Juliet Jacques

Exploring counter-culture in the arts, politics, sexuality and sport

Chaz Bono and transgenderism's rich history

A culture’s latest milestone.

By Juliet Jacques Published 26 May 2011 16:59

The transgender experience is one of the few human conditions almost completely without cultural, literary or artistic landmarks ... Transgenderism remains so foreign a concept to those who have not experienced it that its explanation falls totally to those who have.

These are two of the more eye-catching statements in Mary McNamara's LA Times review of American TV documentary Becoming Chaz, on Chaz Bono's transition from female to male. The assertions may sound accurate, but they belie a more complex reality than some cisgender (crudely, non-transgender) critics realise.

McNamara suggests that "the idea that a person could be born into a body at odds with his or her sense of gender has only recently entered the public conversation" via films such as Boys Don't Cry (starring Hilary Swank as murdered trans man Brandon Teena) and The Oprah Winfrey Show.
Historically, trans individuals have been denied control of their stories within the mainstream, having them framed by cisgender journalists, film-makers and editors in ways that are frequently sensationalist or deliberately transphobic, or that cast people as passive victims. From both necessity and choice, trans people's creative reflections have often been produced out of the spotlight, and their relationship with the media has been fractious -- hence the casual observer's perception that we have scant heritage.

For those willing to look, there exists a century of cultural landmarks, often intertwined with, and sometimes overshadowed by gay and lesbian history. This begins with the gay German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld. Aware that what later became understood as transgender behaviour had existed across a variety of cultures for centuries, he published the first specific investigation into the subject in 1910 -- The Transvestites: the Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress. Hirschfeld coined the first trans-related term, "transvestite". It held a broader meaning than today, as other words have since evolved to represent differing positions on the gender-variant spectrum.

Hirschfeld also devised the term "transsexualismus" (but did not popularise "transsexual") before overseeing the first sex reassignment surgery in 1930, on the Danish painter Lili Elbe. Elbe died a year later, but her collated memoirs were published as Man Into Woman in 1933. This was the first transsexual autobiographical text, initiating what became the dominant means for people to explain their transitions.

Hirschfeld and Elbe attracted little attention beyond Germany. Roberta Cowell and Michael Dillon, the UK's first male-to-female (MtF) and female-to-male (FtM) transsexual people hit the British headlines. But the first internationally famous transsexual woman was Christine Jorgensen, who appeared on the New York Times' front page in December 1952. Like Cowell, Jorgensen wrote an autobiography, and a biopic was later produced. Subsequently, transsexual issues found their main expression in queer American counter-culture -- particularly underground film.

During the Sixties, avant-garde US directors including Jack Smith and Ron Rice cast drag queens and trans women in provocative movies such as Flaming Creatures, which presented a loose set of highly sensual scenes in which participants did not need to define their gender. Works produced around Warhol's Factory, particularly Women in Revolt, created trans icons in Candy Darling, Holly Woodlawn and Jackie Curtis. Darling and Curtis later became documentary subjects, as did the trans women who fought police oppression at Compton's in San Francisco in 1966, three years before Sylvia Rivera and others struggled alongside gay and lesbian people at New York's Stonewall Inn.

By the mid-Seventies, there existed a trend for Hollywood films to show trans people as psychotic, seen in in Psycho, Dog Day Afternoon, Dressed to Kill and others. Cultural portrayals focused almost exclusively on male-to-female identities. So too did the "radical" lesbian feminist Janice Raymond's assault, The Transsexual Empire (1979), which accused Gender Identity Clinics and their patients of propagating misogynistic models of femininity.

Raymond's tract galvanised transsexual women and men into reasserting and reassessing their personal histories and cultural traditions. Sandy Stone's response, The Empire Strikes Back: A Post-Transsexual Manifesto, questioned the portrayal of the effects of gender reassignment in several autographies. She suggested that people go beyond "passing" in their acquired genders to form a strong, specifically transsexual identity that could withstand transphobic stereotyping.

Stone inspired a generation of writers who thought past traditional gender conventions, trying to unify disparate people under the transgender banner to fight shared oppression. The trans man Leslie Feinberg argued for "transgender liberation" and collected a history of gender variance "from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman". Kate Bornstein and Riki Ann Wilchins, meanwhile, pushed for greater recognition of the grey areas within the recognised binary.

In Britain, Press For Change, founded in 1992, strove for legal reforms for trans people, their greatest triumph being the Gender Recognition Act (2004) which won official acknowledgement for transsexual people. Throughout the 1990s, screen portrayals of trans people increased, for example in the European arthouse films of Pedro Almodóvar and Rosa von Praunheim. In more mainstream productions, trans actors rarely played trans parts, but docu-soap and reality TV formats allowed certain trans individuals greater self-expression -- and showed producers that the public was prepared to listen.

Building on the sense of identity formulated by activists and academics, and aware that the mass media is becoming more ready to let them represent themselves, trans people -- and particularly trans men -- are finally being allowed to document their own experiences in more visible contexts, in greater depth and with less editorial intervention. With heightened consciousness of the effects of negative print and screen portrayals, a plurality of voices that express the diversity of transgenderism is slowly emerging from the margins. It could not have happened without this rich cultural history; one from which transgender people of all shades continue to draw confidence.

More from Juliet Jacques

View the discussion thread.

49 comments

Thu, 2011-05-26 17:14 — Christine Burns (not verified)

I interviewed Juliet, the author of this excellent article, just before Christmas and we talked around some of the topics she has touched on here:

http://podcast.plain-sense.co.uk/2010/12/18/trans-people-and-the-media/

Sat, 2011-05-28 12:41 — Christine Burns (not verified)

And there you go folks. That's how you completely derail any serious writing about the mainstream reality of trans people's history.

Trans people who are genuinely interested in their own history, who want to build alliances of respect and mutual interest, and who want to secure real progress that changes peoples' lives have to learn how to work around the few who would rather we fight among ourselves and thus go nowhere.

For non-trans people coming new to this world I sympathise that it must seem so toxic and that you wonder why you would want to persevere and learn. All I can say is that you'll quickly learn to tell us apart.

A troll is a troll. They're a cross we all bear.

Thu, 2011-05-26 17:57 — Jay Stewart (not verified)

This is a really good concise article of trans history. I am going to share this with our trans youth members at GI

www.genderedintelligence.co.uk

Fri, 2011-05-27 17:12 — historybuff

You guys surely cannot deny that that those advocating for the recognition of hetero-identifying trans people to get married and receive other validations have expoilted homophobia in that process.
The arguments used in European and US legislatures are well documented and show that they have pandered to anti-gay religious and social conservatives; otherwise, they would never have received that separate recognition. In Britain and most US states, hetero identifying trans people can get married but gay men and lesbians (even post-op gay and lesbian identifying trans people) cannot.
And Roz Kaveney, despite your statement, you went along with the compromise which pushed back, possibly indefinitely, gay marriage in the UK. Yet, if gay men or lesbian dare to try to leave out trans people from any legislation we put forward in UK or USA, all hell breaks loose, and our political work is undone or jeopardized. The truth is the trans community wants it both ways (if you'll pardon the double entendre).

Fri, 2011-05-27 17:31 — historybuff

and, by the way, it is not just in Iran that this tendency is alive an well, a similar situation exists throughout the middle east and India. In the US and Canada, for example, many churches, doctors and concservative talk-radio hosts have been advocating transgenderism (I am only using this word because the author did) as an alternative to homosexuality.
I strongly believe that everyone is an individual in terms of their sexual or gender identity, but giving hormones to children under the age of consent, prescribed by doctors in a community that is very anti-gay? You se the problem, surely, guys? Exactly how girly does a girly-boy have to be to qualify as 'trans' rather than 'gay'?

Thu, 2011-05-26 19:13 — foowzkaa

Fascinating piece Juliet, and welcome on board here at New Statesman!

Fri, 2011-05-27 17:50 — Zoe Brain (not verified)

Historybuff wrote :

"You guys surely cannot deny that that those advocating for the recognition of hetero-identifying trans people to get married and receive other validations have expoilted homophobia in that process."

That was certainly true - 50 years ago. It's a shameful part of history that should be exposed more than it is.

But since 1965, ie for over 45 years, it's been heteronormative Gays who have campaigned on the grounds that "they're not like those mentally ill self-mutilating freaks".

It was the GL group that insisted on amendments to the recent Equality Act to make discrimination against Trans people legal. A Gay counselling group can specify that only Gay counsellors will be employed. An Asian counselling group that only Asians be employed etc.

But a Trans counselling group cannot specify that only Trans people will be employed. In fact, other groups are allowed to specify that only non-Trans people be employed.

In the USA, not one of the states that have legalised marriage equality has ever given trans people equal rights to gays afterwards. In several jurisdictions, Trans people may not marry anyone of either sex. Many Gays are fine with that. Not all though.

Thu, 2011-05-26 19:38 — Sarah Lake (not verified)

Agree with what Jay says ... very welcome concise introduction to recent trans history.

Fri, 2011-05-27 17:55 — Zoe Brain (not verified)

historybuff: "In the US and Canada, for example, many churches, doctors and concservative talk-radio hosts have been advocating transgenderism (I am only using this word because the author did) as an alternative to homosexuality. "

REALLY? Well, since there's so many, I'm sure you can name a few. Or even one. Just one.

Let's see - Zucker in Canada uses "operant conditioning" on children - torture, basically - to try to turn them gay rather than trans.

But I know of no-one trying to make gay people trans. That's the kind of Fantasy Sheila Jeffereys and others purvey.

You're making stuff up.

Fri, 2011-05-27 18:06 — Roz Kaveney (not verified)

In what possible sense did getting marriage rights for straight trans people who want them put back lesbian and gay marriage equality? The Blair government was not minded to grant more than they granted. What, pray, was I supposed to do save speak out for equal marriage rights in a body which had NO actual power? Refuse those advances that the GRA did bring my community because we could not get everything in one go?

(And let's be clear there were elements in the Blair government who wanted to turn the clock back in important respects. We had been fighting - in the previous years - attempts to claw back employment protection that had been won in industrial tribunals, some of which were later threatened by sections of the Equalities act. There was a serious attempt by elements of the Cabinet to make us trade the reproductive freedom of trans people for our rights to change of civil status- which we had to put a lot of energy into scotching.)

I find your claim that I ever have, or ever would, throw my own rights as a lesbian, or those of my partner, who is not trans, both incoherent and amazingly offensive.

As to your claim that - unnamed - preachers are using transition as a means of 'stealing' young lesbians and gay men, this is a fantasy as far as I am aware. On the contrary, they are policing gender ever more strictly.

Most trans kids these days KNOW about trans stuff from an early stage. It is amazingly arrogant of you to think that they don't. The use of hormone blockers means that they can make their decision as adults without irreversible changes - those that decide not to transition have deferred puberty. I repeat, where is this happening. Given how many trans people are lesbian or gay after transition, it would be pretty stupid of homophobes to go a route which changes numbers not at all. (I speak as someone who was a mostly-gay bisexual before transition and a lesbian afterwards. This was somewhat to my surprise, but, as I said at the time, 'I didn't go through all that to be straight.'

You claim to respect people's identity but it is pretty clear from your last sentence that you don't.

Thu, 2011-05-26 19:57 — Helen Wilson (not verified)

Lets not forget our rich history, we did not just come into existence in the 1900's, just the word was created.

1640 - One of the very early female settler to America was found on her death to have male genitalia.

1792-1865 Dr James Barry (transman)born in 1792 Margaret Ann Bulkley but in adult life chose to live as a man and became a well respected military surgeon in the British Army. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726462.000-histories-the-male-mi...

Thu, 2011-05-26 19:57 — Christine Burns (not verified)

The amazing history of trans people and culture has always interested me, not least because it is one of the first things any serious campaigner must thoroughly understand before engaging with a sceptical world.

It's also the first thing that any non-trans person should research before jumping in with both boots and crashing around like an idiot.

But here's the thing which can be very annoying (after the hundredth patient time of trying to oblige):

Don't expect the nearest trans person to give you personal tuition. And don't assume that just because it all seems new to you it must only have begun yesterday.

As Juliet's quick skim of the subject shows, we've been here all along. You're just late to the party.

Sun, 2011-06-12 20:09 — cis-bi-femme (not verified)

Wow, these is really interesting to read.

Historybuff, I think if you had a number of close friendships with people who are transexual it would be hard for you to continue to hold those views. It may be true that homophobic views are codified in the way certain countries make laws that support trans people but not gay people. That is not the fault of trans people!

I imagine it must be a pretty strange experience to be a trans person and live in a country that pushes non-trans gay people to live as trans.

Fri, 2011-05-27 18:27 — Christine Burns (not verified)

Historybuff asks why trans people campaigned separately from Lesbian and Gay people for rights.

Simple really. When I asked gay and lesbian people in the early 90's how we could work together I was told that the solution would be to sit tight and wait till they had secured equality for themselves and then, in some unspecified way, the separate issues experienced by trans people would be able to be addressed.

What we did instead was to run a campaign which was meticulous in ensuring that we would never seek to advance our rights at the expense of anyone else's.

When we pushed an important case through the courts for the pension rights of the spouse of a trans man we planned the arguments so that they could be used by gay and lesbian people too (and they were, in 'Grant v S.W. Trains').

When we prepared to usher the Gender Recognition Bill through Parliament we had meetings with our opposites in Stonewall to ensure that neither we nor they did anything to damage each others' campaigns.

This is fact. I was there, along with my colleagues.

I don't know where historybuff gets their beliefs from but it sure as hell ain't reality

Fri, 2011-05-27 18:51 — Natacha Kennedy (not verified)

@Historybuff

You are wrong about Cuba, I was there a few months ago and there were plenty of out gay men & lesbians. Indeed Fidel Castro has apologised for treatment of Gays and lesbians in the early 1960s, just after the revolution; something the UK government has not yet done.

Never mind eh, just make up the facts as you go along...

Fri, 2011-05-27 18:51 — Krissie (not verified)

It occurs to me that the only way that the gaining of the right for straight trans people to marry could possibly be seen as setting back marriage equality for gay and lesbian partners, is if it were seen as a tool to use as leverage for the benefit of gay and lesbian people (which incidentally, would leave straight trans people regarded as being in gay marriages - what a coincidence that this seems to tie in with the rest of "historybuff"'s fanciful and demonstrably incorrect views... both of history, and of trans people.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:02 — Zoe Brain (not verified)

It was unfortunate that the Gender Recognition Act overturned all the caselaw regarding Intersexed people like myself.

Which is why I have a UK Birth Certificate saying "boy" and a UK Passport saying "F". And will do until the law is reformed at some indeterminate future time.

In Australia, where I live, I'm legally female - based on medical evidence - so can only marry a man. Because same-sex marriage would cause Society To Collapse and the Sky To Fall.

In the UK, where I was born, I'm legally male - for the purposes of marriage, anyway, though other areas are not so clear. Anyway, there, I could only marry another woman. Again, because same-sex marriage would cause Society To Collapse and the Sky To Fall.

Cases like mine illustrate just how senseless, bizarre and Pythonesque the ban on same-sex marriage is. We could be used, by GLB and T groups to Press for Change (so to speak), had we a voice. To illustrate too how the GRA is not flawless - those who have a "natural sex change" from 5ARD, 17BHDD, 3BHDD or a few other syndromes aren't treated well, to be covered by the GRA we have to be "Gender Dysphoric" - Transsexual by the WHO's ICD-10 manual - and Intersexuality precludes that, it's a disqualifier.

Those of us who are happy with the change are prevented from having it recognised in our documentation; those to whom it's a nightmare face hurdles getting treatment to prevent and reverse the change.

There's plenty of reasons why we should declare "A Pox on both your houses, Trans and Gay". But one overwhelming reason not to. Justice.

It's unjust that loving Gay couples not be allowed to marry. It's unjust that Trans women are now classed as "Transsexuals with Gender Recognition Certificates" as the Equality Act's explanatory notes put it, and not as women. It effectively repealed the intent of the GRA.

We, who have experienced injustice, should be the last ones to help perpetuate it against others. Even transphobic Gays (not looking at anyone there, historybuff), even homophobic Trans people (none present now, but they may be along shortly, there's plenty of them).

Whether you recognise it or not, whether you like it or hate it - we're all on the same side. If not Allies, at least co-belligerents against forces who make no nice distinctions about G,L,B,T or even I.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:04 — Amym440 (not verified)

As a transsexual women I am offended by the linking of all transsexuals to the gay word transgender. The word transgender is very problematic and I think unethical when used by the medical community and Academics.The simple fact is not all transsexuals or crossdressers are gay or wish to be forcefully associated with the gay community.Then there is the other problem not all children with GID will grow up to be gay. But the word transgender tells parents to surrender their kids to the gay community. I believe that is causing a lot of problems for kids with gender identity disorder in conservative homes. The word transgender distracts people from seeing gender identity disorder for what it is a medical condition. I believe the gay community, The Medical Community, and Academics that have pushed this word are about to pay dearly for it and they should.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:12 — Natacha Kennedy (not verified)

Historybuff's idiotic argument blaming enforced sex changes on gay couples in Iran is about as disingenuous and dishonest as it gets.

These operations were ordered by cisgender religious zealots, and have never been condoned or sanctioned by trans people. Indeed if you look at a study by Ghasemi (1999 I think) of a transgender child in Teheran, you will see that the Iranian regime, and society is just as transphobic as it is homophobic.

Gay men and lesbians have a very large organisation with a huge amount of money behind them, there are gay and lesbian MPs in the government and have been for many years, there are a large number of out gay celebrities, and Historybuff blames trans people, who have no such advantages, for the non-existence of gay marriage. Kind of like blaming Poland for starting World War Two.

Historybuff's own words discredit themselves.

Methinks Historybuff is trying to stir up animosity between trans and gay people. Action typical of the Conservative Feminist Seperatists (they call themselves "radical"). They also use pseudonyms and hide their identities and employ disingenuous arguments like the ones above.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:12 — Krissie (not verified)

Oh dear - you just had to tempt fate didn't you? lol

For the record, as a trans woman, I don't like the term "transgender" at all, and it's problems are numerous. That it's linked to the 'gay community' is not one of them - in fact, I don't much see that contemporary usage of 'transgender' is linked to the gay community any more than the historical definition of 'gay' means that everybody that sleeps with the same sex is perpetually happy and carefree with a song in their heart.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:15 — Zoe Brain (not verified)

I better explain - examples of 5ARD:

http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html

Trouble is, not all are men - see:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Eaissg/2010_FamCA_237.pdf

17BHDD causes similar effects, but less complete. 3BHDD can go either way, the only form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia that can cause either masculinisation or feminisation, late in life if the late-onset non-SW variety. There are other syndromes that cause similar effects too, these are just the best known.

No, it's not a myth. Just rare enough so we face credibility problems, even amongst the medical profession.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:19 — Amym440 (not verified)

Krissie there are many reasons why the word being linked to the gay community is problematic. One in America it ties everyone under that stupid umbrella to the Democratic party. Like I said it is creating problems for children in conservative homes so in a sense it is child abuse.It helps to promote the false notion all people with gender identity disorder are gay. It also violates my rights by forcing me into an unwanted alliance based solely on me having a medical condition. Trust me the days of the word transgender are coming to a close.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:22 — Zoe Brain (not verified)

Krissie - me and my big mouth... talk about tempting fate.

You have to laugh. A sense of the ridiculous is a necessary survival skill for us. Stops us from brooding on things.

I hope readers of the NS will read these comments. I think they'll find them educational - possibly more so than the original article.

Sun, 2011-05-29 04:33 — historybuff

That's right Christine; everyone should just accept what you insist to be true without any critiscm or questioning.

The problem is that these keep getting more extreme. Now we are seeing demands from biological males who have no intention of having a sex change operation or even taking hormones, and still have fully functioning male sex organs to be legally accepted as females, simply because they self-identify as such. Think I'm exagerrating? Not at all. One such individual is currently suing for that right in European Court.

Fri, 2011-05-27 19:48 — Christine Burns (not verified)

Good grief. Every time I blink someone's either got another definition for 'transgender' or has thought of a new way to blame the problems of one set of queers people on another.

As far as I knew there were only two usages of the term 'transgender'.

One is the term coined by Virginia Prince in the 1950's to describe someone who transitioned permanently without the surgeries that transsexual people pursue.

The other was a convenient umbrella term for anyone whose gender identity or presentation challenged convention .. though in Britain many prefer 'trans' for that purpose, to avoid lots of problems.

Neither of those terms has a gay association, not that it would matter to me if they had.

Anyway, what have we learned so far in this thread?

One poster has very kindly provided a vivid demonstration that some gay or lesbian people can be virulently transphobic ... and that this belief system requires you to bend the facts, otherwise it won't work.

Another poster has embarassingly demonstrated the sad fact that, yes, some trans people can be homophobic too.

But here's the good bit...

Neither of those unfortunate examples means that all gays are transphobic or all trans folk are homophobic.

It just means the LGBT community has a scattering of angry and bigoted folk like any other collection of humans

Wed, 2011-06-01 23:31 — Krissie (not verified)

@historybuff

It is not homophobic to say "You say straight people should be able to get married, but a trans woman that likes men is straight, not gay. Why the disparity?"

Further, the law on marriage is equally applicable to gay and lesbian trans people in comparison to gay and lesbian cis (non-trans) people. Consider that a huge proportion of trans people are gay or lesbian, and your unfounded assertion becomes laughable.

The the claim that "the reality is that beving and identifying as gay is more likely to result in rejection and persecution than becoming transgender" is also laughable - do you have ANY idea how many of us (including me, born and bred in a 'traditional' and somewhat behind the times village in the welsh valleys) have been told "It'd be easier/we'd have found it easier to cope with if you'd said you were gay" when we've 'come out' to our families? Do you not remember when protections for trans people were stripped from the ENDA bill because it was felt that protections for gay and lesbian people wouldn't pass if they remained in the bill?

There's your claim "THe very fact that transgenders are allowed to get married in UK, Europe and USA is evidence in itself that this phenomenon is not limited to the 'developing' world but is pervasive in human society."... which only actually makes any sense if you consider trans people to be 'gays that couldn't cope' in the first place. Trans people are allowed to marry ONLY if they are straight. They are allowed to marry because they are NOT gay. It's not proof that homophobia is more prevelant and/or stronger. The mere application of occams razor demonstrates it as proof that homophobia is about gay people, not trans people.

That's not to say that trans people don't suffer homophobia too of course - we get it from people who, much like yourselves, insist that we are all gay people that either couldn't handle the pressure or took it too far. We also get a certain degree of transphobia - from people who accuse us of being perverts, morally reprehensible for our very existances as trans people (not as gay people), or those, much like yourself, who seek to erase us with claims that we can't be who we say we are. If you're both gay AND trans you get them both!

You too have fallen into a trap, historybuff. You have fallen into the trap of assuming you know better than those people who actually live their experiences rather than theorising about them. A number of people have given a description of their reality and their existance backed up with facts, and your response essentially amounts to "If that's you're reality, then you're deluded" ... which is not only extremely rude, but extremely arrogant.

... you'll find that trans history involves having to deal with people being extremely rude and extremely arrogant quite a lot. We continue to exist regardless, and always will, even in a world without homophobia.

Fri, 2011-05-27 20:01 — Roz Kaveney (not verified)

And may I say that the idea that the problems of trans kids in conservative households are limited to a parental perception that they might be gay is as bizarre and ludicrous as the idea that American conservatives are rushing to force lesbian and gay kids into transition?

Both ideas are actually pretty offensive too, given the actual problems of kids whose parents put their beliefs ahead of their love.

Sun, 2011-05-29 11:50 — Tessa (not verified)

Sometimes, out of the mouths of trolls and sock puppets, drop tiny pearls of wisdom:
"they are constructs intended to divide us; not just 'queer' folk but all folk."

Equality for all really does mean equality for all. Shouldn't we therefore unite and fight for it, not divide and seek it for own little subsets. This comment is aimed at everyone who excludes any subgroup from their campaigning: stand up Stonewall England, stand up Radfem campaigners. We all suffer from inequalities, we have a much louder voice together.

Fri, 2011-05-27 02:26 — historybuff

Yes, a rich history indeed.

Gay men in Iran and other middle eastern countries being forced to chose between being put to death or undergoing a sex change operation.

Transgender political leadership who sold the rest of the queer community down the river in 2006 by insisting that they, and not gay and lesbians, be allowed the legal right to marry.

Transgender sex workers continuing to exploit homophobia in the selling of themselves to their 'clients'.

Fri, 2011-05-27 02:43 — historybuff

Sorry, the so-called Gender Recognition Act was 2004 not 2006.

The above article is little more than a potted history of transgenderism which can be garnered anywhere on the internet, and hardly the original work of this author. It doesn't surprise me to find this in a Leftwing publication; many Marxist countries including Cuba also punish homosexuality with imprisonment and death but encourage sex change operations.

For those of you who would like to see the homophobic aspect of transgenderism, see the 2008 documentary "Be LIke Others" which clearly exposes the fact that transgenderism is closely linked to homophobia and seen as a solution to homosexuality. The situation is often similar in other parts of the world as gay people seek to gain the social, moral and legal approval of straight society by changing their gender.

Sun, 2011-05-29 13:53 — Christine Burns (not verified)

When I say something is true @historybuff then it is because I've taken the trouble to research the facts or because I was there at the time the events occurred and wrote factually about them at the time. By those means I have an evidence base that I can always go back to. I never have to resort to mere assertion because I have the facts.

I certainly don't object to criticism or questionning. I welcome it and that is why, after about 20 years of campaigning in this field, I know I am on solid ground.

By contrast @historybuff the accusations you have launched here are readily seen to rely on falsehoods, which one contributor after another has pointed out.

Let's have serious intellectual questionning and critique by all means @historybuff - trans people have nothing whatsoever to fear from that. It's why we win cases in court and have had both sides of Parliament backing the changes in legislation which we sought.

Let's just not have the cheap stuff from you and your ilk.

Fri, 2011-05-27 22:04 — Helen Wilson (not verified)

Well as this thread is about trans history it seems appropriate we have to justify our very existence yet again! Its a huge part of trans a persons experience.

Some people just troll any topic on trans to keep us in the ghetto of self justification or labels we should learn to ignore them.

Fri, 2011-05-27 23:15 — Amym440 (not verified)

You guys are seriously flawed in your thinking. For one just because I don't want to be associated with the gay community doesn't mean I'm homophobic it means I don't consider myself gay or wish for others to. As for conservative parents like it or not having the word transgender associated with both GID and the gay community is problematic for kids in those households like it or not. I'm saying this as someone that grew up in one of those households. I would also say for all your throwing around of words like homophobic and transphobic how many of you are heterophobic and that's why you object to transsexuals that want no part of either the gay community or the word transgender.Transgender is an ugly word that is very much attached to the gay community and it is very much about to go the way of the dodo bird.

Fri, 2011-05-27 08:55 — MxF (not verified)

Ah, yes, the tired old 'trans is just a cover for being a gay man' canard. Which can be pretty easily overthrown by the fact that so many trans women *don't* want to have sex with men and in fact identify as lesbians. Explain that then, historybuff.

As to 'trans people selling gay lib down the river', if anything it's been the other way around. There's a looooooong history of assimilationist cis gays (usually but not always wealthy, caucasian cis gays at that) trading away protections for trans people in order to get the right to have lavish wedding ceremonies and show they can live in unfulfilling monogamous relationships just like all the straight folks. And meanwhile trans people experience violent crime at a much, *much* greater rate than cis gays and have a lower life expectancy as a result. Still, what does that matter when two white gay men can get their wedding list from John Lewis, eh?

I trust the astute reader will note my extreme self-control here in not declaring that the troll is Julie Bindel and claiming my five pounds.

Fri, 2011-05-27 09:26 — Roz Kaveney (not verified)

As one of the trans representatives -not a leader thankyou very much - on the Parliamentary forum during the negotiation of the GRA, I and the other lesbian trans women present took pains to get minuted that the demand for recognition of the marriages of trans people was without prejudice to the demand for full marriage equality for all LGBT people. No one opposed ourdoing so. Historybuff is just making up a historical fact when the evidence is entirely otherwise.

The other thing history shows is that homophobes usually - Iran is a special case and down to the whim of Khomeini - make no distinction between persecuting lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and the trans community. The increased availability of trans surgery in Cuba has gone along with significant liberalization on all LGBT rights. For someone who claims to know history, all Historybuff seems to know is how to make stuff up.

Fri, 2011-05-27 09:27 — alumnus (not verified)

It seems to me that "historybuff" is having a go at rewriting history to serve the stupendous chip on their shoulder. Some things are so wrong that it's impossible to know where to start.

Fri, 2011-05-27 09:28 — Dru (not verified)

...though to be fair to our anonymous troll, the documentary 'Be Like Others' certainly makes interesting viewing, as it appears to demonstrate the unsatisfactory results of enforcing sex-change surgery on gay men in order to make them acceptable in a homophobic society. To conclude from this that 'transgenderism' (sic) is therefore linked to homophobia,is as daft as it would be to claim that transgenderism is linked to radical feminism simply because a few potty people identifying as radfems are constantly snapping at our heels...

Fri, 2011-05-27 09:50 — Tessa (not verified)

The debate that Historybuff is trying to ignite is damaging to both Trans and gay communities. As long as organisations like Stonewall refuse to represent the trans community we will need our own pressure groups. As long as there is misunderstanding and stigma attached to either community we need to stand together, seek to understand each other and to help the world to understand that we are no threat, and have no corrupting agenda.

We were all born this way.

Mon, 2011-05-30 22:50 — J (not verified)

Historybuff, it seems you are confusing gender and sexuality. It's fairly common given the interrelatedness of social issues they face that happen to be represented in the media. But it's not appropriate at the level of conversation you're jumping into.

"Exactly how girly does a girly-boy have to be to qualify as 'trans' rather than 'gay'? "

Identifying as gay doesn't mean someone is any more or less feminine or masculine. Cultural constructions of masculinity - sex roles - include heterosexuality, which makes us quick to understand anyone who may be "more feminine" as also "less heterosexual" (within the social context of having to "choose a side" of EITHER masculinity OR femininity). From the perspective of each individual having the right to decide who they are without other labels being placed on them, it's a damn shame.

Mon, 2011-05-30 22:56 — J (not verified)

Excuse me. That should have read "gender roles" since I was referring to femininity and masculinity; not "sex roles", which would have beeb if I were referring to male and female.

Fri, 2011-05-27 10:30 — Helen Wilson (not verified)

@ historybuff

"Gay men in Iran and other middle eastern countries being forced to chose between being put to death or undergoing a sex change operation."

How bizarre! so trans people are responsible for the actions of cis gendered religious nut jobs? We know the hell of living with gender dysphoria, in no way would trans people endorse making gay men gender dysphoric. The claim you are making is like putting the blame on all transplant patients for the harvesting of prisoners organs so they can sell them for transplant in China! Gender reassignment should only be done on a consenting adult. Giving a gay man the choice of a sex change or death is not consensual in any way. Its a human rights violation the the Iranian government should be held accountable for. Just as the a South African doctor now living in Canada should be held accountable for for the abuses carried out on army conscripts in the 1970's. Sex-change operations, medical torture and chemical castration were perpetrated on national servicemen in a bizarre programme to cure "deviants" during the apartheid era.

To this day dozens of victims of the programme are crippled and disfigured, stranded halfway between male and female by incomplete sex-change operations performed by the South African Defence Force.

Trans people are not responsible for the actions of rogue states run by the cis gendered based religious fanaticism or racist ideologies.

"Transgender political leadership who sold the rest of the queer community down the river in 2006 by insisting that they, and not gay and lesbians, be allowed the legal right to marry."

What a load of hogwash. MtoF or a FtoM trans people in a heterosexual marriage and who what to get a gender recognition certificate are forced by the state to get devoiced without exception. The only way to re-enter a legally recognised status as a couple is to get a civil partnership just as any other same sex couple. As with the rest of the population I can only marry as a trans woman if I am in a heterosexual relationship in the eyes of the law. Its the same law that applies to LGB people.

"Transgender sex workers continuing to exploit homophobia in the selling of themselves to their 'clients'."

That's just ridiculous and uses the same fuzzy logic you have shown above. Maybe you can tell us just how transgender sex workers exploit homophobia?

@MxF

The argument is way too poor to be Julie Bindel. Although I would say the poster has read Julies latest contribution in the Guardian and that's why the Iran bit was included. This is a person who thinks trans people are just repressed gay people. So by default we must be homophobic.

Wed, 2011-06-01 07:45 — historybuff

J
You have fallen into the trap of seeing people divided neatly into categories and groups in terms of gender and sexuality instead of realising that everyone has their own unique combination of the two; this is fiurther complicated by the fact that this very often evolves over time during a persons lifetime. In addition, some people only feel a part-time or occasional or temporary interest or need to explore these aspects of themselves (expression or indulgence, however you want to characterize it). You and the other posters also neglect the extremely importance social/sexual function of 'transgenderism', which, because it is closely linked to the upholding of the paternalistic system (especially in the developing world but also in Europe and the US), which also adds presure on individuals to behave and redifine themselves to gain acceptance and a place within their society and avoid discrimation/condemnation/persecution. Although Christine and others will deny it, the reality is that beving and identifying as gay is more likely to result in rejection and persecution than becoming transgender. THe very fact that transgenders are allowed to get married in UK, Europe and USA is evidence in itself that this phenomenon is not limited to the 'developing' world but is pervasive in human society.

Wed, 2011-06-01 08:05 — historybuff

Furthermore Christine, I am not of any 'ilk'. I am an independent thinker. You assert that you win court cases and the support of BOTH sides in Parliament, so presumably one of those sides is the Tories, who gave as a ban on teaching acceptance of homosexuality in our schools, did it not? This same Parliament also DENIED gay men and lesbians the right to get married (both sides of it). Any your ilk went along it. The notorious Professor Stephen Whittle went into his secret meetings with 'both sides' of Parliament and arranged this shameful stitch-up, and yet he is held up as a hero in the trans community.
Thransgenders have also ontained the right to get married in many US states which they only got by exploiting homophobia in persuading right wing politicians to go along with it and distancing themselves as far as possible from the gay and lesbian community while at the same time demanding that gay and lesbians not be given any rights which are not simultaneously granted to transgenders.

Sat, 2011-05-28 01:29 — historybuff

Amym440, you say you are not homophobic but your words say you are. You admit you greww up in a family that is homophobic; its hard to believe this is not the main reason you became trans instead of gay.

zoe; There are indeed talk radio hosts whose names I tried to enter in my posts but were taken down by the editors presumably for legal reasons.

FYI Chaz Bono was quite happy about being known as a lesbian for years. How can anyone claim that being gay and trans are two completely different things? Clearly they are two aspects or interpretations of the same thing. Its just a shame that social homophobia and your own need to validate your decisions prevent you guys from acknowledging that. Remember that hoterosexuality and homosexuality were concepts invented by psycholgists less than 100 years ago. Before that the notion of sodomy was what defined people who had sex with members of their own birth gender.

Fri, 2011-05-27 11:21 — David Allen Green1

@HistoryBuff

"Sorry, the so-called Gender Recognition Act was 2004 not 2006."

Sorry, it is not the "so-called" Act. It is called the Gender Recognition Act 2004 - see section 29 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/29

Sat, 2011-05-28 04:52 — Amym440 (not verified)

Believe it or not history buff my family would have preferred me to be gay.You might also be surprised to find out I support gay marriage and many gay community and transgender issues just not all of them. So by calling me a homophobe for not wanting to be a part of the LGBT aren't you being a bit of a heterophobe

Sat, 2011-05-28 06:58 — historybuff

No, Amy, because I don't believe heterosexuality exists and neither does homosexuality; they are constructs intended to divide us; not just 'queer' folk but all folk.

Sat, 2011-05-28 09:27 — Dru (not verified)

"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

"Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"

If I claimed I didn't believe in Historybuff, I suspect that they would nonetheless continue to exist.

Sat, 2011-05-28 10:49 — Dru (not verified)

....if only in someone's sock drawer