I’d personally separate “one’s sense of sex” and “one’s sense of how to behave as it is informed by gendered expectations, one’s sense of sex, and one’s decisions to ignore or accept these things” into two separate boxes, and I think one of the huge flaws in trans discussions is that these two things are not kept separate.
I wasn't aware the issues aren't separate, which is why I've been continually confused by the 'transgender' label -- because for a long time, I thought it was in distinction to being 'transexual', and just couldn't grasp why anyone would bother. I mean, it's behaviors. It's not at all at the level of changing one's sex.
Of course, that separation is much easier to do so long as we are talking about a sex binary...
But is that really true? I mean, if we say "sex" and we mean it as "the state of your biology" then wouldn't we already have a non-binary system anyway? I mean, it kinda raises the question of how we define what qualifies as a "sex". If you have an extra chromosone? If you were born with rudimentary organs of the opposite sex? It's already a messy question, if you really deconstruct it under society's simplistic answers, which are usually for the sake of not having to see the messiness underneath -- but that's why we have philosophers and artists, to ask the messy questions anyway.
Anyway, snark about artists aside, I can see that the mainstream western culture presumes "male or female," but this isn't true for all cultures, nor, I would argue, is it a biological truth. So I guess I fail to see the good in going along with societal simplifications that it's just a shoebox when that shoebox, in other lights, is an entire mansion. Although perhaps this may be segueing into the whole 'take-back-the-words' kind of thing that it seems every subculture goes through at some point, in some way.
I am, in fact, puzzled and uncomfortable with those who label themselves as crossgender or genderqueer or transgender but don’t have issue with their biological sex – because that does grant gender-as-gendered-behavior an existence that is harmful.
I actually find it duplicitous, depending on the use or apparent intent. I have that reaction (and it is partially what prompted this post in the first place) when it feels like the person is claiming cross-gender (but without cross-sex issue) for the sake of saying they're equally oppressed. I try to be supportive (or at least refrain from bursting out in mocking laughter on the person's journal), but come on. The fact that you prefer to wear jeans and know how to change a tire may make you unconventional in your femininity per the more narrow-minded among our culture, but it does not freaking make you an object of oppression. Maybe sometimes a bit of pressure to be less mechanically-inclined, but that's just not the same at all as someone living in a skin that doesn't fit them, and I resent anyone who tries to play on my sympathies as though the two were equivalent.
[And when I feel very snarky, I want to say: yes, and last week I went to the drug store and they had NO ORANGE FINGERNAIL POLISH. They're discriminating against redheads who can't wear pink tones. BAHSTAHDS! I'M BEING OPPRESSED! ...because that's about as seriously as I can take the claim when my spidey sense tells me someone's jerking my chain solely for the purposes of winning a spot in the oppression olympics.]
no subject
Date: 6 Mar 2010 05:27 am (UTC)I wasn't aware the issues aren't separate, which is why I've been continually confused by the 'transgender' label -- because for a long time, I thought it was in distinction to being 'transexual', and just couldn't grasp why anyone would bother. I mean, it's behaviors. It's not at all at the level of changing one's sex.
Of course, that separation is much easier to do so long as we are talking about a sex binary...
But is that really true? I mean, if we say "sex" and we mean it as "the state of your biology" then wouldn't we already have a non-binary system anyway? I mean, it kinda raises the question of how we define what qualifies as a "sex". If you have an extra chromosone? If you were born with rudimentary organs of the opposite sex? It's already a messy question, if you really deconstruct it under society's simplistic answers, which are usually for the sake of not having to see the messiness underneath -- but that's why we have philosophers and artists, to ask the messy questions anyway.
Anyway, snark about artists aside, I can see that the mainstream western culture presumes "male or female," but this isn't true for all cultures, nor, I would argue, is it a biological truth. So I guess I fail to see the good in going along with societal simplifications that it's just a shoebox when that shoebox, in other lights, is an entire mansion. Although perhaps this may be segueing into the whole 'take-back-the-words' kind of thing that it seems every subculture goes through at some point, in some way.
I am, in fact, puzzled and uncomfortable with those who label themselves as crossgender or genderqueer or transgender but don’t have issue with their biological sex – because that does grant gender-as-gendered-behavior an existence that is harmful.
I actually find it duplicitous, depending on the use or apparent intent. I have that reaction (and it is partially what prompted this post in the first place) when it feels like the person is claiming cross-gender (but without cross-sex issue) for the sake of saying they're equally oppressed. I try to be supportive (or at least refrain from bursting out in mocking laughter on the person's journal), but come on. The fact that you prefer to wear jeans and know how to change a tire may make you unconventional in your femininity per the more narrow-minded among our culture, but it does not freaking make you an object of oppression. Maybe sometimes a bit of pressure to be less mechanically-inclined, but that's just not the same at all as someone living in a skin that doesn't fit them, and I resent anyone who tries to play on my sympathies as though the two were equivalent.
[And when I feel very snarky, I want to say: yes, and last week I went to the drug store and they had NO ORANGE FINGERNAIL POLISH. They're discriminating against redheads who can't wear pink tones. BAHSTAHDS! I'M BEING OPPRESSED! ...because that's about as seriously as I can take the claim when my spidey sense tells me someone's jerking my chain solely for the purposes of winning a spot in the oppression olympics.]