As mentioned in my précis, one of my issues with the video “Transgender Basics” was that it interviewed only transgender folk who passed incredibly well. My initial (and extant) concern was this was grossly misrepresenting the transgender community (albeit when only four or so transgender folks are featured in a video discussing the transgender community as a whole, it is likely impossible to avoid some degree of misrepresentation). However, this seemed like a deliberate misrepresentation for the sake of marketability; in other words, the creators of the video wanted to present an image of the transgender community with as little cognitive dissonance as possible. To say it another way, they wanted to minimise the chance of the viewer passing into the Uncanny Valley.
All in all, I think the intent of the video was to communicate that our limited conceptualisation of gender has precluded our ability to realise that transgender folks are “just like you and me.” Though I certainly agree that transgender people are just that - people - and ontologically operate in the same way as you and I, it feels like the simplicity of the video’s message teeters on erasing (or at least hiding) the very real (and sometimes life-threatening) struggles that so many transgender folks experience, in particular those who do not pass as well as those presented in the video. As such, though the video certainly asked that viewers reconceptualise the gender binary (through the discussion of the “authentic gender model” and through interviewing someone who is genderqueer), it nonetheless seemed to uphold the corroborating sex binary, or at least the perception therefor. I caveat that statement because one of the opening lines of the video is “I know...lots of men with vaginas.” Nevertheless, because all of the interviewees pass so well, it is very easy for the idea that one’s sex presentation not match their gender presentation to be confined in abstraction. Moreover, the genderqueer person's presentation was somewhat tomboyish, the familiarity of which would not require a viewer to substantially reconceptualise the relationship (or lack thereof) between sex and gender.
Therefore, given the accessibility of both the platform of the video (YouTube) as well as the attempted accessibility of the messaging, it would appear the creators of the video are attempting to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. Again, the video poses no real visceral challenge to the corroboration of sex and gender, but rather poses only a theoretical one. Thus, the master’s tools in this case are familiar sex presentations, in which the video couches its messaging. As expressed in class, I’m certainly not unilaterally opposed to using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. That being said, in this case, it appears that the master’s tools are used at the expense of whitewashing the sufferings of transgender folks who do not have the privilege of passing or affording medical modification or simply those who do not wish to alter their bodies at all.
I think you're spot-on with a lot of your comments: the video does seem to be using a very neutralized, euphemized approach in order not to scare people away or distract them from the message. Perhaps, though, another aim of the video is to show transgendered people hope. That despite the hardships - psychological, physical, financial, and otherwise - a successful(ish) transition is possible. I could imagine that the video, if seen by its own community members too, could show some glimmer of hope in a world dominated by the gender binary.The gender dichotomy is so ingrained in our psyches that we have to come up with alternative universes to imagine what the world would be like without it. And even at that, we fall into the traps of thinking that eventually one gender must become "superior" to or more favorable than the other. On the flip side, however, is your point about the uncanny valley: if we see someone who is close to male or close to female but not quite there (someone who doesn't "pass" easily) we get a little weirded out and thus the message loses traction… I tend to believe that especially for a "basics" video, this particular format works. It doesn't scare people off by being too "in-your-face" and it contains some good introductory information, while at the same time possibly reinforcing those who are questioning their position on the gender continuum the video suggests.
ReplyDeleteWhat's most fascinating to me is this "war" between surgically- and/or hormonally-manipulated FTM's and butches. Though this is wrong and pretty ignorant, before I came to Rhodes I had all of the LGBTQ folks grouped in the same category (I mean, even the acronym compels us to think that way). I am still trying to work through the intricacies of the gender question, but I had this (maybe naive) thought that all of the LGBTQ community was indeed a community: one that stuck up for each other, supported each other, and worked toward common goals. However, this article suggests that there is this inherent war between butches who maybe don't feel the need to (or can't afford to) surgically switch to the opposite sex and the FTM's who in "switching to the dark side" reinforce heteronormativity. I can see the logic of both sides, so I'm hoping a discussion will shed some light on the issue for me.
While I absolutely think these criticisms are valid, you fail to acknowledge that this video was made 5 years ago, when trans issues were getting much less visibility than they are now so the precedent for what types of trans and gender non-conforming people to include in the video was likely different than it would be today.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think that for many of us who already have a working knowledge of trans issues, we experienced an effect similar to that of the Zerlina Maxwell lecture. It was valuable information, but nothing earth-shattering or especially new. This is because, much like the Zerlina Maxwell lecture, it wasn't made for our benefit. It was made for the benefit of people who have little working knowledge of the subject, hence the premise of it being a "Transgender Basics" primer.
The discussion of passing is a very important one when discussing trans issues, especially as they relate to violence against transpeople. However, I don't really think that this falls under the umbrella of "trans basics." It takes a few steps to get to that part of the discussion; it certainly did for me.
The difficult thing about applying the metaphor of "dismantling the master's house" for me is that it is quite difficult to simply "create" different ways of destroying patriarchy. This is excellently exemplified as we discuss trans issues, most particularly what it means to be genderqueer. Because everything that we know has been labeled as either masculine or feminine, it is difficult to imagine an identity in which these two things are not just mixed, but gone altogether.
ReplyDelete