There’s a debate raging in the trans world that has been on going for awhile. The debate is between self-described “truscum” (also called trans medicalists) vs what I will call “maximals”. Truscum believe that gender dysphoria is necessary for being trans and that being trans is essentially a medical condition defined by dysphoria and the desire for “opposite” sexed bodily characteristics. The name comes from the idea of “true trans” – the idea that we can develop a way of determining who is “truly trans” vs those who are merely “trans trenders” i.e. cis people confused into thinking they are trans for whatever sociological/personal reason, perhaps because they want to fit into niche internet communities or what truscum would call the “special snowflake” phenomenon.
Before I go on further, I need to point out that trans medicalists have self-consciously reappropriated the term “truscum” to describe their position. A more traditional way of talking about this debate is in terms of separating “true transsexuals” from “transgender” people where “transgender” means those trans people who don’t want to medically transition and “transsexual” means those that have dysphoria and want to medically transition. But “transsexual” is a very outdated term that comes from the old-school psychiatric community. Try to read this post without thinking the term “truscum” is pejorative. As you will see, I believe there is a huge amount of truth in the truscum concept so I’m not bashing the belief system, merely using the term I see most often used by self-described trans medicalists.
In contrast, “maximals” believe that dysphoria is not necessary for being trans and generally want to expand the trans umbrella to be maximally inclusive. Maximals often lump crossdressers and gender nonconforming people into the “trans” category (though this is an oversimplication I will discuss below). Maximals don’t believe being trans is necessarily a medical condition or believe that if you’re trans there’s something necessarily “wrong” with you. Instead of defining trans people as those people with gender dysphoria, maximals often define being trans as the state of having a gender that is different from the gender/sex you were assigned at birth. This definition is maximally inclusive because it doesn’t require dysphoria in the definition. For example, if you are non-binary, perhaps agender, you might not have dysphoria about your body but your gender is different from the gender you were assigned at birth.
Let’s get some other definitions out of the way. “Gender dysphoria” is generally defined as a disconnect between the sexed body and your self-model of how you want your body to be. If you were assigned male at birth but feel your body should be female instead then you have gender dysphoria and vice versa for trans males.
So what’s the beef between these two viewpoints? Truscum often argue they are trying to help “real” trans people get better access to medical care for transition. They also argue they are trying to break down gender stereotypes insofar as they argue that if you’re a guy who enjoys femme clothing and makeup that doesn’t necessarily make you trans and vice versa for butch women. The idea is that crossdressing and gender nonconformity is not enough to be trans – one must be deeply dissatisfied with your sexed body and desire the “opposite” sexed body, otherwise we lose the very distinction between gender nonconforming cis people and trans people.
In contrast, maximals generally argue that the line between gender nonconformity and being trans is fuzzy and hard to pin down precisely. They deny that dysphoria is necessary because they want to deny that gender can be reduced to any physical characteristics such that if you have an assigned-male body you don’t necessarily need to medically transition in order to feel comfortable in a female gender identity or live your life socially as a female – and they would go further and argue society should accept these people as “real” women just as real as any other woman, cis or trans. Furthermore, maximals often emphasize that sometimes trans people transition not because they experience gender dysphoria but rather they experience gender euphoria. Gender euphoria is the joy one experiences in taking on a new gender identity, expression, pronouns, social existence, etc. Euphoria can also be achieved through medical transition. One might not necessarily hate one’s body but nevertheless desire to medically transition because one believes that would bring greater satisfaction into one’s life.
Another argument available to maximals depends on transgenderism in non-Western societies. Take native “Two Spirit” people, which is generally the term for trans/gender expansive people in Native American society. The argument goes that being Two Spirit cannot be so easily mapped onto Western ideas of transgenderism which typically revolve around gender dysphoria and medical transition. Instead, transgenderism in non-Western societies or historical contexts generally depends on a more complicated gender role system that is outside the Western male-female binary. But we must be careful because historical trans people sometimes did take steps to alter their bodies e.g. eunuchs in the Bible would sometimes self-castrate. So we can’t necessarily say that non-Western transgenderism is entirely divorced from gender dysphoria. And I will admit frankly I don’t know enough about these other cultures to definitely state anything about whether trans people in these societies felt what is now called gender dysphoria. But the general point maximals make is that transgenderism has been around a long time before it was “medicalized” by the West into a pathological condition that needs to be corrected with HRT and surgery. For example, Two Spirit people would not necessarily believe there is anything wrong with being Two Spirit in the sense of it being a medical pathology.
But we need to be careful – I know a Two Spirit trans woman who does have dysphoria and has been on HRT to correct it – so Two Spiritism and modern medical transition are not at odds necessarily. But the general point maximals make is that transgenderism in non-Western societies cannot just be reduced to Western conceptions of what it means to be trans because that would be trying to force a complex system of beliefs and social roles into something they’re not.
Another argument the maximals can make is refer to the complexities of how the drag world relates to the world of trans people. Most drag queens are just cis males who enjoy expressing a feminine self from time to time but ultimately don’t desire female bodily characteristics and like being able to come home and take off the drag and get back into guy mode. But if you know anything about drag you know that some drag queens eventually do go on to identify as trans and medically transition. But these drag queens often continue to perform as drag queens during their transition. Is that fair? Allowing trans women to compete in what is traditionally a male activity? The issue is complicated because gender is complicated and messy, with boundaries between different identities being fuzzy. This is what fuels maximalist arguments: gender noncomformity is an expansive phenomenon that reflects many complex facets of identity and social roles.
But clearly truscum are right that gender noncomformity in and of itself is not sufficient for being trans. A man who wears makeup is not necessarily trans just because it’s noncomformist for men/boys to wear makeup. Similarly, a woman with short hair who shops in the men’s section is not automatically trans otherwise we wouldn’t have a distinction between butch women and real trans guys. To think otherwise is to buy into sexist stereotypes that men must act/behave in a certain way in order to be “real men” and vice versa for women. Interests in cars or barbies does not define gender. Whether you are assigned male or female at birth cannot predict the range of interests and activities that someone is going to take up in their lifetime. Some men are femme and some women are masc and some people are very fluid in their gender expression.
So who’s “right”? Truscum or maximals? In my view that debate boils down to a false dichotomy and over simplification. I take a non-reductionist view of transgenderism. It cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions universal to all trans people nor can it be reduced to any one physical condition or medical pathology. Where maximals go wrong is in saying that gender dysphoria has nothing to do with being trans. Gender dysphoria is experienced by almost all trans people in some fashion or another, but truscum go wrong in assuming this dysphoria can be defined neatly in terms of desires for the “opposite” sexed body. First of all, this relies on what Julia Serano calls “oppositional sexism” – the idea that men and women are total “opposites”. Instead, Serano argues that people overlook the massive similarity and overlap between the two sexes and further argues that the very idea there are only two sexes/genders is overly simplistic when we consider intersex phenomena and complex multi-gender systems in non-Western cultures where there are sometimes upwards of 5 different genders.
One thing philosophers learn is that there is often a grain of truth to all theories that have been developed by smart people. There are smart, informed people on both sides of the truscum debate. Both sides think they are doing something to help trans people achieve greater acceptance in society. But the problem with the “debate” is that it tries to reduce the phenomena of transgenderism into a narrow box. Both truscum and maximality are narrow-minded insofar as they try to reduce the complexity of gender and sex to a single ideological system.
8 responses to “Is Dysphoria Necessary for Being Trans? The “Truscum” Debate”
Reblogged this on Cursed E and commented:
This is a really interesting read, and if you like my blog posts, you’ll probably find some value in this.
I like some of the arguments but feel that this sentence needed to be a bit more nuanced: “A man who wears makeup is not necessarily trans just because it’s noncomformist for men/boys to wear makeup. Similarly, a woman with short hair who shops in the men’s section is not automatically trans otherwise we wouldn’t have a distinction between butch women and real trans guys.” Yes, but what this sentence misses is self-determination – “a man who wears make-up” or a “a woman with short hair who shops in the men’s section” is not *necessarily* trans but well may be, depending on how they identify and what emphasis they give on their gender expression in defining their identity or not. There is no way one could *externally* fix a boundary between “butch women” and “real trans guys” – that border would be changeable and depend on how individuals interpret and express their identities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to agree with the ‘truscum’ side of this debate – gender dysphoria is a real and potentially very serious psychological condition that requires treatment and if medical/surgical transition is the only effective treatment for it, that is what must be done.
As far as the ‘maximalist’ side of the debate is concerned, I think it’s largely unnecessary. If ‘transgender’ is defined as a person not fitting comfortably into the gendered expectations attached to their sex, that would make the vast majority of humans transgender. Absolutely anyone can be ‘gender nonconforming’ if they choose to be so – and indeed, many people, like myself, feel much more comfortable eschewing the expected trappings of our gender roles. I happen to be female but I certainly don’t consider myself as adhering to our culture’s notions of what ‘femininity’ entails; on the other hand, I would never suggest that this lack of conformity to a feminine gender role/presentation actually makes me a man, as such. Being male or female is a matter of biology – how one chooses to express oneself is a matter of personality.
Basically correct, it is far more complex than many think. Cross gender feelings vary in strength and type between people. Similarly gender dysphoria (GD) varies considerably.
Plus, and this is seldom talked about, what are (and how successful are they, at least for a time) the ‘coping’ mechanisms that a person uses to deal with their feelings and deal with their GD in a hostile and non accepting environment.
Obviously the stronger the GD (and I suspect if it is more physically based) the harder it is to develop and maintain such coping mechanisms.they will break down.
I had a complex and well developed set of coping mechanisms when I was ‘in the closet’…they broke down in the end because they required so much emotional and mental energy to maintain. But my GD was very much (and always did from a kid) around physicality, I might have been able to maintain them (or find some sort of compromise) if they had been more visually, behaviourally or socially based, then again I might not have.
Many find ‘compromises’ that maintain their overall public cis identity (with all its advantages) …at least for a time. If their GD is low, then they can maintain that through life, if it is high then eventually it will break down …and then you have to face yourself.
The ‘closet’ is a closet ..a dark and lonely place.
Plus it is a dynamic process for many. I went through both part timer and non-binary stages. The part timer period made my GD worse… Oh sure when I was presenting as a woman I felt better at the time, but then I felt my GD far more keenly when back in ‘cis mode’. Being non-binary did nothing for my GD, I felt just as bad being androgynous as I did presenting ‘male’. So for me they were stages of exploration and self discovery.
But that is not the case for many others, who can maintain a part time life and it is enough for them. Similarly being non-binary. In either case GD goes away…or at least drops to low enough a level to live with.
Pingback: Transgender FAQ | Rachel Williams
Pingback: The Ultimate Transgender FAQ for Allies | Rachel Williams
You’ve (perhaps inadvertently) picked up on something that’s extremely relevant to some of the gender essentialist discourse happening right now, especially related to reform of the UK’s Gender Recognition Act.
“It cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions universal to all trans people nor can it be reduced to any one physical condition or medical pathology.”
This is why TERFs are so keen to determine womanhood so precisely: because being transgender cannot be defined in that way so that’s exclusion by default before any of their mental gymnastics.
The problem with the whole “Two-Spirit” argument is that two-spirit isn’t actually a gender identity; it’s a homophobic label. It was used exclusively for homosexual males, because “if they like guys, they’re not fully male”. It used to idea that men don’t naturally like other men to force a new gender onto these people, so they wouldn’t have to accept being gay as an actual thing.
Whether or not this was always the case, I don’t know, but from what I can find this term could have also included transgender people, but not the way we see them today. They wouldn’t have actually been seen as their preferred gender, but something different entirely. So a trans man wouldn’t be considered a real man, but a two-spirit. Two-spirits could also include crossdressers, and it’s very possible that anyone who would crossdress would be forced into this “two-spirit” role as well.
Another thing is that most people using this word are either non-native, have a very small amount of native blood (and are usually distant to the culture), or just have no idea what it means and think it sounds cool. Honestly, if a native person who is still connected to the culture wanted to reclaim the term for some legitimate reason, there wouldn’t be a problem. But that usually isn’t the case.
Honestly, the widespread use of this word concerns me.