The trans woman as grotesque in transgender art

Making masculinity the default trans image does direct harm to transsexuals broadly, not just transsexual women.

By Artemis T. Douglas

Why do images of trans women that come from trans movement organizations often play into the same stereotypes about us being mannish, grotesque, monsters that the worst transphobes you’ll find in the depths of the internet do?

“The queer community has endlessly promoted masculinity/butchness/non-transition/body hair/non-passing as the prime ideals of woke trans representation.” Anna Leigh (cited with permission)

This is a problem because it contradicts the central supportive message we give to trans women: It is okay to be a woman.  

This disconnect is a result of using transgender as an umbrella term without understanding the differences between different kinds of trans people.

For non-transitioning transgender people, validity may be enough. For transsexuals, validity is a trap.

"I am, frankly, thoroughly over validity.

Trans people who do not transition bodily are exceedingly valid to a society that abhors those who change their sex! Their validity was never in question!

Transsexuals, however, are constantly invalidated and implicated in the very systems that oppress us!" - Talia Bhatt

The problem is that transgender as a label seems to only unite non-transitioning trans people and caricatures of transsexual women.

This is not to say that “transgender” is problematic in and of itself. 

However, when the term transgender is used to promote masculinity, and only masculinity- it falls short.

It falls short for two main reasons.

1. There is a cissexual, non– transition bias of the broad transgender community that makes trans women roughly equal to "AMAB" and both roughly equal to beard/masculinity.
2. There is a pro masculinity bias in queer and feminist academia and media. My Master's level gender studies textbook reflects this, it says we need to consider men's grievances to do feminist work.

Mainstream gender activism seems to have convinced itself that promoting transition is regressive.

Instead, it promotes ideas that the more you transition, the less enlightened you are.

And the means of this promotion are images that feel like Kiwi Farms-esque caricatures.

Kiwi Farms (KF) is, of course, the notorious mass doxxing and harassment website known for targeting trans people, especially transsexual women, with hate, harassment, SWATing, and other tactics meant to silence and kill us.

Transsexuals aren’t KF’s only targets. We’re just their favored targets. 

The site has been blocked in New Zealand for being the depository of the manifesto of the Christchurch shooter, and for refusing to comply with authorities investigating the far-right mass murderer.

Now, I want you to look at this collage. See if you can tell me which image, or images, came from Kiwi Farms, and which came from trans advocacy or transgender culture.

Can you spot the transphobic caricature?

Think about it. Look really hard. What are the shared features, what could indicate what is or isn’t meant to be a tool of dehumanization and harassment? 

Ok, now for the grand reveal.

The only image in that collage which came from Kiwi Farms is this one (which happens to be the least masculinized depiction):

The rest came from materials meant to be “trans advocacy” or transgender art pieces.

In the dominant and normative cultures in which these images are meant to advocate our inclusion, the combination of masculine and feminine features is seen as grotesque.

The fact that so much advocacy material is focused on this combining of features that somehow always centers a trans woman’s supposed immutable maleness, is incredibly harmful to those of us who actually change our sex.

Or, as Talia Bhatt put it:

“The reason I say "transsexual" is because the cissexist impulse to treat sex as immutable needs pushback, and "transgender" grew into a euphemized term to ignore that we do, in fact, change sex.” - Talia Bhatt

Why do movement organizations and advocacy materials spend their limited resources and time to make sure that we represent trans(gender) people as caricatures in dresses, complete with beards and emphasized body hair?

I mean, just look at the features that are emphasized in the images within the above collage.

Those features? Facial hair, body hair, dramatized proportions, and a thick line art style meant to make the body look as stark as possible.

All of them de-emphasize the changes that the subjects make to their body (if they are even there), and instead emphasize masculine traits. 

This is done to put the viewer’s attention on, again, the supposed immutability of sex traits. 

Why is this being done? Why is more focus given to what we “identify as” instead of what we are?

As a transsexual woman, I don’t “identify as” a woman- I am a woman. My transness delineates certain things about my experience of womanhood, but it doesn’t change that I am a woman.

“Identifies as” is, frankly, a transphobic dogwhistle. 

It is a term used to delegitimize trans people, both transsexual and transgender.

Why else do transphobes make the same “attack helicopter” jokes after all these years? 

The difference is, the transgender subject doesn’t actually challenge the cissexist project, and can be presented as being “valid”. The transsexual subject cannot, as we actually change our sex.

Therefore, we as transsexuals have materially different circumstances and needs than those who do not medically transition.

'Validity' is not legal tender at pharmacies. - Talia Bhatt

Now look at this image.

Why is this literal transphobic caricature from a conservative political cartoonist somewhat kinder to the transfeminine subject (by virtue of less body hair and less dramatized masculine features) than the media meant to be fighting for our dignity?

Or this, which seems to be a common caricature on Kiwi Farms.

Again, more dramatized body hair and non-passing features and a specific line art style. 

Why is there so little daylight between a literal kiwi farms caricature and the materials put forth by advocacy orgs, and even the Museum of New Zealand’s “A history of pride” page.

The second image from the collage above is from the museum of New Zealand. 

Portraying trans women as men is actively harmful to us, and does nothing to further the cause of gender liberation.

If you’ve been in trans spaces for a fair amount of time, you’ve probably heard the buzzwords “gender abolition”. 

When put into practice, getting rid of gender seems to result in getting rid of anything feminine, and making masculine presentation the default.

There seems to be an idea that by reinforcing masculinity-as-the-default, something patriarchy already asserts, we will somehow “transcend gender”.

Add to this the incessant discourse about it being bad and “binary” to assert that trans, especially transsexual, women are, in fact, women, and you might begin to see more of the problem.

"The portrayal of binary (which is typically used as a plausibly deniable euphemism for "medically transitioning / on HRT") as somehow privileged / conformist has completely flipped the reality that it's people who transition that face the harshest transphobia. But mainstream queer / trans orgs keep refraining from talking about this." - Anna Leigh

“Because current mainstream trans advocacy is built on top of the foundations of queer/feminism, whose thought leaders have disproportionately been transmasc-adjacent people, saying it's ok to grow body hair" will always sound woker/more enlightened than saying "it's ok to shave your body hair.” - Anna Leigh

Validity is a plague, visibility is a threat, and “woke” caricatures won’t lead to liberation. If you want to fight for the dignity of trans women, you have to actually portray us as women.

And, I don’t just mean pretty skinny white women.

Author's Note: Special thanks to Anna Leigh for her edits on an earlier version of this article!