Translating Trans Identity
eBook - ePub

Translating Trans Identity

(Re)Writing Undecidable Texts and Bodies

Emily Rose

Share book
  1. 200 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Translating Trans Identity

(Re)Writing Undecidable Texts and Bodies

Emily Rose

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

This book explores the ways in which translation deals with sexual and textual undecidability, adopting an interdisciplinary approach bridging translation, transgender studies, and queer studies in analyzing the translations of six texts in English, French, and Spanish labelled as 'trans.'

Rose draws on experimental translation methods, such as the use of the palimpsest, and builds on theory from areas such as philosophy, linguistics, queer studies, and transgender studies and the work of such thinkers as Derrida and Deleuze to encourage critical thinking around how all texts and trans texts specifically work to be queer and how queerness in translation might be celebrated. These texts illustrate the ways in which their authors play language games and how these can be translated between languages that use gender in different ways and the subsequent implications for our understanding of the act of translation and how we present our gender identity or identities.

In showing what translation and transgender identity can learn from one another, Rose lays the foundation for future directions for research into the translation of trans identity, making this book key reading for scholars in translation studies, transgender studies, and queer studies.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Translating Trans Identity an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Translating Trans Identity by Emily Rose in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Lingue e linguistica & Linguistica. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2021
ISBN
9781000365436

1The History of (Trans)gender

The abbĂ© François-TimolĂ©on de Choisy (1995, 81) wrote hir seventeenth-century memoirs in the form of a letter to hir friend the marquise de Lambert who wanted to hear of hir racy life – ze promises her that she cannot even begin to imagine it. In hir writing, Choisy mixed masculine and feminine gender markers to refer to hirself: “Every time I ruined myself and I wanted to quit gambling, I fell back into my old weaknesses and became a woman again” (82, my translation). All of the past participles take the masculine gender in French including the last: “et suis redevenu femme”. And ze was not the only early-modern memoirist to leave behind an account of what could now be considered a transgender life.
Around twenty years before Choisy was born, Catalina de Erauso was writing (or possibly dictating) an account of hir “transgender” life. Erauso was born in 1592 in the Basque region of Spain. Following three of hir sisters, ze joined a convent at just four years old. The conventional part of hir life ended at fifteen, however: ze escaped the convent disguised as a man, worked in northern Spain as a page, and traveled to the Americas as a soldier. When ze was discovered to be a biological woman ze became known as the “Lieutenant Nun”. Ze was given a soldier’s pension by King Philip IV for distinguished military service in the Americas and was allowed to continue dressing as a man thanks to a dispensation from Pope Urban VIII.
Four years after Choisy’s death, Charles GeneviĂšve Louis Auguste AndrĂ© TimothĂ©e d’Eon de Beaumont, known as the Chevalier or ChevaliĂšre d’Eon, was born on October 5, 1728 in Tonnerre, France. In 1771, while d’Eon was in London, ostensibly in the diplomatic service but also spying for the French king, a rumor began to spread that ze was “really” a woman. When ze decided to return to France from England, one of the conditions of hir return was that ze wear women’s clothing again, suggesting that d’Eon had been falsely dressing as a man (Conlin 2010). D’Eon’s memoir is the fictional story of a woman who dresses as a man who is forced to return to her “natural” state of womanhood, penned by someone who lives the first half of hir life as a man and the second half as a woman. D’Eon’s contemporaries believed ze was a cross-dressing woman until hir death in 1810 (see Kates 1995).
The two writers that bookend Choisy’s life, as well as Choisy hirself, have voices which are not normally represented in literature but are omitted from traditional discourse (see Harris 2010, 177). I consider their voices to be transgender and this to be transgender writing because the authors are explicitly undecidable: in their memoirs they shift between a feminine and masculine gender identity through the medium of grammatical gender. In this chapter I will look at how gender was conceptualized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, looking back to theorisations from antiquity. I discuss how Catalina de Erauso and the Chevalier/Chevaliùre d’Eon have previously been categorised to argue that this categorisation is, ultimately, futile.

Early-Modern (Trans)gender

“Transgender” as a term was first used as an adjective in 1974 and a noun in 1987 (Oxford 2017). Clearly, neither Erauso nor d’Eon would have ever thought of themselves as “transgender” but they were seen as violating the gender rules of their time. However, what these gender rules actually were is a matter of some debate, a debate I examine in this chapter in order to prove that firstly, Erauso and d’Eon were transgressive and, secondly, to demonstrate that the translator has the power to maximize or minimize this transgression.
Following his ideas on the death of the author, Roland Barthes might claim that what was or was not seen as transgressive in Erauso’s or d’Eon’s time is of no consequence because it is the reader’s context that matters: he states that the author “is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing” (Barthes 1977, 145). While this may work for contemporary texts, there has to be a different way of looking at texts from the distant past. We should not just look at Erauso’s, or d’Eon’s, texts in the here and now without considering the then of their lives because we can attempt to excavate the historical ontology of early modern texts and this excavation has implications for translation choices. Understanding the gender system operative during Erauso or d’Eon’s times is important background work for any translation, not that my goal is to ‘understand’ Erauso or d’Eon’s behavior. This chapter aims to show that because of these conceptualisations, Erauso and d’Eon would have been seen as transgressive and therefore had limited means to present their identities to the world around them, making their writing central to their performances. This call to examine or reconstruct the past is complicated, however, by conflicting opinions on what the gender systems of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries actually were.
I shall now take a look at some of these opinions to show how I come to my own conclusions regarding early-modern gender; they are conflicting because during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries theories of gender and how the body worked “were drawn not only from experimental anatomy but also from earlier medieval and classical belief systems” (Gilbert 2002, 35). Thanks to these classical belief systems, sex was conceptualized in two ways: the first was based on Hippocrates’ writings from the fifth century BC. In this position, which was taken up in the early medieval period, male and female were seen as on a continuum, they were not binary opposites. It espoused a fluid system of sexual differentiation based on a “one-sex” model. Following the Hippocratic position, Thomas Laqueur (2012, 802) states that “before the eighteenth century men and women were regarded not as two opposite and distinct sexes but rather as hierarchically ranked versions of each other”. This meant that, according to Laqueur (802), “there was a time before what we now call gender (a set of prescribed behaviors, legal standings, social arrangements, and much more) was grounded in what we now call sex.” Gary Kates sides with Laqueur; he claims that “d’Eon conceived of the distinctions among the sexes as fluid, mutable, and elastic” (Kates 1991, 185–86). Nerea Aresti (2007, 406) also appears to buy into the one-sex model, saying that, in Erauso’s time: “The female body was unstable and deficient, but might change towards the masculine form under the influence of extreme physical effort.”
This theory is backed up by Eva Mendieta (2009, 172-3): “The body was seen as something less fixed, more mutable, and thus made the transformation from one sex to another appear to be plausible. If the body of a woman was a natural transvestite, containing male organs within it, was not transvestism only a natural social extension of ‘the myth of mobility’ intrinsic to this sliding scale?”. Cross-dressing, however, was illegal. Though it would appear that a woman could escape prosecution if her cross-dressing was for the purpose of bettering herself (in the image of Christ) and not for usurping a male role: Erauso was protected from punishment despite hir participation in the exclusively masculine activity of warfare because of hir virginity (Mendieta 2009, 167; see also Rex 2016, 40) and, because of hir fame. Readers of Erauso’s biography can see hir masculine identity as a kind of fiction: “even as her readers are following along with Erauso’s very macho adventures as an agent of empire, the foreknowledge of her subject position as a virginal nun prevents her audience from [
] buying into her performance of lo masculino as a natural, fixed identity” (Rex 2016, 37).
The idea that Erauso was somehow going against hir “essential” female self made hir a natural rarity in hir time to be collected by the royal court (along with hermaphrodites, dwarfs and eunuchs). Indeed, Aresti (2007, 405), who espouses the anti-essentialist position seen above, claims that “the real reason for [Erauso’s] eventual popularity and recognition was precisely the difficulty of categorizing her in terms of the binary oppositions that underpinned that particular society.” While the Hippocratic, the one-sex model represents a continuum and men and women were still opposed: men were at the top, women, the biological inverse of men, were at the bottom while hermaphrodites were in the middle (see Lester 2017). However, binary oppositions are much more pronounced in the two-sex model.
The one-sex model did eventually give way to a two-sex model; doubt, however, surrounds the question of when this took place. Some believe, like Laqueuer above (2012), that it was in the eighteenth century (see also Lester 2017, 74–75 and Mendieta 2009, 172). Others believe it was much earlier: studies carried out by Ruth Gilbert on the early-modern period and Robin Headlam Wells on the Elizabethan period challenge the idea that Erauso and d’Eon’s gender fluidity would have been considered natural, or a product of biology, at the time. Gilbert (2002, 40) argues that in the thirteenth century, many returned to Aristotle’s fourth-century BC declaration that male and female were fundamentally binarized based upon their essential oppositions. The Hippocratic position became popular again in the sixteenth century but, despite this, it “intersected still with elements of the Aristotelian tradition” (Gilbert 2002, 36). Gerald Callahan (2009, 19) believes that the one-sex model gave way to the two-sex model after the discovery of the clitoris in the fourteenth century: “It seemed to contradict the one-sex hypothesis then popular [
] How could a woman have ‘two penises’ and still be the perfect homologue of and basically the same as a man? That rattled the foundations of then-current thought [
]. Where certainty had ruled for nearly two thousand years, a seed of doubt began to sprout.”
Headlam-Wells (2005, 6) also disproves the popular belief that in the sixteenth century “Shakespeare and his contemporaries were anti-essentialists. That is to say, Elizabethans are thought to have had no general theory of humankind as a species: human beings had no existential ‘center’; they lacked any kind of unifying essence.” According to Headlam-Wells, there is no evidence that the Elizabethans felt this way.
Erauso and d’Eon presented themselves in a manner which contradicted their biological makeup (they were either rejecting their “essential” centers or these centers were out of kilter) and this made them unusual. The overriding impression we get of how Erauso and d’Eon were seen by their contemporaries is that they were both curious spectacles. The question of d’Eon’s “true” gender caused such a sensation in 1771 that bets were taken on the London Stock Exchange “in the form of life insurance policies that paid out (or not) depending on whether d’Eon was found to be of one or other gender” (Conlin 2010, 50). After Erauso had been discovered to be a woman, ze could not walk the streets for people wanting to see hir: “We entered Lima after nightfall, but nonetheless there were more people than we could cope with, all curious to see the Lieutenant Nun” (Erauso 1992, 113, my translation). D’Eon knows that the renegotiation of hir character is transgressive which is perhaps why, as we have seen, ze claims to have been forced to dress a certain way by hir parents in hir memoir. Choisy also hopes to diminish and explain hir transgression by seeing hir identity as rooted in the fact that hir mother dressed hir as a girl in childhood; ze portrays hir penchant for the feminine as a “weakness” ze is powerless to resist, as can be seen at the start of the chapter.
While we can assess the contexts in which Erauso and d’Eon were writing, problems arise when attempting to portray these contexts as they were because reading is subjective: we read from where we are. However, just because we read from our own position does not mean that we cannot grasp the historical or cultural position of someone from the past. Though, of course, we can never wholly grasp that past, as demonstrated by the ongoing debate surrounding early-modern sex and gender. The reader’s modern knowledge must be taken into consideration as well and in this book I ask, along with William Spurlin (2014, 205): “How do we work with translating terms for naming genders and sexualities in comparing texts and cultures of the past which may not be translatable to modern understandings of gender or to contemporary understandings of gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer difference?” As proved by Michel Foucault in his volumes on The History of Sexuality, sex is much more than a biological “fact”. What sex has been in the past directly feeds into what sex is (and consequently how we see ourselves as gendered beings) now: “in the space of a few centuries, a certain inclination has led us to direct the question of what we are, to sex. Not so much to sex as representing nature, but to sex as history, as signification and discourse” (Foucault 1978, 78).
I assert that the past is translatable to modern understandings if we see the translation of very old source texts as a rewriting of the past; indeed, this helps us to see that all translation, no matter how old the source, is a rewriting of the past: the source text is not a historical artefact but a living body of words. Through translation, the source text can be “reinserted into a vivid here and now as an active intrusion” (Scott 2014a, 29). The translator is an intruder on the source text who can rewrite an original from any perspective they choose. Is it, however, going too far to rewrite a text written in a time when “transgender” and “queer” did not exist as terms, from a transgender perspective, or with a queer agenda?1 Feminist translation theorist Sherry Simon (1996, 15) asks, “what would be the result of a translation which blatantly redirected the intention of the original text, consciously contravening its intentions?” She goes on to state that “feminist translation implies extending and developing the intention of the original text, not deforming it” (Simon 1996, 16).
However, translation is always a “deforming” of the original text as it can never be wholly “faithful” to it. As Venuti (2000, 469) has said, every translation – however foreignizing – is domesticating as well, since there is no way to provide a completely foreignizing translation. Translation is a political act; a manipulation. Comparatively, we can appropriate texts through translation for political agendas. A re-translation of Erauso’s or d’Eon’s texts can counter the fossilization of seventeenth- or eighteenth-century gender identifications but can also be a locus of trans engagement today by allowing past conceptualizations of gender to engage with modern ones. A translation with a queer agenda is not about “faithfully” portraying the source text but about using that text and appropriating its content to influence how people see gender today. To use d’Eon and Erauso to shine a light upon gender today, it is necessary to look more closely at their own gender identifications in their writing and how they used their writing as part of their identification.

Early-Modern Transgender Writers

I propose that Erauso and d’Eon are transgender because they oscillate. They are undecidable – this is a fresh take on a debate over how to label them.2 This debate on how to label Erauso and d’Eon has lasted for centuries; to argue that this debate is both sterile and unnecessary, I shall elucidate some of the conclusions that have been drawn on why Erauso and d’Eon crossed the gender divide by those who have come before me.
One of d’Eon’s biographers, FrĂ©dĂ©ric Gaillardet (1970, vii), wants to know what led d’Eon to cross-dress. Unsurprisingly, Gaillardet has no watertight answer to this question. Robert Baldick (1970, xix) tries to explain d’Eon’s change of gender with two ideas: the first is that d’Eon became a woman on orders from Versailles so that ze could not take part in what would be a scandalous duel with the son of a French Ambassador called Guerchy whom d’Eon had insulted. Baldick (ibid.) himself, however, describes how being dressed as a woman did not prevent d’Eon from dueling in England. That d’Eon dressed as a woman out of necessity does not explain why ze took on a feminine voice in hir writing.
The second of Baldick’s (xiv) ideas is that d’Eon was a transvestite (or at least that ze was afraid to be perceived as one) and to avoid this label, ze claimed to really be a girl forced by “her” parents to dress as a boy (despite the fact that many people from hir home town knew ze had been assigned the male sex at birth). D’Eon did use hir dress as an important part of the renegotiation of hir gender, despite some arguments that d’Eon dressed as a woman reluctantly. Kimberley Chrisman-Campbell has made a specific study of d’Eon’s dress, examining what clothes ze purchased. She claims that in d’Eon’s account books “there is evidence that d’Eon voluntarily wore at least some items of women’s clothing (particularly corsets) long before he was compelled to do so” (Chrisman-Campbell 2010, 98). Chrisman-Campbell’s discovery proves that d’Eon’s identity vacillated, that ze wore corsets while ostensibly a man, but it does not prove that d’Eon was a transvestite. Havelock Ellis (1928) certainly thought ze was, however, and perhaps thanks to Ellis’ research, “since the eighteenth century, he has been known as one of the most famous transvestites in history” (Champagne, Ekstein and Kates 2001, ix). Marjorie Garber (1992, 259) also considers d’Eon to be a transvestite, referring to hir as “the most famous transvestite in Western history”.
There are many biographies of d’Eon. Some of their writers, and those who in turn reference them, seem to have been unwilling or unable to consult d’Eon’s own papers. Magnus Hirschfeld, for example, is duped by Gaillardet. Hirschfeld (1991, 334) considers d’Eon to have had a very weak sex drive; though he does write of relationships d’Eon had with women ...

Table of contents