#and if adhering to the binary gender norms is how i can be validated in my gender then so be it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Users from the US are the majority of Tumblr visitors.

#and if adhering to the binary gender norms is how i can be validated in my gender then so be it

allyrunshermouth · 1 year

Text

struggling with identities.

hello! for my fourth blog post, i will be discussing another somewhat personal topic. as a queer black woman living in our current society, i often feel the need to conform to a certain standard. i use they/she pronouns and would love to proudly say i am non-binary, but the fact that i will not be perceived as such outside of queer spaces is invalidating. not only because i want to be perceived for who i know i am, but also because i feel as if i am betraying my black womanhood and my sense of self as a whole. having lived the majority of my life as a cis black woman, there have been experiences that i can not distance myself from or just erase. there is no undoing sitting in between my mom’s legs for hours on end getting my hair braided or being dragged to church on sundays with my entire family. this feeling is polarizing, but while doing some research, i realized that i am not the only one dealing with this feeling. it’s actually quite common amongst people like me. i found two articles that helped me feel better about this internal battle i’ve been having, and i am excited to discuss it further in today’s post.

one of the reasons why i feel as if i would be abandoning my experience as a black woman if i did come out as non-binary is due to how different it is from being a woman within any other race. now, i have not lived my life as any other race, it's simply not possible, nor am i diminishing anyone’s experience (they are entirely valid). but, me, along with other black women, have had to live our lives conforming to societal standards in order to survive, and even then that doesn’t always work. black women are hypersexualized and masculinized on a daily basis, making some of us have to be hyperfeminine or dim ourselves down to prove our worthiness and not cause problems. we have to look, talk, and behave in a certain way in an attempt to avoid these things and be accepted in society. but then, we look at social media and see things that have been deemed “ghetto” for us be seen as “cool and trendy” on women of other races. is our way of womanhood not acceptable enough for the current belief of what it is? or is it only acceptable when exhibited by other women? writers zee monteiro and mare leon answered this question in their works: the current idea of womanhood is not something that is granted to black women, which is why we had to create our own experience.

another reason for all of this is the fact that the gender binary is rooted in racism. the ideas behind what is considered feminine and masculine are all centered around whiteness, making it so those who fall outside of that lens are treated differently if they do not adhere to those standards. there is a different standard placed on black women, and it is a standard that is rooted in racist stereotypes. this is the reason why you will often see groups of us together. we created our own form of womanhood because we are all aware of this standard, which leads us to flock together in an effort to feel that sense of belongingness that we are denied. however, this just feels like more reason to leave the gender binary. yes, things like misogynoir bring black women together, but leaving this gendered idea will not remove those experiences no matter what we do. mare leon touches on this in their work and stated, “i can value and share the love and adoration of black womanhood within the limitations and celebrations of black womanhood and still not be within the binary. my ability to be fluid is simply being human.”

overall, i do not think that this will ever stop being an internal conflict within myself, but it does bring me peace to know that i am not the only one who feels the same way. but, one thing i will remind myself of when i am feeling doubtful is a quote from monteiro’s article in which they stated, “i cannot let the western societal norms, which have also been taken over by many black individuals, tell me how to move within my own body.” i deserve to live a life of happiness no matter how i identify, all that matters is that i stay true to myself.

0 notes

catboyfeli · 4 years

Text

even though i don’t identify as a cis girl anymore, i’m still so fucking passionate about atypical cishets? because god, back when i ided as a cis girl, i constantly felt like shit for my attraction to men being abnormal and more similar to gay men’s experiences.

people think being cishet is fitting into cisheteronormativity but? it’s not??? cishets who crossdress, present gnc or androgynous, behave gnc or androgynous, feel a disconnect from their gender due to not fitting into gender roles, relate more to the opposite sex, face misdirected homo/transphobia, take on the opposite gender role in society/relationships, etc. exist.

because like? gender isn’t just “oh i identify as my agab, being a male, so i fit into the male gender role” nor is it “oh i’m a masculine woman but i still fit perfectly into the female gender role despite how different my experiences are from most women”

i’m just so passionate about this and i wish it was a more well known issue. it makes me hate the hate towards straight and cis people in lgbtq spaces even more than i already did. i think maybe that’s also part of why so many young people id as nonbinary now, because being cishet is “wrong” and “easy” even though being queer at all would make you lgbtq, even if you’re not trans or sga/ssa.

i just wanna give gnc cishets all the love in the world because they fuckin deserve it and shouldn’t feel pressures to id as something they’re not to get ACTUAL support. gnc people experience things so differently from gender conforming people, and there’s no support for cishet ones and that saddens the hell out of me

just? imagine being a very feminine cishet man who gets bullied for ‘being gay’ and struggles to find a woman who’s open to dating him when he takes on the feminine role in a relationship? and presents and behaves femininely? maybe gets mistaken as a girl depending on how he presents? doesn’t relate to the typical ‘male’ experience? relates more to womanhood despite identifying as a man? imagine getting no support for this? imagine being treated the same as your oppressors even though they oppress you as well, just in different ways? imagine being shunned out of queer spaces despite being queer just b/c you’re not lgbt, even though lgbt and lgbtq aren’t the same thing?

i use men as an example since gnc women are a LITTLE more accepted than gnc men, but only a little bit.

...maybe i’m too empathetic. idk. maybe i’ll make a blog for it. idk. i just know how i felt when i identified as a cis girl, and how i still feel now due to my lingering connection with being female, and it’s so isolating and makes you fucking hate yourself. i mean, i was/am bi, but my attraction to men was just so atypical, meanwhile my attraction to women wasn’t, and it felt like i could never talk about it or else i was ‘actually straight uwu’ and no one would understand anyway. no one understands nOW what it’s like to be attracted exclusively to feminine, gnc, queer, etc. men and how different it is from being attracted to the average man, how different it is as a female to be attracted exclusively to those types of men (types who are usually gay and therefore not into you), esp when hetero attraction is shit on by the lgbtq community lol, even if that attraction doesn’t conform to the standard (which would be queer by definition, but y’know)

i just hate tumblr and lgbtq culture’s way of acting like hetero attraction and experiences are all the same and all fit into the cisheteronormative mold, cause lemme tell you, i would’ve fucking killed to have gotten some hetero content i could ACTUALLY relate to and enjoy, esp without people saying it’s “””lesser””” than gay content lol. oh and let’s not forget how i could never talk about this without people saying “shut up straightie you have tons of content” like :))) genuinely fuck you.

even now, i can’t help but wonder if i’m really nonbinary or just subconsciously started identifying as such to feel more valid in my experiences. is my dysphoria gender related or do i just feel a disconnect from my gender due to the things i listed above???

a m/f relationship doesn’t inherently conform to cisheteronormativity!! a m/f relationship can be queer and you genuinely cannot change my mind on that!! i want content of a very feminine gnc man dating a very mascuilne gnc girl!! like a ‘twink’ dating a ‘butch’ for example!! that’s all i want god dammit!!!!!! maybe they even get mistaken as a gay couple sometimes who knows!!! and if you don’t like me using the word queer then pretend i used atypical instead!! the point is that atypical cishets deserve!! pride and support!!! and REPRESENTATION!!

i dunno. if anyone actually read all this and wants to help out with a blog for some gnc support/positivity then let me know. it’d be geared towards cisgender people who experience atypical heterosexual attraction, but be for anyone gnc in the end. i’m just... very passionate about this. it’s one of the things i’m most passionate about due to my own experiences, and i don’t really feel comfortable in the lgbtq community due to all of this shit. i don’t like my experiences, feelings, and struggles being erased. i don’t like m/f relationships being seen as inherently cisheteronormative. i don’t like cishets being shit on. i don’t like there being no representation for queer/atypical m/f couples. i don’t like there being no support for these people when!! they deserve it!! and belong at pride just as much as anyone else!!!!

when i say straight people deserve pride, i’m not referring to your typical straight person. i’m referring to the different ones, the ones that don’t conform to binary gender norms, the ones that face misdirected homo/transphobia, the ones that are queer, the ones that give a big “fuck you” to cisheteronormativity. and no, this does not mean that i think a guy liking pink would be queer; that’s not what i’m saying at all. liking things that are girly is different from being gnc. liking baking and clothes designing is very different from being a man who navigates society and relationships differently due to not conforming to the ‘male’ gender role.

not conforming to gender roles and being nonbinary are different but similar and valid things. i just... yeah. i could go on for hours, but i won’t. i just hope maybe someone out there understands what i’m trying to say. i want to make a difference and end the idea that cishets all conform to cisheteronormativity and don’t belong at pride. because yeah, ofc your typical cishet doesn’t need pride, but atypical ones? they’re more than deserving of it. they deserve to be proud in a society that shits on them for not adhering to their strict standards of how a person is ‘supposed’ to be. maybe i can turn ‘atypical cishet’ into a term, idk. i just want atypical cishets and those who experience atypical hetero attraction to have a community. maybe i could make a blog like that, too?

god i spent over an hour typing this up you can tell i’m passionate about it esp considering no one’s gonna read it (and if they do, will just get mad probably lol)

#wren speaks #long post #vent #ignore #queer #queer word #q word

5 notes · View notes

badmousestuff-blog · 5 years

Text

CPGB-ML Final Report

A Marxist-Leninist case against the CPGB-ML’s reactionary stances on gender identity

I would like to note that the CPGB-ML is hardly worth writing an entire article about alone. Were it simply an outlier case, this party would merit no investigation. However, while they certainly epitomize the worst reactionary elements within the Left on the issue of LGBT+ rights, the fact is that echoes of this sentiment can be found across the Left in a variety of flavors and intensities. It speaks to an unwillingness to employ the actual theory underlying Marxism, and instead relies on vacuous notions of gender, race, and so on that are treated as self-evident, eternal truths that are not engaged with historically, if indeed they are engaged with in any scientific capacity whatsoever. This approach fails whole swathes of the working class in its failure to meaningfully engage with their conditions beyond pure, abstract class struggle.

If we are to criticize the CPGB-ML on their stances as Marxist-Leninists ourselves, it necessarily must be done through the lens of dialectical materialism, as it is foundational to ML theory and practice. We cannot simply declare their opposition to identity politics to be “reactionary” without justification; baseless dismissal and name-calling is pointless sectarianism. In the same light, we cannot hide behind identity politics just because it is being attacked in a reactionary fashion. Instead, we must demonstrate the need to introduce the class element back into our discussion and action regarding identity rather than rejecting all ideas about identity wholesale, so that these disparate movements can be directed at the true source of their oppression and not accept meager concessions by bourgeois society.

However, I must admit that this argument will be somewhat simplistic, though somewhat lengthy; partly for ease of explanation, and additionally for the purpose of meeting time constraints. Some details may be glossed over in the course of putting forth this argument. While I believe it to be sufficiently strong as a counter-argument to the vague arguments of the CPGB-ML et al., under no circumstances should it be seen as an authoritative end to the discussion, nor should it be treated as a source in and of itself. Rather, it should be seen as (a) an attempt to provide a summary of the various ideas it draws upon, (b) a more complete argument for LGBT+ struggles from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, rather than several disconnected articles touching on the subject, and (c) an effort to do away with the dismissive chauvinism that has occasionally characterized discussion among Marxists upon this very issue.

I will provide references to the sources at the end of this document. Given the non-academic nature of this document, I have elected not to adhere strictly to formatting with respect to in-line citations and references, and will simply append references to the source material that most directly informs this argument at the end of this document.

PART ONE—The case for LGBT+ issues as class issues

If we are to form our critique, it is necessary to determine the function of gender roles (specifically binary gender roles, or simply ‘the gender binary’) within capitalist society. To that end, we would clearly do well to discern how gender roles came to be in the first place. While this piece will not exhaustively cover the historical progression of these roles, it is necessary to at least put forth a rudimentary explanation of their formation and evolution. From there, we can examine their role in capitalism, the important connection it has to LGBT+ struggles, and the intersection between normative gender roles and other systems of capitalist oppression. With this, we can avoid the vulgar materialism and often outright metaphysical idealism of the CPGB-ML without resorting to faulty assertions of our own.

I. Sex and gender are both constructs

The naive suggestion often put forth is that these roles are a logical consequence of natural sexual differentiation, but this is simply not the case. While there may be a case to be made for biology playing a part in the beginning of gendered division of labor, biology alone does not determine nor explain why women occupy a subordinate position in capitalist society, or indeed any class society where women occupy such a position. This is not to mention the vague ways in which ‘biology’ is often appealed to when putting forth such claims about the oppression of women. It is not ‘self-evident’ or ‘common sense’ that the division of labor between men and women (and indeed, even the mere existence of those two categories) is natural; even if it were, it is undialectical. Nothing is “just so,” it is a product of what comes before, and gives rise to what comes after.

Biology itself, as mentioned, is also vaguely defined, so much so as to be useless. If by biology we mean “genetics,” then the two assumed categories of XY men and XX women are insufficient to explain the other chromosomal configurations which produce perfectly valid people who are still considered men and women. If we instead mean to refer to, say, menstruation and pregnancy as necessary identifiers of womanhood, then sterile women and women who do not menstruate could not count; yet, we still consider them to be women. If, again, we mean gonads, then there are people with both sets, or gonads that do not match what is expected by their secondary sex characteristics. For every biological definition anyone has put forth, one can find plenty of examples of people for who that definition is inconclusive. These indistinct definitions leave these people having to defend their identity; if biological differences were so clear, these defenses would not be necessary. Furthermore, biological definitions of sex are not consistent—what is implied physically by ‘woman’ or ‘man’ is not consistent between people or between periods in history. The notion of sex, like gender, is a product of its time.

The notion of fundamental sexual difference, that is, biology determining society and morality, is not even very old in the first place. It is a relatively new idea. The two-sex model was predated by the Galenic one-sex model, asserting women as an ‘inversion’ of men, lacking ‘vital heat’. That is to say, women were defined by their lack. There was an inherent essence of ‘manhood’ that defined men positively, as possessing an innate characteristic which made them men; it would not be until the advent of the two-sex model that “science” would come to regard women and men as biological categories. Notably, these categories purported to explain the dominant social phenomena regarding men and women (sexism, to be blunt) as a natural consequence of biology. In short, the notion of ‘biology’ was used to justify existing systems.

This is, as many Marxist-Leninists (and even non-communists, to be fair) understand, the role of the intellectual class as they are employed by the ruling class in any class society; the legitimization of the existing system through science, religion, philosophy, and so on. While any given intellectual may not do this, the ruling class always rewards those who work in this way. Ideas which uphold the system upon which the ruling class justifies their existence and maintains their supremacy are rewarded and propagated; ideas which contradict these are suppressed if they are discovered, else they are left to eke out a minimal acceptance in society at large. Intellectual output is not totally neutral, and often has this incentive from above to support the system. This output also has a large role in generating the “common sense” of the day; that is, common sense is simply the default, shaped at least in part by the ruling class, in absence of personal experience which contradicts it. This is how one should look at the biological determinist perspective; the science does not support it, and the idea did not even come around until fairly recently in human history.

II. Division of gender is division of labor

Anthropological studies strongly contradict the notion that labor had always been divided in a gendered way. That is, it disputes Engels’ notion that procuring the necessities of life (read: productive labor) was the role of the man, and that this had simply always been the case. Instead, productive and reproductive labor was more equally spread among all members of early human societies. The family as we know it had not even begun to materialize, as mating was only very loosely restricted at the time. Monogamy was nowhere close. In this sense, women taking on more of the reproductive labor makes some sense, as it was impossible to know for certain who one’s father was—but it was certain who the mother was. However, this does not imply that reproductive labor was always relegated to the women; as stated above, anthropological studies demonstrate that labor was much more equally divided in early humanity’s development.

Even as recently as feudal Europe, women had not yet been forced fully into their current subservient role. While the old matriarchal system of lineage had or was giving way to patriarchal lineage, women still had some degree of autonomy with regards to their access and ownership, limited as it may have been, to the means of subsistence and production. Men had gained the right to pass property down to their own children, but he did not own it in the sense we think of today. In other words, men had changed how property was passed down, but not fundamentally how property was owned, which was still collectively, by the family. He could not yet leverage this state of things into a totally dominant class position.

‘Traditional’ gender roles as we understand them had not yet crystallized at the time when the rising bourgeois classes in feudal society were, crudely speaking, privatizing all the land and means of production. They were transforming common property into private property, into capital; in doing so, they were depriving the peasantry of access to this property and relegating them to wage labor. This was a marked difference from the old system, by which a family (not to be confused with the modern “nuclear” conception of the family) could reasonably accumulate additional wealth in their usage of this common property. The upcoming bourgeois classes sought to appropriate this property, and the surplus that was generated through labor done on “their” property would also be appropriated.

Obviously, this upset the peasantry.

This is not to say that feudal society was egalitarian in any sense of the word. What is important here is to see the transition from early man’s communal, roughly egalitarian distribution of productive and reproductive labor, to today’s gendered roles dividing “masculine” productive labor from “feminine” reproductive labor. This transition necessarily implies a transformation at some point from the unity of production and reproduction to the division of production and reproduction. Thus, gender roles cannot possibly extend back indefinitely in humanity’s past.

The crystallization of the basis for this distinction happened generally during the period of primitive accumulation mentioned above. The peasantry, now stripped of the commons they had been accustomed to, resisted this change, and the rising bourgeois classes had to divide the peasantry against itself. The creeping changes towards patriarchal systems of lineage and inheritance had given men leverage over women, but not yet total control. Backed up by religious institutions, sweeping attacks against women’s control over their reproductive capabilities were made. This coincides with the witch hunts of the 15-1600s and it was through this process that reproductive labor was divested from productive labor in its entirety.

The bourgeois classes, which were emerging out of the feudal society of the time, needed laborers to work on their property. While before, as mentioned, families would keep the surplus wealth produced by their labor, now the bourgeois classes would appropriate that surplus. Only productive labor, labor which would now generate surplus value for the bourgeois classes would be of any value to them. Reproductive labor—child rearing, housekeeping, etc—produces no surplus value, and as such is worthless to capital. However, reproductive labor is obviously not something you can do away with as a society. This task had to be assigned to someone, and women were the gender created by class society that would be responsible for this “worthless” reproductive labor.

This is obviously not to say that women were created by capitalism. However, the gender—the set of expectations, their role—was crystallized in this transition phase. The role of reproductive labor was to now support the man’s productive labor; productive labor, in turn, was now in service of the bourgeois classes and their desire to accumulate wealth. By turning women and men against one another, whether through accusations of witchcraft or other diabolic practices, the rising bourgeois was able to defuse the resistance by dividing productive labor, which it valued, from reproductive labor, which it found worthless, and privileging men with the “right” to earn subsistence from “their” property. Women, on the other hand, were made dependent on the earnings of men, and were not compensated for the very real work they were doing. They were reduced to supporting the working men.

In other words, men became the “breadwinners”, while women became the “housekeepers”.

III. The function of the divide within capitalism

In the previous section, I briefly laid out the evolution of gender roles. While a crude approximation, it lays out the idea that the unity of production and reproduction gave way to the separation of the two, and that women were saddled with the latter, along with some general reasons for the selection of women for this role. Additionally, it is possible to begin to see gendered oppression in capitalism as not just an unfortunate remnant of a darker time, but as a foundational contradiction within capitalism. Sexism is not a vestige, it is a feature.

It is one thing to see the gender binary as inherent to capitalism, but what is its function? In the last section, I laid out the basic antagonism. In order to retain control over the means of production, and therefore economic supremacy, it was necessary to pacify the large majority of the population by turning them against one another. By state-sanctioned violence against women, women were forced into the economically subordinate position of unpaid reproductive labor in support of men’s productive labor. This set men into the economically privileged position, effectively ‘bribing’ them into complicity with the bourgeoisie.

Antagonisms such as this one are how bourgeois society keeps workers fighting each other instead of challenging the capitalist system; by effectively “layering” exploitation, some parts of the working class benefit from the worse exploitation of the people below them, creating an economic incentive to defend the status quo. This arrangement is then legitimized by religion, science, and other parts of the societal superstructure to provide an additional social incentive to maintain one’s designated position in society. Without antagonisms like these, (race is the another major antagonism among the working class) the working class would quickly ascertain the nature of their collective exploitation and turn against the bourgeoisie.

Additionally, as stated before, capitalism only values certain kinds of labor. Only labor that can increase the value of existing capital is valued by the bourgeoisie. Labor which only maintains itself, that is, reproductive labor, has no direct value to capital. Reproductive labor itself can be thought of in two major ways: the daily “maintenance” of existing labor, that is, ensuring the continued capacity of existing laborers to perform labor; and the generational replacement of laborers by way of child-birth. This labor is necessary for the continued existence of the working class that capital requires, but it is reduced to ‘natural’ work that merits no direct compensation, and it is women as a whole who are expected to perform this labor.

However, this supporting labor does have a cost. The economic unit of capitalism is not the individual, after all; it is the family as a whole. Man, wife, and children all require basic subsistence, at a minimum, in order to reproduce the labor power that is valuable to the capitalists. The wage the traditional bread-winning working man receives must therefore also pay for the continued subsistence of his entire family. This was not always the case; early industrialization replaced costly men with cheap women and children. This system could not last, however; the long hours and dangerous conditions threatened the reproduction of labor power by pulling women and children out of the family home and killing them off at an alarming rate.

This exploitation was an attack on the entire class as a whole, but labor-aristocratic leadership convinced many men that their jobs were instead being threatened by the employment of the traditionally subservient women and children of the family unit, rather than the attack by capitalism upon the working class as a whole. The aforementioned family wage rectified this problem in a way that was suitable to capitalism; the man was put back in his ‘rightful’ place as head of the family, and the wages he earned were now sufficient to ensure that women could return to domestic servitude without worry. This element of sexism, as that sense of being ‘master of the house’ can be thought of as the replacement for property that would have ensured his control in previous modes of production.

In this way, women’s societal role as the gender responsible for the reproductive labor can be made more specific; it is her role to perform this duty within the family as a unit. This is where the specific distinction between the role of women and men under capitalism can be brought to light; as stated before, she bears the responsibility of reproducing labor power. This reproduction of labor power, while indeed being labor itself, is not labor that produces value, and therefore cannot produce surplus value. Her labor is not governed by this law of value because it must be done regardless of the current demand for labor power, as this labor is necessary for survival.

She is, therefore, not exploited by capital in the strictest sense. She does produce use-value in the home, but her labor is removed from direct participation in value production (what I have called ‘productive labor’) with regards to capital. It is in this way that her assigned role is an oppressive one—she is reliant on her husband’s direct participation with value production to acquire the means of subsistence from him. Obviously, women do perform wage labor in capitalism, often for poor wages or only in part-time employment, but she is saddled with the burden of providing domestic, reproductive labor in addition to the wage labor she performs. It is the notion that her immediate priority is domestic labor, rather than wage labor, that capitalism takes advantage of in these circumstances.

In addition to this, women’s societal obligation to perform domestic labor, often at the expense of productive wage labor, serves another function within capitalism: its need for unemployment. Unemployment serves not only to ensure a “reserve” supply of labor power in times of crisis, it also serves to create competition between workers, which gives a strong incentive to workers to accept poorer wages and conditions lest they be replaced by someone else who will.

While this does not cover the function extensively, it is sufficient to see the basics upon which the entire sexist system of oppression is formed. Of note is that capitalism needs to maintain this system so as to suppress the idea that it is society’s responsibility to provide this service rather than women; however, it is also constantly subjecting the family unit to upheaval. It both requires the family as a unit, but wants no part in sustaining it economically; it needs women to take up the burden of sustaining work rather than make demands of the bourgeoisie to provide these services to her and her family.

The fundamental contradiction, as with all others in any class society, must be papered over with ideology that masks the contradiction so as to prevent consciousness within the exploited class(es) of people. Gender roles, in this sense, are that ideology that sustains the family as a unit which is necessary for the exploitation by capital, and the ideology that exploits women by chaining them to the drudgery of domestic labor.

IV. How LGBT+ people cross the divide

Once you accept the formation of gender roles as constructs beneficial to capitalism, and understand their basic function within it, it is possible to demonstrate the connection of LGBT+ persons to this construct. Specifically, LGBT+ persons, in some way or another, directly challenge either the gender roles inherent to capitalism, or the normative sexuality it imposes.

Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and any other persons with non-heteronormative sexualities confront this by defying the traditional gender roles within their relationships. (They may also defy these roles individually, but this is the more notable point of defiance for our purposes.) For instance, a relationship between two men necessitates that at least one of them defies the traditional role of producer. In a relationship between two women, similarly, at least one of them must defy the traditional role of homemaker. This challenges the necessity of gender roles; if this couple can do well enough for themselves while rejecting the heteronormative gender roles that define the concept of the modern family, how necessary are these roles? This is a direct blow to the ideology which props up the gendered division of labor by demonstrating that these roles are, effectively optional, which weakens the superstructure that sustains these gender roles against the interests of proletarians (and the proletariat as a whole, for that matter).

Transgender individuals defy gender roles in a similar way, but on the individual level; they reject the role specifically assigned to them. In their rejection of their assigned gender, they reject the role thrust upon them corresponding to that gender; either the role of producer or the role of reproducer. Assigned-male-at-birth trans people are damaging to the patriarchal system by rejecting this ‘manly’ role, which throws the dividing line into question. Similarly, assigned-female-at-birth trans people damage this by ‘usurping’ (which I mean here in the driest possible sense) the role of men in patriarchy. Non-binary trans folk pose an additional challenge to gender roles; they cannot even be reconciled with the gender binary. All trans people therefore challenge the ideology surrounding gender roles by discarding their assigned gender role, in part or in whole, and some even discard the notion of gender altogether.

Additionally, asexual individuals challenge gender roles by refusing in some way to participate in the generational reproductive cycle; they do not form relationships and sustain families (and therefore produce future labor power) in the way that the capitalist system requires. They also reject the ‘compulsory’ nature of normative sexuality, demonstrating that the desire to rear children and/or even the desire for sex at all is not universal.

The common thread that ties all LGBT+ people together is their collective challenge to normative gender roles and sexuality that capitalism relies upon. While individual LGBT+ people may not challenge these significantly, or only bits of one or the other, collectively, LGBT+ people throw the necessity of these systems and all their associated baggage (appearance, behavior, etc) into question. This poses a threat to capitalism, which relies upon these systems (among other systems of oppression like racial oppression) to sustain itself. The most important takeaway is that the source of LGBT+ oppression is the same source as women’s oppression. These struggles only appear to be disconnected when the class element and systemic analysis of capitalism is omitted.

PART TWO—Rebuttal to the CPGB-ML

With this, the connection between the LGBT+ struggle and the class struggle as a whole is established. While not an exhaustive proof, the link is clear enough between the two, and we can move on to tackling the CPGB-ML, and by extension, those that hold similar views. Additionally, while the link between the class struggle and LGBT+ struggle has been established, LGBT+ oppression and its sources have ramifications beyond simple class issues; they intersect with imperialism, racism, and other struggles that must also be vigorously opposed by any communist person or party.

-Considering the previous, in what ways is the CPGB-ML et al deficient in their stances on trans rights/idpol? (fetish of the average worker and class reductionism, rejection of grassroots in favor of broad appeal, failure to apply dialectics in favor of vulgar materialism/idealism, simple strategic failure to ally with oppressed peoples, etc)

-Conclude: What is the role of both communists and the LGBT community on this front?

I. Marxism is not vulgar materialism

The most notable of the failures of the CPGB-ML is their dismissal of not only identity politics, but of the theory they profess to hold so dear. They make many references to material reality, materialism, and even make occasional mention of dialectics, but make no effort to utilize dialectics (or even materialism in some cases) in their analysis of LGBT+ issues. Indeed, analysis of any kind, when it is done, is done in only the crudest possible fashion, without actually engaging with the history of LGBT+ struggles. No effort is made to engage with the established research nor to perform research of their own; they simply assert that what is commonly accepted as ‘reality’ itself serves the function of a materialist analysis. But of course, we are not materialists, we are dialectical materialists—our understanding of what is material must be mediated through history. Without engaging with the history at all, can you arrive at anything other than idealistic, and therefore deficient understandings? Lewis Hodder writes,

“Members of the party have praised ‘realism’, assuming that reference to what is ‘real’, ie material, fulfils the function of negation and of dialectical materialism itself. Yet, this does not come up against anything that exists but merely seeks to replicate it and keep things as they are; in assuming that it has established a natural history, it looks at the end product of the development of material conditions within capitalism and seeks to maintain it on the pretence of fighting idealism and supposes that it has established a positivist science out of dialectical materialism.”

In essence, the party has reduced Marxism to vulgar materialism. Assumptions are not grounded in research, they do not perform any of their own. They do not contemplate and expose the contradictions withing LGBT+ struggles, there are simply assumed to be none of note. Marxist theory alone does not provide answers to these questions; it is only a tool for analysis. Without researching the contradictions of capitalism, Marx himself would have never been able to write Capital; it was only through reckoning with the development of capitalism through the lens of dialectical materialism that he was able to discern its workings and offer an insightful analysis of it.

For example, in “The reactionary nightmare of gender fluidity,” the speaker for the CPGB-ML says,

“Are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ synonyms? Well they are synonyms, but a certain group of academics in the seventies in the United States decided that they weren’t synonyms. They were going to use ‘gender’ in their own way; they were going to use ‘gender’ to mean the social construct of behaviour surrounding what was expected of the biological differentiation among human beings (men and women).

But biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing. It doesn’t just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world.”

This is not a slip-up or simple glossing over of facts; this is a naked assertion that sex is ‘biological differentiation’, whatever that is supposed to mean, without justification. Furthermore, is there any reason we ought not to differentiate between biology and behavior? That this is ridiculous to them insists they hold that sex and gender are unified, that is, that biology and gender (along with all the expected behaviors that entails) are inextricably linked. A cursory search of the existing research, or even the relevant historical science, would reveal that this is not only untrue, but a relatively new concept, as I demonstrated near the beginning of this piece.

The CPGB-ML cannot move past this “common sense” understanding of sexuality and gender. The belief that men and women are immutable biological categories, that their expected behaviors are direct products of the differences between these categories; these are simply elevated to principle. However, we cannot simply assert that this is true; we must, as has been repeatedly stated, engage with the material through theory. They dismiss the research off-hand as the product of some bourgeois academics, and conduct none of their own. That this is pure arrogant idealism is not merely an insult being slung at the party: they openly reject the notion of even considering the distinction between sex and gender.

As Marxists, we cannot dismiss things out of hand and make assertions in place of hard research and study. Having read Marx alone does not empower us to speak on specific issues; again, Marxism is simply a lens through which to examine material reality and construct a coherent narrative. Without doing that examination, you cannot hope to arrive at a useful, much less accurate understanding of reality. The CPGB-ML makes this clear; by refusing to engage in this careful analysis, they end up siding with evangelicals in their conception of LGBT+ people! Though we get the benefit of a through-gritted-teeth acknowledgment, they refuse to stand with us; we are to be contented with “equal rights” as a natural consequence of socialism. One need only to refer to Cuba or the Soviet Union to understand how “natural” LGBT+ rights are under socialism. These rights must be actively campaigned for by challenging the institutions that withhold them, and the CPGB-ML flatly refuses to do so.

II. The obsession with the ‘average worker’

There is also a very class reductionist element at play within the party. Several articles devote no small amount of time dismissing issues of identity in favor of a broad-base appeal to the working class as a whole. Only strictly class issues are given much attention, as it is asserted that the working class can only be appealed to on the basis that “an injury to one is an injury to all.” One need only consider history to see that this approach has never worked; this approach does not challenge the divisions present in society, and it is obvious to see that this approach never can. Only when the people have been connected to the broader working class through their own experience can they understand their place within it and begin to develop a class consciousness; without making this connection from their place within society to the class struggle first, they will not see themselves as part of the class as a whole.

Even the CPGB-ML’s own iconography represents this, to a degree: the hammer, representing the urban industrial worker, and the sickle, representing the rural peasantry. When Lenin appealed to the peasantry, did he simply appeal to them as workers? Did he do this for the industrial workers in the same way? He did not; he appealed to them by connecting their respective grievances to the greater struggle against capitalism. This is the important part; one must actually acknowledge the differences within the working class and engage with these particulars before the working class can be united. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to building consciousness. People do not see themselves as in the same boat as others; capitalism has trained them not to. It is true that the class struggle is the critical struggle that we must all actively participate in, however, this struggle takes on a variety of forms that must be shown to be just reflections of the class struggle. Declarations do not convince people, demonstrations do.

Their insistence that the ‘average worker’ will reject them if they were to support trans people is also a puzzling stance to take. Are we to believe that communist movements are built by simply appealing to the sensibilities of the working class? Are we chasing votes or are we building a revolution? What are we doing if not challenging the misconceptions that keep us in servitude? By working to mirror this caricature of the working class as closely as possible, they just replicate the most reactionary elements within their own party. That this caricature is ultimately just a vision of what they think the working class ought to be, is evident when you consider how consistently this vision of the working class lines up perfectly with their unwillingness to engage with LGBT+ struggles and their broad-appeal rejection of grassroots practice. Their supposedly objective vision of society ordains them as the vanguard party; that the working class will come to them is treated as a given.

III. The intersection of LGBT+ and other oppressive systems

Capitalist nations have not contented themselves with the exploitation of their own people. Imperialism, often called the highest stage of capitalism, has its fingers around the entire globe. Where it may use a softer grip in the mother country, in its colonies and semi-colonies, brutal exploitation generates super-profits which are used to provide luxury commodities for the homeland. Oppression is intense in these subjugated nations, and what would be considered unthinkable brutality here is the norm there. In addition, racial oppression divides even the working class of the mother country. In the United States, for example, African slaves were brutally exploited, along with the indigenous peoples in the “New World”, in order to serve the white settler-colonial nation; an exploitative relationship that continues largely unabated to this very day. In these cases, the imperialist power imposes its own norms upon the native populace, destroying their own norms and culture. Criminalizing “deviant” behavior paves the way for the imperialists’ oppressive systems by force.

These peoples are subjected to the imperialist power’s standards of beauty and behavior, the imperialist power’s religion is imposed upon them, and all attempts by the colonized peoples to retain their own sense of identity is savagely repressed with state-sanctioned violence. This happens not only abroad, but at home, where racial minorities are subjected to white standards. It hardly takes any time to find an example of, for instance, a black woman’s womanhood being questioned on spurious grounds. Examples of repression of indigenous peoples’ familial structures, sexual practices, gender expressions, and so on are commonplace. The Indian hijra under British imperialism, homosexuality of some indigenous American peoples under Spain’s genocidal practices—take even the example of Caster Semenya for a contemporary example of racialized misogyny.

Deviations by non-white people in the imperialist powers of today from Eurocentric ideals about gender and sexuality are not tolerated. While the superficial justifications may vary in any case (religious objections and conflicts abound), the result is that the gender roles and compulsory heteronormative sexuality under capitalist society is imposed upon the colonized peoples—often violently, especially in the Third World. The CPGB-ML has asserted that the

“western imperialist bourgeoisie has suddenly discovered and embraced gay and transgender rights, which only yesterday it was vigorously opposing… the advantage to the bourgeoisie of its newly-discovered enthusiasm for gay rights is that it can use them to castigate oppressed countries who stick to traditional religious prejudices...”

This preposterous statement implies that they have somehow failed to notice that the western imperialist bourgeoisie has far more often castigated oppressed countries for sticking to traditional sexual and gendered practices that defy heteronormative gender roles and sexuality. That Saudi Arabia is spared our unholy gay bourgeois wrath has everything to do with Saudi Arabia’s ruling class generally co-operating with the imperialist United States and nothing to do with “enthusiasm for gay rights” the bourgeois has supposedly developed over the last 40 years. This enthusiasm does not exist; it is an illusion that is created by elevating the preconceived notion of LGBT+ rights as “bourgeois ideology” into a principle, and applying that to their analysis of capitalism and imperialism. This blinds the party to the very real oppression abroad and how it compounds with racial oppression at home, a blindness that could be alleviated by engaging critically with the “material reality” that they appeal to so often.

This serves to show that a rejection of identity wholesale in favor of crude, purist notions of class inevitably produces a deficient analysis of capitalism and imperialism. There is not just ‘the working class’, it is a diverse group whose members face differing kinds of oppression. This oppression still comes from capitalism itself, which liberal identity politics does not recognize; however, the oppression is directed along lines of identity, which the CPGB-ML does not acknowledge with respect to LGBT+ rights.

IV. Strategic failures as a result of bad theory

The preceding sections provide examples of the deficiency of the CPGB-ML’s stances. These stances, being built on shaky, idealistic foundations, are divorced from the theory that is foundational to Marxism-Leninism; they do not provide accurate assessments of the struggles they speak authoritatively about. Beyond this, these stances also affect the strategy the party employs in its efforts to build class consciousness, and by extension, revolution.

I have already touched on the first strategic failure; that is, the refusal to go grassroots in favor of a broad-base approach. By this, I mean that the party restricts themselves to appealing only to the working class as a whole. I have already demonstrated the problem here, as well; workers must be engaged with on issues specific to them in order to bring them into the movement. People form their understanding with the conditions in which they live, in combination with the ideology they hold. The ideology they hold, by default, is typically bourgeois ideology in nature; this ideology must be challenged. In this respect, the party’s stance on identity politics is correct: identity politics as an ideology is bourgeois in nature. The problem with their approach to identity politics is that they also reject the underlying conditions which produces it, that is to say, they reject not only the ideology which shapes identity politics but the grievances of the people who ‘practice’ it.

The obvious problem here is that the grievances of these people are very real grievances. The CPGB-ML’s rejection of these grievances stems from their inability or unwillingness to engage with the grievances directly; that is, they do not engage in any kind of analysis of the issues plaguing groups that practice identity politics. Whether this is because of prejudice or ignorance, it is hard to say, and frankly kind of irrelevant.

However, to repeat: their rejection of the ideology behind identity politics is valid. Their fault comes from only engaging with the superficial ideology and none of the material conditions underlying it. While ‘idpol-ers’ hold both the ideology and grievances as legitimate, and the CPGB-ML denies the legitimacy of both, the truth is that the underlying conditions are valid (as I demonstrated to some degree in Part One), while the ideology is rotten. By exposing the contradictions in the ideology, it would be reveal the deficiency of omitting the class element; in returning the class element to the struggles, these struggles are not denied, but justified and supported in the larger context of class struggle under capitalism.

It is this kind of dismissal that characterizes the entire CPGB-ML’s approach to building socialism. By rejecting the opportunity to engage with the various underlying circumstances of workers directly, the opportunity to connect their distinct struggles to the larger class struggle is lost. This direct engagement cannot be skipped over, and it cannot be done in broad strokes. Whether it be challenging identity politics, or convincing white and black workers to unite as a class, without going to these people directly, engaging with their struggles, and connecting these struggles to one another by way of including the class element, the movement will never be able to take place. When you engage in this broad strokes approach and refuse to get down and “do the dirty work” as it were, you fail to bring about the class consciousness required for revolution.

V. A brief critique of identity politics

This all being said, the last elephant in the room is identity politics itself. I will specifically critique it on the LGBT+ angle, as it is more relevant to the piece. However, the arguments here will more or less hold for any other struggle being carried out through the lens of bourgeois identity politics.

As Lewis Hodder writes in “Inside the last days of the CPGB-ML”, the problem with identity politics is that:

“This is the failure of identity politics, that the immediacy of identity is elevated into a principle; it is without concrete content and remains indeterminate, along with all of the contradictions that manifest itself from taking either race or gender as a self-evident apparition and the defining factor of oppression.”

This is to say, the problem with identity politics is not the validity of the underlying identities, which the CPGB-ML rejects as well. The problem is that this “elevation” of identity into a principle is without justification. This is where the CPGB-ML comes close to getting it right, in saying that it is idealism; liberal identity politics is idealistic. Furthermore, this elevation of identity into principle also obscures the real source of oppression—bourgeois society’s need to maintain oppressive structures to maintain capitalism—by asserting that the identity itself is the crux of oppression. It is this assertion that leads liberal identity politics down the road of reformism: they do not see their oppression as an inherent contradiction of the system, which does not compel them to challenge that system.

Instead, they content themselves with concessions, and long, arduous struggle to acquire them. One of these concessions is that bourgeois members of these oppressed identities are given a modicum of power. The problem of liberal identity politics, then, becomes this: the drive to overthrow the system is suppressed in favor of requesting limited participation in the system. This is similar to the liberal clamor for “female CEOs”, in which success within the oppressive system is held up as a virtue. It is clear to us that no amount of female CEOs or gay representatives will fix the true problem, but as identity politics can only associate identity with oppression directly, success in the system is treated as proof that the system is no longer (as) oppressive. Of course, these bourgeois LGBT+ people are economically removed from the proletarian struggle; their economic interests, which require them to exploit the labor of the proletariat, suppress their identification with their proletarian LGBT+ fellows.

This granting of certain oppressed peoples the “privilege” of becoming an exploiter themselves gives them this economic incentive to oppose revolution, and content themselves with slow, marginal legal reforms, so as to not challenge their economic supremacy. They are still LGBT+ themselves, no doubt: the problem is that by placing them in an economic position that relies on the exploitative system, they come to justify the exploitative system, and betray the best interests of the LGBT+ community as a whole. Of course this is not a problem for capitalism: it is quite handy to have members of an oppressed group justify the system that keeps them oppressed in the first place.

Thus, our rejection of identity politics has to be along these lines: we must insist on the class element being of primary consideration in relation to our individual struggles, we must insist on the overthrow of the system and never content ourselves with meager reforms, and finally, we must never allow bourgeois members of our own communities to divert us from the path of revolution in order to prop up their own exploitative position. We should see identity politics as a problem, to be sure; but it should also be an opportunity to connect disparate struggles to the larger struggle of capitalist class society, and by engaging with the underlying conditions unique to these various identities, we can create for them meaningful connection to that larger struggle. Only through this engagement can we truly uncouple LGBT+ oppression, as well as all other oppressive systems, from opportunist tendencies within our movements and truly unite to create a society in which oppression can finally be ended.

CONCLUSION

In this essay, I have provided my justification for LGBT+ struggles as class struggles, and spoken of the deficiency of the approach of the CPGB-ML with regards to these struggles. It is my hope that with this essay, I have demonstrated the need for communists to connect to the struggles of people directly; that communists must stand with oppressed people actively, and not merely passively accept them; that communists have a duty to engage with the scientific aspects of our ideology, and not merely the theoretical abstract aspects; and finally, that as communists, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent, and must always subject ourselves to criticism, so that we never fall into the trap of assuming that the revolution will come to us. It will only come when people can personally connect to the wider struggle, and to this end, it is our duty to stand with all oppressed peoples, to vigorously defend their struggles, and to bring their plight to the forefront of any action we take. In this way only can we build the trust needed for the formation of a revolutionary proletariat, and finally bring about the overthrow of the system that exploits us all.

References

1. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this section about why gay rights is not a class issue according to the CPGB-ML. https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2019/04/20/news/why-gay-rights-is-not-a-class-issue/

2. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this excerpt about transgender people and gender fluidity https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2019/03/23/news/the-reactionary-nightmare-of-gender-fluidity/

3. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this excerpt about how “identity politics” supposedly divides the working class https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2018/12/07/news/the-only-thing-that-unites-us-is-class/

CPGB-ML Timeline

1. Saturday 3 July 2004 – Party founded at Saklatvala Hall in Southall. After expulsion from the Socialist Labour Party run by Arthur Scargill over clashes between the social-democrat wing and the Marxist-Leninist wing, some ex-SLP members create the CPGB-ML, citing the SLP’s support for the “imperialist Labour party” as one of the chief reasons for creating the new party.

2. Monday 26 February 2018 – Red Fightback, another Marxist-Leninist organization in Great Britain, posts an article detailing their stance on LGBT oppression in capitalism.

3. Early 2018 – Lewis Hodder, among others in the CPGB-ML, encounter resistance by the Central Committee regarding transphobia and homophobia within the party. Hodder is prohibited from attending the 8th Congress (see September entry, below)

4. 4 June 2018 – CPGB-ML Twitter account links the above Red Fightback article, receiving a great deal of backlash in the replies.

5. July-August 2018 – Hodder begins work on an essay attempting to “set a baseline of theory that would allow these problems [on trans/homophobia and other reactionary sentiments] to be overcome,” that would not be finished until April of the following year.

6. September 2018 – CPGB-ML holds their 8th Congress, stating “five months of discussions and inner-party debate” in preparation, and that “Motions were submitted from around the country on housing, education, identity politics, racism, employment rights and a great many other issues...”

7. CPGB-ML passes Motion 8 (see References document for full details) during their 8th Congress, enacting a rule that makes any “propagation of identity politics” grounds for expulsion from the CPGB-ML.

8. Party founder and chair Harpal Brar steps down after 14 years, replaced by Ella Rule. Zane Carpenter and Joti Brar (daughter of Harpal Brar) elected as vice-chairs.

9. October-December 2018 – Transcriptions of speeches given at the 8th Congress are posted in quick succession, all centering around identity politics and making frequent reference to LGBT rights.

10. December 2018 – An article is posted briefly covering some changes to the party’s tactics and organization; of note, membership purges are admitted to in the then recent past.

11. 29 April 2019 – Lewis Hodder (see above), now former CPGB-ML member, posts an essay entitled “Inside the last days of the CPGB-ML” on Ebb Magazine, citing clashes with the CPGB-ML Central Committee that resulted in his barring from the 8th Congress, and the resultant fallout from inter-party fighting in the middle of 2018.

This timeline is not totally complete: some articles and videos that were relevant to this have been deleted or are no longer available due to missing archives. However, it serves to show the relatively brief, intense period of vicious transphobia and homophobia by the party—the developments and later purges of the part occur over the course of less than a year.

2 notes · View notes

devlynsidious · 6 years

Text

Biological sex vs. gender identity, and why otherkin is bs

TW/CW: i will be speaking against (but not super harshly of) otherkin identities

In recent discussions through various social networks, I've had to explain (not just to others, but also to myself) what is the difference between gender identity and biological sex, and why I don't believe otherkin identities are valid.

I'll start with biological sex. I was born a male. Male body, male genes, male everything. Now what that means is simply that the word "male" is the word given by society to people born with this particular biological setup. Because of this biological setup, we are raised accordingly. People born with this biological male structure are generally leaned more into the male side of the gender spectrum.

So this gets to gender identity. Gender identity is a social construct. Society, over many many years, has built a gender binary that most of us adhere to. This being broken into two pieces, the side viewed as male and the other as female. So, because of the way we are raised in this society, most people are pushed into correlating their biological sex with their gender identity, and therefore they train their brains to identify with one or the other, typically whichever is more in line with what the people around them deem acceptable.

Now, myself, I identify as female. Meaning, my biological sex is male (as is the definition) but my gender identity is female. I identify much more on the feminine side of the gender binary.

How we identify is constructed entirely by how society has built things. Everything is gendered or associated with genders. Some things are seen as masculine, others as feminine, some as neutral with no gender association at all. From your clothes to your attitude to the way you walk or talk, everything falls somewhere in either male or female, in between, or outside. This is how our brains identify things, by forming patterns to make associations so that we can recognize and understand information. This is important, because as we grow and learn as a society, these "norms" are continually being broken or evolved, and things always becoming redefined. Example, what was considered feminine 100 years ago is vastly different from what we consider feminine today, and will be different 100 years from now!

So this brings up a valid question; is my gender identity molded by society's definitions of masculinity and femininity?

Personally, I believe that it largely is, although this varies from person to person. Think of gender as a spectrum. There is a male side and a female side on the scale. You could be anywhere on this scale! You may fall directly 100% on either end, or find yourself anywhere in between, identifying in many ways. Some people (quite a few) don't fall anywhere on this scale at all, not identifying with any gender we have defined. Again, this supports the idea that our definition of male and female genders are completely defined by how society has built up as masculine or feminine, not by your biological build.

Male and female are just words given to label specific traits to make it easier for our brains to understand things and process information more easily. This is why labels exist in the first place, it's hard-wired in your brain to find patterns for survival. Because of this, how I identify (as female) is largely influenced by the fact that the things I identify with have been deemed as feminine by society. Now aside from just your identity, there are significant other things that come into consideration, like body dysphoria and disassociation.

Now again, speaking for myself, the things that fuel my dysphoria are things about my appearance that reflect masculinity. Things like facial/body hair, height, voice, shoulder width, facial construction, ect..

This list can be vastly different person to person. Many trans people experience no dysphoria at all, and require no changes to their physical body at all. This, again, supports the idea that how we identify is, in large part, due to how our brains associate different things with different levels of masculinity and femininity, which can be effected with how, when, and where you were born, raised, and various other factors.

It takes a huge sense of self awareness and consciousness to be able to question why you think the way you do, and why you are the way you are.

With all of this information, we can determine that gender identities are separate from biological sex. Biological sex referes to the parts you were given during your development as a human coming into existence, while gender identity refers to the way you associate as a human being in your society.

For these reasons, we can determine that the idea of identifying as any, all, or no gender at all, is a valid means of finding your place in this life and what makes you feel the most comfortable as you navigate down your path.

This also contradicts the idea of "otherkin" identities. Otherkin identities go many steps further, with the idea that a person can identify as a non-human species (just typing this, I already don't understand why this topic of otherkin identities are always lumped in with gender identity discussions).

Gender identity and biological sex, while separate, both go hand in hand with the foundation that we are human. At the core, our identities, while varying all over the globe, are a means of figuring out how we associate and interact with other people to survive in our world.

Your gender identity begins forming from the time you are born, and constantly evolves as you grow and learn. It takes all the information you are exposed to throughout your life, and molds you into who you are.

A person that claims they are not human, and identify as a blue alien from a fictional movie that came out in 2009 is nothing more than a silly person. None of this information is based in any degree of facts, science, or study. It's the imagination of a person that wishes fiction were real, and an outlet for that to express how they feel. While I encourage creativity and hopeful dreams of fiction, it is extremely damaging to the trans community to continue forcing the idea of otherkin into the same discussion as gender identity. Gender identity is based solely on fact, society's construct, and essentially reality. Otherkin identities are based solely in fiction and non-factual information.

Inserting fiction into a conversation about fact is a huge step backwards toward trans acceptance, and it needs to stop. If you want to identify as a flying horse or a space frog, by all means go for it. But please stop tying your silly nonsense to the real and valid trans people who are having a hard time being accepted as such.

#trans stuff #trans life #gender identity #Biological sex #otherkin is nonsense

11 notes · View notes

bravestage-blog · 6 years

Text

The Dangers of Binary Identity Structures in the LGBTQ+ Community

Note: At the end of the post, I have included a glossary of terms which explain some of the identities that I reference.

The LGBTQ+ community is a complex group of individuals with a variety of different identities, experiences, and opinions. While mainstream media and individuals outside of the community often like to talk about queer experience as a monolithic entity, this practice fails to acknowledge both the diversity and hierarchical systems which exist specifically within this community. Intersectionality is a crucial thing to consider when examining the experiences of people, whether they are members of the LGBTQ+ community or not. The overlap of race, class, ability status, sexuality, and more all tie in to how we, as human beings, experience life. While our societal issues of racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, and more are commonly associated with conservative values, they are by no means absent from the LGBTQ+ community. While these are complex, multi-faceted issues, they are crucial to understand because they develop structures of power and oppression within our world. Different societies have different norms and acceptable behaviors put forth by groups in power. Today, I would like to discuss a norm which permeates the general perspective of identity: the binary.

The insistence on binary systems, both generally in our country and more specifically within the queer community, is both problematic and diminishing to individuals with more fluid identities. This post will delve into binary structures and attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community which impact the experience of bisexual, pansexual, and queer sexualities, as well as trans//non-binary gender identities. My argument ultimately discourages binary-only thinking. It examines the dangers of binary norms which further marginalize and alienate people who exist along a spectrum, rather than at the ends of it. Such issues remain prevalent even within a community that is supposed to protect and validate queer identity. I believe that commitment to binary systems and rejection of fluid identity ultimately hinders our ability to grow, open our minds, and understand one another. It is counterproductive and illogical to put people into boxes, especially within the already marginalized LGBTQ+ community.

When I speak of the hierarchies which exist within the queer community, I refer primarily to the influence possessed by white, cisgender* gays and lesbians. There are plenty of queer individuals who exist within a binary themselves, and that is their truth. But that reality does not apply to other LGBTQ+ individuals, and should not be forced upon them. The experiences of bisexuals within the queer community is perhaps the most frequently discussed example. Their experience can best be summarized from Youtube channel “Bisexual Real Talk.” Alex Anders makes the important point that “Every time we tell young people who are bisexual to go and search the LGBT community, we are creating certain expectations in their mind. And what do you think does more damage: when a person who knows they are going to be discriminated in a certain group and then gets discriminated in that group, or when a person is told that they will be able to find solace in a group and they lower their guard and then they’re discriminated against?” This statement perfectly frames an ongoing issue within the queer community.

A variety of studies have been conducted surrounding biphobia in LGBTQ+ spaces. As a bit of explanation: “biphobia seeks to undermine the legitimacy of bisexual identities and comes in many forms: jokes, stereotypes, non-inclusive language and even abuse. The fear of being dismissed as “too gay” or “too straight” often makes it hard to be open” (HRC). In a study conducted by Corey E. Flanders at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, “Many of the participants reported not only encountering professionals who were clueless about bisexuality, but also feeling unwanted at Pride events just for being bisexual. The results indicated “young bisexual women perceive monosexism and biphobia as significant challenges to their mental health at the institutional, community, interpersonal and intrapersonal level” (Flanders). Additionally, a study by Tangela S. Roberts and Sharon G. Horne of the University of Massachusetts, and William T. Hoyt of the University of Wisconsin surveyed 745 bisexuals of various ages, genders, and ethnicities to share their stories of experiencing biphobia. The study found that “although the bisexuals surveyed experienced more biphobia from straight people, they also experienced an alarming amount of biphobia from lesbians and gays” (Roberts). A common argument that people, queer and otherwise, like to make about bisexual individuals is that they are confused. There is an idea surrounding bisexuality that women just experimenting or men are gay but afraid to fully commit. While this mentality is shifting, it is still undeniably present among queer and straight people alike. Hurtful terminology within the LGBTQ+ community has even developed surrounding the bisexual identity. Pride.com created a list of terms/phrases used by gays and lesbians against bisexuals. Examples include “Hasbian,” and “bi now, gay later.” Terms like this suggest that bisexuality is a transitional phase which people use to ease themselves into the queer community before assuming a “real” identity, which falls within the binary of either gay or straight. So, why does this matter so much? According to the Bisexual Resource Center, approximately 40 percent of bisexual people have considered or attempted suicide, compared to just over a quarter of gay men and lesbians. Additionally, according to The Williams Institute, “bisexual-identified people make up approximately half of the total population of the LGBTQ community — but only 28 percent of bisexual people report being out to those closest to them.” This represents a clear, pressing issue on the dangers of binary identity structures and biphobia.Biphobia is closely related to “monosexism,” which is “a belief that monosexuality (either exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality) is superior to or more legitimate than a bisexual or other non-monosexual orientation” (Everyday Feminism). Monosexism also invalidates pansexual* and other queer sexualities that are not as binary as gay or straight. While binary sexuality research has primarily focused on bisexuals, there is also the experience of transgender* and non-binary* individuals to consider.

Discussions of transgender identity have been a more prominent topic of conversation in the United States over the last couple of years. The ongoing debate argues whether or not there are more than two genders. Many people, within and outside of the LGBTQ+ community, believe that the body that we are born into dictates our gender and how we are supposed to act/present ourselves. This is again representative of binary identity modeling. Transgender and non-binary identities exist contrary to this mindset. Transphobia is a huge problem in the LGBTQ+ community, despite the T representing transgender people. Pride, a well-known celebration for the queer community, is meant to commemorate the transgender-led Stonewall Riots back in the 1960s. However, transgender people are often forgotten in these celebrations today. Trans and non-binary individuals do not receive nearly as much support or recognition within the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, such individuals are struggling at alarming rates. According to the New York Times, a recent survey of more than six thousand self-identified transgender people showed that 41 percent have attempted suicide, a staggering twenty-six times the rate of the general population. There is conversation within the queer community that trans and non-binary people are “hurting the movement.” These people fail to acknowledge the work done by courageous trans women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, work that has greatly benefited the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

The common understanding of gender as a binary system is not one that includes all people. It is also one that leads to deeply rooted problems for queer and straight individuals alike. Strict adherence to a gender binary and, subsequently, gender roles, can perpetuate issues of misogyny, hypermasculinity, domestic violence, homophobia, transphobia, and more.Identifying within the binary is not the problem. The problem is believing solely in the binary. It is the belief that things must only be one way or the other which complicates and oppresses individuals in many ways. Existing in the binary model may work for many of us, but forcing it onto other people is neither fair nor beneficial. Humans are not meant to be diminished into narrow categories with little room for expansion or exploration. We should not be limited by binaries, especially surrounding gender or sexuality.

If the LGBTQ+ community really wants to advocate for acceptance, equality, and human rights, then it needs to extend it’s fight to all of the individuals who exist within the community. This means acknowledging non-binary sexualities and gender identities, acknowledging race, and, ultimately, acknowledging the intersectional nature of human existence. Empathy and openmindedness are crucial to the fight which the queer community continues to advocate for. Feeling a sense of community with those who are similar to you is crucial for support, happiness, and general wellbeing. For this reason, my “Spread the Word” project will delve further into the queer community and how a hierarchy exists even within this marginalized group. Ultimately, I hope that people who get to view parts of this project can identify with or learn something new from the experiences I highlight and examine. To fellow LGBTQ+ individuals: if we cannot look out for each other, how can we expect people outside our community to look out for us? We must fix the problems within our own spaces and find unity if we truly hope for change in our world. Erasing the binary-only mentality is a great way to begin such reforms.

Vocabulary:

Cisgender: identifying with the anatomical sex that you were assigned at birth (a physical male identifying as a man, a physical female identifying as a woman)

Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not align with your anatomical sex at birth (someone who is assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman, someone who is assigned female at birth who identifies as a man)

Genderqueer or non-binary: people who do not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identify with neither, both, or a combination of masculinity and femininity

Bisexual: sexual attraction towards two or more genders (attracted most commonly to cisgender men and cisgender women)

Pansexual: sexual attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

Queer: a reclaimed term used by LGBTQ+ individuals to describe themselves (in terms of sexuality and/or gender identity)

#mine #writing

1 note · View note

unproduciblesmackdown · 7 years

Text

i'm a LITTLE bit joking about my war on romance, but not really. its the isolating construct and its justification/advertisement in pop culture that i dislike, not anything about the existence of two people who want to be together because their lives are enhanced and nourished by their relationship. even if they fit the nuclear family. i love that people love each other and want to be together and i hate that there is no alternate way to briefly refer to this without calling it "romantic" and also i hate that even words like love and everything referring to the desire for and process of building such relationships is loaded with association with romance(tm), such as dating/crushes/marriage whatever etc. i mean, i don't love straight relationships no matter how against the norm they are because who does, but i dont want even those to be poisoned by the smothering crush of proper "romance." i dont want any relationships to be that way on account of it just brings guilt and shame and damaging self-denial and you know, isolation i also have a horse in the race as someone uninterested in a lifelong relationship with a single person, or even a relationship with any number of people where we get all emotionally intimate and stuff. i know life is unpredictable but luckily, even though if this was cishet romantic propaganda i'd learn the error of my ways by finding a charming [individual of the other cis binary gender] who wins my headstrong heart, i'm a gay so i cant contribute in the cishet narrative. but this goes along with the part how it doesnt matter if i do find and enjoy such a relationship in the future, as the present such-relationship-less version of myself is just as legitimate (also if a future self was in any relationship that any rando fuckin herbs were like "oh but that could be considered equivalent to a romantic relationship according to certain elements so just call it one" i'd introduce them to a swing or two. youve got cis people thinking their ideas are transcendent going "well if you define the binary genders this way or that way, everyone could be considered cis" and thats an infinitely dumbassed thing. unfortunately "nonromantic" is supposed to mean superfluous and no-kissing and of limited emotional scope/investment etc etc. and the idea of relationships is different from the idea of gender so) most of what bothers me is that as someone without a romantic relationship who can't be satisfied by considering myself as waiting/looking for a romantic relationship (which isnt a valid substitute anyhow for everyone being able to feel secure, supported, and content with whatever forms of relationships they have at any stage in their lives) then again i can be considered any number of the following: 1) having an inherently deficient life, 2) possibly having a pointless life, 3) being an inherently deficient person, 4) required to be of greatly reduced importance to everyone who has/gains a romantic relationship (supposedly literally everyone), 5) inherently disposable, etc. i have to resent that, and resent that any grievance with the idea of everyone pairing off and leaving it at that can only be resolved by accepting it. i dont want to feel like romance is attainable for me, but i would like to feel like im not doomed to being on the peripheral of the lives of everyone i interact with as a convenient source of interest instead of someone of value. you are inherently inferior and worth much less time/energy/love/attention if you can't be someone's romantic partner you know. like i'm not even saying that all relationships in anyones life have to be equal and interchangeable. just that its crap that there's meant to be only one relationship between adults which takes all precedence and is defined by whether you can eliminate all other relationships from your life in favor of it. that shit is not only bs for stuff like my case when you're not even about being with someone, but also people who do want to be with other people but aren't, and also people who are with other people. coz that is a nightmarish definition that doesnt even focus as much as what good things you find in a relationship as much as what other good relationships you could damage. god knows not everyone has infinite time but its ridiculous to think that friendships and any relationships with any level of intimacy can just continue without being given any effort or valued as something that can only exist 100% at ones convenience. and the isolating definition of romance is bad to feel one needs to adhere to coz that shit is gonna keep ppl from having a full life and require them to deny basic needs. thats just healthy sacrifice lol more like nah, not being selfish in a relationship is different from hurting yourself for the sake of the relationship Fun Fact I Forget: interestingly, re: how i complained about how i have to essentially define intimate, loving relationships (which can include friendships but according to romance friendships = limited importance, limited intimacy, no sex, no formal commitment, very limited physical affection, is the only other format of relationship besides romantic; aka why even "platonic" doesnt work as an alternate label bcoz the scope is so wide and its the idea of platonic sex/kissing/cohabiting becomes laughable when "platonic" = "not romantic") my own personal slang quickly evolved a substitute would-be equivalent to "romance." not so much anymore but i used to get a few confused asks about why i was calling a pairing between a boy and a girl "gay." and the answer is in part because bi ppl can call themselves gay and a bi relationship isnt straight just becoz some rando thinks it looks str8, but the realer answer is becoz i started using "gay" to the kinds of relationships that You Know Which Kind I Mean But I Have No Term To Refer To It As. like how "gay" also means any synonym of "good." it doesnt confuse people becoz often i am referring to obviously gay relationships as in not hetero, because those are better, but im also genuinely using "gay" as an alternate to "romantic" because i have to invent a word when romantic is practically synonymous with relationships and i dont want to invoke that construct. someones gotta do it. maybe i'll come up w/ another word, but "gay" became that word a year or two ago

#linguistics in progress here #long post ////#ive already forgot what i wrote. where's the memes

8 notes · View notes

just-kept-running · 7 years

Text

Time Lord Culture, Language, and Gender

//So I got bored and this is what happened. Pronouns are a pretty big thing in my life. I’m non-binary and I use they/them or xe/xir pronouns. It’s been an uphill battle to get to a point where I’m comfortable with my appearance and even more of one to get people to use the correct pronouns for me. Even people who mean well. I’m an anthropology grad student. I’m in a department full of anthropologists - and when I’m not there, I’m with a whole bunch of ethnomusicologists, who are basically musical anthropologists. And the very first thing you learn in anthropology is to let go of the rigid boxes society has taught you everything must fit into. So these are pretty open-minded people. And it’s still a lot of reminding people and a lot of explaining what non-binary means and how singular they works.

So because I am both non-binary, fascinated by linguistics, and an utter nerd, I got to thinking. What must Gallifreyan pronouns be like? And I put this long, rambling thought under a cut so I don’t take up your entire dash.

So you know how the TARDIS translates everything? And, I mean, supposedly it doesn’t translate Gallifreyan, but hey, you kind of have to assume the Doctor does not actually speak every language ever and at least part of the time he’s probably speaking Gallifreyan. I cannot see it being otherwise. I mean, what good is the translation circuit if it doesn’t translate what the Time Lord piloting the TARDIS is saying? But I digress.

Anyway, I was thinking about this, because I am prone to doing things like that, and I wondered, you know, how do pronouns in Gallifreyan work? Hear me out on this, though. So in English, the language of the show, pronouns are relatively gendered. In English, in terms of pronouns that refer to people, you have he, she, and they. Now, all of those can actually be singular (and if you want to fight me on this point, you’ll also have to take that up with Merriam-Webster, so have fun with that) but we usually only use he or she if the subject is known. When talking about an unknown subject, we tend to use they, because we don’t know the subject’s gender. But there’s an (incorrect) assumption that if the subject is known, then we do know their gender and that they must be either a he or a she.

Not all languages are like this. Spanish, for instance, is actually more gendered than English. Pronouns for people in Spanish are el, la, las, and los. I did include plurals for a reason. El is he, la is she, las is plural she, los is plural he or just straight plural. There is no neutral option. Indefinite subjects like “the secretary” or “the engineer” tend to be gendered based on culturally defined gender roles. Additionally, there is no truly neutral pronoun like the English they. The catch-all plural is masculine and there is no neutral singular. But that’s not all that changes. Most nouns and adjectives have both masculine and feminine forms. So you end up changing a lot of things based on the subject’s gender.

I do know there exist languages in which gendered pronouns and word endings really aren’t a thing, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head. But I do have to wonder, would that not be what Gallifreyan is like? I mean, as Twelve helpfully points out, “We’re billions of years beyond your petty obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.”

Time Lords (and I do have to wonder if the Lords and Ladies part of that isn’t also English rather than Gallifreyan) can regenerate as any sex. As such, their gender is a little bit more complex to suss out than a human’s - and we humans are pretty damn complicated. But basically, it seems to me that all Time Lords are, by human standards, non-binary. Now, there are ways that they can control their regenerations, so it is possible that they could choose to always be male or always be female, if that’s what felt more right to them. But it would seem that they just don’t adhere to the same ideas of gender as humans.

Language is a reflection of the culture it comes from. It’s sort of circular, actually. Language is a product of its culture, but the culture is heavily impacted by the language it uses. This is why people get so up in arms about terminology. Pronouns, for instance. The English-speaking non-binary community has made a big push for singular they to be more widely accepted as a personal pronoun because it grants us greater visibility and the way people speak is both indicative of and also shapes their world-view. So if you have a word for a person who is neither a man nor a woman, you’re more likely to accept that such people exist and are valid in their identities.

So Gallifreyan. Because gender as per human definitions doesn’t seem to be a thing among Time Lords (although not Gallifreyans as a whole if one wants to include groups like the Sisterhood of Karn), it stands to reason that the language would reflect that. Oddly, I can think of one instance right off that doesn’t support this. In the episode “Hell Bent,” the Doctor shoots a Gallifreyan general, forcing the general to regenerate. This prompts a response from one of their subordinates of, “Are you all right, sir? Oh, er, sorry, ma'am.” The general then remarks, “Oh, back to normal, am I?”

On the one hand, if the Gallifreyan language does not have different words based on gender, then there would be no reason for the subordinate to correct himself. On the other hand, the general doesn’t even seem to notice what sex they have ended up as, although they do go on to comment that the last regeneration was the only time they were ever in a man’s body. Additionally, Missy changes her name after regenerating into a female body and corrects a Dalek who calls her a Time Lord with the now widely known quip, “Time Lady, thank you. Some of us can afford the upgrade.”

All of that seems to contradict the Doctor’s assertion that Time Lords are billions of years beyond humans’ petty obsession with gender, as he puts it. And that’s before we even get into the Master’s snide comment about “Is the future going to be all girl?” I don’t feel like diving down that particular rabbit hole, though, so we’ll just stick to language. It does seem overwhelmingly clear that Time Lords are, to some extent, aware of gender roles. But this seems like it would be a distinctly human thing, and most Time Lords frankly haven’t had much contact with humanity. Probably the most well known human among Time Lords would be Leela, if I had to guess, because she wound up married to a Time Lord and lived on Gallifrey until her death. Most Time Lords just aren’t terribly concerned with humanity. The Doctor, the Master, Susan, and Romana seem to be the exceptions, not the norm.

So I think, honestly, that the amount of attention paid by Time Lords to gender is probably less to do with Gallifrey and more to do with the UK. Because the people behind the show are not Gallifreyan, they are British. They are not aliens from a distant and advanced civilization of long-lived shape-shifters, they are humans from 20th and 21st century Earth. They come from a country whose language, government, and society have all been historically very focused on gender. And that is very obvious in the show. If you start with “An Unearthly Child” and work your way forward from there, you can see the shifts in culturally ascribed gender roles. It’s a very long running series, and a lot has changed in 54 years.

Another reason this whole dissonance between language and function doesn’t make sense to me is that historically, at least in Western society, a lot of culturally ascribed gender roles had to do with the idea of women as mothers and men as providers. Women were supposed to be nurturing and emotional, while men were supposed to be strong and steadfast. And while we know at this point that this is bullshit, it has shaped a lot of our culture. However, that wouldn’t be the case on Gallifrey. Time Lords are sterile, or were at one point, due to a curse placed on them by the Sisterhood of Karn after the Sisterhood was driven out of Gallifrey. This is why the Great Houses and the looms exist. There is also a taboo on pregnancy. In fact, it’s illegal (or was at one time). I mentioned Leela earlier, and she’s pertinent here again, because the main reason this even comes up is that that restriction was eased for her and her husband because she was not a Time Lord, she was human. And even if that weren’t the case, the fact that they can change sexes from one regeneration to the next makes such rigid roles extremely impractical from a societal standpoint. There would be simply no good way to work that.

But Time Lord society does seem to be, at least for the most part, egalitarian. It appears to be an attempt at an egalitarian society as written by people who come from a society that is strongly patriarchal. There are a handful of truly egalitarian societies in the world, and it would be very interesting to see what Gallifreyan society would look like written by an author from one of those cultures. (Not that it’s likely that will ever happen, given they’re all very tiny and mostly very remote. Not to mention some of them have begun to be influenced by Westernization.) I would suppose you would get a very different view on what the language and culture would look like.

But back to the topic of language, because that was where I started with this whole thing. It really does make me wonder exactly how the Gallifreyan language works. I can only imagine that the use of gendered terminology for and by Time Lords has more to do with the English of the show and less to do with the Gallifreyan of their origins. It would really be an interesting thing to expand upon further.

#out of time #headcanon #about the time lords #gallifreyan language #gallifeyan culture #[[This got -way- longer than anticipated.....]]#[[Also I'm sort of drawing from all over the place here.#Part of this comes from the main show but part of it comes from the EU.]]

1 note · View note

batwynn · 7 years

Note

Hi Bat! I was wondering if you could help me out. Ever since I was a kid I never really felt like a girl. I don't like pink, don't feel comfortable wearing girl clothes(not only dresses like in general)I don't style my hair/wear make up. You know all the general things girls do. I've been kinda struggling with my image cause I hate that I have boobs. I'm not sure about my gender identity at all in a nutshell. Idk if I'm just an anti conformist or something more :( it's really confusing

Hey there anon, i’m sorry it’s been a difficult gender-journey for you so far. :(

First, let me start by saying one of the most important things i’ve learned in the past few years: Your gender can change whenever, wherever, and for whatever reason. You don’t have to settle unless it feels right( or at all ), and it’s absolutely okay to be confused or unsure about your gender, you do not have confirm anything to be valid in whatever gender you currently identify with. (There’s no such thing as ‘too old’ or ‘too young’ to change, either.)

For you in particular, though, it sounds like you’ve had a tough time. I know some of this confusion can come from external sources, outside and within the LGBTQA community. There’s a lot of different people pressuring others into making choices in the name of the community, rather than for the safety and health of the individual. Outside of the community, there are even more people pushing for some sort of ‘gender norm’ based on their own standards and beliefs. That being said, i’ve also found a vast and diverse community of understanding and accepting people from all genders/non-genders and sexualities. So, there’s the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, but suffice to say, they both can bring pressure and anxiety about your gender.

From what you saying here, it sounds like you’ve never really adhered to any of the gender binary stuff people seem to think are necessary. [Pink and makeup for girls, blue and football for guys or whatever it is. I don’t even know, I never paid much attention.] The thing is, these things don’t make up one’s gender. What you do, what you wear, how you talk, etc, should not be associated with any gender in particular. Not that this changes how society chooses to associate them, of course, but try to remind yourself that feminine and masculine or anything beyond and between aren’t defined by these things, or by other people. You define them, you decide if they are important in your life and in gender identity. You choose how to identify what you do in your life, with who you are.It also sounds like you’re dealing with some possible (gender) dysphoria from your physical appearance. Have you ever tried binding in any way, just to see how you feel seeing yourself with a flat/flatter chest? It might give you some ideas about what would make you feel more comfortable, either way. Beyond that, though, I would consider speaking to a mental health professional about these things. (if you are comfortable and trust them enough to do so.) I’ve never really had an understanding response from my therapists (I also have bad luck) when i’ve spoken about it myself, but even at a professional level, they can help you identify where some of this distress is coming from. (Especially internal vs external stresses. It’s important to recognize what your brain is coming up with, and what is coming from outside sources.)So, from here I would suggest you take a look at some resources, and see if any of the gender identities out there seems to resonate more strongly with you. I would also see if you can find someone more professional to speak with about this, since i’m not really the end-all know-all of anything really. XD This can be anyone from your family therapist, maybe someone new, or even someone through @plannedparenthood. I would also suggest you Check out the Gender Wiki! They’ve got a vast amount of continually updated information on genders/non-genders, and is a safe place to find facts and ideas about gender without certain biases or misinformation. But! If you don’t feel comfortable browsing websites for whatever reason, please take a look at some of these gender identities under the ‘Keep Reading’, and I wish you the best of luck!

Gender fluid is a gender identity which refers to a gender which varies over time. A gender fluid person may at any time identify as male, female, neutrois, or any other non-binary identity, or some combination of identities. Their gender identity can vary at random or in response to different circumstances.

Multigender is a term for anyone who experiences more than one gender identity. It can be used as a gender identity in its own right, or can be an umbrella term for other identities which fit this description. Multigender people may experience two or more gender identities at the same time, or their gender identity may change over time. [meaning you identify as multiple genders at once, less switching between. More of a solid state, generally.]

Non-binary gender (see also genderqueer) describes any gender identity which does not fit within the binary of male and female. Those with non-binary genders can feel that they: [feel free to check the links in the text below for more info]

Have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne.

Have an identity between male and female, such as intergender.

Have a neutral or non-existent gender identity, such as agender or neutrois.

Have multiple gender identities, such as bigender or pangender.

Have a gender identity which varies over time, known as genderfluid.

Have a weak or partial connection to a gender identity, known as demigender.

Genderflux is a gender identity in which the strength of feelings of gender varies over time. It can be seen as a form of genderfluid between being agender and one or more other gender identities. Genderflux people may also identify as nonbinary, genderqueer and/or transgender.

Agender is a term which can be literally translated as ‘without gender’. It can be seen either as a non-binary gender identity or as a statement of not having a gender identity. People who identify as agender may describe themselves as one or more of the following:

Genderless or lacking gender.

Gender neutral. This may be meant in the sense of being neither man or woman yet still having a gender.

Neutrois or neutrally gendered.

Having an unknown or undefinable gender; not aligning with any gender.

Having no words that fit their gender identity.

Not knowing or not caring about gender, either as an internal identity or as an external label or in both senses.

Deciding not to label their gender.

#Gender #gender ask #gender identity #gender dysphoria #long post #let me know if I need to add any other tags #and I wish you luck anon #I can personally understand some of your troubles here #and I know how much it can suck #so I wish you well with all my heart #Anonymous

20 notes · View notes

wmst550challengesofpride · 7 years

Text

Heteronormativity & Homonormativity - A balancing act

Heteronormativity and homonormativity are two sides of the same coin brought on by a society that values adherence to binaries and norms above all else. Heteronormativity is “a system that works to normalize behaviors and societal expectations that are tied to the presumption of heterosexuality and an adherence to a strict gender binary” (Nelson, 2015). Homonormativity is “a privileging set of hierarchies, social norms, and expectations that cause the oppressed to oppress one another...a set of rules used to decide which people in the queer community are the best” (Flores, 2016). These two systems of social construction and objectification are harmful to all members of the LGBTQ community, but I will focus on their effect on femme lesbians as that is my personal experience and I will not diminish other’s identities by attempting to speak for them.

You hear examples of heteronormativity and homonormativity play out every single day, possibly without realizing it. A mother telling her young daughter to cross her legs and be more “ladylike,” the father telling his son to stop crying because he fell and busted his lip--both examples of heteronormative standards being shoved down the throats of young people. Now think about those LGBTQ celebrities that people idolize...the gay men are probably white, decently wealthy, always well-dressed and perfectly groomed; the lesbian has a short haircut, wears perfectly tailored men’s suits, and has a gorgeous feminine girl on her arm...sound about right? Well, that’s homonormativity for you. Those versions of LGBTQ people are the versions that our society can digest because they still fall fairly close to the heteronormative standards we’ve been conditioned to value. It is important to note that some individuals in the LGBTQ community look like the people I mentioned above, and if they’re happy with that, awesome! But it shouldn’t be the only way to be gay and accepted.

Femme lesbians walk a strange line when it comes to physical appearance. We might enjoy makeup and typically feminine clothing, some days getting that winged eyeliner perfect makes the whole day better. Then we walk outside and begin our balancing act… In my experience, I know I “look straight,” which often results in advances from the opposite sex and the typical conversation that follows about how I don’t look like a lesbian, and probably haven’t found the right man. That’s heteronormativity at play. Conversely, if I walk into a predominantly lesbian space, I’m confronted with pressures to start wearing snapbacks, dial back the makeup, maybe shop in the men’s section every now and then...all things that would make me look lesbian and (apparently) validate my identity as a lesbian. It’s an exhausting double-standard, and stems from our culture of objectification, as explained by objectification theory:

“This theoretical framework places female bodies in a sociocultural context with the aim of illuminating the lived experiences and mental health risks of girls and women who encounter sexual objectification” (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

There is a severe limitation in current research on objectification theory, most research has been done with white, heterosexual, able-bodied women between the ages of 18 and 35. Black (2006) states that this leads to a question of the validity of objectification theory in its applicability to other, more diverse, populations. In her 2006 study on how lesbian and bisexual women experience personal physical appearance, she argues that it absolutely can be applied to other populations, but the level of cultural objectification and self-objectification may differ between populations. For example, a black woman is objectified as a woman, but also as a black person. The cultural standard of beauty includes being white, so a white woman, though still being objectified, has certain privilege because her skin and hair already conform to the standard. Lesbian and bisexual women not only have to contend with pressures to conform to a heteronormative standard of beauty but also deal with pressure from the LGBTQ community to change the way they appear to fit a more homonormative appearance (i.e. look stereotypical not straight). “In addition to appearance standards within lesbian culture, as women lesbians are socialized within the dominant culture to value their physical appearance” (Black, 2006). Unfortunately, they are receiving conflicting messages about which appearance they should value more.

This balancing act between heteronormative and homonormative standards can be particularly difficult for femme lesbians because their personal preference of appearance conforms to heteronormative standards, but their sexual orientation does not. This ostracizes them from heteronormative spaces and community. On the other hand, their sexual orientation grants them “membership” to the LGBTQ community, but because their appearance does not align with homonormative standards they are at risk of being ostracized from the LGBTQ community as well. This leaves the femme lesbian in a strange limbo space, constantly having to defend the way she looks to one community, and defending her sexuality to another community. Being this strange place of limbo is not only uncomfortable and exhausting but can have serious psychological and physiological consequences. “Subject to objectification, women learn to evaluate and objectify themselves first and foremost...this experience of self-objectification can potentially lead to the following mental health risks: 1) shame, largely understood as body shame; 2) anxiety; 3) lack of peak motivational states; and 4) lack of awareness to bodily states which in turn contribute to mental health risks” (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997).

#beccasblogpost

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs

happy-go-ugly

Doodles and Illustrations by Kaz M.

mahalagaka

Mahalaga Ka - You Are Precious

bel1ewrites

Belle

a-dozen-rats

🌺Im Not Okay🌺I Promise🌺

greysnames

Untitled