Alright so, it continues. I have a response here from a member of our lovely Smith community which I will post in just a second. First I want to say something and it’s quite simple: stop the hating. Let me explain, I’ve been watching the ugly exchanges on the ACB or the Anonymous Confession/Complaint Board, or the new Daily Jolt Forum. Some nasty things were said about my friends, some nasty things were said about me, and my partner. I honestly couldn’t care less because I stopped caring a long time ago what people think of me. The point is that it’s ugly; it proves that a lot of people have some ugly hatred inside of them which an anonymous board just allows them to get out. You got a problem with me? (Or with anyone?) Say it to my/their face. It proves your less of spineless bastard than your making yourself seem. Why does there have to be so much animosity between us when we’re all here for the same purpose? Don’t you know that being the mean girl/guy/person went out of style in high school?
Anyway, moving on.
A Response to my Critique, by Theo Retos
(The numbered parentheses indicate caveat-footnotes at the bottom.)
Gender Experimentation in College
Without experimentation there cannot be realization. Some people do eventually shake off the transgender or gender-variant identity, but granting the population the opportunity to do so is worth it for those who come to terms with whatever identity they settle upon. Additionally, I think there will be less fleeting experimentation when people are allowed, in societal terms, to adopt aspects of variance earlier. They will have already accepted certain facets of their gender identity before college, and therefore won’t need to assume an ‘extreme’ presentation and then shift back to more personally moderate expressions. Instead, they will be relatively close to a comfortable presentation when they arrive at college.
Think about it in terms of sexuality— college used to be, and in some ways still is, a safe space to question our sexuality. However, since non-heteronormative sexualities are now more widely accepted at various developmental levels people often come to college with an idea of their variant-sexuality.[1] They may shift and change some, but their fundamental queerness is already there. Hopefully one day gender-variance will exist on a similar plane… taken for granted as a possibility rather than something strange and worthy of ‘experimentation’.
Adopting a variant identity during college brings about at least some of the fears gender-variant people have. If you discuss class you have to take into account the monetary expense of adopting ‘gender-variance’, if only temporarily. Those without great deals of expendable income must wear their newly acquired neutral or masculine clothes either in Northampton or at home, and home may not be nearly as accepting as the Smith Bubble. Additionally, if they cut their hair short they have to deal with that alteration in conjunction with their adoption of the aforementioned clothing, which brings about some of the presentation problems you mentioned gender-variant people face. To assume that those experimenting with gender don’t have to deal with some of these fears is unfair. No, their fears aren’t as bad as the perpetual fears gender-variant people have to face for the rest of their lives since the subject’s experimentation is in Northampton, which is an accepting place. Yet, if they choose to go abroad, take time off, get an internship during the summer, etc. they have to deal with the wardrobe and hair cut they have in non-Northampton contexts. Overall, take the fad and the irritation it causes with a grain of salt.
Gender-Variance and Medical Intervention
The most important aspect of your post I want to address is your view about the rejection of medical procedures by gender-variant people. Why does medical intervention imply a reinforcement of the gender binary? Why does medically changing my body to fit my conception of self make me less gender-variant? I’m unclear as to the correlation between medically altering my body and the somehow necessary connection to an altering of my personality. In making the connection between top surgery and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) you are actually reinforcing the stereotypes of “maleness”. You are equating the results of medical treatment: flat chest, squared jaw, lower voice, etc. with maleness, and completely removing the ingredient of self-identification. There is nothing to say that if I choose to medically change my body I can no longer claim to be gender-variant. Since, one doesn’t need breasts to identify as female, nor do they need a penis to identify as male, the reverse is that one doesn’t need to become a transman in choosing to acquire medically-induced ‘male’ characteristics. If the absence of some characteristics doesn’t imply a deprivation of identity, then the presence of some characteristics, whether ‘natural’ or medically created, doesn’t imply a deprivation of identity either.
My body, my presentation, my conception of self, and the world’s interpretation of me are what make me gender-variant. Your assertions about gender-variance not needing medical intervention ignores the role medicine can play for anyone. You are creating a dichotomy between trans-binaryism and gender-variance. In other words, you are binding transpeople to medical intervention, saying that medical intervention necessarily makes one trans and indicates a movement across the gender binary. Simultaneously, you are putting gender-variant people above the binary and ignoring the role medical intervention can and may need to play in some gender-variant people’s lives. In other words, you are equating medical intervention with transitioning across the binary, and ignoring the role medical intervention can play in queering anyone. I think this ideology occurs because of the normative conception of transpeople being ‘born in the wrong body’. Some transpeople would, if they had the option, opt into changing their history so they were born male or female. The restrictions of science make it so this group is forced to use medicine to compensate for the body they were born with in pursuit of the body they want; they use HRT and surgery to create a body that fits their desire to be male.[2] However, this should not be the dominant conception of what medical intervention is, does and means. There are structures within which our presentations as gender-variant people will be interpreted. I will be read as male/man, female/woman or trans regardless of my desire to be genderqueer. As a result, the fundamental purpose behind our presentation, and our choice to take hormones and get surgery, should be our own happiness. The world may see me as a transman, like some assume, but I will still be variant in my own way, which is the important part.
Transmen have inadvertently co-opted the narrative of a certain kind of body being immediately correlated with ‘male’ or ‘man’. In other words, since transmen inhabit a range of bodies, many of which are acquired through medical intervention, those bodies come to mean “man” or “male” as much as cis-men’s bodies do. Since transmen often undergo or want to undergo HRT and top surgery but don’t often receive bottom surgery AND they want this body to mean “man” for them these bodies are increasingly deemed “man” in the general discourse. As a result, any gender-variant person who adopts a ‘male’ name and ‘male pronouns’ and wants to undergo various forms of medical intervention are equated with being a transman.[3] In the same way that people impress upon you the common notion of transgenderism, you are placing upon interventionist gender-variant people the narrative of trans-binaryism (or using medicine to shift one’s gender/sex from one side of the binary to another). In essence, you are reinforcing the gender-based stereotypes of what it means to be a (trans)man and ignoring the identities of gender-variant people who want medical intervention. You are equating a “flat chested, hormone altered, specific set of genitals”-body with being a ‘man’ even if that’s not how the person wants to identify.
Let me try to break down the combination of bodies here that are being equated with (trans)man in the context we’re talking about (Smith College or other insular queer spaces):
breasts, female-assigned genitalia, lack of testosterone = man
breasts, female-assigned with clitoral growth (referred to as dick) genitals, presence of testosterone = man
flat chest, dick/clit, presence of testosterone = man
flat chest, dick/clit, cessation of hormonal injections but maintenance of bodily changes = man**
flat chest, surgically constructed dick, presence of testosterone = man
natal/biological male-assigned body = man
In all those cases, the person or subject is assigned a (trans)man designation to their body. They call their bodies ‘man’ or ‘male’. However, a genderqueer person could also feasibly inhabit any of those bodies and still be genderqueer. If I can queer my presentation and queer my gender, why can’t I queer my body? Why can’t I get top surgery and take T, either temporarily or permanently, and still call myself genderqueer? Since the dominant discourse is that “female-assigned medically altered male named and pronoun’ed bodies are transmen”, genderqueer people are being shifted into those boxes when they receive HRT and top surgery even if they don’t want those designations.[4]
We cannot separate the way bodies play a role in our pursuit of our true gender. I understand the frustration of feeling pressure to change one’s body to conform or present one’s masculinity since the discourse presumes this of us. I completely understand your frustrations regarding peoples’ intrusive questions. I think for the reason that people don’t often associate medical intervention with variance is because the ‘medical transition to male’ narrative has become the dominant one for both transmasculine and transgender people. As a result, the overarching discourse is framed through this lens. For example, rather than asking, hopefully in private, “why do you feel positively or negatively about certain parts of your body?” the discourse is framed as “are you going to get top surgery (and when)?” As if top surgery is a given for either group, transgender or transmasculine people.
It’s hard to make the claim that genderqueer people shouldn’t need medical intervention. That’s like universalizing transpeople’s experiences— some don’t have bottom dysphoria, some do. (Queer) Society at large accepts the idea that a transman’s natal genitals are a dick or a transwoman’s natal genitals are a vagina; this doesn’t mean we cannot also accept someone’s need to get bottom surgery. Our acceptance of their state of being doesn’t remove their dysphoria. Therefore, our acceptance of the bodies of gender-variant people doesn’t take away their need to take T and get top surgery in pursuit of a complete realization of self. We just need to reflect on where our desire for medical intervention comes from— are we succumbing to pressures of conformity or do we truly feel that to exist in the world the way we want/see ourselves we need HRT and surgery? Keep in mind some genderqueer people only take hormones (some for temporary periods of time) and others only get top surgery.
Reorientation and Loss
Additionally, I understand the sense of loss you feel when gender-variant people appear to move into the ‘trans-camp’. I worry about how undergoing medical intervention will alter peoples’ conceptions of me or narrow the idea of gender-variance at large. I chose a male name and adopted male pronouns as a way to manifest my masculinity in a shorthand way. Rather than having my original name and pronouns be used in conjunction with my presentation to interpret me as a masculine lesbian woman, I adopted new signifiers to intentionally shift public interpretation. Additionally, I think my chosen name and pronouns suit me better than those I was originally assigned. That does not mean they are the best, but I continue to explore this even today. Meanwhile, I lament that my identity will be reassigned if I choose to undergo medical intervention— I will be read as a (trans)man rather than a genderqueer person. Yet, that sacrifice and re-education should only be taken into account, it shouldn’t be what stops me or anyone else from getting HRT or top surgery if we so choose. No, I shouldn’t feel pressured to use medical measures to manifest my gender identity, but I should be given the option. l agree with you that gender-variant people should do a great deal of reflection about whether or not medical intervention will yield the satisfaction they desire— they need to navigate internal desires to alter their body, their conception of their presentation and their body’s relationship to this presentation (ex. can they be satisfied binding and be comfortable with breasts?), social pressures to conform to conceptions of masculinity, and the trans-narrative discussed above.
Finally, it is hard to understand the intersection between physical presentation and social signifiers. For some, the idea of medical intervention grows before the decision to change one’s name or pronouns. Names shouldn’t be gendered just as bodies shouldn’t be gendered. There should be a large volume of gender-signifiers for us to choose from that will help people understand our concept of self with or without medical procedures— for example, “he, she, hir, ze and they” simply do not represent the plethora of genders out there. My choice to alter my body shouldn’t necessarily add to or detract from one gender or another if I don’t want it to— I should be whatever gender I decide. Breast implants don’t make someone more woman, and steroids and gaining muscle mass doesn’t make someone more man. If that is logically true, getting top surgery and taking T shouldn’t make me more (trans)man or less gender-variant if I don’t want it to.[5] However, gender-variant do need to understand that the world doesn’t understand this principle and learn to navigate what this lack of understand will mean for them and for the progress of eradicating the gender-binary.
Footnotes:
[1] By ‘variant’ I mean all non-heteronormative sexualities. Since Jax’s post discussed the relationship between dominant, oppressive concepts and their counterbalancing ideas anything that does not conform to the het-cis-white-patriary-etc.-discourse will be considered variant. Variant is the uncategorized, which is I am not categorizing trans as variant. Regardless of its accuracy, transgenderism has a schema in common discourse— as a movement across or along a gender binary. Therefore, gender-variance is categorized here as not man/male, not woman/female, and not trans.
[2] Not all transpeople wish they were born a male or female body. Some appreciate the experiences they’ve gained through living in a different gender and transitioning. However, the ‘transition across the binary’ narrative is what dominates non-trans and non-variant discourse.
[3] Don’t forget the default maleness of names. Our schema is trained to read things as male by default or base our ideas on our experiences. Therefore, picking a neutral name is often conceived as opting into a ‘more masculine’ name, not adopting a ‘non-gendered’ name.
[4] Some people identify as genderqueer transmen, which means in general terms they transitioned to a ‘male’ body but still recognize their queered gender.
[5] The avoidance of this idea is not addressed here. This could easily be appropriate by normative society to reject medical intervention for transpeople claiming they don’t need it to be themselves.
[Editor’s Note 12/14/10: I’m not diametrically opposed to lot of what Theo has written here. This post wasn’t meant to be an opposition, merely a continuation of dialogue. In turn, to continue the dialogue, I’m crafting my response, but due to finals (and since I have 5 papers basically due on the same day), this might have to take a backseat to my GPA]
Let’s dance to Joy Division and celebrate the irony. Let’s dance to Joy Division and raise our glass to the ceiling, because this could all go so wrong, but we’re so happy.
Any Landing is a Good Landing 