la pieza performatica que hice junto a @mixkaribe y @joaquincerdeiros, “Ceremonia del cazabe” junto al conjunto de mis piezas fotográficas, en honor a la resistencia indígena y africana en nuestras montañas.
la pieza performatica consistió en cultivar la yuca y derramar su jugo sagrado sobre el Cemí Yucahú, purificando así nuestros ritos para con la lucha y la identidad.
que resuene la lucha en nuestros corazones, la esencia y la magia de nuestra poderosa cultura. Jan jan katu. Hasta el próximo viento.
"a person coercively assigned female at birth having primary or secondary sexual characteristics associated with men will never negate their womanhood as it is continuously reassigned. it never negated mine, so why would it negate anyone else's? if those features are part of your biology, and thats how youre gendered (by yourself or others), you are "biologically" a woman. i will never believe in reinforcing that gender = assigned sex at birth, but if I can be assigned female at birth and have sexual characteristics associated with men, but somehow still find myself coercively gendered as a woman, anyone of any body type can be a woman or female or a girl whatever the hell gender for that matter" isnt the win for trans feminism you think it is. "if i can be all that i dont see why assigned gender should be an obstacle" is even more myopic
oh, and the verbiage shift around (C)ASAB! is a problem also!
original: "jordan was CA[X]AB."
passive voice, the subject is acted upon by an external agent (the medical industrial complex) in the past
contemporary 2022: "jordan is A[X]AB."
copula verb, = equals sign, the subject IS this
original: "people who were CA[X]AB are…"
same as before, passive past tense event done by external agent
contemporary 2022: "A[X]AB people are..."
adjective that cannot be changed because it describes an event that happened, frontal adjective that follows identity-first language patterning
like. okay here's my favorite link on identity-first v person-first language. but let me elaborate a bit here.
identity-first language is for situations like Autistic folks (and Deaf folks, Mad folks, Disabled folks, and others) resisting being called "a person with autism" because these are integral parts of ourselves that cannot be separated - being autistic permeates the whole identity and sense of self, there is no way to "cure" and get to "the real person underneath." there is Deaf culture, and people who are members of it do not want called "a person with deafness."
by contrast, person-first language was created for distancing an attribute and emphasizing one's humanity first, as in "a person with disability." a parallel in trans communities is "a person with transitioning experience" - which is important, because not everyone considers themselves to be trans (because =, copula verb BE/IS, indefinite/forever) and that is okay! why would you if you don't relate or have anything meaningful to you in common - words are tools for connecting
now.
"A[X]AB person" is following the identity-first pattern of communicating "this is an integral attribute that cannot be separated from who i am and is important to me, do not distance it from me in conversation."
plus it's often "A[X]AB trans person," putting ASAB before the actual identity-first adjective trans!
i can definitely opine about how starting with A[X]AB doesn't resist the status quo in the way that identity-first language like Autistic does...
but more simply: hey, uh, some people prefer person-first language and that's okay. people relate to descriptors, words, attributes, experiences, traits, etc differently.
and: be intentional about your choice between identity-first and person-first, and aware of who that puts off
personally, "A[X]AB person" pings gender essentialism flags for me. like saying "female woman," y'know?
Actually on the topic of intersectionality I RESENT the common talking point of "You are white before anything else"
The intent of the message is the being queer/disabled/poor/ect does not erase your whiteness nor the privilege that brings but the specific wording, and the ways people that use this wording act, means that no matter what other axis of oppression you may suffer under from a person over color, a white person is more privileged.
This echoes 2014 era privilege theory wherein privilege and oppression is a strict hierarchy where every person must either oppress or be oppressed by every other with no nuance for two people oppressing each other on different axis. One axis had to have higher weight and make one person the sole oppressor in that scenario.
This rhetoric posits race as being the lowest in the pecking order and thus trumping every other axis and being the "most important" axis of oppression. Which has led to the current state of the discourse wherein accusations of whiteness (true or not) are used to shut down discussions of homophobia, transphobia, and especially transmisogyny. Even by white people! White people even participate in this when it is useful to shut someone down!
When we analyze systems of oppression and privilege we cannot make hard calls as to who is more oppressed than who, only how the various dynamics acting on them may privilege them over another or provide them some amount of power over the other.
by: Sophia Casab-Casab
Exploring Detroit’s data set whilst taking into account its fascinating historical narrative, I knew I wanted to take these concepts hand in hand and present a project that had a compelling message. But there’s a crucial step in between—making sense of the data. This transformation is not just about presenting numbers and figures; it’s about crafting visual metaphors that…