"This isn't something I chose, it is just the way I am."
How often have those who are different, those outside of societal normative behaviour, read or seen, heard or spoken, such statements? How often have they been used as a defence against a world that, too often, just doesn't seem to understand? Statements that seem to have a valid basis at times: when someone accuses us of 'choosing' a path they don't agree with, it is only natural to assume a defensive posture; to scream that you never had a choice, you just had to be true to yourself. It is the ultimate defence, shutting down all debate and freeing us from critical appraisal. But that is only a superficial freedom. We always have choices and any cry to the contrary is to deny us any sovereignty over ourselves.
If I posit that we do have choices where we often claim otherwise, am I joining with the militant (often faith-based) brigades, chanting that we have a choice and, that having made that choice, we should acknowledge it as such and accept our aberrant existence? I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The greatest power that a person possesses is the power to
choose."
- J. Martin Kohe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are to discuss choice, we will need a common definition to work from. The American Heritage Dictionary offers the following:
choice (chois)
n.
1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.
In the context of saying "I had no choice" - it is the second; fourth and seventh definitions that apply best. So, with those definitions in mind, when we say "I had no choice" we are actually saying one of:
2. I lacked the power, right or liberty to choose this path.
4. There was no range of options to choose from.
7. There were no alternatives.
Number two is patently demeaning and self-depreciating: it abrogates our right, surrenders our liberty and and diminishes our power to be us. Yet, we still often travel the path of "I had no choice" and, in so doing, we rob ourselves of a vital right to self-determination. We do this almost subconsciously while often, at the same time, calling for equality and acceptance. We are, therefore, conflicted at the point of our own self-discovery. We want to be accepted and so we assert our right to be us. We build grand structures of thought and expression - while undermining the foundations of those very structures. On the one hand we fight for acceptance while, on the other, we diminish that right by claiming we had no choice.
Number four and number seven are essentially the same thing. They do not directly challenge or diminish our call for acceptance. However, they do something far more subtle and far more dangerous. They free us of any personal responsibility and, in so doing, they diminish any need to fight. After all, if it was a matter of no alternatives and we are, therefore, simply following the only path open to us, we are free to relax. It wasn't a choice in the end, so have nothing to defend. A choice is a thing that needs to be defended and argued for. Lacking such, we are free to become intellectually and emotionally lazy. The attraction of such a path is obvious. Who wants the constant pressure of continually having to reiterate their very right to be?
Benjamin Franklin once said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." This simple truth applies to transgendered persons because, what freedoms do we deserve that we are unwilling to fight for. Yes. It can become tiresome. The freedom to just 'be' without constantly having to defend that freedom is an attractive proposition but it offers a false security; for as long as people refute us, we must fight back. Any other course sees us cast as a victim and this is the real core of the "There was no alternative" line of thought. If we refuse to acknowledge our freedom of choice, then we cast ourselves as victims. "I had no choice" - pity me. "I had no alternative" - this is not my fault. Why should we even debate issues of fault? When we do that, we surrender to the opposing argument; we fight on terms written by others. By casting the debate on such terms, we become the victim of our own tragedy.
Saying that we didn't have a choice diminishes the very real choices we have made. We have chosen to accept ourselves; we have chosen to move on and be all that we can be, whether by transitioning or coming to terms with not, or being unable to; we have chosen to face down the bigotry and ignorance of many or we have chosen to stay quiet - and I do not fault anyone's path, but wherever that road goes for each, it was a choice. We have, in many cases, chosen to live rather than give up. Instead of lamenting our lack of choice, we should instead stand tall and declare ourselves rightly proud of the choices we have made. We should declare ourselves free with all of the inherent responsibilities of that liberty. We should be celebrating our choices; not lamenting their lack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never has and it never will."
- Frederick Douglass (Abolitionist, 1857)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what of genetic destiny? - what of the increasing evidence that biological factors may play a role? Don't these show us that our choices were always limited? I am biased, to a degree, in that I do see genetics as having a valid place in the origin of many expressions of transgenderism. However, in saying this, I completely accept that there are transgendered people who do make a choice completely devoid of any genetic imperative. That doesn't mean such is true for all - it just shows how diverse experiences are within any group of people, transgendered or otherwise. I do not argue, that if a genetic factor is present, it should be seen as diminishing our freedom in making a choice. Nor do I see the absence of such a factor as granting greater freedom.
Whether genetics plays a role in sketching the outline of us, is not relevant to the moment we decide - we choose - to live life in the manner that will make us happiest. Some argue that, because of this factor, we should not pursue any genetic investigations. I do not. I think that we can examine issues of genetics and that those findings can illuminate. However, we should always be wary of using them as grounds to claim that we never had any choice. They may have framed the landscape of our choice, but they can never reduce us to victims - devoid of basic liberty; made into automata with no ability to choose; forced to follow overwhelming genetic imperatives. This line of reasoning is a trap we should always be wary of.
Some of us may feel that we're more a result of nurture than nature, but that is as irrelevant to the framing of our political freedom. Just as, even if we accept such a thing as genetically transgendered, any claim of not having a choice has no purchase. To ask 'did I have a choice in being born genetically transgendered?' makes as much sense as asking 'did I have a choice in being born human?' - because, at the point where we decide to express our transgenderism, we still make a conscious choice. Being born genetically transgendered does not, therefore, represent a lack of choice; it is merely a framing of the parameters within which our choices are made.
We may be transgendered for many diverse reasons - we may feel as though our genes restrict our choices, that we have no choice but to be who we are. But this does not mean that we have made no choices. We have. We have made a thousand choices, just like anyone. The choice in whether and/or how we express our transgenderism. Our choice in how we accept or refute labels. Our choice in just moving through our experience. Even those who stay hidden - refusing to live as openly as some - have made a choice: refusing to make a choice - is itself a choice and I do not condemn them for their choices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form
of belief"
- Frank Barron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some argue that we cannot acknowledge choice because, to those who see our choice as evil, it will self-justify the position they take. Let's be realistic: they will not accept us regardless of our arguments. They have already determined the outcome of their reasoning and will fill in the 'logic' to suit.
I argue that it does nothing, to the opinions of some, to either deny or accept choice. There are some - with views so entrenched - for whom neither position will sway them. Tell them that there was no choice and they'll argue that doesn't mean it isn't an aberrant condition: after all (and this is an often misused example) paedophiles are also driven in their actions. That the comparison is completely fallacious will not stop some from using it. On the other hand, say there was a choice made and there is nothing to apologise for, and they'll say the choice is an immoral one. However, in the case of the latter, we are accepting our right to choose and such self-empowerment is never a bad thing. At least, by accepting our freedom of choice, we refuse to be victims.
The opposition used to be "There is no science to back up the genetics claims, ergo it is not so" - then, when such evidence did start to emerge, the position changed to: "Whether there is a genetic factor or not is moot, because people can fight that aberration and successfully be a 'natural' person."
The opposition is there regardless, just the reasoning shifts. It is the most disingenuous of arguments, when the real reason for the opposition is an emotionally, religiously or dogmatically based one. Now, if someone has a religious issue, all power to them but they should have the integrity and courage to say such. Dressing up a difference of opinion as science is both dishonest and disingenuous, especially if the science is only deemed correct if it aligns with pre-existing views.
I certainly believe that many of us, when attacked by religious arguments, become indelicate in our responses. If someone grounds their argument in religion, they are arguing that we are devoid of all morality. Fighting back is a valid response but we should take care not to play to their prejudices. They are arguing from a presumed moral high ground. It does nothing for us if, in opposing that premise, we surrender that ground to them. Be polite but forceful. Try not to descend to a tirade of vitriol - regardless of the temptation. In the mind of the certain opponent, it just provides further evidence toward a self-justification of their views.
We are handed a legacy from many great political forces, if we are just willing to learn the lessons of history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The choice today is no longer between violence and
nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or non-existence."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me-then
they will have my dead body, not my obedience."
- Mahatma Gandhi,
"So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way
of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants
and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the
end, they always fall. Think of it, always."
- Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must arm ourselves with methods of non-violent opposition. We need solid blueprints and tools that help us build effective opposition. It is important to note that non-violence does not deny a place for anger. It is only a conscious decision to channel that anger where it will be most useful. Anger, given free reign, is a fear response; a reaction to feeling powerless. Anger, directed, is a strong motivating force that can open dialogues and allow us to be heard.
Having a choice implies having responsibility - "I chose this; I am responsible for my path in life." Having choice precedes having freedom - to be free, one must first accept the capacity to choose.
Claiming a lack of choice, if grounded in genetics, can imply genetic inferiority. Claiming a lack of choice can also imply that, if we did have a choice, we would choose otherwise. Many will see it that way. Saying we had no choice is to accede the debate to those claiming our state of being is a dirty one: an unnatural state; wrong and socially unfortunate.
We must always remember that the only behaviour we control is ours. This sits at the central of all choice and frames the basic reason that we always live within choice. We are not victims. We are architects of choice.
We often hold the question of choice up as an exemplar, an avatar of being, because it helps us avoid the need to constantly reassert ourselves as ourselves. In a world where many are ignorant of our plight, the repeated need to explain ourselves can become a tedium of continuity. But a freedom or a right is only diminished if we do not fight for it. Yes, it can weary a soul, that constant repetition, but that does not negate the usefulness of the fight. Not because it is a fight that can be won or lost. Not that it should be either winnable or not. A fight is not a destination or a goal. A fight is a process, a journey unto ourselves - that we can be proud enough of ourselves that we fight. That we are strong enough to say - a thousand times again - this is who I am ... and though many might reject that ... I will not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Living in this world means choosing, and the way we choose
to walk is infallibly and perfectly expressed in the walk itself."
- R. H. Blyth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not have complete control in any aspect of our lives. No one does. Such control is an illusion, but while we lack such absolute control we do have domain over the most important choice: how to react to the world. This is especially true of the transgendered individual: even if we feel the choice is limited; between being true to ourselves or false - we still, ultimately have that choice. Any other position is to celebrate ourselves as victims.
I choose to live free; to live honestly and, most of all, I reject anything that sets me as a victim. We need to cast aside the shame that we imply, when we say "I never had a choice." We need to embrace the truth - that we did have a choice; we made it and we have every right to feel proud and free for that fact.
If you fail to resist what assails you, then you fail to live through your experience; to live up to everything you have a right to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the
dying of the light."
- Dylan Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your attention and love and respect to everyone.
Kate Sylvia H
(evilfemme@hotmail.com)
Adding your comment:
