I'm guessing that the way that I understand that, just on its face value, is that perhaps
the transsexual is made, for lack of better words, that way by being born physically on
gender and not feeling as if the stereotypes, you know, really, they're comfortable with
the stereotypes of the physical gender they were actually born, like, you know, like a
woman born with a vagina just doesn't feel comfortable in a dress.
Right, that's what I'm getting at.
Good, so, yes.
So, the idea is that to the first cause of transsexuality is that you're going to have
males or men who are uncomfortable with the sexual assigned to them at birth, and you're
going to have females uncomfortable, perhaps more inevitably so, with the sexual assigned
to them at birth, and you're going to get pushed back, this lack of, this lack of wanting
to fit into that role.
That's what is at the root of transsexuality.
So, what we really have are individuals who have males and females unhappy with the sexuals.
So, what we really need to do for Raymond is get rid of the sexual system.
Get rid of the sexual system, you get rid of transsexuality, and everyone will be happy.
The problem is, the person who gets called to transsexual is in fact not happy because
they're not happy with the sexual system.
Were men allowed to wear dresses, were men allowed to act in all these stereotypically
feminine ways, and it wasn't assigned any one way or the other, you wouldn't have this
phenomenon.
It's a sexual system that gives rise to it.
So, this is important because her final solution is not to, you know, kill transsexuals, harm
them in any way, not even to shut down, I mean, you know, I mean, not to aim for the
medical empire, but to get rid of what needs to be done is, as she says, morally mandate
transsexuality, transsexuality, transsexuality.
The way to do that is to attack the first cause of transsexuality, the sexual system.
Now, what happens is, this whole apparatus, the medical empire, the transsexual empire,
empire, sorry, is a medical empire. According to her, an empire, medical empire. So she's
talking about sort of all the medical institutions' procedures which facilitate transsexual transition,
but it's also connected to other things like psychiatry and psychology and so forth. She
does call it a medical empire, though, because she thinks that psychology and psychiatry really
sort of obscure the chief sort of thing that's going on here, which are the medical surgical
procedures that facilitate this kind of medical transition. And why, why do we have this?
Well, we have this primarily to respond to people who are deviating from their sex roles,
right, what you do is, well, okay, so we can sort of ensure conformity with sex roles effectively
by changing your body. So, right, so, so male body person, this sex role doesn't suit you,
we'll change your body then, so then we'll get conformity between sex roles and body.
Okay, so she sees the medical empire as a way of sort of propping up, supporting the
sexual system. She does suggest sort of things that are a bit more out there. I mean, I think
that's sort of a more plausible position that you can find in Raymond's work. She also,
you know, sort of suggests that, you know, that what we have is a kind of possible conspiracy
of sort of patriarchy, getting rid of women and replacing them with sort of man made women
to sort of like complete the work of patriarchy as it were. A little bit less plausible, but
if we focus on, if we focus on some of the last out there views, this is kind of a picture
that we get. What we get then is in part a criticism of the medical model. And she's
worried about the medical model for a lot of different reasons. The main one is obviously
to work sort of holding up this system when she thinks what we ought to do is get rid
of this system. But there's other issues, right? Because it involves surgical procedures
performed in the body, it involves really this kind of commitment to integration rather
than integrity. She sees it as violating the body's natural integrity through sort of
surgical intervention. So you get something genuinely Frankensteinian with this sort of
appeal to the surgical. She's worried about that. She's also, I think, with good reason,
worried about the model of identity that has sort of underlined this. And I want to sort
of bring this up because I think it's important to understand why it was quite natural for
her to want to oppose this model, right? If you think about it, sort of the way in which
transsexuality is framed is in terms of this idea of an abiding gender identity. I've always
known that I was really a woman, you know, maybe as early as four. It sort of locks down
this idea of, sort of commit this idea that gender identity comes in early and is fixed.
Now you did have a view, this is actually the view that she really goes for, the view
offered by John Money, which sort of says that ultimately our gender identities are
mutable. They actually are mutable, but they're only mutable at a very early age. We have
an inborn disposition to, as it were, sort of acquire a gender identity much in the same
way that we have maybe an inborn disposition to learn language. But which language you
learn, that's up in the air. But the idea is that up until around the age of two, you
can, right, depending upon how you're reared, that's the gender identity that you're going
to pick up. That was the idea. That was Money's idea. But after a particular age, that identity
gets locked down and becomes sort of irrevocable, that becomes your identity. Are you with me?
Is it kind of a social model? But it's one that also says that these gender identities,
the track social role are sort of given, right? You're going to have to have a gender identity.
And then furthermore, they get locked down at the age, a very early age of two and can't
be changed. Can anyone see why this might be a problem for Raymond? Any takers? Do you
see why this is a problem for Raymond?
I don't think any of these lesbians is possibly the same thing being applied to sexuality.
Maybe let's think about man identified and woman identified. And I remember here, the
idea is that identities can be changed. The whole sort of lesbian separatist project is
about rewriting identity, right? The idea is that women have this sort of male centered
identity, this masculine centered identity, this man identified identity, and this can
be changed. And new identities can be created. And this can happen beyond the age of two.
This can happen much later. Identities are not fixed. They can be changed. It's essential,
this is essential to the lesbian separatist project, right? Of moving away from a man identified
identity, getting rid of that, and developing, you know, trying to form a woman identified
identity.
So the transsexual represents, the transgender represents that it gets fixed.
Well, no, the medical, the medical model, which is critical. You remember, so in the actual
chapter you read, she's beating up specifically on sort of lesbian separatist, lesbian feminist
identified trans women. But I'm trying to give you a broader book. The broader book is
actually against the medical, which he calls the medical empire. This is, I think, one
of the main reasons that, right, it obviously goes against the entire project. It basically
commits to the fact that there is going to be a gender identity, right? That necessarily,
so a money be necessarily there's a gender identity, right? Now, it could be a variable
at which point it is, up to the age of two, but there's going to be one. If you got rid
of the sexual system, there would be no such identity. So it seems to have this tacit commitment
to sort of, you know, the sexual system. So I can actually see why she's worried about
it. And obviously, this is important to sort of note it, and it randomly makes some critiques
of this sort of medical model that will ultimately be made by transgender activists. You know,
that, you know, so when Stone comes along and says, you know, the expectations are of this
sort of model are that, you know what, I'm going to tell you, just very recently a friend
of mine, she's, I'm originally from Canada, she's back in Canada. And in order to access
medical technologies, right, transsexual technologies in Ontario, she had a go-to place known as
the Clark Institute, right. And she showed up for whatever interviews, just wearing pants
instead of like, a dominant blouse. And the reaction was, oh no, that won't do. Why didn't
you show up wearing a dress? What, and you think that you're going to access, what you
think that you're transsexual? I guess her answer was, well, I think that I'm a woman
and I'm trying to address the way that women normally dress. What's wrong with that? But
oh no, that won't do. Because what she had to do was sort of really sort of blow it out
and sort of like, you know, do it in a kind of stereotypical way. The folks have been
done in many contexts since the 1950s. So here is, and you should be thinking of Dean
Spade's article also, ways in which sort of gender performance is being regulated through
this medical model, right. In order to get access to your surgeries, you have to perform
a particular kind of femininity. And if you don't perform that kind of femininity, you're
not going to get your technology. You're not going to convince us that you're really a
transsexual. So this legitimately, a legitimate critique is that, you know, this has certainly
changed in some places over time that this model required the uptake of exceptionally
stereotypical behavior, which from a feminist point of view, would really deeply trouble
you. Also, this is happening, you know, at a time when there's a lot of feminist critique,
you know, Phyllis Chesler or Dorothy Wallpaper, whatever, of the psychiatric industry, which
is seen as rising up against feminism, right, to keep women in their place, you know, and
then you have all this stuff about, you know, how crazy it is to want to work, or how could
you possibly feel unfulfilled when you have this lovely hat-tongue, you know, like that.
Right, and women are finding themselves unfulfilled, not that they're working, and they would be
happier if they were at home, not because they're, like, working a double shift.
Right, and I think that the psychiatric work that's happening is part of this medical model
that she's pushing back.
Sure, and it was definitely right. And also, part of, you know, a model of, like, you know,
bodily transformation, cosmetic surgery. You might worry about that, and sort of increasing
expectations that we can, you know, engineer, surgically engineer the body to conform to
artificial norms of attractiveness. You may have some worries about that as well.
So, right, part of a larger thing. Good. Any questions about where we are so far?
Can you see why Raymond might actually genuinely be concerned by this?
Particularly given sort of the framework that she's coming from.
Yeah.
Then why not view it as a result of the patriarchal system, you know, that it's not, she's attacking
the transgender as it's their idea and their construction when the engineer turns around
and says, well, they're forced to do this, but they're the evil agents also.
It's hypocritical. They're being forced by men to do this, but then they're also men.
Right, so we do, specifically in the chapter that you've got, you do get the sort of infiltration,
the lesbian feminist infiltrator who's invading, and there is this, you know, you know, moral
accusation and concern about attempt to access the influence, but I think that's also right.
But I think that both positions are also, you know, consistent.
I kind of, what I'm trying to do is just give you the broader project for Raymond and try
to point to some of the ways in which I think that something that she's saying is right.
Now, what I want to say is this, one of them, if I had to pick and say sort of the fundamental
error, fundamental problems, I mean, aside from the, I mean, in a sense it's obvious,
you know, taking up of like extreme transphobia that is just, I mean, it's just all over the
place, it's hard to like walk through, right, there's a sense in which, you know, transsexuals
are not, right, and by the way, I mean, so I haven't, you know, even talked about this yet,
I mean, but this is important, this is an important point to bring out of our thing.
For her transsexuals, by transsexual she means male to female transsexual.
Ever she says transsexual, she generally means talking about male to female transsexuals.
She thinks that this is primarily a phenomenon that applies to male-bodied individuals unhappy
with their sex roles, and she thinks that while there are certain cases, right, that
in which we do see females-bodied individuals accessing this, that they are the exception
to the rule, and that that phenomenon mainly serves the purpose of obscuring sort of the
true function of the transsexual empire.
It's a thing, it's a smokescreen to make it seem like it sort of like applies to everyone,
when really it's about the male-bodied individual availing themselves of these surgical types.
So, while basically accusing the male-bodied, the assigned male-bodied transperson of rape
and deception, she performs the operation of, or racing, the male-to-male transsexuals.
They drop off the radar for her.
And she does talk about ways in which, I see a Kachina sign, she talks about ways in which,
you know, what's happening is potential women, identified women are being converted into men,
are being subjected at least to these surgical interventions in a way that is deeply problematic,
all in the name of simply hiding what's really going on here.
Which is that this is a male-controlled institution for male-bodied individuals.
I was just going to say that it's kind of interesting that she kind of teeter-totters a lot, right?
When she talks about women, it's like this essence of being a woman.
It's difficult for her to put that into perspective, so sometimes she does fall into the trap
of talking about the scientific part about being a woman.
It's kind of weird because I feel like she's just teeter-totters,
and I feel that sometimes she does make some interesting points,
but it comes out as being really, really offensive because of the way that she frames these things.
I still kind of feel that she still constructs women through,
but she still takes a little bit about the cultural, sexual stereotypes,
and she still talks a little bit about the natural part of it,
and so it's kind of weird in the way that she's kind of even constructing women.
It's true, and I think you're right about this.
It is weird, and actually I think you're actually going to point that
to what Rodelle makes about, she talks about males coveting female energy, female creative energy.
And Rodelle rightfully, I think raises worries about,
well, what are you talking about?
What is this female energy?
Because on your view, either you mean that it's coming from a sex role,
in which case should we be celebrating it,
or it's coming from some natural place inherent in the sort of female body,
in which case aren't you guilty of a kind of biologism that you are sort of like trying to critique?
And so where does this fall into?
One of the things you're getting at is actually not clear.
Because there's like this unassumed kind of definition of what a woman is,
and I think that that's kind of like, that becomes like the faulty part of this,
because it's like, to me, some of these things that she,
like some of the critiques that Raymond is addressing,
they have been addressed by some of the articles that we've been reading.
And it's interesting because I kind of get a sense of Foucault here,
where Raymond is talking about the way that knowledges are being constructed about certain things.
But then she just kind of hears off on this really random tension.
Well, not a random tension, but this really random notion of what's going on.
But I think that part of Lesbian Separatism too is this concept of space,
and then there's finally a space to be who you want to be,
and that like these male-bodied people are coming in.
I know, and these male-bodied people, so I mean, I think so.
Part of the issue is that I think that when she accepts this,
and in fact, I think that when she accepts this distinction between sort of like biology and culture,
and she accepts a bifurcation between male and female,
and when she worries about male bodies showing up in female space,
it seems a lot like women worrying about male bodies showing up in women's restrooms,
that she's actually fought into the natural attitude.
And this goes back to Keith's point.
I think that she sort of like got the natural attitude going like this was holding her back.
At least that's one of the things that's holding her back,
that's one of the things that's holding her back.
I want to try to bring out what I think though is,
aside from this commitment, so aside from this commitment,
there is I think sort of the, what I would say the big problem with women's empire.
Before I get to it, I want to sort of explain what happens with Sandy Stone
and Chan's politics more generally vis-a-vis this model.
As you should know by now, what happens is this is taken up in Stone's article,
and it's often assumed in the kind of, at least queer studies,
informed Chan studies that gets taken up.
What you get is sort of a denial of a sex-gender distinction, first of all.
Sort of a denial that there is any kind of substrate.
So you get the Castro McKenna view, right?
It's all gender, all of it, moving this part.
That vision is rejected.
And then you get this idea of, and you're assuming a strict binary,
which is also wrong, as you get those two moves made,
and then you end up with a subject position where you have Chan's people
basically positioned problematically with respect to the binary.
I'm sorry.
So you trans people, you get a trashing of this dichotomy,
and you get a rejection of the view that there is a sex-gender distinction.
You get an entire different model of sex-gender that is deployed,
a different vision of gender.
You guys remember me?
Okay.
And I should also mention, you also, in this queer-informed Chan's model,
you give up on the idea that you have any kind of self prior to sort of this
immersion in culture, this immersion in gender.
Okay.
Now, so that's the trajectory, really, that Chan's studies takes off
in transgender politics, and we end up with a new paradigm.
