i’ve blogged about trans termonology here and here, and i believe i’ve finally found a definition for “trans” that works for me. you can find it on the blog no designation on their definition page. it reads:
Transgender or Trans - Traditionally defined as a person who doesn’t identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, I prefer to shift the focus away from assigned gender and define transgender as a person who’s gender is not universally considered valid. That means that someone, somewhere, will tell a transperson that they are not the gender they say they are. (ex: a transman is someone who identifies as a man and that there would be someone out there who would tell him that he isn’t a man)
this not only rings true for me with regard to my understanding of myself, but also with my experience as someone who is universally considered as a transsexual. since even the definition of the term “gender” is often shrouded in haze, i much prefer to define trans outside the context of gender, but not only because gender is a term whose definition is in flux.
if one looks at the traditional definitions of gender identity, it’s always in the context of how one views themselves in the context of an internal awareness of being a man or woman (or male or female). i’ve never had any such awareness. i wouldn’t know what an internal awareness of being a man or a woman is. and the fact that these traditional definitions often interchange “male or female” with “man or woman”, or “masculine or feminine”, as if these terms are interchangable. from my perspective, these terms mean very different things, and depending on which terms are used, the definition changes drastically.
on the other hand, i have personally experienced having my gender erased and invalidated, and i’ve personally experienced observing *all* trans people’s genders erased and invalidated, on many occasions. so this definition works very well for me.
on the flip side, many people who would be considered men and women based on their “identity”, that is, how they see themselves, their biology, that is, how they would fit into a classification based on whether they produce eggs or sperm, and their social standing, would also fit under this definition, while they would not consider themselves trans. .
and this is yet one of the many problems when we humans try to clearly delineate socially constructed classes of people within the infinite diversity of life.
Amen to that one.
ANd I like that definition
Comment by Dyssonance — June 28, 2007 @ 4:43 am
While I understand the validity of the definition, I’m not sure I like it very much because it relies on the facts that are not in evidence. How precisely can you determine without doubt that there is (or isn’t) a single person in the world who thinks a certain way? Basically, the definition makes assumptions about how others perceive you.
Now for you and myself, with our life histories, that’s not much of an issue. But when you get down to intersexed people who perhaps have lived their entire lives in one gender role, it could be problematic to rely on this definition without *assuming* the level of transphobia in the world.
I think as transgender becomes more and more mainstream in the coming years, this definition will be based on a moving target of public perceptions and attitudes. Like a house built on clay, it’s not really going to stand the test of time.
Comment by Michelle — June 28, 2007 @ 7:07 am
Nexy,
This is a provocative notion, certainly one to think about.
Overall i like where you’re going with this. It’s good to put some emphasis on the fact that many people silence us and deny our own accounts of our experience.
But i think this is a description of our experience and not a definition. I don’t feel like that what makes me a transgender woman is that someone somewhere denies that i’m a woman. It’s a consequence of me saying, “I’m a woman,” yes, but it is not what makes me transgender.
And what constitutes denial? Suppose you have a woman, who considers herself to be a woman, with a particularly ‘mannish’ appearance. If someone somewhere doubts she’s a woman, that doesn’t make her transgender.
And this could apply to many people who are intersex as well.
Another thing that troubles me about this definition is that it shifts away from what transgender people have to say about ourselves and onto what others say about us. Which is in a way something we’ve fought very hard against.
I know i owe you a reply to your reply to my previous post, i’ll have that for ya soon.
Comment by sabrinastar — June 28, 2007 @ 10:15 am
gender is a social construct. as such, it is totally dependant on the thoughts of society. i don’t see why we, as trans people, can’t be defined in the same way as everyone else. “man” and “woman” are defined by our culture and society. intersex people are, well, intersex, so i don’t see how this defintion has anything to do with them. while their gender may also be denied, they have other specific traits which clearly set them apart from trans people.
i also point out the trouble with people who do not identify as trans, but whose gender is still denied and are not intersex.. so yes, there is at leasy one bug in the definition. but for me, one bug that may place someone who isn’t trans into the trans group, is better than the current definition, which excludes me completely.
Comment by nexy — June 28, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Hmm, you know, when you write above that you don’t have an internal awareness of being male or female, your comments kind of remind me of what Kate Bornstein wrote about where she is now, with regards to her own identity.
I wonder if there isn’t some difference in pre-SRS vs. post-SRS experiences? I hesitate to make any such statement in a “blanket” fashion, but i do know that once i went full-time my experience and self-definition shifted significantly, in ways i’m not even sure i can articulate. And it makes sense to me to imagine that a similar shift would follow after transition was a thing of the past.
I feel that what makes me “trans” is a distinct and tangible thing, but i can kinda see how if it ever became a non-issue in my day to day life, the hold of trans-ness over my identity could largely evaporate.
Comment by sabrinastar — June 28, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
i don’t know that i’ll ever experience being trans as a non-issue. i can hope that perhaps sometime in the future it might for some people, but i just don’t see that happening in my lifetime. on the other hand, i do know a few younger transpeople who claim that being trans isn’t an issue, so perhaps it’s just me.
there were two major events in my transition that stand out as turning points for me - one was going full time, and the other was my surgery. but i don’t believe that transition, for me, will ever end. i’ll say that i’m pretty much done with modifying my body, but transition is more than just physical. i’d go as far as to say most of it is mental.
i also feel that what makes me trans is a distinct and tangible thing, and i don’t ever see that changing.
Comment by nexy — June 28, 2007 @ 11:14 pm