I spent the past 4 days in the Midwest visiting family for Thanksgiving. Things went well, and I was able to spend time with both my immediate and extended family. (I even ran into a college friend and his wife, who I recognized just 2 people ahead of me as we boarded the plane today). There were a few slip ups on pronouns and my name, but they all made great attempts to call me Kara and her/she. I even tried to be on my best behavior by not talking politics or anything about transition/surgery stuff unless directly asked.
On the flight home, though, I was finally able to finish off the book “The Man Who Would be Queen” by J. Michael Bailey. Although there were parts of it that were put together quite well and dealt with a lot of the issues for both gay men and transsexuals, he doesn’t really perform any solid research. In fact, he throws gender identity out the window. He basically instills a lot of stereotypes...gay men do this, homosexual transsexuals do this, autogynephilic transsexuals do this. He also seems big into calling and thinking of gay men as feminine. To me, gay men aren’t necessarily feminine, they are just....well....gay, and they are all different. He throws labels around but doesn’t define his labels. Perhaps he sees them as feminine because they are more confident in who they are, and aren’t afraid of living up to the stereotype of men having to act like men (tough, unemotional, rigid). But he doesn’t cover any of this, which to me seems like common sense.
He also states a lot of the general theories, that gay men have more psychological problems because, well, it’s not easy being gay (it's amazing how much stress the straight community can create), but then he rants into another theory...because their brains are more like women, and women have more psychological problems. Whew. It seems like a lot of passive aggression to me, even though he says he’s pro-gay and pro-T.
Finally, he talks a lot about transsexuals. He seems to place all of us into two general categories...homosexual transsexuals or autogynephilic transsexuals. A lot of people like to do this, categorize us, it seems. Why? Anyway, he says that we’re either a feminine version of gay men, or we’re men who have created an image of attractive women in their own bodies...that it’s actually a sort of paraphilia. The funny thing is that he says he’s just speculating, and even he himself says that it is basically impossible to understand another person without ESP, which he doesn’t believe in. He says that we must look at overt behavior that somehow signals fundamental similarity. The thing is, I don’t think he looks enough at the bigger picture, and even when he does, he just wants to feed and water his own ideas.
When I emailed him earlier this year concerning his book (which I hadn’t even started at that point), I asked him if a lot of the characteristics he mentioned were survival mechanisms. He said they weren’t, without even giving them consideration. He also even notes that he doesn’t know why autogynephilia transsexuals are attracted to being women. So, basically, he just wrote a passive aggressive book that puts forth a lot of his ideas in order for him to gain credibility and popularity (he even admits that some of the general ideas he (and his 10 year old son) came up with had already been popular theories, but his new ones would cause controversy). His ideas though, are based on skimming the surface of something he just doesn’t know enough of.
Let me shed some of my own light with my own theories. There are a variety of reasons people are transgender...ranging from womb issues to developmental issues....nature, nurture, and who knows what else. There could be genetic predispositions, chemical contaminants during development, or developmental issues dealing with other psychological messes. This could affect gender identity...how one sees themselves. Secondly, there is sexual preference, or orientation. Although identity and orientation are separate, they do affect one another. Transsexuals tend to find at least three general ways of dealing with their situation. Some seek “shelter” within the gay community, some withdraw from society to a degree, and some try to put up a male facade in order to hide their identity. T’s can be in one or more of those categories. Some can also abuse alcohol or other drugs in a way to escape from reality. The way one seek’s shelter is also affected by their orientation.
Transsexual feelings also vary in their intensity. Some are able to control it, some aren’t, some find a release for it, and some end up killing themselves. Cultural factors can also influence the ability and desires to transition, or just remain as either hetero or gay males.
As far as I am concerned, we’re all different, and to put us into two separate boxes is absurd, ridiculous, and just plain ignorant. People who do decide to transition though need to weigh the consequences of transition and understand what they are doing. Otherwise, people can do whatever they want.
Epilogue
While putting together this webpage/entry, I was looking around J. Michael Bailey's webpage that I linked to above, and ran across statements by some of his staff. It basically said that all gay men like masculine men and all lesbians like femmes. I found this preposterous. And since I happen to be one of those that is opinionated, I sent the student an email (which might have been a little too harsh):
Hey Gerulf,
I was reading over your bio on Professor Bailey's site, and you mention that lesbians don't want butches. Wow, how wrong could that be. Take a look at Craigslist and see for yourself. Lesbians like all types of women.
http://www.craigslist.org/w4w/
Perhaps you need to talk to a few more lesbians before making such statements.
Kara
His response:
Kara,
these findings apply to group averages but not do every single person.
Regards,
Gerulf
-----------------
Gerulf Rieger, Square-Master
Department of Psychology
Northwestern University
2029 Sheridan Rd
Swift Hall #102
Evanston, IL 60208
To be honest, I find any scientific approach to behavior that's constructed with absolutes based on "averages" to be basically worthless.
No comments:
Post a Comment