Signed, Confused

I always intend to write something on transsexuality, but never quite get around to it. Perhaps in not doing so I'm betraying my own discomfort with the topic. Even when in a largely gay atmosphere - be it Boystown, a large group of gay friends, etc. - if the topic is broached, I shy away and twist around in my seat. Although it is almost a decade since I identified as gay, I continue to remain completely mystified by the T in the GLBT salad of sexual alliances.

There are many shades and variations in the sliding scale of human sexuality. We have all our own attractions, types, and emotional impulses when it comes to finding a partner. And yet, there is that bridge of understanding I cannot cross - the lopping off of body parts.

Try as I might to reach that much-desired nirvana of tolerance, I freely admit to a very internalized revulsion to the thought of having one's cock removed and carry some doubt in the proposition that it's a mentally healthy impulse. It seems like self-mutilation to me, and I'm not necessarily certain it's behavior that ought to be encouraged.

What brought this to mind is the recent death of the pioneer of sexual reassignment surgery, Dr. Stanley Biber.

I know the standard GLBT line on the topic, and I'm not particularly interested. We're all unique snowflakes, and society shouldn't judge, and we must accept, etc. etc. etc. I'm with them on the whole non-discrimination plank, but the idea that castration is a good thing leaves me cold. I'm not seeing this.

The whole issue of operative transsexualism gives me a major case of the heebie jeebies. If someone called me a transsexualaphobe, they wouldn't be terribly off.

My challenge to readers: Someone explain why I'm very wrong in my thinking without relying on pamphlet talking points and generalities about tolerance. I'm all ears.

Comments

[anthony]

Robbie - this is something that gets me at a gut level. I believe people when they say that they are the wrong gender, I believe that your brain could be wired differently than your genitals. But I have a real problem with trans people I have met. In particular I have a problem with guys becoming women and taking on a role that no women friends of mine take on. My experience has been of guys that enjoy getting whistled at or being treated as "weak". This is not something I have ever heard from women, and it makes me wonder what exactly about the gender change these guys are after. Now this is anecdotal experience and there are many different trans-people out there so I won't say they all do this. But it has coloured how I view this topic.

Has anyone heard of follow-up studies in Europe where almost half of post-surgical trans people were unhappy with the reasignment? My understanding is that in the US it is self-reporting follow up by the patient whereas in Europe it is mandatory (yay for socialised medicine!) So the European numbers may be a more accurate view of the post-surgical experience because the depressed patient is less likely to be interested in filling out a survey and sending it in. If this is true then I think we have to take a new look at what it means to want to change genders... perhaps simply hormone treatment an living as the gender of your choice without surgery might be the best option?

And everytime I get a little queasy about the surgery I think to myself that when I'm 60 and I want to look rested, fresher, less like a man with a permanent hangover, I may well opt for surgery. A face lift is very different from a cock-chop but in the end I think its the same thing: surgery that hepls you look on the outside how you feel on the inside.

[Jack Malebranche]

I'm not going to meet that challenge, by a longshot.

Bascially, I stand by the idea that people's bodies are their own, and if someone wants to have plastic surgery to make themselves similar to a pink elephant, they should be fully able to do so, but they should not then be able to complain that they can't get a job as a receptionist.

I do have a problem with encouraging the idea that some people are just women born in men's bodies (and vice versa). That's feel-good bullshit psychology, that can be traced back to early theories about the causality of homosexuality--that we were all just 'hermaphrodites of the soul.' If a man feels particularly effeminate, and he feels like he would be more comfortable if he mutilated himself and became, not a woman (because you really can't become a woman, unless being a woman is nothing more than having tits and a makeshift vagina), but a quasi woman, then more power to him. But he wasn't 'a woman born in a man's body.' He's an effeminate man.

My feeling about effeminacy in homosexual men is also an issue, because I often feel their perception of femininity is really just a grotesque charicature of women, not a real understanding of what being a woman is. I've spent a lot of times hanging around with trannies, and have dated people who eventually tried hormones, and I don't think that they were 'born that way.' I think it's a progression of thought encouraged by overly liberal doctors. These men rarely become anything resembling women, and more often than not they become easily identifiable eunuchs (with breasts), dressed as women. Just as I don't think you should get a free chair if you make yourself so fat that you can't walk, I don't think we should prevent people from discriminating people who become unemployable by choice. It's like getting a tattoo on your face.

That said, I have a few people who have been through the surgeries who were fairly balanced (I've seen more than a few of them who will always be batshit crazy), and had a realistic take on who they were and how people would relate to them.

My basline opinion, though, is that gender is not just a construct, and surgery will never make you a member of the opposite sex. I think it would be healthier to encourage people to deal with the fact that they are what they are, and maybe these effeminate men don't have to be lumberjacks to be comfortable with being male. Because they will never, ever be real women. Not even, perhaps especially not, in their own minds.

[Chad]

While you're at it, explain the existence of drag queens and kings to me. The whole definition of homosexuality is based on same-sex attraction and the idea that I, as a gay man, want to see men dressed up as women, boggles my mind.

Granted, they can be entertaining. But only for 38 seconds. After which point, they become the embodiment of every Stephen King novel I've ever read and being in their presence makes me want to find someone to bludgeon my skull with various sizes of cinder blocks.

[North Dallas Thirty]

My blog ally Sandi over at Vista on Current Events may be able to give us a hand with this. I've alerted her and asked her to swing by.

[Robbie]

See, I like drag queens. They're amusing, and very few I've met take themselves dead seriously. It's usually done with a sense of humor, and there's always a feeling that everyone's in on the joke.

Effeminate behavior never really bothers me, either. Sometimes it's a bit much, but I'll never go off on a rant against it. People are how they are, and if they're comfortable with it, more power to them.

I'm all about live and let live. But once the idea of slicing off the wang is broached, I have a visceral reaction of horror. It just can't/won't be processed by my brain. The quickest and surest way to goad me into a deer in headlights expression is to ask me what I think of the topic at a cocktail party. I usually have no idea what to say. The noggin doesn't want to work.

[Chad]

I don't wish any ill on drag-sters. But I also won't go out of my way to hang out around them. It is all in fun, but... I don't know.

For me, they're right up there with clowns.

[Jack Malebranche]

I don't wish any ill on drag-sters. But I also won't go out of my way to hang out around them. It is all in fun, but... I don't know.

I have a nasty handful of things to say about them, but I also appreciate their outsider perspective--when it is really outsider and subversive, and not just trying to look like and parody Britney Spears or some other star, which I think is inane and pathetic. In the East Village in NYC, and in a few places in SF, I saw some really edgy drag, though. Like John Waters only more twisted.

So, basically, I go back and forth with them. I do feel like I have minimal illusions about them, because, well...I've had my moments, and I was taken under a lot of sequin-adorned wings when I was a kid. I'm still friends with this guy.

As far as the actual emasculation, Robbie, I'm as baffled as you are. Men come with this fully functional anytime entertainment system, and cutting it off seems unthinkable. But I have to say that I can imagine doing almost anything, and it's not the revulsion that bothers me. It's the dubious psychology behind it.

[Jamie]

On a personal level, I've never understood why someone would even want to cross-dress, let alone have reassignment surgery--but that's not a judgement, I just don't identify because I don't carry those same emotions. I don't need to judge that person or condemn them because they feel different. How the hell do I know how they feel inside? Seems a little heavy-handed to me. Try explaining to a straight person why you are gay. They often don't understand because they don't identify.

Relatedly, There was an in-depth documentary the other night on HBO that examined different cultures in the world and the different aspects of sexuality in societies. The most interesting fact I picked up is that about 1 in every 100 people born on the planet is born with "anatomically ambiguous genitalia." That's a lot more than I realized. And did you know that in India, until the British brought their own social mores with them and screwed everything up, that they considered themselves to have 3 distinct sexes that were acceptable in society? I forget the name of the 3rd sex right now, but basically men who identified as feminine inside would, upon their own decision to do so, have their genitals removed, and would live the rest of their lives with their "sisters." They wouldn't have any breasts added or anything like that (wasn't possible back then anyhow). And they were treated well in that society. A blessing from them was considered to be especially good luck.

If the program runs again, Robbie, you might want to watch it. It at least gives you quite a bit of information. There is a synopsis here.

[Robbie]

No, I've seen the documentaries, and I've done a little reading on the topic.

What I'm basically asking is about the mutilation aspect of it (and I do think it's mutilation). If you have the urge to start removing highly important body parts, I lean towards the notion that something is psychologically off.

Just because my sexuality may not be the norm doesn't mean I'm going to be de facto accepting of other sexual oddities. I think what I'm asking is, have we taken our tolerance/acceptance shtick just a little too far here? I'm not even sure what transsexualism and homosexuality have in common outside of the fact that they're both sexual behaviors that deviate from the statistical norm. But the inherent differences (gays are inherently focused on other people, while transsexuals seem to have a bit of purely self-psychological business going on) do have me wondering how the gay movement and the transsexual movement got together in the first place.

As one reader noted in an e-mail, there seems to be a bit of Judith Butler postmodern gender queer theory involved that has me scratching my head.

"I am who I am, and I love who I love." No bother.

"I'd like to chop my penis off because I'm not happy with who I am." Yeah, I have problems with this being considered a good thing.

[Jack Malebranche]

I don't need to judge that person or condemn them because they feel different. How the hell do I know how they feel inside? Seems a little heavy-handed to me. Try explaining to a straight person why you are gay. They often don't understand because they don't identify.

That's a fair point, though I do think it's a little different. You can think you feel like a woman, but as a man, I think it's also fair to say that you really will never know what that really means. Being a woman is an experience, not just some different plumbing. As I've written before, I've never felt so effortlessly masculine as I did talking to an FTM, who wanted to be a man, and was hairy like a man, but so obviously, so tangibly, was not a man, and never would be. When men say they feel like women inside, they may identify with certain female traits and behaviors and sentiments, but they really have no idea what being a woman feels like. In a sense, it goes back to your point--how do they know what a woman feels like inside?

[Jack Malebranche]

Robbie -

I'm not even sure what transsexualism and homosexuality have in common outside of the fact that they're both sexual behaviors that deviate from the statistical norm.

Neither am I. I don't know that we all share the same interests. And I don't think we should all be lumped together as part of a group.

"I'd like to chop my penis off because I'm not happy with who I am." Yeah, I have problems with this being considered a good thing

I agree. I don't think that mentality is a good thing to encourage--it does seem like it's obviously jumping over a lot of serious psychological issues and taking the most extreme course of action possible. I don't think it should be subsidized by insurance or the state, and while I don't think people should be prohibited from doing it, I question whether or not it should be celebrated as this fantastic idea.

The way you're portraying it (and I don't know whether that's exactly accurate or not) is reminiscent of a sort of apotemnophelia of a sexual nature, which is not exactly smiled upon by physicians. (Not that what doctors accept is my be all and end all--they still advocate male genital mutilation at birth (aka circumcision) for nonsensical reasons.)

[Kia]

I guess the easiest way for me to think about the idea of Transgenderism, and specifically, surgical transsexualism, is to not think about it as "lopping off of a wang" or "boobie chopping", but as the removal of a superfluous body part. You don't hear people screaming "Oh Lawd, you removed my face mole, I can't deal! The horror!"

[Kia]

Also, in response to this: I'm not even sure what transsexualism and homosexuality have in common outside of the fact that they're both sexual behaviors that deviate from the statistical norm.

If this were true, necrophiliacs would be lumped in there as well. I see it as a community of people who challenge traditional roles of sexuality and gender. Gay men have different interests than Lesbians who have different issuses to deal than Bisexuals. But many people seem to have forgotten that even getting to the term "GLB" was a battle. We need to recognize the commonalities as well as the differences.

The one thing that does get to me with the "GLBT" term is that people tend to associate the T to be another classification of sexuality, when it isn't. There are straight T's, lesbian T's, gay T's and so on....

[Robbie]

See, the penis, breasts, etc. aren't superfluous. We don't necessarily need both kidneys to survive, but if someone came up to me and said they'd like one removed because its presence messed with their self-esttem, I'd take issue with that as well.

These are degrees in these things. A mole and sexual organs aren't comparable things, IMO.

[Kia]

Calling it an issue of "self-esteem" is an over simplification, I think (as was my comparison of a mole to a penis).

I guess it's something you can't really understand until you experience it? I don't know. I don't know what would be my course of action if I woke up tomorrow and had everyone telling me I was a man.

I also think that a lot of the ideas surrounding the need to physically alter one's self for the sake of gender has a lot to do with how we, as a society, clump the genetalia and gender together. The idea that a penis does NOT equal masculine is very hard for 99.9% of people to grasp, Trans people included. We are products of our society. Just like many gay men STILL deal with internalized homophobia, Trans people deal with internalized ideals of what it means to TRULY be a particular gender.

[Malcontent]

Kia and Robbie both touch on what I was getting at over in another thread today. (It must be trannie day at The Malconetnt.)

How is "cutting" considered a mental disorder, yet transsexualism is not? Why do we deride African cultures where Female Genital Mutiliation is the norm, but we must be accepting and tolerant of the transgendered?

The answer, of course, is that the T somehow got itself grafted onto GLBT. But how did this come to be?

There is a political correctness involved here. I know many gays who twist themselves in knots to say "GLBT people." I often do it myself, without stopping to question what someone who wants to chop his penis off possibly has to do with my "community" or my political and social interests.

That is where I need help in understanding, because I sure do not.

[Zack]

Basically, I don't question that they feel they were born the wrong gender, and as uncomfortable as it makes me personally, they can surgically alter themselves if they want. The psychology seems a bit off, and even in a best case scenario they will never truly become another gender, but hey, its a free country.

No my problem has always been with the fact that they add a layer of confusion in the public's mind about the rest of us "GLB" types. They are completely separate issues, and a lot of people have trouble enough understanding same-sex attraction without adding gender confusion into the mix. I think it adds to the public's discomfort and consequently holds back the gay right's movement in general.

This doesn't mean that I've ever been anything other than polite and accepting when I've met Trans people. I just wonder about the wisdom of mixing our politics with theirs.

[manhattan offender]

I'm friends with tons of trannies, drags, and general gender-fucks. Explain them because you don't understand them? Please. Then explain Gay Republicans to me. And Autoasphixiaerotics. And heterosexuality.

If you can accept the fact that you were born gay, then you should be able to accept someone born trans, right?

I'll try my best on this someday for you, Robbie. My guess is that you just lack exposure. When I was coming out, one of my closest friends was transexual. She introduced me to tons of people, kept me away from 'bad things', and gave me guidance. If you ever come to the city, maybe I'll take you on an eye-opening adventure.

[Jack Malebranche]

Kia -

Just a question...

We need to recognize the commonalities as well as the differences.

Why?

What do I gain, personally, as a man who loves other men, by associating myself with a man who wants to be a woman?

How do I benefit by recognizing these commonalities? Isn't the benefit one-sided? By being attached to the gay rights industry, transsexuals I think, gain a lot more credibility than homosexuals gain in return.

(Personally, I don't even like GLB. Or G, for that matter. But that's just me.)

I understand that in some way we are all challenging traditional ideas about sex, but isn't that a little broad? And if that's all it's about, why not include straight people with unusual sexual fetishes?

I think there's a good argument for an alliance of people who want to challenge puritanical and counterproductive ideas about sexuality, but that should theoretically be all-inclusive. Why draw the line at heterosexuality?

The linkage between transsexuality and male homosexuality seems strained at best, and the needs and interests are completely different.

I'm saying this not because I think I'm 'too good for trannies,' but because different interests are simply different interests. Overinclusivity can be counter-productive at times, I think, if it's poorly conceived, and in this case I think it is.

[Robbie]

Kia, which is well and good. We can discuss societal pressures all day long. Some of them I'll agree with and some of them I won't.

But there's a leap from having sexual and emotional identity issues and actually take the step of mutilating one's reproductive system.

People can certainly do what they like, as long as the only harm they're doing is to themselves. I'm more questioning the conventional GLBT wisdom that it's a step that needs encouragement and celebrating.

Look at it this way. Take cutting. Some people cut themselves for a variety of psychological reasons. And, hey, as long as you're only doing it to yourself, rock on. But it's an entirely different proposition to ask for tolerance and acceptance of it, much less celebration.

Why is cutting different from surgically removing your own reproductive system?

With both behaviors, I'm inclined to think something's gone too far, and therapy over letting them cut/having their organs removed is probably what we might want to promote more vigorously then running around with a "party on!" attitude.

I admit, I haven't quite worked through my thoughts on this matter.

[Malcontent]

Condescend much, M.O.? :-)

I can't speak for Robbie, but I have had plenty of experience with the transgendered/transsexual/transvestite. And it still makes no fucking sense to me.

Why are we supposed to reflexively "accept" the idea of self-mutilation? And supposing for a moment that such impulses are healthy and inborn, if they found a murderer gene, should we "accept" that too?

[Kia]

I tried to address that in one of my comments. Obvs, I didn't do a good job. : )

Firstly, lets not confuse what the T means. It does NOT only mean people getting surgeries. There are a PLENTY of no-op trannies. There are also people who don't feel the need to define ANY sort of gender for themself.

Secondly, much of the historical (and currnet) hatred for homosexuality or it's precursors has A LOT, a whole fucking lot, to do with the image of the powerful, uber masculine man. I could really get deep into it, but long story short, being gay = deviating from what it means to be a man. And this is where the trannies come in. Like I said before, I do think the GBLTIQA blah blah thing is often times misleading. Many times you will see GLBT plastered onto an issue that really only has anything to do with gay men and it has been that way forever. (I personally am a proponent of the word Queer, but I'm a leftist freak...)

Okay, I have posted far too many comments. I will stop now.

[Robbie]

If you can accept the fact that you were born gay, then you should be able to accept someone born trans, right?

Right up to the point of self-mutilation. I draw a line there.

Just as someone can be depressed, and that's fine, but the minute they start cutting themselves, I take issue.

Like I said before, it seems a bridge too far for me.

And this isn't a lack of experience on my part. I live in a major city and move about the gay community often enough, so I've been plenty exposed. I'm definitely not saying transsexuals are bad people. You can be a great person, and still be a little off. Some of the most interesting people are a bit off. Normal is terrifically boring.

I just can't work myself past the whole penis removal bit. I find similar practices in undeveloped countries positively barbaric. Why should I celebrate them here?

I'm just not that multicultural.

[Malcontent]

"Zack"? You're not the Zachary from American Idol last night, are you? :-)

[Malcontent]

Kia, you needn't post again if you choose not to, but your idea of what "being gay" means is about 180 degrees from mine.