Reply to comment

I wanted to post on the questions that Alex wanted us to consider before and after reading the suggested papers. I was interested to see if there is some degree of fluctation in my thought processes after having an "authoritative" perspective on the theories on transgender studies.

  Below is my attempt to answer Alex's questions with the fine art of cyclical reasoning:

1 & 2) I think there is such an emphasis on reducing the trans individual to anatomical validity because identifable body parts help people to distinguish between a man and a woman in the standard binary gendered-society in which we live. I think there is a sense of convenience in narrowing the trans individual down to male or female. I mean, the term "trans" is an umbrella term that reflects a kaledioscope of individuals: cross dressers, masculine-looking women, feminine- looking men, et cetera. I recognize the plight of a transindividual to chose between two distinct options. Of course, then, we can intutively ask: why categorize at all? Why reduce people at all? Why reduce to only two genders instead of three genders or four genders?

I think there is an answer that underlies in my question; there cannot be a way to differienate how many genders societal standards should consider? I  do have to advocate for some type of regulation or some degree of rigidity (for the lack of a better wording). I cannot imagine a society in which every individual was a trans-individual or every individual  strugged to identify with one side of the preexisting manifold spectrum because we have always grouped; we have always categorized; and we have always simplified complexity for ourselves. For example, we make acronyms for longer words or terms. Why? to simplify. In the same way, I think a trans individual is pressured by others or feel pressure in certain circumstances to chose between male/female. There is a sense of pressure on the trans-individual so that we can simplify the all-encompassing term.

Then, that also makes me wonder:  isn't simplifying complexity counterintuitve? In other words, does it not defeat the purpose of having a characteristic of  complexity, of intricacy if we ultimately decide to make it simpler and less complicated?

Hm. I didn't quite reach to a invariable solution to your questions, Alex. But, then again,does any question have a solidified, unvariable answer?

Questions for Alex:

1) I am sure that Bryn Mawr's welcoming environ has helped your decision to change in more ways than one. However, I would be interested in knowing how Bryn Mawr's environment hindered you? To use your words, was it ever "dangerous" for you?

2) I am a little confused by what you mean by "passing." Does this mean "passing" as a male or female? Additionally, when you ask why passing is "...so important," who are you referring to? the trans-individual? or society? I think if you answered this one of your questions it would help me to understand what you are trying to ask.