What has come clear to me in nine-plus years of activism is that modern transgender/transsexual history has two significant, distinct beginnings. There are other trans beginning points, for sure, but I’m going to focus on two particular beginnings that have often been in conflict.
The two beginning points I want to focus upon are these: The psychiatric/medical approach to transsexualism, and the civil rights focus of transgender activism.
Cristan Williams, a Houston-based trans civil rights pioneer and transgender community historian, documented that, as far back as 1965, the term “transgenderism” was used as a synonym for “transsexualism.” In John F. Oliven, MD’s 1965 book Sexual Hygiene and Pathology, he stated:
“Where the compulsive urge reaches beyond female vestments, and becomes an urge for gender (‘sex’) change, transvestism becomes ‘transsexualism.’ The term is misleading; actually, ‘transgenderism’ is what is meant, because sexuality is not a major factor in primary transvestism.”
In 1966, Dr. Harry Benjamin’s book, The Transsexual Phenomenon, was published. It’s the book that first outlined psychological identification of transsexuals for the specific treatment of surgical intervention. In fact, that is how the transsexual experience was originally approached; if one were deemed by gatekeeping psychiatrists, endocrinologists and surgeons as transsexual, then the expectation is that one would have body modification surgeries. What followed were a number of university medical program gender identity clinics, with perhaps the most famous of these clinics being at John Hopkins.
Within a number of years after setting up gender identity clinics, universities stepped away from their programs to leave us with individual therapists and doctors taking on the work – with much less rigorous gatekeeping as to who is and who isn’t a transsexual, as well as understanding that being diagnosed as being a transsexual doesn’t necessarily mean that one is on a rigid path to genital reconstruction surgery. Yet, there are many of transsexual history who still hold valid that the only appropriate outcome for a diagnosis relating to transsexualism is genital reconstruction surgery.
As Williams also documented, even Christine Jorgenson preferred the term transgender over transsexual – she essentially wanted to take, for herself, the sexualization out of the trans experience. Riki Wilkins, in a similar vein, spelled transsexual as “transexual” – with only one “s” – an attempt to remove the medicalizing labeling of transsexual people, experience, and trans activism.
The sixties also saw transgender people organizing on their own behalf – both in political and service-oriented forms of activism.
The basic goal of the transgender activism movement is simple, ordinary equality.
On one hand we have the goals of transsexualism being medical treatments and possible “stealth” living; on the other hand we have the goals of modern transgenderism being antidiscrimination and ordinary equality. For many transsexual people, we can blend aspects of the medical and the political within ourselves. Yet, there are others who see intrinsic conflict between living publicly and politically as trans without the personal and surgical outcomes that many of Dr. Benjamin’s adherents and the gender identity clinics envisioned as best life experience outcomes.
I see no difficulty in the concept of blending the medical treatment schemas for transsexual individuals and antidiscrimination and equality goals of transgender community activism into trans identity. But that said, not every person of transsexual history would agree with me – some see these two points of origin as being so separate as to be in conflict with the other point of view. It’s in this view of inherent conflict one can find the lack of solidarity in what it means to be trans, or of trans history.
Thank you for you thoughts, as a person turning 65 next month I found your thoughts intersting. My mother knew I was different as age 3 and I was aware at age 4. Unfortunatley in 1950 the word trans was not known and I had no local guide lines. I was almost plagued by gay men who must have sensed my confusion but I was not assaulted and did not fully understand my condition till my early 20s. I met my first real transgendered female while serving in the British army at age 21. I married at 23 because I wanted children of my own and I told my spouse after 3 months of marriage that I was trans. I stayed married and had three children and changed gender when my spouse gave her permission and I was aged 48. We are still together after over 40 years and I have her and her familys support.
Trans people have always been in the community, just not identified as such. There are many instances of our presence through out written history.
Good luck with your future and feel free to contact me should any thing I commented on stir you.
Denise Holliday
denisesined@ns.sympatico.ca
The divide between the two groups runs a lot deeper than what is suggested here. There is a legitimate political movement called transgenderism which seeks to promote freedom and equality for all those who do not conform to so called gender norms.
But their is also another movement which promotes the idea that all forms of gender expression are essentially the same thing. In other words, that transsexuals are the same as drag queens the difference being in the degree of discomfort with ones physical body. It is this philosophy that transsexuals find so offensive and it is why many are at pains to distance themselves from anything connected to the term transgender. Another way to put this is that we are all on a spectrum and so we have something in common. That is a hard idea for transsexuals to accept. This arranged marriage is isolating for many and leads to a deal of resentment. Even those who support the idea of equality for everyone can have difficulty. Equal yes, but not the same would summarise this.
In my opinion, the divide is complete. They are two completely separate concepts.
In nine-plus years of being out, I haven’t met a single transgender-identified person who actually espouses that point of view. I’ve heard a number of women self-described as being transsexual, women of transsexual history, women-born-transsexual, and/or true transsexuals, as well as those who associate with the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome, state that this is what many transgender-identified people actually believe, but I haven’t seen that point of view actually expressed by any transgender-identified people.
I have heard it expressed that there are commonalities between transsexual people, crossdressers, drag performers, gay men who are perceived by many in society to be to feminine, and lesbians who are perceived by many in society to be too masculine — I’m one of the people who makes those kinds of statements — but that’s a long way from saying these folk are all the same and there are no differences between them. I’ve many commonalities with members of many other minority populations, but saying there are commonalities of experience that African-American people and trans people share is quite a long way from saying that there’s no difference between African-Americans and trans people.
In the same vein I’m not the same as a drag performer, but there are commonalities of experience I share with many drag performers — such as, many drag performers and me have been called f****ts in our lives. It’s a commonality, but that commonality wouldn’t, and doesn’t, make us the same at all.
If you could provide a link or two to some transgender-identified folk who actually have posted words to the effect of your statement, I’d really appreciate seeing where they’ve espoused that point of view. Frankly, I’d like to challenge those folk on that point of view as to me it’s just not a reality based point of view.
I thought I had responded to this. Are you now saying that you reject the “gender is a spectrum” view? One person I know, who has the spouse this view, is Gwen Smith. In one of her columns, she referred to a wide range of behaviors including, among others, sissy maids as being part of “whole.”. Another who espouses this basic view is the operator of The Gender Variance Who’s Who.”. And, this certainly seems to Williams’ view.
So, are you now saying that transgender is only an identity and not an objective state of being? Put another wa, are you denouncing Williams’ position?
That should be “espoused this view…”
The simple bottom line is that “transgender” is an artificial social/political construct which is highly subjective, and which has no objective meaning. If one calls oneself “transgender,” then one is “transgender.” If one says they are not transgender, they are not. I am not, and I expect people to respect that.
Williams does not like this, and attempts to force the label on people based, not on an actual, objective definition, but instead based on isolated moments of history where someone might, or might not, have used a particular word. For example it is claimed that Christine Jorgensen preferred “transgender.” No, there was one, very isolated moment where she may have made such a statement to a reporter. I have seen no other times she made such a statement. Now, they may exist, or they may not. But a single quote cannot be turned into a broad statement. Now, given Williams’ behavior, there may be more quotes and Williams might have some grand plan to use them to pull off a “surprise,” but they would change nothing. Jorgensen was one person, and she does not define the language. Simply put, she was called a transvestite by the first doctors who treated her, the term transsexual arose, and now some have tried to force “transgender” on us all.
In spite of Williams’ claims, the fact remains that what is NOW meant by “transgender” came about in the 1990’s. In 1991, I was told by no less of a “transgender” icon than Dallas Denny that “transgenderist” mean a full-time crossdresser, as opposed to a transsexual. In 1996, I first encountered “transgender” on USENET. It was used then as an umbrella term. As it became obvious what it was coming to mean, I, and others objected.
Now, Sandeen says, “I see no difficulty in the concept of blending the medical treatment schemas for transsexual individuals and antidiscrimination and equality goals of transgender community activism into trans identity. But that said, not every person of transsexual history would agree with me – some see these two points of origin as being so separate as to be in conflict with the other point of view. It’s in this view of inherent conflict one can find the lack of solidarity in what it means to be trans, or of trans history.” I completely and utterly disagree. Sandeen seeks goals that I strongly oppose. Sorry, but I, and others, will not be bullied into silence, no matter how much some, such as Williams and Sandeen, wish to think otherwise.
Yes, I am part of a minority. Transsexuals, that is true or classic transsexuals, are exceedingly rare. There are far more who might claim to be such, but who do not really share the experiences of true transsexuals.
And I strongly disagree that transsexualism is not related to having SRS. It might be true that “that being diagnosed as being a transsexual doesn’t necessarily mean that one is on a rigid path to genital reconstruction surgery.” But that is because some doctors will give anyone who asks for one a diagnosis of “transsexual.” They could just as easily call them a “baseball,” but that would be no less accurate. It gives the patient a bit of a thrill, and I suppose in the doctor’s mind it does no harm…unless that patient actually makes the mistake of having SRS, and realizes they have made a horrible mistake. And we have seen such mistakes.
My goodness Autumn, do you really expext me to debate with you? Dig around and give you a bunch of links which you can then argue about in order to make yourself sound like an authority? You must think I am seriously stupid. I have no interest in talking to you.
But to set the record straight – I am simply a female in every way that matters.
I read this a few days ago and I’ve been thinking about how I want to respond since I know (and like) the author of this piece 🙂
The problem I have with it is that I think that the distinctions are a bit contrived. For instance:
[What has come clear to me in nine-plus years of activism is that modern transgender/transsexual history has two significant, distinct beginnings]
[On one hand we have the goals of transsexualism being medical treatments and possible “stealth” living; on the other hand we have the goals of modern transgenderism being antidiscrimination and ordinary equality.]
The “goal” of transsexualism is to bring sex and gender into alignment – a process which is directly impacted by the culture’s view of gender, politics and equality (especially equal access to medical care). There’s no way around this and thus there is no way to make an evidence-based argument which can assert a clear distinction between the issues affecting the well-being of transsexual and non-transsexual trans folk.
When Christine Jorgensen was denied her right to marry a man way back before Stonewall, was what she dealt with a TS-only issue back then? Is marriage equality a TS-only issue now?
When the judge in Columbus v. Zanders (1970) said, “There are numerous subjects who would want to change their sex identity in order to perpetrate crimes of homicide, tape, robbery, assault, etc.” – was that a TG-only issue back then? When this same stupidity spews forth out of the mouths of RadFems, fundies, etc… is it a TG-only issue today?
When trans folk were being forced out of their homes back in 1974, TS folk didn’t see it as a TS-only issue: “Thirty-three drag queens were evicted from their apartments in the Tenderloin area of San Francisco, triggering protests from TVs and TSs who live in that area. The mid-day demonstration protested police harassment and housing discrimination against the drag community.” Was housing equality a TG-only issue back then or even now?
The entire queer community has to wrestle with social cost of braking gender stereotypes in one way or another and to one degree or another. Pretending that transsexualism is a ‘just medical issue’ purposefully denies that transsexuals experience a social transition that entails violating numerous cultural gender norms or that a transsexual’s quality of life is tied to equality under the law. Those who attempt to go stealth so that nobody knows their past are attempting to gain equality in the exact way blacks who attempted to pass for white attempted to gain equality because they know that there is a price they may pay if they don’t pretend that their history isn’t their history.
The issue of equality impacts the life of every transsexual. It has always been that way.
Oh, I think it pretty simple up mak a distinction between the needs and Ruth’s of someone who has physically changed their genitals to match the sexual differentiation of their brain, someone who has, perhaps mistakenly done the same thing resulting in their sex and their brain now being at odds, and those who, for whatever reason, chooses to transgress gender. In most cases, the evidence is obivous. The first, of course, are transsexuals. By and large, they want to maintain their privacy and they have no desire to draw attention to themselves. The second group in some cases shares similar motives to the third otherwise they likely will not desire attention. The third group well they tend to crave it. So, yes the needs and distinctions are pretty clear. But many in the second and most im the third groups have no respect for the needs of the first group. Or for the needs and rights of the generally population, which also overlaps with those of the first group.
That should have been “needs and rights…”. Sorry, typing on an iPhone can bea challenge.
@Sd woman [Trans Researcher, that is an oxymoron. That’s like NAZI historian, or 9/11 truth.] Another personal opinion… and still no objective evidence to support your fact assertions. Produce your long list of States which “quietly” passed marriage equality for transsexuals prior to 1990.
Yes, that is what is lacking…objective evidence. As opposed to isolate, vague, obscure, and questionable claims. When you have some, let us know. Oh, and by the way, dismissing people’s accounts of personal experiences isote than a bit disengenuos.
Limiting a question may seem clever, but it is just dishonest…and kind of lame. First off, there was no such concept as “marriage equality” at the time. That phrase is relatively new. Second, it is not even the proper term. Rather “transphobic” actually, as it implies that a post-op’s marriage would be same sex. No, what happened was that they simply allowed birth certificates to be changed and recognized the reality of true transsexuals’ transition. It was not until extremists drew attention that a few lawyers saw the opportunity to challenge what had been accepted without question. Of course, those who do not really see post-op true transsexuals a actually legitimate (for example because it conflicts with their ideas about gender transgression) love this.
Thomas “Jennifer” Usher. Prolific spewer of nonsense, drunk and online again. Professional Fool, FRAUD, and Bore. Just thought I would add some background for context. Carry on Tom!
@sd woman [Peace be with you Cristian.] And with you, as well 🙂
[I transitioned in a small company on the job. My boss and his boss understood what transsexuality was well before the TVs and DQs hijacked our good name.]
Are you saying that your old employer (assuming that they’re still around) won’t hire trans folk nowadays? Remember, trans folk are now covered under Title VII protections and most major companies (and govt’ contractors) have nondiscrimination policies which are trans inclusive. Every year more and more municipalities pass nondiscrimination policies which are trans inclusive. In light of this, I’m not sure how one can make the assertion you’ve just made.
“The “goal” of transsexualism is to bring sex and gender into alignment – a process which is directly impacted by the culture’s view of gender….. ”
~Chris Willams
Nooooooo…….”The “goal” of transsexualism is to bring sex and gender into alignment”. PERIOD.
This is accomplished via a medical intervention including genital surgery and a re-adjustment of the endocrine system via HRT.
It does NOT involve, ” the culture’s view of gender, politics and equality”.
“Those who attempt to go stealth so that nobody knows their past are attempting to gain equality in the exact way blacks who attempted to pass for white attempted to gain equality because they know that there is a price they may pay if they don’t pretend that their history isn’t their history.”
B**L S**T! How dare you speak for me. You “trans”-people, who are so proudly “gender non-conforming” have no right to judge me or tell others what I have “attempted” to do with MY life. Not yours Chrissey, MINE. Are you demanding that I be trans* like you? Such arrogance!
“I also get that there’s a whole hell of a lot of transsexuals who were around back then who disagree with that assessment” ~C. Williams
Really who might they be? You mean radical, socialist deconstructionists and anarchists like S. Kooke? Oh! ere’s a news flash for your new book. There were NOT, “whole hell of a lot of transsexuals around” in the 60’s and early 70’s. I was there and I avoided you trannies like the plague. I still do!
Howard Lowman, AKA Charles, (Virginia) Prince galvanized all those early transvestites via his TV puplication, “Transvestia” in the very early 80’s.
The reason such august institutions such as Stanford and John Hopkins shut down their “Gender Clinics” around the same time is that they were abject failures because they foolishly bought into that discredited “gender theory” which is a total, utter and proven fraud. (Think John Money/David Reimer).
The only agenda here is yours and Mr. Sandeen’s
@sd woman [Agreed it is a straw man argument, that changes nothing when I told my employer I was to transition I was told that above all the harmony of the company was the most important thing to him. He went on to state the obvious “a happy workforce is a productive workforce and that is all I am concerned, come to work in a burlap sack for all I care as long as your coworkers are okay with it.”]
You’re arguing that all was well until “TVs and DQs hijacked our good name.” You use your personal experience with your employer as an attempt to produce objective evidence to support your belief that things were better for all transsexuals in the good ol’ days. You imply that because this was your experience, it must have been everyone’s experience and therefore any objective evidence which I produce “can’t stand up to even the weakest of challenges” because it contradicts your personal pertinence from that particular time, with that particular employer, in that particular city, in that particular part of the country. Your memory of the good ol’ days contradicts the memory of a great number of other transsexuals didn’t experience what you recall and local and national trans newspapers, newsletters, and personal correspondence paint a very different picture. Either their experience is invalidated by your experience or your experience doesn’t represent an accurate picture of the transsexual experience as a whole.
Really? I think, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that things were certainly better for transsexuals before the rise of the current “transgender activists.” At that time, a person could argue that they were transitioning, going to have surgery, and that they needed their employer’s support. It was not universal, but many were supported by their employers. Of course, it depended in part on whether the person was, for want of a better term, presentable. If the employer was faced with a situation where the employee’s appearance would be an issue, or their behavior was not consistent with their claim of being a woman (this rarely seems to be a problem for an FTM), then yes, they might face issues.
But,then again, before the rise of the modern “transgender activists,” it was a lot less likely that someone would present in such a manner.
You MORON! It is soo obvious why you refuse to understand that THERE WAS NO NEED for “marriage equality for transsexuals prior to 1990.” The very simple reason for that is that we WERE….simply, actually and legally FEMALE, legally entited to marry just like every other everyday, garden variety W O M A N.
While I would have worded things a bit more polItely, you are quite correct. Of course, for some that view is not acceptable since they need, obsessively, to see us in terms of transgression. Even if we don’t see ourselves that way.