We know anecdotally that lots of FTM
people don't have genital reconstruction. That
puts a lot of people in an interesting position
with respect to the definitions of sex and
gender, and gets lots of other people very
confused. I don't advocate surgery to alleviate
the confusion of others. I also don't believe
that genital configuration -- or genital
geometry, to borrow a phrase I like from
Stanford biology professor Joan Roughgarden --
is what defines either one's sex or one's
gender.
There's no denying, however, that genital
geometry is an important marker in our
understanding of sex (when applied to others)
and in our relationship to our own
body/sex/gender composition. Some FTMs feel a
tremendous amount of pressure to have genital
reconstruction, because they feel "incomplete"
without a visible penis. Whether that penis can
be sensate or functional is another matter,
depending on finances, one's physical
characteristics, the expertise of the selected
surgeon, and sometimes plain old luck. Other
FTM-identified guys wouldn't let a scalpel near
their genitals, while still others are in a
holding pattern until science advances enough to
give them a throbbing Jeff Stryker lookalike
they imagine would appear completely natural
even on a 5'1", 110-pound body. In any case,
people with female sex organs that present in
every other way as men sometimes live in a state
of fear lest they be discovered, sometimes live
in a state of complete comfort with their
bodies, and sometimes gravitate between these
poles in varying states of self-acceptance.
This seems to be the crux of the matter:
self-acceptance. In combination with what each
of us believes about the definition of maleness
and femaleness and our relationship to these
features, self-acceptance is the key to our
decision-making process when it comes to any
body-altering procedure. Consciously or not, we
evaluate what we understand about the procedure
in question, and, basing our judgment on what we
expect to be the possible outcomes, we decide
what we can live with or without as part of
ourselves. Self-acceptance and then self-esteem
are crucial factors in our ability to achieve
our goals in life. And for those of us who
struggle with gender issues, putting the pieces
of our individual puzzles together can be a
complex challenge.
Whether we are men, women, or in-between, we
are always engaged in a social process of being
accepted by others as well as ourselves. We form
cultural agreements about what is recognizable
and acceptable as masculine and feminine and
androgynous, we decide where our comfort zone is
for ourselves, and then we form friendships with
people who accept us for who we are and with
whom we enjoy spending our time.
What makes a man?
We do not form our friendships based on
genital geometry. Sure, people who are sexually
attracted to men are usually interested in the
erotically stimulating qualities of the penis,
but they (usually!) do not form social
relationships with men by examining their
penises first (though I know it can happen that
way). Plenty of penisless transmen who are
interested in gay sex manage to engage with
penis-equipped men, and these nontransmen are
often surprised to realize that a penis is not
what defines a man, that the lack of a penis
does not mean a lack of masculinity or manliness
or male sexuality.
Are hormones enough? Is it the clothing, the
beard, the body hair, the muscular density, the
odor of male sweat, the attitude of "man" that
connects with others and makes for either social
acceptance or sexual attraction? All those
secondary sex markers have a very real function
in communicating with others about our sexuality
and the nature of our psyches or our
psychological sex and gender identities. We all
make extensive use of these complex
communication systems, though for the most part
unconsciously.
More to the point, though, is gender identity
enough? Does a butch lesbian who prefers men's
clothing and gets called "sir" until her
higher-pitched voice fixes her as female have to
feel so responsible for other people's confusion
that she must conclude she would do better as a
man? No, she does not. If she knows and accepts
herself she can claim her space as a woman who
looks like a man, and that is what makes her
attractive to others. What is her (or his)
gender identity, and who gets to define it: her
or himself, or someone observing her or him?
Gender identity belongs to the person who lives
it, but we cannot deny that observers will make
assumptions about us based on their
understanding or comprehension of gender
signals. What we need to do is encourage people
to be less concerned about "fixing" others.
Gay, straight, or bi, hormones and/or surgery
notwithstanding, transmen are not the same as
butches who pass as male. The difference is a
degree of maleness and the conviction of
masculine identity that transforms the female
body to some other shape, so much so that even
when he is naked he does not become a woman,
whether in secret or only with his lover. A
transman knows himself as a man, and others
around him know it, too. A woman or a man finds
and knows herself or himself only through
self-acceptance. As I see it, "man" is not
better than "woman," neither is "woman" better
than "man." One has no greater value over the
other. The eradication of sexism, racism,
xenophobia and homophobia, the acknowledgment of
self-defined gender identity, and the ability to
accept others for who they are or some
combination of who they say they are and who
they show themselves to be are all necessary if
we are to make the world safe for the people we
now call homosexual, trans, queer, or
genderqueer. And when that job is done, maybe we
can all relax and just be ourselves.
