Five controversial transgender opinions
If you are around any trans communal spaces for long enough you will invariably end up in discussions about what it is to be trans, what trans identities actually mean, who gets to call themselves trans, and, more fundamentally, what even is trans in the round. Online spaces are carved out by liked minded people coming together, and it is easier to block and eject folk from those spaces than it is in the physical world. Given the complexities of trans identities, in this piece I explore five controversial opinions that may or may not cause others to question your role within the community.
Firstly, drag. Drag queens have been coming under attack from right-wing politicians for sexualising kids and being hyper sexualised in general. Is it controversial to say that yes, in fact drag as it was originally intended in night clubs and bars was a form of hyper sexualised and overtly misogynistic female stereotypes by those who performed and consumed it? Drag has many different roots, often being performed by men to men in men only spaces where women were either absent or only occasionally present. Prison camps, Molly houses, and gay male spaces were the embryonic spaces where drag evolved, though the artform we perceive as drag emerged out of the gay male bars in the 1950s and 1960s. Drag queens by their nature are pastiches of a certain female aesthetic, and while it is often done knowingly by all concerned, to outsiders it can appear bitchy, catty, essentially the worst of womanhood when seen in bars and clubs. Yet, drag has evolved beyond its original intent. Drag in the 2020s can by hypersexual, can be sending up the worst of womanhood, yet it is also an artform of make-up, costumes, solidarity, and performed by all genders and gender identities. Drag is much more than simply the old school view of it.
Second, you have to have medical intervention to be considered trans. This is an old trope that goes all the way back to the 1910s. To be legally allowed to be your internal gender identity governments would insist that you have some form of surgery, hormone treatment and psychological assessment before they would agree to even basic rights. The gatekeeping by society imprinted itself on the trans community to the point that up until the digital age to be trans was to be medicalised. If you were not medicalised you were a cross dresser and therefore worthy only of arrest, scorn, and being seen as something lesser even within the community. To this day being called a cross dresser is a smear within the trans community, especially by those who view medicalisation as the gold standard of trans gatekeeping. Not having medical treatment does not obfuscate your gender identity, it just means you either are unable to access treatment, it is not safe to access treatment, or that you are comfortable with your physical body the way it is. By insisting that medial treatment gives you the right to call yourself trans certain elements within the trans community and society at large are essentially saying that the only way to be trans is through pain and suffering and not by way of personal understanding.
Third, trans kids cannot know their own gender identities and therefore they need to be stopped until they can make a mature decision for themselves when they are adults. This line of thinking cuts through much of the current debate about puberty blockers and surgery on teenagers. Yet, as most trans folk will tell you their gender identities emerged as soon as they realised that gender was a thing. Gender affirmation is seen as harmful for trans kids, yet when a cis child affirms their identity in the stereotypes of their culture they are lauded and rewarded for it. Many trans folk are squeamish about trans kids for multiple reasons, but stating that a child cannot understand their gender identity simply because they are immature fails to see the broader societal projection of gender onto all kids. What if they change their mind? This is both simple and more complex. Gender is never fixed, it has a degree of fluidity to it across all our lives, and while the vast majority of transitioners will happily settle in their gender identity, those who choose to walk it back are no less valid and did not make a mistake walking towards a particular gender identity in the first place. This is the controversial point, in that there is nothing wrong with having two or more gender identities across your life, and that switching things up at different stages is not a bad thing if that is what works for you.
Fourth, being a stereotypical man or woman is a bad thing. Exclusionary feminists have long argued that trans women are walking harmful stereotypes and pastiches of women, and that trans men are essentially butch lesbians in denial. Yes, all stereotypes are harmful, but for the trans community to even gain a toehold in the gatekept medical process you are forced to become whatever stereotype your gatekeepers’ demand. Janice Raymond accused trans women of reinforcing the patriarchy without ever questioning why they were those stereotypes in the first place. In societies where to assimilate as close to the femme or masc ideal keeps you from being killed or denied basic rights, and where you are judged even within the trans community for how closely you pass, to step outside the stereotype is an act of courage. If you pass as your affirmed gender then you have the key to an easy life, if you fall short in the eye of other you are demeaned and made to potentially suffer for it. This passing anxiety suffuses the trans community top to bottom, so to be pilloried as walking stereotypes by cis society as a cruel double-edged sword.
Finally, exclusionary feminists might have a point about certain things. This is the most controversial statement a trans person can make in the current political atmosphere, but it is worth exploring. Simply asking the question about same sex spaces in on the surface not a bad question, yet it hides much subtext that when you dig into it is done in bad faith. Much of the history of exclusionary feminism is based on traumatic experiences by those advocating for women’s rights, and they become radicalised when the trans community fails to understand their perspective. You see it time and again with exclusionary feminist women’s personal history distorting their views of womanhood to the point where they lash out at trans women and trans men. Yet, the broad question of access to services and equity of those services gets lost in the noise. If services are limited, and trauma needs accounting for, then the better answer to their questions would be better funding, campaigning together to fight misogyny, and being allies rather than foes. When patriarchy and extractive capitalism are the root cause of women’s suffering pointing the finger at trans women and accusing all trans women of being potential sex abusers simply for either having a penis or once having a penis only strengthens reactionary politics.
Each of these opinions should not simply be dismissed just because we do not agree with what the other person believes. There is much to unpack beyond the gut reaction to say no or I do not agree with you, and while we all have a limited amount of time and energy to engage, there is more to these than the surface response. No-one has the responsibility to educate anyone else, but for dialogue to happen there needs to be an understanding of where the other side is coming from before progress can be made.
