BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Unbelievably transphobic Guardian article

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Ganesh
08:00 / 14.05.03
The John Money and John/Joan thing? It's not been on the BBC recently but I think I did catch it when it was on - and I'm certainly familiar with the case. Apart from sympathising with John's horrendous predicament and casting considerable doubt on Money's professional ethics (for some time afterwards, he presented John/Joan as 'proof' of his environmental-conditioning-over-biology theories), the whole thing signalled the end of the overwhelmingly 'cultural conditioning' approach to gender, which was popular at the time. Small consolation for John himself, but his case powerfully highlighted the 'hardwired' element of gender - and suggested that, ultimately, this was more influential than any amount of environmental conditioning. X over Y.

I actually thought of Joan/John when I met a similar individual, but who'd been born with equivocal genitalia (as opposed to John's accidental surgical mutilation) and raised female, despite being genotypically male (or, at a push, XXY). Very unhappy as a woman, and eventually started identifying as male; he was waiting for phalloplasty. Poor sod, but much happier male than female.
 
 
No star here laces
10:39 / 14.05.03
I have to say that I think the tone of the article has less to do with the fact that the subjects are transboys and more to do with the type of transboys they are. It seems to me that most of the ire is directed at "these trendy williamsburg types" or whatever expression is used, and less at "how dare they pretend to be men".

Not that I'm saying its justified or nothing.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:44 / 14.05.03
Did she in fact desperately scrape up every friend of a friend with gender ambiguity and then go "Well, I was *shocked* at the spread of this new craze" (ahem), or are we looking at the coming wave?

Thanks largely to Barbelith, I now know a lot more about trans- issues (though, apparently, I'm not even sure what the blanket term I'm looking for here is) than I did 2 or 3 years ago, when they started coming to my attention due to pretty much the same phenomenon that the Guardian reporter is writing about. And at first, I admit, I thought it *was* a trend - because although it might have been only in my personal experience, it seemed that all of the sudden there were references to FTM individuals everywhere, and the impetus behind "genderfuck" was not so obvious to this straight boy, perhaps because he saw the progression of one close individual from babydyke to butch to "boi" as just that - a progression, rather than discrete states.

As far as "trends" go, I think we can talk about two things here - (1) the implication of the article - that it's a fashion statement of some sort, a new cool identity for young people to try on. While it's easy to snarl at this proposition, as an outsider, this is the first reaction you have when you see a bunch of 18-20 year olds assuming new identities. However, I don't see how it's possible to differentiate between people who are "authentic" genderfuckers and people who are "trendy" genderfuckers, and whether that differentiation would be useful, at all.

(2) Trend as in a social movement - that is, there seem to be larger numbers of people who were born women identifying as something other than a women. Whether that is simply because it's more visible, or suddenly more accepted, or more people are aware that their feelings of gender - dysmorphia? - can be dealt with in different ways - is beyond me, but it certainly seems that there is a "wave" of FTM axis genderfuckers cresting now.

This may be a good place to ask for some advice, actually. In two weeks I'm going to visit a friend who has, since the last time I've seen her (him), has started getting T-shots, changed his name and gender legally, and in all other ways started living his life as a male.

What physical differences can I expect to see in someone who has had been getting t-shots since early March? Would it be condescending at all to engage in some stereotypical male bonding - say, going to a strip club and getting obliterated- or would that be a welcome overture from a bio-male he's known for quite some time?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:40 / 14.05.03
kittenz: while I understand the idea of a strategical response, I disagree with the idea that this isn't an actively hostile piece. Look at the following line again: then maybe the chair I was sitting on was a teapot and the dog that Moby (a "bio boy") was patting was, in fact, an elephant. This is scorn and ridicule, with the specific aim of discrediting both transpeople's specific claim to their own identity, and more general ideas of mutability of sex and gender. And yes, the writer makes concessions later, but my experience of journalism as a reader and occasional inside oberver/writer is that the real intent/'message' of the piece is always packed into the opening paragraphs (not to mention title & byline), with the 'other side of the story' left until near the end (which not all readers will reach).

'Laces: I think the idea of the "trendy Williamsburg types" is the method here - substituting one thing for another so that the idea of those pretentious trendy wankers we're all supposed to hate becomes a way of spreading guilt by association. And then the author always has the get-out clause of "hey, I didn't say they were *all* just being trendy". I don't need to explain this to you, you've read enough hip-hop articles/interviews in the Guardian to know how they do.

I still don't get this "don't get so angry!" thing. Why not get angry? Anger can be power. So-called progressive or liberal people need to compromise less and shout louder, not vice versa.
 
 
Ganesh
13:43 / 14.05.03
I don't see how it's possible to differentiate between people who are "authentic" genderfuckers and people who are "trendy" genderfuckers, and whether that differentiation would be useful, at all.

To some extent, I think it depends on the nature of the health service within which one lives, what input (if any) one wants from that health service, and whether one possesses the resources to access that input elsewhere (private medicine/surgery). If all one wants to do is be accepted as a particular gender, then undergoing social gender transition is relatively straightforward (being accepted by friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. isn't, but that's not quite the point I'm making). If, however, one wishes to modify one's body endocrinologically or surgically, then it's likely that one will be forced to negotiate with practitioners within health services - and they may have different agendas from oneself.

Private gender medicine, for example, concerns itself with giving the punter what the punter wants - and goes to elaborate lengths to minimise the degree to which medics and surgeons are themselves accountable for costly 'mistakes'. Since the punter him/herself is paying for the treatment, rationing of resources is not an issue.

In the unpleasantly resource-conscious NHS (which is a much more paternalistic organisation generally), gender specialists are obliged to consider the issue of regret - whether or not a given gender-dysphoric individual is likely to change his/her mind following (essentially irreversible) surgery or hormone treatment, and what the consequences might be. Individual professionals within the NHS are increasingly accountable, with NHS surgeons refusing to operate on anyone who hasn't passed certain psychiatric 'hurdles' (including the much-despised Harry Benjamin criteria) designed to give at least some assurance that the individual requesting mastectomy, say, has demonstrated that they wish their breasts removed for "authentic" (in the transsexual sense) rather than "trendy" (in the transvestite/drag king sense) reasons - because the latter is, perhaps, more likely to regret the procedure. Also, increasing litiginousness makes all concerned wary of greenlighting 'treatment on demand'.

So... while I'm fine with 'why bother to assign labels at all' as a principle, transpeople do not exist in a societal vacuum. A significant percentage differ from, say, homosexual people in that they require the input of health services in order to realise their gender - and the character of those health services may well make attempting to differentiate a pragmatic necessity.
 
 
Ganesh
14:47 / 14.05.03
(All of which is not intended to suggest that an easy distinction between transsexual/transvestite/drag king/all/none of the above necessarily exists - merely that, in certain circumstances, those working to help transpeople realise themselves medically/surgically needs must attempt a working predictive differentiation based on likelihood of regret.)
 
 
Disco is My Class War
09:08 / 15.05.03
todd said: "What physical differences can I expect to see in someone who has had been getting t-shots since early March? Would it be condescending at all to engage in some stereotypical male bonding - say, going to a strip club and getting obliterated- or would that be a welcome overture from a bio-male he's known for quite some time? "

T is pretty slow and the effects take a while to kick in, so don't expect chest hair. Your friend's voice might be breaking, though. And as for what behaviour is appropriate, I always reckon it's better to be asked. Personally, my idea of male bonding is more.. global than getting wasted at a strip club. But maybe your friend is different.

And Ganesh, I can feel a big Yeah, but.... coming on. As you say, the Harry Benjamin's are almost universally despised. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the categorisation strategies along the lines of 'authentic' versus 'trendy'? Shouldn't they change with the way gender -- and genderfuck -- is changing? Arguing for the rights of people to have different aims, motivations etc, for wanting surgery is, for me, about a very real struggle with doctors, shrinks and surgeons for MY rights to have surgery. I resent this even more when the attempt to prove my 'authenticity' is such an obvious farce, and everyone knows it.

While the medical establishment exists as a gate-keeping device for the state to regulate gender, sustaining a certain number of people who fall outside the standards is essential so that the very notion of 'standards' can be said to exist; so that gender can continue to be regulated. Otherwise we'd have all sorts of people expecting to get their gender reassigned, wouldn't we? Maybe even everybody. And god forbid that should happen.

Anyhow. I fear we will continue to disagree on this, coming from different sides of the fence, as it were. I've been deliberately avoiding ranting on this thread, mostly cuz a whole lot of other people have been taking it upon themselves to rant already. Which is pretty different from the first or second time trans issues came up (to my knowledge) on Barbelith.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:31 / 15.05.03
Hmmm, yeah, about that. I recently read the following as part of what I assume must be a response to this thread (scroll down to May 11 entry):

Although naturally the biggest shouting seems to have come from the guilt ridden white male, who, different from the liberal left, are desperately aware of how much priviledge they have, how they can't bear to be reminded of it, and how fucking sexist they are and how bad they are at hiding it.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it seems to be saying that people like myself (white, male-identified and presumably although it isn't specified heterosexual-identified) should shut up about trans issues, because our only concern is to hide our own privilege and sexism. Does anyone think this is valid? And if so, could they kindly explain the reasoning to me?
 
 
Ganesh
13:41 / 15.05.03
Disco: same sense of 'yeah, but' here. While it's absolutely not my remit to defend the Harry Benjamin guidelines (I believe they should be just that - guidelines - neither set in stone nor disregarded), they're not universally despised. Individuals at the 'end' of the Real Life Test (and who therefore have relatively little invested in giving their ex-'gatekeeper' what he/she wants to hear) tend, on the whole, to describe the experience as valuable, useful, necessary; this is borne out, to a certain extent, by coarse measures of regret such as suicide statistics (the unfortunate subgroup who feel reassignment surgery was the worst mistake ever). Interpreted with a sufficient degree of flexibility, I think they're a reasonable compromise between the agenda of the gender-dysphoric individuals (change me now) and that of the enfolding health service (minimise risk of harm).

My reference to "authentic"/"trendy" categorisation was at least partly facetious, as indicated by my last post. In truth, a more pragmatic approach is typically adopted, with the emphasis on identifying and addressing those factors predictive of regret. 'Official' diagnostic categories do impinge, however, on an individual's 'right to have surgery' - at least within 'free at the point of entry' State-subsidised healthcare systems such as the NHS - in that is necessary, politically, to quantify a gender-dysphoric person's degree of distress in terms of psychiatric 'disorder'. This is, as I see it, the main reason for Transsexualism continuing to exist as an ICD/DSM category - because if it didn't, the NHS would view endocrinological/surgical treatment as 'cosmetic' or 'non-essential', and would be far, far less likely to fund it. It stinks, but given the structure of State-subsidised (as opposed to private) healthcare systems, it's difficult to come up with a viable alternative.

I don't share your cynicism regarding the reasoning behind standards like the Harry Benjamin criteria; without any such 'gatekeeping' - essentially giving the punter what he/she wants, more or less on demand - I believe there'd be considerably more tragic 'mistakes'. (I've read of one or two of them, and their lot is a miserable one.) I'd reiterate that, within a healthcare system like the UK's, a degree of rationing is necessary for reasons of finite resource. Private medicine obviously works within very different parameters, and the 'right to have surgery' depends much more on an individual's finances.

We probably will continue to disagree on this, but I don't particularly see myself as being on a different side of the notional "fence". My priorities as an NHS employee are different, yes, but I'd argue that my purpose is not merely to enforce farcical standards for standards' sake, but to juggle various agendas to facilitate an outcome no-one will regret. In an ideal world, everybody would possess the resources to "genderfuck" to their hearts' content, and everyone would be happy with the result. We don't (yet) live in that world.
 
 
*
22:45 / 17.05.03
Fly-- I think it's about as valid as denying male-bodied people the right to walk in marches protesting violence against women.

Maybe slightly more so, because it might apply to certain white, straight-identified, male-identified people, but the majority of those I've met have been utterly unashamed to proclaim their sexism. And I've met some sexist transmen, and I confess to a bit of genderism myself as regards people who identify too slavishly with one gender or another (as I perceive it), so this criticism ought not to be confined to one group.

But I think the tendency of sexist males would not be to be vocal in support of trans issues (unless they're tran-chasers), but to talk about how demeaning it is to women, if they want to appear less sexist. FTM's can be seen as a threat by this type of person and they're unlikely (I think) to come out in favor of it.

Perhaps the author of the blog is referring to a specific kind of straight white male? Perhaps just trendy ones?
 
 
Not Here Still
18:49 / 18.05.03
Fly: You should, by now, have realised you have no right to hold or voice an opinion on anything other than beer, football and the finer points of Hollyoaks.

For. Fuck's. Sake.

(I was going to ask a question as to whether or not the fact it was the Guardian which had added to your frustration, and then saw your abstract. "Fuck the Guardian" indeed... I think there is another thread in this about what people expect to draw from a certain source, as I'm getting a feeling that the difference between your expectations of a Grauniad piece and the reality may have had a role in your reaction here...)
 
 
grant
18:06 / 15.07.03
And on the other hand... the SF Chronicle.

excerpt:
I've yet to meet Kaisaris, so each time someone pushes through the door I make an assessment. Male? Female? Kaisaris?

After only 20 minutes, it becomes clear why the notion of two genders has become so limited: I can hardly tell who is what, or was born which way. The sinewy, bald African American athlete settled in with a newspaper looks female, but under those sweatpants could just as easily be male. Over in the corner, the chubby white person in a baseball hat hunched over a laptop playing solitaire seems male - but with a second glance I get she is female. I simply can't tell about two Latino youths at the next table - tattooed, pierced and (mostly) beardless.

Kaisaris arrives wearing a trucker's cap, retro cowboy shirt and baggy jeans. He looks like a cute teenaged boy. It's easy to see why a group of sorority girls at a Midwestern university where Kaisaris recently performed were freaked out to find out he was born female. They found him cute, too.



I stole this off Mister Disco's blog. The whole article is worth a read, although it's rather long.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply