Issues - Facts and Theories

Spot the difference

Look very closely at the following five photographs. Only one of them shows a transgendered person. Can you pick which one it is? Try selecting the photograph you think it is to find out the answer. Do this before you read any further...  

Anti-spoiler Gap

 

Please try to guess the answer to the above question before proceeding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a bit deceptive wasn't it? And that's the point. Sometimes you can "pick a book by it's cover", but most times you can't. I expect that most of you picked my image straight away, and that's because, well glamour wear doesn't suit me that well (I'm more an "Earth Mother", compare the above to this photo of me at a BBQ). But how many picked the woman with her child?

Transgendered what?

Transgender is such a wide term that sometimes it's hard to know exactly what it refers to. The following list of male-females comes from pages 67-68 of Kate Bornstein's "Gender Outlaw":

Post-operative transsexuals

Those transsexuals who've had genital surgery and live fully in the role of another gender;

Pre-operative transsexuals

Those living full or part time in another gender, but who've not yet had their genital surgery;

Transgenders

People living in another gender identity, but who have little or no intention of having genital surgery;

She-Males

A she-male friend of [Kate's] described herself at "tits, big hair, lots of make-up, and a dick";

Drag Queens

Gay men who on occasion dress in varying parodies of women;

Out Transvestites

Usually heterosexual men who dress as they think women dress, and who are open about doing so;

Closet Cases

Transvestites who hide their crossdressing.

Now in Kate's book, she commented on how those at the top of this list tend to look down on those lower than them (with the closet cases mocking the post-ops), like a social hierarchy. In my experience there is some truth in this, though it is not universally done. It's funny too, because when I expanded the booklet Being Laura into a fanzine, I made three distinctions: transvestite, transgender, and transsexual. I made those divisions because of the degree of body modification in each. I sent a copy to someone considering transition, and their reaction was that I was "ranking" these types!

The point I'm making here is that there is immense variety within the spectrum of transgendered persons. Consider that female-males are not list above, and on the whole are generally overlooked in general discussions about transgendered issues.

Myself, well I'm transsexual(1) and I accept that label, though others like Galla also apply to me.

Nature vs Nurture

The medical, psychological, and scientific establishments have in recent times put forth theories about what makes people like myself transgendered. The basic dialetic is between genetics ("nature") and upbringing ("nurture"). This is an age-old argument though, and not just about transgendered people, but for any kind of social deviance.

One theory was that there was some sort of genetic malfunction during pregnancy, that somehow "gender-cross-coded" our brains. The latest version of this is a "transsexual gene", which like the so-called "gay-gene" makes you transgendered(2).

Another one blames faulty parental upbringing, with either an "absent father" or "dominant mother" featuring strongly(3). A lacanian variation of this is that transsexuality is an attempt to palliate the absence of the "name-of-the-Father"(4) and to achieve a suspension of the phallic function.

Others, like Raymond, reject both ideas and claim that the prime cause of transsexuality is purely a social one. Certainly, both nature and nurture arguments seem to overlook the fact that gender roles in society are basically artificial constructs, no more "natural" than riding a pushbike or living in a house is. And they tend to overlook the bias in those constructs.

But is social dysfunction the whole answer. I don't think so, but my own argument against this is purely a personal one. My transsexuality appears to have two components:

1. A social model of myself as a woman; and
2. A body image of myself as being female.

The last is why I'm transsexual as well as being transgendered. I alter my body to match my internal body image of myself. That image includes how my body appears externally, but not internally. I do not desire ovaries for example, because that is not included in my body image of myself.

Now it may well be that my body image is also a social construct. I cannot say, only that it is important and has meaning to myself.

Gynemimesis

If I was born in India, I'd probably be a Hijra; if Thailand, a Katoi; if Tahiti, a Mahu; maybe a Xanith in Arabia, or a Winkte or Berdache in North Amerindian societies. What I'm trying to say, is that the state of being transgendered is something that cuts across times and cultures. It is part of being human, part of being in society.

There has long been a debate over the cause of transsexuality, almost as soon as the term was coined. Mostly the arguments centred around the ideas of "nature vs nurture". That is, are you born transsexual, or raised to become one? I find the comments in the following quote of interest. In the foreword of Neither Man or Woman (a study of the Hijras of India), John Money says:

Gynemimesis is the characteristic that different gynemimetic communities have in common. There are characteristics that are not shared, chief of which is that each group has a cultural heritage...
...The search for origins will be doomed to failure if secondary determinants are mis-identified as primary ones.... [and]
...New discoveries concerning the origins of gynemimesis will not qualify as authentic unless they can be substantiated cross culturally... [and finally]
...In American social science, it is still extremely popular to split biology from social science and to assign sex to biology ("sex is what you're born with") and gender to social science ("gender is your identity and social role"). This is another version of the nature/nurture dichotomy, and it doesn't hold water. What you are born with includes the precursors of your identity and role, no matter whether it is male, female, or hijra; and what you become under the influence of social learning and remembering becomes part of the biology of your brain.
(pp xii to xiv)

So, in other words, nurture becomes nature, in the end there is no difference. This being the case, the chances of finding a definitive "cause" of transsexuality and related states of being are pretty slim. Transgendered people appear throughout history at different times, places, and cultures. When i first realized this, it was a liberating thought. I was no aberration or mistake, I had forerunners and antecedents. There was no need to justify myself for who I am, because there have been people like me ever since societies first started to have gender roles.

And how about this? Maybe it's not the people that have the problem, but the societies themselves. In defining gender roles and assigning them on the basis of genitalia society and culture attempt to place people (who come in all shapes and sizes) into regular little pigeon holes of convenience. No wonder some of us transgress, transverse, and transcend these. The real wonder is that there aren't more of us!

Footnotes

(1) Pre-op at this time of writing, though I do intend to get my surgery after completing university studies.

(2) So being transgendered is like, say, having down syndrome? I don't think so!

(3) What's telling about these ideas is that they've been recycled from being applied to homosexuals and lesbians. Couldn't be that they just like to kiss and cuddle the same sex could it?

(4) The "Name-of-the-Father" is that which appears to prevent a child from satisfying what it perceives to be it's mother need, what separates it from the mother. If you want to find out what this all means, try reading Lacan for Beginners by Icon Books (ISBN 1-874166-31-5). Once you've done that (or know a bit of Lacanian psychology) it's probably safe to read HORSEXE from Automedia (ISBN 0-936756-20-9). I wouldn't advise doing so otherwise.