A virtual myth?

Transgender communities on the internet.

Wim Haan

On this website an 'internet article' written by yemisi@chello.nl appeared, in which the Dutch virtual t-community (hereafter DTC) (T referring to transsexual, transgender and transvestite) was introduced. In the introduction to this article a follow up, which would investigate the role of the virtual t-community on the net in a broader general sense was promised. To me goes therefore, the honour of inserting a few notes to the original sketch presented by Yemisi in her article of September 2001.

Joan and Alex

In books dealing with internet communities we are frequently told the story of Joan and Alex.[1] In the eighties Joan and her partner Alex were popular figures on the internet scene. Alex, a psychiatrist from New York, was the friend and mentor of Joan. Joan, was seriously handicapped as result of a car accident. She had lost the ability to speak, was partially paralysed and had also lost her husband. Bound to her wheelchair she was able to establish a new circle of friends and acquaintances using the internet. Joan was loved by many women because of her commitment, empathy and talent for helping others solve their problems. Although nobody had actually met her she maintained a number of intimate virtual relationships with these women. She also functioned as a confidant to those women who were close ‘in real life’ to her mentor and friend Alex. Then one day, a message was posted on the net which informed her friends that Joan had been moved to hospital due to a quick deterioration in her condition and that she was expected to die soon. This led to the shocking revelation that Joan did not exist at all and was in fact a creation of Alex.

Alex had a reason for creating Joan. He had noticed, by coincidence, while dealing with one of his  female clients that communicating with her was made considerably easier once she was under the impression that he was in fact a woman. Drawing from this experience he created the persona Joan, and found this to be a successful experiment as women proved to be much more open with Joan then they were with himself.

Alex’s behaviour resulted in an outburst of anger and reproach. In addition to this many women were traumatised by the newfound knowledge that their best friend had been the product of a male mind. The incident even sparked a debate concerning the need for internet rules to be tightened and methods developed which would enable users to uncover the identity of other participants. But what was the real disappointment? Not so much that the women felt mistreated, but the fact that Joan, their friend was unreal, a ‘dummy’.

We are faced here with a problem, which is unlikely to appear in ‘real life’ and is therefore exclusive to the internet world. A moral question presents itself: What should we allow and what should we prohibit? But at the same time we are presented with the role played by internet identities, which are of a unique nature. These are constantly changing and evolving and go beyond the traditional roles accorded to women and men in our society. Cyberspace is, as articulated by Jodi O’Brian, sociologist at the University of Seattle “…an amorphous realm in which identities are liquid; one can author oneself as any THING that one can imagine.”[2]

It is exactly in the ‘virtual world’ where Yemisi finds herself that this becomes an important point: in the t-world boundaries are challenged and the confines of the male-female construction are conquered.

In discussing internet identities it is hard to formulate common rules of  ‘good practice’, even more so because these identities fit so well within the nature of communication via the internet. In her fascinating article ‘Gender (re) production in online interaction’, O’Brien outlines what she finds lacking in the moral framework which is applied to relationships and communication.   She suggests that we should not utilise ‘physical authenticity’ as our normative premise. She draws this conclusion from the conviction that it is possible for people to change their sex ‘mentally’ or to rid themselves completely of it, using their own power of imagination. Each case must be judged on an individual basis however, because we are faced with different situations such as acceptable fiction, conscious deception or pathology, or as in the case of transgenderism and transexuality – variations on the theme of sexuality.

Against this background we must also take the role of the ‘virtual type’ Yemisi into account. Her intentions; i.e. with what purpose did she write the article, are more important than the physical authenticity of her role in the DTC. I shall come back to this later on in the article.

Definitions

The main thing that Yemisi’s article fails to do is offer a clear description of the term ‘virtual’. Her extensive description of the DTC does however make clear which social group she is referring to. But what exactly is the counter part of this group? And what is a virtual type, a label she applies to herself?

For a definition of the word ‘virtual’ I endorse that offered by Marianne van den Boomen.[3]   

Originally the term meant possibility, present as potential, imaginary. In the context of the internet is has come to mean, present in the digital form, on a screen or in a computer’s memory. T his also applies to the virtual community. The intellectual father of this understanding, Howard Rheingold, expresses it in the following manner: ‘Virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people interact for long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace’.[4] Thus in Rheingold’s definition the virtual community is associated with a form of social interaction found in the ‘real world’. A virtual community is therefore an extension of a conventional community already present in society.

Therefore when we apply the word virtual to a persona, a type, we are not dealing with an imaginary, fake character but a person who plays an intentional role on the internet; I add the word intentional here again for the same reason as mentioned above. It is in effect the expansion of the traditional roles of participant and spectator; a new extended role is created where both actively participate in a community and write about it.

The conclusion reached, that we are dealing with variations of ‘social communities’ enables us to identify the interests of virtual communities using the same criteria as are maintained for communities in the ‘real world’.  Still, more so than with social communities there exists the danger that we will analyse both the positive possibilities and risks faced by virtual communities using an idealized model. A type that remains unaffected and unchanged by technological development, bureaucratisation, industrialization etc. We are forgetting the powerful stamp that these developments have left behind on the traditional community. This process has led people to consider community, as a collection of ‘social networks’ rather than in terms of a ‘space’ housing an intensively involved group of family, neighbours and kin. It has become a term that encompasses significantly more than the traditional ‘neighbourhood’.

Online Relationships – seven questions:

I would like to now, drawing from the work of Wellman en Gulia compare online relationships to those found in actual communities.[5]  I will try to answer the questions formulated by them based on my impressions and experiences of the DTC on the Net. Concentrating as far as possible on the virtual community of which Yemisi writes, the DTC; the general issue is less of my concern. The problem of course, is that there is a gross lack of writing investigating the meaning of the virtual T-community. I must therefore, use the experiences of Yemisi and other stories’ found on the net, of which there are an abundance, as my point of departure. When push comes to shove, it is the participants themselves who determine how the virtual T-community functions.

Wellman en Gulia devised seven questions to evaluate the importance of the virtual community.

1. Are online relationships limited and exclusive or inclusive and supportive? (What kind of support may one expect to find in the virtual community?)

The DTC is exclusive in terms of the base of its participants; including mainly people who do not feel they fit into the traditional man woman divide. They are T’s, sometimes the partners of T’s and also a potentially large group of  ‘admirers’ whose main interest is sex and eroticism. This final group remain relatively neglected within the organised DTC however.

The sub question, concerning what kind of support one might find, is amply answered by the DTC. In addition to information concerning what a T-life can be there exist friendships, social support and a feeling of belonging. And of course support is also offered on a whole range of more practical issues such as where to buy products, how to put on make up, how to dress etc. Even though the medical problems linked with the sex transformation from man to woman dominate the discussions, with attention given to the judicial consequences, pressured work place relationships etc., the brunt of the discussion centres around support and topics which are significant in a much broader sense. Yemisi already pointed this out in her article: the chat room functions as a living room or pub. But it is also the possibility to get to known one another virtually and then meet in the flesh that illustrates the breadth of the DTC. It is especially important for this relatively isolated group that this possibility should exist.

2. In what respect are the numerous ‘weak ties’ found on the net purposeful? If we assume that the Net allows people to maintain less intimate relationships and develop new ones, why are they so willing to offer help to people they hardly know?

It is striking, in general, how helpful people on the Net are to people they do not know; and the DTC is no exception to this. A new participant to a chat channel is invariably bombarded, at first contact, with offers of information and help on various topics. Until there is reason to believe otherwise a trust in the genuine motivations of the help seeker exists. The various discussion forums also show a great willingness to help. This seems to sharply contrast with the general development in our society as people are increasingly less willing to take the initiative to lend a hand. One possible explanation for this goodwill on the net is its augmenting affect on status. For many net users, their expertise and therefore also the help which they offer, is what ‘constitutes’ their virtual identity. Furthermore, it is important to stress that a section of this community reached all time ‘lows’ and experienced a lot of pain as a consequence of coming out with their alternative gender identity. Thus, their own difficult ‘birthing process’ creates a genuine desire to help others go through a less difficult process. Finally, it  is still so that ‘weak ties’ on the net are more conducive to overcoming social differences than strong ties.

3. Is the goodwill on the Net mutual? Do people develop a sense of commitment to the virtual community, so that there is a reciprocal and common sense of solidarity?

Yemisi’s experiences are contrasting on this count. Though she identifies a strong sense of reciprocity, especially when the virtual community is transformed into a mourning community following the death of one of its members, she other expresses some disappointment at the large variation in effort shown by different members of the virtual community. This view is shared by others who have often found that the in the virtual t-world, which does seem to resemble that of a soap at times, you are frequently left alone, especially when real tangible help is needed. Perhaps this is evidence of the following: helping people increases both your self-esteem and your status within the community but it is not a sign of real commitment to others.

 I do not consider it impossible that Yemisi’s experiences are limited on this topic. There are ample examples of instances where advanced T’s take their novice friends out, help them with problems and guide them in taking the first step to the Gender team of the VU Medical Centre. One of the virtual T-communities, the TS-community also maintains an extensive list of all its members, so that if a member feels low or like they can’t cope they are able to contact someone from within the community.

4. Are close and intimate relationships a possibility on the Net?

Is it possible within the DTC, to develop social ties, which are strong and intimate, relationships which often form the core fabric of a community? This is perhaps one of the most difficult questions to answer. Wellman and Guila notice that strong online ties have the same characteristics as strong ‘offline’ ties. Many Net critics are convinced that it is impossible to build and maintain close and intimate relationships on the Net. These critics fail to comment however, on the strong ties that exist between people who communicate on the Net as well as maintain a friendship in ‘reality’. Often it is difficult to make a clear distinction between strong online and offline ties. Clifford Stoll asserts that ‘Intimacy in virtual communities is an illusion…Electronic communication is an instantaneous and illusory contact that creates a sense of intimacy without the emotional investment that leads to close friendships’[6] Yemisi’s experiences of the DTC seem to verify Stoll’s fear.

5. What are the consequences of an intensive commitment to virtual communities on the Net for relationships in real life?

This question in effect assumes that people are able to make a clear distinction between ‘the net’ and real life. For many participants of the DTC however, the two spheres cross over, creating a grey area. In the last question I already indicated this extensively. Even though it is possible for participation in the DTC to be so dominant that a person’s real life is coloured by what takes place in the virtual DTC, it is much more often the case that one supplements the other. There remains one problem however. Whereas people are able to be themselves in the DTC they still find that there exists a lack of understanding and ignorance in the real world with regards to the T subject matter and their choice of life style. In this sense it is tempting to devote a lot of time to the DTC where one is accepted for whom they are, thereby avoiding a serious confrontation with the outside world. Stories of T’s and their mates found on the website www.travestie.org confirm this. It is also true that virtual contacts are often easier than real ones. What we might find hard to say straight to someone’s face is simpler to communicate via email. It is also safer in a community where blackmail and disapproval of ones individual life style is still a cause of great fear. At the same time Yemisi’s experiences make clear to us that in the end it is the relationship and not the means of communication that is most important.

6. In what way does participation in the NET stimulate a diversification of community ties?

What is unique about the net is the fact that one person can participate in different communities simultaneously. In some you participate actively, in others only occasionally and finally in a number of them you may be a silent spectator. The extent to which your participation in one virtual community promotes involvement in another virtual community is not made clear by Yemisi’s experiences. Sometimes you see people who began in the travestie.org chat room switch to more serious discussion forums. But the question whether participation in the DTC also leads people to visit other, completely different virtual communities (on a regular basis) remains as yet unanswered. Indeed, Yemisi’s experiences suggest the opposite is true.

7. Are virtual communities ‘real’ communities?

With respect to the DTC, I am tempted to answer in the affirmative to this question. The positive responses to the preceding questions have already pointed in that direction. There is however one complication: in the Netherlands there is no ‘real’ T- community. Many of those who are occupied with T-issues live in hiding. The virtual DTC is their only community.

This leads us to question whether the existence of the DTC acts as an obstacle to the development of a real T-community in the Netherlands. This point is in reference to the work of Arianne van der Ven who points to the relative 'egocentrism' of many Dutch Ts in comparison to their American counterparts.[7].

A quote: “The Dutch transsexuals identify with an inner essence, they see themselves as misfits, and aim to solve this. The attitude is: as long as I’m doing alright. They do not stop to consider how society determines what is masculine and feminine and how oppressive that is for everyone.” A little further on: “The Dutch view of transgender as purely personal, is a sensitive area for me. Transsexuals see themselves as ‘just a woman’. But even that word ‘woman’…as if it is a natural state.”[8]

As long a close- knit ‘real’ community fails establish itself in the Netherlands there will continue to be risks associated with its virtual sister. Even more so because that virtual counterpart is dominated by only one section of the extremely varied T-scene. This is the case for example in the chat room and website of www.travestie.org  which professes to be representative of the entire Dutch T-community, whereas in reality they are strongly dominated by the transvestite-section of that community.

A different sound

On the gendertalk website I came across an article by Nancy R. Nageroni where she outlines an optimistic view of the international virtual transgender movement[9]. The transgender focuses our attention on a blind spot in our culture, namely the assumption that sexuality and sexual roles are of a binary form. The mere existence of a transgender person and community provides a strong critique of that perception.

Where the gay and lesbian movement has successfully managed to mobilize thousands of people to attend various gay events, transgender events struggle to attract more than few hundred participants. If however, you take the presence of the T-community on the Net and the attention accorded to T-issues by the media into account, it is hard not to be impressed by the impact of this movement.

Nageroni suggests various reasons for this. Firstly, the movement is made up of a much wider group of people than only those who identify themselves as transgender. There are a great number of people who sympathise with the views that transsexuals stand for. The support people get is to a certain extent related to a sympathy for, and an involvement in, the struggle of others but even more so to a support for greater freedom of ‘gender expression’. Her conclusion is therefore that transgender is being used as a vehicle of reform by all those who would like to see more flexible gender-roles. Nageroni asserts ‘It is a movement that goes beyond identity’. According to Nageroni by standing up for the freedom of all to express their gender as they so please, the movement naturally was transformed into a ‘virtual movement’, a movement of society towards an ideal, rather than individuals to a concrete goal. She concludes her piece with a quote by Tonye Barreto-Neto: “It’s fear of ridicule that keeps the transgender community so small. Transgender is about spiritual wholeness. It would be more popular than homosexuality, if people weren’t so afraid of being ridiculed.”

Yemisi revisited

In the preceding sections I have shown that a virtual community on the Net can have an important meaning: it is a community that aims to give people room for freedom of gender expression. But at the same time also a community that must allow itself space, space for self-criticism, space for an ongoing discussion of how it functions. This might also require, in connection to the words of Van der Ven, that the community gain a greater consciousness of its own influence and responsibility in society. The attitude that ‘everything should be possible, as long as I feel comfortable with it’ should also be given some critical thought.

In conclusion, Yemisi. A virtual type is how she describes herself. But she is more than a type; she is a pendant of someone who feels committed to the transgender community. I will not let this go as far as the infamous Alex and Joan affair. For the reader who has followed the writing style of Yemisi closely and considered the purpose of her contribution in conjunction with my detached approach it will be clear that: Yemisi and this author are one and the same person. Just like all characters on the net are one with a human being made of flesh and blood. Does this knowledge provide a new, surprising insight into the point of these two stories? I think not. They say what they say and you can choose to agree or not. Both the internet and In de Marge remain ‘linguistic’ media, you read a text and form an opinion. This is irrespective of whether it has been orchestrated by an older gentleman or a younger lady…

A word of Gratitude

I owe a great deal of gratitude to the editorial staff of the periodical In de Marge and my colleagues at the Interdisciplenary Centre for the Study of Science, Society and Religion, for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Especially to Bart Voorsluis, whose extensive editing was invaluable. Finally, a special word of thanks to Ilona who brought Yemisi’s various shortcomings to my attention.[10].

Many links on this subject can be found in the gender link-portal of our department:
 www.genderlinks.nl

April 13th, 2002.