Trans-, in gender and sex

[enderwiggin]

Note: I write this not as an expert on such terminology, but as individual speculation put upon me from the outside. And because one of my friends (mentor) had asked me this several times. A more accessable form of this text will be posted up soon. Critiques and comments please? It's by far not a finished text, there's a lot to do with polishing

Comments

just a few thoughts

[purloinedcoin]

Hi,
I'm surprised you haven't gotten any comments about this since I really enjoyed it personally. I haven't read about the supplement as treated by Derrida (which I'm guessing is in Of Grammatology) but it definitely follows his spirit, from what I've gathered from the few essays I've read by him in Writing and Difference. That is, I see it being fairly critical about the fixity found in choice (a problem that from what I've read is sort of insoluble) and it sets the physical world into the periphery and privileges the immaterial (though I wouldn't quite say metaphysical). Which then makes me wonder about how your statement may engage in dialogue with the various threads (not necessarily confluent within themselves) of materialist criticism out there. That is, what kind of discussion can emerge from your statement about the physical -- a standpoint that has been co-opted by those who are hostile to this idea of gender as floating beyond the reductive space of chromosomal analysis (in the pop-culture world anyway...I'm sure there are ways science can even verify the idea of arbitarily enclosing the body into a politically formed binary) -- vis-a-vis a situation like the transgendered working class, or even lumpenproletariat?

I could have quite possibly missed the point of your assertions, since I admit it's fairly packed and I lack the background reading to be in direct dialogue with this, but I gleaned certain ideas that struck my interest and I hope to read a "reader-friendly" version (which may even be a task that proves, I don't know, strangely oppositional to these theories since...well, I won't get into it) in the near future so I can confirm that I had no idea what you were talking about.

Re: just a few thoughts

[enderwiggin]

Oh wow... you are definately more well-read than I am on critical theory and philosophy. I just recently got into theory this summer, no more than 4 months ago. As for this idea, I've pretty much scraped it after reading some works by Judith Butler on subjection and power, and the idea of Being of Heidegger.

Maybe the question is more so, is gender a social externality used to (mis)interpet the physical manifestation of our Being, and thus, there can never be a performance of gender?

Or maybe, in continuence of this idea, what is necessary is the theory of a non-model of gender, a theory that denies a model of gender that society so desires?

I have no clue... I'm really new to all of this :x

As for the reason why I feel there is a necessity of providing a more accessable text of what I am proposing (which is an overly ambitious goal for a 2.63 GPA undergraduate who has just recently gotten interested into critical theory and critical queer theory), is the fact that theory and activists have separated themselves from each other. Activists who are the body, the physical part of theory, no longer understand nor care to understand it. It has caused them to not know what they are really fighting for. Sure, one can scream about "Down with oppression" or about dismantling the oppressive patriarchy, but what is the use if the recongition of such power is muddled and their goals unclear? If they do break this power, do they know how to replace - better yet deconstruct - it with something that has the idea of the constant comming of the Other (in Derrida's idea of l'a venir to come).

Part of the problem are theorist themselves, who do not try to simplify their work, understandably. For if they do, what is happens is a interpetation of an interpetation. But it is necessary for certain ideas to be digestable in order for the movement to go on, instead of mindlessly heading in a direction of blunt force. I guess its the same reason many philosophers are hesitant about giving interviews, especially regarding their own works, as it could be a "shortcut" to the understanding of the work and once again privileging the author with the authority of the work when he or she holds none!

Thanks for the comment! Do you go to UCSB by any chance?

Re: just a few thoughts

[purloinedcoin]

sorry to hear that you've dispensed with this theory, although if you're like me, I suspect that perhaps a variation of it will pop up in some other idea. Honestly, I have barely read any theory myself, although I hope to pursue it in more depth. Eventually I hope to read Butler and Heidegger, but I don't feel prepared for them just yet (among various other canonical works).

As for your concern about gender as a social externality (a brilliant term, btw) as a means to define our Being (I'm not too familiar with Heidegger's definition, if that's what you're going off of, but am going to assume it's not too far from the idea of "essence") and as an impediment to understanding gender as a construct worth further examination if not retirement, I wonder if that also means dismantling sex as having some utility. Gender definitely seems like an exaggerated legacy of sex, but at the same time, I can't help but think of the medical developments that thrive on the distinctions made between the sexes. But as a guy, I can't tell whether the developments are made to reinforce ideas of gender more than an identification of needs specific to each sex, or if sex itself is a myth surrounded by various regimes that legitimate it. And though what I say runs along the same rhetoric of Booker T. Washington in having the ideological equality eventually emerge from material interdependence, I'm afraid to admit that I'm drawn to that idea over working on an ideological level first to get material results (which is sort of funny considering this idea's ideological origins). Again, I'm not too familiar with l'a venir though from what I have gathered from your other remark about it, it seems to be consistent with what I understand to be his affinity for acentric mobility.

Given how in depth you went in response to my comment about your decision to make an accessible version of your idea, I just want to make sure that you didn't take it as being critical of that venture. I actually started out finding its pragmatic applications in regards to aesthetics and gender/color theory through Trinh Minh-Ha -- a book of interviews at that. There is a reality to what you have brilliantly worded as "an interpretation of an interpretation," but as you have also said, I like the idea of a version of Lacan that I can have a basic understanding of before jumping into his works directly (which I have made the mistake of doing), although I guess with him, the confusion and active reframing of how one reads is sort of the whole point.

Which is why, considering your aversion to shortcuts, I have to thank you for your own interpretation of your interpretation and seriously, I hope there's more of this stuff... to come.

And yeah, I do go to UCSB. I think we've actual met at some party through Mihae, though I found your LJ through Joel's. I could be wrong though.

Re: just a few thoughts

[enderwiggin]

Deconstructing sex is possible, though it is much harder than gender since it is based on the physical semiotics of the biological body. (I'm not comfortable with using the term dismantling, hence why I used it when I was talking about activists with no idea of theory. Dismantling is only part of the process, deconstruction not only dismantles what claims to be an Universal truth, but it opens it up to the Other). We could look at intersexed individuals to talk about sex, but that's a lot more in depth than my lil' mind wants to go right now.

I have yet to read any Heidegger, but that's where I'm drawing my idea of Being (Dasein) from. What really sucks is that the philosophy department here is analytical philosophy and could give a rats ass about stuff like this.

Anyways, we should have coffee or something, it would be interesting to talk. Sorry, for this short reply, I'm still recovering from the flu/cold.

Jacques Derrida on l'a venir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iul7ykYIEk

A good book (series actually) I'd recommend checking out is

Live Theory: Jacques Derrida (which I have out right now, but you can always ILL! :)

Re: just a few thoughts

[purloinedcoin]

ah, well, I'm not too familiar with the nuances of both terms and rarely use deconstruct since I personally haven't exposed to enough texts that use that term for me to be that familiar with it, so thanks. And you've also mentioned this idea of opening up to the Other, yet another idea that I could bone up on. As far as activism's concerned, I figured there would be a good amount of people who are involved in both the distribution of the message or action in general and mapping out a fairly solid plan. Sure, at times, there's a mutual left-hand, right-hand-ness to theory and activism, but I assume from my background which has virtually seen no involvement with a movement, that there's bound to be some overlap.

That's a shame about the philosophy dept. I guess this stuff lacks the analytical rigour found in their school. What're you studying? Although I haven't really been active in my bugging Joel for his reader for his courses, I'm curious about what the offerings here in queer theory or even gay/lesbian theory for that matter. Have you taken any courses here that deal with all that?

I'll check out the link once I get my computer back (I'm at the library right now) as well as the book once time allows. Sorry to hear about your cold/flu and yeah, we should meet up and chat, though I don't think I've ever really had an oral discussion about this stuff.