(no subject)

[adrienmundi]

I give myself points for endurance; I managed to make it all the way through Discovery Health Channel's "Changing Sexes: Male to Female", though there were several moments in which the urge to scan on were strong ( 1. Some smug psychologist saying that not every "man" with gender issues should transition "because some men don't make very good women"; 2. crappy and inconsistent wrting: at one point, we're told "approximately 30,000 men worldwide have gender reassignment surgery", only to hear later that "gender identity disorder affects approximately 30,000 men worldwide". 3. bad science: despite the fact that there are very serious methodological and statistical (specifically, sample size) issues surrounding the idea of the corpus colloseum (sp?) being shaped differently in men and women, much less the similarities between mtf transsexuals and women, it's presented unquestioned, as fact). And, of course, they don't focus nearly the amount of time on a relatively young, non-operative person as they do on the one who has genital surgery.

But, I made it through, probably because I am growing worried (as I do from time to time) that I feel the urge to flee, figuratively, shows like this isn't from disgust, but from perhaps internalization and X-phobia (not quite sure what to call the X). It amkes me uncomfortable seeing on tv people get coached for deportment, speech, usw, and yet there are times I worry about similar issues (though, strangely enough, I think I can say I have less problems than 2/3 of those shown; it's probably a statistical sample size issue more than anything else). It all dovetails nicely into the issues (OK, neuroses) about which I was last trying to write, namely meaning overwhelming objects of desire. But, I don't have the proper combination of endurance, bravery, and/or honesty at the moment to get further into that right now.

Comments

[relativeaffect.livejournal.com]

Oh, my gosh... I saw that in group once... just terrible!

[adrienmundi]

What, the whole thing, or parts of what pissed me off?

[relativeaffect.livejournal.com]

The whole thing. I seem to recall that most of the information presentation was fluffy, stereotypical, and outdated.

[adrienmundi]

And yet, it was made in 2002. Go figure.

How are you doing, by the way?

[relativeaffect.livejournal.com]

I'm doing alright. I'm having trouble coping with not having a functional vehicle.

[subjective.livejournal.com]

i saw that documentary, & the accompanying ftm one. i thought the ftm one was much better. though in both of them, i felt frustrated by the fixation on medical transition. i suppose the whole "health channel" thing might help explain that focus, but i also think that's what they perceive will bring in more viewers.

i can relate to the second paragraph-- a few years ago i would have to stop reading books/articles about gender variance because i started to feel panicky in the middle of them.

[adrienmundi]

few years ago i would have to stop reading books/articles about gender variance because i started to feel panicky in the middle of them.

It's not the "Oh, no, run away!" impulse I have, but the impulse to shut the book/change the channel seems to be more from that which is presented isn't in line with my current ideology/schema/politics. I suspect the fear isn't so much a fear of being trans, as it is a fear of being conventional trans, if that makes sense.

[fourounces.livejournal.com]

I sometimes feel the same way, as when brain sex (Men from Mars, Women from Venus garbage) ideology seems to fit my personal data: easily recognizing voices, poor spatial sense, etc. It used to piss me off a lot more that it does now, however, as I realize it is a limited truth.

There are many truths here, not just one.

What angers me now about it is in how it serves an ideological function in reinforcing patriarchy by naturalizing the behavioral differences in men and women. It also reifies the categories themselves. (And gay men, too, by the way, which is why there is so much research on the gay hypothalamus or whatever. They must be distinguished from "real men.") Any time biology is invoked to explain and legitimize complex human behaviors, the argument probably serves an ideological function. (E.g., that capitalism reflects some kind of Darwinian sorting.) Power is productive (read your Foucault). Might makes right. But I no longer take it personally, as my transgender identity is "trans" in the sense of beyond gender rather than across from man to woman.

[adrienmundi]

Maybe I'm so reflexively antiauthoritarian as to skew my own results, but I've never had resonance with brain sex, etc., stuff (though heaven knows I tried; I still remember the acute disappointment I felt when I was dead even split on SATs). I very much don't want to reinforce, or give the appearance of reinforcing, a system that I hate, and yet I feel guilty for not wanting to always be a visible transgressor, and thus a lightning rod for antinonconformity anger and rebuke.

I used to use the very snotty and elitist sounding 'metagender', but most people didn't seem to respond to the self-deprecating humor and irony I intended by it.

[fourounces.livejournal.com]

Well, consider: dead-even on SATs probably indicates higher verbal than math potential, as average scores are much higher on math than verbal, especially when you probably took them, which was before the SATs were "recentered" in the late 90's. (Math was raised across the board by about 50 points and verbal almost 100 when ETS recentered. They don't make 'em like they used to!!) Anyway, I was dead-even, too.

Someone might argue quite a while to prove to you that you have a "female brain" and so are legitimately transgender, or do not, and so are just a deluded "male brain." That's the (productive) power game. The brain rather than the body is the new index, something Foucault's focus on bodies misses.

[adrienmundi]

I'd say the body/brain is a hell of a one-two punch: the former quite sufficient for the majority, and the latter a much harder hitting follow up for those who don't know to stay down or retreat after the first. Nowhere is there room for choice, because one can choose, then suddenly it raises the question of what everyone else has chosen, and is therefore responsible for those choices and the consequences therein.

I think Foucault didn't have the "benefit" of the mad scramble of biodeterminists and social dogmatists in the late 20th century, but it seems a smallish extrapolation to apply the general idea of body politics to brain politics (after all, the brain can be changed as well, from the oh so subtle artistry of the jackhammer approach of most prescription drugs to the effects of social changes over time).

(insane in the brain!)

[fourounces.livejournal.com]

I like the existential sentiment here; however, for me freedom is not total choice-thereofore-responsibility but acceptance (-therefore...). The keys are courage and compassion, and I am still struggling for both.

Yep, the brain is it for today, but it seems to me anyway that most social theorists haven't quite realized (yet) that the site of power has changed. Insane in the membrane! :)

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

I hope you can read all the love and warmth that this statement is meant to convey ... *You* will never, ever be conventional anything.

[adrienmundi]

That's very sweet of you to say; thank you. Too bad I don't believe it myself enough to not worry about it.

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

1. Yay! I was hoping you'd be online soon.

2. I know you don't believe it enough, but 'mine is the second most important opinion', so I thought it should be said.

*smile*