Because conversations evolve and do not remain on a single topic without moderation.Why are we doing this? Isn't this thread about gaming groups?
True. But this discussion does make me curious: what is a queer-friendly gaming group like? I'd assume that the group I play in would be, but maybe I'm mistaken. What would I look for?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.
Back on topic.
True. But this discussion does make me curious: what is a queer-friendly gaming group like? I'd assume that the group I play in would be, but maybe I'm mistaken. What would I look for?
An interesting question, and one that is sort of hard to see from the outside I imagine. Maybe you'd have to sit in on a session and observe them at play to get a better idea. I've tried that a few times to get a feel of the group before I've tried to join, just to be sure that I won't regret being there a week later.
well, just like I said with Cis-...
I am a straight, white male of Western European descent. Really the only minority mark to me is I am an atheist, not a Christian. And I totally get the concept of privilege and don't find it offensive.
Now...10 years ago it might have been a different story. I can totally get why people may think the term is problematic...for some it can easily translate in their heads to people dismissing their own problems in life or degrading there own hard work. It's sometimes really really hard to step in another person's shoes.
Now, going back to terminology...I am a bit confused about some of Annabel's recent comments, about terminology.
to take an example, the reason why we discuss things like GAY marriage, etc.
I don't think it's out of any un/conscious effort to dismiss or ostracize LGBTQ people. I think it exists simply for...clarity.
If I mention a comment to people about the "gay marriage debate", practically everyone I talk to instantly knows what I am referring to.
If I mention a comment about the "marriage debate", people are not going to automatically know what I am referring to without a lot more context. I could be talking about my own life, about when people should tie the knot, if people should even bother being married, divorce rates, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But this discussion does make me curious: what is a queer-friendly gaming group like? I'd assume that the group I play in would be, but maybe I'm mistaken. What would I look for?Because conversations evolve and do not remain on a single topic without moderation.Why are we doing this? Isn't this thread about gaming groups?
A queer gaming group is one where, hey...you treat people fairly no matter there gender/sexual orientation. Which I like to think is most groups a priori.
A friend who I used to play with (who is straight) was complaining recently about his group. One of the players was gay and the DM...had some issues with homophobia. To the point where most of the straight players considered the DM a phrase I can't use on Paizo forums. He regularly used pretty heinous stereotypes for gay player NPCs, and passively aggressively mocked the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I have no doubt that this is true, it might be equally true to state It is exhausting being alive.
No one's experiences and lives, even among those with similar identities, is always easy or without strife. Just existing in this world is a trial for many of us, and day to day can be an issue.
Before people roll their eyes and reach for the keyboard to chastise me for marginalizing someone's problems, go back and reread what I've said. There are many of us that may not be LGBTQ or QUILTBAG (I believe that is the new term?) and have difficulties for other reasons. Even those that you believe are "normal" and do not appear to have issues may have things going on that you aren't aware of. It's something to keep in mind.
I don't want to speak for Annabel, so apologies to her if she feels different than this, but I don't think anyone saying "it's exhausting being queer" (or expressing other similar sentiments) would say that those who aren't queer do not face difficulty or hardship, or do not have lives that are a day to day exhausting trial. I certainly wouldn't.
Any hardships one experiences due to being queer are in addition to the various other hardships one might potentially face as a non-queer person, or that one might face due to issues that have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. There's a superposition of various difficulties going on. (Intersectionality probably fits in here somewhere as well.)
Edit to add: Jessica's piece on her tumblr, that she links to below, says what I'm trying to say with greater clarity and detail.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
While, like any word, "privilege" can be used in an insulting way, it's not inherently insulting, and the idea that acknowledging its existence is somehow insulting the people who have it is insulting is... well, it makes me uneasy about the intentions of the person claiming that it's an insult.
But, since it seems to get misunderstood even by people with good intentions, I wrote a piece on it: http://jessicalprice.tumblr.com/post/67545044825/privilege-doesnt-mean-easy
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why these discussions constantly spirals into the sexual/gender identity/lifestyle issues.
People are people and my experience is that people are more complex than any label stuck on them implies.
Cases in point. I've been playing since '74 and in that time, I have had at one time or another the following at my table.
An atheist and a minister playing in the same game. You would think that would be grounds for some out of character 'drama'. Didn't happen. What makes the situation most interesting was the atheist always played the cleric and the minister always played the thief/rogue.
I had a Satanist player (complete with tattoos of reversed pentagrams), who like playing paladins and did a good job of it.
I've had men whose characters were always female. I have had women who only played male characters. Just as I had players who only played elves or dwarves.
What to make of it? In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing - people are more complex than any simple label and I take them as they are. Stereotypes are just that - stereotypes.
I know a gay man who has a Swartznegger physique being a devote weightlifter, has three black belts in different martial arts and is member of the Kinmen and Lions. He did volunteer work at the local library and the women's shelter. Probably the nicest person you can meet. He challenges the stereotype of gay men as being effeminate prancing pansies.
He doesn't have a lick of fashion sense (so much for the notion from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy that gays have innate fashion sense and style).
Pretty much everything that this guy says and does, what he stands for, what interests him is mainstream, so much so that literally nothing about him screams 'Gay'. He is just a normal Joe in all aspects except that when it comes to affairs of the heart, his life partner is another guy.
Which brings me to this point - several years ago, I had a new person at my table who within 15 minutes of sitting down, announced that he was gay. I suspect he did it so he could gauge his acceptance into the game group.
One of my regulars turned to him and said "So? .... No issues here. Pass the chips, please". And that was that. It didn't come up again.
Our group treats people as people. Gay, atheist, minister and satanist alike.
And to address the original question, just what is non-traditional?
I have had women and visible minorities at my table since 1980 until today. So for me and my group, just what would be non-traditional - a table full of white guys only?
Ah, the crux of the issue. Non-traditional is going to vary from group to group and from person to person based on their experiences with people around the table for the duration they are playing this game.
So the lesson from The Matrix is this - there is NO spoon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
While, like any word, "privilege" can be used in an insulting way, it's not inherently insulting, and the idea that acknowledging its existence is somehow insulting the people who have it is insulting is... well, it makes me uneasy about the intentions of the person claiming that it's an insult.
But, since it seems to get misunderstood even by people with good intentions, I wrote a piece on it: http://jessicalprice.tumblr.com/post/67545044825/privilege-doesnt-mean-easy
An interesting article. And while I can understand that it makes you uneasy, my take on this is from my side and watching the term get thrown around on these boards as a "shut up and sit down, you don't have the right to have an opinion because you are blah". If someone were to reverse that we'd have a mod all over us in a heartbeat.
What is insulting to me isn't necessarily insulting to you and vice versa. I've seen threads here where the use of the wrong term -- even by mistake -- results in 20+ posts on how stupid someone is because they have the correct term on hand or misspoke themselves.
So perhaps it is the way it is used. Or that people use it as a go-to slap down. Either way, there are those of us who find it insulting to be told to go sit in the corner because of the circumstances of our birth. The exact thing that so many people here are up in arms about having done to them. I find it mildly hypocritical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with your explanation (which seems "far afield" the typical meaning of the word spectrum), it isn't something I think you have grounds to assert an understanding of me. In fact, if other people believe genderqueer suits you, but you don't feel that way, then it calls into question the validity to asserting that other queer people "suit" the terms they are called. It undermines your basic judgment that I am "on the spectrum," or your feeling that you're not "on the spectrum." I am going going to go with the former.
I said other people also feel that genderqueer doesn't actually suit me at the same time they say it's the best fit. I've been searching for a long time for an answer to a question. Certain urgency to finding that answer, too. But that is a private matter.
I will admit my terminology is far afield. It comes from trying not to overcomplicate what I say when utilizing complex subjects. Produces interesting results.
Okay... maybe you're right... you do need to be invited to the queer conversation: Queer Reappropriation.
You speak of language like it is a flimsy thing, like it doesn't really matter. You treat the category of "human" as if it is not already deeply embedded with cissexist, heterosexist social norms, which implicitly marginalize queer people. You speak of your ambivalence of it like it is some sort of strength queer people are lacking. Here is conversation invite number two: Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, Chapter 1: Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy.
I am treating language like it's a flimsy thing because that is exactly what it is. Language is constantly changing, constantly evolving, and constantly gaining new meanings. For example, if you went back in time and talked about having a computer, people would ask you who you hired to be a computer (it was a profession before it was a machine). Go back to the 1800s and talk about one woman only sleeping with another woman and people will ask you why you're talking so rudely about a Boston Marriage. Talk about a man who prefers other men? They'll tell you such men are queer in the head (this is the origin of "queer" meaning "gay") and tell you the polite way to talk about it is to call them confirmed bachelors... and, otherwise, make it a point not to discuss it in a bad light in public.
This probably puts certain novels from that era in a new light, given you can see how what was a throw-away remark about someone's marital status could in fact be establishing their sexuality in as little as two words.
What changed? Two gay people tried to get married. It wasn't illegal at that point. A religious person was in charge of giving out the licenses and decided to prevent it. That was all it took to create the modern issue of gay marriage being a hot topic, all of the conversations about sexuality and gender, the entire idea of being gay as being a bad thing that permeated society so much and still permeates it... that one event is where it originates. The actions of one person and everything that resulted from it. That is how, in less than a century, being gay went from something with polite terms that no one really talked about in public into something publicly condemned, then began to transform into something openly accepted.
In any case, that link to bit about Reappropriation is highlighting another problem: In some communities, those fighting for gender identity equality are having to fight the gay rights movement to undo some of the successes of the gay rights movement so they can have their own successes. No, I am not joking; my community is one of them. The word "queer" is an easy way to get fired in a lot of jobs; it doesn't matter if you're saying "genderqueer" (as I found out personally, this can get you fired for discrimination against transgendered people) or if you're using the definition that means "strange." The fact it is still used as a slur means being fired is still standard procedure. The fact it is so heavily ingrained in the public awareness as referring to gay people creates confusion for those who are uneducated when you hit terms such as "genderqueer" and speak of things like queer language (most people I've talked to think this term is discriminatory). In fact, if anything, it's creating a barrier against those seeking gender identity equality; take a good look at what I said that got me fired and what people thought I meant.
I do not believe that a lack of being affected by it is a strength people are lacking; if I did, I wouldn't advise you to simply do it. I would advise you to learn how to do it and give you suggestions on where you could learn.
I will read what you linked me to before I comment further on this. But at the end of the day, I want to remind you of something: The very terminology you complain about as separating people from the assumed norm includes terms like "queer," which have been embraced by the gay rights movement. To a lot of heteronormative people, being "queer" is being different from them by default just due to what the term includes and the fact it includes an assumption the person using it as part of their identity is inherently separate from others. So if you are serious about changing terminology, the first thing you must do is stop identifying with a term that marks you as different. Otherwise, you will never succeed.
Well, I've known a few, but they're not really around anymore. Their unhappiness and eventual death wasn't something they inflicted on themselves, and simply "not letting it bother" them wasn't an option.
Nor was it inflicted on themselves for those I knew who thought they had to live by it. They were outsiders because they identified in a way that made them outsiders. I identify in the same way, and am too also often an outsider... but I know how to change that. I just choose not to in daily life because I do not wish people examining certain aspects of my personality too closely. On here, I have the shield of an anonymous screenname to keep up at least the illusion of protection.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
While, like any word, "privilege" can be used in an insulting way, it's not inherently insulting, and the idea that acknowledging its existence is somehow insulting the people who have it is insulting is... well, it makes me uneasy about the intentions of the person claiming that it's an insult.
But, since it seems to get misunderstood even by people with good intentions, I wrote a piece on it: http://jessicalprice.tumblr.com/post/67545044825/privilege-doesnt-mean-easy
Trust me, that term doesn't come across as being anything other than insulting because of how often the word "privilege" is used these days to try to completely eliminate any point a person has. It's increasingly coming to the point that the word is increasingly the divide between the various groups and increasing the chances that things will get worse. This is one of the few places I have seen it used where it was being used with a potentially positive meaning... but all other places where it was used positively, it was talking about things children could earn.
So, it is a negative, insulting term because it is used as a negative, insulting term in most places.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is with constantly moving goalposts of acceptability for every single subgroup or minority. In order to keep up with them, you have to go into fulltime study - and then the one that was ok last year … won't be the next. My general preference is "Don't be a jerk'. And 'Don't presume the other guy is trying to offend you. Most of the time, they aren't"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said other people also feel that genderqueer doesn't actually suit me at the same time they say it's the best fit. I've been searching for a long time for an answer to a question. Certain urgency to finding that answer, too. But that is a private matter.
What about agender? Or (going in a different direction, since I'm unclear about your gender identity, save that it doesn't fit under some of the more common terms) gender fluid, or bigender?
To a lot of heteronormative people, being "queer" is being different from them by default just due to what the term includes and the fact it includes an assumption the person using it as part of their identity is inherently separate from others.
Alternately, it provides a way of indicating that the experiences of the people who self-identify with the term are different from the experiences those who do not, which to varying degrees can often be the case. (I know, for example, that some of my experiences as a trans woman are different from those who are non-trans in various ways, sometimes very concrete ways.) What's wrong with people being different? What's wrong with encouraging people to accept that there are people that are different from yourself? Personally, I think the reappropriation of the term "queer" can help in that regard.
Clearly, there's still a degree of disagreement and flux about the term "queer", and some idiocy attached to it, as you experienced when you were fired (which really sucks), but that'll most likely continue to fade. I'd rather not give up on using the term "queer" myself.
So if you are serious about changing terminology, the first thing you must do is stop identifying with a term that marks you as different. Otherwise, you will never succeed.
I don't know, that route seems like it could lead to a form of erasure of experience and identity. (Or worse, that route could lead back into the closet.) I'm not sure denial of difference is the way to go. Education and expansion of notions of "normal" to include LGBTQ people seem like better approaches to me.
Obviously, everyone (including yourself) has to make their own choices about what terms they use, how they identify, and to what degree they choose to assimilate or pass, if that's what they want to do, and if they feel that will lead to a less difficult life. But to tell another person that they'll never succeed in finding acceptance if they don't try to assimilate? I don't know, that seems kind of pessimistic.
All that said, I wish you well in whatever gender-related issues, or identity-related struggles you have facing you.
What about agender? Or (going in a different direction, since I'm unclear about your gender identity, save that it doesn't fit under some of the more common terms) gender fluid, or bigender?
If you are asking if any of those apply, the answer to all is the same: Yes. I'm gender fluid, but my overall personality is completely agender while at the same time all aspects of it are bigender at minimum. Which aspects and which gender traits I display depend entirely upon which aspects of my personality I pay attention to, but in a normal, relaxed state I show a mixture of all traits or none at all (which depends on how tired I am). I'm also capable of rapidly shifting back and forth between various genders. It drove one psychologist nuts because she could only conclude that, for all of the possibilities she had on her list, the only answer she could give me is "all of the above."
The above is, sadly, an oversimplification.
Alternately, it provides a way of indicating that the experiences of the people who self-identify with the term are different from the experiences those who do not, which to varying degrees can often be the case. (I know, for example, that some of my experiences as a trans woman are different from those who are non-trans in various ways, sometimes very concrete ways.) What's wrong with people being different? What's wrong with encouraging people to accept that there are people that are different from yourself? Personally, I think the reappropriation of the term "queer" can help in that regard.
Clearly, there's still a degree of disagreement and flux about the term "queer", and some idiocy attached to it, as you experienced when you were fired (which really sucks), but that'll most likely continue to fade. I'd rather not give up on using the term "queer" myself.
I don't see anything wrong with being different. Nor do I see anything wrong with encouraging people to see being different as good. I am not the one complaining about the terms "gay marriage," "gay family," or "gay kids." Why having those as being different, but accepted as equal, is somehow bad is something I do not understand the logic of. If the only difference is the name but everything else is exactly the same, then why is the name so different? Would it be any different if, tomorrow, "queer" was redefined to refer to a type of trout and was replaced by "flosselheim?" Would referring to oneself as flosselheim make a difference?
What I am pointing out is that Annabel can't have cake and eat it too. Either it is deal with the fact that, no matter what, some terms are going to mark one as different but you can work to control how those terms are perceived... or you have to drop all terms that mark one as different, even if they are terms of pride or identity. That and the fact I do not believe Annabel can so easily do away with a term of identity is why I advised Annabel to not be so bothered by it. After all, if it doesn't bother you that you're different, you can show others that being different isn't a bad thing... and if they see it is not a bad thing by how you are not negatively affected by it, they become more accepting of those differences and more willing to help eliminate and remaining injustices. That line of thinking was, if I remember correctly, what spawned the term "gay pride."
I don't know, that route seems like it could lead to a form of erasure of experience and identity. (Or worse, that route could lead back into the closet.) I'm not sure denial of difference is the way to go. Education and expansion of notions of "normal" to include LGBTQ people seem like better approaches to me.
Obviously, everyone (including yourself) has to make their own choices about what terms they use, how they identify, and to what degree they choose to assimilate or pass, if that's what they want to do, and if they feel that will lead to a less difficult life. But to tell another person that they'll never succeed in finding acceptance if they don't try to assimilate? I don't know, that seems kind of pessimistic.
All that said, I wish you well in whatever gender-related issues, or identity-related struggles you have facing you.
That's because it would be erasing identity. That is the ultimate flaw in what Annabel has said when complaining about the terminology differences; eliminating those terms would do far worse damage than leaving them in place and convincing people to think of them in a positive manner.
In so focusing upon those terms, the essential point of those terms was missed: They are terms of identity. Gay marriage, in particular, is a fight to prove equality and, through it, gain the identity of a legally married couple. And I know quite a few people who proudly say they have gay children. To them, the fact their child is gay and they are proud of it is part of their identity... so having a term they can use to express that pride is part of them expressing their identity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is with constantly moving goalposts of acceptability for every single subgroup or minority. In order to keep up with them, you have to go into fulltime study - and then the one that was ok last year … won't be the next. My general preference is "Don't be a jerk'. And 'Don't presume the other guy is trying to offend you. Most of the time, they aren't"
Even better- don't use labels. People are not the sort of thing you can put a label on anyway.
My point, is- some people object to certain labels, and other use that label in a derogatory manner (and "cis" is certainly commonly used that way). So, at the very least- let's not use those labels, except perhaps when referring to ones self.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MagusJanus, eh... I think you're getting the exact opposite out of what I've been saying. To put it plainly: I am not bothered by differences, I am bothered by the social structures that place differences in a hierarchy where cisgender heterosexuality is at the apex of social meaning and value. I want to work towards a queer world where differences aren't defined by their deviation from cisgender heterosexuality: where cisgender heterosexuality is no longer privileged over other gender and sexuality configurations.
Because, honestly, I don't want to eat the vanilla normative cake pre-packaged by CisHetCo™: I want to sample the cheese pies, fruit cobbler, crème brûlée from Queer à la carte.
....That is the ultimate flaw in what Annabel has said when complaining about the terminology differences; eliminating those terms would do far worse damage than leaving them in place and convincing people to think of them in a positive manner.
But that's not what I argued for at all: I was arguing for an expanding queer language that resists placing heterosexuality as the center of everything, and queer life as a mere deviance from it. When I explained the problems with terms like "gay marriage," the focus was on how "marriage" itself is implicitly heterosexual. Part of the political significance of "gay marriage" is due to the assumption that all queer people ought to aspire to enter an implicitly heterosexual union to gain social recognition. This is part of a broader problem where queer people are only broadly recognized as having legitimate relations so long as it is couched in the values and meaning of cisgender heteroseuxality.
The problem I am pointing to is structural, and is deeply embedded in the dominant language of a cissexist, heterosexist society. Though important for the day-to-day life of queer people, I am still cautious of the promises that gay marriage carries for queer people. It seems to me that even with gay marriage there are still queer people omitted from the legal and social benefits of government sanctioned unions. I recognize the unmarked and unremarked dominance of cisgender heterosexuality as a source of this marginalization. So, that's what I'm "complaining" about.
P.S. @KSF, I think we are both on the same page. We're in sync... so to speak. Thanks! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is with constantly moving goalposts of acceptability for every single subgroup or minority. In order to keep up with them, you have to go into fulltime study - and then the one that was ok last year … won't be the next. My general preference is "Don't be a jerk'. And 'Don't presume the other guy is trying to offend you. Most of the time, they aren't"Even better- don't use labels. People are not the sort of thing you can put a label on anyway.
My point, is- some people object to certain labels, and other use that label in a derogatory manner (and "cis" is certainly commonly used that way). So, at the very least- let's not use those labels, except perhaps when referring to ones self.
Or... we can recognize that the use of the term "labels" is meant to diminish the importance of queer language.
And here is an apropos article I wrote last week (and published yesterday) addressing this problem: Queer "Labels," Queer Lexicon, and Queer Life
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even better- don't use labels. People are not the sort of thing you can put a label on anyway.Good point! We should stop using words like
People are going to hate people of other groups whether the labels exist or not.
If you're angry at another group for reasons they can't control, then you're in the wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Annabel, then what will be the norm?
No matter how you look at it, part of the inherent understanding of these, even for cisgender in studies of it, is how they differentiate from all of the others. However, in order to properly compare anything in a scientific field when it comes to things like this, you need a baseline. You need something that is the norm to serve as the essential comparison for understanding how everything relates and how each differs. The same is true in psychology. While science has made efforts to try to eliminate the idea of a norm, the idea is still inherent.
As for that bit about it being an assumption: It is not. It is law for a number of areas. That is more than a mere assumption; that is a societal position on an issue as enforced by government. And that particular bit actually has religious origins; your argument about it being cisgender is you blaming the wrong group. If you bother to check instead of just blaming an entire group unfairly and stating remarks that are themselves discriminatory, you'll notice that most the opposition against gay marriage is religious in origin, not gender or sexual preference in origin.
There are quite a few cisgender people who support gay marriage being equal, so it is not, as you put it, the "dominant language of cissexist, heterosexist society" that is determining it should be that way. If it were, gay marriage would not have the support it does.
So, actually, what you're complaining about is something that doesn't actually exist ("the unmarked and unremarked dominance of cisgender heterosexuality as a source of this marginalization") and originates from you blaming the wrong people for the very laws you find unfair.
And if you are not bothered by the differences, then why did you say things like "vanilla normative cake pre-packaged by CisHetCo™" and "cissexist, heterosexist" in your post? Because those make it sound like you are very bothered by cisgender heteronormative people.
Seriously, if you're going to blame a group for discriminatory laws, at least make certain you're blaming the right group.
@MagusJanus
The "dominant language of cissexist, heterosexist society" is not the same as cisgender people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting article. And while I can understand that it makes you uneasy, my take on this is from my side and watching the term get thrown around on these boards as a "shut up and sit down, you don't have the right to have an opinion because you are blah". If someone were to reverse that we'd have a mod all over us in a heartbeat.
People don't get told that -- or rather, if they do, and someone flags the offending post, we mod it.
What people do get told is, "If you are not a woman, you are not qualified to tell me what the experience of being a woman is like." Or, "if you're not gay, you not qualified to tell me what the experience of being gay is like."
Which is so obvious that it's practically a tautology.
The same goes for, "if you're not a woman, you're not qualified to tell me how I'm allowed to feel about the things that happen to me because I'm a woman."
Also so obvious that it's practically a tautology.
What is insulting to me isn't necessarily insulting to you and vice versa. I've seen threads here where the use of the wrong term -- even by mistake -- results in 20+ posts on how stupid someone is because they have the correct term on hand or misspoke themselves.
I'm confused as to how the idea that because one is male, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, or that because one is neurotypical, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, or that because one is able-bodied, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, could possible be construed as insulting.
As I noted, the term itself can be used in insulting ways, but so can "tall." That doesn't mean that the concept itself is somehow insulting.
Either way, there are those of us who find it insulting to be told to go sit in the corner because of the circumstances of our birth.
And as I noted, that's not what you're being told. You're being told that you don't get to tell other people how they should feel about their experience, or what their experience means, because you don't share that experience. That's not the same as "go sit in the corner" -- that's the same as someone telling someone who's never been to France that they're not really qualified to tell French people what life in France is like. You're not being told that your voice isn't wanted; you're being told you don't get to speak for groups that you're not part of.
I find it mildly hypocritical.
And we're done. I don't bother trying to have genuine discussions with people who call me a hypocrite.
I've been the only girl at each of the tables I've been at, which is unfortunate because there's always someone trying to make passes "at my character." It's really frustrating because I specifically write and play characters that are NOT seductive or alluring, so it's not even justifiable that it's "in-character." Yay, the *perks* of being a woman who likes games. :/
An interesting article. And while I can understand that it makes you uneasy, my take on this is from my side and watching the term get thrown around on these boards as a "shut up and sit down, you don't have the right to have an opinion because you are blah". If someone were to reverse that we'd have a mod all over us in a heartbeat.People don't get told that -- or rather, if they do, and someone flags the offending post, we mod it.
What people do get told is, "If you are not a woman, you are not qualified to tell me what the experience of being a woman is like." Or, "if you're not gay, you not qualified to tell me what the experience of being gay is like."
Which is so obvious that it's practically a tautology.
The same goes for, "if you're not a woman, you're not qualified to tell me how I'm allowed to feel about the things that happen to me because I'm a woman."
Also so obvious that it's practically a tautology.
What is insulting to me isn't necessarily insulting to you and vice versa. I've seen threads here where the use of the wrong term -- even by mistake -- results in 20+ posts on how stupid someone is because they have the correct term on hand or misspoke themselves.I'm confused as to how the idea that because one is male, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, or that because one is neurotypical, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, or that because one is able-bodied, there's crap one doesn't have to deal with, could possible be construed as insulting.
As I noted, the term itself can be used in insulting ways, but so can "tall." That doesn't mean that the concept itself is somehow insulting.
Either way, there are those of us who find it insulting to be told to go sit in the corner because of the circumstances of our birth.And as I noted, that's not what you're being told. You're being told that you don't get to tell other people how they should feel about...
does that mean they don't get to speak for "cissexist, heterosexist society." either?
Or is that solely a one-way proposition?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What people do get told is, "If you are not a woman, you are not qualified to tell me what the experience of being a woman is like." Or, "if you're not gay, you not qualified to tell me what the experience of being gay is like."
Putting it like THAT is great.
If you look on the list of privlidge lists though, I don't see a female privileges list, implying that male has nothing BUT upsides and female nothing but downsides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@MagusJanus
The "dominant language of cissexist, heterosexist society" is not the same as cisgender people.
Except that a society is its people. Without the latter banding together and determining the standards, the former cannot exist. So in order for a society to be cissexist, heterosexist... then those who make up enough of it to determine the standards must also be the same way.
I have no problem with solving this issue. That people are treated unfairly is not something I can sit by and simply allow whenever the chance to try to change it comes up. But I also know that blaming people unfairly is what got us into this mess, and I know it won't make things better. It'll just make enemies out of your allies. Do that enough and you will never see the equality you want.
Keep in mind the issue of terminology goes both ways. You want people to change how they speak about you? Show them a better way to talk about it and don't speak about them in a way that comes across as you denigrating them. Don't back down from trying to improve things... but at the same time, don't toss around terms that alienate those who wish to help you. Want to know what you'll find? People will change. Language will change. Things will start to improve.
Now, why do I know this is effective? January 20th celebrates the efforts of a man who did just that. And of the people he inspired to follow him. And if something like that works once, it will work a second time.
I agree with Jessica Price 100% on this. People on Paizo Forums are way way polite when pointing out someone is speaking from a position of privilege. In fact, it initially struck me as odd how people with marginalized identities didn't use the word privilege to make explicit the problems with privileged speech. But the fact is, people here usually circumnavigate this useful term to try to identify privilege without making the term explicit.
It seems clear to me that a lot of people go out of their way to not use the language that can feel insulting to cisgender heterosexuals: Jessica Price even going so far to write a tumblr post that works to take the sting out of the word privilege.
Honestly, the issue seems to be that some people (myself one of them) aren't as gentle with our language as others. I've made it explicit when I believe privilege is creating problems in our discussions, and as a consequence I think some people get "turned off" or feel insulted. I honestly think it's a difference in at what point some people say, "enough is enough, time to highlight some privileged speech."
At the end of the day, it comes down to this for me: Am I willing to let privileged speech continue to marginalize myself and the queer people I identify with, or am I going to risk hurting the feelings of a few cisgender heterosexual that don't like having their privilege highlighted. Suffice it to say, I almost always choose the former.
I'm going to guess that given the number of variables on there I'd say pretty often.
I think the "normal" is the minority in our group. AFAIK everyone's gender identity matches their biology but I'm a sheldon and half the group either plays for the other team or is a free agent.
Except that a society is its people. Without the latter banding together and determining the standards, the former cannot exist. So in order for a society to be cissexist, heterosexist... then those who make up enough of it to determine the standards must also be the same way.
What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society. That is why I explicitly stated "the problem I am pointing to is structural, and is deeply embedded in the dominant language of a cissexist, heterosexist society."
I draw deep from modern sociological understandings of society (which is arguably the only way to understand society), and thus I tend to reject solutions and explanations that reduce human life to the lonely, sole person. I am not saying persons don't exist, just that people don't exhaust the field of social objects worth talking about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you get to decide the terms used for yourself AND everyone else? Interesting.
Redefining how you yourself are called, I can see. Redefining other people's identity for them ... isn't that at least part of what you object to in the first place?
So you get to decide the terms used for yourself AND everyone else? Interesting.
Redefining how you yourself are called, I can see. Redefining other people's identity for them ... isn't that at least part of what you object to in the first place?
Well, that isn't what I'm arguing. Highlighting where privilege exists and who experiences it isn't the same as "redefining" people identity for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society.
But can you talk about a group of people like that and say anything without writing a medication disclaimer parody and without sending everyone else googling your terminology?
Normal might be, by implications, insulting by implying there's something wrong with people not nestled firmly into the depths of a bell curve but ignoring the trend can be just as erroneous as ignoring the exceptions.
Not to quibble with you, Ars, but I hope you understand the difference between defining and redefining.
I'm a cisgendered, heterosexual male, and no one, ever, in my entire life has defined me any other way; thus I have never felt a need to redefine myself.
Edit: Yes, it took me two minutes to phrase my sentence, so I got ninja'd twice; no justice in this world :P
What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society.But can you talk about a group of people like that and say anything without writing a medication disclaimer parody and without sending everyone else googling your terminology?
Normal might be, by implications, insulting by implying there's something wrong with people not nestled firmly into the depths of a bell curve but ignoring the trend can be just as erroneous as ignoring the exceptions.
Do you mean "can't you talk about [queer life in heterosexists, cissexist society] by appealing to the heterosexist, cissexist language"?
Because the answer is an obvious: No. Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
Except that a society is its people. Without the latter banding together and determining the standards, the former cannot exist. So in order for a society to be cissexist, heterosexist... then those who make up enough of it to determine the standards must also be the same way.What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society. That is why I explicitly stated "the problem I am pointing to is structural, and is deeply embedded in the dominant language of a cissexist, heterosexist society."
I draw deep from modern sociological understandings of society (which is arguably the only way to understand society), and thus I tend to reject solutions and explanations that reduce human life to the lonely, sole person. I am not saying persons don't exist, just that people don't exhaust the field of social objects worth talking about.
Who creates and mans the institutions? Who discovers the knowledge? Who invests people with the power?
A society is just people. People create and man the institutions. People discover the knowledge. People invest other people with power. Remove people from the equation and nothing else exists. Check any single of those other items, and you'll find people at the core. We've not yet advanced to the point machines can run our society.
People hold the attitudes. People create and man the institutions. People create the media. People discover the knowledge. People decide the values. People decide the meaning. You are still arguing that the majority of the people are, themselves, cissexist and heterosexist. And like I said: It is those attitudes which have also created the foundation of the movement to have gay marriage as equal under the law, and without those attitudes you would stand no chance of ever being equal.
But, then, that's because you're still blaming the wrong people and wrong things for the discrimination you're facing. That's why you are getting nowhere in this conversation.
Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
And you just admitted that your goal is to destabilize the lives of people who are different than you to improve your own life. In effect, you just admitted you are actively discriminating against people.
You could, of course, try to adjust what their normal is...
A society is just people.
And what are people? People are made out of cells. So a society is just cells.
But what are cells? Cells are made out of molecules. So a society is just molecules.
Or we can recognize that this sort of reductionism is nonsense.
A society is just people.And what are people? People are made out of cells. So a society is just cells.
But what are cells? Cells are made out of molecules. So a society is just molecules.
I think we are all above this sort of simplistic reductionism.
Except it's not a simplistic reduction. It's removing all of the self-deception that tends to foster in a society.
Because, really, in order for that to be a simplistic reduction, how people interact would have to be, at its core, simplistic. "Simplistic" doesn't even describe how some people shop for groceries.
The true nonsense in this is to try to add levels of complexity that are, in effect, illusions.
What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society.But can you talk about a group of people like that and say anything without writing a medication disclaimer parody and without sending everyone else googling your terminology?
Normal might be, by implications, insulting by implying there's something wrong with people not nestled firmly into the depths of a bell curve but ignoring the trend can be just as erroneous as ignoring the exceptions.
Do you mean "can't you talk about [queer life in heterosexists, cissexist society] by appealing to the heterosexist, cissexist language"?
Because the answer is an obvious: No. Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
Annabel, can I ask where you stand on the same sex marriage/vs civil unions for LBGT partners? I guess I'm asking if if destabilization or subversion is a more realistic objective.
Not that this has anything to do with gaming groups anymore. :P
The key word, as evinced by the fact that I edited that sentence as you were responding, was reductionism. Saying the reductionism isn't simplistic kinda misses the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mean "can't you talk about [queer life in heterosexists, cissexist society] by appealing to the heterosexist, cissexist language"?
Because the answer is an obvious: No. Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
From some of your other posts I'm not exactly sure what your plan of action is here or how it relates to your goals.
Words like him her he she etc. aren't going anywhere. They are by and large accurate enough to be useful and no matter how accepting society gets are still going to be the majority (as our genes which we're unfortunately stuck with for a while have a vested interest in "normal") . I don't think i've heard the term cisgendered outside of these forums.
@MagusJanus
Yeah... I can't get anywhere with the consistent reduction of everything down to individual people. Yes, individual people matter, but so does the larger social context which shapes what life is like for people. I use the words other than people because there are social objects worth discussing. We're coming from completely different places on this, and I am not that interesting in coaxing you to think about society as more than just individual people. Fundamentally, this is an ontological disagreement, and I don't think we share the same repertoire of intellectual tools to full explore this disagreement.
Vivianne- Saying a society is a sum of its people, institutions, knowledge, and power is also reductionism. Because it is still saying the whole is the sum of its parts.
And, if you want to get technical, it doesn't even apply. My post, particularly when I point out the very attitudes that Annabel is complaining about are what are fueling the chance at equality, shows that the complex interactions of people, and by extension the various things they create, is in turn creating something even more complex. A mere sum of the parts would not have those attitudes supporting gay marriage being legal and equal (which I stated earlier and am now repeating).
The key word, as evinced by the fact that I edited that sentence as you were responding, was reductionism. Saying the reductionism isn't simplistic kinda misses the point.
Nothing is beneath me! :)
More seriously, I am rather reductionist to the individual level. Its the only level at which the process we're describing actually happens. Cells don't quite think but a brain/individuals do. Organizations like a society don't quite think either, the individuals in them do.
To me culture is something that comes out of a petrie dish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@MagusJanus
Yeah... I can't get anywhere with the consistent reduction of everything down to individual people. Yes, individual people matter, but so does the larger social context which shapes what life is like for people. I use the words other than people because there are social objects worth discussing. We're coming from completely different places on this, and I am not that interesting in coaxing you to think about society as more than just individual people. Fundamentally, this is an ontological disagreement, and I don't think we share the same repertoire of intellectual tools to full explore this disagreement.
Funny thing is, I never reduced it down to mere individuals. It's been assumed that I have, when in fact I've been using a word that is plural the entire time. I draw upon such greats as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and how they focused on both individuals and on groups of people together to get their goals accomplished. That is why I chided you earlier about words you speak. Individuals connect to groups, and poisoning enough individuals of a group against you only gives you an enemy you cannot fight; the entire group will turn against you, and groups of people outlast individuals.
But, then, my point on this has also been that you're fighting entirely the wrong battle using entirely the wrong words to defeat entirely the wrong enemy. You are never going to accomplish your goals because you're not even actually addressing the people who oppose you and you are giving incentive for some who would aid you to oppose you as well.
You want to actually fight the underlying cultural standards that are the real source of the oppressive laws? Then find out what they actually are. Because so far, you're focused on something that is only going to alienate allies you could seriously use and are using wording that makes you come across as a threat to the very equality you seek.
Identify your real enemy. Then make plans to fight them.
Do you mean "can't you talk about [queer life in heterosexists, cissexist society] by appealing to the heterosexist, cissexist language"?
Because the answer is an obvious: No. Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
From some of your other posts I'm not exactly sure what your plan of action is here or how it relates to your goals.
Words like him her he she etc. aren't going anywhere. They are by and large accurate enough to be useful and no matter how accepting society gets are still going to be the majority (as our genes which we're unfortunately stuck with for a while have a vested interest in "normal") . I don't think i've heard the term cisgendered outside of these forums.
There are a lot of different things that can be done, more than I am able to list here.
But to take you example of "him her he she etc." These words aren't timeless inevitabilities foisted on humanity by the laws of the universe. Gendered pronouns came about through some sort of process that is larger than any individual action: but it does not follow that "him her he she etc" can't be undone or subverted somehow. I disagree that these things can't be changed.
It always astounds me at how people use our genetics as a symbol of immemorial fatality while scientists have already developed technology to rewrite DNA, and are on the cusp of being able to rewrite our own. Somehow scientists are able to undo the very fabric of "normal" biology, yet you're skeptical over whether queer folk can undo the fabric of normative society.
But to take you example of "him her he she etc." These words aren't timeless inevitabilities foisted on humanity by the laws of the universe. Gendered pronouns came about through some sort of process that is larger than any individual action
The process started a few billion years ago with sexual differentiation. Societies aren't making something up out of whole cloth when they describe gender, they're describing something real. While the universe isn't forcing the term on us, it definitely is giving us something to work with.
We tend not to have words for normal. We don't have a word for "having head hair" but we do have words for not having it (bald)
but it does not follow that "him her he she etc" can't be undone or subverted somehow. I disagree that these things can't be changed.
It seems incredibly difficult to do and I'm not entirely sure what the gain is.
It always astounds me at how people use our genetics as a symbol of immemorial fatality while scientists have already developed technology to rewrite DNA, and are on the cusp of being able to rewrite our own. Somehow scientists are able to undo the very fabric of "normal" biology, yet you're skeptical over whether queer folk can undo the fabric of normative society.
I'm a pessimist, what can I say.
Making small changes is pretty easy: a rabbit that glows in the dark is only 1 gene after all. Large changes are going to require a LOT more information about protiens organic chemistry and fetal development than we have... not to mention the societal worry about altering human DNA.
Or maybe I'm an optimist. I'm seeing society accept different orientations and [] (you know I don't even know a word for how the mind and body match up ) so quickly that whatever pejorative implications of the language there are will be gone before the language itself is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as I noted, that's not what you're being told. You're being told that you don't get to tell other people how they should feel about their experience, or what their experience means, because you don't share that experience. That's not the same as "go sit in the corner" -- that's the same as someone telling someone who's never been to France that they're not really qualified to tell French people what life in France is like. You're not being told that your voice isn't wanted; you're being told you don't get to speak for groups that you're not part of.
That hasn't been my experience with the term being used here. But as you mentioned it, I'll flag each and every post that I feel is using the term as an insult and we'll see if that clears the matter up.
And we're done. I don't bother trying to have genuine discussions with people who call me a hypocrite.
You seemed to miss the why behind the statement. People speak about how they were born and how they shouldn't be discriminated against because of it while discriminating against people. YOU may not use the term like that. The term has been used like that. Annabel, for example, remarks that she isn't shy about hurting feelings and speaking bluntly. That is certainly a way to go, and if you have everyone do that you'll have a lot of posts to have to delete. Is it right to insult anyone, regardless of who they are? It certainly seems to be.
Or in more specific Paizo board terms, "Don't be a jerk." Doesn't that apply across the board?
Edited to add: This is about feelings. Your article, Jessica, remarked on how the 'check your privilege' bit should work and be looked at. That doesn't mean that it is always used that way nor does it mean that it doesn't make some people (like me, for instance) feel like they are being told that they cannot be part of the conversation -- not to tell you how to live or tell you that an experience isn't valid, but perhaps to share a viewpoint or experience. What you said above applies to everyone about not speaking for other groups. I don't speak for you and vice versa. But we do all get to speak.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have left-handed players in our group, it's quite sinister...