Link Round Up: Trans-Monster Posts

Just for my own interest, as well as for all those that are puzzling over my fascination with the Monstrous at the moment.

Susan Stryker:

The transsexual body is an unnatural body. It is the product of medical science. It is a technological construction. It is flesh torn apart and sewn together again in a shape other than that in which it was born. In these circumstances, I find a deep affinity between myself as a transsexual woman and the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Like the monster, I am too often perceived as less than fully human due to the means of my embodiment; like the monster’s as well, my exclusion from human community fuels a deep and abiding rage in me that I, like the monster, direct against the conditions in which I must struggle to exist.

I am not the first to link Frankenstein’s monster and the transsexual body. Mary Daly makes the connection explicit by discussing transsexuality in “Boundary Violation and the Frankenstein Phenomenon,” in which she characterizes transsexuals as the agents of a “necrophilic invasion” of female space (69-72). Janice Raymond, who acknowledges Daly as a formative influence, is less direct when she says that “the problem of transsexuality would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence,” but in this statement she nevertheless echoes Victor Frankenstein’s feelings toward the monster: “Begone, vile insect, or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust. You reproach me with your creation” (Raymond 178; Shelley 95). It is a commonplace of literary criticism to note that Frankenstein’s monster is his own dark, romantic double, the alien Other he constructs and upon which he projects all he cannot accept in himself; indeed, Frankenstein calls the monster “my own vampire, my own spirit set loose from the grave” (Shelley 74). Might I suggest that Daly, Raymond and others of their ilk similarly construct the transsexual as their own particular golem? (1)

Little Light

It is time to look the monstrous in the eye. It is time. It is time to say that we are beautiful in our fierceness, and that we are our own. We are not the rejected of what we can never be. We are what we were meant to be. We are not pieces of wholes thrown together incorrectly. We are not mistakes.
We are not inferior knockoffs of someone else. If our monstrousness is frightening, then it is time we bare our teeth and draw that fear close to us and stop being so afraid of our fearsomeness that we fear everyone and everything else right back.

I am throwing my head back, here, and saying it: no more being afraid. Hell no. My monstrousness is not a place of shame. It is a strength. It is the power to say I am mine, and I will tell you what I mean. Not you. I am not any thing trapped in anyone’s body. I am tougher than that, and I have plenty of blood to spare in this body of mine, and plenty more miles to go before any of you can bring me to my knees, and I dare you to try.

Boots Potential

The monster identity, however, is an imperfect model. I do not necessarily want to associate myself with viciousness, irrational violence, and pathological insanity (although mainstream culture has already associated these with queers and trannies, so perhaps it’s not so far a stretch). Nevertheless, there is something very promising about a monster culture that might revel in itself, that might deliberately position itself as monstrous in the sense that it deviates, threatens, and within this, challenges. As in the case of gender freaks (trans, genderqueer, FTM, MTF, multigendered, and so on), it is only the common experience of transgression that defines monsters and arranges them together as a group. Frankenstein, Vampira, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon have nothing in common but their “abnormalities.” Yet they are bound by their monstrosity.

Queen Emily

Utada in the video is cyborg, trying to articulating hir trans desires through the dizzying blur of technology and pop culture images by which heterosexual genders are reproduced. Both song and video produce a powerful alienation effect from the sentimentalised versions of heterosexuality one usually finds in sparkly pop music. The subject produced is partial in the way that early transition subjects are, barely audible through the electronic noise. And yet, technological mediation is necessary, since the humanist dream of organic wholeness is not one that trans people can ever access in the same way that cis people do given our body modifications, even if it proves strategically useful for us to understand ourselves and be understood by others.

Media Art Nets ‘Monstrous Bodies’ section

Donna Haraway conceives of her cyborgs as artifactual marginal figures and equates them with Chimeras, hybrids and monsters. A disarranging, shifting identity policy of the non-authentic and the «inappropriate/d others» is to be conducted by means of the offensive identification with hybrid cyborg subject positions. [3] While the representatives mentioned above think of the monsters as opportunities for a reconceived humane future beyond androcentric notions of the subject, many portrayals of monsters and mutants have gotten stuck in an ambivalent spectacle of fascination and horror, norm and deviance, especially in art.

Robert Anderson

Further, the transgender man (female-to-male) occupies a similar discursive space and provides us with a post-modern link to Frankenstein’s creature, as both are surgically constructed men, a construction that, in the eyes of society, renders them monstrous (particularly for trans-men who can’t pass). Frankenstein’s creature embodies gender transgression on two levels, both of which are the fuel for Victor’s horror: the first being the creature’s status as being a surgically constructed male, the second being Victor’s own gender transgression in co-opting the feminine trait of reproduction, transforming his laboratory into a virtual womb. Given the scientific origin of the creature, as well as both its and Victor’s unstable gender, is it possible that the modern Gothic monster pre-figures the post-modern science-fiction cyborg, the significant difference being that the monster is reviled and the cyborg is celebrated?

Link Round Up

Other people are saying stuff better than I can:

Shiva on Disability Hate Crimes

Renegade Evolution and SnowDropExplodes are posting about Vanilla Privilege, which I have in spades, and have never thought about before. (Also, check out this article about a human pet. Is it inappropriate for me to be all “Aaaw, so CUTE!” about the picture of the couple?)

Trinityva has posted on Dr Crippen, here and here and here. Nick also has a post on the matter.

37th Disability Blog Carnival

Over at CripChick’s blog: totally awesome stuff.

Go read it.

Link Round Up: DSM-V

Read the discussion at Bilerico. Right now. The comments are most enlightening.

Galling Galla has a post about it too.

This is EmmaG’s commentary.

Alma Cork also has a post.

Check out Lynn Conways excellent transgender news site.

Download the APA’s press release.

This is a copy of the disclosure that each of the members of the ‘task force’ had to produce before selection. Thankyou to my boy for digging this up for me.

I know that the DSM-V wont be instituted until 2011… 3 years away. I am also in Australia, where the American Psychiatric Association is influential, but not the be all and end all of thinking on these matters.
I have been asked… why do I care? I’ll get to transition. I’ll be ok. I’ve been told I am over reacting.
I don’t think so. This has massive potential to adversely effect trans rights and deserves an international response.

Lets face it, transgendered people already get the raw end of the deal. We are beaten up, killed, raped, fired, refused treatment, evicted from home, disowned from families… I am not playing ‘Our Oppression is Worse than Your Oppression’, I am just saying that we get FUCKED OVER. We have a reason to fight even if this wasn’t happening. It is happening, and it is a threat to those few rights we have managed to eke out.
All the more reason to fight. The DSM-V should be an opportunity to make sure that things are about to get better for us.

Now I would like to echo Emma G’s comment:

The personal and emotional impact of this announcement are high for me. Which seems to require that the degree of careful rational thought be proportional to that impact. I’ve cross posted Mercedes post & links, and have received a few responses. This has lead me to ask further questions of myself.

1) What & How: What can I do to have any impact on this and how do I go about exercising any options? As satisfying as expressing anger, frustration, disagreement or annoyance may be personally, I fear that such expressions will not be heard by anyone who needs to hear them. In the worst case scenario, they might be dismissed as an attempt by the “inmate” (me) attempting to take charge of the “asylum” (the APA in this case). Therapists do not routinely allow their patients to direct the methods or guidelines under which they deliver therapy.
Academic structures are at least somewhat susceptible to peer pressure. I assume “professional” sympathy and advocacy would be beneficial. Peraps my own GP and therapist to start, but there are other gender specialist internationally who might not be commonly identified.

2) Who & Where: Where and who provides accurate and necessary information in an accesible method and where do we refer to if we need or acquire information ourselves? As has been pointed out, partial and presumed information opens the door to discrediting information itself. The emotional and personal importance cannot be allowed to taint the information.

3) Can we define a commonality of impact beyond our personal interests? I do not presume that my right to define my gender identity is in any way “secured”. If the medical basis for transition is removed, I do not expect any legal right to self identify to be maintained.
If GID is removed from the DMS are there other, unassailable legal protections in place? I would not want to rely on a presumption that such protections will continue to exist or that they would be entirely maintained as is.
Both Blanchard and Zucker base their “treatment” theories currently on implied “homosexuality” and that implication is very much additionally treated as a disorder which necessitates “Treatment”
Could their influence return homosexuality to an inclusion in the DMS?

I don’t see any of these questions as being alarmist inherently considering how poorly my rights have been served by the current DMS-IV. The addition of two blatantly anti trans appointees to the work group does nothing to lend creedence to an expection of improvement of conditions.

The hair splitting over labels of self definition becomes meaningless if you no longer have the right to self define.

Reading list!

There are a few things I have come across in the last few days that I don’t have time to comment on, but think are well worth looking at.
Just imagine me imparting some pearls of wisdom in regards to the following:

Finally, a scientific study that shows why feminists are ‘humourless’. We have right to be, when the humour is sexist.

According to the news, being a lesbian is bad for our health. Maybe being the part of any persecuted minority is bad for our health? After all, non-gender conforming youth have a suicide rate approaching 50%.

US-centric, but am I the only one that finds the recent spate of homophobic ’straight’ American politicians arrested for public homo-sex amusing? Especially when their supporters say shit like this.

This last one, I don’t think needs and commentary from me. Go read it, beloved minions. Just go read it.