There are two main differences in the
“study of Transgender Phenomena” versus “Transgender Studies”: one of
reflexivity and one embodying a politics of resistance. Transgender Studies is reflexive in that it
allows for a singular analysis and understanding of embodied human
consciousness. It places the transperson
as a true and essential authority on how “disruptives in normatives of body;
gender; and desire can be interwoven” (Stryker, 8). It is an academic and socio-political
response to the discourse and institutions that act upon transpeople. Trans Studies seeks to explain the soma, or body of knowledge, as a
culturally intelligible construct and the techne,
or ways of creating knowledge, in regards to identity, embodiment, literature,
art, and representation of the trans experience. In restructuring the paradigm for education
regarding trans phenomena, transpeople are now the objects who perform research
instead of being the subject on which theory and research are based. As a result, historical content that was once
masked by unethical scholarship is now being revealed and utilized in the
construction of spaces and dialogue which address the socio-political
irresponsibility of poor research and its implications.
The second way in which Transgender Studies differs from the
Study of Transgender Phenomena is that of embodying an explicit politics of
resistance to oppression of transpeople.
In this explicit politics, axes of differences in self-expression of
identity are explored instead of accepting binary, rigid and unnatural choice
systems. Historically, the study of
Transgender Phenomena has been deceitfully hidden behind self-assumed privilege
and erudition which seeks to marginalize, regulate and dehumanize the
transperson in political, social and medical policies as well as dialogue. This, according to Stryker by-way- of Foccault,
is the “insurrection of subjugated knowledges” (Stryker, 12) in that
transpeople, as well as non-trans people, are revealing and constructing non-pathologized
historic and progressive accounts through ethical scholarship. Trans Studies centers proper trans
scholarship; trans-identified scholars, and the lives of transpeople as the
subject of examination. Such
construction of spaces and dialogue does justice to transgender identities,
does not reintroduce trauma to the transcommunity writ large and therefore is
critical to social advancement thereof.
To further explain, a concrete example of what Trans Studies
is not, is necessary. The text, Transsexual
Phenomenon, by Harry Benjamin, M.D, attempts to begin discussing the
transperson in a “nonoffensive” manner, but ultimately fails to do so because its
grounding ideas are that the transperson’s body and mind are diseased
(Benjamin, 6); a site of cross-gender pathology. Benjamin specifically states that “a
transsexual’s problems are intertwined with those of transvestites and homosexuals
in that they are caught in the “wrong body”, attracted to the same sex, and
enjoy cross-dressing (Benjamin, 9).
Benjamin goes on to insidiously outline his religious, social, medical
and political stance on the views and treatment of transpeople. This text is a summation of his attempts at
understanding his interests based on his own “knowledge” and biases: It is as if he picked his views straight out
of R. Kipling’s White Man’s Burden. The common thread throughout each of the chapters
in the Transsexual Phenomena is this: Transsexuals, Transvestites and Homosexuals, as
well as other “deviants”, must be classified according to their degree of defiance
of “gender tradition and orthodoxy… gender variant deformities… because they
are disturbed, doubtful and confused and in the throes of a moral collapse
(Benjamin, 9)”. Here, it is clear that
Benjamin has a derogatory viewpoint and a clearly outlined goal of the advancement
of non-transpeople in scholarship and other communities. In his using heteronormative language,
pathologized treatment of transpeople, and limited ability to research and
interpret the lives of transpeople in ways other than in relation to himself,
Benjamin is completely outside the appropriate parameters for writing about
“trans___” people. A not-so-recent publication of helpful guidelines laid
out by Jacob C. Hale succinctly state what writing about trans___” should
really entail. The Transexxual Phenomenon is rife with defamatory terms; unchecked
sense of privilege; gross misrepresentation of transpeople’s lives. Benjamin only focused on what supported his
theories and not what would support the lives of his patients; and a general
lack of focus on what “trans___” was telling him about himself as a
person.
Such arrogant perception, as illustrated by Maria Lugones in
her text World-traveling and Loving
Perception, is the concept of perceiving others are for oneself and to
proceed to arrogate their substance to oneself (Lugones, 78); or in Benjamin’s
case, the failure of being able to view transpeople outside of his own
hegemonic "white-male- patriarchal- capitalist-heteronormative-Judaeo-Christian" lens. Lugones points out how we as a
society continually learn and teach others to perceive others arrogantly as if
they have no say in how those in power seek to mold their lives by failing to
recognize how they self-identify (Lugones, 78).
To only view someone as an extension of oneself is to relegate a person
to a one-dimensional existence: the view
of “me and how I view things based on my life” and thereby deny the possibility
of a multi-dimensional personhood for anyone but oneself. Take for example, how Benjamin’s text
supports yet another problematic issue for transpeople: The Wrong Body Model, in all its binary
glory. In the essay Trapped in the Wrong Theory: Rethinking Trans Oppression and Resistance
by Talia Bettcher, Ph.D, she presents the wrong-body outline as having two
versions. “In the weak version, one is
born with the medical condition of transsexuality and then, through genital
reconstruction surgery, becomes a woman or a man in proper alignment with an
innate gender identity. In the strong
version, one’s real sex is determined by gender identity (Bettcher, 383)”. It is not difficult to see how any such
“arrogant perception” used in constructing a model for referring to “trans___”
in today’s world, in the presence of a contemporary understanding of gender, is
unacceptable.
Studying the works of
self-proclaimed “tran___ism” authors and the like is pivotal to Trans Studies because
these works reflect the sentiments of some in positions of power; the
ethnomethodology regarding socio-political discourse; and the institutions that
act upon transpeople as society members.
Furthermore, studying the works that govern the American Psychological
Association and the American Medical Association in their treatments of
transpeople; as well as seeking to untangle how society has been taught to
understand human nature is what lays at the core of forming a viable and proper
resistance movement that can positively affect the trans community.
(If you are interested in the references for this analysis; please email me as the list is lengthy.)
