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

[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?