In the beginning, there was LGB. And it was good. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people shared a common fight for the right to live their lives free from discrimination and scrutiny and the risk of chemical castration. They wanted the freedom to marry whoever they wanted and have families like everybody else. They wanted society to stay out of their private lives. But on the second day, something strange happened. Another group, T, became inextricably linked with them in many people’s minds. Even though their needs were almost completely unrelated.
"We’re in the insane position in 2022, where ordinary people are tying to argue their way into marginalised groups. They claim that they’re oppressed because they don’t perfectly conform to some stereotype that most of us have long since moved beyond. And then build a new “identity” around that “oppression.”"
This is excellent.
"But far from wanting society to stay out of their lives, they demanded it participate in their sense of identity"
I once saw a meme that said something like... If you identify as non-binary, aren't you splitting the world into "binary" and "non-binary," which would be.... another binary?
I think it's totally valuable to continue challenging and defying gender norms. Even questioning why we use different pronouns for people based on our assessment of their sex/gender. But the idea that this is some innate way of being, something that makes you both special and an oppressed class, as opposed to just a political perspective seems- odd.
I still use LGB. As you said, the gender-defiant really have little to do with those of us with same0sex attractions and mingling us into one group is artificial. And the rest .. LGBTQIA+[this space reserved] is simply ridiculous. The Q is a deal-breaker for me, The Q and the N words are interchangeably vile in my view.
There is a failure here. Gay lives are lonely lives. Gay public territories were never social outlets, they were stand-and-look gatherings, and anyone thirty or over could expect absolutely vicious treatment. It's hard to find someone you can get along with and even though gay relationships are more stable if they last three years, not many do.
Yesterday I had an anesthesia surgery and I'm in pain and under the influence, so instead of giving my thoughts on this I am going to leave a link to a talk by Sebastian Junger. Some might not get the relevance right away but by the end you should. People want and even need to belong to a tribe. https://youtu.be/agNwB5xR9H4
Thank you. This will have me in pain for a while. Thanks to the life I've lived pain is an old friend. Maybe it's my age, this is taking it's toll. I'll be reading
At an emotional level, I feel my reaction to non-binary probably similar to yours... too much ado about something that needs to be shouted about much less, and simply lived.
Still I am having trouble following your logic here. Supposed I belonged to a Frat filled with boozers and stoners. At parties folks would often bring me weed or beer, but it turns out I don't do either of these things, and I told the person bring the goods I am not a boozer or a stoner, no thanks.
It would be odd to say that I was upholding this division simply because I referred to a division that already existed in my response. You might say to me, hey Dan you shouldn't ever talk about boozers nor stoners, those are made up categories... you just be you. I would say, sure, but often people are trying to put me into these categories, so I need to reference those categories in order to say I don't fit them. Indeed if 95% of the frat was either a boozer or a stoner... it would make sense for me to create a new term the non-ers that would refer to me any my 5% buddies. I WOULD become an identity for me in this frat.... regardless of it I wanted to be my identity or not. Anytime you make visible choice that refutes assumptions made by 95% of the population you will be identified according to that 5% group.
Now you can say these guys WANT to be different, and WANT to have a special identity, thus they are shouting this distinction loudly. Ok, I can see how you might have that belief.... that could indeed be true. BUT even if it were NOT true, and they really did not want it to be a point of identity, IT STILL WOULD BE ONE.
The only way it will not be a point of identity is for the rest of us to stop caring about gender at all. If gender became as unimportant as say whether your ear lobed connects to your skull with an acute or obtuse angle, THEN a non-binary person could be non-binary and not bother to mention it. But as long as we humans mostly do put people into male and female buckets and care about that designation, then these others will stick out, REGARDLESS of what they do, or say.
Summary: Non-binary people are not upholding gender norms when the say they don't apply, any more than I am upholding boozer/stoner expectations when I say that this distinction does not apply to me.... even if I create a new word to refer to the minority group that does not fit into the boozer/stoner distinction, I STILL don't think I am upholding the distinction, rather I am simply acknowledging that this distinction DOES presently exist.
NOTE: The issue of race is one I care about. This gender thing is very weird for me... I cannot get excited about it. I was just trying to follow your logic here and I could not.
It could not be more obvious that Chevanne needs to feel "special."
When I see "they/them" in a profile, I click block. I would never Follow someone like that.
Not all of them limit advocacy to "societal gender roles" are constructed; some take it further and say that biological gender itself is an oppressive imposition.
I work in an industry, software development, that is imploding under the weight of soul-crushing fads with all their neologisms. But the NBs have us beaten.
I was thinking about this earlier today before I read your article, as I'm writing a trans-critical article for a Canadian feminist website who recently liked one of my pitches. It's about misogyny in the trans movement (pretty exclusively transwomen, although of course obNotAllTransWomen :) ) and it's making me think about what I do and don't like about the trans, or maybe just the alphabet soup set (LGBTQIIAPDQXYZASPCANAACPNOWKKKMOUSE :) )
And pretty much what I have a problem with is: 1) Gynophobia and misogyny 2) Ever-divisive language and labels and frankly 3) So much rank First World Privilege of all colours and flavours, mostly with self-created problems and oppressions, bitching about pronouns and whether chicks with dicks should be let into rape crisis centres when people like them with REAL problems face violence, severe homophobia (which is also at the root of genuine transphobia) and unacceptance of who they really are in places a fuckuva lot less tolerant than Canada and the US.
I find I don't much care *why* people choose to be this or that, including male or female, I just have a problem with the ones who make problems intentionally for others. Y'know, us Gen X-ers were the ones who helped to usher homosexuality and bisexuality out of the closet, and we were the ones experimenting (that's an editorial 'we' as I've never explored either, but I've had an interesting conversation with an old classmate from high school on Facebook this week that indicates my other classmates were experimenting a lot more than I knew at the time) and it just wasn't a big deal. I mean, there were a few assholes - I remember some 'het-hating' more-manlier-than-thou hardcore lesbian whose heterophobia and misandry were overlooked by the foremothers and forefathers of the 'wokies', liberals who were *too* tolerant of the sort of bigotry they'd have never tolerated from the Reagan set (that far back...)
So, I stayed away from Becky since she hated us 'hets'. Everyone else was fine, and mostly just wanted to live their lives without drama.
The LGBTQ blah blah blah set today I think wants a lot more drama, and no matter what you say they will challenge it with a lot of vague, obscure, obfuscating language (I'm not even sure I understand what Chevanne was trying to say). She acknowledges that the LG etc doesn't play by the rules but says you don't get to decide 'what it's going to be,' and I say - why not? They change the language and the rules all the time so why can't you/we? Fuck ANARCHY NOW!!! :)
You're right, it's really all about alleged grievance. I don't remember this overwhelming sense of grievance when I was growing up and I think that's what's going on with a lot of these folks. The thing is, if you don't want to learn to live with others you're not the solution, you're the problem. And these folks clearly don't want to live nicely with others.
"We’re in the insane position in 2022, where ordinary people are tying to argue their way into marginalised groups. They claim that they’re oppressed because they don’t perfectly conform to some stereotype that most of us have long since moved beyond. And then build a new “identity” around that “oppression.”"
This is excellent.
"But far from wanting society to stay out of their lives, they demanded it participate in their sense of identity"
So is this.
I once saw a meme that said something like... If you identify as non-binary, aren't you splitting the world into "binary" and "non-binary," which would be.... another binary?
I think it's totally valuable to continue challenging and defying gender norms. Even questioning why we use different pronouns for people based on our assessment of their sex/gender. But the idea that this is some innate way of being, something that makes you both special and an oppressed class, as opposed to just a political perspective seems- odd.
I've been waiting for this article! Really appreciate it.
I still use LGB. As you said, the gender-defiant really have little to do with those of us with same0sex attractions and mingling us into one group is artificial. And the rest .. LGBTQIA+[this space reserved] is simply ridiculous. The Q is a deal-breaker for me, The Q and the N words are interchangeably vile in my view.
There is a failure here. Gay lives are lonely lives. Gay public territories were never social outlets, they were stand-and-look gatherings, and anyone thirty or over could expect absolutely vicious treatment. It's hard to find someone you can get along with and even though gay relationships are more stable if they last three years, not many do.
Yesterday I had an anesthesia surgery and I'm in pain and under the influence, so instead of giving my thoughts on this I am going to leave a link to a talk by Sebastian Junger. Some might not get the relevance right away but by the end you should. People want and even need to belong to a tribe. https://youtu.be/agNwB5xR9H4
Thank you. This will have me in pain for a while. Thanks to the life I've lived pain is an old friend. Maybe it's my age, this is taking it's toll. I'll be reading
At an emotional level, I feel my reaction to non-binary probably similar to yours... too much ado about something that needs to be shouted about much less, and simply lived.
Still I am having trouble following your logic here. Supposed I belonged to a Frat filled with boozers and stoners. At parties folks would often bring me weed or beer, but it turns out I don't do either of these things, and I told the person bring the goods I am not a boozer or a stoner, no thanks.
It would be odd to say that I was upholding this division simply because I referred to a division that already existed in my response. You might say to me, hey Dan you shouldn't ever talk about boozers nor stoners, those are made up categories... you just be you. I would say, sure, but often people are trying to put me into these categories, so I need to reference those categories in order to say I don't fit them. Indeed if 95% of the frat was either a boozer or a stoner... it would make sense for me to create a new term the non-ers that would refer to me any my 5% buddies. I WOULD become an identity for me in this frat.... regardless of it I wanted to be my identity or not. Anytime you make visible choice that refutes assumptions made by 95% of the population you will be identified according to that 5% group.
Now you can say these guys WANT to be different, and WANT to have a special identity, thus they are shouting this distinction loudly. Ok, I can see how you might have that belief.... that could indeed be true. BUT even if it were NOT true, and they really did not want it to be a point of identity, IT STILL WOULD BE ONE.
The only way it will not be a point of identity is for the rest of us to stop caring about gender at all. If gender became as unimportant as say whether your ear lobed connects to your skull with an acute or obtuse angle, THEN a non-binary person could be non-binary and not bother to mention it. But as long as we humans mostly do put people into male and female buckets and care about that designation, then these others will stick out, REGARDLESS of what they do, or say.
Summary: Non-binary people are not upholding gender norms when the say they don't apply, any more than I am upholding boozer/stoner expectations when I say that this distinction does not apply to me.... even if I create a new word to refer to the minority group that does not fit into the boozer/stoner distinction, I STILL don't think I am upholding the distinction, rather I am simply acknowledging that this distinction DOES presently exist.
NOTE: The issue of race is one I care about. This gender thing is very weird for me... I cannot get excited about it. I was just trying to follow your logic here and I could not.
“Fear not dear readers, I do like hip hop and fried chicken.”
Yes, but what about watermelon? 😉
It could not be more obvious that Chevanne needs to feel "special."
When I see "they/them" in a profile, I click block. I would never Follow someone like that.
Not all of them limit advocacy to "societal gender roles" are constructed; some take it further and say that biological gender itself is an oppressive imposition.
I work in an industry, software development, that is imploding under the weight of soul-crushing fads with all their neologisms. But the NBs have us beaten.
I was thinking about this earlier today before I read your article, as I'm writing a trans-critical article for a Canadian feminist website who recently liked one of my pitches. It's about misogyny in the trans movement (pretty exclusively transwomen, although of course obNotAllTransWomen :) ) and it's making me think about what I do and don't like about the trans, or maybe just the alphabet soup set (LGBTQIIAPDQXYZASPCANAACPNOWKKKMOUSE :) )
And pretty much what I have a problem with is: 1) Gynophobia and misogyny 2) Ever-divisive language and labels and frankly 3) So much rank First World Privilege of all colours and flavours, mostly with self-created problems and oppressions, bitching about pronouns and whether chicks with dicks should be let into rape crisis centres when people like them with REAL problems face violence, severe homophobia (which is also at the root of genuine transphobia) and unacceptance of who they really are in places a fuckuva lot less tolerant than Canada and the US.
I find I don't much care *why* people choose to be this or that, including male or female, I just have a problem with the ones who make problems intentionally for others. Y'know, us Gen X-ers were the ones who helped to usher homosexuality and bisexuality out of the closet, and we were the ones experimenting (that's an editorial 'we' as I've never explored either, but I've had an interesting conversation with an old classmate from high school on Facebook this week that indicates my other classmates were experimenting a lot more than I knew at the time) and it just wasn't a big deal. I mean, there were a few assholes - I remember some 'het-hating' more-manlier-than-thou hardcore lesbian whose heterophobia and misandry were overlooked by the foremothers and forefathers of the 'wokies', liberals who were *too* tolerant of the sort of bigotry they'd have never tolerated from the Reagan set (that far back...)
So, I stayed away from Becky since she hated us 'hets'. Everyone else was fine, and mostly just wanted to live their lives without drama.
The LGBTQ blah blah blah set today I think wants a lot more drama, and no matter what you say they will challenge it with a lot of vague, obscure, obfuscating language (I'm not even sure I understand what Chevanne was trying to say). She acknowledges that the LG etc doesn't play by the rules but says you don't get to decide 'what it's going to be,' and I say - why not? They change the language and the rules all the time so why can't you/we? Fuck ANARCHY NOW!!! :)
You're right, it's really all about alleged grievance. I don't remember this overwhelming sense of grievance when I was growing up and I think that's what's going on with a lot of these folks. The thing is, if you don't want to learn to live with others you're not the solution, you're the problem. And these folks clearly don't want to live nicely with others.