Evolving a Trans Vocabulary – “Passing”
Lately I’ve had a number of conversations with other trans people about the kinds of language we have to express our experiences. As Helen G said in the comments of this post, “It’s at times like this I realise how badly we need a trans-specific vocabulary to describe our feelings and experiences. This whole comment seems to be couched in cis people’s terms and I’m probably more uncomfortable with that than anything, tbh…”
One of the areas where I think we really do need a trans-specific area is when we talk about passing. Wikipedia summarises passing in general as:
“Passing is the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of a combination of sociological groups other than his or her own, such as a different race, ethnicity, social class, gender, and/or disability status, generally with the purpose of gaining social acceptance.”
So, got that? Other than their own.
So when applied to trans people, the language of passing from the start encodes the “really” of transphobia. Furthermore, it positions trans people being accepted in our genders as inherently deceptive. We’re trying to pass ourselves off as something we’re not. All this, as you can see is profoundly problematic.
Julia Serano has a really good critique of what she calls “passing-centrism.” She says,
“the crux of the problem is that the words ‘pass and ‘passing’ are active verbs. So when we say that a transsexual is ‘passing,’ it gives the false impression that they are the only active participant in this scenario (i.e, the transsexual is working hard to achieve a certain gendered appearance and everyone else is passively being duped or not duped by the transsexual’s ‘performance’). However, I would argue that the reverse is true: The public is the primary participant by virtue of their incessant need to gender every person they see as either female or male” (177)
Julia’s quite right in arguing that it is cis-sexuals who demand that our genders fit their ideas. Trans people bear the burden of a process perpetuated at a societal level (the obsessive interest in our genitals, in what medical treatments we’ve had, in make-up etc). This is not just gender normativity, though it is that, it is something that is specifically aimed at binary identified trans people.
The obvious reason is that cis-sexuals make acceptance of our identities conditional on meeting cis-sexual ideals of maleness and femaleness. Trans bodies are objectified by the cis gaze, where cis people look at us for signs of our previous (“real”) gender in order to negate our current one. Talia Me Betcher summarises the double bind this places us in thus:
“On the one hand, visibility yields a position in which what one is doing is represented as make-believe, playing or dress-up. Some of the difficulties of this side of the bind run as follows: (1) having one’s life constructed as fictitious; and so, (2) failing to have one’s identification taken seriously; (3) being viewed in a highly condescending way; and (4) being the subject of violence and even murder.
On the other hand, to opt for invisibility is to remove one’s life from the domain of masquerade into actual reality. Yet this is complicated by the way in which the visibile/invisible contrast tracks the deception side of the bind. For the movement from visible to invisible generates the effect of revelation, disclosure or exposure of hidden truth. Hence, some of the possible consequences are: (1) living in constant fear of exposure, extreme violence and death, (2) disclosure as a deceiver or liar (possibly through forced genital exposure); (3) being the subject of violence and even murder; and (4) being held responsible for that murder.”
The unfairness of this scrutiny *should* seem obvious, right? Trans people’s genders are scrutinised in ways that cis genders simply are not. Because the really of transphobia is a really that says only cis life histories are actually real, actually authentic, that transitioning of itself makes us less legitimate than cis people. And as we see constantly, this idea works itself out against trans bodies with deadly consequences.
Recently, Lisa suggested to me that we should amend the phrase to “passing as cissexual.” I like this better, but does it leave intact the baggage of a cissexual mandated language?
What alternatives can we come up? What have we already come up with that hasn’t been disseminated properly? How we can begin to break out of this double bind, whereby visibility and invisibility are currently equally fraught for us?
Try gendering, misgendering, ungendering.
Cis people gender you as a woman, or misgender you as a man. Or they ungender you.
That shifts the action onto the cis person.
The whole point of “passing as cissexual” (no hyphen!) is to shift the idea of passing away from “passing as your true sex,” not an attachment to the language of passing at all. That is, it’s a deliberate ontological move to force some rethinking.
I also think that the history of “passing” (say, people of color who “pass as white”) as a verb is important to acknowledge in this context
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Also, I totally saw this moments before your e-mail. Moments.
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Yes, that’s true, that history is definitely relevant. I’m not precisely sure how trans people came to use that terminology, hmm.
I do like gendering, misgendering, ungendering. Julia Serano says that when it occurs to cis people, they’re “mistaken.” That’s a better way to put it I think.
(I’ll amend the hyphen)
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Passing as cissexual” is a big departure from the way most of the guys I know use “passing”, because our (I do it too) constant lament is “I don’t pass”, meaning “everyone’s gendering me as a woman”. It is interesting, though, because passing as your birth sex does have all the “something you’re not” connotations of passing.
Nick Kiddle
October 17, 2008 at 2:29 pm
That’s a good point Nick. It’s funny how a cis perspective centres authenticity in assigned genders. When our attempting to live up to that can be profoundly inauthentic, feel forced or unnatural.
I’ve said before that pre-transition I used to (mostly) pass as male, and cis people almost always seem to laugh nervously.
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm
How about doing away with the entire concept?
Amanda in San Jose
October 17, 2008 at 2:40 pm
No I don’t think that’d be helpful, Amanda. We need to make sense of our experiences, and we need to do it in ways that aren’t centred on cis people’s language and experiences.
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The gendering is a better way to put it? Or mistaken?
Nick,
Totally. I think it really helps to move away from being seen as the wrong sex as something you should be held responsible for. It’s because of the cis gaze, as Em introduces.
Amanda, the idea of “passing” is so entrenched in trans discourse that I don’t think doing away with it entirely is going to work immediately. But shifting where the passing is focused might be helpful, and then pointing out that you’re being gendered as a man or woman by the observer, not because of anything authentic or inauthentic that you may allegedly be doing.
I mean, I’d love to just get people to stop saying “passing”, but I don’t expect that’s likely.
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm
As a WOC I never thought about the ways in which the term “passing” when applied to trans bodies affirms cis privilege. Now that I see the argument laid out, I must say that it makes sense in that it infers that the trans person is some sort of charlatan playing a con game on society. Language is so important to how we understand and order the world and therefore I completely understand why another term is desired.
On a side not can I just say how thankful I am that I have found this blog. I have learned so much. I also want to say thank you for welcoming me here and allowing me to comment.
Renee
October 17, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I mostly just try to get away from the whole idea behind “passing” at least in respect to myself. I just say “I am a man”. When someone makes a comment like “you pass really well” (heard it a few times from trans and cis alike), I just raise my eyebrows and say “I am a man.”
I co-moderate a big ftm community on livejournal.com. I am nearly constantly biting my fingernails trying to figure out which battles to fight on language / vocabulary. From bio-etc to “well, we were all socialized female” to ‘passing’–it angers me that more trans people don’t fight back against delegitimizing language.
I basically say, no, I was “passing” when I was letting people think I was a woman, pre-transition.
jayinchicago
October 17, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yes, exactly. Like the “passing as male” language someone used on the LJ Feminist comm last year, and Cedar expounds upon to a greater extent in Beyond Inclusion.
Renee, thank you for commenting! I know my comment policy is more restrictive (slightly, IMO) than most, but everyone’s welcome until they start busting out with their privilege. :)
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Gendering is a better way to put it. But mistaken works too, because they *are* mistaken.
I’m glad you comment here too Renee :)
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Well, yeah, both are good. I was just trying to untangle which one you liked better. :)
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I think gendering and its variants might be a better theoretical term, because it makes it a societal process. Ungendering in particular is a specifically trans-specific term, but one that focuses on cis people’s actions rather than our gender performance.
Mistaken perhaps in a one-on-one basis..
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Gendering, misgendering, and ungendering are terms I am a very big fan of (although I’ve not had to use the last one much), as anyone who has seen me comment will have noticed.
The good thing about these terms is that they move the action away from the person in question to the one who makes the judgement regarding gender. And as such, it also makes dealing with the occasional shitty misgendering much easier, as it’s clear that the person who did it made the error by the langauge used :P
Squigglefish
October 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think I saw the term “being read as” sometimes. At least I used it once or twice :o
I saw “passing” more as “people not seeing you’re trans” than merely “people getting your gender right” but I guess it depends on the usage.
Elly
October 17, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Lots of people talk about “passing as the gender you’re transitioning to” which is a really frustrating usage.
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Do you think they laugh because you *weren’t* passing as a man, or because it reveals they still think of your *authentic* gender as male?
I’ve as yet only used the passing-as-previous-gender construction with allies.
karenm
October 17, 2008 at 6:27 pm
As a WOC who “passes” as white, I hate the usage of a verb that implies this is something I’M doing. I prefer “being passed” or “being read as”.
I had always presumed that “passing” in a trans context meant “passing as not trans”, but I admit that my mental image when thinking of passing in this sense is automatically of a trans woman. From the comments, it seems that trans men have an entirely different experience here.
Something to muse on. Thanks!
hexy
October 17, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Passing is traditionally intended to mean “passing as the gender you’re transitioning to”, however there are similar problems with “people not seeing you’re trans” – that of deception, validity of identity, and conflating trans with being a noun rather than an adjective (which is fine if you self-identify as noun-trans, but it is rarely intended that way in a respectful manner outside of the trans community)
Squigglefish
October 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Was that to me, Karen?
I think they were laughing because they still think of my authentic gender as male. I wasn’t precisely able to pass as normatively gendered male, but cis people ime tend to hang onto that “really” with dear life against all possible evidence…
queenemily
October 17, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I’m not sure how “passing as cis(sexual)(gender)” conflates trans or cis with being a noun, as the racial usage (“passing as white”) doesn’t conflate black or white with being a noun.
And I realize that this is the traditional usage, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t found it frustrating (often offensively so) for a long time.
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Hexy, I fished your comment out of the spam filter. No idea why it ended up there. :(
Lisa Harney
October 17, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I guess I just call it “being.” If someone makes a mistake, I correct them, but other than that, it’s a completely passive action. *I* don’t think about it, and I can’t help what other people think, but I don’t let what others think influence how I present or carry myself. So… yeah, “being.”
Mireille
October 17, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Hmmm, maybe something like “being seen as cisexuals,” or “taken/perceived as cisexual”?
Noir
October 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I guess to me, the hidden meaning behind passing means “looking attractive,” which implies that passing means “looking like an attractive heterosexual member of society.” I just don’t see how you can get around that when dealing with passing.
Amanda in San Jose
October 17, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Lisa: That’s precisely why I didn’t mention the “passing as cis(sexual)(gender)” form of using passing ;) I think the implications are different between that and “not trans” (especially since most people would probably view the “not trans” version as meaning “as a woman/man” rather than “as cis”).
And yes, just because it’s traditional doesn’t mean it’s not problematic – I was simply noting that it is used like that, you know that I don’t agree with said usage.
Amanda: You raise another issue, in a way, that isn’t such a problem for the guys. Generally, attractiveness in women is seen as a sign of good mental health, and as part of the ‘validity’ of being female. The number of positive letters from shrinks I have starting with “Squiggle is an attractive young woman…”
Squigglefish
October 18, 2008 at 3:48 am
I have to disagree with Julia’s idea that passing is always about trying be something other than what you are; one can also pass as more or less than ______ (whatever). People attempt to (for instance) pass as LESS poor, LESS disabled, LESS young/old, MORE educated, MORE qualified-for-a-job, LESS ethnically-identified, etc etc than they/we truly are. (We have no illusions we can pass as bourgeois, but we can pull off not looking/acting like trailer trash, for example.) My mother could often pass as LESS disabled, enough that people would often forget she was and (hopefully) hire her. That’s not “total passing”–but it IS a form of passing. I think that’s the common experience, while more “intricate” passing is actually something fewer people do.
Since this type of “passing” is something so many of us do (try to pass as MORE educated, LESS poor, LESS OLD, etc), I think it is crucial to use another word. I have always used the word this way (as above) and not necessarily as an absolute, and have unintentionally offended trans people using it in that way. I didn’t understand why, that the whole concept of “passing” was so fraught with judgment. This thread is the first place I have fully understood the problem with the word/concept, where I could explain what I meant vs. what it has historically meant to trans individuals. (Complicating the fact is that so many trans people have used it that way, of course.)
I prefer “mistaken”–since “gendering” can be something we ALL do (to ourselves too), whereas “mistaking ___ for ____” puts the onus on cis people without any hedging or possibility of (ha) mistakes.
daisydeadhead
October 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Generally, attractiveness in women is seen as a sign of good mental health, and as part of the ‘validity’ of being female. The number of positive letters from shrinks I have starting with “Squiggle is an attractive young woman…”
Squiggle, wow, brilliance!
COMMERCIAL: This is the kind of great feminism we get from people who have transitioned and have great stuff to teach us from experience itself. :)
daisydeadhead
October 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Daisy: I don’t follow? I thought it would be obvious from the absurdity of implications that I don’t agree with it at all.
Squigglefish
October 18, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Squiggle, I knew that, I was complimenting you. Apologies for not writing clearly.
daisydeadhead
October 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Yes, this.
Since reading Whipping Girl, I try to use misgendering/ungendering as much as I possibly can. However, there’s still occasions where I find the tense totally doesn’t make sense using that language, and have to fall back on “passing”, even though its connotations are bullshit.
One thing I’d further like to see though, is a similar conversation around “stealth”.
Rebecca
October 18, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Daisy: My appologies also, I’m a bit on edge this weekend waiting some important news, and then I end up in too much internet dramaz that my circuits got fried :( I should have also written my original comment better, too, I think.
Rebecca: I agree, the term ’stealth’ is wrapped up in similar problems, also.
Squigglefish
October 19, 2008 at 9:55 am
[...] also throws in a particularly vile comment about how trans women who don’t pass shouldn’t be allowed near cis women as a rape counselor. What she means is “trans women [...]
A Response to Jane on Christine Burns’ Podcast « Questioning Transphobia
October 20, 2008 at 3:18 am
[...] a comment » Further thought about my post about passing – I remembered later a (cis) sex worker acquaintance of mine telling me that the slang term for [...]
Passing (Addendum) « Questioning Transphobia
October 25, 2008 at 11:38 am
I’ll chuck my 2 cents in – I really don’t like using the word “passing” in relation to me. More often I talk about how people perceive me – whether I am generally perceived as male, or ambiguous / gender-bent, or as trans, and what it’s like when I occasionally get perceived as female. My goal is to be comfortable in my body & in the way society responds to me.
I read one of the comments above about authenticity – & that passing has some connotation of hiding / being inauthentic, and I’d agree – it definitely has that connotation for me as well, and is something I’d rather avoid!
devon bent
October 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm