International Trans Studies Conference

by

Puberty blocker consultation: my response

In early September I recieved an email from the Department for Health and Social Care, inviting me to participate in a closed consultation on the Labour government’s proposed extension of the Tory ban on puberty blockers. The deadline was 1st October 2024.

September was already extremely busy. I started the month at the International Trans Studies Conference in Chicago, and ended it at the WPATH Symposium in Lisbon. In the meantime I was faced with various writing deadlines, administrative tasks, and the start of a new teaching semester. The small number of other academic experts and voluntary organisations who were also invited to respond no doubt faced very similar challenges with the short notice and unforgiving deadline.

Nevertheless, I scrambled to respond. Like Cal Horton, I regard government consultations on trans healthcare to be inherently abusive at this stage; as I wrote to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2018, “we respond not with hope or optimism, but in fear. This is the power you wield over us”. Given the turgid vibes found in recent political discourse, I also held little hope of a long-term ban being prevented. However, it seemed worth using what little prestige I have as an academic to at least try to encourage the government to listen to actual evidence.

Trans Writes are now reporting that an extension of the ban until 2027 is on the cards for Britain, following a unanimous vote on the same by the Northern Ireland Assembly. With this in mind, I am now publicly sharing the evidence I provided in the closed consultation, plus slides from an oral presentation to the Commission on Human Medicines, who advised the Government.

I don’t think for a moment that sharing these materials will change anything in the short term. However, I feel it is important to put them in the public realm now for the sake of transparency.

[PDF] Puberty blocker consultation – response from Ruth PearceDownload

[SLIDES] Commission on Human Medicines – Pearce presentationDownload

Going forward, I hope the work that many of us have done in building and sharing an ethical base for the ethical provision of trans healthcare will make a difference. In the meantime, there is an important lesson here about relying on existing, unequal systems of power and control. As Nat Raha and Mijke van der Drift argue in their new book Trans Femme Futures, making demands of institutions leaves the power in their hands. It is more important than ever for trans people to build power and knowledge within our own communities, in collaboration with others.

We have survived worse in the past by sharing information, ideas, and life-changing medication between us, and we will do so again.

by

International Trans Studies Conference Day 3: gaming, representation, and transnationalism

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts about the 2nd International Trans Studies Conference in Evanston (4-7 September 2024).

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
Read Part 3 here.

I started writing this posted back in bonnie Scotland! Back to work, back to endless emails, back to doing my absolute best that all the masters dissertations are marked in good time. I finished it on an aeroplane to Lisbon, for my second major international event of September: the 2024 World Professional Association for Transgender Health Scientific Symposium, and am posting it from a conference centre in Lisbon.

As such, and as you might have noticed, I have slowed down with my writeup from the International Trans Studies Conference. Still, I have plenty more notes and reflections, and hope to continue writing these up over the next week or two.

My conference account left off halfway through the morning of the third day. After the sheer emotional onslaught of the session on political economy (no, really) I decided to slow the heck down and not rush off to the next talk. I went to the front desk where I managed to catch two of the conference organisers, Avery Everhart and Erique Zhang. I’ve known Avery and Eri online for years and long admired their work from afar, but we’d never previously met in person. I have really, really missed making these deeper human connections at conferences. Much as the organisers were clearly exhausted from firefighting technical and access issues to keep the conference running, it was wonderful to meet them and take time for a chat.

I therefore missed the first two papers from the next session I attended. This was a bit of pity given how amazing the rest of the session was, but self-care is important, and I regret nothing!


B{ending} Trans Game Studies

I don’t really do any work in game studies, so chose this session mostly because it seemed fun, and interesting. An opportunity to expand my horizons. This was the right choice – I had an incredible time. 

I turned up partway through a presentation from Madison Schmalzer of Ringling College of Art and Design (USA), titled Circuit Bending, Trans Play, and the Death of Game(!) Schmalzer introduced circuit bending as a practice of “tinkering and seeing what happens”. Examples from her art, research, and teaching included rebuilding children’s keyboards, and messing with old Mario games to create something entirely new. Controls shifted, the sky changed colour, characters ran unexpectedly across the screen. Through the destruction and reconstruction of corporate entertainment products, students discovered entirely new modes of play.

Analysing this process, Schmalzer drew parallels between digital games and social constructs including gender and race. She argued that circuit bending raises important questions about digital products, such as: why does this game exist? whose interest does it serve? And finally: how might we “bend” other social systems in the same way that we might do with games?

Some possible responses to these questions were offered in the next paper: “We Can A̶l̶w̶a̶y̶s̶ Never Tell”: Giggling Faces, Gender Machines, And Un-Recognizing Play, by PS Berge of the University of Albert (Canada). Berge introduced the concept of “ludoarsony”, which variously refers to breaking, burning, or destroying a game (including technical or cultural rule sets), or to playing with fire, creating and playing through the act of destruction. Berge posited that ludoarsony, like play more generally, is a trans thing to do: “play and transness are of kin: both are transformational movements that weave in and out of rigid cultural and computational systems that they are ultimately ambivalent to”.

Berge’s paper drew on a number of case studies in which trans people play with the claim commonly made by transphobes that “we can always tell”: the notion that trans people are inherently clockable as such, that we are always reducible in behaviour and appearance to our sex assigned at birth. The first of these was Giggle for Girls, the now-defunct trans-exclusionary social networking app “for females” (recently central to the groundbreaking discrimination case Tickle vs Giggle…no, really).

Giggle’s verification system for female users relied on so-called gender-recognition technologies. Berge observed that on launch, Giggle was not simply criticised by trans people, but also played with. Examples included trans women testing the verification system (“I’m proud to announce that apparently I’m cis now. I’d like to thank Satan”), and revelling in negative reviews from cis women who were not recognised as such (e.g. “I can’t even access this app […] I was so looking forward to a female-only space, but now I just feel alienated. Thanks for that.”).

Further undermining the logic of “we can always tell”, Berge discussed the work of algorithmic artist Ada Ada Ada, showing us an example of a video in which the artist changes the response of facial recognition software in real time by pulling different expressions. Ada Ada Ada followed this up with “The Misgendering Machine”, an app available to anyone with a phone camera or webcam, which encourages people to play with how they are gendered by the machine.

Berge concluded by arguing that there is play in the unmaking, and to find play in the unplayable helps us find life in the unliveable: “we do not play in spite of the world being on fire – we play because the world is on fire”. Central to this is a project of mutual recognition: “we can never tell”, an acknowledgement of the ways in which we are all fundamentally unknowable, a promise not to rat each other out.

My horizons suitably expanded, I headed out to grab lunch.


Picturing Trans: Studies of Trans Visual Culture

In the afternoon I again wanted to attend a session that offered a different perspective to the material I normally encounter in my work on trans healthcare, both to expand my horizons and take something of a break from the slow creeping horror of my own area. So I want to a session on trans visual culture.

The first two talks offered radically different perspectives on trans people’s self-representation: one looked at self-portraits of trans bodies, and the other very intentionally looked at why we might avoid portraying our own bodies. The third talk then looked at how we might be represent and be represented by other trans people.

In Beyond Representation: Photographic Methods in Trans Myth-making, June Saunders of Washington State University (USA) offered a beautiful, poetic reflection on trans photography and representation that elides direct representations of our bodies. Saunders presented numerous images of landscapes, buildings, and everyday medical paraphernalia to accompany her talk. She encouraged us to be present in the moment without our devices, reflecting the themes of the presentation.

Sanders focused on how we might sit within and create photography that captures specific experiences and moments in time, without simply using this to produce commodifiable content. She examined the tension between the power of self-representation and exploration on the one hand, and the use of images in the service of surveillance and control on the other.

Ace Lehner of the University of Vermont (USA) looked instead at bodily self-portraiture in Transing Identity in Contemporary Photography: Zackary Drucker and Rhys Ernst’s Relationship. Noting that trans visual culture has played a crucial role in political representation and social change since the 1990s, Lehner looked at the “accidental” historic art project undertaken by Zackary Drucker and Rhys Ernst as they depicting their transition and relationship. Echoing Berge’s morning presentation on trans play, Lehner argued that trans visual culture can enable us to challenge dominant cultural logics that assume seeing is uncomplicated, and that we can easily read gender, sexuality, and race onto images.

Given the enormous number of contemporary visual transition diaries posted online by transmasculine people, it was interesting to hear Lehner argue for the importance of work by artists such as Drucker and Ernst in the 1990s, when transmasculine individuals were often ignored or erased in the media. Of course, as Lehner noted, transfeminine people have hardly benefited from historical media interest in bodies, which are sensationalised as objects of heightened sexualisation, and non-consensually aligned with dominant cultural ideologies.

The final presentation in this session was by AC Panella of Santa Rosa Junior College (USA), titled I Got 99 problems and Objects of Trans Memory Are Some of Them. Panella asked what we are teaching each other about what it means to be trans and “do” transness, especially given the limitations of existing trans archives. Said archives are typically derivative of lesbian and gay archives in their approach, and/or subsumed within wider LGBT collections, leading to misguided ideas about trans history. They can also contribute to US-dominated approaches to trans history, with celebrations of Pride (for instance) often marking Stonewall, rather than localised celebrations of trans uprising. These issues are compounded by the economic insecurities experienced by many trans people, with housing issues (for example) meaning individuals are less likely to hold on to items from their past. This spoke to a conversation I recently had with a fellow activist who lost much of her personal archive during a period of homelessness.

Panella outlined how these issues might be addressed through localised community projects, and the involvement of artists. The presentation included several examples of Latinx trans projects in Mexico and the west coast of the USA. They incorporated approaches including community storytelling through writing and arts workshops, intimate portraits of people in their homes, and memorial or celebratory pieces (e.g. fashion displays) based on the lives of community members that activists felt were important to remember. In this way, it is possible to create archival material which captures the complexity and nuance of local experiences, tying these both to cultural history and to contemporary struggles.

Transnationalizing Trans Studies: Building a Truly Global Field

The final session of the day was a plenary panel in the main conference hall. Titled “Transnationalizing Trans Studies”, it offered a refreshing alternative to the North American perspectives that dominated much of the conference, but also once again highlighted the limitations of the conference’s internationalism. We were meant to hear from a scholar-activist in Zambia – the only planned plenary speaker from Africa – but unfortunately she was unable to join us due to energy shortages. I truly hope future events can address this oversight: a matter addressed by the chair, Francisco Fernandez Romero (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina) in his introduction.

The panel therefore featured three speakers who responded to questions from Romero: Madi Day of Macquerie University (located in what they intentionally highlighted as the occupied territories named “Australia”), Alyosxa Tudor of the School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London (UK), and Michelle Ho of the National University of Singapore (Singapore).

The discussion opened with a question from Romero about what trans studies looks like across these contexts. Day began by explaining that, as an Indigenous scholar, they approach the field from an Indigenous studies perspective. They emphasised that Indigenous studies should not be understood as the study of Indigenous people, but rather as a critical examination of the colonised world. This approach understands settler colonialism as a global apparatus, with some Indigenous lands directly occupied (as with Australia), and others exporting their resources to the colonial centre (as Romero described earlier in the day with reference to Argentina). In this context, “colonialism is the condition of possibility”. Day therefore distinguished between white settler trans studies in Australia, and Indigenous trans studies. They spoke to the importance of drawing (appropriately and with due credit) on Indigenous approaches in trans studies, to better address the problem of material from the Global South being always used as data, and never as theory.

Tudor spoke to their context as an academic of Eastern European heritage living in the UK. They argued for a transnational approach to trans studies that goes beyond the “national” in understanding global-local connections, and embraces anti-nationalist principles, insisting that transnationalism is “not about all the small nations sitting down with the big ones for a nice chat!” This is important for interrogating discourses of Eastern European exclusion in trans studies: simply creating a series of national sub-fields is not an adequate solution. Relatedly, Tudor emphasised that a transnational trans studies cannot escape the current moment of genocide in Gaza, and must name the violence inflicted on the Palestinian people.

Ho discussed questions of multiple marginalisation. Citing the TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly special issue “Trans in Asia, Asia in Trans”, she observed that trans studies remains marginal in Asian studies, just as Asian experiences are marginal within in US-dominated trans studies. She also emphasised the difficulties of difficulty of translation in terms of both language and experience, with an enormous diversity of “trans” possibilities present across the Asian continent.

Romero followed these comments with questions that followed up on the topics of translation and transnationalism. Day argued that if trans studies is to be truly transnational, the goals and ambitions should be determined the global Southern majority. The problem in only calling on Indigenous knowledge when it’s directly relevant to Indigenous experiences is that you maintain a colonial viewpoint: if you are a white settler leading a research project, group, or institution and are not actively resisting settler colonialism, you are conducting a white settler project.

Day highlighted how shared experiences across Indigenous communities in different parts of the world have informed shared resistance and productive modes of thinking, and asked: “what would happen if we started thinking of transness as an identity rather than an identity?” But to be in a community, you need to act like a community. Community is non-extractive, and if you have more of something, you need to use it to help others.

Tudor returned to the question of nationalism. Contrasting with Day’s account of community, Tudor argued that nationalism rests on logics of opposition and competition, and resists complexity. In additional to critiquing white, Western nationalisms, they observed that decolonial, diasporic, and minoritised nationalisms also deserve scrutiny, as contemporary counter-hegemonies may become future hegemonies. That is to say: a people’s historic experiences of violence and oppression may not present future violence against others in the name of a new nation, as seen in the example of Israel. Tudor suggested that queer and trans studies might offer a vehicle to highlight the violence of nationalism, through challenging and deconstructing categories, from gender to nation. In this context is important that decolonialism is a mode of action, not a metaphor. Tudor noted they have used their platform as an academic speaker to highlight the growing death toll on Gaza, but this kind of speech act alone is insufficient: “it is clear none of my previous papers have saved a single life”

Ho focused especially on the topic of translation, exploring what might get lost through simply assuming that the language of one context might adequately explain another. She emphasised that to be adequately in conversation with a context, we need to learn their language and culture. This creates real problems for “international” publishing in the English language. Echoing Day’s comments earlier in the plenary, Ho noted the pressure to use Western theory to analyse Asian case studies, and described how a peer reviewer insisted that there were too many “non-English words” in her manuscript: the implication being, “can you do something to avoid alienating your largely US readership?”

Ho concluded by reflecting on the difficulties in attempting transnational approaches to trans studies in Singapore. What compromises are necessary in a very conservative society? She described the example of trying to get funding to bring in a trans studies scholar to speak at her institution, noting that the question is in part one of framing: “I could invite Jack Halberstam to come, and say ‘Jack Halberstam is an established scholar in cultural studies’”. However, given how Western-centric “transnational” scholarship is, this strategy is more effective with US academics than, for example, experts from India. Ho ended with two open questions for us to consider: if trans studies is effectively underground in a specific context, can it be considered trans studies? And how can Western scholars learn from people in these contexts?

The following Q&A session included some interesting reflections on the binary of Global North / Global South given the experiences of Indigenous people in settler-colonial nations. On this note, Day stated their appreciation for the Trans Studies Conference operating within established protocols for Indigenous engagement, for example through inviting Indigenous contributors to speak first: this could be seen both in Kai Pyle’s opening statementson the first day of the event, and in the structure of this very plenary.

by

International Trans Studies Conference, Day 3: getting emotional with political economy

This is the third in a series of blog posts about the 2nd International Trans Studies Conference in Evanston (4-7 September 2024).


Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

There is something about seeing your experiences accurately represented in research. This can be very emotional if you are used to seeing people like you ignored, erased, or otherwise grossly mispresented. Much like media representation, research representation can be powerful in putting a mirror to our experiences and suddenly making them a lot more real.

I dislike the vast overuse of the term “valid” in trans discourse, but there is something very important about being actively validated, about being seen, when the entirely of society feels like it’s set up to deny or gaslight you. It’s a consciousness-raising moment, in which you become capable of truly acknowledging or naming what is happening to you. It is meaningful and authentic and it enables action. But it is also very painful.

As a trans health researcher, I think I’ve developed a pretty thick skin. I see a huge amount of bad trans health research, built on cis ignorance and a fundamental inability to engage with the reality of our lives. I also see growing amounts of painfully real research from researchers who are engaging with care. For better and for worse, I feel I’ve learned to carefully manage my emotions and let all of this wash over me, in order to engage consistently and “professionally”.

But on Thursday morning, a series of presentations made me cry.


Global Struggles, Local Solutions: Transgender Perspectives on Economics and Welfare

The morning began with doughnuts, piled high in the reception area of the conference, a very extravagant seeming American breakfast. From there I headed to the first session of the day, which explored trans political economy. This might seem like the dryest topic imaginable, but for me it gets right to the core of how systemic transphobia and cisgenderism operate, how we feel about that, and what we might do about it.

The study of political economy is concerned with how economic systems interface with social and political systems, and vice-versa. The first paper in this session, by Yukari Ishii of Sophia University (Japan), looked at homeless trans people’s access to welfare systems. In Reasons Underlying Gender-diverse Individuals’ Need for Public Social Welfare Support in Japan, Ishii reported on findings from the 2009-2020 consultation records of Moyai, a non-profit voluntary sector welfare provider, plus interviews with service users.

Ishii’s paper mapped in detail how trans people find themselves accessing welfare systems after being failed by heteronormative and cisnormative systems throughout their lives. She described trans people being rejected by their parents, dropping out from school due to the hostility of the heavily gendered environment, which limited their formal educational attainment. Participants in her research struggled to find work, or were otherwise fired for being trans. More tolerant work environments either required skills or an education background that trans people were less likely to have, or were deeply insecure, as in the case of sex work. Trans people who struggled to hold down a job also struggled to find places to live, with many sleeping at friend’s houses, in Internet cafes, or in the streets.

Ishii’s research showed up vulnerability is created through structurally embedded cisgenderism, impacting people from families to schools to workplaces and even to apparent sites of last resort; for example, she described how Internet cafes did not allow trans women to stay overnight if they were sex workers. She further noted that the consultation records at Moyai were limited where consultants didn’t have a lot of knowledge about queer people, or didn’t know what questions to ask about (for example) family violence. She concluded by recommending that welfare professionals gain knowledge of gender and queer issues, to ensure they are best placed to provide advice and support to service users, and keep better records for improving long-term understanding of the problems faced.

The next paper similarly traced the deep context of economic disadvantage, this time looking to history for a deeper context. In Trans-cending Barriers to QTPOC Labor in the South, Anthony Belotti of Virginia Commonwealth University (USA) focused on the US South’s historical legal landscape, linking this to the region’s racism, homophobia, and transphobia.

Belotti argued that “the history of the South has created an environment where QTPOC (queer and trans people of colour) do not have equal access to labour opportunities and class mobility”. Various legislation effectively criminalised queer, trans, and Black existence, including the Jim Crow laws, “decency” laws which banned wearing clothes not associated with sex assigned at birth, and anti-union “right to work” laws. Belotti argued that while there is relatively little archival material on QTPOC experiences in the South, these laws provide an important insight into people’s experiences, especially given the existence of legislation such as the decency laws implies a perceived need for them from authorities. The concrete impact of all this was that QTPOC had difficulties finding and keeping legal employment.

By the time Dan Irving presented, I will admit I was already feeling pretty vulnerable. In Ishii and Belotti’s excellent papers, I heard about contexts both very different to the UK, and remarkably similar. Beyond the broad importance of their findings, I recognised in their accounts the experiences of so many of my friends and colleagues – a meaningful and painful experience that underpins so much of my engagement with good work in trans studies.

Irving, of Carleton University (Canada) presented a paper titled Sensational Disruptions: Affective Economic Justice at Work. Building on his previous work on trans political economy, this presentation reported on findings from two large qualitative research projects on unemployment and underemployment among trans and non-binary people in Canada, conducted in 2012-16 and 2020-24.

Irving’s paper focused on exploring one anticipated finding from these projects in depth: the “I can’t put my finger on it” feeling. This theme involved participants encountering difficulties in the workplace or in attempting to land work, but finding it hard to articulate why they couldn’t get the job, or had hours reduced, or were laid off, even when appropriately skilled – or overqualified. There was something about getting through the door and finding the vibe was off. These experiences were especially likely to be detailed by trans people from racialised minorities, and/or trans women.

I immediately recognised what Irving was describing. How could I not? He had just described years of my experiences in the workplace as a trans woman. And of course, this isn’t really a new insight: the problems he named have been discussed in feminist literature for decades (especially Black feminist and womanist literature), and indeed within the consciousness-raising group I joined shortly after moving to Glasgow. These findings also related to the phenomenon reported by people from many marginalised groups, whereby we always have to be the very best to succeed in a basic manner in the workplace.

What was most useful about Irving’s paper, however, was his theorising of the phenomenon. In a manner that resonated with Nat Raha’s comments on the second day of the conference, Irving turned to affect theory (explanations that centre feeling and emotion) to explore what is happening to us in the workplace.

Irving described how trans people (especially racialised minorities, and women) often find ourselves constantly doing the additional work of ensuring that managers, co-workers, and customers feel comfortable with us. This causes a “sensate disruption” in our lives, shaped by the “corrosive impact of fear, repulsion, anger on the part of cisnormative employers, co-workers and customers and the violent impacts of rage, depression, exhaustion on trans jobseekers and workers”. Even worse, there are few outlets for these emotions: neoliberal discourses of personal responsibility mean that feelings are expected to be quarantined within the body of the (marginalised) worker, for example through us taking responsibility for our transitions and bodies and carefully managing our relations with others.

It was at this point that I started to cry.

I feel so, so tired and alienated in my work, all the time. I have some amazing colleagues and students, but I am still working in a system where I can feel myself being discriminated against while also finding it hard to always articulate the exact ways in which it happens. I am tired of being advised to refocus my energies in the workplace even as an eliminationist movement works against trans existence. I am tired of my research being erased or dismissed, I am tired of being asked to meetings where I am ignored, I am tired of being asked how the institution can best protect me, I am tired of being told that my failed grant applications are the “most impressive unfunded bid” that people have ever seen. I am tired of having little language for these experiences, and of pushing my feelings down every day.

I am tired of seeing as much, and far far worse, happen all the time to my trans colleagues and friends.

Responding to these findings, Irving asked: “how do we begin to grapple with the ‘affective byproducts’ of post-industrial demands for affective labour?” How do we reckon with the unsayable in our felt experiences? And quoting Deborah Gould, “what kind of political context do we need to build that actually listens to what many people are feeling and that cares about people’s disappointment, despair and furies?”

Drawing on the work of Hil Malatino, Irving proposed “infrapolitics” (low-profile, informal, undeclared forms of resistance) and community care as a basis from which to build solutions. Drawing from participant narratives, he argued that this can include political acts of resistance that are “not on the oppressor’s radar”: examples included zines and phone lines distributing information among workers and applicants, building community connections, and forms of entertainment and commentary such as comic strips. Like Ishii, Irving also highlighted the ways in which trans people effectively provide welfare services for one another, for example by providing beds or housing for homeless community members. What this all amounts to are forms of anti-capitalist resistance that amount to a collective recognition and addressing of the problem.

Sticker with trans flag and text that says: read and submit your favourite texts for free. Visit www.transreads.org.
Sticker spotted at the conference. An example of infrapolitical resistance.

The session concluded with another extremely powerful and nuanced presentation, from Pato Laterra of the Interdisciplinary Centre for the Study of Public Policies, and Francisco Fernandez Romero of the University of Buenos Aires (both Argentina), titled A Trans Political Economy from Elsewhere: Reflections from Argentina. Like the other presenters, Laterra and Romero sought to use the concept of political economy to understand how trans lives are embedded in existing political structures, and propose alternatives for survival. They emphasised that in Latin American contexts, there is a strong tradition of research on travesti and trans people’s living conditions, with travesti-trans politics prioritising mutual support and resource distribution. It is within this context that they looked at implementation and impact the travesti-trans labour quota within Argentina’s public sector.

The travesti-trans labour quota is a form of reparative politics, in which 1% of federal jobs are reserved for trans people. This policy represents a response to the deep, systematic discrimination faced by travesti and trans people in Argentina, which reflects that reported from Japan, the USA, and Canada through the rest of the session. It was implemented in response to radical political demands from campaigners, with the presenters sharing a photo of a flag featuring a slogan they translated as “quota and reparation, we want redistribution”.

To understand how effective the travesti-trans labour quota is in practice, Lattera and Romero insisted on a rethinking of trans political economy, going beyond just thinking of trans people as workers or consumers. They wished to emphasise:

  • everyday reproductive and care relationships, in terms of that which sustains life beyond income or the market;
  • social policies that enable or do not enable certain lives, especially for people with an insecure relationship to the market;
  • situated perspectives, for example through acknowledging how labour (and theory!) from the Global South is extracted by the North.

Lattera and Romero argued that the labour quota partially subverts trend towards assimilation regarding trans people’s inclusion in labour markets. This is because the quota aims to achieve economic redistribution, and positions access to work as a human right. Moreover, it supports the employment of the “least employable”, i.e. trans people who are more likely to be without educational qualifications, or have a police record. In this way, it offers a response to many of the issues outlined by the previous presenters, and an alternative to typical liberal capitalist logics that involve capturing the economic benefits of trans labour.

However, as one intervention within a wider network of unequal systems, the labour quota has significant limitations. Lattera and Romero noted that the “right to work” reifies labour normativity: that is, it upholds the idea that our value as human beings is dependent on being able to have paid jobs, and that paid work is more important than unpaid care work, community work, or domestic labour. Moreover, in practice, the trans people actually hired under the labour quota are most often the most privileged, being predominantly young, white, and highly educated; and once in role, they face a significant pressure to assimilate.

Lattera and Romero urged against any simplistic reading of the labour quota’s benefits or drawbacks, in a manner that forced me to reflect on my aforementioned feelings that “other trans people have it worse”. The “more privileged” trans people hired under the labour quota still face significant disadvantage in their lives. For many, this is their first job, and it is not well-paid. Moreover, those who do tend to land these roles within the public sector tend to regard it as a job they are gaining not (just) for themselves, but for their wider community. The introduction of the quota has also resulted in increased trans labour organising and trade unionism, including increased collaboration between trans and cis colleagues in service of their shared interests. This has been especially important given the mass firings of public sector workers by President Javier Milei since his election in 2023.

The presenters concluded by arguing that trans people’s concerns should be understood within transnational political-economic processes. For example the recent firing of trans workers is a part of wider processes of extraction, in which the Argentinian government is “giving away our wealth to the Global North”. At the same time, there are always lessons to be learned from different parts of the world, so long as we properly acknowledge where these ideas come from and show care in doing so. The Argentinian labour movement invites us to imagine other ways of trans participation in the economy, beyond capitalist productivity.


Game studies, visual culture, and transnationalising trans studies

I’ve had a lot to say about trans political economy, and I have had a very specific story to tell about how my own experiences intersect with what I learned. At the same time, this was just the first session I attended on the third day of the Trans Studies Conference. I’ve therefore decided to split my notes on this day across more than one post. I have yet to write about playing games with Giggle, trans photography and archives, or resisting settler colonialism – and that’s before we get onto Day 4. Watch this space!

by

International Trans Studies Conference, Day 2: TERF wars, parenting, detransition, and decolonial theory

This is the second in a series of blog posts about the 2nd International Trans Studies Conference in Evanston (4-7 September 2024).


Read Part 1 here.

Photo of conference banner.

I began my second day at the conference Chicago-style – breakfasting on an enormous slice of leftover deep dish pizza. Suitably fortified, I strolled the sunny streets of the Northwestern University campus to the Technological Institute, a massive building in which the various conference sessions are taking place.

I was keen to arrive early for the first full day of the conference, as I had been asked to chair an early session. As described in my first post, the huge scope of this event means there are normally eleven simultaneous sessions at once, so there is sadly no way any one person can keep up with everything that’s going on.

Fortunately, the conference organisers planned long lunch breaks and multiple evening receptions, meaning there was plenty of time to meet and catch up with other people even if you hadn’t been able to see them present their paper.

In this post and others I’m therefore going to focus on the sessions and papers I did get to see. Bear in mind that this is just a tiny proportion of the material presented at the conference, and it reflects my own interests and ad-hoc decisions rather than the full scope of the event. It is also my interpretation of the papers I heard, so I may have missed nuance or got some things wrong! I’ve organised this post by the title of the sessions I attended, so do scroll down to whatever interests you most.


TERF Wars: The Battle for Feminist Futures

The danger of writing a book titled TERF Wars is that for years afterwards, people invite you to speak, write, and host events on the topic of trans-exclusionary feminisms. I suppose it was therefore almost inevitable that as a member of the steering group for the conference, I would be asked to chair this session! Fortunately, we were graced with a series of extremely interesting papers which shed new light on how best to understand and work through conflicts over “TERF” politics and essentialist ideas of womanhood, especially given their increasing alignment with far-right politics.

The first paper in the session was titled The Metaphysics of the Natural in TERF Discourse, and was presented by the American-Mexican independent scholar Julianna Neuhouser, based on her collaborative work with Siobhan Guerro Mc Manus. Neuhouser began by acknowledging the significant rise in opposition to trans people’s civil rights over the last decade, with an impact in turn on how a large portions of society think and speak. She argued that trans-exclusionary radical feminism (or “TERF” politics) has played an important role in this, enabling racist, ecofascist and anti-choice positions historically associated with conservative or far-right thinking to be presented as “legitimate” or even feminist within mainstream contexts.

Neuhouser traced a brief history of this process, beginning with the role of ecofeminist approaches which present women as more “naturally” connected to nature than men. In this context, trans women are positioned as a dangerous technological phenomenon, not fully women and perhaps not even fully human. Neuhouser noted the influence of Mary Daly – who infamously compared to trans women to Frankenstein’s monster in her 1978 book Gyn/Ecology – on later writers including the antisemitic conspiracy theorist Jennifer Bilek, and the UK journalist Helen Joyce. Antisemitism and transphobia are also entwined within ecofascist thinking around population control. Neuhouser discussed the example of Derrick Jensen, who turned to conspiracy theories about Jewish influence on trans-inclusive feminism to explain the collapse of his own political project.

Similarly, Neuhouser noted how trans-exclusionary logics have enabled religious right perspectives to be positioned as feminist, outlining the example of INAARGIT (the Feminist International Network Against Artificial Reproduction, Gender Ideology and Transhumanism). INAARGIT promotes the protection of women’s “natural” sexed bodies against “artificial” reproductive and body modification technologies, with consequences for assisted reproduction as well as trans existence. Neuhouser argued that this approach is tacitly associated with fears regarding a supposed Jewish and/or Muslim “replacement” of the white race, much like ecofascist perspectives that embrace the devastating impact of the AIDS epidemic in African countries as a net positive for humanity.

The second talk in the session was by Heng Wang from the University of British Columbia (Canada), on Cyber Trans Panic: The Transnational Circulation of Transphobia and the Mobilization of Vulnerability Among Chinese Trans-exclusionary Feminists on Social Media. Wang began their talk by noting the significant rise in anti-trans feminist discourse on Chinese social media in the last two years. She argued that while many contemporary arguments mirror those of Western trans-exclusionary radical feminists active in the 1970s and 80s, social media has enabled greater circulation of misinformation and disinformation in the present.

Wang explained that when queer and feminist community groups and NGOs first emerged in China in the 1990s, these were broadly trans inclusive. However, online debate and educational programmes led by these groups were restricted in the mid-2010s. Young women are now therefore turning to social media influencers for feminist understandings of sex and gender.

Wang identified the politics of translation as a key issue for influencers’ impact on both trans people and feminism. “Gender” is frequently translated into “social sex” (shehui xingbie). In the Chinese linguistic context, definitions such as this effectively work to essentialise sexual difference as natural, in opposition to the social. It has led to growing numbers of Chinese feminists defining womanhood in essentialist biological terms, and potentially confusing translation of Western commentary on trans women and feminism. Meanwhile, only a minority of individuals have access to Western social media platforms, meaning that content by figures such as JK Rowling as well as responses from trans-inclusive feminists are mediated by the influencers capable of both accessing and translating it. These acts of translation can be shaped by misunderstandings and a projection of the influencers’ own ideological positions.

Consequently, transmisogyny in China is on the increase due to an entanglement of global far-right politics, disinformation on social media, and the specific Chinese national context. Wang therefore argues for the importance of a localised Chinese vision of trans feminism.

The final talk in the session was by Alex Colombo and Gonzalo Bustamante Moya of the University of Oregon (USA), titled The feminist empire: toward an anti-fascist trans politics. The presenters’ starting point was a question posted by Ana Seresin: how might contemporary antifascist organising be strengthened by acknowledging that some feminisms can be fascist? In speaking of fascism, they drew on Aimé Césaire’s portrayal of fascism not as an exceptional form of politics, but as the application of colonial projects and procedures against a white population instead of colonised peoples outside of Europe. In this sense, fascism can be understood potentially as a logical extension of liberalism, rather than external to it. The presenters explored these ideas through a deep engagement with Judith Butler’s book Who’s Afraid of Gender? and Jules Gill-Peterson’s A Short History of Transmisogyny.

Butler’s book positions gender as a phantasm: a psychosexual phenomenon, a site where anxieties and fears are mobilised to incite passions. This causes a blockage of critical thinking and imagination. Butler demonstrates that anti-gender movements have successfully positioned gender minorities as a “threat to the nation” in many parts of the world, and have used fascist strategies to contain this threat: stripping people of their civil rights, and expanding the power of state control and surveillance. Butler’s proposed solution is to develop a “counter-imaginary” that organises reality differently and creates alliances against anti-gender movements. However, the presenters argued that this approach retains some reliance on the “liberal institutions” of the state, which do not provide the necessary resources to truly confront fascism.

Drawing on Gill-Peterson, the presenters argued for a colonial origin of trans-exclusionary feminist fears and anxieties. Gill-Peterson positions transmisogyny as “a mode of colonial statecraft”, used for the creation and management of sexual minority populations. In identifying some people as transfeminine and labelling this as a problem, colonisers gain a new rationale for surveillance and control. Transmisogyny can therefore be understood not simply as a form of individual prejudice, but as a mechanism of the liberal/colonial cis state, intended to ensure a “fear of interdependence and “refusal of solidarity”.

Consequently, anti-trans feminism’s alignment with anti-gender movements is not simply a matter of hatred, and liberal institutions cannot be relied upon to oppose this process. In mobilising the phantasm of gender there is a clear rationale for transphobic feminists to ally with fascists within liberal contexts. Consequently, trans politics must be explicitly anti-fascist, and anti-fascist politics must address trans liberation.


Mother Knows Best: Families and Parents of Transgender Children

I next decided to attend two different sessions about trans children and their families. In the first session, I heard two papers on how parents might actively support their trans children.

In How do parents become sensitive to their Nonbinary child’s identity? Noah Sweder of Tufts University (USA) reported on the findings of a research project looking specifically at pathways to support within families. They identified four themes from their interviews with parents:

  1. Parents hear and support their child’s nonbinary identity. Sometimes they might find it hard to adjust, but making their best effort makes a real difference.
  2. Parents learn about the ways cisnormative society harms their child. This can involve observing children’s experiences of joy in their identity and expression, and experiencing frustration at societal stigma and barriers to social participation.
  3. Parents take significant and proactive steps to affirm their child. This can involve identifying who needs to know that the child is trans in order to better support them and make their lives easier, with key examples being schools and doctors. It can also involve taking strong action against transphobia, including being prepared to challenge family members.
  4. Parents recognise that gender is just one aspect of their child’s life. The child has not essentially changed, but instead wishes to be seen and understood.

The biggest takeaway from these findings is that parents do not necessarily need pre-existing knowledge and understanding to be supportive of their child. Instead, they need to be prepared to listen, learn, and take action.

The second paper I caught in this session was by j wallace skelton of the University of Regina (Canada), titled Strong Parental Support From Parent-Advocates. Drawing on a larger dataset looking at parents’ experiences across Canada, skelton focused nine interviews from the largely rural province of Saskatachewan. In 2023 the Saskatachewan government introduced a policy requiring parental permission for name and pronouns changes in schools. This was repealed following a legal challenge in 2024, only for the legislature to hold an emergency session to bring in new policy.

skelton explained that while the researchers didn’t ask about the Saskatachewan’s anti-trans legislation, parents inevitably brought it up. They highlighted the emotional difficulty and exhaustion of receiving constant news around transphobic legislation, and the heartbreak of their children feeling unwelcome in the province.

In spite of this difficult backdrop, I found the paper optimistic in its focus on parent advocacy, echoing [NAME]’s research. skelton observed that the participant cohort had mixed experiences of advocacy before knowing they had a trans child, and many were targeted for supporting their child, for example being called “groomers” or “paedophiles”. In spite of this, all parents forefronted child agency, naming their child’s experiences as valuable basis for learning. Parents saw their children as educators, balancing this with a “team effort” approach to advocacy within families, and centring their children’s consent in acting on their behalf. For example, skelton cited a parent who said, “I think that’s the biggest advice is that you need to check with your child too if it’s okay”.

Often parental advocacy changed people’s relationship with their communities, for example through leaving unsupportive churches, or no longer meeting with hateful family members. Notably, this was typically positioned as a loss for the transphobes rather than their targets; as skelton put it, “what a shame for Aunt Bertha”.

At this point, I ran over to another session to catch part of a paper by my colleague Cal Horton from Oxford Brookes University (UK): Trans children and state violence: Solidarity and resistance in the UK. As the title indicates, Horton highlighted the horrific injustices young trans people are increasingly facing in the UK (see e.g. my commentary on the Cass Review). At the same time, it was great to see them emphasise the power of resistance from young trans people and their allies, especially the dramatic protests undertaken by Trans Kids Deserve Better.

Exhausted but full of ideas, I headed to the courtyard for lunch, presented in convenient little paper bags labelled according to dietary need and preference. This was a great chance to do the most serious work of the conference, which can sadly never be truly captured in a post such as this: meeting new people and catching up with old friends. I then headed to a session all about detransition.


Cease and Desist: New Perspectives on Detransition

This session opened with a paper by Leor Baldus of the University of Marburg (Germany), titled Detransition: Decisions, Perspectives, and Life Paths of Detransitioned Individuals. Baldus noted that there is very minimal community-based research on detransition, with discourse around the topic dominated by medical and psychological studies. This research therefore focused on detransitioners speaking for themselves, through interviews with six detransitioned people assigned female at birth.

The most interesting part of the paper for me was Baldus’ discussion of what she called the “paradox dynamics of gatekeeping”. This reflected my own observations that gatekeeping practices in trans healthcare can often cause rather than prevent forms of regret.

Baldus observed that diagnosis and therapy within gender clinics always takes place in a context shaped by societal norms, including sexism, heteronormativity, and transnormativity. As noted by numerous trans studies scholars over the decades, gatekeeping entails a feedback loop of verification to diagnose transness, as the person seeking transition has to intelligible to the gatekeeper, which reinforces the gatekeeper’s pre-existing assumptions regarding trans existence. This process inevitably insists on certainty on the part of people seeking transition, which creates little space for ambivalence or exploration. Baldus quoted a participant who said, “the demand for certainty during and in the process […] created a pressure I felt I needed to meet”.

Baldus also described how participants internalised “maladaptive coping mechanisms” in response to misogyny and lesbophobia they experienced while growing up. Where expansive gender options did not seem possible, trans identities offered an explanation and way of making sense of participants’ experiences prior to detransition. In this context, being male was seen as an alternative to being a woman (as opposed to being different kind of woman – or, presumably, a non-binary person, although Baldus did not discuss this).

Kincaid Moberly from the University of Idaho (USA) offered an entirely different angle on the topic of detransition in his paper Trans and detrans representation in the Remothered series. This paper explored the unusual portrayal of a “trans man bad guy”, Richard Felton, in the survival horror video game series Remothered. Moberly noted that where transmasculine people appear in video games, they are typically portrayed as friends or allies, often in victim roles that motivate cis characters. By contrast Felton is a violent adversary, playing the role of a male psychosexual killer and (when wearing a dress) fulfilling the transmisogynistic trope of a “lethal gender bender”.  

Felton also, unusually, has a detrans narrative. According to the game series’ storyline, he/she was forcibly transitioned into a male role as a young person, and his/her experiences of manipulation and abuse led to their own violence towards others.  

Moberly describes the games’ portrayal of Felton as an example of detransphobia: a phenomenon in which detransitioned people are exploited for their actual or supposed pain. He argued that the demeaning of detransitioned people’s bodies and experiences, as in Remothered, takes place in the name of protecting white cis children, rather than actually finding ways to support detransitioned people. A possible response to this can be found in the rejection of cisnormative expectations regarding both the body and life trajectories. Moberly highlighted media by and for detransitioned people that emphasises empowerment, fluidity, and agency, in stark contrast to discourses of pain and disempowerment.

Media portrayals were also explored by Kat Fuller of the University of Nevada (USA), in Gendering, Detransition, and Abjection: News Media Coverages. Fuller’s study analysed 130 media articles on Chloe Cole, a detrans activist and “former trans child” who positions herself as inherently damaged by her former detransition, stating “I feel like a monster”.

The articles in Fuller’s sample which were identified as aligned with centre-right and far-right perspectives emphasised discourses on “gender ideology”, “silencing”, and “cancel culture”. Cole’s experience was used to support idea that LGBT experiences should be criticised, and any kind of pushback on homophobia and transphobia in the media represents an attack on free speech. Narratives around a person’s original transition tended to represent this in terms of trauma and loss, highlighting (for example) a supposed loss of infertility or attractiveness, and decisions being made by children who are too young to understand.

Echoing Moberly’s paper Kinnon MacKinnon’s research on detransition/retransition, Fuller reminded us that Cole’s experience is not representative of all detrans people, given the great range of detransition narratives and retransition experience.

The final paper in the session offered a more reflective space. bush bashing, an excavation of detransition, was presented by Tait Sanders of University of Queensland, Australia. There was a great deal of visual imagery of the Australian bush in this presentation, encouraging attendees to be present in the story. In this mediative account, Sanders explained how bush bashing is an approach to foliage clearance and cutting that provides space for choices around what is cut back and what is not; which plants are removed and which are left or given more space to grow.

Sanders contrasted notions of “add on detransition” – in which non-binary or genderfluid understandings of the body are added like sticking plasters – to an approach in which “gender [is[ imagined as emergent in the space created by the cut”. In this context, a meaningful approach to detransition might involve the creation of space: “gender is embodied […] and all we need do is follow it”.


(Re)imagining Transness with Decolonial Theory

It is inevitable that a conference based in a country will feature many contributions from that country, and Anglophone trans studies has always been US-dominated. However, as one person noted in the Q&A for this final session I attended on the Thursday, a problem with this is that many US scholars fail to localise their own work. In this way, US perspectives stands in for the universal, whereas contributions from other parts of the world become peripheral. White perspectives in trans studies perform a similar function; as observed once again in the Q&A, “if you’re going to work on white transness, you need to name it”.

I felt like the first paper in this session, by Nat Raha of Glasgow School of Art (UK), happened to offer some insights on how to address these problems, drawing on material from her forthcoming book with Mijke van der Drift, Trans Femme Futures. In Transfeminism and affective economies: collectives contra separability, Raha reflected on how researchers and activists in trans studies and beyond might “stay with the trouble” and pursue abolitionist approaches. She encouraged us to think through the complicity inherent in our work, especially given dominant logics get reproduced. A practical example of this would be how to engage with Palestinian liberation activism within and beyond institutions hostile to it, for instance through participation in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israeli apartheid. Raha outlined two key concepts for theorising the problem: separability, and affective economies.

Separability describes the reproduction of cultural difference through othering, as seen for instance in racist or xenophobic language or actions. Separability is enacted materially as well as in discourse, as seen for example in state borders, the arms trade, and deportations. Parallelling arguments made in the “TERF Wars” session at the start of the day, Raha explained that transphobia is part of the contemporary dynamics of separability, with gender norms folded into the enactment of white supremacy.

Affective economies describe how emotions and feelings provide motivation and structure for certain kinds of social order. Drawing on Franz Fanon, Raha provided the example of how emotional responses to the presence of Black, Indigenous and Brown people emerge in the context of specific histories and foundations of racialisation and inequality. In the context of these histories, mainstream conversations about racism tend to centre the feelings of white commentators. Similarly and relatedly, contemporary conversations about sex/gender are centring feelings of cis people. The structural impact of this is that the actual needs and perspectives of marginalised peoples are directly excluded.

Raha posited that a solution to these problems can be found in practices of abolitionist care. She encouraged us to think about our care practices in relation to separability, and invited us to consider how separability is reproduced in our personal and social lives. For example, who are we excluding in our work, and (to draw on the insights of the prison abolition movement) how might we stop treating people as disposable? How do we work through our affective investments in a way that manifests possibilities and togetherness?

In Conceptualizing Cuy(r)ness: Knowledge Production Regarding Gender & Sexuality in Ecuador, Nathan Campozano of SUNY Purchase College (USA) noted the oversaturated presence of the Global North in international conversations surrounding gender and sexuality. Relatedly, Andean perspectives are somewhat sidelined within Latin American studies. Campozano sought to counter this by exploring how people have challenged pre-conceived notions of gender and sexuality in Ecuador.

Campozano introduced “cuy” and “cuyr” as Ecuadorian responses to “queer”; unfixed terms that refuse direct translation. Understanding cuy(r) from a located Ecuadorian perspective enables a recontextualization of trans feminist activism from peoples including enchaquirados, a cuy(r) Indigenous community on the Ecuadorian coast. Campozano argued that a proper documentation of Ecuador’s cuy(r) history must cenre on localised language and understandings, lest these be displaced by Eurocentric or Americanised understandings of queer identity.

Two presentations then followed on the topic of Indian trans rights legislation. First, Sanjula Rajat of the University of Oregon (USA) presented their paper Beyond ‘Third Gender’: Coloniality and Hindu Nationalism in Indian Trans Rights Legislation. Rajat argued that the British colonisation of India required complicity and collaboration from portions of the Indian population, including in the imposition of the colonial moral order. An example of this was the “anti-eunuch” campaign which aimed to eliminate the hijra, culminating in the banning of their perceived cross-gender communities in the Criminal Tribes Act of 1891. While this law was repealed shortly after Indian independence, colonial logics remained in the new state. This can be seen broadly in continued processes of population surveillance and control, and specifically in continued state harassment and violence towards hijra.

In 2014, the NALSA judgement theoretically granted new civil rights to hijra and trans people, including a right to self-determination regardless of surgical status, and affirmative action to support employment. In practice however, hijra and trans communities continued to be targets for state criminalisation and control, especially in the wake of the ironically named Transgender (Protection of Rights) Persons Act in 2019. Rajat argued that the Transgender Act represents a continued expansion of state power, through the conflation of hijra and trans identities as “third gender”, and the logic for this made legible through appeals to nationalist myths of an accepting pre-colonial Hinduism. In practice, the Transgender Act has also made many people’s lives more difficult, for example through reversing elements of NALSA relating to matters such as affirmative action and legal recognition, and criminalising begging.

Rajat therefore positioned the law as a form of pinkwashing by the Indian government. They argued that British colonialism cannot be blamed alone for the difficulties faced by hijra and trans people in India, and that doing so obfuscates the ongoing impact of caste-based violence through Hindu nationalism.

Further analysis of NALSA and the Transgender Law was provided by Chandrasekhar Venkata Durga Sepuri of the University of Maryland (USA), in Weaving an Ambedkarite Theory of Transgender Justice. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was a key figure in the Indian independence movement and a campaigner against the caste system. Sepuri outlined three key principles of the Ambedkarite theory of justice which are highly relevant to trans experience:

  • A grand vision of social justice, underpinned by commitments to liberty, equality, and freedom of expression.
  • Recasting social relations, emphasising the value of fellowship with all other human beings, in contrast to Brahmanic logics of caste distinction.
  • “Educate, agitate, organise”: a vision of political power in which education is central to liberation.

Sepuri observed that the recent rising power of ethnic democracy and Hindu nationalism in India has coincided with the increased “protection” of trans people in law. However, this has in practice involved increased regulation of trans people’s lives. Echoing Rajat, Sepuri argued that the NALSA judgement failed to recognise Brahmanical foundations of transmisogyny, instead helping to build Hindu nationalist rationales for governmentality. The text of the NALSA ruling invited trans people to “join the mainstream” within the implicit context of this Hindu nationalism.

These problems were compounded through the shift from a (flawed) rights-based approach in NALSA, to a welfare-based approach in the Transgender Act. In addition to the discriminatory provisions outlined by Rajat, Sepuri highlighted how the lack of specificity in the Transgender Act’s welfare provisions deny opportunities for trans people to gain social or administrative power, and provide no specific legal consequences for discrimination against trans people.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, therefore, trans people have been failed on multiple fronts. They are denied access to equality and freedom of expression outwith the limited context of Hindu nationalism, denied fellow feeling through the focus on welfare rather than meaningful access to work or power, and there is an absence of a coherent approach to education that recognises intersectional forms of oppression.


Final thoughts

Thursday was a long day. I received a lot of intense information, and also took part in many meaningful conversations which are not reproduced here. I found myself zoning out a bit during the sessions on parenthood and detransition, so took a break during the evening plenary. I had earlier advised a PhD student not to worry too much about constantly attending every possible session – I definitely needed to take this advice myself!

by

Conference report: International Trans Studies Conference, Day 1

REPENT.

The messages greeted me as soon as I left the ancient, rattling commuter train from central Chicago, chalked onto the sidewalk all along Church Street on the walk to my hotel. They seemed oddly out of place in Evanston, a leafy college suburb with an extremely chill vibe; a strange contrast to the low-key cool of the bars and restaurants, and turquoise blue calm of the inconceivably vast Lake Michigan.

At first I misread the final word of every message as “repeat”, as in (for example): “Praise the Lord – repeat”. I thought someone was simply very enthusiastic about sharing their values. “Repent”, however, feels a lot more aggressive and also quite pessimistic, assuming the reader’s guilt and their urgent need to make amends.

I am here for the 2nd International Trans Studies Conference, held at Evanston’s Northwestern University, in the original homelands of the Council of Three Fires (the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa peoples). In the opening plenary of the conference, the political scientist Paisley Currah argued that we are living in a crisis moment for trans politics: not because we are necessarily facing more discrimination than ever before, but because more people are paying attention to our existence. Many of these people hope we might repent our trans identities, our gender deviance, our very existence. And yet, here we are, gathering from around the world to discuss trans knowledge and trans ideas, and to imagine trans futures.

Over the course of the conference I am attending numerous talks and meetings across a dizzying array of topics and themes, taking in both theory and evidence from researchers based in the humanities, social studies, and physical sciences. I plan to blog regularly, sharing information I have learned as well as critical reflections on the event. There are literally hundreds of talks taking place over up to 11 simultaneous sessions at any one time, so please do not expect an exhaustive account! Still, I hope these posts will be of interest to people unable to attend the conference, as well as fellow attendees.


The opening plenary: ‘The State of the Post-Discipline’

The conference began on the evening of Wednesday 4th September, with a two-hour opening plenary titled ‘State of the Post-Discipline’, reflecting the official theme of the event. Across four talks, this session aimed to set the tone for the conference and introduce a series of key ideas for consideration in the coming days.

I felt the plenary very much reflected the ambition, the importance, and the limitations of this conference. Each of the speakers emphasised the importance of a materialist approach to trans studies, in which our research can speak helpfully to the reality of people’s lives. This necessarily involves grounding our work in practical examples of trans realities, and understanding our histories in order to better tackle the challenges of the present and future. The speakers were perfectly blunt about the enormous harms that trans people have faced across time and in many places, while maintaining an optimism for how we might productively learn together.

At the same time, it felt strange that together, these four opening commentaries reflected a very limited geographic perspective, with three of the speakers being based in the United States. Similarly, it was disappointing to see just one trans woman on the stage, the Mexican biologist and philosopher Siobhan Guerrero Mc Manus.

This unfortunately reflected the wider dynamics at play within trans studies. As conference organiser TJ Billard noted in their opening comments, trans studies has historically been dominated by US and (to a lesser extent) European voices. Moreover, all four of the field’s major journals are effectively based in the United States. The 2nd “International” Trans Studies Conference is inevitably dominated by US scholars and perspectives, even as there are an impressive range of people present from the rest of the world. I’ve also frequently observed the minoritisation of trans women with trans-oriented conferences and research projects, even given the enormous influence of key figures such as Susan Stryker (who will be speaking in a later plenary) and Sandy Stone.

Nevertheless, the conference couldn’t have found a better opening speaker than queer Indigenous historian and literary scholar Kai Pyle. I have long admired Kai’s written work, so it was exciting to finally see them speak.

North American conferences frequently open with a land acknowledgement, in which organisers and/or invited elders of local Indigenous communities recognise the role of Indigenous peoples as the original stewards of lands taken by settler colonists. However, land acknowledgements rarely offer deeper understanding, let alone any form of reparation for the enormous damage wrought by colonialism.

Pyle themself rightly noted that a single talk could not possible begin to account for the violences and erasures of the past and present, and they observed also relative absence of Indigenous academics from the conference space. They further comments that “although I’m speaking on a panel titled ‘The state of the post-discipline’, I’m barely concerned with the discipline at all”: instead Pyle is concerned with a future where indigenous trans people can live.

Nevetheless, it was powerful to begin the event with a talk specifically about the oppression and resistance of Indigenous peoples in the Great Lake region. Pyle also argued that this history is necessary for properly understanding the history of trans studies itself.

Pyle explained that the lands of the Illinois or Inoka people were first invaded by the French in the 17th Century. Subsequent European accounts and travelogues widely reported the presence of gender roles in Inoka society that did not align with European norms: examples included the leadership of women in agriculture, and genders that could not be easily categorised as female or male. The subsequent projection of European understandings and desires onto Indigenous North American peoples informed early pathological accounts of gender ‘deviance’ as physical and mental sickness, which in turn would inform inform diagnostic categories from the 19th century to the present day. Indigenous people themselves, meanwhile, were subject to immense colonial violence, including coercive conversion to Christianity, removal from their homelands through forced marches such as the Trail of Death, and cultural destruction through the Indian residential school system.

Turning to the early 20th century, Pyle told the story of Ralph Kerwineo, an individual of Potawatomi and Black heritage who successfully ‘passed’ as a man and married two women while living in his ancestral homelands. While Kerwineo might today be understood as a trans man, there is no evidence of any engagement with the traditional gender roles of his people. Pyle noted that this stands as evidence of both enormous alienation but also resistance: Kerwineo successfully lived a gender ‘deviant’ life in the Chicago are a hundred years of attempted elimination of his people.

Finally, Pyle reflected on the emergence of the two spirit movement in the early 1990s, in parallel with the emergence of the contemporary US trans movement, as well as trans studies.

The second talk was by Paisley Currah, who argued for theorising “trans rights without a theory of gender”. He posited that trans studies has been increasingly “stepping aside from just doing theory” over the last decade, as seen for example in the creation of the journal Bulletin of Applied Transgender Studies. In this context we can potentially separate questions of social justice from questions of what sex and gender might actually be.

Currah illustrated this argument with the example of campaigns around sex classification policies in New York City. Attempts to introduce a system of self-declaration in the 2000s and early 2010s were complicated the fact that some city bureaucrats supported the proposed changes, and others opposed them. This was summarised by a legal argument made by the city government: “the existence of difference approaches to similar problems does not render an agency’s rule irrational”.

In this context, Currah argued that sex/gender is in practice a “decision informed by law”, and by the needs and interests of lawmakers. For example, in many jurisdictions it is fairly easy to change a sex/gender marker on a driving license. This is because in practice driving licenses are used by the state primarily for tracking and surveillance, and it is therefore in the state’s interest for the license to reflect what people look like and how they live. By contrast, it has historically often been more difficult to change sex/gender for the purpose of marriage: that is because this would entail a disruption of the heteronormative biological logic for property transfer across generations.

Currah concluded by arguing that when we argue for changes to these policies, the existence and diversity of trans people “is enough”. We exist no matter what your theoretical position on sex or gender, and “a world without us cannot be willed into being”. The focus of policy advocacy should therefore be on what we need to flourish, rather than abstract theorisation.

I found Currah’s arguments extremely helpful and well-framed. However, I was surprised to his insights framed as novel, as the approaches he described feel well-established in the UK. Unlike in the US, materialist approaches have been central to trans studies since the 1980s, in the work of key scholars such as Dave King, Stephen Whittle, and Zowie Davy. Meanwhile, the focus on trans people’s practical needs is embodied in the work of organisations such as Trans Safety Network and Trans Kids Deserve Better, who very intentionally centre questions of harm rather than any theorisation around gender. My own PhD thesis (published in 2016!) and later book Understanding Trans Health deliberately set aside the question of sex/gender to focus on how trans healthcare services operate and are experiences in practice. The feminist philosopher Katharine Jenkins has done important work on how what is important about gender varies according to context, and the legal scholar Chris Dietz has extensively considered questions of governmentality in terms of how and why differing aspects of trans people’s lives are managed by different agencies of on the behalf of healthcare systems and the state.

I make this point not to try and undermine Currah or big up UK trans academia specifically. Rather, I want to note how this kind of awareness of what is already being done in different parts of the world highlights why a truly international approach to trans studies is so vital.     

The next talk was by Siobhan Guerrero Mc Manus. Unfortunately I – and many other attendees – missed much of her talk due to an apparent failure by the translation company hired to support the conference. This was an enormous pity given what I did catch felt extremely important, and built on the critiques of Currah that were bubbling away in my brain during his talk.

Guerro Mc Manus emphasised the importance of organising across borders, with the example of taking successful trans liberation strategies from Mexico, adapting these in a Colombian context, and then again in Peru. Conversely, she described the example of how work on reforming the criminal code in Colombia informed trans activism in Mexico. In this kind of organising and exchange of ideas, reflections from the Global South might be combined with insights from the North, without simply reproducing Global North theory in a way that is not necessarily applicable to countries such as Mexico.

I wish I had heard more of these presentation! I feel the International Trans Conference’s investment in both live translators and translation through transcription software is an incredibly important move, and should set the tone for future events in the field (or “post-discipline”, if you prefer). At the same time, it is important to get this right lest non-Anglophone perspectives are further marginalised through technical error. While I just missed large parts of this one talk, attendees who were not fluent in English may have missed much more from the other speakers. I definitely felt for the organisers, speakers, and fellow attendees, and hope these problems will spur future work to further improve our communication across languages and borders.

The plenary closed with a short address from TJ Billard. Billard explained how the choice of conference theme was informed by the “first” International Trans Studies Conference, which took place in Arizona in 2016, “riding the high of the transgender tipping point” just months before the election of Donald Trump. An enormous amount has changed in the last eight years, and the time is ripe for a re-appraisal.

Billard’s use of the term “post-discipline” draws on the work of John David Brewer. Brewer describes post-discipline thinking as knowledge about a phenomena that is detached from disciplinary allegiances, instead emphasising theoretical and methodological pluralism, political investments, and ethical values.

The emphasis is therefore less on academic siloing, and more on real problems facing contemporary society.  This couldn’t be more appropriate for trans studies, especially in the context of the insights shared by the other speakers.


Some final thoughts

The first “day” of the conference was really just an evening: the opening plenary, plus a reception where the in-person attendees got to spend time meeting and catching up with one another (some of the most important academic work!) I am finishing this monster post at the end of the second day of the conference, a true marathon which ran from 8:30am (when registration opened) to 9pm (when a reception and 10th anniversary celebration hosted by the journal Transgender Studies Quarterly theoretically wrapped up). It’s difficult to capture the sheer scope of this event: indeed, this series of posts can only possibly touch upon the vast amount of knowledge and information we are discussing at the conference.

For all that I (and others) have shared several critiques, I am hugely grateful this event is happening, and feel very privileged to attend in person. I couldn’t be happier to be a gender deviant, and hope to repeat the value-based work of resistance over and over.