Nineteenth Century Style

 

"Female husbands in general were different from other groups who transed gender (such as soldiers or sailors) because they were in long term committed relationships with women. Usually, these were legally binding marriages. This posed a much more dramatic threat to society, raising two different troubling possibilities: first, that female husbands were able to realise homosexual desire and participate in a same-sex relationship under the guise of a heterosexual one. This was a violation of both religious edicts and civil laws against sodomy. Second, female husbands threatened the notion that only those assigned male at birth could become men and enter into fulfilling sexual and romantic relationships with women. Whether husbands had strong identifications of themselves as people of masculine gender and/or same-sex desire was never clear. But it also didn’t matter because neither was welcome in society."

SAMHASELBY

I read this and was immediately interested. With Trans people being the new lighting rod for all kinds of people (and conservatives in particular) this felt kind of urgent. The idea of Trans-ness is not a new one, obviously, and it has been reported before. I think that the 'threat' Trans people pose to society is one relegated to the fragile ego and beliefs of the people who attack them.

People who live as the other gender offend the sensibilities of the people who attack them because they don't conform to outdated notions of gender. They seem to attack their ideas of both dogma and social contracts: they see homosexuality as either a sin or as an affront to their notions of what's correct.

Trans people also contradict what some people think a man or a woman is: something immutable and unchangeable. For some people, Trans folks present a deviancy from the 'norm' that shakes the foundations of their beliefs. For some people, only men can make women happy and vice versa. 

The author mentions that there could be a generational shift in the perceptions of trans-ness, though:

"Students have a myriad of reactions to this material. At first, they are wholly unimpressed. They have come of age in an era of transgender liberation. They identify as trans or nonbinary in astonishing numbers. Transgender issues, leaders and celebrities make headlines. They have embraced ‘they’ as an inclusive and powerful gender-neutral pronoun. They have no problem remembering and respecting each other’s pronouns while the over-50 crowd continues to stumble and offer excuses."

SAMHASELBY

And I kind of agree. Most people with problems with somebody who is Trans is mostly over fifty and either has had no contact with a Trans person or lives through lurid third-person accounts of 'atrocities' allegedly committed by a Trans person. Younger generations, having embraced a more fluid idea of gender and sexual roles, seem unfazed by Trans experiences (unless, of course, crushed by dogma) and overall seem to present a more relaxed attitude towards the binary.

I think the author defines it much better than I could, though:

"If researching female husbands has taught me anything, it is how the very terms by which we understand sexual orientation and gender identity are products of history and culture. Even liberal and progressive people and institutions are not necessarily more accurate or ‘progressive’ in their understanding of gender than those who came before us. The philosophy that is now seen as the best defence against homophobic and transphobic efforts to deny us rights (that we were ‘born this way’) was itself born of forced, violent and dehumanising examinations by doctors on those incarcerated or otherwise institutionalised. This view was highly raced, classed and gendered, and essentially defined us as lesser people: abnormal, deviant and requiring institutionalisation."

SAMHASELBY

The more things change and all that...

Happy Pride!

XOXO