But even this point is controversial from one denomination to another. Pastor and professor of religious studies Stephen Miller leads the United Church of Christ in Vermillion. Her church`s approach to transgender people involves “looking at the whole person” rather than a specific gender dichotomy. 1Laurence Hérault is an anthropologist and specialist in the transgender experience. She is an assistant professor at the University of Aix-Marseille and a member of IDEMEC1, the research center of the Mediterranean House of Human Sciences. Her research has led her to make observations about transgender people and hospital doctors. Clio asked him to interview him about the dissemination of medical knowledge and the implications of theoretical debates within the triangle formed by anthropologists, “patients” and medical staff – surgeons, endocrinologists, psychiatrists and psychologists. Lawyers, associations and collectives also play a role in this context. The interview is the result of a written exchange and was conducted by Sylvie Steinberg in the winter of 2012-2013. But you are right when you speak of “types of knowledge” in the plural, and to answer your question, you have to distinguish the different types according to disciplinary lines, because the psychiatrist, the endocrinologist and the surgeon, for example, adopt different positions in terms of legitimacy, evolution and use. Since contributing to the conceptualization of GID, psychiatry has played a central role and is still important as its expertise in contemporary protocols is still required. At the same time, their legitimacy has been called into question, notably by militant demands for depsychiatrization. Psychiatric knowledge of the trans issue is therefore both strong and weak, and its future is uncertain; Moreover, attempts to modify the GID as part of the current reform of the DSM, with new proposals, followed by a change of mind and a return to the old version, are completely symptomatic of its paradoxical and uncomfortable position.
The other forms of knowledge involved, endocrinological and surgical, pose fewer problems because they are perceived more directly than “technical”: they propose molecules and operations, and their representatives, as those who call them, see them in terms of competence, often even in terms of individual competence. Their legitimacy is therefore never questioned, but their manifestations can be, as we see, when someone criticizes a colleague or when trans individuals or collectives question or, on the contrary, praise the competence of a particular surgeon. The future of these forms of knowledge/expertise is indisputable, and their essential task is to improve and refine (better control of hormonal treatments and their effects, improvement of surgical techniques, offer of operations that make neo-organs more sensitive and aesthetic, etc.). As a result of this situation, the question of their coordination, which had been consolidated within the framework of the Protocols, implicitly becomes an open issue again. .