Trans Antinomies

Scholars in trans studies have sometimes narrated the field’s divergence from queer theory by arguing that the latter takes trans lives, experiences, and knowledges merely as metaphors, allegories, or symbols invoked to make theoretical points about gender, sex, and sexuality writ large, whereas the former insists that they are material particularities deserving their own studies. Jules Gill-Peterson’s A Short History of Trans Misogyny promises not only to refuse the allegorization of trans life but indeed to cut out the abstract discursive tangles that trans studies has methodologically inherited from queer theory, offering “a materialist case for leaving such losing games behind” (viii). She thus rejects the concept of “trans” itself, resisting “domestication into a universal theory of gender” (153) and focusing on the particularity of trans misogyny as a corrective to discourses in which “everyone but trans women have monopolized the meaning of trans femininity” (12). Gill-Peterson offers important critiques of trans studies’ perennial conceptual antinomies, revealing them to be produced and framed by historical manifestations of trans misogyny rather than inherent to trans life, theory, or politics. I will argue, however, that Gill-Peterson’s promise to move trans studies from theoretical discourse to materialist engagement only coheres by way of an unacknowledged form of strategic essentialism, one that distorts her historical account by implicitly framing trans femininity according to tropes of passion, liveliness, and excessiveness, thus positioning trans femme life against a caricature of other trans configurations misconstrued as pure abstractions.Just as often as trans studies scholars narrate the divergence of the field from queer theory on the grounds of refusing the status of trans life as mere metaphor, their peers have risked constructing trans people as symbols. In 2008 Susan Stryker, Paisley Currah, and Lisa Moore offered “trans-” as a general method for theory, one akin to “queer,” rather than as a set of concerns particular to “a tiny class of marginalized individuals.”1 Such moves seem to be increasingly met with frustration, however; Kadji Amin has recently described this gambit as “a devil’s bargain,” one that risks “cherry-picking and distorting trans people’s words and deeds to overinflate what is queerest about them.”2 Amin insists that the field make itself responsible to the material facts of trans life, considered as necessary and sufficient grounds for study, rather than using trans examples as prompts for general theories or political subversions. In some sense, this impasse resembles similar ones in the histories of queer theory and feminism, such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s schema of “universalizing” and “minoritizing” views of homosexuality as a way to displace the debate between essentialists and constructivists.3 Thirty-five years later, the difference seems to be that constructivist and universalizing maneuvers are so familiar that they almost appear as hegemonic, and declaring the general relevance of “trans” is likely to be read as a violent erasure of material trans lives, experiences, and knowledges.Of course, all processes of interpreting and theorizing necessarily require some degree of abstraction, forms of selective reading that will emphasize certain aspects of material trans life rather than others in order to produce general insights. While such a generalizing tendency may be deemed to have run amok in queer theory, this operation is not absent entirely from the work of scholars who insist that we listen to the material of trans life rather than declaring its meaning, insofar as such extrapolation is foundational to interpretation itself. The fact that trans people have for so long been unable to speak for themselves, however, produces a constrained position wherein a necessary insistence on the material particularity of the trans perspective seems to suggest that any interpretive act would amount to a silencing of the trans subject’s own voice, even as a trans scholar necessarily must engage in such acts of interpretation. This antinomy is one of many that continue to set the terms for trans critique. For example the need to reject the essentialism of cis-normative gender systems while also retaining some other kind of essentialism to prevent “trans” from becoming meaninglessly inclusive; or the need to challenge inherited ideas of masculinity and femininity while also arguing for acceptance of them as forms of trans expression; or the need to ground trans history in an origin point other than violent medical discourses while also refusing the retrospective imposition of anachronistic categories that might erase historical differences. While such antinomies certainly have generative potential for trans theory and praxis, some have come to view them as stultifying inheritances from a prior discourse, incapable of meeting the historical particularity of the contemporary situation.The need to break through such antinomies and make contact with the material situation may seem more urgent than ever, with anti-trans sentiment playing a major role in the global resurgence of far-right political forces that have been working hard to deliver on their promises to suppress or eliminate trans and queer people from social life.4 At a historical moment in which the very existence of trans studies as an academic field seems to be directly imperiled, it is both important to assert the of and to that certain may be in the of a political that will not even the gender to be or The more the discursive come to seem the more we might or even to behind” such and so that it might more material is both an and a of Short History that it in the theoretical that it but rather to the for their by them to be produced by the of trans Gill-Peterson’s into the of one or of antinomies, into a universal theory only one of an even while to the of that reading for this in Short History offers an to on the forces that continue to the theoretical and political for trans studies in the to more what is in on its antinomies to or I that Gill-Peterson’s account implicitly or directly a form of strategic essentialism for trans feminism, one that might be an essentialism it to the of while strategic insistence on the material particularity of trans femininity and against the abstract of trans risks a rather than of both all the more likely to as the are according to selective historical and of and we will that Gill-Peterson’s strategic to trans femininity the of gender as in and thus even as or for trans Such strategic essentialism only strategic insofar as it is of a engagement with gender rather than constructing them as to trans into Short History itself, it is by to Gill-Peterson’s own in a on trans wherein to on queer tendency and is to trans studies’ with a corrective to queer way to that tendency is to its some of which are not about the academic The and of to its through a gender that the trans or and to abstract out of the of the or trans people even more with the of a one to be and Gill-Peterson a theoretical that Short of from a position of trans studies and its to by historical processes have to trans people as with This of however, is to the of trans studies with the of which Gill-Peterson in Short however, that trans studies is not its but is rather framed by historical forces that set the terms for the of trans The of trans and be as a historical indeed a to the of trans life that with the of and This historical would seem to suggest that is in any account that one kind of as more or material than any but we that such a must in Short History for Gill-Peterson to trans femininity from trans in an is insofar as Short is to a historical account of trans misogyny rather than one of trans For trans historical manifestations have and constrained the historical manifestations of trans femininity and have a role in and systems trans In this sense, a history of trans misogyny is than a history of trans about the historical of the in Short History Gill-Peterson that a history of trans women is or and her about such a are not merely Gill-Peterson in her against that the move to forms of gender the of trans is a violent one we reject Short History thus to a as a way out of trans studies’ Gill-Peterson that we through the historical for of trans misogyny any to what trans femininity Gill-Peterson that this a perspective more than any or it not in that trans femininity or trans are or even and the or of trans femininity is not in we will that it in the of the histories and to Gill-Peterson’s of a political between and that Short is we the positioning of as the of as while refusing to account of trans I Gill-Peterson has to this and it will be important to them both in as we Short and its The would be that “trans” is a universalizing people particular femininity is by its Gill-Peterson as the of trans in which trans not the to and thus of Gill-Peterson seems to an in the of of their own even as critiques such The would be that is an between trans people trans and other trans Gill-Peterson’s gender produced in the risks constructing them as than trans thus the historical this on as the of is also on the and of trans trans promise a queer of gender in which is set by of a trans This Short and that trans queer is only through a or on the of trans femininity in order to other forms of trans will to a of this but it is only to so it Gill-Peterson’s account of trans misogyny trans misogyny as and takes as a that trans misogyny is to make such gender to and sex, gender, and (viii). This of trans as as its with other of and is not to as one might that its Gill-Peterson to it as a through which to historical In a Gill-Peterson on to that trans misogyny or trans femininity are some of or that has but also and it to be the case that and trans misogyny the the case which from and the to contemporary that trans from a of its historical Gill-Peterson that the global of and are what a for trans that the and the concept it trans is also to Gill-Peterson that trans have to trans femininity in order to their own and it will have been has that such are for in a on trans She of trans in many others on to their to In a trans from trans femininity is a for and thus its is as a in any form of the or History that the of the trans and thus the of trans is that such is to to the of trans femininity to all forms of and The that femininity is to and in to be by any however, risks a that in Gill-Peterson’s of abstract trans and universal theories of to into and theoretical with the insistence on the material of trans This between theoretical and material is the of Gill-Peterson’s The concept of as one to and other Gill-Peterson to her according to their of rather than of trans are they “a by that often to or by to The trans women people who as to a and it thus of and For all the people considered in Short History have been even the of trans is or even to their that what terms global trans has the of Short History its in In with the conceptual Gill-Peterson that the who of are not to a history of trans them into this for is not a her history of the to this in a even In her of Gill-Peterson that the of as trans and of a to and to into a history of trans femininity for this whereas her history of trans misogyny trans and to what this In similar in the Gill-Peterson the of might the as as that of and She that against the latter people as an of the by the of thus revealing the of both in between and the between the and the of trans the that would view such trans as the of trans insists that they be as even they be the of This the of the wherein Gill-Peterson the and of a in who has been into historical of Gill-Peterson’s insistence on the of is not to of her as a trans rather than a her is that a history of her case focusing on it framed by trans misogyny rather than by Gill-Peterson also that a on trans misogyny displace the role of arguing that the the case not from the fact a trans but rather that a gender as so The in this reading to rather to seems to the that trans misogyny and it is that Gill-Peterson insists on the trans in seems to such trans about gender by between a trans way of life and the with gender in Gill-Peterson as an of a general about trans trans women have work is a that of work and that other Short History to is not but rather her by trans Gill-Peterson not only as a trans but takes her case as for the between trans women and work the of her more as the of a than a historical of material her social is not by entirely historical that Gill-Peterson this her also a method of in order to and in the In this takes which a between and the trans and Gill-Peterson that the between to be a a on a it a on the of a in the material of and the seems to the and of any to and on the grounds of a of the of gender the fact that it is the method of that is the the difference between and is the of the of trans femininity with material and has its own and as Gill-Peterson Short History moves to historical it more and this of trans femininity with by framing it as a form of only we and the of the trans women of of will Gill-Peterson implicitly this to contemporary who into abstract by for their rather than their but her own of the often into its own of Gill-Peterson’s to the of and the of Short History set out to both the and promises of trans femininity with The with a reading of of focusing on the of of this in the in her her her role as for the than as however, Gill-Peterson that her position from a of trans She is in a trans has to her in the and one to the material with its of as the of is also the its in it is in her that the and of her in of will and position in the Gill-Peterson’s account of trans which that account the role trans femininity in constructing the material and its trans a for that material one through its schema of trans Gill-Peterson in with The the in the or the of the for trans femininity an the as and while her offers form of femininity and The Gill-Peterson to what may be an one “a a for the trans of the to all of from While the that into Gill-Peterson risks a of wherein such come to political the the certainly in a political promise of trans as Gill-Peterson has been by a of trans forces that have been in and than In order to narrate of the to a violent the between the and class The is the the and on trans and people with the to the and of their While any history of and would have to its to homosexuality by it from gender in the in this Gill-Peterson’s that and writ and in with the to a of an the that trans is on of a trans This might be through the of Gill-Peterson’s that the of the thus her in the position of “a the of in her the very of trans femininity to be by of that in for political Gill-Peterson that a that in and that her offers to the it would to a is the of the trans femininity is by and the of its insofar as the of trans misogyny have not been to her according to a of and produces a with her that Short History takes trans femininity in its material in order to challenge the allegorization and of gender theories that displace trans In as in of lives, even in Gill-Peterson to the and allegorization of trans as in her The takes in as an of a that the of trans and the Gill-Peterson in that the have the of their social For this would on and a of the gender At the conceptual Gill-Peterson’s that such are not the that to the gender are or would seem to or even a engagement with the work in the a of it seems to such a political to has the scholar and by Gill-Peterson as a of this is a of the of to gender on the grounds that are women that the gender is a political for In selective to Gill-Peterson into the of allegorization that trans into symbols by only the aspects of their situation that her is in Gill-Peterson’s account is that not such as of trans in general but as symbols of trans femininity in In engagement with the of the Gill-Peterson their to the or the of as with tendency to political only by not or to femininity” political are to be according to they are or the thus is one that with an and is rather than is a Short History to set such by focusing on trans misogyny rather than trans but Gill-Peterson the in declaring the in the of femininity” as a political to the trans that the of trans account of a concept of femininity to its any women are Trans femininity is This however, on a of femininity with the of trans people with thus the of a that material by trans Such Gill-Peterson to to be more to the of may out a to but it be from their to even and in has in the of the such of with even in discourses of life and liveliness, however, are not merely of they are also of its potential as a political Gill-Peterson of the is not what in a of and is the and is on with in the and to the of femininity” In this of is is and femininity is the an in itself that be Such seem to for both as and both as and material the from a on the of trans Gill-Peterson it with familiar and liveliness, the to be while that it a potential to the stultifying antinomies of a form of trans theory and that takes to be implicitly trans of a by the is not the of or or social is and into a universal theory of gender” that of the between the and of the and the implicitly of gender theory, we are to the in against which we with a of both Gill-Peterson’s account of trans misogyny as as her account of trans The of this a kind of strategic essentialism that implicitly and trans against the of an and by the of for this Short History in to a other in trans studies and also to the of Gill-Peterson’s critique. Gill-Peterson that to act in or as their it is often to a trans is implicitly in or an of the it is for to have in their to displace and eliminate trans femininity by forms of gender political are risked in declaring an between trans femininity and other forms of trans are the of the trans that to eliminate trans any of and indeed the the of trans seems a than an of the The of Gill-Peterson’s is reading of in is as a case of the and erasure of trans In to more however, Gill-Peterson’s takes a into the In of that reading produces a of or the of and to what it would to act and a for Gill-Peterson such to the of trans feminism, also this method by trans women who with who and than critique. trans the who are and “a of trans that a not only more but more than implicitly is as a to the Gill-Peterson however, to for the relevance of in historical that on are on a that about gender is the as or insists that of the for gender is the for in which have to and A of is not a way of and with it or for its a way of the one that be to for social and the of of The of the gender for not that and are and also a way of The of the gender out to to a of the the gender that about the relevance or of and of are with a that it will a of that will erase trans a similar to the one that In such an between the trans of and the of the latter a of that it is and while also to it an that it not it would be hard to that of trans life as mere its of the of anti-trans the and their role in and Gill-Peterson thus to an of arguing that their of are or even a of trans that and This in Short History wherein Gill-Peterson about trans femininity as or we read such as to a method of trans critique. While Gill-Peterson the I read her and conceptual of trans femininity as a kind of strategic essentialism, one that not might this method a strategic essentialism one wherein Gill-Peterson insists on the particularity and political potential of the not only as a but indeed as a of and while that it is and even violent to or trans The fact that the trans only in the or of the rather than in its for a strategic essentialism that than constructivist while leaving the that have been only to the be I not that such of are is both that they are to a of trans femininity as rather than and that they to or antinomies that in fact they merely or strategic essentialism from Gill-Peterson’s about trans femininity with and a similar a more of strategic essentialism in to her against that we and must the concept of difference the and its a position as an that has often been misconstrued as While of that is in it is and that has come to be as as many of of the is insistence that difference is produced and not to any For difference is not even necessarily or an insists the of an that is also to be course, the that difference might or be as such to its historical and also in Gill-Peterson’s account of trans This to is an to a kind of that the erasure of trans that Gill-Peterson takes to be inherent to a trans that itself with and moves may have for trans studies in its this particular historical and I from to on them as however, is that this strategic of trans femininity will to be strategic as as it to position itself against a caricature of as in While academic of has to the of the an insistence on gender the not trans its the to a of may a of and forms for trans and life that challenge trans misogyny and to a of femininity or will almost certainly more than we will in of and rather than is a that we must trans femininity from a by the mere existence of Such even more their terms are such that the what Gill-Peterson an that might forms of that may also be as the of The framing of such also on a wherein in a of gender that are of the framing of Gill-Peterson’s of against more in Kadji of which that its existence the of an of gender as its For is against which itself for a of is itself of gender on a life of its and thus a social it social of social categories is of and its and it also seems to the of Amin that is not but is a social act with one that produces many forms of that are not merely that will be out of their or against merely for as seems from the and what the of but indeed it seems even in that The the of is a that even in are political acts with ones that and not as it very we the of certain with the material and with which we Such to on of femininity and as in of of femme which about and femininity that have been this perspective might an wherein trans are of insofar as gender may be a of and but it not or trans even forms of strategic essentialism that also gender as that is not a to eliminate or its we might that a perspective not one to an as a is not an might be an to the by which gender is rather than that the must be the of an rather than a of and differences. gender be more than femininity or masculinity one that it is only an and an that the of social life For the social of is is that its and This in people as who have to or their gender and thus in as more and than the forms of life in which people are working to gender often in social and often by Amin the of or an of it may be to Sedgwick’s in which the role of is by a that of acts very to some the of seems to the of to it them or of a of the of some a of people a of about sex, others people to have a of sex, others or on for a and that it be it would be to would almost be hard not a similar about some people that their femininity is a of others some people their masculinity in others some people their to be others that it a than social the may have insofar as it might all forms of difference that are not in the of and indeed forms of difference by people of all we that the of constructing this that it is a of it is that may not need to a social but rather forms of and that are to the histories and of many who not a perspective not amount to the violent imposition of trans but merely an to the categories that have to the of than as an of a into pure the might be as a method to all in to a than one by the of and not categories but them to be one set of not or leaving familiar antinomies of but their all of to forms of all of them as for all of them the of trans femininity all other and to them may to or a strategic essentialism that risks positioning ideas of femininity against a caricature of the we might and their many forms of Such a may indeed be in the of many of the that Gill-Peterson out in Short in particular her of a trans studies that not in the meaning or of trans femininity to trans to however, will require of they are by the of trans antinomies, games that be but also be