Whipping Girl is an interesting book that explores the intersection between gender, feminism and transsexuality in some interesting ways. I'm in the midst of reading it, and this post is "part one" of a series that I will be writing as I make my way through this book.
Since this series will be written as I make my way through the book, I will not promise that my commentary in later chapters are entirely consistent with what I write today - I reserve the right to have the author persuade me to agree with her perspective where I disagreed earlier.
Introduction, The Transwoman Manifesto and Chapters 1 - 4
The first thing I really like about this book is the author's wonderfully powerful view of the feminine:
In this book, I break with past attempts in feminism and queer theory to dismiss femininity by characterizing it as "artificial" or "performance". Instead, I argue that certain aspects fo femininity (as well as masculinity) are natural and can both precede socialization and supersede biological sex. ... No form of gender equity can ever truly be achieved until we first work to empower femininity itself. - p. 6
To me, this is a powerful statement - it not only encapsulates what I have always felt is deeply wrong with other social/theoretical models of gender. Second, it also encompasses the transsexual narrative in a constructive way, instead of simply attempting to dismiss it
by declaring it invalid.
Julia Serano, the author, is deeply critical of how the media and pop culture present transsexuals. With some good reason:
... While Oprah Winfrey's conversation with Boylan was respectful and serious, the show nonetheless opened with predictable scenes of women putting on eye makeup, lipstick and shoes, and the interview itself was interspersed with "before" pictures of Boylan, as if to constantly remind us that she's really a man underneath it all.
Mass media images of 'biological males' dressing and acting in a feminine manner could potentially challenge mainstream notions of gender, but the way they are generally presented in these feminization scenes ensures tha tthis never happens. The media neutralizes the potential threat that trans femininities pose to the category of "woman" by playing to the audience's subconcious belief that femininity itself is artificial. p. 43
Observationally, I think that Ms. Serano is quite correct in her perception that the media misses the mark quite badly when it comes to portraying transwomen (in particular). However, I do not agree with her attribution of the poor presentation to an implicit malice.
I suspect that it is not malice at all, rather it is in fact ignorance and misunderstanding that is being demonstrated. In general, the media tend to focus on the visual. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that television in particular is completely the wrong media when it comes to presenting transsexual issues for this reason. It is easy to identify and pick up on the physical changes that a transwoman goes through as she makes her way through transition. That said, the physical changes are in many respects a reflection of the inner person that is being revealed through transition. Although a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes a thousand words is greater than any picture will ever be.
While the television producers (or movie producers, for that matter) think they are doing transsexuals a favour with shows like the Oprah episode Serano references, we have to remember that most of the production staff on these shows are not themselves transgender people. That means that they suffer from the basic misunderstandings that most non-transsexual people have about transsexuals. The natural instinct is to gravitate towards those aspects of the journey that are easy to grasp, and quietly ignore the subtle, but vitally important aspects that are difficult to articulate, much less understand. When it can take many transsexuals years to understand themselves, is it any surprise that a fifteen minute segment on Oprah, or the portrayal in a movie, is somehow superficial and limited?
Serano's discussion of the influence and effects of hormone therapy is fascinating. It provides a series of insights into how hormones influence gendered behaviour, and yet also underscores the reality that gender is no more defined by hormones than it is by the shape of one's body, or the interests that one has.
On the other hand, those who are eager to have popular presumptions about hormones confirmed will probably be just as disappointed to hear what has not noticeably changed during my hormonal transition: my sexual orientation; the "types" of women I am attracted to; my tastes in music, movies, or hobbies; my politics; my sense of humor; my levels of aggression, competitiveness, nurturing, creativity, intelligence; and my ability to read maps or do math. While it would be irresponsible for me to say that these human traits are entirely hormone-independent (as it is possible that fetal hormones potentially play some role in predisposing us to such traits), they clearly are not controlled by adult hormone levels to the extent that many people argue or assume. p. 72
To this point in the book, I like where I think the author is going.
My biggest criticism is the degree of hostility or malice that she seems to attribute to the portrayal of transsexuals in general by the media. I suspect that where a sincere effort has been made (e.g. not
Jerry Springer), the reality is that the problem is actually a combination of ignorance combined with the limitations of visual media in addressing something the non-visual aspects of human experience - namely that which goes on in our heads.
Her perspective on gender as it intersects reality, as well as the theoretical spaces of queer theory and radical feminism aligns well with my own thoughts on the matter - and go a long distance to putting down the claim by some feminists that transsexuals do not perform meaningful analysis of the concepts of gender and equality. (more on this later...)
