A note on the Bilerico controversy.

I remember the profound discomfort I experienced in a college Women’s Studies course that, for the period of several weeks, attempted to instill in me the hypothesis that gender is a social construct. It’s a common assertion found in feminist and queer theories—and in many ways it is an accurate notion; much of how people negotiate their internal senses of gender are dependent in some degree on their culture, and individual cultures surely have distinct and institutional means of restricting what is and is not acceptable for any given gender. That said these arguments inevitably pissed me off in a lot of different ways. First of these was my knowledge that, as a trans woman, my society had no role in constructing my gender identity. This is really a problem of semantics, in many ways, as any assertion that gender—as a whole—is a construct of any one force (be that social, biological, or otherwise) is bound to be an incorrect and dangerously over-simplifies analysis of the real dynamic situation. For instance, there is considerable confusion about including “gender identity” (thought to be one’s self-identification as a member of any given gender, or a self-identification outside of those terms), but given the inclusion of the term “gender” in “gender identity,” you could reasonably argue that gender identity is a function of gender. I know very few trans people who would agree that their gender identities were socially constructed, however, as our society would rather relegate trans identity to the realm of mental disorders—something to be fixed. But moreover, even the notion that things like gender expression or gender roles/gender-based behaviours are purely social constructs is a woefully misbegotten idea. I know of many people who’s gender expression transcends what is generally “acceptable” in a traditional gender scheme, and I’m doubtful that society helped construct these “gender non-conforming” expressions (though, surely, specific cultures do have often unspoken rules governing what constitutes an “acceptable” gender expression—I don’t dispute that). And yes, we see a culture-based gender role programming in a lot of media—advertisements seem to be pretty congested with this very real social construction of gender. However, anyone who has studied the biology of sex and gender knows that there are many biologically based gender behaviours. Are they universally exclusive to a specific sex? No. But they do exist in a dynamic system, and they act as evidence that a social construction theory of gender is hugely limiting and painfully ignorant of biological realities.

I would normally go into a discussion of these biological characteristics, but that is not what this blog is about. See, my problem with the social construction theory that was so frequently flaunted in my women’s studies class has been used repeatedly by queer and feminist theorists (as well as people in my women’s studies class) to argue that gender is therefore in many ways irrelevant—the “logical” extension, as they assert, is that transsexual people are really just queer people that are too uncomfortable in their own unconventional genders, and therefore they “mutilate” themselves to conform to the societal norm. It’s at this point I call bullshit—this is the point that made me resist Queer Theory for so long; I had heard these arguments from the likes of Julie Bindel early in my education of Queer Theory, and I stopped listening. I didn’t need to hear this kind of vitriol—attempts to undermine my identity and erase me. More than offensive, these arguments seemed to ignore a lot of the opposing evidence found so readily in other disciplines. It wasn’t until today, though, that I realized how inexorably linked this view is to the notion that transsexuals are delusional.

I remember when I came out, and several people close to me felt I was delusional, that my gender dysphoria was all in my head—all a mental pathology or a disordered way of thinking, and perverting my body was no way of fixing this problem. I remember hearing that my sister agreed: I must be crazy, because there was no way I could be that good of an actor (she was, coincidentally, trying to become a successful actress at the time). Today, I heard these thoughts echoed in a blog post. Now, I’ve come to expect this from Julie Bindel and her clones (as I’ve said above), but I never expected it from The Bilerico Project. I frequently read posts at TBP because I appreciate the thought-provoking material—that’s where I first heard some really reasonable arguments against hate crime legislation; I still find these ideas push me outside of my comfort zone, but they inspire thought and further investigation on my part, and so I welcome their controversy. Today’s post by Ronald Gold, however, was not delightfully controversial: it was blatantly hateful, transphobic, offensive, and hurtful. He asserted just the kind of arguments I’ve outlined: transsexuals are delusional and engage in self-mutilation to manifest their perversion. To support this argument, Mr. Gold bring up the old issues of deconstructing gender constructs—after all, if social constructs of gender are torn down, there will be no need for transsexuals; they can finally embrace their nonconforming genders in a supportive environment.
The problem with Mr. Gold’s and other’s arguments is that even though they want this to be a reflection of reality, it isn’t. Even Julie Bindel admits her bias (though I don’t think she’d call it such) that, “Feminists want to rid the world of gender rules and regulations, so how is it possible to support a theory which has at its centre the notion that there is something essential and biological about the way boys and girls behave?” It’s almost as good as an admission that they recognize that their proposed theories ignore important facets of reality, but to recognize that reality might undermine their arguments, and therefore they essentially throw out the data they don’t like. (And I’m not saying everything is biology. Far from it). There’s a dynamic mixture between culture, environment, and biology—people like Bindel and Gold, however, seem to be wilfully ignorant of this reality in preference of a misguided assumption that because some of gender may have biological bases, that somehow excuses institutional oppression and privilege systems. Likewise, just because individuals may not have gender expressions that conform to societal standards, that does not preclude them from also feeling out of place in their body. There is a distinct separation between one’s gender expression/behaviour and one’s sense of their sex (and therefore their congruence or incongruence within their own sexed bodies). I effect, my expression as a tomboy or my assertive, ambitious nature has nothing to do with my need to be realized as female. I could also be a complete girly girl—my need to have a sense of security in a female body is a separate issue. People like Bindel and Gold seem to be incapable of understanding these points, favouring more stereotypical assumptions of what motivates transsexuals.
As Albert Camus put it in The Plague, “The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if the lack understanding.” A truly offensive turn of events in this fiasco at Bilerico was Bil Browning’s defense of Gold’s article as having good intentions, even if it was phrased in an offensive way. I’m sorry, Bil, but you don’t have a fraction of the wisdom of my friend, Albert, and frankly I’m in complete agreement with Camus on this one. What we’re seeing in Uganda right now is the product of good intentions. The problem with the Bilerico post is that despite possible good intentions and despite a possible attempt to support the freedom of gender expression and behaviour, this post erased the identities of transsexuals, assumed a greater understanding of what motivates others, and went on to describe transsexuals as delusional and their transitions as mutilation. This said to a population already told they are mentally defective and perverse. This said to a group whose ability to gain social justice is severely retarded by a persistent categorization as a mental disorder, despite abundant evidence that transsexuality is not a mental health issue. Needless to say, this post opened up a lot of old wounds for people. And now, despite Bil Browning’s apology, Bilerico is not a safe place for trans people. It hurts to see people you thought to be allies—to find something you once so enjoyed—suddenly pander in the trade of hateful rhetoric. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to look at this blog the same way again.