A Brief Thought
In relation to this list of “Top 15 Transsexual Killer movies” and this post about what seems like a fairly irritating episode of Bones (normally my girlfriend and I watch it, but we had a friend over). I think I’ve been circling around this for awhile, but I want to get out there plainly. Namely:
The “shock” of the trans plot twist, the revelation that a trans person is really [whatever]–what I call the Crying Game moment–legitimates trans panic. It is the same movement, and leads to the negation of real trans people. Fiction does have an effect on people, in terms of what “makes sense” culturally, and it’s this continued repetition of transphobic tropes in the media that legitimates real-life violence, and the perception that trans people are deceptive – killers, worthy of death or hilariously pathetic,
More on this later at some point.
Actually, I thought “The Crying Game” was (is) an amazing film on a number of levels. There’s a lot of plot and subplot going on here: the first third of the film could even stand on its own as a story with the playout between Fergus and Jody. In the next phase, the story shifts to England (across the water) where Dil is introduced into the story.
I didn’t (and still don’t to a large degree) think that the introduction of Dil was meant as a plot joke; it is important that Dil was going about her life in her preferred gender, as many of us do, with no thought about the drama she was being drawn into. The fact that she was “revealed” was undoubtedly the draw of this film for the masses, but I saw it as a curious, a genius facet of an already convoluted love story.
Julia Serano divides transfolk in movies as “deceivers” and “pathetic transgenders”. She included Dil as a “deceiver” because she had the hapless Fergus “conned” early on in the film – actually Fergus had himself “conned” into believing his perceptions. The trouble I have with the “deceiver” concept is that Dil wasn’t actually intent on “fooling” anyone any more than many of us would as we go about our daily lives. We accept who we are and don’t think twice about our transgender status. Dil found her way into this intrigue by default.
My favourite moment in the film was when Fergus, after learning that Dil was a genetic male, still had enough affection for her that he kissed her. Isn’t this what we all really want: just to be loved for what we are, irregardless of our sex or gender or societies conventions?
Transsexual Killer Movies? I think that we’ve come a long way from Michael Caines’ Demented Transvestite Killer (a man who wears womens’ clothing). We’re everywhere now and we’ve transcended the public perception of being freaks and clowns.
Trouble is, instead of US killing people, people are killing US….
Tracee
October 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“Genetic male” is problematic for a host of reasons, btw, along with “bio” or “biological.”
Lisa Harney
October 18, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Hmmm…maybe “male-identified at birth”??…
Tracee
October 18, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Its another problem that needs to be dealt with… I look forward to a day where a mainstream film or novel actually deals with the trans/intersex subject with a sincere, well-understood manner.
Nat Raha
October 18, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Dil is a plot twist, and one that is presented poorly (oh, the thought of having sex with Dil is enough to prompt vomiting?).
I guess that however much The Crying Game avoided some of the usual tropes (Dil doesn’t die) that it still hits the “Surprise! Trans woman!” trope, and that trope is still part of the whole trans panic thing.
Lisa Harney
October 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm
male assigned at birth is frequently used, yeah.
Lisa Harney
October 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Tracee,
I felt similarly about the film, and I didn’t think it was just a cliche. I do think, though, that how pop culture reacted misses the point and is discouraging. And I think that even if we liked the film, that remains worth talking about, including snarling about.
Trin
October 18, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Trin – I too was disappointed that the public interest in the film gravitated to the shock value of Dils’ trans character. I’m trying to imagine how the film would’ve gone had the character of Dil been played by a female-assigned actress, and it would probably have played out the same. (Director / Writer) Jordan instead chose to throw a bomb into the plot and have Dil be trans.
Having transitioned during this period, I’m in retrospect remembering that something coalesced during the mid-90s’ in the U/S (maybe the world) that other writers have also commented on: there was an explosive interest in transgender folk at this time, almost a pent-up need to examine (exploit?) the phenomenon. Dils’ character, via Jordan, fed into that energy, contemporary to the times.
For better or worse, the film has worked its’ way into the common vernacular. And I apologise for hijacking this forum for a “Crying Game” discussion. I’m going now…
Tracee
October 18, 2008 at 8:30 pm
It’s not my post, but I think that Crying Game discussion is on-topic, Tracee.
Lisa Harney
October 18, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The thing that leaps out at me from the list is the inclusion of Silence of the Lambs – having read the book several hundred times, there is such HUGE emphasis that Buffalo Bill *isn’t* trans – that he would not have fulfilled the clinical/psychological requirements to qualify for reassignment surgery.
Of course, it’s only just struck me that I have no idea to what extent Thomas Harris was talking out of his ass on that one. But it’s so bloody explicit – Graham goes to various medical specialists who say, we’re not going to let you pin this on some “freaky transsexual”, and he reassures them, no, Buffalo Bill isn’t, he’d be someone you *rejected* for treatment, and that’s what we’re looking for.
QoT
October 18, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Honestly though, with Silence of the Lambs, there’s no way the dry dialogue about how he’s not a “true” transsexual are gonna stick with the viewer nearly as much as the visual impact of the “woman skin,” not to mention the poodle “Precious…”
The visceral message is the old familiar one of “man who wants to be or even be -like- a woman (for whatever reason)=MONSTER” Imposter, impersonator, sick fuck…
belledame222
October 19, 2008 at 1:30 am
In silence of the lambs, I never thought that the fact some psychiatrists explained that the killer wasn’t a true transsexual made it “less worse”, but maybe it’s because I’ve had some psychiatrists who explained to me I wasn’t a true transsexual.
On the other hand, when I read it as a teen, my interpretation was “well you happy, you fucking shrinks? You rejected him* and now because of that he’s a killer, wouldn’t had it been better if you had let him had surgery?”
*:(I wasn’t very trans-friendly concerning pronouns when I was a teen)
Elly
October 19, 2008 at 3:14 am
it’s clear that silence of the lambs didn’t impress upon anyone that the killer isn’t actually trans. in the minds of the world, *anyone* who isn’t fully and authentically male in both body and mind, is trans. and that vision is supported in even our own more progressive definition of “transgender”, as an umbrella classification. and for many people, any man who engages in *any* behavior that can be in any way perceived as being female or feminine, is some flavor of trans, and can be used as an authentic representation of a “typical” trans person.
that fateful thread on twisty’s blog, with the now infamous comments by lucky exemplify this.
and how many ways do i dislike the term “true transsexual”? as a member of the “older transitioner” cast, i don’t know *anyone* who transitioned in my age group during that time who did not lie about at least one facet of their experience, solely to be considered a “true transsexual”, and gain access to proper medical care. and the therapist who treated me during transition was (is) considered among the most liberal therapists in giving her stamp of approval for medical care. i know of two of her patients who were not “full time”, and had no immediate plans to go “full time”, who were approved, and subsequently had, srs.
i have mixed feelings about the crying game. i’ll say it had a huge impact on me, as i saw it before i transitioned, just about the time i realized that transition might actually be possible for someone like me. the “reveal” scene made me physically ill. i get queasy when i see someone vomit anyway, but to see someone vomit upon learning that their love is trans, someone who could be me, put me totally over the edge. i never watched the film again.
that experience was firmly placed in the “reasons why i can never transition” pile, etched permanently in my brain.
nexyjo
October 19, 2008 at 11:29 am
[...] been some talk about this episode of bones (as well as the top 15 trans killer [...]
» it called it bones
October 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I want to add that Silence of the Lambs enforces another trope – that trans people need to be told they’re trans by a medical professional – which has caused trans people no end of trouble.
that experience was firmly placed in the “reasons why i can never transition” pile, etched permanently in my brain.
I’ve heard so many stories like this – how pop culture reinforces the idea that transitioning shouldn’t happen. :(
Lisa Harney
October 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I never really understood Silence of the Lambs at all. So… this person is not a transsexual, and that makes it okay that genderbending is portrayed as violent? It was just a huge letdown to me. I was so fascinated with the way Hannibal revealed hints of this person’s mind, the way other people just called him violent and weird. I just felt like, well, even if it was okay to have a transgendered baddie, I wanted to know *why* this particular person was violent rather than a trans woman. Why was he only satisfied if he dressed in human skin, for example? What was the draw of transforming through violence?
That’s the part that could have been interesting. “We rejected him because he wasn’t trans, but rather violently obsessed with stealing others’ identities. This came out when Hannibal assessed him, as revealed by _____ and _______ behavior/fantasy.”
It still would have been hopelessly transphobic because the finer points would be lost on most cissexual people, but that at least would have been interesting and believable.
Trin
October 19, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I mean, I remember the moment of Hannibal revealing, in that creepy voice, “his boyfriend confessed that he had killed people and… *did things* with the skins.” I was fascinated. There could have been a *much* more sinister and creepy and gripping explanation for why someone would *do things* with skins than “I didn’t let that person get estrogen.”
Even without the transphobia (as if it’s separable, which it’s not)… letdown city.
Trin
October 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Nexyjo – though I transitioned around (10) years ago, I never had to deal with that “true transexual” B/S, though I heard about the hoops that people before me had to jump through with their psychs to get what should’ve been their right: proper medical care.
I’m bothered that we as a community have to be placed into a “troubled” diagnosis or seen as otherwise compromised. I’ve always railed against the gatekeeper system that treats us like we have a sickness. Basically, I’m angry that I have to get a “permission slip” from some professional who knows less about my needs than I do.
That being said, these thoughts seem to be rising to the front these days; I’m thrilled to see someone has taken this to print in a new book, excerpts here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=SiaNoJ3puyQC&dq=Transpeople:+Repudiation,+Trauma,+Healing&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=see5DkSaLx&sig=EBdfIesk28JtoOoGCX6nmsN0q30&sa=X&oi=bo
Just skimming through the previews – looks like Shelley is adressing that issue, that no one knows how we tick better than we ourselves do.
(Nexyjo – I love your graphic on your site!!!)
Tracee
October 19, 2008 at 2:49 pm
i enjoyed silence of the lambs. jodie foster’s performance was moving, and anthony hopkins was, well, his usual amazing self. funny thing, when i first saw the movie, it never occurred to me that it had anything to do with trans people, just this sociopath who killed and skinned women. it was only after i read several reviewed that i understood the trans association. i must have missed that part when i was watching it.
and yes, looking back, it could have been better, in the way trin describes.
“… trans people need to be told they’re trans by a medical professional”
well, yes, in order to receive proper medical care. i find it even more odd that we have to (or used to, i’m not sure what the current criteria are today) show we are “functional” in order to be diagnosed as disordered, so that we can be “treated”, so that we can become functional. talk about a wtf catch 22.
nexyjo
October 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Another movie I remember with the “bad guy” being a OMG tranny was Ace Ventura. I remember I was really ill-at-ease watching the end.
Elly
October 19, 2008 at 3:03 pm
heh, we cross posted, tracee.
i transitioned about 10 years ago as well – perhaps the issue was somewhat regional. regarding the “disordered” vs natural variation” discussion, i am split. being “disordered” allowed my medical insurance to help with the cost of therapy and hormones (but only because my therapist was treating me for depression, which i had, and my doctor was treating me for a hormone imbalance, which i had, not because i was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. i needed that for srs, which i had to pay for out of pocket. interestingly enough, my current employer’s medical coverage would cover it.)
if trans-ness is just a natural variation of human behavior, then i think many people would have trouble having medical insurance cover their medically necessary treatment.
and thanks for your kind words :)
nexyjo
October 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Nexy, it was me who said that, and no…we don’t need to be told that we’re trans in order to legitimately be trans. We go to the psychiatrists or the therapists and tell them we’re trans.
What we have to do is convince them. My point was the idea that someone isn’t trans because a psychiatrist says so is fucking stupid, and Silence of the Lambs reinforces this idea.
Lisa Harney
October 19, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think there is a lot of confusion about what the meaning of transgendered is, because many of those movies aren’t about trans people, but about cross dressers, like Psycho and Dressed to Kill. Even with Silence of the Lambs, I didn’t think he believed he was a woman, he was envious of one woman and wanted to be her, the first one that he killed.
Not that it really matters since the message is that if you do not subscribe to the gender binary you must be sick to the point of homicidal.
Donna
October 19, 2008 at 10:50 pm
As a trans university film student whose favorite genre is horror the trans-slasher films have become a very sore point for me, especially as I often encounter them unexpectedly in my casual film viewing (such as with the listed A Blade in the Dark which I found to be quite triggering). I firmly believe that a non-othering trans representation is, at this point in Hollywood/US/Western social and visual culture, impossible. As mentioned by many of your comments, the problematic trans representations are not genre-specific.- The World According to Garp, The Woman Inside, The Crying Game, Transamerica, Normal, South Park, Different for Girls, Spin City, Dark Angel, or The Gendercator are not tangentially horror- trans people are abject as a rule.
I find the horror genre to be a diverging discourse, that when it’s radical (in a positive, deconstructive fashion) it is capable of being more radical than any other conventional cinematic narrative form, and that when it’s reactionary (as it is all too often) it is the most reactionary of them all. Films and other visual media, perhaps horror moreso than most, are instrumental in the enforcement and circulation of cissexual/cisgender hegemony.
That said, I would say that in scouring narrative cinema’s works with central trans figures, I found Pamela Springsteen’s Angela in Sleepaway Camp 2 and 3 to be the most empowering (goofy comedies which couldn’t be more different in tone/style and everything else from the first). She was trans, but it didn’t define her character. Springsteen’s performance imbued her with a very peculiar cheerfulness, tirelessly devoted to murdering every camper who violates her stridently conservative moral code. The original film played as a thriller, and anchored her murders and pathologies in her transness as abject, revealed in the film’s ghastly final shot (an image that I believe must be singularly responsible for at least a few trans murders and has done more harm against us in the present than possibly any other).
The issue of her sex doesn’t surface in the sequels but twice in the second film, and briefly at that, and the standard ‘really a (blank)’ visual codes are not present. Moreover, the (theoretical) spectator is meant to identify with her in the subject-position rather than in opposition to her in the object-position. The parodic motif detracts from the sinister implications of her acts, she has been transformed from a monstrous killer to an ironic witticist, and the evils she commits are attributed to her hyper-fundie values (ie. dousing druggie teens in gasoline and setting them aflame with the admonishment to “Say no to drugs” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFQoXP53g70&feature=related ).
By shifting the focus off of her transness in such a manner, thereby granting her an expanded dimensionality as well as displacing transness from the root of pathology, the films act in the radical mode and seem to be working toward recuperating the trans killer (the primary contemporary trans representation, especially within the genre) and at the same time critiquing conservative ‘family’ values. Of course, the trans killer didn’t disappear, and the films are certainly far from ideal representations in a bunch of other respects, but I feel they paid trans folk a ton more respect than anything else I’ve seen, especially as horror is concerned.
kidglov3s
October 20, 2008 at 12:33 am
Donna: wrt silence of the lambs, in the book I think I remember there is a passage where the killr is taking a shower and feels very bad about having a penis (I don’t remember how it’s put, maybe hiding it between the legs), so I think that’s more than crossdressing and there is a real link with transsexuality.
I think this scene marked me, since I remember being in the shower and saying to myself “onoz, I don’t want to end up as a psychopath killer”, but I don’t remember why (this is weird because I wasn’t disgusted by my penis and didn’t ID as trans at that time (well, at least not consciously, but now that makes me wonder))
Elly
October 20, 2008 at 12:33 am
There was an episode of NCIS (which I kind of like) which had a killer trans-woman in it. I was very disappointed. So I e-mailed Paulie Perette. Not only did she reply she was also on my side and said that she had complained about it at the time. They did try and make up for it by being sympathetic in a later episode but unfortunately in that case the trans-woman was the victim. It seems we can never just be regular people…
Cyberspice
October 20, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Yeah, I read about that episode. Wasn’t she shot and killed at the end and the worst that happened to the guy who killed her was to be teased about “kissing a man” at some later date?
Lisa Harney
October 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm
The guy in question was an NCIS agent who to be honest had to justifiable shoot her in self defence. It was the portrayal of the psycho trans-woman that upset me.
Then of course there’s CSI: LVs 100 episode which has trans-women as both victims and killer.
In the 90s there was a story in the Scottish detective program, Taggart, where there were a bunch of murders surrounding a private, all boys, school. The murders, of course, turned out to be carried out by one of the female teachers who had been a boy at the school years back and was getting revenge on for her treatment there. This one was particular hurtful for me because I watched it with my parents having just transitioned. I felt *very* awkward.
I hate what’s going on in Ugly Betty because in the first season it was almost positive.
Cyberspice
October 20, 2008 at 11:42 pm
“They did try and make up for it by being sympathetic in a later episode but unfortunately in that case the trans-woman was the victim.”
Yeah, looks like it’s always one or the other, sometimes both…
Though, there was at least some Twin Peaks episodes where there is a transgender person who is actually a DEA agent (still, played by a cis man (David Duchovny) and with a scene where we must see her “as a man”, but it was 1991, you would think there could have been some progress since that time…)
Elly Rouge
October 21, 2008 at 1:50 am