fpb: (Default)
[personal profile] fpb
One, or rather two, of the significant experiences of my life, have been two intimate friendships, in different times and places, with two male-to-female transsexuals. I don't actually want to talk about them; I featured one of them in my fic Second Chance, and I have reasons not to describe the other at all. Let me just say a couple of things. First, when I speak of an intimate friendship, I do not exaggerate. Both these persons told me everything, and I have a fairly clear understanding of their minds and experiences. Second, they were very unlike in many ways, so that having met the two of them counts as having acquaintance of a fairly broad spectrum of male-to-female TS/TG experience.

One question that has since occurred to me is the historical status of this particular sexual identity. Homosexuality of both genders is known to every culture; and bisexuality, though it has only felt the need to define itself as an identity in our time, is at least a recognizable phenomenon down the ages. On the other hand, while individual cases are on record in many times and places, I think it would be very difficult to compile a dossier of recognized categories and groupings in history that would add up to anything recognizable as the modern category of transsexuality and transgendering. Certainly eunuchism and castrato status do not count, both because the condition was not in general willingly embraced by the victim, and because eunuchs and castrati were recognized and treated as males. The issue was disability, not gender identity. So far as I can see, the fourth term of the hallowed quaternion GLBT is the only one that seems to represent something genuinely new.

Of course, the fact that a category has only been recently recognized does not mean that it did not exist before. There are a few possible reasons why it may have not been recognized as a standard category of sexual deviation. It might be that, before modern times, there were too few in earlier societies to form a coherent and recognized group. People often don't recognize the significance to modern socity of the sheer weight of numbers: people often speak as though an England of three million inhabitants (Queen Elizabeth's time) posed no different administrative, social and political problems than one of forty-seven million (today's). That is the main flaw of nostalgia as a program. Specifically, the formation of groups of recognized sexual difference - sexual difference not as an occasional feature, but as a regular social phenomenon - does not tend to take place until the rise of large cities. Therefore, if we suppose that TS/TG people are even fewer than homosexuals as compared to total population, it may be that it took them even longer to realize that they existed - as a group - at all.

Another possibility is that the whole group might exist as a result of an advance in surgery - the invention of gender reassignment therapy, which, unless I'm mistaken, took place in the fifties. A cynical hypothesis might suggest that this was, like the near-contemporary discovery of laser, "a solution without a problem", but that its existence taught people who were, in whatever way, unhappy with themselves, to look for a way out by "changing sex".

Another possibility is grimmer. My experience of TS is that they are constantly close to suicide. I had to fight to keep both my friends going; the possibility of self-destruction was always in their minds, seductive as a siren. And if you think about it, it makes sense. To reject one's own physical body is pretty close to rejecting one's own physical existence. At any rate, one thing is certain: to be unhappy with one's gender is something that poisons your whole life - every second. It is a condition of regular and terrible unhappiness; it produced the most painful lives I ever met. Now, if TS as a group were not heard of until the invention of sex-change surgery, it may be that any person who, before that date, suffered from unhappiness with their gender, might simply commit suicide, and add to the number of unexplained tragedies that are a constant feature of any society. Not everyone would have any idea why a member of their family cut his/her throat or jumped into the river, and if they did, they would want to keep it quiet, for it would be the same, in the eyes of contemporary society, as to declare them insane. From this point of view, the invention of gender reassignment surgery "created" TS/TG as a group in a different sense: it gave them a reason to go on living.

Recently, however, I have become aware of a fourth possibility. Everyone who follows the news will by now be aware of the case of Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer. Baby Bruce Reimer was one of twins born to a young working-class couple in Canada. A few months after birth, a botched circumcision (an operation which is apparently almost universal in North America) left him without a penis. The devastated parents were taken to a supposed great authority in the field called John Money, and Dr.Money proposed a radical step: reassign the baby's gender and bring it up as a girl. As everyone knows by now, the results were catastrophic: Bruce, now Brenda, was unhappy his/her entire childhood, while Dr.Money heartlessly produced a string of publications falsely claiming the operation a success. Eventually his mendacity was exposed, but, in spite of successful gender reassignment therapy, Brenda, now David, was never happy, and recently committed suicide after the unexpected death of his twin.

This ghastly story has repercussions far beyond the tragedy of one man. The point was that Dr.Money, who was already a prestigious figure in his field when he started his experiment on Bruce/Brenda/David, was trying to validate a theory that he and many other people of his time believed passionately - that gender roles are purely social in origin. What the case of Bruce/Brenda was meant to prove - and, according to Dr.Money's publications, did prove - was that an early enough (and medically justified - let us not forget that the baby had effectively suffered a grave accident) intervention could allow sexual roles to be successfully altered. Dr.Money's papers were widely read, and large numbers of doctors believed them: and it led to what I am told is a regular practice in modern hospitals - to intervene on the sex of babies of doubtful sexuality, boys with overly small penises and girls with over-large clitorises, in the first few days after birth. According to what I read, this practice is widespread, regular, and, until recentently, unchallenged.

Hands up all those who knew that doctors regularly play God with the gender of new-born babies. I certainly did not.

Now there are features of Bruce/Brenda/David's story that resonate very strongly with my experience of my TS friends, especially the lovely creature I have cast as "Maria Pinto de Magalhaes" (not her real name, of course) in Second Chance(http://www.astronomytower.org/authors/fpbarbieri/SC.html), especially the way in which other children, long before puberty, recognized "Brenda" as something wholly different from themselves, and different in a specific, sexual manner. And if gender reassignment in early days is as common as I have heard, then a fourth, and awful, reason for the recent rise of TS/TG as a social group becomes possible: that it is an epidemic, and a medically induced epidemic at that.

Let us be clear about this. Hermaphrodites exist and have always existed. Every year, an extremely tiny number of babies are born with dubious, double, or no sex. What we are talking about, however, is both different and far broader in range. For even granting the existence of persons whose sexuality is naturally dubious, there is a choice open to every doctor: to leave things as they are, until and unless asked by the subject him/herself to alter them. What the practice of regular genital modification on new-born babies is about is not any properly medical problem: it is a belief, built largely on Dr.Money's papers (which were however, lest we forget, responding to a general consensus) that sexual identities are social constructs and that they can be manipulated, not just harmlessly, but to the positive advantage of the babies, in cases where physical sexuality is ambiguous or inadequate.

Considering the sheer horror of life as a TS/TG as I have seen at close quarters, well, if it turns out to be a medically inflicted error, all I can say is, God forgive us all. It would be interesting to make a study of known TS/TG and see if any correlation between their identity and early surgical intervention exists.

Re: second part of the answer

Date: 2004-10-27 06:55 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
What I am saying is that gender identity is not "traditional," but basic to human experience

But obviously there are people whose physical sex and whose gender identity don't match. For some of them, the struggle to help their biological sex match who they really are is an unpleasant, sometimes painful necessity. So we do disagree in this respect, I think. While the basicness of the traditional gender identities (male vs female) may be true for an enormous majority of people, there will always be those for whom their biological sex is a poor fit.

What you need to do good research is a passionate interest in your subject

I'm sure that helps to a degree, but with some people and some subjects, this passion can be more hinderance that help.

I do not think it is possible to set oneself the goal to be objective

Probably not. However, might it be possible to recognize a lack of objectivity and steer one's self toward an area where that deficiency is less glaring?

Re: second part of the answer

Date: 2004-10-27 10:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com
Aren't we chasing our tails a bit here? To make matters clearer, here is what I deny: I deny that sexual identity is secondary, accessory, socially conditioned, rather than natural and innate. To be brutal (and I know that Kenna Hijja at least, and probably many more of my friends, will disagree) I say that girls play with dolls, and boys with toy pirate swords, because they are born that way. I admit a great deal of variation - that is why I spoke of a spectrum rather than of two fixed wholes - but I believe that this spectrum is fundamental. Given that, of course if a person experiences, in his/her being, a major disharmony, then that person will have, as part of his/her basic identity, an inherent drive towards a particular sexual identity. But gender, as such, is not socially conditioned but innate.

Probably not. However, might it be possible to recognize a lack of objectivity and steer one's self toward an area where that deficiency is less glaring?
It sounds to me like you are something like scared of picking up a subject area that will go too near the bone. My point of view however is that if a person like you has picked such a subject as psychology, there is likely to be a reason. However, if you just don't want to do it, forget it.
I hope you're not a Yankees or Cards fans. To all Red Sox fans: CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Re: second part of the answer

Date: 2004-10-28 11:40 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I deny that sexual identity is secondary, accessory, socially conditioned, rather than natural and innate.

Then this would be where we disagree. I don't think heterosexuality or holding one gender identity versus another is innate, though heterosexuality is very common. It is merely convenient for reproduction, which is no longer a high priority for many people, so there's no longer a need for people to hide who they are and adhere to the social expectation to have/father children.

I say that girls play with dolls, and boys with toy pirate swords, because they are born that way.

And I had a wooden sword my father made for me, because when I was little, I wanted to be a knight. I also had Legos, chemistry sets, and video games.

I don't think children pop out of the womb with a preference for one type of toy over another one. They play with the toys they are given. Eventually, they prefer that type of toy because it's familiar.

Given that, of course if a person experiences, in his/her being, a major disharmony, then that person will have, as part of his/her basic identity, an inherent drive towards a particular sexual identity.

Let me see if I understand that right. Only people who have experienced some sort of traumatic event can be transgendered?

My point of view however is that if a person like you has picked such a subject as psychology, there is likely to be a reason.

I originally went into psychology because I didn't have the marks (or ability) to major in pre-medicine, but thought a related field of study might help me get there. I eventually started to enjoy psychology.

Re: second part of the answer

Date: 2004-10-28 11:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com
There. That is what I wanted to know, and this is where we part company. I ask for this discussion to stop, since I know what I think and you have just stated (in a fairly dogmatic form, although I have no doubt that you could present it in a more nuanced way and defend it with some intelligence) a viewpoint that contradicts mine, though I am aware it is highly popular in American (and British) academia. I have no desire to go further, since we could only deepen our contradiction.

Only one thing: where did I speak of "traumatic events"? I do not believe in the importance of events. I find it easier to believe that a person may be born with a profound disconnection in his/her nature, as with distorted legs or (as sometimes happens) three or four breasts; but what matters is not the event, not even the origin, but the permanent condition that arises. I am no Freudian, to go explore the mysteries of my potty-training and the unconscious failures of my early food intake to justify the shape of my soul today.

Profile

fpb: (Default)
fpb

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
1112131415 1617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 11:54 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios