and experiences, yet these women spoke of their own pleasure and how the losses they spoke of were signifi cant as they resulted in grieving this aspect of their relationships. I also enjoyed how the central role that penis-in-vagina sex is often given was openly challenged by one participant. This anatomy was present in their relationship, yet this couple preferred other activities over this kind of socially-valued sex, thus stepping outside of this powerful discourse and claiming their sexuality as their own.
Us together: My invisibility Whilst stories of bodies were often
constructed in narratives of loss, the visible changes that hormone interventions had on their partners meant the social landscape of relational identities were also changing, which, in some instances, were also reported as losses. This appeared to be of particular importance for those partnered with trans men and those who were married.
Partners of trans men Those partnered with trans men spoke
about how their sexual identities and histories became invisible to others as their partners progressed through transition, and testosterone took hold of their bodies: that, as their partners were increasingly read as male, together they were perceived as a heterosexual couple. Being read as heterosexual subsequently validated their partners’ male identity but, as a result, their own sexual identities became lost or unseen. Whether their partner was ‘out’ about their gender history was an added factor in this process. One woman spoke about how, even though others may read her and her partner as a heterosexual couple, she was able to challenge this and voice her queer identity to others, as her partner was happy for others to know of their trans status. Yet for the other woman, for the majority of their relationship, her partner was not comfortable with others being aware of his gender history. This consequently had a signifi cant impact on her being able to access support from others, specifi cally LGBT communities.
Married couples Two participants had married their
partner prior to their transition, as ‘heterosexual couples’. They had previously referred to their ‘husband’ and, at the time of interview, they referred to them
Context 155, February 2018
as their ‘partner’, rather than ‘wife’. Both spoke about how referring to them as their ‘wife’ did not feel right for them, but by referring to them as their ‘partner’ this resulted in their relationship status and identity as a married couple being socially invisible, which they experienced as losses. This can also be understood in terms of hierarchical discourses around relationship commitments, with marriage being seen as the ultimate relationship goal (Barker & Gabb, 2016). One of these women further discussed
how their experience of others no longer perceiving them as a heterosexual couple impacted on their lives, and the changes they felt they had to make. They stopped going to dinner dances they had previously attended, as these were strictly heterosexual spaces and they believed they would stand out as diff erent. Furthermore, when they went on holiday, they would book a twin room, rather than a double bed, as they were worried that the staff might not be comfortable hosting what they may perceive as a lesbian couple.
Refl ections In refl ecting on these stories of invisibility,
I am reminded of how our own identities can often be dependent on how others perceive us. The power context holds in our understanding and experiences of identities, which are ultimately co- constructed through social interactions (Bruner, 2004). How our identities may be an internal(ised) part of ourselves but, for it to be realised, it needs to be seen and embraced by others; how that can feel limiting, constraining, disempowering and invalidating. It is often those on the edge of society, who embody positions outside of the ‘normativity’, who have more work to do and sometimes have to fi ght to be seen. These stories also invite me into
considering the idea of privilege. I was saddened when I listened to how one of the couples felt they had to make several changes in their lives, as they have in eff ect lost their heterosexual privilege. Heterosexual privilege refers to the unearned and unchallenged advantages that heterosexuals hold, solely based on their sexuality, such as not having to consider if they will be safe if they go on holiday, or show aff ection to their partner in public. I was also reminded of how the position of being able to speak of one’s identity may also be seen as privileged. That
others, related to intersecting aspects of class, geography, age or other diversities, such as described in the social graces model (Burnham, 2012), were not in situations where is it safe to be open about their gender and/or sexual identities and the considerable impact this had on their lives.
Coming to the end of this story The process of conducting this research
gave me personally much to consider. As I progressed with my own transition, there were aspects of all three of these narratives that echoed my own life. Over the last few years, I have been blessed with partners who have been comfortable in discussing what my decisions have meant for them. We have fumbled with words and language in navigating the landscape of social identities. We have thought long and hard about spaces we can frequent, and ones we may have to avoid, so we can all be seen. Together, we have grieved and celebrated, cried and cheered, mourned aspects of the past and said hello to new beginnings. Because, whilst transition involves a series of decisions we make as individuals (which unique blend of social or physical changes we require), it is not a process we embark on in isolation. It is one that impacts on all of those who are present in our lives, and often central to that are our partners. Transition is a process that can bring much joy, one that is embarked on to enter new horizons. But, with new adventures, there are aspects of our old selves we must also leave behind.
References Barker, M-J. & Gabb, J. (2016) The Secrets of Enduring Love: How to Make Relationships Last. London: Vermilion. Barker, M-J. & Richards, C. (2015) Further genders. In C. Richards & M-J. Barker (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook Of The Psychology Of Sexuality And Gender. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bruner, J. (2004) Life as narrative. Social Research, 3: 691-710. Burnham, J. (2012) Developments in social GRRRAAACCEEESSS: Visible-invisible and voiced–unvoiced. In I.-B. Krause (ed.) Culture and Refl exivity in Systemic Psychotherapy. Mutual Perspectives. London: Karnac. Gergen, K. J. (2009) An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage. Hollway, W. (1984) Women’s power in heterosexual sex. Women’s Studies International Forum, 7: 63-68. Joslin-Roher, E. & Wheeler, D.P. (2009) Partners in transition: The transition experiences of lesbian, bisexual and queer identifi ed partners of transgendered men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 21: 30-48. Lev, A.I. (2004) Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines For Working With Gender- Variant People And Their Families. New York: The
43
Narratives of sexuality and intimacy in the partners of trans people
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
