feuervogel (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
feuervogel) wrote2010-06-22 12:27 pm
feuervogel) wrote2010-06-22 12:27 pm
Entry tags:
Third-gender pronouns and binary-identified individuals
I read a blog post yesterday, an intro post from a guest blogger at feministe who usually writes over at Questioning Transphobia.
Queen Emily writes Don’t use third gender pronouns (eg “ze” and “hir”) on a binary identified person because it ungenders them. (Third-gender pronouns are also known as gender-neutral pronouns.) Then down in comments, she says, When someone uses “ze” to refer to me when I have explicitly referred to myself as a trans woman, it’s ungendering and cissexist to boot.
When I read this post bysohotrightnow, Queen Emily's post was the first thing I thought of, even though the writer of the problematic story (which I agree is problematic, and that is not the topic of this post; I'm not even involved in bandom) identifies as female.
The section that made me click the link to the writer's profile:
(You can see the wtfery evidenced by promisethstars in this quote, but that's not what I'm looking at.) I clicked the profile tag, and saw that Megan will occasionally "fangirl out." To me, that reads as "I identify as a girl."
Ungendering is a tactic used against trans-spectrum individuals by the media, academics, and radical feminists. I obviously do NOT believe that using "zie" to refer to a binary-identified cis-individual has anywhere near the emotional impact it does on a binary-identified trans-individual. But it isn't appropriate, either.
Or am I talking out of my ass here?
Queen Emily writes Don’t use third gender pronouns (eg “ze” and “hir”) on a binary identified person because it ungenders them. (Third-gender pronouns are also known as gender-neutral pronouns.) Then down in comments, she says, When someone uses “ze” to refer to me when I have explicitly referred to myself as a trans woman, it’s ungendering and cissexist to boot.
When I read this post by
sohotrightnow, Queen Emily's post was the first thing I thought of, even though the writer of the problematic story (which I agree is problematic, and that is not the topic of this post; I'm not even involved in bandom) identifies as female.The section that made me click the link to the writer's profile:
When I engagedpromisethstars in discussion and tried to explain why this was bothering me, zie raised the point that the story is an AU, and argued that from zir perspective, there was no difference between making Gabe Saporta a Catholic priest for zir AU and making Patrick Stump a prostitute for another AU.
(You can see the wtfery evidenced by promisethstars in this quote, but that's not what I'm looking at.) I clicked the profile tag, and saw that Megan will occasionally "fangirl out." To me, that reads as "I identify as a girl."
Ungendering is a tactic used against trans-spectrum individuals by the media, academics, and radical feminists. I obviously do NOT believe that using "zie" to refer to a binary-identified cis-individual has anywhere near the emotional impact it does on a binary-identified trans-individual. But it isn't appropriate, either.
Or am I talking out of my ass here?
no subject
That doesn't mean one should stop working against oppositional sexism (the idea that male and female are mutually exclusive categories) or traditional sexism (the idea that males and the things society calls masculine are inherently more valuable than females and feminine things). I certainly intend to do that, by being who I am.
no subject
This person is apparently really bitter against the post-gender feminist crowd. "Generally, my response to the reifying trope is, of course, “as opposed to practically everybody else?”" Seriously? "Pot calling kettle black" doesn't actually invalidate the point that somebody is making. Occasionally you can use it to shame the other person into shutting up, but it doesn't actually address the arguments they were making. *facepalm*
The problem in with gender is inherent--behavioral stereotypes constructed around some idea of biological sex, so that when the behavioral stereotype and the biological sex are at odds, society has issues with it. I think that behavioral preferences should be addressed in ways that aren't tied to sex, but instead tied to what particular interests you end up exhibiting. To try to fit people into two broad categories is confining and FUCKING SUCKS. The problem here is not with transpeople deciding that they are one or another, but that there is a construct and you only have TWO CHOICES.
If we all agree that gender is a spectrum, we should either abolish it and not bother to draw boundaries, or we should, like most spectra, draw more boundaries than JUST TWO, or put the "everything" option out there. Sheesh. That post pissed the hell out of me.
no subject
There are people born in male bodies who identify as female because of their subconscious sex. It is highly unlikely that it's because they're pressured to fit norms of femininity; rather, they're more likely to be pressured to fit norms of masculinity. Because of this experience, which falls on the trans spectrum (trans women) and is real, saying "gender is just some thing society made up" invalidates and erases their lives. That's why Queen Emily is pissed, and, frankly, I would be, too, if people kept telling me my life is fake.
Smashing oppositional sexism and traditional sexism will achieve the same goal (eliminating the rigid binary and allowing for "other" or "none of the above" to be an option) without erasing people's identities.
no subject
Yes, I understand her viewpoint, and her anger. But "this makes me angry" is not a valid argument. I wish she'd have gone about saying that in a way that didn't involve the "pot calling kettle black, so shut up" fallacy.
saying "gender is just some thing society made up" invalidates and erases their lives.
I'm not entirely sure what the radical feminists Queen Emily is pissed off at are saying, but saying "gender doesn't exist" doesn't invalidate the trans experience. It doesn't suddenly make everything go away, it simply frames the issue in a different light. People have the right to be pissed off at how they want to frame their story, but I'm annoyed at the fact that she seems to dismiss the argument entirely because it results in her experience, and the experiences of those similar to her being reframed. She doesn't really seem to acknowledge that the core problem here is that gender != sex but that gender is an important perception in society and they use biological sex to determine gender and then REINFORCE IT RIGOROUSLY. She doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that both her actions and the actions of the accused cissexual feminists do result in the reification of the binary gender structure because she is ignoring the presence of multiple options. The fact that cissexual feminists are reifying gender by being cissexual doesn't mean that she automatically isn't. Just because something is worse doesn't mean that the current case isn't bad.
Smashing oppositional sexism and traditional sexism will achieve the same goal (eliminating the rigid binary and allowing for "other" or "none of the above" to be an option) without erasing people's identities.
Agree, but also disagree on the grounds that smashing oppositional and traditional sexism are necessary but not sufficient. Both relax the rules and equalize both ends but not offer the option of "not applicable."
I feel there is a large group out there who believe that neither gender nor sex are important factors in one's identity, and there needs to be emphasis on the fact that neither biological nor subconscious sex are determinant factors in one's behavior. Why is a gender important? Why can't some people choose not to be somewhere on it? The fact that this is rarely brought up in gender theory discussions bothers me a lot. Important, if rather subtle requirement.
no subject
The light you're framing it in ignores the lived experiences of trans women, who were NOT pressured to fit into the box marked with an F. If anything, they were pressured to fit into the box marked M, but they felt it was Wrong. They felt like women. Yet saying "gender is some bullshit society made up" invalidates their lives. Read Whipping Girl. Serano, a trans woman, spends a good deal of time on how this theory of gender invalidates her lived experience.
If you want to know more about radfems and transphobia, here's a set of links, and google has more. See also "michigan womyn's music festival." Serano discusses this in her book as well.
Even in magic happy post-gender land, there will still be people who identify as male or female. I get that identity in general means nothing to you, but it is important to a lot of people.
no subject
no subject
The most radical thing that any of us can do is to stop projecting our beliefs about gender onto other people's behaviors and bodies.
Word.
no subject
For the record, I have no problem with people who strongly identify as one gender or another. But sometimes I feel like both the trans- and cis-communities are so focused on gender==because of the importance of their experience--that they forget that there are those of us who don't care or would like to move fluidly between both extremes frequently. They seem to get offended when people point out that their actions can reinforce binary genders. So what? Yes, their insistence that gender is important and identifying--in the eyes of someone for whom gender is neither--can seem to force upon them the importance and necessity of it. But so? That's who they are and that's okay.
We would just, once a while, like to them to realize that some people would rather not identify with one gender or another, because even if there one day is a spectrum, I don't want to be on it at all. ANYWHERE. Because I don't like the idea of it, and I am not playing that game. I feel like a lot of people are becoming aware of the spectrum, but there isn't enough awareness of the folks who don't believe it's a deal at all.
no subject
Wanting people to realize that there are people who don't want to be gendered and who don't want to identify as any gender at all is a very different statement. If you really have no problem with folks who strongly identify as one gender or another, then maybe you should refrain from saying things like your original comment.
no subject
Okay, point. People who binary-identified don't necessarily believe that gender is simply binary. I retract my original statement and modify it to say, "This whole post-gendered thing I have going is seriously being held up by the people who insist that gender is binary."
Sorry if I offended anybody.
no subject
I know that. I know a lot of people who are strongly identified as one or the other. But do we have to name it and neccessarily associated a set of genitalia with it? I say 'no,' it's not necessary. I feel like the best way is to dismantle the idea of gender, so people are just people with a spectrum of behaviors--but a lot of people disagree with me. This is fine.
I get that identity in general means nothing to you, but it is important to a lot of people.
Sorry, it's gender identity that means nothing to me. Yes, it is important to a lot of people, but I think that some people in the trans community forget that for a group of people it also means nothing. Their very trans-ness makes gender identity a big deal, so sometimes they forget there are people who don't wanted to be labeled, or people who would like to move fluidly between both extremes frequently behaviorally.
Yet saying "gender is some bullshit society made up" invalidates their lives.
What's the definition of "invalidation" here? Does Serano think she's being invalidated because the seriousness of her life experience is being ignored or erased? Does she think it's because her life experience then comes "some bullshit society made up?" It doesn't, but she can think whatever way she pleases.
no subject
I can't speak for trans people or whether they forget there are people who don't care, but there are plenty of trans voices out there.
The issue we're arguing past is one of respect. It's disrespectful to say to someone "the identity you claim is bullshit, because gender qua gender is bullshit." It's also disrespectful to say to someone "no, you have to choose a gender." Academic gender theory does a lot of the former, as does radical feminist gender theory.
If gender is a figment of society's imagination, then why do trans people exist? Why can't they just overcome this figment of their imagination and be happy in the bodies they have? Do you see how this can piss trans people off?
no subject
"the identity you claim is bullshit, because gender qua gender is bullshit."
I think I have been interpreting the "gender is bullshit society made up" phrase differently than you have, which is why we're both arguing the same point from but still thinking that we disagree with one another. Let's rephrase what I believe: "the idea that gender is binary, related to your biological sex, non-fluid, necessary to identity, and must be enforced in order to operate a stable society is bullshit." Can we come to a consensus on this? That should resolve the "why do trans people exist?" and subsequent questions. Gender can be inherent. But it isn't with everybody, and I REALLY GET ANGRY when people automatically assume that gender is a part of my identity.
no subject
Yes :)
no subject