Harm from Within: Unpacking Transmedical Gatekeeping in Feminist Circles
To what extent does gatekeeping gender identity cause harm within feminist circles?
Warning: If you are impacted by transphobia related to the invalidation and erasure of trans non-binary identities, you may not wish to continue reading. Quotes used are intended solely as examples of transphobic behaviour perpetuated by members of the Trans* community. Hyperlinks to upsetting source material will be identified with CW: Transphobia.
An Introduction
When it comes to exclusionism, there is a common misconception that it is always an “us” vs “them” situation, with “us” being communities united by marginalized life experiences and identities, and “them” being oppressors- but what happens when within marginalized communities, the fight for inclusion becomes “us” vs “us?”
Debating within feminist circles is common and can be learning opportunities for members of social justice movements- but debate can also be harmful to communities. In queer communities- especially the online transgender community- there exists a polarizing debate on whether gender dysphoria must be clinically diagnosed before one can participate in trans* spaces- with trans* being an umbrella term for many communities including, but not limited to transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, genderfluid, non-binary, etc. Deciding who can and cannot “be trans” on the basis of clinical diagnosis is one example of medical gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping in this context refers to when an individual (or group of individuals) limits access to a community by challenging the authenticity of those who do not meet certain parameters.
Gatekeeping can be effective in keeping oppressors and bigots out of safe spaces for marginalized folks- it becomes harmful when used to exclude people from their own community. So, to what extent does medical gatekeeping cause harm within feminist circles? Transmedicalists (those who believe that one must medically transition to qualify as transgender) like Libby DownUnder and Kalvin Garrah argue that gatekeeping prevents harm from taking place within the community, because diagnostic criteria keeps people from appropriating trans* suffrage as a “trend.” On the flip side, gender equity activists such as Sam Schmitt and Emi Koyama state that medical gatekeeping gender identity is rooted in classism, racism, heteronormativity, and transphobia. As an intersectional feminist and as a queer woman, I side with inclusionists in the belief that by excluding members of the queer community from queer spaces, medical gatekeeping upholds the systems of oppression which inhibit queer folks from achieving liberation.
Gatekeeping Gender Identity: A Brief History
The policing of gender identity is not a concept invented by transmedicalists. For decades, sections of feminists (especially white feminists) have been perpetuating harm by partaking in gatekeeping and exclusionism. One example of exclusionism in recent feminist history is the exclusion of transgender women from feminist communities, on the basis of not being “real” women in the eyes of “biological women.” Social justice activist Emi Koyama, a genderqueer Asian author who coined the term transfeminism, outlines harm done by trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) in her 2003 article, the Transfeminist Manifesto. In this work, Koyama highlights the oppressive nature of exclusionism within the women’s movement and calls for action through unity.
“Transfeminism holds that nobody shall be coerced into or out of personal decisions regarding her or his gender identity or expression in order to be a “real” woman or a “real” man. We also believe that nobody should be coerced into or out of these personal decisions in order to qualify as a “real” feminist.” — Emi Koyama, 2003. The Transfeminist Manifesto.
The Transfeminist Manifesto focuses on issues such as transphobia, gender-based violence, transmisogyny, and essentialism. Koyama identifies the TERF ideology that trans women are not “real” women due to once-upheld male privilege. Koyama explains that while it is important to identify how trans women may have benefitted from male privilege prior to transitioning, said male privilege does not diminish the intersecting layers of oppression that transgender folks experience.
While there are still TERFS who exist today, decades after the emergence of transfeminism, activists like Koyama have been crucial in shifting mainstream feminism away from exclusionism.
Gatekeepers, Your Privilege is Showing
One vocal transmedicalist in the trans* community is Kalvin Garrah, a 19-year-old female-to-male transgender video blogger living in Colorado. Garrah regularly makes content about his experience with gender dysphoria, his medical transition journey, and critical commentary videos about people he perceives to be “transtrenders,”- a derogatory word used to invalidate the existence of nonbinary folks. Garrah outlines his argument in defense of his gatekeeping in his video titled “YOU NEED DYSPHORIA TO BE TRANS: a rant.” (CW: Transphobia)
To summarize, his argument is that if one does not feel great distress about their gender identity in relation to their physical body, they have no right to participate in trans* spaces, nor do they have the right to access medical care regarding their genders identity. It is the belief of transmedicalists like Garrah that a complete medical transition- gender conformation surgery- must be the end goal for all folks who do not identify with the gender/sex that was assigned to them at birth. This way of thinking is directly influenced by Garrah’s life experience with his own gender and sex dysphoria, which has been a source of trauma for him.
Kalvin Garrah, “talking about my gf, dysphoria, and LIFE.” 2018. [youtube video]
While many trans* folks agree that their gender dysphoria has caused great anguish in their lives, this is only one way which trans* people experience gender identity- and it is not the only way. Ultimately, it’s oppressive to say that one must combat gender dysphoria by undergoing gender conformation surgery, because it implies that if one does not have access to medical resources, or does not desire a medical transition, their existence and life experience is not valid- not real. Contrary to what transmedicalists like Garrah preach, medically transitioning is not a viable option for everybody in the trans* community.
The privilege held by transmedicalists like Garrah is glaringly obvious, with healthcare being accessible to only a fraction of the world’s population. Blair Ostler, a gender variant woman, asserts in her personal blog post “Gatekeeping Trans and Intersex Bodies,” that the community tendency to identify transgender folks as either “pre-op” (transgender individuals who have not medically transitioned) or “post-op” (individuals who have completed a medical transition) is rooted in classism and racism.
“Economic disparity in this country cannot be looked at without also examining our country’s history of extreme racism.” — Blair Ostler, 2018.
Ostler connects transmedicalism to feminist essentialism when she points out that there is no one way to be a woman- that putting a price on womanhood reinforces misogynistic standards of gender expression. Ostler explains further that because access to medical resources is dependent on financial stability, people of colour and working-class individuals are less likely to seek a medical transition. By failing to recognize the privilege that comes with medically transitioning, transmedicalists actively cause harm by upholding systems of oppression which work against the entire trans* community.
Gatekeeping Only Protects Transphobia
By maintaining the idea of gender dysphoria being a “mental disorder,” transmedicalists are perpetuating harm in the form of transphobia. The implication here is that people who don’t identify with the gender and/or sex they were assigned at birth are sick, broken individuals who need to be fixed in order for the world to accommodate them. This way of thinking is exclusionary to people who don’t identify within the gender or sex binary- such as individuals who identify as gender nonbinary, intersex, or otherwise gender non-conforming. Being transgender is not a disease or illness. People who exist outside of the binary model do not desire a “cure” for their gender dysphoria.
“Labeling trans minds (or more specifically, trans brains) as disordered as opposed to anything else relies on nothing more than cissexism — the belief that cisgender people and identities are better than transgender people and identities.” — Galen Mitchell, 2017. I Do Not Have a Mental Disorder.
Transmedicalists sustain that by gatekeeping gender identity, they are protecting the trans* community from appropriation, as well as protecting healthcare resources needed by those who experience distress related to gender and sex dysphoria. In a 2015 Spectator article titled “Transtrending: the real transgender madness,” (CW: transphobia) video blogger Libby DownUnder, who locates herself as a politically right-wing transsexual Australian woman, argues that the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them” are unnatural, because humans automatically perceive gender expression as either masculine or feminine. DownUnder maintains that gender is not socially constructed, but “a manifestation of the two biological sexes: male and female.” This sort of gender essentialism- known as bio-essentialism- exhibited by transmedicalists is inherently transphobic.
“The argument that gender is a social construct, and that there are more than two genders, delegitimises gender dysphoria, whether intentional or not. It implies that transsexuals don’t experience a medical condition that’s so life debilitating and misery-causing.” — Libby DownUnder, 2015. Transtrending: The Real Transgender Madness.
Sociology and Women’s Studies professor Sam Schmitt, a non-binary transgender academic, writes about the effect of bio-essentialism in their 2013 article for The Feminist Wire, titled “Checking Our Privilege, Working Together: Notes on Virtual Trans* Communities, Truscum Blogs, and the Politics of Transgender Health Care.” In this article, Schmitt asserts that by upholding the gender binary model, transmedicalists reduce and limit access to trans* resources because medical professionals adhere to a “classic transsexual paradigm.” Schmitt discloses that they received great criticism from transmedicalists in the online trans* community for utilizing hormone replacement therapy, accused of taking resources away from “actual trans people.” Schmitt further states that due to transmedicalist gatekeeping within the trans* community, people who do not fit the binary or “classic transsexual model” end up erasing their own identities and experiences in an attempt to access resources. As a result of invalidating and challenging non-binary and genderqueer identities, transmedicalists perpetuate transphobia within the trans* community by encouraging non-binary individuals to erase themselves- which can have a harmful impact on the mental health of non-binary individuals.
A Little Solidarity Goes A Long Way
By gatekeeping gender identity, transmedicalists continue the cycle of transphobia, racism, and classism, and ultimately cause massive amounts of harm within online queer communities. When members of a community try to keep queer people out of queer spaces, it works against the movement for liberation. In the Transgender Manifesto, Emi Koyama calls for feminists to accept transgender women as “real” women, and thus as real feminists. In a similar key, there is no one way to be a “real” trans* individual. Time and energy that is spent on this “us” vs “us” debate can be better utilized in fighting outside sources of oppression which threaten the queer community as a whole- like patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism. If we make feminist communities inclusive and accessible by abolishing all forms of essentialism, we can further progress towards a society that is inclusive and accessible.
