The Lives of Transgender People
Genny Beemyn & Susan Rankin
Columbia University Press, 2011
This small and densely packed book is the result of a relatively massive nationwide survey with something like 3,500 participants, all of whom went through an online survey, a smaller but still significant group are then interviewed in person or by phone. Then come the stats. At which my eyes always water after a time. Beemyn & Rankin's original survey, amongst all its Likert scales solicits the respondents to say more, telling them that "Quotes will also be used throughout the report to give 'voice' to the quantitative data" (168), which is what makes this a much more readable report than it would have been otherwise. This is now a very theoretical review of this book, I am mostly just pulling quotes, glossing the chapters, going on rare tangents through autobiography or a bit of Lacan… but what I got from this book was a lot of data and a greater appreciation for the complexity that I knew already was complex but wow, really, this stuff is complex. Not, the book or the concepts and definitions in play so much - but the realities of the people who are the living breathing subjects of this study. I am trying as well to be more attentive to definitional issues in this text - not because I am arguing that these are the terms to use or the best tools or whatever (how would I know) but because they do seem flexible and feel to me at least to be derived from analysis of concrete situations rather than being looked for and therefore found. Flexible terms which do not erase the specificity of any of those designated and are useful in furthering the discussion and understanding of the lives of these people is surely in need.
In her forward to the book, Shannon Minter, draws attention to a number of things, other than the size, which distinguish this study from others; the flexible and somewhat novel classificatory schema; that survey respondents are given many opportunities to elaborate and are enjoined to share their own preferred terms and concepts of identity, pronoun preferences and the like.
"Past studies of transgender people have generally failed to include people with nonbinary identities, perhaps in part because the task of definition is so daunting. [The authors] recognized that attempting to define who counts as transgender would hinder, rather than advance, their ability to study a community in which new identities are rapidly emerging" (viii).
The text is laid out with an introduction, then five chapters, then a few appendixes. What these are up to is something like this;
The Introduction
… talks about the development of transgender studies, noting how early work in this area did not solicit terms of self-description from those being studied (i.e., it imposed its terms) and with notable exceptions was written by non-trans people. There is discussion of transvestite clubs and associations and the degree to which some explicitly excluded anyone male who wanted to be a woman, as well as any self-professed homosexuals or bisexuals, accepting only heterosexual men who desired to appear as women while retaining a heterosexual orientation (2-3). But the period of the cross-dresser seems to be on the wane and the research will show that most of those who identify as such are significantly older and that younger folks opt for different terms, including those outside the M/F duo.
… it turns then to questions of definition and description, observing that "For much of the twentieth century, the literature on cross-dressers, transsexual people, and other gender-diverse individuals was reductive and pathologizing" [psychoanalysis alert: "psychoanalysts such as William Steckel (1930) subsequently characterized 'transvestities' as men who were 'latent homosexuals' or in denial about their homosexuality] (5). But after touring quickly through the DSM's terms and also dispensing with the idea of "primary" and "secondary" transsexuals forwarded by someone as hierarchical "unnecessarily judgmental and of little value" the authors write;
"Our approach in undertaking this research was that cross-dressing, transsexuality, and other transgender identities are no less 'natural' or 'legitimate' than the dominant gender categories of women and men" (5-6).
"Our research also differs from many previous studies in that we did not seek to define who qualified to be counted as transgender. All people living in the United States who currently identify as transgender or gender nonconforming in some way or who have identified as transgender in the past (i.e., FTM and MTF individuals who have transitioned and no longer consider themselves transgender) were encouraged to participate. (…) we will be using the word 'transgender' as a general term for all individuals whose gender histories cannot be described as simply female or male, even if they now identify and express themselves as strictly female or male" (6).
… then there is a bunch of stuff about methodology, and if you want that, buy the book. Theoretically pertinent too though is that the authors have constructed a model of trans identity formation (to be mentioned below someplace) from the research findings.
Chapter 1
…continues the definitional labor to orient readers to the framing assumptions of the survey and as well to clarify the terms used within the survey itself. I'll quote poach for a bit.
Writing of the sexing of the newborn, "If the infant has a penis, then it is a boy; if the infant does not, then it is a girl. Gender assignment is thus medicalized, phallocentric, and dichotomous" (15) that would be phallic reasoning, but not because the penis is the phallus. Though I wonder if the authors would agree.
Next they consider the powerful effects of language, of the very terms chosen to describe anyone and observe that "There are no neutral terms related to transgender people and there are no neutral systems of classification, treatment, or strategies of empowerment. The basic point of contention pits biology against social construction; as a practical reality for transgender individuals, this means a choice between having surgery or finding acceptance and empowerment without surgery" (16-17).
"Our language's emphasis on polarity (good-bad, wrong-right, male-female) also makes it difficult to think of sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression as existing within a more dynamic framework that is inclusive of transgender people" (17).
…so then, SEX
"Sex or biological gender is typically defined as one's biophysiological makeup. Although often reduced to genitalia, sex is established through the complex interplay between genetic, hormonal, gonadal, biochemical, and anatomical determinants that affect the physiology of the body and sexual differentiation in the brain. Approximately 1.7 percent of the world's population does not fit the biological categories - once presumed to be immutable - of female and male" and though they don't fit, "they are made to fit into a gender binary" (18).
[1.7% of the world pop & btw, 1.7% of 6,840,507,003 = 116,288,619… that's people. More people than there are in Mexico, almost as many as Japan. According to wikipedia (the friendly superego!) the pop of the Atlanta metro area is 5,268,860… so 22 times as many folks as we got here in the greater ATL]
"…the prevalence of individuals with disorders of sex development (DSD) and their negative responses to unnecessary surgical interventions challenge the fundamental assumption that physical characteristics unequivocally define male and female" …recognize through here that gigantic number above is about DSD cases so called, and isn't an estimate about the number transgender people world wide (in the sense of the term they are using) though I'd be curious to see such an estimate (it would probably be a very fuzzy estimate).
…next up, GENDER
"Similar to biological sex, gender has traditionally been considered a dichotomous social construction: one is either a man or a woman" (…) quoting Gayle Rubin, gender is the "socially imposed division of the sexes that transforms males and females into 'men' and 'women'" (…) …then referring to many other authors they gloss a general position about gender which "suggests that physical differences between women and men are used to rationalize distinctions in expectations and opportunities based on gender and changing notions about what is considered to be gender-appropriate behavior, a binary model or women and men - of femaleness and maleness - remains intact (…) identities that do not align are pathologized as undesirable but treatable mental disorders" (19).
"Society does not offer an social or biological territory for individuals who exist between sexes and genders" (20).
…but gender is not just the term boy or girl given at birth (gender or sex assignment) but a bunch of other sociocultural stuff. Here is how Beemyn & Rankin parse this stuff, beginning with GENDER ATTRIBUTION
"how others perceive one's gender"
…which can have to do with GENDER ROLES
"the behaviors that are culturally coded as masculine or feminine"
…whereas GENDER IDENTITY
"refers to an individual's sense of hir own gender, which may be different from one's birth gender or how others perceive one's gender. The centering of gender on an individual's self-concept, instead of on the person's biological sex, creates a discursive space that allows for a more nuanced understanding of gender" (20)
…& GENDER EXPRESSION
"refers to how one chooses to indicate one's gender identity or others through behavior and appearance, which includes clothing, hairstyle, makeup, voice and body characteristics' and, importantly it "can very over time" (21)
…but GENDERISM is more ideological, and
"refers to the beliefs and practices that privilege stable, binary gender identities/expressions and that subordinate and disparage transgender people and other individuals who do not adhere to dominant gender expectations. The term encompasses individual acts of discrimination as well as systemic and institutionalized inequalities (…) Genderism is also evident in the binary basis of much of the language involving gender - from the ays in which women and men are conceptualized, to the lack of acceptance for gender-neutral pronouns, to the common use of gendered forms of address such as 'sir' and 'ma'am'" (21).
With these terms in place they turn to a considerations (with many tables) of the survey respondents wrt many of these terms' referents, noting though that "even people who use a common terminology can have a very different understanding of what those words mean. It was in this section that I found the information mentioned in a previous posting about the 479 unique responses to the question of the respondent's gender identity. Also in this chapter we get the classificatory system that Beemyn & Rankin will use. This appears to me to be smartly chosen as well, the authors use four broad boxes or frames MTF/T (male to female/ transgender), FTM/T (female to male/transgender) where these two categorizations capture both those who identify simply in accord with their gender identity as well as those who describe themselves as transsexual or transgender, etc - and then MTDG and FTDG (male or female, to "different gender") which is the author's convenient catch-all for any and all subjects whose terms of self-identification are not M, F but but something else.
…in considering the race of the survey respondents I note the detail that "the largest group was American Indians (152 people)" and that this finding is congruent with another study which also found the highest number of trans people amongst American Indians where it comprised 6% of the people in their study. I note it just because it seemed notable (snick)… i.e., I thought it interesting and would be curious to know a bit more about its prevalence within Native American communities versus other communities - is it more or less common there? etc.
…the sexual orientation of respondents had quite a few details of some interest to me. After noting Kinsey's research the authors concur that sexual orientation varies with many degrees of difference, but that it is "usually discussed more narrowly in terms of three distinct, immutable categories: heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual" (31).
"Theorists in these areas suggest that sexual orientation is inherently flexible and that it develops continuously over the life span out of an individual's sexual and emotional experiences, social interactions, and cultural influences. From this standpoint, individuals may experience transitions in sexual orientation throughout their lives" (32).
…with ref. to the straight-bi-gay tripartite divisions generally assumed they ask "How does a female-presenting cross-dresser who is attracted to men while cross-dressed, but to women when not in 'women's' clothing, identify hirself?" (32).
"Almost one-third of the study respondents (1,120 people) reported that their sexual orientation was bisexual" (33).
…considering issues of 'physical, emotional and cognitive challenges' amongst the respondents, the research findings show that the "prevalence of these conditions in the transgender population appears to be no greater than in the cisgender population" (35).
[to be continued]
No comments:
Post a Comment
lay it on me/us