The Traps (and tropes) of Manhood: Eating Our Own

As a trans person who does not identify with manliness - whatever that means - I am finding it interesting how my newfound perceived masculinity - based largely on changes to my physical appearance, is being ever associated with the worst aspects of cis normative, hetero-patriarchal privilege.

I find it ironic that my experience of coming into my body in the most comfortable way for me, has taken my experience from being invisible and erased, to now completely being misread. I also find it disheartening that my behaviour, and indeed my entire person, is often reduced to stereotypes of manhood, whether they be "pleasant," good intentioned, or negative.

This indeed, is a product of cis privilege.

I repeat: reducing trans identified people to a cis gender stereotype, is a product of copious amounts of cis privilege.

As usual, I can only speak from my experience as a trans/masculine, soft, somewhat effeminate person... with white, able-bodied privilege, and (currently) middle class upward mobility. I know that the experience of being read as a white male in mainstream society comes with a whole whack of access, courtesies, and privileges, even if I am largely read as a queer male, and mis-read as a "man" identified person. I very much appreciate the perspectives and unique experiences of visibly genderqueer folk, trans women, and masculine id'd folks of colour in terms of the precarious and troubling implications associated with their presentations and transitions, as the case may be.

What is troubling to me, in the case of my own experience of transformation (becoming me), are the amount of assumptions made about my gender id that are directly related to my appearance - by cis str8 and cis queer folks alike. In fact, ironically, I tend to feel more validated by my cis str8 friends at the moment than by some in queer circles in terms of understanding and seeing the difference in my gender identity, presentation, and history, from that associated with patriarchal cis maleness and privilege. I think one of the key issues for me, recently, aside from all the narrow assumptions queer cis (and many trans) people seem to make about "transition" and assumptions based on physical appearance (that physical appearance must match internal identity, and that this internal identity can only be understood in terms of patriarchal masculinity) - is negation of individual experiences in time and space.

For example, I have been hearing a lot about how transguys are "so desirable" and how we "take up so much space" in community and online. This, again, can be interpreted to mean *white* trans men, which is, in fact, true. I certainly do not take issue with the fact of trans men with white privilege being much more visible in terms of emerging trans male culture, and thankfully projects like the STUD magazine, and Brown Boi Project amongst others, are taking up rightful space for masculine of center folks of colour (and I look forward to seeing more projects and representation). But, what I take issue with is the assumption that trans men or transmasculine folk being perceived as desirable is an issue. This comment is often framed as "trans men are more desirable than trans women, butches, genderqueers." Oftentimes, this resentment at the desirability of trans men is lobbed by cis queer women - the same cis queer women who want to date and fuck trans men.

I have several issues with this complaint of the desirability of trans men vis a vis other gender presentations in our communities: 1) This assumes that trans men are undeserving of a space of desirability and that we are responsible for the desirability placed on us.... if trans men are the subject of increased desire by cis queer women and some trans women (I do not hear this complaint from trans-fag, or cis queer, gay or bi male identified folks)- what exactly are trans men expected to do about this? 2) Trans men/masculine folk have only recently had any cultural space and visibility, let alone one of desire; 3) the privileging of masculine visibility in queer spaces is subject to time, space, social location and history. For example, queers in urban centers may feel their trans male community has been around taking up space forever, but for many of us trans guys/people, we had zero space of reference for our identities in the contexts we came of age in over the life span. Let me repeat: ZERO. We have lived invisible lives, many of us stifling our identities into the depths of abyss just to live another day... having only recently been able to perceive that being a trans male(ish) person was a possibility at all and not a figment of our imaginations for another lifetime!

So, to hear constantly from those in our communities that we are "taking up so much space" I am challenging the mainly cis folks who are throwing this statement out there, what exactly this means in terms of going from spaces of invisibility, to having a space of affirmation and validation, and celebration? Can we problematize this critique, just a little bit? Can we expand this discussion to look at the ways in which WE ALL should have spaces of affirmation, desire, validation and celebration, and not just feel resentment at those of us who, for the moment, achieve it, instead of constantly eating our own?

If stigmatization of trans women is a huge issue in our communities, can we talk about this without constantly shaming and bashing trans men? If shitty/aggressive/dominating behaviour is an issue for some of us trans masculine folk, can we talk about this without reducing ourselves to stereotypes of cis men? And, can we also address the cis normative assumptions that are placed on trans people, namely that our exteriors must match our interiors, and that our histories and realities can be non-linear and incredibly complex?

Can we actually deal with the issue of privileging whiteness in these spaces we take up and make this a large part of our work, again, without reducing trans guys to stereotypes of patriarchal masculinity?

Medical Gatekeeping: Assumptions Re: Gender/Transition

Trans health care is an evolving practice, and as such, the assumptions which drive decision making and access to, or withholding of medical options for transition must be scrutinized. The current model of restricted access, psychiatrization of gender identity, and some aspects of protocols for assessing readiness for trans health care are laden with the following cis-normative assumptions:

1. That all trans people feel they were “born in the wrong body.”

2. That there are two genders: male and female, man and woman.

3. That man/male/masculine and woman/female/feminine must go together.

4. That trans women will necessarily id as feminine.

5. That trans men will necessarily id as masculine.

6. That each trans person “knew something was wrong” from birth.

7. That trans people have a coherent, linear narrative in terms of discovering and exploring their gender id: ie) “born in the wrong body” -> desire to “cross dress” from an early age -> “play” preferences appropriate to “opposite” gender -> heterosexual identity (ie. Trans men attracted to women and trans women attracted to men) -> experience largely of suffering and suicidality -> unbearable dysphoria -> transition to “opposite” gender.

8. That dysphoria is an inherent disconnect between the body and mind (spirit), and is entirely separate from societal notions imposing meaning on bodies.

9. That meaning imposed societally on bodies and how they are seen (*read) is an invalid reason for seeking changes.

10. That Trans ppl must display no ambivalence in the transition process.

11. That Trans ppl must have successfully reconciled their ambivalence prior to transitioning.

12. That transition means a desire to “become a woman” or “become a man” and cross over to an “opposite” gender.

13. That all trans people seek medical transition.

14. That medical transition is the only way to legitimate a trans identity and that individuals must be seeking ALL surgical options as well as hormonal options in order to be approved/seen as their chosen gender.

15. That trans or gender variant identities are “disordered” and in need of “treatment.”

16. That the psychiatrization of trans and gender variant experience is not a significant cause of mental health issues, depression, anxiety, systemic trauma and suicidality.

17. That the gender assessment process is not a magnified microcosm of societal transphobia.

18. That trans women must be able to “pass” as cis women.

19. That trans men don’t wear dresses or makeup.

20. That active substance use must be dealt with prior to starting hormones or approving surgery.

21. That homelessness should rule out approval for hormones or surgery.

22. That mental illness should rule out approval for hormones or surgery.

23. That individuals must *out* themselves in their chosen gender prior to accessing hormones or surgery.

24. That individuals must *out* themselves to their families prior to accessing hormones or surgery.

25. That family members will provide support. That this support is necessary to be approved for hormones or surgery.

26. That children are “too young” to give informed consent.

27. That children are “too young” to know who they are.

28. That cross gender play is a necessary determinant of trans identity.


I'm sure we can come up with many more examples of the various assumptions which infuse medical gatekeeping. Let's keep the discussion going and push for expanded discussions on these topics with service providers tasked with assessing who is suitably ready to receive appropriate healthcare.