I am skeptical about accounts of recent life-changing revelations. It's so much more convincing to hear 'I had a life-changing revelation three years ago' than 'I had a life-changing revelation yesterday'.
But a do believe I had a very major shift in my self-interpretation a week ago.This impression has stayed constant throughout the week.
See my last blog entry, it's important.
Yes, I may later retract it, thinking 'Oh what rubbish was I believing at the time'. But I think one can respond too cautiously, as well as too foolhardily, to such new convictions.
It seems such a major shift that it ought to have a precise and dramatic moment of birth. But it didn't, it came on over the course of a few hours. There was no sudden turning point. And it all just occurred during a regular quiet time at home. Please forgive the aggrandizement: it's not a normal characteristic of my writing.
I do know that fetish theory and autogynephila theory can account for crossdreamers developing a non-sexual female self-identity, but studying the evidence in my own case I now really think it more convincing that the femininity caused the crossdreaming rather than extended out of it.
I also posted 'Debbie the real inner girl' on Crossdream Life. Friends there have made supportive comments, and I have elaborated on the original post in my replies - here. To quote from these replies:
'It means so much to me say 'hello, I am Debbie and I am a girl.'
'To put it drily, it is a matter of repositioning identity within the trans gender mix.'
'The image that arises is of a hole appearing in the ceiling of a prison cell.'
Rethinking my life in terms of an almost buried femininity explains so much. It explains why I feel suddenly tearful when I repeat the phrase 'I am a girl'. Saying it makes me feel tearful and it makes me want to scream 'LISTEN TO ME! IT'S ME! IT'S Me! IT'S ME! I AM A GIRL, AND HERE I AM, CRYING OUT RIGHT NOW! I am not just a means of turning my outer male on. I am not just my outer male exploring taking on a female persona. I am a girl!'
xxx
In my own most recent blogpost I paraphrased Jack Halberstam as follows:
ReplyDeleteBecause of its reliance on notions of authenticity and the real, the category of (male) femme realness is situated on the sometimes vague boundary between transgender and femme definition. The realness of fem(me)ininity can easily tip, in other words, into the desire for a more sustained realness in a recognizably female body.
Is that relevant at all, do you think? (In particular, the second sentence.)
Thanks J!
ReplyDeleteIt is on that boundary, but I do feel I have crossed the boundary. It's a strong feeling that I haven't had before. Yes, it may not last.
From where I am now philosophical analysis seems so dry, but I acknowledge its importance. I think the evidence of many trans people's personal convictions and now of a keen re-analysis of myself does suggest a femininity deeper than just an erotic identity (which isn't quite the same as saying it has to be 'natural', in-born). I think such evidence should be considered open-mindedly, not with an attitude of 'it can't possibly be real because of poststructualism'.
What do you think of Serano's 'essentialism'?
What are your own feelings about yourself, I wonder? Have you ever felt that your 'femme' comes from somewhere deep, almost buried beneath your 'male'?
I'd be interested to discuss further.
Love,
D xxx
Hi Deb.
ReplyDeleteIt's in the jargon of gender theory but I like that paraphrased quote because it seems so appropriate to the MTF transvestite community – where there's so much emphasis on "passing" (i.e. "reliance on notions of authenticity and the real"), which can sometimes lead to a desire for actual transition (i.e. "for a more sustained realness in a recognizably female body"). So, yes, there's border territory here.
Serano isn't really essentialist, she just recognizes that there is an innate component to these things – though how much is innate and how much is cultural is obviously up for debate.
For me, as with most transvestites (it seems), these desires certainly come from deep within – in that crossdressing is an actual need, expressing something we are, rather than simply being something we do. I understand and theorize that differently (i.e. femme not female) but the inner need is the same (or at least similar).
J xx
Hi again, J!
ReplyDeleteThanks for more interesting comments.
For you transvestism, for me crossdreaming. It is important to identify as transvestite, crossdreamer, yes, and right to acknowledge that the source of the desire is somewhere deep within. For me right now it seems that to close the identification there stops short of a deeper identification with the female which I am currently finding very moving, liberating and illuminating. It is not similar to 'passing' and does not belittle the difference between outer femaleness and experience and outer maleness and experience.
As well as welcoming any further comments here, I'd also be happy to discuss such subjects in private with you sometime. xxx
sure thing :)
DeleteSo you are speculating as to whether for you there were pre-existing affiliations that you could label as positively feminine? This has always been a potential etiological factor of the fetish. So what is this reorientation? The inner woman niche that you have always joyously immersed in, has now struct a new emotional cord?
ReplyDeleteHi wxh,
ReplyDeleteIn your terms I would say it is about identifying with the pre-existing affiliations rather than just as the fetishist. In my terms I think the next post - 'Debbie on both sides of the mirror' - clarifies. xx