writer, performer and activist Julia Serano's blog! most posts will focus on gender & sexuality; trans, queer & feminist politics; music & performance; and other stuff that interests or concerns me. find out more about my various creative endeavors at juliaserano.com
For starters, my apologies about the eponymous blog-post
title—I simply wanted this piece to be readily “findable” for people who do web
searches using both our names.
Over the years, I have read and heard numerous reactions to my
first two books—Whipping Girl and Excluded—that presume that I have
negative or antagonistic views of gender theorist Judith Butler. This is
not actually the case. Others have presumed that some of my work is a “misreading”
of her theories, when in actuality I have never directly critiqued Butler’s
work (only misinterpretations of her work). So to set the record straight, I
have penned this blog-post, which will admittedly only be of interest to a
small subset of readers.
So a new academic year has begun, and as always, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to speak/perform at various colleges & universities this year!
If you are affiliated with a college - especially if you belong to a trans, LGBTQIA+, women's and/or feminist-related organization - please consider bringing me out to your campus. And even if you aren't associated with a college yourself, feel free to forward this onto people that you know who are students or staff elsewhere.
For those interested parties, I have a recently updated "booking" webpage (http://www.juliaserano.com/booking.html) containing pertinent information, including short descriptions of some of my most frequently requested talks.
Last year, in the second half of my piece A Personal History of the “T-word” (and some more general reflections on language and activism), I described what I call the activist language merry-go-round.
Here’s how it works: Because trans people are highly stigmatized and face undue
scrutiny in our culture, all of the language associated with us will face
similar stigma and scrutiny. At some point, every single trans-related term
will be called out as “problematic” for some reason or another—e.g., its
origin, history, aesthetic quality (or lack thereof), literal meaning,
alternate definitions, potential misinterpretations or connotations, or
occasional exclusionary or defamatory usage. And supposedly more liberatory or
inclusive alternative terms will gain favor. But over time, these new terms will
eventually be challenged too. Because the crux of the problem is not the words
themselves, but rather the negative or narrow views of trans people that ultimately
influence how these words are viewed and used by others.
So rather than constantly trying to eliminate certain words and
inventing new replacement terms, I argue that we would be best off challenging
the narrow or negative views of trans people that sometimes latch themselves
onto trans terminology. That is a brief synopsis of the activist language
merry-go-round; I encourage you to read the linked-to essay above, as I make my
case far more thoughtfully and thoroughly there than I have in these two
paragraphs.
The reason why I am bringing this up now is because I want
to share some of my personal thoughts regarding the terms trans* and
transgenderism, both of which have come under activist-language-merry-go-round
scrutiny lately.
Those of you who have read my book Excluded (particularly the last chapter, "Balancing Acts") know that I have long been concerned with the ways in which activist language and strategies are sometimes employed in ways that are counterproductive, or which have the effect of silencing other disenfranchised individuals. My goal in doing this is to foster more robust, thoughtful, and inclusive conversations and communities.
However, in the last year, there has been a rash of mainstream articles about this phenomenon, often framing it under the rubric of "political correctness." For the most part, these are one-sided short-sighted attempts to condemn "language policing" without giving any thought to how we might balance that with the concerns of marginalized groups.
So I have just written a response to one of these recent articles - it's called That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore (and it’s not because of “political correctness”). If you click the link (and please do!), you will notice that I have posted it to Medium. I did so because I am hoping that it gets some attention outside of the "activist bubble" - which it will, provided enough people "recommend" and "share" it.
So I encourage you to read it! And if you like it, please "recommend" and "share" it! Thanks! -j.
I highly encourage readers to excerpt, cross-post, and/or share this post, especially with individuals; science, gender & sexuality blogs; and news outlets who claim or infer that autogynephilia theory is still scientifically valid. Because it's not. Period.
A little over a week ago, James Cantor (a sexologist who works at CAMH) published the following provocative tweet:
Autogynephile-deniers are the anti-vaxxer's of sexology.
I first started using cisgender and cissexual almost ten years ago, while I was working on Whipping Girl. At the time, few people (even within trans communities) were aware of these words, so it has been amazing to see them garner acceptance over time, even within certain mainstream settings.
Both posts are significantly longer than a dictionary entry. But sometimes words are more complicated than a straightforward definition would have you believe.
Last weekend, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Elinor Burkett called "What Makes a Woman?" If the title looks eerily familiar, it's probably because of Michelle Goldberg's "What Is a Woman?" article that appeared in The New Yorker last year. And they have more than their titles in common: They both perpetuate an absolutely *false* "feminists vs transgender activists" binary, and portray trans people (and especially trans women) as undermining feminism.
I've had many people ask me to write a response to it, but I've been too busy. Besides, I basically debunked each and every one of the assumptions Burkett makes in my book Whipping Girl. If you don't have time to read the book, here is a short piece I wrote for Ms. Magazine debunking the trans-activism-vs-feminism binary.
But lo and behold, today I will get to respond to Burkett's piece on HuffPost Live at 4pm EST! I am told that my interview will likely be in the 4:05-4:15 range - here is the link for the show if you want to watch: http://huff.lv/1Gkjp54.
I will try to post a permanent link for the segment after the show...
In 2010, two review articles appeared in the peer-review literature: My article The Case Against Autogynephilia was published in The International Journal of Transgenderism, and Charles Moser's article Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique appeared in the Journal of Homosexuality. Both of our papers presented numerous lines of evidence
that disprove the main underpinnings of autogynephilia theory, namely, the
assertions that trans female/feminine-spectrum people can be readily divided
into two clear-cut categories based upon sexual orientation and the presence or
absence of “autogynephilia,” and that “autogynephilia” is the primary
underlying cause of gender dysphoria and desire to transition in trans women
who experience it. (Note: subsequent analyses by Talia Bettcher and Jaimie Veale have further demonstrated that autogynephilia theory is incorrect.)
Where our papers differ is that, while Moser continues to use
the term “autogynephilia” to refer to sexual fantasies and patterns of arousal in
which the “thought or image of oneself as a woman” plays a contributing role, I
instead argue that we should no longer use this term for the following reasons:
note added 5/2/15: a few days after posting this, I wrote an op-ed for the The Guardian (US edition) about the Bruce Jenner-Diane Sawyer interview. I had no
intentions of writing this. Celebrities come out as trans once every year or
two or three. For me, it's like a comet, or perhaps Mercury retrograde. It always
keeps happening. I've lived through numerous permutations of this before. For
me, this is history repeating itself, albeit somewhat differently each time.
I haven't even
watched Jenner's interview with Diane Sawyer yet. I DVR'd it. On purpose. It is
a buffer. The media often screws things up, so I wanted to hear about how it
went before watching it. So I could prepare myself, just in case. Because it's
hard to watch a newly out trans person answer a barrage of intrusive questions
about their gender and identity, when you've personally been a newly out trans
person who had to endure a very similar (albeit not publicly broadcasted)
barrage of similar questions regarding your own gender and identity.
an introduction added September, 2015: This post started out as “Alice Dreger and making the evidence fit your thesis” (which can be found in its original form below). Dreger’s
new book Galileo’s Middle Finger had
just come out, and it contained her critical portrayal of the backlash against J.
Michael Bailey’s trans-misogynistic book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Most people outside of certain transgender
and/or sexology circles are probably unaware that this particular part of Dreger’s
book first appeared in 2009 as an article in a research journal along with
numerous peer commentaries—one of which was written by me, and most of
which criticized Dreger for being highly selective with the evidence she
presented and/or for blatantly misrepresenting trans activists’ concerns and
motives in the process. So I initially penned this post to inform potential
readers about those past critical reviews of Dreger’s depiction of this particular
matter.
And I thought that would be it. I had no reason to believe
that she had any kind of vendetta against transgender people or trans activism
per se (although some trans activists certainly did think this). Frankly, my
impression at the time was that she had a story that she wanted to tell about
“activism gone awry and constituting a threat to scientific freedom,” and that her
narrative would be easiest to sell if she played down the trans community’s
legitimate concerns and played up a handful of incidents that seemed to bolster
her case.
But now I believe that I was wrong. Not about Dreger’s
disingenuous portrayal of the backlash against Bailey’s book—I stand by that
assessment. Rather, now I do think that she has a vendetta against transgender
activism, as she has since penned a series of articles wherein she repeatedly
1) criticizes ideas and policies that are forwarded by, and generally accepted
amongst, transgender activists, 2) presents selective and/or distorted evidence
(usually via “straw men” and false dichotomies) to bolster her argument, 3) points
to instances where some trans activists have supposedly “gone too far” (in her
mind, at least) in order to paint us as unreasonable and/or extremist, 4)
ignores all reasonable and knowledgeable trans activists and advocates whose
view points would illustrate that the topic is way more nuanced and complicated
than she is presenting it, and 5) inevitably drops in a few comments to make it
seem like she is “trans-positive,” or an “ally” or “advocate” of the trans
community, when in reality the only trans people she seems to respect are those
who buy into psychopathologizing theories about trans identities and sexualities.
As many of you may know, over the years I have written a lot about Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, which wrongly argues that trans women are sexually-motivated in our transitions - I debunked the theory in the article provided in the link, and further discuss how it sexualizes and invalidates trans women here. I am currently working on a piece that (in part) compiles instances where people outside of science/psychology cite "autogynephilia" in their efforts to sensationalize trans people or to promote anti-transgender agendas and policies. I have a few examples of this in hand - most notably, from Sheila Jeffreys's recent book, one from an anti-trans Catholic organization, that horrible Rolling Stone article about Lana Wachowski published before she came out as trans, and of course, last year's New Yorker article in which Michelle Goldberg used the theory to slut-shame me. I have seen many more examples than this, but I have found them to be especially difficult to track down online, as the bajillion webpages and posts discussing and debating the theory itself overwhelm any and all search engine queries I have attempted. So that's where you come in (hopefully!). Perhaps you know of articles, news items, or stories along this line? If so, please pass along a link, a description, or a few key words so that I can search for it myself. You can do so by: 1) leaving a comment below 2) Tweet it to me @juliaserano 3) email it to me - my address can be found here: http://www.juliaserano.com/contact.html Thanks in advance! -julia
I usually don’t publicly respond to critiques of my
writings. People inevitably interpret (or misinterpret) things that I have
written in all sorts of ways, and I usually just strive to articulate my ideas
better the next time around. However, in the last two weeks, I have stumbled
across numerous instances where people have accused me of claiming that two-spirit
and other indigenous non-binary-identified people “reinforce the gender
binary.” This notion so goes against everything that I believe and have written
in the past that I feel compelled to address the matter here.
In Excluded, I argue
that instead of focusing on only one or a few forms of sexism and
marginalization, we should acknowledge that there are myriad double standards out there. And given this, it is crucial for us to more generally recognize and
challenge double standards whenever and wherever they occur.
To be honest, I think that we as activists tend not to be
very good at doing this—it is a main reason why people who are quite familiar
with one particular form of marginalization (typically one that they are
personally impacted by) will nevertheless continue to single out and invalidate
other groups of people, often using the exact same tactics that they abhor when
used against members of their own group. In other words, a failure to recognize
and understand how double standards function in a general sense is what enables
various forms of exclusion to run rampant within our movements. It is also what
enables numerous forms of sexism and marginalization to proliferate in society
at large.
I discuss this issue over the course of Excluded, but I address it head on in Chapter 14: “How Double
Standards Work”—it is one of the pieces of writing that I am most proud of.
Last week, I encountered quite a number of posts & tweets in which people shared their favorite transgender music artists and trans-themed songs. I later discovered that these posts were initially inspired by an article in Bustle that featured videos of trans anthems by trans artists (e.g., Laura Jane Grace, Namoli Brennet, and Mina Caputo) in response a recent trans-themed song by Kate Pierson. Subsequently, The Advocate published a post called 37 Alternative 'Trans Anthems' by Trans Musicians featuring additional trans-themed songs/music videos by trans artists - definitely check all those wonderful songs out!
Since I have recently returned to making music, and since many people who know me primarily as a trans author & activist are not aware that I started out as a musician/songwriter, I figured that I would take this opportunity to compile some of my own trans-themed anthems to share with the world. So here we go:
My current music project is a solo lo-fi indie-pop endeavor called *soft vowel sounds*. I recently released my first record, and it contains two trans-themed anthems:
The title track Ray is my take on/parody of The Kinks' song "Lola." The video is admittedly not especially video-ish, as I wanted to highlight the lyrics of the song:
The record also includes the song Open Letter, which I wrote shortly after I came out to my family as trans back in 2002. My previous band Bitesize used to regularly perform the song, although we never formally recorded it.
During 1997-2009, I was the guitarist, vocalist, and primary songwriter for the noise-pop indie-rock band Bitesize. We had a number of trans-themed songs & anthems - here are the ones that we recorded:
Understudy is my very favorite Bitesize song. It is about a transgender teenage thespian who gets to play the role of Ophelia in a Catholic boys school production of Hamlet.
Switch Hitter is an embellished story about how I first decided to change my sex at my little league’s all-star game.
Surprise Ending is about a trans woman who accidentally runs into the bully who picked on her as a child.
Finally, one of the first songs that I wrote for Bitesize was I Forgot My Mantra, a coy and flippant anthem that is mostly about me being a crossdresser (how I identified at the time). The chorus is the single line: "I'm a hermaphrodite, but that's beside the point." (For the record, I was not trying to claim an intersex identity with that line - I’m not sure I even knew what intersex was back then. I was just trying to express that I saw myself as harboring some combination of maleness/masculinity and femaleness/femininity within me.)
Anyway, happy listening! And if you like what you hear, you can sign up for my *soft vowel sounds* email list to stay posted about my future music and shows. . .
[note: If you appreciate my writing & music and want to see more of it, please check out my Patreon page]
When my first book Whipping Girl was published in 2007, it was (to the best of my knowledge) the first print publication to include the terms cisgender, cissexual, cissexism, and cisgenderism.* I did not invent these terms - they had been coined and used by trans activists before me, albeit rarely and sporadically. And in the years since, as these terms have increasingly caught on, I find that people sometimes use them in rather different, or even outright disparate, ways.
So for those interested in the history and evolution of cis terminology, I have subsequently written three (freely available!) blog posts that explain various aspects of, and differing perspectives on, these terms. They are as follows:
the specific way in which I used the terms cis, cisgender, cissexual, cissexism, and cisgenderism in Whipping Girl
a discussion of how these same terms are often used in a rather different manner today
how ambiguity regarding the terms "cis" and "cisgender" often erases the experiences of non-transsexual transgender-spectrum people
my proposal of an alternative (albeit not mutually-exclusive) "three-tiered" model for considering gender-non-conformity and social legitimacy - one that may better account for the gender-based marginalization experienced by those who fall under the cisgender umbrella and/or who do not fit neatly into the cis/trans distinction.
Marginalized populations often have different perspectives on, and take different approaches toward, articulating the obstacles they face. Two especially common activist approaches are “decentering the binary” and “reverse discourse” strategies. In this essay, I discuss the logic behind these differing approaches to activism, and explain why they tend to result in very different understandings of cissexism and the cis/trans distinction. In fact, some of the most common complaints about cis terminology are actually critiques of "reverse discourse" approaches to activism. Rather than outright championing one approach over the other, I encourage activists to familiarize themselves with the pros and cons of each strategy in order to use them in the most judicious and effective way possible.
So earlier today, I sent out my latest email update (btw, you can sign up for my email list here). It offers links to some of my more recent writings, an interview, plus two speaking events coming up this week in St. Louis & San Francisco.
I also describe two music videos I recently created for my new solo music project *soft vowel sounds*. Since I couldn't embed them in my email, I will do so here:
Music Box is the first song on the record. It is about being a third wheel and it appropriately takes place inside of a vehicle:
Ray is my parody of The Kinks' song "Lola". The video is admittedly not especially video-ish, as I wanted to highlight the lyrics of the song:
and speaking of music, on Tuesday December 2nd, I will be performing a couple of songs for the Bad Dyke Book Release + Bawdy Storytelling, featuring Allison Moon, Dixie De La Tour and other storytellers TBA. At Awaken Cafe (1429 Broadway, Oakland), Doors at 7, Show at 8, Tickets $15 (available for purchase here). More show details can be found here.
[note added November, 2016: This essay now appears as a chapter in my third book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism] For the record: this
essay is intended to clarify misconceptions about, and to encourage more
thoughtful usage of, cis terminology. Anyone who references this piece in their
attempts to deny or eliminate use of the term "cis" (and its
variants) is clearly misinterpreting or misrepresenting my views.
In the first essay of this two-part series, I
discussed how the way in which cis terminology is often used today can
sometimes invisibilize certain forms of gender-based oppression, and
potentially exclude people who exist at the margins of the transgender umbrella
(i.e., people who don’t fit quite so neatly into a cis/trans binary). In this
essay, I want to talk about the different ways in which a cis/trans distinction
may be employed, as this can greatly shape the nature and ultimate goals of
trans activism.
“Decentering the
binary” versus “reverse discourse” approaches
One of the more commonly heard complaints about cis
terminology is that it supposedly “creates a new binary” (i.e., trans versus cis).
I strongly disagree with this argument. After all, people already make a distinction
between non-transsexuals and transsexuals, and between gender-conforming and
gender-non-conforming individuals. So the cissexual/transsexual and
cisgender/transgender binaries already exist in people’s minds. It’s just that
now we (trans activists) have explicitly named the unmarked majority as “cis.”
[note added January, 2017: This essay now appears as a chapter in my third book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism] For the record: this essay is intended to clarify misconceptions about, and to encourage more thoughtful usage of, cis terminology. Anyone who references this piece in their attempts to deny or eliminate use of the term "cis" (and its variants) is clearly misinterpreting or misrepresenting my views.
My first book Whipping Girl helped to popularize cis terminology—that is, language that uses the prefix
“cis” to name the unmarked dominant majority (i.e., people who are not trans)
in order to better articulate the ways in which trans people are marginalized
in society. In 2009, I wrote a blog post called Whipping Girl FAQ on cissexual, cisgender, and cis privilege that explained my reasoning in forwarding cis terminology and addressed some of
the more common arguments made against such language. That blog post ended with
a section discussing some of the limitations of cis terminology and the concept
of cis privilege—a topic that I will revisit in this two-part series.
Over the years, I have observed that many people now use cis
terminology in a manner that is somewhat different from how I attempted to use
it in Whipping Girl, thus leading to
potential ambiguity—I will address such matters in this first essay. In the
last section of this essay, I will suggest another possible model for describing
how people are differentially viewed and treated with regards to gender
non-conformity, and which may (in some cases) provide a more effective
framework than a cisgender/transgender dichotomy.
