BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Trans 101 2006

 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:33 / 15.08.06
I've just been reading back through this thread and have come across this, id.

I'm not saying that gender is entirely individualistic, though. I think it just tends to be negotiated in different ways. I usually think of gender being negotiated between two people, whether strangers in a shop or lovers making love, while race and culture are more integrally part of an ongoing historical dialogue. (Admittedly this perception on my part is probably an effect of my perception of gender as more individual, not a cause.)


I find what you're saying on this page very liberating, but I wonder about this bit. Doesn't it imply that gender isn't about power in the same way as "race" is? You criticise or mock white people who pretend to be Native American ~ in the same way, maybe, as white people who seem to identify as, or "act" black, are often criticised and mocked. (classic example is the parody Ali G; a recent interesting one is Aisleyne on Big Brother. The term often used of course is "wigga": I don't know if that should be asterisked out as an offensive slur.)

Anyway... I agree that to claim another ethnic identity and appropriate what you see as its cool factors (urban "edge", maybe... traditional, "natural" qualities... exotic "wisdom", who knows) when you still hold the privilege of your white ethnic identity and have never experienced the difficulties and disadvantages of the other, is dubious.

However, you're saying gender is something personal and individual. Isn't gender also part of an ongoing historical dialogue about power and oppression? As I say, I like the idea of what you're saying, but someone self-identifying as a woman when they don't actually face any of the experiences that being a woman involves is quite possibly doing the same thing, ie. appropriating what they think is attractive about someone else's identity (perhaps "prettiness", "daintiness", in the case of some transvestites) without really having to inhabit the role fully.
 
 
*
22:15 / 15.08.06
My current thoughts:
I would still criticize someone who clearly wanted to take on "trappings" of womanhood and yet staunchly defended their right to male privilege without defending other women's right to not be oppressed. I would not criticize a white person who dressed in ways which had been coded as "Black" if they were also critical of racism and reflective about their own privilege. I would criticise a trans woman who was antifeminist as antifeminist, while not questioning her identification as a woman. If someone who appeared white to me asserted that they were in fact of recent African descent, but acknowledged that they had privilege based on passing as white, I would accept that. Not everyone's race is visible as not everyone's gender is visible.

But there is still a slight difference in that I do not think that drag is the same as blackface. I think it's because often the intention of drag is to call maleness into question, while blackface never functions to call whiteness into question.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:23 / 15.08.06
I do not think that drag is the same as blackface. I think it's because often the intention of drag is to call maleness into question,

Are you distinguishing between "drag", which I'd associate mainly with a performative, over-the-top, theatrical, stylised, sometimes caricatured role (I think of drag queens as something quite cabaret), and... "dressing", for want of a better word right now, ie. men who actually want to pass as or at least be accepted as "real" women while they're in that role?

The latter doesn't always (I would even suggest, doesn't usually) intend to call maleness into question ~ ideally the "disguise", I think, is meant to go unnoticed and unremarked. I think that inevitably calls gender into question, in interesting ways, but it's different from the more over-the-top styling that's often associated with "drag".

Otherwise, I think your ideas here make a lot of sound sense.
 
 
alas
23:16 / 15.08.06
I would remark that some forms of straight, heterosexual male mainstream drag also have been used, historically, to mock and degrade femininity and women in general--and/or, more pragmatically, simply to avoid hiring women in acting roles, particularly in comedic roles, because, well, "women just aren't funny." Man in dress=automatically funny. Why hire a female comedian, and break up the all boys group (or, as the case is usually, hire more than one token female) when you can get that extra laff from a dude or two in a dress?

(& Drag kings? Again, well, still not so automatically funny, harder to discern and define in our culture, nor necessarily immediately seen as particularly calling into question masculinity or femininity, although it can do so.)

Comedy being what it is, and gender being what(ever) it is, sometimes the more conservative & mainstream forms of drag comedy seem to have additionally, and I think secondarily (although I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise), to have had the effect of opening up masculinity to scrutiny. But that doesn't remove, entirely, the historical power dynamic that makes "man in dress=funny," and sometimes a way of reinforcing "proper" gender roles. And I wonder if it is partly because, well, it's still pretty easy to trivialize, mock, & ignore women's being angered by any of this.

I guess I'm skeptical that gender is so free of historical baggage.

On the question of whether black face has ever been used to question whiteness, I can only think of one real example and possibly a second: 1) When Spike Lee used blackface in "Bamboozled" it was a way of calling whiteness into question, arguably, but that's a pretty specific case, I realize. The possible 2) The photography project in "Colors" magazine, where, as Jabari Asim explains(in the Washington Post),

the editors used digital tricks to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger brown, Spike Lee white, as part of a package of celebrity makeovers. The issue, while puckishly designed, also asked serious, provocative questions: "What is the difference between black, white and in between? We know everyone's blood looks the same. But what about hair, eyes, noses and earwax? Why do people have painful surgery to look more 'white'?"

Most other attempts at using "blackface" have failed entirely to work to question the history of blackface, as I think Asim's article pretty astutely suggests. I think the histories of gender and racial oppression are intertwined in very complex ways and yet still have distinct dynamics that I'm not sure I completely understand. But direct comparisons are obviously problematic.
 
 
*
01:00 / 16.08.06
I don't intend to state that gender is free of historical baggage. I know I seemed to say that earlier, and I don't know what I was thinking, except that probably it doesn't have the same historical baggage as race, in that they weren't constructed the same way for the same reasons. But I'd like to distance myself from that position, with a ten-foot— a thing that distances people from positions very much and isn't as cliched as a ten-foot-pole— if at all possible.

And, yeah, there are certainly forms of drag and reasons for dressing* which are problematic. In my heart of hearts I want to say it all comes down to intention, but I also don't trust people to understand their intentions perfectly— especially not when it comes to the confused muck of gender. To be as simple and honest about this topic as I can— I can understand people's reasons for dressing as a woman or a man even if they don't identify as a woman or a man or live as one full time. I cannot understand someone's reasons for wanting to take on all aspects of a non-white race or a marginalized culture except in the context of colonialism. And I don't have a clear, rational argument for why, as much as I've been trying to figure one out here by flailing around sort of aimlessly.

*I wasn't including dressing as drag, necessarily, but I wasn't intending to say it was colonialist either.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
03:42 / 16.08.06
miss wonderstarr said:

I can't help but think of transvestites as the lesser, less brave, less real cousin of the transsexual ~ you're allowed to put people down if you're one of them! (I jest, a little). It is more playful and less committed, more of a safety-net cop-out in my opinion. Of course, I know that it's not the case that all transvestites are like the earlier, pupa form of the transsexual, building up the courage to go all the way ~ the two are related but can be quite different. But I can't help feeling that for all that being a transvestite involves quite a lot of courage and challenge, it's still a lot easier than changing your gender for life.

When you say this, mw, I feel you neglect to consider those people who live as 'transvestites' without surgery or doing all the legal changes to become women, for whom those 'choices' are financially impossible, or culturally impossible, or just not choices. The problem here is that you're distinguishing neatly between 'transsexuals' and 'transvestites' when in reality, there are huge numbers of gender variant people who identify as neither (both being Eurocentric categories), and who live non-surgical lives that may involve some drag, or some passing as a different gender depending on their situation. I think it's safe to say that globally, the majority of people who do this are probably non-white; and also, many may have to depend on sexwork as their only form of income, or be forced into a lifetime of low-paying work. For examples of who I'm thinking of, go read Don Kulick's book Travesti, or hang out on a street corner with some trans street workers for a time. When I was in Thailand recently, I learnt that many Thai ladyboys revert back to life as male once they get older, because those who work as cabaret performers or sex-workers are unable to keep earning once they've lost the use of their bodies as commodities. And Thailand is supposed to be the most 'open-minded' place to be gender variant! (This is not ture, but perhaps it's another topic for another day.) Passing as a woman when you have a penis is dangerous anytime: look at Gwen Araujo. So, that takes less courage?

And no, just because you 'are one' doesn't mean you can say these things -- nt without being challenged. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not challenging your individual experience. I'm challenging what I perceive as your Eurocentrism and your blindness to anything outside a white/middle-class context: 'transsexual' and 'transvestite' are words that are used mainly by middle-class white folks, and used as opposites, they render invisible the differences outside the gamut of both terms. Being trans (even having surgery) is not some individual choice that people make because they have more courage than those who can't or don't.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
05:57 / 16.08.06
That's true, Mister Disco ~ I was really putting my own impressions out so they could be challenged, and they were set out as very personal ideas that I am happy to have criticised (I don't really want to see transvestism as "lesser" and "less brave" ~ that's my partly self-belittling sense of it, from my own subjective experience and position as a white person in the UK). You're entirely right that I was ignoring anything outside my v. limited experience. In a way that post was a kind of autobiographical story, but nevertheless, you're right. If I'd been specific about this distinction operating in white (middle-class?) British culture, then perhaps my opinions would carry more general truth, but I don't know.

So... thanks for pointing this out in a way that didn't make me feel too wrong.

However ~ firstly I didn't mean to suggest transvestite and transsexual as oppositions. I was suggesting that I saw them (and I admitted that this was often not the case) as a continuum, as stages in a process. This is because, like I think Kay said on p1, the idea of "really" becoming a woman did cross my mind and I did at least toy with the possibility and explore what it would involve, but never had the courage or commitment to go further. (A middle-class perspective and privilege, I agree.) As ~ or so I understood it ~ someone would have to live as their destination-sex, ie. dressed and taking hormones, for two years, I saw transvestism as a possible stage en route to transsexuality. I accepted in my previous post that this was a simplistic and reductive way of looking at it, but that's kind of how I felt. However, I have never seen them as oppositions.

And secondly, are transsexual and transvestite "middle-class" terms in the UK?

A final thought occurs to me ~ is the word "tranny" useful as a (I would say, neutral-to-affectionate) term that covers various types of crossing, or does it insultingly ignore the many distinctions?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
06:02 / 16.08.06
And no, just because you 'are one' doesn't mean you can say these things -- nt without being challenged

I agree, and I was saying that as a kind of joke (not a "JOKE!!!111!" I hope) after being involved in the "Nick Nack Paddy Wack" discussions about the use of racial terms depending on whether you're in or outside a community. I don't even really consider I have any "right" to comment on the fortysomething transvestites down my local dance hall as they are still doing the dress and I'm in a man's suit.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
06:26 / 16.08.06
2.5 questions for the thread.

1. When did you "know" that you were in some way trans?
1b. Do you think a restlessness in your gender identity ~ I don't mean just a moment's whim, I mean acting on it somehow ~ signifies something inherent and fundamental in who you are, or can it be just a "phase" like, for instance, being a punk or goth (perhaps those are also inherent parts of who people are for life, whether they dress punk or goth, or not)

2. Do you, or did you, feel like part of a trans community?

I would give my own thoughts first but I have to go to work in a (man's) suit.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
06:48 / 16.08.06
However ~ firstly I didn't mean to suggest transvestite and transsexual as oppositions. I was suggesting that I saw them (and I admitted that this was often not the case) as a continuum, as stages in a process. This is because, like I think Kay said on p1, the idea of "really" becoming a woman did cross my mind and I did at least toy with the possibility and explore what it would involve, but never had the courage or commitment to go further.

That's interesting that you see the terms as stages in the same process. I guess if that works for you, then good -- it's just that, as I pointed out, it may not be the way to think about 'all trans experience'. I do think that 'transvestite' and 'transsexual' are quite specific to a white, middle-class milieu. That's not to say that no-one uses those terms outside that milieu, but I see both as emerging from a European medical pathologisation of gender variance. Maybe it's not quite so singly class-based in the sense that a white working-class transperson might still call hirself a transsexual, but I was pointing at the connections between clas and ethnicity.

And your other questions: I don't know when I 'knew' for sure. I didn't identify myself as trans until I was maybe 25. I certainly didn't know I was a man at age four. That's not my 'process'. More later, perhaps.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:34 / 16.08.06
That's interesting that you see the terms as stages in the same process.

I see them as potentially stages in the same process ~ stages in the process of transformation for some people. I do also feel though that "just" dressing can be a behaviour and an end unto itself.

I do think that 'transvestite' and 'transsexual' are quite specific to a white, middle-class milieu. That's not to say that no-one uses those terms outside that milieu, but I see both as emerging from a European medical pathologisation of gender variance. Maybe it's not quite so singly class-based in the sense that a white working-class transperson might still call hirself a transsexual, but I was pointing at the connections between clas and ethnicity.

I think you've made some very useful points; I was thinking that "transvestite" and "tranny" as abbreviation are probably used conversationally across social classes in the UK.
 
 
alas
20:28 / 16.08.06
To be as simple and honest about this topic as I can— I can understand people's reasons for dressing as a woman or a man even if they don't identify as a woman or a man or live as one full time. I cannot understand someone's [presumeably 'someone coming from a "white"/dominant position'?] reasons for wanting to take on all aspects of a non-white race or a marginalized culture except in the context of colonialism. And I don't have a clear, rational argument for why, as much as I've been trying to figure one out here by flailing around sort of aimlessly.

I think we're flailing on the same page, then, id--and this is a pretty good, succinct account of this flailing! Sorry, by the way, that I think my response may have subtly oversimplified your initial point, but I definitely appreciate this follow up. I think you are right that the dynamics are distinct in some key way, but that's hard to articulate without seeming to reinforce some hierarchy of oppression, or something. And, of course, its difficult to talk about any of this without seeming to imply that the categories are mutually exclusive, which you've admirably avoided, I think.
 
 
nixwilliams
03:06 / 17.08.06
A final thought occurs to me ~ is the word "tranny" useful as a (I would say, neutral-to-affectionate) term that covers various types of crossing, or does it insultingly ignore the many distinctions?

miss wonderstar, there seems to be a move within academic work (ok, mister disco, western academic work!) on 'crossing', as you put it, to use the term "trans" as a sort of cover-all. also, check the title of the tread... i think this stems from the confusion surrounding the word "transgender" (see natty ra jah etc on p3 of this thread). using "trans" (or maybe "tranny", though that is probably insulting to some transpeople) actually allows specificity to those who identify as "transsexual" (often defined as desire for surgery/ies), transgender (no surgery... but maybe using hormones... sort of...), and transvestite, etc. it is also (possibly) less problematic to use the term "trans" when referring to a person when one doesn't know exactly how they identify.

that said, i think "trans" as an identification is also handy, because it gives the person permission not to tie down their identity. i for one would identify as trans(ish), but not as transsexual, transgender or transvestite.
 
 
Princess
16:03 / 30.09.06
Ok, new question. As part of our LGBT's information pack we got a Trans101 style leaflet. Most of it was old hat to me, what with %being so ridiculously informed and aware%, but I was shocked by the revelation, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, that asking a trans person about post-op/pre-op status was incredibly bad taste.
To be honest, I don't think I would ever ask that of someone I didn't know, just because it's none of my fucking business how they realte to their gender and what shape their plumbing takes. But I was suprised just how vehemently the leaflet puched over this particular point. Is it "just" because it's rude to ask about peoples bit and intrude on a very personal part of their identity without their permission, or is there something I'm missing?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
18:47 / 30.09.06
It seems curious to me. It wouldn't bother me in the least. Mind, I'm hardly one to speak for any 'community', and my experience is limited. Perhaps the author of the leaflet was sick of people asking hir the same question all the time?
 
 
Ex
18:53 / 30.09.06
I don't think you're missing anything, but I'd guess it requires special mention because
a) people do ask it a hell of a lot
b) it's a very loaded question
(the two being connected)

So a) - like anything that might be a bit impolite or annoying if you experience it once but if you get it all the bloody time, it really builds up. There are some questions that certain groups get asked. I wouldn't ask anyone what they do in bed, but I really wouldn't ask a lesbian what they do in bed, beause she'll have heard it three times before breakfast.

And b) - it's often an innocent enquiry but it's always a bit of a weighty question. Having 'the operation' (which is a misnomer in itself as people can have all kinds of surgical procedures) can be seen as a dividing line as to whether you are a Real [Insert Gender] yet.

There's a poem in Genderqueer I liked about it by C Jacob Hale, which gives loads of examples, of which I've only excerpted a few:

There was the doctor who told me that if I wanted testosterone, I should be looking for a surgeon to cut on my genitals.
There was the passport agency official who told me that if I want an M on my passport, I should have already had a surgeon cut on my genitals.
...
There are FTMs who tell me that if I want to go to one of their meetings, if I am a real/true/genuine transexual, if I am one of them, I should be looking for a surgeon to cut on my genitals.
...
There are people in the audience at the academic trans theory talks I give who don't ask about the content of my work but do ask about whether or not I've had a surgeon cut on my genitals.
...
Whose genitals are these anyway?
 
 
Princess
18:56 / 30.09.06
Yeah, I suppose. It must be like the "Why did you decide to be gay?" thing.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:07 / 30.09.06
It does seem a pretty intimate question, regardless of the social or political connotations and how tedious or repetitive it might get. I would think it quite rude to ask anyone about the contents of their pants.
 
 
Princess
21:10 / 30.09.06
To be honest I'm a little shocked that people in the LGBT need to be told not to do it. I'm a little shocked anyone does. But hey, not everyone has the fear of Barbelith to in them to keep them good.
 
 
*
00:28 / 01.10.06
There are a lot of really negative things about being asked this kind of question.

1) People don't ask men they read as non-trans if they have a dick or not. People don't ask women they read as non-trans if they have a vagina or not. For most people, that this question even crosses their mind shows that they are regarding trans people as other in a pretty objectifying way.

2) Once they get an answer, their behavior often changes in really predictable ways. If the answer is "yes, I've had surgery" it becomes something like "oh my god you are so brave I am so glad I never had to go through something like that I would rather die than be a transsexual!" If the answer is "no I haven't" the response is often in the form of subtle directive— "oh good you shouldn't mutilate your body like that," "so when are you going to? now? tomorrow? six months? when?" —or else it becomes clear that they are not treating the trans person as a member of their gender of identity, by dropping pronouns or becoming patronizing. If the answer is "that's none of your business" the questioner often acts truly affronted as if they cannot imagine how you could be so rude as to withhold this vital information from them. I look forward to none of these responses, so it's best not to start down that path.

3) "The operation" does not determine one's gender, which is a fact that many non-trans people persistently fail to grasp.

4) The question is inevitably asked in a conspicuously hushed tone in a public place. A person's trans status should not be revealed to anyone without their permission, let alone intimate facts about their genitals, so asking this question in a restaurant or walking down a crowded street, no matter how clandestine you think you're being, isn't cool.

5) The question is inevitably asked when one has known the object of curiosity for less than or equal to five minutes in a casual or professional context, or within sixty seconds of someone one is already acquainted with coming out as trans for the first time. This puts the trans person in a really precarious situation, because they may not know their questioner well enough in this context to predict how this person will deal with their transness. That feels really threatening when it happens to me.

6) The questioner almost never has a legitimate reason for wanting to know. "Curiosity" doesn't cut it. They need to know what my genitals look like if they are my doctor and it could affect my treatment. They need to know if we are considering having sex together. If they are themself a trans person or are questioning their gender, they do get some extra leeway, but other than that, I'll tell someone only if I want them to know for some reason.

7) It's alienating and invasive to make the intimate parts of my body so public, and for people to act as if they have a total right to them because I'm different. It reminds me of the way many white people think it's totally cool to touch a Black person's hair and skin without invitation. It says "Your body is different so I have a right to explore it as if it belongs to me, not to you."

Why do people think they have the right to ask? Because they believe it determines gender, so (runs the reasoning) it affects how a person should be treated. A trans person who has not had surgery is sort of just practicing being a man or a woman, so it's a nice gesture to play along, but a trans person who has had surgery has "earned it." Because they believe that trans people are meant to be objects of curiosity, spectacles, freaks. Like goth kids, we must dress this way because we want the attention, so we'll like being asked invasive questions about our genitals. Because they believe that trans people have a responsibility to be educational for them about trans issues, including about surgery. Because they are curious and they feel entitled to satisfaction of their curiosity, no matter how uncomfortable it makes someone else feel. Because they won't imagine themselves in a similar situation, so they can't imagine how these questions make trans people feel. In some cases, because they feel a sort of unearned solidarity with the object of their curiosity (maybe they're non-trans queer folk, or even other trans folk) and this makes them feel entitled to an answer.

This last, I think, is why it turns up in LGB-targeted literature. Non-trans queer people often seem to think nothing of being really invasive about trans people's bodies, in my experience. Learning that they don't get a free pass for sucking cock or eating pussy sometimes comes as a really unpleasant shock to them. Even some trans people will do this to other trans people because it doesn't bother them personally, so no one else should be bothered by it either. I can understand these sentiments even though they create a situation which really angers me— but I still wish I could dispel them all quickly and painlessly.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
01:19 / 01.10.06
I think the whole issue of whether it's ok to ask that kind of question - or touch and feel - is one of social culture and of a basic politeness. If you're going to waste someone's time by asking them questions, or reaching out and touching them; well, that'd be rude. But whether asking someone, or touching someone, is itself rude is just a question of what's socially acceptable, and is going to vary - a blanket statement that "it's always unacceptable" isn't going to cover everyone. Personally, I think a culture where no particular significance was attached to that sort of thing would be pretty damn cool; if we were in a position where we could say, "hey, I haven't seen someone with hair like that before, are all black people like that, mind if I rub your head?" or "gee wow, do you have like remoulded genitals seeing as you're trans-, can I see?" without any undertones or overtones or whatever being intended or read, I'd be a very happy bunny. Ach, one to save until the world's a much nicer place, I suppose.
 
 
*
01:38 / 01.10.06
I wouldn't. I like boundaries.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
06:57 / 01.10.06
Gee, that doesn't sound a nicer place to me at all. I suppose it sounds more honest, but I wouldn't want a stranger saying "oh, you've got a spot on your cheek you tried to cover up, look, can I squeeze it", or an acquaintance announcing "God, you've put on weight haven't you, would you just lift your top so I can see your tum?", both of which social approaches would seem acceptable in your utopia.
 
 
sleazenation
08:21 / 01.10.06
Tthis question really springs out of something Mister Disco mentioned on another thread and is sort of alluded to up thread -

How do individual FTM transpeople negotiate the shift in privilidge and burdens between genders. To what extent do FTM transfolk inherit privilidge during their transition?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
07:06 / 04.10.06
How do individual FTM transpeople negotiate the shift in privilidge and burdens between genders. To what extent do FTM transfolk inherit privilidge during their transition?

Bump -- I meant to respond to this, but forgot until now. sleaze, would you mind refreshing me as to what comment you were talking about, and in which thread?

I think assumption of privilege really depends on what kinds of privilege you can access already, and what kind of 'male' an FTM turns out to be. I'm white, I'm university-educated, and middle-class in terms of culture if not income. I'm privileged to the extent that I have the social skills associated with middle-classness and tertiary education, and my skin colour gives me a huge amount of safety and privilege.

Being read as a man, not a woman, means I am no longer the target of unwanted sexual attention from straight men and am not treated as inferior, ditzy or dumb. That's certainly a privilege. On the other hand, sometimes I get negative attention because people can't work out what gender I am. I don't socialise with very many people who I would consider sexist -- and it's the most sexist, normatively gendered spaces in which being read as male confers the most privilege, I think. If I do end up in those spaces, I feel uncomfortable and weird, because as a 'male' I'm expected to laugh at misogynist or homophobic humour, and it's difficult to judge how safely I can diss someone without being outed, how safe it would be to get outed as trans, and whether it's better not to just fade into the background so as not to attract attention.

On the other hand, I don't feel like I have the privileges that might accrue to cisgendered men in a comparable social position. I wasn't raised as a boy, and I think an enormous amount of socialisation happens so that male children grow up thinking they should be given stuff, and nurtured, and fussed over just because they're male. I can see this in the difference between my brother and myself: my parents assumed I would take care of myself when I left home, and didn't support my much financially. WIth him (11 years younger) they are paying for his accommodation expenses, expensive musical instrumants, a car -- items I never asked for and did not expect. When my brother visits me, he expects my partner and I to cook and wash up for him. I think a certain amount of privilege accrues to him because he expects it, and I have known many cisgendered men who are exactly the same. This can happen without men even realising it, I think.

Good question.... I think one of the difficulties here is that privilege works in very weird ways, and it's difficult to pin down.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
07:43 / 04.10.06
Gee, that doesn't sound a nicer place to me at all. I suppose it sounds more honest, but I wouldn't want a stranger saying "oh, you've got a spot on your cheek you tried to cover up, look, can I squeeze it", or an acquaintance announcing "God, you've put on weight haven't you, would you just lift your top so I can see your tum?", both of which social approaches would seem acceptable in your utopia.

The point I'm trying to make is that the question of politeness is relative, that it's set by social conditions only. It might be rude to ask someone to show you their belly, or their genitalia, or whatever, but what it doesn't necessarily imply is that the questioner is expressing some subtle problem with fat or trans- or what have you. Especially with trans-; we - I use the term as loosely as possible - are not commonplace, and there's nothing especially wrong with people being curious about us; it may be rude or just plain tedious, but it doesn't make them prejudiced against us.

But, yeah, personally, I'm not bothered much by that sort of question, and I'd kinda like to see a world where noone was; a world with less botheredness would be neat. I guess the question comes down to whether boundaries of that sort are necessary in some wider sense, which is a splendid question, but perhaps one for another thread; I'd be delighted to join you if you wanna start one.

(edit)

That being said, hearing about Misted's online probs. with some wanker on another board was enough to trigger my "kill" reflex, so I guess I'm not really half as blase about that kind of thing as I'd like to imagine.
 
 
Ex
10:34 / 04.10.06
I'm not sure it comes down to 'botherdness', really, or the intent of the person who's asking the questions. I think it's bigger than that, at least at present.

You're right that I think it could only be done in a 'much nicer place'. In a way, I'd like to live in a world where it would be OK too, because the only way I can imagine that happening is if the power differences that (often unconsciously) motivate these questions would have been ironed out, for at least a generation. I really can't think of a situation, without that happening, where 'Can I poke at the visible signifier of your racial difference' or 'Can I interrogate the specifics of your sexual anomaly' or 'Can I make your like your not-normal body is there to satisfy my curiosity' wouldn't be a bloody awkward question - regardless of the askers good intentions, or the individual's openness to answering other people's curiosity.

In fact, I'd go further and say that in a Utopian future in which those kind of power differences have been ironed out, I can't imagine people wanting to ask those question half so much. I think they're often the unconscious quirks of power difference being asserted. Not that the curiousity isn't honest and often well-intentioned - it's just that 'I'm normal, you're not, I get to ask you to account for it and give me access to it/you' is a really established dynamic and it's easy to fall into. When the question are reversed, they sound odd - unasked - and also really offensive - one I've been pondering in reverse recently is, 'Why do you want children? Do you think you'll change your mind? Do you think you'll regret it later if you have them?'

Learning which questions are offensive - and having to learn about the kind of power differences that make them offensive - has been really interesting to me. I will admit to asking some of the most screamingly impolite questions in the universe with my heart in the right place - it's easy not to notice when you're participating in and reinforcing some bigger rip-off, particularly when you're in a relatively untroubled situation, as I am (I'm white, middle class and ablebodied).

Anyway, all interesting stuff - and yes, Misted, a really horrible thing to happen.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:48 / 04.10.06
I would add:

if we were in a position where we could say, "hey, I haven't seen someone with hair like that before, are all black people like that, mind if I rub your head?" or "gee wow, do you have like remoulded genitals seeing as you're trans-, can I see?" .

That Kay has used "we" in quite an interesting way, there. Some of "us", in the sense of people on Barbelith, do not identify as white. Some of "us" in the sense of people on Barbelith, are transgendered. Certainly, some of "us" in the sense of the population of the world are not of white origin or are trans, or both. What Kay actually means is:

if I were in a position where we could say, "hey, I haven't seen someone with hair like that before, are all black people like that, mind if I rub your head?" or "gee wow, do you have like remoulded genitals seeing as you're trans-, can I see?"

However, the subject has been universalised - would that we could do this - and in doing so the subject, the perspective character - has become white-identifying and surgically non-realigned. For which, see invisible privilege, really.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
11:21 / 04.10.06
Haus, it would work equally well with any other questions of a similar nature. "May I look at your blonde hair and blue eyes" would do. Id had already used the trans- genitalia and black-person's-hair examples earlier (without drawing any criticism for implying any particular viewpoint!), so I used them too, but really anything would do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:43 / 04.10.06
Yes, but they didn't do, did they, Kay? The question was, why can't we feel entitled to touch what is alien to the (white, genitally unaltered) subject, not what is alien to the (brunette, brown-eyed) subject. Because the subject is white and genitally unaltered. Whether the subject has brown eyes or brown hair? Not relevant.

However, I don't think you're up for examining that, so I'll just requote Ex:

In fact, I'd go further and say that in a Utopian future in which those kind of power differences have been ironed out, I can't imagine people wanting to ask those question half so much. I think they're often the unconscious quirks of power difference being asserted. Not that the curiousity isn't honest and often well-intentioned - it's just that 'I'm normal, you're not, I get to ask you to account for it and give me access to it/you' is a really established dynamic and it's easy to fall into.

Disinterested curiosity has for centuries provided (white, cisgender) "subjects" with a means to "touch" black and transgendered "objects" - measure their heads for science, card their hair to see if they are really black or not, compared against all the other hair they have carded, put their corpses on display as examples of hermaphroditism... through to Tuskegee, where one can see at work the disinterested, rational curiosity of what happens if you treat black people's syphilis with a placebo. We're on the unconscuious quirks of power difference - I agree with Ex that ceasing to other somebody because of their neogenitalia or their curly hair - to make them remarkable, because not within the subject's understanding of normality - would make the neogenitalia or the curly hair much less important to be given access to.
 
 
Char Aina
12:11 / 04.10.06
Learning which questions are offensive - and having to learn about the kind of power differences that make them offensive - has been really interesting to me.

would you say the learning is something that is stil ongoing and/or that will constantly require updated?
or do you have a few simple rules that you can now use to navigate with a certainty tending to 100%?

i'm mostly concerned with my own blind fumblings in a world of (both overt and)invisible privilege, in case you wonder where i'm going with this.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
13:15 / 04.10.06
Yes, but they didn't do, did they, Kay?

Haus, I was using the examples which had already been given in the thread. As it happens, the first thought that came to me when I read the "black hair" thing was a programme which was recently shown on UK TV (although I suspect it was on a NE regional channel) about the (white, British) Gateshead bloke who runs some tourism/make-a-difference company and is a tribal chief somewhere pretty remote in west Africa; there was some mention in the programme about how much an object of curiosity he and his (white, Irish) wife were with their funny white skins. But hey, you weren't to know.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:29 / 04.10.06
Yes, Kay, and if a white person goes into an isolated part of Africa, they will indeed be an object of curiosity. And then they will go back to their air-conditioned hotel and take a jet plane back to their world. We're back to power differentials, which Ex talked about above. I was unwise to have commented also, since you have predictably fixated on what I have said and ignored what ze has said. It's unfortunate that you have fixated on it, but have not actually read it, or else you would have noticed that I was talking about you transformation of the subject from "I" to "we", which has nothing to do with whether the example of a black person's hair had been used before.

I suggest that you read and respond to Ex's post, however, because I don't think you're going to read and respond to mine. Ex's post is very interesting and very intelligent, and you might get something out of it.
 
 
Char Aina
13:44 / 04.10.06
kay, dude.
haus's point, found here, is that you said 'we'.
using 'we' showed a lack of self examination.
it was phrasing that suggested that 'we' would find black peeople to be strange, which ignores that 'we' could include black people.

black people are not part of your 'we', which is in itself an example of invisble privelige in effect.

seems a fair point to me, and one that i am glad haus made.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:48 / 04.10.06
On the other hand, within the specific remit of this thread, race is primarily relevant as a comparator to transgender issues - and so it is relevant insofar as the "we" is also possessed of genitalia which had not been surgically realigned.
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply