Sunday, July 24, 2016

Offence and How it Works

Too often I see privileged people make fun of offence or alternatively speak derisively about it. Privileged people take far too much pride in their capacity to ‘not-be-offended’. And the fact that this phenomenon of ‘not-being-offended’ always coincides with privilege seems telling.

So firstly, what does it mean to be offended. Being offended is the state of recognising harm done. It is more than merely being annoyed or merely being angry or having one’s feelings hurt. It is the conscious recognition that something has been done or something is happening that is causing harm. It is the reason why people of colour cannot offend white people, because people of colour do not take part in or benefit from systemic systems of inequality towards white people, but white people do perpetuate and benefit from systemic systems of inequality against people of colour. This is why men cannot be offended by women because women do not perpetuate or benefit from systemic systems of inequality towards men, but men do perpetuate and benefit from systemic systems of inequality towards women. Offence is rooted in power. You cannot offend the burglar breaking into your house. You cannot offend the murderer coming at you with a knife. You cannot offend those who hold a vested interest in your oppression.

So when the privileged speak of offence in dismissive ways, what are they actually saying? They are saying that marginalised people should be ignorant of and incognisant of harm done to them. When hate speech, hate crimes, slurs, and participation in abusive systems hurt marginalised people, those who dismiss offence want the victims of the abuse to pretend that it doesn’t exist. Marginalised people in this way have to shrug off the harm and pretend as if nothing happened or merely accept the abuse as if it is supposed to be that way.

When the privileged make fun of marginalised people who are offended by harm done, what they are essentially saying is, “I’m going to hurt you, and you’re so pathetic for saying anything about it. You should just take what I give you.” This is abusive. When privileged people make fun of the recognition of harm, they are participating in that harm, they are no better than the abusers, because they allow the culture of abuse to continue. This is why rape jokes are problematic. Because taking part in rape jokes perpetuates rape culture which, in turn, validates rapists. Offence at rape jokes is a recognition of the harm done by rape jokes, not merely having your feelings hurt.

As a matter of fact, the privileged like to make this about feelings because this is seemingly good enough reason to dismiss any issue without much thought. Never mind that offence isn’t necessarily unreasonable, isn’t ever entirely just emotional, and is (more than not) something very carefully considered by the marginalised.

This is why I urge privileged people to consider what it is they are saying when they make fun of, dismiss, or deride what happens when marginalised people recognise harm done to them. If you hold shares in a company that impoverishes its employees and you make fun of those employees, and they are offended, and you make fun of them for being offended, are they in the wrong? Or are you just being an arsehole? This is the case for all systems of privilege: white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism and class structures, binary cishet normativity, ableist structures, etc.

-o0o-

Also read this:



Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The Gender Police

I guess it's the disease of binary thinking that has people adding value to transgender life based on how well they can pass, how well they can fool, how well they can not-stand-out. It's basically become background noise to me now. And make no mistake, I understand that passing, being stealth, being in the closet (so to speak) for transgender people can be a matter of safety. While at the same time, some people can't pass... as anything. For some people hiding who they are is painful.

The problem comes in when people start policing other people's genders. "You're only really transgender if..." "You can't be transgender if..." "Real transgender people..."

It's tragic really. It erases nonbinary identity, especially if you are nonbinary who identifies as transgender. This gender policing has transgender and nonbinary folk jumping through even more hoops simply for having the nerve to exist as authentically true to themselves.

("hidden" a photo I did as a part of a black and white series dealing with how the abuse I suffered as a child affected by self-image, my body, and my grotesque face)

And the really sad thing is that so many transgender people have bought into this bullshit. I get 'advice' thrown at me about how I can hide my grotesque features: my fat face, my huge jaw, my Jewish nose, my busy eyebrows. I don't exactly exude femininity. And whatever masculinity means to someone who isn't a man, I remember that whenever I affected at masculinity it came out definitively as queer as I was. These things aren't my story: Man and Woman. And yes, I'm fat. Yes, I'm not going to make it onto a runway any time soon. Yes, my body is scarred and called ugly often. But I spent the lion's share of my first twenty years of life being abused and more by a psychopath who told me every day I'm worthless, I'm fat, I'm ugly, I should be a real man, I'm a faggot, I'm a freak. So when people approach me with the same words in their mouths that he spoke to me, I'm sorry, but my immediate response is that I don't trust you.

(I represent myself as multiple, not singular. I don't occupy a single point in the gender volume.)

Feminising my face and hiding my face are two utterly different things to me. It took years of therapy for me to learn that there is nothing wrong with me. Who I am is valuable. Who I am is valid. And if your first impulse is to try and invalidate that, then I'm sorry, I don't trust you. I don't hold much stock with people who's primary impulse is to erase my identity or to police it. I don't discuss how I transition: physically, socially, hormonally, etc... These things are nobody's business. I am transgender, I am nonbinary. These things are true of me whether I wear pants or whether I wear a skirt; whether I shave or weather I let my beard get as annoyingly fuzzy as it is at the moment; whether I wear makeup or not; whether I contour my face or not; whether I shape my eyebrows or not... and my nose? What do you suggest? Plastic surgery? For what? And as for what's in my pants: it is none of your fucking business.

It's the same reason I don't hold stock with transmedicalists/truscum. Yes, some people transition and this is a good thing, but others don't, others can't, others don't have the money, the privilege, the safety, the health to undergo transition. Some people don't see that there is inherently something about their bodies that need changing. And that's okay. What is fucked up is when bigots start policing other people's bodies and genders. There is no standard of gender we have to live up to. All gender is arbitrary and socially constructed, sex is merely just another aspect of gender, biology when attached to sex is merely convention, and all convention can be broken down and rebuilt.

Given all the systemic abuse faced by transgender people, I don't see how us buying into that system is going to liberate us. Yes, there should be medical care for transgender people who need to physically transition as they see fit, but at the same time this cannot be compulsory or indicative of transgender lives. Yes, we should be allowed to express gender as we wish, and we do, and that's great, but there is a huge problem when people get prescriptivist about how, when, and where we express gender. Transgender people are not just the sum of two sexes. Our experience of gender is far richer, far more diverse, and far more complicated than that. I am not what's between my legs, there is nothing wrong with my fat face and grotesque features, I don't need to be 'fixed' as per your specifications. If you want to build yourself to be a certain way, go ahead. That's awesome. And I encourage you to seek the happiness in life you need. But, you do you. I'll do me. That's how this works.

(Dishevelled Unshaved Cookie Selfie)

-o0o-

Also, I wish I knew who did this:

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

The Gender Volume (in many dimensions)

If you follow my stuff on social media you might have seen this little picture I drew ages ago, and a number of folks have wanted me to explain this a little bit.


The thing is that saying "gender is a spectrum" is as dated as saying "gender is either one of two positions" (being man and woman). If you read gender theorists like Judith Butler, Angela Davis, Simone de Beauvoir, and queer theorists like David Clines, transgender theorists like Zinnia Jones, you start to see that gender is not as simple as traditional models of gender portray things.

Gender and sex are entirely created out of whole cloth. They are social constructions in which several genetic, physiological, psychological, behavioural, and sociopolitical aspects are randomly grouped together and assigned to individuals at birth purely based on secondary sex characteristics. If you have a penis at birth, you are assigned man, if you have a vagina at birth you are assigned woman. If you are intersex doctors will often try and "fix" the "problem" by performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery often doing great harm to intersex individuals. This process of assigning gender to people at birth comes from the notion that the only valid genders that exist are "man" and "woman".

Reading David Clines however we see that "man" and "woman" exist on their own axes. Men have to be "real men" / "strong men" / "sexual men" / "aggressive men" / "rich men" / "promiscuous men" in order to achieve the unreachable goal of being the "ideal" man. Women by contrast have to be motherly, subservient, fertile, etc. in order to be the "ideal" woman. These "greased poles" as Clines calls them are created for the explicit purposes of creating hierarchy not only of men over women, but among men and women. Nobody is ever statically the "ideal" of their gender, it is something you must maintain through ritual and traditional behaviour that is seen as reinforcing of what it means to be your assigned gender. To avoid these things is stigmatised. The woman who does not want children, the man who cries, the woman who wants a career, the man (in western culture at least) who puts on make up: these things subvert the gender roles and places undue stigma on people for not living up to the societal expectations of their gender. It is for this reason that I write "approaching man" and "approaching woman", because no human being performs masculinity and femininity in the same ways. You might identify as a man, but you never perform "man" as society dictates. This is deliberate. You might identify as woman, but you never perform "woman" as society dictates. This is deliberate. These concepts are deliberately constructed so that individuals would fail at them no matter what they do. This is why gender is so heavily policed and gatekept. This is why transgender people are so heavily stigmatised. This is why nonbinary people are s heavily stigmatised. This is why intersex people are so heavily stigmatised. This is why queer people throughout the LGBTQIA+ are so heavily stigmatized. Queering is essentially the act of performing gender improperly or identifying outside of these gender norms. There is nothing wrong with wanting to perform gender and identify as one of two discreet points, but the problem comes in when "man" is unduly privileged over "woman", when cisgender is unduly privileged over transgender, when binary is unduly privileged over nonbinary, when heterosexual is privileged over homosexual, when monosexual is privileged over bi/poly/asexual, etc.

It is for the same reason that the "gender spectrum" doesn't serve us either. The gender spectrum suggests that "man" and "woman" are fixed points and the only space people can exist or move through is a distinct line between those two points, but as transgender people, nonbinary people, intersex people, agender people, genderqueer people show us, the volume is far more complicated than this, since there really isn't a right way or a singular way to do transgender. If agender to demi-woman to woman is a single axis, then agender to demi-man to man is an adjacent axis, but at the same time we have to consider genderqueer people who exist on an axis pointing away again in its own direction. This already creates a volume that is far more complex than merely "man" or "woman" or a unidimentional spectrum. It's further complicated by the fact that agender people may not decide to belong in this space, they may consider their gender its own axis.

People are also in reality, very rarely, singular evens that happen at discreet points. People occupy multiple points along this line. Despite social pressures for men and women to be constantly performing their gender most people can't live up to those standards 24/7. People occupy nebulous spaces within their own volumes and for many people this is far more complex than a single, unchanging dot in a textbook somewhere. For some people they may occupy larger gender spaces, for some people they may occupy multiple spaces. This is a personal expression of what it means for every individual to express themselves as they see themselves to be sexual and gender creatures. Each one of these expressions is valid and important. The problem comes in again when certain expressions are privileged over others: male over female, cis over trans, binary over nonbinary, etc...

The things I have explained are even further complicated by issues such as race, and class, and culture. Black men in colonised situations were often infantilised, called boys, as a part of their oppression. Black men were said to be "not really men" and a lot of the times "not really human". Religious people claimed they didn't even have a soul. Black women were coded as animalistic, masculine, not "properly" feminine. Gender abuse of this kind has complicated the larger human space in that people of colour are reclaiming gender in new ways. Poverty is another way that shapes gender identity in that poor men are coded as failed men, poor women are coded as unwanted, unkept. Class codes gender in ways that restricts access to validation and legitimacy for many peoples. Transgender people who do not have health care, wealth, safety to get the medical treatments they need are coded as falsely transgender. We see gender abuse in cis gay male culture with "no fats, no fems". People who struggle with physical disability or mental illness are treated as non-viable partners or failed examples of their gender. All of these things that impact on and complicate gender make gender a far larger space than we give it credit for.

I will fail to explain this properly because gender is a subject that is far more complicated and far more personal than I can give credit to in a few paragraphs. But there are a few things I'd like you to take away from all this:

a) The gender binary is a lie. An outright lie.

b) The gender spectrum doesn't really do justice to the complexity of gender.

c) There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do gender. The only way to do gender is being true to yourself.

d) You do not have the right to police or gatekeep another person's gender, especially if your gender holds privilege over them. Police your own gender.

e) How people self identify is valid, end of story.

Some background stuff for you (I'll fix this list when I get the energy to make it look like a real bibliography):

Zinnia Jones' "Gender Analysis" on Youtube: HERE

Judith Burler's "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity" (1995)  New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415389556. [reprinted 2006]

David Clines' "Intersted Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Old Testament" (1995). JSOT Supplements 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Angela Davis' "Women, Race, & Class" (1983), ISBN 0-394-71351-6.
and "Women, Culture & Politics, Vintage" (1990), ISBN 0-679-72487-7.

Audre Lorde's "Sister Outsider" (1984) Crossing Press ISBN: 978-1580911863

Scott Lauria Morgensen's "The Biopolitics of Settler Sexuality and Queer Modernities" 2010

Robert Morrell's "From Boys to Gentlemen: Settler MAsculinity in Colonial Natal" 2001 ISBN 1 86888 151 2

Zackie Achmat "Apostles of civilised vice: 'Immoral practices and unnatural vice' in South African prisons and compounds, 1890-1920" 2008, HERE



-o0o-

Friday, May 27, 2016

The problem with #alllivesmatter.

by Charl Landsberg

It’s become the nearly universal reaction of the powerful, when faced with the suffering of the marginalised to immediately quip, “Yes, but I have bad days too.” Although hashtags like #blacklivesmatter, #womenslivesmatter, #translivesmatter predate 2013, it was the rise of Black Lives Matter as a political and activist movement in 2013 that really brought this conversation to the forefront. George Zimmerman was just acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin which sparked mass outcry, protests, and rallies from African American people. Over the next three years there has been further outcry over the systemic anti-black policies in place in the US especially with regards to how the police abuse black people. These discussion have centred around the murders of many black folk including Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray and many more. 

Julia Craven wrote in 2015, “A black person is killed extrajudicially every 28 hrs, and Black men between ages 19 and 25 are the group most at risk to be gunned down by police. Based on data from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, young Blacks are 4.5 times more likely to be killed by police than any other age or racial group.” [1]

Transgender people have faced incredible violence as well with the murder of transgender people reaching an (at least visibly) all time high in 2014/2015. There was similar outcry coinciding with the suicide of Leelah Alcorn in December 2014. Transgender people now face mass opposition by Christian, conservative, and specifically anti-trans politicians creating laws to bar transgender people from public bathrooms. Even the KKK have started distributing fliers against transgender people quoting the bible. [2]



The point is that when marginalised people speak out against the abuse they face, the attempt of privileged people to shut them down crying “all lives matter” is understood as ironic. “All lives matter” is the deliberate attempt at ignoring the difference between privileged people and marginalised people. Julia Craven writes again, “Saying “all lives matter” causes erasure of the differing disparities each group faces. Saying “all lives matter” is nothing more than you centering and inserting yourself within a very emotional and personal situation without any empathy or respect.” [1]

The best counter argument I have ever read against “all lives matter” comes from a Reddit user called GeekAesthete [3]:
[click for larger image]
Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

Arthur Chu fantastically sums up the phenomenon of “all lives matter” when he says, “WTF is the impulse behind changing #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter. Do you crash strangers’ funerals shouting I TOO HAVE FELT LOSS?” [4]

Each time privileged people step into a conversation about the suffering of marginalised people and dismiss marginalised people's suffering out of hand they are doing real damage. They are trying to turn the suffering of marginalised people into something abstract and trying to make marginalised people's issues seem less important than what they really are. I leave you with a small comic I drew which was inspired by GeekAesthete's post.

[click for larger image]

-o0o-




Eldritch Beginnings

magic to follow

-o0o-