A review by just_one_more_paige
Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter? by Heath Fogg Davis

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

5.0

 
This book came across by radar through a single review post on IG, from @basiclandcave, back in April 2021. I have never seen it mentioned or referenced anywhere else. But it conceptually stuck with me, after reading their review, so when I saw it in the used section at a local bookstore a few weeks ago, I grabbed it *so fast.* And in a turn of events that surprises even me, I picked it up to actually read almost right away. This is one of few books I've ever bought that hasn't languished on a shelf for months before I got to it...go me! 
 
Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter? is a short piece of nonfiction that addresses exactly what the title promises, moving past the social justice efforts to incorporate transgnder people better into our current social structure to question the need for gender classification in the first place. With sections exploring some of the most common arguments for gender categories, Heath Fogg Davis uses research, case studies, legal precedent, and personal experience to argue that perhaps adding "transgender" and "genderfluid" categories into the current system of classification does not, in fact fix the issues we have with equality/discrimination based on sex and gender, and that we need to really question why those classifications are deemed so universally necessary in the first place. And he offers concrete and practical examples for alternative, and better, methods of achieving the same goals and outcomes these categories claim to be working towards. 
 
Davis' sections look at the following sex-classification systems in turn: sex-marked identity documents (birth certificates, driver's licenses, passports, etc.),  sex-segregated public restrooms, single-sex colleges, and sex-segregated sports. The writing style is very traditional academia, like a person presenting a thesis or final paper, with subtitle sections and conclusions and “I will discuss…” and “I have shown…” language. And while it was, perhaps, not my favorite style, it was very straightforward to follow, with each chapter patterned similarly to each other, in a paralleling way that was incredibly easy to follow, and made inter-chapter references and comparisons quite easy to make and understand. It also allowed for Davis to get right to the point(s), in a concise and accessible way, which I tend to agree is key for this kind of theoretical/exploratory social discussion, which could easily get overly esoteric or intellectual, and therefore impossible to connect back to quotidian realities in a useful way.  
 
This book is honestly a quick enough read that if you are at all interested, conceptually, in Davis' inquiries and theories about moving past gender classification, then I absolutely recommend reading through this yourself. However, I will also share a few major concepts or realizations that I had while reading that were most interesting to me: 
 
- I loved the concept of the “rational relationship” test, where Davis encourages organizations and policy makers to really consider whether a given sex-classification requirement is necessary or harmful, and if there is not a more efficient/effective way for achieving the to meet whatever the aim/goal of the policy is. Even in medical/public health fields, is it the identity or the body parts that are necessary for accurate data collection? And if sex is, in fact, directly relevant, to be very clear and transparent about how and why. What is it being used for? And is first person self-understanding of gender or third person perception of it the more accurate measure in a given situation? 
- What thorough and convincing arguments about changing the current system of sex classifications, which vary from state to state to begin with, because the ultimate decision on whether or not one's "sex marker" on official documents matches one's actual person is left in the hands of administrative agents (like bus drivers or janitors or government workers or ski lift ticket sellers, etc.), which not only makes it changable (which is opposite of the intended purpose), it also has a high potential for harm, as those agents can then make judgements based on their own opinions or beliefs or visual assessments. 
- Fascinating points about how sex markers are actually really poor proxies for verifying personal identity in efforts of preventing fraud, furthering goals of public safety/privacy, and/or furthering feminist institutional reform since they're mutable and inconsistent across the nation, possible to legally change, as well as easy to fake (especially online or over the phone) and up for interpretation as far as what one wears or how one’s cuts their hair or if one has a gender-neutral name, etc. 
- I had conceptually been introduced to the idea of "universal design" before, but not yet with that language. The idea of making adjustments and changes to public accommodations/policies that address needs of and reduce harms to populations of greatest need (not just related to sex/gender inequality and discrimination, but ability level and other things as well), that would also help, and in any case not harm,  people who don’t need those accommodations, should not be as radical as it seems here. 
- I've never considered “separate but equal" in situations other than race before, considering the history of the US, but reading the way Davis applied it here to sex and gender based discrimination was fascinating. 
- How much stock we put in a single medical provider's visual inspection of our genitals at birth as an immutable measure of our biological and lived sexual/gender is a bit unbelievable when you actually think about it. Honestly, even when it matches, this has me thinking how absurd it is that we allow that person who doesn't know us to define us to strictly, considering how much we can change over the course of a life. How is it ok to let a person that doesn't know us have that much power over who we are and what we have "[social] space" become? 
- The discussion of testosterone measurements/limits, uneven expectations in sex-segregated sports (where it may and may not be necessary based on the "goal" of the league in question), and if the arbitrary changes to certain sports to make them "women's" versions have in fact stunted female athletic progress was so interesting. 
 
Overall, I was very impressed by the completeness (theoretically) of the questions raised in this work of nonfiction, for all that it is such a short/fast read. Davis raises so many inquiries that I cannot stop thinking about and mulling over, even as basically (groundwork-style) as thinking through how sex/gender are actually defined, and since it is so mutable, so (legally) it's actually never been defined...but how much we base things off that lack-of-real-definition concept/classification anyways. Like, what?! Davis also does a really nice job addressing intersectional gender issues, particularly the intersections of race and socioeconomic status and sex/gender. I got some similar vibes from this as I did from The Sum of Us, as both focus on the way that trying to reduce harm and increase access in ways that help those most marginalized by race or gender will, in fact, help us all. So while I think there is a baseline assumption that someone picking this up is pro-trans equality in some of the conversation, which should be noted for anyone recommending this, there is also a clear delineation of how these questions would apply to us all, regardless. And I want to end by reiterating the way Davis provides concrete examples of ways that organizations and policies can not only be more inclusive, but can do so proactively, as opposed to in reactive (ad hoc/case-by-case as complaints come in) ways. Often these types of critical thought works of nonfiction raise the questions, but spend less time trying to help guide and suggest solutions, but Davis really does a great job balancing both aspects. What an incredibly thoughtful and thought-provoking read...I know I will be considering so much of what he puts forward in these pages for a long time to come, and will definitely be trying to implement his suggestions for improvement in whatever workplace/organizational environments I am able to. 
 
“Instead of trying to assimilate and accommodate transgender individuals into existing sex-classification policies, why not tackle the genesis of “transgender discrimination” – sex-classification, itself? Why not use transgender experience to fundamentally question the social custom of administrating sex?” 
 
“The problem lies in the discretionary leeway that sex markers gran to administrative agents." 
 
“The durable elasticity of binary sex categories tells us that sex-identity discrimination entails something else in addition to the sex-role stereotyping that generates sex-based advantage. Sex-identity discrimination involves the judgement that a person has stretched the elastic bands of binary sex “too far,” […] People who are readable as women or men are generally not asked to produce documentation of their sex identity, even when sex identity is directly relevant to a benefit as important as sex-based affirmative action or as trivial as a ladies’ night drink special.” 
 
 “Universal design begins by taking into account the needs of the people who are most hindered and excluded by traditional design.” 
 
“When an application from prompts […] to check a male or female box, what definition of sex identity is the person being asked to disclose? Is it a first-person self-understanding of being a male or a female? Or is it a third-person perception of how others may perceive the person in relation to the social and legal scheme of binary sex? What should an applicant do when these two conceptions diverge? What about the person who want to check both male and female boxes, or neither?” 
 
“…more often than not the use of sex on bureaucratic forms or to physical segregate people is habitual rather than the product of strategic thinking about why and how sex is relevant to organizational aims, and why and how the use of sex is discriminatory.” 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings