I Am Not a Product of a Problem

[bcholmes]

Earlier today, I attended a panel called "Pushing the Envelope". It was an interesting panel, mostly because of some of the names that were on the panel: Jed Hartman, Aaron Lichtov, Melissa Scott, Joan Horan, and Elizabeth Bear.

The panelists were really great (and Aaron consistently says things that prompt me to Deep Thoughts), but there were some things said by panel attendees that kinda bugged me.

Jed told a story about a Gordon Van Gelder editorial that summarized a number of trends he'd seen. One of those trends was that Van Gelder received a lot of complaints about the number of gay-themed stories. Jed even went on to talk about his editorial about the dearth of sexual minorities in SF; Jed reported that he received several e-mails from people saying, in essence, that in the future, the queer problem will have been resolved and therefore it only makes sense that they won't show up in future worlds. Jed told these stories in a voice heavy with "I wish the universe was different than it is."

Anyway, it was with some annoyance that I heard audience members talk, not too long afterward, about the idea that in a nice, utopian future, trans people shouldn't exist. And that got me reflecting.

Aaron made an explicit call to talk more specifically about what "the envelope" was and what it meant to "push" it. And I think that made me reflect on what my particular envelopes are and what they have been in the past. For me, getting beyond binary thinking has long been a Topic To Consider. But I think, at some time in the past, the big cultural story I wanted to attack was the cultural story that there are only two genders: man and woman.

I didn't feel like that story included me, and I tried to challenge the story whenever I could. And what's more, I felt sustained by any depiction of non-binary sex/gender. When the planet of Gethen was described in The Left Hand of Darkness, I felt validated because there was at least some inhabitants outside of the binary. When I read Varley's works, I felt validated. But neither of these were my story. These people didn't have to come out; didn't have to make difficult choices in a society that worked against them; didn't have to loose family, friends or jobs. But, nonetheless, I was willing to claim those stories as somehow being like me in a way that so much else was not.

I am less sustained, now, than I was then by pushing on the envelope of binary sex/gender. That's not the binary that bugs me now. And I think I had a bit of a flash of insight today. The binary that bugs me, now, is this: there's a way of looking at the trans phenomenon that says that trans people are the result of unusual biology. Something happens: maybe it's pre-natal hormones or whatnot. But this point of view says that transness exists because of a biological quirk. In essence, a biological problem. Some of our own language buys in to thise point of view. Some trans folk say "I was born with a minor birth defect that, with the help of surgery, was corrected."

Run with this in SF, and you get the scene in which the doctor tells the expectant mother, "Tests were almost completely normal. We noticed a minor problem with gender non-congruence, so I'm prescribing 2 milligrams of Regenderex 5. Take one pill a day after meals." Problem solved, and here's another future universe without trans people.

On the other end of the binary, you get the whole "gender is social construct, and your gender discomfort will go away completely once we have created the future that's less hung up on gender roles. You won't have to change your body to express yourself, 'cause what the bodies look like don't matter." One woman in the panel today said almost exactly that (complete with "This may offend some trans people but..." caveat). (I've seen her on other panels, and I get the impression that she is wreslting to understand the Why of Trans, and can't, but is willing to opine about it in the meantime).

I was talking about this statement with wild_irises afterward, and she likened that response to the whole "I think everybody's really bisexual" argument. wild_irises described the "everybody's bisexual" position as a "heterosexual fantasy", by which she meant that het people say things like this to, at the same time, say "it's just a fault with society and that's too big for me to take any responsibility over trying to fix it" and also to glom on to the problem in a way that says, "as a het person, I'm affected by society's lack of acceptance of the idea that everybody's really bisexual, and I should therefore get the same kind of sympathy and consideration that people who deal with minor things like homophobia get."

So I've described two poles. On the one hand, in the "biology quirk" view, trans people are a result of a congruence "problem" that can be corrected via surgery, and in the other extreme, trans people are the product of the rigidity of social expectations about gender roles. Since both of those problems are going to be fixed Real Soon Now, trans people just go away. No trans, no problem.

But now, that's the envelope that I want to push against. I want other options. I want out-of-the-box thinking about where gender comes from. Maybe it's metaphysical, or transdimensional, or something. I want a new narrative about gender that doesn't have to eradicate my existence in order to arrive at a happy ending.

Technorati tag: wiscon.

Comments

[beaq.livejournal.com]

I want out-of-the-box thinking about where gender comes from. Maybe it's metaphysical, or transdimensional, or something.

I wonder if that's really out-of-the box. Isn't it essentialism in one form or another -- metaphysical or evolutionary -- that gets us assigned a role and supposed personal characteristics to go with our gender?

I wonder also how people can look at trans people who don't conform to the mainstream norms of their appropriate gender and cling to the idea that it's all about social expectations.

I do have a question about the "problem" thing, though. Can you describe a situation or state in which it isn't a problem, per se, to be perceived to be a gender that doesn't fit you? Or is it the idea that everything would be OK if one could be physically assimilated into a het-norm dual-state pattern that you are concerned about? Or is it the idea that other people's perception is most important? Or?

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

Can you describe a situation or state in which it isn't a problem, per se, to be perceived to be a gender that doesn't fit you?

Regardless of where the mental concept of one's own gender comes from, I think the point is that trans status wouldn't involve anywhere near as much suffering if society had a different attitude towards it.

Sure, there'd still be people who felt that they were born with the wrong bits, but they could take time to ponder it, play with it, and experiment with being male, female, or androgynous whenever they wanted. They could get surgery if they really needed the physical change, or they could live in flux like that all their lives if they were comfortable with it. Imagine if that stuff was considered to be a normal variation of human behaviour/neurology/etc. instead of something shameful or a freak of nature.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

That's fair. Not the individual's problem, then, but the world's.

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

Almost.

If you're deaf, and you're walking down the sidewalk and a bike with a busted chain is speeding towards you from behind, you might get hit because there's no way you can hear the bell or the rider yelling at you. But if a potential employer assumes that you have lower intelligence because you're deaf and refuses to hire you (and many people do believe things like that), that's someone else making things needlessly harder for you because of their own ignorance.

In other words, some aspects of being 'different' are intrinsic disadvantages or sources of discomfort, while others are preventable and serve no useful purpose to anyone.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Isn't it essentialism in one form or another

Yeah, I guess there's some truth to that. I'll need to think about that further.

Can you describe a situation or state in which it isn't a problem, per se, to be perceived to be a gender that doesn't fit you?

I guess I have a few thoughts, here. I hang out with a lot of people who talk (in ways I'm not entirely comfortable with) about trans experience being a gift, in the sense of "hey, I have all these life experiences that most people don't get, and that puts me in an ideal position to talk/teach others about X, Y and Z."

Another thought: some people are driven/obsessed/whatever to become champion athletes. They know they're not naturally champion athletes, but they know that it's something that they can accomplish. It just takes a lot of energy. Could people view transness similarly? (The metaphor is a bit hard to apply, given that nobody is born a champion athlete, but perhaps the point makes some sense).

Another: maybe it is a problem, but it's not only a problem. Maybe it's a problem and something rewarding at the same time. Maybe the "problem" is more akin to an initiation cycle -- something hard that we go through to have our awareness altered.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

Another: maybe it is a problem, but it's not only a problem. Maybe it's a problem and something rewarding at the same time. Maybe the "problem" is more akin to an initiation cycle -- something hard that we go through to have our awareness altered.

hm.

some people say things like that about being disabled, as well, that there are all these things in their life that are new and good and mindexpanding and it makes it worth it to have a disability and they wouldn't trade it for anything.

oooh uh er. hm.

much ranting about how much my knees hurt and how cranky it's making me derailed here by a thought-- i think that in this case being trans might be similar to being deaf (Deaf, i mean, rather than deaf).

being deaf can be looked upon as a medical problem to be cured. it can also be looked at, and is, by many people who call themselves culturally deaf, as just a difference, and one that they are happy to have.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

To what extent do you think of being disabled as part of your identity?