Share

Share

Share on Facebook Share on Facebook Tweet Share on Twitter Share on WhatsApp Share on WhatsApp

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

Trans children require psychoanalysis to adopt an “interdisciplinary and contemporary” perspective; a “problematization of technical resources”; a “non-pathologization per se ”; and a “revision of fundamental psychoanalytic concepts.” These are some of the conclusions reached by Mauricio Clavero, PhD in psychoanalysis and Master in Clinical Psychology specializing in gender nonconformity, after nearly five years of research culminating in his doctoral thesis, defended this year.

Her work explored the perspectives of clinical psychoanalysts regarding transgender children and what questions, challenges, and revisions they might raise about their theoretical and interpretive frameworks and practices. But the findings constitute more than just a contribution to psychoanalytic practice; they also serve as a tool for everyday interactions with transgender children free from discrimination and violence.

In an interview with La Diaria , the expert elaborated on the main findings.

Why the interest in investigating the perspectives of psychoanalysts specifically on trans children

I could say my interest is multifaceted, but it arises primarily from an academic gap regarding psychoanalysts' perspectives on the trans community, and particularly on trans children. Faced with this gap, one might feel compelled to produce knowledge. This is why I am proposing a qualitative doctoral thesis. I understand that sexual diversity entails subjective experiences that, in some way, encourage discussion of psychoanalytic conceptualizations related to our field of study: sexuality, gender, sex, and above all, psychosexuality, which is the core of psychoanalysis. And, in particular, it seems to me that what we call trans identities challenge the relationship between sex and gender, revealing a dissenting character in relation to cisheteronormativity. So, for me, recognizing the existence of trans* children—with an asterisk, because it's a broad umbrella term—from a self-perceived gender identity perspective reveals gendered subjectivities and identity-based desiring positions that disrupt the established regime of sexuality. Psychoanalysis, as a discipline that addresses psychosexuality, may feel called upon to take a stance on this reality, both from theoretical and clinical perspectives. The other major challenge is the possibility of questioning metapsychology. Needless to say, I consider this a relevant issue for the trans population itself, historically affected by transphobia and multiple forms of exclusion. The idea is, without falling into academic abstraction, to provide knowledge about the vast trans universe.

Does it also have to do with how an intervention from childhood could influence those life trajectories?

It seems to me that while the psychoanalytic stance originated in its engagement with society, it has sometimes turned its back on it. So, what I want to emphasize here is this idea of ​​"deconstructing the unconscious," so to speak, and of an extramural psychoanalysis, one that goes beyond our consulting rooms and psychoanalytic institutions. I believe we have a debt to the trans population and the trans community. I think that, just as we once took a strong stance against sexualities that were disruptive and unsettling due to their sexual orientation, today a similar discord persists, sometimes somewhat camouflaged by institutional political correctness or because we know there are now legal frameworks regulating these realities, but it is a discordant one, where psychologization and psychologization per se . When I say "per se, " I mean "beforehand": any patient with a dissident gender identity, whether in childhood or adulthood, may be burdened by a psychopathological condition, which is why the diagnosis must be reevaluated, but in the same way as for a cisgender person. For a long time, the psychopathological condition was prioritized, denigrating contributions related to gender identity, for example. You would hear people, some very renowned, saying things like, "Well, if this patient wants to be an elephant, are we going to say they are an elephant?" without understanding the contributions of what we now call gender psychoanalysis.

Here I revalue Foucault's contributions to thinking differently and how, for contemporary psychoanalysis, the possibility of working from an interdisciplinary perspective is key. When I say interdisciplinary , I don't just mean that I have to communicate with the teacher or the social worker, for example, but rather interdisciplinary training, being able to understand what these life stories have written. Something that seems crucial to me is that, to work with this reality, we don't have to create a special clinic or theory for special people, but rather a clinic and a theory of specificity, just as there are other clinics that require specific training, such as the clinic of violence, for example. So, without falling into academic extractivism, we need to read and listen to the life stories of trans people and, based on that, do something. Because the reality is that what has been produced by psychoanalysis has been produced by cis people. Trans people haven't reached these positions due to life trajectories that involve early exclusion. Fortunately, they are now entering academia and producing their own voices.

On a personal level, I've always been interested in these topics, so I started developing lines of research because I believe that academia and scientific organizations have a responsibility to address them. And one of the things I'm saying today is: let's be especially careful not to repeat what we did with homosexuality in the 80s—which is now more "settled," in quotes, because discrimination persists—and ensure that trans people and gender-nonconforming individuals don't become the guinea pigs that homosexuality was back then.

You mentioned it just now, and in your thesis you refer to the pathologization of trans children by psychoanalysis. What practices contribute to this pathologization?

The biggest debate surrounding psychopathology is the one that arises within a psychoanalytic framework defined by difference , whereas here we are discussing diversity . Sexual difference is permeated by a current paradigm that is entirely binary, hierarchical, and phallocentric. Meanwhile, sexual diversity opens up a range of possibilities that, in some way, challenges all those binary resolutions (homo/hetero, active/passive) and shakes up the theory based on reality. Today, there are young people who come to therapy and identify as asexual or non -binary . It is incredibly enriching to practice empathy and to consider all of this without quickly labeling it as "this is psychopathology" simply because it doesn't follow the expected path or because it doesn't have the expected resolution. This invites us to consider: from these theories and paradigms, what should we uphold, and what baggage should we shed?

On the other hand, I think it's crucial to say that trans childhoods are possible childhoods, about which we still know little; little from our discipline, but quite a lot, for example, from transfeminism, transknowledge, queer —and I use "queer" with a "c" not a "q," in a decolonial sense—and from the communities themselves. The truth is that these trans embodied subjectivities—I use this term because they are shaped by intersectionality, by situated thinking, and have their own coordinates beyond what they share with others—come to challenge our here and now, our notions of childhood and infancy. Today, moreover, under regulatory legal frameworks that, as critical theory says, become frameworks of opportunity. Argentina and Uruguay are global leaders because of these progressive laws, although the law is one thing, and what is actually being implemented is another.

What particular processes occur in trans children that need to be considered when thinking about intervention from a psychoanalytic perspective?

Like any other childhood, there may be suffering involved. If there is specific suffering related to being trans, it will be addressed, but I'm referring to suffering in the broadest sense. We pay attention to the cry for help—whether more or less explicit—and, as with any intervention with children, to the caregivers who surround them. Families sometimes arrive with a stance not so much based on responsibility but rather on shifting blame because their identity project regarding their son or daughter is challenged, and therefore, so is their parental project, producing a significant narcissistic wound. In these cases, we work with the psychological resources we find within each family network and each relational network. Then we expand to include the resources available from the school and the healthcare system. Therefore, we work with narcissism, with how this child is viewed, and how we respond with, "This is possible, and we will be supporting you every step of the way, building knowledge together." This is key because exclusion from the family occurs very early. I really like Paul B. Preciado's point in * An Apartment on Uranus*, where he conveys that transition isn't just about the person going through it, but also about the community that hosts them, and that it unfolds as the transition progresses. So, if we're called upon to provide support, we psychoanalysts can then theorize or build something together there. But I think that providing support is key, and sometimes that support isn't just from a clinical perspective or through play (as access to the symbolic), but also through interventions. Going to the school and intervening; going to the doctor if necessary and intervening. Providing and co-creating tools with the parents so they can intervene, but if that's not enough, being able to go in as a professional.

In your work you say that one of the contributions of the research is having generated guidelines on "what paths to avoid in order not to reproduce in practice positions of exclusion and discrimination towards trans children." What are those paths to avoid?

That's it: not reproducing in action. Not reproducing in action means not enacting, without prior thought, an expulsion that dissidences have already undergone. That trans identities and trans identities in childhood not become what homosexuality may have been in other times. On the other hand, one of the positions that often emerges in research is: we must give it time. Needless to say, we must respect the personal, intrapsychic, intersubjective time of each child. But this shouldn't become a defense against intervening, because intervening can also mean "I'm not doing anything about this," so I remain in a position very close to what we used to call "neutrality." These things challenge psychoanalysts on a technical level, leaving us caught between neutrality and abstinence. Abstinence means saying, "I'm not going to contribute anything of myself to this child because I have to regulate myself and think about what motivates me." But neutrality is very much challenged: no one is neutral when receiving another person. Therefore, supporting these children from a rights-based perspective seems key to me.

Can these guidelines also be used for the families of these transgender children?

The guidelines and criteria that each family , like everything that deals with subjectivity, must be handcrafted, a kind of "tailor-made suit," which doesn't imply "anything goes," but rather considerations of the unique. I believe that families have much more to tell us than psychoanalysts have to tell them. What we can offer is a framework that allows us to listen, to accompany the anxieties inherent in each situation, the possible grief that needs to be processed, and the possible shifts such as, for example, a name change and what that implies for the construction of family identity, for that family project.

You also say it's important to listen to these children directly. What topics do they usually bring up in consultations?

Let's consider this within the context of the child's family. There are key elements to consider: the family's anxiety about how the child might be discriminated against, how they might be subjected to transphobia and exclusion, how to avoid perpetuating or enacting exclusions within the family unit, and how to address this with the utmost care. We have a long road ahead when a family seeks help because, at some point, they are asking for it. Then there are other issues, such as the fact that a transmasculine transition is not the same as a transfeminine one. The moment when a child asks for, for example, a haircut, is very significant. When the child asks to play games traditionally assigned, based on the binary system, to the "opposite sex" to the one assigned at birth, it's a moment that generates a great deal of anxiety. At the same time, we face another challenge as psychoanalysts, which is at the level of prevention: how to go to a school to talk about this, how to talk with colleagues, how to publish or disseminate information in mass media, such as through an interview like this one.

This article is published as a result of the alliance between la diaria and Presentes.