Passing and the Politicalization of the Third Sex
Ok, so we’re all aware that we essentially live within a binary gender system of Male and Female. The writing is literally on the wall. So, it follows to reason that when walking out and about all humans are placed automatically in either the male or female category.
The decision to identify or more accurately “label” someone as male or female, at least superficially, rests with the identification of various gender cues including but not limited to secondary sex characteristics such as a facial hair for men and breasts for women.
The potential problem of such a dualistic system occurs when people exhibit traits associated with both genders; Notwithstanding the presence of those who happily dwell in that twilight world of indiscriminate gender and frequently politicize themselves as such.
But for most of us, the identification is either of one sex or the other. Transgendered individuals face challenges insomuch as they continue to possess traits associated with one gender (most often their originally assigned sex) while attempting to ‘present as’ and ‘identify with’ their gender of choice. The result is to face public scrutiny, criticism, moral outrage, legal restrictions, and in some cases violent oppression leading occassionally to death.
A quandry is thus presented, as to how to identify and operate within such a narrowly defined sytem? Moreover, the question seems to imply a certain moral or conscionable obligation to “own up” for those that “pass”. The racial analogy of some light skinned African-Americans who avoided censure and discrimination based on their ability to pass as Caucasians and their dark-skinned sisters who had no chance of avoiding persecution seems appropos.
A real world application can be seen in the case of a recent Georgia Straight article that drew attention to a controversy involving refusal of service to trans-women at an East-end Vancouver pharmacy. The pharmacy has in place a “woman born women only” policy. The crunch comes when it is likely that trans-women who “pass” can avoid scrutiny and obtain service from the pharmacy while their less fortunate sisters are left to face censure.
The full article can be found at:
http://www.straight.com/article-240560/lus-pharmacy-rejects-transgender-customer
So should we politicize our status as transgendered or as a third sex, even though we may in fact pass as women born women? At this point I’m willing to leave the answer up to each individual’s own conscience.
In my case I identify as a trans-woman and see myself as distinct in some respects from what I term my “genetic sisters”. Nonetheless, my personal goal is to avoid public scrutiny as much as possible, surgically alter my appearance to whatever extent I am able in order to be seen as legitimately female as any woman born woman. I wish to fully partake in the female social role and willing take on the wonderful opportunities that life presents for women as well as the responsibilities and limitations that exist by virtue of being female.
Some may argue that I’ve been co-opted into internalizing the values inherent in a dualistic philosophy of sex and gender and of maintaining the status quo. This may be true but I recognize the moral responsibily that we all need to speak out against discrimination, prejudice and violence. I’m also aware of the contradictions within myself. However, ultimately, I simply want to be a woman and to live my life as such.
To a very large extent, much of the problem associated with presenting as something outside the Male-Female binary is being redressed by improved surgical procedures; not only in terms of our presentation but also in terms of how we function. It’s a safe bet that as advances in medical science continue it’s simply a matter of time before genetically XY people will be able to ovulate, menstruate, give birth and lactate. At which point the line defining male and female along genetic and functional lines may finally become moot.
That still leaves us with those who choose to define themeselves as “other”. I fear their struggle will continue. Perhaps society will enlarge its definitions of sex and gender to afford members of the “Third Sex” their rightful place within society. In the meantime, we should still continue to educate and enlighten a misinformed public and work to correct the negative connotations associated with people who fail to adhere to a polarized female-male duality.
But as for me, I just want to be one of the girls. 
about 1 year ago
One thing that I personally deal with is the internal conflict between wanting to rebel against everything in society, letting myself be and doing what I please, and watching other women and clothing trends and wanting them for myself. As such, it can mean that I end up becoming a female stereotype – to an extent – that I love and hate at the same time. When it comes down to it, I just want to be ME. If being one of the girls is part of me, than so be it, but if I am Amy and happy, and I end up having only a few good friends and end up being different, then so be it.
With regards to “Lu’s”, I percieve this to be two different statuses that they are placing upon us. One is of social status, and one is of genetalia status. Both are dehumanizing to us as transwomen. On the one hand, they can say “what you were physically born with is who you are and makes you a man,” and the other hand they can say “since you were raised up to be a boy, you havent had all the obsticles that we “women-born-women” have had to overcome. One places us in a catagory that no sane person would classify me as nowadays, and the other puts me in a catagory as a “second class woman.” For you see, they are essentially Patriarchal Feminists. Whereas feminists try to bridge the gap between penis and vagina, these women would instead judge and create their own prejudices using genetalia to back it up.
Everyone in our society is expected to train their children according to their genetalia a certain way that society dictates, so they use that basis to dehumanize us and place us in the catagory of second class women. But really, that is just a nice way to hate us and be intentially bigoted; another way to legally create prejudice and intentionally attack a community of women who have been hurt way too much in the past by everyone else.
about 1 year ago
The argument for equal rights in cases regarding transwomen should be argued from a human rights perspective. Transgender / transsexual women who argue publicly for specific transgender rights need to refine their aim.
For example in the case of Lu’s – the transwomen should argue that they are being refused service, which is contrary to the code of ethics the pharmacy is governed by. If presented with any questions about their genetic predisposition, they should simply say, “That is irrelevant, this is a human rights issue.”
The legislative bodies and courts in both Canada and the United States have ample ability to protect human rights in a majority of what are perceived in the media as transgender cases. Transwomen should argue for rights as a human beings residing within the laws of the republic – rather than focusing on the fact that there are differences being made between genetic women and transwomen.
I know that the differences that people make are demeaning and debilitating, but from a legal standpoint and in the long term perception of transgender people – the fight should be made on the same grounds as anyone else – human rights.
We deserve rights as equals and we need to uphold our human rights first. In the public consciousness, the arguments that transgender women should be treated the same as genetic women, create a dichotomy in people’s minds, and a rift between groups, which only serves to fire up transphobic sentiments. The point is: rights for humans should be all the same.
In Kimberly Nixon’s case against Vancouver Rape Relief – the Supreme Court decided against her appeal and she lost. She was fighting for her rights under the BC Human Rights Act as a woman, period. In the end Nixon won a victory for all transwomen, because she fought for human rights – and eventually women’s centers perceptions changed. (I took part in a Trans101 workshop / presentation at the local women’s center a few months ago, and the women were very open and accepting.)
In the case of the Lu’s Pharmacy – the argument should be that the pharmacy is in contradiction of the code of ethics set out by the College of Pharmacists of B.C, which states “… pharmacists must not be prejudiced by “factors such as the patient’s race, religion, ethnic origin, social or marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, or health status”.
These are human rights, and arguing violations are not arguments about transwomen vs. genetic women.
The fight for trans-inclusion in ENDA in the US is another large scale perception issue. I wrote a post about how the ACLU actually fights and wins these cases of transphobia and prejudice in the workplace already.
Link to article: http://tiny.cc/05cgM
I just want to make a point that by continuing to make differences between transwomen and genetic women, the public continues to see just that – differences. People in North America practically have human rights beliefs coded in their dna. Human rights language is nomenclature that humans respond to already – so why reinvent the wheel? We need to be examples of detente and solidarity among people, all people.