Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn the 1960s and 1970s, psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, operated two behaviour modification programs: one aiming to eliminate "feminine" behaviours in male-bodied children ("conversion therapy"), and one targeting autistic children's so-called problem behaviours (applied behavioural analysis or ABA). The head of the autism program referred to his work as "building a person." Decades later in Ontario, a radically incommensurate legal context sees conversion therapy banned while ABA receives millions of funding dollars. Drawing on legislation, case law, media, and clinical literature, I argue that the process of trans communities wresting themselves out from under conversion therapy involved discursively shifting fromhavinga condition tobeinghuman—a process of "building a person"—still incomplete for autistic communities. While legal reforms protect some trans youth from harmful therapies, this does not extend to autistic trans youth, leading us to question at whose expense a rights-bearing trans person was built.

In 2004, a young Seattle girl with significant disabilities known only by the pseudonym Ashley X, underwent a series of medical procedures without her consent. At the request of her parents, Ashley received a mastectomy, a hysterectomy and hormonal treatment, designed to arrest her development in a child-like state. In the eyes of her doctors, her family, and their lawyers, it was urgent that Ashley's body be aligned with her purported cognitive age. The temporal and ethical arguments used to justify her 'Treatment' turned Ashley's body into a site of international debate over disability and human rights, consent and medical science, eugenics and human engineering. Yet the similarities and differences between Ashley's non-consensual pubertal arrest versus that actively sought by trans youth are rarely mentioned. This paper uses the clinical and media discourses at work in both the 'Ashley Treatment' and the treatment sought by trans youth to think through this moment in which some bodies are treated to greater forms of autonomy while other bodies have none. I argue that the discourses used to secure transition for some trans youth ought to be weighed against the implications for others, in particular for trans youth with disabilities. While the availability of puberty suppression for trans youth can be narrated as a sign that things are getting better, the literatures of queer temporality and critical disability studies help to consider that it may also augur something else—a widening gap between those invested with the ability to stop time versus those who are stopped in time.

Newer forms of community-based participatory research (CBPR) prioritize community control over community engagement, and articles that outline some of the challenges inherent in this approach to CBPR are imperative in terms of advancing knowledge and practice. This article outlines the community control strategy utilized by Trans PULSE, an Ontario-wide research initiative devoted to understanding the ways in which social exclusion, cisnormativity (the belief that transgender (trans) identities or bodies are less authentic or 'normal'), and transphobia shape the provision of services and affect health outcomes for trans people in Ontario, Canada. While we have been successful in building and supporting a solid model of community control in research, challenges have emerged related to: power differentials between community and academic partners, unintentional disempowerment of community members through the research process, the impact of community-level trauma on team dynamics, and differing visions about the importance and place of anti-racism work. Challenges are detailed as 'lessons learned' and a series of key questions for CBPR teams to consider are offered.