I think it may represent a realistic part of the trans narrative, though.

I was with a transitioning FTM and for a time, things - his whole world - really did revolve around the state of his body.

The physical change is how audiences can relate to the gender change, in visual media. In a book, perhaps, you can go deeper.

I think, to a large degree, the body in trans depictions is an extension of the body in all gender depictions (though mostly as Other from cis-male).  We very rarely consider the emotional or social state in gender dialogue, instead focusing on the obviously visual state of the body.

That's not to say it's good, but I think, in this regard, trans depictions are no different from gender depiction in general.

This is also true of many documentaries I've seen about transgender people: it's ALL about their surgeries. One doc, I think the NG program Taboo, made it seem like a trans WTM's girlfriend broke up with him because he didn't have a penis. I felt kind of sorry for the dude being in so deep with that on-again, off-again girl because he actually let her pick the size of his penis. Another factor I notice is that they seem to glaze over/make generic the experiences of the person, boiling to down to mostly the cliche "I knew I was different" thing.

I have come to see this limited view of trans people - strictly being about their bodies and, particularly about specific parts of their bodies - as salacious.

I also believe that it has much to do with trying to cis-normalize trans bodies and experiences. Reducing it to surgery is a convenient way to discount other parts of trans experience that cannot be quantified in such a way. Notions such as trans people may differently experience the world around them, internalize the gendered social messages differently (particularly how they internalize messages intended for the gender they were not coercively assigned at birth,) and that emotional/mental existence can be very different for them are at best foreign and (IMHO) likely uncomfortable for many cis people.

This all seems valid, but isn't the body focus at least partly an inevitable side-effect of film and TV being visual media? If your movie is about navigating relationships between lived gender and biological sex, and your story needs to be told in images, you're going to end up with a lot of shots focusing on bodies because... well, because that's what you can photograph. Having the "reveal" in the Crying Game come by way of, say, a verbal admission just doesn't sound like very effective filmmaking.

I'm glad you brought up this point. I know people are fascinated by bodies in general, but yeah it gets so old when people can't see beyond that to who I am not what my body parts are. I think it is hard for a lot of people to see beyond the surface (body) The body is a visible way for people to grasp concepts that they might not understand overwise. Some people understand my being trans and some people can't get beyond the idea that it's all about a body I want to have...those people don't understand that it's just who i am not my parts. There's this idea that we are men and women who want to become the opposite sex, not that we just are who we are and want support/recognition from our loved ones.

I have very mixed feelings on this.  On the one hand, I hear you and mostly agree.  I don't like the distillation of a trans person into a body and only a body.  On the other hand, a lot of people's narratives of transition are very focused on the body - this isn't a narrative invented by non-trans people.  It's certainly not the totality of the experience, nor is it part of everyone's experience, but it's also not totally invalid.  The problem in my eyes is that many other aspects of the experience of transition are excluded.

On some level, I feel like this is essentially a sympathetic but heavy-handed tactic.  And it's hard to criticize films that show trans people as people - mostly because we have so few of them.  I would love more media showing the experience of transition as a social being... 

Like I said, ambivalent.  I'm not trans - an ally, but cis myself - and my opinion on this isn't as important as those of actual trans people as far as I'm concerned.  At the same time, I can't help but see it following a similar track as portrayals of gays and lesbians in the media.  Invisible, then horrific, then a joke, then a stereotyped but well-meant portrayal (hello, Will).

I absolutely agree that the focus on trans people's bodies - and the policing of those bodies - by the cis world is a problem, and a huge one.  I also agree it's being reflected (at the very least) in these media portrayals.  Maybe I'm just an optimist, trying to see good intentions here. 

There's great discussion of media depictions of trans bodies and surgeries (among other things) in Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl."

So I responded to this post (well mostly the comments on this post) on my tumblr.  But I thought it was kind of silly to see that being reblogged on tumblr while no one here was aware of this part of the conversation.  So I just pasted this here.  Apologies for the epic length, it wasn't written for a comments page:

I have so many thoughts about this article I can’t possibly cram
them into one post.  But I find it particularly frustrating/interesting
to look at the comments on this post.   There (here) folks try to argue
that the sole (or justifiable) reason for these representations is that
“the trans experience” itself is heavily focused on the body.

And I don’t mean to undermine the reality that for many of us trans* folks, our bodies are something that we, ourselves,
are fixated on.  However, the intense and deeply problematic cisgender
media focus on our bodies does not produce a reflection of our
collective and various experiences.Though we may sometimes find
ourselves in these narratives, these are not narratives that in any way
represent the rich complexity of trans* lives.  What they represent is a
morbid cisgender fascination with trans bodies and the “process of
transition.”  What they represent is that cisgender fascination
can sell out box offices, but it can’t (apparently) provide housing or
medical care to trans* peoples.And even when we are offering self-representation that focuses on our bodies, our transitional experiences, etc. it’s fucking complicated.  As trans* people we have been taught for generations and generations
that there are particular ways we have to tell our stories in order to
gain recognition from our families, our medical care providers, the
world at large and even each other. 

That is not to say that we never have any agency in the
way we tell our stories.  However it is important to also be conscious
of the patterns of story-telling in our communities and the multiple
forces that have shaped their particular rhythm.

I learned how to tell the stories of my queerness and my
transness.  I learned how to tell linear stories that began with me
chucking my barbie out of my bedroom window and end with me working
towards testosterone and top surgery.  I learned how to tell stories
that ultimately obscured my truths while turning my trans* experience
into something other people could swallow and/or recognize.  I learned
to see my life through this particular framework of trans* identity that
fully and accurately accounts for the experiences of only a handful of
trans* folks.

Anyway, my point is just this:  There are very few
mainstream representations of trans* folks.  And these representations,
often put forth by cisgender people, focus on a very limited part of our
experiences.  I don’t think that this is accurate or liberating
in any way and I will always be pushing for more and better media
representation that covers the great expanse of our experiences and that
does not reflect the cisgender fetishization of trans bodies.
 

I don't think that's really true for Boys Don't Cry. Boys Don't Cry seemed to me to be more about how people react to Brandon. For that, of course, it is important to show that Brandon was trans, but the story doesn't focus on...
"the trans person’s emotional and social existence [being] tied to the state of their body"

I really appreciate the post. As a genderqueer person I find a lot of ideas surrounding transitioning and body alteration problematic because they assume the movement from one static state to another. And the thing is, I have no plans to give up options on either side of the constructed binary.

When I first came out  to myself as queer I thought I might need to engage in heavy alteration of my body to end the dysphoria and feel comfortable. But I found that growing out my hair from the short cut, shaving my legs, and moving towards more androgynous clothing took care of it. I'm almost, now, more afraid of wearing more feminine clothing because I'll pass as a woman than because I fear social sanctions.

I don't want to pass. I don't want to transition. I want to transform.

I totally agree...although I wouldn't discount the Crying Game because of this. the "reveal" of Dil's body is sort of a necessary part of the plot line, to show how Fergus discovers Dil is trans*. I liked the Crying Game because it -didn't- make Dil's body the focus point for the most part, besides that one scene.