I’m sure that there are a few “Alas” readers who will leap on this to say “but, Amp! You call people racists! You’re such a hypocrite!”
Actually, I work to avoid calling people racists, just as I never called Yvonne transphobic. I do call certain policies and actions racists, but I almost never call a person racist. Please try and keep that distinction in mind when you comment. But otherwise, have at it. :-) I am large, I contain multitudes.
I would also ask you to “have at it,” on the specific subject of “Amp’s hypocrisy because he uses the word racist,” in the open thread, rather than discussing it in this thread (because I don’t want it taking over this thread).
You can also use this thread to discuss the Mt. Holyoke issue, if you want. You can get an idea of what happened at Mt. Holyoke from Yvonne’s article (warning for transphobic language, obviously), but I’d also recommend Carolyn Cox’s more positive take at The Mary Sue, and also this blog post for Eve Ensler’s very sensible take. (Ensler is the author of “The Vagina Monologues.”)
Somebody who describes your politely disagreeing with them in a public space where they’ve opened dialogue with terms like “persecute” is an entitled fucking idiot who would rather keep saying the sky is green than admit to being wrong.
On the other hand describing the use of the terms “male” or “men” to refer to a person with a penis as “anti-trans” comes off as a hyperbolic political correctness and an overly sensistive reaction to a very common use of language.
Despipis: As so often happens on Twitter, I wrote and posted the first tweet in the series impulsively and without giving it much thought – not the best state for writing, alas.
before realizing where I was going or what I had in mind.If I had a do-over, I would write that first tweet differently, so that it didn’t sound so hostile. Hopefully I succeeded in modifying my tone in the subsequent tweets enough so I came across better than I did in the first tweet.That said, this is the second article she’s published on trans issues, and she’s clearly been a close observer of the discussions of trans issues going on at Mt Holyoke for the past year. She has a very sophisticated, and academic, parsing of what the words “sex” and “gender” mean. So I suspect that she’s not exactly a naif, and knew perfectly well when she wrote her article that many or most trans people do see using “men” to describe trans women as hurtful and anti-trans.
Also, after I wrote this series of tweets, I ran into the same author’s funny gag article about “feminazis.” Between that and the “men” thing, I’m getting the impression that she’s not someone who worries overly much about civility.
Mythago: Yeah, I noticed that, and started to reply. And then stopped, because I couldn’t, at that moment, think of any way of commenting on the ludicrous “persecute” thing without seeming to mock her.
But yeah, that was a pretty ridiculous word choice. The only thing I can say in her defense there is that maybe she wrote quickly and would use a different word if she had a do-over. :-)
desipis:
Really? In reporting on a discussion of whether or not trans women are adequately represented in a production the title of which refers to vaginas, you think categorizing trans women as men isn’t staking out some rhetorical territory? That doesn’t code a message? It’s just neutral language? The common parlance?
Context matters.
Once again, it reduces identity to the presence or absence of the all-important phallus, which is a Venn diagram without total overlap. In a discussion of humanity generally, this is a slight overgeneralization, a pebble in the road. Most people don’t even notice the tire hit it, and don’t care to drive differently even if they do. In a discussion of trans people specifically, and whether they belong, whether they are represented in a work which many people take to be about women specifically, it’s watery ditch with steep banks, carefully constructed not to permit passage. It is a deliberately constructed barrier to understanding and acceptance, an argument that trans women may not pass.
Grace
Ampersand’s repudiation of the tone of his first tweet nothwithstanding, I don’t see anything in what he wrote as objecting to the use of “male” or “men” to refer to a person with a penis. His objection was to the phrase “men who identify as women”.
Edited to clarify, in response to Grace Annam’s comment, I agree with her that in the context of a discussion about trans people, the use of the term “male” or “men” to refer to people with penises is indeed “staking out some rhetorical territory”.
The implication of this remark is that it wouldn’t be so bad if the people you’re hurting were just the dregs of society. But some of them are respectable!
Sounds pretty classist to me.
Grace:
The only “rhetorical territory” I see being staked out involves the following points:
a) Different people understand gendered terms such as “men”, “male”, “women” & “female” to mean a different range things.
b) Some people see the primary sex organs as a key factor in the way the words are used or applied in a default context.
c) In the context of “identity” those same people may understand the words in a broader way.
d) Those people ought to be able to use language as they understand it to communicate about gender issues, including trans issues.
Daran, the “implication” of my remark seems more like your inference to me. It wasn’t my intention, and it’s not a reading someone giving me a reasonable benefit of the doubt would leap to.
In the US – and, I had thought, in the UK – “classist” refers to economic class. But the people I mentioned, in the US, aren’t rich – cops make good wages in many cities, but all the charity workers I know make poverty wages, and Vets are found least among the upper classes (and in most US cities are very visible among the homeless). So your claim is a stretch.
Honestly, I was trying to appeal to a conservative by reminding her that the people she was hurting
includedare real people, and it seems to make sense to talk about the kind of people most conservatives respect. I think it’s easier to be mean to people who are abstractions, so I was trying to tell her that trans people aren’t abstractions. It probably didn’t work, but it was worth trying, imo.Desipis, I agree that “those people ought to be able to use language as they understand it to communicate about gender issues, including trans issues.” As far as I can tell, no one here disagrees with that principle.
That’s why I haven’t suggested any form of censorship for “those people.” Indeed, as I said to Yvonne Dean-Bailey, she has an absolute right to her own opinion. And to state that opinion, of course.
So since no one is preventing Yvonne Dean-Bailey or anyone else from using language as they please, can you spell out what it is you’re objecting to here?
(ETA: I don’t want to seem disingenuous. Obviously, I do have a guess as to what your objection is. But rather than debate with a guess (which might be wrong), I’d prefer to have you spell out your objection, in your own words.)
desipis, interesting that you fuss about political correctness and oversensitivity, but then display these exact sentiments yourself by thinking that criticism is censorship.
I was just reading a NY Times article about West Hollywood passing an ordinance mandating that single-stall public restrooms have gender-neutral signs, and they used the same phrasing. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/restroom-ordinance-is-just-one-more-sign-of-a-citys-acceptance.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
“Amazon Studios’s streaming show “Transparent” has received widespread critical acclaim, and the lead actor, Jeffrey Tambor, won a Golden Globe last Sunday for his performance as a man who identifies as a woman.”
I’d disagree. It seems the 2 sides are talking past each other. One is persuading through appeals to emotion, constantly invoking ‘hurtfulness.’ The other is appealing to biological fact, such as possessing male genitalia. The basic argument is: don’t hurt people’s feelings; the other is saying ‘Facts are facts.’
From my viewpoint, I’d avoid appeals to emotion that cloud the truth. Referring to ‘males who identify as women’ is more precise. That is a trans woman. Sex/Gender 101 uses this language; sex is a different construct than gender. Sex is biological, gender is social. Gender is more fluid than sex. Trans women are males, they are also women (unless they somehow alter their anatomy/biology).
The downside to appealing to emotion to resolve moral disputes is that whoever is the most subjective, the most offended, the angriest – is correct. There’s simply no way to settle any dispute once a specific person’s feelings become the yardstick. Emotion is biased and subjective and variable and dynamic. Best to minimize its use as an arbiter of truth. Otherwise, liberals play right into right-winger’s narratives about identity politics. Let’s avoid this rhetoric of victimization, and the timidity of hurting others feelings. Post-Hebdo, we need to acknowledge that a vibrant democracy that is genuinely inclusive will necessarily entail ‘hurt feelings’ as we express ourselves freely. We don’t have the luxury of such delicacy anymore. It’s rough out there in the real, non-pc world. we have to adjust.
What struck me about this is that there is no information in “men who identify as women” that could not be conveyed by using the less insulting and essentialist term “trans women.”
I mean, it’s not like they transitioned from ocelots or something.
—Myca
Criticising this for offense or opinion and proposing Newspeak alternatives completely misunderstands the purpose of this type of journalism. The important thing about reportage isn’t that it’s inoffensive or ideologically sound, but that it’s accurate. If you read the admissions policy (and Dean-Bailey seems to be alone in having done that) the phrase used is “female or identifies as a woman” not trans, so the article actually does a fairly good job of representing it.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/policies/admission-transgender-students
I’m not trying to be more progressive than thou – as I’m pretty sure I’m not more progressive than you. But, factually, they deliberately wrote the policy as broadly as possible to include genderqueers/fluids/pangenders etc – those who don’t identify as trans and would be excluded by the use of the term. So yes – using trans would be misleading – and you’re a load of revanchist old conservatives insensitive to the needs/wishes of the oppressed (I guess now you know what it feels like).
And whatever, but men has been used that way in standard english for more than a millennia, it’s just weird to say it’s her ‘personal opinion’. And persecute does have a mild meaning of annoy/importune. Also, it’s kinda funny that this succeeded when the whole “Isn’t raping 13 year olds bad” argument failed.
As a quick thought, if she’s on board with gender being socially constructed, then why the heck identify trans women as “men”? “Man” and “woman” are terms for gender; “male” and “female” are terms for sex. Even her own line of reasoning doesn’t support her argument.
Pete: there is no word at all that has been “used that way in standard english for more than a millennia” because we have not had a “standard” English language for that long. If you want to get into the history of the term “man” referring to male humans, we could have an interesting and very long conversation about the perception of sex and gender in the English-speaking world, but absent that discussion, seems to me that “men who identify as woman” is the Newspeaky, wordy, politically-correct term, instead of just saying “women”.
Also curious as to where you get the ‘mild meaning’ of the term persecute. I rather suspect that if a feminist claimed that a critical post here ‘persecuted’ her views, we’d see a lot of shit-flipping about silencing, victim culture and free speech.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize TVM (and while I personally have never understood all the praise and feminist support the play gets, I also find it amusing to hear criticism from some of the same quarters one would normally expect to rant about the ‘agency’ and right of teenage girls to sleep with older partners). Using TVM as an excuse to dis trans women seems a little pointless to me. YMMV, I guess.
It seems to me that there is a huge difference between defining something for the purposes of a policy that needs to be applied broadly, across a wide range of people and using a term that is supposed to denote the identity in which a person lives her or his life.
Granting for the moment that biological-male-(meaning someone with xy chromosomes)-who-identifies-as-woman is an accurate way of defining an objective bottom line that all trans women will have in common, and granting for the moment that it makes sense for a women’s college’s admission policy to use some version of that definition so that its admissions decisions in this regard are based on something that can be applied unambiguously and fairly across the entire population of trans women who might choose to apply—and when I say granting, I really mean it; I
am not sureknow those assumptionswoulddon’t truly hold water—it’s worth noting that Holyoke’s policy does not once use the words male or man in describing those applicants who might not be female but who nonetheless identify as women.Not only, in other words, is Dean-Bailey (probably willfully) using the word man when she should, for accuracy’s sake, be using male, but she’s also actually reading something into the policy that isn’t there, narrowing it in a way that I imagine was not originally intended. More to the point, I think Dean-Bailey’s piece about The Vagina Monologue needs to be read in the context of this quote from an article in Campus Reform:
Those are not the words of a woman using language to define, for whatever purposes, a bottom line commonality among all trans women; those are the transphobic words of a woman who certainly seems hell bent on not granting trans women their identities as women.
Ruchama: Ugh, that sucks that the Times did that. I wish I could say I was surprised.
I went to see if I could tweet to the writer of the article asking him to use a different phrase in the future, but he’s named “Noah Smith,” and there are lots of Noah Smiths. (I found one that has written for the Times, but I’m not sure he’s the right one – his photo makes him look like he might be a war reporter.)
I have to run off now, but later I’ll send a note to their public editor about it, and I’d encourage anyone who’d like the Times to stop using “man who identifies as a woman” language to do the same.
Ampersand:
I never said it was your intention. Implications can exist outside of a person’s intention, as has been discussed many times on Alas. In any case, the common characteristic of your examples which lead to that implication, namely that they were all people commonly viewed as respectable, was intentional, as you go on to say.
In the UK it refers to socio-economic class. There is a significant social dimension. I view the long-term unemployed to be a different class from the working poor, even though a person on minimum wage might be no better off (or even worse off) financially, than one subsisting on benefit.
I’m fifty years old, and have been gainfully employed for just three of them. My view of the class system is perhaps a little different from yours.
In any case, “classist” isn’t really what I meant. If there was such a word as “respectabilist” I would have used it. But there isn’t. “Classist” came closest.
The people she is hurting don’t “include” real people. They are real people. All of them.
Exactly. You deliberated crafted your tweet to appeal to her (presumed) respectablism. That’s why it sounded respectablist. Because it was.
Note that I am not saying that you are respectablist. I don’t think you are. Nor am I saying that it was wrong or bad of you to post a respectablist tweet for the reason you did. (I call this rhetorical technique “bowling at someone else’s wicket”, btw, and it’s one I’ve used myself.) I do, however, find it problematic.
This is true; I’m sorry my poor phrasing could be interpreted to say otherwise. I’ll edit my comment.
Ha! But this gets me thinking. Yvonne Dean-Bailey purports to seek terms to identify people with “Male sex that ID w/women gender….”
The word trans women focuses on a person who transitions to membership in the category “women.” How should I characterize the status from which they transitioned?
(Yes, transfolk might prefer not characterizing, or otherwise focusing on, the original status. Nevertheless, the topic occasionally becomes relevant – even for the purpose of discussing its irrelevance.)
To focus on the biology/social role distinction: Grace, when speaking of herself, might appropriately use the phrase “[biological category] transitioning to [social role]” or “[social role] transitioning to [social role].” Grace’s spouse might use either phrase. Grace’s physician might use either phrase (assuming the physician had actually taken sufficient time to learn of Grace’s circumstances, which I understand is a regrettably weak assumption).
But darned few other people are likely to have any actual knowledge about Grace’s biology. And whether we do or we don’t have such knowledge, the list of circumstances when that information becomes relevant will be quite short.
So if Dean-Bailey wanted to defend a choice to characterize any specific person as “a man (‘Male sex’) who identifies as a woman” on the grounds of truth, I’d need to ask her to present the evidence she has gathered about the biology of the person in question. For purposes of Yvonne Dean-Bailey’s article, it’s not clear that issues of biology enter into it at all.
I think Dean-Bailey’s piece about The Vagina Monologue needs to be read in the context of this quote from an article in Campus Reform:
Oh. So this isn’t really about terminology or Newspeak. This is about Dean-Bailey being an asshole.
I’m confused as to why people interpreted my earlier comments as refering to censorship in any way.
Ampersand:
I was criticising your criticism. I guess central to my criticism is the way that some views on gender, and the use of language in line with those views, are being labeled as ‘antitrans’ or ‘unkind’ or ‘insulting’ seems to be quite intollerant of those views. Expecting cis people to change the way they define, identify with and talk about gender to suit others is no less problematic than expecting trans people do it.
It sure is more problematic (as long as we’re not talking about cis people’s own definitions of their own identities, which we’re not). Because it’s “expecting cis people to change the way they define and talk about OTHER PEOPLE’s gender to suit
THEMSELVESTHE PEOPLE THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT”, while the other case is “expecting trans people to change the way they define and talk about THEIR OWN gender to suit OTHER PEOPLE.” (edited because I got tangled up in my own syntax, sorry)***
It strikes me that, even if you want to bring biology into it (which I think is dumb, but for the sake of argument), you could say something like “women, both females and males”–putting “women” as the dominant category and further specifying the biology you’re interested in discussing. When you say “males who identify as women” you are putting the “male” category as the first and most important part, and then as sort of an addendum saying that “identifying as women” is the particular class of male you’re discussing. But don’t forget they’re males, first and foremost! That is not a neutral choice.
Harlequin:
Exactly. Thank you, Harlequin.
This is also why I dislike the generally-accepted terms “Male-to-female” and “Female-to-male”. They foreground the gender of assignment.
I can enjoy a theoretical linguistic discussion better than most, but practically speaking, this never works well. “Man” and “male” (to select one pair at random) are too closely tied (and sometimes used synonymously) to be divorced by a brief definition at the top of the discussion. When people attempt it, the resultant discussion is guaranteed to be tainted with cognitive dissonance, which leads to pronoun mistakes and other errors which are shredding or offputting for trans participants in the conversation, and often not even noticed by cis participants. It creates (or reinforces) an imbalance in the discussion.
A couple of weeks ago, I participated in a group discussion with some very thoughtful people, most of whom are trans, about this very issue. Several of them wanted to endorse the sex/gender distinction, where sex is defined as biological while gender is defined as social. Several of us objected that as neat as this distinction might seem to be, it doesn’t work well in practice, for many reasons. I advocated for a “use a phrase and say exactly what you mean” model, where the phrase you need will depend upon context. For instance, if, in a context of human fertility, if trans people are relevant to the particular discussion, it’s not useful to talk about “men” and “women” or “males” and “females”. No matter how you try to define them, a couple of paragraphs later, people will be getting their wires crossed. Instead, you use a short, descriptive phrase which is specific to the distinction you need: “people capable of producing sperm”, for instance, or “people who can become pregnant”.
Inevitably, when I propose such a solution, someone says, “Oh, my god! This is needlessly complex! Just use the words I propose in the way that I define them!” And the carousel ride continues. Because that’s the essence of the problem with trans people — we often don’t fit within the boundaries which those terms seek to summarize, and so, to insist on using those terms is to insist on defining us inaccurately.
And, as any good scientist knows, when you define something inaccurately and then try to act on that definition, you get wonky results. GIGO. The map is not the territory. All that.
Grace
I am beyond tired of acting like we all have to play some dumb little game where we pretend that what’s obviously happening isn’t happening. I don’t think we’re bound by any sense of fair play to pretend that the sex/gender distinction is anything but a post-facto justification for wanting to say that “trans women are really men pretending to be women.”
Which is transphobic as fuck.
If she took the sex/gender distinction seriously, there are all sorts of more accurate (male/female) and less hurtful ways to express it … but of course, invalidating trans people isn’t an accidental quirk of language here. As witnessed by the quote RJN found upthread, it’s her whole point.
—Myca
Harlequin,
I’m haven’t noticed anywhere in the context of this discussion of anyone placing expectations on the way trans people talk about their own gender. I’m making the case of no expectionations with regards to how people define and talk about gender (their own or otherwise). The basis for that argument is that different people have different conceptions of gender and that everyone (trans people included) should feel free to discuss gender in the way they conceive it.
Most people are going to have some sort of gender identity, and the basis for those identities is going to be formed from a range of aspects of people’s lives. For some people their physical sex traits are fundamental to their gender identity. Insisting that these people use language that directly contradicts their relationship to their gender is not some trivial impost. I don’t find it surprising that some people react defensively to attempts to undermine their gender identity through political correctness.
There is no neat line between sex and gender, and no neat way to perfectly divide people into “men” and “women” or even into “male” and “female”. Attempting to pressure people to use one arbitrary defintion as the “correct” version because it suits a certain political perspective seems quite intollerant and comes across (to me at least) as dogmatic zealotry.
No, it’s not. But then the “physical sex has nothing do with gender” choice isn’t neutral either.
That really depends on alternatives. In the “don’t use the word ___” discussion in the other thread, various folks have listed alternatives, showing how to make the equivalent points without the disputed words. It also depends on the degree to which you want to focus on factual information, at least in some contexts.*
What’s the equivalent language in a situation like this? I
-Lee says “I should be treated as a ___ because I am a ____” and
-Ernest wants to say “no, I think you should be treated as a _______ because you are a ____.”
How can Ernest make the same point in a kind fashion? If there’s an “acceptable” way to say it, I haven’t seen it yet. And I think the lack of an acceptable alternative is the root cause of the issue.
Also, to the degree that it’s implied, I generally reject the “the issue is about people’s self-definition and that is what matters” concept. Shit, I have a self-image as a kind, smart dude, and I am absolutely 100% positive that many people here and elsewhere think (among other things) that I am unkind, and stupid. Which is par for the course: I am sure that everyone else’s self-image is different from what I think about them.
It would certainly suit me better if you would all adopt my self image and descriptors as your own, but that seems unreasonable. The best we can get is to mutually agree to modify our own insults and pointed comments so that we can all talk to each other without constantly giving offense.
That is why politeness requires an alternative to communicate our disagreements. And that is why the limits need to be reasonable to both parties: if one side tries to put too many limits in place, then the other side will stop bothering to meet those limits at all.
* For example, I would include a reference to Bradley Manning if I was talking about Chelsea Manning, even if some folks think that referencing a prior gender is inappropriate.
Okay, gotcha. My apologies. I read into your comment an implication that wasn’t there (that the discourse should be happening with the one, more common but more hurtful to trans people, definition–instead of that we should have everybody using their own definitions).
And here you seem to be reading something into my kind of language that isn’t there. Saying “it’s wrong to assume that physical sex always correlates to gender, or that physical sex is the most important characteristic” is not the same thing as saying “you’re wrong if you think your personal physical sex impacts your personal gender identity.” Allowing the possibility that these things can be separate is not saying they must be separate, all the time, everywhere. Indeed, if physical sex didn’t interface with important ways with gender for many people including some trans people, nobody would undertake the various medical interventions that are available to trans people.
I’m not sure why you seem to think it’s my side of the fence that’s trying to force people into perfectly binary “men” and “women” or “male” and “female”?
I know it’s not, which is why I didn’t make that claim. I was just pushing back against the notion that since something was “biologically true” or whatever, therefore it was apolitical in a way that people asking for trans-inclusive language were not.
***
g&w:
I think the answer here might be that Ernest can’t make that point in a kind fashion, because the point itself is unkind. (I mean that to be separate from a truth claim, though in this instance I also think the truth claim is wrong.)
I’m having a little trouble with this analogy, and I think it’s because “kind” and “smart” are value claims, while gender is a categorization claim (not meant to imply discrete categories). If you say, “I think I this figurine of a Dachshund is great art,” and I say, “No, I think it’s worthless kitsch”, we are having one kind of a debate; if you say “I think I this figurine of a Dachshund is great art,” and I say, “No, that’s a corgi,” then we’re having a different kind of debate. Categorization has, well, more of a claim to objectivity than value does, although they’re both working somewhere between objective and subjective. Like, I think somebody who calls me stupid is incorrect, but I think somebody who calls me a man has fundamentally misunderstood what’s going on. I’m not sure “gender” vs “kindness/smartness” are separable enough to make a solid claim on, just…they taste different to me, somehow.
gin-and-whiskey:
He can’t. There’s no kind way to call a woman a man. There’s no kind way to call a man a woman. There’s no kind way to tell a woman that you’re terribly sorry, but you understand her better than she understands herself, and she’s really a man with delusions, and that’s how you’re going to represent her to the world.
There’s no kind way to do that. There are only unkind ways and more unkind ways.
Uh huh. Tell me, gin-and-whiskey, did you fight against that image? Did you wage a lifelong war against that image, in a desperate effort not to have to concede that you belonged over there in that group, with the people you were taught, and on some level believed, were kind and smart?
Did you cringe in self-hatred when people yelled “smart!” at you? Did you ever believe that no one could ever love you because people showered you with accolades for your acts of charity? Did you avoid other kind and smart people for fear that people seeing you with other people like you might lead them to conclude that you, yourself, were kind and smart? Did you check yourself at pedestrian crossings to see what gave it away to other people that you were kind and smart?
Eventually, did you have to make a choice between (a) a life of routine struggle against suicidal ideation and (b) a life where you finally had to embrace the fact that you were kind and smart?
No?
Then maybe you could come up with a different fucking analogy.
Everyone told me I was a boy so much that I learned to think I was, to the extent that that was possible. My mother, my belovèd grandfather and grandmother, my friends, they all lovingly believed I was a boy, told me that I was a boy, acted like I was a boy. And I warped myself to fit that mold, you better believe I did, in this society where even in my sheltered and progressive school my classmates casually called each other “girly” and “fag” as the worst insults they could think of. I saw what happened to the people who couldn’t pass as straight. And I learned to pass so well that for almost two decades I even fooled myself.
But I wasn’t straight. And I wasn’t a boy. And I knew for sure that my society wasn’t going to admit that I was a girl. I had to choose between a lifetime fighting against myself, or a lifetime living as myself in a society where people would routinely and casually believe me to be perverted, sick, twisted, despicable, contemptible, confused and dangerous. I chose not to fight myself anymore. I fight the people who believe me to be perverted, sick, twisted, despicable, contemptible, confused and dangerous. The people who call me and people like me “faggot” and “tranny” and “he-she” and “chick with a dick” and “shemale”… and then laugh.
And now I’m learning that I must also keep a weather eye on the tolerant. They won’t hinder me… but they won’t help me, either, even though they’ll help everyone standing around me. Some of them won’t stay willingly in the same room with me. They won’t call me names, they won’t be rude to my face, no… but they won’t hire me. And they’ll smile and pass along useful information to other people and not to me. And they won’t hold out a steadying hand when I stumble, even though I do that for them. And when I fall, they’ll tut-tut and shake their heads, and say, well, really, what can you expect from someone who’s, you know, like that?
If you call me a man, if you call people like me men, if you call people like me “men who identify as women”… at the very best, you join the ranks of the tolerant. You join the ranks of the comfortable complacent who thrive in this society, the people who think that I’m perverted, sick, twisted, despicable, contemptible, confused and dangerous.
Chelsea has been clear, on this: her gender didn’t change. To phrase it that way is not merely inappropriate; it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Chelsea and many other trans people, and it asserts that Chelsea’s understanding is wrong.
I know this is hard. I know that it weighs on you, and hinders your self-actualization in many ways. I can see from your behavior how critically important it is to you to assert that you know me better than I know me. I weep for how difficult this makes your life. And I’m sorry that I don’t have a kinder way to tell you this, but: you don’t understand. You don’t really get the first thing about trans people, the thing from which almost everything else flows.
I hope you (and lots of others like you) get it someday.
Grace
KellyK (and Amp), please correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like this is a red herring.
Had Yvonne used the phrase “males who identify as women,” would there then be no issue with her word choice? As it is, she provided a link to a page explaining that there’s a difference between sex and gender, and Amp politely dismissed the link, explaining that words have multiple usages.
Amp wrote that trans women are not “men who identify as women,” they are women. I don’t imagine Amp would write that trans women are “males who identify as women,” although he may use some variation on that phrase in a purely technical sense in order to explain the language that he does choose to use.
The problem with categorizing these types of discussions as either ““expecting trans people to change the way they define and talk about THEIR OWN gender” versus “expecting cis people to change the way they define and talk about OTHER PEOPLE’s gender” is that it’s dismissive of the the very notion that trans women are women and trans men are men. If a trans man is a man, then I share a gender with him. And if a trans man was assigned the sex of male at birth, but is in fact female and has always been female, then I share a sex and a gender with this man.
Some people choose to deliberately run roughshod over others’ self-definition to make an ideological point. In this case the ideological point is simply, “trans women aren’t real women.” Anyone wishing to forward this view should feel free to continue to use the phrase “men who identify as women.” Anyone who is not a transphobic jerk should kindly modify their usage. This makes it simple for us to know who to avoid.
Thanks,
A man who identifies as a man, or as I like to say, a man
Indeed, how could Ernest explain to a black guy that he’s racially inferior in a kind fashion? What is the compassionate way to deny the Holocaust? What’s the considerate way to tell a woman that it’s not rape if it’s her husband?
There are some things that are unkind, no matter how you pretty them up.
—Myca
Bravo, Grace.
I am sorry that you didn’t think that was a good analogy. I will be more general:
if someone comes up to me and declares “I am ____” then what?
Sometimes I change my mental image to think “they are ___;”
and sometimes I change it to say “they identify/think/act like they are ___.” Even when I change it to think “they are ___” I usually remember how I used to think of them and may, if I think it’s relevant, include that in my memories, descriptions, etc.
As a general rule I think that is perfectly normal, functional, and acceptable behavior and I do not think there is a special exception for gender/trans issues. And I say that even though it sometimes means that I end up having a different opinion about someone than they do about themselves. Just like they probably do about me.
Usually I don’t go around telling people about my differing opinions, because it isn’t courteous whatever they are. But I have them nonetheless, which seems fine to me. I suspect most people do.
That is wrong. I don’t think that you’re any of those things, and I’m sorry that you believe that I do. (Nor, for what it’s worth, do I think of you as male, or refer to you as a man.)
Since I haven’t said any of those things to you and you’re suggesting that I think them anyway, then I doubt I will convince you otherwise, other than to point out that I don’t know you in person and probably never will; that I am not (obviously) putting out a “nice face” to try to make you like me, and that I therefore have no incentive to lie to you about it.
If you suggest that mentally classifying people differently from their own internal classification means that I generally think of anyone other than you who ranges outside the binary as “perverted, sick, twisted, despicable, contemptible, confused and dangerous” that isn’t accurate either. They’re… just people. Who I mentally classify into my own groups, like most everyone else does.
I understand that Chelsea feels like she was Chelsea the whole time. You’ve previously explained that perfectly well, and I don’t dispute it. How on earth could I assert that her own understanding of her own life is factually wrong?
Neither are my memories wrong. I remember reading the Bradley Manning story, not the Chelsea Manning story. I remember talking about Bradley Manning with my friends, not Chelsea Manning, and commenting on Bradley Manning posts. Hell, I remember reading about Bradley’s desire to legally transition to Chelsea.
I’ve annotated my memories, which is basically “note, it turns out that Bradley was actually Chelsea.” But I haven’t rewritten them. And similarly I’d use a footnote, not a rewrite, if I told them to someone else. That doesn’t reflect a misunderstanding of what chelsea thinks, it simply reflects my own reality.
I have a colleague who is a trans man, but when we were hired 25 or so years ago, he had not yet transitioned and I knew him as the woman he was presenting as. In my experience of him, then, he has, over time, performed (in the sense that we all perform gender) as two different genders, one which was—for want of a better term—a mask, and another which represents both who he understands himself to be now and, despite the woman-mask that he was wearing, who he understood himself to be back then. For me to use language which suggests otherwise—i.e., that the mask he wore when we first met was who understood himself to be back then—by referring to his “prior gender” or by saying that he is “a woman who identifies as a man” or whatever, is, then, plain and simple, without any ambiguity, a denial, an erasure, a falsification of his experience—and, by extension, the experience of trans men and women in general—independently of what may or may not be true about the relationship between gender and biology.
This seems to me self-evident.
It is true that it took me some time to find an accurate and respectful language in which to talk about the fact that I have known him both as the woman he presented as and as the man he is—and I’m not sure I have entirely succeeded—but that difficulty comes from trying to make sense of my experience of knowing him, from the fact that there was, when I first knew him, no reason for me to assume that the woman he presented as was indeed a mask. This difficulty did not originate in some kind of confusion in his experience of himself, or in what it means to be trans in some objective sense, or in the fact that we all have the right—as desipis, I think, is arguing—to our own, idiosyncratic and therefore sacrosanct definition of gender, which no one can criticize for any reason whatsoever. The difficulty originated in me, in the limits of what I knew about him when we were first hired, and in my having to accept the fact that the woman I thought I knew was, in fact, a mask he was wearing.
To use language that locates this confusion in him—”prior gender,” “woman who identifies as a man”—is a refusal to take responsibility for who I am and for the ways in which being cisgendered has shaped my view of the world. That, it seems to me, without even getting into questions of institutionalized cis privilege, etc., is why, on a very basic, personal level, Dean-Bailey’s language is transphobic, why desipis’ argument feels to me vapid, and why G&W’s question about Ernest is so downright insulting.
Grace, here is another aspect, or maybe a side note:
If you so intensely care what other people think of you, you are going to be unhappy for big chunks of your life, also with regard to many other issues.
No one should be rude to other people, but that will never go away in life. Not everyone is going to think exactly like you do either, nor should they. It may be more effective to get a healthier approach to life in terms of not pegging your inner value to what other people think in such a complete way.
Phillip: You are absolutely correct.
Ampersand, you know how a week or two ago you promptly put an end to a discussion about when and where it’s appropriate to call people “niggers”*? As much as I’ve enjoyed Grace’s kick-ass commentary in this thread, you really ought to have stepped in here and enforced the same kind of policy. Some of this is just dehumanizing garbage –not even coyly bigoted or euphemistic — but just openly hateful and disgusting.
*never
RJN:
I disagree.
In the context of people who strongly associate gender with physical sex, it’s a normal use of language to use the terms “men” and “women” to refer to someone’s physical sex as that is how those people will percieve the person gender. The qualifier “identifies as” is then used to provide the context to interpret the second use of those terms in a different way from the first. Similarly from the context of G&W’s use of “prior gender” is pretty clearly short hand for confusion over changing names and “prior presented/percieved gender” not “prior mental/self-identified gender”.
It’s simply a matter of prioritising one bit of information (how others percieve someone’s gender) over another (how that person identifies themselves) by using words in a flexible manner where the meaning is derived from the context. This is a standard part of the English language. Deprioritising certain definitions or facts based on context is not tantimount to “denial” or “erasure” or “falsification” of those definitions or facts. There’s a stark difference between holding different views (on the meaning of gender) and denying the validity of someone else’s views. Claiming that when people say one thing what they really mean is something else, which happens to be something far more problematic, seems to be to be little more than an explicit strawman argument.
I really don’t follow your logic here. If anything I see using those phrases as an acceptance of the way life experiences have a role in shaping ones’ views of the world, and that one need not feel guilty about the very human consequence of having a sense of identity and views of the world that are not in perfect harmony with the views of everyone else.
G&W
As long as your footnote didn’t say that Chelsea used to be male, I don’t think there’d be any problem.
For instance, I can imagine writing a book or paper which included reproductions of newspaper articles about Manning from before August 2013. In that circumstance, I might include a note to readers saying “In August of 2013, Chelsia Manning publicly came out as a trans women. Before August 2013, Chelsea Manning was known by the name Brad or Bradford Manning. Therefore, articles from before August 2013 refer to Chelsea as Brad or Bradford.”
This note tells readers what’s necessary so they can understand the narrative, without referring to Chelsea as a man, or as ever having been a man. I’m fairly sure that none of my trans friends would find this phrasing offensive.
There are contexts when acknowledging history is necessary. But history can be acknowledged in a way that isn’t rude or insensitive, imo.
cc77, if I seem to care what about the opinions of others, it is only because the opinions of others encircle us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get out, no matter how much one tries. I wish, therefore, to wrestle with the snake as I have been doing consciously since 2006ish, and unconsciously, as I have discovered, ever since reaching years of discretion.
I’ll stop caring about the opinions of others when they stop refusing to hire trans people simply because they are trans.
Grace
(ht: Gandhi)
Actually I see a subtle difference in Ampersand’s argument. He doesn’t expect (or more realistically advocate. I doubt he really expects anything) Yvonne to change HOW she defines and talks about other people’s gender. He’s advocating that she STOP talking about other people’s gender when discussing matters where it isn’t relevant.
It’s like Yvonne is saying “Hey, I’m progressive. I’m supportive. I’m in favour of rights for trans women, who are really men, to be free from discrimination. I was saddened to hear that Lois, a trans woman from Smallville, who’s really a man, was unfairly sacked from her job. I’ve just been reading a report published by the Metropolis LGBT group which says that trans women are XX times more likely to be violently assaulted than the general population. And that’s terrible. They’re really men you know. It also said that they were YY times more likely to suffer from mental illness. Did I mention that they are really men?”
Yes Yvonne, we know you think they’re really men. Now will you quit going on about it already!
At least, that’s what I got from Ampersand’s storify.
Is there a problem with “Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning”?
That’s how we handle every other case in which a person has changed their name, but our audience might know them by their former name, or where we might be citing documents which use their former name.
Mookie raises an interesting point.
Here’s how I think of it: Whether or not white people should call someone “nigger” is a closed debate in our society. Outside of certain very narrow contexts (such as an actor reciting lines in a play), it’s nearly universally agreed upon that white people should never call someone the n-word, and any white person who does is a racist asshole who cannot be taken seriously. People who openly disagree with this are seen as marginal and – imo – are beyond any hope of being educated.
In contrast, I don’t think the debate on phrases like “man who identifies as a woman” has reached a point of widespread consensus yet. It is therefore extremely important that trans people, and cis people who know and love trans people, or who simply wish to be trans allies, participate in this ongoing social discussion, and through practice get better at advocating for better language. I think that refusing to have the discussion, in this case, could actually make matters worse, by forfeiting the discussion to people like Yvonne Dean-Bailey.
So that is why I shut down the former discussion, but not this current discussion.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I’d allow ANY comments. I’ve banned people in the past for using transphobic slurs, and I expect I’ll do so in the future. But it’s a balancing act; I very much want trans readers to feel welcome here, but I also don’t want to shut down what I see as a necessary discussion. I’m never certain that I’ve gotten the balance right. I’m genuinely sorry that reading comments here on “Alas” has been hurtful for you, and hope you’ll stick around anyway, although I’d understand if you choose not to.
For what it’s worth, I try to achieve the same sort of balance when discussing issues that affect me personally (such as fat acceptance and anti-fat bigotry). And, for that matter, when discussing racism – there are many debates regarding race that I do allow to take place on “Alas.” (For instance, although I think anti-voting laws such as voter ID laws are the most disgustingly racist policy in the US today, I don’t ban people for favoring such laws.)
I’d like to be in a world where it wasn’t necessary to have these discussions anymore, but I just don’t believe we’re there.
For me, not so much.
1. Does a person have only one mask? Cannot a person shed one mask, only to reveal another? Indeed, does ANYONE present herself authentically? Or do we all wear masks to one extent or another? (What’s the difference between wearing makeup and wearing a disguise?)
2. Does a person have only one authentic self – a self that is immutable and about which they have perfect knowledge from birth? Or might a person’s sense of self change over time, such that a person might authentically present herself in one fashion at one time, and in a different fashion at a different time? Might Maxwell authentically regard himself as a boy at age 6, but as a girl at age 16? And if so, what language would be appropriate for describing Maxwell at age 6?
3. The epistemological question: How can I, an observer, know when a person has revealed her authentic self to me, not merely another mask, such that I could then speak to others on the basis of this knowledge?
In my previous post I argue against the practice of describing a trans woman as “a man who identifies as a woman,” and justifying this on the basis of biological fact, unless 1) biological facts are actually relevant to the discussion, and 2) the speaker actually has biological facts about the person in question. Grace could elect to describe herself this way if she chose to (which she doesn’t), because she possesses biological facts about herself. But it would make little sense for me to describe Grace in this fashion because, among other reasons, I don’t.
By the same token, I would argue against describing any specific trans person in terms of that person’s authentic self unless the speaker has some peculiar insight into the trans person’s authentic self. Thus, Grace might credibly say that she has always been female/identified as a woman/felt inauthentic presenting herself as male/whathaveyou. And I might want to support Grace and express solidarity with her. But, except in the metaphorical sense of “Je suis Charlie,” I would not find it appropriate to say that I *know* that Grace has always been female/identified as a woman/felt inauthentic presenting herself as male/whathaveyou. Rather, I *know* how Grace has presented herself to me, and I *know* what she has said about herself. I prefer to speak in these terms.
Imagine if tomorrow, after years of struggling to conform his sense of self to the dichotomous male/female norm, Amp declares, “Screw it. There’s nothing wrong with my sense of self. What’s wrong is this mindless male/female dichotomy! I don’t really identify as male – never have – nor as female. Hear me: I AM AMPERSAND, the Great and Powerful! Or the small and meek. Or whatever adjective you deem appropriate — provided they are adjectives about ME, not about some social role people have expected me to play. ‘Cuz I ain’t playin’ no more.”
And imagine Grace were to say, “Hey, that’s right! That expresses my own struggle so well! I also have struggled with the male/female dichotomy, and have never really fit within it. Well, I’m joining Amp. I’m no longer going to pretend that I identify as male or female. I AM GRACE. Hear me roar.”
To Amp we’d say, “Congratulations, Amp, for throwing off the shackles of social conformity! Do you have a preference for the pronouns we use to refer to you henceforth?”
But what should we then say to Grace? “Oh, no, no, no. Grace, haven’t you read our posts? We’ve seen behind your mask and *know* the authentic you. And you are authentically female. You have one, fixed, immutable sense of identity, and we, your friends, *know* that identity to be female — past, present, and into perpetuity. Clearly you’re just confused….”
Malcolm Little rebelled against the roles society imposed on him, including the role of being subordinate to white people. In so doing, he declared his identity as the Black Muslim Malcolm X, along with a belief that black people should utterly segregate from white people, who were inherently inferior and “devils.” This was a powerful and liberating step for him – but, to the shock and dismay of some followers, it would not be his last. If I had wanted to express my support for his’s journey to authenticity, should I have perpetually emphasized his newly embraced identity as a Black Muslim? Or should I have emphasized his agency in finding his own path, which had at one stage of the journey led him to embrace an identity as a Black Muslim?
I support Grace in her endeavor to live a more authentic life. She has taken bold steps. Whether she has finally arrived at her home, or whether there are more bold steps in her future, I cannot judge. I only hope that the forces that would have calcified her into the role of male do not similarly calcify her into the role of female. I hope she embraces, and is embraced in, her current role for as long as it fits her – and that she retains the strength and courage to cast off the attributes of her current role that do not fit her, if and when she ever finds that they do not fit her.
In any event, I try not to speak dogmatically about things I cannot know. I try not to put a period where God may have intended a comma.
Desipis:
If no trans person had ever said, “Look, please don’t use expressions like ‘prior gender’ or ‘man who identifies as woman’ [to refer back to point in the original post]; I know you intend no harm, but that language is hurtful to me and here is why; and it is not just hurtful to me personally, but it is hurtful to trans people in general and here is why,” there might—and that’s a big might (I personally don’t agree with it)–not be anything wrong with the logic of your argument. Trans people have said such things, however. To respond by saying, “Well, sorry, but hurting you is not what I intend, and so I am going to keep using the language that I want to use, since that is more important to me than whether or not it hurts you” is absolutely to erase, diminish, trivialize their pain. Not to see that, to take refuge in the kind of intellectual rationalization your last post exhibits—I don’t know what else to call it but the height of (in this case transphobic) arrogance.
nobody.really:
There’s a lot in your comment to respond to, and I would like to think more carefully about some of it—because some of it is predicated on my use of the word “mask” which I made clear in my comment was a word I was not entirely comfortable with—but this comparison to Malcom X struck me because I don’t think it quite fits. Malcolm X embraced both the identities you talk about in this paragraph. Neither Grace nor any other trans person I have heard talk about this has said that he or she embraced the identity of the gender from which they eventually transitioned, and, while I obviously cannot speak for trans people, that seems to me what is at stake here, i.e., that language such as “man who identifies as woman” or “prior gender” suggests either that those false gender identities are somehow objectively true or that they, trans people, did indeed, on some level, embrace them.
I can’t imagine that any trans person would object to language that accurately made visible and honored the struggle they went through in coming to terms with the gender they understood themselves to be and/or in coming to terms with what it meant for them to have to “wear the mask” of the gender they weren’t (which would be, I think, a more accurate parallel to your Malcolm X example). It just seems very clear to me that the language we are talking about doesn’t do that.
Also, if I don’t respond to further comments today, it’s because I am immersed in beginning-of-the-semester stuff, and it’s going to be a long day.
Why on earth would I give a shit if one of my employees was trans? Sure, I’d care if s/he wanted to lecture me on how my internal gender binary was inherently nasty or transphobic, or if she wanted to tell me that disagreeing with his/her view on how to analyze trans issues was dehumanizing. But I don’t mind if my employees have different socio-political positions than I do so long as they can handle the differences.
ETA: As an example it is probably a statistically safe bet that my young black female employee has some different political views than I do. Which doesn’t matter at all, and shouldn’t matter. We don’t talk about politics, and even if we did this isn’t a lobbying firm.
Let me try a different tack.
I think we AGREE:
1) Anyone has the right to internally self-identify however they want. You can think of yourself as you like.
2) Anyone has the right to externally self-identify however they want. If someone wants to tell me that she “thinks of herself as ____” that’s her right to do, whatever it is. That is a separate right from #1 and they don’t need to match; each of us is perfectly free to have different internal and external identifications.
I THINK WE AGREE, BUT I’M NOT SURE:
3) Everyone has the right to internally identify others however they want. That is true irrespective of how that person has identified themselves to us. If someone wants to tell me that she “thinks of herself as ____” I am not obliged to think of her the same way, though I would be wise to remember what she thinks.
This makes sense because all of these identifiers are very fluid. They stem from function and our tendency to sort into efficient groups; they stem from ease; they stem from whatever you think.
You seem to use a form of mental sorting which focuses on underlying self-identification of the party. As a result, you think of Chelsea as “always Chelsea, who used to present as Bradley.” Because to Chelsea, she was always Chelsea.
I use a form of mental sorting which focuses on presentation and my own experience. As a result, I think of Chelsea as “Bradley, who then publicly transitioned to Chelsea.” Because to me, Chelsea used to be Bradley.
I find it simpler to use that method, because I have an overall sense that I never actually know what people really think; I only know what they tell me. So I go by what they told me at the time, while recognizing that it isn’t usually accurate.
Since this is happening in our own minds, it seems to me that this is not a problem. I’m not sure if you agree, though. I get a feeling you don’t and would like clarity.
I THINK WE DISAGREE ON:
4) Whether everyone has the right to externally identify others however they want, in specific situations.
In other words: Jane tells me that she “thinks of herself as ____” but I don’t think of her the same way (#3). Am I obliged to substitute Jane’s preferences for my own thoughts when describing her to others?
I don’t think I am, so long as I accurately convey what Jane told me. If I’m talking to someone who (like you) wants to adjust their own beliefs to accommodate Jane’s self-identification, then I have given them enough information to do so. If they want to think that my own view is wrong, they have that information as well. If I’m talking to someone who (like me) tends to hold internal and external identification in separate mental “boxes,” then I’ve given them enough information to use their way.
You’ll notice that the above paragraph was written very generally. That was intentional. Since I doubt you disagree with all incidents of the general rule (I may be wrong of course) it would be great if you could clarify when and why you think there should be exceptions.
I certainly concede that Jane could be hurt and upset by my description of her, and/or by my refusal to internally identify her as she wants. I also agree–it seems obvious–that the level of Jane’s hurt and upset are going to be directly related to the degree that Jane is attached to that particular self-identification. Some things might bother Jane very little; some things might bother Jane very much.
And then the normal considerations come up: How much I am interested in describing what I actually think and feel and experience, versus what Jane wants me to think and feel and experience? How much equivalent consideration does Jane show to me, and to my own self-identification? How much do I really care about Jane and her feelings in a general sense?
There’s a HUGE difference between “doing what works best for me, ignoring Jane one way or another” and “deliberately choosing behavior in order to damage Jane.” Some folks are seemingly trying to conflate those but they’re really different.
Because you’re transphobic? (I’m assuming the “I” here was the generic “I”, and so I’m answering the people who give large buckets of shit about whether an employee is trans or not).
I know I’ve told this story here before but, several years ago, one of our employees (who I’ll call Phil) was a transman. When the owner realized that Phil was trans (because Phil’s presentation was not perfect), he fired him. I had to print out our state’s anti-discrimination laws for the owner (even though he denied that was the cause for firing an employee with whom owner never really interacted and certainly didn’t supervise). Weirdly, Phil was reinstated the following day. This is a thing that happens all the time.
Co-employees care about this shit, too. I’ve also told the story of employee Gil who was really concerned about sharing a bathroom with Phil.
Back to the main discussion, it’s really a question of common decency. It is courteous and kind and decent to refer to people in the ways that they ask to be referred to. It is rude and unkind and far less than decent to continue to refer to people with terms that they have explicitly asked you not to use. But one’s own deeply held beliefs are powerful enough to turn otherwise decent people into assholes. This may be what’s happened to Yvonne Dean-Bailey. Or she may just be an unusually cruel asshole. Either way, what she is doing and what several commenters on this post re doing is rude, unkind and far less than decent. These people are behaving like assholes because their deeply held beliefs are too dear to them to allow those who don’t conform to those beliefs any dignity.
My friends are struggling with their child’s declaration that (and forgive me if I get the pronouns wrong, it’s not something I’ve had much occasion to use) zhe is now called Charles and no longer called Penelope and please use gender neutral pronouns when talking about hir. Their rationalization for being against this change is that it’s hurtful to discard the name Penelope which they agonized over and feel proud of giving to their child. But – even being against Charles’ wishes – they are making the attempt. This is an example of people putting somebody else above their dearly held beliefs. This is what Yvonne Dean-Bailey and the several previously mentioned commenters are not doing. This is not a failing of the people they insist on describing in hurtful and inaccurate terms. This is your failing, Ms. Dean-Bailey and commenters.
Just a quick note that I meant “their own personal perception of their individual gender”–the relationship between their mind and their body and their gender, a thing I expect to be different for every person, even those who use the exact same terms–and not “their own personal perception of their gender category.” I apologize for not explaining that better.
I agree with “courteous/kind” but reject the decency argument.
Hell, I think that YOU reject the decency argument, and I am relatively certain that plenty of people here reject that as well. That is because (a) I am certain that you know that Yvonne Dean-Bailey would not want to be referred to as unkind, indecent, or an asshole; (b) you would feel free to refer to her that way if you wanted to; and (c) you would–correctly–view that as an entirely acceptable act.
Now, before you object to that as “not what you meant:” I know that isn’t what you meant. But this isn’t just a semantic trick. I’m arguing for the anti-exceptionalist position.
I don’t see this as something where the rules are (or should be) entirely different; this is something where we can, and should, apply the normal rules.
This is usually how I roll, philosophically. Exceptionalist arguments don’t generally work with me. I generally think people are entitled to speak honestly about their opinions; I generally think truthful facts are fine to reference; I generally disapprove of trying to tell people what to say. And when I apply those general rules to this situation, I end up at my position.
What’s an asshole, really, other than someone who has “deeply held beliefs” that oppose your own? If you think I’m an asshole because I’m not an exceptionalist or because my conclusions disagree with you that’s fine, I suppose, but this sentence is sort of meaningless.
So is “common decency,” which–if you use “common” in the sense of “average” or “frequent”–would probably support a position far, far, FAR, to the right of my “don’t deliberately bother people but most of the time it’s OK to use the language and mental concepts that work for you” argument.
Assuming I’m one of those: I will certainly acknowledge that I am not trying to avoid being rude (though I’m not doing so deliberately) and that I’m offending some folks as a result. Also, that I’m not stepping lightly to avoid being unkind (though I am not deliberately trying to upset anyone) and that I’m hurting some folks’ feelings as a result.
But if you were looking for situations where courtesy and kindness are secondary to accuracy, honesty, and specificity, “broad philosophical/policy discussions” are firmly in that category. At least in my opinion. And if you use the common tactic of trying to define “rudeness” and “unkindness” to include my arguments, we’ll just end up with a semantic debate about whether something is rude/unkind rather than justified/unjustified. (See, e.g., the common proposition that arguments should be “civil,” followed by the endless debates about what counts as “uncivil.”)
Why? That makes no sense.
If you tell me “I am ___,” then I’ll put you in the mental category of “someone who says they are _____.” I’ll do that for pretty much anything. I’ll do it whether or not I actually believe you; whether or not it conflicts with prior statements; and without any inquiry or challenge. And if I describe you to someone I’ll do my best to pass on your own statements, which will let THAT person engage with it as well. And I’ll do that even though you aren’t anyone who is special to me, or who I really have any obligation to watch out for. (If you were someone who I loved I’d do pretty much anything, but that’s a different story.)
If you think that is “denying you your dignity,” then I think the problem lies in how you define “dignity.” My beliefs about you aren’t controlling for your self-image. Nor should they be.
I specifically and carefully didn’t refer to Yvonne Dean-Bailey as unkind, indecent or an asshole. I referred to her behavior as unkind and indecent. It’s in that context that I referred to “assholes” believing that it would be clear that it was shorthand for assholish behavior in people. I apologize that the two sentences in which I defined assholes as people obliterated every other thing I wrote that talked about behavior, including, but not limited to, assholish behavior. If I were to write that comment again, I would be more careful not to allow in anything that would provide the slightest opening for the possibility of interpreting that as calling Dean-Bailey an asshole.
As a result of my, now hopefully clear, intention, I reject your argument about decency in its entirety.
Other than not being someone who has “deeply held beliefs” that oppose my own because there are plenty of people with “deeply held beliefs” that oppose my own that are not assholes… An asshole is somebody who either actively wishes to inflict harm on others or cares so little about others that they don’t mind if their words or actions harm others. As a result of our differing interpretations of my definition of an asshole, we can skip this section. We can also skip it because I’ve clarified my intent in my previous comment to label behavior, and not people, with the tag, “asshole.”
We can assume you’re one of those people, if you wish. I’ll use “you” in the sense of the commenters I was referring to.
Well, sure, if you consider ignoring requests not to refer to people with the exact words you’re using as, “not deliberately trying to upset anyone.” I, however, would consider that deliberately trying to upset someone.
I wasn’t aware that was the conversation we were having. I thought we were either criticizing or defending Dean-Bailey’s use of words that a community has explicitly said were hurtful. As an extension of that conversation, I thought we might also be having a conversation about whether or not it is okay to use those terms generally and why or why not. I find that to be a a targeted, specific philosophical/policy discussion in that we are talking about a specific subgroup and a specific term. Was I mistaken?
(And all that follows that quote)
Huh? The assholish behavior is that of using words and phrases that they’ve been told are hurtful to describe the people who have told them those words and phrases are hurtful. That’s kind of the essence of my entire comment. I’m sorry I failed at clarity. Your response seems to be in relation to something I am unable to discern and must be a result of my garbled attempt to write my thoughts.
G&W, I think of referring to a trans woman as a man in the same vein as using a racial slur to refer to a racial minority. There are certainly people who would defend that on the grounds of accuracy – Desipis did in another thread, for example.
Hopefully you’d see that whatever your personal opinion as to the factual applicability a racial slur, using it, especially after you’ve been asked not to, is assholish behavior.
—Myca
Ah, I see. I think that comparison is really off.
I don’t think anyone can really defend a racial slur, since a racial slur usually has no significant descriptive element and no personal or communicative utility other than giving offense. Even desipis didn’t raise much of a defense other than to claim that n***er was a descriptive used to mean something like “blacks behaving badly,” which I think we all know isn’t true. (and even with desipis I suspect that was a devils advocate type position; I’ve never even heard that argument before.)
Conversely, an individual’s choice of how to define terms like “man” or “woman” is entirely descriptive and has enormous personal and communicative utility.
You presumably have your definition and it is important to you. You do not wish to change it to accommodate me, right? I think that’s perfectly OK: but the way that you feel attached to your definition and use it in various ways; and the ways in which it has utility to you; are not unique to people with your set of beliefs.
To some people, an individual who outwardly presents as male, and is biologically and physically male, is a woman if she says she is. To those people, Chelsea Manning was always a woman. That definition is theirs, not mine. But although that isn’t how my brain works I don’t think their definition is “wrong,” it’s just not mine. I refuse to allow them to tell me that my definition is “wrong,” either.
And frankly I think that the real issue is that if folks concede that definitions are individual, they open things up to the extreme “my own personal definition is that unless you have XX and breasts and a vagina and no penis you’re not female” arguments. I can see why that would be a concern.
OK. I don’t.
Compare:
A: I am upset by the word “FGFD.” Please don’t use it.
B: You are? FGFD FGFD FGFD!! Suckah!
to
B: …and I think that FGFD should be protected and considered, but perhaps opposed, because…
A: I am upset by the word “FGFD.” Please don’t use it.
B: No. I’m not going to deliberately follow you around yelling “FGFD” just to piss you off, but I’m not going to stop what I was already doing, just because it makes you upset.
Jake Squid:
I agree. Using slurs such as “transphobic” or “anti-trans” against people who don’t conform to certain deeply held beliefs about gender is behaving like an asshole. To claim that someone else’s beliefs are driven by an irrational emotional reaction to trans people rather than an honest interpretation of their own life experiences is to claim that you know their mind better than they do themselves. It’s not clear if people who use such terms actively wish to inflict harm on others or care so little about others that they don’t mind if their words or actions harm others, but it still seems like asshole behaviour, no?
I realise that’s probably not what you meant, so feel free to disagree and hold some double-standard.
Absolutely. I feel those who are vocally bigoted against transfolk are acting immorally and I will be an asshole to them if, after their bad behavior being pointed out, they continue to be vocally bigoted against transfolk.
Sometimes I act unkindly, indecently and like an asshole.
This may be hypocritical, but it’s not a double standard.
I may not be perfect, yet, but I’m as close as I can be given my deeply held beliefs.
g&w,
What we’re discussing is scenario 1, not scenario 2. At least that’s what I’m discussing and that’s what it seems like this thread is discussing. If you want to talk about scenario 2 or compare scenarios 1 & 2, you’ll have to take that up with someone else. I have no interest in it.
gin-and-whiskey:
I don’t know that you would. Some of my replies aren’t about you. That one was, in fact, a response to something cc77 said.
That said, based on this discussion thread, if one of your employees were trans, I would not expect that working relationship to be successful.
———————
No one has said that you, and other proponents of language trans people object to, are legally barred from thinking what you think or saying what you said. Indeed, if someone tried to use legal means to prevent you from saying what you have been saying in this thread, I would think them in the wrong.
What you dislike, apparently, is the consequence of saying what you’ve been saying, which is that a bunch of people will tell you that you haven’t got it right, and in the face of your persistent arguments that you have so got it right, will think less of you.
No one is saying that you can’t say it, that you’re legally barred from saying it. We’re just saying that it betrays a lack of understanding, and also a lack of caring.
You don’t like that, either, I’m sure, because it hits you where you live, in that self-image as a kind and smart man.
But there it is. If someone tells me that she is a gun enthusiast, but then refers to all handguns as revolvers, and keeps doing it even after I explain the difference, (a) she’s perfectly free to do it, (b) she betrays a lack of understanding of what a revolver is, and (c) she demonstrates that she either won’t or can’t learn from repeated knowledgeable explanation. So, y’know, rock on. I just won’t invite her to explain handguns to anyone, and when I hear her explain it wrong and I have the time and the energy, I’ll correct her.
And the world continues to spin and orbit anyway.
———————
While we’re on the topic of your credibility, either don’t apologize or learn how to do it right.. This is not an apology:
That’s a statement that you wish I had reacted differently.
———————
Yes, though I would replace “utility” with “impact”, since quite often the thing which gets communicated is not what the communicator hoped. Yvonne Dean-Bailey probably did not hope to communicate that she is intolerant and transphobic, but that’s what she managed to convey, and very efficiently.
And with that, I’m doing to try to be done with this conversation. It seems probable that in the near future I won’t have the spoons to advocate for myself in spaces like these, and maybe for quite awhile. Because these are not theoretical questions, for me; for me, what other people think of trans people is having a very real and very negative impact on me in my workplace.
But everyone else, feel free to continue to debate whether it’s okay to call me a man.
Grace
(edited to put “——-” where I had put a horizontal rule tag, because apparently those don’t work in comments)
I think it’s clear that Desipis was sincere, and see no reason to invent something exculpatory for him.
My point is that someone can honestly, sincerely, deep in their heart of hearts, believe that a racial slur is the right, accurate, way to refer to a person who is a racial minority … and still be engaging in deeply hurtful behavior. Sincerity is no excuse. ‘Accuracy’ is no excuse.
Please, please, I implore you, read what Grace has fucking written here. What you are defending is probably the single most hurtful thing you can say deliberately say to a trans person.
—Myca
PS.
Look, Gin & Whiskey, there’s a thing you do where you intellectualize things that are life and death to other people and have fun debating them. I understand this. Debate is fun.
This particular thing that you do, though, is kind of awful, and can lead to stuff like, “It’s okay to misgender trans people, but not okay to say that someone did something racist.” Accuracy, sincerity, and deeply held beliefs aren’t all that important to you in the latter context, but seem to be a trump card in the first.
I’m not bringing this up as a gotcha, I’m bringing it up because I’m sincerely deeply concerned that you’re too invested in scoring rhetorical points here and that you’ve ended up defending the indefensible.
You and I are often on the opposite sides of these debates. I don’t think that you are a bad person. I don’t think that you are hateful. I think that you want basically good things for the world.
There’s a reason I’m not addressing Desipis here. He’s the kind of guy who thinks there’s an ‘accurate’ way to use n****r. I know that’s not you.
I don’t think that you’re a monster.
Right now, you are defending something monstrous.
This isn’t about winning the argument for me. I’m out of the thread after this. This is about this position really having serious long term consequences for how I (and I suspect many other Alas authors and commenters) think of you.
I implore you to take a step back. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
—Myca
What we’re discussing is scenario 1, not scenario 2.
Oh, let’s discuss scenario 2, but take the SJW-baiting out of it:
B: And so you see, Dick–
A: Please don’t call me Dick. I go by Richard.
B: But Dick is a traditional and respectable nickname for people named Richard, going back to the original use of the name. Plus, it’s shorter and easier to say, and I think Richard sounds kind of pretentious.
A: Yes, but, I don’t go by that nickname, and frankly it bugs me that you insist on it.
B: Why are you being so sensitive? I’m not calling you Dick to upset you. I’m sorry that you’ve rejected a perfectly good nickname, but I’m going to keep using it.
I’m now going to contradict what I said earlier. Although I’m still glad I responded to this woman on twitter, the impulse to post it here on “Alas” was a mistake on my part.
I sincerely apologize to the people who were hurt by reading this discussion.
I’m also grateful to the folks who made great comments here, in particular the folks who are themselves trans people. Nonetheless, I’m going to close this threat to any further comments.
I’m also going to say that “man who identifies as a woman” and “woman who identifies as a man” is going to join “illegals” (when used to refer to immigrants) in the list of phrases that are banned on “Alas.” If you are someone who cannot abide using “trans man” or “trans woman” or other appropriate terms when discussing trans issues, then you are simply not going to be part of the conversation here on “Alas.”