I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley and New York University Press in exchange for an honest review.
This is a nonfiction book that attempts to examine the history of a segment of the LGBT rainbow that tends to get ignored, lumped in with other things, and/or assumed to ‘match up’ with ‘the rest’ of the found history. Specifically this is an examination of the T in LGBT. Though it is entirely fixated on FtM without even a hint that MtF exists – unlike L and G, which at least get a mention here and there – both in terms of similarities and differences inherent in what has been found by researchers. B? I? A? Not even mentioned.
The general idea of LGBT history research, or, I should say, the general narrative that has been found through research, is that ‘queer people’ are allowed to ‘blossom’, to really become themselves when they go the cities and join LGBT communities. With some exceptions here and there, like research that has been done about the American Western Frontier, the ‘best’ places for gay and lesbian individuals would be found within cities. It’s the ‘rural’ vs. ‘urban’ mythos. And an assumption was made that this would hold true for all LGBT peoples.
The author of this nonfiction book, though, has found that transgender history, at least as it relates to FtM (or female to male), is different than expected. Research has found that there has been a large number of, as the author puts it, ‘Trans Men’ who had found rich rewarding lives ‘being themselves’ in rural communities. There are certain reasons for that, which the author elaborates upon in the book. Though it is stressed… right.
Through mention of other histories and research done on the era (1870-1930), plus extensive research among many newspapers, the author presents her findings through, as noted, mention of other research, plus case studies. Mostly those found through newspaper articles from the era in question, plus a few sexology … case studies (I shouldn’t have used case studies before since it actually is ‘case studies’ there for the sexology thingie).
There are five chapters and many Trans Men are identified, described, and examined. Two things are immediately of importance – regardless of how the individuals identify themselves, the author focuses more on the Trans Men than anyone else they might be cohabitating with (though mention of girlfriends, wives, etc. occurs; including any husbands the Trans Men might have had along the way). Oh, and the second thing of immediate importance, there is an assumption being made, whether I’m reading into things or not I’m not sure, but an assumption made by the author that if a woman dresses up like a man, is found out and reported on in the news, then regardless of their own words, they are trans men (instead of, say, women who found that it was easier to find work and continue working while dressed men and putting themselves out there as men). Many of the same news articles I saw that had the trans men saying things like ‘I dressed like a man for work, but I plan to never again wear men clothing’ had later news reports about the same trans men who, oddly enough despite their own words, found themselves again ‘found out’ wearing men’s clothing. So there is evidence that what their own words say, they mean something else to themselves (especially since so many of them find it easier to present themselves in certain ways in the press to help with public opinion and/or court cases).
Right, so. Five chapters. And both a long extensive introduction, and a long extensive notes section (the book itself ends, the part before the end notes I mean, at about 70% into the ARC kindle file). Except for a chapter on marriage and what it meant over time; the chapters follow a progression, starting with chapter one set in the earliest years in the 1870s/1880s. And traveling through time up to chapter 4 and the 1920s/1930s. With chapter five concentrating on, as noted, the concept of marriage throughout the years.
There were many interesting tidbits of information gained along the way. One of which is that many of these stories would make good books. Which, in its own way, is quite important – as the impression given is that two women just couldn’t have any kind of relationship with each other ‘before’ a certain date. Just couldn’t be done. They’d be shunned by society. Then I read this book and I see couples that had 10, 20, 30 year marriages (and yes, some of these were legally sanctioned marriages – granted, one of the people in the marriage was dressed as a man and proclaiming themselves to be a man, and the other was dressed and acting like a woman when they got married). Opened my eyes, that did. Then there were more eye-opening moments.
Eye opening moments: it appears, from the extensive research conducted by the author of the book, rural communities were actually a lot more accepting of same sex unions involving two women. There’s many a story wherein the ‘true sex’ of the ‘female husband’ was found out and the local community responded positively towards the couple. True sex – that’s one of the things newspapers just loved to do: 1) act shocked and horrified when it is found out that the husband’s ‘true sex’ was actually that of a ‘biological woman’ (with wording that indicated that this was like the first time this has ever happened or been seen; then a similar story would pop up the next day with no links being made to the prior days story, odd, eh?); 2) call the husband in the relationship that involved a trans man a ‘female husband’ – sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.
But I was talking about rural communities. It seems, after research, that many rural communities were actually quite accepting of two women living together in a marriage like setting as long as: 1) one took on the role of husband; 2) the husband was hard working and a positive benefit to the community; 3) white (or, at least, ‘white enough’ depending). And no, they didn’t then pretend that it was man and woman; many a story had comments that indicated that yes they knew that that dude walking around in pants and who had a wife was 'in fact' a woman in men's clothing, they just didn’t care because both were fine upstanding members of the community. And stuff. And this was repeated all over the country. Fine upstanding member of the community? Fine, be woman-woman household (as long as one dresses and acts like a man); not upstanding member of community? Depends, but unlikely to be accepted. Likely to end up being punished and/or put in an insane asylum (as happened to one woman, though there is an indication that that specific woman did have some mental issues).
I mentioned white – well, there were ways to get around that. Like one trans man whose father was an ambassador to the US from Mexico and had fought in a war against the US as a general – that specific individual used certain names that pushed away connections to Mexico; played up connections that make them appear ‘better’ (like, in some news accounts, play up the fact that they come from a long line of proud military – without including which country those family members fought for). Or another trans man who lived in Milwaukee – which, apparently, had an interesting diverse mix going on at the turn of the 20th century. That specific individual in that Milwaukee case played up being from South America (which was a lie, but meh) to both to separate themselves from the black community, and to explain their darker skin – and then later, when being from South America turned into a liability, they next turned to playing up Native connections (as in native American), as that’s still better than being thought of as being a member of the black community. Basically there’s a presumption of innocence if you are white, and a presumption of guilt if you aren’t white, and just who is considered white fluctuate (like when WWI rolled around and that same one above with the Mexican General in their background suddenly got taken as a German spy despite never claiming anything to do with Germany; it’s just that any and all Germans were now suspect; course heaven forbid if you happened to be Asian, just . . . don’t be).
Well, the book will not actually get published for another month, so I’ll think about other things I might add. I might not have anything else so I’ll leave things as: this was a very interesting, informative
I suppose I could add: 1) marriage before a certain date was a more local matter. It’s the kind of thing that if you moved into the area, said you were husband and wife, lived as husband and wife, the local community weren’t going to demand proof, they’d just accept it (unless there’s some reason not to, like if someone else turns up saying they are ‘that’ person’s husband, or wife); 2) then, due to various reasons – fear of immigrants, etc., regulations regarding Marriage became more of an issue and lots of people got involved, including eugenics people who wanted to control who could marry, when, how, etc. etc. (they also wanted to sterilize certain people, but that’s somewhat linked, but separate), so it became more than just two people moving in and saying ‘we are married’; 3) so the question comes up, why did so many trans men put their lives at risk (legal lives not physical lives) by going through with a sanctioned marriage, a regulated marriage? Because, even with the laws in place (like blood tests and the like that started going onto the state legal statutes), if they can get a legally recognized marriage certificate, then they are doing one of the few things they can do to ‘prove’ that they are a man – at the time there were no hormone treatment, body transition surgery, or the like – proclaiming yourself a man on a legally recognized document and having it be accepted . . . well, that’s huge.
Let me look at my extensive notes before I actually depart this review box. Well Microsoft word but whatever.
1) Newspapers fluctuated on coverage (both between local and national, and between how the story got told). Depending on the people involved, whiteness, community benefit, etc., they either held the trans man up as someone attempting to ‘do right’, to be a productive member of society in the only way they know how, even if that means putting on men’s clothing and getting a job they would otherwise not be able to be employed to do; or they held the person up as a dangerous deviant.
2) Somewhere around 1883, sexologists started releasing studies which were known, but not necessarily accepted by local communities – but just by being known they might have had an impact, these ideas that they stressed being of a binary mindset, and their ideas of a ‘natural woman’ consisted of: a natural woman is one who is a) asexual (isn’t actually interested in sex); b) ‘naturally’ matched up with a man. And all who do not follow this ideal are deviant perverts. And that would include women who like sex with men. Not just women who like sex with women, or women who believe that they are actually men.
Rating: 4.55
Publication Date: September 19 2017
August 15 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment