Stanford Seminar - Trans Technologies

Key Concepts:

• Anti-trans political climate
• Trans technology
• Trans care & Technological transcare
• Ambivalence in trans technologies
• Individualistic vs. Community-based design
• Agency and empowerment
• Participatory design
• Community-based tech deployment and maintenance

1. Anti-Trans Political Climate:

• The speaker highlights the increasingly hostile political environment for trans people in the US.
• Executive orders defining gender as binary have led to:
  • Denial of passport gender marker requests.
  • Moving trans women into men's prisons.
  • Bans on trans service members.
  • Restrictions on gender-affirming care.
  • Bathroom bans in states like Iowa restrict access to public spaces.
  • Proposed bills, like in Texas, aim to make identifying as transgender illegal.
• The speaker emphasizes the importance of continuing to use terms related to gender and identity despite censorship efforts.

2. Trans Technology as Resistance:

• Trans technology is presented as a form of resistance against discriminatory systems.
• The Transformations Project is cited as an example: a website tracking anti-trans bills at the state and federal levels.
• The speaker's book, available open access on MIT Press, documents this phenomenon.

3. Examples of Trans Technology:

• Trans Family Network: An app created by trans women in Silicon Valley to connect trans people needing support (e.g., relocation for healthcare) with those offering it. It addresses the safety concerns of using open spreadsheets for coordination.
• Visualizations of Safe States: Maps, like those by Aaron Reed, assess the safety of different states for trans individuals, influencing relocation decisions. A survey showed 5% of trans people in dangerous states have moved, with more considering it.
• Gender Federation Stream Team: A group using live streams to raise funds for gender-affirming care and emergency housing.

4. Trans Care and Technological Trans Care:

• Trans Care (Malatino): Trans people supporting each other in the absence of mainstream support.
• Technological Trans Care: Trans people creating technological mechanisms to support each other when mainstream systems fail.
• Trans Care Plus: A resource website providing information and support.
• Technological trans care is "one-to-many" support, differing from the "one-to-one" nature of traditional trans care.

5. Research Methodology:

• Over 100 interviews with trans technology creators.
• Recruitment: Snowball sampling, starting with a list of known trans technologies and asking interviewees for further examples.
• Digital ethnography: Using the technologies, following social media, and attending the Trans Tech Summit.
• Data analysis: Reflexive thematic analysis.
• Participants generally preferred to be identified by name.

6. Defining Trans Technology:

• Practical Definition: Technology addressing the unique needs and challenges faced by trans people, often in response to a lack of inclusion in mainstream technologies.
• Theoretical Definition: Technology embracing change/transition, fostering new trans worlds, and redefining the possibilities of technology.

7. Ambivalence in Trans Technologies:

• Trans technology is characterized by ambivalence, with creators navigating competing emotions and goals.
• Examples of tensions:
  • Individualistic vs. community-based design.
  • Privileged vs. inclusive technology design.
  • Capitalist vs. anti-capitalist approaches.
  • Utopian vs. dystopian trans futures.
• Trans Rage Jam & Trans Joy Jam: A game jam example illustrates ambivalence, with creators expressing both anger and joy through game development.

8. Key Arguments:

• Argument 1: Creating trans technology is empowering due to the agency it provides to address community needs.
  • Example: Aaron Reed's informed consent HRT map.
  • Example: Anna, a young trans girl, creating an educational resource website.
  • Example: We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For, a trans collective providing self-defense kits.
• Argument 2: Lack of community involvement in design leads to individualistic designs that cater to privileged trans people.
  • Example: Shinagami Eyes, a browser extension, initially labeled black trans people and allies as unsafe.
  • Example: A trans resource site created by a white trans woman primarily for others like herself.
  • Example: Digital Transgender Archive, which skews towards content of mostly white trans people.
• Argument 3: Trans technology is most impactful when diverse community members are meaningfully involved in the design process.
  • Example: Creative Futures Project, where trans youth created VR art for immersive storytelling.
  • Example: LGB Trust, a safety app developed through participatory design with trans and queer people in Brazil.

9. Challenges and Limitations:

• Many trans technologies, especially those developed through participatory design, are not deployed or are short-lived due to lack of funding and resources for maintenance.
• Example: LGB Trust, which was not fully deployed due to funding constraints.

10. Moving Towards Community-Based Tech Deployment and Maintenance:

• The speaker proposes a model involving three key groups:
  • People who understand community needs and values (diverse trans communities).
  • People with the skills, resources, and interest to design technology (trans technology creators).
  • People with the skills, resources, and interest to deploy and maintain technology.
• There is a mismatch between community needs and the technologies being developed, with a lack of technologies addressing document-related challenges.

11. Primary Takeaway:

• Trans technologies demonstrate how technology can help imagine new possibilities for trans people and communities.
• Trans experiences can help imagine new possibilities for technology.
• Examples:
  • Trans Family Network: A unique way to support trans people needing to relocate for healthcare.
  • Mod Club: An online community and resource sharing platform for transmasculine people.
  • Facial prosthetics for Apple Face ID: Enabling multiple identities and assisting surveillance obfuscation.
  • Chelsea Manning's "Probably Chelsea" project: Using DNA phenotyping to create potential versions of Chelsea's appearance.

12. Conclusion:

• The speaker ends on an optimistic note, highlighting the potential of trans technologies to help trans people escape transphobic worlds.
• The speaker expresses hope for the future, emphasizing the importance of supporting trans technology creators and building technologies that address community needs.