Back
In March, 1998, I had the pleasure of attending a talk by a male-to-female transsexual named Victoria. Since, to the best of my knowledge, it was the first time I had ever such such an individual, and even had the chance to talk to her after the speech, it was quite an interesting experience. (Ed. Note: Subsequently, I attended a film screening by Mirha Soleil-Ross, a male-to-female transsexual, and went to a talk by female-to-male artist Max Valerio, though I was sadly unable to stay).
Since, as a queer guy, the subject of gender identity and roles has always been brought into discussion (I should add that I'm happy to be male, but have reservations about being a man), it was even more useful to have some of those frequently bandied-about terms defined by Victoria, which she did with great elegance and precision, a tribute to how well she survived the traumas of her early life and arrived at a position of strength and confidence that I certainly did not have at the tender age of 27.
A FEW USEFUL TERMS
At the risk of diverging into a major political essay, it is harder to identify a
female transvestite, because male clothes have been constructed as the norm, and there has
been a fairly lengthy trend towards making boyduds androgynous. Perhaps individuals like Radclyffe
Hall or Gertrude Stein might qualify as female transvestites, but I am not
really in on their motivations for the way that they dressed.
Drag Queen - This is a somewhat trickier one to define, I should think,
as it is not only about clothing, but also attitudes, mannerisms, etc., and has several
different camps (you should pardon the expression). Some drag queens and kings dress very
convincingly, as a piece of theatre or impersonation; others may do so in a genderplay way
(there was a trend in the early 70s to wear a skirt and keep one's beard among the Radical
Faeries movement). It has been argued by some that drag is demeaning and insulting to
women (I suppose that drag kinghood could be construed as an affront to men, but men do a
pretty good job at being an insult to themselves much of the time, I think, so I'm not
convinced). I think the intention of the performer is key, and I would certainly hope that
the more theatrical performers would be aware of the ironies of their portrayal and have a
semi-political agenda at work.
I've never met a straight drag queen or kind, but I suppose they could exist.
On which point, my knowledge of drag kinghood is understandably limited, but I do know that there used to be regular drag king contests at an alternative queer club in London, England.
RuPaul, Vaginal Creme Davis, and Joan Jett Blakk come to mind as drag
queens, and Ellyott Dragon of Nightnurse and Debbie Goodge,
of My Bloody Valentine and Snowpony are the two drag
kings I can think of off the top of my head.
While definitions are useful, they pale in comparison to daily life and the ideas that lie behind them.
Personally, I always found it strange that people assumed those who crossed gender lines were gay. I suppose it's because of the pervasive teaching of the 'natural'.
If you're a boy who believes he is a girl and likes straight boys, then you're gay, and you must be having the surgery to make things easier and more 'natural'. (And, of course, the same for girls).
Therefore, it throws people for a loop to conceive of someone who is transgendered and attracted to the same sex.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand - or, rather, I do, but I wish people would just stop and think for a moment before they slam the lids of the boxes down on hands reaching out for knowledge (can I push a metaphor or what?).
To be insufferably self-centered, I am reasonably certain I am not attracted to men in the same way opposite-sex-oriented women are. I couldn't be - the society is not set up that way, and the rituals and the like are extremely difficult to adapt. Furthermore, since, in theory, the relationship of two men is somewhat more likely to be one of equals, I am not coming into things from the position many women are in this society - that is, looking to men for a sense of security.
I realize this sounds sexist, but I am reciting cant and ritual that have been handed down - I am not saying it is right, or that all women think this way. I am certainly not saying it is 'natural'. It is, however, a powerful expectation inflicted on most women from birth, and, for many, it takes an Amazonian effort to throw it over.
There are some such restrictions for men, and certainly 'compulsory heterosexuality' is one - but the boundaries are a bit freer, and the punishments for transgression not as severe. Yes, there is gay-bashing, but that is a relatively uncommon event (on the physical level, anyway - mental abuse is quite another matter...).
These factors are based on perceived gender as a physical thing. A being who has chest hair, a penis and testicles is perceived as male. A being with developed mammary glands and a vagina is perceived as female.
Most people are able to figure that much out. Given heterosexist thought, these beings are supposed to seek out their opposite number and move to the suburbs.
Quite a few people are able to realize that sometimes their neighbours in the suburbs are those two charming men, Ken and Joe, or assertive women, Barbie and Skipper, next door.
But that's where the trouble sets in. As far as most people reason, if
Ken decides some day to become Barbie, they expect him to move in with Joe. They will be
stunned if Skipper moves in instead, and probably never invite them to those charming
backyard barbecues.
GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE NOT THE SAME THING! (REPEAT AS
NECESSARY)
Just as I am attracted to men, but not as a woman, some transsexuals are attracted to
their 'current' gender, but only if they themselves achieve their ideal 'opposite-gender'
identity through surgery (with the reverse true for queer transsexuals, and a frantic plea
for better language).
It's fairly simple on paper, but years of conditioning and training have made it difficult for people to grasp. One must be patient and persistent...
As this is not a book, though it is rapidly threatening to be a precis of one, I will attempt to wrap up here with a list of some resources for further reading/viewing/listening.
However, I feel obliged to close with an absurdity that shows how far society has to go in understanding those who cross gender lines. In the City of Toronto pools, it is possible for a transgendered/transsexual person to use the washroom of his/her apparent sex; however, it is a crime for them to use the corresponding changeroom.
SOME MOVIES
The Crying Game; Glen or Glenda; To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar;
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert; paris is Burning
SOME BOOKS/ZINES
Man Enough To Be A Woman, by Jayne County; Dear Sir or Madam, by Mark Rees; A
Low Life in High Heels, by Holly Woodlawn; Not Simply Divine, by Bernard Jay; Hiding
My Candy, by Lady Chablis; Boy's Own (a female-to-male transsexual newsletter,
FTM Network, BM Network, London, WC1N 3XX, cost 2 International Reply Coupons); Damsel
(a Canadian drag/sissy zine; $1 to J. Collins, #1202-230 Roslyn Road, Winnipeg, MB,
Canada, R3L 0H1).
SOME TUNES AND RECORDS
'Tipton', by Phranc, from POSITIVELY PHRANC; 'Lola' by the Kinks; 'Queens Make The World
Go Round' 7" by Vaginal Creme Davis; 'Transgender Rock and Roll', 'Man Enough To Be A
Woman', 'Wonder Woman' and 'Mr. Normal', among others, by Jayne County; 'Handlebar', by
Sister George, DRAG KING (Outpunk Records); 'Madame George' by Van Morrison
We should not purposely discover the 'gay gene'. In one word - eugenics.
Eugenics is the science concerned with increasing the proportion of people with better genetic traits over generations, to control inherited defects and susceptibility to disease.
Today, however, it is more concerned with improving social traits by engineering.
Eugenics dates back to the Old Testament, and Plato's Republic pictures a society in which there is conscious selection and improvement of human stocks.
The modern eugenics movement started with Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin who used Origin of Species in the writing of his Hereditary Genius (1869).
Galton studied the families of eminent men as evidence for producing a gifted race by judicious marriage over generations.
While he had the racial, religious and social biases of his time and believed in using Evolution controlled by Man (as self-betterment), he did recognize the importance of socialization as well.
His other books, Inquiries Into Human Faculty (1883) and Natural Inheritance (1889) are collections of evidence for his theories. In spite of his biases, he was thinking of eugenics in religious as opposed to revolutionary means.
In the United States of America and Canada, the Eugenics Society was founded in 1905. Reflecting its founders' prejudices, it believed Nordic white people were superior. Its belief in 'racial purity', ignoring the research of Mendel, a botanist/geneticist who demonstrated that traits were not linked to colors, fed into and reflected the ideas which eventually led to the Holocaust.
Eugenicists sold their concept of sterilizing 'defective persons' (low IQs were considered mental retardation, by the way, even if the person came from a deprived environment) so well that, in 1931, sterilization laws were in effect in 27 of the American states. By 1935, they had spread to at least seven other countries, including Canada and Germany.
In that same year, American scientists generally repudiated race-based eugenics.
Meanwhile, in Germany, eugenics was being used for racial and political purposes.
Today, in this era of artificial insemination,a advances in psychology, demography and genetics, a new science, biochemistry, is coming into its own, thanks to the discovery of the double helix for DNA.
It is increasingly acknowledged that children tend to be like their parents in intelligence because of their environment, and only to a lesser extent due to heredity.
Today, mainstream eugenics movements are more concerned with shaping the social and economic environment voluntarily.
However, even if the idea of eugenics is a 'better world', the results historically have been awful.
The discovery of a gay gene is potentially dangerous because millions of people see homosexuality as a social ill and would go to any lengths to get rid of it.
Besides, after being considered irredeemable sinners, criminals, child molesters and mentally ill, do we really want to be labeled as genetically deviated, with the obvious risks that label has?
(Editor's Notes:� In a way, I share Robert's concerns about the notion of seeking out a gay gene.� I am aware that the right-wing, and even some misguided leftists who say they would want to spare potential children the pain of growing up queer in this world, would try to use such studies against us, though how the former would deal with its hostility towards abortion is beyond me.
However, I must confess I have no particular problem with being labeled a sinner, since I am an atheist.
Nor does the tag of 'criminal' disturb me, since the law is a much better thief, murderer and pathological liar than I could ever aspire to be.
While I would hardly wish to be called a child molester, the childhood adage 'what you say is what you are' applies with wonderful ease to clergy, policemen, counselors, coaches and other upstanding citizens.� In any case, study after study has shown that the predominant abusers of children of all genders are straight men.
As to being mentally ill, R.D. Laing, the late Scottish psychiatrist, put it best when he said insanity was a logical response to a world gone mad.
If this variation in the brain and hypothalamus gland is found in gay men, then, yes, we would be genetically deviated.� So what? As Frank Zappa said: 'Without deviation, progress is not possible.'
I do wonder what would happen, based on the dubious assumption that sexuality is entirely genetic, if a person did not have these traits and identified as queer - would he be told he was deluding himself? (Extensive studies do not exist on straight women yet, so I will be using 'he' exclusively here).
Furthermore, given that examination of the hypothalamus glad cannot be done on the living, and has only been done on men who died of AIDS, have adequate controls been established to be certain that no other causation is possible?
Let us assume that the research is untainted for the moment.� Will this establish a stricter sense of identity politics, in which only those with the mutations are 'really' queer? God, I hope not...that tiresome nonsense is prevalent enough now...
And, yes, I am aware of the opinion that scientists should not concern themselves with the consequences of research, and basically agree, but I know that politicians of every stripe feel differently and should be closely watched for opportunism.
In the end, I could care less whether a gene exists - but I am greatly concerned with how such studies are conducted, used and interpreted.)
Back