|
Gender Centre >>
Resources >> Magazine >> Polare Archive >>
Polare 52 >> Article 3
Words, Words, Words, I'm So Sick of Words
by Gina Dumas
For several years, I have considered the difficulties we have brought
on ourselves , as we attempt to educate a world slowly awakening to
our realities.
As the understanding of Transsex and all the Intersexes increases, we
seem to paint a bewildering picture of ourselves and the biology of
our being , by attempting to cram too many meanings, into words that
we use interchangeably.
Perhaps it would be better to say we are attempting to stuff too many
heads into too few hats. Let me illustrate this point.
If we take the descriptor 'breathing difficulties' and claim that this
term alone suffices to cover our understanding of this life
threatening condition, then those that do not suffer from breathing
difficulties, will assume that they have a grasp of the problem, and
that one cure fits all.
When we reflect on issues such as lung cancer, influenza, fractured
ribs, the common cold, a broken nose etc , we see that they are all
very different causes of the problem "breathing difficulties" and most
certainly will not respond to the same treatment.
As a very misunderstood community, we do ourselves no favours when we
attempt to use a one blanket fits all approach to our issues, it
simply doesn't.
We most certainly have the common problem "that society doesn't
understand the words that define us, and fails to respond to our very
different needs". We have banded together around this problem , it is
the only commonality we have.
It was very interesting to read the 88 page judgement of Justice
Chisholm in the case Re:- Kevin , and to see the evidence that the
Family Court of Australia accepted both in this case , and the appeal
before the full bench which also upheld the judgement based on the
same evidence.
A key was turned in our favour, by the wonderful efforts of Ms Rachael
Wallbank (the solicitor running the case), the courage of Kevin and
Jennifer, and those who testified with such telling effect . We would
be fools to turn the key back again, by muddying the waters so
recently made clear.
Transsex is an Intersex condition, done sealed and delivered, into
Australian law. Let us build on this fact.
From the time of Dr Harry Benjaman and through the fifty years since,
this had been posited by the most reputable minds in the field of
treating the Transsexed. It has now been accepted as fact. Transsex is
not C.A.H., neither is it A.I.S. nor Klinefelters or any of the other
Intersexes , but neither are they each other . You will notice that I
drop the '-uality' of the descriptor, when I write of the Transsexed ,
for the word Transsexuality screams the wrong message to those we need
to educate. Words can do that.
Words are probably our biggest common headache, we desperately need to
redesign the words we use to define ourselves. There is not a single
word we use, that was not coined by someone seeking to express a
meaning, they are all inventions.
People can be utterly petrified by words that have been given taboo
status by their having been pickled in fear, spiced with distortion,
or seen in company with the wrong images. Bounce the word
Transsexuality in front of a stranger, and you will quickly see what I
mean, they more often than not become intellectually constipated on
the spot, you can see the fear dance in their eyes.
Interestingly, those of the otherwise intersexed in our community are
often terrified of being associated with the words Transsexual and
Transsexuality. I don't really blame them; the words have become
associated with very negative images. It will be easier to change the
words than to change the images.
Some words imply quite correctly, that something has happened to the
person with whom they are associated, something beyond their choosing
. To be Intersexed, is one such 'word - person' relationship, even if
the word is not understood in the wider community.
To be Transsexed could be understood this way, for the word again
implies quite correctly, that Transsex, like the other Intersexes, is
not a choice. The biological realities of our lives cannot be laid
aside, when they are not convenient on any given day.
Much tension exists in our community over the ownership of words and
the concepts associated with them. These tensions are products of the
need we have to define ourselves to society and the adoption of new or
modified words, will be one sensible and easy way to avoid stealing
each others thunder.
I urge the adoption of the "concept words" Transsex and Transsexed .
Rachael Wallbank points out that the word 'Transgender' was coined by
Virginia Price, an American transvestite. The word Transgender is very
much in the same boat. It is a one -blanket-fits-all, that doesn't fit
at all.
I do not say that the transvestite part of our community does not
share the common problem about which we gather for mutual support, but
the reality is, that just as the Intersex conditions (there are around
sixty of them ) are not the same as one another, and don't all require
the same treatment, neither can the word 'Transgender' serve the need
we have, to define the particular identity and needs of the Transsexed.
I join with those who urge the adoption of standard meanings for words
such as gender, sex, gender roles, sexuality, etc. These are words
that bring us to grief as a community, for we use them in confusion of
their true meanings.
As a community we need to develop and use, simple, crisp, plain
English meanings, that will make these terms more effective tools for
us.
Perhaps the most glaring examples of our using words so as to confuse,
is to be seen in the frequent use of the word Gender when we mean Sex,
and we speak of Gender reassignment when what surgery aims to achieve,
is Sex reassignment.
Gender is a realisation of the sexed brain, we have yet to see a
reassignment of the brain's sex.
Before the less flexible in our ranks put their Doc Martins through
the Internet in rage, at my daring to assail the Holy Grail of 'the
concept of gender', may I suggest that we explore the difference
between Gender and Gender Roles, and the amenability of these
realities to modification.
I agreed with our lovely editor , when she said at the bottom of page
18 in edition of Polare No.41, "neither genitalia nor chromosomes
define Gender. The brain is the arbiter and the brain usually follows
the prompting of pre-natal hormonal influences". Neatly expressed
Katherine, the court agrees with the evidence supporting this point of
view.
Gender is therefore not amenable to modification.
And Gender Roles? Well, I have been using my own definition of these
structures in all my recent correspondence and lobbying . 'signaled to
you by a person's Sex, one assumes (sometimes incorrectly), that we
know this person's Gender, and that they will live in a pattern or
role, that each culture sees as normal for that sex.'
As Gender Roles differ between cultures, we are able to see that
Gender Roles are, at least in part, constructed by the culture in
which they exist . Gender Roles are therefore amenable to modification
. Should Gender Roles be redefined as 'Sex Roles'? I think so. It is
our gender which drives us towards identifying with a Sex Role.
Our community needs to change the minds of those who change the laws,
we will struggle to do this, until we settle on a standard use of
words to express to the legislators our socio-biological predicament.
A law is a fence, placed around a concept for the purposes of
administration.
(I hope Ms Wallbank will forgive me this definition... it came to me
in the middle of designing a concrete ramp but it does the job.)
Our legislators cannot frame a law on ethereal concepts such as "how
long is a puff of smoke" or "what shape will a cloud be in ten
minutes" they need certainty, certainty that the concept at the centre
of a proposed change , is defensible in the public eye. They will
always seek confirmation of any facts we put to them in support of law
change. They have always sought this validation from the professional
bodies of law and medicine. This will not change, risk taking is not
their business.
We as a community have the task of presenting defensible concepts to
the legislators, based on the facts we are best able to support,
expressed in words that always have unambiguous meanings.
I propose that we need at least a national consensus on the words we
use in our submissions, and in arriving at this consensus, the last
thing we should have in mind is any attempt to make one blanket fit
all, or we will have "trouble with words"
Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under
the SAAP Program and supported by the NSW Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion
and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited
contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor
reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site.
Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc., the Department of Community Services
of the NSW Department of Health.
|
