There's been an enormous shift in my lifetime. When I was in my teens, 20's, and 30's, the progressive thing was to say that one's gender is defined strictly and completely by what's between your legs. The reason that was considered progressive was because it meant that you could wear whatever you wanted, work at whatever job you wanted, love whoever you wanted, have whatever personality was natural to you, and NONE of that could take your gender away from you. It was a position that was designed to push back against a world where people were told that "real" men didn't cry or cook or be gentle or wear colors and "real" women didn't swear or wear trousers or be assertive or work on cars. I'm a woman because I have female genitals, and this frees me to fix my own car, be assertive, wear trousers, and do other things that were seen as things that women "didn't" do.
Nowadays, the things that were seen as progressive in my youth are considered backward and oppressive. You're female if you feel yourself to be such, and I have no problem with that part. But sometimes people add that we can tell that you mean it when you say you're a woman because you wear dresses and make-up and don't fix cars or act assertively. Wait, what? Isn't that just the old oppressive position of forcing people into sex roles they didn't want?
The position that gender is defined solely by anatomy is freeing to cis men and cis women, because it lets them do whatever they want without fearing that they'll lose their status as men or women. Unfortunately, it's also oppressive to trans men and trans women.
The position that gender is defined by what you do or wear or work at or by personality is comforting to people with traditional gender presentations, both cis and trans, but it's oppressive to people with non-traditional gender presentations, both cis and trans.
The progressive point of view nowadays has to be that your gender is whatever you say it is, and that includes saying that you don't have one or that you don't like the available choices and want to create a new one. It also has to include the freedom to do and be things that traditionally were reserved for the other sex, but I've seen a lot less emphasis on this.
That really IS a big shift from what was progressive when I was young. I'm not surprised that Rowling finds it jarring to discover that what was progressive when she was young is considered oppressive now. I found it jarring in the beginning, too, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around the new way of being progressive. (It didn't help that some people included gender prescriptivism as part of the new order.)
Just wait. When you're old, things will be different, and whatever you think is OBVIOUSLY right now will no longer be so. Such is progress. :-)
I'm clearly a lousy predictor of the future, because in 1983, I was a lesbian vegetarian who thought she'd never see gay marriage in her lifetime but that surely by the time 20 or 30 years had passed, people would understand that killing animals was wrong. Oops. :-)
Thanks for your lovely comment but I am afraid JKR totally doesn't get it. She has written an essay to explain and defend herself and I've written a long post about it to reply about some of her statements, plus the link to the essay itself.
My post is in a way less personal than yours, although I am royally pissed about her essay, since I've only written some replies at some of her misconceptions and not so much about my own experiences. Though it's of course crystal clear how I feel about it.
But I must say, I am even more intrigued what your opinion of her essay will be. Since in my experience, apart from using a lot of wrong facts about transgenders, it basically is an essay of someone who is deeply traumatized by negative experiences with men in her own life. And now going all gung ho to protect women from evil transwomen who don't exist in the way she describes them.
Traumatic experiences at the hands of men. Yep. She can’t look past that.
Which... it’s an old cliché that hurt people often go out and hurt people, but when you have as large a platform as she does, I wish she would consider the damage she’s doing to young kids out there. Thank goodness Harry himself came out against her.
So well said. I'm a Latin Catholic that grew up in a conservative dictatorship during the '70s and '80s. I was homophobic without even knowing I was so. In fact, I doubt I knew gay people existed for the most part of my teens years. I was always drawn to a liberal kind of second-generation feminism. 12 years ago, I asked my first lesbian friend what the T and the B for LGTB meant. That was the deep of my ignorance. It has been a long walk for me. Reading your comment made me thought about what made me change my attitudes. I think there were two main issues: 1. Being friends and meeting people made me revise my notions. You just can't love people and hold prejudices. 2. Leaving behind essentialist views on life, which help me revised any norm. My kids, who are in their twenties, criticised me as not progressive enough. I reckon I struggle to grasp certain things and, what I once learn as progressive, today is obsolete. Epistemic vigilance over one's conceptions is a must and should be practised daily. If well-meant past Nocturnus came back in time to talk to actual Nocturnus, she would probably be very scandalised. The beautiful thing is noticing that change is possible, that people can learn and evolve. Even if my kids will roll their eyes on me.
The beautiful thing is noticing that change is possible, that people can learn and evolve.
Exactly, and there is no age limit to it. You've made a wonderful journey and are still on your way (as we all are). Just out of curiousity, you are talking about your children, but how's your hubby reacting? Does he appreciate your change?
Is difficult to describe, he has changed a lot since I meet him. He mostly agrees with me yet, when it comes to feminism, I think he feels I'm a little exaggerated. I can describe it as "hubby in the middle". He has both, a working-class and 9 years studying to become a priest background which marks his earlier experiences. In our domesticity, he is the one who takes charge of our home and the kids. He is proud of my career yet he feels shame about not being the main provider. He is pro-gay rights (Remember we don't have gay marriage here nor is it possible to adopt). Yet, he has difficulties understanding certain jokes are offensive, he sees it as "just a joke". He is open to learning: I had a friend whose boy is transgender. He invited them both to give testimony to a training course for headteachers. After that, he started studying the topic as he was deeply touched by their story. [Silvia, my friend was a devoted mother with a fierceness that moved mountains]. Hubby is very sensitive to people suffering and social unjustice. I think that being able to meet people in a symmetrical relationship, yet realizing there is an oppression that affects them, moves him.
In a funny side about his evolution: Hubby always complains that when he FINALLY got used to saying she/he, instead of only he, he is accused of having a restrict binary approach! He is almost 60, he still has some 20 years to learn more.
I love this story about your husband so much. It's so nice he has the willingness to learn and grow and that he supports your career so much, even if he feels ashamed about not being the main provider (I guess that has to do with the values he has been raised with). And I also like the way you talk about him. It seems you can accept that his views are both shaped by his social class and by his education and that his sensitivity for social justice is a huge driving force for him to learn more.
I believe we all are full of inner contradictions. I doubt any of us has a full coherent world view. I know nature and nurture define us but we are able to move past it, yet been defined by it at the same time. At the end of the day, our freedom is a narrow path and not a wide avenue, or so I think.
What I value of him is his humble efforts to change his views when realizing they could be oppressive. He is a man of profound solidarity, and that is something I admire in him (And it often drives me crazy when I'm dragged down by the consequences of his selfless acts)
At the end of the day, our freedom is a narrow path and not a wide avenue, or so I think. I totally agree. The people with an inner freedom that is just present in almost every situation are rare, I think. Most of us constantly need to choose the path that brings us most freedom at that moment or in that particular circumstance, I think.
(And it often drives me crazy when I'm dragged down by the consequences of his selfless acts) O I can understand that too. You already told us he has difficulties in saying 'no' to people, so i guess he often surprises you with things he has already agreed to.. I totally see that happen.
Yes, it's his virtue and his vice. I made a rule at home early in our marriage: Everything he wants to give away must be vetoed by me. I'm the stereotype of the evil bossy wife. Muahahaha.
Nowadays, the things that were seen as progressive in my youth are considered backward and oppressive. You're female if you feel yourself to be such, and I have no problem with that part. But sometimes people add that we can tell that you mean it when you say you're a woman because you wear dresses and make-up and don't fix cars or act assertively. Wait, what? Isn't that just the old oppressive position of forcing people into sex roles they didn't want?
The position that gender is defined solely by anatomy is freeing to cis men and cis women, because it lets them do whatever they want without fearing that they'll lose their status as men or women. Unfortunately, it's also oppressive to trans men and trans women.
The position that gender is defined by what you do or wear or work at or by personality is comforting to people with traditional gender presentations, both cis and trans, but it's oppressive to people with non-traditional gender presentations, both cis and trans.
The progressive point of view nowadays has to be that your gender is whatever you say it is, and that includes saying that you don't have one or that you don't like the available choices and want to create a new one. It also has to include the freedom to do and be things that traditionally were reserved for the other sex, but I've seen a lot less emphasis on this.
That really IS a big shift from what was progressive when I was young. I'm not surprised that Rowling finds it jarring to discover that what was progressive when she was young is considered oppressive now. I found it jarring in the beginning, too, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around the new way of being progressive. (It didn't help that some people included gender prescriptivism as part of the new order.)
Just wait. When you're old, things will be different, and whatever you think is OBVIOUSLY right now will no longer be so. Such is progress. :-)
I'm clearly a lousy predictor of the future, because in 1983, I was a lesbian vegetarian who thought she'd never see gay marriage in her lifetime but that surely by the time 20 or 30 years had passed, people would understand that killing animals was wrong. Oops. :-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
She has written an essay to explain and defend herself and I've written a long post about it to reply about some of her statements, plus the link to the essay itself.
Reply
Reply
My post is in a way less personal than yours, although I am royally pissed about her essay, since I've only written some replies at some of her misconceptions and not so much about my own experiences. Though it's of course crystal clear how I feel about it.
But I must say, I am even more intrigued what your opinion of her essay will be. Since in my experience, apart from using a lot of wrong facts about transgenders, it basically is an essay of someone who is deeply traumatized by negative experiences with men in her own life. And now going all gung ho to protect women from evil transwomen who don't exist in the way she describes them.
Reply
Which... it’s an old cliché that hurt people often go out and hurt people, but when you have as large a platform as she does, I wish she would consider the damage she’s doing to young kids out there. Thank goodness Harry himself came out against her.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Exactly, and there is no age limit to it. You've made a wonderful journey and are still on your way (as we all are).
Just out of curiousity, you are talking about your children, but how's your hubby reacting? Does he appreciate your change?
Reply
In a funny side about his evolution: Hubby always complains that when he FINALLY got used to saying she/he, instead of only he, he is accused of having a restrict binary approach! He is almost 60, he still has some 20 years to learn more.
Reply
And I also like the way you talk about him. It seems you can accept that his views are both shaped by his social class and by his education and that his sensitivity for social justice is a huge driving force for him to learn more.
Reply
What I value of him is his humble efforts to change his views when realizing they could be oppressive. He is a man of profound solidarity, and that is something I admire in him (And it often drives me crazy when I'm dragged down by the consequences of his selfless acts)
Reply
I totally agree. The people with an inner freedom that is just present in almost every situation are rare, I think.
Most of us constantly need to choose the path that brings us most freedom at that moment or in that particular circumstance, I think.
(And it often drives me crazy when I'm dragged down by the consequences of his selfless acts)
O I can understand that too. You already told us he has difficulties in saying 'no' to people, so i guess he often surprises you with things he has already agreed to.. I totally see that happen.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment