feuervogel: photo of the statue of Victory and her chariot on the Brandenburg Gate (Default)
feuervogel ([personal profile] 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 by [personal profile] 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 engaged [livejournal.com profile] promisethstars 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?

[identity profile] doctorskuld.livejournal.com 2010-06-23 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Identity politicking is very different from having things that identify yourself. I hate identity politicking because it is the broad case of "here's a label, now we're going to enforce everything that we think it means onto you." It's the broad case of why I also dislike identifying as a gender. I doesn't mean that I don't have an identity, just that I dislike having to label myself, and especially to label myself depending on physical attributes. I realize that humans prefer convenient labels because we naturally associate and extrapolate data based on past experiences, but I really do wish that there was less of this "everybody who is Label X has to behave in A, B, C, ways" going on.

"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.
Edited 2010-06-23 18:31 (UTC)

[identity profile] doctorskuld.livejournal.com 2010-06-23 07:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Yay! Consensus reached. *high five*