For a few months now, I have embarked on the Don Quijote-like and enormous task of assigning a discursive form to the non-existent existence of the trans body. I do not do so for altruistic reasons, but because such a discursive invention constitutes the very condition of life for those who are at the edge of the anatomy and of the law. One of the parameters that constitutes transsubjectivity (compared with the naturalized and normal bodies of the sexes – that is, with the persons who identify with the sex ascribed to them at birth), consists in the impossibility of constructing themselves without reference to an element (be it an object, an organ, a name, a technology, an institution) that we have not been assigned and that does not belong to us: it is an object or organ that appears as something radically different, but which we nevertheless claim as both possible in general and ours in particular.
The trans body maintains a relationship of gentile differentness with its own (irregular) genitals, and more specifically with the body that medical science continues to call a prosthesis and which we call our body. It is with the object that I build another body that is enlarged or transformed and which for a short time acts and lives. Incorporating the object involves rejecting its thingness and insisting on integrating it as something living. Hence the hospitality I feel towards the prosthesis completely to consider it to be a short and external organ in my body.
Fetishism = paraphilia?
Western psychology speaks of "fetishism" to indicate the relationship of the gendered body to something it perceives as a mere. . .