Discursive repertoires: unpacking trans possibility

The language of trans identities and experiences is multifaceted and contested. Trans – along with related identities such as non-binary and genderqueer, and concepts such as transition, gender dysphoria, gender diversity and gender-nonconformity – can be variously used to describe individual or collective bodies and histories, medical diagnoses and treatments, social and political phenomena, feelings and emotions. The term ‘trans’ may be used an adjective (describing an aspect of personhood, as in ‘they are a trans person’) or as a verb (describing what people do, as in ‘to trans’); it is sometimes also employed as a noun.

While the introduction to this book offered a brief definition of ‘trans’, this chapter unpacks the multiple, competing and sometimes contradictory means by which the term might be understood. I look at how differing models of trans possibility (and impossibility) have arisen from the historical interplay of medical literatures, radical feminist theories and an emergent trans social movement.

‘Trans’ is historically and socially contingent (Enke, 2012): that is to say, like any other social category it is historically located, and is therefore meaningful in a specific time and place. We might be able to recognise experiences and behaviours in a different time and place as somehow trans, but this doesn't mean that they are straightforwardly trans, particularly if they weren't or aren't recognised as such by the individuals having these experiences and exhibiting these behaviours. The language of gender diversity I use in this book emerged largely in the West, primarily within the English and German languages; the stand-alone ‘trans’ effectively evolved from identities/diagnoses such as ‘transsexual’ and ‘transvestite’, while also incorporating political and social influences from lesbian, gay, drag and queer subcultures (Pearce et al, 2018).