Transgender history involves and influences many people in all dimensions of time, as the past affects the present, the present affects how we perceive the past, this being the basis of the argument of why history is living. As Transgender history is not traditionally taught in K-12 schools and is not a requirement for higher education programs that subject matter goes unnoticed. But just because the inaction of teaching transgender history shows society that trans issues are not real issues or lack importance, doesn’t mean that the collective cannot change that view. History is the story of someone, and everyone deserves to hear the story of transgender people.
Specifically for transgender people, the teaching of transgender history gives the signal to trans people that their experience is okay and normal. It allows trans people to know that they are not alone and be able to name the experience and feelings in which they are going through. Much of the time if an individual cannot come to terms with the way in which they feel inside they begin to despise their body, this then perpetuating and triggering mental health issues. Stryker highlights a statistic taken from a survey of transgender people showing that "Thirty-nine percent of all respondents had attempted suicide at some point in their life--down 2 percent from 2011, but still nearly ten times the rate of attempted suicide in the general population. Half [of the respondents] had been physically or sexually assaulted at some point in their life" (Stryker, 202). The fact of the matter is that transgender people are more likely to commit suicide than the average human, which means that careful attention, provisions, and resources should be offered to trans individuals in their times of need, and help prevent trans people from needing this support, to begin with, mainly through the reeducation of how we see trans bodies in society, and becoming more inclusive and accepting as a whole. The refusal of help along with the refusal to not teach transgender history is rooted in eugenic thinking and law, as the teaching of trans history and the offer of help might help with these feelings of isolation. Addressing the stigma around transgender people and bringing it to light will allow for transgender people to be seen.
Within Stryker’s Chapter 6 they highlight how media attention to Caitlyn Jenner’s transition drew attention to trans bodies which inherently allowed for normalization to occur as society saw this happen within one of the most famous families in America. Stryker states “according to a 2013 poll, more than 90 percent of people living in the United States now report having heard the term transgender...the overall number of people who claimed actually to know a trans person doubled between 2014 and 2016, from 8 percent to 16 percent” (Stryker, 196). These statistics show the doubling in numbers occurring after Caitlyn Jenner's transition, which merely shattered (to a varying degree) stereotypes of what a trans person is “supposed” to look like inherently proving that there is no certain “type” of person that is transgender. It should also be noted that Caitlin was able to obtain access to medical treatment more easily than most people because of her fame and standing before her transition.
While Caitlin Jenner’s media coverage while transitioning was a step in the right direction, history cannot be discounted, especially as it comes to medical views and representation of trans people. This “positive” exposure of a trans experience helped normalize transitioning, which helps with normalizing medical access. Stryker discusses early medical science and how that had affected trans bodies.“ since the end of the eighteenth century, science has gradually come to replace religion as the higher social authority, and since the middle of the nineteenth-century medical science has played an increasingly central role in defining everyday life” (Stryker, 51) this being an important point made as it establishes the belief that people hold in science. This being so, once a “condition” has been defined it is unlikely and hard for that “condition” to be redefined or overlooked. This being exhibited towards transgender people as medical stigma exists as it is enabled through social stigmas. This concept is further explained through Strykers analysis of a double-edged sword “medical science has always been a two-edged sword--its representatives’ willingness to intervene has gone hand in hand with their power to define and judge” (Stryker, 52). Specifically as written the “power to define and judge” is enabled and an expected power that society has given to medical professionals. These outlooks leading to the result and interest of “...medical science in trying to understand, engineer, and ‘fix’ gender in these years needs to be seen, in part, as an attempt to stuff the feminist genie back into its bottle. The result, for transgender people, was a lose-lose situation. All across the political spectrum, from reactionary to progressive and all points in between, the only options presented to them were to be considered bad, sick, or wrong. Consequently, transgender communities became very inwardly focused by the 1980s. They tended to concentrate more on providing mutual aid and support to their members than on broader social activism” (Stryker, 141). The negative connotations that are described with the word transgender are backed by the history of what trans people have been subjugated to as a community, this history following every trans person before they even transition. The representation which is ascribed in a more modern outlook (Caitlin Jenner) and a historical (medical associations) outlook provides differing contexts and effects on the trans community.
This being so, it is evident that the normalization of transgender people has a positive effect on everyone, cis and trans people alike. The main way in which it is most helpful in providing that true representation of transgender people is through a true and explicit account and teaching of trans history.