The Not-So-Hidden Transphobia in Silence of the Lambs

8/25/2014

The Silence of the Lambs has a transphobic message

Hollywood is a routine offender in promoting transphobia and cissexism—the negative attitudes and discrimination directed toward people whose gender identity, or perceived expression, is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. In my view, few films are as offensive as Jonathan Demme’s Silence of the Lambs, which demonizes and delegitimizes transgender individuals through portraying the serial killer, Jame Gumb—otherwise known as Buffalo Bill—as a psychotic transgender person. At the same time, normative expressions of gender are idealized as innocent. The result is a transphobic dichotomy with cisgender and transgender positioned as moral opposites.

For those who haven’t seen the film, Silence of the Lambs follows FBI Academy student Clarice Starling, played by Jodi Foster, as she solves a recent string of murders in the Midwest committed by the serial killer known as Buffalo Bill, played by Ted Levine. She enlists the help of an incarcerated cannibalistic serial killer and former psychiatrist, Hannibal Lecter, who analyzes the case files in order to uncover Buffalo Bill’s true identity. In this process, Starling discloses a traumatic event in her childhood involving waking up to the screaming of lambs about to get slaughtered. She ran away from her family ranch, attempting to save one of the lambs, but was unable to. Here, lambs are a symbol of innocence. Starling’s inability to save them and her subsequent nightmares are manifestations of her guilt. The film’s title is a reference to the end of Starling’s nightmares, when the screaming lambs become silent, ideally through her solving the Buffalo Bill case and saving his living victim, Catherine Martin. Throughout the film, it is revealed that Buffalo Bill is a transgender woman. She has applied for sex-reassignment surgery, cross-dresses, and prefers to hide her penis between her legs. Ultimately, Starling saves Martin through the clues that Lecter slowly discloses in exchange for a chance at a prison with better living conditions. In the end, Starling kills Gumb, and the closing scene of the film is of Lecter’s escape and intent to kill Frederick Chilton, a doctor who worked at Lecter's prison.

The trope of the killer transgender appeared in Psycho (1960)

Jame Gumb’s gender identity is handled in a number of very problematic ways. First, her character is a classic example of the killer transgender trope, also famously present in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. Transgender women are often represented as psychotic killers as a lazy method of responding to mainstream society’s fear of gender nonconforming people. This popular trope in film reinforces the idea that being transgender is unnatural and perverted, and pathologizes gender fluidity. It’s a stowaway on the Hollywood global distribution machine, reaching into countless theaters and homes around the world and embedding transphobia in the minds of a wide array of viewers.

In reality, the opposite of the killer transgender trope is true. Often, transgender people, specifically women, are the victims of hate crimes based on their gender identity. In 2012, transgender women were victims of nearly 54% of anti-LGBT related homicides. Perhaps the dehumanizing representations of these individuals in mass media helped spread the idea that transgender lives are less valuable, and by extension, murdering them is more justifiable.

In addition to crazed killers, Silence of the Lambs portrays transgender women as imposters. After analyzing the Buffalo Bill case files, Hannibal Lecter muses, “Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual, but his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying.” This quote enforces the idea that other people can determine a person’s gender identity. Although Jame Gumb was a ruthless murderer who skinned people alive, if she identified as a woman, she was a woman. If a person thinks they are transgender, they are. In real life, transgender people’s identities are often scrutinized by cisgender people. There is a fascination with the genitals of transgender people, based upon the erroneous idea that one’s sexual organs determine gender. In a recent interview with Orange is the New Black actress Laverne Cox and RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Carmen Carrera, Katie Couric asked Carrera, “Your private parts are different now, aren’t they?” This display of cisgender privilege (a cisgender actress would never be asked about her genitals) threatened to derail an otherwise constructive discussion about gender. Ultimately, the condition of Carrera’s genitalia bears no relation to her womanhood.

Transgender women are often represented as psychotic killers as a lazy method of responding to mainstream society’s fear of gender nonconforming people. This popular trope..[is] a stowaway on the Hollywood global distribution machine, reaching into countless theaters and homes around the world and embedding transphobia in the minds of..viewers.

A closer look at the diction of Lecter’s quote reveals more subtle issues. His use of the word “more” before “savage” and “terrifying” implies that there are savage and terrifying elements to actual transgender people. Since Hannibal Lecter is a serial killer himself, one might question his credibility as an arbiter of the film’s overall message. However, in addition to being a sociopathic serial killer, he was also a brilliant psychiatrist, whose analysis of the Buffalo Bill case files led to Gumb’s ultimate demise. His views regarding Gumb are highly regarded and portrayed as astoundingly accurate. Therefore, his psychoanalysis of Gumb represents the ultimate message of the film itself and should be seriously considered.

One of the most memorable scenes in Silence of the Lambs is the one where Gumb dresses up in a flowing cloth, tucks her penis between her legs, and poses in front of a mirror, all while wearing the hair and scalp of one of her victims. This scene is often touted as the film’s most disturbing moment. Buffalo Bill is supposed to be scary not only because she murders and skins her victims, but because she is male-bodied in women’s clothing. The “cross-dressing” is portrayed as especially sinister and perverted, but to stand or dance in front a mirror with one’s penis tucked between her legs is an exercise many transgender women actually perform. The film distorts this completely normal and often empowering activity with the juxtaposition of Catherine Martin screaming for help from the bottom of a dry well in the background. Real life transgender people may internalize this scene, and think that they should hide their non-normative gender expressions at the expense of their emotional well-being.

In addition to demonizing and stigmatizing gender fluidity, Silence of the Lambs idealizes normative gender expression. Conformity to gender roles is seen as innocent, an antithesis to gender variance. This is emphasized in the scene in which Gumb applies lipstick as she utters the chilling line, “Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me. I’d fuck me hard.” This scene is cut at the same time as Martin screams from the bottom of the well, just as the lambs screamed. Nobody could hear Martin, she was effectively silenced. The film showed a few seconds of Gumb, then switched back to a few seconds of Martin. Martin is illustrated as the innocent victim, conforming to the gendered damsel in distress trope, in contrast to Gumb, who is the gender-bending killer.

It is important to identify transphobia in films for a variety of reasons. In addition to media reflecting the prevalent attitudes and ideas of a society, media can also shape the ideas of a society. The negative representations of transgender people in visual media, especially film, contribute to their overall discrimination. In addition to the disproportionate amount of transgender women killed in anti-LGBT homicides, there is a high frequency of suicide among this subjugated population. 41% of Americans who are transgender or gender nonconforming have attempted suicide at least once in their lives. This startling statistic may be related to the lack of positive media representation for transgender people. Identifying transphobia and cissexism in film is a means of placing the responsibility back on media corporations and holding them accountable for how they portray marginalized groups. Fair portrayals of oppressed groups of people leads to an awareness of their real life issues. For transgender people, such issues include job discrimination, violence, healthcare, and exclusion in a variety of spaces. In real life, transgender people are not the killers, but rather the innocent victims of horrific hate crimes. The film Silence of the Lambs ignores this fact, effectively silencing the lambs.

Savannah Staubs

Savannah Staubs is an undergraduate sociology major and activist at University of Maryland, College Park. She skillfully avoids employment by illustrating zines, collecting leaf skeletons, playing her ukulele, and studying environmental justice.

55 Comments

Moth

1/8/2015 10:40:17 pm

While I agree that the movie itself is transphobic, I feel it important to also note that in contrast to the film's cissexism and demonizing of transgender people, in the eponymous novel by Thomas Harris, there is a segment that covers some of the territory you did. In chapter 28, Crawford visits Dr. Danielson, who works at the Gender Identity Clinic. Danielson notes, much like you did, that statistics prove that among transgender people, "The incidence of violence is a lot lower than in the general population". While this does not excuse a lot of the transmedicalist and cissexist references to trans people -- in both the novel and film -- it's interesting that the author considered putting that in.

Louis Friend

2/12/2015 12:46:33 am

It seems to me that this article and your comment are really stretching here. I'm fairly sure the movie says "that transsexuals are generally very placid and not violent" or words that effect. Also how many transgender killers are there in movies, i can find four. Which to my mind hardly constitutes a massive attempt at demonizing people. Furthermore none of the people represented are the way they're by dint of being transgender (I'd say the one in camp sleepaway isn't really transgender at all) but have rather snapped after terrible abuse. In most cases of serial killers particularly white men (just a general comment, no other meanings or insinuation) they are seen to be evil due to their inherent nature. Instead transgender people get a more of an out by having been portrayed as have been driven to their actions rather than actively seeking them out. So while you may disagree with the terminology in the film and you have a right to do so. It seems that attacking it simply for portraying someone who wants a sex change as capable of evil on the grounds of trans-phobia falls flat when the movie goes to some pains to point out the Jame Gumb is so vast an exception to the rule as to almost qualify for a different category.

Amy

6/27/2015 11:49:06 pm

There are countless instances in the media of negativity toward's non gender variant. The key thing here is that there are few instances prior to 2005 where this group is portrayed in a neutral or positive manner. This also has to do with the historically straight male dominated control centers in the media.

First off, the diagnosis in the movie that one who can have a desire to transition but is not even transgender is far reach and not rooted in reality. It's like when some say Obama isn't really black as he only one half black. It's actually taps into another problem trans folks have had to take on, that is the historic denial by the medical establishment of the keys to transition based on some arcane protocols to allow transition. Secondly the mention that transsexuals are actually rather passive is sexist. Its akin to saying most women are passive. Most importantly, what your missing here is very few people will remember the actual diagnosis but none forgets the twisted transsexual. I'm am living proof in that I am MTF trans and a butch lesbian I am dating who has a 22 yr old daughter mentioned the transsexual in the silence of the lambs to her butch mother possibly as a half joke to watch out for me. Even if it was in jest, the movie obviously left a strong negative impression in her mind.

Amy

6/28/2015 12:01:56 am

The most important thing that people are missing is it doesn't matter if the subject is a textbook transsexual. This person is clearly gender variant in the feminine direction and is thus fair game. It speaks directly to societies attitude that feminine expression (especially from a male) or being female is a second class position. This is exactly how straight male dominated society thinks.

Ice Bergen

10/30/2015 12:06:57 am

Silence of the Lambs won 4 academy awards. You aren't trans I assume, you don't know how it affects someone who is. I am trans, I know. Maybe my experience can't be generalized, but I reckon it can.

Billy Rubin

6/21/2017 06:31:39 pm

You are CORRECT. Early in the movie, Clarice Starling insists to Dr. Lecter, "there's no correlation between (in this case) transvestites and violence. Transvestites are very passive..."

Demme himself stated that he wanted to make clear that the movie is not about a psychopathic killer who is a psychopathic killer because he is a "not-typical person" (i.e., transgender). The movie makes quite a bit of effort to explain that Buffalo Bill is a psychopathic killer because he was ABUSED.

Jodie Foster is a lesbian. Is she transphobic for accepting the role of Clarice Starling?

David Warner played a super creepy Jack the Ripper in 1979's "Time After Time". Should straight men claim that this film vilfies them because Jack the Ripper is a psychopathic killer who preys upon prostitutes?

Dr Lecter

3/14/2018 06:01:35 am

Read Marcus Aurelius, in everything ask what it is in itself, was is it’s nature.

Annalisa Sauter

4/13/2020 10:17:48 am

The antagonist was not transgender, he was a man inspired by the real-life serial killer, Ed Gein, who desired to become his mother by making a suit out of human flesh. Clearly, through his oppressively religious upbringing, he became out of touch with reality, and thus mentally ill, not gender dysphoric.

Passerby

10/6/2020 04:17:41 pm

The issue here is, a lot of what's being mentioned here in defense of the very obvious transmisogyny that was apparent In The Movie requires 1. extreme attention to detail, 2. understanding of the context around the movie, 3. having to have read the novel, and 4. already have a general understanding of queer issues.

If you were to be, say, a person who is simply watching a classic horror movie, without ever having to touch the book, you would not know any of the background of this movie, and perhaps easily miss may of the initial moral 'cues' that say Billy is 'not a transgender person'. Your general takeaway would be, without a doubt, 'men pretending to be women/transgender women/people who exhibit atypical gender preferences are deranged serial killers'. It doesn't matter if the movie stated it isn't the case, or if there was elaboration on the issue in the book. The infinitely longer heavy visual cues of gender-nonconforming/non-cis behavior will always have heavier weight than any initial moral signaling attempts that were made for a few seconds at the start of the movie.

Also, you have to take into account that psychology is a soft science, and as, ironically in the movie and novel (which insists on the lack of transness of James Gumb with psychology), Hannibal Lecter constantly points out, quite often purile. Much of psychology predating the 2000s has long been overturned and replaced, because psychology is very difficult to empirically study. Yet, the issue still remains, with Hollywood as the greatest offender, where people are constantly bombarded with the idea that psychology is set in stone. And that's where the massive issue of the movie's transmisogyny lays. It is based on already very outdated and endangering hypothesis that is completely removed from the precautionary words of the original creator and context. Because there is the idea that 'there is already a cautionary warning', the idea of criticizing the movie is even further rejected - after all, didn't they already say that James Gumb isn't trans?

Well, if saying something isn't something else actually worked, we wouldn't be in our current predicament now, would we?

Eva

2/17/2015 04:22:34 am

From reading this article I can see that either A) You didn't watch the film with your full attention and you missed key parts or B) You watched the film but you had a preconceived notion that you would find it offensive/transphobic...and because of that, your judgement was blurred.
You said 'Throughout the film, it is revealed that Buffalo Bill is a transgender woman' but it is VERY explicit in this film that Buffalo is not a real transsexual. Dr. Lecter literally says 'Billy is not a real transsexual. But he thinks he is. He tries to be'. Lecter then goes on to explain that Bill was rejected from sexual reassignment clinics due to childhood disturbances associated with violence. He remarks that Bill hates his own identity so he thinks that makes him a transsexual but he is not. Lecter says that Bill's pathology is 'a thousand times more savage and more terrifying'.
Despite all of this you said, unbelievably: 'His use of the word “more” before “savage” and “terrifying” implies that there are savage and terrifying elements to actual transgender people'.
Where you even watching the film? Talk about misunderstanding quotations and then using them completely out of context. It seems that you are just trying to find things to be offended by.
I understand that transphobia is a problem and it is important that the media does not demonise transsexuals but this is not an example of 'Hollywood promoting transphobia' simply because the killer/villain in this film is NOT transsexual. In the screenplay Starling even says: 'there's no correlation in the literature between transsexualism and violence. Transsexuals are very passive'.
need to proof read it
ignore that last one
heres my comment
From reading this article I can see that either A) You didn't watch the film with your full attention and you missed key parts or B) You watched the film but you had a preconceived notion that you would find it offensive/transphobic...and because of that, your judgement was blurred.
You said 'Throughout the film, it is revealed that Buffalo Bill is a transgender woman' but it is VERY explicit in this film that Buffalo is not a real transsexual. Dr. Lecter literally says 'Billy is not a real transsexual. But he thinks he is. He tries to be'. Lecter then goes on to explain that Bill was rejected from sexual reassignment clinics due to childhood disturbances associated with violence. He remarks that Bill hates his own identity so he thinks that makes him a transsexual but he is not. Lecter says that Bill's pathology is 'a thousand times more savage and more terrifying'.
Despite all of this you said, unbelievably: 'His use of the word “more” before “savage” and “terrifying” implies that there are savage and terrifying elements to actual transgender people'.
Were you even watching the film? Talk about misunderstanding quotations and then using them completely out of context.
I understand that transphobia is a problem and it is important that the media does not demonise transsexuals but this is not an example of 'Hollywood promoting transphobia' simply because the killer/villain in this film is NOT transsexual. In the screenplay Starling even says: 'there's no correlation in the literature between transsexualism and violence. Transsexuals are very passive'.
You should stop blatantly looking for things to be offended by... because look at the stupid article it gave rise to.

Ice Bergen

10/30/2015 12:10:49 am

It is not "VERY explicit," it is mentioned as an offhand muse of Hannibal Lector. Should the audience be wise enough to believe a cannibal villain, as smart as he may be?

Transsexuals are very passive" is hardly a nice thing, just another stereotype." It contrasts the killer in Buffalo Bill, sure. It might be generally true, sure. But saying that is just another stereotype representing transsexuals.

You aren't transsexual, I doubt you can concieve of how this would affect a transsexual mind.

Lorelei

2/24/2018 05:42:42 pm

As a transwoman, and a HUGE lover of the book and film, I agree at least mostly with Eva. It is stated several times in the film and book that Bill is not a true transsexual, and instead that Bill is something very different. I would also like to say that while there are several fictional killers who impersonate the opposite sex I dont see any of them being actual trans people of any kind; ex. Norman Bates was not dressing as a woman because he believed he was a woman, but dressed as his mother specifically because of psychological issues that revolved around her. These characters may, to someone not paying attention, seem like a trans person but in reality their actions and impersonations aren't based on sexuality or gender identity but instead stem from trauma. Bill didn't become a killer because he wanted to be a woman and couldn't get a reassignment surgery, it's stated that he had actually already killed his grandparents completely not connected to his pattern of making a woman suit, he had already murdered his ex lover, whose head Starling finds. Also other than a single time in which he tucks himself, which I believe is something just about every boy did at least once in their formative years if not later in life, Bill is never presenting female. Even when, to Bill, he is presenting female it is in no way done in the way any transsexual ot transgender person actually would. Being transgender means wanting to feel beautiful in ones own skin, not wear someone else's. At no point on time could Bill have thought, "once this skin suit is done I'll be wearing it all the time out of the house. His identity problems were about a private sadistic gratification, not any form of gender dysphoria. I think that the early set up of it being said, "as an expert/trained psychologist he is not transsexual" is where they basically shut down your ideas that this film/book is transphobic. Also, as Bill is based on several true to life killers who equally were not trans but did things like Bill that may have seemed trans. As for the wording and stereotyping; statistics aren't stereotypes and how can you say an audience isn't quick enough to catch them State plainly that Bills not transsexual but expect people to catch a single sentence that may have undertones of transphobia in its wording.

Liam

6/16/2016 09:26:27 pm

Thank you, this entire article was obviously created by someone who wasn't paying very much attention to the film, maybe the author should have reviewed his/her notes before posting the article!

Sofia

7/13/2016 02:24:53 am

Yes, even though the comment was kind of rude and aggressive, I agree.
Hannibal Lector's relationship with Clarice was already established as give and take. The information Lector provided Clarice was presented as truth and never disproven, so it seems as though Buffalo Bill was not transgender.
More importantly, Silence of the Lambs never presented cis men/women relationships as innocent. Silence of the Lambs repeatedly demonstrated the unfair/disgusting way stereotypical cisgender males treat women. The creepy flirtations from Fred Chilton, Miggs' lewd act, Lector asking about Starling's sexual fantasies, the FBI agent disrespecting Starling in the room full of officers specifically because she is a woman (even though he knows better), the advances from the scientist friends, etc..All of these cisgender men demonstrated disrespect toward women and to me the dangers/disturbing effect of cis men (who covet) was a greater theme in the film.
That being said, generalizing transgender people as "passive" is dehumanizing and the cross dressing man found in Lector's storage unit can be seen as a negative portrayal of people who do not conform to gender norms. The shot of his made-up face was meant to evoke shock and disgust rather than empathy.
I apologize if I offend any transgendered people by saying all this. I don't understand what it's like to be faced with so much hatred and I hope Hollywood changes its way of depicting non gender conforming people.

GratefulJoeNJ

1/12/2017 08:38:08 am

You missed the critical ASSUMPTION that the author present.s as FACT. THAT IS: you are transgender if you say you are.

Roberts

3/14/2017 03:09:05 am

That's factually incorrect, Transgender is day to day term for a medical condition called body dismorphia which in turn is diagnonsed by a trained medical proffesional. You don't decide you are trans-you either are or are not, your personal desires are irrelivant.

Paul Krendler

10/16/2017 06:25:04 am

You said everything I was going to. Couldn't have said it better myself. Completely agree.

An Idiot

6/24/2018 11:06:02 pm

I agree that Bill is clearly not meant to be a true transexual person . The "savage and terrifying" line is the clincher. In it, Lecter explains to us quite succinctly whats going on. Dude doesn't have actual gender dysphoria. He just hates himself and is a super sick puppy.

I also take issue with the idea that cishat sexuality is displayed with any meaningful form of innocence. Did you somehow miss every single dude in the movie creeping nastily on agent Starling? It isn't particularly subtle. She also ends up willingly going with Hannibal, although this is outside the scope of this particular movie.

Movies, like many forms of art, can be many things to many people. But in this case I definitely don't feel the facts that this critique point to line up in the way it claims they do. This sort of misdirected outrage is unwise for several reasons imo. First, it makes you sad and upset when there is no reason to be. Second, it distracts from truly poor representations of transexual people in media. We each only have so much time and attention to give, after all. Finally, it adds to the perception that trans people and allies are unrightfully histrionic.

The author's writing style is quite readable and their heart seems to be in the right place. I'd be glad if after reading the feedback, they realized it would be better if they didnt play it so fast and loose with the details to make a work (poorly) seem to conform to their biases and preconceptions.

Joe Flynn

6/25/2018 03:21:36 am

This and many of the other responses in this thread are thoughtful rejoinders to the lead. Every human being has some touch at least of pathology. The main point of the doctor's comment is that someone trying to be something they are not will inevitably have deeper pathology than the real article. Just look at the spectacle off all these faux Chrstians running around these days. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. People pretending to be Christians when they are not have fallen quite a bit further than the average genuine Christian.

Alex

2/21/2015 03:53:38 pm

If you read the book, it very thoroughly explains a few aspects of trans women and the process they have to go through. There is even a scene in the book where Crawford, the behavioral science section chief, has a talk with a doctor at John's Hopkins, and this doctor asserts over and over that trans people are not crazy, and that they need help and understanding. This and other scenes are not in the film, but they explicitly point out in the film that Bill is not transsexual. Bill is in essence the kind of person who would see a transsexual woman the way he depicts one, I think. He thinks that if he becomes a woman/adult/his mother, he will be free from his mental anguish (this is what the butterfly/moth symbolism is referring to, according to Lecter the the butterfly is a symbol of ones parent, or ones ability to become an adult). It becomes clear, in the book at least, that he's trying to sort of "replace" his mother by being a woman. He both hates her (for abandoning him) and worships her. I'm one of those people who usually favors the book over the movie, but I'd say the film definitely doesn't explain enough to deter ignorant people from associating trans women and Buffalo Bill based on imagery alone. I don't know, the film is one thing, but if you read the book there is a lot of in depth information on trans people and it's definitely not transphobic. If anything it comments on the ignorance surrounding trans people pretty well. I wish they didn't leave that stuff out but you can only put so much into a movie.

Alex

2/21/2015 04:14:44 pm

Having said all that, I think I should point out that the trans community could do without any representation that is too easy to misinterpret as negative. I'm sure a lot of people didn't read the book, and the imagery in the film is enough to add to the negative, but likely common, mental image of a trans woman as a crazy man in a dress. For this reason I think they should have put a lot of the scenes they left out into the movie, instead of presenting it as a horror film full of monstrous stereotypes. If you read the series, even Lecter turns out to be a trauma victim from the second world war, who needs extensive mental health care. The film certainly demonizes the mentally ill by portraying the characters without putting any emphasis on the background information. It also portrays Starling in a much more sexist light than the book does. The entomologists Starling consults are portrayed as almost mentally deficient in the film, whereas in the book they are just regular nerdy guys who are professional and well educated. They have to make movies this way to sell them to widest audience possible, so I'd have to agree with your main point at least, effectively this film does little for the real life equivalent of the people it portrays.

Chris Vouzoukos link

2/21/2015 10:35:02 pm

It occurred to me while watching this film for the tenth time that there would be outrage, so I’ve paused it, and first search engine result? Your Blog! Wow! Where to start? I don’t know if you’re transgendered or just a bleeding heart liberal seeking to rid the world of hurt feelings, but I have to agree with the other posts that you’re way off on this.

You state “it is revealed that Buffalo Bill is a transgender woman.” Buffalo Bill is a man, a killer of women, a psycho! In fact Lecter states, and you quote, “Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual” Lecter, a psychiatrist, a medical practitioner specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, points out that Buffalo Bill is NOT a Transexual! He applied for sex reassignment surgery and was rejected, because he’s NOT a Transexual! The film makes the point that this person is not transgendered but just a psycho! But you insist on referring to that character as “she” and “transexual”. This and other language you use betrays your militancy on this issue.

On a number of occasions you say “her penis”, or Anti-LGBT or, my personal favourite, Cisgender! CISGENDERED? What the fuck is that? Tried looking that up in my dictionary and guess what, it’s not even a word. It’s a creation of twisted minds! The same twisted minds that see this as a Transphobic film. Oops! Transphobia another non-existent word. Since I’m looking up stuff, here’s another definition for you PENIS : THE MALE GENITAL ORGAN! By definition, if you have one (a penis) you’re male!!! Now I understand that some people are afflicted with this disorder, have it rough, and that sexual identity doesn’t always correspond with the sex organs one is born with, but can we tone down the militancy? Based on which, you’ll probably take exception to me using the word disorder, however words have assigned meanings and disorder is appropriate as it means: abnormal condition. And here’s another definition, ABNORMAL : Deviating from what is normal or usual. You’ll most likely take exception to that word too! But people who are transgender are a very small minority, some estimates are as low as 0.03% of the population. Therefore not the norm, not usual.

You use the phrase “Cisgendered Privilege” however your militancy betrays transgendered privilege, where one may not discuss these issues unless, one is in the transgendered spectrum. This is all ridiculous, instead of fostering empathy in those who are not in the spectrum you drive the conversation into the extremes by taking words changing their meanings so that there no longer is any common ground. So if you want to have a discourse on the plight of a very small minority of people save the militant language, it makes people weary. People like me who are center left, have Gay friends but are growing tired of the militancy and consequently tuning out.

Alex

2/23/2015 10:39:22 am

Dude, I have to agree with you that the trans community is filled with ridiculously convoluted, and seemingly arbitrary rules. I am trans myself and I think that trans people are doing more harm than good being so oversensitive. I want you to know that not all of us are like that. I can grasp that this isn't easy to understand, and it's up to us not to ask for SO MUCH when it comes to how people deal with us. It drives me nuts when trans people expect non-trans people to memorize all these rules. Having the right to medical care and legal protection is a real issue. I think it's kind of self absorbed to expect people to tiptoe around us, I mean how is that going to get us any closer to being accepted? Most people in the trans community who freak out about silly details are venting their frustration most of the time, and it's important to recognize how they feel, I think. While I'd encourage you to try and understand, I really do think you're point is valid. We will never be accepted if everyone else has to memorize a rule book just to talk to us.

If you feel like learning a few things, this podcast is pretty entertaining and insightful, and it brings up a lot of the issues you stated. It's long but it's worth watching if you have the time:
http://youtu.be/vFe1xEGtpjA

Also, read my above comments if you want.

Chris Vouzoukos link

1/27/2016 08:43:58 pm

Alex, first of all let me apologize if my tone came across as militant. I want to avoid that. Secondly I cannot fathom what it must be like to be afflicted with the sense that you do not feel right in the body you were born in, and the hell that must be. So I sympathize while I cannot empathize. It's just that since the last decade many in the LGBT community have ratcheted up the political rhetoric and have become more militant to the point where many people have been alienated from the cause of equality. Many of us who have supported the LGBT community in the past have been labeled homophobic or transphobic if we do not tow the political line. In fact one of my former employers was dragged into court by a LGBT activist group for political reason after years of support for that community. So please accept my apology, my rant was born out of frustration, but that must pale in comparison to the frustration you must feel every day!

dan

7/11/2015 10:34:32 pm

cisgender got put in the dictionary this year actually

Katie

9/5/2015 04:34:46 am

Let's maybe pause for a moment and recognize the irony in using caps and multiple exclamation marks (goodness!) to assert that PENISES ARE MALE THAT MEANS HE'S MALE END OF STORY, in going out of your way to use words that you assume will irritate someone, and in then accusing them of militancy for using words that you don't like. Now I understand that some people like you and me have it easy because enough of the various biological components of sex line up with our gender (and let's be clear, scientists have found it awfully hard to agree upon a definition for sex as simple as "your genitals look like a penis" http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/09/14/when-someone-is-raised-female-and-the-genes-say-xy), but can we tone down the militancy?

Look, the thing is that from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter as much as it should that the film and the book take a quick moment to lampshade this with "nope, definitely not trans, don't go making assumptions about trans people now." People are going to do that anyway, because they spent ten seconds listening to Hannibal say Buffalo Bill isn't "real trans" but the lingering image of "a sicko man wearing a woman's scalp and dancing around in a dress" is going to be what they remember when they think about the film. Cinema's a visual medium and words just don't carry the same weight.

Chris Vouzoukos link

1/27/2016 08:52:05 pm

Katie, my intention was not to irritate people, but I have noticed that people use words without knowing their meaning, or through laziness, hear an authority figure use a word improperly and then feel they can do the same. What this does is make any common ground of understanding impossible, as different people have different associations of common words. So if the purpose of language is to help people to communicate, but everyone has a different definition of what a word means, there can never be any communication or understanding, can there?

Ray

10/21/2016 05:42:08 pm

This is really a reply to Chris' comment below, which, for me, lacks a reply button.

Chris: Your question below reflects that your initial post was an act of aggression. Here's why:

Dialogue always involves both active speaking and active listening. Active listening requires the listener to do the work of trying to understand what someone else means. Take for instance pronouns. If you're not paying attention you'll have no idea what a pronoun refers to. Active speaking also means, sometimes, inventing new words and redefining old words to describe concepts that either didn't exist before or were understood differently. The transgender community, through the voice it has recently found (with recent here meaning recent on the scale of thousands of years of written history) is adapting old words and inventing new words to give voice to our experience. Since we members of this community literally never had a shared voiced language before, by necessity we have to invent words to describe our concepts. But this is a normal part of the process of speaking and listening. It happens all the time. The world didn't come to a standstill when the word "internet" was first used. Nor did anything untoward happen when "computer" stopped meaning person who computes and started meaning a particular kind of machine. And, separately, so many words have more than one meaning and varying connotations that it seems silly to provide an example. Nonetheless, sex is a great example. It can mean at least any of the following (without causing confusion in the receptive listener): (1) the act of copulation - whether with or without biological reproduction which is a meaning that has varied historically without confusing anybody; (2) the category that includes male, female, bisexual (see, e.g., the plant kingdom), and asexual (again see plants), among others; or even (3) the act of assessing a life form's distinction within the aforementioned category.

So, in short, no, it is literally not true that any chance of communication or understanding is precluded by using new words or having multiple, varying meanings to a word or even redefining old words.

Now to the point. The article contains no evidence that a single word was used "without knowing [its] meaning" or parroted based on the misuse of a person in a position of authority. This gets to the actual point you didn't realize you were making. The article uses language that is foreign to YOU and makes YOU feel uncomfortable because YOU do not understand it. But that reflects on you, not the author or what the author is describing. It shows that you are not listening (or reading) actively. It shows that you're being aggravated by differences you don't want to confront or think about. But, rather than take a pass on commenting on this post, you did choose to respond. And that was an act of aggression. Whether you realize it or not you were lashing out at the author and trans people for existing and challenging your preconceptions.

Ged Ein

6/2/2015 02:44:34 pm

Buffalo Bill is based on an amalgam of serial killers including Jerry Brudos, who dressed up in his victim's clothing, and Ed Gein, who actually made a female skin suit.

I would like to take a stand here and now and personally object to all authors using reality as their source material if that reality does not conform with my view of the world.

I think we can all agree on that.

Sebastian

6/3/2015 12:20:57 am

Equality means an equal chance to be the bad guy (or girl) in the movies, too. Every single Hollywood villain can't be a neo-nazi or a land developer. Not real diverse.

Eva

12/8/2019 08:41:37 am

Show me a horror movie where its implied a cis man is a psycho killer because they identify as a cis man. Your example should also include the cis man doing mundane cis man things in a scene thats meant to cause a disgust reaction in the audience (bonus points if the movie takes a couple seconds to half ass an explanation for why it shouldn’t give that reaction).

While you are at it, lets see a list of movies where the main hero/protagonist is a trans woman, we have equality right? people here are saying there are about 4 big examples of trans villains, so you should have no problem finding 4 heroes.

Doug

8/11/2015 11:34:00 pm

OK, I normally don't like commenting on an article before finishing it, but Norman Bates is not transgender at all.
If you can't understand that then there's no way you can appreciate the subtlety of Gumb's psychological condition.

Jason

9/1/2015 01:31:13 am

First, fascinating article. I am not sure if I fully agree with it yet, I will let it digest, but you make some insightful observations.

As some have noted, Buffalo Bill was based in part on real life serial killer Ed Gein. Norman Bates, who you reference, was also based in part on Ed Gein (as was Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre).

I would have liked to see you reference other transgender villains not based on Ed Gein if you are intending to make sweeping conclusions about Hollywood portrayal of transgenders (or even limiting it to the horror/thriller genre). Nevertheless, the article piqued my curiousity and I will consider your arguments the next time I watch Silence. Thanks for posting.

DaveG

8/28/2015 07:53:19 am

This screed has "Victim" written all over it.

Ice Bergen

10/31/2015 04:10:17 pm

So? Maybe you never experienced what its like to be transgender and view Silence of the Lambs, so maybe it makes sense to be victimized.

Taliah

9/10/2015 06:23:47 am

Firstly, both the book and the film explicitly state that Gumb is NOT transsexual

More generally, though, if you are looking to TAKE offense you will always find it.

Is it sexist if a dramatised serial killer is male? Would it be racist if the character were black or asian or...?

To conspicuously obsess over an explicitly non-transsexual character in a fictional movie as a source of alleged transphobia is to trivialize the very real problems that REAL transsexuals (and cisgendered people for that matter) have to face.

Are there cases of media-led misperception and prejudice held against transgender? Yes. This is not one of them.

Ice Bergen

10/31/2015 04:11:28 pm

What if we don't choose to take offense to it? What if we're not looking to find something to take offense to? What if watching this movie and being transgender automatically makes you react negatively?

C.M.Starling

3/13/2016 04:59:36 pm

Well said. In addition, in the film Clarice mentions "There's no correlation in literature between transsexualism and violence. Transsexuals are very passive--"
P.S. I am from the the American south and love everyone. "Big ups to people of all stars & stripes"

Kevin

1/4/2016 01:10:08 pm

The feminist agenda. Make men hate their own identities growing up, then convince them it is gender disphoria so they get sex reassignment surgery

Barby Days Young

3/12/2016 05:27:10 pm

Well written, easy to read. Now I actually understand a movie I've watched several to.we and never understood. I also understand your message of tolerance and love for one another. I have learned that genitals does not determine sex. And you are who you are in your head and not always your body. Thank you.

Greg

5/5/2016 03:20:22 pm

I agree Silence of the Lambs is seriously problematic. It's director, Jonathan Demme, has said as much. His statements about the film lead me to believe that the film was meant to depict someone who "thinks he's transsexual" as part of a broader pathology, not a real transgender person - an important distinction.

http://www.queerty.com/silence-of-the-lambs-director-understands-why-film-was-considered-transphobic-20140725

Even then the film is problematic. Depicting someone who "thinks he's transsexual" reinforces the falsehood that transgender people are suffering from dysphoria and are confused. And it seems likely that, as you note, Demme and others still thought of a biological man in a dress as a creepy flourish - Demme and the original author made hay out of the transgender killer trope.

That said, I don't think Demme was trying to depict transgender people as being dangerous or mentally ill. I think he saw Gumb's feelings of being a woman as part of his attempt to escape his true identity. Nonetheless, the film wound up using and reinforcing transphobic stereotypes.

Swirlingout

6/15/2016 06:44:52 pm

The film was popular in part because of its plot's feasibility. Men are violent. Men who think they are women have a lot going on.

Men are men are men are men.

Alex

7/21/2016 08:50:42 pm

You guys do know that Buffalo Bill is based on truth right? There really was a man named Ed Gein, who really did believe that he wanted a second change after his mother died, and it was only then that he started digging up women's graves and making a suit out of them, as well as murdering 2 other women himself. So really, this movie maybe does take that idea a little too far in the dancing scene, but you can't hate too much because there is so much to Bill's character that has to do with his severe mental state that makes it much more than just "trans people are crazy." I do understand however that lots of people watching this might take the things that happen in this movie to heart and think wrongly about trans people. However, I would certainly have liked this article to point out the fact that the character in this movie is based on a true person, and therefore not just the sole creation of some author and Hollywood director.

Jana Peterson

10/21/2016 12:36:07 am

You clearly did not do your homework little Starling...

The book fully states he is not transgender, but mentally ill which was why he was rejected by several hospitals for gender reassignment. There is a big difference. Do your homework. You clearly wrote this based off watching a movie and that's pretty dang lazy. It's a great book, highly recommend.

Ray

10/21/2016 04:11:20 pm

Ladies, Gents & others,

I watched this movie as a bigender teenager. This character - whether based on a real person or not - along with "Murdoc" from MacGyver, the villain from Ace Ventura based on the character from the Crying Game, all led me to associate "trans" and "dysphoria" with violent, aggressive mental illness. Literally, something to be hunted down and killed by the good guy. This movie and similar representations of "transness" cut me to the core. Because these were prominent representations with basically no counterexample, they hurt me. I found this article because I was exploring where some of my own fear of myself and my identity comes from. This article resonated with me and my experience of the movie.

Let's take a step back. No one is asking anyone to censor anything. The article makes an important point, and one that I found useful, about the representation of trans people in media. That's not asking anyone to walk around on egg shells; it is critiquing something. It is voicing something.

Now, another point. A psychiatrist's opinion, I'm sorry to have to explain, does not and cannot define someone's sexual identity or gender. Period.

Next, noting cisgendered privilege, by the way, does not make one militant either. It is only noting that some people don't have to worry about whether they fit in their own body. Having that privilege allows people to ignorantly state things like: "having a penis makes you male." This may be true for scientific sex assigned at birth, but it is not true for the sociobiological construct of gender. Having uncritical cisgendered privilege also allows people to blithely state that having a very small number of trans people in the general population some how makes it less problematic to have only a handful of negative representations out there of people associated with being trans. Most people have at least some identity where they are not privileged. Please think from that vulnerable part of yourself before engaging in conversations like these.

Of course, it's my folly to engage any body online. People are very willing to say things online that they would never say to my face when it rests on a 6'5", 220 lb body wearing the suit and demeanor of an aggressive trial lawyer. Trolls are trolls are trolls whatever their identity. And, sorry, but anyone who takes offense at being called out for their privilege is a troll.

If you're still listening, I will explain briefly. I walk around in a white male body, usually, as I noted, in a suit reflecting my financial privilege. In other words, I am privileged in so many ways. Sometimes it is painful to recognize that I have a particular privilege. Usually it is my whiteness, but sometimes it is also my male body or relative financial stability. It is painful, I find, particularly because it makes me recognize that I do have my own unique identity rather than that I am just "normal." But that does not justify my attacking people who point out my privileges. Cisgendered privilege is no different. If you hear the word privilege, and you do not share in the community invoking the word, it means stop and listen. Think but do not speak. Perhaps stand in silent solidarity. But don't (1) take offense; (2) try to rewrite an experience with yours or (3) worse yet, try to erase an experience with "science."

To be clear, however, I am not addressing the people attacking this article. I am only adding my voice to the voice of the author and to the voices of those defending the points raised by the author. Because other trans readers deserve to know there are voices of support out there. Much love to everyone.

Liam B

2/14/2017 04:51:59 pm

The bad guy calls himself transsexual, must be transphobic. The villain is a woman, must be sexism. If the villain is gay, must be homophobic. If the villain is African-American, must be racist, etc. After the Super Bowl, there was a news article about how Islamophobic an episode of 24 was because the main villain of the episode was Muslim. This is based on the assumption that all non-White-Straight-Men are incapable of villainy, which is far more stereotypical than the movie itself. Please, inform me of all-time movie villains, and give me the numbers of how many are white men. Most. But you get one self-proclaimed transsexual serial killer in this movie and suddenly its transphobic. Makes no sense.

Ruby F.

6/20/2017 09:55:31 pm

I have always been a big fan of the film and one of my favorite things has been that I've considered it to be a feminist film. I am grateful to this article for helping me to see the transphobia in this movie. I still think that it is a fine piece of filmmaking but am troubled by what I think is unintended transphobia but transphobia nonetheless. I also still think that it goes further than most films to be blatantly feminist in many scenes, and I still love those scenes, but I realize now that it is not as enlightened as I thought. I don't think this means that I cannot appreciate the film for what it does accomplish, both artistically and culturally, but what considering this film in light of the insights in this article does do Is to offer a sensitive teaching moment: That even well-meaning, feminist-aspiring people can unintentionally transmit less than ideal portrayals of and messages about gender, and that all of us can learn and evolve by being open minded and really listening to those as thoughtful and insightful as the author of this article. This is the way that we, as a society, can do and be better, and the combination of well-meaning but perhaps sociologically less-than-perfect works of art and authors such as Savannah Staubes help us traverse such territory.

Ann

9/7/2017 02:54:23 pm

Teachable moments are teachable moments. I can clearly see how the transmisogyny label rears up. Perhaps if the psychotic killer had been a straight (cis) man, which makes more sense to me than a transvestite or transgender man/woman, since misogyny has such a long, old history, Then the idea of wearing a woman's skin to RIDICULE femininity and womanhood is far more grounded than the confused reachings of Buffalo Bill (was he abused, was he trans... we know he was psychotic), and the dance in front of the mirror could be taken as serious or ridicule, as I've known cis guys who've done same. But as the stylings of American Psycho show, when people are seriously messed up, they do messed up things on a gargantuan scale. It is a problematic take in retrospect. Thanks for peeling off layers of an onion.

Robert

2/13/2018 11:57:36 am

Maybe I've misunderstood but wasn't a big part of Buffalo Bill's character that he WASN'T transgender?

That the only reason he wanted to change his gender was because of psychological abuse?

I'm pretty sure there is a line in the film where Hannibal explicitly states that Bill "isn't transsexual".

Dave

3/2/2018 07:33:10 pm

This movie is awesome because it portrays the fundamental TRUTH about Transgender people - they are psychologically ill.

Notice how the writer calls it a him then a her after it wears a wig and a dress and tucks its penis in between it's legs.

Now "he" is a "her" according to the writer of this article.

Stupid idiots. "He" is a "he". Doesn't matter how many dresses it wears or surgeries or hormones it's a he and will always be a he.

Rosemary

5/14/2018 05:25:31 pm

Why are you trying to treat us trans people as if we aren't human?

SPCE

8/29/2018 11:40:56 am

In Psycho, Norman Bates was definitely not transgender. The psychiatrist in the film is even asked if Norman is a “transvestite,” and the doctor replies that he is not. He then proceeds to point out the differences between someone dressing up in women’s clothes to achieve a personal satisfaction, and Norman’s case. He was literally just dressing up like his mother because his mental illness led him to believe that he was her. That’s all. Even when I was younger, the idea of him being trans never crossed my mind, and I thought it was ridiculous that the doctor even brought it up.

always skeptic

6/26/2019 08:29:13 am

Recently I have been researching transgenderism and I'm of the opinion now it may be more prevalent in Hollywood then most non-suspecting viewers would expect.
Anyway, I was reflecting on the movie silence of the lambs and drew a couple subtle observations ....the moth in the throat can literally represent the thyroid gland and interestingly enough the fellow who first coined the term hormone was named starling in early 1900s.
Any additional thoughts plz comment.

Mote of Lobross

7/12/2019 12:15:50 am

Um, Buffalo Bill is not transgender. Hannibal says it himself. Buffalo Bill deluded himself into believing he has gender dysphoria and was turned down by many medical places for gender reassignment surgery because of that.

Nick

9/25/2020 11:45:26 pm

Billy doesn't identify as an actual female. He wants to become one. The film made that quite clear but even after Hannibal spelled it out people hear what they want to. "A thousand times more savage" doesn't mean transgenders are savage. This is a quote emphasizing the savage nature of Billy, not reflecting on transgenders being savage. And Norman Bates has a dissociative identity disorder. He isn't trans anything. That's his mother. No matter what, people want to see witches when there are none.

@thesocycinema / blog

The Not-So-Hidden Transphobia in Silence of the Lambs

Leave a Reply.

.

.

Tags