My friends asked me about this "Trans" thing... Part 1

Hi all.

Those who have read this and my other blog about the world of bikes will probably know I'm a trans person. That is trans gender. I'd probably say trans woman, but I'll come on to that point later.

I was gonna go ride my bike today, after a few hectic and emotive days/weeks..I needed to get out and just do something physical. I still do. However I woke up this morning for the first time in a few days without "worry" being my first emotion of the day.

Nothing substantive has changed and sadly I haven't as yet won the lottery, but the simple thought of "what I choose to do today doesn't really matter", allied with a realisation that many of my internal pressures were/self generated, lead me to make a brew and look out the window instead. I'll ride the bike. But not when i feel I have to, for strava targets, fitness, blah blah blah...but rather when I want to.

So I pondered on stuff,  and remembered a few conversations with friends colleagues and just people in general about the nature of this phenomenon or "thing" known as trans gender.  So I thought I'd write this, just for those who might be interested and or intrigued by discussion of the human condition.

So where do we start? I guess the logical place is to acknowledge that there is a wealth of opinion on this subject.  Some people agree with a concept of "gender identity" some don't, and still others cant agree what that gender identity is, even if they do agree there is one. Some find trans ness distasteful on moral, religious or other grounds. Society hasn't got a grasp of what trans is.

So in light of that, I'd ask the reader to put aside any "moral" or "right and wrong" ideas of the trans concept, and approach the discussion from the view point, not of one who has a conclusion on the subject, but one who wants to learn about people.

Why do I say that? Well because for many years I myself had no knowledge or concept of certain aspects of Trans "stuff". I had distinctly woolly views on the subject and the only moral compass guidance on the issue was "old skool" Thus I reached my early thirties with a limited,somewhat blinkered, perception of the world around me.

I'm not going to attempt to "tell you what to believe" or persuade you that "trans" has all the answers. To do so would assume I know more than others. That in itself is a fallacy and I'm usually wary of such characters, however here is my take on "Trans"

Often when trans pops up in the media it is centred around a person, thus that person, for example Caitlyn Jenner or Laverne Cox, become a celebrity and the focus is on the individual not the trans part.  What often gets lost is the fact that each trans person has a discrete, unique life that, in and of itself, does not define the trans discussion, but merely adds to it.

Trans as a concept has a few key components.

Sociological
Physiological
Psychological
Legal


Sociological. 

This is where we bring in a relatively new "gender" term "Cis". The terms Cis and Trans have been around in Biochemistry for years. They often refer to molecular shapes which are either twisted across an axis or mirror images of each other...

I've had chats with friends where I've mentioned a name, for example "Elizabeth did this or Stuart said that" and the person with whom I'm talking at the time asks the following...

"Is Elizabeth ... you know a "real woman" or is she trans? "

Now some trans people do get quite offended by the term "real woman" But leave that aside and ask "why is this question being asked" Sure we can get all defensive and assume the person asking to be an intolerant and opinionated individual,  but i feel that would miss the point.

The question is being asked because the person to whom I was talking knows I am trans, thus they are aware that others may be and due to society's general construction as regards the gender of humans it's an unconscious requirement to recognise people as either "men" or "women" (Note, I will come on to other definitions later) The term "Cis" gender refers to that group of people who are, to use the above example "real men or real women" i.e they are "not trans"

Note: What I am not saying here is that Cis is real and Trans is not. The terms are merely a means by which discussion can be unambiguously framed so that all parties understand what's being said. Of course there "may" be parties that choose to believe that "Cis" carries more legitimacy than "Trans" but that is not the point here. It is just important to be aware of terminology and clear of its meaning.

It raises an interesting question. Had the person with whom I'm talking not known I was trans would they have asked? Had they assumed I was Cis gender, then would they have assumed the same of the person about whom I was talking?

This gives rise the question of "Passing" or put simply, being of such an appearance that others assume you to be cis gender unless and until you reveal it to be otherwise. Society is a very slow beast. It takes generations to alter its course and change things that to an individual may seem absurdly simple. Slavery for example, the death penalty, votes for women, apartheid.  All are examples of how slow societal change is.

Our western society is based very much on the visual. Over all human culture fits into this more or less visual model,  with minor changes in detail. The presentation of Gender among other traits is, on the whole, a visual, physical entity.  How one presents one's dress, mannerisms, how one sounds all add up to a subconscious recognition on the part of the observer as to what they are observing.  (Outside the field of gender ...it's the reason we all wear smart clothes to a job interview....presentation communicating competence and it is hoped a perception of same by the  interviewer)

Visual/Vocal cues from a trans person are on occasion ambiguous. Yet society obliges the observers to pick a box, "man or woman" and they will do so. Some will do so politely, others not. Some may recognise the same as our internal identifications some will not. Nevertheless they will still be compelled to make some form of recognition.

I was walking around a store many years ago with a cis gendered female, and due to her dress and build the guards mistook her for a chap. Similarly since I started my own transition I have been addressed as "mate/love/sweetheart/chap dependent on the visual signals I am putting out there. For those of  you familiar with the Shannon/weaver communication model, of transmitter and receiver, this ambiguity of presentation and interpretation could be referred to as "noise" or interference much like static on a radio broadcast.

So "passing" represents a clear communication of what some trans people are attempting to transmit to the receiver/observer. Namely an unambiguous gender presentation that matches their internal view. However. Due to physicality some trans people cannot accomplish this.  Others, due to their internal view do not wish to. Thus we come to the societal questions of "validity" and "respect".

Is a middle aged six foot three broad shouldered trans woman who identifies as female any less valid in her identity than her 20 yr old five foot six slender trans woman friend who passes unnoticed by many? Professor Germain Greer has famously said,

"Suddenly deciding at 20, 30, 40 yrs old to lop off your D**K doesn't make you a woman, you are man in a skirt"

We know that the 6ft 3 trans woman is much more likely to encounter hostility.  They stand out, they give off non verbals associated with male gender.They fit the unconscious profile of a "man in a skirt" because of their physicality. Does that mean its ok to treat them differently than their 5ft7 friend who passes as Cis? Probably not.

Germain Greer may have hit on an interesting point. Albeit in a manner that is somewhat controversial. Her statement leads on to two issues.

"why do people transition at 20, 30, 40? "
"what is a woman?"

The first one would appear to be that society deems it unpalatable to transition at all. Thus many individuals wait in fear until they make the choice to act. Often as a huge personal and professional cost. The second is a more nuanced question and deserves a longer answer than I can give here. Suffice to say the definition of "woman" has changed much more than that of "female" over the course of the last two or three generations, very likely as an outcome of changing societal roles.

The "man in a dress" visualisation often applies to those who transition later in life, after having gone through the puberty of their "anatomical" gender. Society then treats these individuals poorly, perhaps due to internalised views on "gender rules", which is a continuing moral question.

However recent societal shift on that moral question, and to some extent a growing perception of "trans" as something other than a perversion/pathology but rather a physiological and/or developmental issue is allowing individuals to transition earlier. To delay the anatomical puberty and commence a pharmacologically driven one that results in earlier development of physical characteristics of their internal gender. The nature of the human body, its biochemistry and developmental stages, plus current surgical technologies, all make this somewhat simpler for those gravitating toward the female, but equally this is true of those going in a masculine direction.

So those young trans people, who undergo hormone and other therapies at a early age will invariable "pass" somewhat better with less "noise" in the unspoken "transmitter receiver" conversation. They will never have  "lived" as the anatomical gender, and thus wont have picked up nefarious concepts like patriarchal viewpoint, male privilege, or been told to be ashamed of their body, had limitation placed on workplace ambitions to due to ideas of a woman's place etc. Ergo none of those arguments can be used against this new group of younger trans individuals to define them as "not real men/women".

 It will be interesting to see how society adapts to this new situation over the next few generations. Since the most criticised group of trans people will slowly diminish, and we may get to a point where being trans is viewed in the same light as other endocrinological treatments such as diabetes.  It does however also lead to a question of "are we medically choosing our gender?" and further muddies the questions "what is a man" and "what is a woman"

However what of those who do not wish to "pass" as their internal view doesn't not fit neatly into either "man/woman? The theoretical basis that gave rise to a concept of neither man/woman is that of viewing gender as separate to sex, and as a continuum, with masculine/feminine at either end.  So therefore its logical to hypothesise that some individuals may not be at either end of this continuum, but rather reside somewhere in the middle. Furthermore their presentation and internal view may fluctuate.  This is perhaps the most interesting and challenging "trans" group from a societal viewpoint. Gender roles are blurred in western culture, on the whole the homemaker verses breadwinner model is outdated. Thus the lines between sociological gender expectations are blurring. Attitudes and clothing change, and one has to wonder are none binary people changing societal structure or  are they more visible because of the societal changes that have gone before. The causality of the next trans question is interesting, but I suspect once more it'll be several generations before we figure that out.

On a practical note, if you may be reading this and one day come across a trans person, be it someone who passes, or not, identifies as man/woman or not. Why not have a chat? Society is the outcome of collective knowledge, tolerance, discussion and the will to learn. The trans population has as much to learn as any other. (of course it does, its still a young one, in societal terms still a teenager and listening to "I'm angry at my parents music" whilst wanting the world to understand it. ) Cis/Trans discussions on a individual level will help shape the society that our next generations live in. So have a brew or a beer, and have a chat. Every little helps..

So where do I sit? Well my educational background is physiology and cellular biology. I have an interest and understanding of genetics. Therefore I don't identify truly as female.. for the simple fact i aint got the equipment for admission to that particular club. However I happily identify as a trans woman, someone who figured out a little late what all this square peg and round hole stuff meant for me. Fortunately the lateness of that realisation brought me a daughter, and some really cool life experiences as a silver lining to the otherwise dark trans cloud. Others won't agree with my thoughts, as I know trans women who absolutely identify as female, which leads us to Nature/Nurture & psychology/physiology and the difference between thought and brain and body. Those questions however are something we can come onto in the next bit.

Wow this blog is getting long!... time for another cuppa and lunch! before we go on to the next bit....

Physiological.

you can find part 2 here

till next time stay #stubbornlyoptimistic