What do we really know about trans history?
Ask yourself this: where do you find information on trans history? Do you get it from websites, forums, books, archives, television shows, films, games, or in person conversations? How reliable are those sources, and more importantly, how much do those sources actually show about the history of trans folk? I ask this because most information regarding trans lives and trans narratives rely on a narrow set of sources and individuals. Even if you are within the trans community it is likely you do not have access to sources that give you anywhere near the full picture. This matters, because the narratives that are societally promoted dictate the way trans folk are perceived both inside and outside the trans community.
Mainstream media sources have a short-term memory with respects to trans identities, with most journalists dredging over the same sources and narratives. April Ashley, Caroline Cosey, Paris Lees et al fall into a narrative arc of suffering, outings, and then only given a voice in the media when a talking head is needed. Trans history is framed something deviant, something other, something that requires pain and suffering to be considered trans enough. To be trans is to suffer, and the media never reflects on the part it plays in this narrative of suffering. The trans community itself is suffused with this pain, with other narratives less likely to gain traction in either the press or the trans community.
Yet, if you dig deeper into the history of trans folk the narrative is richer and more complex. An inherently problem, though, is that prior to around 1970 it becomes increasingly difficult to find personal narratives of gender non-conforming folk because their lives were either not documented or are scraps in newspapers sans context. Even in the digital age 1996 is the soft limit because this is the year the internet as we know it became a thing for news. Yes, there are plenty of digital archives that have digital versions of analogue sources, but those are harder to search and often behind paywalls. This puts history out of the reach and inclination of most people, especially journalists who have deadlines and editors to placate.
There is also the issue that gender non-conforming semantics have shifted significantly over the last 150 years. What we consider trans in the 2020s is difficult to transpose and map onto even the 1970s. Yes, we can talk about transsexuals, inverts, uranians etc, but the semantics and social contexts of those terms makes comparisons with our current situation complex. At no point in the written record have trans folk in western Europe or the US been free of social opprobrium or a degree of oppression. To be gender non-conforming has been to be pushed to the margins of society. However, due to the paucity of personal narratives prior to around 1910 it is difficult to get a full picture of the day to day lives of trans folks.
If pain and suffering are the narrative arc of trans history, then what about the trans lives that were lived in peace and acceptance? Those narratives do exist, though you have dig deep to find them. It is only in the outing and societal shaming that trans folk are recorded, it is only when there is a need for the law are they mentioned in the short snippets, and it is only when society views them as deviant are they pilloried. If you are a trans person in the 2020s these narratives may appear to be from the distant past, but I believe these folk offer a different picture of trans lives.
This is a narrative of quiet lives, of people who exist within all communities, who are just themselves. In the 2020s 1–2% of our populations are gender non-conforming, and while it is always a fraught exercise to extrapolate modern statistics to map onto history, it is reasonable to suggest that the old figures of 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 are wildly inaccurate. It is only the exceptional lives that make headlines, dog bites man and all that. The media needs scandal and exceptional lives to sell, and those quiet lives are never deemed exceptional or scandalous enough for anything other than a potential by-line.
There are so many gaps in trans history that to try to shape an overarching narrative comes down to a matter of what resources you have access to and the time you have to parse through them. Even progressive news sources get fundamental histories wrong or fail to understand how to situate trans lives into the tapestry. Trans folk should not be expected to be trans historians to justify their existence, nor should trans folk be expected to be walking encyclopaedias of all things trans. Yet, if we leave trans history to a select few who have the privilege of tenure and book deals, all we do is reduce trans history down to the personal interests of those who have the time and resources to delve into the archives.
Is there a better way to tell trans histories? Yes. As with all histories and narratives the way to engage and study them evolve over time. There needs to be open access datasets, community funding, and unbiased websites that give a clear picture of the complexities of gender non-conforming lives sans any political persuasion. We need to see the un-exceptional, the vivid and successful, the folk who have not suffered to be their authentic selves. To be trans is to come from all social backgrounds, all classes, all ethnicities, all nations. We are part of the tapestry, and our threads should be shown for the realities they are.
