In this unit, I examine contemporary Transgender Studies and Politics in relation to Western colonialism and imperialism. I am concerned that what I have called the Transgender Paradigm has in fact situated itself as a colonial paradigm.

(1) The Towle and Morgan article ("Romancing the Transgender Native") raises concerns about the use of the "transgender native" concept in transgender politics.

(2) Viviane Namaste's article ("Against Transgender Rights") raises worries that contemporary anglo American transgender politics are imperialistic in nature.

(3) The challenging article by Lugones (“Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System”) provides a powerful and sophisticated way of understanding the interrelations of gender, sexuality, race, modernism, and coloniality. I think it can help guide transgender politics and theory away from any colonial/imperialistic tendencies. NOTE: You will NOT by test on the Lugones article.

I: Towle and Morgan "Romancing the Transgender Native"

According to Towle and Morgan, the anthropological concept of "third gender" appears to have gained popularity among transgender writers and activists just as it was called into question by anthropologists. Generally, it has been applied by anthropologists to "behaviors that transcended or challenged dyadic male-female codes or norms. It was also applied to societies (most of them non-Western) that seemed to provide institutionalized 'intermediate' gender concepts and practices" (p. 668). It has now sometimes replaced outright by the concept of "transgender."  

Historically, the discipline of anthropology has examined diversity among "other" (non-European/American/Western) cultures. Since the 1980's, however, it has become increasingly aware of its own Western ethnocentrism and the unquestioned status of its own subject-position (as investigator of the exotic "other") - work now has focused on exposing the problematic assumptions which ground this ethnocentrism, making Western culture itself a fit object of inquiry and deconstruction. The authors harness this anthropological "turn" in order to critique what they see as the problematic moves in transgender appropriations of diverse cultural ways of life under the term "transgender" or "third gender."

Some Preliminary Worries: As I have already argued, it is highly problematic to use the term transgender to apply to people who seem "gender variant" regardless of cultural and/or historical context. The word transgender is located within a specific ideology or world-view which gives it its meaning. To understand different cultural forms of life with this ideology can constitute a kind of dubious imposition of cultural framework on "others" and therefore a kind of erasure. Moreover, by attempting to understand diverse cultural forms within a historically situated ideology, it is clear that some degree of distortion will occur. This is especially dubious when this erasure occurs in the interests of promoting a particular historically and culturally situated political agenda. For example, narratives which appeal to the existence of transgender people in non-Western cultures ("prior" to the imposition of binaristic gender norms) in order to legitimate contemporary U.S. transgender identities within the context of a civil rights movement are surely problematic.

Main Critiques: (1) "Third gender" cultures are lumped into a primordial location that is viewed as "prior to" Western (binaristic) gender ("Primordialism"), (2) All cultural variability is effective erased through the creation of a single category ("Reductionism"); (3) Reduces the people involved in the interplay of complex cultural practices into a "type" ("Reification"); (4) A utopian and unrealistic vision of "third gender" cultures is promoted ("Utopianism"); (5) Western ethnocentrism and "exceptionalism" is further maintained).  

(1) Primordialism: 

By linking contemporary Western transgender people to people in other (cultural and historically variable) cultures through the use of the transgender and third gender concepts, contemporary transgender people can represent ourselves as ancient (we've always been here!!) and natural (see, it happens cross-culturally!!)

The Big Concern: Racist and Colonial ideology has historically "ranked" different societies on a kind of "time-line" (from the most "primitive" and "barbaric" to the most "civilized" - guess who gets to be more "civilized"!!!). Moreover, these "primitive" cultures have been viewed as closer to "nature" (since less "acculturated"). Transgender narratives which romanticize a prior, lost time of innocence seem to tacitly buy into this racist-colonial ideology which ranks societies in terms of cultural development and nature. [Let me add, for those Haraway fans out there that such narratives involve an appeal to a idealized past, a "Fall",  and a utopian future].

(2) Reductionism

(a) By lumping all "gender diversity" into a single category (transgender or third gender), there is a homogenization which erases cultural differences. (If hijiras and travestis are alike dropped into the category third gender, relevant cultural differences are lost). This is similar to the homogenization affected by expressions such as "Asian American" and "Latin American."

(b) The very framework in which "third gender" is deployed can create distortion. For example, it isn't clear that the expression is well-suited for travesti who position themselves as having "the same gender as women" (p. 677).

(3) Reification 

By capturing complex cultural practices and the individuals who negotiate such practices by easy appeal to terms like third gender, hijiras, there is the danger of positing historically invariable cultural types.  (One feature of colonial racism, is the view that the "primordial" cultures are fixed historically - unchanging and timeless). Moreover, not only are people and practices reduced to historically unchanging types, any contemporary cultural variability is also lost.

(4) Utopianism 

By using different cultural practices (hijira, berdache) within a framework which represents them as reflecting a utopian past (and a possible utopian future), the actual details involved in these institutionalized practices and the impact upon the people who negotiate them are erased. For example, in some of these cultural practices, the "third gender" people are actual stigmatized within the very cultural practices which are being touted in transgender liberation narratives.

(5) Ethnocentrism Continued

You do the math!!!

II: Namaste "Against Transgender Rights"

Namaste “Against Transgender Rights”

(1)   Namaste argues that current anglo, American politics advocating for transgender rights are imperialistic. As a consequence, she wishes to argue against the very notion of transgender rights.

(2)   She argues that transgender politics are imperialistic in two senses. First, she means that the politics support “economic practices outside of the U.S. that are destined to benefit the interests of American business” (p. 103). Second, she means that they involve the “imposition of a particular world-view and conceptual framework across nations, languages, and cultures” (p. 103).

(3)   In defense of her claim that transgender politics are imperialistic in the first sense, she points to efforts for the inclusion of tran folk in San Francisco city and county employee insurance. She argues that the rhetoric used by activists (like Jameson Green) indicate the endorsement of the current insurance system in the U.S. This involves accepting the link between employment and health insurance, a link that is rejected by countries that have universal health care (like Canada). She argues that trans politics which presuppose the current U.S. health insurance system, don’t take into consideration the fact that a majority of Americans want universal  health care.

Moreover, she argues that the current economic arrangements promote the interests of American insurance companies abroad. In existent trade agreements (NAFTA) and negotiated agreements (FTAA - Free Trade Area of Americas), provisions are provided which allow private insurance companies to litigate against government environmental policies and universal health coverage. In supporting the current U.S. health insurance system, Namaste argues, contemporary anglo, American politics support an imperialistic economic system.

(4)   In defense of her claim that transgender politics are imperialistic in the second sense, Namaste points to the use of ‘gender identity’ as central in anglo, Canadian transgender efforts to secure transgender rights. She argues that this presupposes a conceptual-linguistic framework that is not to be found in language such as French in which there is no analogous word for gender. (The French word genre does not have the same import. It concerns grammatical gender only). This difference is especially important, she argues, since it is connected to contrasting legal strategies for the protection of trans folks.

In the anglo model, ‘gender identity’ is added to a list of protected groups (sex, race, etc.). It is listed over and above sex.

In the Québec (francophone) model, transsexuals have been defended on the basis of a broad understanding of the existing category of sex. This defense has been based not on the notion of identity but rather état civil (civil status) which includes sex, age, marital status, and citizenship.

Namaste argues that in the promotion of transgender rights in Canada, anglos have used the anglo model without giving other models much consideration at all. But the attempt to promote one’s own model as if it were the only or the best model nationally (and ultimately, internationally) is imperialistic in nature, argues Namaste.

(5)   Critique: I think Namaste is correct to worry about the tacit imperialism of anglo American and Canadian transgender politics. However, I think her conclusion (that we ought to oppose transgender rights) is too strong.  

I am not sure what she is opposed to in opposing transgender rights. She may simply be opposed to the political strategies adopted by anglo,            

American (and Canadian) transgender folks. In particular, she may be opposed to the tacit imperialism. However, if these folks became self-aware

of the arrogance involved in assuming their political agenda as the only possible one for all trans people to follow, then their strategies needn’t be pursued in

an imperialistic way.

What Namaste does not show is why these goals (such as fighting for trans inclusion in health care and fighting for protection on the basis of gender identity)

should not be pursued in a limited, strategic way. After all, if the only other option is to have trans people with no coverage at all in the U.S., then surely the 

fight to have trans people included is a reasonable one (although perhaps it ought to be pursued in tandem with a politics promoting universal health        

coverage).

And while it is true that the protection of trans people by appeal to état civil may be useful for trans women in  Québec, Namaste does not mention how

appeal to the category of sex works out for those trans folk who do not live in accord with the binary. If no legal room is afforded them, then there is a

political dimension Namaste is not considering. While the arrogant imposition of the concept of gender identity needs to be avoided, it isn’t clear the concept

shouldn’t still be used to ground a (possibly limited) transgender politics. Consequently, Namaste’s wholesale rejection of transgender rights is over stated.