question. Chapter Four, “Gender Transgressions in the Age of U.S. Empire,” adds another crucial dimension to Skidmore’s study of trans men: citizenship. As the United States expanded into the Caribbean and Pacific during the late nineteenth century, Americanness became conflated with whiteness and masculinity. While white trans men deployed the tropes of empire and imperialism to reinforce their claims to hegemonic masculinity and heteronormative Americanness, trans men of color used displays of masculinity and patriotism, such as military service, to claim whiteness. However, as Skidmore reveals, those trans men who were unable to participate in such displays of citizenship, such as New Zealand-born Sufist Peter Stratford and the Russian “Lothario” Nicolai De Raylan, were labelled “morally perverse” and condemned by the national media when their “true sex” was exposed. The final chapter of True Sex explores how trans men also used heteronormative marriage to secure a male identity. Almost all of Skidmore’s trans men expressed a desire to be legal husbands, not because they necessarily believed in the monogamous institution of marriage (which many of them flouted) but because they believed that marriage to biological women (with a license as proof) would grant them legitimacy and protection in American society. Marriage would strengthen their status as good, solid community men while also distancing them from the “growing urban queer subcultures” (p. 13). Interestingly, when these marriages were exposed, most local newspapers and courts responded with indifference since such same-sex unions (albeit illegal) were not a direct eugenic threat; they involved so-called spinsters who had already been discarded by the patriarchal power structure, and were therefore not harming anyone. Clearly, True Sex represents a number of important interventions in transgender history, many of which defy the conventional urban-centered, homonormative, community-based historiography of queer studies. In her work, Skidmore distinguishes between local and national responses to trans men and excavates how turn-of-the-twentieth-century rural Americans were generally accepting of queer lifestyles – arguably more so than today. Thus, it is possible that one of the reasons why we do not knowmore about trans men from this period is because their heterosexual communities rendered them non-queer, meaning they cannot be distinguished in the historical record. Skidmore also illustrates how trans men challenged sex, gender, and sexuality binaries and how they resisted and subverted hegemonic categories of race, class, and citizenship. Perhaps the most important contribution of True Sex, however, is its revelation that the current debates on trans rights are actually part of a long continuum, and that in the past, they were not really debates at all.

中文翻译：

---

艾伦布朗宁斯克里普斯：新资金和美国慈善事业

问题。第四章，“美国帝国时代的性别侵犯”，为斯基德莫尔对跨性别者的研究增加了另一个重要维度：公民身份。随着美国在 19 世纪后期扩展到加勒比海和太平洋，美国性与白人和男子气概混为一谈。当白人跨性别男人运用帝国和帝国主义的比喻来强化他们对霸权男性气质和异性恋美国性的主张时，有色人种跨性别男人则使用男性气质和爱国主义的表现，例如服兵役，来主张白人。然而，正如斯基德莫尔所揭示的那样，那些无法参加这种公民身份展示的跨性别者，例如新西兰出生的苏菲派彼得·斯特拉特福德和俄罗斯的“洛塔里奥”尼古拉·德雷兰，被贴上“道德败坏”的标签，当他们的“真性情”被曝光时，被全国媒体谴责。True Sex 的最后一章探讨了跨性别男性如何利用异性恋婚姻来确保男性身份。几乎所有斯基德莫尔的跨性别男人都表达了成为合法丈夫的愿望，不是因为他们一定相信一夫一妻制的婚姻制度（他们中的许多人对此嗤之以鼻），而是因为他们相信与亲生女性结婚（有执照作为证明）会授予他们在美国社会中的合法性和保护。婚姻将巩固他们作为优秀、坚实的社区男性的地位，同时也使他们远离“不断增长的城市酷儿亚文化”（第 13 页）。有趣的是，当这些婚姻被曝光时，大多数地方报纸和法院都漠不关心地回应，因为这种同性结合（尽管是非法的）并不是直接的优生威胁；他们涉及那些已经被重男轻女的权力结构抛弃的所谓处女，因此没有伤害任何人。显然，《真性爱》代表了跨性别历史上的许多重要干预措施，其中许多都违背了传统的以城市为中心、同质化、基于社区的酷儿研究史学。在她的作品中，斯基德莫尔区分了当地和国家对跨性别男人的反应，并挖掘了 20 世纪之交的美国农村人普遍接受酷儿生活方式的方式——可以说比今天更能接受。因此，我们之所以对这一时期的跨性别者知之甚少，可能是因为他们的异性恋社区使他们变得非同性恋，这意味着在历史记录中无法区分他们。斯基德莫尔还说明了跨性别男性如何挑战性、性别和性二元，以及他们如何抵制和颠覆种族、阶级和公民身份的霸权类别。然而，或许 True Sex 最重要的贡献是它揭示了当前关于跨性别权利的辩论实际上是一个长期连续体的一部分，而在过去，它们根本不是真正的辩论。阶级, 和公民. 然而，也许《真性爱》最重要的贡献是它揭示了当前关于跨性别权利的辩论实际上是一个长期连续体的一部分，而在过去，它们根本不是真正的辩论。阶级, 和公民. 然而，也许《真性爱》最重要的贡献是它揭示了当前关于跨性别权利的辩论实际上是一个长期连续体的一部分，而在过去，它们根本不是真正的辩论。