To reduce the process of art by trans* subjects to an expression of identity (and the struggle for acceptance and reconciliation) is to alienate the trans* subject from all forms of struggle aside from the expected and legitimised. The same goes for reductions of this type across culture; the culturing of minorities necessarily passes through phases of assimilation. This is the right of passage to culture. This itself - these manifestos. They are well read because they draw on that well of cultural capital. They are seen to produce that voice. That voice is the manner in which one is expected to speak when one is comissioned to, say, "contribute a piece of writing related to your experience as a transgender or differently gendered individual" or "come and give a talk detailing your journey as a transgender person". The qualification is the same qualification one hears on Question Time; "as the husband of a service woman", "as a nurse" or "as a patriotic member of the highland regiment". That voice nervously addresses itself to its audience with the shudder of a qualification "as a", and it is guarding itself against the confinement it has already been locked into.
A single glob of advice for the curators of lives and experience is that it is revolutionary enough to simply allow marginalised subjects to speak, and if you dare do such a thing dare it against yourself and the trust of any potential audience by destroying any unconcious perimeter fences you've erected in your callout. That or pay us a lot of money so that we can escape for a bit.
