leave ambiguity behind, whether they want to or not.
Most of the discussions I’ve had about feminism and transition have been of the, “Transition is not inherently unfeminist!” variety, and about becoming a guy in possession of male privilege.
Piny writes:
Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like transguys are doing what I complained about — engaging in this uncritical embrace of stereotypical behavior. The way I parse what you wrote is that they are figuring out ways to be stereotypically male — leaving ambiguity behind.
Am I missing something in my reading?
Yes. I’m talking about bodies, not presentation cues. I pass whether or not I try to; no kind of behavior (short of stripping naked) will cause people to see me as anything other than male. Weird, probably. Effeminate, certainly. But never as someone who was born female. That’s true of most ftms, particularly the ones who transition at twenty-five rather than forty.
So the problem that a lot of us are facing is how to go from an ambiguous presentation that might have created an ambiguous cultural identity–butch dyke, boi, andro, etc.–into an unambiguous body and an as-yet-unrealized identity. IOW, “How do I refrain from becoming a stereotype when people have an easier time slotting me into one?” There are ftms who are overjoyed to just be guys, but a large portion of them really don’t want to be “just” anything.
Which, like I said, is why you get into problems with, “You’ll look like a guy. No, really. No. REALLY.” It’s not about conflating “male” with “stereotypically masculine,” but with conflating “androgynous” with “anti-stereotypical”–and, I think, with coming up with a version of “male” that ftms can feel comfortable owning.
yeah, this is true. otoh, i have also encountered many trans people who do not embrace highly stereotyped behavior, and travel through their lives as outwardly trans. some of them complain about the intolerance they encounter.
i think that at least some of this “uncritical embrace of highly stereotyped behavior” is rooted in survival. if ones intent is to integrate into society unnoticed, then “doing as the romans do” becomes a necessity. the reality is that society – at least in this part of the world – also embraces highly stereotyped behavior – even demands it. i don’t think it’s fair to call that faction of the “trans community” that uncritically embraces stereotypes a “disaster” without calling the society in which they intend to function a disaster as well.
i’d venture to say that the percentage of non-trans people who reject stereotyped behavior is on par with the percentage of trans people who do the same. most of us – trans or no – seem to be driven to “fit in” and avoid the stares and jeers of our peers, not to mention beatings and murder.
while it’s true that stereotypes, at least the ones i presume you speak of, hurt everyone, we *all* have to work together to deconstruct and eliminate them, and i find it a little confusing why trans people seem to be the ones accused more vigorously of embracing stereotypes. i don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that trans people be on the forefront of rejecting stereotypes, when they – specifically – are in the most danger of being punished for doing so. i have found that many trans people simply want to fade into the background unnoticed. i have to believe that when the background is without stereotypes, we’ll find trans people also without stereotypes.
Thanks for the explanation. Other than stuff like grooming (and I mean here “Stuff non-transmen do on a daily, weekly or monthly basis as part of their regular grooming rituals”), breast binding and packing, I think of altering “presentation cues” as part of “behavior”. So it sounds like we might have different defintions of “behavior”? Or are you limiting “presentation cues” to shaving facial hair, haircut, binding and packing? I’m curious what other people think of as “presentation cues” because I often run into transwomen who say “But I have to do that!” and most non-transwomen don’t “have to do that”.
(And because someone always brings this one up, no, I don’t think altering ones hormone balance to be more like their target sex is “behavior”. The entire point of sex change is, after all, to change sex …)
Well, some of “grooming” would arguably be special–cutting your sideburns short and straight, for example, or letting your beard grow for several days on purpose, or using eyeliner to assist a chinstrap. (And possibly even binding breasts that aren’t any bigger than the ones I see in the locker room at the gym.) But I see your point.
I think it can be a fine line, since male behavior in patriarchy kinda does involve exhibiting male privilege or the effects of receiving it. Take inflection, for example: despite having dropped a couple of octaves, my voice can still sound androgynous because I habitually speak with inflections different from most men. Altering that kind of behavior is different from, say, deciding that you have to start interrupting more often. But then again, inflection is a variable that controls the way people respond to you.
I’ve met a few guys who say, “I (or, more often, “we”) have to do that or I’m not a real man!” Most of the time, though, I meet guys who say, “Because I want to pass, and because my body currently doesn’t make that very easy, I’m going to do this.”
Right. It isn’t behavior undertaken in the service of a sexist belief about how men and women should behave. Taking hormones will make people see you as a woman, but won’t have any bearing on whether or not they see you as acting acceptably feminine.
I dunno — a lot of guys I’ve known over the years cut their sideburns short and showed off their facial hair by growing it for a few days. But the mascara thing? Hmmm.
Here’s where my problems start — there really are non-transmen out there with feminine speech patterns. Yes, many of them are gay men. And there are, of course, non-transwomen out there with masculine voice patterns and a lot of them are (unsurprisingly) lesbians. It’s when transmen and transwomen engage in this “uncritical embrace of stereotypical behavior” that I start to get bothered. Because I think that working against the expectation that men and women have gender specific voice patterns is something we need to be doing for everyone. And when transmen and transwomen make it about “I’m trans, so I have to do this” and not “Society needs to stop expecting all men, trans and non, and all women, trans and non, to have gender specific voice patterns”, then trans seems a lot more self-serving (or community-serving) and a lot less about people outside the trans universe.
Well, again, if it’s somthing non-transmen never, ever have to deal with — “I wear dark colored extra baggy pants if I have a bit of breakthrough bleeding” — I think that’s kind of “comes with the territory”. It’s the “I’m making a concious decision to speak in a more stereotypically masculine or feminin manner” that I have problems with for the reasons I gave.
I see the distinction. But…well. Like I said, I pass. Like Harvey Fierstein, I can pitch my voice however the hell I want and I will still come off as “faggy man.” People will not take my voice to mean that I’m a woman. Were my body different, I might not be able to retain these inflections and still pass as male; together, they might amount not to getting mistaken for a woman occasionally, or to being seen as gender-incongruent, but to staying permanently in “woman.” Arguably self-serving, but I think you can draw a distinction between the two situations. Like you said, the whole point is to change sex.
Wouldn’t binding fall into the “problematic” category, then? Plenty of men do have gynecomastia, and more each year; a lot of them get surgery to correct it. I’d bet that more men in this country have breasts at some point in their lives than talk? like this?
Going back to the inflection thing…non-transmen virtually never have to deal with looking like a scrawny thirteen-year-old or being pear-shaped and speaking in what we tend to recognize as feminine inflections at the same time. The first issue is not something that can be changed immediately–and sometimes not at all.
That goes for facial hair, too: Transmen grow and show off their facial hair because they have unusually hairless chins. (Or because they have unusually fine features.) They cut their sideburns very short and straight because otherwise, it’d be clear that their facial hair pattern was typically female, and that they didn’t have enough facial hair to grow real sideburns. In other words, they’re doing it in order to conceal a condition that naturally occurs in cissexual men, too–just not very many of them.
Pingback: Feministe » I don’t rely on what I don’t need
amp – great post! were you hiding it or something? why did it take us a month before finding it?
my experience is not that the online community is a disaster. In the early days, i depended almost solely on the online trans community and i found there to be a great number of trans folks who embraced and exhibited many differing opinions on presentation, transitioning, gender, ambiguity, and so forth. It was, and seems to still be, a very open community. The only disaster i’ve found on the web wrt trans issues are non-trans folks asserting what they believe to be acceptable and unacceptable trans behavior.
i agree with what i believe piny is saying in that i don’t feel that trans folks should be judged as perpetuating gender norms simply because we are read a certain way. it seems to be equivalent to saying that a femme lesbian is guilty of perpetuating sexism because she isn’t butch enough. this all goes back to something i read on bitch | lab awhile back on the revision and ripping-off of the phrase (from the title of the essay) “The Personal is Political”. Its true that not all trans folks have a feminist approach to gender, but are we to believe that all nontrans folks do? And who defines what is and isn’t a feminist approach (or not feminist enough)? Do nontrans folks get to decide what is acceptable behavior for trans people? Cuz i don’t like that line of logic.
Thanks! But I think you mean, a month plus three years. :-)
There were comments on this post when it was first posted, but at some point when I changed blogging programs the comments database was lost. :-(
I very much agree with you, especially regarding the point that practically everyone – regardless of if they’re trans or not – acts or dresses or lives in some way that perpetuates gender roles. Singling out trans folks for criticism on this score is unreasonable.
damn! i didn’t even look at the year. it is reassuring to know that the original comments were simply lost (instead of the thread just being all together ignored).
Conservative Transsexuals Contingent
“The transsexuals seeking help from the medical community have been extremely dedicated to maintaining and supporting gender stereotypes. However, that dedication is a response to the desires of the medical community. Doctors, in effect, latched onto a biography of “the life of a transsexual.” In effect, medicine said to transsexuals: “Be as conservative about gender as you can. Conform to all the gender stereotypes you can think of; if you want to be a woman, be a stereotypical woman, if you want to be a man, be a stereotypical man. Wipe all traces of ambiguity from your life story. And if you do that, medicine will be willing to help you.”
This was true when I was young back in the 1970s and like Little Billy, I fit the classic definition to a T! Now this is all years behind me. I’m very conservative having always voted Republican since I was old enough to vote. While not overtly religious, I support most of the traditional values proposed by the Christian right. Therefore, it is understood that I am homophobic (I would call it moral majority values) antifeminist (I want a man to care for and protect me) and not at all happy with the changes that have taken place regarding transsexual surgery since the time I underwent SRS. My goal was to become a normal woman as much as possible and keep any past abnormality a secret.
If I had to face the same dilemma today, I might not have had surgery. For without a complete passport into mainstream life, having SRS would not have meant as much to me. I have thought over these matters recently and since I have always been solely attracted to men, I might consider today attempting to cope with a feminine gay male identity. The problem is that gay men, as I last remember, do not adhere at all to the butch-femme roles the way gay women do. If gay men were more like gay women in this respect, I might consider being a femme identified gay male.
Another problem I would have to face is not only would I have trouble dealing with being gay, I would more greatly suffer from the gay subculture, which tends to be urban and very liberal, while I have always preferred a conservative rural environment. There are so many elements to this demension that it is difficult to cover with few words. I remember gays attracted to the arts, pop music and counter culture movements, while I have always preferred outdoor life (hunting, fishing, boating) and country music and traditional events like state fairs. (I was a 4-H kid and still get a kick out of raising hogs) Perhaps a very straight looking gay couple could enter this world, but I would have wanted to be feminine, mainly because I look very feminine and naturally look more attractive with long hair and tight jeans with a little make-up. I have often thought that if I were over say, five-nine and medium built, I might have not been so interested in looking feminine. The fact is I look much better as a woman to any observer, even other women were much more friendly to me once I started living as female in my late teens.
I know so many today talk about the real ‘me’ inside and expressing ones true identity, but I think all this gets too much play from many transsexuals today who have nothing natural to justify their reasons, many that don’t look naturally female and many who are not naturally attracted to men. I think these are today’s transsexual voice, the activist Ts who can’t pass no matter how much surgery one undergoes. They must have their reasons for wanting to go through such an obtrusive physical change and my guess is it is more psychological and internally motivated with this group. I read all the literature and I think people like me who were called the ‘true, or ‘classic type and most often middle class versions of the ones described in the literature as the homosexual subtype.
The real decision maker for me would be the one I had to make years ago. Do I want to stay alone, as I think I would have been had I not changed, or would I think about how I could have a chance at finding that straight masculine man of my dreams. I took my chances and made out well for many years, perhaps I would do it again.
“In this biography, little Billy Pre-Transsexual was Always Miserable as a boy. He was No Good at sports (because he’s a girl inside, and we all know girls are never good at sports). Little Billy played with dolls and makes drawings with lots of flowers and hates his penis… and, eventually, Little Billy gets the surgery he wants without any ambiguity at all and becomes happy Suzy Transsexual, a woman who is entirely feminine and not even slightly butch, since we all know butch women aren’t real women.”
But I was not little Suzy Transsexual, I was little Suzy and was always accepted as such by the people that mattered to me and that society does not lesbian feminists!
Pingback: A most poor credulous monster « bird of paradox
Pingback: Gender roles with sexist language & gendered pronouns « cyanide cupcake
Very depressing. I really hope this is not my experiance. I’m a transgender woman, and I am considering hormones and SRS, as for a long time I’ve been unhappy with being seen as male by others and with my body. However, I’ve never been hyperfeminine and I would hope I don’t have to pretend to be. I would also hope I am not pressured to make any decisions.
Pingback: These Are Not the Radicals You’re Looking For » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Pingback: These Are Not the Radicals You’re Looking For
Pingback: Beyond Coercion: Talking Transmisogyny & Femmephobia: a workshop by Cordelia Nailong and Ace Falcor | Discerning Poise ; Poised Discernment
Pingback: Gender roles with sexist language & gendered pronouns | I eat sacred cows. They make the best hamburger!