My Transsexual Summer: The trouble with television
The medium’s ability to improve its own minority representation is strictly limited.
By Juliet Jacques Published 18 November 2011 14:06
The medium’s ability to improve its own minority representation is strictly limited.
Many of my friends are talking about My Transsexual Summer, which recently began on Channel Four, featuring seven people from across the gender diversity spectrum. Some are cisgender (crudely, not trans), often with little knowledge of trans living beyond what I've told them, who say the show offers accessible, sympathetic insights into the social challenges of transition. Conversely, my trans friends, some of whom had high hopes for the series, have tended to vent frustration that (besides other things) it fails to air the experiences of those who do not simply wish to move from one side of male/female to the other but find space within the gender binary.
I won't review it from a trans perspective: Sarah Lake, Dru Marland and several others have done so, better than I could. The consensus seems to be that My Transsexual Summer has faults -- its title erases the subtleties of the participants' gender identities, and its voiceover and editing do not entirely avoid sensationalism -- but that in showing trans people together, rather than disparate, isolated individuals as in previous documentaries, it demonstrates a vibrant culture on television for the first time.
This is an incremental step forward for trans media portrayal, but still raises questions about how far TV is capable of providing satisfactory minority representation. Maxwell Zachs, of, My Transsexual Summer, has expressed some dissatisfaction with the show, whilst my own engagement with the industry has been less than encouraging.
If you didn't know (and I've had calls from media companies who'd somehow missed it), I'm transsexual, and often write about it, trying to use my experiences to open dialogue about wider trans concerns. (Apologies to my FtM friends: I've tended to focus on trans women as I don't feel as qualified on trans men.) I do this because, for years, I felt that while trans people were regularly discussed in mainstream media, used as objects of ridicule in lazy comedy shows, or attacked by certain feminists or conservatives, we were seldom allowed to frame our own stories and present counter-arguments on an even footing.
In particular, when I began apprehending myself through newspapers, films and TV, I resented the stereotypes of trans women as psychotic (Psycho, Dog Day Afternoon or Dressed to Kill) that persisted into the Nineties (in Silence of the Lambs, for one). These still hadn't quite disappeared nearly twenty years later, when I decided (independently of other groups and individuals pursuing similar aims) to work within the mainstream media towards more positive representation.
After I'd written about six instalments of my Transgender Journey series for the Guardian, which aimed to reduce the decades-long gap between transgender theory and the broadsheet press, I got an email from someone at a company who'd produced films, and programmes for the BBC and Channel 4. This person had read my blogs and proposed meeting about a possible TV drama about people in transition.
Perfect: I'd attempted something like this before writing the Guardian column, as I thought that a colourful, humorous narrative with engaging characters could potentially challenge preconceptions about trans people for a far wider audience. I felt that although I'd created a plausible world with interesting characters, I was average at dialogue and weak on plot. (The inevitable consequence of watching too many obscure French films where no-one speaks and nothing happens.) Now, I might be part of a well-balanced writing team with two promising young playwrights, and we could aim at a cultural landmark equivalent to Queer As Folk or The L Word.
Friends in/around the industry warned that lead-in times are always long; sure enough, we struggled to arrange the meeting. Finally, after fifteen months, resolution: the project had been shelved as "Sky have a drama coming up about a pre-op transsexual hitwoman". As far as the producer was concerned, this programme -- which had annoyed trans bloggers even before it was cast -- meant no market space for anything trans-related, no matter how different, for the foreseeable future. Perhaps, I thought, I'm best out of this.
Writers being disillusioned with the infrastructures of screen media is nothing new: think of Bertolt Brecht or Clifford Odets' disastrous inability to deliver what Hollywood producers required (the latter providing inspiration for the Coen Brothers' Barton Fink), or Jean-Paul Sartre's unwillingness to compromise for director John Huston on Freud (1962). But the television industry's incapacity to foster formally or politically radical content is even more pronounced than its cinematic counterpart, for numerous reasons.
With so many channels broadcasting around the clock, the listings are full of unscripted programmes -- sport, reality TV, panel shows -- which are relatively cheap or have fixed budgets. This has the effect of making television appear a world where writers are neither needed nor wanted, but it happens because the financial and visual demands of written serials are so high. (Charlie Brooker explains the costs brilliantly here.) As audiences will apparently change channel unless the pace is utterly relentless, a programme like Tony Hancock's Radio Ham, set in one room, is no longer tenable, so screenwriters must create fast, action-packed and above all short scenes across a number of locations, keeping firmly within budget.
This is not bad in itself: these constraints offer interesting challenges to writers, and when met successfully, produce fantastic shows. (The first episode of Shameless is a case in point.) The key limitations are not those of form, but content: what really puts off writers with specialist knowledge are producers' prejudices about what viewers will accept or understand which, coupled with their methods of audience testing, remain the greatest barriers to any big improvements in coverage of minority subjects.
Circumventing these gatekeepers is far harder than in writing (where bloggers have successfully challenged editors' beliefs about what people will or won't read). For My Transsexual Summer, a number of trans people, including CN Lester, and Paris Lees of pressure group Trans Media Watch, consulted with Channel Four: the broadcaster's willingness to listen is encouraging, although all the above blogs explicate the number of compromises necessary to get this show -- imperfect but still significantly better than what came before -- to air. At this point, given its financial and political structures, the limited level of improvement in trans representation on TV shown by My Transsexual Summer is probably the best we can expect.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















20 comments
It's much more simple. Seven people living seven individual journeys. I loved them all in individually different ways. Insightful, but, obviously, not exhaustive.
Ummm, seems the reply system here is faulty. This was supposed to be a reply to:-
Fri, 2011-11-18 16:11 — Ian5
>
> I only managed 10 minutes or so, and please tell me that this motley crew
> are not the best advocates of transgender people. They just seemed to reinforce
> the stereotypes and were basically boring. Big brother with surgery.
>
> Juliet you wrote "but that in showing trans people together, rather than
> disparate, isolated individuals as in previous documentaries, it demonstrates
> a vibrant culture on television for the first time."
>
> Is the idea really then to change gender or to create another one?
Rather perceptive of you, that.
The sex- and gender-minorities are diverse but often painted or misrepresented as a single community. Some do want to see a third gender, others a disappearance of any distinctions to form a single spectrum. All such tend to be highly visible. Unfortunately they tend to mock those whose need (whose apparently innate gender) is to be the sex opposite that they were registered at birth, and who mainly wish not to be visible, so won't be on such TV series. You will see us as children in foreign documentaries though, because there is a huge need to change the way such children are handled, and people can melt away into anonymity as their appearance changes as they mature. Those whose need as a child is for a body of the other sex tend to have physical differences to match, and need to be only see as that sex. Those who simply report feeling uncomfortable as a child, or whose first perception is later (sometimes decades later), less so. So it seems like an innate cause, or several, that affect people to very different degrees and results in a diversity of needs and experiences.
I am a straight man who has lived in Soho for over 15 years and as such am exposed to transgender people in the course of my everyday life and am completely accepting of them . It is my belief that the broadcasting of MTS can only be a positive thing , yes some scenes are inappropriate and pander to stereotypes ,but overall it is a step in the right direction and i agree with Christine's comments about shooting for the stars . The journey that the transgender community is on(in terms of acceptance) is a very long road and the journey has hardly began .
I have no previous experience trans people, nor do I know anyone who is trans - I live in a small village in a big county. All seven of the people that took part in it are so lovely and sweet - and I'm really glad Channel 4 picked them - the fact that Drew (Dru?) couldn't get a job because she is trans is down right disgusting - what people 'are' has nothing to do with whether they can do a job.
Donna's attitude is fab, and I'm so glad she is rubbing some of her confidence off to the others.
To some the producers etc are portraying it in the wrong light - I think however the balance is good - it just shows normal people trying to get on with their lives.
My last bit: Lewis is super cute :P
I'm agender myself and know various transpeople and other gender variations but I still found MTS informative. For one thing, I was under the impression that FtM surgery was pretty much patchwork and not really functional so it was a pleasant surprise to know how far that option actually does go.
Reading this now, I can understand how things were omitted that the participants and others might have wished to be included, but I guess as a start it has had a hopefully positive impact. It occurs to me that perhaps the makers didn't want to overload their audience... like some people might accept the idea of transpeople in a binary sense but as soon as you add gender variation into the mix, people might suddenly give up on the lot.
I also remember a programme not long ago that referred to everyone by their biosex pronouns, which was painful. I'm glad at the very least the programme seems respectful!
I watched the first two episodes, and nearly quit after the first one. The characters (for that was how they seemed) were so over the top it was painful. The second episode, however, slowed things down, and we were treated to scenes such as potential employers discussing Drew's 'passability" as if she wasn't there, as well as the farcical situation where Lewis is refused a mastectomy because he hasn't had a penplasty.
I am a transgendered fiction writer, in both senses. I write to try and make sense of my life, and I understand the need to have 'good' television. I see your point, and I thank you for making it so well. Audiences are assumed to demand bright lights and fireworks, while all most transpeople want is simply to be normal, to blend seamlessly into society.
But that doesn't make good TV.
To the non transgendered it all a bit of a freak show, I can never understand why they all want to look like Marlyn Munro even the not so good looking one's it is a man / woman in drag and not very attractive. As for good television well that is anall togther different matter the show and that is what it is will never have the viewing figures of say the Pinapple Dance Studio and is a lot less interesting to the majority of people watching it, it is to a fairly minor audience not matter what figures you come up with trannies in the UK, and it was said that the money that is spent on surgery could be put to better use in an already over stretched NHS.
Hello. everyone.
would like to make new friends with you guys.
The cultural issues are deep and complex: we hang too much on gender and simplify to a degree that excludes far too many people. The media don't see it as their job to straighten things out, but as a dialogue opener, and as a window on the real world of non-binary gender expression, I am very thankful for MTS. It will be remembered, better and more profound things will follow, and who knows, one day no-one will be scared or confused just because some of us "cross the divide", live in the middle and thoroughly blend gender.
Thanks for the article and the links to some trans blogs. Thanks to the comments (except Raymond obviously) who further deepened my perspective.
I saw the first 2 episodes and was really impressed, moved and certainly enthralled.
It didn't seem to portray the people involved as "freaks", they came over as affirmative and mutually encouraging.
Critical (by which I mean questioning) enquiry did seem a bit absent. Only one of the women (bad with names) seemed to present a space for a different sort of gender identity than simply m2f or f2m.
This is one of the more open and informative comment threads on here - without the usual flaming. I will be watching episode 3 (if only because I have the slightest crush on the girl with all the piercing and "fuck u attitude".
Steph Anne, I'll give this another go, if as you say this have slowed or normalised. I personally as a straight 50+ male thought I might find it informative, and yes entertaining. This was not the case with the segment I watched of episode 1. I think programmes like this need to be if anything "brutal" in their honesty. I felt it forced bordering on the faked.
Thank you, Ian. The first episode was a horrible freak show, and I shuddered watching it. It was the sort of programme that panders to the views of people like Raymond392 here. I wonder if he uses the n-word for black people in the same way he used 'trannies'. Different things, Raymond. Read what I wrote about being ordinary.
In the second, there was an awful lot more examination of their real lives. The coming out of the 'new girl' to her mother was particularly affecting, as were the other two parts I have mentioned. It is still a freak show, though, and I can't see muself ever enjoying the company of Miss Facial Piercing 2011. It can go one of two ways, but I will watch it in hope.
And Raymond: GID kills people. Maybe not directly, but they die because of it. So glad you think that the prevention of early death is so unimportant.
As a cisgender female viewer, I found MTS really engaging and interesting and I wondered why it had taken so long for a channel to do a reality series on such a misunderstood community. I've been reading posts from Trans Media Watch members and Max on his blog and can now understand why some people are not satisfied with the programme. I also understand why people are not happy that the show focuses on the girls more and also the surgery aspect but I also agree with Paris Lees that visibility alone is worth this. I feel that as someone with previously little knowledge of the subject, beyond cultural and popular representations of transgender people, it has opened my eyes and made me want to find out more. I hope that others will do the same.
For my take on the subject, I invite readers to read my review on the custard tv:
http://bit.ly/tCRY52
Change of this kind requires cultural dialogue. The media can take early steps and these can help to trigger social change. When awareness of that change filters back to the media, we are likely to see further change. This is how it has worked for other minority groups. 'My Transsexual Summer' has clearly opened a lot of people's eyes - let's hope those people now feel ready to start speaking out against prejudice and discrimination.
I did enjoy watching the show on channel 4.As it was different and educational,better than some of the crap they show on the tele these days.
I am no stranger to the trans world being i travelled to thailand and the far east when a younger man.
It is widely excepted there and open so you don't get hated for being what you want to be. I like the way these people expressed themselves on the show,and i fell in love with dru what a babe,shes my favorite.
I hope this is not a one off show but more to come i hope.
I wish all the seven people in the show
happiness and good futune.
I agree with your analysis. TV is in many ways a conservative medium, and as such incremental steps have to be expected. As a trans person who does not fit the normal gender transition type, I would like to see people who come in "non-standard" trans types included more, but I recognise that trans people generally need to become more accepted before this can happen.
Hello lady. V interesting piece, as always. I think it's worth remembering, though, that it's not producers' prejudices, but commissioners' and broadcasters', that provide the real unhelpful gate-keeping you talk about. Many producers are champions of innovation and desperate to try new, creative, risky approaches to drama and factual programming -- I say risky because trying something that's not guaranteed to compel a massive audience on television is very risky for those that fund it -- but often find themselves and their writers stifled by channels' demands.
I feel like I am a little bit in love with every single person on the show, I love it, if it was on every week for the rest of my life I would tune in, much like Seven Dwarves.
Juliet,
You could, of course, try writing for the stage.
It's tempting to want to get straight onto the screen because, of course, that's where the BIG audiences are. However, do you want 'big' or 'target'?
Putting on a range of innovative dramas in the regions, with new and unknown talent, allows you to develop and test ideas which can then be presented in a more developed form for radio or TV.
Along the way, it is in those theatres that some of those commissioners and producers can see the ideas demonstrated.
Also, why not take a leaf out of the book of some musicians? Rather than put all their hopes into being spotted and signed by a record company they've put their work on the web.
Why shouldn't trans playwrights and documentary makers do that too? Write and produce for the ten minute format of YouTube. Better still, Vimeo is the more natural home for slightly longer indy productions that don't cost a fortune to make.
It's tempting to want to shoot for the stars after decades of being in the wilderness. But if trans representation is to have an authentically trans voice then we need to see more experimental stuff coming out that can wake the commissioners up.
I only managed 10 minutes or so, and please tell me that this motley crew are not the best advocates of transgender people. They just seemed to reinforce the stereotypes and were basically boring. Big brother with surgery.
Juliet you wrote "but that in showing trans people together, rather than disparate, isolated individuals as in previous documentaries, it demonstrates a vibrant culture on television for the first time."
Is the idea really then to change gender or to create another one?