WisCon: Transsexuality as Trope

[bcholmes]

So, I had a panel yesterday morning: "Transsexuality as Trope". The topic was the idea that, in sf, transsexuality is seldom presented as a process. I liked this panel a great deal more than I liked the "Counting Past Two" panel, and I think that some interesting discussion came out of it. In particular, I was happy to be able to argue and debate with another trans woman about our respective wants from representations of changing sex/gender in science fiction.

I was annoyed by two things on the panel, however.

1. First was that some of our panelists seemed to not want to talk about the topic. One panelist (whom I'll call Janet, even though her real name is Elizabeth Bear) seemed to want to make jokes, rather than talk about the issues. It seemed to take a very long time to get the panel topic going because some of the panelists just wanted to be funny.
2. Another dynamic, that started to bug me, was the dynamic of responding to a statement like, "I feel that we don't see aspect X of transness in these speculative gender stories" with "well you should write a book that includes that". The suggestion might be true, and wild_irises made a very similar challenge to me a few years ago (which I found motivational). But in this instance, the response seemed to be designed to silence the critique, rather than to further the discussion.

Later in the panel, someone asked a question (I wish I could reproduce it word-for-word). The essence of the question was, "For what design purpose should an author include a trans character in an sf story. What function would that trans person play?"

To her credit, Bear identified this as a problematic question. But I think epi_lj teased out its dumbness a great deal better a few hours afterward: that if you were to substitute black for trans the idea of including black characters for a purpose sounds really offensive. Like, they have to have some good reason to be included.

kalikanzeros also made a good comment at dinner a bit later: we were talking about a fantasy writer who gets angry letters because her fictional universe contains alligators. This was an example brought up in a panel about what authors owe their readers. It seemed unreasonable that her readers expect her universe would be yet another fantasy-world-based-on-Europe. But then that raises the question: is it unreasonable for trans readers to expect that sf writers should talk about transness in certain ways?

I think that the crux of that question relates to individual choices versus societal choices. I think I respect individual choices of sf writers to create the stories they want to tell, but when every one of them makes the same choice in a particular area, I think something bigger is going on and that can stand to have some kind of interruption.

Comments

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

"Writ[ing] a book that includes that" is a fine suggestion to make to someone who has been published and probably has a publisher more than willing to print more of their stuff. To do so as a first effort is probably a good pathway to the rejection of your manuscript, however. Never mind that the grammar of the suggestion is pretty bad (it should be "you should write a book which includes that", but I'll put the teacher-aspect aside...).

I think that you can make all kinds of statements about the treatment of gender, in general, in sci fi. Very few authors do it well. Even some that get lauded for it don't do it very well. I think that Ursula K. LeGuin is one of the few that I've read who does a good job of making gender almost irrelevant to the story. My girlfriend bemoans McCaffrey's tendency to build strong, independent female characters, only to make them seem to have one goal in all of their struggles; to find the man of their dreams and become a nice wife to him. But that's her opinion; I've not read McCaffrey, so I can't make my own judgments. Just know that the one series of hers that I'd thought about reading, I didn't get started on until a couple of books had come out, and it seemed that the main character had been developed in that way.

It's disappointing that the panelists wanted to joke about the topic at first. I bet that had the panel been "Race as Trope" and they'd wanted to do nothing but joke about race rather than discussing race in sci fi that they would be in deep crap. Why should this be any diff...oh, that's right, transfolk aren't people with emotions and feelings, and we're used to being the butt of jokes anyhow! We should just get over ourselves and accept it. *groans*

[stonebender.livejournal.com]

Another dynamic, that started to bug me, was the dynamic of responding to a statement like, "I feel that we don't see aspect X of transness in these speculative gender stories" with "well you should write a book that includes that"

*nod*

It also gets folk off the hook making the lack of transness your problem. Like when I complain about no wheelchair access and am expected to head a disability access committee.

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

But in this instance, the response seemed to be designed to silence the critique, rather than to further the discussion.

I just had a disturbing little conversation in my head, between myself and some imaginary opponents.

Me: There aren't enough strong female characters that I can identify with!

Them: Then you should write some.

Me: I'll do that. How come nobody else is writing them?

Them: Because there isn't a market for them.

Me: So... if I write them, does that mean they aren't going to get published anyways?

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

And... okay, maybe that's a bit extreme. More specifically, there are plenty of women who want stories like that, but it's taking a long time for publishers and filmmakers and comic artists to realise it. They know what works and what's profitable; they're afraid to branch out.

I suspect that with including trans things in fiction, there is a very real fear that nobody would be interested, because the obvious target demographic (trans people) is so much smaller.

But it's funny that s/f people would have that attitude, that only X people would be interested in reading about X characters. They're supposed to be so good at thinking outside the box and getting into the heads of every alien and time traveller and non-corporeal being who doesn't even have a head. Why is there resistance to reading about other human beings whose experiences are vastly different from their own?

[charliegrrrl.livejournal.com]

There are lots and lots of people who demand stories with strong female characters. There are tons and tons of women (and smart men) who read SF and want to see smart, competent women represented. But yeah, the target demographic is smaller when you're talking about trans people.

I don't think only trans people are interested in reading about trans characters, actually. Look at how many people bought She's Not There, or Trans Sister Radio. Or the books of JT Leroy. There's a market out there, for sure.

I think if you had a speculative fiction novel that included a really fascinating character who just happened to be trans, you could sell it. I'm not going to write that novel, because it's not the kind of speculative fiction I write.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

I have never tried to write an sf story. I have written a this-contemporary-world story. And the reasons and choices to include characters who are, oh, transgendered, black, childfree, physically disabled, or old, say, would be (should be?) different in a world that the author's creating out of his or her head.

What drives me batty is if the social significance of the human differences in a made-up world is exactly the same as in my world or as in some other contemporary or past society. Creating one or more different imaginary societies should give the author the opportunity to show different what-ifs in the social construction of race, gender, etc. And not just the heavy-handed parallels like discriminating against men or white people.

[charliegrrrl.livejournal.com]

"Creating one or more different imaginary societies should give the author the opportunity to show different what-ifs in the social construction of race, gender, etc. And not just the heavy-handed parallels like discriminating against men or white people."

That's just what I was saying!

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

a writer who i otherwise greatly respected up until then (who i now think wrote a lot of good books and was a complete moron in one specific way) had the same question about including disabled characters in books. this person was even disabled themselves, which a) made me want to hit my head against the wall repeatedly and b) did make me leave the panel. i so infrequently walk out of panels, but hello, pinhead, don't deny my existence.

so, i applaud you for not throwing things.

i expect that the program chairs will be very much looking for panel reviews; if a person wanted this one to be found, a person might link to it in the wiscon lj community or else putting in the technorati tag.

[heyfoureyes.livejournal.com]

hey, I was the person who asked that question, and my intent wasn't to ask, "why should there be trans characters?" what I asked was "is the intent to include the trans characters (including the full experience of the problem) in order to change our present society?" I could have asked the question differently, but what I was getting at was, does fiction have the power to change society, and if so how can we use or fiction to do so?

I asked this partly because I myself did feel like some of the participants were belittling the importance of the trans experience. Not everyone can go home, take off the dress or wash off the mustache, and the that's the end of the tg game for the day, and I did get a bit of that feel from some of the responses. And also because I have seen how the transsexuals I work with/live around have been negatively impacted by standard policies and treatment towards transsexual people.

Maybe the tone of the whole event led you to feel like you couldn't say to my face (as the audience participant) that you were annoyed by the whole question. And then we could have taken the conversation to another point. But I did greatly appreciate your perspective and I think that a lot of others did as well.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Oh, hi!

Maybe the tone of the whole event led you to feel like you couldn't say to my face (as the audience participant) that you were annoyed by the whole question.


"Annoyed" is definitely the wrong word. And I have communicated that badly, what with me throwing around words like "dumbness". I was jarred by the question because it seemed to come from a different headspace than the one I inhabit.

It's 2:00 am and I've just returned to Toronto, and should hit bed, but I'm planning on responding more fully, later.

[charliegrrrl.livejournal.com]

I really liked your question, if it's the one I'm thinking of. You were asking, do we want more representations of real-life present-day transfolk in order to see ourselves in the stories, or to change society? I thought that was an important clarifying question.

[heyfoureyes.livejournal.com]

thank you. yes, that was about the gist of it.

what I'm getting from BC is, why should we question WHY to have trans characters? why would we NOT include trans people? if we imagine a world where people don't 'need' to transition, is it because we're not really ok with trans people in the present? that's a good point as well.

I did think of the sense of seeing trans characters as somewhat being related to my own recently only realized need to see Latinos positively portrayed in entertainment. When Ugly Betty came out, it filled a need for me that I didn't know was there -- just to see a Hispanic family on tv, made up of regular working people and no criminals. it was so cathartic for me.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's about right. That's sort of the motivation behind the quotation I mentioned at the con: "no one should be denied their image in art."

For what it's worth, I really appreciate you clarifying your intent behind this question; it helps me understand where you're coming from a great deal.

[firecat]

I was annoyed by the same things you were. Janet is now on my list of panelists to avoid. :/

[jiawen]

I also thought the "Then you should write one!" was annoying. Very flip, kinda presented as encouraging (and I think it probably was -- you'd probably write good stuff), but also just divesting themselves of responsibility, not noticing how difficult it is to get published, not realizing that not everyone wants to be an author (not saying that you do or don't, just that saying "Then you should write one!" makes a strong assumption about the answer), not realizing that some of us want to buy books and support authors and don't have time to write books, and being unwilling to make the effort to understand a whole class of humans.

Everyone should be represented in fiction; authors don't have infinite time. Those are the sources of the tension, right? Authors have to pick and choose. But if everyone tends in a single direction because of "choice", it becomes questionable if that's really a choice and if the choices made are a good thing. As you said.

I also think Janet was out of her depth, so she was struggling with the issues. I think she was dealing with that by being flip and, in a way, defensive. Not dealing with being challenged very well.

p.s. My name's Rachel. I kinda wanted to talk to you at the con, but I got nervous and tongue-tied and feeling inferior. Hope it's okay I'm posting to your LJ.

[jiawen]

By the way, Janet and I have been discussing the issue a bit more on the thread for my con report. I think a big part of it was miscommunication, but I'd like to know what you think, BC.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I am trying very hard to be open to the idea that a big part of the stuff that annoyed me was *just* miscommunication. I think, certainly, there was at least some miscommunication.

She seems to be saying, "when people feel that certain elements of their lives aren't covered in fiction, then it's necessary for those people to go out there are start writing." That's a valid statement, and one I agree with. As I mentioned, wild_irises, made a similar statement to me a few WisCons ago, and I found that very motivational.

When that statement is made several times, I interpret the repetition as, "I think that's all there is to say on the topic."

The whole point of the panel was to explore what gets elided in the standard trans/trope sf story. When a panelist says, "here's something that gets elided," I'm not sure it carries the conversation further to simply say, "well, you should write about that."

[annburlingham.livejournal.com]

When that statement is made several times, I interpret the repetition as, "I think that's all there is to say on the topic."

Yes - it bothered me, too, hearing it - it throws it all back on the people being poorly, non-, or mis-represented. Why? Does it fall into a "that's your individual problem, *you* deal with it category," instead of getting a "hey, let's consider the cultural context" category?

The whole point of the panel was to explore what gets elided in the standard trans/trope sf story. When a panelist says, "here's something that gets elided," I'm not sure it carries the conversation further to simply say, "well, you should write about that."

Aha! Yes! It wasn't a "Help find BC topics to write about panel", after all. Are the answers to "How do we get beyond this as a trope?" only "stop writing about it at all" or "well, *you* do it, then"?

So here's a thought I had for people-not-you who are writers: isn't it possible to ask yourself if your characters might be any one of a number of things which are outside of your own experience, whether it's a different childhood, race, sex, age, ability, talent, intelligence, etc.? I mean, isn't it possible, if you asked your characters more about who they were, some of them would be trans people? And that the only reason you don't know that about them is that you haven't asked the question?

I mean, I gather from a lot of writers that characters come alive for them; it's not a matter of pushing characteristics onto someone you write, it's a matter of finding out who they are. If that's so, could it hurt to ask a few more questions? Couldn't there be more "happen to be TG" characters lurking out there?

[hazelsteapot.livejournal.com]

So, jiawen told me that I should read your journal, and I agree. :)

In response to ickies:

#1-Joking is a pretty standard response to discomfort. It's a way of trivializing the issues at hand, making oneself seem superior. I wasn't there, didn't hear the jokes, but it sounds like was a large degree of discomfort on the panel about holding cisgender fiction writers accountable to trans people and our concerns. (big surprise there--even a lot of transfolk balk at that)

#2-I think that the 'individual choices' vs 'societal choices' is pretty crucial to this question, but I analyze it slightly differently. I think it's better to view the body of fiction that we have now as a product of transphobia--in that writers either wholly omit transpeople, represent us in ways that have nothing to do with the experiences of contemporary &/or historical transfolk, or represent us & transness in general as evil. In that sense, it isn't the individual inclusion or exclusion that's the problem--the problem is the underlying mindset in which transpeople's real experiences aren't fully real enough (or known enough) to merit inclusion, or the opinions of transfolk about a portrayal aren't important enough to poll before writing, etc. One might express it slightly differently, too-that these folk who say "well, you write it" are really saying "including transfolk would be a nice favor for tansfolks" rather than understanding that cis writers and publishers are participating in a discourse which makes transpeople and their experiences less real and significant than those of cispeople, and that they are furthering that idea, the idea that we aren't worth imagining, by not imagining us or encouraging others to.

[redbird]

If someone is uncomfortable with the subject, they probably shouldn't have offered to be on the panel. [And that's not applicable only to this subject.]

Just as men have to take some of the responsibility for doing feminist work and addressing those issues, as white people have to take much of the responsibility for fighting racism, cisgendered people have to take some of the responsibility for dealing with trans people and your concerns. If an individual isn't going to do that, for any number of reasons, zie should get out of the way of those who will do. (Or if zie isn't going to do all of that--I'm both white and cisgendered, but a chunk of my energy goes to the fights that feel closest to me, including feminism and queer issues, and another chunk goes to the day-to-day stuff.)

meta-topic reply

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with someone who is uncomfprtable with Topic Z being on a panel about Topic Z if a) they own their discomfort, b) are open to discussion of all aspects of Topic Z (not just "Please make me more comfortable!") and c) the panel is designed to allow discussion of discomforts.

[boywhocantsayno.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I attended a writers' workshop hosted by Josepha Sherman some years back, and my story included a gay couple. Her feedback, which I've always remembered even though I can't remember much about the story, included, "I didn't have a problem with the gay angle, but because it's unusual there needs to be some reason for them to be gay."

Talk about "people unclear on the concept"... why should there be a reason for it, any more than there needs to be a reason for a character to be left-handed? Okay, usually left-handed characters only show up in murder mysteries to prove that the defendant couldn't have committed the murder (or, alternatively, must be the culprit), but that's not the point. People exist with all kinds of characteristics - those characteristics can also belong to characters in a story. It makes the story and the setting more realistic if the characters aren't all white, male, middle-aged and right-handed.

[charliegrrrl.livejournal.com]

Hey, once again it was great to meet you! I'm one of the main people who kept saying, "you should write it yourself." Which I still stand behind, but I can see why it might have sounded flippant or dismissive.

Part of where that's coming from is my sense that you were saying "too many people are writing X," and you wanted them to stop. Which automatically rankles me, because I want (within reason) the freedom to write what interests me.

I've written a *lot* of non-speculative fiction, and much of it has had trans characters. When I write speculative fiction, I still explore gender issues, but not so much as a reflection of the "real" world. I'd rather write about a race of dung beetles that are all female, or a space city where there are six sexes.

I write these sorts of "thought experiments" because I'm interested in seeing gender as a source of hierarchies generally. I'd like to use my fiction to interrogate all gender-based oppression, not just the oppression of trans people. And I find speculative fiction offers a really nifty toolkit for doing that.