- One chapter from my PhD thesis (16 chapters in total) - Re-conceiving Cross-Dressing -
In Chapter 6 I have created new theories deriving from the research I have done (detailed in my other chapters). These theories developed as I became aware that some past theories were inappropriate to my more contemporary research into gender expressions.
Chapter 6
‘GEN(D)ERALISED’ PERCEPTIONS
This chapter presents theoretical viewpoints about transgenderism that derive from postmodern investigations of the gathered data. Previous analyses relating to the motivations of trans* people will be deconstructed within standpoints that stem from analysing the actual experiences of trans* communities socialising in Manchester’s Gay Village.
This chapter includes deconstructing the statements by de Beauvoir (2010 [1949]) within Queer Theory and alleged masculine insecurities. There will also be investigations of the preoccupations of people to ‘pass’ within stereotypical gender normativity. During this, there shall be critical evaluations of various theories, including those by Lacan (1949) and Butler (1999), which encompass deconstructing psychoanalytic hypotheses.
Adverse impacts upon transvestic identities are examined, which include deconstructing connections between transvestism and fetishism. Within this position, the intense emotional needs to cross-dress shall be analysed. There will be investigations of the alleged hierarchy of trans* identities that may be an impact deriving from several previous assessments of transgenderism. There will also be cynical examinations of societal preoccupations with ‘binary’ concepts.
False Perceptions
In the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, USA, there is an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock called Autumn Rhythm (Number 30). When I saw it in 2004, I overheard a museum guide describing this painting to a group of young people. She instructed everyone looking at it not to make meaning from what is seen but rather from what is felt.
Similarly, in order to attempt to understand a trans* person’s existence, one must deconstruct traditional ways of perceiving. Many medical and social science examinations of cross-dressing have attempted to comprehend the phenomenon by objective fixed perceptions (Bullough and Bullough, 1993). These observations originate from patriarchal – male controlling – indoctrinations with attempts to define ‘reality’ and separations of ‘fact’ from ‘fantasy’. This separation is illusory. It is ‘gospel truth’ – barely questioned mythological biases that have shaped and repeatedly reshaped societies for thousands of years (Barthes, 1957; Levi-Strauss, 1958).
Trans* people (and others not conforming to patriarchal normativity) socialising in Manchester’s Gay Village define perceptions in their minds and then shape the social spaces of this area. The Village is mainly a protective refuge that provides alternatives from what is perceived ‘outside’ as mainstream ‘reality’.
Gender Insecurities
Tyler (2003) discusses theories of the philosopher Luce Irigaray who asserts that, by being a ‘mimic’, a woman challenges patriarchally designed feminine stereotypes. The objective is to suggest a concept of femininity, which is not dependent upon the gender binary concept with masculinity. However, Tyler expresses that the imitation emphasises masculine hegemony rather than destabilising it. Furthermore, ‘queer theorists’ contest the assertion of a ‘true’ or ‘fundamental’ femininity. Indeed de Beauvoir writes, “one is not born, but rather, becomes a woman” (Beauvoir, 2010:x [1949]). Therefore, the ‘mimicry’ is a false construction of a false construction of femininity. Consequently, there is cynicism about this ironic multifaceted falsity being able to deconstruct de Beauvoir’s definitions of ‘woman’ as the ‘Other’ of ‘man’.
Nevertheless, these theories ignore a fundamental binary construction of ‘masculinity’ performed/adhered to by many men within most patriarchal societies. Masculine identity can often be defined as being ‘not women’ (McElvaine, 2001). Several religious teachings emphasise numerous ways to separate ‘man’ from ‘woman’. Some stress, for instance, a man should never shave his beard to avoid looking like a woman. Religious teachings often stipulate distinctively gendered clothing and prohibit countering normative gender identifications. Within western societies, particularly after World War II, there developed a frequent dislike by heterosexual males of the colour ‘pink’, commonly defined as ‘feminine’ and as a signifier when worn by homosexual men (Garber, 1992). There is the ‘basic’ definition of men as being connected to death as opposite to women being connected to life through childbirth (Laqueur, 1990). These gender insistences may suggest ‘man’ being jealous of ‘woman’, defined by the psychoanalyst Horney (1939) as ‘womb envy’. It has been suggested that ‘breast envy’ can also be a connected factor (Beiter, 11th May 2010).
Thus, the regard of women as being the ‘Other’ of men within patriarchy may rest upon a disguised insecurity that many men could actually regard themselves as the ‘Other’. Consequently, sexism, which may be violent and maliciously expressed, can be viewed as being based upon patriarchy’s central anxiety of the status of ‘man’, not as being fundamental to the formation of life but of being an ‘accessory’.
Women are then deceived into constructing a false image that is the reflection of the fabricated masculinity that derives from an unconscious instability. An ironic parody that is not recognised as irony, indeed it cannot be so recognised because it is not allowed to deconstruct. Thus the mimicry is not an ironic deconstruction but an assurance against masculine anxiety. Central to this is the ‘male ‘gaze’, which Mulvey (1975) critically analyses concerning the objectification of women in cinema (and in reality). Resultantly, conforming to this ‘gaze’ can shape the actual appearances of many contemporary women.
So where do trans* people feature in this?
An MTF trans* person occupies numerous preconceptions and presuppositions. Is the trans* woman shaping her female identity as to masculine visual presumptions about femininity? Is she conforming to the preconceptions of femininity as many women? Is she deconstructing those presuppositions about gender identity, especially if she knows she will not ‘pass’?
Passing
Serano (2007) details the contradictory concept of ‘passing’ for gay men and lesbians. Here to ‘pass’ is to be visually assumed to be heterosexual, a desire that is wrought by heteronormative patriarchy. In a similar vein, Serano writes that her ‘passing’ was ‘pretending’ to be a male. However, ‘passing’, before her permanent gender transition, also meant that in her cross‑dressed ‘guise’ she would be visually taken for being a woman. However 'passing' can also be divorced from the trans* person's active preoccupation. Mainstream cisgender societies police the gender consistency of everyone seen. Thus the concept of 'passing' is a preoccupation enforced upon most people. There could be a multiple aspect to a trans* person 'passing'. She/He may be effective in 'passing', effectively becoming cisgender.
In Manchester several transvestic women have been observed who have no intention to ‘pass’ as conforming to gender normativity. They are not always overtly political nor are some even consciously aware. However, their deconstruction of stereotypes is notable in that it counters the patriarchal 'gaze'. Their visual deconstruction cannot completely divorce itself from patriarchal control. Rebellion, which can be unknowing, can only exist if it has something to rebel against. Irigaray's contention of an alternative existence that is not dependent upon difference becomes more interesting from that perspective.
Tyler refers to a woman's identification that is not a reflection but as her ‘jouissance’, which apparently concerns a woman having a sense of her internal sexualised ‘gender identified’ being in a way that a man may not. Perhaps this arises from women being defined as central to the creation of new life, whether they reproduce or not. This internalised and expressed power can sometimes be expressed as, in Lacanian terms, possessing the 'maternal phallus'. This is Lacan’s Caucasian, middle class, patriarchally defined heterosexual signifier for the mother’s various desires leading to control over the (male) child (Stratton, 1996; Bailly, 2009). A possible alternative viewpoint could be dualistic within a female position as being a maternal being and, separately, as a sexual being (Chodorow, 1989; Spillers, 1987). Perhaps the power over the child, that is either an actual child or one who is the object of her non-sexual influence, could be referred to as ‘matric’ power whereas the power that is the femininely sexually propelled influence over someone or something might be named ‘connubialic’ power. This is not the active sexual interactions with anyone but can involve manipulating the patriarchally shaped ‘gaze’ of men upon a woman (Mulvey, 1975; Foucault, 1977).
So it could be suggested that a male child can be the object of ‘matric’ power and she teaches him, implicitly and explicitly, that he is not like her. Perhaps this leads to his need to compensate for his lack of identification through interpreting and developing ‘phallic’ power, particularly during his teens. Consequently, ‘phallic’ power becomes expressed as the less complicated metaphor used by some academics such as Tyler. A female child may identify with her mother but the child’s ‘connubialic’ power, developing through her puberty, might give her a need to become more clearly distinct from her mother.
This is not suggesting a reversal of power interpretations, leading to a suggestion of male inferiority, but rather different viewpoints to unearth the sources of some male insecurity and female self‑doubt arising from the uncertainty generating ('gen(d)erating'?) diktats of binary interpretations.
From these above theoretical suggestions a trans* person’s development could be expressed differently. An MTF trans* child may be puzzled by hir mother’s instructions that (s)he is not like her when (s)he wishes to replicate hir mother’s ‘matric’ power rather than fully embracing ‘phallic’ power. A FTM trans* child may be confused by hir mother’s suggestions that they are alike when the child feels they are not. This may lead the female child to identify with ‘phallic’ power. As much as anyone theorises about alternative definitions, these meanings are intrinsically connected to gender binaries in some way. All that can be achieved are alternative perceptions for the ‘gen(d)eralised’ binaries. This is where transvestic identities may give further different viewpoints.
Transvestic Fetishism and Fétichisme
Transvestites have been psychoanalysed as attempting to be ‘phallic women’ (Bullough and Bullough, 1993). Transvestism is often contentiously dismissed as a fetish (Johnson, 2003; Ekins and King, 2006). Several researchers contradict this assumption (Woodhouse, 1989; Boyd, 2003, 2007; Serano, 2007). The psychologist Fenichel (1946) postulates that the transvestite both fetishes hir ‘phallic mother’ and wishes to replicate her. However, Tyler describes how in contemporary society “both masculinity and femininity are signified fetishistically, and love itself, for both sexes is fetishistic” (2003:52). This replicates assertions by Gosselin (1980) although they only seem to discuss these theories in a heterosexual context. Tyler reflects a normative heterosexual mutual desire for completeness postulated by Lacan (Bailly, 2009:142-144) and mixes the patriarchally defined word ‘phallic’ with her previous detailing of the feminine ‘jouissance’.
A central aspect of a person’s fetishism may be hir seeking ‘completeness’, whatever this individual’s gender identity and sexuality. A cross‑dresser can seek a sexual desire additionally to emotionally needing to cross‑dress. That sexual desire may be expressed differently or similarly, depending upon whether or not the transvestite is cross‑dressed. This could suggest that the need to be trans* might not be directly connected to a sexual motivation. Consequently, I apply the word ‘fétichisme’ to indicate the strong emotional desire for expressing a trans* identity. Thus, the female outfits can signify the MTF trans* person’s internal ‘fétichisme’ (Chandler, 2007).
Serano (2007) details her progress as a cross‑dresser to her permanent gender transition. Her autobiographic details outline not only her progression but also how cross‑dressers are perceived and how they regard themselves and their relationship with sexual feelings. Serano desired to be female when she was a child but was taught, as many young male children are, that femininity was inferior to masculinity and so, consequently, women were marginalised within society (Hooks, 1984). This marginalisation, or ignorance, of women can lead many men to objectifying women. Studies suggest that some boys who are very strongly gender instructed develop powerful misogynistic attitudes (Ducat, 2004). However, as Serano writes, even within their sexist views, many men do have a powerful curiosity about this mystifying gender.
Those boys/men who are cross‑dressers may feel this curiosity stronger than many other boys/men. Serano (2007) describes cross‑dressers
are likely to be a heterogynous groups, encompassing a spectrum of individuals who have a feminine gender expression and/or a female subconscious sex, and who experience those inclinations at varying intensities. This explains why some crossdressers never transition, while others eventually do, and why some view crossdressing as a way to express a feminine side of their personalities, while others see it as an opportunity to experience themselves as female as much as a male bodied person possibly can.
Serano details that this marginalisation of femininity assists the understanding of how MTF and FTM trans* people differ in the progressions of their gender identities. She writes that children can identify their gender identity early in life but learn between four and seven years old that gender is fixed – referred to as ‘gender constancy’ (Ruble et al., 2007). Serano opines that boys who recognise their feminine aspects prior to ‘gender constancy’ never see femininity as puzzling. Some of these boys then become ‘primary’ transsexuals, transitioning in their teens or twenties.
Serano describes how boys who have become aware of their self-identified (partial) feminine character then, by some process, integrate this into their patriarchally taught viewpoint that femaleness is ‘alien’. Thus, their intense emotional ‘need’ - their ‘fétichisme’ - to express their perceived inner femininity, may be compartmentalised through intermittent cross‑dressing.
A Cross‑dresser’s Self-perceptions
The term ‘cross-dresser’ is used here because it may be regarded that, initially, nearly all transgender people could be perceived as cross-dressers. Most remain as cross‑dressers while some go on to permanently transition. Within that brief sentence are a multitude of variations. Some always wanted to transition from a very young age but not every transsexual person knew when s/he was a child that s/he was going to transition. There are also those who fit many transsexual criteria but choose not to transition.
Several begin cross‑dressing before puberty whereas others cross-dress from their teens. The pubescent period is confusing for nearly all people with the development of their sexual feelings, triggered by the hormone testosterone present in both sexes (Burke, 1996). Social effects shape a person’s conceptions of sexual desire(s). Tyler details how fetishistic perceptions of gender are signified within numerous present-day societies, where the designs of many clothes for women appear to emphasise sexual allure (Boyd, 2003). Consequently, cross‑dressing often (confusingly) becomes tied into this growing sexual awareness and so a transgender person’s sexual desires can become linked to their emotional fétichisme. However, some researchers examining transgenderism do not account for these situations, including ignoring that numerous contemporary women dress in sexually alluring clothing (Brown and Rounsley, 2003; Johnson, 2003). These researchers may be indoctrinated by patriarchal societies’ insistences about stereotypical femininity. Many cross‑dressers/transvestites move beyond their initial perceptions but, like numerous cissexual women, are still mildly (often unconsciously) sexually aroused by certain feminine clothing. Some items, such as corsets, are more intensively erotic both for cissexual women and for cross‑dressers. This effect is often unavoidable as corsets are often used by many cross‑dressers/transvestites who want to express what they perceive as a more ‘feminine’ figure.
Just as the process that young women go through, cross‑dressers travel along paths of learning what female clothing reflects the woman they want to be. For many MTF transgender people, their perceived masculine physicality ‘inhibits’ their feminine appearance. However, their self-perception is not completely reliant upon stereotypical masculine defined realities (Mulvey, 1975). The graphic novel How Loathsome by Naifeh and Crane (2004) deconstructs present-day concepts of sex and sexual conduct (Derrida, 1976; Foucault, 1979). It features Chloe, a trans* woman, who, at one point, privately discusses her self-perception while looking at her reflection in a mirror:
Thus, we reconceive perceptions of ‘fantasy’ and ‘reality’. If human concepts of gender have been repeatedly altered over the past centuries, then, through postmodern concepts, one can be compelled to deconstruct perceptions of reality and resultantly question the ‘validity’ or ‘falsity’ of a trans* person’s perceptions. Gender ‘reality’ in the quote above is a person’s perspective against the collective conditioning of people conforming to mainstream versions of gender ‘reality’. The mirror’s reflection is not merely an image of one ‘reality’. It may change according to the watcher’s mind. The mirror can present a private trans* perception, which could be visually interpreted as an idealised form of their fétichisme, divorced from the constraints of ‘unwelcome’ masculine stereotypes.
Inevitably a trans* person’s obsession with hir reflection brings up references to concepts of ‘narcissism’ (Freud, 1914) and the ‘mirror phase’ (Lacan, 1949). A reflected person is recognised as both hirself and immediately not hirself (Bailly, 2009). As Lacan describes it, the reflection is the ‘Ideal-I’. This narcissistic idealisation is expressed with the knowledge that the image seen is not what others may perceive but it can also reinforce the desire to become that ideal.
Serano (2007) writes:
She also details that in her passage towards transsexuality she began to cultivate “relationships with people who primarily or solely knew me when I was in girl mode” (303/4). This led to her being perceived differently. She was less viewed as a heterosexual man or even occasionally not as a man at all. The spaces she existed in during this time were different from the spaces she had previously attended. She began to perceive herself not as a cisgendered male but as bi-gendered person and then ultimately as a transsexual woman.
The Village in Space
The Village is both a partial reflection as well an alternative to this narcissism. It provides social spaces that are attended by many trans* people regardless of their sexualities. Serano’s personal positive experiences of the social spaces she attended while cross‑dressed can be partially replicated in the Village. She expresses:
The Village is an area at discursive margins. In this place, perceptions are different from mainstream society. Separated from patriarchal gender normativity, perspicacities of gender roles and expressions are diverse in this geographical area. The alternative nature of this area’s social spaces is shown during annual events hosted in the Village such as the international trans* celebration Sparkle. During Sparkle, the Village becomes, reinterpreting Bakhtin (1968, 1984 [1929]), ‘carnivalesque’. Bakhtin makes a distinction between contemporary carnivals and those from medieval times, saying that the former are merely displayed performances whereas the latter enable potent personal re-interpreting events for the participants. The Sparkle festivals enable large numbers of trans* people to visually express their trans* identity with constructive support. For some, it leads them to publicly expressing their gender divergent identity in mainstream social spaces. That largely safe public expression allows them to learn about their personal position along the line from intermittent to permanent transgender identity.
A person can express non-cross-dressed representations outside the Village that may replicate stereotypical gender normativity but, when cross-dressed in the Village, this person is able to express different verbal and physical expressions. Here, a cross-dresser negotiates what can be named as an internal ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’. This is a combination of ideas from the philosopher Michel Foucault and the physicist Jean Foucault (Foucault, 1972; Murdin, 2009). The latter was credited with the invention of ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’, which is a tall pendulum allowed to swing in any direction. Its movement is visible evidence of the rotation of the Earth. If I reinterpret this concept with Michel Foucault, then a ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’ swings internally to the cross‑dresser’s varying expressions (and perceptions) of hir body, according to the contradictory discourses (s)he has to repeatedly negotiate. Throughout hir various expressions, hir fétichisme never disappears. It may (intermittently) fade, it may stabilise or it may intensify to such a distracting extent that (s)he needs to dismantle hir ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’, perhaps surgically.
Transsexualism Vs. Transvestism
Apparently, some transsexual women ‘look down’ upon cross-dressers or even less ‘dedicated’ transsexual women (Buhrich, 1996 [1976]; Whittle, 2001). Within poststructural standpoints, these hierarchical perceptions of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ can be reinterpreted as Marxian class definitions (Marx, 1998 [1848]; Tajfel, 1978; Bechhofer and Elliott, 1981; McLeod, 2008). Therefore, the medical and social ‘definers’ of transgenderism could be regarded as the ‘bourgeoisie’. The MTF and FTM transgender people who have transitioned permanently to their preferred gender may be defined as the ‘petit(e) bourgeoisie’. The ‘petit(e) bourgeoisie’ also includes people who, when cross-dressed, ‘pass’ as, patriarchally defined, ‘glamorous’ women and, resultantly, they possess ‘connubialic’ power. The transvestites/cross-dressers who are ‘out of the closet’ can be classified as the ‘proletariat’. ‘In the closet’ transvestites/cross-dressers might be controversially described as the ‘lumpenproletariat’ or ‘underclass’ (Blunden, 2008). These categories are viewed in Figure 6.1:
In Chapter 6 I have created new theories deriving from the research I have done (detailed in my other chapters). These theories developed as I became aware that some past theories were inappropriate to my more contemporary research into gender expressions.
Chapter 6
‘GEN(D)ERALISED’ PERCEPTIONS
- Your gender isn’t beauty or ugliness. I mean - that’s all your ideas.
- (Boy-George, 1995:2)
This chapter presents theoretical viewpoints about transgenderism that derive from postmodern investigations of the gathered data. Previous analyses relating to the motivations of trans* people will be deconstructed within standpoints that stem from analysing the actual experiences of trans* communities socialising in Manchester’s Gay Village.
This chapter includes deconstructing the statements by de Beauvoir (2010 [1949]) within Queer Theory and alleged masculine insecurities. There will also be investigations of the preoccupations of people to ‘pass’ within stereotypical gender normativity. During this, there shall be critical evaluations of various theories, including those by Lacan (1949) and Butler (1999), which encompass deconstructing psychoanalytic hypotheses.
Adverse impacts upon transvestic identities are examined, which include deconstructing connections between transvestism and fetishism. Within this position, the intense emotional needs to cross-dress shall be analysed. There will be investigations of the alleged hierarchy of trans* identities that may be an impact deriving from several previous assessments of transgenderism. There will also be cynical examinations of societal preoccupations with ‘binary’ concepts.
False Perceptions
In the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, USA, there is an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock called Autumn Rhythm (Number 30). When I saw it in 2004, I overheard a museum guide describing this painting to a group of young people. She instructed everyone looking at it not to make meaning from what is seen but rather from what is felt.
Similarly, in order to attempt to understand a trans* person’s existence, one must deconstruct traditional ways of perceiving. Many medical and social science examinations of cross-dressing have attempted to comprehend the phenomenon by objective fixed perceptions (Bullough and Bullough, 1993). These observations originate from patriarchal – male controlling – indoctrinations with attempts to define ‘reality’ and separations of ‘fact’ from ‘fantasy’. This separation is illusory. It is ‘gospel truth’ – barely questioned mythological biases that have shaped and repeatedly reshaped societies for thousands of years (Barthes, 1957; Levi-Strauss, 1958).
Trans* people (and others not conforming to patriarchal normativity) socialising in Manchester’s Gay Village define perceptions in their minds and then shape the social spaces of this area. The Village is mainly a protective refuge that provides alternatives from what is perceived ‘outside’ as mainstream ‘reality’.
Gender Insecurities
Tyler (2003) discusses theories of the philosopher Luce Irigaray who asserts that, by being a ‘mimic’, a woman challenges patriarchally designed feminine stereotypes. The objective is to suggest a concept of femininity, which is not dependent upon the gender binary concept with masculinity. However, Tyler expresses that the imitation emphasises masculine hegemony rather than destabilising it. Furthermore, ‘queer theorists’ contest the assertion of a ‘true’ or ‘fundamental’ femininity. Indeed de Beauvoir writes, “one is not born, but rather, becomes a woman” (Beauvoir, 2010:x [1949]). Therefore, the ‘mimicry’ is a false construction of a false construction of femininity. Consequently, there is cynicism about this ironic multifaceted falsity being able to deconstruct de Beauvoir’s definitions of ‘woman’ as the ‘Other’ of ‘man’.
Nevertheless, these theories ignore a fundamental binary construction of ‘masculinity’ performed/adhered to by many men within most patriarchal societies. Masculine identity can often be defined as being ‘not women’ (McElvaine, 2001). Several religious teachings emphasise numerous ways to separate ‘man’ from ‘woman’. Some stress, for instance, a man should never shave his beard to avoid looking like a woman. Religious teachings often stipulate distinctively gendered clothing and prohibit countering normative gender identifications. Within western societies, particularly after World War II, there developed a frequent dislike by heterosexual males of the colour ‘pink’, commonly defined as ‘feminine’ and as a signifier when worn by homosexual men (Garber, 1992). There is the ‘basic’ definition of men as being connected to death as opposite to women being connected to life through childbirth (Laqueur, 1990). These gender insistences may suggest ‘man’ being jealous of ‘woman’, defined by the psychoanalyst Horney (1939) as ‘womb envy’. It has been suggested that ‘breast envy’ can also be a connected factor (Beiter, 11th May 2010).
Thus, the regard of women as being the ‘Other’ of men within patriarchy may rest upon a disguised insecurity that many men could actually regard themselves as the ‘Other’. Consequently, sexism, which may be violent and maliciously expressed, can be viewed as being based upon patriarchy’s central anxiety of the status of ‘man’, not as being fundamental to the formation of life but of being an ‘accessory’.
Women are then deceived into constructing a false image that is the reflection of the fabricated masculinity that derives from an unconscious instability. An ironic parody that is not recognised as irony, indeed it cannot be so recognised because it is not allowed to deconstruct. Thus the mimicry is not an ironic deconstruction but an assurance against masculine anxiety. Central to this is the ‘male ‘gaze’, which Mulvey (1975) critically analyses concerning the objectification of women in cinema (and in reality). Resultantly, conforming to this ‘gaze’ can shape the actual appearances of many contemporary women.
So where do trans* people feature in this?
An MTF trans* person occupies numerous preconceptions and presuppositions. Is the trans* woman shaping her female identity as to masculine visual presumptions about femininity? Is she conforming to the preconceptions of femininity as many women? Is she deconstructing those presuppositions about gender identity, especially if she knows she will not ‘pass’?
Passing
Serano (2007) details the contradictory concept of ‘passing’ for gay men and lesbians. Here to ‘pass’ is to be visually assumed to be heterosexual, a desire that is wrought by heteronormative patriarchy. In a similar vein, Serano writes that her ‘passing’ was ‘pretending’ to be a male. However, ‘passing’, before her permanent gender transition, also meant that in her cross‑dressed ‘guise’ she would be visually taken for being a woman. However 'passing' can also be divorced from the trans* person's active preoccupation. Mainstream cisgender societies police the gender consistency of everyone seen. Thus the concept of 'passing' is a preoccupation enforced upon most people. There could be a multiple aspect to a trans* person 'passing'. She/He may be effective in 'passing', effectively becoming cisgender.
In Manchester several transvestic women have been observed who have no intention to ‘pass’ as conforming to gender normativity. They are not always overtly political nor are some even consciously aware. However, their deconstruction of stereotypes is notable in that it counters the patriarchal 'gaze'. Their visual deconstruction cannot completely divorce itself from patriarchal control. Rebellion, which can be unknowing, can only exist if it has something to rebel against. Irigaray's contention of an alternative existence that is not dependent upon difference becomes more interesting from that perspective.
Tyler refers to a woman's identification that is not a reflection but as her ‘jouissance’, which apparently concerns a woman having a sense of her internal sexualised ‘gender identified’ being in a way that a man may not. Perhaps this arises from women being defined as central to the creation of new life, whether they reproduce or not. This internalised and expressed power can sometimes be expressed as, in Lacanian terms, possessing the 'maternal phallus'. This is Lacan’s Caucasian, middle class, patriarchally defined heterosexual signifier for the mother’s various desires leading to control over the (male) child (Stratton, 1996; Bailly, 2009). A possible alternative viewpoint could be dualistic within a female position as being a maternal being and, separately, as a sexual being (Chodorow, 1989; Spillers, 1987). Perhaps the power over the child, that is either an actual child or one who is the object of her non-sexual influence, could be referred to as ‘matric’ power whereas the power that is the femininely sexually propelled influence over someone or something might be named ‘connubialic’ power. This is not the active sexual interactions with anyone but can involve manipulating the patriarchally shaped ‘gaze’ of men upon a woman (Mulvey, 1975; Foucault, 1977).
So it could be suggested that a male child can be the object of ‘matric’ power and she teaches him, implicitly and explicitly, that he is not like her. Perhaps this leads to his need to compensate for his lack of identification through interpreting and developing ‘phallic’ power, particularly during his teens. Consequently, ‘phallic’ power becomes expressed as the less complicated metaphor used by some academics such as Tyler. A female child may identify with her mother but the child’s ‘connubialic’ power, developing through her puberty, might give her a need to become more clearly distinct from her mother.
This is not suggesting a reversal of power interpretations, leading to a suggestion of male inferiority, but rather different viewpoints to unearth the sources of some male insecurity and female self‑doubt arising from the uncertainty generating ('gen(d)erating'?) diktats of binary interpretations.
From these above theoretical suggestions a trans* person’s development could be expressed differently. An MTF trans* child may be puzzled by hir mother’s instructions that (s)he is not like her when (s)he wishes to replicate hir mother’s ‘matric’ power rather than fully embracing ‘phallic’ power. A FTM trans* child may be confused by hir mother’s suggestions that they are alike when the child feels they are not. This may lead the female child to identify with ‘phallic’ power. As much as anyone theorises about alternative definitions, these meanings are intrinsically connected to gender binaries in some way. All that can be achieved are alternative perceptions for the ‘gen(d)eralised’ binaries. This is where transvestic identities may give further different viewpoints.
Transvestic Fetishism and Fétichisme
Transvestites have been psychoanalysed as attempting to be ‘phallic women’ (Bullough and Bullough, 1993). Transvestism is often contentiously dismissed as a fetish (Johnson, 2003; Ekins and King, 2006). Several researchers contradict this assumption (Woodhouse, 1989; Boyd, 2003, 2007; Serano, 2007). The psychologist Fenichel (1946) postulates that the transvestite both fetishes hir ‘phallic mother’ and wishes to replicate her. However, Tyler describes how in contemporary society “both masculinity and femininity are signified fetishistically, and love itself, for both sexes is fetishistic” (2003:52). This replicates assertions by Gosselin (1980) although they only seem to discuss these theories in a heterosexual context. Tyler reflects a normative heterosexual mutual desire for completeness postulated by Lacan (Bailly, 2009:142-144) and mixes the patriarchally defined word ‘phallic’ with her previous detailing of the feminine ‘jouissance’.
A central aspect of a person’s fetishism may be hir seeking ‘completeness’, whatever this individual’s gender identity and sexuality. A cross‑dresser can seek a sexual desire additionally to emotionally needing to cross‑dress. That sexual desire may be expressed differently or similarly, depending upon whether or not the transvestite is cross‑dressed. This could suggest that the need to be trans* might not be directly connected to a sexual motivation. Consequently, I apply the word ‘fétichisme’ to indicate the strong emotional desire for expressing a trans* identity. Thus, the female outfits can signify the MTF trans* person’s internal ‘fétichisme’ (Chandler, 2007).
Serano (2007) details her progress as a cross‑dresser to her permanent gender transition. Her autobiographic details outline not only her progression but also how cross‑dressers are perceived and how they regard themselves and their relationship with sexual feelings. Serano desired to be female when she was a child but was taught, as many young male children are, that femininity was inferior to masculinity and so, consequently, women were marginalised within society (Hooks, 1984). This marginalisation, or ignorance, of women can lead many men to objectifying women. Studies suggest that some boys who are very strongly gender instructed develop powerful misogynistic attitudes (Ducat, 2004). However, as Serano writes, even within their sexist views, many men do have a powerful curiosity about this mystifying gender.
Those boys/men who are cross‑dressers may feel this curiosity stronger than many other boys/men. Serano (2007) describes cross‑dressers
are likely to be a heterogynous groups, encompassing a spectrum of individuals who have a feminine gender expression and/or a female subconscious sex, and who experience those inclinations at varying intensities. This explains why some crossdressers never transition, while others eventually do, and why some view crossdressing as a way to express a feminine side of their personalities, while others see it as an opportunity to experience themselves as female as much as a male bodied person possibly can.
Serano details that this marginalisation of femininity assists the understanding of how MTF and FTM trans* people differ in the progressions of their gender identities. She writes that children can identify their gender identity early in life but learn between four and seven years old that gender is fixed – referred to as ‘gender constancy’ (Ruble et al., 2007). Serano opines that boys who recognise their feminine aspects prior to ‘gender constancy’ never see femininity as puzzling. Some of these boys then become ‘primary’ transsexuals, transitioning in their teens or twenties.
Serano describes how boys who have become aware of their self-identified (partial) feminine character then, by some process, integrate this into their patriarchally taught viewpoint that femaleness is ‘alien’. Thus, their intense emotional ‘need’ - their ‘fétichisme’ - to express their perceived inner femininity, may be compartmentalised through intermittent cross‑dressing.
A Cross‑dresser’s Self-perceptions
The term ‘cross-dresser’ is used here because it may be regarded that, initially, nearly all transgender people could be perceived as cross-dressers. Most remain as cross‑dressers while some go on to permanently transition. Within that brief sentence are a multitude of variations. Some always wanted to transition from a very young age but not every transsexual person knew when s/he was a child that s/he was going to transition. There are also those who fit many transsexual criteria but choose not to transition.
Several begin cross‑dressing before puberty whereas others cross-dress from their teens. The pubescent period is confusing for nearly all people with the development of their sexual feelings, triggered by the hormone testosterone present in both sexes (Burke, 1996). Social effects shape a person’s conceptions of sexual desire(s). Tyler details how fetishistic perceptions of gender are signified within numerous present-day societies, where the designs of many clothes for women appear to emphasise sexual allure (Boyd, 2003). Consequently, cross‑dressing often (confusingly) becomes tied into this growing sexual awareness and so a transgender person’s sexual desires can become linked to their emotional fétichisme. However, some researchers examining transgenderism do not account for these situations, including ignoring that numerous contemporary women dress in sexually alluring clothing (Brown and Rounsley, 2003; Johnson, 2003). These researchers may be indoctrinated by patriarchal societies’ insistences about stereotypical femininity. Many cross‑dressers/transvestites move beyond their initial perceptions but, like numerous cissexual women, are still mildly (often unconsciously) sexually aroused by certain feminine clothing. Some items, such as corsets, are more intensively erotic both for cissexual women and for cross‑dressers. This effect is often unavoidable as corsets are often used by many cross‑dressers/transvestites who want to express what they perceive as a more ‘feminine’ figure.
Just as the process that young women go through, cross‑dressers travel along paths of learning what female clothing reflects the woman they want to be. For many MTF transgender people, their perceived masculine physicality ‘inhibits’ their feminine appearance. However, their self-perception is not completely reliant upon stereotypical masculine defined realities (Mulvey, 1975). The graphic novel How Loathsome by Naifeh and Crane (2004) deconstructs present-day concepts of sex and sexual conduct (Derrida, 1976; Foucault, 1979). It features Chloe, a trans* woman, who, at one point, privately discusses her self-perception while looking at her reflection in a mirror:
- Drowning in you. The cold-eyed reflection of the secret self reflected in the mirror. Sights unseen. Hopes undreamed.
- “What would you say to yourself, myself, my projection, the perfect image of ‘me’ without dichotomy? I am- more perfect than I will ever be. My eyes deceive me.
- “I refuse to live afraid of my own shadow.”
- …
- A fantasy version of reality Vs. the real me.
- (p. 100)
Thus, we reconceive perceptions of ‘fantasy’ and ‘reality’. If human concepts of gender have been repeatedly altered over the past centuries, then, through postmodern concepts, one can be compelled to deconstruct perceptions of reality and resultantly question the ‘validity’ or ‘falsity’ of a trans* person’s perceptions. Gender ‘reality’ in the quote above is a person’s perspective against the collective conditioning of people conforming to mainstream versions of gender ‘reality’. The mirror’s reflection is not merely an image of one ‘reality’. It may change according to the watcher’s mind. The mirror can present a private trans* perception, which could be visually interpreted as an idealised form of their fétichisme, divorced from the constraints of ‘unwelcome’ masculine stereotypes.
Inevitably a trans* person’s obsession with hir reflection brings up references to concepts of ‘narcissism’ (Freud, 1914) and the ‘mirror phase’ (Lacan, 1949). A reflected person is recognised as both hirself and immediately not hirself (Bailly, 2009). As Lacan describes it, the reflection is the ‘Ideal-I’. This narcissistic idealisation is expressed with the knowledge that the image seen is not what others may perceive but it can also reinforce the desire to become that ideal.
Serano (2007) writes:
- Eventually, I reached the point where I could fairly consistently appear female to myself when I looked in the mirror. This “mirror moment” was always the highlight of any crossdressing session for me, as I found it strangely comforting to be able to see my female reflection staring back at me.
- (p. 300)
She also details that in her passage towards transsexuality she began to cultivate “relationships with people who primarily or solely knew me when I was in girl mode” (303/4). This led to her being perceived differently. She was less viewed as a heterosexual man or even occasionally not as a man at all. The spaces she existed in during this time were different from the spaces she had previously attended. She began to perceive herself not as a cisgendered male but as bi-gendered person and then ultimately as a transsexual woman.
The Village in Space
The Village is both a partial reflection as well an alternative to this narcissism. It provides social spaces that are attended by many trans* people regardless of their sexualities. Serano’s personal positive experiences of the social spaces she attended while cross‑dressed can be partially replicated in the Village. She expresses:
- While I certainly do not believe that crossdressing is phase that eventually leads to becoming a transsexual woman, I do believe that many crossdressers experience similar phases of demystifying femaleness/femininity and unlearning maleness/masculinity over the course of their lives.
- (p. 306)
The Village is an area at discursive margins. In this place, perceptions are different from mainstream society. Separated from patriarchal gender normativity, perspicacities of gender roles and expressions are diverse in this geographical area. The alternative nature of this area’s social spaces is shown during annual events hosted in the Village such as the international trans* celebration Sparkle. During Sparkle, the Village becomes, reinterpreting Bakhtin (1968, 1984 [1929]), ‘carnivalesque’. Bakhtin makes a distinction between contemporary carnivals and those from medieval times, saying that the former are merely displayed performances whereas the latter enable potent personal re-interpreting events for the participants. The Sparkle festivals enable large numbers of trans* people to visually express their trans* identity with constructive support. For some, it leads them to publicly expressing their gender divergent identity in mainstream social spaces. That largely safe public expression allows them to learn about their personal position along the line from intermittent to permanent transgender identity.
A person can express non-cross-dressed representations outside the Village that may replicate stereotypical gender normativity but, when cross-dressed in the Village, this person is able to express different verbal and physical expressions. Here, a cross-dresser negotiates what can be named as an internal ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’. This is a combination of ideas from the philosopher Michel Foucault and the physicist Jean Foucault (Foucault, 1972; Murdin, 2009). The latter was credited with the invention of ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’, which is a tall pendulum allowed to swing in any direction. Its movement is visible evidence of the rotation of the Earth. If I reinterpret this concept with Michel Foucault, then a ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’ swings internally to the cross‑dresser’s varying expressions (and perceptions) of hir body, according to the contradictory discourses (s)he has to repeatedly negotiate. Throughout hir various expressions, hir fétichisme never disappears. It may (intermittently) fade, it may stabilise or it may intensify to such a distracting extent that (s)he needs to dismantle hir ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’, perhaps surgically.
Transsexualism Vs. Transvestism
Apparently, some transsexual women ‘look down’ upon cross-dressers or even less ‘dedicated’ transsexual women (Buhrich, 1996 [1976]; Whittle, 2001). Within poststructural standpoints, these hierarchical perceptions of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ can be reinterpreted as Marxian class definitions (Marx, 1998 [1848]; Tajfel, 1978; Bechhofer and Elliott, 1981; McLeod, 2008). Therefore, the medical and social ‘definers’ of transgenderism could be regarded as the ‘bourgeoisie’. The MTF and FTM transgender people who have transitioned permanently to their preferred gender may be defined as the ‘petit(e) bourgeoisie’. The ‘petit(e) bourgeoisie’ also includes people who, when cross-dressed, ‘pass’ as, patriarchally defined, ‘glamorous’ women and, resultantly, they possess ‘connubialic’ power. The transvestites/cross-dressers who are ‘out of the closet’ can be classified as the ‘proletariat’. ‘In the closet’ transvestites/cross-dressers might be controversially described as the ‘lumpenproletariat’ or ‘underclass’ (Blunden, 2008). These categories are viewed in Figure 6.1:
The Hierarchy of Transgenderism
The triangular stratified class structure presented in Figure 6.1 can visually suggest the sizes of these groups. This structure connects with the assertions of power defining knowledge (Foucault, 1972, 1977), which is reflected by those in the transgender ‘petit(e) bourgeoisie’ who may assert their attained ‘status’ with increased transgender knowledge/power upon the perceived ‘lesser’ transgender people. The transgender ‘proletariat’ and ‘lumpenproletariat’ are conflicted between (mostly) accepting their ‘subverted’ status and the few who seek ‘political’ changes.
This hierarchical structure is perhaps a consequence of past medical objectification of trans* people, particularly those who are transvestic. Medical, legal, and academic discourses appear to collaborate in the indoctrination of many trans* people to reflect societal gender normativity. It could be regarded that this has produced an impact where some transgender people may attempt to attain delusional superiorities upon other trans* identities and, thus, are perhaps developing a trans* hegemony, rather than regarding the varied expressions of gender diversity as equally valid.
Binaries
There are repeated references to binary conceptions within societies’ structures (Cixous, 1975; Whittle, 1996). Many heteronormative misogynistic prejudices assert that ‘male’ is ‘superior’ and ‘female’ - the ‘Other’ - is ‘inferior’ (de Beauvoir, 2010 [1949]; Suthrell, 2004; Serano, 2007). This seems to be similarly expressed within other binaries.
Within Manchester’s Gay Village interpretations of these hierarchical prejudices can be observed within the multiple layers of binary definitions of LGB&T communities. Some gay men are prejudiced against lesbians, which can evoke concepts of misogyny (Geoghegan, 28th Sept. 2009). There are dualistic prejudices actioned by both heterosexual and homosexual people, which include the bias against bisexual people as they deconstruct the sexuality binary. ‘Biphobia’ is dubiously claimed to be “the last bastion of prejudice” (Nunn, 14th Jul. 2009:1), which seems to ignore the hierarchical prejudices against trans* people as they deconstruct the gender binary. Therefore, transvestic people can be the recipients of adverse duality prejudices by some heterosexual, homosexual and transsexual people.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented several hypotheses, which assist in the deconstruction of visual assessments of trans* women, divorced from the patriarchal insistence of stereotypical gender presentations. There were examinations of masculine insecurities with suggestions that they could lead to the objectification of women. As a result, trans* women may reflect this objectification and seek to ‘pass’ as natal women in order to conform to patriarchally shaped gender normativity.
The Caucasian middle-class heteronormative Lacanian hypothesis of the ‘phallic mother’ is critically analysed. Alternative theories of ‘matric’ and ‘connubialic’ power are proposed to support the development of transgenderism. There are sceptical investigations of the claimed opinions that transvestism is a fetish. It is suggested to define the intense emotional need to cross-dress as a ‘fétichisme’.
It is proposed that Manchester’s Gay Village enables transgender women to learn internally and externally about their feminine personae with their ‘fétichisme’. This theorised emotional ‘need’ is in all trans* identities and the hypothesised ‘Foucauldian Pendulum’ is a visual metaphor to aid understanding the different intensities of ‘fétichisme’.
It is proposed that the contemporary hierarchy of transgender identities could be an impact from previous studies of gender diversity. These claimed levels of transgenderism, within a transgender hegemony, may have had negative effects upon the self-regard of some transvestic women and related trans* supportive political actions. These adverse effects are coupled with multiple prejudices against cross-dressers, which derive from transvestic people opposing the deconstructions of binary normativities.
The next chapter will examine Internet trans* discourses with indications that these discussions inspire trans* women to express themselves within the Village. This chapter will also examine present online deconstructions of trans* concepts.