ジェンダー研究

Special Section

第 23 号

2020 年

Transgender Questions: Body, Race and Identity

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region
france rose hartline

Norwegian University of Science & Technology

The Nordic region has, for decades, been regarded as a global frontrunner in the
movement toward gender equality. With a long history of state-legislated women’s
empowerment, as well as a reputation for being markedly ‘gay-friendly’, it is easy
to understand why the Nordic countries tend to be seen as culturally progressive.
However, it must be asked whether this exceptionalism carries over to gender
diversity, such as trans rights. It would seem self-evident, but in this article, I willargue that the progressiveness we have witnessed with women’s and gay/lesbianrights does not necessarily extend to trans rights. Using the concept of the (cis)gender imaginary, I will offer some ideas as to why.

Keywords
gender, diversity, transgender, Nordic region, cisnormativity

The Nordic region has long been regarded
as a global frontrunner in gender egalitarianism, having implemented policies topromote women’s participation in the public sphere long before much of the world.
This region has also developed a reputation for being gay-friendly, with relatively

DOI：10.24567/00063794

high societal tolerance and extensive legal
recognition of gay and lesbian people.
Overall, the Nordic countries have established a reputation for exceptionalism
when it comes to gender and sexuality,
demonstrated again and again in various
international reports on equality, develop-67Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

ment and happiness.
However, the region does not appear tomaintain the same trend of progressivenesswith respect to transgender rights (Nord,
Bremer, & Alm, 2016; Van der Ros, 2018;
Repo, 2019). Until very recently, statesacross the Nordics enforced sterilization
for legal gender recognition; Finland stillrequires it. Legislation assuring protection from discrimination similarly took along time to be enacted. Both abovementioned legislative changes were initiatedthrough the intervention of international
human rights organizations. In addition,
the Nordic states still do not legally recognise third gender identification, with therecent exception of Iceland that passed alaw recognising the third gender in 2019.
Besides legislation, gender-confirming
medical treatments are highly regulated by
the governments of individual countries
and are difficult to access (Sørlie, 2018;
Repo, 2019). Social attitudes are generally tolerant in comparison to most of the
global West and are even accepting oftrans-identified people. However, a strong
attachment to gender norms remains, andtrans people continue to face processes ofsocietal invisibilisation and invalidation(Johansen, 2019; Nord, Bremer & Alm,2016; Van der Ros, 2013).
It becomes clear in this context that therenowned liberalism of the Nordic states
does not necessarily extend to trans people. Rather than fostering the gender diversity inherent to the trans community, recognition is prioritised for trans people whoare binary-identifying and who “pass” as68

one normative gender or the other (Vander Ros, 2017; Repo, 2019). In other words,
only those trans people who do not disrupt
the dichotomous system of gender norms
are deemed worthy of state protection andsocial recognition.
In this article, I consider how normative gender values may be sustained in
the Nordic social framework. The sections
that follow describe how some trans embodiments, identities, and performances
are excluded from materialising. They
also look into why the image of Nordic
progressiveness and exceptionalism is notundermined by this pattern of exclusion.
Referencing existing research conductedby other scholars in the Nordic region, I
offer some rationales about why the region
appears so progressive in terms of genderequality even as it maintains trans-exclusionary practices. By doing so, I hope toshed light on why trans socio-legal integration has not followed the trend of women’s
and gay and lesbian advancement. I also
would like to provoke further discussion
on whether equality for all trans people ispossible in the Nordic region’s current climate, and, if not, what may need to change.
To begin with, I provide an overview ofthe (cis)gender imaginary, as well as theNordic Model in terms of gender and sexuality. Following, I present a hypothesis as
to why trans rights are not well developedby exploring three qualities unique to theNordic region which underpin the gendernormativity. These include “imagined
sameness”, repro-normativity, and thenarrative of social progress. By discuss-ジェンダー研究ing the Nordic region’s characteristics andhistory in respect to gender equality, I aim
to contribute to the discussion as to whytrans people have not been able to enjoy
the degree of exceptionalism the region isfamous for.

Introduction: Setting the stage

The (cis)gender imaginary
In this article, I explore the boundaries
of gender diversity in the Nordic region
using the concept of the (cis)gender imaginary. Cisgender refers to the sociallydeemed default gender identity, whereby
one identifies and behaves in accordancewith the gender norms associated with thesex assigned to them at birth (Linander etal., 2019). This term was introduced in theearly 2000s by feminist and trans activists
who wanted to decentre gender normative
people by creating a complementary term
to “transgender” (Koyama, 2002). I use
parentheses around “cis” in order to reiterate the point that gender and cisgender
are operatively conflated in current sociocultural practices, as one is generally assumed cisgender until proven otherwise(Nord, Bremer, & Alm, 2016).
Understanding cisnormativity as a system of sociocultural ideals and practices
which promote the validity of cisgender
identification and visibility of cisgenderbodies (Nord, Bremer, & Alm, 2016), the(cis)gender imaginary describes the spacein which cisnormativity is sustained andrecycled (hartline, 2020, 130). It is a normativising and hegemonic mode of interpreting gendered identity and experi-

第 23 号

2020 年

ence (hartline, 2020, 99). The concept is
inspired by Judith Butler’s “heterosexual
matrix,” which “requires the simultaneous
production of a domain of abject beings,
those who are not yet ‘subjects,’ but whoform the constitutive outside to the domainof the subject” (1993, xiii). The imaginary
is a sort of fiction which informs institutions, such as law and medicine, as to how
to value and organise bodies (see, for example, Foucault, 1978). Through the (cis)gender imaginary, gender norms are (re)produced and bodies are accordingly categorised to determine viability. This spaceintersects with myriad other imaginaries—that of race, class, ability, religion,
geographical location, etc.—to open or
close possibilities for self-materialisationand intelligibility.
Such a concept proves useful when considering why some laws and practices may
appear to foster transgender lives whilst
precluding multiple formations of gender
diversity. Transgender identities, bodies,desires, practices, and belongings are remarkably diverse. Some trans people, forexample, are non-binary and may not wish
to have medical intervention, while others may yearn to erase their past and startagain as the “opposite” gender. These arejust two of many trends in a vast landscapeof gender diverse experiences. Trans-specific policies do not reflect this diversity, as
will be further discussed below.
The Nordic Model
Stepping back for a moment, it is important to keep in mind that the parameters

69

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Regionof gender diverse expression are—just as
all social constructs—contextually situated and continually shifting. What makes
the Nordic region an interesting case study
is its long history of notable measures topromote gender equality. The region comprises Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland (the Faroe Islands andGreenland also form part of the region
but they are not included in the present
discussion as their LGBT-specific policies
diverge from the other nations). Together,
these countries share a history of state
welfarism, universalist policies, and extensive state intervention, which are captured by the term Nordic Model (Brunila& Edström, 2013). The Nordic version ofmodernity is founded on two intertwined
types of equality: first, equal access to resources and political parity, and second,
cultural conformity (Brunn, 2017). The
nation’s solidarity with its citizens is regarded as amplified in this region, a quality that is founded on trust and sustained
through a perceived sameness (Bendixson& Bringslid, 2017). The Nordic Model has
been slowly disintegrating for a few decades because of globalization and the ascent of neoliberalism. Nonetheless, the underlying qualities that have distinguishedthis framework sustain an “ethos of equality” (Bendixson, Bringslid, & Vike, 2017,
4).

Women’s and gay and lesbian rights

Gender equality between men and women
has been a fundamental aspect of the riseof the welfare state: marriage reforms were70

enacted as long ago as the late 19th century, and political parity was achieved in
the early 20th century (Borchorst and Siim,
2008). The famously coined phenomenonof “state feminism” describes the implementation of policies designed to ensure
greater access for women to the publicsphere (Hernes, 1987). In general terms,
the Nordic region led the rest of the modern world in ensuring suffrage for women.
Moreover, the extensive state-establishedmeasures instituted in this region to integrate women into the labour market have
paid off and resulted in the adoption of the“dual breadwinner model.” Eventually, inthe 1990s, a “daddy quota” was introduced
across the region to offer paternity leave,
which would enable the earlier re-entry of
mothers into the workforce (Borchorst andSiim, 2008; Lister, 2009). These measures
are perceived to destabilise the patriarchal
model to a noticeable extent (Melby et al.,2011).
With the softening of the divide between the private and public sphere, as
well as between men and women, it is easy
to see how the Nordic region has gained
its reputation. The region’s perceived success in gender egalitarianism has, in someways, become packaged as an exportableproduct. Other countries often refer to theidyllic Nordic Model in their endeavour
to achieve prosperous and happy societies(Melby et al., 2011). It is understandable
that the Nordic culture would be seen as
desirable, given that the countries tend torank quite favourably when it comes to life
quality. For example, the United Nations

ジェンダー研究

annually issues a World Happiness Reportthat ranks countries on the basis of an evaluation of the general happiness and wellbeing of its citizens. The Nordic countries
are usually ranked at the head of the 159
countries that are surveyed. Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland respectively
took the first four places in the 2019 edition of the World Happiness Report, andSweden was placed seventh. The Nordic
region’s image of gender egalitarianism
has also been endorsed by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index,
which ranks countries based on gender
parity related to economic equality, education, health, and political participation. In
2018, the Nordic countries stood out as awhole with Iceland, Norway, Sweden, andFinland respectively taking the first four
places. Denmark was a slight exception: it
placed 13th out of the 149 nations that wereassessed.
These high rankings extend to gay andlesbian rights as well, according to several wide-reaching studies on gay andlesbian people’s life quality (Rainbow
Europe, 2019; Planet Romeo, 2015; HRW,
2018). Domestic partnerships between
two people of the same legal gender became available in the Nordic landscapequite early on: Denmark in 1989, Norway
in 1993, Sweden in 1995, Iceland in 1996,
and Finland in 2002. Same-sex marriage
was legalised not long after, with Norway
and Sweden leading the group in 2009,
followed by Iceland in 2010, Denmark in
2012, and Finland in 2017 (Rainbow Europe, 2019). The recognition of same-sex

第 23 号

2020 年

partnerships is one way in which the five
primary countries are easily differentiatedfrom Denmark’s territories of the Faroe
Islands and Greenland. Even though thelatter’s legislation is not so far behind,
gay and lesbian people experience limitedsocial respect. There are quite a few reports of gay-bashing there, and a numberof LGBT people have been relocating toDenmark (Ammon, 2015).
It should be noted that while such reports can be good indicators of what isworking and what is not, they cannot betaken at face value. They are produced
within a specific context to serve a specific purpose and therefore will contribute to a specific master narrative of what
progress, human rights, and equality look
like (Ayoub & Paternotte, 2014; Grewal& Kaplan, 1994). This is essential to keep
in mind when studying trans rights andexperiences around the world. The images constructed of trans empowerment
and trans suffering are only accurate to acertain degree, as they are created against
the backdrop of existing Western-centricparadigms of gender equality and humancentred development (Tudor, 2017). It isessential to remain critically mindful ofthe potential constraints of such depictions
in places where trans people appear to be
fully recognised by the state.

Transgender rights

In this section, I will present an overview
of transgender rights in the Nordic region,
focussing on legislation and access to gender confirming medical technologies.

71

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

Contrary to the more recent delays, theNordic region’s history pertaining totransgender rights is unique in terms of
medical options and legal recognition
because it began earlier than nearly anywhere else. The marked difference in advancement is especially distinct in Scandinavia. Gender confirming surgery became
available in Denmark in the early 1950s
and was allowed in Norway and Swedenin the early 1960s (Sørlie, 2018; Linander,
2018; Dietz, 2018). The right to change legal gender following surgery came soonafter, in the 1960s in Denmark and the1970s in Norway and Sweden (ibid.). Finland and Iceland followed suit much later
on, in 2002 and 2012, respectively. Important to note is that such medical intervention was only available in the form of irreversible sterilisation, meaning that one
became permanently infertile (Amnesty,
2014; Elliott, 2019; Fontaine, 2019).
All the Nordic countries have sincechanged their laws to abolish the requirement of irreversible sterilisation for changing legal gender. Removing the diagnosis
requirement and making the law self-determination based is seen as monumental
for the trans movement because it signals
to society and its constituents that transpeople are capable of making decisions
about their own bodies (Dunne, 2017; Dietz, 2018). The removal of the requirementof irreversible sterilization also allows people to avoid unnecessary medical treatment
when choosing to legally change their gen1

72

der. Finland still requires sterilisation, but
it need not be irreversible (one can technically become temporarily infertile throughhormone replacement therapy). Finland has
been censured for this requirement on thebasis of violating human rights just as theother countries had been before they updated their laws (Council of Europe, 2019).
Sanna Marin, elected the Prime Ministerof Finland in 2019, has indicated that sheplans to address this issue during her timein office (ibid.). Also, all the countries havealso enacted laws protecting people fromdiscrimination on the basis of their gender
identity and expression (Transgender Europe, 2019). This legislation is importantbecause it helps to ensure the safety oftrans people, increases their access to the
public sphere, and aids the assurance ofsome degree of economic equality.
In following the welfare tradition, thegender-confirming medical treatments arefinancially covered and provided by thestate. This means, however, that access totreatment is state regulated and the clinics that offer it must apply strict selection
practices. The state intervention results ina high exclusion rate for the medical treatment, a strong preference for more normative narratives that comply with genderand sexual stereotypes, and very longwaiting times (Van der Ros & Munro,
2018; Linander, 2018; Holton, 2014; Repo,2019). 1 Many people who desire or require
medical assistance are unable to access it.
They must pay privately in full, and often

Iceland has recently updated its medical practices in its 2019 Gender Autonomy Act, to make theジェンダー研究go abroad (Amnesty, 2014).
The table below presents the dates ofsome key legislative moments: when gender-confirming medical technologies became available; when legal gender change
in the population registry became possible;
when one could change legal gender without undergoing sterilization; when legislation was enacted or expanded to include
protection against discrimination on thebasis of gender identity and expression;
and when the third legal gender option
became available. It should be noted that
Iceland removed the sterilization requirement in 2012, but still required a diagnosisof “transsexualism.” In 2019, it passed alaw to remove the diagnosis requirement
and allow self-declaration; this law shouldcome into effect by 2021 (Fontaine, 2019).
Clearly, there has been a lot of advancement in legislation for trans people. However, it seems to lack that quality of exceptionalism that we see with women’s rights,
and to some extent gay and lesbian rights.
The sterilisation requirement was repealedin other countries less globally celebrated
than the Nordics for being gender egalitar-

第 23 号

2020 年

ian, such as South Africa in 2003, Spain in
2007, and Argentina in 2012.
It is interesting to note that changes instate practices around gender recognitioncame after pressure from international
human rights groups, such as Amnesty
International, who called out the countries for violating the human rights of its
transgender citizens in its extensive 2014
report. There was some initial resistance
before the laws were developed, but it
appears that the intervention by humanrights groups was very effective. I would
argue this was in part because their accusations were likely embarrassing for thestate governments. Countries well-known
for being egalitarian were being called out
for forcibly sterilising a social group thatwas, at that time, gaining a lot of attention
in the media as a group worth protecting.
When considering the liberal reputation of
the region and its slowness to honour transpeople’s requests for recognition, there isa palpable discontent. The reason for thisbecomes clearer when we consider three
qualities that distinguish the Nordic region.

Medicalintervention
available

Legal genderchange available

Legal gender
Anti-discrimination
change without based on gender idensterilisationtity and expression

3rd gender
optionNorwayearly 1960s

early 1970s

2016

2014

none

Swedenearly 1960s

early 1970s

2013

2009

none

Denmark early 1950slate 1960s

2014

2015

none

Finland

2004

2002

by 2023?

2005

none

Iceland

1996

2012

2012/20192014

passed 2019

Source: Dietz, 2018; Transgender Europe, 2019; Sørlie, 2018; Rainbow Europe, 2019; Ammon, 2015; and Fontaine, 2019

process easier and more patient-oriented (Fontaine, 2019).

73

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

Three principal Nordic qualities
In this section, I present three qualitiesof the Nordic region — “imagined sameness”, repro-normativity, and the narrativeof social progress — which help paint a
picture of the values, practices and ideologies sustaining the (cis)gender imaginary.
I explore each quality to show how it haslaid the groundwork for the region to be regarded as gender egalitarian whilst maintaining the cisnormative values underpinning limited trans rights progress.

Imagined samenessTo begin, the Nordic Model is underwritten by “imagined sameness” (Gullestad, 2002), in which citizens bond with
one another and the state through sharedvalues and emphasised similarities, thereby building trust and interdependency(Delhey & Newton, 2005). Differences ingender expression and identity are not easily acceptable in such a scheme (Johansen,
2019; Van der Ros, 2014). In the following,
I explore how the quality of “imagined
sameness” has operated to govern what
type of gendered bodies are intelligible
and deemed worthy of protection, and how
the image of gender inclusion has beenformulated accordingly.
In terms of gender equality, the homogeneity inherent to the Nordic Model
has been demonstrated throughout the
women’s rights movements. The categoryof “women” in the movements has longreferred to a uniform group in terms of
ethnicity, race, religion, sexuality, gender74

expression and identity, and nationality(Borchorst and Siim, 2008; Melby et al.,2011). A lot of critical work has been produced on this issue, demonstrating how
and why the gender equality the Nordic
region is famous for has not been available
to all women. They show that in both public discourse and academic research, theintersecting qualities which distinguishwomen from each other tend to be left outof the discussion on women’s rights unlessthe subject of discussion is specificallythose differences, such as in discoursearound multiculturalism, immigration,
LGBTQ rights, etc. In other words, the“women” of women’s rights in the Nordic
region is typically reproduced to reflect the
middle-class, native-born, cisgender, heterosexual, white, educated, able-bodied
and reproductive women.
The equality that was achieved in thewomen’s movement was largely socioeconomic, as welfarism promoted re-distribution of resources to break down classbarriers (Melby et al., 2008). Undoubtedly,
this contributed to the breaking down ofgender stereotypes, which have been alarge part of the reason that gender equality from a socio-cultural perspective continues to be quite strong in the Nordic region. Over the last half century, however,this model of redistribution has shiftedto a model of recognition as the principle
source of social mobility (Brunn, 2017;
see Fraser, 1995). This is perhaps the main
discrepancy between the fight for women’s
rights and the fight for trans rights. Because the welfare model was so dependentジェンダー研究upon homogeneity, there were few mechanisms put in place to accommodate diversity (Bendixsen & Bringslid, 2017).
The effects of this imagined sameness have been demonstrated for decades
through immigration-related issues. In theearly 1990s, the Nordic region witnessed a
steady rise in diversity due to significant
policy and economic shifts, and its cultural
diversity proliferated because of increased
immigration (Melby et al., 2011). The system of sameness was confronted by theentry of people with discrete backgrounds,
raised in different value systems, endeavouring to become part of Nordic society.
Integration provokes uncertainty about
how personal freedom, interpersonal relationships, and state governance should
be understood and practiced, as various
cultural ideologies meet and compete forrelevance (Melby et al., 2008; Baeten etal., 2015). Immigrants face the challenge
of being recognised as both different andequal. States do not always handle suchclaims to respect very well, and this inefficacy is particularly true when the intersection of nationality/ethnicity is complicated by gender. For example, women arecompelled to participate in the workforce
even if they would prefer to work in theprivate sphere by caring for their children
or elders (ibid.; Sümer et al., 2014; Carbin,2008). There are no adequate state benefits
in place for such domestic work and thecost of living is so high that it is difficult
for women to choose this path in any case.
Care-giving is outsourced to kindergartens, nursing homes, and medical profes-

第 23 号

2020 年

sionals (Carbin, 2008).
Moreover, Nordic cultural homogeneity
and the push for sameness display strong(neo)colonial roots. The region’s genderegalitarian values are largely sustainedin popular discourse by contrasting themwith ostensibly less-humanitarian andprogressive cultural contexts. It is thus immensely difficult for Muslim women immigrants to practice Islam in the Nordic
region without being stigmatised (Melbyet al., 2011). Wearing a hijab is often perceived as cultural backwardness, and an
ethnocentric or even neo-colonialist “us”
versus “them” dyad is often invoked in
describing the freedom enjoyed by Nordic women (Keskinen et al., 2016). For
example, Denmark passed a law in 2017banning the burqa and niqab, apparently
to protect women from undue subjugation(Samuel, 2018). Conversely, such a law
may actually be further ostracising an already vulnerable population because it demonises a cultural practice as fundamentally contrary to one of the Nordic model
pillars—women’s “liberation”.
While the link between trans rights andthe rights of immigrant women of colour
is not immediately obvious, the oppression they experience stems from the sameplace. The push for assimilation, and thecomparatively weak push for integration,
are part and parcel of a societal model
built on welfarist collectivism. The Nordics have a long history of prioritising nation-building over individual rights, withthe economic stability of the welfare statetaking precedence over the recognition of75

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

differences between citizens (Sümer et al.,2014).
This prioritisation has been shifting,however, and it is doing so with palpable
effects. The last few decades have witnessed an increasing cultural diversification with the rise of the social logic of neoliberalism and decline of public policies.
The result has been a growing emphasis
on individual empowerment, personal responsibility, and active participation in
the economy (Brunn, 2017; Dahl, 2012).
The trans communities of the Nordic region have fuelled a political divide along
two lines labelled “transnormative” and“transformative” (hartline, 2020; also see
Van der Ros, 2017). Broadly speaking, theterms transnormative and transformativedescribe two responses to the pressure toconform: the first advocates assimilation
into gender norms and the second challenges gender norms. Rather than being
mutually-exclusive categories, the two
responses designate opposing ends of aspectrum of embodiments, ideologies,
and practices that surround the issue ofgender diversity (Linander, 2019; Van derRos, 2017). The transnormative vs. transformative phenomenon is not unique to
the Nordic region; however, the traditionof imagined sameness and the image of
gender equality fuel the political divide ina specific way in this part of the world.
The divide manifests along legal andmedical lines as well as the communal. As
described previously, medical technologies are state-controlled and highly exclusionary, and access is limited to those who

76

fall into the more normative version ofgender—namely, binary-identifying anddesiring full bodily transformation into the“other” designated sex (Alm, 2018; hartline, 2020). Each country has had internal debates as to what parameters shouldbe imposed in approving patient requests
for trans-specific medical assistance, withsome arguing that the practices are outdated and others implying that state funding would be poorly spent on patients whowill not blend back into society (see Linander, 2019; van der Ros, 2017; Offerdal &Tønseth, 2018; Council of Europe, 2019;
Holton, 2014). Moreover, lobbying efforts
for improved gender recognition policies,
such as the addition of a legal third gender, have been largely unsuccessful (vander Ros, 2017; Linander, 2019; Arnesen,2017). So far, efforts supporting normalising medical practices are succeeding.
This further entrenches the rift in the transcommunity by designating the validity oftrans experiences (and who deserves state
support) along cisnormative lines.
Furthermore, in tandem with the rise ofneoliberalism, the tradition of samenesshas contributed to a personalisation of
the failure of the trans person to achieve“the good life”. In line with the globalising movement for trans empowerment, thegood life for a trans person is becoming
increasingly centred on self-realisation
through personal agency, (Spade, 2009).
Under the regime of social equality,
whereby one has high trust in the state andits institutions, there is a reasonable expectation by individuals to be properly caredジェンダー研究for by the state (Delhey & Newton, 2005).
The narrative of equality for everyone isstill strong in the Nordic region, even as
its welfarist qualities are fading into a dull
undertone. If a trans person does not feel
sufficiently liberated and empowered, it
can easily translate as a personal failingof that individual (hartline, 2020). The
custom of challenging the state is less pronounced in the Nordics, so there are fewer
radical movements and therefore less open
discussion and general awareness that thestate may not be fulfilling its duties to the
public (Dahl, 2012). This has the two-foldeffect of normalising inequality for transpeople and indicating to the general publicthat being transgender is only acceptablein certain forms, such as when it is binary,impossible to detect and diagnosticallyestablished.

Repro-normativity

The invisibilisation of gender and sexual
diversity stands on a long, yet often washedout, history of maintaining sex/gendernorms around reproduction (Honkasalo,
2018; Alaattinoğlu, 2019). The traditionof reproductive normativity is most notable in the region’s shared past of eugenics. This is a dark side to Nordic history
that may not be well known to the public.
From the 1920s to 1940s, a series of laws
were implemented across the Nordic statesthat limited reproductive rights to certain
groups based on ability, mental health and,to some degree, social desirability. The
legislation was intended to reduce expenses in welfare programmes, which were

第 23 号

2020 年

overburdened by economic troubles at thattime (Honkasalo, 2018; Nordström, 2019).
Many people, up to 100,000 it is estimated, were forcibly sterilised in the time thelaws were in effect. The laws introduced in
the early 20th century were repealed in the
1970s (ibid.). Although the era of eugenics
is long over, there is a startling similarity
between those policies and the ones whichhave compelled trans people to undergo
sterilisation in exchange for legal recognition (Lowik, 2018, Honkasalo, 2018; Broberg, 2005).
The welfare state established its rolein population control long ago throughits repro-normative and eugenic practices
that involved intervening in the domestic
lives of its citizenry. Perhaps this intrusion represents a disadvantage of a nation being “one” with its people. The actof preventing certain social groups from
reproducing is linked to the Nordic emphasis of social homogeneity and nationbuilding. The present study contends that
this history may explain why Nordic states
deemed sterilization to be a reasonable requirement for gender recognition for sucha long duration.
The central argument offered by human rights organisations for the repeal of
the sterilisation requirement in the Nordic
countries, just as elsewhere, cited the “coercive” nature of the laws that therefore
violated the individual right to bodily integrity and privacy (Amnesty, 2014). Despite decisions to overturn the requirement(with the exception of Finland), the Nordic
state governments do not agree about the77Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

description of the laws as coercive. Sweden acknowledged that its law was unconstitutional and contrary to the European
Convention on Human Rights, and hasoffered compensation to those who weresterilised under the law (Ahlander, 2017).
It was the first country to do so, and many
people report feeling vindicated. However, a similar lawsuit filed in Norway did
not yield the same success (Urbye, 2018).
The Norwegian state did not agree to thecharge of coercion; it maintained, rather,that trans people wilfully made the decision to be irreversibly sterilised.
Gate-keeping practices are so embedded in the Nordic state’s procedures to establish population control that they were
continued even when they should havebeen forgone. Finnish trans studies scholar
Julian Honkasalo cites the example of Finland: the Trans Act of 2002, which madeinfertility a requirement for legal genderchange, coincided with the government’s
decision to establish a plan to address the
problem of birth-rate decline (2018). The
state began to take measures to encourage
married ciswomen to reproduce while it simultaneously reinforced health care limitations for trans people. The Finnish statealso continues to withhold ART from nonmarried women (ibid.).
Honkasalo also mentions the administrative chaos that ensued when a legaltrans man gave birth in Finland because
the records system was not set up to register such an event (2018). For some time
the trans man had to struggle to receive
the same post-natal benefits that are ac-78

corded to legal women after birth. Norwegian scholar Anniken Sørlie has discussed
this issue in the Norwegian context (2018).
Even though legal gender change does
not require any medical intervention in
Norway, the Children Act mandates thatparenthood must be established based on
the sex assigned at birth. Thus, trans men
are recorded and treated as mothers whiletrans women are listed as fathers. Sørlie
argues that this shows how the power of
medicine continues to guide the state’s
decisions about who is ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, which privileges the position ofcisgender people (2018, 78).
Though I am focussing on trans people in this article, I want to point out thatwhen it comes to intersex individuals, thebiomedicalisation of bodies is again apparent. The sanctity of so-called normal sex
organs is prioritised over personal choice(Sandberg, 2018). Swedish scholar Erika
Alm writes on Sweden’s practices in thiscontext, that “intersex bodies are largely
in a juridical limbo, unprotected and without rights” (2018, np). This statement also
applies to the rest of the Nordic states.
Consent in bodily modifications is not always sought, as can be seen in so-called
corrective surgeries on intersex patients.
These procedures are typically performedon new-borns and are justified as being in
the best interests of the child. A provision
protecting against this intervention in fact
formed part of the recent bill in Icelandthat allows a third gender option; however, it was dropped from the eventual law(Fontaine, 2019). The gender identity andジェンダー研究experiences of the individual tend to takesecond place to the body’s governability(Sandberg, 2018). Swedish scholar Erika
Alm explains that “The important thing isthat there is a stable referent that the juridical gender can home in on” (2018, np). The
regulation of the intersex body resonateswith the control over the trans body, but
the intersex body is perceived as a physiological matter and the trans a mental
construct. Thus, while the intersex bodymay be “amended” without requiring any
or much individual desire, the trans bodymay require an abundance of will. In bothcases, the ultimate goal of the state’s involvement in the body’s re-construction
appears to be to render a body gender andsexual normative and therefore more governable.

The narrative of social progress

The narrative of social progress—which I
use to refer to both the direction we perceive ourselves to be headed as a society,as well as the collectively envisioned goalof complete social equality and well-being—is fuelled by both a revisionist history and the myth of Nordic exceptionalism around gender equality (Palmberg,2016). Revisionist history is nothing new.
It happens everywhere. However, when it
is combined with the myth of Nordic exceptionalism (the belief that the Nordic
region has remarkable humanitarian policies and social solidarity), I contend it has
cultivated an image of burgeoning gender/
sexual diversification that belies history.
A salient example of this narrative ema-

第 23 号

2020 年

nates from the Swedish context. Scholar
Sam Holmqvist wrote their dissertation
on historical popular and scientific 19thcentury texts from Sweden that depict
gender- or sexually diverse people (2017).
These texts illustrate that trans experiences have often been filtered through normative lenses. Identity-based experiences thatare gender/sexually diverse are explained
away through circumstantial justifications
for gender norm transgressions, such as
escaping the police force or traveling. Stories about people were heavily based onassumptions around birth-assigned sex,
and the complexities of gender experience
were overlooked or toned down. Presumptions and misrepresentations formatted
trans identities and experiences throughout the 20th century and continue to do
so in the present. Holmqvist evinces how
gender norms have pervaded feminist historical writing; as a result, the extant gender diversity records concerning Sweden’s
past over the last few centuries can diverge
substantially from the lived experiences ofindividuals (ibid.). Cisnormative assumptions about the past are reinforced, in tandem with the idea that gender-bending isa recent phenomenon that could not occur until the present because there was nospace for it.
Danish scholar Sølve Holm writes ona similar matter. For their 2017 doctoral
dissertation, they conducted a historical analysis of autobiographical accounts
alongside medico-legal accounts of gender
diverse people who, in the first three quarters of the 20th century, were patients seek-

79

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

ing gender-confirming medical assistance.
Holm looks at how medico-legal experts’re-articulations of these personal narratives would end up shaping historical imaginings about what kind of intersex(ed)and trans lives were liveable or not (2017).
They point out that ‘state regulation ofbody-modifying technologies is closely
connected to the cultural imaginary ofwhat a normal subject is’ (2017, 34). This
resonates with the matters discussed
above, regarding the issue of non-consent
medical procedures performed on intersex
children, and the difficulty for trans people
to access trans-specific healthcare options.
Holm also demonstrates how the narratives constructed by those seeking medical assistance were reformulated by the
medical and legal authorities, leading todiscrepancies between the actual lived experiences of gender and sexually diverse
people and the medico-legal versions created in the justifications or explanationsof their treatment processes. Holm offerssome personal accounts they were able toaccess and compares them to the manners
in which authorities relayed these narratives. In so doing, they prove that theway that these individuals imagined their
futures varied significantly from the accounts of the authorities. The authorities
tended to focus on the un-livability of theindividual based on the lack of a genitally
typical body. Their interpretations generally tended to survive the versions of thepatients, who were lost or whose reports
were sealed citing privacy. Such authoritative renderings overlook the ways in which

80

these individuals managed to navigate andflourish in varying social spaces.
The invisibilisation of gender diversity is also perpetrated through colonising discourses that effectively distinguishSápmi culture from what is regarded to bemainstream “ethnic” Norwegian culture.
The ideal of Norwegian progressiveness isconstructed in part through its distinction
from the Sápmi culture, which is often reported as being unaccepting of gender andsexual diversity (Løvold, 2014). However,Ane Hedvig Løvold highlights in her 2014
master’s thesis that there exists a silencing
mechanism that hides gender and sexual
diversity in Sápmi culture because of the
disjuncture between how such diversity ismade intelligible through Western rights
movements and how it is experienced
and enacted within the Sápmi traditions.
The issue with the globalising movement
relating to gender and sexual diversity
concerns the specific way in which it envisions progress, which is in turn grounded
in a specific history (Palmberg, 2016).
Such imaginings can prove contrary to the
lived experiences of the Sápmi people; it
can also hide how cultural gender norms
could be imported through Norwegian
Christian colonialism rather than belong totraditions rooted in Sápmi culture (Giertsen, 2002). The narrative of social progress
thus obfuscates the possibility that Sápmi
culture could incorporate a history that isrich in gender variance. In fact, some of
Løvold’s research participants have testified to this gender diversity as indicated bytheir elders.

ジェンダー研究The diversity of experiences by genderand sexual diverse individuals are hidden
through these reiterations of normativity as the standard of the past, along withthe communities they helped build andthe movements to which they contributed.
The narrative of social progression leads
to the conclusion that there was little or no
possibility for gender and sexual diverse
people to flourish before the recent execution of human rights legislation. Moreover,public rhetoric tends to strongly focus on
the so-called “transgender tipping point,”
which links individual success and equality (Honkasalo, 2018). Structural oppressions that preclude some trans-identifying
people from coming out or accessing resources can then be swept under the rug.

In closing

The rewriting of historical gender/sexual
diversity, the foundation of repro-normativity, and the promotion of sameness inthe quest for national advancement work
together to uphold the (cis)gender imaginary. Through this system of norms,
gender/sexual diversification in the Nordic region is restricted whilst an imageof inclusion and progressiveness is maintained. The imaginary is traceable in thetrans rights movement. The trans community is divided along the lines of inclusionand exclusion, as reflected by the fact thattransnormative people are listened to overtransformative people. Trans demands forequality that do not significantly disrupt
cisnormativity are granted precedence by
the state, thus giving the impression that

第 23 号

2020 年

all trans people are being attended to. As
for those whose demands challenge thestatus quo, they are regarded as a threat tothe nationalist foundation of sameness andrelegated to the sociolegal margins.
However, this is not to say that those
who appear more normative are able tolive more fully and contentedly than those
who are not. All trans people in the Nordic
region are implicated in the same broadsystem of norms which operates to foreclose non-normative gender expressions,embodiments and identities. Cisnormativity works equally against those who “pass”
and identify within the binary and those
who do not. For everyone, there is a pressure to conform, and for those who passas men or women, this carries with it thepressure to revise one’s personal past to fit
one’s presumed present. There is always arisk of being “discovered.” For those who
do not pass, there is pressure to both justify it and to compensate for the lack of
cisnormative capital through other capitals(hartline, 2020).
In this way, the (cis)gender imaginary
operates to govern the conditions for gendered materialisation by narrowing thescope of transgenderism to that which canbe (re)fitted into society without significantly disturbing existing gender norms.
Predicated on historical tradition of sameness, state-endorsed repro-normativity,
and a narrative of social progress, I believethat cisnormativity has guided the Nordic
states’ decisions around trans rights legislation and practices, lending to an uncharacteristically stunted development. Since81

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

the (cis)gender imaginary still continues
to close down multiple opportunities forgender diversity, I recommend further research on how trans people are being re-stricted, dehumanised and obscured in aregion celebrated for being gender egalitarian.

References
Ahlander, Johan, 2017, “Sweden to Offer Compensation for Transgender Sterilisations”, Reuters. March 27.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-transgender-sterilisation- idUSKBN16Y1XA. (Accessed
November 19, 2019).
Alaattinoğlu, Daniela, 2019, The Path of the Law: The Establishment, Abolition and Remedy of Involuntary
Sterilisation and Castration in Sweden, Norway And Finland. Doctoral dissertation. European University Institute.
Alm, Erika, 2018, “What Constitutes an In/Significant Organ?: The Vicissitudes of Juridical and Medical
Decision-Making Regarding Genital Surgery for Intersex and Trans People in Sweden.” in Gabriele
Griffin and Malin Jordal, eds., Body, Migration, Re/constructive Surgeries: Making the Gendered
Body in a Globalized World, Routledge: pp. 225-240.
Ammon, Richard, 2015, “Gay Greenland — Past and Present.” Global Gayz. https://www.globalgayz.com/
gay-greenland-past-and-present/. (Accessed January 7, 2020).
Amnesty International, 2014, The State Decides Who I am: Lack of Recognition for Transgender People.
London, UK: Amnesty International.
Arnesen, Lars, 2017, “Should the Court Recognize More than Two Sexes? The Right to Own Gender Identity
and Discrimination Protection Based on the Law of Change of Legal Gender.” Idunn. https://www.
idunn.no/info/vitenskapelig-publikasjon. (Accessed November 2, 2018).
Ayoub, Phillip, and David Paternotte, 2014. “Introduction.” in Phillip Ayoub and David Paternotte, eds., LGBT
activism and the making of Europe: a rainbow Europe? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 1-28.
Baeten, Guy, Lawrence D. Berg, and Anders Lund Hansen, 2015, “Introduction: Neoliberalism and Postwelfare Nordic States in Transition.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography. 97(3): pp.
209-212.
Bendixsen, Synnøve, Mary Bente Bringslid, and Halvard Vike, 2018, “Introduction: Egalitarianism in a
Scandinavian Context.” in Bendixsen, Synnøve, Mary Bente Bringslid, and Halvard Vike (Eds.),
Egalitarianism in Scandinavia: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 1-44.
Bendixsen, Synnøve, Mary Bente Bringslid, and Halvard Vike, eds., 2018, Egalitarianism in Scandinavia:
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Borchorst, Anette and Birte Siim, 2008, “Woman-friendly Policies and State Feminism: Theorizing Scandinavian Gender Equality.” Feminist Theory. 9(2): pp. 207-224.
Broberg, Gunnar, and Nils Roll-Hansen, 2005, Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. East Lansing, Mich: Michigan State University Press.
Brunila, Kristiina, and Charlotta Edström, 2013, “The Famous Nordic Equality. What’s Nordic about it?
Special Theme Number Critical Perspectives on Children, Young People, Welfare and Education.”
Nordic Studies in Education. 33(4): pp. 300-313.
Brunn, Maja Hojer, 2017, “Social Imaginaries and Egalitarian Practices in the Era of Neoliberalization.” in82

ジェンダー研究第 23 号

2020 年

Bendixsen, Synnøve, Mary Bente Bringslid, and Halvard Vike, eds., Egalitarianism in Scandinavia:
Historical and contemporary perspectives, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 135-156.
Butler, Judith, 1993, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York and London: Routledge.
Carbin, Maria, 2008, “Honour Related Violence: The Invention of a Policy Problem in Sweden. Teoksessa.”
in Eva Magnuson, Malin Rönnblom & Harriet Silius, eds., Critical Studies of Gender Equalities,
Göteborg/Stockholm: Makadam Publishers: pp. 24-47.
Council of Europe, 2019, Finland: action needed to combat hate speech and scrap transgender persons
sterilisation requirement. September 10. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/finland-should-tacklegrowing-hate-speech-and-remove-the-sterilisation-requirement-for-transsexuals. (Accessed January 7, 2020).
Dahl, Hanne Marlene, 2012, “Neo-liberalism Meets the Nordic Welfare State: Gaps and Silences.” NORA Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research. 20(4): pp. 283-288.
Delhey, Jan, and Kenneth Newton, 2005, “Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Patternor Nordic Exceptionalism?” European Sociological Review. 21(4): pp. 311-327.
Dietz, Chris, 2018, “Governing Legal Embodiment: On the Limits of Self-Declaration.” Feminist Legal
Studies. 26(2): pp. 185-204.
Dunne, Peter, 2017, “Legal Gender Recognition in Europe: Sterilisation, Diagnosis and Medical Examination Requirements.” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 39(4): pp. 497-500.
Elliott, Alexander, 2019, “New Law to Help Trans and Intersex People.” Ríkisútvarpið. June 19. https://www.
ruv.is/frett/new-law-to-help-trans-and-intersex-people. (Accessed January 7, 2020).
Esping-Andersen, Gösta, 1990, “The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State.” International Journalof Sociology. 20(3): pp. 92-123.
Fontaine, Andie, 2019, “The New Frontier: Trans Rights in Iceland”, The Reykjavik Grapevine. August
2. https://grapevine.is/icelandic-culture/2019/08/02/the-new-frontier-trans-rights-in-iceland/. (Accessed January 9, 2020).
Foucault, Michel, 1978, The History of Sexuality: Volume 1, translated by R. Hurley. New York: Vintage.
Fraser, Nancy, 1995, “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-socialist’ Age.”
New Left Review. 1(212): pp. 68-93.
Giertsen, Merethe, 2002, “En Minoritet i Minoriteten, Homofile i Samiske Miljø og Samer i Homofile Miljø”[“A Minority in a Minority, Homosexuality in Sápmi Culture and Saami in Homosexual Culture”].
Din Tidsskrift for Religion og Kultur. 4: n/p.
Grewal, Inderpal and Caren Kaplan, 1994. “Introduction: Transnational feminist practices and questions ofpostmodernity.” in Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan, eds., Scattered Hegemonies: Postmodernity
and Transnational Feminist Practices, University of Minnesota Press: pp. 1-33.
Gullestad, Marianne, 2002, “Invisible Fences: Egalitarianism, Nationalism and Racism.” Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute 8(1): pp. 45-63.
hartline, france rose, 2020. The (Trans)Gender Equality Paradox: Challenging Norway’s 2016 Law on Gender Recognition, PhD dissertation. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Hernes, Helge Maria, 1987, Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Feminism, Oslo: Norwegian
University Press.
Holm, Marie Louise [Sølv], 2017, Fleshing out the Self: Reimagining Intersexed and Trans Embodied Lives
through (Auto) Biographical Accounts of the Past, PhD dissertation. Linköping University Electronic

83Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

Press.
Holmqvist, Sam, 2017, Transformationer: 1800-talets svenska translitteratur genom Lasse-Maja, C. J. L.
Almqvist och Aurora Ljungstedt. [Transformations: 19th-century Swedish Trans Literature by LasseMaja, C. J. L. Almqvist and Aurora Ljungstedt]. PhD dissertation. Stockholm, Sweden: Makadam
Förlag.
Holton, Maryam, 2014, “Moving Beyond the Gender Binary: The Treatment of Transgender Individuals
in Iceland,” Master’s thesis. Amsterdam: The University of Amsterdam, Department of Sociology.
Honkasalo, Julian, 2018, “Unfit for Parenthood? Compulsory Sterilization and Transgender Reproductive
Justice in Finland.” Journal of International Women’s Studies. 20(1): pp. 40-52.
HRW [Human Rights Watch], 2018, “During Pride Month, a Look at LGBT Rights — New Map Shows Marriage Equality, Civil Unions and Registered Partnership Worldwide.” June 25. https://www.hrw.org/
news/2018/06/25/during-pride-month-look-lgbt-rights. (Accessed May 20, 2020).
Johansen, Hanne Marie, 2019, Skeive Linjer i Norsk Historie: Frå Norrøn Tid til i Dag. Oslo: Samlaget.
Keskinen, Suvi, Salla Tuori, Sara Irni, and Diana Mulinari, 2016, “Introduction: Postcolonialism and theNordic Models of Welfare and Gender.” in Keskinen, Suvi, Salla Tuori, Sara Irni, and Diana Mulinari, eds., Complying with Colonialism: Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region. Routledge: pp. 1-16.
Koyama, Emi, 2002, “Cissexual/Cisgender.” Eminism. June 7. http://eminism.org/interchange/2002/20020607wmstl.html. (Accessed May 3, 2018).
Lister, Ruth, 2009, “A Nordic Nirvana? Gender, Citizenship, and Social Justice in the Nordic Welfare States.”Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society. 16(2): pp. 242-278.
Løvold, Ane Hedvig Heidrunsdotter, 2015, The Silence in Sápmi and the Queer Sami Breaking it. Master’s
thesis. Tromsø, Norway: The Arctic University of Norway.
Lowik, AJ, 2018, “Reproducing Eugenics, Reproducing while Trans: The State Sterilization of Trans People,” Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 14(5): pp. 425-445.
Melby, Kari, Anna-Birte Ravn, Bente Rosenbeck, and C. Carlsson Wetterberg, 2008, “A Nordic Model of
Gender Equality? Introduction.” In Melby, Kari, Anna-Birte Ravn, Bente Rosenbeck, and C. Carlsson Wetterberg, eds., Gender Equality and Welfare Politics in Scandinavia: The Limits of Political
Ambition? Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press: pp. 1-28.
Melby, Kari, Anna-Birte Ravn, Bente Rosenbeck, and C. Carlsson Wetterberg, 2011, “What is Nordic in theNordic gender model?” in Kettunen, Pauli, and Klaus Petersen, eds., Beyond Welfare State Models:Transnational Historical Perspectives on Social Policy, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edward
Elgar Publishing: pp. 147-169.
Nord, Iwo, Signe Bremer and Erika Alm, 2016, “Redaktionsord: Cisnormativitet och feminism.” Tidskrift
För Genusvetenskap. 37(4): pp. 2-13.
Nordström, Byron J, 2019, “Eugenics in the Nordic Countries.” Nordics.info. September 24. https://nordics.
info/show/artikel/eugenics-in-the-nordic-countries/. (Accessed January 8, 2020).
Offerdal, Asle & Thomas Mørk Tønseth, 2018, “Nasjonal uenighet i behandling av kjønnsinkongruens: Debatt” [National Disagreement regarding the Treatment of Gender Incongruence: Debate]. Tidsskriftet:
Den Norske Legeforening, August 28. (in Norwegian).
Palmberg, Mai, 2016, “The Nordic Colonial Mind.” in Keskinen, Suvi, Salla Tuori, Sara Irni, and Diana
Mulinari, eds., Complying with Colonialism: Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region, Routledge: pp. 35-50.

84

ジェンダー研究第 23 号

2020 年

PlanetRomeo, 2015, “Gay Happiness Index.” PlanetRomeo. https://www.planetromeo.com/en/care/gay-happiness-index/. (Accessed February 19, 2020).
Pylkkänen, Anu, 2007, “Transformation of the Nordic Model: From Welfare Politics to Gendered Rights.”
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. 19: pp. 335-354.
Rainbow Europe, 2019, “Rainbow Europe 2019.” ILGA-Europe. https://www.ilga-europe.org/rainboweurope/2019.
(Accessed January 9, 2020).
Rydström, Jens, 2008, “Legalizing Love in a Cold Climate: The History, Consequences and Recent Developments of Registered Partnership in Scandinavia.” Sexualities. 11(1-2): pp. 193-226.
Samuel, Sigal, 2018, “Banning Muslim Veils Tends to Backfire — Why Do Countries Keep Doing It?” The
Atlantic. August 3. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/denmark-burqa-veilban/566630/. (Accessed January 14, 2020).
Sandberg, Kirsten, 2015, “The Rights of LGBTI Children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,”
Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33(4): pp. 337-352.
Sørlie, Anniken, 2018, The Right to Gender Identity: A Grounded Life Cycle Perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, Institute of Public Law.
Spade, Dean, 2009, “Trans politics on a neoliberal landscape.” TEMP. POL. & CIV. RTS. L. REV., 18: pp.
353-373.
Sümer, Sevil, Beatrice Halsaa and Sasha Roseneil, 2014, “Gendered Citizenship in a Multidimensional Perspective: The Challenges Facing Norway within the Nordic Model.” NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research. 22(4): pp. 283-298.
Transgender Europe, 2019, “Trans Rights Europe & Central Asia Map & Index 2019.” Transgender Europe.
May 17. https://tgeu.org/trans-rights-europe-central-asia-map-index- 2019/. (Accessed February 17,2020).
Tudor, Alyosxa, 2017, “Dimensions of Transnationalism,” Feminist Review. 117: pp. 20-40.
United Nations, 2019, “World Happiness Report.” World Happiness Report. March 20. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/. (Accessed January 14, 2020).
Urbye, Frøydis Falch, 2018, “Tobias Lot Seg Sterilisere, Tapte Sak Mot Staten: — Jeg er Skuffa”. Dagsavisen[Tobias was Sterilised, Lost Case against the State: - I am Disappointed]. October 26. https://www.
dagsavisen.no/oslo/tobias-lot-seg-sterilisere-tapte-sak-mot-staten-jeg-er-skuffa-1.1223648. (Accessed
January 27, 2020) (in Norwegian).
Van der Ros, Janneke and Surya Monro, 2018, “Trans* and Gender Variant Citizenship and the State in
Norway,” Critical Social Policy. 38(1): pp. 57-78.
Van der Ros, Janneke, 2013, Alskens Folk: Levekår, Livssituasjon og Livskvalitet for Personer med
Kjønnsidentitets-Tematikk [All Sorts of People: Living Conditions, Life Situation and Life Quality
for People with Gender Identity Themes; PDF file]. Hamar: Likestillingssenteret. January. https://likestillingssenteret.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Alskens-folk.pdf. (Accessed 21 October 2015)(in Norwegian).
Van der Ros, Janneke, 2014, “The role of the welfare state in creating trans (e)quality of life: Recognizing
differences and distributing differently.” Paper presented at ESF Exploratory workshop on transgender and political science in Europe: A comparative approach, 17-19 September. Brussels, Belgium.
Van der Ros, Janneke, 2015, “Equality is not Enough, and Where is Trans*gender in the Equation? The Caseof Norway.” Paper presented at Equality is not Enough: Exploring Novel Theoretical and Empirical
Approaches to the Shaping of (In)Equalities Conference, January. Antwerp, Belgium.

85

Exploring the (Cis)Gender Imaginary in the Nordic Region

Van der Ros, Janneke, 2017, “The Norwegian State and Transgender Citizens: A Complicated Relationship,”World Political Science. 13(1): pp. 123-150.
World Economic Forum, 2018, “The Global Gender Gap Report 2018.” World Economic Forum. http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf. (Accessed January 11, 2020).

86

ジェンダー研究第 23 号

2020 年

要旨

北欧 5 ヶ国の（シス）ジェンダー的想像を検証する
フランス・ローズ・ハートライン
北欧 5 ヶ国は、ここ数十年来、ジェンダー平等に向けた取り組みにおいて世界の最前線を走る地域と目されてきた。女性に力を与える国家主導の法整備について長い歴史があり、きわだって「ゲイに好意的」と定評のある北欧 5 ヶ国の文化が進歩的とみなされるのは理解できる。しかし、この例外主義的特色は、果たしてトランスの人々の権利を含めた「ジェンダーの多様性」にまで及ぶといえるのか。自明のことと思われがちだが、本稿では、これまで私たちが目にしてきた女性やゲイ・レズビアンの権利に関する先進性が、必ずしもトランスの権利にまで及ばないことを論じ、（シス）ジェンダー的想像という概念を用いて、その理由について考察する。
キーワード
ジェンダー、多様性、トランスジェンダー、北欧 5 ヶ国、シスジェンダー規範

87