Standards of Care

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY TSQ-Transgender Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1215/23289252-9311060
Beans Velocci
{"title":"Standards of Care","authors":"Beans Velocci","doi":"10.1215/23289252-9311060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the 1950s and early 1960s, Harry Benjamin and his colleague Elmer Belt corresponded at length about which transsexuals they would and would not approve for genital surgery. Benjamin defined transsexuality primarily through a desire for medical transition, but merely being a transsexual in this definition did not automatically result in surgical eligibility. Benjamin and Belt remained preoccupied with the possibility that transsexuals would regret their surgeries and seek legal or personal revenge, and thus their assessments of who should have surgery focused more on the possibility of a bad outcome than adherence to gender norms or classification as transsexual. The informal clinical practices they worked out to protect themselves in these early years of American trans medicine would ultimately go on to structure more formalized Standards of Care. Benjamin and Belt's fears, and their resulting decision-making processes, thus played a crucial role in the production of the category “transsexual.” Throughout their correspondence and clinical practice, the transsexual emerged as a threat to medical providers, and a subject incapable of making their own bodily decisions, needing to be protected from themselves. While assessments of gender identity and gendered behavior factored into these decisions, their decisions about who might regret transition treated gender as primarily practical and functional, and made an unshakable internal gender identity a necessary but insufficient criterion for granting a patient access to surgery.","PeriodicalId":44767,"journal":{"name":"TSQ-Transgender Studies Quarterly","volume":"1983 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TSQ-Transgender Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-9311060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Harry Benjamin and his colleague Elmer Belt corresponded at length about which transsexuals they would and would not approve for genital surgery. Benjamin defined transsexuality primarily through a desire for medical transition, but merely being a transsexual in this definition did not automatically result in surgical eligibility. Benjamin and Belt remained preoccupied with the possibility that transsexuals would regret their surgeries and seek legal or personal revenge, and thus their assessments of who should have surgery focused more on the possibility of a bad outcome than adherence to gender norms or classification as transsexual. The informal clinical practices they worked out to protect themselves in these early years of American trans medicine would ultimately go on to structure more formalized Standards of Care. Benjamin and Belt's fears, and their resulting decision-making processes, thus played a crucial role in the production of the category “transsexual.” Throughout their correspondence and clinical practice, the transsexual emerged as a threat to medical providers, and a subject incapable of making their own bodily decisions, needing to be protected from themselves. While assessments of gender identity and gendered behavior factored into these decisions, their decisions about who might regret transition treated gender as primarily practical and functional, and made an unshakable internal gender identity a necessary but insufficient criterion for granting a patient access to surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
护理标准
在20世纪50年代和60年代初,哈里·本杰明(Harry Benjamin)和他的同事埃尔默·贝尔特(Elmer Belt)进行了详细的通信,讨论他们会或不会批准哪些变性人进行生殖器手术。本雅明对变性的定义主要是通过对医学转变的渴望,但在这个定义中,仅仅是变性者并不会自动导致手术资格。本杰明和贝尔特仍然专注于变性人可能会后悔他们的手术,并寻求法律或个人报复的可能性,因此他们对谁应该接受手术的评估更多地关注于不良结果的可能性,而不是遵守性别规范或将其归类为变性人。在美国跨性别医学发展的早期,他们为保护自己而制定的非正式临床实践最终将构建更正式的护理标准。因此,本杰明和贝尔特的恐惧,以及由此产生的决策过程,在“变性人”这一类别的产生中发挥了至关重要的作用。在他们的通信和临床实践中,变性人对医疗服务提供者构成了威胁,是一个无法做出自己身体决定的主体,需要保护自己。虽然对性别认同和性别行为的评估也会考虑到这些决定,但他们关于谁可能后悔变性的决定主要是将性别作为实用性和功能性的考虑,并将不可动摇的内在性别认同作为必要但不充分的标准,以允许患者接受手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
TSQ-Transgender Studies Quarterly
TSQ-Transgender Studies Quarterly SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
28.60%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Provincializing Trans Studies Staying Backward with the History of Camptown Trans Sex Work “For All the Queer NDN Foster Kids Out There” Whither Trans Studies? Jugando con lenguaje
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1