Review of: Trans identities and first person authority, Bettcher (added some extra thoughts too)

“ My goal is to understand FPA as an ideal for that which already exists in less-than-politically-ideal practice, to help transpeople treat ourselves and each other better, and to offer it to those who also exist and struggle in various subaltern places, who do not know transpeople well but want to form meaningful friendships and political partnerships with (some of) us. “

This is good. I hope the article lives up to this and I can share it with people. 

One of the things Bettcher addresses is the variance that even experts, like Roughgarden and Fausto-Sterling (hey, we know them!), don’t agree on what makes what gender outside of sex (or whether it is purely based on sex). If I’ve learned anything, it’s that maybe there doesn’t need to be a solid definition everyone can agree on. Maybe there can’t be. Actually, just it can’t be. Because there’s a zillion people on this earth with different experiences and different personalities that form a myriad of identities. And trying to come to one conclusion is ultimately going to exclude someone. Whether or not a person wants to stand for total inclusion or not, variance is inevitable and that’s okay. I think it’s kinda good that we’re not all one way or think one way. Sure some people might be right or wrong, some people are ethical and unethical. Anytime a person degrades another human being is wrong. But in general, differences in definitions aren’t inherently bad. Differences allow people to come up with their own thoughts, and identify and express themselves in ways they feel connected to. 

“ However, it does seem that in the case of the world imagined above, the very meaning of the word would have changed, if “girly” should be a good way to describe ditch digging. So it again seems that cultural roles assigned on the basis of sex are part of the semantic content. And this suggests that there is something wrong with this definitional account of gender. “

In regards to adjectives such as “womanly” or “manly” or “girly” that pack lots of cultural meaning and signify wanted or unwanted associations, I am very much bothered. But even I felt a little struck by how strongly Bettcher claimed use of them to be wrong and verging on unethical. Even though I do kinda agree that there could be something wrong with how we “inherently” think about gender. I thought an interesting point she addressed was that the meaning of those adjectives shift over time and cultural context. Which continues to say that there isn’t a set meaning of those identities. 

Hey, she talks about Hale! Is this article just a nice wrap up of our course? I see what Harmon’s doing...

“ While an individual may fail to live up to prevailing cultural role, this will not undermine her status as female. Instead, she will simply be assessed negatively for failure to conform to standards of excellence. In cases in which she fully adopts the cultural role of man, she will be regarded as a woman pretending to be a man. Thus there is not merely a difference in weighting sex and conformity to cultural role. There is a difference in kind  of semantic contribution made to category terms: sex determines individual category membership; role, while involved in normative assessments, does not.”

This is the struggle of my life. 

Bettcher:  So the only answer I can think of why “woman” has such a nice definition is just this: because “woman” is frequently used to convey information about sex and because it is frequently used  to convey information about adulthood, it acquires such explicit contrasts. In other words, it seems to me that the uses must ultimately explain the appearance of a definition, rather than the definition itself explaining the uses.

Me: !!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 Bettcher: “No wonder people are curious. They’re used to knowing .” [speaking about “the surgery” and gender presentation]

This is another struggle of humanity: the desire to be known and know things and people, and how we don’t know how to handle not knowing something. For like, all areas of life, such as not knowing whether someone likes you back or not, not knowing what to do after graduation or with their lives. Not knowing how to treat a baby or an adult until you know their gender, or in this case, not knowing if a person is trans or not, is hard for people to grasp. But the more I’ve dealt with life’s not knowing (specifically with things like graduation, jobs, and my (nonexistent?) love life, despite the pressure to know, the more I’m learning to be okay with not knowing. A lot of times, people confuse not knowing with being stuck. But they’re not the same thing. In fact, there is potential for great growth in character and understanding of the world when a person who “does not know” something continues through life anyway, learning and learning how to learn. One of my favorite opportunities are those where I’m in a situation with a person that is gender ambiguous or racially ambiguous--it’s just great. I love being in them, and I love observing others in them. It makes me aware of thoughts and actions that I may not even realize I do and challenges me to find new ways to interact and think with people. I think that if more people were encouraged in being okay with not knowing, rather than needing to know everything in this highly pressurized for success world (fueled by social media), and if more people were shown mentors/examples and put in learning situations, we could maybe find a better way to help non trans people understand and interact with trans people, or heterosexual people to accept the gay community, or just people to love other people.

Somewhere in the middle, I honestly lost track of what I was reading and rereading. 

 Trans politics must require that bodily privacy be expanded to include information

about genital status. Gender presentation may not be taken to communicate

genital status

This claim that altering the basis of distinguishing men and women by genital information to protect trans people from being seen as deceivers or pretenders is probably one that I like, because it respects people’s privacy and prevents ill opinions of trans people, but it also seems somewhat utopian. At this stage of existence, an alternative or separation of gender from genital status, however justified, doesn’t seem likely to happen. And even if, suppose it could, who’s to say it would actually work out positively? 

 “gender presentation is not understood to communicate genital status but, instead, indicates how persons want to be treated.”

I like the above statement. I concur. I think most people would agree after thinking about it before they act or form opinions. 

Bettcher mentions how MTFs or transwomen have trouble accepting or interacting with FTMs or transmen, and while only briefly mentioned, really bothers me. Why? I hesitate to jump to the idea of men’s upbringing and status, because I could be wrong and have no idea why. But I really don’t like that. 

It is, however, yet another example of how differences within people of a shared oppressed community actually reveal more tensions under the surface of unification or being lumped together. 

Bettcher: “If so, to believe one is a woman is to believe one believes one is a woman.”

Me: Ahh, the philosophy

Next interesting Bettcher statement: FPA is important (yes). If a transperson says they are a man or woman, and express how they identify themselves, their statement is still subject to people’s definition/understanding/interpretation of how said person is expressing themselves. 

This is why it is hard to really understand and retell how people understood themselves and wanted to be known unless explicitly stated. And even then, there’s the issue of the person saying things a certain way because of context that would be explained differently in a separate context. 

I also wondered about people like Teena Brandon and that one male singer who at death was discovered to be female (whose name I forgot...) and Prof Harmon’s comment about generational differences in privacy. Like maybe they (especially the singer) just didn’t think to share that part of their life because the value for privacy was higher or it just wasn’t something they necessarily wanted to share (whether that be because of pressure or personal preference). 

Oh? A woman has less credible fpa than men? yeah, i know.

Gender representation signals genital status whether we like it or not? 

Violence galore?

Hooray...


So basically, Transpeople (and women) deserve legitimate voices and deserve for them to be taken seriously because only they can really avow for themselves. And sometimes people are jerks. but maybe we can work on fixing that.
Yep. 

More thought blurbs sparked by Brevard's chapter 3

It was kind of sad to read and feel Brevard's lament of the positive way drag made her feel and was portrayed descending to derogatory gay slurs. 

She mentions that “femininity was not something we feigned; it was something we had.” It seems to align with a “born this way/it’s not a choice” narrative. I think what’s interesting to me is that things like ‘grace, style, and beauty’ often fit into this mutually exclusive category of feminine when men and women both possess or exude these qualities. It’s always felt weird to me you can’t just be a graceful, stylish, beautiful man but that instead a man with those qualities is effeminate or has feminine qualities. Why are certain qualities so explicitly and definitively defined to a constructed gender rather than allowing gender identities to be fluid across qualities? This question is constantly on my mind, and through this class, I’ve realized is sometimes even at opposition to transgender and transsexual concepts. And I don’t know that hours and days and years of wondering this is ever going to hit me, but it’s an idea that constantly plagues me as I observe the world, whether I’m right or I’m wrong. 

But I think the important things I’ve been learning in this class is that my viewpoint of wanting to defy gender roles and stereotypes and my general disdain for those who intentionally or unknowingly perpetuate them is valid and important to my experiences and stems from the way I’ve been negatively affected by them. However, others that have and want to identify and express gender identities strongly are valid and important for who they are and their experiences. Not that I ever thought they weren’t valid. I just think that sometimes I may have been confused (and maybe a bit reminded of hurt) at why people would want to put themselves in boxes of male or female and attribute characteristics to each of them when all I ever wanted was to be free of them or have the boxes be more variant and inclusive. It really bothered me when so many of the readings and documentaries included people that said things like “I didn’t like being in the kitchen, so I knew I was a boy.” Or in the many assorted documentaries of David Reimer, when his mother would make many comments like that in her reasoning, and I may have pretentiously attributed them to her smaller level of education (which I immediately recognized made me a huge prick in that moment and feel bad for thinking it). I was kind of offended, and maybe scoffed at thoughts like that. I don’t like being in the kitchen. My mom’s greatest lament was that as a child I hated dresses and dolls. That didn’t make me a boy. But then I think about the pain people go through. That kid from “Transgender Children” that almost cut off his penis in the bathroom (which reminded me of that scene in X-men where this guy tries to cut off his wings for feeling like a freak by his peers and parents.) It just kind of hit me. That intense desire to be free, just like me. It’s just that their definition of true freedom was different than mine. But no less real, and definitely no less progressive or valid. So I may not completely get how or why, but I do get it. And I think it’s important to. 

At some point, I might actually be able to get through this article without thought spiraling from small striking sentences. 

A striking sentence thought blurb

"Possibly the most damning rap against drag comes from inside the gay and lesbian neighborhood."
-Aleshia Brevard, The woman I was not meant to be.

The concept that perhaps most surprised me in this course, but now that I think about it makes a lot of sense, was that in lgbtq discourse and life, transgender (I'm not making this synonymous with drag, but just taking this sentence and thinking and applying it further to other class concepts) issues and gay and lesbian issues are distinct, and sometimes even contradictory. And while they're put together in this lgbtq community for differing from the norm of cisgendered heterosexual people, their needs and desires are different. And while their distance from the norm unifies them, their discrepancies with each other can cause tension.
There's this concept in political science regarding violence (that I think was developed by S. Huntington, but don't quote me on that just yet) that states that under oppressive regimes, the oppressed peoples are all struggling together and controlled by this dominating outside force, so not a lot of action goes on. However, once the area or peoples claim democracy, there isn't any outside suppressive force, and choosing who gets to rule or have positions in government brings out ethnic and cultural differences among the people. So what ends up happening is that more violence and bloodshed occurs in those beginning stages of democracy from the oppressive regime. (Ex: Sikhs and Hindus in India, pretty much anything that goes on in Eastern Europe)
Anyway, so here we've got the transgender and transsexual community with their needs to be understood and accepted as they fit into a desired gender, with many understanding themselves as heterosexual. The gay and lesbian community have the same desire to be understood and accepted, but for different reasons-as cisgendered people with different sexual orientations (Gender identity and sexual orientation are different! woot!). It's interesting to see that to outside forces, they support each other, but inwardly, there's disconnect.
In Modern Family, they even jokingly shed light on the tension between the gay male community and lesbian community as Mitch and Cam don't initially get along with two lesbian parents at their daughter's school.
I think it's important to realize the distinctions for each group, because every person desires to be known the way they want to be. And it's hard because there's such a variance--you can't have billions of people on earth and expect black and white definitions for everyone. But it's important to do anyway. And learning each subcommunity's differences or person's self identification can be really messy, but maybe that messy process is sometimes necessary to move forward. Do you think we'd be where we are now in lgbtq communities if it didn't have or go through those earlier struggles and shifting goals? And imagine what struggles it goes through now that will benefit growth and understanding later.