Erasing Transgender People - A Perspective from Deviance and Social Control

Note: I'm not going to be citing various sources as per some academic paper. It's been a while since I read/discussed material in that area and don't recall all the references that may have influenced my thinking. Feel free to comment if you recognize such influences. I know Stigma by Goffman and a generic reader or two with classic excerpts/articles and cross-cultural examples were involved including a piece on social landscapes. So that is the fertilizer for the mind soil in which my own perspective has developed. This isn't meant to be revolutionary or amazingly insightful, just an introduction for those not familiar with the issues discussed.

Societal Ideal and Distance from Center

This is a pretty standard idea, I think? Not sure what's "in" at that moment. But as I use it "societal control" and "distance from center", consider if society imagined an ideal person. Now it wouldn't be totally consistent or stable, but it would still be a constellation of features that hung together. This echoes some of Erving Goffman's thinking. And it need not be all of society that imagines it, but those with the most power and influence. It then spreads out to others by representation in public spaces and platforms. In the United States, this has generally been a young white somewhat wealthy Christian male who is athletic, confident, and handsome. Plus cis-gendered and heterosexual.

Now if everyone is evaluated on some level by this, even if only subconsciously, then assume for a moment that the closer you are to this ideal the more you are seen as a proper, respectable, decent person worthy of consideration and deference. If you make a mistake you are more likely to be treated kindly and given the benefit of the doubt.

The further you are from this, the more suspect you are. The harder you have to work to be seen as and maintain an appearance of being acceptable, respectable, safe, and reliable. You are more likely to be judged quickly and harshly or have your actions viewed with suspicion or disdain. The harder it is to get or restore a good reputation.

This framework makes societal privilege easier to understand. A poor, average-looking white guy with little education is not at the center of the target ideal. So he can generally expect to not be treated as well as the rich, pretty white guy with a Harvard degree. Yet a somewhat handsome black man with a degree from a state university may in some ways be considered further from the center of the ideal. Hence in some situations he may get less consideration that the poor white guy while still enjoying some advantages the poor white guy lacks.

So we don't need to pit them against each other. We can simply acknowledge that some criteria are more important for being closer to or further from the ideal, and that your cumulative distance is a decent predictor of how society will treat you. But of course it's never that simple in how people picture the situation. The black man may be painted as "having been given everything" based on the color of his skin. The poor white man may be made to resent the black man. After all why not? It's a great form of social control. People must be reminded of their place.