|
Skirt Chasers
Why the Media Depicts the Trans Revolution in Lipstick
and Heels
by Julia Serano
--A version of this piece (slightly edited for length) first appeared in
Bitch Magazine, issue 26, Fall 2005--
As a transsexual woman, I am often confronted by people who insist that
I am not, nor can I ever be, a real woman. One of the more
common lines of reasoning goes something like this: Theres more
to being a woman than simply putting on a dress. I couldnt agree
more. Thats why its so frustrating that people often seem
confused because, although I have transitioned to female and live as a
woman, I rarely wear makeup or dress in a particularly feminine manner.
Despite the reality that there are as many types of trans women as there
are women in general, most people believe that trans women are all on
a quest to make ourselves as pretty, pink, and passive as possible. While
there are certainly some trans women who buy into mainstream dogma about
beauty and femininity, others are outspoken feminists and activists fighting
against all gender stereotypes. But youd never know it from the
popular media, which tends to assume that all transsexuals are male-to-female,
and that all trans women want to achieve stereotypical femininity.
Trans peoplewho transition from male to female or female to male
and often live completely unnoticed as the sex opposite to
that which they were bornhave the potential to transform the gender
class system as we know it. Our existence challenges the conventional
wisdom that the differences between women and men are primarily the product
of biology. Trans people can wreak havoc on such taken-for-granted concepts
as feminine and masculine, homosexual and hetero-sexual, because these
words are rendered virtually meaningless when a persons biological
sex and lived sex are not the same. But because we are a threat to the
categories that enable male and heterosexual privilege, the images and
experiences of trans people are presented in the media in a way that reaffirms,
rather than challenges, gender stereotypes.
THE TWO CHOICES
Media depictions of trans women, whether they take the form of fictional
characters or actual people, usually fall under one of two main archetypes:
the deceptive transsexual or the pathetic transsexual.
While characters of both models have an interest in achieving an ultrafeminine
appearance, they differ in their abilities to pull it off. Because the
deceivers successfully pass as women, they generally act as
unexpected plot twists, or play the role of sexual predators who fool
innocent straight guys into falling for men.
Perhaps the most famous example of a deceiver is the character
Dil in the 1992 movie The Crying Game. The film became a pop culture phenomenon
primarily because most moviegoers were unaware that Dil was trans until
about halfway through the movie. The revelation comes during a love scene
between her and Fergus, the male protagonist who has been courting her.
When Dil disrobes, the audience, along with Fergus, learns for the first
time that Dil is physically male. When I saw the film, most of the men
in the theater groaned at this revelation. Onscreen, Fergus has a similarly
intense reaction: He slaps Dil and runs off to the bathroom to vomit.
The 1994 Jim Carrey vehicle Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, features a deceptive
transsexual as a villain. Police lieutenant Lois Einhorn (played by Sean
Young) is secretly Ray Finkle, an exMiami Dolphins kicker who has
stolen the teams mascot as part of a scheme to get back at Dolphins
quarterback Dan Marino. The bizarre plot ends when Ventura strips Einhorn
down to her underwear in front of about 20 police officers and announces,
She is suffering from the worst case of hemorrhoids I have ever
seen. He then turns her around so that we can see her penis and
testicles tucked behind her legs. All of the police officers proceed to
spit up as The Crying Game theme song plays in the background.
Even though deceivers successfully pass as women, and are
often played by female actors (with the notable exception of Jaye Davidson
as Dil), these characters are never intended to challenge our assumptions
about gender itself. On the contrary, they are positioned as fake
women, and their secret trans status is revealed in a dramatic moment
of truth. At the moment of exposure, the deceivers
appearance (her femaleness) is reduced to mere illusion, and her secret
(her maleness) becomes the real identity.
In a tactic that emphasizes their true maleness, deceivers
are most often used as pawns to provoke male homophobia in other characters,
as well as in the audience itself. This phenomenon is especially evident
in TV talk shows like Jerry Springer, which regularly runs episodes with
titles like My Girlfriends a Guy and Im
Really a Man! that feature trans women coming out to their straight
boyfriends. On a recent British TV reality show called There's Something
About Miriam, six heterosexual men court an attractive woman who, unbeknownst
to them, is transgendered. The broadcast of the show was delayed for several
months because the men threatened to sue the shows producers, alleging
that they had been the victims of defamation, personal injury, and conspiracy
to commit sexual assault. The affair was eventually settled out of court,
with each man coming away with a reported $100,000.
In the 1970 film adaptation of Gore Vidals novel Myra Breckinridge,
the protagonist is a trans woman who heads out to Hollywood in order to
take revenge on traditional manhood and to realign the sexes.
This apparently involves raping an ex-football player with a strap-on
dildo, which she does at one point during the movie. The recurring theme
of deceptive trans women retaliating against men, often by
seducing them, seems to be an unconscious acknowledgment that both male
and heterosexual privileges are threatened by transsexuals.
In contrast to the deceivers, who wield their feminine wiles
with success, the pathetic transsexual characters arent
deluding anyone. Despite her masculine mannerisms and five oclock
shadow, the pathetic transsexual will inevitably insist that
she is a woman trapped inside a mans body. The intense contradiction
between the pathetic characters gender identity and
her physical appearance is often played for laughsas in the transition
of musician Mark Shubb (played as a bearded baritone by Harry Shearer)
at the conclusion of 2003s A Mighty Wind.
Unlike the deceivers, whose ability to pass is a serious threat
to our ideas about gender and sexuality, pathetic transsexualswho
barely resemble women at allare generally considered harmless. Perhaps
for this reason, some of the most endearing pop culture-portrayals of
trans women fall into the pathetic category: John Lithgows
Oscar-nominated portrayal of exfootball -player Roberta Muldoon
in 1982s The World According to Garp, and Terence Stamps role
as the aging showgirl Bernadette in 1994s The Adventures of Priscilla,
Queen of the Desert. More recently, the 1998 indie film The Adventures
of Sebastian Cole begins with its eponymous teenage protagonist learning
that his step-dad Hank, who looks and acts like a roadie for a 70s
rock band, is about to become Henrietta. A sympathetic character and the
only stable person in Sebastians life, Henrietta spends most of
the movie wearing floral-print nightgowns and bare-shouldered tops with
tons of jewelry and makeup. Yet despite her extremely femme manner of
dress, she continues to exhibit only stereotypical male behaviors, overtly
ogling a waitress and punching out a guy who calls her a faggot (after
which she laments, I broke a nail).
While a character like Henrietta, who exhibits a combination of extreme
masculinity and femininity, has the potential to confront our assumptions
about gender, it is fairly obvious that the filmmakers were not trying
to do so. On the contrary, Henriettas masculine voice and mannerisms
are meant to demonstrate that, despite her desire to be female, she cannot
change the fact that she is really and truly a man. As with Garps
Roberta and Priscillas Bernadette, the audience is encouraged to
respect Henrietta as a person, but not as a woman. While we are supposed
to admire their couragewhich presumably comes from the difficulty
of living as women who do not appear very femalewe are not meant
to identify with them or to be sexually attracted to them, as we are to
deceivers like Dil.
Interestingly, while the obvious outward masculinity of pathetic
transsexual characters is always played up, so too is their lack of male
genitalia (or their desire to part with them). In fact, some of the most
memorable lines in these movies occur when the pathetic transsexual
character makes light of her own castration. At one point during Priscilla,
Bernadette remarks that her parents never spoke to her again, after
[she] had the chop. In Garp, when a man is injured while receiving
a blow job during a car accident, Roberta delivers the one-liner, I
had mine removed surgically under general anesthesia, but to have it bitten
off in a Buick... In the 1994 fictionalized biography Ed Wood, Bill
Murray plays another pathetic transsexual, Bunny Breckinridge.
After seeing Woods film Glen or Glenda, Bunny is inspired to go
to Mexico to have a sex change herself, announcing to Wood,
Your movie made me realize I've got to take action. Goodbye, penis!
The pathetic transsexuals lighthearted comments about
having her penis lopped off come in stark contrast to the deceiver,
who is generally found out by someone else in an embarrassing, often violent
way. A Freudian might suggest that the deceptive transsexuals
dangerous nature is symbolized by the presence of a hidden penis, while
the pathetic transsexuals harmlessness is due to a lack
thereof. A less phallic interpretation is that the very act of passing
makes any trans woman who can do so into a deceiver. Ultimately,
both deceptive and pathetic transsexual characters
are designed to validate the popular assumption that trans women are truly
men. Pathetic transsexuals may want to be female, but their
masculine appearance and mannerisms always gives them away. And while
the deceiver is initially perceived to be a real
female, she is eventually revealed to be a wolf in sheeps clothingan
illusion that is the product of lies and modern medical technologyand
she is usually is punished accordingly.
FEMME FASCINATION
In virtually all depictions of trans women, whether real or fictional,
deceptive or pathetic, the underlying assumption
is that the trans woman wants to achieve a stereotypically feminine appearance
and gender role. The possibility that trans women are even capable of
making a distinction between identifying as female and wanting to cultivate
a hyperfeminine image is never raised. In fact, the media often dwells
on the specifics of the feminization process, showing trans women in the
act of putting on their feminine exteriors. Its telling
that TV, film, and news producers tend not to be satisfied with merely
showing trans women wearing feminine clothes and makeup. Rather, it is
their intent to capture trans women in the act of putting on lipstick,
dresses, and high heels, thereby making it clear to the audience that
the trans womans femaleness is an artificial mask or costume.
While mass-media images of biological males feminizing themselves
have the subversive potential to highlight ways in which conventionally
defined femininity is artificial (a point feminists make all the time),
the images rarely function this way. Trans women are both asked to prove
their femaleness through superficial means, and denied the status of real
women because of the artifice involved. After all, masculinity is generally
defined by how a man behaves, while femininity is judged by how a woman
presents herself.
Thus, the media is able to depict trans women donning feminine attire
and accessories without ever allowing them to achieve true
femininity or femaleness. Further, by focusing on the most feminine of
artifices, the media encourages the audience to see trans women as living
out a sexual fetish. But sexualizing their motives for transitioning not
only belittles trans womens female identities but encourages the
objectification of women as a whole.
Two examples from 2003 are the HBO movie Normal and a two-part Oprah special
on transsexual women and their wives. While both of these offerings were
pre-sented as in-depth, serious, and respectful attempts to tell the stories
of trans womenand they deserve some credit for depicting trans women
as human beings rather than two-dimensional laughingstocksboth were
guilty of pandering to the audiences fascination with the surface
trappings that accompany the feminization of men.
Normal tells the story of a pathetic-type trans woman named Roy. (Despite
identifying as female, the characters name remains male in the credits.)
The film begins as Roy comes out to her family as transgendered, and goes
on to detail many of the specifics of her transition and how her wife,
children, and community at large deal with the change. Normal has a fetishistic
take on womens apparel and accessories from the opening scene, in
which we see bras and underpants hanging from a backyard clothesline.
Thus, from the begin-ning the movie sexualizes the very concept of female
identity, and reduces all women (trans or otherwise) to mere feminine
artifacts. After Roy makes the decision to transition, we see her bumble
her way through her first embarrassing attempts at shaving her armpits
and trying on womens clothing, and are shown two separate incidents
where she wears perfume and earrings to her blue-collar workplace only
to be ridiculed by her macho coworkers. At virtually every turn, the producers
of Normal transform Roys transition into a hapless pursuit of feminine
objects and artifice.
The Oprah special was a little more promising, primarily because it involved
actual trans women. The entire first episode featured a one-on-one interview
with Jennifer Finney Boylan, author of the recent autobiography Shes
Not There: A Life in Two Genders. While Winfreys conversation with
Boylan was respectful and serious, the show nonetheless opened with predictable
scenes of women putting on eye makeup, lipstick, and shoes, and the interview
itself was interspersed with before pictures of Boylan, as
if to constantly remind us that shes really a man underneath it
all. These visuals undermined Boylans female identity while simultaneously
emphasizing her pursuit of a feminine appearance, and the effect was an
implication that trans women never really become femalerather, they
merely mimic feminine dress and mannerisms.
What always goes unseen are the great lengths to which producers will
go to depict lurid and superficial scenes in which trans women get all
dolled up in pretty clothes and cosmetics. Shawna Virago, a San Francisco
trans activist, musician, and codirector of the TrannyFest film festival,
has experienced several such incidents with local news producers. For
instance, when Virago was organizing a forum to facilitate communication
between police and the trans community, a newspaper reporter approached
her and other transgender activists for an article. However, the paper
was interested not in their politics but in their transitions: They
wanted each of us to include before and after
pictures. This pissed me off, and I tried to explain to the writer that
the before-and-after stuff had nothing to do with police abuse and other
issues, like trans women and HIV, but he didnt get it. So I was
cut from the piece. A few years later, someone from another paper
contacted Virago and asked to photograph her getting ready
to go out: I told him I didnt think having a picture of me
rolling out of bed and hustling to catch [the bus] would make for a compelling
photo. He said, You know, getting pretty, putting on makeup.
I refused, but they did get a trans woman who complied, and there she
was, putting on mascara and lipstick and a pretty dress, none of which
had anything to do with the article, which was purportedly about political
and social challenges the trans community faced.
Requests like these from non-trans news interviewers and film documentarians
are common. I had a similar experience back in 2001, just before I began
taking hormones. A friend arranged for me to meet with someone who was
doing a film about the transgender movement. The filmmaker was noticeably
disappointed when I showed up looking like a normal guy, wearing a t-shirt,
jeans, and sneakers. She eventually asked me if I would mind putting on
lipstick while she filmed me. I told her that wearing lipstick had nothing
to do with the fact that I was transgendered or that I identified as female.
She shot a small amount of footage anyway (sans lipstick) and said she
would get in touch with me if she decided to use any of it. I never heard
back from her.
When audiences watch scenes of trans women putting on skirts and makeup,
they are not necessarily seeing a reflection of the values of those trans
women; they are witnessing the TV, film, and news producers obsession
with all objects commonly associated with female sexuality. In other words,
the medias and audiences fascination with the feminization
of trans women is a by-product of their sexualization of all women.
THE MEDIAS TRANS GENDER GAP
There is most certainly a connection between the differing values given
to women and men in our culture and the medias fascination with
depicting trans women rather than trans men, who were born female but
identify as male. Although the number of people transitioning in each
direction is relatively equal these days, media coverage would have us
believe there is a huge disparity in the populations of trans men and
women.
Jamison Green, a trans man who authored a 1994 report that led to the
city of San Franciscos decision to extend its civil rights protections
to include gender identity, once said this about the media coverage of
that event: Several times at the courthouse, when the press was
doing interviews, I stood by and listened as reporters inquired who wrote
the report, and when I was pointed out to them as the author I could see
them looking right through me, looking past me to find the man in a dress
who must have written the report and whom they would want to interview.
More than once a reporter asked me incredulously, You wrote the
report? They assumed that because of my normal appearance
that I wouldnt be newsworthy.
Indeed, the media tends not to noticeor to outright ignoretrans
men because they are unable to sensationalize them the way they do trans
women without bringing masculinity itself into question. And in a world
where modern psychology was founded upon the teaching that all young girls
suffer from penis envy, most people think striving for masculinity seems
like a perfectly reasonable goal. Author and sex educator Pat Califia,
who is himself a trans man, addresses this in his 1997 book Sex Changes:
The Politics of Transgenderism: It seems the world is still more
titillated by a man who wants to become a woman than it is
by a woman who wants to become a man. The first is scandalous,
the latter is taken for granted. This reflects the very different levels
of privilege men and women have in our society. Of course women want to
be men, the general attitude seems to be, and of course they cant.
And thats that.
Once we recognize how media coverage of transsexuals is informed by the
different values our society assigns to femaleness and maleness, it becomes
obvious that virtually all attempts to sensationalize and deride trans
women are built on a foundation of unspoken misogyny. Since most people
cannot fathom why someone would give up male privilege and power in order
to become a relatively disempowered female, they assume that trans women
transition primarily as a way of obtaining the one type of power that
women are perceived to have in our society: the ability to express femininity
and to attract men.
This is why trans women like myself, who rarely dress in a stereotypically
feminine manner and/or who are not attracted to men, are such an enigma
to many people. By assuming that my desire to be female is merely some
sort of femininity fetish or sexual perversion, they are essentially making
the case that women have no worth beyond of their ability to be sexualized.
FEMINIST CONTROVERSIES
There are numerous parallels between the way trans women are depicted
in the media and the way that they have been portrayed by some feminist
theorists. While many feministsespecially younger ones who came
of age in the 1980s and 1990srecognize that trans women can be allies
in the fight to eliminate gender stereotypes, other feministsparticularly
those who embrace a gender essentialismbelieve that trans women
foster sexism by mimicking patriarchal attitudes about femininity, or
that we objectify women by trying to possess female bodies of our own.
Many of these latter ideas stem from Janice Raymonds 1979 book The
Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-male, which is perhaps the most
influential feminist writing on transsexuals. Like the media, Raymond
virtually ignores trans men, dismissing them as tokens, and
instead focuses almost exclusively on trans women, insisting that they
transition in order to achieve stereotypical femininity. She even argues
that, most transsexuals conform more to the feminine role than even
the most feminine of natural-born women. This fact does not surprise
Raymond, since she believes that femininity itself an artificial by-product
of a patriarchal society. So despite the fact that trans women may attain
femininity, Raymond does not believe that they become real
women (to emphasize this, she refers to trans women as male-to-constructed-females
and addresses them with masculine pronouns throughout the book).
Unlike the media, Raymond does acknowledge the existence of trans women
who are not stereotypically feminine, albeit reluctantly. She writes,
I have been very hesitant about devoting a chapter of this book
to what I call the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist.
Because she believes that lesbian-feminists represent a small percentage
of transsexuals (a claim that she never verifies), she seems inclined
not to discuss their existence at all except for the recent debate
and divisiveness [the subject] produced within feminist circles.
Being that Raymond believes that femininity undermines womens true
worth, you might think that she would be open to trans women who denounce
femininity and patriarchal gender stereotypes. However, this is not the
case. Instead, she argues, as the male-to-constructed-female transsexual
exhibits the attempt to possess women in a bodily sense while acting out
the images into which men have molded women, the male-to-constructed-female
who claims to be a lesbian feminist attempts to possess women at a deeper
level. Throughout the rest of the chapter, she discusses how lesbian-feminist
trans women use deception in order to penetrate
womens spaces and minds. She says, although the transsexually
constructed lesbian-feminist does not exhibit a feminine identity and
role, he [sic] does exhibit stereotypical masculine behavior. This
essentially puts trans women in a double bind, where if they act feminine
they are perceived as being a parody, but if they act masculine it is
seen as a sign of their true male identity. This damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-dont
tactic is reminiscent of the pop cultural deceptive/pathetic
transsexual archetypes.
While much of The Transsexual Empire is clearly over the top (the premise
of the book is that biological woman is in the process of being
made obsolete by bio-medicine), many of Raymonds arguments
are echoed in contemporary attempts to justify the exclusion of trans
women from womens organizations and spaces. In fact, the worlds
largest annual women-only event, the Michigan Womyns Music Festival
(MWMF), still enforces a womyn-born-womyn-only policy that
is specifically designed to prevent trans women from attending. (In the
interest of full disclosure, in 2004, I was one of the organizers for
Camp Trans, the annual protest of MWMFs policy banning trans women.)
Many of the excuses used to rationalize trans womens exclusion are
not designed to protect the values of women-only space, but rather to
reinforce the idea that trans women are real men and fake
women. For example, one of the most cited reasons why trans women are
not allowed in the festival is that we are born with, and many of us still
have still have, penises (many trans women either cannot afford or chose
not to have sex-reassignment surgery). It is argued that our penises are
dangerous because they are a symbol of male oppression and have the potential
to trigger abuse survivors. So penises are banned from the festival, right?
Well, not quite: The festival does allow women to purchase and use dildos,
strap-ons, and packing devices, many of which closely resemble penises.
Another reason frequently given for the exclusion of trans women from
MWMF is that we supposedly would bring male energy into the
festival. While this seems to imply that expressions of masculinity are
not allowed, nothing could be further from the truth. MWMF allows drag
king performers, who dress and act male, and the festival welcomes female-bodied
folks like Animal (from the musical duo Bitch and Animal) who identify
as transgender and often describe themselves with male pronouns. Presumably,
MWMF does this because they believe that no person who is born female
is capable of exhibiting authentic masculinity or male energy.
Not only is this an insult to trans men, but it also implies that male
energy can be measured in some way independent of whether the person who
is expressing it appears female or male. This is clearly not the case.
Even though I am a trans woman, I have never been accused of expressing
male energy, because people perceive me to be a woman. When I do act in
a masculine way, people describe me as being a tomboy or butch,
and if I get aggressive or argumentative, people call me a bitch. My behaviors
are still the same; it is only the context of my body (whether people
see me as female or male) that has changed.
This is the inevitable problem with all attempts to portray trans women
as fake females: They require one to give different names,
meanings, and values to the same behaviors depending on whether the person
in question was born with a female or male body (or whether they are perceived
to be a woman or a man). In other words, they require one to be sexist.
When people insist that there are essential differences (instead of constructed
ones) between women and men, they further a line of reasoning that ultimately
refutes feminist ideals rather than supporting them.
From my own experience having transitioned from one sex to the other,
I have found that women and men are not separated by an insurmountable
chasm as many people seem to believe. In actuality, most of us are only
a hormone prescription away from being perceived as the opposite sex.
Personally, I welcome this idea as a testament to just how little difference
there really is between women and men. To believe that a woman is a woman
because of her sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or socialization
denies the reality that every single day we classify each person we see
as either female or male based on a small number of visual cues and a
ton of assumption. The one thing that women share is that we are all perceived
as women and treated accordingly. As a feminist, I look forward to a time
when we finally move beyond the red herring of biology, and recognize
that the only truly important differences that exist between women and
men are the different meanings that we place onto one anothers bodies.
|