Abstract
Reviewed by: Jemma Tosh, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Trans Toronto presents a longitudinal oral history project that foregrounds the voices of trans people, providing a snapshot of life in Toronto between 1996 and 2000, and a detailed account of feminist, postmodern and oral history methodologies. The book adds to feminist scholarship through its explicit use of feminist methodologies, its contribution to research on gender, and its focus on the lived experiences of oppressed groups as a source of knowledge.
The book describes and critiques longstanding feminist works in relation to trans perspectives, such as Butler’s discussion of drag queens in Gender Trouble (2002) – something that echoes others in this area (e.g. Namaste, 2000). Hill also summarises and describes theory and research from feminist and psychological perspectives, but the critique and criticism may not go far enough for some readers (as in the summary of Janice Raymond’s work). However, this links to the book’s purpose – not as a text for social justice, social change or even a challenge to pathologisation (despite the book’s focus on psychological theory): it is an account of trans lives, of how trans individuals experience and understand their gender identity, sexuality and life in a particular culture at a particular time.
The book’s narrow scope, then, restricts its impact but at the same time, this is its strength. As a counter to the predominant focus on ‘trans’ as an abstract concept for use in gender theory or as a pathologised group in need of study, the book offers an account of trans people as people – not a pathology and not a ‘trope’ for appropriation in the study of cisgender (or queer) identities. Another important aspect of the work is Hill’s identifying of not only the importance of media and literary representations of trans lives but also the limitations and unrealistic portrayal that media texts can produce. Consequently, Hill asks the important question, ‘…do published autobiographies and cinema ring true with the lives of everyday people?’ (p. 5). As trans issues are arguably saturating the mainstream (Paterson, 2015) with an influx of coverage on conversion therapy and the success of trans celebrities, Hill’s work is an important contribution to this increase in visibility of trans voices. However, a disadvantage of this approach can be that it overemphasises the internal and the individual, so that issues related to intersectionality and the social and cultural structures related to oppression are minimised. Nevertheless, the book does outline the complex array of discrimination and violence towards trans individuals at this time: from governmental changes to health coverage and the delisting of body modification procedures and hormones, to the murder of trans women.
As the book employs postmodern methodologies, the analysis of language and abstract concepts are also persistent features. Hill does not just describe trans narratives, but examines them in relation to theory in his ‘trans-oriented feminist oral history’ project (p. 7). There are detailed and interesting discussions around the problems with language and words, such as the term ‘transgender’ and its changing meaning and contexts (although, as the book is based in a specific time period, 1996–2000, the language used does not always coincide with current terminology within trans communities and scholarship). There is also discussion regarding the problematic concept of ‘autogynephilia’, a controversial diagnostic label applied to those who crossdress or are gender diverse (see Moser, 2010 for a review). Again, however, the focus is more on trans people from the community discussing the concept, rather than a critical review of the research literature. This is a much needed addition to the critique of psychiatric diagnoses applied to gender diverse communities.
While the book does touch on issues related to gender identity clinics, a key area of concern (and access) for trans people, it is not a strong focus of the book. For readers closely following the changes to conversion therapies, such as a prominent Toronto clinic being under review (‘Conversion therapy’ controversy at CAMH transgender clinic, 2015; Rushowy, 2015; Smith-Cross, 2015) and the proposed criminalisation of conversion therapy in Ontario (Artuso, 2015; Lenti, 2015), participants do discuss their experiences of the Toronto Clarke Institute in the 1990s – a useful addition to those writing about psychological approaches to gender identity. Those wishing to research issues related to the pathologisation of transgender identities and conversion therapies will want to supplement this text with others that more directly address the topic (such as Ansara & Hegarty, 2012; Tosh, 2015; Winters, 2008). There is, however, a detailed and useful account of activism and community organising regarding trans issues in Toronto.
Hill concludes that participants offered an ‘integrationist model of gender’. He states that this model deconstructs dichotomies of male/female and essentialist/constructionist perspectives as well as promoting a complex interaction of multiple aspects of gender. Hill goes on to propose a new model of gender – but admits that it needs further work. On reading this proposed theory, I began to question the need for such an endeavour. Researchers do not analyse the cause or origins of heterosexuality or cisgender identities, so does Hill’s proposed focus lead to questions of ‘normal’/‘abnormal’ development, and thus to interventions aimed at prevention? When psychological theories proposed that sexual orientation developed in childhood, behaviourist and psychodynamic therapies targeted gender nonconforming children in the hopes of preventing homosexuality in adulthood (e.g. Acosta, 1975; Zuger, 1966). When research promoted a social constructionist account of gender development, therapies aimed at changing children’s gender identity became standard practice in the case of intersex and gender nonconforming youth (Bryant, 2006). Even when gendered differences are linked to biology, they have been targeted for preventative interventions, such as the controversial treatments applied to intersex individuals with a diagnosis of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (Reis & Kessler, 2010). Do we need to understand gender so completely to acknowledge and validate others’ experience and identities? Research increasingly shows the need for acceptance and support for people’s gender identities (Trans Pulse, 2012). Therefore, can we not acknowledge that trans women are women, trans men are men, and nonbinary people are neither/both, and move on to discussions of discrimination, hate crime, violence, oppression, and social justice? Is it not time that we changed the parameters of the discussion, from seeing transgender people as the object of study, toward the study of the perpetrators of transphobic violence and oppression as well as solutions for social change?
Trans Toronto is a valuable book for those studying and researching issues related to trans identities, lived experiences, and histories, as well as those employing qualitative and postmodern methodologies. The book is notably accessible in its writing style, making it a useful resource for those new to the method and topic as well as providing an important contribution in giving voice to trans people for those more familiar with the area. For this reason, I would recommend it as a text for researchers and students of psychology, gender and sexuality studies, and qualitative research methods courses. As the book is set between the 1990s and 2000 (with clear justifications for the significance of this time period), supplementary reading will be necessary to update readers on current debates within trans scholarship and activism – a notably fast changing context and topic area. Furthermore, while the book is based in Toronto, the importance and relevance of the narratives go beyond one city. Toronto is a key site for trans issues as it currently hosts one of the largest gender identity clinics as well as those involved in the defining of gender ‘norms’ in the latest edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).