Tis a sunny, blustery Wednesday afternoon here at Optimistic HQ. T'was whilst going on a few errands this morning and pondering the flurry of quotes, anecdotes and articles that were the response to recent comments in the Sunday times by Dame Jenni Murray, presenter of womans hour and columnist for the aforementioned newspaper, that I came up with "a question".
Before Dame Jenni made her comments I'd recently completed a piece on the legal and moral issues of trans gender as both a concept and a societal "thing" as it were. In it I made the comment below, when applying the oft quoted "why do you have to be so openly gay" question to the trans phenomenon.
Why do you have to be "publicly trans" ..err Derrr! We kinda have to be cos unlike sexual orientation, trans is intrinsically an externally obvious social verbal and non verbal conversation
It's the later half of that statement thats been rattling round in my head since Dame Jenni's article, and gave rise to this question....
Who's gender is it anyway?
An imperfect analogy.
Lets suppose a "gay guy" goes to the store to buy biscuits. He selects what he wishes to buy, has a brief discussion with the cashier and then leaves. At no point is his sexuality actually on display for all to see.
Lets suppose he is followed some minutes later by an effeminate gentleman, a flamoyant character, who buys orange juice. The same thing occurs.
Finally a Trans person, lets say a trans woman walks in. Her status as trans might not be visibly obvious. she might "pass" as a "cis gender woman" quite well physically, but as soon as she speaks to a member of staff asking where the biscuits are her "Trans-ness" is out there ...
So, here we have three different scenarios, that will each have very different verbal and non verbal communication outcomes in terms the reaction of both the customer and of the shop staff.
The gay chap in the first example may not choose to say anything related to sexuality in his quick conversation with the cashier. Thus the cashier, dependent on their internal world view will make assumptions (unconsciously) about that person. However if in the course of the conversation the cashier asks "any plans this afternoon?" and he chooses to say "I'm off to lunch with my boyfriend" that removes ambiguity, and thus perhaps changes the internal assumption of the cashier, based on what has transpired than their individual take on it.
Let's take the second example. The cashier may make the same (unknowing) assumptions based on his effeminate manner. But when he says "I'm off to see the wife"... they may change. Again "to what" depends greatly on the observer.
When the trans woman asks her question, the cashier once again has to mentally readjust dependent on what was initially expected from the brief interaction. Since the non verbals & visual evidence says "woman" but what is heard says "man".
Now, you might say hang on, but people dont make unconcious assumptions based their predisposed idea of the world?
Ok, so how many of you assumed the cashier in all the above examples to be female, young and probably heterosexual? Indeed, all who read through this will have created a mental picture of the cashier according to their own internal expectations of the world around them.
That's my point. Perceptions. Peoples perception and thus interpretation of what is presented to them are so interdependent on both external and internal factors and opinions that to try and control them is nigh on impossible.
In the third example, where the trans woman speaks, it's not what she says thats the issue, but rather how she speaks and sounds. Her choice of whether or not to disclose her trans status is lessened when compared to the other two regards their orientation if she wishes to interact with the world at all.
Like I say this, is an imperfect analogy Since questions of identity are different to those of orientation, but nonetheless it serves to highlight the issue.
Let's consider "discrimination", in light of this question of "perception" and its interpretation. Imagine the same trans woman, visually one who passes as cis gender, but who's voice is a bit of a give away of her trans-ness. During the course of her trip to the shops she leaves the house, almost bumps into an unfamiliar passing workman on the way out the gate who gives a cheery "sorry love" she smiles an apology and walks on. Getting into her car she continues to drive the shop, arrives and parks, having to go up to the window of the pay station to pay... "yes love" says the security guard on seeing her walk up..."parking for two hours please" she says, The attendant gets her the ticket and change, handing them over, and then says "there you go mate"
On getting to the shop the cashier, after being asked where the biscuits are, dutifully points them out, then returns to her work, but grins at her colleague and points out the trans woman when she believes they are out of ear shot.
After buying the biscuits our trans woman then leaves the store and on so doing a polite gentleman holds the door open for her, letting her out first, she utters a quick "Thanks", only to see the chaps face change when he realises he's been "duped" into letting "a man" out first. Our trans woman returns to her car, drives home and bumps into the postie, who she knows well.... "Hiya, there you go three letters", "Oh thanks" she says with a smile.
Finally she's is home.
So, at no point did our trans woman tell anyone she is trans. But, because people throughout the day with whom she interacted made assumptions based on their perceptions, and interpretations, which then had to "recalibrate", due to "mixed messages" regarding who or what they were perceiving. Our trans woman is therefore constantly having that "unspoken" (no pun intended) dialogue of justification and validation of self with every person she meets, less those who already know her.
So where is the morality tale in this? The workman simply took her for a cis woman, and was polite and apologetic. Since she didnt speak we shall never know if, were he to be informed of her trans ness, he would view his actions as wrong. The parking attendant then initially assumed her as a woman visually hence the "love" comment, but revised their appraisal in light of "new evidence" of a male sounding voice. giving rise to the "mate" at the end. The shop worker pointing out the trans woman to her colleague, what did she say? was it complimentary or not? We shall never know. The chap who held the door, again changed mental perceptions half way through his encounter with our trans woman, seemingly not in a complimentary manner. Finally the postie, who simply wasn't an issue, since they knew each other well, and were just talking about the post.
All of these encounters serve to highlight that trans people, merely by virtue of existing in our shared real world environment, face a daily challenge presented by something they cannot easily control. At no point thus far in the discussion have we looked at what the trans woman did in her former life, how old she was or what her views are. Yet by virtue of the above examples her very legitimacy of existence is continually questioned.
It's this non verbal/verbal conversation that I was alluding to in my comments from the other blog. Suppose we changed it up and the trans woman in question is 6ft 2inches and 18 stone? In other words she doesn't pass for a cis woman due to size and perhaps facial features. In this case all she has to do is physically be in a space for those around her to have a perception of her, subsequently forming opinions based on that perception. Change things again and assume the trans woman to be entirely passing as cis gender, in physicality, mannerisms and voice and we have yet another social conversation going on regarding the interaction "from her to the world" and "from the world to her".
Each of these trans women will perhaps experience discrimination differently. Some might experience multiple types at once in an intersectionality type vibe, but crucially their opinions of those experiences are still valid, along with the lessons inherent. Thus no platforming or excluding trans women from a discussion on discrimination, particularly as it pertains to cis women, is short sighted. Believe me trans women know what it's like to be constantly judged on appearance, constantly attempting to justify your place at the table or indeed any table, despite legitimacy of knowledge etc. Some of us even know what its like to be discriminated against based on societal perceptions of women, given that some of us are perceived as and thus interpreted to be exactly that, though on ocasion not in complimentary ways.
This then is the crux of the issue. It occurs to me that since those of us who are late transitionee's have had the boot on the other foot so to speak, post transition we notice a difference in peoples behaviour towards us. One might say from a certain POV this is a "true" experience of pro masculine societal constructs. I am not in this case referring to those who know us as trans or even know us as people, but just the general perception of a woman verses a man. It is not required to actually be either to experience treatment in line with societal predispositions towards men or women. It is merely enough that one is "perceived as"
Oddly this premise both aids and debilitates Dame Jenni's point, since trans women pre transtion are "perceived as" men by others during this time, then yes they may experience greater "negative freedoms" than cis women, commonly known as societal privilege. But conversely, post transition, if they are unknowingly "perceived as" women by the observer, thus excluding intersectional 'trans" bias, they will also perhaps experience the societal constraints & biases inherent to "being" women
So Gender is an odd thing. So much of it is based on perception (by others) of what we look and sound like, and whether that matches the internal expectations of what the observers experience before them. It's no wonder therefore that trans people, be it trans woman or trans man, are hyper aware of this appearance element, for it is at the very heart of their being "legitimised" by other members of society day in day out.
As a result it is quite interesting to hear Dame Jenni condemn two trans women for concerning themselves with getting this aspect right. No-one wants to look like a caricature , but similarly trans people really don't want to look like the social gender they are trying to leave behind, Is it any wonder then that many initially over compensate?
There are those who would exclude trans women from debating"single sex issues" based on the predisposition that they are not "real women" (in whatever way they wish to quantify "real", be it looks, biology, science, anatomy or sociology etc etc...) These people miss the simple truth that actually being real or not is irrelevant to discrimination. It is being "perceived" and "interpreted" as real or otherwise that's the issue.
Thus it is that in seeking to exclude trans women these very people are themselves at the very heart of the problem that prevents all women, Cis, Trans NB, informed, or otherwise from moving forward to discuss the real issues of combating discrimination at its many sources.
Sure we trans women may be different. but that doesn't make us wrong or irrelevant to the debate.
Right, must dash, I'm off to buy some biscuits....
:-)
No comments:
Post a Comment