Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Accessible Presentation
FAQs
X (Twitter)
Search Tips
About Annual Meeting
Some versions of feminism have interpreted transgender men and women as gender-conservators who reinforce hegemonic notions of masculinity and feminism. They criticized transgender women for never having had the experience of female oppression who were nonetheless seeking to present themselves as women; trans men were criticized for searching for male privilege (Raymond 1979). Transgender people defended their choices by describing themselves as engaged in a search for authenticity, claiming their “true” self, and at times embracing essentialist conceptions of self (Rubin 2003). Such understandings assumed a relatively fixed, unchanging gender identity in relation to binary gender categories. While many individuals seek to migrate from one clearly defined gender to another, as they transition, they frequently come to realize that there is no place of pure maleness or femaleness.
Over the course of two years, I conducted participant observation and interviews with four individuals undergoing chest masculinization surgery, their significant others, and with surgeons and therapists who serve them, interviewing 50 individuals in all. What I found is that many younger transgender people move beyond dominant conceptions of trans migration to embrace gender complexity (Beemyn and Rankin 2011, Brubaker 2016). Their gender self-concepts, which were often clearer at the beginning of the transition process, over time became more multiple, fluid, and individualistic. Such conceptions of gender dovetail with post-structuralist (Butler 2004) and psychoanalytic feminist (Chodorow 1995) understandings of gender, and with discussions of neoliberal selfhood in the work of Foucault (2004/2008), Bauman (2000) and others. Contemporary societies, Foucault notes, require a ‘mobile’ and flexible self plus the constant orientation to “innovation” and “growth” – the “individualization” of late modern life.