Sometimes even I get pissed off.
I was perusing the Gender 201 post over at Below the Belt - Deconstructing Gender and made the mistake of thinking "Hey, maybe they have other interesting recent posts!".
What I found was this: "The Label Fable"
When did activism become self-righteous absurdity? When did political correctness become extreme sensitivity? It seems that new labels pop up everyday, each one less inclusive than the last, each one triggering yet another debate over validity, political correctness and implications. The term “bisexual” is no exception.
A couple of years ago, I noticed the term "pansexual" popping up in a lot of bi forums and discussions (for anyone out there who isn’t familiar with the term, “pansexual” means being attracted not only to both sexes, but to all genders). During one such discussion, I made some snide, offhand remark about changing our label just as people were finally starting to understand the term “bisexual”. I have a lot of unpopular opinions, and so was prepared for a little backlash, but the reaction to this comment was nothing short of hysteria. Half of the forum members attacked me for insinuating that pan and bi were the same thing, the other half attacked me for not using the term "pansexual" myself.
Asking to not be labeled with what you think is appropriate is neither "political correctness" nor is it "extreme sensitivity". The problem with the labels we have is that they are not inclusive. A label is, by definition, designed not to be inclusive. That's why it's a label. The real problem is rather that our set of labels, our vocabulary as a whole, is not inclusive.
You're not helping yourself by saying you made a "snide, offhand remark". You don't get to tell people what they get to call themselves, just because you think it might be diluting your own self-definition, which in this case, is coming from a position of privilege.
Three things became clear rather quickly:
1. a lot of bisexuals are, apparently, only attracted to cisgendered people.
2. a lot of bisexuals feel that the term "bisexual" excludes those who do not fit into standard gender roles.
3. a lot of people feel the need to redefine their sexual orientation based on their preferences.
It seems that, because of their generic nature, common labels are falling out of favor in certain crowds. “Male”, “female”, “bisexual”, “gay” and “straight” are no longer sufficient to many, and I'm left looking like an ignorant asshole because I disagree.
Yes, you are "left looking like an ignorant asshole". But probably not for the reason you're thinking of.
This isn't really about sexual orientation vs. preference. This is about the discrepancies between the concept of "man" or "woman", and the physicality of "man" and "woman". I'm not even talking about intersex and nonbinary people yet! Because they fall out of those categories, sometimes only in concept or only in physicality, sometimes both.If you are in a relationship with a genderfluid person who happens to have a female body, you don't get to say you are dating a woman, because you're NOT DATING A WOMAN. Even if you are just talking about hir body, others won't know that. Even if that last bit is the case, you are degendering hir. Degendering: google it.
I do not understand how using the term "bisexual" indicates a lack of recognition or attraction towards trans or genderqueer individuals. I have no issue calling myself bi while recognizing the many different gender roles there are and being open to attraction to any one of them. To be honest, I prefer the term "queer" because I think if any label fits me it's that one, both in orientation and in personality. Still, if people ask, I say I'm bi. I always have, because people seem to comprehend that better than “queer” or “biamorous” or “pansexual”. I don't understand how this is exclusionary to trans folk or to the androgynous. It means I am attracted to people, regardless of what bits they have in their pants. I don’t know how it could possibly get more inclusive than that.
It's quite clear that you don't understand. I myself am still guilty of using the words "gay" and "lesbian", even though they are self-referencing, and often falsely so. Also, you might want to look up "binarism" and "cissexism".
I find queer to be better, even though it has a certain political connotation. There are quite a few heteroromantic asexuals who don't like being called queer either, so there's that.
I do not understand declaring oneself neither male nor female. Yes, one can feel they do not fit into a stereotypical gender role. Yes, one can be born with the "wrong" parts. Yes, one can feel a certain sense of androgyny. But, in the end, gender and sex are not the same thing (at least, they are no longer viewed as the same thing). Everyone does have a sex, whether they like it or not. One quick glance at the nether regions will confirm this, and I truly do not understand the desire to deny it.
I don't even know where to get started here. "Wrong parts" - look, I know the "wrong" was put into quotation marks, but this is still a really iffy combination of words to use. I consider myself transgender and not transsexual (I don't care what my sexual organs look like - for all *I* care I could have tentacles.), so I'm not the best person to talk about this, but ... it feels offensive to me.
True: gender and sex are not the same thing. For some people there is no connection between the two. For others, there very well is. I think there is an underlying poor understanding of what gender and sex is to a trans person if you make these sweeping statements.
"One quick glance at the nether regions will confirm this [... and the rest of that horrible sentence]"
I - I don't even. Hi, intersex people - THEY FUCKING EXIST. Hi, transsexuals or neutrois people who undergo operations - THEY FUCKING EXIST.
[*feels the desire to choke someone*]
And if anyone mentions the terms "herms, merms and ferms" in my vicinity, I really will choke someone.
At this point, I realize this is probably coming off as a tirade against the term “pansexual” itself. It’s not. As a lover of etymology, I am aware that words, terms and definitions evolve with the times. I have no issue with this, or with people choosing the label that they think suits them best. What irritates me is that this obsession with political correctness has led to a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of labels.
Labels are not meant to be specific-in fact, making them specific defeats their purpose entirely. Labels are meant to give a quick, generic synopsis of a person, summing things up as quickly and easily as possible. Details are offered on a person-to-person basis, as they should be. To most of the world, I am a white, bisexual, female hippy, not only because that is true, but because it’s easy to grasp; it gives everyone a general overview of who I am. To those who know me well, I am a liberal, moderately feminine Canadian of European descent who is attracted to artsy, feminine women and rugged, quietly intelligent men. This is also true, but would not make a very effective label.
We must not forget that political correctness was born from the desire to show acceptance and respect to those who differ from us. If we are to create an environment of mutual respect, we must also establish a simple language as the foundation for a healthy dialogue. Getting hung up on semantics and creating a dozen labels that all essentially mean the same thing is always going to be divisive-an ironic side effect of political correctness. So go on and label yourself however you like, but keep in mind that labels are to define yourself to people you don’t know; if they don’t understand the term, all the thought and care you put into it is moot.
The concept might be unfamiliar to you, but some people don't like being associated with "a quick, generic synopsis". The word "generic" alone is enough to make me break out in hives.
The examples of preference listed here are not actually a valid argument in relation to what you're trying to say.
What that "simple language" is doing is ERASING a whole bunch of people. ERASURE ERASURE ERASURE. I cannot repeat this often enough. Just because *your* identity is *not* being erased, doesn't mean it's the same for others.
Time to examine your privilege.
I'll be over here, doing the same to my own privilege.
On a lighter note, here, have some music:
ETA: The post has since been flagged for possibly offensive remarks by the editorial staff of Below the Belt.
Toughstuff writes:
hey all,
so i have to apologize for not meeting my editorial duties of most recent -- i did not properly evaluate today's post for content and would have flagged a number of the comments that do not comply with our standard to create a safe space. although the post is about political correctedness, it does not present important questions in a way that is sensitive to others and remains open to dialogue. i am thankful for those who have thoughtfully responded, and encourage futher discussion about these important questions having to do with labels and the politics of group membership. for this reason i'm not taking the post down, and also because i don't want to give the impression that i can just delete a post and erase what was a failure on my part. and while it was my failure of oversight in this instance, i am still very proud of the other great work that has been published on our site that complies with our standard.
-ts
This was posted roughly 3/4 of an hour after I commented over there, linking to this post. The same admin had left a comment on the post before without doing anything, so I suppose it might just be related. This entry is a mirror of http://zanzando.dreamwidth.org/4597.html |
comments | Please comment at Dreamwidth, using OpenID if you don't have an account. Or ask me for an invite!
What I found was this: "The Label Fable"
When did activism become self-righteous absurdity? When did political correctness become extreme sensitivity? It seems that new labels pop up everyday, each one less inclusive than the last, each one triggering yet another debate over validity, political correctness and implications. The term “bisexual” is no exception.
A couple of years ago, I noticed the term "pansexual" popping up in a lot of bi forums and discussions (for anyone out there who isn’t familiar with the term, “pansexual” means being attracted not only to both sexes, but to all genders). During one such discussion, I made some snide, offhand remark about changing our label just as people were finally starting to understand the term “bisexual”. I have a lot of unpopular opinions, and so was prepared for a little backlash, but the reaction to this comment was nothing short of hysteria. Half of the forum members attacked me for insinuating that pan and bi were the same thing, the other half attacked me for not using the term "pansexual" myself.
Asking to not be labeled with what you think is appropriate is neither "political correctness" nor is it "extreme sensitivity". The problem with the labels we have is that they are not inclusive. A label is, by definition, designed not to be inclusive. That's why it's a label. The real problem is rather that our set of labels, our vocabulary as a whole, is not inclusive.
You're not helping yourself by saying you made a "snide, offhand remark". You don't get to tell people what they get to call themselves, just because you think it might be diluting your own self-definition, which in this case, is coming from a position of privilege.
Three things became clear rather quickly:
1. a lot of bisexuals are, apparently, only attracted to cisgendered people.
2. a lot of bisexuals feel that the term "bisexual" excludes those who do not fit into standard gender roles.
3. a lot of people feel the need to redefine their sexual orientation based on their preferences.
It seems that, because of their generic nature, common labels are falling out of favor in certain crowds. “Male”, “female”, “bisexual”, “gay” and “straight” are no longer sufficient to many, and I'm left looking like an ignorant asshole because I disagree.
Yes, you are "left looking like an ignorant asshole". But probably not for the reason you're thinking of.
This isn't really about sexual orientation vs. preference. This is about the discrepancies between the concept of "man" or "woman", and the physicality of "man" and "woman". I'm not even talking about intersex and nonbinary people yet! Because they fall out of those categories, sometimes only in concept or only in physicality, sometimes both.If you are in a relationship with a genderfluid person who happens to have a female body, you don't get to say you are dating a woman, because you're NOT DATING A WOMAN. Even if you are just talking about hir body, others won't know that. Even if that last bit is the case, you are degendering hir. Degendering: google it.
I do not understand how using the term "bisexual" indicates a lack of recognition or attraction towards trans or genderqueer individuals. I have no issue calling myself bi while recognizing the many different gender roles there are and being open to attraction to any one of them. To be honest, I prefer the term "queer" because I think if any label fits me it's that one, both in orientation and in personality. Still, if people ask, I say I'm bi. I always have, because people seem to comprehend that better than “queer” or “biamorous” or “pansexual”. I don't understand how this is exclusionary to trans folk or to the androgynous. It means I am attracted to people, regardless of what bits they have in their pants. I don’t know how it could possibly get more inclusive than that.
It's quite clear that you don't understand. I myself am still guilty of using the words "gay" and "lesbian", even though they are self-referencing, and often falsely so. Also, you might want to look up "binarism" and "cissexism".
I find queer to be better, even though it has a certain political connotation. There are quite a few heteroromantic asexuals who don't like being called queer either, so there's that.
I do not understand declaring oneself neither male nor female. Yes, one can feel they do not fit into a stereotypical gender role. Yes, one can be born with the "wrong" parts. Yes, one can feel a certain sense of androgyny. But, in the end, gender and sex are not the same thing (at least, they are no longer viewed as the same thing). Everyone does have a sex, whether they like it or not. One quick glance at the nether regions will confirm this, and I truly do not understand the desire to deny it.
I don't even know where to get started here. "Wrong parts" - look, I know the "wrong" was put into quotation marks, but this is still a really iffy combination of words to use. I consider myself transgender and not transsexual (I don't care what my sexual organs look like - for all *I* care I could have tentacles.), so I'm not the best person to talk about this, but ... it feels offensive to me.
True: gender and sex are not the same thing. For some people there is no connection between the two. For others, there very well is. I think there is an underlying poor understanding of what gender and sex is to a trans person if you make these sweeping statements.
"One quick glance at the nether regions will confirm this [... and the rest of that horrible sentence]"
I - I don't even. Hi, intersex people - THEY FUCKING EXIST. Hi, transsexuals or neutrois people who undergo operations - THEY FUCKING EXIST.
[*feels the desire to choke someone*]
And if anyone mentions the terms "herms, merms and ferms" in my vicinity, I really will choke someone.
At this point, I realize this is probably coming off as a tirade against the term “pansexual” itself. It’s not. As a lover of etymology, I am aware that words, terms and definitions evolve with the times. I have no issue with this, or with people choosing the label that they think suits them best. What irritates me is that this obsession with political correctness has led to a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of labels.
Labels are not meant to be specific-in fact, making them specific defeats their purpose entirely. Labels are meant to give a quick, generic synopsis of a person, summing things up as quickly and easily as possible. Details are offered on a person-to-person basis, as they should be. To most of the world, I am a white, bisexual, female hippy, not only because that is true, but because it’s easy to grasp; it gives everyone a general overview of who I am. To those who know me well, I am a liberal, moderately feminine Canadian of European descent who is attracted to artsy, feminine women and rugged, quietly intelligent men. This is also true, but would not make a very effective label.
We must not forget that political correctness was born from the desire to show acceptance and respect to those who differ from us. If we are to create an environment of mutual respect, we must also establish a simple language as the foundation for a healthy dialogue. Getting hung up on semantics and creating a dozen labels that all essentially mean the same thing is always going to be divisive-an ironic side effect of political correctness. So go on and label yourself however you like, but keep in mind that labels are to define yourself to people you don’t know; if they don’t understand the term, all the thought and care you put into it is moot.
The concept might be unfamiliar to you, but some people don't like being associated with "a quick, generic synopsis". The word "generic" alone is enough to make me break out in hives.
The examples of preference listed here are not actually a valid argument in relation to what you're trying to say.
What that "simple language" is doing is ERASING a whole bunch of people. ERASURE ERASURE ERASURE. I cannot repeat this often enough. Just because *your* identity is *not* being erased, doesn't mean it's the same for others.
Time to examine your privilege.
I'll be over here, doing the same to my own privilege.
On a lighter note, here, have some music:
Click to viewETA: The post has since been flagged for possibly offensive remarks by the editorial staff of Below the Belt.
Toughstuff writes:
hey all,
so i have to apologize for not meeting my editorial duties of most recent -- i did not properly evaluate today's post for content and would have flagged a number of the comments that do not comply with our standard to create a safe space. although the post is about political correctedness, it does not present important questions in a way that is sensitive to others and remains open to dialogue. i am thankful for those who have thoughtfully responded, and encourage futher discussion about these important questions having to do with labels and the politics of group membership. for this reason i'm not taking the post down, and also because i don't want to give the impression that i can just delete a post and erase what was a failure on my part. and while it was my failure of oversight in this instance, i am still very proud of the other great work that has been published on our site that complies with our standard.
-ts
This was posted roughly 3/4 of an hour after I commented over there, linking to this post. The same admin had left a comment on the post before without doing anything, so I suppose it might just be related. This entry is a mirror of http://zanzando.dreamwidth.org/4597.html |
comments | Please comment at Dreamwidth, using OpenID if you don't have an account. Or ask me for an invite!