You have good intentions marurun, don't think I don't see them...but as they say, there's a certain path, to a certain place, and it's paved with 'em.
marurun wrote:I haven't seen that they are co-opting intersex conditions. They are merely used to illustrate that GENDER has only a loose affiliation with the biology of SEX. Just as skin color is more important than actual heritage, gender presentation is more important to us as a society than underlying sex. Those who contend otherwise don't understand the cultural underpinning of gender and the inherent fluidity of gender.
I defined sex (male/female) and gender (sex-role stereotypes) already. Intersex is a rare, but normal aberration in sexual dimorphism, where the person is not distinctly identifiable as male or female. That person is subject to the oppression of gender just like any other, and may develop a gender identity that is incongruent with their biological sex characteristics. (aka, an intersex person can be transgender...or not.) The existence of intersex people however, does not support, or have anything to do with occurrences of transgender people. Is that clear? They are completely different conditions, one being a physical anomaly, the other being a psychiatric one. Intersex is commonly used as this "proof" that "see, see, it's not all just male/female", which is co-opting an unrelated conditition to gain legitimacy for another. Intersex people are commonly (and have every right to be) angry about this co-opting.
Yes, gender conformity is very important, especially in Westernized society, and yes, it hurts everyone's freedom of expression. Gender is not fluid -- in fact, gender is very rigid. It's personal expression that's fluid, and THAT conflicts with gender. However, gender is not more important than biological sex -- to assert so is to completely erase and deny the realities of being female or male, as if becoming so is as easy as changing outfits. This is completely false, damaging and more offensive than anything that's been said in this thread by far.
marurun wrote:I think history has shown us quite well that men and women (which are gender terms, not sex terms) can, in fact, successfully live in each others' roles. This is not some insurmountable task. Socialization is very important, but it is not everything, and it can be overcome, co-opted, etc...
Socialization cannot be overcome. It can be supplemented, but it cannot be unlearned. A male who is transgender cannot co-opt "female" identity, no more so than a female who is transgender cannot co-opt "male" identity. They can perform gender to such a degree that they conform to society's expectations, but they will never be "female" or "male". They may be able to "pass" as "women" or "men", but dig up that skeleton when they're dead, and you'll be looking at adult human male and adult human female. It's immutable.
marurun wrote:No, this isn't concealing SEX. It is concealing GENDER. Sex is actually quite irrelevant in our society beyond reproduction (easily stopped) and external manifestation of genitalia (easily changed). The act of having sex is, in western culture, completely severed from the role of sex in reproduction (save that reproduction is a potential consequence). Since external genital manifestation is now ultimately fluid and alterable, the primary factor is indeed gender presentation and not sex.
I see a lot in your arguments of this putting biology on a pedestal. Human history has clearly demonstrated that culture can be equal, and in some cases greater, than any number of biological factors. Biology has some strict limitations (like death, and taxes... wait, that's not biological), but also some that are easily subverted. Gender is what we have built on top of sex, but we didn't build it on top of the genetics of sex, but merely the outward manifestations of sex. And the outward manifestations of sex don't always line up with our chromosomes, especially, but not exclusively, in this day and age. That means that society is ultimately concerned with our physical presentation, and not with our genetics. That is why intersex conditions are important to the trans community. Those conditions demonstrate how, ultimately, sex is not strictly tied to gender. It demonstrates that, despite how tightly many conservatives and traditionalists cling to rote and restrictive gender definitions, gender has fluidity and interpretation built-in because of the flawed basis of its assignment.
I'm not sure we can use socialized homophobia as a rationalization for making concealing ones transition from a sexual partner a greater issue than any other pre- or post-bedroom deception. That strikes me as a dangerous direction. (Not-great example warning) My phobia of needles doesn't mean I can get out of necessary inoculations, or that I am in any way absolved from punching a doctor should he or she attempt to force one on me. As mentioned before, STDs have material affects on partners. Those are important to disclose. I think one's transition is also important to disclose, but the effect of that non-disclosure is highly interpretational. And there is a risk to such disclosures. Trans folks are always at risk of harassment and violence, and still have high rates of suicide as a result of that harassment and violence. Reveal that history to the wrong person and you just opened yourself up to horrible abuse.
No, it is not concealing GENDER, it is concealing SEX. This is what I mean about conflating the two, it is dangerous to assert that one is simply concealing their "gender identity" rather than their biological sex. Yes, surgery that amounts to some incredible body modification is possible, moreso in favour of the male transgender than the female, but possible all the same. However, that's just looks. A fully functioning vagina is no more able to be created than a fully functioning penis. They look like approximations of their real counterparts but they don't feel, smell, function or operate as their real counterparts do. In the case of male transgender people, the body considers the surgical outcome a wound, and will continually attempt to heal it...and a procedure known as "dilating" is necessary to prevent it from closing. In the case of female transgender people, they are left with horrific wounds from the area(s) that skin grafts are taken from, and the resulting "penis" can still be rejected by the body and sloughed off as dead tissue. That's if the surgeries were done, we haven't even touched on transgender people who maintain their biology and simply assert it using language "lady stick", or "my dick" in the case of clitoral enlargement. Do you see? These are issues related to biological sex, not "gender identity".
I am not putting biology on a pedestal. I am saying that it MATTERS to the discussion. There are biological realities that matter when having this discussion and dissecting the jokes. These realities are not "easily subverted", they are NEVER subverted. I piss on queer theory because it attempts to pass exactly the assertion that you are -- that sex is no biggie, gender is what matters, if you say you're female you're female, if you say you're male you're male.
You have to understand that I am not denying that transgender people exist, nor am I taking aim at their personal sense of gender identity, or anyone else's perception of their gender identity, if they even feel they have one. I am simply asserting that biological sex is important, it matters, and it cannot be erased, conflated or muddled in order to provide sensitivity to people who struggle with their gender identity. It's pandering to suggest that biological sex is of no consequence, and as damaging to people that aren't transgender as it is to people that are.
As I said, internalized homophobia is a different and much longer discussion that really has no place in this discussion -- but is in fact one of the leading reasons why "trans panic" laws exist at all. Your example regarding needles is so poor that I can't even address it.
marurun wrote:It is about privilege and power. When a privileged group pokes fun at a disenfranchised group, it becomes very difficult to disentangle the language of humor from the language oppression. That is why black people in the US can refer to each other as "nigger" but white people who do so are deemed racist. White is the privileged skin color in the US, and that term is derogatory in the hands of the privileged, and a subversion of privilege in the hands of the under-privileged. So yes, I think we SHOULD all concede that poking fun at trans-folk is in poor taste. It isn't illegal, and one is free to make whatever bad choices one wants, in the name of humor or whatever, but it IS in poor taste.
We should also note that occasionally poor taste makes for great humor, but only if handled very well. Carlin was a master of this. Others end up only putting a target on themselves (to co-opt your language), because they lack the subtlety or intelligence to walk that very fine line.
There it is again, being told what I SHOULD consider "poor taste", and being lectured about privilege to boot. I will accept, understand and fight for what you or anyone else feels is "poor taste", but I will not be forced into considering it "poor taste" myself simply because you do. You dig?
This discussion always ends up in a place where someone tries to parallel the politics of race...race parallels biological sex quite nicely, being that both are things that are born, innate, testable, provable and the "hands that you were dealt". Being born black sets you up for an oppression entirely separate from (but can be applied in concert with) the oppression of gender based on your biological sex. It is not a choice. We currently have no method to prove whether or not being anything on the LGBTQ+ spectrum is innate...and given that people CAN choose to be L, G, B, T or Q regardless of whether they feel there is any biological basis for it...it becomes difficult if not impossible to parallel with race. You cannot choose your "heritage", but you can choose to adopt the sex-role stereotypes of your preferred sex class...transgender or not transgender.
marurun wrote:So the line "if you want to be offended, go read some queer theory" is somehow not intended to offend anyone... Right. Yeah, I see how aren't belittling anyone.
There is, no doubt, some writing within the LGBT camp that is misinformation, but LGBT issues are more social than biological. Biology is involved, but we still don't fully understand all the relationships. Science tells us quite a bit, but when it comes to LGBT issues, science tells us very little right now, and what it does tell us is often at odds with itself. Contradictory evidence is going to be shaky at best given how poorly we understand these connections.
I think this discussion is pretty much over. We've covered the topics, and I don't see any productive motion forward from here. Between us it appears there will be no middle ground on this issue.
I will say, however, that I am offended by some of your language use. I'm not offended by the fact that you hold a differing opinion, but your presentation is, to me, problematic. I don't know if you are privileged, and I would be wrong to speculate about that, but you use the language and assumptions of privilege, and that is where this discussion offends.
Queer theory is highly offensive to just about everyone. Again, I suggest you read some, coupled with post-modernist feminist theory if you really want to go for the one-two punch. You would understand why I say this if you were familiar with the material. It's the fundamental basis for what we're talking about here.
The majority of LGBTQ+ issues are social issues, not biological ones. Biological realities cannot be subverted or co-opted to ignore or support the things that do not lend progress to the social issues. To ignore biology is to erase an entire sex-class (female/male) in the interests of progressing a social issue for a population of people who assert that "female" or "male" are nothing more than an "identity" that can be put on like a new outfit. They aren't. It cannot be ignored within the broader context of the discussion, nor downplayed to not "hurt people's feelings" or to be sensitive to the reality that transgender people exist. They absolutely exist...but they exist on two planes, one of biological reality and one in conflict with the oppression provided by gender.
