FEMININE, MASCULINE ... NEUTER ?

Alain. This is the Christian name I was given. I'd rather be called Natacha. You might have seen me at some of the CARITIG meetings. No transformation has begun yet: I do hope it will be complete. My job? I am a psychiatric nurse in a small outpatient center in the Champagne region.

I'm writing this article with a view toward making you share my reactions upon reading the latest CDT, and to offer my opinion on this matter. Especially in regard to the text "The Healed Mirror", which will allow me to approach the most interesting theme of androgyny, as well as "Tetu No.2", where I treat a subject which is perhaps more delicate, that is to say sexual criteria in society.

I'm not saying that because I work in the psychiatric field I possess some kind of knowledge, or that I possess the truth; I'm simply expressing a totally subjective personal opinion. My only wish is to achieve that aim in a way that shows respect for everybody, with no intention whatsoever of hurting anyone at all.

Your trip, Sister Drag King, left me rather puzzled. I admire the finesse with which you analyze your situation; you very clearly define the problem of "lack of differentiation". What courage to exhibit oneself so openly! The solution that you chose, and which I shall not judge, poses some questions of general interest. I got the impression that you refuse to commit yourself, or more precisely, that you're trying to obtain the advantages of both sexes. In that respect, you "have trouble putting up with the suffering which is linked to the feminine condition", starting with menopause. However, I find it difficult to understand your position; do you oscillate between the masculine pole and the feminine one, or do both coexist equally within you? It even looks as though you wanted to create an entity beyond this dichotomy. This is what stands out, for example, when you use the phrase "without any barrier of the sexes". Are you saying you favour hermaphroditism? Hermaphroditism is a biological anomaly, that of a body which possesses both masculine and feminine features. You qualify your soul as being androgynous. The androgyne is a mythical being, made up of the union of a man and a woman (before their separation). While trying to grasp this conception, I got the feeling that it is closer to the idea of a third sex, of something neuter. And, unless it exists on "another planet", this doesn't belong to the scope of reality. I doubt if you are fully aware of this, even when you evoke "the power of your imagination" and what it allows you to feel. (A remark in passing: if so many people didn't show up at the latest CARITIG meeting, I think it's because they're not very eager to find out what's really going on below the belt). Human sciences are wrong, of course, and the limits between sexes are blurred as well; I shall come back to these points. However, I think it is in our interest to take into account the distinction between sexes. Even on the physical side only, the difference is irreducible. Our body belongs to us; surely, it is the only thing which is really ours. But no one is the master of one's gender, not even transsexuals. What's the point in playing the apprentice wizard? The risk is great. With a therapist, the progress which we make is to attempt to adapt oneself to reality, to manage the unbalance occurring between the psychic and the biological. Personally, I note that gender identity problems such as transsexualism correspond more to a rejection of one's sexual lot than to an initial desire to belong to the opposite sex. I take as proof of this, the number of those who don't undertake a surgical operation, although they offer other reasons. That's what I feel at this moment of my evolution; it's quite likely that I'll change my mind later on.

In any case, my arguments seem rather weak as compared to your dazzling success in finding a balance between your mind and your body. But what about our place within the group? Is society ready to accept us? I doubt it very much. Throughout these pages, the most recurrent expressions refer to respect. Moving appeal to recognition. May it be heard! Should we therefore rebel or adapt ourselves? Armand speaks about a community which "conforms to the mould", of "normalized individuals". Typical attitude, for which transsexuals (and I'm one of them) carry a part of the responsibility. But this kind of exacerbated conformism can be explained because transsexuals are looking for a model by which they can identify themselves, and they might as well choose a perfect one; furthermore, there is a surgeon to be convinced, so it's best to express oneself simply. Now, what I find inexcusable, is the behaviour of some transsexuals towards other populations such as homosexuals or transvestites. It is as though they are taking some kind of revenge against the rejection they have to put up with from the majority, by rejecting a minority themselves; they therefore create the worst situation: being excluded among the excluded. This kind of mechanism is well known: it means declaring the other one different, and therefore to ill-treat him, in order to be reassured about one's own normality, and to be officially accepted. But pureness is something absolute, and as such, it is an utopia. Let's come back to society's rejection of marginal phenomena. Problems related to gender identity perturb the established order, as well as basic values. Each one is sent back to his condition of representating a single sex, to his own indecision as far as his sexual determination is concerned. In the insults thrown at us, when they aren't blows, I can perceive the anxiety of unstable persons, and sometimes the unsatisfied desire to break the rules. I'm far from wishing to suppress law or destroy reference marks; anarchy leads to chaos, and this is not to be desired. However, I believe that one who wants to attack the criteria defining a transsexual must attack those defining a man or a woman, as, in my opinion, they are the same. I make it quite clear that for me, these criteria must be analyzed for what they are worth, and not to challenge their usefulness as criteria... At this moment of the reflection, it is therefore allowed to ask oneself the real questions, that is to say what is a man or what is a woman. Everyone will easily realize that there is no answer. Or at least, a multitude of answers, in all the various societies, at various periods, and, within a given society, as many individuals, from various environments, who are of various ages. Because I'm convinced that more than just a biological concern, the notion of "sex" is also and mainly a cultural concern (here, I deliberately leave aside the psychological aspect). It is culture which imposes a neat limit between sexes, which allows one to assert with certitude that such and such a character is feminine or masculine; it's culture which defines the roles entrusted to women or to men. If sexual criteria have meaning and respect justice, people will accept them and the relationships between sexes will be harmonious ones. Although I did insist that sexual criteria are constantly evolving, and therefore, are relatively precarious, my opinion is that they are indispensable to the good functioning of society, and to the welfare of its members. By favouring diversity, they are a source of enrichment; they help each one to define himself/herself in order to find his/her place. Our present models underscore maybe too much the differences between men and women, by ignoring what makes them similar as well. At the individual level, this is made obvious by men's fear when they face their own femininity, which in turn drives them to dominate women. Since the sixties, changes have followed a good path, and I tend to be rather optimistic for the future. To summarize a text that's a bit long and confusing, I think that men and women are both different and similar; that culture essentially defines differences more than similarities; that these differences, even though they appear to be arbitrary and evolving, are necessary, as much for society as for its members. It's up to everyone to find himself/herself by trying to integrate his part of femininity in the case of a man, or the other way around in the case of a woman. "No need to think twice if the gesture I'm about to make, or the sentence I'm going to say is masculine or feminine"; however, if I act or speak in a certain way, it will inevitably be perceived in a masculine or feminine mode. "Let's free ourselves within our individual identity"; is there an identity without a sex?

This is just about everything I wanted to say. I hope I didn't appear too severe and that I didn't perturb anybody. Before taking an approach like ours, we must ask ourselves some questions. Quite a few themes come to my mind, which others will tackle, I hope. The look of one's body, the judgements of people around us, difficulties in the course of transformation, life after the operation. Even if it is only a few lines, Armand will certainly be delighted... I wish girls would be more visible than they have been up to now: put pen to paper, because the opportunity is there! For example, how come some transsexuals are homosexuals? Is it a step in their identification, or a deep desire for the other sex? Why do transsexuals assert themselves so much when they face experts? Is it impatience in the face of being misunderstood, or anxiety about being nothing?

In spite of my discourse being a trifle categorical, I do want to reaffirm my support for an association such as CARITIG. I first of all approve of the excellent concept of publishing the CDT review. The idea of welcoming all gender problems offers a great example of being open. Personally, this requires from me an effort to tolerate those who aren't transsexuals, but this is negligible compared to everything this exchange with different people can bring me. And we can never repeat this enough: no one has any right to laugh at someone who suffers.