Sexuality Research & Social Policy Journal of NSRC http://nsrc.sfsu.edu December 2007 Vol. 4, No. 4 Introduction to Special Issue The State We’re In: Locations of Coercion and Resistance in Trans Policy, Part I Paisley Currah, Dean Spade Over the last 15 years, the transgender rights move- either as being unstable and illegitimate or as frauds. ment has burgeoned in the United States. A handful of Furthermore, in many law and policy contexts, trans- states and dozens of localities in the United States have gender advocates try to steer clear of explicitly referring passed nondiscrimination legislation inclusive of gender to social theories that highlight gender as ungrounded identity; courts have begun to rule that transgender peo- because such social theories inadvertently resonate with ple should be treated equally; educational institutions what most policymakers already believe about trans- and companies are beginning to include gender identity gender people. Because of this sharp contrast between and gender expression in their nondiscrimination policies. theoretical frames being used to understand gender and The term transgender has moved into mainstream dis- the frames employed by policymakers, who often hold the course with increasingly positive representations of trans lives of trans people in their hands, advocates struggle to lives in the media—from countless local newspaper arti- devise policy solutions that improve the lives of trans cles on transgender people and their transitions, to people, are politically viable in gender-binary-reliant respectful mentions in (some) political candidates’ administrative contexts, and still comport with the notion speeches, to the ongoing appearance of trans characters that gender is not grounded in the body. in soap operas. However, with the rise of the new social movement Lagging behind that tremendous upsurge in aware- in the United States that has coalesced around the term ness of transgender issues, however, has been research transgender, the subjects of that data have begun to on transgender lives and practices that centers on the con- revolt (Stone, 1991; Stryker, 1998). So, too, has a new cerns and perspectives of those whose gender identity or generation of researchers and researcher-advocates. But gender expression does not conform to social expecta- before we discuss the newer players and the work that tions. Of course, no shortage of research (Billings & we are delighted to showcase in this special issue of Urban, 1982; Hausman, 1995; Raymond, 1979) has repro- Sexuality Research & Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, duced traditional pathologizing narratives of transgender The State We’re In: Locations of Coercion and Resistance people. Similarly, although work in queer theory (Fausto- in Trans Policy, we want to step back and frame some of Sterling, 2000; Halberstam, 1998) has raised important the tensions inherent in the relationship between questions about gender as a process, as well as the limi- research with transgender people and advocacy for trans- nality of gender, those approaches are not of much util- gender communities. ity to trans advocates. Whereas this work has situated Transgender rights advocacy is almost always gender as something that shifts and that results, ulti- grounded in a human rights framework. This framework mately, from social forces, in legal and policy contexts might be articulated differently depending on the partic- gender tends to be understood as one of the most stable ular viewpoints of the advocates or on the particular social and grounded of all social identifiers. As a result of this and historical context in which such advocacy takes place definition, transgender individuals are often viewed but, in any case, its general gist is that (a) individuals Address correspondence concerning this article to Paisley Currah, Department of Political Science, Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11210. E-mail: [email protected]; Dean Spade, Williams Institute, UCLA Law School, Box 951476, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail: [email protected] Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 1–6, electronic ISSN 1553-6610. © 2007 by the National Sexuality Research Center. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/ reprintInfo.asp 1 SEXUALITY RESEARCH & SOCIAL POLICY Journal of NSRC whose gender identity or gender expression is not tradi- researchers, as advocates, and as researcher-advocates tionally associated with their birth sex should not be to understand this conflict between expert discourses and denied any rights or resources because of that difference, human rights claims. For advocates, research is abso- and (b) one’s gender identity (not one’s birth sex) deter- lutely essential, but only for the pragmatic necessity of nar- mines one’s legal gender. These principles were first enun- rating trans identities and practices in the most intelligible ciated in early versions of the International Bill of Gender and legitimating discourse possible. For example, advo- Rights in 1991 (Frye, 2006) and have since been included cates have reached the point where they are invoking the in the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of authority of medical experts to demedicalize regulations International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual governing trans identities (Currah & Moore, 2007)—but Orientation and Gender Identity (2007), the new inter- in the process, for strategic effect, litigators and policy advo- national standard for discourse on sexual orientation and cates often cite data and research based on assumptions gender identity rights. with which they fundamentally disagree (Levi, 2006; From the perspective of transgender rights advo- Spade, 2003). cates who are challenging unjust laws or policies—in Perhaps the most basic difference between the goals meetings with legislators; in litigation before the courts; of advocates and researchers centers on disagreements in policy discussions with government officials; in nego- over theories of gender. In a system governed by the logic tiations with insurers, employers, and social service of universality (with repeatable, verifiable results), providers—merely enunciating these principles should researchers in the natural and social sciences seek to dis- be sufficient. Ideally, regarding transgender issues, meet- cover a unified totalizing truth, one that fits all the many ings should be no more than 5 minutes long, lawyers’ pieces—body parts, normalizing ideologies, medical tech- briefs should be limited to two or three pages, and the nologies, the role of socialization, and biological ety- validation of experts should never be called for. But, of mologies—into the grand jigsaw puzzle that will course, we do not find ourselves in this world of shoulds: ultimately reveal the answer to the riddle of gender. The Simply articulating a human rights claim based on gen- aggregate approach of trans activists, however, centers on der identity or gender expression will have little, if any, the idea of an agnostic gender pluralism and does not seek short-term impact. In challenging the commonsense to discover the perfect theory (Currah, 2003). In fact, any knowledge and social and legal systems that currently unified theory purporting to describe the so-called right structure gender arrangements, transgender rights advo- relationship between body parts, gender identities, and cates are in desperate need of expert knowledge to back gender expressions would entail the imposition of a new up trans people’s demands. The transgender community hegemonic norm—one that would not be true to many needs valid, reliable social science research to provide people’s experience of gender and that would exclude evidence, as well as experts who will testify, legitimate many from the opportunities that legal gender recogni- advocates’ claims, or submit affidavits. Without these tion brings. For the trans movement in the United States, supports, it becomes impossible to topple the existing there is no overarching desire to make the many com- supposed expertise of bureaucrats who can stand beside munities, practices, and identities fit under any unified the fact that discriminatory policies must be right sim- theory: All of the constituent (and often discordant) ele- ply because of their ubiquity. ments of this movement add up to nothing greater than The fundamental goal of researchers distanced from the sum of the parts. their subjects, however, is not to advance the rights claims To be specific, transgender rights advocates and pol- of any particular group but to determine observable, mea- icy reformers must insist that social scientific research surable truths about what they are studying—in this case, overcome assumptions about sex and gender that, for the sexed body; gender identity, expression, and role; and example, assign transgender people to the wrong legal the (inter)relationships of these factors. Moreover, always sex, suggest that transgender people cannot be good par- lurking in the background is the distinct possibility that ents, categorize gender nonconforming youth only as the research will generate results that undermine claims problems to be solved, and provide rationales for denying for transgender rights. transgender people access to health care. In short, trans- In fact, a real incommensurability