piensas terceras en hablando sobre genero en nueva york

i am in the midst of writing my paper on the fighting cholitas and am revisiting Cholas and Pishtacos for the 6th or 7th time. one of my great regrets about college (and there are probably only 3 or 4--and no, not even dillo day sophomore year would count as a regret) is not taking advantage of mary weismantel's wisdom. i've essentially sainted the woman in my mind.

so, of course, whenever writing about gender, race, ethnicity, rurality, the body, really anything...in bolivia, i consult my now tattered, dogearred, noted, penciled, penned, highlighted copy of the book. usually, i only read through the things i've underlined or highlighted, since i basically try to go through the entire book in a matter of an hour. but today, for some reason, i randomly found my self reading a paragraph i had overlooked before.

"passing--whether racial or sexual--is a signifying act that attempts to con the viewer into misreading the relationship between the clothing and the body; if it is successful, the error may never be discovered " (Weismantel 2001:111)

and for a woman with her personal politics, i find this treatment shockingly problematic.

words like "misreading" and "error" construct the trans (whether it be transgender, transrace, transclass, or trans-anything else) body as inherently its "prior" state and only superficially its post-trans state. and ironically enough, just half a page before, Weismantel invokes Butler, saying:

"Identity, Butler says, is not an epistemological fact at all, but an ongoing, improvisational performance, which takes shape through the 'mundane signifying acts of linguistic life" (Butler 1990:144 in Weismantel 2001:110)

so if its all signifying--if there really is no sexed body prior to the gendered body--then what is the mistake? what is the error?

but what i find most problematic is the word "con." it, of course, elicits similar meaning to "duped," but with a moral valuation. it is not merely "misrecognition" but intentional trickery, deception, and cheating. the more i think about it, the more i decide that "dupe" really is a rather appropriate word. perhaps this isn't pc, but in the same way i dupe people into thinking i know what i'm talking about in terms of bolivian wrestling...in the same way i dupe people into thinking i am "studious," "feminine," "kind," or "laid back," trans people--really all people--"dupe" others into reading their bodies in certain ways. and not just bodies, we read material goods, language, clothing, corporeality, and even facial expression as indicative of identity constantly. so why must we talk about it as if this is something bad?

perhaps what this all means is that we, as a society (or whatever you want to call it) lack the language for talking about this without stigma. (or maybe that's too much of a linguistic determinist position)