Maidens of the Kaleidoscope
~Bunbunmaru News~ => Front Page Headlines => Topic started by: Keine Kamishirasawa on October 03, 2013, 08:52:23 AM
-
Comment on It's a Trap! Gender Etiquette in the Fandom (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/?p=482)
-
I was ignored while I tried to correct
I'm not really expecting anyone to believe this is true, but I talked to Mint afterward about various things, and when this came up, he told me he was only aware you were saying something and that he couldn't make out what it was. Once it happened several times he realized what he was doing and tried to correct himself. Sadly the room was too echoey for us to go back to Murein's tape and check to be sure. I should also point out (to everyone, not just you) that I misgendered someone on Friday night in front of him and he corrected me.
I'm not saying these things to excuse what happened or make people like him again or get him restored in any capacity in this corner of the WTC. I'm saying this simply to put it out there.
I would suggest anyone that wishes to discuss any part of this post contact me about it in private: this is all that will be and needs to be said on the matter publicly, and I don't want heated discussion of one person to hijack the purpose of this news post. Further discussion of this particular issue in this thread will be summarily ignored by me unless TSO greenlights it.
-
I have clarified the statement a bit further.
And yes, this is not a discussion of the particular event but more about how to gracefully handle people who are gender variant and why it is important to. Any comments about the event in question at AWA will be considered off topic. This is strictly my account of my feelings as an example of why sensitivity should be displayed towards these issues.
-
My POV on this has gone through a few permutations. The speed and availability of the spread of information means that once marginalized and ignored groups can now take part in larger discussions alongside visible majorities, whether in politics, economics, race or gender. This has allowed me the extraordinary privilege of being able to hear and read these voices that were once upon a time completely unknown to me. Listening has been a very eye-opening experience, and has led to some pretty basic conclusions.
Political, racial and sexual majorities enjoy a privilege that they, in fairness, might not even be aware of themselves. We tend to view our immediate world as the world, and assume that other people have the same levels of opportunities and respect. This is demonstrably false. I like to think that most of us do not set out to intentionally marginalize and belittle minorities, but it does happen, because of the previously mentioned assumptions. If we have to live together - and, as far as I can see, we most certainly do - then the onus is on the majority to listen when minorities speak, treat with respect how they describe their experience, and make an effort to make spaces of privilege into spaces of inclusion.
This is no different when it comes to gender and sexuality. If someone self-identifies as male, female, genderqueer, undifferentiated or androgynous, this is a part of their identity, and it is a very basic and crucial part of human dignity to acknowledge and respect how an individual self-identifies. It is, in other words, the very least we can do.
As a heterosexual white male, I have to say that the pushback against gender self-identity has been, as far as I've seen, a kind of tiresome contrarianism, mostly from the privileged, who take assertions of self-identity as somehow insincere and not to be taken seriously. This is a mistake. There is probably no more basic human right than the right to your own identity. Respecting this basic right does no harm to anyone; in fact, it helps us treat each other a little better.
-
I really believe the vast majority of people within the WTC and the larger visual arts culture agree on the right to self-identification and expression, and that there's really only a handful of stinkers who just want to ruin people's days. I definitely agree the issue more so is that people may not necessarily understand or even realize how important the right to gender self-identification is unless you are of a gender variance of some kind.
I know the vast majority here are good people. It's just hard to potentially be aware of these issues when you're not facing them on a daily basis. There may not be a frame of reference. Being in cosplay and being misgendered may not necessarily be a big deal. At the end of the day you take the costume off and you're back to yourself. For a lot of gender variant people though, cosplay is an outlet to a gender expression we are not normally afforded in the real world. That's why I'm a huge cosplayer. I get to wear the pretty elaborate things I may not get a chance to otherwise. This is why I'm expressing my feelings on this subject, to make people aware and nudge them to be more sensitive to these issues so that others can feel more comfortable. I'm speaking up for the people who may not wish to draw attention to their status, or merely do not have the ability to present the way they wish to, conventions or otherwise.
This is where etiquette comes into play. I don't expect everyone to be a mind reader. I expect to be read a bit harder at cons because well, crossplay happens. It doesn't help me feel any better though when I get sir'ed and he and him'ed simply because they were assuming and putting the responsibility to correct them at my feet. When I first started presenting female openly I didn't correct anyone, and it just made me feel really crappy because I was trying as hard as I could to pass. To this day I still feel really scared when I do correct and sometimes other people have to correct for me because of it.
Ask if you don't know. Don't assume by appearance you know someone's gender. Use gender neutral pronouns unless you absolutely know, from them (not your buddies), what they should be. "They" is an acceptable gender neutral pronoun, "it" is not. Avoid gendered honorifics like sir and ma'am. This one really really bothers me. I don't understand why people insist on using gendered honorifics. I know they may think it's "polite" but it really isn't, especially when you miss. There was one vendor at Katsucon 2013 I was interested in purchasing stuff from, but when she sir'ed me I lost all interest. I felt really really embarrassed and ashamed to both correct her and to even think about purchasing the items I was thinking about as they were very girly in nature. You can address someone without implying a gender.
And I know people will flub it up. I have long term relationships with people that I formed prior to coming out, and I really wish to maintain them for the most part. I know I unintentionally get misgendered because it takes a while to break those mental associations. Even my roommate, who is trans, I sometimes flub pronouns with and he flubs mine. It wasn't until very recently I was completely out presenting as female, so I was gendered properly at home but in public I was still male. Same situation in regards to him. Having to break that habit takes time. It is not intentional at all, brains are silly things. When that happens, apologize! I know I do. If you get corrected then accept the correction. Don't brush it off as "whatever, no big deal"; just because it may not be a big deal to you, it probably is a big deal to them. Even though I told people it wasn't a big deal it really was a big deal, I just didn't want to make a scene about it.
It may not seem like a big deal to most people, but for gender variant people it really is. Most of our lives have been spent either battling to figure out what our identity is, or struggling to express it in a world that may not have readily accepted it. Touhou was my safe spot, but I hid from the public eye for the longest time because I knew people would challenge the validity of my identity once they saw my physical form. And trust me, I agonize daily about the parts that don't look "feminine" to me, when I really shouldn't. I really am not that atypical from other girls physically, but I am hyper aware of anything that may look remotely male and it drives me up the wall. That's how toxic the concept of "passing" is. Being misgendered only reinforces this desire to "pass".
Passing is a really toxic subject in my opinion. It enforces this stereotype that your identity is only valid if other people agree to it. Not everyone can pass, not everyone is in a position to pass. Not everyone wants to pass. Some people are perfectly fine in their physical appearance and merely express a different gender identity internally. But to me it feels like I am told again and again unless I look like my target gender to the average human eye I won't be considered as such, or worse, may face repercussion. The reality is my identity is mine alone, and you don't get to decide if my expression is valid or not. Now granted a convention is generally a much safer place to be gender variant, as generally the threat of any violence or repercussion is exceedingly low.
There's just this weird duality that there seems to be a higher standard to "passing" because of people being aware of crossplay. You would think being aware that people cosplay across genders and that gender variant people are typically higher in numbers at conventions would mean more people are sensitive to it. Instead of people being more aware and gentle about it, I get misgendered a lot more than I normally would otherwise. In a fit of irony I end up passing better in the situations where it's more important to, but I get misgendered in the space that would be most accommodating to me. It really bothers me as you would think being such a safe zone it wouldn't be anything like that. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's merely a symptom of people being more sensitive to gender cues and unintentionally misgendering people who may not fit all the right ones perfectly. I had one guy call me a dude because of my voice until he saw I had boobs. Think about that for a second lol.
-
I have two specific concerns/fears about directly asking strangers. Hopefully they can be assuaged in some capacity.
1) If someone is actively trying to pass, I feel like asking them could be taken as an implication that they're not doing a good enough job of it, and I don't want to offend.
2) As a tall, masculine neckbeard, I feel like asking around a lot risks painting me as a dude trolling the con for poon, and I don't want security to escort me from the premises.
The 'they' thing I am willing to try but I know I will cock it up repeatedly because work requires me to actively avoid using it as a singular pronoun.
-
I have no problem with whatever you choose to identify yourself as, but it seems to me that asking everyone you meet what gender they want to be referred to as seems it could potentially offend some people or just make them think you're a weirdo. (like what Kilga said)
People you meet in real life for the first time should at least have a little bit of leeway, like a reminder or two, or forgiveness if it just slips out on the high of a (positive) emotion. I would hate to see someone ostracized for something they did without the intention of offending.
-
I have two specific concerns/fears about directly asking strangers. Hopefully they can be assuaged in some capacity.
1) If someone is actively trying to pass, I feel like asking them could be taken as an implication that they're not doing a good enough job of it, and I don't want to offend.
Depends on how you ask. The accepted way to ask is "what pronouns do you prefer?". This does not imply that I'm being read trans, just that they're asking me what I prefer. Asking someone "hey are you trans?" while a bit more offensive, is still a better alternative than just being misgendered outright.
I would rather have someone take me aside and ask me before assuming, rather than put me out in the open that they read me. That gives me the chance to assert my identity, rather than my identity being asserted for me and then making me refute that.
2) As a tall, masculine neckbeard, I feel like asking around a lot risks painting me as a dude trolling the con for poon, and I don't want security to escort me from the premises.
I think if you stick to the pronoun question it will never come off as that. There's people who look and present female who may not actually prefer female pronouns at all. To assume that only trans people get to pick their pronouns is also kind of crappy and denies other gender variant people the right to self-identify. I know it may seem silly to you, and in some ways it even seems sort of silly to me. I'm firmly on the gender binary, there's no question I'm a girl and I want to be identified as such, period. But if something like pronouns makes someone feel a lot better, it's a small burden for me to ask them before using them.
The 'they' thing I am willing to try but I know I will cock it up repeatedly because work requires me to actively avoid using it as a singular pronoun.
English is kind of weird because gender is only assigned to people, not objects, so using something like "it" is extremely offensive because of that. "They" is a grammatically correct singular gender neutral pronoun, and is generally accepted as an ok substitute that doesn't imply any sort of gender. Some gender variant people actually prefer "they" and "them". If they would prefer something else, they will typically correct you. Correcting from "they" is a lot less stressful, as having to correct from he or she implies they are trans, when they may not necessarily be (or if they are, may not necessarily want the world to know).
This is why there's a big push in places like Sweden to make everything gender neutral. This isn't destroying the notion of gender. On the contrary, this is asserting it as a point of self-identification. By removing the assumption of gender from words like "mailman" and removing having to publicly identify yourself to do things like drive a car or goto the bathroom, it puts the power back to the person to decide if and how they wish to express their gender. There's no reason you need to know my gender on my license, nor force me to pick a bathroom based on how other people accept my identity. The only time it is relevant what parts I have is between my doctors, and my partner. That's it.
I have no problem with whatever you choose to identify yourself as, but it seems to me that asking everyone you meet what gender they want to be referred to as seems it could potentially offend some people or just make them think you're a weirdo. (like what Kilga said)
People you meet in real life for the first time should at least have a little bit of leeway, like a reminder or two, or forgiveness if it just slips out on the high of a (positive) emotion. I would hate to see someone ostracized for something they did without the intention of offending.
Putting it that way attempts to equate the discomforts as equal, and I have to say it really isn't on the same level. Having someone think you're a weirdo for asking pronouns and going "x, duh" is far less offensive than misgendering someone who may not necessarily have the strength of will to correct you. As it stands right now cisgendered people don't have to actively assert their gender, but I do. Think about that for a second. You're asking me to continue to have to actively assert my gender because you don't want to potentially have to. I'm not saying you are intending this, but that's how it comes off as.
Asking someone their pronouns is not taking away the rights of cisgendered people to identify themselves; merely, it removes the assumption that physical appearance is linked to gender. A cisgendered person doesn't have to actively assert their gender everyday, it's just assumed properly. Trans and other gender-variant people, on the other hand, have to actively identify themselves or be at the mercy of whatever box people want to toss them in. That's where the pressure to "pass" comes in, pressure to act or appear masculine or feminine in order to fit into the gender binary. Before I could potentially pass as female I tried very hard to pass as male to avoid ridicule and harassment. This forced a lot of psychological trauma on me that to this day I'm still dealing with. Now that I'm able to shed that persona a lot of my psychological problems and anxiety have gone away, but it's still somewhat of a struggle to deal with people who misidentify me. There's still a strong pull when I'm with some people to identify as male around them because it's simply "easier" to hurt myself and internalize the pain than potentially deal with the conflict that may arise from asserting myself as female. Some people don't even have that option and are forced to present a way in order to survive, and some people have no interest in even being on the binary. Yet they're still beholden to their physical appearance to determine what gender they get identified as.
Changing your lexicon to use they and them in place of <insert gendered pronoun> until you actively know it's ok to use it isn't all that difficult, yet it saves a ton of grief for gender variant people. When I was with Vic over the weekend he straight up asked me if it was cool if he used "dude" and stuff. I was ok with it. I really appreciated he asked though, because not everyone is comfortable with it, and saying "oh I say dude to everyone" doesn't make it any more right. When you meet someone new use they and them, and if you really want to use gendered pronouns simply ask them what pronouns they'd prefer or wait for them to assert them if you're uncomfortable asking.
I know it's not necessarily going to be easy at first, which is why I tend to be a lot more accepting about it when people flub. But realize it doesn't make it any less painful to me because I'm more accepting of it. It really doesn't. In fact it tends to hurt a lot more at cons and stuff where I feel like I should be more readily accepted, I tend to take my defenses down a bit more versus out in public where being misgendered could potentially mean violence. It's really awkward and sad how in the safe spot I get misgendered a lot more than I do out in public where it's far more riskier to be misgendered. The onus should definitely be on the person in a position of privilege to actively seek out ways to make things more comfortable for those who aren't, rather than assume they're the majority and to expect others to correct their behavior for them.
-
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, since I admit I literally know nothing about cosplay, but I think I can understand why TSO would feel that Touhou cosplay conventions aren't as much of a safe haven for this issue as they should be. It's Touhou we're talking about. Since most characters are female, it shouldn't be that strange to refer cosplayers as female by default, since that would be refering to them in-character. Thinking about that, asking them the question of which pronoun to use shouldn't sound as strange either, because it's quite possible that even a cis hetero male might want to stay fully in-character if they so desire. Again, if that's just something I don't really get, feel free to correct me.
-
I've started to notice this mis-representation more often since joining other community members for conventions. Rather dis-settling.
I'm glad this has been posted to draw more attention to the issue; hopefully we can reduce this tendency.
-
Conventions in general seem to have both an unusual mix of very supportive people, and people more aware of gender cues and potentially reading people. Like everyone was really supportive of me when I pointed out when I was being misgendered by people. For the most part I get the feeling that they're not intentionally trying to out people, they're just a bit more sensitive to gender cues and may be able to "read" better. Unfortunately this isn't very good for gender variant people who may only have cons as a way to express their gender identity safely. It was extremely hard for me as I've been fulltime for a while now.
It's especially frustrating as a Touhou fan as it has a reputation for being a crossplay heavy fandom. The only cosplay I have consistently been gendered female is my Fionna the Human cosplay, and even then I was misgendered by a dealer at Katsucon. When we had the photoshoot at Katsucon there was a call for male and female cosplayers, and while I did go up for the female shot it was over awkward for me as it was my first con with the WTC actually presenting female. Nobody gave me any problems though, which was amazingly supportive and helped a lot to make my weekend better when people did mess up.
I really don't think there's an issue with people not accepting gender variant people in this fandom outside of a couple isolated buttheads. It's more just a lack of awareness of the issues gender variant people may face even in a safe zone like a convention. And I'm hoping to spread the word on how to handle situations and such in a way to make us even more welcoming to everyone.
-
Well I expected this be more about how the term "trap" is used, but it's just a title I guess... (Though something should be said imho)
-
Well I expected this be more about how the term "trap" is used, but it's just a title I guess... (Though something should be said imho)
It shouldn't be used, is kind of the point.
-
Yeah I was using it facetiously. You really shouldn't call someone a trap >>
-
Pardon my curiosity (you may choose to ignore this question) but as I read that passage in its writing style, I couldn't help hearing a male voice. Are some male aspects (such as confidence and argumentative assertiveness among others) something you aren't very keen on letting go? What aspects of your view of yourself do you see as female?
-
Are some male aspects (such as confidence and argumentative assertiveness among others) something you aren't very keen on letting go?
fuck you femininity doesn't mean being a useless fucking doormat
-
That might've been an exaggeration. But that's not what feminism's about - if there's no clear distinction between male and female, the issue of resolving gender issues becomes moot.
-
the difference
is in
your heart
(｀_?)ゞ
-
pretty sure feminism is about equality, not establishing differences.
-
Equality is subjective, while differences are objective. For every assertion that one gender is "better" than another, there's another that indicates the opposite. But writing styles do differ generally among male and female writers, and both have their own ways of expressing themselves. It's just that the traits I saw (read) in the post points me to the "male" kind of assertiveness. With that said, females have their own ways of sounding assertive as well. I'll confess that this is entirely my subjective view. Hope that got cleared up.
-
Pardon my curiosity (you may choose to ignore this question) but as I read that passage in its writing style, I couldn't help hearing a male voice. Are some male aspects (such as confidence and argumentative assertiveness among others) something you aren't very keen on letting go? What aspects of your view of yourself do you see as female?
I'm curious to hear your end of this...What about her writing sounded "male" to you? How can a series of words come out as "male" or "female", in your eyes?
EDIT after noticing the above post of yours: What would you say characterizes "male" or "female" assertiveness, and why can't the opposite gender(or those who fall outside of the binary) sound that way?
-
Why is this on the front page and not in Letty Journal ???
-
Equality is subjective, while differences are objective. For every assertion that one gender is "better" than another, there's another that indicates the opposite. But writing styles do differ generally among male and female writers, and both have their own ways of expressing themselves. It's just that the traits I saw (read) in the post points me to the "male" kind of assertiveness. With that said, females have their own ways of sounding assertive as well. I'll confess that this is entirely my subjective view. Hope that got cleared up.
That's a common argument, and not one that really makes any sense to me. Doesn't it assume that all people of one gender are exactly the same as all other people in that gender? :wat:
-
Ascribing character traits to gender is completely unscientific and should never be taken seriously. It says more about the describer than anything else. There's nothing "objective" about it.
-
I'm curious to hear your end of this...What about her writing sounded "male" to you? How can a series of words come out as "male" or "female", in your eyes?
EDIT after noticing the above post of yours: What would you say characterizes "male" or "female" assertiveness, and why can't the opposite gender(or those who fall outside of the binary) sound that way?
Well seeing that everyone's likely to agree that there's no formula or algorithm to label a speech pattern as 100% "male" or "female" I'm just going to have to go with the "it's my subjective opinion that's based on my personal experiences" argument. Whatever the actual reasons are, I'm sure they're not important to the wider scope of things. This is just one of the many issues similar to gender variants being misidentified by their voice, appearance, or behavior, etc.
Is the general consensus here to jail whomever mistakens a person's gender by their writing style? We're doing nothing to resolve the issue. Sure, my curiosity may be unfounded, and it may very well turn out the writing style has no correlation with "masculinity" in any way, but my curiosity is still there. Not because I'm here to hate on transsexuals (I'll admit I haven't actually met or talked with someone who's transsexual, so I'm in no position to say I understand their predicament - that would be hypocritical). I can only say that I'm genuinely curious about the things mentioned above.
Let's put the spotlight back on those who it's meant for - the ones whose point of view Helvetica is trying to highlight. They can be hurt by someone's ignorant blunder, and sure, the blame can be put on the person who sir'ed the female transgender, or the mangaka who was confused by a certain person in a photo-shoot. But are they really to be blamed? Maybe. But certainly not more than 50% of the blame. Who, then, is responsible for this unresolved pain that might end up as a column such as this one?
Those who are misunderstood can ask for understanding, but to do so they should also cater to the curiosity of others. It's a common give-and-take situation; I'm sure they wouldn't want to be seen as analogous to beggars on the street. It may hurt to answer a few revealing questions, but first, at least acknowledge this curiosity!
-
its not about blame though
its just about being respectful
-
I think that saying "don't use the term "trap"" is a bit of overkill. This conversation came up before in #conmeido, and as I recall, the conclusion was that unless you damn well know for sure that you won't give offense - i.e. that you are in fact referring to a cisgendered person passing as a character of the opposite gender -- you don't use the term. And that is the ONLY time, as far as I can see, that the term is valid and should be used.
For some cosplayers, the term "trap" is a badge of honor -- and one that we VASTLY prefer over the other term that gets applied to those who crossplay and do it well (that being "troll", along with many of the same less salutory examples that helvetica pointed out are also applied to transgendered persons).
Beyond that, however, I think it's important to respect each other, as helvetica describes. I'm not a big fan of using "they" to refer to a person - to my mind, and in my upbringing, using "they" to refer to a single person is on the same level as using "it", because it dehumanizes and deuniques (n.b.: not a real word) them. What I ask - demand really, although I've yet to meet anyone who wouldn't meet this demand - is that if I get it wrong, you gently correct me. In return, I will do my damndest to get the pronouns correct every time thereafter. And that "you" can refer both to the person whose gender I mistook and to their friends and compatriots. Basically, if you show me the courtesy to say "hey, I prefer {insert pronoun here}", I'll get it right, even if I might occasionally goof early on.
Because you know what? What's important to my friends is important to me.
-
Just a reminder: Gender is a social construct not a biological construct. There is no one behavior system that fits to any one gender identity. I'd imagine that the cis guys here wouldn't want me to say that they can only sound male if they scream at sporting events and write in a short and aggressive manner. And also please remember that many people under the trans* umbrella (myself included) have had to force ourselves to behave with mannerisms that are counter-intuitive to our gender idenity and it often takes time to unlearn those behavior if we even choose to do so.
-
I'm sorry if this post offends, but "gender" has been a huge part of my life recently and I feel no closer to understanding it now than ever.
Ascribing character traits to gender is completely unscientific and should never be taken seriously. It says more about the describer than anything else. There's nothing "objective" about it.
I looked up several (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gender) dictionaries (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/228219/gender-identity) (among other sites) and here's what I managed to dig up. From what I can tell, Gender seems to be accepted by many as one's "sexual identity", completely binary, and nothing more. For instance, Britannica says the following as its first statement:
gender identity, an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex."
Merriam-Webster states the following about gender however:
"2b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
Note that it's not just about sex, it's also the "traits" associated to one's sex. I suppose, if you want, you can describe this as simple stereotyping and nothing more.
Meanwhile, the "medical" definition of transgender (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender) reads:
"of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth"
This would imply something akin to a spectrum (a term I've heard used before) rather than a binary phenomenon.
WebMD (http://dictionary.webmd.com/terms/transgender) shuts that down however:
"One who appears as, wishes to become, or has undergone surgery to become a member of the opposite sex." Period.
This, of course, does not even include the books I've read and stories I've heard; each one contradicting the other.
This is where I'm confused. Is gender simply "I'm a guy/girl" or something more? Binary or spectrum/umbrella (I know that's *trans*gender, but how can you be in a tg spectrum if gender itself is binary)? Is it entirely based on how one sees their body, or is there indeed other, deeper traits?
-
I'm really sorry you had to go through all that during what should have been a really fun and amazing convention, helvetica :( I'm a cisgendered female, so I won't pretend to know what it's like to go through life transgendered, but I do have close family members in the LGBT community, so I've seen first hand how upsetting people's comments and assumptions can be, regardless of how well meaning they were. Hopefully things will be easier for you at future cons (and in life in general) thanks to this article.
-
@Mimeslayer
Gender is a social construct, there is no significant wiring or predetermined behavior between different genders. I do feminine things and act feminine not because I am wired to like cooking and cleaning but because those activities and behaviors are considered feminine and that's how I wish to be recognized by society as.
Sex is a different concept entirely. That is literally which parts your body wants or thinks it should have. This can be prewired but doesn't necessarily have to be. I get physical symptoms of dysphoria, but not everyone trans does. Some love their bodies, they just donn't agree with society pidgeonholing them based on the junk between their legs.
What parts you are born with pretty much mean jack squat when it comes to your gender. Unfortunately society thinks otherwise and a lot of people, cis and gender variant alike, are forced into behaviors and such because of it. Even worse is how there are a significant number of transpersons who do not wish to transition, but are forced to take hormones and have surgeries in order for society to recognize them.
This is why judging someone's gender based on your standards of femininity or masculinity is wrong and hurtful. You force people into boxes and to act and do things that may be very detrimental to them physically and mentally in order to seek acceptance.
There is no binary, no black and white guy/girl. What you like and how you act do not determine where you fall on that, you do. It is a spectrum. There are guys who are perfectly OK with being dudes but like looking and presenting girly in society. There are girls who want to look pretty and play sports. There are people who feel labelling themselves as man or woman limits them too much; it forces standards and expectations they do not wish to be trapped by. There are people who feel girly one day and manly the next and just roll with it. It is very unlikely you will remain the same gender your entire life, but thanks to the binary you're being told you're stuck with what you got and you have certain things you can and can't do.
@hungrybookworm
Thank you for the well wishes. I'm not too worried about myself. I've become exceedingly resilient since I've begun transitioning and living full time. While it does hurt me when it happens, I know what I'm doing is right for me and nobody can tell me otherwise. What I'm really hoping is by sharing my experiences and by trying to educate, other people won't have to go through the things I did. I blaze a trail, not just for transpeople, not just for women, but for humanity, to give the power to you to decide what you want to be, rather than society determining that based on your skin, your parts, or how you choose to present yourself.
I'm a girl studying to be a scientist, a field many women are told they don't belong in. I'm a girl who's way into gaming, an industry women are made into memes and troupes rather than taken seriously. And above all that, I'm trans, struggling in a world that wants to tell you the junk between your legs determines your path in life. I'm hoping that by putting myself out in the open I can do more than just carve a little chunk of happiness for myself, even if it means I end up sacrificing a bit of it to help others find their own.
-
I'm lost.
If you can't ascribe any kind of behavior or appearance to a gender, then why isn't gender meaningless? If it's literally nothing more than "I say I'm a man, therefore I'm a man" then saying "I'm a man" is pointless because it doesn't tell you anything about me. In fact, having the labels at all is counterproductive.
tl;dr WHAT IS A MAN
-
I'm lost.
If you can't ascribe any kind of behavior or appearance to a gender, then why isn't gender meaningless? If it's literally nothing more than "I say I'm a man, therefore I'm a man" then saying "I'm a man" is pointless because it doesn't tell you anything about me. In fact, having the labels at all is counterproductive.
tl;dr WHAT IS A MAN
That is true. Gender ultimately doesn't have strong implications, or doesn't have to. Some people identify strongly by their genders, but that's a personal tendency to associate oneself with a social construct, not anything more. It's like saying "I'm white". Being "white" is fairly meaningless scientifically, and is so vague as to be nearly useless. It does tend to have some physiological indicators statistically, but nothing that you can really define a person by unless they choose to embody "whiteness". You can project whiteness or maleness or whatever onto someone, but that doesn't necessarily tell you much about them.
MAN IS REAL VAGUE/KIND OF A SHITTY EVALUATIVE TOOL.
-
Well I was just in the process of writing something but now it seems it was completely wrong so I'm going to worry about that now.
What I was thinking just now was that gender seems to be binary. i.e. you're either male or female gender-wise, at least in the vast majority of cases. If not, then the whole situation makes a lot less sense, since the genders are seemingly tied to the sexes, and there are more or less only two of those. That means that this thing I hear a lot about gender being a social construct can't really be true. Gender must be tied to your sex or the notion of being transgender doesn't make any sense. Defining things like that makes concept of transgender easy to understand, but some other things don't make sense, which I won't bother bringing up anymore.
Now seeing TSO's post I have to define things differently. And I think there are two things being conflated here. It seems the concept of gender doesn't really need to exist, since each gender is a collection of traits which have been arbitrarily grouped together and assigned to a given sex. Gender as a social construct is something I'm more inclined to agree with anyway, so that's cool, so I think I can just ignore the concept of gender. But now I have to wonder about what being transgender means. It seems to me like it means you have interests that aren't what society expects from you, but is there something more than that as well? Why do we need the concept of transgender? That word to me suggests that there is a binary. Like I'm not one gender and therefore I'm the other. The word itself seems to support the idea that gender is not only binary, but is also dependent on biology. It literally draws its meaning from the pre-existent (and apparently faulty) idea of gender. You could just as well, and perhaps less confusingly, call someone girly or boyish.
And then I don't see the need to worry about pronouns. It's seems they're being given far more significance than they need. If someone is biologically male, and has interests that society commonly associates with women, why should he use a feminine pronoun? Or more precisely, why should a person's pronoun reflect that person's interests/personality rather than biological sex? Pronouns (in English at least) are binary, but personalities are definitively NOT binary. On the other hand, sex is binary and so having the pronouns depend on that seems to make perfect sense, especially since it doesn't require intimate knowledge of the person in question before you could even use the pronouns.
So for the most part, I don't think I see much reason for the word transgender to be used as it is, since it is very misleading. The same with fiddling with pronouns. I think they actually support the idea of binary gender. That's thinking about people who's interests are just not what society expects, anyway. I don't think any special distinction is warranted. On the other hand, I think there are other issues which are thrown under the same name which are more appropriate to distinguish. i.e. I can believe in the potential for some biological dissonance between brain and body (like, male brain female body, or vice versa), based upon hormones and whatever. I won't deny the existence of situations similar to that. It seems TSO has some experience of it. In that case I'm more okay with the pronoun bit, since the situation is biological. I still don't like the word "transgender" though, and I especially don't like how inclusive it seems to be. I've seen it said that some transgender people don't mind being thought of as their biological sex, and just act unexpectedly or whatever. I don't think people like that should have a special word for them. They're just people who act differently from how society expects. And I don't think the concept of gender should be acknowledged or used in these discussions. Like how TSO said "It is very unlikely you will remain the same gender your entire life" I can only see two ways of interpreting that. Either it just means "your interests and personality will change," in which case it could have been worded like that, and is fairly obvious to begin with, or it means "your gender will change between male and female," which to me suggests that there is a binary, which is wrong. Either way the statement is immensely confusing.
Not trying to be offensive with anything I write here, just to make it clear.
-
I'm lost.
If you can't ascribe any kind of behavior or appearance to a gender, then why isn't gender meaningless? If it's literally nothing more than "I say I'm a man, therefore I'm a man" then saying "I'm a man" is pointless because it doesn't tell you anything about me. In fact, having the labels at all is counterproductive.
tl;dr WHAT IS A MAN
Because breaking down gender barriers doesn't mean crushing identities. People can still identify as male or female or whatever. The idea is they get to choose and decide what it means to be a man or a woman or whatever, not you. Labels are not for giving you an easy list of stereotypes to break down people into. Labels are things people are proud of and want to be identified by. You shouldn't feel compelled to do something to maintain a label though, nor even feel compelled to even label yourself.
That is true. Gender ultimately doesn't have strong implications, or doesn't have to. Some people identify strongly by their genders, but that's a personal tendency to associate oneself with a social construct, not anything more. It's like saying "I'm white". Being "white" is fairly meaningless scientifically, and is so vague as to be nearly useless. It does tend to have some physiological indicators statistically, but nothing that you can really define a person by unless they choose to embody "whiteness". You can project whiteness or maleness or whatever onto someone, but that doesn't necessarily tell you much about them.
MAN IS REAL VAGUE/KIND OF A SHITTY EVALUATIVE TOOL.
Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it invalid as an identity. It just means it's pretty much made up and isn't based on any fact, but based on conjecture and social pressures of the time. Recognizing gender identity as a construct just means that we recognize that it is completely fluid; what could be considered feminine or masculine today may not have been 50 years ago, nor may be 50 years from now. So in that sense, trying to pidgeonhole people into certain roles or behaviors based on their chosen identity is pointless and counterproductive, because there's no real basis to them. People will still naturally strive for "femininity" or "masculinity" or what have you, that's the part of gender that is innate.
I will fully admit to doing certain things simply because it makes me feel girly. But I recognize it's an artificial construct and I do not beat myself up or feel unfeminine if I don't enjoy all the girly things. I don't force myself to do things in order to fill a quota of femininity, nor do I shirk myself away from liking things because they may be considered more "masculine". Because there really isn't anything masculine or feminine to anything we like or do, so if I really like something it shouldn't matter where it lands, nor should I force myself to do something I really don't want to just because it aligns with my gender. It's just society sticking labels on such in a way to shuffle people towards certain roles.
-
I think talking about social constructs of gender is confusing some people? My understanding of transgender, from having lived with multiple transgendered people, isn't someone who wants to 'present' as a man or a woman, but someone who is born as one gender but deeply at the core of their being understands they're the opposite. One of them told me about drawing pictures of herself transformed into a woman at age 5, just knowing intuitively that that's what she was. The pronouns are important for the same reasons they're important to everyone: Men want to be called men and women want to be called women. Being born in the wrong shell doesn't change that.
As a Woman on the Internet (tm) I've let people assume my username is male before just because it's easier, but it never stopped bothering me. I can only imagine it's times a hundred for transgendered women and men. With cons from an outsider's perspective, I always got the impression some people think it's a game to 'guess' what gender someone dressed up really is, like a terrible episode of Jerry Springer. No one should have to feel like they're trying to fool people into seeing them as they really are. They should just be able to be and have people accept it. I have hopes that the world is going towards acceptance, despite the best efforts of terrible Russian politicians and old white people.
-
Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it invalid as an identity. It just means it's pretty much made up and isn't based on any fact, but based on conjecture and social pressures of the time. Recognizing gender identity as a construct just means that we recognize that it is completely fluid; what could be considered feminine or masculine today may not have been 50 years ago, nor may be 50 years from now. So in that sense, trying to pidgeonhole people into certain roles or behaviors based on their chosen identity is pointless and counterproductive, because there's no real basis to them. People will still naturally strive for "femininity" or "masculinity" or what have you, that's the part of gender that is innate.
I will fully admit to doing certain things simply because it makes me feel girly. But I recognize it's an artificial construct and I do not beat myself up or feel unfeminine if I don't enjoy all the girly things. I don't force myself to do things in order to fill a quota of femininity, nor do I shirk myself away from liking things because they may be considered more "masculine". Because there really isn't anything masculine or feminine to anything we like or do, so if I really like something it shouldn't matter where it lands, nor should I force myself to do something I really don't want to just because it aligns with my gender. It's just society sticking labels on such in a way to shuffle people towards certain roles.
I gotta admit that I'm not totally following you here. Maybe it's just that I'm really tired from a long day of work and school. But I'll clarify that I understand that some people, probably a lot of people, identify themselves with gender to varying degrees. Just like race, culture, or any other social construct. Great, I have no problems with that, and certainly wouldn't suggest that people should or should not do anything in particular for those reasons. All I'm saying is that gender is an unreliable enough thing that trying to use it to identify someone else probably isn't going to produce useful results often enough to be worth doing. I hope I'm making sense and also not totally misunderstanding what you're saying.
-
tl;dr
Transgenders aren't traps, they're what they've turned into except genetically. Actual traps still have the other tool. Being afraid of them for having born as something else is much like refusing a recycled product because it came from trash. Other than that, everyone has different personalities so we shouldn't go by the male/female stereotype, fuck the manly/girly thing.
That's my brief word on it, kthxbye.
-
Well I was just in the process of writing something but now it seems it was completely wrong so I'm going to worry about that now.
What I was thinking just now was that gender seems to be binary. i.e. you're either male or female gender-wise, at least in the vast majority of cases. If not, then the whole situation makes a lot less sense, since the genders are seemingly tied to the sexes, and there are more or less only two of those. That means that this thing I hear a lot about gender being a social construct can't really be true. Gender must be tied to your sex or the notion of being transgender doesn't make any sense. Defining things like that makes concept of transgender easy to understand, but some other things don't make sense, which I won't bother bringing up anymore.
You're conflating gender roles and gender identity. It's very simple, gender is the amalgamation of your personality and likes and dislikes and how you wish to present, as x or y or @, gender roles are what society tells people they have to do in order to be considered those genders. Sex is completely different, and is strictly the physical parts you have. And even that isn't a binary. Intersexed individuals exist and not all of them wish to be "corrected" to one or the other.
Now seeing TSO's post I have to define things differently. And I think there are two things being conflated here. It seems the concept of gender doesn't really need to exist, since each gender is a collection of traits which have been arbitrarily grouped together and assigned to a given sex. Gender as a social construct is something I'm more inclined to agree with anyway, so that's cool, so I think I can just ignore the concept of gender. But now I have to wonder about what being transgender means. It seems to me like it means you have interests that aren't what society expects from you, but is there something more than that as well? Why do we need the concept of transgender? That word to me suggests that there is a binary. Like I'm not one gender and therefore I'm the other. The word itself seems to support the idea that gender is not only binary, but is also dependent on biology. It literally draws its meaning from the pre-existent (and apparently faulty) idea of gender. You could just as well, and perhaps less confusingly, call someone girly or boyish.
Gender doesn't just go away because the roles are artificially assigned by society. People can still be predispositioned towards one or the other or somewhere in between or neither. People still "feel" feminine and masculine, and it's society that determines by and large what is considered "feminine" and "masculine" for now. Even in a "genderless" society, feminine and masculine will still exist, but instead of society determining that, the individual will. There are also countless societies in history that have some sort of a third or trans gender concept as well, so to act as if the western idea of man and a woman is the only right one is pretty narrow minded. To continue to equate behaviors as naturally "boyish" or "girly" also continues to perpetuate gender roles set by society, rather than individuals getting to choose the gender they identify as.
And then I don't see the need to worry about pronouns. It's seems they're being given far more significance than they need. If someone is biologically male, and has interests that society commonly associates with women, why should he use a feminine pronoun? Or more precisely, why should a person's pronoun reflect that person's interests/personality rather than biological sex? Pronouns (in English at least) are binary, but personalities are definitively NOT binary. On the other hand, sex is binary and so having the pronouns depend on that seems to make perfect sense, especially since it doesn't require intimate knowledge of the person in question before you could even use the pronouns.
You're taking wayyyyyyyyyyyy too far of a logic leap there. Pronouns are the social expression of gender. You're also again, conflating sex with gender. What parts you have between your legs does not have any relevance to who you are or what you like as a person. You're just as likely to be a macho dude as a girly guy. And again, sex is NOT binary. Intersexed individuals exist, and they are oftentimes forcibly corrected to one or the other without their knowledge or anyone's consent.
Your chromosomes don't determine your sex either. There are XY girls and XX guys and you can have multiple Xs or Ys (as long as you have at least one X). Look up complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. These are girls, completely biologically on the outside, who are actually XY. Their body does not respond to androgens at all, and without them it reverts to female. The human body is naturally female unless told otherwise by testosterone, and any one of a million different things can and do go "wrong" all the time that may be a cause or at least a factor in gender and sex variation.
And even then, sex isn't pinned to the parts you have, but what parts your mind thinks it should have. My mind and my body do not agree at all with each other at all. I get physically ill when I am reminded I have a male body. That's because my mind is wired to think it's supposed to be female. When I flipped over to female hormones, a lot of my psychological problems and my anxiety disappeared overnight. Once my mind started getting the hormones it was wired to it was like a light switch finally turned on. But this is my narrative, not everyone is like this. Not everyone wants or needs hormones, some just need to express themselves or do whatever they need to do to make themselves comfortable in their skin.
So for the most part, I don't think I see much reason for the word transgender to be used as it is, since it is very misleading. The same with fiddling with pronouns. I think they actually support the idea of binary gender. That's thinking about people who's interests are just not what society expects, anyway. I don't think any special distinction is warranted. On the other hand, I think there are other issues which are thrown under the same name which are more appropriate to distinguish. i.e. I can believe in the potential for some biological dissonance between brain and body (like, male brain female body, or vice versa), based upon hormones and whatever. I won't deny the existence of situations similar to that. It seems TSO has some experience of it. In that case I'm more okay with the pronoun bit, since the situation is biological. I still don't like the word "transgender" though, and I especially don't like how inclusive it seems to be. I've seen it said that some transgender people don't mind being thought of as their biological sex, and just act unexpectedly or whatever. I don't think people like that should have a special word for them. They're just people who act differently from how society expects. And I don't think the concept of gender should be acknowledged or used in these discussions. Like how TSO said "It is very unlikely you will remain the same gender your entire life" I can only see two ways of interpreting that. Either it just means "your interests and personality will change," in which case it could have been worded like that, and is fairly obvious to begin with, or it means "your gender will change between male and female," which to me suggests that there is a binary, which is wrong. Either way the statement is immensely confusing.
Not trying to be offensive with anything I write here, just to make it clear.
Again, the parts between your legs have no relevance to what goes inside your head, and can actually be completely different to the parts your mind thinks it should have. Being a girl doesn't mean having a vagina, nor a boy a penis. Not all transgirls or guys hate their body, they simply wish to be treated as female or male by society and transition as such. Not all transgirls or guys even want to get any sort of surgery or hormones. And then there's people who are fine with being treated "male" but want a female body, or visa versa. And this isn't even talking about people who are intersexed, or fall somewhere in between or outside the gender spectrum. Gender is NOT black and white at all. There are people who do not consider themselves male or female (androgyny), or consider themselves aspects of both (bigender)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer
My narrative is strictly my own, just because the media has been portraying a bunch of little kids that were fiercely female or male since birth doesn't mean every trans or genderqueer person falls into that category. My roommate didn't know he was trans until after he moved in with me. When I met him he was in a Keine cosplay and he straight up told me he felt this was crossplay (he was still identifying as female at the time). He had always expressed some level of dissatisfaction with his body and presentation, but it never clicked until he met me and hung out with other transpersons and explored it deeper. I have another friend who may possibly transition to be more male, doesn't feel male or female, just kind of in between or neither.
I knew my entire life, and I had a rather unique situation where I also knew about transgenderism at a very young age as well thanks to my intelligence, but not everyone gets that choice. Even though I was aware of it, I still grew up with this sinking feeling that I was the only one in the world who questioned whether they should have been born as the opposite sex. Some people go through life with a vague feeling of detachment or dissatisfaction without being able to actually pin it on gender due to lack of awareness. Not everyone knows that gender isn't fixed to your parts and that forcing yourself to act a way you're not is harmful.
As for "not having a special word", transgenderism is a recognized medical term describing people who's gender identity does not align with the gender assigned to them by society. There's nothing made up about the pain and suffering it causes, or the almost miraculous relief obtained when someone is finally able to present and act and be treated in the manner they identify to. Transgender doesn't necessarily mean male to female or visa versa, it could be male to something in between, or female to neither. And that's completely separate from people who wish to transition their physical body to match the gender they ascribe to.
I think talking about social constructs of gender is confusing some people? My understanding of transgender, from having lived with multiple transgendered people, isn't someone who wants to 'present' as a man or a woman, but someone who is born as one gender but deeply at the core of their being understands they're the opposite. One of them told me about drawing pictures of herself transformed into a woman at age 5, just knowing intuitively that that's what she was. The pronouns are important for the same reasons they're important to everyone: Men want to be called men and women want to be called women. Being born in the wrong shell doesn't change that.
That's similar to my narrative, but that's not the only narrative that exists. There's people out there that simply wish to be identified as a woman or man but have no desire to change their body at all, they're ok with it. There's people out there that wish to be considered both or neither, because they feel either their gender identity contains aspects of both or isn't covered by either.
As a Woman on the Internet (tm) I've let people assume my username is male before just because it's easier, but it never stopped bothering me. I can only imagine it's times a hundred for transgendered women and men. With cons from an outsider's perspective, I always got the impression some people think it's a game to 'guess' what gender someone dressed up really is, like a terrible episode of Jerry Springer. No one should have to feel like they're trying to fool people into seeing them as they really are. They should just be able to be and have people accept it. I have hopes that the world is going towards acceptance, despite the best efforts of terrible Russian politicians and old white people.
Yeah there's a tendency for some people to do "spot the dude in a dress" or whatever, and that is really shitty :S
I gotta admit that I'm not totally following you here. Maybe it's just that I'm really tired from a long day of work and school. But I'll clarify that I understand that some people, probably a lot of people, identify themselves with gender to varying degrees. Just like race, culture, or any other social construct. Great, I have no problems with that, and certainly wouldn't suggest that people should or should not do anything in particular for those reasons. All I'm saying is that gender is an unreliable enough thing that trying to use it to identify someone else probably isn't going to produce useful results often enough to be worth doing. I hope I'm making sense and also not totally misunderstanding what you're saying.
Race, culture, gender are all social constructs, but they're still facets of a person's identity. Just because race is a social construct doesn't change the fact people are born with black or white or pink skin and people tend to take identity from it. Just because culture is a social construct doesn't change the fact some people are drawn together based on shared heritage or other similarities and use that to identify themselves by. And just because society is making up what is feminine or masculine doesn't change the fact people identify feminine or masculine or both or neither or what have you. It's society telling them what they have to do to be considered their internal identity, and that's what needs to be destroyed. Whether it's race, culture, gender, or whatever, that's what needs to be torn down. Not people's identities, society telling them what they have to do in order for other people to accept their identites.
Saying that race, culture, and gender are irrelevant for identity because they're social constructs dismisses people the right to individuality. It boils everyone down to greyish blobs of humanlike matter. No, everyone is different for a wide variety of reasons, the social concepts of race, culture, and gender are combined with internal predispositions of personality and desire to make the individual. You are an amalgamation of both your internal nature, and the environment you were raised in. The answer to nature vs. nurture is that it's a bit of both that makes a person, and that by removing one or the other you're causing psychological harm.
-
Race, culture, gender are all social constructs, but they're still facets of a person's identity. Just because race is a social construct doesn't change the fact people are born with black or white or pink skin and people tend to take identity from it. Just because culture is a social construct doesn't change the fact some people are drawn together based on shared heritage or other similarities and use that to identify themselves by. And just because society is making up what is feminine or masculine doesn't change the fact people identify feminine or masculine or both or neither or what have you. It's society telling them what they have to do to be considered their internal identity, and that's what needs to be destroyed. Whether it's race, culture, gender, or whatever, that's what needs to be torn down. Not people's identities, society telling them what they have to do in order for other people to accept their identites.
Saying that race, culture, and gender are irrelevant for identity because they're social constructs dismisses people the right to individuality. It boils everyone down to greyish blobs of humanlike matter. No, everyone is different for a wide variety of reasons, the social concepts of race, culture, and gender are combined with internal predispositions of personality and desire to make the individual. You are an amalgamation of both your internal nature, and the environment you were raised in. The answer to nature vs. nurture is that it's a bit of both that makes a person, and that by removing one or the other you're causing psychological harm.
I don't think we disagree here, or at least not on much. The only thing I'm trying to say that isn't exactly what you're saying here is that I don't think there's much merit in trying to apply traits of socially constructed identities to other people. People are going to build their own identities out of pieces of these constructs, but that doesn't mean that they're broadly applicable because there's no guarantee that a given person will identify with any particular part of them. I can use them to inform and shape my identity, but I shouldn't use them to try to identify other people. Does that make sense, or is there part of that that you don't think works?
-
@Mimeslayer
Gender is a social construct, there is no significant wiring or predetermined behavior between different genders. I do feminine things and act feminine not because I am wired to like cooking and cleaning but because those activities and behaviors are considered feminine and that's how I wish to be recognized by society as.
Sex is a different concept entirely. That is literally which parts your body wants or thinks it should have. This can be prewired but doesn't necessarily have to be. I get physical symptoms of dysphoria, but not everyone trans does. Some love their bodies, they just donn't agree with society pidgeonholing them based on the junk between their legs.
What parts you are born with pretty much mean jack squat when it comes to your gender. Unfortunately society thinks otherwise and a lot of people, cis and gender variant alike, are forced into behaviors and such because of it. Even worse is how there are a significant number of transpersons who do not wish to transition, but are forced to take hormones and have surgeries in order for society to recognize them.
This is why judging someone's gender based on your standards of femininity or masculinity is wrong and hurtful. You force people into boxes and to act and do things that may be very detrimental to them physically and mentally in order to seek acceptance.
There is no binary, no black and white guy/girl. What you like and how you act do not determine where you fall on that, you do. It is a spectrum. There are guys who are perfectly OK with being dudes but like looking and presenting girly in society. There are girls who want to look pretty and play sports. There are people who feel labelling themselves as man or woman limits them too much; it forces standards and expectations they do not wish to be trapped by. There are people who feel girly one day and manly the next and just roll with it. It is very unlikely you will remain the same gender your entire life, but thanks to the binary you're being told you're stuck with what you got and you have certain things you can and can't do.
Ouch. This is what I was afraid of; I tried to sound neutral without tipping my hand and instead I guess I came off sounding like I'm taking a side that, ironically, I disagree with. :ohdear: I'm sorry if it sounded like I am of the opinion of binary genders and other such opinions. I guess I should've been a little more open about why I posted in this thread.
This is a really hard post though.
I'll start off by jumping off the high-dive into the deep in; I honestly feel like I'm some sort of gender varient. I say "gender varient" and not transgender because just about every time I have done so in the past has led to nothing but problems no matter where I turn. As I said last post I've met people, both trans and cis, who believe in binary genders. They believe you are a guy, a girl, or one stuck in the body of the other. No middle ground, no umbrella, nothing. I don't agree with that, especially because I don't feel that way, but according to them that's basically impossible (and actually rude to say otherwise). It's honestly a relief to hear someone like helvetica say otherwise.
I have no idea where to turn, though, because of this seemingly prevalent binary gender belief. I wan't answers, even if I have to figure them out for myself, but I don't know where to start. I've been told flat-out by a gender-therapist no. The friends and family that know don't agree with me (or flat-out think I'm just some sort of sick fetishist). It honestly feels like I can't even seek to join a LGBT club at school because of this whole thing. Even now I really, really don't want to hit "POST" because I'm sure that something I said will piss somebody off.
*deep breath*
Sorry if it feels like I'm whining, I'm honestly trying not to. Again I'm sorry for being so stupid last time; I should just be more honest I suppose.
-
I don't think we disagree here, or at least not on much. The only thing I'm trying to say that isn't exactly what you're saying here is that I don't think there's much merit in trying to apply traits of socially constructed identities to other people. People are going to build their own identities out of pieces of these constructs, but that doesn't mean that they're broadly applicable because there's no guarantee that a given person will identify with any particular part of them. I can use them to inform and shape my identity, but I shouldn't use them to try to identify other people. Does that make sense, or is there part of that that you don't think works?
Nope that's it exactly. Let people identify themselves and let them speak for themselves. And don't put people into boxes because they chose certain identities.
Ouch. This is what I was afraid of; I tried to sound neutral without tipping my hand and instead I guess I came off sounding like I'm taking a side that, ironically, I disagree with. :ohdear: I'm sorry if it sounded like I am of the opinion of binary genders and other such opinions. I guess I should've been a little more open about why I posted in this thread.
This is a really hard post though.
I'll start off by jumping off the high-dive into the deep in; I honestly feel like I'm some sort of gender varient. I say "gender varient" and not transgender because just about every time I have done so in the past has led to nothing but problems no matter where I turn. As I said last post I've met people, both trans and cis, who believe in binary genders. They believe you are a guy, a girl, or one stuck in the body of the other. No middle ground, no umbrella, nothing. I don't agree with that, especially because I don't feel that way, but according to them that's basically impossible (and actually rude to say otherwise). It's honestly a relief to hear someone like helvetica say otherwise.
I have no idea where to turn, though, because of this seemingly prevalent binary gender belief. I wan't answers, even if I have to figure them out for myself, but I don't know where to start. I've been told flat-out by a gender-therapist no. The friends and family that know don't agree with me (or flat-out think I'm just some sort of sick fetishist). It honestly feels like I can't even seek to join a LGBT club at school because of this whole thing. Even now I really, really don't want to hit "POST" because I'm sure that something I said will piss somebody off.
*deep breath*
Sorry if it feels like I'm whining, I'm honestly trying not to. Again I'm sorry for being so stupid last time; I should just be more honest I suppose.
That sucks. The binary is an awful thing for everyone, including people who fit on it. I admit as a full card carrying member of the binary too. I am a girl and I will always be a girl, you cannot tell me otherwise. I would much rather be a tomboy than a girly guy any day of the week if it came down to it. But because of the binary there's a strong tendency for me to ditch certain likes I have and change behaviors I don't necessarily mind because they're not seen as feminine. There's a strong tendency to force myself to like certain things just because they're considered girly. The same pressures apply to cisgendered people as well. I'm sure a lot of you have been told to "man up" or that's "not ladylike". The binary sucks for everyone.
As for therapy, that's one of the areas there still needs to be a lot of work. My therapist is pretty much against people who don't fit on the binary as well. She's told people she doesn't think they're feminine if they're too fat. I pretty much just used her to get my hormone approval and ran off. There's still a significant number of "old school" (aka, back when transgenderism was considered a sexual deviancy) who force people to meet certain standards of masculinity or femininity before they'll approve transition-related treatments. There's still a lot of old school trans persons who find the idea of someone being outside of the gender binary repugnant, or worse, a threat. Same with some lesbian and gay folk, they just think you're really gay and won't admit it. It's all a bunch of stupid crap. People should be free to identify however they want, it's not harming anyone and if it makes someone feel more comfortable in their skin go for it. As someone who had to struggle with the mental complications of dysphoria, I would not wish it on anyone, even if they didn't exactly fit into a comfortable box for me.
If you want someone to talk to, feel free to poke me outside of here. I'm more than happy to lend an ear or at least a supportive shoulder. And I wasn't trying to pin you as anything for or against, more so was just trying to clarify.
-
Why is this on the front page and not in Letty Journal ???
Because it is talking about a very legitimate social issue that isn't just happening in the convention scene or the fandom, but is very much a reality in society as we know it today. It may come off as such due to the personal narrative woven into it, but I personally believe it simply helps in reinforcing the need to spread awareness of the issue. I think it is about time there was some reasonable discourse on it, naturally. Of course, I speak as somewhat of an outlier in the transgender spectrum (and hence I too have a personal investment in the matter - having been labelled as 'half-man/half-woman' by my peers on many separate occasions), classifying myself as strictly bi-gender... I have talked to close people about this, indeed, I see myself as someone who fleetingly switch between the masculine and feminine aspects on a whim, though of course, I do find myself more attached to my feminine identity.
In fact, I think TSO already mentioned the concept of a bi-gender in a previous post. Go check it out.
Let's put the spotlight back on those who it's meant for - the ones whose point of view Helvetica is trying to highlight. They can be hurt by someone's ignorant blunder, and sure, the blame can be put on the person who sir'ed the female transgender, or the mangaka who was confused by a certain person in a photo-shoot. But are they really to be blamed? Maybe. But certainly not more than 50% of the blame. Who, then, is responsible for this unresolved pain that might end up as a column such as this one?
The point of this discourse isn't to point fingers at anybody, it's to ensure that this sort of misunderstanding doesn't repeat itself again, and how we can ensure that everybody gets the respect that they deserve.
I'll start off by jumping off the high-dive into the deep in; I honestly feel like I'm some sort of gender varient. I say "gender varient" and not transgender because just about every time I have done so in the past has led to nothing but problems no matter where I turn. As I said last post I've met people, both trans and cis, who believe in binary genders. They believe you are a guy, a girl, or one stuck in the body of the other. No middle ground, no umbrella, nothing. I don't agree with that, especially because I don't feel that way, but according to them that's basically impossible (and actually rude to say otherwise). It's honestly a relief to hear someone like helvetica say otherwise.
It's alright. You aren't alone in that either, I also seem to share the same beliefs as you, though of course, phrased and depicted somewhat differently. I treat transgenderism as a spectrum of sorts, which allows me to discuss about the various ways in which people label themselves in a more reasonable way than final absolutes - identity can never truly be as absolute as we want it to be... There are varying degrees to which one can identify themselves. Even if someone who may have been born with the biological makeup of a male, believes truly that she is a girl, we could not be the ones to judge just what kind of girl she is... As you mention it, it is not right to assume that she was a girl born in the body of a boy, until we get that assurance, and even then, we could not know for certain if she had been, at the time, confident in her own identity. It could simply be a phase, or she could still be in the process of discovering herself. We cannot really know. As a result, it can be quite abhorrent to see people treating gender strictly as some sort of binary - it turns out being a false dichotomy, at least, under my paradigm of thought it is.
What complicates matters is the fact that even biologically speaking, it is not strictly limited to the male and the female. That's another reason why this is an important thing to discuss and talk about.
I have my own personal gripes (simply because I feel people aren't taking my opinion seriously enough even though I like to believe my opinions have just as much weight as some other posters here do) but fortunately they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. This isn't the first time gender and sex has been discussed on the forum, after all.
-
Just wanted to pop in to say that this is probably the most respectful and informed discussion on gender that I've seen on the internet in a long time. Seriously. At first I thought it was curious that this demographic here - mostly high school through university aged - would show more courtesy, reflection and thoughtfulness in this discussion than what I've seen when supposed adults (and by that I mean 30+) take part. But when you think about it, it makes sense: I can attest that my generation didn't come to recognize gay rights, for example, until like, the 80s, let alone such concepts as being genderqueer and trans. The generation currently in college have been hearing this discussion from an early age.
This isn't to say, of course, that the 30+ crowd are a bunch of bigots who are beyond hope, but it does underline the importance of teaching tolerance from an early age in order to ensure that we evolve socially as a species.
-
Awww helvie if I accidentally called you male IRL I would feel super bad about it afterwards and want to hug you.
Please don't be too down on yourself if it happens :(
We're all supportive of you here
(actually I still want to hug you regardless)
-
I wrote this article not to complain about my treatment, but to put stories and a personal face to what I think is potentially a little known issue. For a lot of people this was potentially their first convention, and I would like for it to not be their last. As a veteran conventioneer, these are my observations and my experiences in dealing with being transgendered in both this fandom and with convention going in general.
Conventions are a safe zone for a lot of personal expression, and have been getting progressively better in my eyes. The very first time I cosplayed I was called freak and faggot at Otakon 2007, I lasted maybe 2-3 hours in my cosplay before I felt like everyone was staring at me and I had to get out of it. Outside of the joke cosplays of the Sailor Bubbas and Cardcaptor Wills, male-bodied persons cosplaying female characters were heavily looked down upon. Unless they really passed, they faced ridicule and derision. Now the worst thing that happens to me is I get called "him" or "he" or "sir". In this fandom especially, nobody looks down on someone for having a male body and cosplaying a female character. Hell, it's pretty much celebrated at this point. But while things are really open and chill, I feel as if we can go a step further to help people of all genders and shapes and sizes fit in and feel more comfortable.
Getting misgendered is still a serious problem. I may not be facing threats of violence or openly disparaged because of my choice of appearance, but it still really hurts to be misgendered, especially when I am trying as hard as I can to present as female. Just because I'm currently stuck with a male body does not mean I wish to be referred as such, even if I wouldn't be looked down upon anymore for cosplaying and presenting female. The same thing applies to any other person. Just because most people's gender happen to align with their bodies, doesn't mean it would for everyone. And not everyone has the opportunity to express themselves in a way that they'd get read in their proper gender, or perhaps they don't want to or feel comfortable enough to at that time.
Only properly gendering someone if they meet someone's standards of that particular gender is pretty narrow minded. In a fandom with many cisgendered males cosplaying female characters due to well, an overabundance of female characters, it is even more important to look past the physical and let the individual have their gender identity. Denying it or assuming it based on their physical appearance, their personality, or their likes and dislikes, is very harmful psychologically, and outside of conventions and in real life, potentially hazardous. And this isn't just for persons of trans* or other gender variance. Cisgendered people too are affected by this. Just because one's identity aligns with their body doesn't mean they act in a manner that society considers appropriate for their gender. To be misgendered, or worse, ridiculed for not acting your gender, can be just as harmful to them as it is to trans* and genderqueer persons. Now there are some people who do take pride in being mistaken for another gender, but let them decide that for themselves.
I'm fortunate that I can pass for the most part in the real world, and that cons seem to be my only significant roadblock. But when I get misgendered it is a painful reminder I am stuck in a body I am at odds with. For others it may be a painful reminder that they may not come off as girly or guyish enough to be considered their gender, or that they end up feeling pressured to do things in order to "pass" that they otherwise wouldn't want to. And for others it may be a reminder that only a small subset of their traits get recognized, or they get put into a box they are not comfortable being in. This is why I'm championing proper etiquette when addressing other people in this fandom so that we can make things more comfortable for those who may not have the luxury of being read in their proper gender. I feel as if it's a tiny burden to carry to make things significantly more welcoming to those who may not be as confident in their gender identity and correcting others as I am, or may not have the ability to express it or assert it publicly. It would also make things significantly more welcoming to those whom the binary tries to erase by forcing roles and behaviors on people based on the identity they take.
I came into Touhou because it gave me an outlet to express myself in ways I could not express myself in real life. I stayed in Touhou after I came out because most people have been very welcoming and supportive. I want to continue being a part of Touhou by taking my experiences and sharing them with others so that others can feel just as welcomed as I did those many moons ago. Overall my experience has been overwhelmingly positive, and it's this support that keeps me going here and keeps me rooted and doing my part to serve the fandom despite the negative things that do happen.
-
Oh I totally agree. If I were at a con or some other event, the last thing I would want to do would be to ruin someone else's time. Not only would they feel awful about it, I would feel awful about it the moment I heard I did it.
I'm glad I at least know this issue exists, even if I tend to fumble around with it a lot (just ask Shadoweh)
-
The real problem here is that your right to self-identification or self-expression ends where the next person's freedom of speech begins. The government has to decide if your right to expression trumps their religion, or vice-versa. Whatever they decide now can always be changed later, so neither is a guarantee. You can't force someone to acknowledge you as what you wish to be when they don't accept it, and you can't force them to accept it either. You might be able to pass laws that force them to keep their opinions to themselves or otherwise prevent them from expressing themselves in speech but they will always be there, they will always resent you, and they will turn against you and take their revenge at the first opportunity. Forcing the population at large to use the words you want to describe you is largely doomed to failure.
The only real solution is to stop interpreting being misgendered as some kind of hateful denial of your gender and just think "they're wrong" instead. This goes for racial slurs too. Just stop caring when people do it. Stop giving these words their power to harm you. Stop arming your enemies.
I am what I am and I know it. Nothing that any of you says to me is going to change it.
-
I already addressed this on IRC but I figured this would be a useful message to put here as well.
This isn't about trying to change the mind of the assholes. They'll find any reason to be an asshole. This is about bringing awareness of the issue to the good people in the community and at large, who really don't want to hurt other people but may not even be aware they are. I really don't think most of the people who misgender or otherwise are doing it intentionally to harm me or other transpersons. It's simply a lack of knowledge of the issue. A cisgendered person rarely if ever has to worry about their identity being questioned. They may get ridiculed for not being "manly" or "girly" enough, but this isn't even close to the same level.
Speaking for myself, I do not care if what I do is considered masculine or feminine, that isn't my problem. I am perfectly happy with being a tomboy, this is something I'm proud of. But that's the key, I'm still a girl. Calling me a boy makes me acutely aware of all the things that make me feel masculine, all the faults in my body I can't fix or ever fix, all the behaviors I've picked up being forced to act like a boy in order to survive I'm still undoing. This is what happens when you misgender me, and I cannot control this. This is a trigger. Am I aware I need to stop it from controlling me as much? Sure, but that's easy to say when it's someone else it's happening to. When I'm forced to identify as a boy or if I feel masculine, I have no self confidence in myself, no self worth. When I feel like I'm a girl then I can shrug off easier the people who try to tell me I'm not. The more I feel like I present the less I care when people try to ridicule me for not acting girly or masculine. Crazy as it sounds, I started giving far less of a crap about what people thought of me once I was able to present myself in the manner I wanted to. I became more proud of the "masculine" things I do the girlier I was able to present myself and feel.
The purpose of all of this is to provide a safe zone, to help people who are gender variant or might be questioning themselves and their identity. By providing a safe zone you're providing an environment where they can develop their sense of self worth. My self confidence did not come overnight, and telling someone to sink or swim and just do it is a recipe for disaster. They have to build up a cache of self worth and confidence before they're ready to handle the slings and arrows of the real world. The safe zone this community gave me lead me into finally exploring and discovering my identity and presenting it online. The safe zone I was given at AUSA 2011 when I hung out in person and was treated as a girl lead to me to gain the confidence to present female at conventions and the confidence and support I got from there led to finally transitioning into full-time the person I am.
Would you believe I had set myself a timetable for finally presenting as female, and I beat it by like almost half a year? I wasn't intending on presenting female at a con until Animazement this year, in May. I was planning on making that my first female con since I knew very few people from this side of the universe would be going, and then making Otakon the first con I hung out with Shrinemaidens as a girl. But on a whim I went to Ohayocon this year presenting female, and that went so well I made Katsucon the first con I spent entirely in girl mode, and that was with other Shrinemaidens present. Compare that to my very first time presenting female in public, Otakon 2007, and getting called fag and freak and then shutting that away for another 5 years. It takes time and familiarity to get over that initial hump. I used to be so scared presenting as female, thinking everyone was watching me. Once I realized most people didn't care, and were actually supportive, I stopped dreading it and fearing it.
Now I hardly have about fears about presenting, it's just the misgendering that drags me back that I don't present as well as I wish to, as well as I'd like to. It may not stop me from asserting myself as female now, but I know that it stopped me a long time ago, and for people who aren't quite at my stage yet it's devastating. It's that feeling that drives people to do things they may not want to do, to do risky harmful things that may jeopardize their health both mentally and physically. Thankfully because I have all the self confidence and worth built up from all the successes I've had in the past, it doesn't hurt me as much, but I know it took me a long time to get there. There was a time I was forcing myself to give up aspects I really didn't want to in a desperate bid to appear more feminine. I don't do that anymore, but again, that took time and building self confidence. Before I used to think I was "becoming" a nice and kind person, a person people wanted to be around. It took me a long time to realize I already was one, I was just shedding the baggage weighing me down and making me think I wasn't.
This is what making a safe zone does. It builds confidence and self worth. It helps people who may be questioning to figure out where they stand. It helps people who may already know who they are but are afraid nobody will accept them. I knew I was a girl since I could walk, but I never felt like anyone would accept me for one until I got into this community and found wonderful people who did. Do I expect everyone to? No, but enough people do, and the people who do accept me are the ones that really matter in the long run. But it takes time to build that confidence, those friends, that support network. Would I have eventually transitioned without any support? Probably, if I didn't kill myself or die from stress and other things. But I would have been a bitter person, hating and cursing the world. I'd definitely be in a lot worse shape mentally and physically as well. I wouldn't have any friends, any family as I would have ran them off a long time ago with my anger and my malcontent. I forced myself to act and present male in a desperate bid to get friends, as I was more afraid of being lonely than being able to be myself. Eventually though something would have given and I would have driven off everyone with how bitter and depressed I was.
That's what is the key here, to fight off the assholes and the malevolent, you need to surround yourself with good people. Knowing you have people behind you, supporting you, willing to fight for you, that blunts the blows from the hateful. Being able to drown out the noises of the bigots with words of support from good people. Knowing I have people willing to stand up for me is what makes it possible for me to fight off those who wish to bring me down. And I want to be that same voice to others, I want others to know they have people here that will have their back and support them and who they are as a person, no matter what that is. And I'm sure a lot of people here wish to as well, they just need to know how they can help.
-
I think I've solved my confusion. Let's see...
You're conflating gender roles and gender identity.
Yes, it seems I've been doing that. To put it as simply as I can, what bothers me is that people say gender is a social construct, which is fine, but then a moment later talk about their gender not matching their sex. My response to that then is to wonder how, if gender is a social construct and not actually bound to sex in any way, someone's gender could not "match" their sex. That notion seems to contradict the premise that gender is independent from sex, since you'd think then that no gender matches any sex. I guess now that what's really being said is that gender roles are a construct and gender identity is a real issue. I think that's the main source of my confusion here. So like, this thing you said:
Gender is a social construct, there is no significant wiring or predetermined behavior between different genders.
Is it that the first time you say gender, you mean gender roles, and the second time, you mean gender identities (or rather, people who identify as different genders)?
In any case I think I understand much better now. Thank you very much for all the detailed responses. This topic is fascinating to me, and your comments in this thread and others have been tremendously helpful.
-
I think I've solved my confusion. Let's see...Yes, it seems I've been doing that. To put it as simply as I can, what bothers me is that people say gender is a social construct, which is fine, but then a moment later talk about their gender not matching their sex. My response to that then is to wonder how, if gender is a social construct and not actually bound to sex in any way, someone's gender could not "match" their sex. That notion seems to contradict the premise that gender is independent from sex, since you'd think then that no gender matches any sex. I guess now that what's really being said is that gender roles are a construct and gender identity is a real issue. I think that's the main source of my confusion here.
You have been reading a bit much into things. Social constructs are often created and crafted based on observations made in - whoop-dee-doo, society itself, based on very tangible things - such as the physical make-up of the human being, which directly ties into the sex of the human being. No one has stated in this thread that gender was entirely and wholesomely independent and detached from the sex. Gender identity as a whole rests on the fact that the individual has the power to decide how he or she wishes to present themselves out in general public - that choice is the social construct in and of itself, and when that choice directly contradicts the physical sex of the person, that's when we can say someone's gender doesn't "match" their sex. There are many people who believe they are females born in a male body and vice-versa. Such people definitely exist and I think it's the least we could do but to respect their choice.
-
Gender identity is a part of what makes a person that specific person, and contributes much to the personality and outlook. The fact that personality types fall into extremely diverse categories, albeit for the most part still falling under the boy-girl dichotomy, implies that gender identity is by no means the single defining aspect of a person. But for some people, it may be a very huge part of who they are, and they strive to present themselves solely based on that. For others, not so much. Now, problems arise when someone underestimates the amount of care and attention a certain person puts into their gender identity. For those who fall into the spectrum of gender variants, the amount of care they put in considering and mulling over their identities seems hard to comprehend - almost foreign - to the common cisgendered folk, and striving to fully understand their situations is an undertaking that many of them would likely deem as stressful or confusing.
It seems to me like the question of sensitivity to others' perceptions is an Achilles' Heel to those who are prone to being misidentified. It's a weakness that may not seem apparent in the surface at first, but devastating to those who have it. While Achilles' weakness lies in the heel, of all places, the gender-sensitive human being's weakness just has to lie in their gender identity. There are two ways to fix this. One is, as commonly agreed upon here, to attempt to disarm the rest of the world by bringing the sufferings of the mis-identified to their attention, and placing your emotional well-being entirely at the discretion of others. The other solution is to put extra armor over the Achilles' heel to adapt better to the battlefield known as the "real world." That's not to say that these solutions are mutually exclusive - they both can be striven for at the same time. I'm just trying to highlight the other viewpoint over here, which is why I'm in complete agreement with Suzuran:
The real problem here is that your right to self-identification or self-expression ends where the next person's freedom of speech begins. The government has to decide if your right to expression trumps their religion, or vice-versa. Whatever they decide now can always be changed later, so neither is a guarantee. You can't force someone to acknowledge you as what you wish to be when they don't accept it, and you can't force them to accept it either. You might be able to pass laws that force them to keep their opinions to themselves or otherwise prevent them from expressing themselves in speech but they will always be there, they will always resent you, and they will turn against you and take their revenge at the first opportunity. Forcing the population at large to use the words you want to describe you is largely doomed to failure.
The only real solution is to stop interpreting being misgendered as some kind of hateful denial of your gender and just think "they're wrong" instead. This goes for racial slurs too. Just stop caring when people do it. Stop giving these words their power to harm you. Stop arming your enemies.
I am what I am and I know it. Nothing that any of you says to me is going to change it.
One major goal that we should strive for is to have the question "Why are you so much like a boy?", when asked to a transgendered girl, carry the same amount of emotional baggage as the question "Why do you walk funny?" or "Why are you always so pessimistic?"
Now to respond to another quote -
Ascribing character traits to gender is completely unscientific and should never be taken seriously. It says more about the describer than anything else. There's nothing "objective" about it.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8001121_difference-male-female-writing-styles.html
http://www.ehow.com/list_7518558_speech-differences-between-man-woman.html
I agree that your viewpoint is noble and appealing, but observations are for the most part objective. You may argue that these differences are a result of the annoying social prescriptions that force the distinguishing between men and women, but this is the reality of today's world. Differences exist, and instead of fighting against them, (unless you particularly enjoy a "me-versus-the-world" scenario), I think these differences should be accepted, examined, and maybe even celebrated instead.
-
http://www.ehow.com/info_8001121_difference-male-female-writing-styles.html
http://www.ehow.com/list_7518558_speech-differences-between-man-woman.html
I agree that your viewpoint is noble and appealing, but observations are for the most part objective. You may argue that these differences are a result of the annoying social prescriptions that force the distinguishing between men and women, but this is the reality of today's world. Differences exist, and instead of fighting against them, (unless you particularly enjoy a "me-versus-the-world" scenario), I think these differences should be accepted, examined, and maybe even celebrated instead.
I have a hard time believing this is a good-faith argument if you're going to make assumptions about my motivations. Neither of your e-how links point to anything intrinsically, biologically "male" or "female" when it comes to personality traits. Science has pretty much established that the character traits of "male" and "female" are socially, not biologically, defined and learned. Traits considered masculine in our immediate socio-cultural context are considered feminine in others, and vice versa. In other words, I don't need to "fight against" anything when it comes to this subject.
-
One major goal that we should strive for is to have the question "Why are you so much like a boy?", when asked to a transgendered girl, carry the same amount of emotional baggage as the question "Why do you walk funny?" or "Why are you always so pessimistic?"
Well, what if the question is warranted? Gender is not binary. Or even integer. This is mostly why the idea of a "wrong" gender is stupid. I was born male. I am green-deficient colorblind and nearsighted. I like airplanes and complex machinery. I wear cutesy frilly dresses. I collect stuffed animals and dolls. I negatively identify with male stereotypes. I wish I still had a high-pitched voice. I suck at arts and crafts. I play violent video games. I program computers. I keep cats. I wear long hair and wish it were longer. I am a sucker for cute animals. I can't cook or clean. I am lazy and undisciplined. I am jealous of small children and wish to emulate or become one. I love wearing things that make noise. Which gender am I? Why should I chose one stereotype to the exclusion of another? The ideas of binary gender and exclusively gender-based stereotypes are stupid and broken. People are who and what they are. People who are sufficiently capable and motivated are very close to their ideal self. Some people are the exact opposite. Such is people. No two are exactly alike. Saying "all trans girls have X behavior" is just as wrong and broken as saying "all black people steal televisions". Saying someone is closer to the "wrong" gender than that which they wish is an observation of outwardly displayed features, not an accusation of crime.
-
To put it as simply as I can, what bothers me is that people say gender is a social construct, which is fine, but then a moment later talk about their gender not matching their sex. My response to that then is to wonder how, if gender is a social construct and not actually bound to sex in any way, someone's gender could not "match" their sex. That notion seems to contradict the premise that gender is independent from sex, since you'd think then that no gender matches any sex. I guess now that what's really being said is that gender roles are a construct and gender identity is a real issue. I think that's the main source of my confusion here. So like, this thing you said:Is it that the first time you say gender, you mean gender roles, and the second time, you mean gender identities (or rather, people who identify as different genders)?
As Trance said, there's a slight bit of overreading. While gender roles are a social construct, gender itself isn't purely though. It is an external presentation of an intrinsic facet of identity. It's society attaching traits and expected behaviors and roles to physical features that cause a lot of the issues. Race and culture are social constructs in the same manner; society pinning specific behaviors and roles on physical attributes of skin color or ancestry.
I've identified internally as female my entire life. As a kid I always identified with the girls in the neighborhood or in school and stuff. I wanted to do girly things because well, I was told a girl should like these things and I knew I was a girl. I liked dolls and playing dressup and stuff like that because girls liked it. For the longest time I wanted to be a housewife and a mother and stuff, and I kind of felt ashamed for liking things like sports and video games because girls weren't supposed to. Even though I had a fascination with science and engineering, I hated working on cars because it got me dirty and being dirty was not feminine. This is gender the social construct in action. Had I grown up in an environment where playing with monster trucks and playing in mud was considered feminine, I probably would have liked it more. But because I identified as female, and society told me females are supposed to look and act this way, my likes and dislikes kind of were tailored to that. Nowadays I don't care as much, if at all, if what I do is considered feminine or masculine.
That doesn't take away that I still want to be identified female, it just means I recognize that society has programmed me to try to think and act a certain way. I love ballet and working on cars and playing video games and wearing makeup and dressing up pretty. I definitely still have a maternal streak and I enjoy domestic chores, but I'd rather be a scientist than a housewife. None of these things make me a girl or a boy though, identifying as one makes me a girl. I know lots of boys who are far more feminine than I will ever be, and girls who outbro me. Again, acting feminine or masculine does not determine one's internal gender identity, they do. It's just unfortunate that society still likes to think that by identifying as a certain gender they're forced to act certain ways or like certain things.
Sex, the physical features you wish to have, that is also completely internal. Your mind has its own map of what it thinks the body should be. My mind is 110% convinced I'm supposed to have a female body. Before my sister was born, while I identified as female I didn't quite understand or have a realization I thought I was a girl. When my sister was born, I suddenly had a very physical awareness that my body was wrong. This was the first time I experienced dysphoria. When puberty hit and my body started growing male the dysphoria got much stronger. Gender dysphoria is a very specific set of psychological symptoms, it isn't just typical depression and body esteem issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
When I feel very masculine, and my body looks masculine to me, I feel dysphoric. I do not feel attached to reality, I lose control of my emotions, and I feel very empty. I literally feel like a stranger in my own skin. And I had actual triggers, being naked or being aroused sexually was an immediately fuck you to the gut and I would get physically ill. Looking female in the mirror has gone a long way towards reducing a lot of my dysphoric feelings. Now it's not a total solution, as I still do have a physical trigger from the bits between my legs that remind me I'm still in a male body, hence why I have gone further with my transition into hormones and will eventually have bottom (and probably top) surgery. Just being able to look female wasn't enough, I was still discontent and it wasn't until I started taking hormones did most of my depression and dysphoria and anxiety go away. It was like a light bulb switched on, my mind was craving hormones it wasn't getting, and worse, getting hormones that was shoving my body towards a destination it did not want.
Not everyone has to or necessarily wants to fully transition though, sometimes just being able to express themselves occasionally is enough. Not everyone feels as strongly as I did, sometimes it's just a general feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction in their physical appearance. Some people go through life without actually knowing why they feel down all the time, this is why awareness and letting people have safe zones to explore these things is a huge deal. Sometimes the solution to dysphoria is simply to be able to present as female sometimes. Some people have no problems with what bits they have, but the bits don't give the right hormones their mind wants. You'd be surprised the number of transgirls who are proud of having a penis, but because society tells them girls have vaginas and guys have dicks they feel pressured to get bottom surgery. I still want bottom surgery, but that's my decision, I do not feel compelled to in order to feel like a girl. And sometimes the dysphoria doesn't come from their body at all, but comes from society denying them their identity because of their body. Some transpersons absolutely love their body, and do not mind it at all, but feel pressured to present in their chosen gender to be respected as such. There's still a big chunk of "traditional" (ie. backwards) psychology that think transgenderism is strictly girl born in guy body and visa versa. Not everyone feels they got the wrong body, they just feel society is giving them the shaft and forcing them to look and act a certain way. This is where the gender binary sucks. Some transpersons feel compelled to transition in order to present better in their target gender when they have no desire to.
Now personally for me, I will say, I imagine a lot of my physical triggers for my dysphoria were learned rather than innate. I grew up in a Catholic household, and as such I was raised that sexual feelings were bad and that I shouldn't be aroused by things or I'm having impure thoughts. Now imagine a 8 year old girl, stuck with male parts, wearing girls clothing because she knows she's a girl, but then feeling aroused by it by her male parts, parts she already didn't want. It really fucked with me. I wasn't wearing girls clothing to get a sexual thrill out of it, it was purely to try to feel pretty and some semblance of normal. I couldn't control it though, which was extremely distressing and only compounded on my dysphoria. I will say this is probably the root of my desire to get bottom surgery, and had I been raised that girls can have penises too (and that it's not bad to be sexually aroused, another issue entirely), I probably wouldn't have cared as much. My sexuality for the time being is completely repressed by my repulsion to the fact I have the wrong parts. Which is funny because once again, it is a purely social construct that penises are considered male and vaginas female. Outside of child reproduction they have absolutely nothing to do with your identity or personality.
That being said, some people do hit puberty and their body is like OMG I WANT TO STAB THINGS WITH MY DICK... wait I don't have one?! and visa versa. I may have these feelings as well, but I can't say for sure because again, I've repressed my sexuality for so long I've not given myself any chance to explore. I can safely say though I do not get any pleasure when aroused, so it's likely my mind is operating on the same principle, but since ~*catholicism*~ I never felt comfortable exploring it outside of desperation to figure out how broken I was.
Gender identity is a part of what makes a person that specific person, and contributes much to the personality and outlook. The fact that personality types fall into extremely diverse categories, albeit for the most part still falling under the boy-girl dichotomy, implies that gender identity is by no means the single defining aspect of a person. But for some people, it may be a very huge part of who they are, and they strive to present themselves solely based on that. For others, not so much.
My gender doesn't define me, I am who I am. That doesn't change the fact I am a girl, and wish to be treated as such in society. It is just another facet in the whole amalgamation that makes me, me. The problem is cisgendered people don't think of it as a big deal because to them it isn't. It's not that gender isn't just as much of a core identity as it is to trans people, it's that they've never had it challenged. Society is strictly catered to them as being the majority. Society does not question them, because outside of rather insignificant things they've never had to question themselves and prove to society they are who they are. They are by default assumed properly. Think of how insulting it is to get called girly as a guy, and then realize that to transpersons they live with that every day. Transpersons are challenged on a daily basis the very core of their being, along with all the traits and manifestations that come with it. This is a similar problem faced by minority children. They are raised in a world where being white is the standard and tippy top, so when they look in the mirror and see a different colored skin they start associating traits of inferiority to themselves, and their identity is summarily challenged. This is why people take huge pride in being black or female or trans or gay or what have you, because society assumes that if one is not part of the majority, they have to stand out some way or be ignored. The majority is considered default and "normal", and everything else deviant, when in reality nobody is "normal" and everyone's a shade of different.
Now, problems arise when someone underestimates the amount of care and attention a certain person puts into their gender identity. For those who fall into the spectrum of gender variants, the amount of care they put in considering and mulling over their identities seems hard to comprehend - almost foreign - to the common cisgendered folk, and striving to fully understand their situations is an undertaking that many of them would likely deem as stressful or confusing.
And this is where privilege comes in. Just because the majority doesn't face the issue doesn't make it less important, nor solely the minority's responsibility to bring it up. This is the height of arrogance and insensitivity to think that just because it doesn't happen to them then it shouldn't be important. As a majority it is their responsibility to be aware and perceptive of minority issues, and to help adjust their behavior to be more accommodating. Society already accommodates the majority automatically, so why is it the minority's responsibility to build their own accommodations? Just because something is more common doesn't make it superior or more "correct" than others. Just because cisgendered folk tend to be the majority of humans born doesn't make cisgenderism the right thing and transgenderism some sort of deviancy. People aren't statistics, being "normal" in the mathematic sense is not "natural" in the sociological sense. It just tends to be that way because it's the majority voice and majority experience that gets recognized in society.
As a majority in society it is their responsibility to make sure minorities do not get ignored or stamped out. We don't even know how many people are truly transgender or intersexed or what have you because of efforts in society to stamp out dissent and silence minority voices. Society may think these things are rare but in reality it may really not be.
It seems to me like the question of sensitivity to others' perceptions is an Achilles' Heel to those who are prone to being misidentified. It's a weakness that may not seem apparent in the surface at first, but devastating to those who have it. While Achilles' weakness lies in the heel, of all places, the gender-sensitive human being's weakness just has to lie in their gender identity. There are two ways to fix this. One is, as commonly agreed upon here, to attempt to disarm the rest of the world by bringing the sufferings of the mis-identified to their attention, and placing your emotional well-being entirely at the discretion of others. The other solution is to put extra armor over the Achilles' heel to adapt better to the battlefield known as the "real world." That's not to say that these solutions are mutually exclusive - they both can be striven for at the same time. I'm just trying to highlight the other viewpoint over here, which is why I'm in complete agreement with Suzuran:
One major goal that we should strive for is to have the question "Why are you so much like a boy?", when asked to a transgendered girl, carry the same amount of emotional baggage as the question "Why do you walk funny?" or "Why are you always so pessimistic?"
I'm sorry, but my gender identity is not a weakness, and to perceive it as such is insulting. Just because I do not fit the majority narrative does not make my identity "emotional baggage". I am just as natural and "normal" as any cis-born individual. I am merely a different variation on the human spectrum. To act as if it's my responsibility to "toughen up" because I'm not the majority voice is frankly the height of arrogance and privilege. Cisgendered individuals are no more "correctly human" than I am. I am not a deviancy, I am merely a variation. And to act as if it's my responsibility to stick up for myself, rather than cisgendered individuals to be more accommodating for me, is extremely bigoted. It is pure luck one is born into a sociological majority, and to lord that privilege over others who weren't "as fortunate" is wrong, period.
It's society that's told me being a girl is shameful. It's society that's told me being trans is shameful. It is not an Achilles Heel, it is society being bigoted dumbfucks thinking straight white cismales are the pinnacle of human development. My shame is purely external. It's not my job to toughen up because society is a bunch of bigoted ignoramuses, it's society's job to stop being assholes and learn that people are different.
Now to respond to another quote -
http://www.ehow.com/info_8001121_difference-male-female-writing-styles.html
http://www.ehow.com/list_7518558_speech-differences-between-man-woman.html
I agree that your viewpoint is noble and appealing, but observations are for the most part objective. You may argue that these differences are a result of the annoying social prescriptions that force the distinguishing between men and women, but this is the reality of today's world. Differences exist, and instead of fighting against them, (unless you particularly enjoy a "me-versus-the-world" scenario), I think these differences should be accepted, examined, and maybe even celebrated instead.
You're missing a key point though, that this is a self reinforcing loop. How many female writers over the years have had to write under pen names or other pseudonyms because society just assumed female writers were inferior? Joanne Rowling, aka JK Rowling, had to publish Harry Potter under her initials because the publishers told her a woman would never sell well because they would see her writing intrinsically as inferior. There are lots of male romance writers who write under female pen names because guys aren't supposed to write mushy love crap. It is purely society telling you there is a difference between make and female voices, not that there actually quantifiably is one.
I had this argument about video games and science. Society telling women they can't be programmers and engineers and scientists is why there is a male majority, not because there's an actual gender specific variance between math and science skills. That is purely pushed by society, just like black people are told they are dumber and prone to anger. Gender, race, culture, none of these have any relation on someone's likes or dislikes or talents or behaviors. Stereotypes hurt, and are self reinforcing in a lot of ways.
Well, what if the question is warranted? Gender is not binary. Or even integer. This is mostly why the idea of a "wrong" gender is stupid. I was born male. I am green-deficient colorblind and nearsighted. I like airplanes and complex machinery. I wear cutesy frilly dresses. I collect stuffed animals and dolls. I negatively identify with male stereotypes. I wish I still had a high-pitched voice. I suck at arts and crafts. I play violent video games. I program computers. I keep cats. I wear long hair and wish it were longer. I am a sucker for cute animals. I can't cook or clean. I am lazy and undisciplined. I am jealous of small children and wish to emulate or become one. I love wearing things that make noise. Which gender am I? Why should I chose one stereotype to the exclusion of another? The ideas of binary gender and exclusively gender-based stereotypes are stupid and broken. People are who and what they are. People who are sufficiently capable and motivated are very close to their ideal self. Some people are the exact opposite. Such is people. No two are exactly alike. Saying "all trans girls have X behavior" is just as wrong and broken as saying "all black people steal televisions". Saying someone is closer to the "wrong" gender than that which they wish is an observation of outwardly displayed features, not an accusation of crime.
Just because you do not put any importance into your gender identity or how society perceives you does not mean other people don't take pride in. It is different for everyone. Again, this is the height of arrogance to assume that if something isn't important to them, then it shouldn't be important to others. Just because the gender binary is a social construct does not take away the fact people do take identity from being considered male or female. Not everyone is this amorphous genderless blob. I am very proud I am a girl, even if I don't necessarily do the typical "feminine" thing. I feel feminine, and I act feminine, even if society tells me some of the things I do aren't feminine. And people can and do feel they're in the "wrong" gender, because society tells them they have to act certain ways because of their body parts or what they were assigned at birth. Telling people to just suck it up and/or stop caring what people call them does nobody any good. I don't want to be an amorphous genderless blob, I want to be referred to as a girl.
And if someone wants to act a certain way, or fit into gender roles, that is their perogative. As long as they don't feel compelled to by outward forces who cares? There are things I like strictly because they're viewed as feminine. There's no innate wiring that tells me I should like makeup, but I like looking girly and therefore I like makeup. I don't force myself to wear makeup because I feel like I'd be less of a girl if I did, but on the same token, I don't have a direct love of makeup, it is strictly because it is seen as feminine that I like it. And there's nothing wrong with this! As long as nobody is being coerced to do so.
Jusst because some people don't take any identity from their gender doesn't make it wrong that other people do. Society telling you you're in the wrong gender, that's wrong, but that doesn't mean that people can't internally feel they're in the wrong gender and need to correct it. It's when people are feeling compelled to do things they aren't comfortable with, that is the issue. Some people just don't care one way or the other and just go with the flow and follow gender roles, and some people do not wish to be restricted by them. As long as they're happy who cares?
-
Just because you do not put any importance into your gender identity
It's not that it's unimportant. It's the polar opposite. It's so important to me that I define it myself. Other people do not define it for me. I absolutely know what I am. I wish I had become so absolutely certain sooner. I could have saved myself a lot of time and trouble.
this is the height of arrogance to assume that if something isn't important to them, then it shouldn't be important to others
No, it should be important enough to you that you are equally absolutely certain in what you are, and people calling you what you are not (for whatever reason) should not be the deeply damaging and self-image-endangering event that others seem to think it is. If it's so important to you (and I have absolutely no doubt that it is), why do you allow people to take it away from you with just words? I dunno about you but if someone wants to take my Suzuran-ness away from me, they're gonna have to KILL me. Or drug me.
I don't want to be an amorphous genderless blob, I want to be referred to as a girl.
That's fine. That's all well and good. I don't entirely disregard people. I like being complimented. I love being told I am cute or adorable. I prefer female pronouns too. I am happy when people use female pronouns for me, even moreso when I am not wearing my Suzuran clothes. I just don't get upset when someone else gets it wrong. It doesn't mean I'm not good enough, it means they are wrong.
Just because some people don't take any identity from their gender doesn't make it wrong that other people do.
A large part of my identity is my Suzuran-ness. I consider it absolutely essential to my continued existence. I can't imagine being without it. This is why alcohol and drugs (particularly psychological drugs) scare the everloving crap out of me. If anything has the chance of changing me at such a fundamental level that I abandon my Suzuran-ness, it is that.
Again, to be absolutely clear - I do not wish for you to abandon your gender or take nothing from it. I do not wish for you to "grow a thicker skin". I wish for you to become so secure in your self-image that words alone cannot harm you. I wish for you to gain a yourself that nobody can take away from you. I wish this for everyone. If everyone were capable of this, hate speech would die out as irrelevant.
-
No, it should be important enough to you that you are equally absolutely certain in what you are, and people calling you what you are not (for whatever reason) should not be the deeply damaging and self-image-endangering event that others seem to think it is. If it's so important to you (and I have absolutely no doubt that it is), why do you allow people to take it away from you with just words? I dunno about you but if someone wants to take my Suzuran-ness away from me, they're gonna have to KILL me. Or drug me.
I agree that people should have the confidence to stand up for themselves but having to fight a neverending war against other people's opinions is soul-grinding. Sure, if it happens once, then it should just be something you can move on from. What about once a day? Four times a day? Every single person you talk to every day? Enough times to make you bitter and defensive every time someone asks? It shouldn't have to be a personal war to be yourself every day, this is why some people give up or kill themselves instead.
Again, to be absolutely clear - I do not wish for you to abandon your gender or take nothing from it. I do not wish for you to "grow a thicker skin". I wish for you to become so secure in your self-image that words alone cannot harm you. I wish for you to gain a yourself that nobody can take away from you. I wish this for everyone. If everyone were capable of this, hate speech would die out as irrelevant.
There is no human on this planet that is immune to words about their self-image. I don't care how self-assured you think you are, there is someone that it would hurt you if they told you they didn't like you as a person. Maybe you can fool yourself into thinking you'll just cut them off from your life and who the fuck cares, but that kind of bitterness leads to a solitary island surrounded by burned bridges. People need each other. Mutual support is the way to fix this, not every person somehow becoming Alcatraz.
-
Again, to be absolutely clear - I do not wish for you to abandon your gender or take nothing from it. I do not wish for you to "grow a thicker skin". I wish for you to become so secure in your self-image that words alone cannot harm you. I wish for you to gain a yourself that nobody can take away from you. I wish this for everyone. If everyone were capable of this, hate speech would die out as irrelevant.
As noble and as well-mannered as your intentions are, people just don't work this way. Words can sometimes be far, far more harmful than any sort of physical attack. In another sense, if people were capable of grasping the basic notions of identity and respect, then hate speech would also be on the road to becoming something irrelevant. Maybe in your little world everyone else is wrong, and that's all fine and good because you don't feel any negativity from it - and sometimes that "delusion of grandeur" approach is good, because it means you manage to keep your so-called "true self" intact and since you yourself have mentioned avoiding things that even have the slight potential of tarnishing that "true self;" manage to avoid these vices. However, not everyone works this way - not everyone is like you. There are a lot of people out there who are quite sensitive. Myself included.
I can't recall the number of times people have suddenly stopped liking me because they found out I was biologically a male. As someone who thrives on attention, this ends up hurting me in the long run, regardless of how confident I might have been in my own identity. I don't think it's right at all that I should just let these people think wrongly of who I am - it's disrespectful and venomous. I'm honestly not sure what's wrong with demanding basic respect from these people. For example, I don't care if there's a bunch of people who don't want to get into a relationship with a homosexual or a transgendered person - that doesn't mean you should talk shit about them and that certainly doesn't mean you should call them alien scum - and I have seen this.
-
There is no human on this planet that is immune to words about their self-image. I don't care how self-assured you think you are, there is someone that it would hurt you if they told you they didn't like you as a person. Maybe you can fool yourself into thinking you'll just cut them off from your life and who the fuck cares, but that kind of bitterness leads to a solitary island surrounded by burned bridges. People need each other. Mutual support is the way to fix this, not every person somehow becoming Alcatraz.
Yeah that's more what I was getting at. You need to have some sort of a safe zone to fall back on to regroup on in order to handle the slings and arrows from the world. Thank you!
-
This is a similar problem faced by minority children. They are raised in a world where being white is the standard and tippy top, so when they look in the mirror and see a different colored skin they start associating traits of inferiority to themselves, and their identity is summarily challenged. This is why people take huge pride in being black or female or trans or gay or what have you, because society assumes that if one is not part of the majority, they have to stand out some way or be ignored. The majority is considered default and "normal", and everything else deviant, when in reality nobody is "normal" and everyone's a shade of different.
And this is where privilege comes in. Just because the majority doesn't face the issue doesn't make it less important, nor solely the minority's responsibility to bring it up. This is the height of arrogance and insensitivity to think that just because it doesn't happen to them then it shouldn't be important. As a majority it is their responsibility to be aware and perceptive of minority issues, and to help adjust their behavior to be more accommodating. Society already accommodates the majority automatically, so why is it the minority's responsibility to build their own accommodations? Just because something is more common doesn't make it superior or more "correct" than others. Just because cisgendered folk tend to be the majority of humans born doesn't make cisgenderism the right thing and transgenderism some sort of deviancy. People aren't statistics, being "normal" in the mathematic sense is not "natural" in the sociological sense. It just tends to be that way because it's the majority voice and majority experience that gets recognized in society.
You ended your last post expecting me to attempt to forge my way through with the "debate." But in all honesty, after having read your last reply, I'm beginning to regret debating on a topic that strikes such a personal chord of yours, and you'd be surprised to learn that I'm in agreement with you for the most part since the beginning. Was I somehow implying that, just because it will be hard for a majority of the society to fully embrace the concept of diversity, that they are somehow in the right? Was I somehow implying that the "privileged" ones have no obligation to recognize the differences of a few? What actually amazes me is how you and many people's vision of the world, what it could be, and what can be done to make it better, comes off as awfully optimistic. If it helps in labeling me as a bigoted ignoramus, then by all means. If I ever were to encounter a gender variant, it's only my own assessment of my behavior and expectations that counts.
What if I say that I am of a minority? My parents emigrated from China, even to this point having trouble communicating in English. My skin, face, demeanor, and language reeks of minority, no matter how much I resent it. I've been through hell both socially and at home, in elementary, middle, high school, you name it, and am having trouble with self-image, although that's not to say that it even compares to the pain someone out there is going through. Now, whenever I find myself feeling socially neglected or belittled, I would never, repeat: NEVER blame my race. Only my own integrity and character (or lack thereof). Blaming my minority-status not only comes off as defeatist, but also unspeakably lazy. To me, personal traits seem to be something I myself am responsible for handling, and the failure to get them to reach their full potential is completely on me. Luckily, only a few things are necessary to allow us to make the most of our character, and that includes time and self-reflection.
I'm sorry, but my gender identity is not a weakness, and to perceive it as such is insulting. Just because I do not fit the majority narrative does not make my identity "emotional baggage". I am just as natural and "normal" as any cis-born individual. I am merely a different variation on the human spectrum. To act as if it's my responsibility to "toughen up" because I'm not the majority voice is frankly the height of arrogance and privilege.
I find it interesting that you would reference yourself here, seeing that I was trying to refer to those for whom you are trying to garner understanding. What confuses me is that you seem to be arguing in two directions: one, that people with variant gender identities are fully self-sufficient and will refuse to recognize their sensitivity as a weakness. Two, that the privileged majority must strive to minimize the damage made possible by such sensitivity. This act of "toughening up" is not the gender variant's responsibility, per se, but is something I really hope they will judge as one of the best courses of action.
You're missing a key point though, that this is a self reinforcing loop. How many female writers over the years have had to write under pen names or other pseudonyms because society just assumed female writers were inferior? Joanne Rowling, aka JK Rowling, had to publish Harry Potter under her initials because the publishers told her a woman would never sell well because they would see her writing intrinsically as inferior. There are lots of male romance writers who write under female pen names because guys aren't supposed to write mushy love crap. It is purely society telling you there is a difference between make and female voices, not that there actually quantifiably is one.
I had this argument about video games and science. Society telling women they can't be programmers and engineers and scientists is why there is a male majority, not because there's an actual gender specific variance between math and science skills. That is purely pushed by society, just like black people are told they are dumber and prone to anger. Gender, race, culture, none of these have any relation on someone's likes or dislikes or talents or behaviors. Stereotypes hurt, and are self reinforcing in a lot of ways.
As a college-aged engineering major, I can safely attest to that. Women in engineering are about as endangered as pandas in Antarctica. You can try to strip all the gender-specific social constructs to the core. But surely, you can't deny that, down to the physiological level, there are still some basic differences between the male and the female brain? And these differences are likely to show by means of the hormones produced? (You may enlighten me on the subject of the effect of hormones if you wish. I'm not too familiar with that field...)
I agree that people should have the confidence to stand up for themselves but having to fight a neverending war against other people's opinions is soul-grinding. Sure, if it happens once, then it should just be something you can move on from. What about once a day? Four times a day? Every single person you talk to every day? Enough times to make you bitter and defensive every time someone asks? It shouldn't have to be a personal war to be yourself every day, this is why some people give up or kill themselves instead.
There is no human on this planet that is immune to words about their self-image. I don't care how self-assured you think you are, there is someone that it would hurt you if they told you they didn't like you as a person. Maybe you can fool yourself into thinking you'll just cut them off from your life and who the fuck cares, but that kind of bitterness leads to a solitary island surrounded by burned bridges. People need each other. Mutual support is the way to fix this, not every person somehow becoming Alcatraz.
If, by any means, anyone ends up being on the sinking island with burned bridges, then the only thing they can do is to sit down and re-evaluate their relationship with society and realize that maybe, it's not a matter of who's in the right, or who's in the wrong. Maybe it's a simple matter of give-and-take.
-
You ended your last post expecting me to attempt to forge my way through with the "debate." But in all honesty, after having read your last reply, I'm beginning to regret debating on a topic that strikes such a personal chord of yours, and you'd be surprised to learn that I'm in agreement with you for the most part since the beginning. Was I somehow implying that, just because it will be hard for a majority of the society to fully embrace the concept of diversity, that they are somehow in the right? Was I somehow implying that the "privileged" ones have no obligation to recognize the differences of a few? What actually amazes me is how you and many people's vision of the world, what it could be, and what can be done to make it better, comes off as awfully optimistic. If it helps in labeling me as a bigoted ignoramus, then by all means. If I ever were to encounter a gender variant, it's only my own assessment of my behavior and expectations that counts.
There's no reason society has to operate this way. It's by staying quiet and unknown that these issues continue to perpetuate. Education is the enemy of bigotry, and a lot of bigotry isn't straight hatred but just fear of the unknown. By showing people that these kinds of variations aren't only common, but natural, will do a lot of good towards breaking down the barriers of bigotry. For example, a century and a half ago, the western world was convinced black people were inferior in every way. Now, while there's still systemic issues with racism, very few people actually truly believe the color of someone's skin determines their IQ. Most people who think that way are rightfully shunned and ignored.
At no point was I trying to imply you were applying privilege in this discussion so I apologize if it came off that way. I was more so trying to point out that a typical application of privilege is to assume that if an issue doesn't face the privileged, then it's not important or shouldn't be important. Privilege will likely always exist, there will always be some form of have and have not. Recognizing that one has privilege and does not face certain trials in their life based on their socioeconomic status is paramount towards bringing equality to everyone. It is arrogance on part of someone in privilege to assume that just because they do not face an issue another group faces, then it's not an issue worth pursuing. Just because one doesn't have a dog in the fight doesn't make it any less important to those that do, and to tell them that they shouldn't put so much importance into it is abusing privilege.
What if I say that I am of a minority? My parents emigrated from China, even to this point having trouble communicating in English. My skin, face, demeanor, and language reeks of minority, no matter how much I resent it. I've been through hell both socially and at home, in elementary, middle, high school, you name it, and am having trouble with self-image, although that's not to say that it even compares to the pain someone out there is going through. Now, whenever I find myself feeling socially neglected or belittled, I would never, repeat: NEVER blame my race. Only my own integrity and character (or lack thereof). Blaming my minority-status not only comes off as defeatist, but also unspeakably lazy. To me, personal traits seem to be something I myself am responsible for handling, and the failure to get them to reach their full potential is completely on me. Luckily, only a few things are necessary to allow us to make the most of our character, and that includes time and self-reflection.
Why shouldn't you be proud of your heritage though? There is no reason a person shouldn't be proud of their race, their heritage, their sexual orientation, their gender, whatever. We should be celebrating our diversity and differences, not trying to whitewash everyone down to this amorphous grey ooze called "humanity". At no point do I blame my trans status for anything. I am who I am, and it's what I make of life that determines what I get out of it. I should be proud of being trans, yet I'm told by society and by others this is actually a deficiency, a challenge I have to overcome. It should not be this way, but because of the way privilege works, it ends up being that way. People in minority groups are told they end up where they end up in spite of, not because of their identity.
Now, it's pretty short-sighted to think that everyone has the same playing field. We don't. I'd be ignorant to not realize that being trans didn't put on a lot of hardships other people may not have or may never have to face, and left me sensitive to things other people may not even be aware of. Recognizing that the majority doesn't face certain hardships or "has it easier" is not defeatist, it's recognizing the responsibility for the majority to be sensitive to the issues minorities face and to help even the playing field so that everyone can get to the same level. Meritocracy only works if everyone comes from the same starting point, and that's very unlikely to happen anytime soon. It's not defeatist in any sense to want to level things to help people who have it worse off to help them reach their potential. It's pretty much luck where you end up in the socioeconomic ladder. The point isn't to shelter people from the big bad world, and absolve them from responsibility, but to give people the tools and abilities to be able to handle it and to become the best they can be.
The point is to make people proud of being different, not feel like they have to struggle against it.
I find it interesting that you would reference yourself here, seeing that I was trying to refer to those for whom you are trying to garner understanding. What confuses me is that you seem to be arguing in two directions: one, that people with variant gender identities are fully self-sufficient and will refuse to recognize their sensitivity as a weakness. Two, that the privileged majority must strive to minimize the damage made possible by such sensitivity. This act of "toughening up" is not the gender variant's responsibility, per se, but is something I really hope they will judge as one of the best courses of action.
The way you worded it implied that such sensitivity is a "weakness". It's not, it's just sensitivity. People have different things they are interested in and are sensitive to. It's not a weakness to find something important to the point of putting emotional value into it. Humans are not purely logical creatures, we are also blobs of illogical emotion. We love, we fight, we hate, we have passions. Not every passion is rational, and to act as if it's a weakness for having passion or sensitivity towards certain stimuli implies there's something at fault. There isn't, it's just being human.
As a college-aged engineering major, I can safely attest to that. Women in engineering are about as endangered as pandas in Antarctica. You can try to strip all the gender-specific social constructs to the core. But surely, you can't deny that, down to the physiological level, there are still some basic differences between the male and the female brain? And these differences are likely to show by means of the hormones produced? (You may enlighten me on the subject of the effect of hormones if you wish. I'm not too familiar with that field...)
Any studies done trying to quantify any significant differences between "male" and "female" brains have been pretty well discredited. While there are structural differences in terms of size and which regions are used for various functions and how they function neurochemically, the overall result is similar. Studies that have previously shown girls to be "worse" at spacial reasoning, or math, or men being worse at language have been pretty much debunked. While male brains are larger, this is mostly due to a larger amount of "white" matter in male brains. When accounting for total grey matter, the actual part of the brain that does work, both brains are equivalent in size. Any quantifiable differences in intelligence or certain skills is pointless and more likely attributed to other factors than gender. There's tons of other factors that can correlate to changing those factors that gender ends up playing such an insignificant factor. This is how gender is both an innate and a sociological concept. It is possible for someone to have a female brain in a male body, there's been several studies showing transgendered individuals and their reaction to stimuli being similar to their actual gender than their biological gender. But not all transgendered people function that way.
If you look at most studies, innate behaviors tend to amount to very little when it comes to being able to learn and master a concept. There are obviously geniuses and other individuals that have an advantage, but at a certain level everyone can master most concepts given enough time and effort. But thanks to society, girls tend to do poorer in math and science. This isn't because they are inherently worse at it, but because society and education has been stereotyped with this notion that girls are inferior at these subjects. I have an interesting background. Since I was socialized as a boy, I was heavily encouraged to do math and sciences, and heavily discouraged to do ballet and gymnastics, since those weren't considered male-appropriate. Had I been raised female, and I didn't show such a strong talent and interest in math and science, it's likely I wouldn't have received the special attention I did that inevitably nurtured it into my lifelong passion. Ironically, I would have been heavily encouraged to go into ballet and such as those were female-friendly interests. I might have end up becoming a ballerina instead of a scientist. Some girls may have very deep interests or talents in math and science that are neglected because they're grown up with the notion women do not succeed in those fields. Same with boys and "girly" areas like dance.
If, by any means, anyone ends up being on the sinking island with burned bridges, then the only thing they can do is to sit down and re-evaluate their relationship with society and realize that maybe, it's not a matter of who's in the right, or who's in the wrong. Maybe it's a simple matter of give-and-take.
There's a difference between understanding not everyone is going to like M&Ms and being denied a basic right to self identity and actualization. There are rights that are worth fighting for, and this is one of them. Freedom of gender expression is a facet of the right to self actualization and determination, the so called right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It is a basic human right. Just because the majority doesn't face this as an issue doesn't make it any less important in the concept of human rights. There are things that are lines in the sand, and this is one of them.
The problem is the equation is always imbalanced to say the minority should learn to just cope with it. They shouldn't. The majority needs to recognize that they have privilege and to use that responsibly to make things comfortable for others who don't have it. This is the modern social contract. The minority already knows they have to put up with things the majority doesn't. They don't need to be told that again and again. That's not going to solve anything. Helping to make the world more comfortable for the minority will solve things, and help them reach their potential.
-
I missed this somehow. I highly hope I read this wrong because for this to come from you is shocking to me.
to act as if it's my responsibility to stick up for myself, rather than cisgendered individuals to be more accommodating for me, is extremely bigoted
I highly disagree with this sentiment. It is absolutely your responsibility to stick up for yourself. The world owes you NOTHING. It was here first. (The world shouldn't be an asshole about it, but that's different) If you want something you must earn it. Nobody must (or will) be more accommodating to you because of your special little feature, be it gender, race, smoking habits, physical disability, whatever. This is the same asinine line of reasoning that says I should walk slowly so I don't remind the obese of their obesity. See also the Handicapper General. Sorry, no, the world does not work this way, nor should it. You are not a special unique snowflake who deserves special preferential treatment, and to believe so strikes me as offensively arrogant.
-
(The world shouldn't be an asshole about it, but that's different)
i'm pretty sure that's the entire point of contention here pal
-
There's two arguments going on and I'm probably doing it really poorly.
Yes, one should fight for themselves and stick up for themselves. But not everyone can, not everyone will be able to, for whatever reasons. I recognize that not everyone of my transbrothers and sisters are willing to put themselves on the line like I do. It's not fun and it's a lot of hardship that can potentially be avoided or at the very least reduced. I do it because I want to fight for others who aren't able to, and as such I end up taking a few more shots across the chin than I normally would. To say people don't deserve certain rights because they can't or aren't willing to fight for it them is wrong. That's not how rights work. Rights are innate, they're not use it or lose it. People have lots of reasons, most of them pretty damn good, for not wanting to fight or put themselves on the line. Even if their reasons were purely selfish it shouldn't matter, rights are for everyone.
Society should not be an antagonistic me against the world struggle though. It doesn't have to be this struggle. We are all human and all riding this little blue marble in space together, we are all on the same side. The world should be more accommodating to others not because I'm a special snowflake, but because it's being nice to your fellow human being and not being an asshole. I am not claiming the world owes me anything, I'm asking people to be nice to each other and I am leading by example. I am sharing my experience so that others who don't want to be assholes can understand and learn how to be sensitive towards those who are facing similar struggles to myself.
That being said, there are things that being a human being I am entitled to, basic human rights. The right to self determination is one of them, and the freedom of gender and gender expression is a facet of this. Others do not have the right to ignore my gender. Others may not "agree" with it, but that's their own problem, not mine. They do not have the right to deny me my gender, nor my gender expression. If I say I'm a girl they need to accept I'm a girl, period. They may not understand why I'm a girl, or agree with it, but they don't get to make the call and say I'm a boy, period. That's my choice, not theirs. This is not demanding the world owes me something extra, this is simply exercising the right all cisborn individuals get by default, simply because their gender aligns with their body. All because their gender isn't challenged on a daily basis. Why should my rights be less than cis individuals?
Asking people not be assholes and giving them steps to avoid it is not saying the world owes me. It's giving people who are good the tools to treat others well, and to hopefully identify behaviors so the assholes can be rooted out and their damage limited to just screaming epithets from their dark corners. Demanding I get the right pronouns, regardless of what one may think, is not saying the world owes me. It's getting the same right to self identification and determination cisgendered folk get.
-
There's two arguments going on and I'm probably doing it really poorly.
That's fine, I'm not all that good at it either. The important part is that we are engaged in civil debate and not firing artillery at one another. (On the other hand, the idea of a social justice trebuchet is just plain hilarious. Siege engines make everything funny.)
They do not have the right to deny me my gender, nor my gender expression. If I say I'm a girl they need to accept I'm a girl, period.
These are two separate items. First, nobody can deny you your gender, even now. I can call a shovel a hammer all day long and it's not going to change the fact that the shovel is a shovel. No amount of calling you a boy is going to make you a boy.
As for the second item, I strongly disagree. You do not have a right to force others to believe what you wish. If they have a religious or moral objection to transgendered individuals, however broken and wrong that may be, you lose. You cannot force their minds to change. You might be able to pass laws to censor them or punish them for outwardly denying you, much like how certain religious beliefs are mandated in certain parts of the world, but in reality the people will only play as much lip service as they need to in order to keep the law off of them, they will build up a huge resentment against the attempt at thought control, and the moment that control is compromised they will lash out seeking revenge. You do not have a basic human right to acceptance. You can express yourself however you wish, but you cannot force others to accept your expression.
Edit: Cisgendered people don't even have that. If a skinny white kid goes gawking around the ghetto something's gonna happen to him. Majority and minority are situational.
-
I think the excuse of "moral" or "religious" objection to gay or trans individuals should go away, and so far is moving that way. Religious or moral objections are not excuses to be a bigot, period. Religion is not a shield to hide behind that lets them decide they can treat certain people as sub-human.
I don't care if it's "thought control", it's hate speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be an asshole. It just means the government can't censor citizens. It doesn't mean the government has to give equal weight to bigots. Government should be weighed towards protecting the rights of minorities over the majority. The right to be an asshole ends at someone's right to self determination and actualization. Teaching kids about gay and transgendered folk in school, permitting kids to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with and providing gender neutral facilities, allowing transgendered folk to participate in their proper sports teams, these are all things cited by the "religious" folk as "infringing on their rights to freedom of religious expression and speech" and "forcing them to accept an agenda they do not agree with". I'm sorry, that's not how this works. Government can and should be doing all of these things, period. Being inclusive to minorities trumps one's right to be a bigoted asshole.
They can think in their pretty little heads all they want I'm a boy but it does not give them the right to tell me I'm not one, nor does it give them the right to deny education of such topics or the rights to use proper gendered facilities and features of society. This is no different than striking down Jim Crow laws such as being allowed to deny service to people of color. Sure it's an "infringement" on the right of the storeowner to decide who they wish to do business with, but this is considered a net good for society to deny this right in the interest of minority representation. Government is charged with protecting all of its citizens, not just the majority. This is why the ADA exists and enforces accessibility requirements, as most businesses would op out of them due to costs and lack of return. This is why Title IX exists, because without it most girls sports would get the shaft to fund more prestigious or profitable male sports.
This is what I mean by when I say one isn't allowed to tell me I'm not a girl. Denying me the right to use the right bathroom, denying me access to the right gender in sports and rec teams, denying me access to health care and other things, denying me the right of marriage (in some states without gay marriage I cannot marry anyone gay or straight as my birth certificate would say I'm male and they would pick and choose how to deny me), these are the things that assholes shouldn't be allowed to do period. Misgendering me intentionally can and should have repercussions if done intentionally to cause harm. Maybe not from the government, but definitely from society.
-
As I think this is getting way off topic I'd like to end this particular thread of conversation. If you wish to discuss gender and its implications in society this further I will be more than happy to open up a thread in the Cafe. Please keep all further comments on topic about appropriate etiquette towards people in order to accommodate gender variant individuals.
Nevermind I changed my mind. As much as I'd prefer it to remain towards the topic of etiquette and why it's important to maintain such for gender variant persons, an open and frank discussion on gender is useful in and of itself. Please feel free to weigh in, this isn't just about my experiences or my opinions. I would love to hear from others about their experiences within the fandom or just in general. Please do keep it civil though, as so far it's been going great and I'd like it to remain that way! :I
-
If gender were a computer
Sex = DVD, Floppy, Flash, Sex drive
Sexual Freedom = "I can install any program I want, so there, nuh."
Gender "Intrinsic" = Hardware
Gender Dysphoria = Error, keyboard not found, press F1 to continue.
Gender Expression = Desktop Wallpaper
Freedom of Expression = "My wallpaper is Card Captor Sakura, cause I sure do like that show. This doesn't mean I think my PC is imbued with the power of the Clow."
Gender "Societal Constructs" = McAfee Antivirus
-
[...] these are all things cited by the "religious" folk as "infringing on their rights to freedom of religious expression and speech" and "forcing them to accept an agenda they do not agree with". I'm sorry, that's not how this works.
I have to say this is a very sound point. You are free to have whatever religion you choose, sure. But, say, if it includes cannibalism and human sacrifice, then no, this is where your freedom ends. The same with LGBT people - they have the same basic human rights as anyone else, and if your religion says otherwise, then either give your religion a major review or keep your ideas to yourself and show those people the respect they deserve. Insulting people for who they are is still insulting, and has no place in modern world.
-
Yeah, that has been the North American/European take on religion in a secular democracy - believe what you like so long as it doesn't break secular law.
-
I wanted to read this whole article and thread through but I couldn't so I'll just ask my question.
What about gender neutral pronouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Summary)? I've been trying to get into the habit of using these in an effort to just take care of this whole pronouns thing all at once.
-
They/them is generally accepted as a gender neutral pronoun. I personally use they in conversation when I'm not sure what their pronouns may be. One is a pronoun I typically use in formal writing and such, it feels a bit awkward to use it in conversation. Never use it though as it has the connotation of objectifying and dehumanizing an individual.
Other pronouns such as ze and xe and hir are mostly used by persons with non-binary genders and aren't really "gender neutral".
Really the only convention that needs to be broken is the use of he/him as a catch all pronoun. It really isn't.
As far as pronouns go, it's best not to think of them as "preferred" pronouns as they're sometimes called, because that undersells how important they are to people. I don't "prefer" to be called female, I am female. Pronouns are simply that, an affirmation of one's identity. if you don't know, ask, and if you're not in a position or able to ask, use they/one until you can.
-
Good to know there's people out in US as well who takes these issues seriously.
-
Government should be weighed towards protecting the rights of minorities over the majority.
If that's the case, then why isn't the opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church forced on the rest of us? WBC is clearly a minority. By your logic, the government should be protecting their right to hate over everyone else's right to peace.
Nobody anywhere regardless of race, gender, fame, fortune, religious rank or political office is so sacred that others should be prohibited by LAW from offending them. Social contract maybe, but law absolutely not. Changing social contract is very hard, but changing law just takes the stroke of a pen. Look at the California gay marriage debacle. The citizens voted the government had authority over marriage, and that authority was promptly turned against them and used to impose the backward and hateful agenda of a minority over the entire state. Another example is Obamacare right now. The people have voted for it, the highest court of the land has voted for it, but it stops because a powerful few wish that healthcare remain a privilege of the moneyed and powerful. If anything, the government should be protecting all rights of all citizens equally. Currently is seems to be protecting the rights of the rich to exploit the poor. Your rights stop where the next person's rights start, unless you have lots of money.
The only measure of the legitimacy of a government is the consent of those governed. Imposing the will of a minority against the wishes of the majority hardly seems a good way to gain or maintain this consent. A government that acts as you describe acts against its own people, and is by definition an illegitimate dictatorship and should be removed from power by the most expedient means available.
-
First of all, you're comparing a minority by choice (a religion, or for something less trigger sensitive, say the Freemasons) to a minority by birth (LGBT). LGBT isn't a form of expression, it's what you are, and your right to be what you are should be protected.
Secondly, I'm pretty sure the government does protect the Westboro Baptist Church's right to hate over everyone else's right to peace. They can't force other people to believe it but they're allowed to believe in what they believe, aren't they?
Thirdly, saying that the government should be weighted towards protecting minority rights is not the same thing as saying it should be illegal to offend someone, and that wasn't one of the examples that helvetica named as something the government should support, all the things she named were clear points where one group's views are being forced to be followed by another group. It should absolutely be up to the social contract to stop people from being offensive douchebags. To continue the WBC example, they weren't stopped by the police, but other groups exercised their social rights by spreading the word about them, guarding off the cemetaries they were picketing, and adding their own ridiculous signs in counter-pickets. That kind of social recognition would never have happened if people weren't made aware of the issue and decided to take a social stand, similar to this thread.
-
TSO-chan, you should though be careful when you speak of religion. The problem with religion is like Suzu-chan had explained, certain religious people follow them very strictly and therefore you cannot change their minds. As dumb as it may sound, it is the reality. And they do often use it as an excuse, what is worse is that they don't know for sure how it is approached in religion.
I am religious too, remember? In the Islam there is no room for these things as far as I know/read myself. Though they always speak about the subject in general. I don't think religion treats people as sub-humans, that is a common mistake many people make when they speak of religion. We aren't allowed to look down on people (note, I said people. Doesn't matter what gender, culture, belief. People = people). But some assholes who abuse religion make it look like that. Actually, I cannot even be sure how gender is approached in those religious books: whether it be Christianity, Islam etc. Huge question mark.
I know this debate is big, complicated and surely we aren't the only ones but at the end, I strongly believe it boils down to personal respect and choice whether to accept someone's choice for being male or female, regardless of what my eyes see and my ears hear. I think Suzu-chan has worded that nicely as Social contracts.
On IRC I gave the example about poor people living in misery (bad health, no money, etc). And asked the question: "What about them if they have gender doubts?" Nobody gave me an answer. Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame people for being whiny or overly reactive because this is the internet. But us being relatively wealthy, or conditionally having a better life in general, allows us to easier touch these subjects. A person living in poverty and misery won't be able to bother with all of this. And that gives that person an even harder time.
Can you people imagine that? I am sure you can't (neither I) unless you climbed up from poverty/misery. Again, calling nobody but please be more open minded about your surroundings before pointing fingers.
-
If that's the case, then why isn't the opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church forced on the rest of us? WBC is clearly a minority. By your logic, the government should be protecting their right to hate over everyone else's right to peace.
Nobody anywhere regardless of race, gender, fame, fortune, religious rank or political office is so sacred that others should be prohibited by LAW from offending them. Social contract maybe, but law absolutely not. Changing social contract is very hard, but changing law just takes the stroke of a pen. Look at the California gay marriage debacle. The citizens voted the government had authority over marriage, and that authority was promptly turned against them and used to impose the backward and hateful agenda of a minority over the entire state. Another example is Obamacare right now. The people have voted for it, the highest court of the land has voted for it, but it stops because a powerful few wish that healthcare remain a privilege of the moneyed and powerful. If anything, the government should be protecting all rights of all citizens equally. Currently is seems to be protecting the rights of the rich to exploit the poor. Your rights stop where the next person's rights start, unless you have lots of money.
The only measure of the legitimacy of a government is the consent of those governed. Imposing the will of a minority against the wishes of the majority hardly seems a good way to gain or maintain this consent. A government that acts as you describe acts against its own people, and is by definition an illegitimate dictatorship and should be removed from power by the most expedient means available.
As Shadoweh said, that's not even close to the notion of protecting the rights of minorities. Where does making sure minorities don't get discriminated and intimidated become letting hate groups get their message blasted everywhere? Their right to express themselves is protected, but that in itself is not an endorsement of their platform, nor does that mean they're guaranteed an audience. But this is different from LGBT rights as one is an expression of someone's personal ideas and the other is an expression of someone's personal identity. The idea is the majority can't stamp out the minority's rights to equal protection and rights due to the equal protection clause, and that certain rights are deemed untouchable for regulation by the government unless public safety is jeopardized. Equal protection clause protects against Jim Crow laws and other laws that have passed over the years that limits minority rights. In your example about the authority of the majority being used against the minority with Prop 8, it was rightfully struck down by the federal courts on equal protection grounds. DOMA was also struck down on equal protection grounds. Even though Prop 8 passed as a citizen amendment with majority votes it didn't make it legal. Just because you have the majority of votes in play doesn't mean you can deny rights to the minority who can't oppose such decisions.
Protecting the rights of the minority is not an endorsement of their message nor imposing wills, it is merely making sure that everyone enjoys the same level of protection by the government and aren't denied them based on personal identity. And whether the government is properly doing its job of fulfilling the social contract is a different debate entirely. It doesn't change what it should be doing, and that is protecting the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority. My freedom of gender expression is a right, period, as it is a basic tenant of my identity. Is it properly protected right now? No, but that doesn't change the fact it should. I and others fight to make it so. This isn't a matter of not wanting to be offended, but not wanting to have my identity denied to me. Freedom of gender expression isn't just making sure I get the right pronouns, it's a whole list of things that government can and should be enforcing.
A non-exhaustive list of rights and freedoms freedom of gender expression should provide:
- Freedom to use the proper restroom facilities or to provide gender neutral offerings
- Allowing transpersons to marry and adopt
- Freedom to participate on the proper gendered sports teams (whether funded publicly in schools and rec leagues or private entities with public oversight such as boxing commissions)
- Freedom to have the proper gender on government issued identification and paperwork such as social security and birth certificates and drivers licenses
- Freedom to not be denied employment on the grounds of gender expression
- Freedom from harassment and intimidation based on gender expression
- Freedom to teach and discuss gender identities beyond cisgendered
- Numerous other freedoms cisgendered persons enjoy on a daily basis transpersons have to fight for
None of these "impose wills" as the religious wingnuts love to cry. Being forced to accept someone as just as human as others are is not "imposing will". That's just making sure peoples rights as citizens are not trampled. I should not have less of a right to use the restroom or feel comfortable in doing so than cisgendered persons. I should not have less of a right to play on sports teams than cisgendered individuals. And slowly but surely, the right for me to have the proper gender on my government issued paperwork and identification is being affirmed as well. I can get my passport and my social security card changed with a simple note affirming my trans status as evaluated by a licensed professional. I can get my birth certificate changed with the same note as I was born in California. Not all states currently recognize this but eventually they will be brought into line just like with gay marriage. Equal protection under the law. Just because the government currently isn't doing its job to protect minority rights doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It just means it's dysfunctional :S States not protecting transpersons from workplace discrimination, or denying the right to freedom of gender expressions are failing in their job to protect minority rights and should be brought to task for it.
I am definitely a strong proponent of free speech and I don't want to dictate thought crimes, but people do have the right to be free from intimidation. The right to be a bigoted asshole does not override someone's right to feel safe in society. Cross burning and other signs of intimidation have long since been banned on such grounds. Outing or threatening to out someone should fall on the same lines. Hate groups live on a very thin line between freedom of speech and harassment. If at any point a group feels threatened or intimidated by such speech the government can and generally does intervene. WBC exists on the thin line between harassment and protected speech and has come under fire before. They get away with it because they're a kabal of lawyers who specialize in legalese and make sure to protest only on public grounds and cross their eyes and dot their ts on everything to skirt defamation and slander/libel suits. Even if the government can't or shouldn't intervene on the basis of remaining impartial in the interests of freedom of speech and expression, and civil penalties can't be enacted, society at large should and has intervened. The number of counter-protests against WBC's actions are as famous as they are numerous. When the KKK is counter-protesting you you know there's shenanigans afoot.
Thirdly, saying that the government should be weighted towards protecting minority rights is not the same thing as saying it should be illegal to offend someone, and that wasn't one of the examples that helvetica named as something the government should support, all the things she named were clear points where one group's views are being forced to be followed by another group. It should absolutely be up to the social contract to stop people from being offensive douchebags. To continue the WBC example, they weren't stopped by the police, but other groups exercised their social rights by spreading the word about them, guarding off the cemetaries they were picketing, and adding their own ridiculous signs in counter-pickets. That kind of social recognition would never have happened if people weren't made aware of the issue and decided to take a social stand, similar to this thread.
Exactly! I'm raising awareness so that the social contract can take over. I'm not advocating the government step in and give me special snowflake provisions beyond protection from intimidation and discrimination. The things I listed are so I receive equal protection under the law. This is not policing people's thoughts and "infringing" on their right to religious or moral objections. You want to call me a hateful creature going to hell, sure that's your right. I'm working on raising awareness so that the good people in society can tune you out. The only thing I want the government to do is protect me from discrimination just for being who I am.
Pronouns aren't on the same level as an insult. There's a different psychological process at hand. This isn't simply being offended, it strikes at the very core of a gender variant person's identity. This wouldn't be the government protecting people from being offended, but by preventing intimidation and making sure its citizens are not harming themselves in an effort to avoid intimidation. Getting called the wrong gender multiple times a day is in itself a form of intimidation. It got easier for me in a lot of ways not because I got better at putting up with it but because I was avoiding it by passing better. If I was getting misgendered as often as I do at cons in public I don't know if I'd be full-time right now. Each time hurts a lot, each time I have to hand over my card or show my ID hurts a lot. And each time someone looks at my ID and then looks at me and gives me this "is this really you?" speech it hurts a lot. I know I could avoid a lot of this by not being full-time, but by not being full-time I would fall further into depression and psychological harm. That's what intimidation does. It forces people to choose between being themselves or avoiding ridicule and intimidation in public.
Watching my roommate deal with this has been an eye opening experience. It's soul crushing to be misgendered on a daily basis. I don't really face it as much because I pass better, and that's pretty sad in a way. When someone says they should just "suck it up" and realize society won't perfectly accept them, they're basically being told they need to pass better or just not engage in society. To the people who can't pass as well or don't fit on the gender binary, there's no winning move. This is where education comes in play. I truly think it's the government's responsibility to create a safe environment for all of its citizens, and prevent intimidation. While I don't think they should police for proper gender pronoun usage, I do believe they should be charged with public awareness and education. Most people aren't assholes, raising awareness would go a long way to reducing these situations. Public education and awareness is a public health and safety issue, and it's not "imposing the will of the minority" on people.
This doesn't mean I believe in public reeducation camps for people who aren't PC. People are free to be assholes, as long as they're not directly intimidating or threatening someone there's not much the government can do. That's where the social contract comes into play and why hate groups like the WBC and KKK are increasingly irrelevant. That being said, things like cross burning have been banned as they are purely intended as signs of intimidation towards certain groups. I think publicly outing someone should fall under that spectrum. I've had my trans status weaponized against me several times. The only people that need to know about my status is me, my doctors, my partner, and whomever I deem to fit. I'm open not as much because I want to, but because I'm the kind of person who just takes the bull by the horns and takes problems head on. I know people could netdetective me and figure out my history so I own up to it in an attempt to diffuse it. That doesn't mean I still face a lot of danger if my status is publicly outed, which is what made this particular situation for me all the worse for me emotionally. I know a lot of people who do not want their status out for various reasons, and it's completely up to them. Their history is not public record.
TSO-chan, you should though be careful when you speak of religion. The problem with religion is like Suzu-chan had explained, certain religious people follow them very strictly and therefore you cannot change their minds. As dumb as it may sound, it is the reality. And they do often use it as an excuse, what is worse is that they don't know for sure how it is approached in religion.
Why would their right to not have their religious beliefs offended trump my right to not feel intimidated for my gender? If they want to be ultra-religious conservatives they can go build a compound out in the middle of the desert and congregate with closed-minded persons like themselves. Nobody's forcing them to integrate and interact with society, but if they wish to then they need to understand that other people that don't agree with them exist. Same thing applies to racists. If they wish to benefit from society they need to learn to integrate peacefully with people of other races. Nobody is telling them they need to change their minds and beliefs, just not be assholes about them and deny people rights based on them. I think the key here is choice. Religion and morality is a choice, gender and sexuality isn't. And even if it was all a choice, why would religion get special snowflake syndrome over gender and sexuality? Someone being trans or gay doesn't deny a religious person the right to practice their religion, or forces someone to change their moral framework. Denying someone the right to gender and sexual expression does harm that person psychologically, this is medical fact.
I am religious too, remember? In the Islam there is no room for these things as far as I know/read myself. Though they always speak about the subject in general. I don't think religion treats people as sub-humans, that is a common mistake many people make when they speak of religion. We aren't allowed to look down on people (note, I said people. Doesn't matter what gender, culture, belief. People = people). But some assholes who abuse religion make it look like that. Actually, I cannot even be sure how gender is approached in those religious books: whether it be Christianity, Islam etc. Huge question mark.
Guess what, I am religious too! I'm not an atheist, although I lean more towards deism right now at this point. I pointed out religion merely as that's an extremely common excuse for objecting to providing LGBT rights. No, that's not how it works, period. They can believe I'm going to hell all they want, but they cannot stop me from having the same rights and freedoms they enjoy.
I am specifically calling out the extremists who think their beliefs entitle them to deny other people rights and privileges they enjoy. Religion isn't the problem, just merely an excuse bigots hide behind. The religion I was raised and confirmed in believes fully I am going to hell for what I'm doing. Sad thing is there's nothing theologically that says that, it's just people's bigotry twisting it. How awesome is that?
When someone says religion is a source of strife, they're not condemning all religious persons, merely the system and institution of religion that enables bigotry a voice and leverage and gives them privilege. When someone talks about the "white person" or "men", they're not directly attacking all white persons or males, they're attacking the institutions that gives them privilege and enable the bigots in their ranks to suppress others. The people that truly believe all religion is evil or all men are irredeemable are just as bad as the white supremacists or the jerks at the WBC.
I know this debate is big, complicated and surely we aren't the only ones but at the end, I strongly believe it boils down to personal respect and choice whether to accept someone's choice for being male or female, regardless of what my eyes see and my ears hear. I think Suzu-chan has worded that nicely as Social contracts.
The only thing that's a choice here is whether or how LGBT people choose to express their gender or sexuality, not the gender or sexuality they choose to take. Gender and sexuality may be fluid and change over one's lifetime, but it's immutable. One cannot forcibly change their sexuality or gender. Even if they did, it's a basic aspect of human identity. Religion and morality isn't, regardless of the fervor of the belief.
On IRC I gave the example about poor people living in misery (bad health, no money, etc). And asked the question: "What about them if they have gender doubts?" Nobody gave me an answer. Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame people for being whiny or overly reactive because this is the internet. But us being relatively wealthy, or conditionally having a better life in general, allows us to easier touch these subjects. A person living in poverty and misery won't be able to bother with all of this. And that gives that person an even harder time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
There's a lot of studies done on societies and gender. Societies that tended to have harder times with food and other resources tended to have stricter gender roles. Societies with plenty of food and little survival stress tend to be far more liberal with concepts of gender and sexuality. When basic needs of survival are met, then needs of self-esteem are sought after, and then self-actualization and determination. My own struggles with gender mirror this. Even though I was aware of it as a kid, I tended to repress it better because well, there was stronger problems with survival. I was a poor kid in a large family, and I was forced to take on parenting roles being the eldest. Once my needs for shelter and food were filled, I was still really depressed so in a desperate bid to get friends I built a persona around being male to try to belong. I had friends, I had a family, I had food and shelter. Why should I complain? Because as I filled each rung of the pyramid, I still was missing something, and unfortunately the stuff I had built were in direct contrary to my actual need for self actualization of my gender. This is still a sore point to me. My survival still depends on my alternate persona, as I cannot safely gain employment as a transgirl where I live. This causes an enormous amount of stress on me that right now is very overwhelming. I recently lost my job and the temptation to sacrifice everything I've done so far just to survive is very strong. Problem is, I know if I walk away from school then I will walk away forever and likely shut the doors to my transition, or at least make it significantly harder. But I have to pay my bills and eat :S
This is why protections to the expression of gender are EXTREMELY important. No one should have to choose between being themselves or having to eat, but unfortunately a lot do. Of the youth population 5-10% are LGBT but 20-40% of the homeless population are LGBT. Something like 42% of transpersons are unemployed or homeless. As a transgirl I have a 1 in 4 chance of being murdered, a life expectancy in the low-mid 20s. I'm beating the odds just by existing. And even with those who have their lives together and are able to move towards transition there's a lot of struggles gender variant people face that cisgendered persons do not face. I cannot get my name changed within the system at school or on my ID without a legal name change. That takes over a month and a significant chunk of cash to get done. Most of these limitations are in place to prevent people from abusing name changes for fraud, but these same barriers put up immense roadblocks on transpersons trying to transition. I never got it done because I was afraid of losing my job as changing my legal name would very quickly out me (Gwendolyn is not gender neutral). While I got my gender marker changed at school and could get it changed on my ID and social security card now, it took several therapy sessions I had to pay out of pocket for to get the confirmation of diagnosis. It was very expensive, $150 a session, and gender specialist therapists are hard to find. It used to be you had to have bottom surgery to get your gender marker change, a surgery that costs almost $30-50k (and extremely few insurances cover) depending on what is needed. And if my birth certificate was here in Ohio rather than in California, I wouldn't be able to change it at all. And even with having the proper name and gender on my identification, I have no protections from being fired for my trans status.
Just because there are more immediate needs to survival doesn't make gender or sexuality less important. Hell, it makes it even more important. Survival and coping mechanisms LGBT persons develop tend to be harmful in the long run towards reaching that tippy top point of self-actualization. I have a ton of anxiety and self-esteem issues separate from just the dysphoria that I developed through the coping mechanisms I had to use to survive. I used guilt for the longest time to motivate myself and because of that I am selfless to the point of causing myself significant harm. For people to reach their potential they need to be able to be secure that their basic needs can be met while still being able to be themselves. If at any point there's incentive to deny self expression for survival or acceptance then you run the risk of causing significant and potentially irreparable psychological harm, or at least reduce their productivity and happiness. It is extremely stressful for me mentally to realize that the fake persona I built has more rights than I will ever have as it stands now, and right now is my sole potential source of income for survival.
Can you people imagine that? I am sure you can't (neither I) unless you climbed up from poverty/misery. Again, calling nobody but please be more open minded about your surroundings before pointing fingers.
At no point was I pointing fingers at anyone except those that seek to deny me rights on the flimsy grounds of protecting their precious morals or religious beliefs. If their beliefs are so weak that my expression of my identity would corrupt them, then they need to reexamine themselves, rather than force me into a box and hide away from society or denied rights and freedoms other people get. And I realize I am very fortunate in a lot of ways. It doesn't make my fight for freedom of expression of gender and sexuality any less important though.
-
Some useful infograms to peruse
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdhinheiV21rikou1o1_500.png
http://31.media.tumblr.com/69c24ffaa07f2b6d9a3ca7b53cf1298b/tumblr_mnw1f6aPu41rctihmo1_500.jpg
The statistics are depressing for gender variant persons :S
http://31.media.tumblr.com/78e661b286ecd70fa7cf8da2c71ccd53/tumblr_mgr2lk612q1rctihmo1_r1_500.jpg
But some hope! There isn't any other mental health treatment as completely successful as transitioning is for gender variant persons. This is just transition in general, whatever form that may take. This is why it is so VERY VERY important that people are made aware of gender and the many forms it takes, and that they get the support they need not just from the medical community but from society in general. Pronouns are such a small thing people can do that can make a gigantic difference in a gender variant person's life. Not everyone has the opportunity to transition in the manner they wish to, and those that are transitioning it's a scary enough process as it is without having the stress of being misgendered.
Freedom of gender expression is such a vitally important right for gender variant persons. It literally is a matter of life or death. This is why I fight so strongly for this, because I know I am a statistical anomaly just being here right now talking to you, and it should not be that way. We should be doing everything we can to create safe zones of gender expression for people, as well as fight for people's rights to enjoy the same privileges cisgendered individuals enjoy simply by being born.
-
When someone says they should just "suck it up" and realize society won't perfectly accept them, they're basically being told they need to pass better or just not engage in society.
Hey, I just want to talk about this a bit. A few weeks ago, I decided I would do the smart thing of coming out to my mother regarding my gender and my sexuality. On one hand, she wasn't angry and she definitely seemed to be okay with the fact that I am bi-gender, and for that I am eternally grateful. On the other hand, my mother also told me she felt sorry for me because she told me I would have to suffer and my only recourse was to "suck it up" and simply accept that society would never perfectly accept me, that I had to admit that basically, society treated my kind like they were aliens and I had to keep up my facade. I wanted to argue with her on this point, that it wasn't right, that on some levels, it just wasn't fair. I couldn't get her to see things from my perspective, and I can't entirely blame her. She's pretty old, about to reach her sixties, so I can quite understand that it can be a bit difficult to comprehend - after all, she was alien to these concepts I was blurting at her until I explained them to her. The point I want to make here is that I think it's a good move to try and expose people to the gender spectrum and its quirks as a whole.
Even if people don't intrinsically believe that it's natural or something, I still don't think it's right that such people willfully remain ignorant of that which they think is "unknown" and "unnatural." I don't buy the bullshit being spewed that status quo where "majority is satisfied, regardless of whether it is at the expense of the minority" should be maintained. As I try to mention, if people just refuse to see things from a certain perspective, then that can't be helped. None of us have the capacity to impose or forcefully say, that they should change if they are really so adamant. At the same time, the minority shouldn't be forced to be someone they are not, especially because they would be in threat of:
- Getting assaulted / murdered OR
- Losing out on employment OR
- Losing out on shelter OR
- Being ostracized and being what is basically 'socially lynched' OR
- Some mixture of the above OR
- Some other unjust action not listed here
If they were to express themselves how they would REALLY see themselves. Again, this kind of risk being heavily slanted towards those in the LGBT community should not be something that is an actual thing. Those in the LGBT community should be free to be who they are without being at risk of some injustice that stems from gross discrimination.
On IRC I gave the example about poor people living in misery (bad health, no money, etc). And asked the question: "What about them if they have gender doubts?" Nobody gave me an answer. Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame people for being whiny or overly reactive because this is the internet. But us being relatively wealthy, or conditionally having a better life in general, allows us to easier touch these subjects. A person living in poverty and misery won't be able to bother with all of this. And that gives that person an even harder time.
I currently live on charity from my relatives - the flat where I live is under my uncle's name, BUT it's actually under bank custody, so at any point in time my family and I could be kicked out. Living conditions are certainly not peachy in my part of the world, and it would be very, very biased and skewed to say that my family is relatively wealthy. In fact, my life compared to a larger majority is pretty shitty. It's very shitty. That doesn't stop me from mulling over these issues.
EDIT: Furthermore, a lot of the money I'm using for tuition and other necessities come from other sources... because family reasons. And it's not viable to find part-time work in this situation. So yeah. Tough times, just to drive home the point that I am not arguing from some pedestal.
-
I can't properly review the thread until late tonight but I thought I read something earlier amidst the government talk that I'd appreciate clarification on.
TSO, do you believe there should be legal enforcement of respect for gender identity, and, by direct extension, legal consequences for those that misgender someone?
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking in the social sense, not the business sense.
-
The marginalized people wouldn't feel so bad if they had their own social net, their own groups, to support each other and have access to a daily dose of approval that rest of us take for granted.
I cannot disagree more with people who say "it's not because you're not cisgenderd, it's because you've got no guts."
For the mainstream, identity self-formation can draw on a large repertoire of cultural tropes. They also have access to a network of approval that's built into the habits of communitarian daily life. That is WHY they don't seem to "whine" as much. This network of approval is a set of conventional social etiquette that allows prejudiced people to "belong" without "trying to belong," and this social mechanic in turn allows them to broadcast suck-it-up edicts for the hapless gender-nonconformers without being called hypocritical.
Now, how bigots and non-bigots feel about things is their own business. But what's not a matter of opinion is that statements like "don't blame your identity, blame yourself" interferes with alternative identity formations. What does this mean? Well, it means that you are discouraging them from setting up their own network of approval (i.e. a "safe space"). You are discouraging them from seeing themselves as part of a group that just might supply them with the approval they need to get on with life.
If you stop them from viewing themselves as belonging to a group, you will impede their ability to form their own communities. And when they can't think of themselves as being a part of an approving community that doesn't have you in it, guess who will they ask? They will ask approval from you, and you will deny them. And then you complain about how minorities keep bugging you for approval. Invariably this causes them more angst. The cycle repeats. So it goes.
-
Here's another question to throw on the pile: Is it agreed that bigotry is entirely and solely based upon a conscious decision to hate? That is, someone is not a bigot merely by being ignorant of trans issues, only by consciously knowing what a trans is and consciously deciding to hate them based on that knowledge.
-
I always look at bigotry as falling under conscious bigotry or ignorance.
Conscious bigotry is the kind you describe. Ignorance is simply not knowing better. How one responds after learning better is a whole other matter.
I think that's where the conflation lies here. Whenever minorities speak up about how they are treated, or how they would like to be treated - no matter how politely and clearly they make this basic request - you can count on those they are addressing to start making tone arguments and getting really defensive. Realistically, I think it's important to have in mind the difference between when someone is calling out something you said/did bigoted, and when they are calling you out as being a bigot. The former gives the benefit of the doubt that these words/deeds came from simply not knowing better and seeks to inform accordingly; the latter is a serious accusation on a whole other plane.
-
I can't properly review the thread until late tonight but I thought I read something earlier amidst the government talk that I'd appreciate clarification on.
TSO, do you believe there should be legal enforcement of respect for gender identity, and, by direct extension, legal consequences for those that misgender someone?
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm asking in the social sense, not the business sense.
The answer to that extends into the greater question of whether bullying should be punished in a civil or criminal fashion, and to that I conditionally say yes. I think if we were going to codify such behavior as civilly or criminally liable, there would need to be clear evidence that the accused intended to inflict harm or intimidation. It's one thing to just be an insensitive jerk, it's a whole different level to verbally assault someone in an attempt to inflict harm. It really comes down to whether intent to cause harm or intimidation can be proven without a doubt. If it can be proven, then why shouldn't the bully be punished?
Just because there isn't physical damage caused doesn't make it right, emotional harm can be just as damaging if not more so. Victims are oftentimes driven to inflict self-harm or other sorts of trauma, and regardless of that it creates strong feelings of anxiety and distress. And if intimidation is the goal, then it's likely the bully is targeting indiscriminately and is a greater threat to society at large. Saying the victim should just grow thicker skin or stop being so sensitive, or worse, should curb their behavior as to not welcome ridicule from others, is victim blaming. "Asking for it" is not a valid excuse in a civilized society. To be in society is learning to peacefully coexist with people who may be very different from eachother, and if some members can't, their behaviors need to be punished. As the majority it's their civic responsibility to be accommodating for minorities, as society will naturally give the majority preferential treatment.
I think in the cases of occasional misgendering, it'd be hard to prove actual malice was involved. I think those cases would be greatly reduced by public education and awareness. If there was a pattern of someone indiscriminately misgendering or possibly even singling out gender variant persons for ridicule, then an intent to cause harm or intimidation could be inferred and I would say yes this kind of behavior could be civilly or criminally punished. In those cases it makes perfect sense for the government to step in to maintain public safety and protect victims of such. The only reason why bullying is so pervasive is because the punishments for such are frankly nonexistent. Not only is it not punished, but the victim is further blamed and scored for being complicit, it's their fault they're getting bullied or for being so sensitive to it.
Abuse is abuse, no matter what form it takes. We punish parents for abusing their children verbally, why shouldn't adults who pick on people for "not conforming" be punished as well? It's not acceptable in a civilized society, it disturbs the peace and marginalizes those who are being victimized, Government is given power to maintain the peace for a reason, so that it can be applied fairly and justly. Not everyone has a posse that will have their back for them when they get targeted for bullying. The world does not have to be a mean place. Through education and discouraging acts by making people liable for their actions, it sends the message such behavior is not appropriate.
Here's another question to throw on the pile: Is it agreed that bigotry is entirely and solely based upon a conscious decision to hate? That is, someone is not a bigot merely by being ignorant of trans issues, only by consciously knowing what a trans is and consciously deciding to hate them based on that knowledge.
Yes. That doesn't mean someone can't unconsciously be prejudiced, it only becomes bigotry when such behavior is exposed and they continue to do so. Or instead of listening, they choose to shoot the messenger. Like Ammy said, oftentimes minorities or those being marginalized are told their "tone is wrong", and it's another manner they are being silenced. Marginalized people are told the problem the majority won't accept them is because their message is too "harsh" or "strange". Sorry, it's not the minority's responsibility to formulate their message to be palatable to the majority, it's the majority's responsibility to listen. I am gentle with my words because I understand as a civilized human being that kinder words will come across better, but it's not my responsibility to hold my tongue. A common abuse of privilege is telling minorities to be accepted they need to shut up, or by framing issues being raised by minorities as rocking the boat.
That being said, I think there needs to be a better attempt made at separating "bigoted actions" from "being a bigot". On the same token I think the majority needs to better understand why the marginalized may not be nearly as patient at doing so though, especially when being silenced is a significant issue to this day.
-
Then how would you word such a law so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to abuse? If intent is a key component of it, how would one "prove" intent?
-
I would word it similarly to the legal standard of depraved indifference or malice, that they were aware and intentionally or at the very least did not care that their actions were going to cause harm. These are already established legal standards of intent. So are hate crime standards such as intent to intimidate.
For example, the situation with Mike (Gabe) of Penny Arcade would fall under this. His original comment may not be provably considered malicious, but his followup actions would easily pass the standards of malice or intimidation. He demeaned and attacked people who tried to correct him and pointed people out for ridicule and shame.
An ignorant comment by itself would be hard to prove as actionable unless depraved indiffence could be shown by a history of similar comments, or if the nature of the comment would pass the standard of malice or intimidation to a judge or jury.
-
So uh.
You think he should be in prison?
-
No, but I still think he should be held to civil or other criminal penalties. Criminal penalties doesn't necessarily mean prison time. Fines and community service working with anti-bullying groups and definitely some sort of anger management course are potential avenues for criminal consequences.
Prison should be reserved for the truly violent or dangerous. I'm of the mind criminal punishment should be aimed at rehabilitation, not punitive measures. Prison should only be used if there's a significant threat to society by them being free. As much as an asshole Mike is, he's not enough of a threat to warrant jail time, unless he was actually directly harassing people by showing up at their door and screaming at them.
It would do nobody any good to lock him up. He learns nothing other than how to become a hardened criminal, and in effect becomes a martyr for other assholes. By making him work with and see the problems the people he's disparaging face on a daily basis may kindle a level of understanding and true remorse for his actions, and if not, at the very least he's paying back to society.
-
Do laws about harassment and hate crimes not already cover this kind of thing?
-
Standards for libel and slander are much tougher in America, mostly for good reason. The right to free speech is strongly protected. There is a very fine line between actual defamation and "defamation" because they don't want the truth coming out. This is a significant problem in Europe where slander and libel suits are used to suppress media and any sort of negative information about the powerful and connected.
It's a very hard line to walk I'll admit. I just wish there was an easy way to be a lot tougher on bullies without possibly creating tools to suppress dissent.
-
For example, the situation with Mike (Gabe) of Penny Arcade would fall under this. His original comment may not be provably considered malicious, but his followup actions would easily pass the standards of malice or intimidation. He demeaned and attacked people who tried to correct him and pointed people out for ridicule and shame.
An ignorant comment by itself would be hard to prove as actionable unless depraved indiffence could be shown by a history of similar comments, or if the nature of the comment would pass the standard of malice or intimidation to a judge or jury.
That's the rub, it's a lot easier to sanction someone's actions, especially when that someone is a rather large figure (Gabe). What about that one person who spews garbage on the street just to be an asshat? It would be very hard to prove any ill intent when saying words because what they thought is theirs and theirs alone. There's no real way to prove/disprove thought. (Unless there's a thought police but I firmly believe humanity should stay as far away from '1984' as possible).
Looking at someone's prior history would be a solution, but I see two little problems with that. One, where do you draw the line between malicious and ignorant? If someone has never seen or heard of anything trans related, the idea may seem completely foreign to him/her which would lead to them saying things that would definitely come across as malicious, but with education, that person will have a very different outlook. This is the textbook example of ignorance, yet the opposite is in evidence. Second, what if someone is completely reformed, yet several years after their last incident, they makes an accidental faux pas. They would face legal apprehension for something they didn't even know they did. That seems just a tad too unfair in my eyes.
-
I think it should go without saying that the most important thing for preventing bigotry is increasing awareness and education. There are boundaries the law simply cannot cross, and even if it were realistically possible to prevent people from acting on their bigotry, they may remain bigots at heart, and that's no kind of solution. Not to say that existing laws don't have lots of room for improvement when it comes to preventing bullying and shit (nor am I saying they're completely ineffective). It's that it's difficult since there's not much you can do to prevent someone from abusing their freedoms short of simply taking the freedoms away from them.
Something tangential I meant to ask about earlier:
- Freedom to participate on the proper gendered sports teams (whether funded publicly in schools and rec leagues or private entities with public oversight such as boxing commissions)
Just how would this work? Aren't the current separations in place for biological reasons?
-
Something tangential I meant to ask about earlier:Just how would this work? Aren't the current separations in place for biological reasons?
Very much so. Take (US) football for an example, could a female quarterback withstand a full contact sack from a 350lb defensive lineman and be able to play afterwards?
-
Very much so. Take (US) football for an example, could a female quarterback withstand a full contact sack from a 350lb defensive lineman and be able to play afterwards?
Well, I know some pretty thin and physically weak guys, and some pretty buff and powerfully strong women. Whether or not someone can take a hit in a football game has everything to do with their physique and mindset, rather than their genitalia. Just throwin' that out there, here in the 21st century.
-
Also keep in mind women's sports are still growing; Title IX has been effective for barely 41 years for instance. There are Football Leagues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Women%27s_Football_League) for women, they just get no media attention because, you know, they're not running around in their underwear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingerie_Bowl). ::)
Also, there's a societal bias against women's sports in the USA (and I'd imagine almost the whole world). They are seen as inferior, boring, and not worth the same resources that male sports get. They are the butt of jokes everywhere, from cartoons to comedians. The only respected women's team I can think of off the top of my head is the US Women's National [Soccer] Team; and they had to win 2 of the first 3 World Cups and recently score a miracle goal against Brazil to even be a blip on many people's radar.
Honestly, given the right circumstances, I do believe that one day women can compete with men even in football. The way the league is going (less violence) opens the door more than ever. It's just going to take a truly gifted, driven, hard-working individual who plays the sport from a young age and develops through their young life. That's something that I don't believe we've seen yet because I don't believe they are truly given the opportunity to do so (correct me if I'm wrong).
-
That's the rub, it's a lot easier to sanction someone's actions, especially when that someone is a rather large figure (Gabe). What about that one person who spews garbage on the street just to be an asshat? It would be very hard to prove any ill intent when saying words because what they thought is theirs and theirs alone. There's no real way to prove/disprove thought. (Unless there's a thought police but I firmly believe humanity should stay as far away from '1984' as possible).
Looking at someone's prior history would be a solution, but I see two little problems with that. One, where do you draw the line between malicious and ignorant? If someone has never seen or heard of anything trans related, the idea may seem completely foreign to him/her which would lead to them saying things that would definitely come across as malicious, but with education, that person will have a very different outlook. This is the textbook example of ignorance, yet the opposite is in evidence. Second, what if someone is completely reformed, yet several years after their last incident, they makes an accidental faux pas. They would face legal apprehension for something they didn't even know they did. That seems just a tad too unfair in my eyes.
We have no problems interpreting intent when it comes to physical harm, why would emotional harm be any less different?
The slippery slope argument that "faux pas" and simple ignorance would get charged is that, just a fallacy. People don't get charged with assault if they accidentally hurt someone, unless it can be proven they did it through actual malice or depraved indifference. The concepts of "mens rea" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) and "actus reus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) are applied successfully in criminal law every day, why would it be different with words? As far as "thought crimes" go, we charge people with sexual assault for people being creepers, even if the harm is purely emotional. Stalking is a chargeable crime, but if you're just walking near someone everyday by coincidence you wouldn't get charged for it. Intent to stalk has to be proven. I ask then, why would bullying not be OK to prosecute then? I would argue that bullying is a lot closer in nature to other crimes than people realize, and that we have no problems determining intent to separate malice from ignorance.
I think it should go without saying that the most important thing for preventing bigotry is increasing awareness and education. There are boundaries the law simply cannot cross, and even if it were realistically possible to prevent people from acting on their bigotry, they may remain bigots at heart, and that's no kind of solution. Not to say that existing laws don't have lots of room for improvement when it comes to preventing bullying and shit (nor am I saying they're completely ineffective). It's that it's difficult since there's not much you can do to prevent someone from abusing their freedoms short of simply taking the freedoms away from them.
I agree fully, which is why if we really want to tackle bullying, it's not just enough to punish bullies, but to remove the environment that raises bullies in the first place. Education and other public awareness programs, outreach programs to help in the childhood years. A lot of bullies become bullies because they themselves were bullied. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken, but it can't be broken just by punishing the bullies.
Something tangential I meant to ask about earlier:Just how would this work? Aren't the current separations in place for biological reasons?
A lot of it is outmoded thinking that thinks that girls are more fragile than boys and need to be protected and sheltered. While there are physiological differences that shouldn't be ignored, there's so much variety that it's very possible for a female bodied person to be just as strong as tough as any male. By continuing to segregate sports based on what body a person has, it keeps on reinforcing this notion that female bodies are inherently inferior. They're not, they can kick just as much ass as boys can, even in very male dominated sports (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/sports/girl-is-pioneer-at-quarterback-for-florida-high-school.html)
On top of that, people who don't fit the socially accepted definitions of a male or female body are caught in between. There's a lot of fear and mistrust that transgendered folk would have an unfair advantage if allowed to compete in their proper gender. It's medically false. Any advantage I have from testosterone is gone now that I'm on HRT. Without testosterone any additional muscle mass gained by it is lost. If it was a permanent gain people would dope once and that'd be it and not risk continuously taking steroids and getting caught. Excuses about "bone density" and gaining "extra leverage" from having a male-bodied skeletal structure is also bunk, as again, there's just as much variation in cisgendered folk. And even if a transgirl isn't taking hormones, it's very plausible she doesn't have as much testosterone as her female-bodied peers. Testosterone is present in everyone in various amounts, male or female bodied, and there's a strong connection to low or non-existent testosterone levels during development as a potential factor in transgenderism.
And then there's a further fallacy saying that guys would claim to be transgendered in order to compete and dominate in female sports. Umm no? It's the same illogical fear that makes people freak out about transgirls getting the right bathroom, that creepers would sneak in to peek and just claim to be trans. There's pretty much no documented cases of such. It's just another hurdle where transpeople need to "prove" they are who they are, when cisgendered persons do not. Nobody questions a cisgirl if she's a girl. And again, all this is doing is reinforcing the notion that guys are inherently superior to girls, and that girls need to be coddled and protected. Fuck that, girls are just as tough as guys are.
So one of two things needs to happen. My preferred solution, gender segregation needs to go away entirely. Any physiological differences that gender may bring are completely ignorant of individual variation. All it's doing is reinforcing stereotypes that one gender is physically weaker or inferior to the other. If gender segregation in sports are going to continue, then transpersons should be allowed to play in their proper gender as there's no medical reason to deny them. The psychological security gained by being able to participate in the proper gender is immense enough that the risk of "pretenders" sneaking in is so farcical in comparison.
e:
Honestly, given the right circumstances, I do believe that one day women can compete with men even in football. The way the league is going (less violence) opens the door more than ever. It's just going to take a truly gifted, driven, hard-working individual who plays the sport from a young age and develops through their young life. That's something that I don't believe we've seen yet because I don't believe they are truly given the opportunity to do so (correct me if I'm wrong).
Pretty much. Girls are told they're weaker so they're not given access to resources to prove that they're not. Even in "violent" sports like football it's pretty much 95% heart and 5% actual physical talent at the high school and even collegiate level. It's not until the pros that physical talents start to exceed drive, and even then physical talent can't carry you if you don't have the mindset for it, whereas the mindset can accelerate mediocre talent to superstar level. And to add onto that, activities that are truly female dominated, such as dance, are not even classified as sports by society (and I personally think, as an end around on Title IX). You can't tell me a ballet dancer doesn't have to be just as fit and athletic as any football player.
Girls don't exceed at sports not because they're inferior, but because they're told they're inferior and aren't given the opportunities. Girls who are talented at sports are ridiculed and harassed in society, and are told they're unattractive if they're built like a guy. They're told that being competitive is not feminine, that being tough and muscular is not feminine, and that being athletic to a female should be tiny and graceful, not big and stompy. Fuck that noise, girls can be just as tough and brutish as boys. And boys can be just as tiny and graceful as girls. The patriarchy cuts both ways too. Because girls are seen as inferior, boys who are interested in girl-dominated sports and activities like gymnastics are seen as weak. Fuck that, a guy in gymnastics is manly as fuck! A guy doing ballet is manly as fuck!
-
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/October/No-Recourse-for-Girls-Harassed-by-Transgender-Student/ (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/October/No-Recourse-for-Girls-Harassed-by-Transgender-Student/)
Something tells me there's more to the story than is being reported here.
-
It's from the Christian Broadcasting Network, it's either mostly fabricated or they consider just being within the same building as a transgirl as harassment of some kind. They're probably demanding she get sequestered into a special needs school (a lot of gender nonconforming kids are often forced into going to separate schools usually reserved for special needs kids) and segregated from the rest of the normal school population for the "safety of the children".
-
Not to mention that the group who filed the complaint, Pacific Justice Institute, is a conservative legal action group whose version of "religious freedom" is decidedly Christian and "rights of parents" means protecting children from the Gay Menace. Here's some of the cases they've been involved in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Justice_Institute#Cases) These guys are classic, mountain-out-of-molehill, War On Christmas conservatives.
-
http://www.transadvocate.com/daily-news-pulls-story-examiner-prints-retraction-fox-news-keeps-the-lie-going.htm story was debunked as false btw.
-
http://www.transadvocate.com/daily-news-pulls-story-examiner-prints-retraction-fox-news-keeps-the-lie-going.htm story was debunked as false btw.
Of course, it's Faux News, what did you expect?
As GTA V put it: "WEASEL NEWS: CONFIRMING YOUR BIASES!"
-
I think it should go without saying that the most important thing for preventing bigotry is increasing awareness and education.
This, full stop. Trans people are so rarely treated with any degree of respect or tact in any media. Up until my late teens I'd never even heard the term 'gender dysphoria,' but I'd seen the "haha that person's in a dress but they have a large adam's apple and a hairy chest" joke on TV and in movies probably dozens of times.
Though a decent sense of empathy and being able to accept mistakes is also necessary. A lot of cis people I've seen get really bristly and defensive when they get corrected or politely told they asked something offensive, and then they refuse to admit it and make things worse.
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12368207/gender-terms.png)
I don't know what most of those are...
Edit: Link replaced, same content
-
Is there a question or comment here about this?
-
I don't know what most of those are...
Or to make things easier, does ANYONE know what ALL of these are, without looking it up?
-
Gender and sexuality is a huge spectrum of different possibilities, and some people take very big pride in who they are and don't want to be forced into stereotypes.
That's the reason why trans* is an "umbrella" term that encompasses a wide variety of other concepts and identities. Because not everyone's narrative is a ______ trapped in the wrong body (transsexual). Some people love their bodies, they just want to be treated as the opposite gender in society (transgender). Some people don't align to either gender (genderqueer). Some people's genders are fluid and change significantly periodically (genderfluid). Some people have aspects of both genders (bigender) or do not feel as if they have aspects of either gender (androgyny). And some people were raised in a culture that is incompatible with the typical western gender binary (two-spirit, or third gendered people in some cultures). Some people only like to act in the opposite gender than they were born (drag queens/kings and crossdressers).
Same with sexuality. Gay and lesbian and bisexual does not hope to contain all or even some of the possibilities. Romantic feelings can be separate from sexual feelings. Some people like the companion of girls but are really into sex with other boys (hetero/homo romantic vs. homo/heterosexual). Some persons have no interest in sex but can and do get romantically entangled with people (asexual but not aromantic). Some people have no romantic feelings, it's all about sex (aromantic but not asexual). Some people only develop sexual feelings after a deep romantic relationship is formed (demisexual). And some people just don't care about the parts at all, it's the people they get sexual attractions to (pansexual vs bisexual).
Queer is used as an umbrella term for all sorts of identities that seem to "challenge" the cishetero norm. The problem is most people think LGBT includes everyone, when in reality it mostly covers the L and the G but very rarely the B and T. As it stands right now there's a specific narrative of lesbian and gay persons who are being pushed into society as "acceptable", and those who don't fit into the narrative are being told to quiet up and stay out of sight in order not to scare off the "normals" from supporting them. So queer was brought up as a replacement umbrella term to mean those that challenge the "norm" and the fight renamed to queer rights rather than gay rights or LGBT rights in order to be inclusive of all identities, not just the identities the majority accepts.
-
Or to make things easier, does ANYONE know what ALL of these are, without looking it up?
Only ones I didn't know were 'birl', 'pomosexual', and 'stone'.
(It is worth mentioning that some of those labels are completely redundant.)
-
Redundant maybe, but context matters. There's social meaning behind word choices and why people choose one label over another (aka the pop vs soda war). Just because a term is redundant for another one doesn't make it less valid. They could be raised in an area where those were the accepted terms for such behavior, or possibly they feel they identify more with people who use that term vs. people who don't, even if it's just a superficial distinction. There's a reason why there's numerous terms for an effeminate gay man: fairy, femme, etc. Some have negative connotations as well or may even be considered slurs in some cultures or areas, and the choice to not use a similar term may be based on escaping those connotations.
I call myself a gamer because I play games a lot and it's a core facet of my interests and my identity. Other people like to establish guidelines on who can and can't call themselves a gamer though. That's wrong though because who gets to decide who's a "true" gamer and who isn't? Who gets that authority? The same thing happens with gender and sexuality. Society is deciding what it means to be a boy or a girl or what have you, and then decides who's "fake" and who's "true". And that's no better. Neither is denying someone an identity because it's not a socially recognized or accepted identity.
It's important not to erase any part of someone's identity, no matter how insignificant it may seem to someone else. Just because it has no weight or sounds silly or excessive to some people doesn't make it silly or excessive to others. It's best to respect and let people choose their own identities. Most are very aware of the social meaning behind the words they choose to identify themselves and are indeed looking to express those meanings. Even though medically I am a transgendered female, I do not use trans when I describe myself to other people. This is partially because I'm looking to escape some of the negative connotations associated with it I'll admit (which I'm trying to work myself away from), but mostly because I don't feel like I necessarily exist "outside" the spectrum of gender. I admit fully to being a pretty stereotypical female. I might have a few eclectic interests, but I don't consider those tied to gender like some people do. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge my history or deny it if challenged, it just means it's not a part of my identity. It's not that I'm not proud of who I am or where I came from, it's more that at no point in my life was I ever identifying as a boy. I pretended to be one for a while to please others and avoid ridicule and harm, but I never felt like I was a boy. I was a girl from day one, and my life has been a struggle to get that recognition. I didn't cross from being a boy to being a girl, I was always a girl and I'm merely correcting my body to recognize this fact.
This doesn't mean that those that "did" cross have any less of an identity than I do, or are less male or female or what have you. Not at all! It just means I don't identify with their narratives as much. It'd be both poor form on my part to say my narrative is like theirs, as well as potentially silencing theirs because mine is the more socially acceptable one at this time. I still say I fit in the "trans*" umbrella medically, and I'll definitely announce my status in order to fight alongside for people who face similar social struggles that I did, but to say that my internal identity is anything like theirs belies their right to identify. That's why when people tell me they're genderqueer or bigender or whatever, or if they're proud of their trans status, I don't belittle them for it and say "why can't you just be a boy or a girl based on what parts you have or want, and accept you're feminine or masculine?". If a girl is proud of the fact she has what's considered male genitalia it doesn't make her body less female than someone who has female parts. If a gay guy likes dating transmen it doesn't make him less gay because some of his partners still have female anatomy. They may catch flak from their respective groups they attempt to identify with, but it's not necessarily that person's fault for choosing an identity that doesn't "mesh" with the norm. It's up to the "norm" to be inclusive of other unique identities.
I'm choosing not to identify as a transgirl not because I don't feel like I wouldn't fit in, but more so because I don't see it as a part of my identity. To me it's more of a medical quirk than a core facet of my identity, and while it has definitely shaped my life in terms of my experiences, I don't feel like my core identity would have changed if I was born a cisgirl. I do not say I'm better because I choose not to publicly embrace my status and call myself a "transgirl". Nor do I claim to be a cisgendered girl, that's a medical fact and would be asserting privilege based on the fact I could get away with that lie. I may have a little more privilege by passing better than most, but that's not really my fault. I do recognize it though and therefore stress recognition to those who may not have the privilege I do. I definitely am aware there's a lot of things other trans*persons deal with that I don't and probably never will because of how well I pass at times.
(Yay for taking sociolinguistics and its effect on gender this semester!)
-
That being said, it does suck that my narrative is seen as the more socially acceptable narrative simply because of my interchangeability with other cisgirls. I'm still not really challenging the gender binary with my existence. Because I always identified as a girl then that's cool, you're just helping poor me fix my body I was cursed with. But what about persons who were born, raised, and lived one gender and decided after a spin it wasn't for them? What's so wrong with that? There's this overwhelming pressure to want to "abandon" one's old life in order to fit the narrative that it was all a "mistake" and they're "correcting" it. Yes my body is a mistake, and I see it as a birth defect, but I'm not going to deny it changed the socialization I experienced. It did not socialize me purely male, I was still socialized female whether I was able to openly express it or not. That combination of being forced to pretend to be male, along with being shamed for being female did shape my identity in ways that I'm still unraveling. That being said, I do recognize that I've had experiences and interests nurtured I may not have had if I was born in a female body.
I'm way into computers and games since I was a child, and while this was kind of frowned upon for being "nerdy", it was never seen as not masculine. At the same time I've had a deep passion for ballet and other forms of dance and traditionally "female" sports that I was not allowed to express because those were seen as "girly" and inappropriate for boys. Had I been raised a girl I would have been allowed to pursue those interests and it's likely I would have been shamed for being into games and such a lot stronger than just being "nerdy", as those are the typical signals girls get from society. I've always shown an aptitude for science and mathematics, but had I shown difficulty it's likely I would have received significant tutoring and encouragement to develop those skills. Had I been presenting female though, it would have just been assumed that since I was a girl I was just going to be worse at it and I wouldn't have received any special attention. It's also likely I received the special attention that allowed me to not only excel, but surpass my peers significantly in math and science, because I was seen as a boy and by showing aptitude and interest I was given the nurturing to develop it. As a girl, even with the aptitude and interest, it's not necessarily a given I would have been encouraged, and it's possibly I might have been discouraged much like I was discouraged from ballet and gymnastics. I still definitely experiences the cues society gave in order to be "feminine", because I identified as a girl and wished to present and be regarded as such. And when I'm around peers or in groups where I'm known as male or forced to present male, I tend to "bro" it up in my speech and mannerisms simply to fit in more. It causes significant psychological and emotional stress though, which is why I'm trying very hard to sift through what's really me, and what I just pretended to do to fit in, and to limit what areas I have to present as male until I don't have to at all.
This is why even though I may not take my trans status as a personal identity, I still acknowledge it and do not skirt away from it if I am asked about it. It is also why I am an activist. Even though I may be in a marginalized class being trans, I'm still in the top cream of it because I was born with other favorable factors and privileges that shield me from some of the issues other trans*persons face. I feel it is my duty then, that even though I fit in the socially acceptable narrative, and at times, am even able to escape the identity of trans altogether in the crowd, to not deny it. I shouldn't get more recognition because I'm "unable" to control the fact I identified as female at such a young age, versus someone who's actively choosing to be male or female or what have you, for whatever reasons. My narrative is no more acceptable because it's more of a medical issue than a philosophical choice, as is the tendency to frame the debate when queer rights comes up. People like to make the argument that homosexuality should be accepted because "they can't help it", well what if someone chooses to be gay? Why does it even matter if someone chooses versus if it's innate? Why is it only acceptable when someone can't help it, they're just wired that way? That to me sounds more like trying to appeal to the masses and water down narratives to a socially acceptable cliche, at the cost of marginalizing those who don't strictly fit it. How is this any better than the status quo right now?
When I came out to my parents, I did not initially stress the fact that I knew there's a biological reason for my gender and sexual dysphoria, because I felt like if that was the way to get them to accept me, then they weren't truly accepting me for who I am. I've brought it up now after several debates about the "authenticity" of my feelings, as they like to pin it on some sort of childhood trauma or bad parenting I just need to get over. They like to stress it's still a choice, but to me there is no choice because the outcomes dictate an obvious and logical course of action. The choice isn't between whether to be a boy or a girl, but whether to be a functional and useful person (who's a girl), or a dysfunctional waste of space (who's a boy). There was never any question about my identity, my mental struggles have been against the emotional and psychological harm that's been inflicted both externally and by myself trying to cope with my body being out of alignment. Sure there's a choice in whether I choose to embrace my identity (and the baggage that comes with it) versus not, but let's be realistic here. The outcome is so favored towards one side that there's no real question in my mind what the right choice is.
But what if I chose to be a girl simply because I liked being a girl? At first I struggled deeply with this problem, and for a long time was very ashamed of my feelings because of it. What if it wasn't because I actually was a girl, but just simply liked the thought of being one? So I felt like I had to prove to the world I really was a girl, and tried to throw away a lot of my identity trying to prove how absolutely feminine I am. I was hoping by doing so there'd be no question, I'm hopelessly female and I can't help it therefore you just need to accept me. That didn't work though, because I was being just as inauthentic as when I was pretending to be a boy. It should not matter whether I'm identifying as a girl because I feel it innately, or because I want to. And it shouldn't matter if others have different reasons, whether serious or silly, for their gender expression and identity.
-
some of those labels are completely redundant.
But don't you DARE omit one or you're committing a hate crime!
(the pop vs soda war)
Yeah, except that people who say soda/pop don't consider it a hate crime to use the opposite word.
Other people like to establish guidelines on who can and can't call themselves a gamer though. That's wrong though because who gets to decide who's a "true" gamer and who isn't?
HAY GUYZ IAM (-=*D34Dx3Y3*=-) ELEET HACKER I DOWNLOAD W4R3Z ON THE INTERNETS AND PLAY COD UR A HOMOFAG & I FUCKED UR MOM LOL I WILL HACK UR 360 AND BAN U
FEER ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do not use trans when I describe myself to other people
...because they're going to immediately interpret it as you saying "I'm really a guy, this is just an act".
privilege
Right, and everyone else should have to sit in a chair and be miserable 5 hours of every other morning to check their kidney privilege so I don't feel bad about suffering the consequences of my actions.
I'm still not really challenging the gender binary with my existence.
Since when is that mandatory?
Had I been raised a girl I would have been allowed to pursue those interests
You win some and you lose some. I don't see how this means you enjoyed some net-positive privilege or have to atone for anything.
How is this any better than the status quo right now?
How is intentionally suffering when you don't have to going to change the status quo either? This is like saying if all the jews had willingly gone to the concentration camps instead of trying to escape then their deaths would have been worth more.
(being changing the status quo is suffering)
They like to stress it's still a choice
...because that means they have a chance of changing your mind and returning you to "God's" chosen path. They don't give a damn if it's a choice or not, they just want to maintain hope that they can change you back into what they want you to be instead of what you want to be.
-
But don't you DARE omit one or you're committing a hate crime!
With all due respect, this kind of ridiculous hyperbole isn't helping. Nowhere in that image you posted is it stated or implied that omitting any of these terms is on par with a hate crime.
I mean, some of your participation in this thread has really started to make me wonder - sometimes - if you're really interested in an honest discussion or not.
-
some of your participation in this thread has really started to make me wonder - sometimes - if you're really interested in an honest discussion or not.
If I wasn't I would just low-effort shitpost instead of breaking up TSO's novel series for context quotes.
-
If I wasn't I would just low-effort shitpost instead of breaking up TSO's novel series for context quotes.
You don't need to low-level shitpost to have a bad faith discussion; sometimes a person could, for example, deliberately exaggerate or misrepresent someone else's position. "Strawmanning", I think the kids call it.
Also I hope TSO prints her posts, binds them into a book, and sells it.
-
Who says I'm not fully aware that I could escape the scorn and social stigma by avoiding discussion of my status? Who says I'm not tempted to on a daily basis, nor would I fault anyone who does end up choosing to "go stealth"? I choose to talk about my status because I feel my discomfort isn't worth as much as the good I would do being outspoken about it. I persist in being a girl in a male dominated field (science and engineering) not just because I like it, but because society needs to see more female scientists and engineers. I persist in past times where I am objectified for my body and in the same breath called a fraud and a harlot for actually wearing the terrible outfits men design for female characters (cosplay). And I choose to be open about being a girl in a community where it is a liability to be (gaming).
Privilege is not choosing to take the easy life if you really don't feel motivated to face the consequences outside of it. Privilege is talking from your pulpit in the easy life claiming that because you can do it everyone else can, ignoring circumstances and assistance and things others may not have. It is not to shame those who are more fortunate, but more to recognize what makes them more fortunate and to extend support and assistance to give everyone equal opportunities for happiness.
The only time I've ever been upset at someone for "privilege" as far as trans* related things go, is when someone tries to give assistance or advice or act as an ally to trans*persons while not acknowledging their own trans* status and pretending to be cis. That is exercising a privilege not all trans persons get to exercise, and to lord it over others in the same boat as them is not cool. Having to pretend or hide their trans status in public or in certain situations is understandable given the social and political climate. But in a safe zone amongst people who are just like them, isn't cool. It makes those who can't hide their statuses as well feel subhuman, and glorifies trying to fit into the majority narrative rather than celebrating uniqueness.
That being said that's a behaviour not unique to queer folk. "Putting on airs", so to speak, is one such phrase coined to refer to people who try to act better than their upbringing around the people they came from. It's one thing to pretend to fit into a privileged class in order to avoid minority stigma while in their company, it's another thing entirely to assert that same superiority on the minority you identify or came from. People should be proud of who they not, not feel like they have to pretend to be something else to fit in.
-
An example of privilege abuse I thought of on my way home would someone making assumptions or extrapolations on other people's situations based on their own. Studies have been done that show that those living or raised in disadvantaged areas tend to have higher obesity rates than more middle or upper class areas. One extrapolation could be that this is because the poor are lazier; they're less interested in taking care of their body and more interested in stuffing their throat. That particular person looks at themselves and goes, "Well I can take care of my body and I'm not even paying that much, why can't they?". This is abusing privilege, as it makes assumptions of someone else's motives while being ignorant of their potential situation and circumstances. Things such as access to reliable transportation, having grocery stores in the area, a working life that gives them the opportunity to cook and exercise rather than barely giving them enough time to scarf down McDonalds, these are all potential factors that poor people have little to no control over that may adversely affect their ability to maintain a healthy lifestyle. That's not saying there aren't poor people who just don't care about their diet or health, but who's to say there aren't health conscious folk who have to sacrifice eating a balanced and well rounded diet or don't have the time to go jogging 3 times a week between the 3 jobs they have to work to just keep a roof over their head? That's abusing privilege.
Just being born into favorable circumstances is not an offense in and of itself. I had just as much choice to be born a white American transgirl as a kid in Prague had of being born Czech. That being said, I have opportunities and access to resources not available to my counterpart born in Prague. To fault them for not being able to meet the same level of success as I would is being ignorant of my privilege and what it affords. Meritocracy only works when everyone starts from the same point and gets all the same opportunities and resources. Until we reach that point, there will need to be a conscientious effort from those in privilege to assist those in lesser privileged statuses to overcome those obstacles. This is not to say, one should take "pity" on those less fortunate, but to understand the benefits and ramifications of the privileges one may have, to give assistance if asked, and to let them speak for themselves and help their voice be heard, rather than speak for them.