Thread: Calling Twilight and Pomona to their own damn room in a warm place Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005598
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
In response to some ongoing and long-running snarking in Purgatory, culminating in hostly warnings and this post in The Styx I feel it is best for the Greater Good of All that these two precious dahlings get their own thread and leave Purgatory alone, for what might turn out to be a reasonable debate. But then again, maybe not.
[ 04. July 2016, 19:42: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
A crown in Heaven awaits you, Sioni.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
A crown in Heaven awaits you, Sioni.
Not too soon. 2016 has been a shitty year.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
We're always encouraged to take our questions for the hosts to Styx and yet whenever we do, there's always some hosts who act like we've dared to question the Queen in the middle of her Christmas speech.
Neither Pomona nor I have posted on the Purg thread for hours and yet no one else has posted. Maybe we weren't ruining it for the other kids all that much.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We're always encouraged to take our questions for the hosts to Styx and yet whenever we do, there's always some hosts who act like we've dared to question the Queen in the middle of her Christmas speech.
...ok, that was pretty funny.
I think we are all getting pissy. It's been week after week of national/ international upset. If we were all in the same area, I'd suggest we organize a Bacchanalia, just because we could use one, collectively.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think we are all getting pissy...
It's only been ten bloody years- about time! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We're always encouraged to take our questions for the hosts to Styx and yet whenever we do, there's always some hosts who act like we've dared to question the Queen in the middle of her Christmas speech.
...ok, that was pretty funny.
I think we are all getting pissy. It's been week after week of national/ international upset. If we were all in the same area, I'd suggest we organize a Bacchanalia, just because we could use one, collectively.
What a wonderful idea, just a couple of months after the quack has ordered me off booze.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Don't think the popcorn vendor is going to be very busy on this one sioni. Never-mind, worth a try.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Don't think the popcorn vendor is going to be very busy on this one sioni. Never-mind, worth a try.
No matter. It's for Pomona and Twilight to strut their stuff.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
A Bachannalia? Is that another word for shipmeet?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, with Bach played 24/7! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Pomona,
You have accused Twilight of "vicious transphobia". Nothing in her post suggests this in any way I can see. At worst, I see ignorance. I see no hate in that post at all.
I understand your desire for proper understanding of gender concerns, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to know what all the labels are, especially as they are evolving rapidly and many of the people they concern don't even understand what they mean.
The LGBT+ is called a community. It is not a cohesive one. Hell, bisexuality is feared amongst many of the older "members". Many of the older community, at least those I know, would be baffled by the labels you take as given. To expect the "straights" to understand without assistance is not realistic.
I often want to yell at people for not getting it with racism and sexuality and I sometimes actually do. But it isn't helpful if it appears they might be amenable to education.
I will not tell you how to feel. I will say I think, in this case, you are reacting to something that was not presented.
You can tell me to that I am wrong, I might be.
for background, begin reading here.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Pomona, I am so sorry I made you cry.
I was actually trying to say that I think transgender people should be able to identify any way they want and, of course, to use whatever bathroom they want to use.
I don't know what I said to make you think I was transphobic. I have always believed that we are all born somewhere on a wide spectrum between the two most commonly named genders. I think that it is all too easy for infants to be misidentified at birth. I also believe that in our world full of food additives, medications, environmental factors and chemicals it is very easy and increasingly common for a fetus to develop gender features that do not fit easily with the mind of the child to come.
My heart goes out to every person who has to deal with variances that are seen by others as "not normal."
Just as an example, a member of my family didn't go through puberty at all due to a pituitary injury. That person has had to deal with questions and curiosity of others, including doctors, the inability to have a sexual relationship or to have children, always looking many years younger than their actual age and endless other problems. I love this person very much and would do anything to make life easier for them.
I'm not sure what I said to upset you so much but I am very sorry I did.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Twilight ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Like lilBuddha, I can't see anything phobic at all about Twilight's post - not transphobic, not homophobic, nothing phobic at all. What I can see is an inability to understand the jargon, invented words and labels littering Pomona's post. Who can blame her for that?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
The world is moving very, very quickly when it comes to attitude changes and awareness of transgender issues. The language is changing to reflect that. I believe strongly that members of a group should be able to work out which language they feel most comfortable with, and the language that trans people use is still very much a work in progress. It's particularly important for trans people, I think, because up until now the language used has generally been something done to them, without any regard to their feelings or the accuracy of it.
That said, because of the rapidity of change, it can be difficult to keep track unless you're actively trying to do so (which I am, and even I sometimes get caught out). So I think it's helpful to distinguish between people who have a problem with trans people, and people who basically mean well but are a bit out of date. Twilight probably falls into the second category.
I want to be clear though, that when someone calls you out on language about trans people, it isn't a case of petty people pissing about with language in a PC police way and yelling at everyone. It's a group who've never been listened to before still getting the message across about what they want to be called and what they want to say.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I want to be clear though, that when someone calls you out on language about trans people, it isn't a case of petty people pissing about with language in a PC police way and yelling at everyone. It's a group who've never been listened to before still getting the message across about what they want to be called and what they want to say.
I agree with your post overall, but this last paragraph calls for some comment. If you're a part of any group that seeks to get its message across its seems to me important that you talk in a language that is generally accepted and understood in the community at large. Pomona's posts aren't written in that sort of language, but rather in a jargon available only to a very few.
[ 06. July 2016, 11:48: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
But that's how the language changes and develops. The "select few" in this case are trans people and their allies. They're putting those terms out there and people are picking them up. The hope is that they become more common. It's not elitist. It's more of an early-adopter thing.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Any suggestions on how we can pick them up? The usage in Pomona's posts is as opaque as it could be and whatever meaning she may have intended is obscured. It's hard to learn from those posts.
The second point which Twilight made was the persistent usage by Pomona of labels - everyone is herded into a group to which a label is given - as if all members of the group agree on everything which she attributes to that group. It's a technique frequently used by sociologists, and to my mind, is lazy and stereotypes badly.
[ 06. July 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
They're putting those terms out there and people are picking them up. The hope is that they become more common.
It's very hard for the terms to become more common when they're changing them all the bloody time. Especially when using a term that's now a week out of date gets one accused of [this week's term]phobia.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
...I believe strongly that members of a group should be able to work out which language they feel most comfortable with, and the language that trans people use is still very much a work in progress. It's particularly important for trans people, I think, because up until now the language used has generally been something done to them, without any regard to their feelings or the accuracy of it.
... It's a group who've never been listened to before still getting the message across about what they want to be called and what they want to say.
That's fine, but she's also using her labels to describe people not in that group and who don't choose to use them. She would refer to me as "cishet" but I can assure you that is not a way I would ever describe myself.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
"Cishet" is just short for cisgender and heterosexual ie not LGBT+. It's a purely descriptive term. I'd probably write cis/hetero myself, but I'd use basically the same term. I don't really see what the problem is with it. Though I may be about to find out, I guess.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
"Cishet" is just short for cisgender and heterosexual ie not LGBT+. It's a purely descriptive term. I'd probably write cis/hetero myself, but I'd use basically the same term. I don't really see what the problem is with it. Though I may be about to find out, I guess.
The biggest problem from my POV is we weren't told what it meant. But then everybody knows I'm too lazy to Google, so fuck me.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any suggestions on how we can pick them up?
This is actually a real problem. Wikipedia is useless on two fronts. You need to know what you are looking for and the descriptions try too hard to be scholarly and end up being difficult to parse.
Many sites tend to assume you know something to start. Adn do a poorer job than they think in cluing the uninitiated.
Try here. Not perfect, but they try to keep it clear.
quote:
The second point which Twilight made was the persistent usage by Pomona of labels - everyone is herded into a group to which a label is given - as if all members of the group agree on everything which she attributes to that group. It's a technique frequently used by sociologists, and to my mind, is lazy and stereotypes badly.
This link by no prophet on the origin thread speaks of the internal dissonance.
I do not think Pomona is being lazy.
We all think our views are the most correct, it is a difficult thing to step outside, especially when who one is is misunderstood, dismissed and denigrated.
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
She would refer to me as "cishet" but I can assure you that is not a way I would ever describe myself.
Part of this is because you are in a "default" group, you do not need to.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
She would refer to me as "cishet" but I can assure you that is not a way I would ever describe myself.
Part of this is because you are in a "default" group, you do not need to.
Just as neurotypical people don't refer to themselves as neurotypical.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
"Cishet" is just short for cisgender and heterosexual ie not LGBT+. It's a purely descriptive term. I'd probably write cis/hetero myself. . .
Yeah, that would have helped me. I know what cis/cisgender mean and, of course, what heterosexual means. But I don't think I had ever seen "cishet" written out. Even in the context of this discussion, I read "cishet" as "si-shet," thinking it was a new term I hadn't heard before. I did google it, and then realized I was reading it wrong. I think when I'd heard the term before, my mind had seen it as "cis-het."
The point being, even something simple like spelling can hinder comprehension.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Pomona, I am so sorry I made you cry.
Nothing to the attacks of ocular rotation Pomona can cause.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
But that's how the language changes and develops. The "select few" in this case are trans people and their allies. They're putting those terms out there and people are picking them up. The hope is that they become more common. It's not elitist. It's more of an early-adopter thing.
yes, this.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any suggestions on how we can pick them up? The usage in Pomona's posts is as opaque as it could be and whatever meaning she may have intended is obscured. It's hard to learn from those posts.
The same way we learn any new vocabulary-- repetition. The "early adopters" use the term as frequently as possible and provide clear, understandable definitions. The trick is to do so as non-defensively as possible, to not assume phobia or prejudice among those who have not yet been exposed to the new terminology.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The second point which Twilight made was the persistent usage by Pomona of labels - everyone is herded into a group to which a label is given - as if all members of the group agree on everything which she attributes to that group. It's a technique frequently used by sociologists, and to my mind, is lazy and stereotypes badly.
The fact that we use labels is not in and of itself lazy or stereotyping. It is, in fact, a normal and useful human function. Our brains are designed to do that from infancy for a very good reason-- that's how we learn. We learn very early on to group similar things in categories-- "people walk upright and have two arms and legs; dogs are furry and bark and walk on four legs." Then, a bit later on, we learn that there are exceptions to the rules-- some humans have only 1 leg or none, some crawl on the ground (usually toddlers) rather than walking upright...
As has been detailed upthread, advocating the elimination of all labels racial or otherwise, however well-meaning it might be (and it usually is) tends to increase inequality, rather than decrease it (which I assume is the goal). This happens because "color blindness" tends to obscure the underlying problems-- the "starting point" differentials, and assume a level playing field. When you don't use any labels you won't know about the inequalities. If, for example, you never notice or collect data on race in reference to policing or incarceration, you won't have any way to know if there is an underlying inequality there. You won't see the problem, which pretty much guarantees that the problem will not be addressed or resolved.
Of course, there are problems with labeling-- one, as you note is stereotyping. Another, as Twilight noted, is the way labeling tends to make us see people as the label rather than as a person first and foremost. Those are real issues and need to be addressed with diligence. But the solution is not the eliminate all labels-- both because it is impossible (it's just the way our minds work) but also because it is unhelpful. The solution is to be diligent and careful and thoughtful in the ways we use labels.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
She would refer to me as "cishet" but I can assure you that is not a way I would ever describe myself.
Part of this is because you are in a "default" group, you do not need to.
Just as neurotypical people don't refer to themselves as neurotypical.
Yup. Some people do object to "cisgender" but from a linguistic perspective "cis" is just the opposite of "trans" - remaining on the same side rather than crossing over. Often what the objection amounts to is "I don't need another word for normal!"
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
She would refer to me as "cishet" but I can assure you that is not a way I would ever describe myself.
Part of this is because you are in a "default" group, you do not need to.
Personally, I'm old fashioned enough to refer to myself as hetero. I will do my best learn how other people like to refer to their membership in different populations. But I'd definitely take it amiss if someone tried to correct me when I was referring to myself as hetero, and insisted that I refer to myself as cishet. I think everyone has the right to choose their own labels as long as they are not demeaning to others. Also, I'd appreciate some patience while I'm on the learning curve.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I don't think that's very likely to happen though. It'd be like someone saying "I'm a white man" and getting the response "No, you're a WASP!" It'd be a really weird "correction" to make.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
True.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
If you want to read something articulate from someone who rejects the cisgender label try this:
Am I cisgender?
[ 06. July 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
If you want to read something articulate from someone who rejects the cisgender label try this:
Am I cisgender?
Excellent piece. Thanks for sharing this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
What I think she misses is that she might not have a strong gender identity because she doesn't have a conflict.
Oh, and pedantically, a vagina is not a secondary sexual characteristic.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I think she misses is that she might not have a strong gender identity because she doesn't have a conflict.
That begins to sound circular.
I was thinking maybe there are orthogonal scales -- One is strength of identity (up and down), and one is gender one identifies with (left and right). If one identifies entirely as a female, but feels like this woman feels, they would be in the lower left hand corner. A person who doesn't give a rip what gender they are (one thinks of Vi Hart), would be bottom center. Someone who vehemently rejects the gender binary would be top center. Transgender people would presumably be in the upper corners.
quote:
Oh, and pedantically, a vagina is not a secondary sexual characteristic.
I noticed that too. If having a vagina is secondary, I wonder what example she'd give of a primary sexual characteristic? She must have mis-spoken.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I've been reading about my new word all day and I'm glad I researched it a little before I took it out in public to impress my book club.
Quite a few sources considered it a form of insult.
Dictionary.com says cishet is "usually disparaging and offensive."
Urban Dictionary finds it particularly angry and confrontational.
So like some other words that have reasonable Latin roots and are "just short for," something longer, (the short form of homosexual for example) it can seem perfectly fine on the surface but is considered an insult based on the hostility with which it is most often used.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think that's very likely to happen though. It'd be like someone saying "I'm a white man" and getting the response "No, you're a WASP!" It'd be a really weird "correction" to make.
Remind me to introduce you to Pomona sometime. She's exactly the sort of person who would insist on making such a correction.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been reading about my new word all day and I'm glad I researched it a little before I took it out in public to impress my book club.
Quite a few sources considered it a form of insult.
Wellll, not quite an accurate statement, IMO. ISTM, the Queer Dictionary have the most accurate take.
quote:
The use of "cishet" by the LGBT+ and feminist community has been a source of some controversy, It may be occasionally used in what are perceived as ad hominem or straw-man arguments when addressing cisgender heterosexuals, and this has led to many perceiving it as an insult. In gender, cishet is a shorthand descriptive term and not a slur.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Remind me to introduce you to Pomona sometime. She's exactly the sort of person who would insist on making such a correction.
I will be among the first to acknowledge that Pomona's posts can appear to lack some of the social niceties. But try to understand why that might be.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been reading about my new word all day and I'm glad I researched it a little before I took it out in public to impress my book club.
Quite a few sources considered it a form of insult.
Dictionary.com says cishet is "usually disparaging and offensive."
Urban Dictionary finds it particularly angry and confrontational.
So like some other words that have reasonable Latin roots and are "just short for," something longer, (the short form of homosexual for example) it can seem perfectly fine on the surface but is considered an insult based on the hostility with which it is most often used.
I'm not sure that first definition on UD is exactly a calm, measured appraisal of the word's use in society. "... who have the audacity ..." is not exactly a neutral definition. This person has an axe to grind and is not to be trusted to give a fair rendering of the word's social/emotional impact.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been reading about my new word all day and I'm glad I researched it a little before I took it out in public to impress my book club.
Quite a few sources considered it a form of insult.
Dictionary.com says cishet is "usually disparaging and offensive."
Urban Dictionary finds it particularly angry and confrontational.
So like some other words that have reasonable Latin roots and are "just short for," something longer, (the short form of homosexual for example) it can seem perfectly fine on the surface but is considered an insult based on the hostility with which it is most often used.
I'm not sure that first definition on UD is exactly a calm, measured appraisal of the word's use in society. "... who have the audacity ..." is not exactly a neutral definition. This person has an axe to grind and is not to be trusted to give a fair rendering of the word's social/emotional impact.
Of course, you're right but that's how the Urban Dictionary has always worked. Everyday people say what they think a new or slang word means and the others vote on whether the definition fits their understanding of the word. That person's definition received the most votes because the majority of people who had encountered the word had perceived it the same way.
No it's not Webster's but it's how this new word is used on the street and probably at least as fair an understanding as the Queer Dictionary, which would be biased in favor of the people who use it to describe others. It's the people who are on the receiving end of the word who would know best how it feels to be called that.
If I as a white person, invented a new word to describe people of some other race, it would be those people, not me, who could best decide if the word seemed insulting.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You're ignoring power differential.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If I as a white person, invented a new word to describe people of some other race, it would be those people, not me, who could best decide if the word seemed insulting.
It wasn't invented as an insult, the people who use it as an insult use straight as an insult as well.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Breeder, on the other hand....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Breeder, on the other hand....
You should have been to the café in Centennial Park - breeder was frequently by used by waiters about non-gay men. The Eastern Suburbs ladies, bearers of numerous children, were fawned over and gave large tips in response......
Upthread, someone raised the issue of early adopters. All well and good if a suitable explanation is given. However, some use a newly invented word as a tool of exclusion. Probably the inventor of cisgender got her indentured position from it, maybe even at Associate Professor level.
A mate of ours, a doctor who also happens to be gay, went to a transgender conference here for professional reasons. One of the papers, delivered by an academic, roundly criticised the use of the word "transgender" saying that it was alienating and demeaning to the extent that transgender people hated it. He very foolishly asked what the research was behind that comment. After 10 minutes of abuse, he found, as you might expect, that there was none. Nor could he find out what the recommended word was.
Labelling need not be lazy, but unfortunately that is a lesson that Pomona has not yet learned.
[ 07. July 2016, 07:31: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And this, children, is why drink posting is a bad idea.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I think she misses is that she might not have a strong gender identity because she doesn't have a conflict.
That begins to sound circular.
I was thinking maybe there are orthogonal scales -- One is strength of identity (up and down), and one is gender one identifies with (left and right). If one identifies entirely as a female, but feels like this woman feels, they would be in the lower left hand corner. A person who doesn't give a rip what gender they are (one thinks of Vi Hart), would be bottom center. Someone who vehemently rejects the gender binary would be top center. Transgender people would presumably be in the upper corners.
Yup, there's definitely some truth to this. In fact when I first started to think/learn about trans people I found it quite easy to understand how, for example, someone who was born with a penis could nonetheless feel "I am definitely a woman, not a man". This is because that's how I feel about my gender (albeit I wasn't born with a wang). So it makes sense to me that someone else might feel that way. What I found harder to understand were people whose gender identity was not so binary.
As I've met more people and had more conversations, I've met:
- a fair few whose gender identity is basically "meh - I guess I'll go with what I have because it's easier, but I don't really care"
- some who are more "if I had completely free choice I'd switch to the other binary gender, but I don't feel strongly enough to go through all the crap trans people face"
- some who are "I feel very uncomfortable being identified as a man OR a woman and I'd really rather you used neutral pronouns"
- and some who are "I absolutely must change this body, this life as my birth-assigned gender. It's all wrong and I hate hate hate it. The only way I can live with myself is to change the body to match the brain."
What I'm getting at here is that there are a lot of these kinds of articles about and the problem with them is that they have a sample size of one. Examining how you yourself feel about gender is a worthwhile thing to do, but not if it results in "I don't feel that way, so I don't understand why anyone else would. They're probably mistaken / lying / making it up for attention / nuts / just in need of some help to realise how wrong they are." How one person feels about their own gender gives VERY limited insight. In my own case, I'm embarrassed to say that I was initially quite eye-rolly about nonbinary people. These days I have to say that I still don't instinctively "get it" but that's okay. I don't have to. There are a lot of things I don't understand that are nonetheless real.
In actual fact, the main rules for not being an arsehole towards trans people are generally pretty simple:
- use the pronouns and the name that the person wants you to use.
- don't ask/speculate about the contents of their underwear.
- don't treat the existence of trans people as the punchline of a joke.
Do these and you're 99% there, and considerably closer than almost all the mentions that trans people get on television.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It does help if people actually tell you what pronouns etc they wish you to use, often you are effectively expected to guess from self-presentation - and that can be difficult to do if people have a non-traditional presentation of gender.
For example if meet a person in wearing a skirt with a name that could go either way (e.g. Hilary) and hair growing fomr their chin - but not to a length and extent that would normally be described as a beard: I don't know if they are a radical feminist woman who doesn't believe in altering their appearance / shaving body hair to conform to the male gaze, a man who beleives he shouldn't have to conform to traditional male clothing conventions, a man who lost a bet or a non-binary person combining gender signals.
What I can be fairly sure of, is that asking someone's gender in these circumstances is likely to offend depending upon which of these groups the person identifies with.
[ 07. July 2016, 11:13: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Yeah that's a tricky one. One answer I've seen given a lot is "you should ask everyone their pronouns! Never assume!" which makes me wonder what planet the person is from if they think we can put that into practice and not get punched in the face within the week.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Yeah that's a tricky one. One answer I've seen given a lot is "you should ask everyone their pronouns! Never assume!" which makes me wonder what planet the person is from if they think we can put that into practice and not get punched in the face within the week.
Indeed! Then again, I'm pretty unlikely to meet a person such as Doublethink describes in a month of Sundays.
I have no idea what research (if any) has been carried out, but a fellow on my floor does a lot pf personal injury work - car accidents, work accidents and so forth. He has been involved in a number of cases where an injured plaintiff feels that they are a woman trapped in a man's body (never the other way around) - but had no such feelings before the accident.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And we need another pronoun. 'They' is already taken. It's not impossible - remember the stooshie about 'Ms'? How a woman had to be either Miss or Mrs? How nobody could pronounce it? Now it's standard.
An 'ee' sound preceded by almost any consonant would work. From which it should be easy to form the other possessive forms - zee, zees, zine, zeeself. Or start from 'twi' which already has sense coexistant or interstitial states.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I suppose it might be a cop out, but unless I know what someone prefers, I tend to go with avoiding pronouns where I can. Other than that I'm happy to use whatever terms the person involved prefers.
Personally, as a cisgender, mainly straight woman who chose not to have children, I passionately hate the term "breeder" especially as I've usually heard it said with disgust. At the same time I can understand people who have been oppressed by being on the receiving end of name calling (and worse)not being fussy about the labels they use toward someone who belongs to a group by whom they have been oppressed.
Or is "breeder" regarded as a neutral term by some people?
Huia
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by Firenze:
And we need another pronoun....
snip...
An 'ee' sound preceded by almost any consonant would work. From which it should be easy to form the other possessive forms - zee, zees, zine, zeeself.
Close. AIUI zie is in use already in this context.
ETA: Sorry - poor choice of link; try here
[ 07. July 2016, 12:33: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur that probably arose as a response to homophobic slurs. This kind of slur directed at the dominant group is a bit odd, as it doesn't have the full force of societal oppression behind it. It's a bit like "honky" or "cracker" for white people, or many of the vaguely insulting words western Europeans have come up with for people from their neighbouring countries - a bit insulting, but not having the real force behind them that many racial slurs do.
That said, I don't like slurs of any kind and avoid using them. And yes, it's perfectly understandable to dislike being called a "breeder".
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
That's helpful Liopleurodon. New Zealanders and Australians tend to have those kind of vaguely insulting terms for each other - I have been known to refer to Australia dismissively as "New Zealand's largest off shore island" but the few times I have heard "breeder" it has been like being sworn at. I think I probably need to take it less personally, they are attacking what they might think I stand for, not who I am.
Having once seen someone on the receiving end of some vicious verbal gay bashing (and intervened as best I could) I can understand a desire to hit back. Hell, I wanted to find some nasty words to use towards the attackers myself.
Huia
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I tend to, when discussing heterosexual people in the context of discussing cishets and LGBT+, use the term "breeder" to refer to myself and my fellow, well, breeders. Some of my best friends are gay™, including some who would definitely tell me if it bothered them. None have, so I am assuming this case of appropriating an insult isn't offensive.
(OTOH I think, what right does somebody have to be offended if I willingly accept a rude sobriquet that they or a group of which they are a member and I am not assign to me?)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If cishet is a thing, are people using transhet?
I ask because there's actually no point to replacing "heterosexual" or "hetero" with "cishet" unless there's a place for emphasising that there are transgender people who are heterosexual.
"Cisgender" is perfectly adequate as a contrast to "transgender". "Cishet" (or the clearer "cis/hetero") is only of practical use if you're actually discussing sexuality as well as gender.
[ 08. July 2016, 08:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If cishet is a thing, are people using transhet?
I ask because there's actually no point to replacing "heterosexual" or "hetero" with "cishet" unless there's a place for emphasising that there are transgender people who are heterosexual.
"Cisgender" is perfectly adequate as a contrast to "transgender". "Cishet" (or the clearer "cis/hetero") is only of practical use if you're actually discussing sexuality as well as gender.
The reason why they're lumped together in "cishet" is that they're lumped together in "LGBT". The reason that they're lumped together in "LGBT" is that all these groups experience discrimination, although obviously no one person is LGB AND T. The fact is, though, that LGBT is the "group" that has been thrown together, just as "people of colour" have nothing necessarily in common other than their not being white and being marginalised as a result. If you're going to draw the lines in this way, sooner or later you need a term that means "not LGBT." For better or worse, this is the one that someone has come up with and it does the job.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I am allowed to claim it excludes me because I am, for want of a better neologism - cisL ?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Obviously if you're a lesbian you aren't cishet. Nor, for that matter, am I.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
If you're going to draw the lines in this way, sooner or later you need a term that means "not LGBT." For better or worse, this is the one that someone has come up with and it does the job.
I think the point I was making was that "heterosexual" does exactly the same job, unless you're particularly wanting to allow for transgender heterosexuals.
Which one might well be. I don't know. My limited experience is that when people are talking about transgender issues, there's not usually much focus on whether the transgender person is homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.
[ 08. July 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Obviously if you're a lesbian you aren't cishet. Nor, for that matter, am I.
I am cis gendered, I am not heterosexual. Using the combo term cishet vs lgbt is problematic.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Obviously if you're a lesbian you aren't cishet. Nor, for that matter, am I.
I am cis gendered, I am not heterosexual. Using the combo term cishet vs lgbt is problematic.
In which case the problem is really with two different things (gender/orientation) being lumped together to form the LGBT+ grouping. In fact once you start factoring non-binary people it becomes even more confusing. Is a non-binary person who only dates men considered gay or straight or bi? None of the labels quite work.
The thing is that cishet vs LGBTQAI (yeah I know, that's a bunch of letters but I'm going to include queer, asexual and intersex here) does kinda work. Either you are (cisgender + heterosexual) or one of the other letters applies. Cisgender and heterosexual is considered the "default" characteristic. You must be both to not be LGBT+.
In reality all cishet tends to mean is "society is not fucking you over on the basis of your gender or orientation". Like WASP means that you have a privileged status in the USA in terms of race and religion. The existence of WASP as a term doesn't mean that you can't be white and RC, but if you are, it's a term that doesn't apply to you.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
If you're going to draw the lines in this way, sooner or later you need a term that means "not LGBT." For better or worse, this is the one that someone has come up with and it does the job.
I think the point I was making was that "heterosexual" does exactly the same job, unless you're particularly wanting to allow for transgender heterosexuals.
Which one might well be. I don't know. My limited experience is that when people are talking about transgender issues, there's not usually much focus on whether the transgender person is homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.
Doesn't the "T" stand for "Transgender"? If so then if you're transgender + straight, you're still transgender, and you're still covered under LGBT+.
LGBT doesn't mean L and G and B and T. It means L or G or B or T.
[ 08. July 2016, 14:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Part of it, I suspect, is for historical reasons. Transgender people have in the past (and sometimes still are, erroneously) simply been regarded as having an extreme version of gayness. The old concept of an "invert" was some kind of weird blending of sexual and gender nonconformity. I guess that's how gay and trans people ended up converging into the same space. But of course, most gay people are cis, and trans people have the full range of possible sexual orientations.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
and you're still covered under LGBT+.
But still, marginalised.
Think of Christians being described as Catholic, Protestant and Others. Others covers all the possible variations, but misses directly addressing the Orthodox, Anglican...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
and you're still covered under LGBT+.
But still, marginalised.
Think of Christians being described as Catholic, Protestant and Others. Others covers all the possible variations, but misses directly addressing the Orthodox, Anglican...
Which brings us right back around to the alphabet soup. How can you cover everybody? You simply cannot. At some point you have to stop building the perfect acronym because it becomes too unwieldy. It's just simply not possible to mention every possible configuration of sexuality and gender and so forth every time you mention it, particularly as people with new self-descriptions come to light. Language just can't work that way.
Frankly I'm just happy when they include an "Other" category and don't assume that Catholics and Protestants make up the whole of Christianity. I don't mind sharing "other" with Anglicans if they don't mind sharing it with me. I do bathe.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I don't think any configuration/extension of the current acronym will suit. Queer has negative connotations that not everyone is willing to ignore.
It is possible that this will change enough to be a universal word, but another might be better.
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur that probably arose as a response to homophobic slurs. This kind of slur directed at the dominant group is a bit odd, as it doesn't have the full force of societal oppression behind it. It's a bit like "honky" or "cracker" for white people, or many of the vaguely insulting words western Europeans have come up with for people from their neighbouring countries - a bit insulting, but not having the real force behind them that many racial slurs do.
That said, I don't like slurs of any kind and avoid using them. And yes, it's perfectly understandable to dislike being called a "breeder".
I was called a breeder in college when I, as a bisexual woman, asked a Lesbian for the information to attend the LGBT support group on campus. (They had to keep meeting time and location secret for legitimate safety concerns.) I hate that term. It meant I couldn't talk to anyone about my sexual identity. I still kind of cringe when I hear the B in LGBTQ+, because in my experience that B was never welcome.
(edited for spelling/my ego)
[ 09. July 2016, 05:09: Message edited by: AmyBo ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur
No - it's a very insulting term. It's particularly abusive when applied as a functionary term to those people who would love to have children, but don't or can't.
I know you say that it is a term used in response to aeons of homophobic abuse (for which we should all regret and repent of), but surely the better way is love? Why fight insult with insult - it won't help the case with the die hards, only reinforce prejudice
As for cishet, again it's a label (like "white") that I (for example) don't choose for myself. Therefore I would kindly, sincerely and gently invite others not to use it of me.
Quite apart from anything else I am neither defined by my colour, race/ethnicity nor sexuality. As a matter of policy I never answer questions of colour, race or sexuality under any circumstances - as I try not to pigeonhole people myself. That includes enquiries from hospitals or government departments. I simply write "I do not answer these kind of abusive questions" on the form.
[ 09. July 2016, 06:42: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur
No - it's a very insulting term. It's particularly abusive when applied as a functionary term to those people who would love to have children, but don't or can't.
I think the point is that is how the term is generally used. How it is received is a different thing.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
This discussion demonstrates precisely the effect of the personal becoming political. It remains personal, but everyone is suddenly accountable to everyone else for the expression of their own experience and their treatment of everyone else's.
The fact that the range of sexualities is lumped together in a rather simplistic political agenda does not mean that they make easy bedfellows, and I do wish people would stop trying to bully them into doing so.
Pomona is a classic example of this kind of cloth eared, boned headed bully. Stop barking, start listening. We all need to listen to each other, whatever our experience. My experience as a gay man in the church has not been entirely easy, and still isn't, but it doesn't give me the right to bark orders at everyone else and never listen to their experience.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Forgive the double post, but I need to point out that I am not required to make myself into a doormat either. Nor does it mean that I won't interrogate the experience of others, and challenge their right to impose their conclusions on me. It simply requires me to treat them as persons, with their own experience, and not simply as political pawns to be moved out of my way as I charge relentlessly forward unto some kind of victory.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Twilight was called to hell and I missed it?
*sigh*
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Twilight was called to hell and I missed it?
*sigh*
You've missed quite a bit. Serves you right for attending to that "real life" thing.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur
No - it's a very insulting term. It's particularly abusive when applied as a functionary term to those people who would love to have children, but don't or can't.
Yes, I can imagine.
I don't know if it's a cross-pond difference or not, but I have only heard the term applied to me once in my entire life-- and that, interestingly, was 32 years ago, when I was holding my first child (so obviously, literally a "breeder"). I had never heard of that use of the term before and was a bit shocked, although it was apparent it was being used as a slur of some sort. Have never heard the term used in RL since in any context.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As for cishet, again it's a label (like "white") that I (for example) don't choose for myself. Therefore I would kindly, sincerely and gently invite others not to use it of me.
Quite apart from anything else I am neither defined by my colour, race/ethnicity nor sexuality. As a matter of policy I never answer questions of colour, race or sexuality under any circumstances - as I try not to pigeonhole people myself. That includes enquiries from hospitals or government departments. I simply write "I do not answer these kind of abusive questions" on the form.
I hear "cishet" as more of a clinical term. Not something I'd expect to hear in casual conversation, more like something I'd come across in a journal article or academic discussion (or the Ship). As such, I have no problem with it. Of course, words have a life of their own so no telling how the usage might evolve over time. But as a clinical descriptor it seems harmless enough.
The problem with saying "I don't see color/gender/sexuality/labels" has been noted above. It's something that can only be said from a position of privilege-- you don't see labels because you don't need to see labels. There are real problems with use of labels, hence the instinctive distaste. They DO tend to cause us to see people as the label and not the person. But getting rid of labels all together inevitably means you obscure real discussions of real problems among marginalized groups. The example above of recording race in reference to policing and/or incarceration is an excellent illustration of why some use of labeling is essential to addressing problems of marginalization and oppression.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The fact that the range of sexualities is lumped together in a rather simplistic political agenda does not mean that they make easy bedfellows, and I do wish people would stop trying to bully them into doing so.
Is that happening? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(honest question). I had understood the "lumping together" to be voluntary-- marginalized groups seeking solidarity to address common concerns. Who is doing the bullying-- and why?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The fact that the range of sexualities is lumped together in a rather simplistic political agenda does not mean that they make easy bedfellows, and I do wish people would stop trying to bully them into doing so.
Is that happening? (honest question). I had understood the "lumping together" to be voluntary-- marginalized groups seeking solidarity to address common concerns. Who is doing the bullying-- and why?
It's a curious double bind: first groups with little in common other than what they aren't (i.e. cis-gendered and heterosexual simultaneously) come together looking for safety and power in numbers, and then among them there's a sort of arms race, with those who claim the prize for being most marginalised asserting at the same time the exclusive right to speak on behalf of the whole "alliance". There is in particular a move afoot, to my mind at least, to exclude the voice of gay men, to see us as oppressive because we are male and cis-gendered, while at the same time claiming our campaigning energies. Which, in my unhumble opinion, can fuck the fuck off.
[ 09. July 2016, 14:57: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
ah, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. And yeah, f*** that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Quite apart from anything else I am neither defined by my colour, race/ethnicity nor sexuality. As a matter of policy I never answer questions of colour, race or sexuality under any circumstances - as I try not to pigeonhole people myself. That includes enquiries from hospitals or government departments. I simply write "I do not answer these kind of abusive questions" on the form.
To use your example of inquiries from hospitals: We now know, for example, that women who go to the ER while suffering a heart attack are far more likely to be misdiagnosed and sent home w/o proper treatment than men, are far less likely to get an EKG. That may be because medical personnel have a subconscious prejudice that women are "complainers" or hypochondriacs. Or it may be because symptoms of a heart attack among women are different from those among men.
In either case, the reason we know this is because hospitals ask about gender. Because medical records include gender, researchers are able to go back and do a study of initial diagnosis and treatment, and determine if their are racial, gender, economic or other disparities. This is also how researchers were able to determine that women's symptoms are typically different than men's. We wouldn't know this if we weren't recording gender.
Because we know about the disparity, we are now able to undertake education campaigns to inform both ER personnel and women about the disparity, and about the different symptoms for men and for women.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ah, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. And yeah, f*** that.
Just because everyone else hates you, doesn't mean you cannot hate each other as well.
The struggle for rights has always included misogyny, fear of bisexuals, not understanding the trans community at all and being as baffled by intersex, 2 spirit as the straights. Not to mention racism, classism, etc.
Thunderbunk is correct in that the alliance has been less than smooth.
[ 09. July 2016, 15:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The struggle for rights has always included misogyny, fear of bisexuals, not understanding the trans community at all and being as baffled by intersex, 2 spirit as the straights. Not to mention racism, classism, etc.
Thunderbunk is correct in that the alliance has been less than smooth.
Hmmmm. Yes, that's the full list of sins I had in mind. Of course, there's the potential for them to exist, but it grates when one is found guilty of them merely by virtue of ones existence. Conviction in advance of evidence is not the way forward for anyone or anything.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I suppose the real point is that diversity among the rainbow alliance needs to be celebrated and accommodated, rather than being elided, even annihilated in pursuit of a clear, marketable message. We are all human, all have aour story to tell.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think "breeder" is regarded as a slightly insulting term, a rather tongue-in-cheek slur
No - it's a very insulting term. It's particularly abusive when applied as a functionary term to those people who would love to have children, but don't or can't.
I think the point is that is how the term is generally used. How it is received is a different thing.
If you say I am at fault in being sensitive (ie how I receive it - even if no hurt intended), then you are effectively saying man up to everyone who is oppressed.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[... then you are effectively saying man up to everyone who is oppressed.
pun intended?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you say I am at fault in being sensitive (ie how I receive it - even if no hurt intended), then you are effectively saying man up to everyone who is oppressed.
What I said directs fault towards no one. It is simply stating that one might feel insult where none was intended. This does not inherently absolve the speaker or condemn the offended.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a curious double bind: first groups with little in common other than what they aren't (i.e. cis-gendered and heterosexual simultaneously) come together looking for safety and power in numbers, and then among them there's a sort of arms race, with those who claim the prize for being most marginalised asserting at the same time the exclusive right to speak on behalf of the whole "alliance". There is in particular a move afoot, to my mind at least, to exclude the voice of gay men, to see us as oppressive because we are male and cis-gendered, while at the same time claiming our campaigning energies. Which, in my unhumble opinion, can fuck the fuck off.
There is a bit of a backlash against white cis gay men at the moment, but it is that - a backlash, because for a long time there's been a bit of an assumption that white cis gay men could speak for all LGBT people. There's nothing wrong with being a white gay man, obviously. The problem is that - for example - the needs and concerns of black trans women have been ignored. In the UK, many people treat the official Stonewall line like it represents the LGBT "hive mind". Which is a problem for three reasons:
- there is no hive mind.
- Stonewall has a particular demographic of supporters which tilts towards white, middle class and cisgender, and it cares most about those people's needs. This is a vicious circle since people outside this demographic can't be bothered to campaign for an organisation that doesn't care about them, so nothing changes.
- Stonewall really didn't have any interest whatever in trans people's rights until very recently. People thought it represented LGBT people, but it didn't represent the T at all.
So what happens? First of all, someone notes the problem that the people who are being heard are only a subset of LGBT people. Then others are encouraged to speak, and white cis gay men are encouraged to shut up so that others can be heard.
From the perspective of an individual white cis gay man, though, this comes across as "shut up. You aren't persecuted enough to have an opinion." Which can't feel very welcoming. It actually comes from wanting to amplify the voices of groups that need to be heard, but it looks like the oppression olympics.
In all of this, there are a few people who love suddenly being in a situation where their marginalised status outside the movement gives them more status within it. They may enjoy yelling at people. Humans are human. Experiencing a lot of shit from society doesn't make you a saint. But it's only a few people.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
White cis men in general have a hard time shutting up and letting other people speak.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
White cis men in general have a hard time shutting up and letting other people speak.
What's your evidence for that?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
White cis men in general have a hard time shutting up and letting other people speak.
What's your evidence for that?
All Lives Matter.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The process Liopluerodon is talking about tells you just about everything you need to know about the idiocy of identity politics as it has been played out for the last twenty years or so. If you look at how it started, in the case of gay men (which is the one I know most about, being a gay man and all), it was started through groups of actual people coming together to deal with real, practical problems. The campaigning was a product of those relationships and their desire to work together as people; the results flowed from that.
Around the early 1990s, there was a hugely regrettable change. Gay rights became a brand; this evolved into lesbian and gay rights, though in fact this was always an awkward alliance because of the tension between sexuality and gender as foci of political identity. More and more different groups allied themselves, without any discussion as to how the actual people and their experiences fitted together, or didn't.
It's not surprising, therefore, that certain groups were not regarded as, for example, campaigning for trans rights. They weren't set up to do so, and the hard work required to get the members' active agreement and participation wasn't done. Effectively, they were presented with a fait accompli.
That doesn't work. Identity is not a brand; it's a critical part of experience. Campaigning zeal is powered by that experience, and a lot of the work that, to my mind, has been bypassed needs to be done before the rainbow alliance becomes anything other than an empty slogan. All members of that alliance are guilty to some degree of trying to ignore the complexities it creates, but they are huge, and may well be unworkable. Experience of gender, for example, is legitimately different, and to expect all the cisgendered people, both men and women, in the entire alliance to subjugate and effectively deligitimate their own experience in favour of that of transgendered people seems to me to be a demand that has never been articulated, never mind debated or agreed. There is no community because there is no dialogue. It's just a process of shouting, and of trying to be the voice shouting loudest.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I've just thought of a tl;dr for all of that. "We're not like them" is a magnificently ineffective basis on which to achieve anything positive.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hostly furry hat on
Thunderbunk, your sig seems to have crept over the 4-line max we permit for the orderly and ship-shapedness scrolling of threads.
Would you mind awfully changing it back to meet approved standards?
DT
HH
Hostly furry hat off
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Hopefully, this is now done.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Cheers.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
White cis men in general have a hard time shutting up and letting other people speak.
What's your evidence for that?
All Lives Matter.
Not something I'm aware of ... citation/link?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here is a link.
Any dominant group will see the advancement of other groups as a threat, even if it is simply and equalisation of power/attention. If you cannot see this, it probably means you are a member of such a group.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
All members of that alliance are guilty to some degree of trying to ignore the complexities it creates, but they are huge, and may well be unworkable.
Why? no one suggests that it needs to be a homogeneous group, just that core concerns are better addressed commonly. I do not need to feel what a trans-person feels to understand that they, too, have experienced pain. That they too deserve to be who they are, unmolested.
quote:
Experience of gender, for example, is legitimately different,
Yes, but that is secondary to the main thrust of the idea of the "movement". The primary focus should be that everybody has the right to be who they are, regardless of whether or not someone else understands them. This is not to say expressing/understanding what other groups are going through is unimportant, but that understanding should not be required to accept that their struggle is equally worthy.
quote:
There is no community because there is no dialogue. It's just a process of shouting, and of trying to be the voice shouting loudest.
Despite this not being a million miles from what I have been saying, I think this is more a generational thing. IME, it is more the older folk who have trouble. Younger tend to see less importance in the specific definitions of identity. This is in part due to not having the same level of struggle, of coming of age in a different environment.
quote:
It's not surprising, therefore, that certain groups were not regarded as, for example, campaigning for trans rights. They weren't set up to do so, and the hard work required to get the members' active agreement and participation wasn't done. Effectively, they were presented with a fait accompli.
This is a messed up attitude. It is entirely to human, though. People care less about equal rights for everyone than they do that their group is not disadvantaged. And it is natural that a gardener might feel a twinge of resentment when the some fruit of the tree s/he has tended falls on the other side of the garden wall, to be enjoyed by someone else. But this does not diminish the tree or the fruit the gardeners themselves enjoy.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
lilBuddha, I think you're discounting what I was saying about the connection between campaigning and experience. To my mind, there is a limit to how far a whole logic of campaigning based on experience can be stretched. At its breaking point, the campaign ceases to be a matter of the personal becoming political, or at least of being each person's personal becoming political. It becomes a matter of identifying with another person's struggle and assisting them, which is no less noble, in fact arguably more so, but it is radically different.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I will admit I am not entirely certain I understand the point you are making.
I will state my POV this way:
Because I have felt prejudices for simply being who I am,* I empathise with others who have felt prejudice for who they are. It doesn't matter if I understand exactly what they are going through. They are my allies, not matter that we do not share all the same difficulties, no matter how long they've appeared to be part of the struggle for acceptance.
I am not noble. The more soldiers, the easier the war.
*I applaud those who have not, yet still support the struggle.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There's also the issue that axes of marginalisation are not mutually exclusive. There's a really complicated Venn diagram of categories of people experiencing marginalisation for different reasons, and there are intersections. This is one reason why it's simply not good enough to allow the most dominant/privileged subset of a group to speak for everyone - bell hooks has written about her frustration at finding that the anti-racist movement was dominated by black men while the feminist movement was dominated by white women, and black women found themselves ignored by both movements. Likewise, the feminist movement was very hostile to lesbians in decades past, and there's a small but very vocal subset of feminists who are extremely hostile to trans women to this day. So in some senses it isn't even about trying to smoosh too many identities into one group. It's about recognising that those people were always there in that group, from the beginning, but they've been ignored because of a more general cultural bias that says they aren't as important.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I think I get most of that.
One of the things that actually saddens me about how things have developed since I came out in the early 90s (how old...?) is that I think a lot of empathy and subtlety which went with exploration and acceptance of non-standard experience has been chucked with far too much enthusiasm under the bus of assimilation, in the name of acceptance. For example, I think the narrative of gender among gay men has lost just about all of the subtlety it was starting to explore at one stage, and our gender identity has become very two-dimensional until the threshold of transgender identity is crossed. I really regret the loss of that subtlety, and the unreflectiveness that goes with it. This move has necessary effects on our place in the rainbow alliance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I think I get most of that.
One of the things that actually saddens me about how things have developed since I came out in the early 90s (how old...?) is that I think a lot of empathy and subtlety which went with exploration and acceptance of non-standard experience has been chucked with far too much enthusiasm under the bus of assimilation, in the name of acceptance. For example, I think the narrative of gender among gay men has lost just about all of the subtlety it was starting to explore at one stage, and our gender identity has become very two-dimensional until the threshold of transgender identity is crossed. I really regret the loss of that subtlety, and the unreflectiveness that goes with it. This move has necessary effects on our place in the rainbow alliance.
I've not been getting much sleep lately, so perhaps that explains it, but I am not sure what you are saying.
Is it that just being gay, or lesbian, feels less special?
I do not see assimilation as much as I do the lessening of the need to stand out. Perhaps another difference in generational experience.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
What I'm musing on (possibly in the wrong place but there we are) is what happened as the campaign started to work, as acceptance and equal treatment started to become the standard experience for gays rather than a very welcome exception.
For a short period, the non-standard element of our experience started to be heard. This, for example, is when I first started to hear about "two-spirit" ideas, but in respect of gay men rather than transgender people (it was in a rather Edward Carpenterish context, so referring specifically to gay men). Then the effort required stopped happening, because the energy which brought the initial success dissipated, and we settled into acceptance within standard gender definitions.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
ThunderBunk, harking back to your post of 12 July at 19.52, do you think that numbers has something to do with it? Running the sort of campaigns that you were talking of takes a lot of people, and a lot of time. Working on the basis of 5% of the population being gay, that gives around 15 million lesbians and gays in the US to contribute their time and effort. You need numbers of this sort because people work and have other parts of their life to lead. Here, where you're looking at around the 1m mark and so a lot of the campaign relied upon work done in the US to provide a model.
I don't know how many transgender people there are in Aust, nor have I seen any terribly reliable estimate. From that, I'd imagine that the number is probably pretty low, and again guessing, I'd say the real number in intersex people is even lower. Even with the much larger population of the US, the numbers you end up with are probably too few and too widely spread to enable any equivalent of the sort of work you talk of. Is it any wonder that they seek to build on all your work in the past?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... I don't know how many transgender people there are in Aust, nor have I seen any terribly reliable estimate. From that, I'd imagine that the number is probably pretty low, and again guessing, I'd say the real number in intersex people is even lower. ...
No need to guess.
Privacy and, unfortunately, shame, probably distort our perceptions of presence / absence / numbers.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The ideas are not new, though labels change. Carl Jung discussed the inner femininity and masculinity resident in all of us. The difference today is probably the wide discussion of such issues, and is that we are anticipating that we should act or self-identify as two-spirit, gender fluid etc as a crystallized and solid self. There's a difference between a persona (more than a mere role, which I think the word in English connotes) and a firm identity.
I have difficulty accepting (perhaps not understanding) how what was a developmental process can become an achieved identity. The "gender fluid" termy perhaps leading astray?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... I don't know how many transgender people there are in Aust, nor have I seen any terribly reliable estimate. From that, I'd imagine that the number is probably pretty low, and again guessing, I'd say the real number in intersex people is even lower. ...
No need to guess.
Privacy and, unfortunately, shame, probably distort our perceptions of presence / absence / numbers.
Thanks - quite small and those numbers are unlikely to translate into a large enough population to support the campaigns of which ThunderBunk was writing.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female: one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance: one or two in 1,000 births
The numbers are there. However, in most cases, only close family, friends, or medical professionals know who they are and it has no impact on how others perceive them. A person who is not being discriminated against has little incentive to "come out" and march with a sign saying "I WAS BORN WITH AMBIGUOUS GENITALIA!!! HOW COOL IS THAT??!!!".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female: one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance: one or two in 1,000 births
The numbers are there. However, in most cases, only close family, friends, or medical professionals know who they are and it has no impact on how others perceive them. A person who is not being discriminated against has little incentive to "come out" and march with a sign saying "I WAS BORN WITH AMBIGUOUS GENITALIA!!! HOW COOL IS THAT??!!!".
Unless they are sick and tired of hearing the abusive, nasty things people in society are saying about them and people like them, and want to stand up against it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0