Here is the video  offering an IFS perspective on gender and transgenderism.

This is the link to The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care for the Health of  Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People

 

Monogenderism

We are raised in a culture which assumes that we have one personality (the monolithic view) and also that gender must be congruent with biological sex (which itself is not as “obvious” as some might wish it to be as evidenced byintersex individuals). Transgendered individuals whose gender is different from and possibly the opposite of their biological sex are often judged and condemned as freaks.

In the book Trangender Warriors, author Leslie Feinberg contends that the discomfort experienced by many non trans-identified individuals when they encounter a transgendered person results from the tension of not being able to decide if that person is male or female; the only two choices that “should ” be available.

From a psychodynamic viewpoint I am curious about the discomfort. Sure there is the “confrontation” with the new for which non-trans folk may feel ill-prepared; but given that currently in the US “the murder rate of transgender persons is 17 times the national average; the highest rate of any minority group” (click here for source) I wonder what else might be going on here.

The phenomenon of reaction formation is quite well-known; and although its original meaning is in terms of drives and desires I believe it can be of value when applied to a multiplicity model. If we look at homophobia as being about a protective (firefighter) response to the (unacceptable) same-sex attracted part or parts of the system then we can begin to understand the interior roots of oppression.

Within our institutions there is an embedded discourse of power that deems “other” to be less than. These historic edifices assume as “normal” (and therefore better) the condition of being male, white, able-bodied, heterosexual etc. because this reflects the reality of the people who instigated them. Given that we grow up and our parts become “institutionalised” with the system of our family of origin, it is no wonder that our parts seeking to define us as “good people” would seek to reject, or view as less than, any parts not supporting the approved norm.

So our same-sex attracted parts, in the societal context of heterosexism, may be exiled by our protective system so as to not experience shame. To the degree that these parts make up our sexual and affection-ally desiring matrix this will cause more or less internal discord (i.e. if they constitute 80% of sexually attracted parts then there will be a significant internal push for those parts to be expressed; if only 10% then not so much). The other factor contributing to internal agitation will be the degree to which the protectors experience same sex desiring parts to be a threat – and may be related to the beliefs internalised within the family of origin and peer contexts. if teenagers consider it “cool to be bisexual” then this will create a climate within which the protectors may be able to relax somewhat and allow exiled desire to be known.

 

 

It makes sense to me that sexual orientation is probably normally distributedwithin the population as supported by the work of Kinsey. In terms of our parts we may have only same-sex oriented parts (about 10% of people), only other-sex oriented parts (10%) and all the mixes in between (80:20; 70:30 etc).

I suspect that gender-identified parts occur with the same variability. So maybe 10% of biological men/women (excluding intersex) will have exclusively sex-gender congruent parts; 10% opposite and the rest in between. But the prevailing monolithic view of the personality and the bifurcation of gender insists that we must be “one or the other”. When women encounter their male parts it may activate protectors that insist on gender congruence within the system. When the female parts of men become activated they may elicit similar protective responses – but additionally fueled by the misogyny inherent in a patriarchal culture. Both women and men may also have protectors seeking to exile other-gendered parts because of the confluence of sexual orientation and gender (i.e. if I’m a man with a girl part does that make me gay?”)

The very existence of trans individuals will therefore likely activate the girl/women parts inside a man’s system and as they seek to enter consciousness the fire-fighter’s rage response may be responsible for the brutality of transphobic murders. To a lesser degree the “I’m just uncomfortable around him/her” response is suggestive of the same reaction formation dynamic.

Monogenderism is the term I am using to refer to the insistence that we only have one gender and like other forms of oppression this view regards that circumstance as normal and therefore preferable. I see it as a tragic limitation on both our self-awareness as our wonderfully diverse gender-variant parts are exiled, and a source of unnecessary suffering. The understanding of the gender variability within the personality system also supports the lived experience of many trans people who do not “fully transition to the other side” (sic) but recognise the space that feels comfortable for their gender expression (I suspect an expression that represents a compromise between the parts).

I want to applaud the courage of all members of the trangendered community for their refusal to be exiled. It is their courage to live authentically that has inspired me to write and think about the internal processes that may be accounting for the conditions that result in so much horror.

I am very interested in and welcome responses to this post.