Dammit, my post went away again. Regarding the WFB thread:
A thread for primarily-female-identifying people to share perceptions and discuss any experiences of oppressive unchallenged behaviour on the 'Lith.
The key here is primarily-female-identifying people. To me this reads as people (crucially, not fictionsuits) who view themselves as female more than 50% of the time in their daily lives. Note that this doesn't seem to imply that they must live as female, be treated as female, pass as female, or know anything about gender-based oppression. If people feel some of these things should also be implied, then that should be made more explicit. Is there some common experience of gender-based oppression which is necessary to post there? If so, you might run into the problem of class and race, as people of different backgrounds experience gender-based oppression differently (look into "womanism" and "white women's syndrome"). As far as identity goes, though, you have to take people at their word. Ditto with "primarily." It's already impossible to police gender identity at offline events, little say a messageboard.
If I were to act out the crudest caracature of a gay man, I might get accused of internalized homophobia or my actions might be regarded as emblematic of "camp" and thus applauded, but regardless it's not my gender identity or my sexuality which would be questioned. At least, if someone attacked my gender identity, I could expect someone on this board to step up and support me. And indeed, if I need challenging because I'm acting out stereotypes, which may well occur, then I should be challenged on the grounds that I'm a man thoughtlessly perpetuating male stereotypes— not on the grounds that as a pretend man all I can possibly be doing is acting out male stereotypes.
I would hope that similarly a male-assigned poster, who has trusted people with the knowledge that ze's male assigned (which needn't be the case at all), who is being a woman on these boards and who, in the course of inhabiting a female fictionsuit thoughtlessly perpetuates female stereotypes, would be challenged on the grounds that she is a woman thoughtlessly perpetuating female stereotypes. That's much more helpful, and allows for change and growth in a way that assuming that all she can ever do as a pretend woman is perpetuate female stereotypes is not. But unfortunately I think people are more likely to pick out femme behaviours as female stereotypes, because they are a) marked, as opposed to unmarked "male" behavior (driving? building something? drinking? playing video games?) and b) valued less highly than masculine mannerisms.
And it might be worth considering: is it sexist— or maybe genderist— to devalue femme manners and behavior as compared to masculine ones? That goes back to the femme identity thread, and I'll probably resurrect it with this question. |
