I think we need to talk more about the nuance of transition.
Specifically, the diversity of transition and the ways in which a person's gender and presentation can fluctuate and never reach an "end."
The first time I tried to get on T, I second-guessed and disappeared. Didn't answer calls from doctors, didn't reach out. I had seen an openly trans psychotherapist a few times as he was guiding me through the steps to accessing hormones. When he asked me when I started to feel "this way" about my gender, I answered that it had been fairly recent, maybe a few years. His response was that that was strange, because "most people figure it out when they hit puberty." Well, that shut me up and I haven't spoken to a therapist about transition since. It's clear to me now that he was approaching transness from a medical background. The medical model of course has not been a favourite of the trans community, myself included. It conceptualizes transness in terms of deficit, self-hatred, misery, and it envisions transition as an end.
This idea of end, of the reached destination, terrified me at twenty-three and it terrifies me now. How are twenty-three year olds, middle-schoolers, or kids approaching puberty, supposed to be able to envision their end, and to argue their case with such certainty if they want access to methods of transition? Where is the elbow room for change, evolution, and discovery, and even "mistakes"?
Many trans individuals, some colleagues of my own included, say they have always known who they are and what their gender is. This is the dominant trans narrative for a reason. I don't mean to discredit their words and their stories. It is not anyone's business to tell another person who they are or are not, and above all we should all continue to advocate for the voices of trans kids to be heard and honoured.
The philosophy of discovering who you "truly" are, of "finding" yourself, even of "cracking your egg" is starting to sound heavily Western and neoliberal. There is rarely a conversation about how our identities are changed by others, our environments, or by ourselves. Instead the dominant conversation around transition is centred in finding the true self. I criticize this philosophy because of its limitation. It is an end.
I recently joined a support group, and in the first meeting I attended my colleagues talked about finding their names, and about bridges. They shared stories of their own name decision-making processes, and how they used "temporary" new names as placeholders for their true names. A "bridge," they called it. I loved this sentiment. It spoke to the idea that gender and identity are more fluid than we are taught to believe, and I of course did this temporary name thing, too. But still with all of my colleagues there was this idea of truth, of finality.
I criticize it because it is another barrier of access to transition. People seeking means for medical transition are expected to be one-hundred percent, without-a-doubt-sure of their gender identity and of their future decisions regarding transition. It's starting to sound like a way to gatekeep transition, to bar access from those who are not "trans enough" because they do not fit the medical model's description. We know this. We've had these conversations before.
If we keep thinking about transness only in terms of the true self, the cracked egg, then we leave little room for those who are curious, for those who simply want to be creative with their identities, cisgender people included.
In writing this, I had to really fight the urge to go back and outline all the "clues" in my childhood that point towards my transness. I fought this because that is exactly what we as trans (genderqueer, genderfluid, trans* etc) people are supposed to do if we want to be believed. As if the only way to legitimize transness is to have "all the signs" in early childhood, as if transness is some chronic disease. Don't get me wrong --- this remembering and legitimizing works for some people, myself included. It is the way we know how to learn about ourselves. And at the same time, it is a key part of the transmedicalist approach.
We should not have to explain our histories and be certain of our futures to be believed and to have access to care.
It's an abusive relationship dynamic between the trans individual and institutions --- the desperation to explain ourselves in detail, explain our histories and our possible futures, so the institutions might allow us access to methods of transition.
The sooner we explore more possibilities beyond the idea that transness and transition are the final self, that transness is some chronic and fatal condition diagnosable from self-hatred cues in childhood, the sooner we can remove barriers of access to trans kids, and invite more people into the excitement, creativity, and nuance of trans experiences.
34 notes
·
View notes