Trans History Follow-Up

So today is National Coming Out Day. I was going to write something about trans people and “stealth”, but with BristolCon less than 2 weeks away I’m rather busy so I’ll leave that for TDOR next month. In the meantime, here’s a bit of history.

My recent post about the Jess Nevins article on io9 revolved around the fact that ideas abut trans people have changed significantly since 1906. Indeed, the Western world had no such concept then (though many other cultures did). However, it turns out that there is a concept that fits the book that Jess reviewed quite well.

This morning I listened to an interesting podcast of a talk that Juliet Jacques gave to the Westminster Skeptics. It is called “Thinking critically about transgender issues”, which I think only works if you don’t know much about such things. Then again, that probably fits most of Juliet’s audience, and it will have done them some good. What the talk does provide, however, is a fascinating review of Western attitudes towards trans people from the 19th Century onwards.

The key piece of history, as far as Jess and the book The Anglo-American Alliance is concerned is the concept of “sexual inversion”. This was popularized by Henry Havelock Ellis, an early sexologist, via his book, Sexual Inversion, and later through Radclyffe Hall’s The Well of Loneliness, which uses similar terminology.

Havelock Ellis’s ideas conflate what we now consider to be separate phenomena: sexual preference, and gender identity. The character of Margaret in Gregory Casparian’s novel closely follows the character of the “invert” that Havelock Ellis describes.

Of course the interesting question here, and one which Juliet touches on, is whether our (still developing) ideas of trans people are just as much a product of our culture as the invert was of early 20th century society. However, even if they are, going round telling people that they are “doing trans wrong” is not terribly helpful.

On a related note, BBC1 is screening a documentary this evening called “Me, My Sex and I”. It is a look at what are unhelpfully called “Disorders of Sexual Development” and might more usefully be understood as natural variation in the development of sex organs. The blurb for the program estimates that almost 1 in 50 people are born with some sort of intersex condition.

(Oh, and the programme is not available in Wales or Scotland. *sigh* But it will be on the iPlayer.)

Gender Identity does not equal Sexuality

Dave Langford pointed me at this post on the io9 website by Jess Nevins. It is about a book called The Anglo-American Alliance. A Serio-Comic Romance and Forecast of the Future by Gregory Casparian. It was published in 1906, and Jess thinks it is “the first lesbian science fiction novel”.

The book clearly depicts a love affair between two people raised and living as women. They are depicted as a classic (stereotype?) femme and butch pair. Given attitudes towards homosexuality at the time, the book can’t be faulted for saying that they take great pains to keep their affair secret.

At the end of the book, however, Margaret, the butch partner, makes contact with a “famous Hindu ‘Vivisectionist and Re-Incarnator’ Dr. Hyder Ben Raaba” who transforms her into a man. The couple then marry and live happily ever after. Jess notes:

An Anglo-American Alliance would have been better (and extraordinarily progressive) had Aurora and Margaret lived happily ever after as women, it must be admitted. Nonetheless, An Anglo-American Alliance is the first science fiction novel with a pair of lesbian lovers as heroines, one of whom becomes science fiction’s first transgender hero.

Well yes, technically anyone who undergoes a change of gender is indeed a trans person. Also, without having read the book, I can’t say whether Margaret comes across as more of a trans man than a lesbian. But if she does then the book isn’t about lesbians, and if she doesn’t then she isn’t really a trans person.

Yes, I know, I’m splitting hairs, but let me explain why this is important. Firstly, gender identity and sexuality are not the same thing. Trans people come in all shades of sexuality. Some are straight, some gay or lesbian, some bi, and some eschew sex altogether. There’s no correlation. However, one of the most pervasive and harmful myths about trans people is that they are homosexuals who can’t stand the shame and social ostracism that they suffer because of their sexuality, so they have themselves surgically altered to allow them to appear straight.

I’m sure someone can point to a few examples of such behavior, but it is by no means common in the trans community. It is, however, the main reason why trans people are despised by significant numbers of gays and lesbians. I don’t blame Casparian for making this assumption — he may well have never met a trans person, and he’s certainly by no means the only person to suffer this confusion. I am, however, a little disappointed that Jess and io9 should let the issue go unexamined.

Also, I really must re-read Triton. I’m fairly sure that Delany gets the idea that a gender swap is not a fix for being gay, though Bron is such a sourpuss at times that it is hard to see anything making him happy.

Therapy, It’s Political

Occasionally when I do posts mocking the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) I get people questioning my right to do so. After all, the APA are qualified professionals and I’m just a crazy person potential patient. Well today on Twitter Christine Burns pointed me to this online course that focuses on the role of the DSM as a political tool. There are plenty of academic references and links for further reading.

Elsewhere there have been a few other items of news that point to the political nature of definitions of “mental illness”. After all, if it wasn’t political, why would the European Parliament feel it was necessary to call for an end to classifying trans people as mentally ill?

That’s by no means a popular stand to take. The comments on that Pink News article contain many comments from gays insisting that the horrible trannies are indeed crazy. The EP’s views would also not go down well with the Institute for Canadian Values, a “Christian” organization that wants to prevent Canadian children from being taught that trans people exist. They want their government to take action to enforce their preferred standards of normal social behavior.

Given this serious disagreement over what it means to be crazy, what is an LGBT person who feels in need of therapy to do? Well, one option is Pink Therapy, a new website that lists LBGT-friendly therapists. Most of the listed professionals are based in London, but I’m pleased to see how many there are around the rest of the country. At least if you approach one of these people you can be fairly sure that their politics won’t get in the way of their treating you.

Avoiding the Silent T

This morning on Twitter Christine Burns pointed at an excellent new resource written by GALOP (London’s LGBT community safety charity, not the pollsters). It is a guide for LGBT organizations on how to be T-friendly. Given the amount of difficulty trans people have with such groups, this is a really important document. I don’t suppose it will have any effect on groups like S’onewall that are actively transphobic, but for an LGBT organization that is trying to get things right it is invaluable. Lambda Literary please note. You can download the document here.

Little Boxes on Passports

Many of you will have seen a story earlier this week about how the Australian government has changed the law to make it easier for various gender-variant persons to obtain passports that match their lifestyles. I’ve seen a few people ask whether Australian trans activists are actually happy with what has been done, and it seems that at least some of them are.

One of the changes is certainly overdue. That allows people who are living in their preferred gender, but have not yet had any gender reassignment surgery, to have their passports changed. The British Consulate in Melbourne changed my passport to say “female” without question when I told them I would be living full time as female. That was in 1997. Had I been an Australian citizen I could not have had that done. I would have had to have waited at least 2 years until I had had surgery. It has taken Australia until now to give their citizens similar rights.

The other change allows people to leave their gender unspecified — X rather than F or M. That has caused some confusion, and this morning I was pointed at this article on Global Comment that complains about how the story is being reported in the world’s media.

Well, yes and no. It all depends on who you talk to.

The problem that the article has is that it assumes there is a right way to use terminology about trans people, and sadly that’s far from the case. To start with there’s the question of what is an acceptable umbrella term for gender-variant people. Umbrella terms are hugely contentious. In many ways they are very useful, because they bring together many minority groups with different interests who all face discrimination from the same sources, for much the same reasons. Inevitably, however, there are those who say that they don’t want to be associated with certain others. You see that in the tensions between LGB and T people within the queer community, and you see it within the trans community.

The Global Comment article specifically complains about confusion between “transgender” people and “intersex” people, but these terms are not simple and clear-cut. In some communities “transgender” is used to mean all gender-variant people, including those the article describes as “intersex”. In others it is used only for people who reject the gender binary, have no wish to have surgery, and have no medically recognized intersex condition. It is also used in the way the article suggests. There are, inevitably, people who regard themselves as intersex who want nothing to do with trans people: “we have a recognized medical condition, whereas they are crazy and give us a bad name.” Equally there are transsexuals who want nothing to do with the transgender label: “we are genuinely trapped in the wrong body, whereas they are dilettantes and perverts who give us a bad name.” It is a mess, and wastes an awful lot of energy on internecine warfare.

Even if you accept the labels, however, the distinction doesn’t work. I have friends who don’t wish to be identified as male or female, but have no recognized intersex condition. I have friends who do have intersex conditions, but who are very happy with the place they have chosen within the gender binary (which may or may not be the place they were assigned at birth). I have even met transgender activists who insist that all trans people should identify as outside the binary (and should therefore adopt the X designation). On two separate occasions I have been informed that it is morally wrong for me to claim to be a woman, and that I should modify my appearance to make my trans nature clear. Personally I disagree with this, but the fact that such views exist show what a wide variety of opinions we need to take into account.

If you interpret the Australian law to mean that everyone who does not have a medically recognized intersex condition must register as M or F, while everyone who does have such a condition must register as X, then you will end up with a lot of unhappy people getting a designation forced upon them by (potentially hostile) medical people. Sadly I suspect that may happen, because people like tidy little boxes, and medical people like being in charge. But, if you allow people to choose M, F or X depending on how they identify, and how they live their lives, then they’ll be happy.

Alternatively, as Jane Fae suggested today in The Guardian, you could do away with gender markers altogether.

Simples (as those annoying ads encourage us to say).

Lambda Makes Progress

Last week I blogged about the new awards that Lambda Literary was taking on, and how the eligibility criteria were LG inclusive, but not really LGBT. The original wording was as follows:

LGBT authors will be recognized with three awards marking stages of a writer’s career: the Betty Berzon Debut Fiction Award (to one gay man and one lesbian), the Jim Duggins Outstanding Mid-Career Novelist Prize (to one male-identified and one female-identified author), and the Pioneer Award (to one male-identified and one female-identified individual or group).

That wording has now been revised as follows:

LGBT authors will be recognized with three awards given annually during the Lambda Literary Awards ceremony (each to a male-identified and female-identified individual) marking stages of a writer’s career: the Debut Fiction Award (to one queer man and one queer woman), the Jim Duggins Outstanding Mid-Career Novelist Prize (to one male-identified and one female-identified author), and the Pioneer Award (to one male-identified and one female-identified individual or group).

This is much more inclusive. Of course it is by no means perfect, as it sticks rigidly to the idea of the gender binary and thus excludes anyone who does not identify as male or female. There may also be some people who have issues with the word “queer”. But it is progress, and to be honest it is a lot more than I thought we would get. I suspect that we have Nicola Griffith to thank for applying pressure on the Lambda board, and possibly other supportive folks as well.

So, thank you Lambda for listening and acting. Now we need to have a conversation about this gender binary thing. Would you like to talk some more?

SF & Gender on Radio 4

BBC Radio 4 will be broadcasting a two-part documentary, “Cat Women Of The Moon”, on gender in science fiction. They are hosted by Sarah Hall (author of the Tiptree-winning The Carhullan Army) and will feature interviews with Iain M. Banks, China Miéville and Nicola Griffith. A press release about the first episode (Aug. 30th, 11:30am), is available here. Hall’s website says the second episode will air at the same time on Sept. 6th. I expect both episodes to be available via the usual podcasting service, but I can’t be certain.

The press release notes:

In many novels the exploration of sexuality is unconventional and experimental. Some societies have more than one sex; in others, people can change sex at will. In other science fiction worlds, people form relationships with aliens or they might have sex with artificial life forms.

I confess to being somewhat nervous about this. I’ve not heard anything about it from Roz, so I’m assuming she wasn’t asked for comment, which probably means there is no input from trans people. I’m sure China and Nicola would be good if asked, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a certain amount of ignorance and prejudice on display.

Update: Just in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I’m expecting problems from feminists and BBC arts pundits, not from Iain, who I know fairly well but have never talked to about trans issues.

Update 2: Nicola posts about the programmes here and mentions Margaret Atwood and Ursula K. Le Guin as also being interviewed.

Many thanks to DH for the heads up on this one.

Shadow Man Post-Script

The book chat yesterday was very interesting, and threw some new light on Shadow Man that I’d like to share with you.

The first thing I should note is that Shadow Man doesn’t attempt to create an ideal view of a genderqueer society. The focus of the book is on the conservative Harans, not on the more liberal Concord Worlds. What Scott is trying to do is show how silly our treatment of intersex people is, by creating a world in which intersex births are more common. Her entire knowledge of intersex people appears to have come from Fausto-Sterling’s essay, which is now acknowledged to be woefully simplistic. But that’s not really her point, many other made-up, more complex gender systems for humanity would have done the same job.

I was somewhat surprised that some people thought that the Concord Worlds was supposed to be seen as an ideal society. As Matt Cheney noted, Tatian has his own hang-ups, and I think it is simpler and more sensible to assume that’s because he’s a flawed character as well, rather than assuming that the author is trying to portray an ideal view of gender and failing.

And talking of which, if you can’t figure out what the author intended from reading a book, trying to decide whether the author has “failed” or not is a bit pointless. There are books in which it is very clear that the author is pushing an agenda, and may even has a mouthpiece character, but most writers are more sensible than this.

What would have been nice was for Scott to write a sequel in which Warreven gets to travel to the Concord Worlds and find out that they too have odd hang-ups about the wrangwys, but sadly that didn’t happen.

Anyway, if what you are looking for is a book that gives a realistic portrait of genderqueer people (as we know them), with sympathetic characters that you can identify with, then Shadow Man is not the book for you. My apologies if I gave the impression that it might be.

A particular issue that we discussed is that many of the Haran characters in the book seem to think that Warreven was foolish not to opt to be legally female and marry Tendlathe. From our point of view this seems odd, because our practice is for intersex children to be raised as male if at all possible. Why would any parent want a girl when they have an option to have a boy? Well, that’s the way the doctors present the choice anyway. But on Hara intersex kids don’t have to opt for a gender until adolescence, which changes the equation somewhat. In particular Warreven had the opportunity to become the wife of the dictator’s son, and turned it down to register as “male”.

It is hard to get inside the character’s head here. Possibly Warreven had some inkling of the sort of bigot Tendlathe would become, but 3e could still have registered as female. Maybe registering as male made the point more forcefully. Maybe there was a gender identity issue at play. However, Scott seems blissfully unaware of the concept of gender identity, so I don’t think that is likely. For what it is worth, my view is that Warreven was primarily interested in staking 3is right to 3is identity as a herm. I think 3e chose to register as male because he knew that 3is gender performance was closer to feminine than masculine, and consequently this would create maximum incongruence between 3is legal gender and 3is perceived gender. Registering as male may also have helped further 3is career as a civil rights lawyer.

Book Review: Shadow Man

One of the books that I talked about a lot in the gender panel at Eurocon was Shadow Man by Melissa Scott. Given that I was so impressed, and in the spirit of talking about science fiction by women, I thought that I should write a review. Here it is.

Update: By the way, if you are interested in doing your bit for intersex people in our world, as opposed to in imaginary ones, there’s a petition on Change.org that’s trying to get the UN to take notice of the problem. (Hat tip to Jane Fae Ozimek.)

Also, Maya Posch, the intersex person that Jane Fae blogged about, is an avid fantasy reader and writes computer games for a living, so definitely one of us. Community support, if you please.

Eurocon Report and Gender Panel Podcast

I have (finally, sorry folks) managed to get my report on this year’s Eurocon posted. You can read it, and see the photos, here.

The main reason for the delay is that I wanted to finish the podcast of the gender panel. This featured Kari Sperring (moderator), Ian McDonald, Elizabeth Bear, Johan Jönsson, Kristina Knaving and myself, and I thought it went very well. It should be on the Salon Futura iTunes feed fairly soon, but in the meantime you can listen to it here, or download it.

My thanks once again to Carolina and her team for a great convention, and for allowing me to have the audio recording from the panel.

Nature: Yet More Wild and Wonderful

Just when I think nature can’t surprise me any more, some new piece of information is discovered. This time it happens to involve gender science.

Whenever you see an article about gender surgery in a major online venue you can bet that someone will post a comment along the lines of, “changing sex is impossible, your sex is imprinted in your chromosomes, and they are in every cell of your body, nothing can alter that”, right?

Well wrong, because intersex people exist. Some of them have strange chromosome patterns, such as XXY, and some of them have perfectly standard chromosomes, but their bodies don’t match what you would expect from those chromosomes.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School and College of Biological Sciences have discovered a gene that, if removed, causes male cells to become female. And that’s in adult tissue. Specifically the experiments were done on mouse testes. Taking away the Dmrt1 causes the cells in the organs to turn into something that looks like ovary cells. And it doesn’t take too much extrapolation to suggest that an embryo born with XY chromosomes but no Dmrt1 gene will grow up with a female body.

Talking of intersex people, many of you will have seen newspaper stories over the past few weeks about hundreds of parents in India having their girl children surgically altered to “become boys”. The papers loved the story, because it gave them an opportunity to be morally superior to brown people and trans people at the same time. But was it true? Mercedes Allen, one of the best trans activist bloggers around, decided to try to find out. You can read her report here.

For those of you not willing to click though, the short version is that most of these operations appear to have been carried out on intersex children. There are well over a billion people in India, so the existence of a few hundred intersex babies is only to be expected. Similar things happen in North America and Europe too. Doctors and parents all over the world want to “fix” intersex people.

Unfortunately, as Mercedes points out, this is a dangerous practice, because the surgery is often done long before the child is able to express a gender identity, and there is therefore a big risk of creating a transsexual child — that is, someone whose gender identity does not match the gender to which that person is being expected to conform. Annabel, by Kathleen Winter, which was shortlisted for the Orange Prize, tells the story of such a tragedy. It is on my “to read” pile.

Meanwhile, Elsewhere in Publishing

The summer issue of the fabulous Mslexia magazine arrived today. Flipping through it over dinner, I noticed two things of interest.

First there was an article titled “The Price of Fame”, in which industry journalist Liz Thomson reveals how much publishers have to pay in order to get their books promoted by chain stores.

Those 3 for 2 offers in Waterstones? It costs £1,000 per book to get included. As for the Richard & Judy Book Club (now a promotion through WH Smiths rather than a TV Programme), that will set you back a cool £20,000.

And no, that does not prove that publishers pay me thousands of dollars to get their books into the Locus Recommended Reading List.

The other item of interest was an article by author Elizabeth Chadwick on writing historical thrillers. Apparently there are several women making a name for themselves writing books that are similar in style to those written by Bernard Cornwell. But you wouldn’t know it from looking at their books. Chadwick’s top tip for success in the field is as follows:

Change your name. If you write a swash-buckling romance choose a gender-neutral name — men are less likely to buy books they think are by women.

No, I am not making this up.

Diversity Is Hard

As is inevitable, I have come under a certain amount of criticism for my attempts to avoid any further personal attacks on the subject of gender balance. There are people out there who are convinced that we can only make progress by identifying the bad guys and making an example of them.

Well, who am I to disagree? But this new study by a (multi-gender) research team at the University of Toronto may give pause for thought. What they did was create an experiment in which they would try to reduce the level of prejudice held by their subjects. The subjects were divided into three groups. One group was instructed not to be prejudiced; one group was given information explaining the benefits of being less prejudiced; and the control group was not given any special instructions.

The attitudes of the subjects were measured before and after the study. Those who had been given positive motivation to be less prejudiced did respond to the message. But those who were instructed to be less prejudiced came out of the study with more prejudiced attitudes than when they went in.

Obviously this is just one study, but it is worth bearing in mind. If you tell people they are doing something wrong, they tend to get defensive, and eventually angry. If you encourage them to do things differently, they are more likely to respond. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

I make no comment on the ad that Google served up to go with that article.

Diversity is hard in other ways as well. If you pick isolated examples you really don’t know what has gone into creating the final gender balance. I get accused of being anti-woman too, and I’m sure I will do again, because it is really difficult at times to be balanced.

A case in point. For reasons that may become clear in a few weeks, I have been looking at what new books are being released by UK publishers later this year. I’ve used the Locus Forthcoming Books List as my guide. You can spot the UK-published books easily as the publisher names are highlighted in green. Take a look at the data for Sept-Dec of this year.

I counted UK-published 42 books. Of those, 9 were by women. Here they are: Rae Carson, Kate Elliott, Kristen Painter, NK Jemisin, Leigh Kennedy, Aliette de Bodard, Kathleen Ann Goonan, Janny Wurts, Amanda Downum.

Notice anything? Not one of those women is British. Not one. Aliette is French. All of the others are American.

So if I were, say, reviewing new UK-published books by British writers, and someone looked at the books I covered for the tail end of this year, they are quite likely to conclude that I was ignoring women and have a go at me over it.

I have no idea why there is such a dearth of books by British women. Maybe it is a statistical anomaly — there were two in August. Maybe they are being published by companies that don’t supply data to the Locus list. But when you see a list, don’t immediately assume that the lack of women is due to prejudice on the part of the person putting it together.

Anthologies: Some Data

On Saturday I mentioned that I had been sent some data about gender splits in anthologies. I have since been taking a close look at it and want to present some of the data. I am doing this:

  1. Because I think it is better to be talking about lots of data than about individual books;
  2. Because I’m a bit tired of being told there’s no evidence for gender bias; and
  3. Because I think talking about this might help UK publishers sell more books.

Before we start I’d like to get a few things very clear.

Firstly, this discussion is, and from my point of view always has been, about gender stereotyping: SF for boys; fantasy for girls (unless it involves a lot of hacking and slaying). The data we have is therefore solely for science fiction anthologies. Anyone who comes back with something like, “well you are ignoring all these paranormal romance anthologies”, or even brings up books like Dark Spires which are mixed-genre, is just trolling, nothing more.

Second, there are all sorts of possibilities for data error. What I think we have here is data on all pure-SF anthologies published in the UK and USA from 2006 to 2010 inclusive. But there may be some books missing. And I haven’t had a chance to check the numbers. And there are all sorts of potential disputes about what “science fiction” actually means. There may be some gender confusion if lesser-known writers have ambiguous names. Nationality confusion is also possible. I have caught and corrected a few such mistakes myself, but there could be more. I’d assume a healthy amount of error on these numbers.

Finally I am not publishing the raw data. There are two main reasons for this:

  • I don’t want people using it as an excuse for yet more witch hunting, so no names; and
  • I don’t want discussion to get bogged down in endless nit-pickery about whether a specific book is “science fiction” or not.

Having said that, if someone out there has the time and ability to check the data and gather more, I’d be delighted to hand this over.

The starting point is that we have 56 books in total, 17 of which were published in the UK and the other 39 in the USA. All of the UK books are from smaller presses, because the big, multi-national London publishers don’t do anthologies here, but a substantial proportion of the US ones are from DAW, and other New York imprints feature as well.

The most obvious breakdown is by the gender of the editor. Here are the numbers:

Gender of Editor % of Stories by Women
Male 23%
Female 44%
Mixed 37%

This should perhaps not surprise us. Our basic thesis is that men are socially conditioned to prefer fiction by men, while women are more balanced in their tastes. But also women editors are more likely to have friends who are women writers, and that may play a part.

What we don’t know, of course, is how well these books sold. If there is any real justification for male-dominated books it should be that they sell better. I have no proof of that one way or another (and if someone does have data, please come forward). But at least we can see that some publishers are prepared to let women do science fiction. Ten of the books were female-edited, and a further three are by a mixed-gender team.

Now, referring back to earlier discussions, is the situation worse in the UK than in the US? Here are the numbers.

Country of Publication % of Stories by Women
USA 30%
UK 23%

An important thing to note here is that only one of the UK-published books is female-edited. One is mixed; the others are all edited by men. As a result, we should expect a worse performance than the US.

So, question to UK publishers: would you be willing to publish more science fiction anthologies edited by women? Because I think that would help.

The final split that we can do is by nationality of the editor. Here “other” means either that the editor was neither British nor American, or that there was an editorial team of mixed nationality.

Nationality of Editor % of Stories by Women
US 33%
UK 16%
Other 27%

Oh dear. That’s starting to look like a significant difference. That’s because the figures for UK publishers were buoyed up by above average numbers from non-British and female editors, while the one British editor working for a US publisher has below average numbers.

I did promise not to focus on personalities here, but I do want to interject with one significant piece of data. Anthologies edited by Ian Whates have above average numbers for a British editor. I think that demonstrates the dangers of looking at individual books, and bears out the supportive comments made about Whates by women writers.

So, what does all this mean? Before everyone goes rushing off yelling about how British men are all disgusting, chauvinist pigs, let’s consider why the UK might have got into this situation.

Firstly, of course, the fact that all but one of the British editors are men doesn’t do the UK’s chances much good. The American numbers would not look so good if they didn’t have a lot of women involved. If more women did anthologies over here we’d probably see a significant improvement, though of course someone has to be willing to publish them.

In addition, as we’ve noted before, the big London publishers are rather reluctant to publish science fiction novels by women. Given that is the case, it may well be that the percentage of women in the UK writing science fiction is a lot lower than it is in the USA. After all, who makes a living out of short fiction?

Ah, but why don’t the UK editors get stories from foreign women, then? Therein, I think, lies the problem. One of the bits of data that we can’t capture here is whether the anthologies were created through open submission, or through invitation. You might think that an open submission anthology would have more men, as the editor would be deluged with stories from pushy males, whereas invitation allows you to pick your gender balance. But it all depends on who you know. If you don’t have a relationship with a writer, it will be harder to get a story out of them.

Some editors are prepared to go to open submission. My friend Colin Harvey is doing that for his latest project. But I suspect that many of the books we are looking at here, particularly the UK ones, are invitation only. In an interview from last year, Carmelo Rafala, an American of Sicilian extraction publishing in the UK, said:

As a small press we simply don’t have time to read through mountains of submissions or deal with someone who decides to hurl abuse at us because we just can’t understand his genius.

I feel his pain.

Now, suppose you live in the UK, where women SF novelists are few and far between. If you don’t travel abroad to conventions, if most of the writers you know are middle-aged British men, guess what the majority of contributors to your anthologies are likely to be?

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be that way. I know we don’t have sales figures, but given the fact that many publishers seem willing to publish anthologies with women editors, and significant numbers (sometimes more than 50%) of women contributors, it seems likely that girl cooties are not an immediate cause of financial disaster.

Furthermore, with the advent of e-books, international trade in books has become much easier. There is no reason why an independent British publisher can’t get access to the huge American market. Indeed, some of the companies involved in this study already have their paper books distributed in the USA. But if you do that with a book that looks like boys own club material then those shouty feminists across the pond are going to be on your back double quick and your prospects of big sales will be damaged.

I absolutely understand the issue with personal contacts. If you can’t afford to travel it makes things hard. But contacts can be made. I know loads of great women writers outside of the UK. So does Farah. British authors who travel a lot to the US may also be able to help. Reach out. Try to find new sources of stories.

The results may surprise you.

Revisiting Jeffrey Catherine Jones

The July Locus contains a couple of obituaries for the trans artist, Jeffrey Catherine Jones, who I wrote about briefly here. Both authors (Arnie Fenner and Robert K. Wiener) were good friends of the deceased; both consistently use the name “Jeff”, and both consistently use male pronouns. I am not, however, going to get ranty about this. After all, these articles have been written by people very close to Jones, someone I have never even met. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. I do, however, think it is necessary to address the issue. It is human nature to assume that high profile members of a minority group are typical of that group, and reading the two obituaries people could easily come away with the idea that most trans people are tragic, crazy, and will come to regret their transition.

I’d like to state from the start that there’s nothing wrong with someone turning back from transition. There can and should always be an exit route, up until the point that the person concerned is convinced that what they are doing is right for them. Doctors and psychiatrists who encourage transition in the expectation of fees are just as culpable as those who peddle aversion cures. It is perfectly possible for trans people to find equilibrium and happiness without full transition, and if that’s what works for them we should support it. But equally there are reasons why transitions might fail, and by no means all of them mean that the person concerned was “not really trans” or that, as radical feminists allege, the whole concept of gender identity is a lie.

As I said, I can’t ever know the truth of the matter. What I can do, however, is draw on my experience of transitioning relatively late in life, and thereby hopefully explain the pressures that trans people are sometimes subjected to. Please note that what follows is very personal. Other trans people may have had very different experiences, and I am not trying to speak for everyone, just explaining how things did go, and could have been so much worse, for me.

Let me start with a couple of quotes. First this from the autobiography on Jones’ website.

Some of my early memories come from about the age of 4 or 5. By then I knew I wanted to be a girl. Maybe I was born with a kind of gender inversion — some call it a birth defect. I know nothing of these things. I do know that my identification has always been with females — in books, movies, art and life.

Now this from Arnie Fenner’s obituary in Locus:

Though he lived the rest of his days as a transgendered person he told me candidly in 2006, ‘‘It was a mistake. I still think like a man and desire women like a man does. I thought it would make me less depressed and I was wrong. I drove down a dead end road and now I can’t back up or turn around; the only thing I can do at this point is accept things as they are. And I think I have. Besides, what other choice do I have?’’

I want to try to explain how these things can both be true.

The first thing to note is that Jones was born in 1944. Back in those days, things were very different for trans people, especially in Georgia. This again from Jones:

In the south, in the ’50s there were no gays and no lesbians, and certainly no one like me. So I became secretive. In my own mind I became ashamed, guilty and worthless — this was the road I started down so long ago.

It wasn’t that bad for me. By the time I reached adolescence there were people like Christine Jorgensen, April Ashley and Caroline Cossey who I could look to as role models. The guilt, the shame and the feelings of worthlessness, however, are very real. April and Caroline had enough bravery and self belief to transition early. I never did. Many trans women have done things that look like running away from femininity, perhaps in a desperate attempt to “cure” themselves. Calpernia Addams joined the Navy. Jan Morris climbed Everest with Hillary and Tenzing. I wouldn’t have lasted 10 minutes in the military, nor have I ever been fit enough for mountain climbing. There were times, however, when I would have given anything to be “cured” of the way I felt.

Unfortunately, despite a considerable amount of snake oil peddled by dishonest psychiatrists, all the evidence suggests that trans people can’t be “cured” in this way. We simply don’t know enough about how human brains and bodies work to make those feelings go away. What we can do is allow them to transition — a cure of a very different sort — and it seems to work very well. The number of happy trans people appears to vastly outweigh the number of unhappy ones (see here for data).

Transition, however, is a difficult process, especially if you do it late in life, and even more so if you are already famous.

The late in life thing is partly a matter of biology. The further you are post-puberty, the more entrenched your physical appearance becomes. Trying to transition at the age of 55, as Jones did, means that you have to be quite lucky to end up looking convincing as a woman. Of course people shouldn’t judge by appearances, but they do. Trans women are often held to a far higher standard of beauty than cis women. People who are kind will sadly tell you that you just aren’t making the grade; people who are less kind will laugh at you. And of course you always have dreams. I would have loved to end up looking like Debbie Harry, or even like April or Caroline. There was never any chance that would happen. But if you don’t meet people’s expectations of appearance, feelings of failure are inevitable. If things are really bad you will routinely be insulted in the street by complete strangers. I have heard of trans people who are afraid to go out of their homes, because they know they will be followed by a gang of neighborhood kids shouting abuse.

Late transition is difficult in other ways too. I know this doesn’t fit with the general desire for things to be black and white, but actually gender is a product of both nature and nurture. If it wasn’t a matter of nature, trans people would be easily cured by the sort of brainwashing techniques peddled by the snake oil salesmen. But nurture plays a part as well. The longer you live in a male role, the harder you try to conform, the more you start to think and behave like a man. Personally I tried hard to hang on to my identity. I might have been utterly terrified of the prospect of transition, but I was already experimenting with interacting with society as a woman when I was in college. I had male friends, but not “laddish” friends (well, apart from the various cricket clubs I hung around with and kept score for, but even then I was effectively one of the WAGs, not one of the team, and delighted to be so).

When Jones says, “I still think like a man”, that sounds to me more like an admission of failure to resist conditioning, rather than an admission that one is not really trans. The follow-on comment, “and desire women like a man does”, suggests a world view in which trans women are supposed to be gender-stereotypical in every way, including being androphilic (fancying men). That’s a world view that was often forced on trans people by doctors in the early days. We’ve mostly got away from that sort of thing now. Many of my trans woman friends are enthusiastically lesbian, and don’t see this as a failing. I don’t see it as a failing either. Jones may not have believed women had to be gender-stereotypical, but it is a message that is often thrown at trans women by those around them, and failure on your part to live up to their expectations can result in their failure to accept your transition.

That leads us into the whole question of the environment in which you transition. One of the rules of thumb that I quickly learned to go by is that the closer a relationship you have with someone pre-transition, the harder it will probably be for that person to accept your transition. That’s because your identity is more firmly rooted in their mind, and they have an emotional attachment to the person they believe you to be. Some of my family still sometimes accidentally mis-gender me and call me by my old name.

In the obituaries Fenner and Wiener both state that Jones’s friends continued to use the name “Jeff” long after Jones had started living as a woman. They say that Jones was happy with this, which may well have been true. For me, however, every mis-gendering, every use of the wrong name, is a sign of at least failure on my part, and possibly of lack of acceptance of my identity. To have that message reinforced day-in, day-out when I was starting to transition would have been unbearable. It would have driven me crazy.

In the autobiography Jones says:

People have been unimaginably supportive, and slowly that shame is passing away. My wife, Maryellen, has been my backbone through all of this. I’ve never known such acceptance and love.

That sounds great, but it doesn’t sound like the unhappy, regretful person described in the obituaries.

I should note here that I’m not trying to point the finger at Fenner and Wiener, and accuse them of lack of support. Both sound as if they were very fond of Jones, despite that fact that their friendship came at a cost. It is pretty clear that Jones was not an easy person to befriend. In any case, coping with the transition of someone you know is hard. Even I get it wrong at times. A case in point is Poppy Z. Brite, who is in the process of transitioning from female to male. (I’m not outing anyone here. Poppy has been very open about the process online.) I’ve never met Poppy, though we have many mutual friends, but his books have been known to me for years, and until a few months ago I always associated those books with a woman writer. These days I have to constantly remind myself to think of Poppy as a man. With time it will become easier, but if I can get these things wrong I can’t blame other people too much for occasionally doing so.

For my transition I took fairly extreme steps. I moved to Australia, and built up a whole new network of friends who had never known me as anything other than Cheryl. This worked very well for me. As it turned out, as I gradually resumed contact with (non-family) people who had known me pre-transition, it mostly went fine. Neil Gaiman was one of the first, because he came to Australia for a convention. I will always be grateful to him for the warm and friendly reaction I got.

The point here is that I had a circle of friends who accepted me as the person I presented as. There was no mis-gendering, no wrong name, not even any sympathetic concern. I was just me, and that did wonders for my self-confidence. I don’t claim that this will work for everyone, and of course many people won’t be lucky enough to have such an opportunity. It is also true that these days, with public attitudes towards trans people having changed significantly, the pressures I faced, and that Jones may have faced as well, will be a lot less. Nevertheless, I believe that I would have found things much more difficult if I had been surrounded by people who were having difficulty accepting my transition.

The final point is that of fame. I was pretty much unknown, except to friends, family and work colleagues, when I started to transition. I am so grateful that the Internet wasn’t very widely known back then. Jones, on the other hand, was world famous, as Jeffrey.

I’d like you to stop for a moment and consider what it would be like if Neil Gaiman suddenly announced that he was transitioning to female. (I use Neil as an example here because I know he won’t mind, and he provides a usefully extreme example.) No matter how confident he was about this, no matter how supportive Amanda, the kids, Lorraine and so on were, Neil would still have to deal with the rest of the world. There are many women fans who are in love with him, hours of TV showing him as a man, thousands of photos showing him as moodily handsome. Jones didn’t have that level of fame, but didn’t have anonymity either. Jeffrey Jones was a famous, much loved, much awarded artist. I can’t begin to imagine the sort of stress that must have caused.

In short there are all sorts of reasons why transition for Jones must have been a much harder process than it was for me. That the process might not have gone well is no great surprise. Even for someone as apparently successful as me (and I am very happy with how things have gone) there are always disappointments. Had I not transitioned I would probably be much more financially secure than I am now. There’s the sexism. There are members of my family who will never speak to me again. There are people I feel that I have let down badly. But equally if I hadn’t transitioned I would never have met and fallen in love with Kevin, and I would probably never have had the self confidence to do the things that won me three Hugos, or to write posts such as this. I would still have been very much ashamed of who I was, and regretful of a chance missed.

These days, I suspect, things are rather easier. The reason that people such as Jones and myself transitioned fairly late in life is because we were born in a time when trans people were barely known, and feared and hated when they were. The world has changed a lot since then. I confess that I occasionally view young people like Kim Petras with a somewhat jealous eye. But, as Jones said, the only thing that I can do is accept things as they are, and be happy that many young people today will be spared the shame, guilt and agony that the likes of Jones and I suffered.

So, if you are a Locus subscriber and have been wondering about the Jones obituaries, the good news is that things have got better. Tragedy, at least in the short term, is no longer an inescapable doom for trans people. Also, please don’t immediately condemn Fenner and Wiener for their apparent mis-gendering. They knew Jones better than we did, and like Jones they grew up in a time when trans people were almost universally regarded as freaks. Transition is a complicated and messy business, and I don’t envy anyone trying to cope with it late in life.

Further Thoughts

Thinking about this gender debate it the shower this morning, it occurred to me that what irritates me about the whole process is how effectively it is derailed. First of all some women make what they hope is a reasoned argument, backed by facts, with suggestions for how we can move forward. Then a bunch of men spot the discussion and think, “ooh, a fight, let’s pile in!” They get aggressive, they get personal, and they try to wind people up. Finally the people who get targeted by these attacks fight back, complain about how unfair this all is, but put the blame on the issue, not on the way it has been distorted.

I’m sure this has all been said by Joanna Russ.

But there is always hope, and in response to all those people complaining about positive discrimination, quotas and the like I offer this article from today’s Observer. It is about something called the 30% Club, which seeks to significantly improve the proportion of women serving on the boards of major UK companies. It is backed by, amongst other people, the (male) bosses of Centrica (energy company), the Royal Bank of Scotland, John Lewis (major retailer) and Ernst & Young; and by the (Tory) government.

If they can do this, and recognize it is valuable to them to do so, can we not we manage something similar?

Here We Go Again

My teh intrawebs have been busy this morning. The gender balance thing has fairly exploded over the past few days, and not in a good way.

Personally I expected this, pretty much from the point where the SF Signal Mind Meld got involved. That can be a very entertaining forum at times, but when asked to discuss anything serious it tends to quickly degenerate into “don’t read the comments” territory. Since then most of what has gone on has been a male dominance game, with men on both sides yelling at each other and women mostly taking a back seat, looking on in despair.

The trouble is that posts that ask aggressive questions such as “is science fiction sexist?” or “are you a misogynist?” invite an equally aggressive and entrenched response, and so on in an ever-widening spiral of animosity. And eventually someone says something really outrageous, and it becomes a battle of his friends against everyone else, with the original issue being forgotten in the rush to arms.

Before going into the specific issue at hand, let me say that I think anthology bashing is not terribly helpful. Looking at a single anthology, you have no idea where the real problem lies. It could be the editor, it could be the publisher, it could be the submissions, you can’t tell. Also, just as an individual’s reading and voting habits are more likely to be a product of cultural conditioning than of conscious sexism, so an individual editor is more likely to choose stories based on cultural conditioning than a deliberate intention to exclude a particular group of writers. The objective of pointing out gender imbalances (or any other sort of imbalance) should be to encourage people to examine their cultural conditioning, not to decide who we are going to burn at the stake.

Rather than single out individual books or people, it is better to try to take an overall look at the field. That way, hopefully, you can show that you are examining a social issue, not attacking a particular person. I’ve been sent some interesting data about the gender balance in science fiction anthologies, which appears to back up the suggestion that there is a cultural difference between the UK and US. However, there’s probably not much point in publishing it right now as I’ll only be accused of making it up and being anti-British. We can come back to it when people have calmed down.

Even then, however, it is important to understand the conditions in which people are operating. The US is a much bigger market, and it is easier to make a success of a book that might be seen as going against cultural norms. The really big companies tend not to do anthologies, but I’d be prepared to bet that the level of sales that the likes of Prime, Tachyon, Small Beer, Night Shade and Pyr get for such books is way above what any UK-based small press can expect.

If you are running a small press (which is something I happen to do) you need to make a choice as to whether you are doing it for love, and hope that your projects break even, or you are doing it to make a living. In the latter case, if you believe that you are operating in a market where most male readers won’t buy science fiction by women — and, let’s face it, that’s what the big publishers in London are telling us — then you would be daft to publish much SF by women. You have to take a conscious decision to risk sales if you want to diversify your content.

Obviously I’m sad if someone isn’t prepared to take such risks. For me one the delights of small presses is that they are often prepared to risk profits in search of integrity of various sorts. I’m not going to criticize someone for doing what they need to do in order to keep a business afloat, though I’d prefer to see some direct evidence that this is necessary, rather than people relying on received wisdom along the lines of “green covers don’t sell”. It may be that what you have been told isn’t true at all.

What I will criticize people for is making excuses, or trying to brush the issue off, and I’m afraid that’s the way Ian Whates now notorious post came over to me. While giving lip service to the issue, he repeatedly cited women in fantasy anthologies as evidence for his lack of bias, when the debate has been largely about women being pushed out of science fiction into fantasy. He cherry-picked data such as Lauren Beukes’s Clarke win to try to show that there is not much of problem, and then had the cheek to accuse other people of cherry-picking data. As someone who has tried to present proper data, I’m seriously insulted by that.

Elsewhere, in this comment, Whates said:

At the end of the day, it’s the quality of the story I look at as an editor, and gender is very much a secondary consideration. If the story is a good or even a great one, I’ll snap it up whether written by a man or a woman.

And yet here we have Charlie Stross and Jennifer Pelland claiming that Whates’s anthologies were invitation only, and that he generally didn’t invite women to contribute unless nagged into it by others. Those two things don’t add up, and I’m not at all comfortable with someone suggesting that women writers are no good when he apparently hasn’t given them a chance to compete. Since then, various women writers have come forward and said that they were invited by Whates, but for various reasons were unable to deliver. If that is the case, a less inflammatory response would have been to suggest that perhaps women writers have more pressures on their time, thereby preventing them from submitting as often as men, rather than suggest that they are no good. (This is a very common feminist response to allegations of, “it’s all the wimmin’s fault for not trying!”)

In short, there are ways of presenting these arguments that suggest you understand the problems, and there are ways of doing it that suggest you are trying to brush the issue under the table. Whates, unfortunately, came over as the latter.

At the root of all this we find ideas about correct gendered behavior. Men are put in the blue corner where they are expected to like cars, football and science fiction; women are put in the pink corner and expected to like babies, cooking and fantasy. You can imagine why this makes me very nervous. As female-identified persons go, I am apparently fairly girly. At least several cis-women I know have told me that I am more girly than they are. But this is no real help, because once you are out as a trans person people’s expectations of your gender performance tend to go crazy. If I’m too girly them I’m overdoing it, and if I’m not girly enough then I’m clearly not “really” female. Either way, I am a social embarrassment; people don’t want to employ me or do business with me. This stuff matters.

It is not just trans people who have problems with gender expectations either. Here’s a story from yesterday’s Guardian about a woman who has quit her job at Harrod’s because she’s uncomfortable with their “dress” code that requires female staff to wear full face make-up at all times, and keep it properly maintained throughout the day. I can understand that if she was actually selling make-up, but she worked in the music and video department.

Challenging entrenched ideas like this is not easy. It requires bravery and commitment, and a willingness to risk both profit and social standing. But most of all it requires people to recognize that there is a problem, and be willing to do something about it. If you yell at them and tell them they are bad people, the chances are that they will get defensive and try to claim they have done nothing wrong, and that “OMG YOUS WIMMINS ARE OPPRESHING ME QUOTAS GULAGS MEN REDUCED TO NEKKID CASTRATED SLAVES WOMEN PLAYING FOOTBALL CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!” (N.K. Jemisin in comments on the SF Signal post).

Is it possible that we could have less chest-thumping and finger-pointing on the one hand, and less bingo card excuses on the other? I hope so. I rather doubt it.

Diversity Matters

This is primarily for the benefit of the UK SF&F community, and in particular someone I spoke to at Alt.Fiction, but the rest of you may find it interesting too.

As far as I am concerned, it is not OK to tell me that my trans identity is acceptable, because I happen to conform to your preconceived notions of what a “woman” is, and then denigrate and make fun of other trans people because they don’t conform to what you think is “normal”.

This is partly just sisterly solidarity. I know that the trans community is notoriously fractious, and some of them don’t approve of the way I live my life, but for my part I try to be understanding and accepting of people as they say they are. I hope most of them will do the same for me.

But it is also a very visceral reaction. If you call someone “not natural” or a “freak”, well you might not be directing those insults at me, but they are exactly the same insults that other people have levelled at me. Seeing someone else get bullied in exactly the same way I have been bullied is no fun, I can assure you. The fact that I am occasionally able to escape such taunts is no comfort.

This is probably a very good time to post my review of Elizabeth Bear’s Jacob’s Ladder trilogy. Here it is.

A Waste of My Taxes

Everyone knows that the UK’s Press Complaints Commission is a big joke, an operation run by the media with the express remit of whitewashing everything that the media does. When the BBC misbehaves, however, the government has to get involved, and complaints are apparently handled by Ofcom, the communications regulator. Are they any better? There are no prizes for guessing the answer.

My story begins several months back when a Thai airline decided to hire a few kathoey as stewardesses. Monica Roberts has a recent blog here with pictures of the successful applicants. In the wake of this a “comedian” on the BBC did a sketch purporting to show what would happen if that sort of thing happened in the UK. Christine Burns has more background here, but the basic details of the “joke” were that:

  • Trans women can, and indeed should, be laughed at;
  • Trans women are not just ugly, they are so repulsive that people seeing them are likely to vomit; and
  • Trans women are not women, they are heterosexual men who are liable to sexually assault women in public.

A more textbook case of a dehumanizing portrayal of a minority group would be hard to find. And yet Ofcom managed to find the whole thing entirely innocent, claiming that it was only making fun of budget airlines. It is a piece of whitewashing on a par with an inquiry finding that the prisoner died of natural causes, and the mass of boot-shaped bruises, broken ribs and cracked skull must have happened when he fell out of bed. They even had the cheek to say that the BBC “could have made is clearer that the characters were not intended to be based on transgender or transsexual people.” Exactly how would that be possible when the whole point of the sketch was to respond to the fact that trans people were being given jobs instead of, you know, beaten up or murdered or something?

Paris Lees has a great post on the human cost of trans people being treated with contempt in this way by people supposed to safeguard the public.

In regulatory economics we have a term for this sort of thing. It is “regulatory capture”, and it is what happens when a regulator becomes so caught up in the agenda of the industry that they effectively act as a lobbyist for the companies they are supposed to be guarding us against. Regulatory organizations that get into this sort of situation need to either have their senior management fired, or be disbanded. They are quite clearly a waste of public money, and as Mr. Cameron is so keen to make savings he might profitably take a good look at a few over-paid bureaucrats doubtless too fond of a good lunch with their media executive pals.

Of course that’s not going to happen, because the kow-towing to media executives doesn’t just stop with civil servants, does it?

Ditch Those Jeans, Girls, They Make You Crazy

No, really, I am trying to stop posting about this stuff, but some of it is too weird to ignore.

Remember the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? That’s the catalog of mental disorders used by the American Psychiatric Association, which is currently undergoing revision. I have said before now that this is less a medical diagnostic tool, and more a tool for social control. Well, it gets worse.

The current plans for DSM V neatly split on political lines. Psychiatrists who are sympathetic to trans people are allowed to diagnose Gender Incongruence, which can be cured by gender transition. But those who are opposed to trans people could diagnose Transvestic Disorder and Autogynephilia, suggesting that the patients are abnormally erotically aroused by wearing women’s clothes, and possibly even sexually obsessed with images of themselves dressed as women.

One of the ways in which the trans community tried to challenge this was to point out how odd it was that this diagnosis could only be applied to male-bodied people wearing “women’s clothes”. It was a classic case of “women who want to be like men are admirably ambitious, but men who want to be like women are crazy.”

So what have the proponents of this daft idea done? You guessed, it, they have extended the definition to women wearing men’s clothes, and have invented another new disorder: Autoandrophilia. And if this is officially adopted into the DSM, it will be possible for a woman to be diagnosed as mentally ill for wearing jeans.

And Julie Bindel says that it is trans people who try to enforce gendered behavior. Sheesh!

Also, you know, even if people do have a clothing fetish, what’s so weird about that? What I find weird is that some people are so obsessed with what sort of clothing other people are wearing. I’m not suggesting that people should be locked up or hospitalized simply for being transphobic. But I do think that they shouldn’t be put in charge of other people’s mental health.