Queer theory

[catra]

i am not very educated on this subject, so don’t trust my opinion too heavily.

 

i do know of homosexuality and whatnot existing in other species of animals and i don’t mind the idea of gender being a construct, but i feel like sex is generally a sure thing, except for people who are intersex. like, sure, the terms we use today could be changed at any time or whatever, but i thought that you’re genutals decide your sex. (don’t be afraid to educate me if what i said was incorrect, i’m always willing to learn!)

[user23974865]

On 3/11/2018 at 2:03 PM, scarletlatitude said:

All notions of gender or sex are based on cultural dynamics.

You could argue that the distinction between the sexes is culturally-based, but then you would also have to accept that the distinction between species is just as culturally-based. Or even the distinction between living and non-living things. And yet, unless you're on acid, cats aren't dogs, and rocks aren't alive.

 

Almost any assertion can be true, but not without logical consequences, and maybe a bad trip. Sanity requires distinctions, and certain distinctions actually are more natural and intuitive than others. I don't see the purpose in denying the existence of the two sexes in our species.

 

When it comes to gender though, the concept itself is basically equivalent to the question "what is the relevance of the sexes" (within a given context). It's cultural by definition, but also partially tied to the sexes (and, indirectly, their natural features) by definition. So it's also far from being entirely cultural.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

On 3/22/2019 at 5:25 AM, burobu said:

You could argue that the distinction between the sexes is culturally-based, but then you would also have to accept that the distinction between species is just as culturally-based. Or even the distinction between living and non-living things. And yet, unless you're on acid, cats aren't dogs, and rocks aren't alive.

 

Almost any assertion can be true, but not without logical consequences, and maybe a bad trip. Sanity requires distinctions, and certain distinctions actually are more natural and intuitive than others. I don't see the purpose in denying the existence of the two sexes in our species.

 

When it comes to gender though, the concept itself is basically equivalent to the question "what is the relevance of the sexes" (within a given context). It's cultural by definition, but also partially tied to the sexes (and, indirectly, their natural features) by definition. So it's also far from being entirely cultural.

So, when two gay men are having sex, based on Leviticus, how do you tell which one is the girl?

[user23974865]

3 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

So, when two gay men are having sex, based on Leviticus, how do you tell which one is the girl?

No idea. But whoever that Leviticus guy is, I probably wouldn't give him much credence.

 

I realize you're asking me a rhetorical question implying something about me. I don't know what exactly you're implying, but I'm pretty sure you're lumping me together with people I don't sympathize with.

[Evil]

Q Theory is gross. Research how many paedophiles are involved with its creation.

[user23974865]

@Calligraphette_Coe To clarify it, since I know these things are very personal to you. This is the way I understand things:

 

On one hand, our species is binary. It's not the only way to frame it, but it's by far the simplest and easiest to agree on, and it's useful. There are exceptions (intersex, basically), but exceptions are inevitable no matter what other type of distinction you might choose to make instead. That's "sex", as I understand it. On the other hand, people's individual self-perception and traits in general aren't binary at all. There are statistical tendencies, but, when it comes to behavior and capability, individual variability is greater than that (to the point that probably most people have something about them that is firmly within what's statistically associated with the other sex). So statistical correlation (and general social impressions and expectations vaguely tied to statistical occurrence) do a poor job at predicting what a given person of a given sex really is like, individually. That's "gender", as I understand it.

 

I think it's harmful when people suggest that there are no innate differences between the sexes, because it knowingly contradicts direct observation. It's a dogmatic way of thinking. I think this isn't very controversial outside of circles with a very aggressive political agenda, so I don't really think it's the main point. I think the main point is that there's a widespread notion today that giving more importance to gender (and coming up with more and more rigorous ways of classifying it) is "progressive". I think this is the exact opposite of what society should be striving for if wider acceptance of individual divergence is the goal. Gender should be given less importance, because, in fact, it generally isn't as relevant or important as people make it out to be. When a boy cries, he shouldn't be told that "he's not a real boy" because of it, but, just as much, he shouldn't be encouraged to "embrace not being a boy" either. Being mocked and called "gay" and "little girl" over and over again for all sorts of silly reasons growing up wasn't fun, but I still think it was way better than if I had been encouraged to consider that "I might actually not be a boy" because of it. That would have been terribly confusing, with much worse consequences.

 

The way I see it, "progress" would be if it simply became more acceptable for that boy to cry and just go on with his day, and maybe even go play with a doll or whatever if he wants. Face value, no big deal. And for the most part that's actually how I was treated by "grown-ups". It was always peers my age who were the issue.

 

In many ways, "progressive" gender theory today is only doubling down on traditionalist views of society.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

2 hours ago, burobu said:

No idea. But whoever that Leviticus guy is, I probably wouldn't give him much credence.

 

I realize you're asking me a rhetorical question implying something about me. I don't know what exactly you're implying, but I'm pretty sure you're lumping me together with people I don't sympathize with.

Leviticus, as in the book in the Bible, the part where it talks about a man lying with another man as with a woman. And no, there is and was no intent to make this in any way personal. I was just pointing out a flaw in the logic about there being only a heterosexual gender binary, because most people conflate gender with sexual relations. And heaven help those like me who don't fit into the neat little lanes. Even though I've been what that same levitican code would call 'chaste' for longer than most of the people on this website have been alive, most people would say I'm some kind of violation of natural law.

 

But nature, it seems, is not without its own form of irony in regards to breaking its own rules.

[user23974865]

5 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I was just pointing out a flaw in the logic about there being only a heterosexual gender binary

That's a huge leap from what I was actually saying though. So much so that I wouldn't have been able to make the connection even if I did know about stories from the bible.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

2 hours ago, burobu said:

@Calligraphette_Coe To clarify it, since I know these things are very personal to you. This is the way I understand things:

 

On one hand, our species is binary. It's not the only way to frame it, but it's by far the simplest and easiest to agree on, and it's useful. There are exceptions (intersex, basically), but exceptions are inevitable no matter what other type of distinction you might choose to make instead. That's "sex", as I understand it. On the other hand, people's individual self-perception and traits in general aren't binary at all. There are statistical tendencies, but, when it comes to behavior and capability, individual variability is greater than that (to the point that probably most people have something about them that is firmly within what's statistically associated with the other sex). So statistical correlation (and general social impressions and expectations vaguely tied to statistical occurrence) do a poor job at predicting what a given person of a given sex really is like, individually. That's "gender", as I understand it.

 

I think it's harmful when people suggest that there are no innate differences between the sexes, because it knowingly contradicts direct observation. It's a dogmatic way of thinking. I think this isn't very controversial outside of circles with a very aggressive political agenda, so I don't really think it's the main point. I think the main point is that there's a widespread notion today that giving more importance to gender (and coming up with more and more rigorous ways of classifying it) is "progressive". I think this is the exact opposite of what society should be striving for if wider acceptance of individual divergence is the goal. Gender should be given less importance, because, in fact, it generally isn't as relevant or important as people make it out to be. When a boy cries, he shouldn't be told that "he's not a real boy" because of it, but, just as much, he shouldn't be encouraged to "embrace not being a boy" either. Being mocked and called "gay" and "little girl" over and over again for all sorts of silly reasons growing up wasn't fun, but I still think it was way better than if I had been encouraged to consider that "I might actually not be a boy" because of it. That would have been terribly confusing, with much worse consequences.

 

The way I see it, "progress" would be if it simply became more acceptable for that boy to cry and just go on with his day, and maybe even go play with a doll or whatever if he wants. Face value, no big deal. And for the most part that's actually how I was treated by "grown-ups". It was always peers my age who were the issue.

 

In many ways, "progressive" gender theory today is only doubling down on traditionalist views of society.

But for people like me, growing up there WAS no escape from that Procrustean Bed. Even now, into my sixties, I have to live in this nightmare Glass Closet, saluting the Cisnormative Heterosexual flag, living a life of quiet desperation. Held hostage by flashbacks of sexual and physcial assault during those PTSD monents from things from my adolsecense.

 

How can I embrace something that has usually caused me harm and despair?

[user23974865]

1 hour ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

But for people like me, growing up there WAS no escape from that Procrustean Bed. Even now, into my sixties, I have to live in this nightmare Glass Closet, saluting the Cisnormative Heterosexual flag, living a life of quiet desperation. Held hostage by flashbacks of sexual and physcial assault during those PTSD monents from things from my adolsecense.

 

How can I embrace something that has usually caused me harm and despair?

That's the thing: on one hand, that burden shouldn't be on you, but on the other hand, I think this type of dogmatic agenda only makes it worse, because the problem is more complex than simply establishing "who's the bad actor". Everybody holds negative views about other groups of people when there's no need to. It's a human limitation. If we keep making endless lists of who specifically should be treated better by society than they are, then it's like a game of whack-a-mole, except that the moles multiply instead of just appearing somewhere else.

 

Real social progress, the way I see it, isn't when "the other" is recognized for their otherness. That's a band-aid at best, and it has a predictable tendency to backfire. The whole issue is that there's a sort of "social spotlight" on "the other" that makes them "the other" in the first place. Shining a brighter spotlight on them doesn't help. People respect each other more naturally when they realize that other people's otherness doesn't change the fact that "they're just like them", as people.

 

I think the purpose of awareness should be to dispel misconceptions that lead people to conclude otherwise, and then fade away into history once that's been accomplished. Take people's mental spotlight away from the differences when they don't matter (in public, at work, etc.), so that those differences can flourish and be celebrated when they do matter (in private, with friends, etc.). In short, I think real progress is when people aren't recognized for their otherness, but for their "peopleness" instead. But it seems like society in general (on both sides of the political scale) is only getting more and more obsessed with how everyone is different from everyone else, and this only causes mutual alienation.

 

In general, I think people who subscribe to the whole "gender agenda" really are well-meaning, but I feel that the core promoters of this type of agenda are people who simply don't mind "making society more equal" by spreading misery more equally instead of spreading well-being more equally. I've taken notice of how the loudest people in the bunch don't seem very altruistic at all, including a couple of examples here on AVEN.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

37 minutes ago, burobu said:

That's the thing: that burden shouldn't be on you, and I think this type of dogmatic agenda only makes it worse.

 

Real social progress, the way I see it, isn't when "the other" is recognized for their otherness. That's a band-aid at best, and it has a predictable tendency to backfire. The whole issue is that there's a sort of "social spotlight" on "the other" that makes them "the other" in the first place. Shining a brighter spotlight on them doesn't help. People respect each other more naturally when they realize that other people's otherness doesn't change the fact that "they're just like them", as people.

 

I think the purpose of awareness should be to dispel misconceptions that lead people to conclude otherwise, and then fade away into history. Take people's mental spotlight away from the differences when they don't matter (in public, at work, etc.), so that they can be celebrated and flourish when they do matter (in private, with friends, etc.). In short, I think real progress is when people aren't recognized for their otherness, but for their "peopleness" instead. But it seems like society in general (on both sides of the political scale) is only getting more and more obsessed with how everyone is different from everyone else, and this only causes mutual alienation.

 

In general, I think people who subscribe to the so-called "progressive" agenda really are well-meaning, but I feel that the core promoters of this type of agenda are people who simply don't mind "making society more equal" by spreading misery more equally instead of spreading well-being more equally. I've taken note of how the loudest people in the bunch don't seem very altruistic at all, including a couple of examples here on AVEN.

Sounds wonderful, but it doesn't work that way in my life's experience. Let me tell you a story......

 

A few years ago at work, I became closer to a female supervisor who was going through rough times. She lost both her parents to pretty painful diseases and was an emotional mess some days. Being known as a people person (which often is just a wink-wink-nudge-nudge left-handed slam if you're born with XY chromosones), people there (mostly the women) knew I was a good shoulder to cry on. I'd get emotional myself and tear up frequently, because having gone through painful episodes that nearly killed me 3 separate times,  I think I know despair pretty well. So one day she tells me that I'm sensitive and empathetic like a woman. So I partially come out of the closet to her. I show her pictures of myself passing as a female. Her jaw drops and she is incredulous, but says she can see why I'm able to do that. "You..... you aren't like most of the (sic) men I've seen who dress up as women. MY GOD, you totally look the part, no one would ever know."

 

But then she started avoid me, and when I got very sick and she told me she would take me to the doctors if I needed it when I was too sick to drive there myself, she broke her promise just when I needed it the most. She left the company a few years ago, and told me to call her from time to time, but every time I do, she doesn't return my calls, and the only time I spoke to her since, she gave me the bum's rush after a few minutes making an excuse as to why she had to go just them. But never called back. She never returned even one email.

 

Now I can't say this with 100% certainty, but she's a devout Christian and I think it offends her to think that I might be transgendered, EVEN though I never dared to come the whole way out of the closet because of the transphobic place I work.

 

So, am *I* a 'special snowflake' who is 'pushing a progressive agenda', or am I just a person trying to assimilate, often only let a teeny tiny little bit of my otherness out of the closet. Or am I the on taking all the risks and getting all the rejection?

[user23974865]

38 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

So, am *I* a 'special snowflake' who is 'pushing a progressive agenda', or am I just a person trying to assimilate, often only let a teeny tiny little bit of my otherness out of the closet. Or am I the on taking all the risks and getting all the rejection?

You're the one taking risks and getting rejected. That's my point, really. The burden shouldn't be on you, but it is. And political agendas all around aren't making it any better. When someone goes around shouting with a megaphone, the burden falls on you, not them. I don't really know how you feel about the whole "political agenda" thing, to be honest, since I've only seen you talking about personal stories when the subject is raised (not a criticism, by the way, I just don't see what exactly is the connection when you bring up your stories).

 

The thing with your friend, for example, the problem wasn't you, and apparently it wasn't even your friend (who apparently accepted you just fine at first). The problem was religion. It sounds like she didn't know whether you're a "sinner" (or whatever) or not, but she backed away anyway just in case. That's the kind of mindset that should be changed, and that's the kind of change that should be promoted. Benefit of the doubt by default. "People are 'people just like you' unless and until proven otherwise. Look for things in common first, differences later." Not "this or that particular type of people who deserve more respect than they get", but people in general. Anyone who doesn't actually pose a threat. Until this becomes "the agenda", it's just whack-a-mole.

 

On the flip side, I think we should apply the same principle to your friend. In the absence of evidence that she rejected you for those reasons (given that you tried to stay in touch, I suppose you're not entirely sure), we should assume that she didn't (even if it's likely that she did). It could be just that she realized you have more baggage than she can handle. I've done that myself. It feels pretty bad, but there's times when I just have to admit to myself that I can't be the friend that someone needs me to be, and the least bad way to do it is by just not responding.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

29 minutes ago, burobu said:

You're the one taking risks and getting rejected. That's my point, really. The burden shouldn't be on you, but it is. And political agendas all around aren't making it any better. When someone goes around shouting with a megaphone, the burden falls on you, not them. I don't really know how you feel about the whole "political agenda" thing, to be honest, since I've only seen you talking about personal stories when the subject is raised (not a criticism, by the way, I just don't see what exactly is the connection when you bring up your stories).

 

The thing with your friend, for example, the problem wasn't you, and apparently it wasn't even your friend (who apparently accepted you just fine at first). The problem was religion. It sounds like she didn't know whether you're a "sinner" (or whatever) or not, but she backed away anyway just in case. That's the kind of mindset that should be changed, and that's the kind of change that should be promoted. Benefit of the doubt by default. "People are 'people just like you' unless and until proven otherwise. Look for things in common first, differences later." Not "this or that particular type of people who deserve more respect than they get", but people in general. Anyone who doesn't actually pose a threat. Until this becomes "the agenda", it's just whack-a-mole.

 

On the flip side, I think we should apply the same principle to your friend. In the absence of evidence that she rejected you for those reasons (given that you tried to stay in touch, I suppose you're not entirely sure), we should assume that she didn't (even if it's likely that she did). It could be just that she realized you have more baggage than she can handle. I've done that myself. It feels pretty bad, but there's times when I just have to admit to myself that I can't be the friend that someone needs me to be, and the least bad way to do it is by just not responding.

See? It's always the same-- blame the victim when the victim is the Good Samaritan but doesn't get reciprocity, and just tell them to shut up, not make waves and take it. Because after all, the Samaritans have no one but themselves to blame when the end up in hell for being Samaritans.

 

Take and don't  give back, and find a way to rationalize it so you can live with yourself. And then pass judgement on those who outed you for YOUR baggage.

 

Someone recently told me on here after presenting a good argument: "i. Give. Up." Gee, if I could only remember who that was? Oh yeah.....

[user23974865]

I've been on the other side of it myself several times. I'm not an easy person to be close with. I was flat-out told that I was a burden, by my best friend of ten years. It was a planned conversation, like "hey, we need to talk". I was left without a social network, living away from home in an overwhelming city, sharing an apartment for another two years with that very same person who told me that I was a burden. I was dealing with serious mood problems at that point, because of a thyroid disease that was only diagnosed a year later, among other reasons. It was horrible. A similar thing happened a few years later, except with my family instead, and it even led a doctor to believe that I was schizophrenic and then prescribe me antipsychotics for it, because of how lost and alienated I was. It was bad. And I knew exactly who was responsible for the situation.

 

I stand by what I said: benefit of the doubt by default. "For everyone who doesn't actually pose a threat", like I said. Not just for you or me, and not out of moral goodness or anything. It just works better. My life is better for it. And I hope yours can be too.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

7 hours ago, burobu said:

I've been on the other side of it myself several times. I'm not an easy person to be close with. I was flat-out told that I was a burden, by my best friend of ten years. It was a planned conversation, like "hey, we need to talk". I was left without a social network, living away from home in an overwhelming city, sharing an apartment for another two years with that very same person who told me that I was a burden. I was dealing with serious mood problems at that point, because of a thyroid disease that was only diagnosed a year later, among other reasons. It was horrible. A similar thing happened a few years later, except with my family instead, and it even led a doctor to believe that I was schizophrenic and then prescribe me antipsychotics for it, because of how lost and alienated I was. It was bad. And I knew exactly who was responsible for the situation.

 

I stand by what I said: benefit of the doubt by default. "For everyone who doesn't actually pose a threat", like I said. Not just for you or me, and not out of moral goodness or anything. It just works better. My life is better for it. And I hope yours can be too.

The irony here is a bit much though, because you're burdening Caligraphette_Coe with all of this information about your own problems while diminishing her own. You ARE blaming the victim, you don't understand how alienating it is to be closeted as a trans person. Even for myself, I'm "out" but not really because I end up standing there while a professor misgenders me constantly to someone else and although in my own situation a part of the problem is my difficulty explaining myself, that DOES NOT change how gut wrenching it is to listen to these things. I'm not even in a work place which is explicitly transphobic, although a major reason why I don't have the confidence to explain myself further IS because of someone nigh on explicitly transphobic(she only let her words give herself away once, but has consistently harassed me).

 

Our experiences are evidence for others' transphobia, that's just a fact. There may be a few alternative interpretations of those experiences but they absolutely do not justify saying on a wide scale, that developing advanced frameworks for our identities which actually include those of us marginalised by popular understandings of sex, gender and sexuality is somehow making the lives of those marginalised people, or their social circles, worse.

 

And you can shove off with the whole "aggressive political agenda" bullshit. The most aggressive political agendas I encounter are those who seek to marginalise and gatekeep the trans community. It's NOT progressive or trendy or whatever to be trans. Take this from the non binary person who literally has no one in my workplace or family who doesn't misgender them. You think it's something people are forcing on others??? Have you ever tried to use they/them pronouns? Have you crossdressed? Have you seen the cisgender people in your life vanish when you start embracing your gender identity? It happens just as much now, as it did before we had feminist magazines to inform others about how sex and gender are a construct and we should ask others for their pronouns. No matter how aggressive a trans person is, we are still so outnumbered and marginalised that we don't actually have any influence on these things. I mean, there are several hundred countries in the world and who knows how many generations of political leaders in each one, but somehow I imagine our ~1% of the population barely appears once among them. Nor do the truly inclusive feminists.

 

By the way, the comment which you replied to from Leviticus was about previous societal understandings of gender/sex. Before these two things were separated from sexuality, it was thought that a woman was a person who took the passive role in sex and a man was the one with the active role. And many of the arguments that binary understandings of gender/sex and the idea that gender lies in our assigned biological sex should be kept in the modern day, could likely have been applied to this model :namely, for most people it's easier to simply say that they are a woman/man because of their sexual roles, and only a minority of the population have sex which isn't heterosexual penetrative sex or switch roles, so why should the majority have to abandon this easy model to such aggressive political agendas?

 

Of course this understanding wasn't, in practice, applied universally and there have been non conforming people in every time period, as well as redefining of gender, sex and sexuality which isn't well documented, but it's significant that a definition of gender which even erases and marginalises the whole of the LGBT+ population, can be defended with the same arguments which are used to exclude trans and non binary people. So what we are saying is, no, the binary model isn't easier or more useful as otherwise, we wouldn't have documented ways of how it harms scientific progress(for example the lack of research which happens around reproductive organs associated with assigned female at birth people), leads to the abuse of a number of prolific athletes(Caster Semenya and other cis women labelled as having an unfair advantage due to being intersex or perceived as too masculine which sometimes invites speculation about their sex, Fallon Fox and Patricio Manuel), the forced surgeries on intersex people and laws requiring sterilisation of trans people etc. These are not small issues with the existence of a gender binary, they do not allow us to just make an exception to the rule but require us to implement widespread changes in the understanding of gender and sex in law and thereafter in society, because it would be ludicrous to think that laws respecting a new understanding of gender wouldn't require society in general to adopt it.

 

Ironically I don't read queer theory. Trying to get into disability studies though and either way it's ridiculous to have a stance such as for or against an entire field of study, which probably contains both people you will agree and disagree with.

[MoraDollie]

I really wish queer/lgbt theory and history was explored more in both high school and college/university because it can be such a huge eye opener and help break down barriers (as well as get rid of misconceptions about the lgbt and related communities)

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

1 hour ago, FaesariPrincess said:

I really wish queer/lgbt theory and history was explored more in both high school and college/university because it can be such a huge eye opener and help break down barriers (as well as get rid of misconceptions about the lgbt and related communities)

I agree so much! I think it would have been amazing to learn more about political, feminist, queer/lgbt, race/postcolonial, disability studies early on but sadly I don't think it would happen nor would it be executed well without restructuring of schools in my opinion. People need to know just how wide ranging the views within these fields are, and more to the point, which views have legitimate arguments behind them and which are just plain bullying.

[MoraDollie]

24 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

I agree so much! I think it would have been amazing to learn more about political, feminist, queer/lgbt, race/postcolonial, disability studies early on but sadly I don't think it would happen nor would it be executed well without restructuring of schools in my opinion. People need to know just how wide ranging the views within these fields are, and more to the point, which views have legitimate arguments behind them and which are just plain bullying.

People also forget how much intersectionality has gone on with the LGBT community and other human sexuality communities (like kink and fetish) because of the lack of education when it comes to lgbt/queer theory and lgbt/queer history

[Calligraphette_Coe]

6 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

 

 

Ironically I don't read queer theory. Trying to get into disability studies though and either way it's ridiculous to have a stance such as for or against an entire field of study, which probably contains both people you will agree and disagree with.

I just want to put a big THIS on your entire post! Thank you SOOOO much!  I was just getting too compromised by emotion from the years of dealing with it. I think the best thing we as trans people can do is tell our stories. How I go to work every day and let agressive transphobia roll like water off a duck's back as much as I can. How I'm an asset to the people I work for- I hold the record for cost-saving innovations in the company that pay a gift card for each one accepted, and for the amount of money saved. And that amount is in the high thousands of dollars. But because of transphobia, the people I work for are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I'm told I'm too emotional, I'm a Cassandra, et al. But they keep taking my expertise and creativity even while they are gaslighting me and putting less qualified people in my former postions because of things like objecting to my long hair and feminine looks.

 

It really hurts when you open up to someone who has lured you into thinking they'd unconditionally like you for the support and nice things you did for them, yet when something that burdens or threatens no one is unveiled, they take off like they'd seen the Devil Incarnate. Like I'm trying to recruit them into the Army of Satan, when all I'm really trying to do is find some common ground and share that simplest and most enduring of human interaction, friendship with reciprocity, NOT Friends With Benefits.

 

After a lifetime of it, I almost look forward to Death sometimes. Having had a Near Death Experience, it was like I finally found some peace in it. IDK, I just feel there is more work I must do, but I'll be grateful for the peace.

 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

9 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I just want to put a big THIS on your entire post! Thank you SOOOO much!  I was just getting too compromised by emotion from the years of dealing with it. I think the best thing we as trans people can do is tell our stories. How I go to work every day and let agressive transphobia roll like water off a duck's back as much as I can. How I'm an asset to the people I work for- I hold the record for cost-saving innovations in the company that pay a gift card for each one accepted, and for the amount of money saved. And that amount is in the high thousands of dollars. But because of transphobia, the people I work for are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I'm told I'm too emotional, I'm a Cassandra, et al. But they keep taking my expertise and creativity even while they are gaslighting me and putting less qualified people in my former postions because of things like objecting to my long hair and feminine looks.

 

It really hurts when you open up to someone who has lured you into thinking they'd unconditionally like you for the support and nice things you did for them, yet when something that burdens or threatens no one is unveiled, they take off like they'd seen the Devil Incarnate. Like I'm trying to recruit them into the Army of Satan, when all I'm really trying to do is find some common ground and share that simplest and most enduring of human interaction, friendship with reciprocity, NOT Friends With Benefits.

 

After a lifetime of it, I almost look forward to Death sometimes. Having had a Near Death Experience, it was like I finally found some peace in it. IDK, I just feel there is more work I must do, but I'll be grateful for the peace.

 

Hey, because this is going off topic I thought I'd message you instead. But I'm really grateful that you enjoyed my comment. ❤️

[user23974865]

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

The irony here is a bit much though, because you're burdening Caligraphette_Coe with all of this information about your own problems while diminishing her own.

Those aren't my problems anymore. I have other problems today, but those ones are water under the bridge.

 

I don't see how I'm burdening anyone or diminishing anyone's problems. She implied I was only making excuses in order to "blame the victim". I was explaining how I wasn't. Rejection can certainly happen due to prejudice, but it's certainly not synonymous with it. When in doubt, isn't it better to assume that someone is rejecting closeness with you for their own personal reasons and their own flaws rather than because of something about you that you care a lot about? If it's someone you'll probably never see again, then you get to feel a little less crap about it. And if it's someone you might actually get in touch with again, you keep the door open for possible misunderstandings to be resolved. In a life of tiny probabilities, you need to hold on to the ones you get. It's not fair, but it's how it is.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

you don't understand how alienating it is to be closeted as a trans person

You're right. I don't.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

You ARE blaming the victim

Nope, I'm not.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Even for myself, I'm "out" but not really because I end up standing there while a professor misgenders me constantly to someone else and although in my own situation a part of the problem is my difficulty explaining myself, that DOES NOT change how gut wrenching it is to listen to these things.

Calligraphette often talks about stories of people really being awful to her, but to me this sounds like something else. It sounds like other people not picturing you the same way as you picture yourself (I'm not claiming to actually know your story, so correct me if I'm wrong). I can't say that it's not okay for you to feel bad about it, because we all feel bad about all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons and it's just how it is, and sometimes it is a big deal. But unless those people are doing it out of spite, it's not a situation with people "in the right" and people "in the wrong". It would be ideal if they would approach you according to your self-perception and everyone could just naturally agree on it, but a lot of the time that's simply not realistic, and forcing people to change their language against their actual impressions doesn't help.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Our experiences are evidence for others' transphobia, that's just a fact.

I won't deny that. What I'm talking about isn't whether it exists or not, but how I see it being approached.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

And you can shove off with the whole "aggressive political agenda" bullshit. The most aggressive political agendas I encounter are those who seek to marginalise and gatekeep the trans community.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. When I hear neuroscientists and sexology researchers talking about how they get threatened and personally attacked in their own institutions for simply researching certain things and presenting data that clash with certain political agendas (like "we're not blank slates, nurture plays a big role, but so does nature", or "it doesn't look like it's a good idea to encourage pre-pubescent children to undergo social or physical transition, especially because the vast majority of apparently dysphoric children simply turn out to be gay"), I think it's a strong sign that something has really gone awry.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Have you seen the cisgender people in your life vanish when you start embracing your gender identity?

I have seen people in my life vanish when i started being more open and genuine about various things at various points. I don't think it's helpful to overplay gender as something uniquely important. (Someone might say, "sure, we should advocate for your identity rights too, then", but that's something I specifically don't want. Wack-a-mole. I don't want to reduce myself to one facet of my being and then essentially encourage other people to do the same to me.)

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

It happens just as much now, as it did before we had feminist magazines to inform others about how sex and gender are a construct and we should ask others for their pronouns.

Yes. It doesn't help. It just gives rise to Jordan Petersons.

 

I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. A while ago, I went to a fast food joint, and the guy running it had an extreme female-like type of behavior (though he had regular male appearance). He seemed pretty confident at it, and I thought to myself that it was cool that someone felt safe to be that way in that kind of job (where he was kind of exposed, and where it would hurt his business if people actually were weirded out). I have no idea if he would prefer to be called he or she (there's no semblance of a feasible neutral alternative in my language). Now, imagining that I were there with someone else, and I referred to the guy as "he" and he then jokingly corrected me like, say, "'He'? Aw I'm hurt. I'm a lady, sir.", I would find it amusing and I would naturally join in on the notion and switch pronouns. I think most non-uptight people would. But if he, instead, only made it a point to show that he's offended (with or without addressing me directly about it), I would only be less inclined to switch pronouns (or would only do it begrudgingly to avoid conflict), and I would definitely be inclined to avoid the guy and his business. Again, I think most (or at least many) people would react the same way.

 

When the whole approach turns into "invalidated versus invalidators", people get typecast into catch-22 roles when there really didn't have to.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

we are still so outnumbered and marginalised that we don't actually have any influence on these things.

And that's one of the reasons why I don't think it's helpful to overplay gender specifically. It's part of a larger cultural problem (namely: intolerance by default).

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Of course this understanding wasn't, in practice, applied universally and there have been non conforming people in every time period

Yes, and I'll highlight this again: non-conformity isn't, by any means, specific to gender. Approaching it as if it were is a mistake.

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

but require us to implement widespread changes in the understanding of gender and sex in law and thereafter in society

This is where I get very skeptical (I started a thread specifically about it a while ago): can politicians and the law actually take the lead over culture without doing more harm than good? I can't know it for sure any more than anyone else, but I really doubt that it can. If nothing else, it's one of the political issues most prone to exploitation by demagogues ("do what's popular among your voters first, think about consequences later").

 

14 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Trying to get into disability studies though and either way it's ridiculous to have a stance such as for or against an entire field of study

I'm not specifically referring to what's being studied, but how it's being approached and advocated. If the information and the impressions about it that reach me are actually a minority in the field (which is something I just don't know), then the fact that this is the information and the impressions that reach me is in itself an issue. Because, contrary to the stated goals, it doesn't make me any more sympathetic to the cause, even if I am sympathetic to the people individually. And again I really don't think I'm alone in this.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

 

3 hours ago, burobu said:

 

Calligraphette often talks about stories of people really being awful to her, but to me this sounds like something else. It sounds like other people not picturing you the same way as you picture yourself (I'm not claiming to actually know your story, so correct me if I'm wrong).

You're wrong. That was the sound of me correcting you.  I'm pretty androgynous and often get  ma'am'd out in public, and ALL the trouble starts when they start seeing me a more trans than androgynous. Not that ANY form of gender variance doesn't draw a certain amount of backlash, but some draw more than others. I don't see how you can possible know this if you havn't spent any time being gender variant. If you've never experienced even a scintilla of gender dyshoria and you haven't studied it anywhere other than the University of Internet Explorer, how can you offer anything but a misinformed opinion?

[user23974865]

5 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

If you've never experienced even a scintilla of gender dyshoria and you haven't studied it anywhere other than the University of Internet Explorer, how can you offer anything but a misinformed opinion?

It seems to be the price of being on the internet: you're often demanded a stance on this, often at unexpected moments and in unexpected places, and then you're judged according to your answer (sometimes in quite unexpected ways). If that weren't the case, I probably wouldn't be thinking about this, other than in situations like that time at that fast food joint. If my opinion is misinformed, it's because I at least try to have an opinion, instead of simply going full-on counter-attack mode as soon as the first random person somewhere calls me a nazi for reasons that I don't understand.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

14 minutes ago, burobu said:

It seems to be the price of being on the internet: you're often demanded a stance on this, often at unexpected moments and in unexpected places, and then you're judged according to your answer (sometimes in quite unexpected ways). If that weren't the case, I probably wouldn't be thinking about this, other than in situations like that time at that fast food joint. If my opinion is misinformed, it's because I at least try to have an opinion, instead of simply going full-on counter-attack mode as soon as the first random person somewhere calls me a nazi for reasons that I don't understand.

Well, the thing about  opinions is sometimes, it's like the 15 year old who is of the opinon that their parents are idiots. Then they go to college and get a job and then come back home at age 22 , only to be amazed at how much their parents learned in just 7 years.

[user23974865]

9 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

Well, the thing about  opinions is sometimes, it's like the 15 year old who is of the opinon that their parents are idiots. Then they go to college and get a job and then come back home at age 22 , only to be amazed at how much their parents learned in just 7 years.

I can't make heads or tails of your analogy. I can see that you're saying something negative about it/about me, but I can't see how trying to build my opinions by debating with people who don't agree with me is a bad thing. Debating with people who already agree with me won't do much anything.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

6 hours ago, burobu said:

I can't make heads or tails of your analogy. I can see that you're saying something negative about it/about me, but I can't see how trying to build my opinions by debating with people who don't agree with me is a bad thing. Debating with people who already agree with me won't do much anything.

I don't need to debate my feelings, my experiences  or how they made me feel with you. Since you haven't had them, what would be the point? You're not an audience of one here, so take what I say with a grain of salt or bile, whatever. It's not my job to 'win' such arguments, I'm here to add to the discussion and share experiences with others who are like me.  I already spent too much time defending myself. So if it makes you happy to declare yourserlf the winner, knock yourself out and be happy.  You probably can't make heads or tails of the Fourier Transform, but that doesn't limit its usefulness to people who _do_. 

 

And once you start debating about debating? It's somewhat like Godwin's Law-- the debate is over. And you don't get points for being obstinate.

[user23974865]

8 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

And once you start debating about debating? It's somewhat like Godwin's Law-- the debate is over. And you don't get points for being obstinate.

There's not much an alternative left when people suggest that I shouldn't even have a stance or opinion on this to begin with -- and then later on when I least expect I'm demanded a stance anyway. It's my point all along: it seems to be a dogmatic way of thinking, and that seems to be a significant part of the zeitgeist. Roads paved with eggshells.

 

Simply "winning arguments" helps me almost as little as debating with people who totally agree with me. I want to understand how to avoid catch-22's. If I'm calm here, it's not because it doesn't bother me to be seen as "the bad guy" when I have no intention to be so, it's because I knew I should expect a backlash. I'm not taking opportunities to face against you or anyone in particular (and I'm not here to invalidate anyone -- just as I'm not here to validate anyone either). I'm taking opportunities to face my own triggers in controlled situations so that I don't freak out and lash out when it does take me by surprise. Predicted conflict (with the chance to take turns to breathe and think) is a relatively small price to pay compared to uncontrolled spiraling conflict.

 

If you find that there's no benefit in continuing the back-and-forth, you don't have to. I don't consider you as an opponent.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

5 hours ago, burobu said:

I want to understand how to avoid catch-22's. If I'm calm here, it's not because it doesn't bother me to be seen as "the bad guy" when I have no intention to be so, it's because I knew I should expect a backlash. I'm not taking opportunities to face against you or anyone in particular (and I'm not here to invalidate anyone -- just as I'm not here to validate anyone either). I'm taking opportunities to face my own triggers in controlled situations so that I don't freak out and lash out when it does take me by surprise. Predicted conflict (with the chance to take turns to breathe and think) is a relatively small price to pay compared to uncontrolled spiraling conflict.

From Joseph Heller's Catch 22, on how I look at the str8 world trying to dissect Queer Theory:

 

Quote

 "Catch 22," old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. “Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.” 
“What the hell are you talking about?” Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. “How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?” 
“The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. ‘Did we do anything wrong?’ they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. ‘Then why are you chasing us out?’ the girls said. ‘Catch-22,’ the men said. ‘What right do you have?’ the girls said. ‘Catch-22,’ the men said. All they kept saying was ‘Catch-22, Catch-22.’ What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?” 
“Didn’t they show it to you?” Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. “Didn’t you even make them read it?” 
“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.” 
“What law says they don’t have to?” 
“Catch-22.”

Really sums up perfectly the argument against transgenderism by those who aren't, doesn't it?

[user23974865]

Is there a way I can not be "the bad guy" (rather than just "a participant") in interactions where every attempt of mine to reconcile different angles or to identify where I and someone else might be talking past each other is taken as a personal attack or as some sort of attempt at competition, in a discussion that was never meant to be personal? I know one and only one way: keeping my distance and avoiding altogether anyone who I suspect would be like that toward me, including people who might actually not be like that. It's definitely not a solution that I'm happy with, but it's the only realistic one for me.

 

If you believe that yes, I should just stay away instead of trying my limited best to talk about such things, and if that is the generally accepted stance here, then I'll leave. Unsatisfied with the conclusion, but I'll leave. I've ventured out of my comfort zone, and I'm close to my limits by now.

 

Or, okay, I'll make it easier. I won't assume that you believe I should or shouldn't stay away. I'll just leave, for this reason as well as other unrelated ones. I'm just tired right now.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

3 hours ago, burobu said:

Is there a way I can not be "the bad guy" (rather than just "a participant") in interactions where every attempt of mine to reconcile different angles or to identify where I and someone else might be talking past each other is taken as a personal attack or as some sort of attempt at competition, in a discussion that was never meant to be personal? I know one and only one way: keeping my distance and avoiding altogether anyone who I suspect would be like that toward me, including people who might actually not be like that. It's definitely not a solution that I'm happy with, but it's the only realistic one for me.

 

If you believe that yes, I should just stay away instead of trying my limited best to talk about such things, and if that is the generally accepted stance here, then I'll leave. Unsatisfied with the conclusion, but I'll leave. I've ventured out of my comfort zone, and I'm close to my limits by now.

 

Or, okay, I'll make it easier. I won't assume that you believe I should or shouldn't stay away. I'll just leave, for this reason as well as other unrelated ones. I'm just tired right now.

Lose the hairshirt and _communicate_ instead of this brand of editorial equivocating. Not to mention the "Well, I'M going to my ball and go home, you meanies! " theatrics. 

 

Want to talk about comfort zones? When was the first time you put on makeup, and a modest dress and passed as a woman in public? Think THAT was a walk in the park? Sure, you _could_ say, "Why would  I do that?" and I'd answer you with "You're the one who wants to know. I already do. I know how bad it feels to get clocked but I also know how fearful I was the first few times." And that it was bittersweet validation, but it didn't last.

 

Ever been hit on by a heterosexual guy, and found out what happens when they don't want to take 'NO' for an answer because you know that they know that I'm pre-op everything, but they 'have a thing'. Can  you imagine this converstaion? " I can't believe you're not an actual woman, babe. You are SO hot! I like you girls because you're more understanding of what a man really needs and you'll give to me without my having to woo you. 'Cause you KNOW how bad we need it, don't you?'

 

Ever been in that situaion? Because it's not as arousing at it sounds, when you personally knew people who got beat up when they submitted and then there was buyer's remorse? And the guy got major gay panic and wanted to deep six the evidence?

 

See, you don't know any of this, if my calcualtions about your _real_ knowledge of transgenderism are correct. You really just don't know. 

 

And no, if you did work up the nerve to try that little experiment, it absolutely wouldn't 'turn you queer'. It doesn't work that way. But you MIGHT be a little more humble about passing out 'advice', you might be sadder but wiser and you wouldnt be trying to fix what can't  be fixed...... because it's really not broken, it just doesn't fit well with the larger, dominate culture.