Addressing the Politics of Social Erasure
This article appeared in the Jan-Feb issue of New Socialist.
Editor's Introduction: At our recent convention the New Socialist Group
decided to expand our basis of unity to include the struggles of
transgendered, transsexual and intersexed people. In the interests of
beginning discussion on these struggles and what they entail for those of
us fighting for socialism from below in the pages of New Socialist Clarice
Kuhling and Gary Kinsman interviewed Viviane Namaste, a transsexual
activist and author of Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and
Transgendered People (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). This
book is an important examination of how social institutions and theoretical
approaches have led to the erasure of transsexual (people who identify as
members of the other gender) and transgendered (a broad term for a range of
groups that do not fit into the current two-gender system) experiences and
begins to counter this through developing research and a detailed analysis
of the forms of marginalizaion and oppression facing transsexual and
transgendered people. Viviane Namaste teaches at the Simone de Beauvoir
Institutute at Concordia University in Montreal. We hope this interview
begins a process of discussion of these questions in New Socialist.
New Socialist: Can you briefly describe for our readers the political
significance of the differences between �transsexual� and �transgendered�
people? (see glossary of terms for definitions). While the term
�transgender� is currently one of the most popular, it needs to be pointed
out at this point in history that increasingly transsexuals object to being
included under a catch-all phrase of �transgender.� They argue that the
health care and social service needs of transsexuals are quite specific,
and that this specificity is lost when people use a vague �transgender.�
Furthermore, the popularity of the term �transgender� emerges from the
Anglo-American lesbian and gay community. While this discourse may have
meaning for some transsexuals who understand their lives in these terms, it
does not speak to the transsexuals who do not make sense of their lives,
and their political struggles, within the confines of a lesbian/gay
framework. It is important to point this out, because most of the
Anglo-American writers and activists on �transgendered� issues come out of
the lesbian/gay community and express themselves in those terms. My
empirical research contradicts this underlying assumption, since most of
the transsexuals I have interviewed do not articulate their needs according
to a lesbian/gay framework. All of this to say that questions of language
are deeply political!
NS: Why did you title your book Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual
and Transgendered People?
Most of the academic approaches to transsexuality argue that transsexuals
are produced by the medical and the psychiatric establishment.
Alternatively, they use the case of transsexuality to illustrate the social
construction of gender. There are all kinds of examples of this type of
scholarship, and unfortunately, it does not appear that things are about to
change in the near future. There are a couple of things that need to be
unpacked in this type of work. Firstly, this work is always, and only,
about identity. It limits itself to how and why transsexuals decide to live
as members of the �opposite sex.� Or it uses transsexuals to speak about
the relations between social norms and gender identity. So what is left out
of academic accounts of transsexuality is any real understanding of what
everyday life is like for transsexuals. So while critics are churning out
books, articles, and essays on transsexuals and the transgendered, they
have nothing to say about the very real circumstances in which transsexuals
live. They cannot offer us even a tiny piece of information about
transsexuals and the law, or access to health care, or the struggles that
transsexuals have with employment, or the situation of transsexuals in
prison. So my book begins with a critique of this kind of intellectual
work. And I argue that, if we actually do some empirical research on some
of the matters most pressing for transsexuals �� civil status, access to
health care, the decriminalization of prostitution, abusive police
practices ��we discover that transsexuals are quite literally shut out and
excluded from the institutional world. They do not have access to many
kinds of services, such as shelters for battered women. And so then I begin
with this empirical data and I raise two questions with respect to theory.
In the first instance, I argue that the theories concerned with the
production of transsexuality have got it wrong: transsexuals are not, in
point of fact, produced by the medical and psychiatric institution. Rather,
they are continually erased from the institutional world �� shut out from
its programmes, excluded from its terms of reference. And the second
question I raise comes out of this reflection: I inquire about the
relevance of writing theory which cannot make sense of the everyday world,
and which actually contributes to the very invisibility of transsexuality
that a critical theory needs to expose. This is part of a much broader
debate in the university, especially within the social sciences, about the
role and function of an intellectual. And I argue that if theory and
university scholarship erase transsexuals in much the same way as different
institutional practices, then they are really part of the problem that
needs to be understood, and are not at all part of any critical inquiry.
NS: What are some of the institutional forms of discrimination and
oppression that transsexual and transgendered people face in patriarchal
capitalist societies?
There are a variety of forms of discrimination. Access to services is one
of the major barriers: detoxification programmes especially, state funding
for surgery, access to hormones in prison, access to emergency shelter.
Much of this access is dependent on the individual attitudes of service
providers. So when someone is uneducated about transsexuals and
transvestites, they may refuse access to services based on misinformation
or prejudice. Another type of discrimination comes out of a total lack of
institutional policies for transsexuals. This is especially true for
female-to-male transsexuals. In these instances, some people cannot get
services because bureaucrats do not have a clear written directive. Access
to the media is a whole other form of institutional discrimination.
Transsexuals are required to give their autobiography on demand: how long
have you known? Are you operated? How did your family take the news? These
kinds of personal questions can provide some insight into the lives of
transsexuals, but they are also, in a sense, quite invasive. It is
astounding to me that within 15 seconds of knowing an individual is
transsexual, some people feel comfortable enough to ask transsexuals to
describe the physical appearance and sexual function of their genitals. How
is it that cultural taboos regarding speaking openly about sexuality and
genitalia with people you do not know well go out the window when it comes
to transsexuals? One of the effects of this demand is that it is difficult
for transsexuals to address the real issues: cops who harass street
prostitutes and escorts, access to health care and social services,
changing one�s name and sex.
The other thing with respect to access to the media is the whole
affiliation with lesbian/gay and feminist communities. As I mentioned
earlier, most of the self-designated activists emerge from lesbian/gay
and/or feminist communities, and they express themselves and frame the
issues in these terms. This means that transsexuals who do not make sense
of their lives according to a lesbian/gay framework have no voice. And I
emphasize here that based on my empirical research and observations within
the milieu for more than 10 years, the majority of transsexuals do not make
sense of their lives in lesbian /gay terms. Yet we never hear these voices.
And even though we have some empirical research which challenges an
equation amongst transsexuals and lesbians/gays �� I refer here to my
research as well as that of Henry Rubin, whose book on female to male
transsexuals, Self-Made Men, will be published by Vanderbilt University
Press in 2003 �� our research and observations are ignored both by critics
in queer theory as well as by transgendered activists who align themselves
with queer politics. So to return to the notion of institutions,
transsexuals experience discrimination to the extent that they cannot
express themselves in their own terms. The last institutional barrier I
want to cite is that of consultation. So often, the government develops
policies without consulting transsexuals at all. Or in certain cases,
consultation happens with middle-class non-prostitute transsexuals, who
represent their unique interests without ensuring that the broader needs of
transsexuals are addressed.
NS: Could you tell us a bit about the struggles of transsexuals in Quebec
and the institutional relations they are up against when trying to get
their "sex" changed on official documents? Legally, Quebec is a civil code
jurisdiction, and within civil code jurisdictions, the body is legally
inscribed (or specified in law) as a matter of public order. This is quite
different than the legal situation within a common law jurisdiction. What
this means practically, in terms of name and sex change, is that
transsexuals can only change their name after surgical intervention on the
genitals. This legal framework is quite specific to civil code countries,
and goes back to a long legacy of the Napoleonic Code. In terms of everyday
life, this creates all kinds of problems: a female individual begins to
take hormones, lives as a man without detection, but their identity
documents remain in the female name. Getting employment, access to health
care and everyday situations like picking up a registered letter from the
post office become very problematic. The situation is especially
complicated for female to male transsexuals. The Office of Civil Status
will clearly state that a male to female transsexual must undergo a
vaginoplasty, the construction of the vagina, in order to change their name
and sex. Yet in the case of female to male transsexuals, they invoke a
rather vague criterion of structurally changing the genital organs. They do
not say if this means a phalloplasty (the construction of a penis), or if
it refers to the removal of the uterus and the ovaries alongside a double
mastectomy and taking male hormones. So things are not at all clear and my
research indicates that there is no standardized procedure in this area.
Just recently, a court ruled that a male to female transgendered person can
add a female name to their birth certificate. It will be interesting to see
what kind of impact this has for transsexuals in Quebec, and if the access
will be universal.
NS: What is the significance of the challenge to the two-gender dichotomous
(male/female) system that transgendered and transsexual people raise? How
can radical activists who are not transsexual or transgendered take up this
critique of gender relations in the daily work that they do?
This question is one that comes up again and again on the left. I am happy
to have the opportunity to answer it, in a sense to un-do this question,
because it helps to illustrate some of the issues that I have raised in my
previous answers. Let me begin by briefly summarizing some of the
underlying assumptions of this question. The question follows a line
advanced by some self-designated transgendered activists and repeated over
and over again by queer theorists in the university. It argues that the
binary sex/gender system, the exclusive division of the world into �men�
and �women,� is oppressive. And this argument further contends that this is
oppressive not only to transsexuals, but indeed to men and women who
consider themselves �properly� sexed and gendered. And having made this
critique of the binary sex/gender system, this position then goes on to
state that social change can happen through some kind of disruption or
displacement of the sex/gender system. That�s where transgendered people
come in, located within this framework as those who successfully challenge
the status quo and point out a new way of going forward.
Now, having given a brief overview of what I see as some of the underlying
assumptions of the question, let me return to the division I made earlier
between �transsexuals� and �transgendered.� I said that more and more, a
lot of transsexuals take a critical distance from the term �transgendered.�
And this question allows us an opportunity to think through why. The
question assumes that �transgendered� people will see their bodies,
identities, and lives as part of a broader process of social change, of
disrupting the sex/gender binary. Now many transgendered people make such
an argument: you can read it in the works of Leslie Feinberg, Riki Ann
Wilchins, or Kate Bornstein. But many transsexuals do not see themselves in
these terms. They would situate themselves as �men� and as �women,� not as
�gender radicals� or �gender revolutionaries� or �boyzzz� or �grrrrrrls� or
whatever cute phrase people on university campuses decide to use this week.
Most transsexuals I know, and most I have interviewed, describe themselves
as men or women. And there is a sense in which this position cannot be
understood in relation to the question posed, �what is the significance of
the challenge to the two-gendered dichotomous system that
transsexual/transgendered people raise?� because transsexuals seek to have
a different embodied position within that system. I hope it is clear here
what I am trying to do �� I hope to show how asking the question in this
way forces transsexuals to speak a language that is foreign to us. And
while it may have meaning and relevance for transgendered people, it has
very little to do with the everyday lives of transsexuals.
Now it is usually assumed, in the university and even in progressive
movements for social change, that people who adopt �essentialist� positions
(that gender for instance is innate and not socially made) are not
politically progressive. But you know, I think that the interest in social
constructionism in the Anglo-American university is in danger of blinding
people to the very good political work that one can do from an essentialist
position. And I will go out on a limb here - because to be a good thinker
and activist and teacher means taking some risks - and I will say that in
the case of transsexuals, essentialism has such a bad name! Let me cite an
example to help illustrate my case. It is so often assumed, that in
disrupting a binary sex/gender system, transgendered people are in the
forefront of social change. I cited the works of Leslie Feinberg and Riki
Ann Wilchins earlier. Both of these writers are located within this
framework: they advocate a �transgendered� revolution. Now, this is
supposed to be a position that is so much more sophisticated than those
terrible essentialist transsexuals. And the position advocated by Feinberg
and Wilchins is the one cited by critics in queer theory. These are the
authors who make it onto the course outlines of university studies. And it
is all done by well-intentioned, well-meaning teachers who would situate
themselves as allies of transsexuals.
But let us examine in more depth some of the political work of Feinberg and
Wilchins. Wilchins has been not only active, but instrumental, in lobbying
for the de-listing of gender identity disorder from the manual of
psychiatrists, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. And Feinberg also
supports such a position, notably in publishing the �International Bill of
Gender Rights� in her book. This Bill also contends that gender identity
disorder has no place in the psychiatric diagnostic manual. If such a lobby
is successful, it will mean that it will be impossible to pay for sex
reassignment surgery either through a private insurance company or through
state/provincial health insurance. In this light, the activism of Wilchins
and Feinberg supports the privatisation of health care.
So here we have a case of some transgendered activists, influenced by
social constructionist theory, who argue that they are the cutting edge of
social change. Yet they are involved in political work which is deeply
conservative.
Now let us contrast this with the work of some transsexuals like Margaret
O�Hartigan, who has been instrumental in ensuring that sex reassignment
surgery is paid for through state health insurance in Minnesota, and who
has offered a trenchant critique of the funding of health care services in
Oregon, including services for transsexuals. Now, O�Hartigan is an
essentialist: she is not making any claims to disrupting the sex/gender
binary, she is not hailing herself as the new vanguard of third wave
feminism. What she is doing, is the highly unglamourous work of research,
lobbying, and activism to ensure that all transsexuals can have access to
health care, regardless of their economic or financial resources. So here
we have an example of an essentialist (gasp!) who is, in my opinion, doing
some excellent political work. So I hope it is clear, then, how the
question posed to me contains all kinds of assumptions that I do not
accept. And so one of the things I hope to do is to encourage people to be
deeply critical of the kinds of information and knowledge available on
transsexuals, perhaps especially the knowledge advocated by �transgendered�
people. In practical terms, this means reading more than Leslie Feinberg,
Riki Ann Wilchins, Kate Bornstein, or Judith Butler.
That being said, and in a critical spirit of solidarity, I would encourage
people in the labour movement and in progressive circles to openly critique
the �party line� when it comes to transsexuals and transgendered people.
Feinberg and Wilchins and many others like them are invested and implicated
in precisely the forms of economic and global capitalism that progressive
people seek to understand and transform. You know, I think in the past 5
years, transgendered people have become so trendy. And sometimes I have a
feeling that in part because of this trendiness, people are afraid to
criticize what transgendered people say because they don�t want to be
called �trans-phobic.� Don�t get stuck there, some transgendered people are
involved in regressive political work and it needs to be denounced.
I want to say two more things before concluding. Firstly, I want to
encourage people to learn about what is going on here in Canada.
Transsexuals have such a rich history in Canada and Quebec, and prostitutes
have been the first ones to organize to get services for transsexuals �� in
Montreal, in Vancouver, and in Toronto. Yet so much of the writing in
English on transgendered people is produced by Americans. By studying how
transsexuals have organized here in Canada, we can reframe some of the
questions that people ask. Of course, since I live in Quebec, I would also
encourage English Canadians to learn French, since it would allow them a
whole other way to see and understand the world. But that�s another
interview! I think it is most useful to think about these questions not in
terms of the individual rights of transsexuals, but in terms of how these
issues link with those of other marginalized populations, or with the
functioning of the state in general. And I think that leftists can play a
very important role in this regard. I am thinking, for instance, of a panel
that Trish Salah organized around labour and prostitution at the �Sexin�
Change� conference in October 2001 in Toronto. Prostitute activist Kara
Gillis actually noted that this was one of the first times she had been
invited to a specifically union/labour context, despite the fact that her
activism frames prostitution as work. So organizing these kinds of events
allows people to make broader connections and shifts the focus from a
narrow one of �transsexual rights.� Prostitute activist Mirha-Soleil Ross
argued that day, for instance, that the decriminalization of prostitution
would have a more positive impact on the lives of most transsexuals than
any kind of human rights legislation. So that is something progressive
people can do: integrate transsexual activists into your work not to speak
about gender and transsexuality, but to make broader links concerning the
regulation of marginalized people.
Glossary of Terms:
Gender: refers to the roles, behaviour, and meanings assigned by social
agencies to women and men based on their presumed biological sex. In
western societies it is generally held to be the case that there are only
two genders � women and men (based on a paraphrased and slightly revised
definition of Viviane Namaste�s).
Sex: refers to the biological and anatomical attributes of females and
male. In western societies, it is generally held that there are only two
sexes, despite a significant number of people who do not easily fit into
these two categories. Some have argued that sex, like gender, is also
socially constructed and historically specific (definition from NS editors).
Transsexual: individuals born in one sex �� male or female �� but who
identify as members of the �opposite� sex. They take hormones and undergo
surgical intervention, usually including the genitals, to live as members
of their chosen sex. Transsexuals are both male-to-female and
female-to-male (definition from Viviane Namaste)
Transgender: an umbrella term, popular in Anglo-American communities, to
include all kinds of people whose gendered self-presentation (expressed
through mannerisms, dress, and even physiology) does not correspond to the
behaviours associated with the members of their biological sex. This would
include, for instance, transsexuals, drag queens (men who perform as women
on stage only, usually in a gay male club or social environment),
intersexed individuals (people who are born with genitals that cannot be
easily classified as �male� or �female�), drag kings (females who perform
as men on the stage in lesbian cultural spaces), transvestites
(heterosexual males who cross-dress in �women�s� clothes and who receive
sexual gratification from this act), as well as people who do not identify
with either the category �male� or �female.� (based on a paraphrased and
slightly revised definition of Viviane Namaste�s).
Essentialism: refers to the practice of ascribing inherent or necessary
properties (an essence) to objects or people � in particular, ascribing
certain behaviours, attitudes and roles as inherent to being female/women
and male/men. Many theorists have been critical of such
approaches/practices and have argued that they serve to reinforce and
justify sexual and gender discrimination and oppression (definition from NS
editors).
Social Constructionism: refers to the view that the institutions or
categories we use to divide up and understand the world are continually
(re)invented or developed by people throughout history as opposed to
pre-existing in nature. For instance, it is sometimes argued that a binary
(two) sex/gender system is a social construction and can therefore be
disrupted and replaced with something different (definition from NS
editors). To complicate matters further, others, such as Vivane Namaste,
argue that social constructionism can be an anti-transsexual position.
Some Sources Cited
Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaw, On Men, Women and the Rest of Us, (New York:
Vintage, 1994). Kate Bornstein, my gender workbook, (New York and London:
Routledge, 1998). Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors, Making History
From Joan of Arc to RuPaul, Boston, Beacon, 1996. Leslie Feinberg, Trans
Liberation, Beyond Pink or Blue, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/01/05/5742222
Breaking news...a bushfire is bearing down on Canberra,keeping our fingers
crossed it's scorched earth time for the au feds.
