LGBTQI - The NYT says genderqueers are Real!

[Weeping Sore]

I said this above:

I think that there's necessarily a difference between language that fluently expresses ones internal state and language that serves as comprehensible shorthand for public consumption.

The following serves as a reason to not do this...

...You'll maybe retreat to something pat and familiar and easily understandable and, unfortunately, maybe damaging. And too bad for those kids wrestling with less-approved varieties of dysphoria, eh? Would be nice if someone let them know they aren't alone.

Still, I feel like you could keep the shades of nuance offered by keeping a lot of gender designations for someone digging below the surface, while pushing for public recognition of say, 4 genders: M, F, MF and N. Though I don't know if that would make anybody happy.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I think a lot of conflict would be solved if people didn't try to eradicate the identities of others. I reacted as strongly as I did to the graphic emberling posted, because it eliminates the possibility of the binary existing. I suspect emberling objects to my idea that non-binary exists between the two binary endpoints of a spectrum. I'm not certain language exists that will make everyone happy.

[Weeping Sore]

Well, language that is not someone shouting out "Freak!" on the street is a good start.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Well, language that is not someone shouting out "Freak!" on the street is a good start.

Even in that case, there is some question as to why I encountered that. He said, "Hi there." I expecting a problem, said nothing and walked on by. Was his shouting, "freak", at me because he hates trans people, or because he saw me as not acknowledging his existence, and therefore, using the most hurtful thing he could retaliate with?

I'm not sure I believe that, but it is something my therapist brought up. She pointed out that I said nothing to his initial greeting, because I assumed he was a threat. What would have happened if I'd replied, "Hi", and walked on?

[Weeping Sore]

Ok, everyone. I'm officially back-tracking. I've decided I'm a non-gender-conforming male or genderqueer, though I'm just not crazy about the latter term. Female or Male pronouns are both cool with me. Thanks to everyone for being so supportive and thoughtful. I'll even soften my stance on the weird spherical group-hugging people for the occasion. :grouphug:

[Robin Of House Hill]

WS,

Peace. Be what you are and be happy. That's what matters.

[TerraPrime]

Yup. What Robin said. I don't always grok the nuances of non traditional gender, but I would love to see everyone settle at a spot that makes them happy.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Ok, everyone. I'm officially back-tracking. I've decided I'm a non-gender-conforming male

Echoing Robin and TP. :love:

[emberling]

nm fuck it

I am sorry for any offense I cause you by my existence or by the existence of my gender

please return to your regularly scheduled binary circlejerk

[karaddin]

Personally as a binary transsexual post op now I don't feel my existence is in any way challenged by someone who identifies outside even the concept of transcending the binary.

If I imagine such a spectrum there is still a spot on it where I fit. It's a spot I'll probably share with a lot of people so it's hardly erased.

Just to respond to an earlier point as well, I don't see the remotest connection between strict roles and expression or how elimination of role expectation can slippery slope to elimination of expression.

I already don't fit either male or female roles remotely well, I pick and choose what fits. My expression however is hardly that stand out fluidity between femme and tomboy femme with a fondness for maxis in all their glory. This expression has had zero impact on the roles I fulfill.

[Robin Of House Hill]

so stop doing it

i have no idea how the hell you came up with this impression but you should probably keep in mind that the image is a representation of a multidimensional spectrum, specifically a light spectrum, and you may not have noticed this but last time i checked light is not gender? so the only thing this might say about your gender is that your gender is not the pillar that holds all gender up and that all other genders must define themselves by, which if that is necessary for your identity to not be "eradicated" then maybe you should rethink some things

its ok if you want to hold your own gender between the biggest pillars

I've never denied yours, or anyone else's.

Pardon me for thinking that the graphic you introduced into a discussion of gender, had anything to do with a discussion of gender. I can only conclude that its purpose was to show a model in which a binary cannot exist. Too bad you forgot that light exists between #000000 and #FFFFFF, or, in more common parlance, black and white.

[emberling]

I've never denied yours, or anyone else's.

let me make myself perfectly clear

my gender is not binary

my gender is not 'between male and female'

my gender is not located at a pole coinciding with female (nor, obviously, male)

and yet you continue to forward a framework wherein such a gender cannot exist, despite knowing, and stating your knowledge, that this will offend me

and somehow

you fucking

cannot see how that erases my gender

and keep imagining threats to your own LITERALLY UNASSAILABLE BECAUSE HALF THE ENTIRE WORLD SHARES IT gender instead

this is utterly hopeless

[Robin Of House Hill]

Yes it is. I won't be viewing any further posts by you. That should keep the peace.

[karaddin]

I'd suggest you should perhaps open your mind and let go of some of your insecurity. Our gender identity isn't remotely threatened by Ems framework. But feel free to add me along with her if you want.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Karaddin,

I can't recall you ever trying to show the binary doesn't exist. When someone says they are neither male/masculine nor female/feminine. I've got no problem with that, at all. What I do have a problem with is someone trying to say that the place where I am most comfortable doesn't exist and that we are all data points in a construct that resembles an amorphous blob with no rhyme, reason or logic. That is chaos and I will not be part of it.

To use another analogy, I have no problem if someone says hydrogen atoms are different than nitrogen or iron atoms, but I'd have a great deal of difficulty if someone said the properties of hydrogen atoms are variable, throughout the universe, but provides no clear evidence of how the universe could exist if it were true.

[TerraPrime]

Well, to be fair, I don't really understand, fully, what non-binary gender really means, let alone trying to re-define the landscape of our language to accommodate that. I am happy that others found these ideas useful and meaningful to their self-identity, and I respect the effort to expand our understanding of gender and sex. But, fundamentally, I don't think I am capable of relating to the world outside of a binary framework. This means that I can find nontraditional presentations appealing and worthwhile, but I can't discard the root from which they are derived, i.e. binary gender. Take Conchita Wurst for instance - he chose a non-traditional presentation that is neither fully male nor fully female, and I think that's beautiful. Yet, in conceptualizing his space on the spectrum, I am unable to not reference male or female. So I don't think I am ready yet to say that maleness and femaleness are NOT the two poles that define gender, but wherein each variation is valuable and valid. I question the utility in discarding this model and I and skeptical of the gain to be had from that versus the cost.

[The Butcheress]

Queer is a word for decidedly unusual things. I don't know why it is being accepted in modern use to describe people's sexual identities. It suggests there is something abnormal about those people. Although they might be uncommon, rare, or even different, saying queer is a little blunt and plainly offensive. So I don't like the OP's article. I have trouble understanding what the hell is wrong with people's English nowadays.

[TerraPrime]

The word "queer" has been reclaimed by some within the LBGT community. It is a term of empowerment and a term of inclusion to those people. I fully accept that it does not read that way to everyone else. But please do accept that those who choose to use it on themselves do not do so with any negative connotations, that they accept the meaning of being weird, uncommon, and unusual, and attach no negative values to that status.

[The Butcheress]

The word "queer" has been reclaimed by some within the LBGT community. It is a term of empowerment and a term of inclusion to those people. I fully accept that it does not read that way to everyone else. But please do accept that those who choose to use it on themselves do not do so with any negative connotations, that they accept the meaning of being weird, uncommon, and unusual, and attach no negative values to that status.

But people don't accept things or respect others, that's the point. I listen to a lot of black rap music for example, even though I'm a white girl, but I am surely not going to go around calling people niggers just because the word is blasting into my ears a couple hours each day in a socially excepted format. What I mean is, we still have to tailor our speech to fit our audience, not the other way around. Using "reclaimed" words is attempting to tailor the audience to fit our speech. So when you try and shove a square peg in a round hole, per se, don't be surprised when you raise a few eyebrows. The technical meaning of queer remains as unusual, abnormal. It is a negative.

I've actually had recent experience with this, by the way, trying to argue my own terms I use to describe myself and win them respect. Needless to say, it failed. I know that now. People will never respect my own sexual identity and the words I use to describe it, so I don't describe it anymore.

Anyway, your other post above was interesting. The one about using the spectrum between male and female and being unable to define a gender independent of those original precepts. Something to ponder. I can think of some unusual sexual scenarios indeed, but they all do rely heavily on traditional visions.

EDIT: Just pointing out the semantics by the way. That is all.

[emberling]

Well, to be fair, I don't really understand, fully, what non-binary gender really means, let alone trying to re-define the landscape of our language to accommodate that. I am happy that others found these ideas useful and meaningful to their self-identity, and I respect the effort to expand our understanding of gender and sex. But, fundamentally, I don't think I am capable of relating to the world outside of a binary framework. This means that I can find nontraditional presentations appealing and worthwhile, but I can't discard the root from which they are derived, i.e. binary gender. Take Conchita Wurst for instance - he chose a non-traditional presentation that is neither fully male nor fully female, and I think that's beautiful. Yet, in conceptualizing his space on the spectrum, I am unable to not reference male or female. So I don't think I am ready yet to say that maleness and femaleness are NOT the two poles that define gender, but wherein each variation is valuable and valid. I question the utility in discarding this model and I and skeptical of the gain to be had from that versus the cost.

I feel like this may be a communication problem rather than a disagreement? I'm not sure. The concept in my mind is so simple that I can't imagine how one would be unable to process it as a possibility (though not necessarily as an actuality). I assume you brought up Wurst because his presentation - but not identity, and it must be noted that this discussion is about identity - is a fine example of the idea of between-male-and-female. It is hard to imagine seeing someone and not thinking that they are feminine, or masculine, or some combination of those things, or maybe neither of those things which can still be framed as a kind of 'between' if you are wedded enough to the idea that there is no other space to expand to. It's hard to imagine what an absence of gender or a new gender looks like because the vast majority of things in our society are coded at least a little bit masculine or feminine. But presentation is not the same thing as identity. Identity is a much freer canvas, as it does not depend on the perceptions of others, only ourselves. It is entirely possible to give absolutely no fucks about one pole of the binary, or the other, and define oneself on, say, a spectrum between female and a third gender. It's difficult to visualize giving no fucks about either pole of the binary, but there is no reason to believe it is impossible given that there are less typical genders to use as reference points. The entire concept of "third gender" suggests a trinary, i.e. triangular, system. Some third genders are reasonably represented as medium states, but not all.

I have never argued that the binary doesn't exist. Being a function of socially constructed gender, it is a social construct that exists inasmuch as any social constructs exist. My argument is that the binary, and the space between the binary poles, is not the totality of gender; genders outside it are as valid as genders within it. It is not destroying the comfortable room you are sitting in; it is observing that there is a window in the room and one can look outside it, or climb outside it, and play in the grass and the sun.