Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consulting Editor
Dale Spender
The Athene Series assum es that all those who are concerned with
formulating explanations of the way the world works need to know and
appreciate the significance of basic feminist principles.
The growth of feminist research internationally has called into
question almost all aspects of social organization in our culture. The
Athene Series focuses on the construction of knowledge and the
exclusion of women from the process—both as theorists and subjects
of study—and offers innovative studies that challenge established
theories and research.
TRANSSEXUAL
The Making o f the She-Male
EMPIRE
Reissued with a New Introduction on Transgender
J A N I C E G. R A Y M O N D
Raymond, Janice G.
The transsexual empire: the making of the she-male / Janice G.
Raymond.
p. cm. — (Athene series ; 39)
Reissue, with a new introduction, of the 1979 ed., published by Beacon
Press, Boston.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8077-6272-5
1. Sex change—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Transsexuals. 3. Lesbi
ans. 4. Sex role. I. Title. II. Series.
RC560.C4R38 1994
305.3—dc20 93-46771
ISBN 0-8077-6272-5
GENDER BENDING
Janice G. Raymond
Montague, Massachusetts
1994
INTRODUCTION
Som e Comments
on M ethod
T r a n s s e x u a l is m highlights,
in a unique way, several key issues in feminist studies—
among them sex-role socialization, “ nature versus nur
ture,” and definitions and boundaries of maleness and
femaleness. Im portant issues in medical ethics, such as
bodily mutilation and integrity, “ nature” versus tech
nology, medical research priorities, unnecessary surgery,
and the inevitable issue of the medical model, are involved
also.
Transsexualism touches the boundaries of many of the
existing academic disciplines in such a way as to raise fun
damental questions about the territorial imperatives of
biology, psychology, medicine, and the law, to name but
a few. Questions about the causes of transsexualism and
the proper methods of treatm ent have been hitherto re
stricted to the domain of psychology and medicine. But
as a feminist ethicist I maintain th at these issues of cau
sation and treatm ent are imbued with male-defined values
and philosophical/theological beliefs—beliefs about the
so-called natures of women and men. When John Money
1
2 The Transsexual Empire
states th at the core of one’s gender identity is fixed by
the age of eighteen months, his statem ent is fraught with
certain normative beliefs about the changeability of
human existence. Such beliefs become invisible in the
mounds of supposed scientific data th at Money offers
about sex differences. Or when transsexuals and trans
sexual specialists relegate sex-role dissatisfaction and a
subsequent desire for the qualities ascribed to the oppo
site sex to the category of transsexualism, this very classi
fication forms a type of medical belief system th at re
sembles w hat has classically been called theodicy.
In this theodicy, as in all religious theodicies, the sur
render of selfhood is necessary to a certain extent. In the
medical theodicy, transsexuals surrender themselves to
the transsexual therapists and technicians. The medical
order then tells transsexuals what is healthy and unhealthy
(the theological equivalents of good and evil). Thus the
classification function of the term transsexualism analyzes
a whole system o f meaning th at is endowed with an extra
ordinary power of structuring reality.
This book is concerned with how medicine and psy
chology, in particular, function as secular religions in the
area of transsexualism. Chapter II is devoted to an analysis
of the scientific data on sex differences, especially the
work of John Money and his associates. Chapter V pre
sents the “trium ph of the therapeutic,” the “ medical
model,” and the medical-technical specialties as they
function to generate values and beliefs concerning the
cause, diagnosis, and treatm ent of transsexualism.
My main point is to show how so-called health values
of therapy, hormonal treatm ent, and surgery have replaced
ethical values of choice, freedom, and autonomy; how
these same “health” values have diffused critical awareness
about the social context in which the problem of trans
sexualism arises; how more and more moral problems have
been reclassified as technical problems; and indeed how
the very notion o f health itself, as generated by this medi
cal model, has made genuine transcendence of the trans
sexual problem almost impossible.
3 Introduction
LANGUAGE: “ SAY WHAT YOU MEAN
AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY”
Words have meanings often undetected by those who use
them. One graphic example of this is the use of the words
masculinity and femininity, male and female, and he and
she as they appear throughout the medical and psycho
logical literature on transsexualism. Medical literature on
transsexualism uses the words masculinity /masculine and
fem ininity Ifeminine to indicate what its authors perceive
to be real changes that take place, either through the ad
ministration of hormones and/or surgery. The psycho
logical literature on transsexualism uses the same designa
tions to talk about the gender identity and/or role of the
transsexual, one of which the transsexual rejects in order
to pursue the other, as if these stereotypes had some kind
of ontological reality th at was conferred by “feeling” that
one is, for example, a “ woman trapped in a man’s body.”
I use the terms masculinity/masculine and fem ininity/
feminine to indicate that what really does take place when
the transsexual is encouraged to pass as a woman, or when
hormones and surgery are administered, is in fact the
feminization of a man, or the masculinization of a woman.
This is precisely what happens because masculinity and
femininity are social constructs and stereotypes of be
havior th at are culturally prescribed for male and female
bodies respectively, b ut that in the case of the transsexual,
have nothing to do with a male or female body. Thus the
male-to-constructed-female goes from one stereotype to
the other. The words masculine and feminine are used
throughout this work to indicate that a superficial, arti-
factual, and socially and surgically constructed change is
what takes place rather than a deep intrinsic change that
encourages existential development. The stereotypical
language is used intentionally to highlight the superficiality
of the transsexual process. To feminize or masculinize into
a cultural identity and role is to socialize one into a con
structed identity and role. Similarly, in the sex-conversion
surgery itself, what takes place is a surgical construction
of body appearance that is brought in line with the body
4 The Transsexual Empire
stereotype of what a masculine or feminine body should
look like in a gender-defined society; e.g., in a woman, a
big bust, a curvacious figure, a small frame, etc. And in
deed, as we shall note in Chapter I, transsexuals undergo
an immense amount of polysurgery, much of it of a cos
metic nature, to bring themselves into line with the stereo
type of their newly acquired body.
Since I am highlighting th at a superficial stereotyping
process of masculinization or feminization is precisely
what does take place in the transsexual situation, I shall
omit putting the stereotypes in quotation marks or itali
cizing them in order to grant these words their utm ost
validity as the fabrications th at they genuinely are. At the
same time, however, I have chosen to put the words “ he”
or “she” and “ male” and “female” in quotation marks
when they refer to a pre- or postoperative transsexual. This
is to indicate that, while transsexuals are in every way mas
culine or feminine, they are not fundamentally male or
female. Maleness and femaleness are governed by certain
chromosomes, and the subsequent history of being a
chromosomal male or female. Masculinity and femininity
are social and surgical constructs.
Aside from the language of masculinity/femininity,
male/female, and he/she in the medical and psychological
literature, the term transsexualism itself is also problemati
cal and fraught with certain normative assumptions. The
term transsexualism was first used by Harry Benjamin in
a lecture at a meeting of the New York Academy of Medi
cine in 1953. It is interesting to note, however, that the
Index Medicus did n ot include a reference heading for
transsexualism until 1965. Before this, any works dealing
with surgical sex change were placed under the headings of
transvestism, homosexuality, or some other deviant sexual
category. But as transsexualism acquired its own termi
nological existence and independent classification, many
normative assumptions began to gain ground.
First of all, the suffix ism is a clue to how transsexual
ism functions. Some authors use the word transsexuality
as opposed to transsexualism, with a varied spelling of
5 Introduction
the latter as transsexualism. But I have chosen to con
sistently employ the term transsexualism, because it is
one of the main contentions of this work th at transsex
ualism operates as an ideology which the suffix ism is
meant to denote. Webster defines ideology in two ways,
both of which can be applied to transsexualism and the
ways in which it functions. The first definition Webster
gives for ideology is “visionary theorizing.” In this sense,
transsexualism offers certain individuals a supposed futur
istic vision of w hat they can become. (However, in reality,
instead of giving transsexuals an open and truly visionary
future, it restricts them unalterably to the present and
visionless context of cultural roles and stereotypes under
the guise of being ideologically visionary.) Webster’s
second definition of ideology is threefold: (a) “a sys
tematic body of concepts especially about human life
or culture,” (b) “ a manner or the content of thinking char
acteristic of an individual, group, or culture,” and (c) “the
integrated assertions, theories, and aims th at constitute
a sociopolitical program. ” Transsexualism functions as
ideology by defining a portion of human life as trans
sexual—using concepts such as “women trapped in m en’s
bodies,” and the classic mind-body dichotomy to form
“integrated assertions, theories, and aims th at constitute
a sociopolitical program. ” A perusal of the literature will
indicate th at a popular as well as specialized vocabulary
has been built up. Transsexualism at this point constitutes
a “sociopolitical program ” that is undercutting the move
m ent to eradicate sex-role stereotyping and oppression in
this culture. Instead it fosters institutional bases of sexism
under the guise of therapy.
Many definitions of transsexualism have been put forth,
some differing from others in describing the phenomenon.
Benjamin states: “transsexualism is a sex and gender prob
lem, the transsexual being primarily concerned with his
(or her) self only, a sex partner being of secondary al
though occasionally vital im portance.”1 Donald Russell’s
definition is among the more neutral, in th at it attem pts
to describe and not posit causal hypotheses:
6 The Transsexual Empire
The term “trans-sexual” refers to a person who is said to believe
firmly, in spite of all physical or genetic evidence to the contrary,
that he (or she) is inherently of the opposite sex. The transsexual
has a fixed or apparently unalterable belief that he is of one sex
“trapped” in the body of the other.2
“Everything
You Always
Wanted to Know
about Transsexualism”
19
20 The Transsexual Empire
area of research and activity. The medical specialties that
it calls forth, or more correctly th at call it forth, are varied
and complex, beginning with hormone therapy and often
ending in numerous operative procedures. Just as com
plicated are the legal intricacies of changing sex on birth
certificates, licenses, and other certificates of personhood
required to live one’s life. Other legal issues also affect the
institutions performing the surgery.
As a medical category th at enlists many surgical special
ties and as a transformed state of being th at requires legal
validation transsexualism is a relatively new phenomenon.
Historical antecedents are found in certain mythological
accounts, initiation rites, and certain modes of eunuchism
and castration but, strictly speaking, transsexualism has
no historical precedents.
RECENT HISTORY
A MALE PROBLEM
While it is clear th at more men than women request and
obtain sex-conversion surgery, various ratios have been
cited by researchers. The lowest ratio of women to men
(one to eight) was reported by Benjamin in 1966. This was
based on his own clinical experience with 152 cases of male
transsexualism and tw enty cases of female transsexualism.
The highest ratio (one to two) was reported by John Ran-
dell in 1959. Most reports fall in between these two. Ac
cording to international medical literature the generally
accepted ratio is one to three or one to four.9 Recently,
it has been claimed th at the incidence of female-to-con-
structed-male transsexualism is rising. Canon Clinton Jones
of the Hartford Gender Identity Clinic and Dr. John
Money of Johns Hopkins both mentioned this increase
to me in personal interviews with them .10 Both said that
25 “Everything You Wanted to Know about Transsexualism”
they had seen, during the early seventies, almost as many
women as men seeking surgery. However, the number of
operations performed on men is still substantially higher.
It is significant that this supposed increase has not been
verified in print with the exception of a somewhat vague
reference made by Dr. Anke Ehrhardt in a commentary
on the article, “ Transsexualism and Surgical Procedures,”
in which she states: “ More and more females appear in
doctors’ offices and seek hormone and surgical treat
m ent.” 11 What actual number “more and more” specifi
cally refers to is, of course, anyone’s guess. Zelda Suplee
stated th at from her personal contact with would-be
transsexuals the preponderance is still male-to-constructed-
female.
In my own interview sampling, I talked with only two
female-to-constructed-male transsexuals. Often, when I
was given a female-to-constructed-male contact, I had
great difficulty finding the person. It is reasonable to
speculate th at the extreme difficulty I had in finding
female-to-constructed-male transsexuals, plus the scant
mention of them in the literature, may be indicative of
the fact th at there are fewer of them than are claimed.
Christian Hamburger gives the more commonly claimed
ratio of one to three. He cites the letters he received and
continues to receive in the aftermath of the famed Chris
tine Jorgensen case. Hamburger believes that the reason
for this one to three ratio “ may be biological in nature,”
whatever this may mean. He also stated that a “contribut
ing factor may also be th at the case we reported involved
a change from man into woman.” 12 John Money, however,
has suggested th at the preponderance of male transsexuals
reflects the fact th at men are more vulnerable to “psycho-
sexual disorders” than are women. A similar view held that:
It may be that transsexualism, like other forms of sexual variations,
is actually more frequent in the male than in the female and thus
is in keeping with Kinsey’s hypothesis that the male is more prone
to conditioning by psychological stimuli in the sexual and gender
sphere than is the female.13
26 The Transsexual Empire
There are many reasons male-to-constructed-female
transsexualism is more predominant. Most obviously, the
surgery is easier, less costly, and more developed and publi
cized. Second, b u t perhaps less obvious, is the fact that
men have been much freer to experiment than women.
Thus even in the area of transsexual treatm ent and surgery,
it seems th at men who desire to become female and to
live out the gender role th at is culturally prescribed for
women are actually, in their assertiveness of seeking out
and enduring the surgery, conforming much more to the
masculine stereotype. Women, through a cultural condi
tioning that has generated less impulse to experiment,
are likely to be much more reticent.
Third, male transsexualism may well be a graphic ex
pression of the destruction that sex-role molding has
wrought on men. Thus it could be perceived as one of the
few outlets for men in a rigidly gender-defined society to
opt out of their culturally prescribed roles. Women, on
the other hand, since the recent rise of feminism, have
been able to confront sex-role oppression on a sociopoliti
cal, as well as personal, level. Thus women have realized
th at both masculine and feminine identities and roles are
traps.
Fourth, transsexual surgery is a creation of men, ini
tially developed for men. The research and literature is
overwhelmingly oriented to the male-to-constructed-
female transsexual and also overwhelmingly authored by
men. I do not mean to say that women are not writing
in the transsexual literature, are n ot working in the gender
identity clinics, are not counseling transsexuals, or are not
becoming transsexuals. It must be acknowledged that
women are present in token proportions in all of these
various areas. Many even happen to be in the foreground,
directing gender identity clinics and co-authoring writings
on the topic. However, I would suggest th at those women
who are engaged in transsexual legitimation, writing, and
counseling are functioning as tokens who promote the
illusion of comprehensive female inclusion. In this re
spect, they are like the well-publicized women who are
27 “Everything You Wanted to Know about Transsexualism”
always present in some way to validate male-defined reali
ties. Women who write in support of transsexualism are
usually co-authors (Anke Ehrhardt, Patricia Tucker), and
female counselors of transsexuals are women who, for
the m ost part, “ assist” in the gender identity clinics. Thus
the androcentric origin, control, maintenance, and legiti
mation of transsexualism becomes obscured. The fact
that the overwhelming research interest, number of publi
cations and medical state of the “ art” are concerned with
male-to-constructed-female transsexualism is also evidence
of the male-centered nature of the transsexual phenome
non.
The female-to-constructed-male transsexual is the token
that saves face for the male “transsexual empire.” She is
the buffer zone who can be used to promote the univer-
salist argument th at transsexualism is a supposed “hum an”
problem, n ot uniquely restricted to men. She is the living
“ proof” th at some women supposedly want the same
thing. However, “p ro o f’ wanes when it is observed that
women were not the original nor are they the present
agents of the process. Nor are the stereotypes of mas
culinity th at a female-to-constructed-male transsexual
incarnates products of a female-directed culture. Rather
women have been assimilated into the transsexual world,
as women are assimilated into other male-defined worlds,
institutions, and roles, th at is, on men’s terms, and thus as
tokens. As Judith Long Laws has written: “Tokenism may
be analyzed as an institution, a form of patterned activity
generated by a social system as a means of adaptation to
a particular kind of pressure.” 14 I would maintain that,
under the pressure of having to demonstrate th at trans
sexualism is really n o t limited to men, the medical empire
assimilates female-to-constructed-male transsexuals, but
always on its own terms. “The Token is a member of an
underrepresented group, who is operating on the tu rf of
the dom inant group, under license from it.” 15 In to
kenism, the flow of outsiders into the dom inant group is
usually restricted numerically but just enough so that
the illusion of inclusion takes place. This is exactly what
28 The Transsexual Empire
happens with transsexuals. The accepted four to one ratio
of male-to-constructed-females seeking and achieving trans
sexual status is enough to register the appearance of suf
ficient inclusion of women. Further, the token female
presence in all aspects of the transsexual world is enough
for the transsexual experts to claim th at transsexualism
is sex-blind.
Yet it is most im portant to note here th at tokenism, as
Mary Daly has pointed out, is n o t merely a m atter of nu
merical restriction.16 For example, the United States Sen
ate could be composed of 50 percent women, and these
women senators would still be tokens if their conscious
ness and legislation were still controlled by a patriarchal
ethos, if they did n ot initiate and legitimate activities, and
if they did not have a controlling power. Thus if the in
cluded group is not the controller of its own ethos and the
initiator or legitimator of action, no m atter how numeri
cally present it may be, it is still a token group. Six million
Jews could go to their death in the Nazi camps, n o t be
cause there were too few of them b u t because they were
n o t in control and thus their numbers were im potent. In
the same way, the percentage of female-to-constructed-
male transsexuals could be numerically increased to the
extent where they would equal men, yet if they were still
being transsexed by a “transsexual empire” whose social
and body stereotypes were conceived by men, they would
still be tokens.
Part of the syndrome of tokenism is to make women
seem im portant. John Money, whose work will be dis
cussed in Chapter II, is very careful to co-author his arti
cles and books with a woman. It is an irony th at women
are getting authorship credit in the area of transsexualism
when they have gotten so little credit in other fields for
what work they really have initiated.17
A fifth reason why more men want to be women, than
women men, can be hazarded from other feminist analyses
of biomedical issues. Simply put, it is th at men recognize
the power th at women have by virtue of female biology
and the fact th at this power, symbolized in giving birth,
29 “Everything You Wanted to Know about Transsexualism”
is not only procreative but multidimensionally creative.
Various observers have called this recognition by various
names. Karen Homey reversed Freud’s theory of penis
envy calling it womb envy.18 Ralph Greenson, in an ad
dress to a clinical meeting of the A.M.A., gave this inter
esting analysis:
It is horrifying—a danger to the future of the human ra c e .. . . Our
only hope is that basic instincts will eventually win out, that a true
equality of the sexes will emerge. Always before people thought it
was the woman who envied the man. But we have found that more
than two-thirds of those who wanted to change their gender were
males. What is shocking is that this is more widespread than was be
lieved. These people are not psychotic; they are not crack-pots. . . .
Men have contempt for women only on the surface. Underneath is a
repressed envy, and repressed envy arouses fe a r.. . . One reason the
male envies the woman so much is that she is always sure of herself
as a woman. A man is never quite sure he is a man—he has to prove it
over and over again. 19
Barbara Seaman and others have called this kind of envy
and desire “ male mothering.” 20 Barbara Ehrenreich and
Dierdre English in their ground-breaking works on the his
tory of medicine in the West discuss the same phenomenon
on a more political level when they talk about the male
takeover of women’s healing functions, especially during
the medieval and Reformation periods (the obliteration of
the witch-mid wife) and the modem period (the consolida
tion of orthodox medicine, particularly in this country).21
Transsexualism can be viewed as one more androcentric in
terventionist procedure. Along with male-controlled clon
ing, test-tube fertilization, and sex selection technology, it
tends to wrest from women those powers inherent in fe
male biology. In a very real sense, the male-to-constructed-
female transsexual n ot only wants female biological capaci
ties b u t wants to become the biological female.
Finally, and I think most important, there are more
male-to-constructed-female transsexuals because men are
socialized to fetishize and objectify. The same socialization
that enables men to objectify women in rape, pornography,
and “ drag” enables them to objectify their own bodies.
30 The Transsexual Empire
In the case of the male transsexual, the penis is seen as
a “thing” to be gotten rid of. Female body parts, specifi
cally the female genitalia, are “things” to be acquired. Men
have always fetishized women’s genitals. Breasts, legs, but
tocks are all parts of a cultural fixation that reduces women
not even to a whole objectified nude body but rather to
fetishized parts of the female torso. The Venus de Milo
symbolizes this as well as the fact that it has never been re
stored to its original integrity. “ Cunt,” “ass,” “ getting one’s
rocks off,” “balling,” are all sexist slogans of this fetish
ized worldview where even “chicks” and “broads” are re
duced to the barest essentials. Male-to-constructed-female
transsexualism is only one more relatively recent variation
on this theme where the female genitalia are completely
separated from the biological woman and, through surgery,
come to be dominated by incorporation into the bio
logical man. Transsexualism is thus the ultimate, and we
might even say the logical, conclusion of male possession
of women in a patriarchal society. Literally, men here pos
sess women.
Definitions of fetishism are revealing in this context.
Webster’s Dictionary defines fetish in several ways: First,
as an object believed among a primitive people to have
magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a ma
terial object regarded with superstitious or extravagant
trust or reverence; an object of irrational reverence or ob
sessive devotion; an object or bodily part whose real or
fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual
gratification and th at is an object of fixation to the extent
th at it may interfere with complete sexual expression. Sec
ond, as a rite or cult of fetish worshipers. Third, fetish is
simply defined as fixation.
From these definitions, it is clear that the process of
fetishization has two sides: objectification, and what might
be referred to as worship in the widest sense. Objectifica
tion is largely accomplished by a process of fragmentation.
The fetish is the fragmented part taken away from the
whole, or better, the fetish is seen to contain the whole.
It represents an attem pt to grasp the whole. For example,
31 “Everything You Wanted to Know about Transsexualism”
breasts and legs in our society are fetish objects containing
the essence of femaleness. Thus the fetish contains and by
containing controls.
However, the other side of fetishization is worship or
reverence for the fetish object. In primitive religions, fetish
objects were worshiped because people were afraid of the
power they were seen to contain. Therefore primitive
peoples sought to control the power of the fetish by wor
shiping it and in so doing they confined it to its “rightful
place.” There was a recognition o f a power th at people
felt they lacked and a constant quest in ceremonies and
cults to invest themselves with the power of the fetish
object. Thus to worship was also to control. In this way,
objectification and worship are two sides of the same coin.
In this sense transsexualism is fetishization par excel
lence—a twisted recognition on the part of some men of
the creative capacities of the female spirit as symbolized
and incarnated in the usurped female biology. This usurpa
tion of female biology, of course, is limited to the artifacts
of female biology (silicone breast implants, exogenous es
trogen therapy, artificial vaginas, etc.) th at modem medi
cine has surgically and hormonally created. Thus trans
sexual fetishization is further limited not even to the real
parts of the real whole, but to the artifactual parts of the
artifactual whole.
In summary, then, since men have been socialized to
fetishize women, it is n o t surprising th at this fetishization
process is one more explanation of why there are more
male-to-constructed-female transsexuals. What could be
perceived as an initial protest against sex-role stereotyping
(i.e., the transsexual’s initial gender discomfort and gender
rebellion) becomes short-circuited.
*The removal o f ovaries was used to tame deviant wom en during the
nineteenth and early tw entieth century rash o f sexual surgery. This
mode o f fem ale castration has now been superseded by hysterec
tom y. If one regards the female-to-constructed-male as a potential
deviant, as a potential lesbian and wom an-identified woman, the
comparison between these castrated wom en and female-to-con-
structed-male transsexuals is significant.
37 “Everything You Wanted to Know about Transsexualism”
tion, when undertaken, begins in conjunction with a hys
terectomy. It is technically possible to construct a penis
surgically by rotating a tube flap of skin from the left
lower quadrant of the abdomen and closing the vaginal
orifice. A urinary conduit can be led through such a phal
lus, so that the constructed penis may be used for urina
tion. However, because of complications, many surgeons
have decided against constructing the phallus so it can be
used to urinate. Instead, the female urethra is maintained
in its existing position beneath the constructed penis. But
the new penis lacks sensitivity, and can become erect only
through the insertion of certain stiffening material that re
mains in the penis all the time, or can be put in and out
through an opening in its skin.37
Many female-to-constructed-male transsexuals, however,
stop after obtaining hormone therapy, mastectomy, and
hysterectomy, feeling th at they do n ot wish to undergo
the multistaged procedures required for the construction
of a phallus, which is often also accompanied by scrotal
construction. Some transsexuals recognize that the phallus
will serve little, if any, role in sexual activity, since the tech
nique of creating an erect penis has not been developed.
Some female transsexuals, however, do undergo the
number of hospitalizations required for phallus construc
tion. They are convinced th at the rodlike stiffener, in
serted into the skin of the constructed member, can put
pressure on the original clitoris (which still remains) during
intercourse, making an orgasm possible. Therefore, some
transsexuals are willing to endure the multiple procedures
that are necessary for this. One female-to-constructed-male
transsexual underwent thirty-three plastic operations to
obtain a satisfactory penis.38 Furthermore, the “fear of
discovery” becomes a strong pressure, pushing both male
and female transsexuals to undergo every possible kind of
surgery. All transsexuals express profound anxiety about
being placed in an uncontrolled environment, through acci
dent or illness, and thereby being “unmasked.” 39 For the
female-to-constructed-male transsexual, “ toilet traum a,” as
Zelda Suplee calls it, is a particular fear. Public lavatory
38 The Transsexual Empire
facilities for men often require the kind of exposure that
women do n ot meet, and this alone increases the female
transsexual’s anxiety about phallus construction.
Are Transsexuals
B om or Made—
or Both?
T h e causes of transsexualism
have been debated for years. Perhaps the earliest commen
tator was Herodotus. He explained the origin of what he re
ferred to as “the Scythian illness” by resorting to divine
causation. Venus, enraged with the plundering of her
temple at Ascelos, changed the Scythian males and their
posterity into women as her divine punishment for their
misdeeds.1
Herodotus notwithstanding, m ost theories fall into two
camps—biological and psychological. Biological theories
have tended to focus on neuro-endocrine factors. In this
chapter I will mainly be concerned with these biological
aspects, especially as they are developed as part of an inter-
actionist theory in the writings of John Money and his
associates. Chapter III will be devoted to psychological
theories of transsexualism, which highlight factors of im
printing, family conditioning, and general psychoanalytic
hypotheses.
In both chapters I will demonstrate that while biological
and psychological investigations seek different causes, they
both utilize the same theoretical model—i.e., both seek
43
44 The Transsexual Empire
causes within the individual and/or interpersonal matrix.
In such investigations, social, political, and cultural pro
cesses tend to be relegated to a subsidiary or nonexistent
role, because the model focuses attention on individual or
interpersonal gender differences and similarities rather
than upon the gender-defined social system in which trans
sexual behaviors arise. For example, psychological theories
measure a transsexual’s adjustment or nonadjustment to
the cultural identity and role of masculinity or femininity.
They seldom question the social norms of masculinity and
femininity themselves.
This chapter will be concerned mainly with the work of
John Money and associates. There are many reasons I have
chosen to do an extensive analysis of Money’s work. First
of all, his theories on sex differences have gained wide ac
ceptance, both in academic and lay circles. They have also
been widely cited by feminist scholars. No other researcher
in this area has developed any comparable body of re
search. Thus most discussions of sex differences refer to
Money’s work as a kind of bible. Second, no one has
done a comprehensive analysis and critique of Money’s
work, especially as it relates to issues surrounding trans
sexualism. For example, Money’s much-publicized theory
th at core gender identity is fixed by the age of eighteen
months forms one critical basis for the justification of
transsexual surgery, and therefore deserves special atten
tion. Finally, inherent in Money’s proclaimed scientific
statements about sex differences are many normative
and philosophical statements about the natures of women
and men. Under the guise of science, he makes normative
and prescriptive statements about who women and men
are and who they ought to be. It is one task of this chapter
to expose these assertions.
Money’s theories about sex differences are based on the
supposition th at the nature-nurture debate is obsolete. In
stead he proposes an interactionist theory of sex differ
ences th at claims to unite biological and environmental
factors into a unique, sophisticated gestalt. At times he
45 Are Transsexuals Bom or Made—or Both?
sounds like a biologizer and, at other times, like an en
vironmental determinist. It is very difficult to get a precise
grasp on exactly what Money is stating. Thus while it may
seem th at I am equivocating with the explanation and cri
tique of Money’s theories, this is because Money himself
consistently equivocates.
In discussing the importance of biology, Money is no
biologizer of the ancien regime in which, for example,
hormonal determinists linked anatomy directly with
destiny. (I am reminded here of theories about female
behavior th at were based on “raging hormonal imbalances”
[Edgar Berman] or male bonding theories based on reduc-
tionistic endocrinology and selective anthropology [Lionel
Tiger].) Rather, what makes Money’s theories on sex
differences so attractive to those who should know better
is th at he claims to unite biological and environmental
factors into a unique, sophisticated whole.
On the environmental side, Money’s statements about
the effects of socialization or learning are just as deceiving.
Possibly to avoid the charge of biologizer, Money empha
sizes th at the socialization side of the coin is more signifi
cant than the biological. In fact, it is so significant that
“core” gender identity is fixed during the first eighteen
months of life. Here the theme changes from “biology is
destiny” to “ socialization is destiny.” Yet many of those
who accept Money’s theories seem not to notice this
switch, which takes on all the force of a new natural law.
The seductiveness of Money’s work resides in the fact that
he comes close to the truth in postulating th at the inter
action of biology and environment may explain certain
facets of sex differences. But it is my contention th at he
has failed to show us th at they do. Thus he tells us very
little about the origins of transsexualism.
FLEXIBLE STEREOTYPES
Although Money’s final position on gender identity ap
pears to be ethically neutral, it has profound social and
ethical consequences, especially with respect to the whole
issue of transsexualism. In the last chapter of Sexual Signa
tures, Money and Tucker begin by stating th at the stereo
typed differences between the sexes will always remain.
They censure both the right and the left for respectively
wanting to keep the stereotypes rigidly circumscribed or
wanting to abolish them altogether. (Feminists might justi
fiably wonder which leftist movement has ever wanted to
abolish sex-role stereotypes altogether.) Seemingly, they
advocate the via media.
Many of the pioneers maintain that the stereotyped differences
between the sexes should be done away with, and many nonpioneers
fear that relaxing gender stereotypes will do away with all differ
ences and homogenize the sexes. Both groups are tilting at wind
mills. As long as there is a human race, there almost certainly will
be differences between the sexes in sexual behavior, work, and
play.45
“M other’s
Feminized Phallus ”
or Father's
Castrated Femme?
69
70 The Transsexual Empire
“ mother-son symbiosis,” only within the context of
these same stereotypes. I believe that the First Cause,
th at which sets other causes of transsexualism in motion
(such as family stereotypes and interactions), is a patri
archal society, which generates norms of masculinity and
femininity. Uniquely restricted by patriarchy’s definitions
of masculinity and femininity, the transsexual becomes
body-bound by them and merely rejects one and gravitates
toward the other. The sexual organs and the body of the
opposite sex come to incarnate the essence of the desired
gender identity and role,and thus it is not primarily the
body th at is desired, b ut what a female or male body
means in this society.
According to these psychological theories, if the indivi
dual fails to adjust to his native body and role, then she/he
should be treated. If all forms of personal and family ther
apy fail to adjust the would-be transsexual’s mind to the
would-be transsexual’s body, then the individual answer
is to adjust the transsexual’s body to his mind. In this
perspective, hormonal treatm ent and surgery become a
humane and logical solution to the transsexual problem.
Meanwhile, the social factors th at continue to reinforce
transsexualism go “untreated.” And transsexual treatm ent
and surgery becomes the ultimate “Individual Solution.”
To understand how sexual stereotypes are the First
Cause of transsexualism, we should look at how trans
sexuals think and speak of themselves and how they
“prove” they are “real” transsexuals by “passing” as mas
culine or feminine. In fact, they must prove they are real
before they are accepted for treatment. Thus the role of
the medical-psychiatric establishment in reinforcing sex-
role stereotypes is significant, and one that affects the
deepest dimensions of the transsexual issue.
Sappho by Surgery:
Lesbian-Fe min is t
T r a n s s e x u a l is m is
multifaceted. From all that has been said thus far, it is
clear th at it raises many of the most complex questions
feminism is asking about the origins and manifestations
of sexism and sex-role stereotyping.* While regarded by
many as an obscure issue th at affects a relatively minute
proportion of the population, transsexualism poses very
im portant feminist questions. Transsexually constructed
lesbian-feminists show yet another face of patriarchy. As
the male-to-constructed-female transsexual exhibits the
attem pt to possess women in a bodily sense while acting
out the images into which men have molded women, the
male-to-constructed-female who claims to be a lesbian-
feminist attem pts to possess women at a deeper level, this
time under the guise of challenging rather than conforming
to the role and behavior of stereotyped femininity. As
♦For a long tim e, I have been very hesitant about devoting a chapter
o f this book to what I call the “ transsexually constructed lesbian-
fem inist.” In the order this book was written, it was actually the
99
100 The Transsexual Empire
patriarchy is neither monolithic nor one-dimensional,
neither is transsexualism.
All men and male-defined realities are not blatantly
macho or masculinist. Many indeed are gentle, nurturing,
feeling, and sensitive, which, of course, have been the
more positive qualities th at are associated with stereo
typical femininity. In the same way th at the so-called
androgynous man assumes for himself the role of femi
ninity, the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist
assumes for himself the role and behavior of feminist.
The androgynous man and the transsexually constructed
lesbian-feminist deceive women in much the same way,
for they lure women into believing that they are truly
one of us—this time not only one in behavior but one in
spirit and conviction.
last chapter I wrote. The recent debate and divisiveness that the
transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist has produced within
fem inist circles has convinced me that, while transsexually con
structed lesbian-feminists may be a small percentage o f transsexuals,
the issue needs an in-depth discussion among feminists.
I write this chapter with the full realization that feminists look
at the issue o f the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist from
the vantage point o f a small com m unity in which transsexuals have
been able to be very visible—n ot because there are that many o f
them, but because they im m ediately have center stage. Thus focus
ing attention on this particular aspect o f the transsexual issue may
only serve to inflate the issue and their presence all the more. It may
also distract attention from the more central questions that trans
sexualism raises and the power o f the medical empire that creates
transsexualism to begin with.
Because the oral and written debate concerning the transsexually
constructed lesbian-feminist seem s to be increasing out o f proportion
to their actual numbers, I think that fem inists ought to consider
seriously the am ount o f energy and space we wish to give to this
discussion. However, if any space should be devoted to this issue, it
is in a book that purports to be a fem inist analysis o f transsexualism.
Furthermore, m ost o f the com m entary thus far has been limited to
letters to the editor and editorial com m ents in fem inist papers, as
well as a few scattered articles in various journals. Because o f limited
space, these analyses are necessarily restricted. I w ould like, there
fore, to provide an extensive and intensive analysis o f the issue and
to address the deeply m ythic dim ensions that the transsexually con
structed lesbian-feminist represents.
101 Sappho by Surgery
CONTRADICTIONS OR CONFIRMATIONS?
SELF-DEFINITION
One of the most constraining questions that transsexuals,
and, in particular, transsexually constructed lesbian-femi
nists, pose is the question of self-definition—who is a
woman, who is a lesbian-feminist? But, of course, they
pose the question on their terms, and we are faced with
answering it. Men have always made such questions of
major concern, and this question, in true phallic fashion,
is thrust upon us. How many women students writing on
such a feeble feminist topic as “ Should Women Be Truck
Drivers, Engineers, Steam Shovel Operators?” and the like,
have had their male professor scribble in the margins: “ But
what are the real differences between men and women?”
Men, of course, have defined the supposed differences that
have kept women out of such jobs and professions, and
feminists have spent much energy demonstrating how
these differences, if indeed they do exist, are primarily
114 Hie Transsexual Empire
the result of socialization. Yet there are differences, and
some feminists have come to realize th at those differences
are im portant whether they spring from socialization, from
biology, or from the total history of existing as a woman
in a patriarchal society. The point is, however, th at the
origin of these differences is probably n o t the im portant
question, and we shall perhaps never know the total an
swer to it. Yet we are forced back into trying to answer
it again and again.*
Transsexuals, and transsexually constructed lesbian-
feminists, drag us back to answering such old questions
by asking them in a new way. And thus feminists debate
and divide because we keep focusing on patriarchal ques
tions of who is a woman and who is a lesbian-feminist.
It is im portant for us to realize that these may well be non
questions and th at the only answer we can give to them is
th at we know who we are. We know th at we are women
who are bom with female chromosomes and anatomy, and
th at whether or n ot we were socialized to be so-called
normal women, patriarchy has treated and will treat us
like women. Transsexuals have not had this same history.
No man can have the history of being bom and located
in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of
wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but
this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of
a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward
and inward female organs but it cannot confer the history
of being bom a woman in this society.
What of persons bom with ambiguous sex organs or
chromosomal anomalies th at place them in a biologically
intersexual situation? It must be noted that practically
all of them are altered shortly after birth to become ana
tomically male or female and are reared in accordance
*A parallel is the abortion issue, which can also be noted in this con
text. The key question, asked by m en for centuries, is “ when does
life begin?” This question is posed in m en’s terms and on their turf,
and is essentially unanswerable. Women torture themselves trying
to answer it and thus do not assert or even develop our own ques
tion s about abortion.
115 Sappho by Surgery
with the societal gender identity and role that accom
panies their bodies. Persons whose sexual ambiguity is
discovered later are altered in the direction of what their
gender rearing has been (masculine or feminine) up to
that point. Thus those who are altered shortly after birth
have the history of being practically bom as male or fe
male and those who are altered later in life have their
body surgically conformed to their history. When and if
they do undergo surgical change, they do not become the
opposite sex after a long history of functioning and being
treated differently.
Although popular literature on transsexualism implies
that Nature has made mistakes with transsexuals, it is
really society that has made the mistake by producing
conditions that create the transsexual body/m ind split.
While intersexed people are bom with chromosomal or
hormonal anomalies, which can be linked up with cer
tain biological malfunctions, transsexualism is n o t of this
order. The language of “ Nature makes mistakes” only
serves to confuse and distort the issue, taking the focus
off the social system, which is actively oppressive. It suc
ceeds in blaming an amorphous “ Nature” that is made to
seem oppressive and is conveniently amenable to direct
control/manipulation by the instruments of hormones
and surgery.
In speaking of the importance of history for self-defi
nition, two questions must be asked. Should a person
want to change his/her personal and social history and if
so, how should one change that history in the most honest
and integral way? In answer to the first question, anyone
who has lived in a patriarchal society has to change per
sonal and social history in order to be a self. History can
not be allowed to determine the boundaries, life, and
location of the self. We should be change agents of our
own history. Women who are feminists obviously wish to
change parts of their history as women in this society;
some men who are honestly dealing with feminist ques
tions wish to change their history as men; and transsexuals
wish to change their history of wanting to be women. In
116 The Transsexual Empire
stressing the importance of female history for female
self-definition, I am n ot advocating a static view of such
history.
What is more im portant, however, is how one changes
personal history in the most honest and integral way, if
one wants to break down sex-role oppression. Should
nontranssexual men who wish to fight sexism take on
the identity of women and/or lesbian-feminists while
keeping their male anatomy intact? Why should castrated
men take on these identities and self-definitions and be
applauded for doing so? To what extent would concerned
blacks accept whites who had undergone medicalized
changes in skin color and, in the process, claimed th at they
had n o t only a black body b u t a black soul?
Can a transsexual assume the self-definition of lesbian-
feminist just because he wants to, or does this particular
self-definition proceed from certain conditions endemic to
female biology and history? Women take on the self
definition of feminist and/or lesbian because th at defini
tion truly proceeds from not only the chromosomal fact
of being bom XX, b u t also from the whole history of what
being bom with those chromosomes means in this society.
Transsexuals would be more honest if they dealt with their
specific form of gender agony th at inclines them to want a
transsexual operation. This gender agony proceeds from
the chromosomal fact of being bom XY and wishing that
one were bom XX, and from the particular life history
th at produced such distress. The place to deal with that
problem, however, is n o t the women’s community. The
place to confront and solve it is among transsexuals them
selves.
One should be able to make choices about who one
wants to be. But should one be able to make any choice?
Should a white person attem pt to become black, for ex
ample? The question is a moral one, which asks basically
about the rightness of the choice, n o t the possibility of it.
Should persons be able to make choices th at disguise cer
tain facets of our existence from others who have a right
117 Sappho by Surgery
to know—choices th at feed off others’ energies, and rein
force oppression?
Jill Johnston has commented that, “many women are
dedicated to working for the ‘reconstructed m an.’”28 This
usually means women gently or strongly prodding their
significant men into androgynous behavior and action.
Women who accept transsexually constructed lesbian-
feminists say th a t these men are truly “reconstructed”
in the m ost basic sense th at women could hope fo r—i.e.,
they have paid with their balls to fight against sexism. Ul
timately, however, the “reconstructed m an” becomes the
“reconstructed woman” who obviously considers himself
equal to and a peer of genetic women in terms of his
“womanhood.” One transsexual openly expressed th at he
felt male-to-constructed-female transsexuals surpassed
genetic women.
Genetic women cannot possess the very special courage, brilliance,
sensitivity and compassion—and overview—that derives from the
transsexual experience. Free from the chains of menstruation and
child-bearing, transsexual women are obviously far superior to
Gennys in many ways.
Genetic women are becoming quite obsolete, which is obvious,
and the future belongs to transsexual women. We know this, and
perhaps some of you suspect it. All you have left is your “ability”
to bear children, and in a world which will groan to feed 6 billion
by the year 2000, that’s a negative asset.29
Ultimately, women m ust ask if transsexually con
structed lesbian-feminists are our peers. Are they equal to
us? Questions of equality often center on proportional
equality, such as “equal pay for equal w ork,” or “ equal
rights to health care.” I do not mean equal in this sense.
Rather I use equality to mean: “like in quality, nature, or
status” and “ capable of meeting the requirements of a sit
uation or a task.” In these senses transsexuals are not equal
to women and are n ot our peers. They are neither equal
in “quality, nature of status” nor are they “capable of
meeting the requirements of the situation” of women who
have spent their whole lives as women.
118 The Transsexual Empire
Jill Johnston has written of lesbian-feminism: “ The
essence of the new political definition is peer grouping.
Women and men are n o t peers and many people seriously
doubt whether we ever were or if we ever could be.”30
Transsexuals are n o t our peers, by virtue of their history.
It is perhaps our mistrust of the man as the biological aggressor
which keeps bringing us back to the political necessity of power
by peer grouping. Although we are still virtually powerless it is only
by constantly adhering to this difficult principle of the power in
herent in natural peers (men after all have demonstrated the success
of this principle very well) that women will eventually achieve an
autonomous existence.31
The transsexual does not display the usual phallic aggres
sion. Instead he violates women’s bodies by taking on the
artifactual female organs for himself. The transsexually
constructed lesbian-feminist becomes a psychological and
social aggressor as well.
Transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists challenge
women’s preserves of autonomous existence. Their exis
tence within the women’s community basically attests to
the ethic th at women should not live w ithout men—or
w ithout the “reconstructed m an.” How feminists assess
and m eet this challenge will affect the future of our genu
ine movement, self-definition, and power of be-ing.
In the final analysis, transsexually constructed lesbian-
feminists are in the same tradition as the man-made,
made-up “lesbians” of the Playboy centerfolds. Every so
often, Playboy and similar magazines feature a “ Sappho
Pictorial.”32 Recently, male photographers have entered
the book m arket by portraying pseudolesbians in all sorts
of positions, clothing, and contexts that could only be
fantasized by a male mind.33 In short, the manner in
which women are depicted in these photographs mimics
the poses of men pawing women. Men produce “lesbian”
love the way they want it to be and according to their
own canons of what they think it should be.
Transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists are in this
tradition of pseudolesbian propaganda. Both the Playboy
119 Sappho by Surgery
pseudolesbian and the transsexual pseudolesbian spread
the “correct” (read male-defined) image of the lesbian,
which in turn filters into public consciousness through the
mass media as truth. By thus mutilating the true self
definition of the lesbian, men mold her image /reality ac
cording to their own. As Lisa Buck has commented, trans
sexualism is truly “their word made flesh!”34
Transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists attem pt
to function as image-makers of the lesbian-feminist—
not only for the public-at-large, but also for the women’s
community. Their masquerade of the lesbian filters into
women’s consciousness through the feminist media as “the
real thing.” The ultim ate tragedy of such a parody is that
the reality and self-definition of lesbian-feminist becomes
mutilated in women themselves. Lesbian-feminists who
accept transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists as other
selves are mutilating their own reality.
The various “breeds” of women th at medical science
can create are endless. There are the women who are
hormonally hooked on continuous doses of estrogen-
replacement therapy. ERT supposedly will secure for them
a new life of “eternal femininity.”35 There are the hys
terectomized women, purified of their “potentially lethal”
organs for “prophylactic” purposes.36 Finally, there is
the “she-male”—the male-to-constructed-female trans
sexual. And the offshoot of this “breed” is the transsex
ually constructed lesbian-feminist.
What all of these events point to is the particularly in
strumental role th at medicine has played in the control of
deviant or potentially deviant women. “ The Transsexual
Empire” is ultimately a medical empire, based on a patriar
chal medical model. This medical model has provided a
“sacred canopy” of legitimations for transsexual treatm ent
and surgery. In the name of therapy, it has medicalized
moral and social questions of sex-role oppression, thereby
erasing their deepest meaning.
CHAPTER V
Therapy
as a Way o f Life:
Medical Values
120
121 Therapy as a Way of Life
bility are n o t perceived as “curative” b ut are replaced by
technical “cures.”
Ultimately, one must ask if the transsexual problem is
really amenable to surgery and thus to a medical model.
Is the biomedical imperative th at has functioned in other
areas, such as genetic technology and psychosurgery, re
ducible to presuppositions about the nature of women
and men? If, as argued in Chapter III, transsexualism is of
sociopolitical origins, can it be understood and treated by
a medical model?
THERAPEUTIC FETISHIZATION
In discussing the various theories of transsexualism, I
often noted th at both biological and psychological theories
reduced the issue of transsexualism to individual or inter
personal causes. Another way of viewing this, and thus un
derstanding the reductionism more clearly, is to consider
these theories as fetishizations of the social. Not only the
theories, b u t the whole gamut of psychologizing, restrict
the issue to a very superficial area.
Ernest Becker, in The Structure o f Evil, discusses the
function of fetishization. He views it as an attem pt, in
some manageable way, to come to grips with a portion of
reality which is substituted for the whole. Fetishization,
for example, is one explanation why law-enforcement offi
cials in our society are so obsessed with issues of traffic
violations, marijuana, and the like, b u t cannot cope with
the much more serious problems of rape and murder. As
Becker contends, the lesser problems, and the attention
they receive, are social fetishizations of the problem of
morality in modem times.13 In the case of transsexualism,
it would be an overwhelming burden to attack the problem
of sex-role socialization on an individual, never mind so
cial, level. Therefore, it is easier, applying a fetishized
logic, to confront the problem within patriarchal identity
and role limits, thereby making use of a ready-made sys
tem of knowledge and therapy th at treats the problem in
dividually on a post-hoc basis.
Moreover, the fetish object is precisely the one that
128 The Transsexual Empire
presents itself to our eyes in the most striking and compel
ling way. Obviously in the case of transsexualism, th at
which is m ost directly and immediately expressed (from
the perspective o f the transsexual, especially) is the feel
ing/knowledge th at one is a woman “ trapped” in the body
of a man. Subsequent behavior and dress reinforce this
“ felt” identity and role. Evaluating whether or n o t a trans
sexual can “ pass successfully” in the role of his or her de
sired sex monopolizes the attention and energies of those
professionals in the gender identity clinics who should be
evaluating the culturally prescribed roles themselves. In
this same context, the reality of transsexualism is ex
plained by the supposed effectiveness of sex-conversion
surgery as the ultimate cure. These are all examples of
what Becker calls “ fetishizing the field,” or “creating a lo
cus of meaning in a very narrow sense, in order to be able
to have some reality th at calls upon one’s adaptive ener
gies.” 14
Transsexuals and transsexual “ experts” focus on the
genitalia of the opposite sex—the desired breasts and
vagina, or the construction of an artificial phallus. These
artifacts come to incarnate the essence of femaleness or
maleness which the transsexual so urgently desires. The
medical literature on transsexualism is filled with photo
graphs, plates, and anatomical drawings of sexual organs
th at have been constructed “ o nto” the postoperative
transsexual, in such a way as to highlight the “natural
look” th at the knife has wrought. Interestingly, these
photographs seldom show the whole person. With a zoom
lens effect, they center upon the breasts or phallus. Thus
the photographs themselves illustrate the fetishizing of
transsexualism. The medical-surgical solution begins to
assert control in the narrow area of the chemical and sur
gical specialties. Attention becomes focused upon con
structing the vagina, for example, in as aesthetic a way as
possible.
What Becker amplified in his discussion of fetishism,
Seymour Halleck discusses under the heading of “the
politics of symptoms.” Halleck points out th at treatm ent
129 Therapy as a Way of Life
which focuses on symptoms rather than on broad social
or existential issues is very likely to be efficient. In the
case of transsexualism, we see th at 90 percent of trans
sexuals report satisfaction postoperatively.ls However, as
Halleck explains, this kind of satisfaction is achieved at the
expense o f exploring the social meaning of the symptoms.
By the instrumentality of hormones and surgery, the
symptom is certainly removed but so is the indirect evi
dence provided by the symptom that something is amiss
on a deeper level. Therefore, after medical intervention,
transsexuals may have less power to cope with the forces
of oppression than before they started treatm ent, since
at this point, they fit into a role-defined world almost
completely. Any critical awareness is thus diffused. Since
the result of hormonal and surgical treatm ent is that the
transsexual becomes an agreeable participant in a society
which encourages sexism, primarily by sex-role oppression,
then the moral and political implications of that treatm ent
must be questioned. In this sense, transsexual surgery is a
“social tranquilizer.” For the sake of “health” and “well
being,” the status quo of patriarchy is strengthened.
*See Chapter I.
141 Therapy as a Way of Life
tion problems. In words that, upon first reading, appear
to be satire, we quickly come to realize that Postgate is
deadly serious (deadly to women, that is).
Imagine what would happen if a male child pill became freely avail
able throughout the world through the World Health Organization.
Even in developed countries there is surprising prejudice among
ordinary people in favour of having male children; among most
African, Asian, Central and South American peoples, this prejudice
amounts to almost an obsession. Countless millions of people would
leap at the opportunity to breed male: no compulsion or even pro
paganda would be needed to encourage its use, only evidence of suc
cess by exam ple.. . . I hope, incidentally, that it is obvious why I
specified a “man child” pill; one selecting for females would not
work.34
First of all, how are would-be transsexuals free “in the psy
chological sense”? How can they be ultimately “centers of
autonom y” if their motivation to choose differently is
held captive by a patriarchal society, so th at even what
they finally do choose (i.e., transsexual surgery) binds
them even more firmly to th at society? Secondly, how
are transsexuals free in the “ sociological sense” when in
148 The Transsexual Empire
deed they do depend upon the experimenters to “ satisfy”
their “spiritual needs” (the conviction and fulfillment of,
for example, finally becoming a woman) and “physi
cal needs” (e.g., acquiring the hormones and body of a
woman)?
Toward
the Development
o f an Ethic
o f Integrity
154
155 Toward the Development of an Ethic of Integrity
nous alchemy where stereotypical femininity is integrated
with a male genotype to produce a transsexually construc
ted woman. As alchemy treated the qualitative as quanti
tative in its attem pts to isolate vital forces of the universe
within its laboratories of m atter, transsexual treatm ent
does the same by reducing the quest for the vital forces of
selfhood to the artifacts of hormones and surgical ap
pendages. Transsexualism is comparable to the theme of
androgyny th at represents biological hermaphroditism, be
cause ultimately the transsexual becomes a surgically con
structed androgyne, and thus a synthetic hybrid. Further
more, the transsexual also becomes a sex-stereotyped
hermaphrodite, often unwittingly displaying his former
masculine gestures, behavior, and style while attempting
to conform to his new feminine role.
The first drafts of this chapter were entitled “ An Ethic
of Androgyny.” But as I examined the androgynous tradi
tion and its uses in recent literature, problems of ety
mology, history, and philosophy arose th at were not evi
dent at first glance. These necessitated the choice of a
different ethical vision, which I have called integrity. The
word integrity means an original unity from which no part
can be taken away—thus an original wholeness of person-
hood not divided by sex-role definitions. Androgyny, in
contrast, connotes integration—putting together the parts
of masculinity and femininity in order to complete that
which is supposedly incomplete. This gives a clue to the
reality of the transsexual process, which can be viewed as
adding the desired body and role parts to the “native-
born” self, while discarding other parts, yet never going
beyond the parts themselves to a more intrinsic unity of
personhood. Thus, what I call an ethic o f integrity is an
attem pt to discuss an original unity before the Fall of
sex-role stereotyping. Until those contemplating trans
sexual surgery come to realize th at such a step does
nothing to prom ote this integrity on both a personal
and social level, they will continue to settle for many of
the false and partial modes of androgynous integration.
156 The Transsexual Empire
THE ANDROGYNOUS TRADITION
Suggestions
for
Change
178
179 Appendix: Suggestions for Change
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY
CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING COUNSELING
Nonsexist counseling is another direction for change that
should be explored. The kind o f counseling to “ pass”
successfully as masculine or feminine th at now reigns in
gender identity clinics only reinforces the problem of
transsexualism. It does nothing to develop critical aware
ness, it makes transsexuals passive spectators of their own
decline, it manages transsexuals’ intimacy, and ultimately
181 Appendix: Suggestions for Change
it makes them dependent upon the medical-technical solu
tion. Such counseling destroys integrity and the potential
of transsexuals to deal with their problem in an autono
mous, genuinely personal, and responsibly social way. The
transsexual becomes a kind o f acolyte to his doctor and
psychiatrist, and learns to depend upon these professionals
for maintenance. The baptism o f “ passing” behavior that is
conferred upon the transsexual, plus the administration of
exogenous hormones, along with constant requests for cor
rective polysurgery, turn him into a lifelong patient. Ivan
Illich has called this cultural iatrogenesis.
Cultural iatrogenesis . . . consists in the paralysis of healthy re
sponses to suffering, impairment, and death. It occurs when people
accept health management designed on the engineering model, when
they conspire in an attem pt to produce, as if it were a commodity,
something called “ better health.” This inevitably results in the
managed maintenance of life on high levels o f sub-lethal illness.2
What I advocate, instead of a counseling that issues in
a medicalization of the transsexual’s suffering, is a coun
seling based on “ consciousness-raising.” In the early stages
of the current feminist movement, consciousness-raising
groups were very common. These groups were composed
of women who talked together about their problems and
directions as women in a patriarchal society. Gradually,
these groups came to the insight that “ the personal is po
litical,” thus providing the first reconciliation between
what had always been labeled the “personal” and the “po
litical” dimensions of life. Women, who had felt for years
that the dissatisfaction they had experienced as women
was a personal problem, came to realize in concert with
other women th at these problems were not peculiar to
them as individuals but were common to women as a caste.
Until feminism focused attention on the debilitating social-
political framework of sexism, most women had catego
rized their dissatisfaction as “merely personal.” From
these consciousness-raising groups came much of the initial
political action of the women’s movement.
Five elements or processes appear repeatedly, under
182 The Transsexual Empire
different names, in literature about consciousness-raising
groups.
1. Self-revelation. This involves each individual talking
about her attitudes and life.
2. Sharing. Experiences and attitudes revealed often weave
a tapestry of similarity so th at the commonality of per
sonal experiences becomes obvious, and its political char
acter is revealed.
3. Analysis. Recognition of the reasons and causes for the
commonality of such personal experiences with an exten
sive analysis of the social-political, economic, and moral
forces that support such experiences.
4. Abstracting. Theorizing about concrete experiences and
about social forces and sources, while drawing on the in
sights of others for perspective.
5. Action. Concretizing analysis into appropriate tasks,
goals, projects, and the like.3
Would it be possible for these elements of consciousness-
raising to be transplanted into a one-to-one counseling
situation where they could be used to explore the social
origins of the transsexual problem and the consequences of
the medical-technical solution? Counseling of this nature
would raise the kinds of questions that I advocated pre
viously, such as: is individual gender suffering relieved at
the price of role conformity and the perpetuation of role
stereotypes on a social level? In “ changing sex,” does the
transsexual encourage a sexist society whose continued
existence depends upon the perpetuation of these roles
and stereotypes? Does transsexual treatm ent repress the
transsexual’s capacity for social protest and criticism?
Does it act as a social tranquilizer? These and similar ques
tions are seldom raised in transsexual therapy at present.
However, aside from this one-to-one form of counseling,
the model of consciousness-raising emphasizes the group
process itself. As women have analyzed their own prob
lems as women in consciousness-raising groups, it is ex
tremely im portant th at transsexuals, as persons wishing to
change sex, take their particular manifestation of gender
183 Appendix: Suggestions for Change
oppression into their own hands. Transsexuals are not
women. They are deviant males, and their particular mani
festation of gender deviancy needs its own unique context
of peer support.
Peer support has been one of the crucial aspects of
consciousness-raising in feminist groups. Given the support
of other women, it became possible for many to break the
bonds of so-called “ core” gender identity. In the same
way, peer support could be extremely insightful for trans
sexuals. It could help surface the deeper issues that lie be
hind the problem of why one finds one’s self with, for
example, a “ female mind in a male body.” It could then
assist in exploring whether indeed this is the proper label
for the transsexual’s unique form of sex-role oppression.
Such counseling and group interaction would be far
more honest than the present forms of therapy th at pro
mote passing. I am n o t so naive as to think that they will
make transsexualism disappear overnight, but they would
at least pose the existence o f a real alternative to be ex
plored and tried. Given peer encouragement to transcend
cultural definitions of both masculinity and femininity,
without changing one’s body, persons considering trans
sexualism might not find it as necessary to resort to sex-
conversion surgery.
187
188 The Transsexual Empire
10. Brian Tully, Accountingfor Transsexualism and Trans
homosexuality (London: Whiting & Birch Ltd., 1992), see especially
pp. 214-33; the University of Minnesota’s Program in Human Sex
uality requires that persons seeking sex reassignment, prior to sur
gery, “live a minimum of one year in the role of the opposite sex.”
See Winegar, p. 24.
11. Formal Comments of the American Society of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgeons filed with the FDA on July 1,1982, and
quoted in Felicity Barringer, “Many Surgeons Reassure Their Pa
tients on Implants,” The New York Times, January 29, 1992, C12.
12. L. Gooren, “The Endocrinology of Transsexualism: a Review
and Commentary,” Psychoendocrinology 15 (1990): 3-14.
13. Alice Echols, “The New Feminism of Yin and Yang,” in Ann
Snitow, et al. (eds.), Desire: the Politics of Sexuality (London: Vir
ago, 1984), p. 66.
14. Annie Woodhouse, Fantastic Women: Sex, Gender and
Transvestism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989), p.
81.
15. Somer Brodribb, “ReproTech: Script for a New Generation,”
Broadside 10, no. 5 (1989): 11.
16. Sandy Stone, “The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual
Manifesto,” in Julia Epstein and Kristina Straub, Body Guards: the
Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity (New York: Routledge, 1991),
p. 296.
17. Somer Brodribb, Nothing Matters: A Feminist Critique of Post
modernism (North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Spinifex Press,
1992; also published by New York University Press, 1993), pp. xvi,
xviii.
18. Stone, p. 299.
19. Stone, pp. 283, 300.
20. Judith Shapiro, “Transsexualism: Reflections on the Persist
ence of Gender and the Mutability of Sex,” in Epstein and Straub,
Body Guards, p. 253.
21. Shapiro, p. 262.
22. Shapiro, p. 262.
23. Shapiro, p. 255.
24. Shapiro, p. 259.
25. Steve Greenberg, “The Next Wave,” The Advocate 633, July
13, 1993, pp. 51-52.
26. Greenberg, p. 52.
27. Greenberg, p. 52.
28. Greenberg, p. 52.
29. While I realize that much of the traditional literature distin
guishes among drag queens, cross dressers, and transvestism, and
that there are some significant differences among these groups,
what they all have in common is that they wear women’s clothes.
189 Notes
Further, they wear the kind of hyperfeminine women’s clothes that
many women would never wear. Thus, I use these terms inter
changeably for purposes of this Introduction.
30. David A. Keeps, “How RuPaul Ups the Ante for Drag,” The
New York Times, July 11, 1993, p. H23.
31. Keeps, p. H23.
32. Kathy Miriam, “From Rage to All the Rage: Lesbian-
Feminism, Sadomasochism and the Politics of Memory,” in Irene
Reti, ed., Unleashing Feminism: a Collection of Radical Feminist
Writings (Santa Cruz, CA: Herbooks, 1993), pp. 51-52,nll6.
33. Leslie Feinberg, Stone Butch Blues (Ithaca, New York: Fire
brand Books, 1993), pp. 158-59. See text for further page refer
ences.
34. Leslie Bennetts, “k.d. lang Cuts It Close,” Vanity Fair, Au
gust, 1993, p. 98.
35. Bennetts, p. 97.
36. Bennetts, p. 144.
37. Bennetts, pp. 94-95.
38. Bennetts, p. 99.
39. Bennetts, p. 144.
40. Miriam, pp. 66-67.
213
214 Index
Brandt, Karl, 150, 2 10 social change and, 6 6 -6 8
Breast cancer, 33, 172, 193, 208 Robert Stoller on, 71
Breast implants, 33 Cosmetic surgery, 34
Brennan, John G., 52, 81 Cross-dressing, 38, 4 1 -4 2 , 73,
Brown, Norman O., 108 76, 144
Brownmiller, Susan, 90 gender identity clinics and, 93
Buck, Lisa, 119 Culpepper, Emily, 188
Bureau o f Vital Statistics (Bal Cultural iatrogenesis, 181
tim ore), 39
Burou, Georges, 10, 126 Daly, Mary, 17, 28, 102, 104,
107, 110, 159, 1 6 8 -6 9 , 173,
Cabala, 1 5 6 -5 7 1 9 7 ,2 1 1
Callahan, Daniel, 15 de Beauvoir, Sim one, 106
Callison, James, 6 De-ethicization, 1 2 5 -2 7
Carson, Rachel, 165 Delgado, Jos6, 1 3 7 -3 8
Carter, Jim m y, 24 DES, 32
Castration, 138, 208 D ionysus, 1 0 6 -1 0
definition o f, xxiv “ Doctors Trial,” 148
fear o f, 71
as irreversible surgery, 1 04 Edgerton, M ilton, 6, 35, 146
as surgical procedure, 33 Ehrenreich, Barbara, 29
Castration, female. S ee Female Ehrhardt, Anke, 9, 25, 27, 47,
castration 4 9 -5 3 , 5 6 -5 9
“ Castration, horm onal.” S ee Elbe, Lili, 21
“ Hormonal castration” Electrolysis, 24, 32
Castration anxiety, 7 5-7 6 Electronic brain stim ulation
Cauldwell, D. O., 20 (ESB), 1 3 8 -3 9 , 139n
Childhood transsexualism, 200 E m ergen ce (Martino with har-
as treated in gender identity clin riet), xxii
ics, 77, 9 4 -9 8 , 136, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 Endocrine or hormonal sex, 7, 10
Chromosomal sex, 6, 7, 10, 126 English, Dierdre, 29
in dispensability o f X chrom o Enspirit, 168
som e, 58 Erickson Educational Founda
personal history and, 116 tion, 16, 19, 21, 23, 92, 192
Chrysalis, 1 09 Erigena, John Scotus, 156, 158
Clitoridectom y, xxv, 207 (see Ervin, Frank, 137, 207
also Female castration) Estrogen
as behavior control and m odi as cancer-causing, 3 3 -3 4 , 193,
fication, 131 208
Commoner, Barry, 165 in developing em bryo, 58
Comte, Auguste, 1 5 8 -5 9 as nothing, 50, 57
Conflict and vindication, 1 6 9 -7 0 as treatment, 3 2 -3 4
Connors, Denise, 187 Estrogen replacement therapy
Consciousness-raising, 124 (ERT), 34, 119
as counseling, 1 8 0 -8 3 Ethics, 1 -2 , 67
elem ents o f, 1 8 1 -8 2 de-ethicization, 1 2 5 -2 7
peer support and, 183 “ health” values versus ethical
Control-through-pleasure, 1 3 7 -3 8 values, 121
C on un dru m (Morris), 8 7 -8 8 medical m odel as ethical con
Core gender identity, 2, 4 4 -4 5 , struct, 1 2 1 -2 5
200 (see also Gender identity) the ontological tradition and,
as altered by fem inism , 6 4 -6 5 2 1 1 -1 2
Index 215
transsexualism as an ethical is Fetish
sue, 178 definitions of, 30
Eunuchs, 203 Fetishization (see also Objecti
as forerunners o f transsexually fication)
constructed lesbian-feminists, as process o f control, 31
1 0 5 -6 in surgery, 132
as keepers o f w om en, 1 0 5 -6 in therapy, 1 2 7 -2 9
Eve, 106, 1 5 7 ,1 9 4 as typified in transsexualism,
“Eve base view ,” 59 2 9 -3 1
Exhibitionism , 8 3 -8 4 , 88n First Cause
“Experience deprivation,” 76 legislation, 1 7 9 -8 0
o f transsexualism, 16, 70, 86,
Fall, the, 156, 1 5 8 ,1 6 4 185
into m asculinity and fem i Freud, Sigmund, 54, 63, 71
ninity, 164
Fam ily, 43 , 6 0 -7 0 , 77 Gadpaille, Warren, 58
childhood transsexualism and, Gender, 8, 9
9 5 -9 8 Gender dysphoria, 9, 1 1 -1 2
Father, 95 Gender identity, 3, 4 6 -5 0 , 5 2 -
role in developm ent o f trans 53, 6 0 -6 8 (see also Core gen
sexualism , 69 , 7 1 -7 5 , 96, der identity)
197 animal experim ents and, 4 8 -
“ Fear o f discovery,” 37, 138 4 9 ,5 3 - 5 7
Feinbloom , Deborah Heller, 202 gender role and, 9
Female castration, x x iii-x x v “ locking tight” of, 46, 6 2 -6 5 ,
Female-to-constructed-male 200
transsexualism native language and, 46, 6 0 -6 2
as assimilation o f potentially Gender identity clinics, 142,
deviant w om en, xxiii, xv 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ,2 0 2 -3
hormonal and surgical treat behavior control and m odifica
m ent, 3 5 -3 8 tion a n d ,1 3 2 -3 9
incidence of, x x i-x x ii establishm ent o f, 23
Female-to-constructed-male as future centers o f sex-role
transsexuals, 203 control, 1 3 6 -3 7 , 167
difficulty in obtaining data on, as perpetuators o f sex-role
25, 189 stereotyping, 13, 77, 9 1 -9 8 ,
experience o f role strain, 8 1 - 180
82 tokenism and, 27
identification with men, xxv, Gender role, 9
8 4 -8 5 Genital or gonadal sex, 7, 10
as tokens, x x i, xxiv, 2 7 -2 8 , G ennys, 117
140 Gilder, George, 198
Feminism, 80, 85, 1 1 4 -1 5 , 177, Gnosticism, 1 5 6 -6 0
184 God, 106, 156
alteration o f core gender iden Green, Richard, 7 3 -7 4 , 146
tity and, 64 Grossman, Paula (Paul), 78, 165
consciousness-raising and, 181 Guttentag, O tto, 147, 151
transsexuals’ claims to be fem i Guze, Henry, 76, 87, 206
nist, 89, 9 1 , 9 9 -1 0 0 n Gynandry, 160
transsexuals’ opinion of, 82 G yn /E c o lo g y : T he M e ta eth ic s o f
Fem ininity/fem inine R adical F em in ism (D aly),
use o f these terms, 3 107
216 Index
Haire, Norma, 21 “ Informed consent,” 134, 137,
Halleck, Seym our, 1 2 8 -3 0 1 4 6 -4 7
Hamburger, Christian, 2 0 -2 1 , Integration, 212
2 5 ,1 9 3 as com pletion, 159
Harrison, Jane, 109 definition o f, 1 5 4 - 5 5 ,1 5 9
Health hybrid aspect of, 1 6 0 -6 1
etym ology, 122, 205 versus integrity, 1 5 9 -6 4
“ Health” values, 2 Integrity, 1, 1 7 -1 8 , 104, 1 5 5 -
the medical m odel and, 1 2 1 -2 5 56, 163, 174, 181, 2 1 1 -1 2
Heilbrun, Carolyn, 1 6 0 -6 1 definition o f, 154, 163
Hermaphroditism, 6 2 (see also “health” values and, 122
Intersexuality) and the intuition o f be-ing,
androgyny and, 155, 159, 164 1 7 1 -7 5
in animal experim ents, 53 loss o f, 164
Heterosexuality, 84, 87, 122, social aspects o f, 167, 179
157, 202 versus integration, 1 5 9 -6 4
H om osexuality, 4, 95, 184 Integrity and transformation,
as an androgynous them e, 157 1 6 9 -7 1
legislation against, 3 8 -3 9 , 108 Interactionist theory, 4 4 -5 3
transsexuals’ antipathy for, 84, Intersexuality, 1 1 4 -1 5 (See also
87, 122 Hermaphroditism)
Hoopes, John, 12, 170 Interviews
“ Hormonal castration,” 32 difficulty in locating female-to-
Hormonal treatm ent, 2, 13, 70, constructed-male transsex
126, 1 2 9 ,1 3 2 uals, 25, 88n
androgen as, 3 5 -3 6 techniques, 1 5 -1 6 , 1 9 0-91
as bio-ecologically destructive, with transsexuals, 7 7 -8 6 , 9 0 -
165, 1 72 91
as cancer-causing, 33, 140,
193, 208 Janus Inform ation Facility, 23,
estrogen as, 3 2 -3 4 192
o f fem ale-to-constructed male Jesus, 106, 156
transsexuals, 3 5 -3 7 Johns Hopkins, 6, 15, 19, 22,
o f m ale-to-constructed-female 24, 39, 41, 9 1 -9 2 , 9 6 -9 7 ,
transsexuals, 32 136
H om ey, Karen, 24 Johnston, Jill, 1 1 7 -1 8
Horrors o f the Half-Known Life, Jones, Clinton, 24
The (Barker-Benfield), xxiii Jorgensen, Christine (George),
Hoyer, Neils, 21 13, 2 0 -2 1 , 78
“ Human Continuum, T he” Journal o f the American Medical
(Roszak), 161 Association, 20, 137
Hynes, Pat, 1 0 2 , 1 13
Hypothalamus, 46, 48 , 5 0 -5 1 Kando, Thomas, 7 9 -8 6
H ysterectom y, 143 Kinsey, Alfred, 191
as taming potentially deviant Knorr, Norman, 6
wom en, xxv, 36n
as transsexual surgery, 3 6 -3 7 Law
morality and, 1 7 9 -8 0
Iatrogenesis. See Cultural iatro- Laws, Judith Long, 27
genesis Legal aspects o f transsexualism,
Ihlenfeld, Charles, 184, 209, 212 78
Illich, Ivan, 142, 181 “ catchall” statutes, 39, 42
Index 217
cross-dressing, 38, 4 1 -4 2 M illett, Kate, 130
disorderly conduct statutes, M isogyny, 1 5 8 ,1 6 7 - 6 8
3 8 ,4 2 M oney, John, 1 -2 , 6, 9, 1 1 ,1 5 ,
female im personation, 38, 42 2 2 -2 5 , 2 8 ,4 3 - 5 3 , 5 6 -6 8 , 7 3 -
liability in tort, 40 74, 81, 83, 126, 16 0 , 198,
mayhem statutes, 40 200
prostitution, 79n M oniz, Egas, 131
Legal sex, 7 ,1 0 - 1 1 Morality, 121, 123, 131
Lesbian-feminism the law and, 1 7 9 -8 0
as boundary-crossing, 108 reclassified as a technical prob
as n ot man-made, 1 0 5 -6 lem, 2, 125
self-definition and, 1 0 1 ,1 1 3 - Morgan, R obin, xxv, 85
19 Morris, Jan (James), 78, 83, 8 6 -
L obotom y, 131 (See also Psy 9 0 , 126, 143, 166, 184
chosurgery) Mother, 95
Luckmann, Thomas, 64 role in developm ent o f trans
Lukianovicz, N., 75 sexualism, 7 1 -7 6 , 9 6 -9 7
Lysistrata, (Aristophanes), 158 Murderers Among Us, The: The
Simon Wiesenthal Memoirs
“Male child” pill, 1 4 0 -4 1 (Wechsberg), 152
“ Male m othering,” 29, 74, 75n, M ystification, 125
1 0 7 ,1 5 7
Mammoplasty, 3 3 ,1 4 3 Native language
Man & Woman, Boy & Girl gender identity and, 46, 6 0 -
(M oney and Ehrhardt), 9, 46, 62
53, 59, 160 Nature-nurture debate, 1, 4 4 -4 9
Man Into Woman: An Authentic Nazi medical experim entation,
Record o f a Change o f Sex 1 4 8 -5 2
(H oyer), 21 New York State Code o f Crimi
Marcuse, Herbert, 1 7 6 -7 7 nal Procedure, 3 8 ,4 1
Mari tain, Jacques, 171, 174 Nolan, James, 162
Mark, Vernon, 137, 207 Nuremberg trials, 148, 150
Martino, Mario (Marie), xxii Nurses
Mary, 106 as m odels o f fem ininity for
M asculinity/masculine transsexuals, 94
use o f these terms, 3
Masochism. See Sado-masochism Oakley, Ann, 49, 5 3 -5 4
M astectom y, 143 O bjectification, 79, 93 (see also
as transsexual surgery, 3 6 -3 7 Fetishization)
Medical experim entation, 1 BO as typified in transsexualism,
SS, 2 0 9 ,2 1 0 2 9 -3 0
in Nazi concentration camps, Oedipus (Sophocles), 158
1 4 8 -5 2 Olivia Records, 1 0 2 -3 , 201
Medical m odel, 1 -2 O ophorectom y (ovariotom y)
as de-ethicizing, 1 2 5 -2 7 as surgical procedure in female-
definition o f, 120 to-constructed-male trans
as fetishizing, 1 2 7 -2 9 sexuals, 36
“ health” values and, 1 2 1 -2 4 as taming potentially deviant
as theoretical and ethical con wom en, x xiii-xxiv, 36n
struct, 1 1 9 -2 5 Operant conditioning, 133
Menstruation, 3 5 -3 6 Ovariotomy. See O ophorectom y
Meyer, Jon, 12, 170 Ovesey, Lionel, 76
218 Index
Pain Raym ond, Janice G., 109, 156n
medical theodicies and, 1 4 2 -4 5 Raysdon, Allen, 78
pleasure and, 1 4 3 -4 4 Reinforcem ent, 133
social situation o f, 142 Rekers, George, 1 9 9 -2 0 0
transcendence and, 168, 174 Repressive tolerance
“ Passing,” 13, 70, 83, 126, 1 8 0 - sensitivity and, 1 7 5 -7 7
SI “ Repressive Tolerance” (Mar
as behavior control and m odi cuse), 177
fication, 133, 135 Rich, Adrienne, 113, 139n
as fetishization, 1 28 Richards, Renee, 102, 184
in gender identity clinics, 9 1 - Richardson, Herbert, 169
92, 128 R ieff, Philip, 1 2 3 -2 4
in K ando’s study, 83 R ise an d Fall o f th e T hird R eich,
in transsexually constructed T he (Shirer), 151
lesbian-feminists, 104, 2 0 2 -3 Role strain, 81
transsexuals’ accounts o f, 77 R o o m o f O n e ’s O w n, A (W oolf),
Peer grouping 160
lesbian-feminism and, 118 Rorvik, David M., 200
Peer support R o sa lyn F ranklin an d the D N A
in consciousness-raising coun (Sayre), 192
seling, 183 Rose, Elizabeth, 109
Penectom y, 143 Roszak, Betty, 161
as transsexual surgery, 33 Russell, Donald, 5
P en th o u se, 1 1 1 -1 2
Person, Ethel, 76 Sado-masochism, 90, 1 4 3 -4 5
P ersonal A u to b io g ra p h y , A (Jor Saint-Simonians, 1 5 8 -5 9
gensen), 191 “ Sappho Pictorial,” 118
“ Phallic w om an,” 76 Sayre, Anne, 192
Phallus construction Seaman, Barbara, 29
as transsexual surgery, 3 6 -3 8 , Self-definition
194 female history and, 1 1 3 -1 1 9
Pharmacracy, 149, 210 Separation and return, 1 6 9 -7 0
Plastic reconstruction Separation anxiety, 76
as transsexual surgery, 33 S ex Change: The A c h ie v e m e n t
Plato, 1 5 7 -5 8 o f G en d er I d e n tity am o n g
P la y b o y , 118 F e m in ize d Transsexuals
Polysurgery, 4, 35, 181 (Kando), 79
Postgate, John, 1 4 0 -4 1 Sexes, the six, 6 -8
Progesterone, 57 S e x o lo g y magazine, 93
as treatm ent, 32 Sex-selection technology, 140
Progestin-induced syndrom e, 52, S exu a l I d e n tity C o n flic t in C hil
56 dren an d A d u lts (Green), 74
Prostitution, 79, 79n, 83, 92, S exu a l P o litics (M illett), 130
198 S exu a l S ignatures (Money and
Psychological sex, 8 -9 Tucker), 59, 6 5 -6 6 , 196, 202
“Psychopathia transsexualis,” 20 S exu a l S u icide (Gilder), 198
Psychosurgery, 131, 137 Sherwin, Robert, 42
Shirer, William, 151
Radiation m enopause, 36 S ister, 201
Ramey, Estelle, 58 Skinner, B. F., 1 3 3 -3 4 , 137
R am parts, 161 Slater, Philip, 107
Randell, John, 24, 206 Speech therapy, 32
Index 219
Stackhouse, Max, 201 Testosterone
Stanley, Julia, 196, 200 in animal experim ents, 54
Stebbins, R. A., 190 social factors and, 57
Stereotypes, 3, 46, 67, 7 7 -7 9 as treatm ent, 3 5 -3 6
definition o f, 66 Theodicy
as the First Cause o f trans definition of, 2
sexualism, 16, 70, 86, 185 medical theodicies, 1 4 2 -4 8
“ flexib le” stereotypes (M oney), as sado-masochistic collusion,
46, 6 5 -6 8 1 4 3 -4 5
interchangeability o f roles, 8 9 - Therapy, 2
91, 169 as experim entation, 1 3 9 -4 0
in K ando’s study, 7 9 -8 6 as fetishization, 1 2 7 -2 9
in psychological theories o f as individualizing, 1 2 1 -2 3 , 125
transsexualism, 75, 77 as limiting moral options, 123,
as reinforced by gender iden 125
tity clinics, 9 1 -9 8 as political, 1 2 9 -3 1
transsexually constructed “Third Sex, T he” (Nolan), 161
lesbian-feminists and, 99, Thom pson, William Irwin, 139
1 0 2 -4 Tillich, Paul, 174, 211
transsexuals’ rearrangement of, “Toilet trauma,” 37
8 6 -9 1 Tokenism, xxi, xxiv, 2 6 -2 8 , 140
Steifel, Jan, 208 Tom boyism , 5 1 -5 3 , 56, 5 9 -6 0
Stoller, Robert, 8, 59, 7 0 -7 3 , T o w ard a R e c o g n itio n o f A n
75, 121 d ro g y n y (Heilbrun), 160
Stone, Sandy, 1 0 1 -3 , 2 0 1 -2 Transcendence, 2, 17, 140, 143,
S tru c tu re o f E vil, The (Becker), 1 6 3 ,1 6 6 ,1 6 8 - 7 1
127 gender dissatisfaction and, 132
Suplee, Zelda, 16, 23, 25, 37, integrity and, 163
8 8 n , 192 the intuition o f be-ing and,
Surgery, 2, 129 1 7 3 -7 4
as behavior control and m odi as limited by the medical
fication, 1 3 1 -3 9 m odel, 2, 123
com plications, 3 4 -3 5 , 37, 140, Richardson’s three m yths of,
143, 165, 208 1 6 9 -7 1
cost of, 2 3 -2 4 , 1 5 0 -5 1 short-circuited, 168, 174
as experim entation, 140, 1 4 7 - T ranssexual E x p e rim e n t, The
53 (Stoller), 72
as false signal o f transcendence, T ranssexual P h en o m en o n , The
171 (Benjamin), 21, 192
in female-to-constructed-male Transsexualism
transsexuals, 3 6 -3 7 as behavior control and m odi
as fetishization, 132 fication, 1 3 1 -3 9
in m ale-to-constructed-female childhood, 77, 9 4 -9 8 , 136
transsexuals, 3 2 -3 5 cost o f surgery, 2 3 -2 4 , 1 5 0-51
pain and, 143, 174 difficulty in obtaining data on,
public and private financing of, 23, 25, 189
24, 1 5 0 -5 1 history of, 1 9 -2 4 , 43
sex-role oppression and, 13 language of, 3 -6 , 1 1 -1 4
as taming potentially deviant legal aspects of, 3 8 -4 2 , 78, 79n
wom en, xxiv as a male problem, 2 4 -3 1
Sweet, William, 137 as medical experim entation,
Szasz, Thomas, 125, 130, 149 1 3 9 -5 3
220 Index
Transsexualism (continued) as potential social critics, 1 2 3 -
medical procedures, 3 1 -3 8 24, 129, 132, 1 7 2 ,1 7 6 , 1 8 1 -
m ythic dim ensions o f, 1 0 6 -1 0 82
public and private financing of, Transvestism, 144, 152
24, 136, 1 5 0 -5 1 , 199, 207 compared with transsexualism,
as takeover o f fem ale creativity, 76
29, 1 0 7 -8 , 2 03 the law and, 3 8 -3 9 , 42
w om en’s non-acceptance of, “Trial o f the Twenty-Three,”
8 4 -8 5 148
“Transsexualism: An Etiological Tucker, Patricia, 27, 59, 6 0 -6 1 ,
and Ethical Analysis” (R ay 6 5 -6 6 , 126
m ond), 156n
T ranssexualism an d S ex R eassign U.C.L.A. Gender Identity and
m e n t (M oney and Green), Research Program, 40, 95, 97
191 University o f Minnesota, 40, 80
“ Transsexualism: The Ultim ate
Homage to Sex-Role Pow er” Vaginoplasty, 143
(R aym ond), 109 as transsexual surgery, 33
Transsexually constructed les- Van Tassell, Eileen, 58
bian-feminists, 2 0 2 -3 Voluntarism, 1 3 4 - 3 5 ,1 3 7 , 140,
as boundary-violators, 1 0 8 - 1 4 7 ,1 5 2
10
deception o f w om en by, 100, Walker, Paul, 11, 15, 23
104, 1 13 Well-being, 125, 1 7 1 -7 2
divisiveness o f, lOOn, 102, 104, West, Rebecca, 87
114 Wollman, Leo, 33, 193
as image-makers o f the lesbian- W oolf, Virginia, 1 6 0-61
fem inist, 1 0 6 , 119
as keepers o f wom en, 99, 1 0 5 - Zeus, 1 0 6 -7
6
m asculinity o f, 1 0 2 -4
as men w ithout “ m em bers,”
1 0 4 -6
the m yth o f D ionysus and,
1 0 6 -1 0
seduction o f lesbian-feminists
by, 1 1 0 -1 3
as violators o f w om en’s sex
uality and spirit, 104, 118
Transsexuals (see also Trans
sexually constructed lesbian-
fem inists)
evaluation o f surgery, 35, 2 0 5 -
6, 209
identification with m en, 25,
8 4 -8 5 , 8 7 -8 8 , 88n
interviews with, 7 7 -7 9
masochism o f, 1 4 3 -4 5
as m edically managed indi
viduals, 33, 1 2 2 -2 3 , 145,
1 7 2 -7 3 , 1 8 0 -8 1
occupations o f, 83