Appropriation of Genderqueer Identities
Appropriation of genderqueer identities seems to be trendy in several communities I’m in lately, so I thought talking about how it occurs – and what it reinforces both on a community level and systemically – would be a good place to start with my guest blogging. None of this, however, should be an excuse for binary gendered people (especially cis people) to decide who is and isn’t genderqueer enough.
First, I’d like to talk about what genderqueer is and isn’t. Genderqueer, in terms that are likely to fit everyone who is genderqueer, is having a gender where neither man nor womon is a fully adequate description of it. Or, as I tend to view gender as an interaction between one’s self and others, genderqueer is the state of constantly being misgendered in some way in a binary gendered culture. There are varying levels of discomfort with that, and many genderqueer people prefer being read one way or another, whether because of comfort or safety, but genderqueerness will always be somewhat unintelligible to the dominant culture as long as the dominant culture constructs gender as a binary. In some ways, this is a source of shared experience with binary gendered trans people; the difference is that while many binary gendered trans people have the experience of their gender being read correctly by the majority of the people around them all or a majority of the time, this isn’t really a possibility for a genderqueer persyn on an individual level (unless one were to limit oneself to a very definitive social circle who “gets it” and not interact outside of that, which is impractical and generally undesirable).
Things genderqueer is not:
1) between male and female; while some genderqueer people identify as between male and female and/or man and womon, not all relate to binary gender in such a simple way, and some do not define their identity in reference to binary gender at all.
2) between trans and cis. One, many genderqueer people access some form of medical transition (which, while it affects the power relations between oneself and others, is irrelevant to whether one is trans or not). Two, not being adequately described by man or womon self-evidently makes one trans.
3) not all genderqueer people use genderqueer pronouns! They don’t make anyone more or less genderqueer, and people have a lot of varied reasons behind their pronoun choices. I tend to say genderqueer pronouns rather than gender neutral pronouns, as I, and a whole lot of other people who use them, have a whole lot of gender; this isn’t to imply that they’re the only pronouns used by genderqueer people.
When I’m talking about genderqueer identities being appropriated, I’m mainly concerned with cis people, as binary gendered trans people don’t have the systemic power to oppress other trans people, though, of course, appropriation can cause hurt, even if it isn’t systemically oppressive. We’ll look at the reasons that cis people might appropriate genderqueer identities, and then discuss what it looks like, and what sort of responses might be appropriate, from binary gendered and genderqueer people.
Cis people appropriate genderqueer identities for several reasons. One of the biggest is as a political statement. This occurs when someone decides that they are totally down with smashing the gender binary, and that they’ll show it by taking on a genderqueer identity. Closely related to this are people who appropriate a genderqueer identity to “shake things up” in what they perceive to be a particularly heteronormative community or region. Both of these share the common theme of appropriating other people’s identities and oppressions to serve what the appropriator perceives as a good ends, thus using other people, whom they have hierarchical power over, as a means to an end. While creating a culture where all genders, not just those of man or womon, are viewed as equally valid should certainly be part of any larger anti-oppression goal, reifying cissexism to do it is not going to accomplish it. In the latter case, a cis persyn’s judgment of a community or region in regards to transphobia are very likely to not be entirely accurate, and serves to mask that transphobia is one of the vital means of control and oppression of the entire dominant culture.
Some other reasons that genderqueer identities get appropriated are to seem radical and cool – as an attempt to grab attention and positive regard from one’s community. While certainly everyone in a community should start from a point of getting attention and positive regard, this is a busted way to do it – as it’s a way of getting perceived positive aspects of being genderqueer without getting the actual negative. The final most common reason that comes to mind is someone claiming a genderqueer identity only when called out on misogynistic or transphobic behavior. Yes, all genderqueer people are, to varying extents, subject to sexism and cissexism (as they are neither men (or at least not uncomplicatedly men) or cis), however, one’s behavior can still reflect the oppressive dynamics of the dominant culture even if one isn’t privileged along that axis – trans people can enact transphobic behavior against other trans people, people who experience misogyny can be misogynistic toward other people who experience misogyny, etc. So, first off, it doesn’t get one out of the busted actions one did, and secondly, generally, it’s pretty transparent.
So what does this appropriation of genderqueer identities do? The most obvious effect is that it makes it harder for actual genderqueer people to get their identities recognized and respected. Either people trivialize what it means to be genderqueer, portraying it as either a fashion choice, or nothing more than a statement of views about the world, or they view people that don’t match the legitimate, to their binary gendered perceptions, of genderqueer as appropriating genderqueerness. The people most subject to being viewed as not legitimately genderqueer are genderqueer femmes and genderqueer people who are perceived to have been assigned male at birth. This is because the people who to binary gendered perceptions are most obviously genderqueer are those who fit the most common expression of genderqueerness accepted by larger trans and queer communities: perceived to be assigned female at birth, white, college educated, young, thin, temporarily able-bodied, and masculine in a way that is often perceived as boyish.
The more serious concern is that when cis people can appropriate genderqueer identities for their own ends, there is no need for actual genderqueer people. The appropriation of genderqueer identities makes it easier to erase us, our lives, and our identities. Who needs to acknowledge the existence of actual genderqueer people or their needs when one can just put on a mask of genderqueerness whenever one feels like?
People who appropriate genderqueer identities are often only genderqueer when convenient, which is different from managing one’s outness in regards to safety. Generally, it’s only something that comes up when the appropriator feels they have something to gain from putting on a facsimile of a genderqueer identity – whether it’s avoiding accountability for their words and actions, or trying to force conversations about genderqueerness in particular or transness in general to be about them, it’s about fulfilling their wants and needs.
None of this is to say that binary gendered (and particularly cis) people should feel free to disrespect the identities of anyone they feel is appropriating a genderqueer identity. Normally, that’s not your call to make. People with a binary gender, and especially cis people, should never disrespect the pronoun preferences of someone, even if they feel their identity is appropriative. In general, people with a binary gender should focus on the harmful actions that are occurring, and not their judgment of someone’s identity. It’s vital that we work to create communities where it’s safe for genderqueer people to be out and articulate their identities, particularly those who are often invisibilized, erased, or silenced, and binary gendered people deciding who is and isn’t genderqueer does the exact opposite of that.
Some important notes: while it’s occasionally useful to talk about community dynamics for groups of genderqueer people in terms of them being AFAB or AMAB (Assigned Fe/male At Birth), it’s generally pretty busted to use that to categorize individual genderqueer people. While some genderqueer people do feel that the sex/gender they were assigned at birth is a part of their identity, many of us do not, and it’s invasive and cissexist to ask anyone what they were assigned at birth, particularly as a way for a binary gendered persyn (or, especially, a cis persyn) to decide whether they’re “really” genderqueer or “trans enough”.
Also, conversation here needs to center genderqueer people, and not the concerns of cis people or binary gendered trans people have about genderqueer people.
I was trying to read this but got quite distracted by ‘persyn’ and ‘womon’, which unhappily remind me of rad-fem-les-sep ‘wymmyn’ and other political misspellings.
Without delving in any way into the politics of such a choice, it conflates ‘son’ which has one etymology with ‘person’ which has another and is in no way connected.
And while woman does reference man (venturing into politics now), the use of spelling variants with its recent historical connotations in feminism is a bit like inviting Mary Daly to ruminate on all things transsexual.
frances
27 Feb 10 at 5:46 am
It strikes me that many if not most people with transsexualism or people with transgenderism are not “genderqueer”.
That includes a lot of people who cause gender confusion in the public at large and yet are struggling with their presentation so as to not cause that confusion.
I recently read Pam Tent’s book “Midnight at the Palace” about the Cockette theater troupe in the late 1960s early 1970s. The Cockettes were “genderqueer”.
They did it as a conscious political statement and it seems like there has to be that sort of in your face political aspect to it. Today genderqueer seems caught up in post-modernism and that in and of itself is an intellectual if not political movement.
I don’t know if the conversation among various trans folks need to center genderqueer or not. That demand seems to fall into the camp of saying all painters must paint in this one particular school such as abstract expressionism.
There are so many different trans peoples with often contradictory ideas regarding what trans means to them.
Some times we get lost in these arcane philosphical arguments when we need direct action aimed at gaining generalized political goals like an inclusive ENDA with language written broadly enough to cover everyone.
Suzan
27 Feb 10 at 7:06 am
Have you seen the film of The Cockettes? I viewed it when it opened here with a group of Radical Faeries with whom I was friends for a few years. It’s a hoot, and supports your perception of them here.
I’ll have to read the book.
cigfran
27 Feb 10 at 7:52 am
I’m tired of people telling me I’m not queer enough for them. This is the last time I read this blog.
-Sam, a kind of PO’d androgynous bisexual
Sam Russell
27 Feb 10 at 8:21 am
Hmmm. This post leaves me genuinely unsure as to whether i can/should legitimately call myself “genderqueer” or not.
I am definitely non-binary, but not in the sense of “having a non-binary gender”, rather in the sense of not having or being able to percieve gender identity at all. In a world that wasn’t constantly shoving gendered everything down my throat, i wouldn’t have any part of my identity that had anything to do with gender at all, but it’s precisely the nonconsensual gendering of everyone and everything that it’s impossible to escape from in this society that leads me to something very close to “decid[ing] that [I'm] totally down with smashing the gender binary, and that [I’ll] show it by taking on a genderqueer identity”.
I guess i had been percieving “genderqueer” (as opposed to simply “non-binary”) as connoting both “non-binary-ness” and a public political stance of radical opposition to the whole binary gender system (as opposed, i guess, to non-binary people who one way or another make peace with that system or “accept” that it can’t be destroyed or deconstructed – which is a personal call i don’t begrudge them, but one that i personally refuse to make). Would you consider this to be inaccurate or wrong?
(I think part of the problem for me is my need to have very precise and explicit definitions of terms, and my deep discomfort with the whole idea that you can define any identity however you want to, regardless of established usage, because i can’t help but see that leading straight to a situation where no terms distinguishably mean anything. I think RP/Genderbitch has written something similar…)
shiva
27 Feb 10 at 9:04 am
Suzan, the conversation here needs to center genderqueer people because this is a conversation about genderqueer issues. We don’t center men’s issues in a discussion about feminism, either.
The appropriation of genderqueer identities is not an arcane philosophical subject and frankly that you felt it was appropriate to make a comment to that effect in this space is appalling. This is a real issues that genderqueer people face, with the real effects that anarchafemme described.
sqrrel
27 Feb 10 at 11:48 am
@Suzan: I’m not familiar with the Cockettes, but as to most trans people actually being genderqueer? just no. that’s nonconsensually deciding that the gender of a whole bunch of people isn’t what they say it is. and I’m not saying that as a community we need to center genderqueer people in general (though genderqueer people often get ignored in larger community discussion, and that shouldn’t happen), but that this conversation here should focus on genderqueer people and how cis people appropriate our identities, not how binary gendered people feel about genderqueerness (or their deciding who is genderqueer or not, like you’re trying to do here).
@shiva: I definitely would include “non-binary” in “genderqueer” in any way we want to phrase it. while a lot of genderqueer people do have an intensely political stance about genderqueerness, I think that’s more a function of the communities the term is most used in, and also the fact that if someone’s non-binary, taking a stance against the continuing construction of the gender binary is something one is more likely to be motivated to do. but I don’t think “being actively involved in deconstructing the gender binary” is a necessary part of being genderqueer.
I agree that we can’t define any identity any way we want – because it would lead exactly to terms not meaning anything. and generally, I’m much more comfortable saying “identities are the dialectic between how one feels about oneself and how one is treated” and am way more concerned with the power relations involved, but when an identity is getting appropriated, not only do we have to recognize that while it’s not always possible to have incredibly precise and explicit definitions, identities ultimately do have some limits to how they can be defined.
anarchafemme
27 Feb 10 at 12:08 pm
This post makes me very happy to read. The fact that I came across more people appropriating a genderqueer identity than actual genderqueer people basically caused me to quit using that term for myself and avoid the broader GQ community. And it’s terrible that people should be driven away like that because binary people are the ones defining what a genderqueer identity is.
espikai
27 Feb 10 at 12:42 pm
Shiva: I don’t think you need to worry on that level. Being non-binary makes it harder to define things. It sounds like what you are describing is more a-gendered. What Anarchafemme is arguing against is the political mis-use of genderqueer as a political more than a gender identity.
Anarchafemme: Beautifully written post! I have been lucky not to see a lot of that, but I am mostly the only genderqueer I know in town, so there’s a trade-off. :p I definitely agree with you that we need to be respecting people’s identities, even if it seems highly appropriative. We need to challenge the behavior, not devalue the identity.
nome
27 Feb 10 at 12:46 pm
Is there any substantial difference between the OP’s argument and the assertion of some transsexuals that their own essential identity is appropriated by part timers, posers and transgender claims?
What metric would exist to adequately parse “true” genderqueers from the mere performers?
cigfran
27 Feb 10 at 12:46 pm
Cigfran: The difference is that part-time transfolks identify with a certain gender and for whatever reason can’t or don’t want to live it all the time. This is about binary folks using genderqueer as a political tool for a variety of reasons. It’s more about identity than whether a person performs/expresses/presents what we read as a genderqueer gender.
nome
27 Feb 10 at 1:26 pm
cigfran
in fact there is, as the author goes to lengths to:
A) define genderqueer in the most inclusive way possible
B) acknowledge that all genderqueer people have to navigate a binary world and that this requires coping strategies that may appear “part time”
C) note that there are complicated reasons for things like pronoun choices usually associated with binary genders
D) state that it’s not the business of cis people or binary gendered trans people to decide who is a “true” genderqueer person or who isn’t
E) clarify why these motives are often transparent to many of us
and since the post is not about policing individuals, any kind of hypothetical ‘metric’ is irrelevant.
Betsy B
27 Feb 10 at 1:32 pm
Betsy: To clarify the positioning of my question with regard to your point D and your last clause, I was more curious about how self-identified genderqueer people (as opposed to cis or trans) might make such distinctions.
cigfran
27 Feb 10 at 1:52 pm
i dont have much to add at the moment other than to say thank you so much for posting this.
romham
27 Feb 10 at 1:55 pm
Some of the Cockettes were what we’d not call GQ while others were really gay men into glam/hippie drag. I believe Hibiscus, who founded the group, ID’d as a gay man/DQ (although in fairness, he died of AIDS before GQ was really a term). An late acquaintance of mine, Rodney, was in both the Cockettes and their followup group, “The Angels of Light”. He identified as a punk gay man. Tomato (who was a Cockettes member and later was in the punk band, the Screamers, also identified as a gay male punk. There were people in the late 70s SF punk scene who ID’d as what became known as GQ. Sadly, nearly all those people died in the AIDS holocaust of the 80s-90s.
Thanks a lot for this article Anarchafemme. Living in San Francisco, I see a LOT of queer people of situationally assuming a GQ ID when it fits the particular event or parade. Easily 2/3rd of the SF Trans March is made up of people who are “GQ for a day.” While I understand it can be a complex identity for binary queer or trans people to accurately identify, it does piss me off when GQ is used as a quickie entrée into the trans community, thereby granting them permission to call people “tranny” or to make themselves insiders. A frequent issue I’ve heard is from cisgender female lesbians assuming a GQ ID when they’re involved with transitioned transmen. The problem is, these women are then often condescending about their partner’s male ID (and the fact that, because their partner still has a pussy, they still consider them butches) and cover it up by explaining they’re GQ so it doesn’t matter. I’ve feel like I’ve heard that one over and over again.
Gina Morvay
27 Feb 10 at 2:12 pm
Speaking as a genderqueer person, it’s pretty much something we know when we see. But the motivations described in this post are a good start.
Betsy B
27 Feb 10 at 2:16 pm
Something about this really bothers me, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Possibly because I feel most here would automatically assume I’m one of those darn appropriators, and I’m not.
I’m biologically female, and I am fine being coded as female because, quite frankly, it’s nobody’s damn business about why I present myself the way I do or how I feel about my body and/or gender. I wear the clothes I like, I do my hair how I want, and if I want to wear makeup? I do. A lot of the time I end up looking very female and I don’t get all uppity when people call me such. I also don’t care if I get coded as male either. Or anything else for that matter. I just find it amusing how different people code me at different times, particularly strangers.
Does that make my feelings about my gender any less valid? I don’t think so. Gender is a joke to me. It’s a game we’ve all been forced to play and we’ve been told there are rules when there really aren’t. I’m biologically female, but that’s as far as I can identify myself. I’m not even a particular fan of “genderqueer” either, but it’s the closest term in the lexicon I can use. I just don’t identify myself. Period. But when talking about gender identity, I will put genderqueer out there, even when I’m coded as female. Even though I cling to “Miss” with a ferocious passion. Because, again, it is the closest thing I can use to convey my non-identification.
I feel like a lot of people would say I’m appropriating “genderqueer” but they don’t know what is in my heart or my head. I just don’t make a big deal about it or about how I present, but I don’t think that invalidates me and my identity. And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way either.
So I would be very careful when you accuse people of appropriation, because you can’t really know for sure.
Skrappy
27 Feb 10 at 2:17 pm
i think there are also a whole shit ton of assumptions that need to be taken into account when assessing appropriation, which is i think part of what youre saying in your post.
i get told im not or cant possibly be genderqueer because im also a trans person who has accessed some aspects of medical transition and “pass” in some situations as (though dont identify as, which is why i use the term “pass” here) a dude (am variously assumed to be a cis dude by some folks and a trans dude by others; but im pretty well never respected as a genderqueer person). i get told im not gq by other gq people because i “pass”; by binary trans folks who want to include me in their community of binary trans folks simply because of their assumptions about what looking the way i do must mean and perhaps because of what they perceive a gq trans person does to their own legitimacy (in my estimation absolutely nothing); and i get told it by cis folks who dont want to be even more confused or put out than they apparently are by me being trans.
Its all busted, but means different things to me depending on whos saying it.
romham
27 Feb 10 at 3:45 pm
I get concerned about anything that defines “genderqueer” in solid terms, and saying “there is no single definition” isn’t necessarily adequate when you then go on to define specific parameters. I agree that my experience of being genderqueer could be described as “the state of constantly being misgendered in some way in a binary gendered culture;” I disagree about what being genderqueer definitively is “not.”
I struggle a lot with where I fit — being cissexual, not cisgender, FAAB, always being read as female, and having mixed feelings that I am never read as male. Here I’m being told that my genderqueer experience is definitively not certain things, and that not being “adequately described by man or womon self-evidently makes [me] trans.” (Not to mention that “womon” is not a term I use but “woman” is.)
More often than not, I do not identify as trans because the privilege I have in the world makes it more productive for me to work as an ally. Does that make me one of the cis people appropriating a genderqueer experience? I guess not, since I’m also told that being genderqueer makes me trans. Perhaps the fact that I’m cissexual and generally move through the world as a privileged person means that I should have less of a say in what gets defined as “genderqueer.” This is something I can understand, but it seems fishy.
Put simply, I would have felt more comfortable if “Things genderqueer is not” simply said “Things genderqueer is not _necessarily_.”
Jac
27 Feb 10 at 3:49 pm
Great post anarchafemme. This is a serious and very difficult to discuss issue in our communities. We operate from the principle that it’s never ok to define whose identities are legitimate and whose are not… but that assumption becomes really hard to keep up when you interact with people who you perceive are, for all extents and purposes, cis, but who are using GQ as a political identity to show their dissaproval of cissexism and transphobia.
It’s a lot of pressure and work to be a good ally, and I guess I’ve felt that people who I perceive to be appropriative in that way are using GQ identity to sort of escape needing to identify as a trans/gq ally. It’s a somewhat subconsious me-too-ism that allows people to be unnaccountable for their privilege inside of trans/gq community.
I’m not terribly interested in telling people they are or are not anything, but I do want to work on establishing an understanding in the queer community that trans and genderqueer people need cis allies, not for everyone to be trans and/or genderqueer. If coming to terms with one’s privilege and really focusing on the political oppression of genderqueer and trans people causes someone to realize that they aren’t actually cisgender at all, that’s great! I just want to see that it’s about coming to understand yourself better, not about getting into cool kids club.
Fury
27 Feb 10 at 4:47 pm
I am not sure if I am really “genderqueer” (I think we use slightly different terms here), but I feel frustrated that even in trans-friendly communities who respect I’m a ‘she’ even when they know my past, the fact that I don’t want to identify as ‘woman’ but only as dyke is very rarely respected, and is seen more as a fantasy – and wanting to enforce that I am not a woman while being trans might be a bit “dangerous”.
Similarly in the same communities where I am more or less considered as female gender, I also have the feeling that I am seen as much more transgressive and “queer” and cool when I wear masculine stuff. And while I like some masculine stuff it really pisses me that I’m seen as less valuable when I am more ‘feminine’. At the contrary at the beginning of my transition it really pissed me that some people saw me as a GQ fag when I clearly asserted a female identity.
I am sorry about this unconstructed rambling, but by all that I mean that I have the impression it’s complicated to assert a genderqueer (or at least what I understand of it) identity when being openly trans, and I personnally have the impression I must choose which one I must more or less ‘hide’.
Ellie d'Yckgirl
27 Feb 10 at 5:47 pm
I’m not comfortable with the use of “especially cis”, when you’re talking about binary-gendered people. is it more OK when a binary-gendered person oppresses genderqueer people if the oppressing party is trans?
why does that matter?
how would you know who is and isn’t “trans or “cis” in the discussion, anyhow?
confused.
27 Feb 10 at 6:40 pm
There seem to be a lot of commenters who are wondering if their identification with “genderqueer” is appropriative and I don’t want to speak for anarchafemme, but I’ll speak for myself.
The problem comes when people are using genderqueer for purely political reasons, or to avoid taking responsibility for transphobic behaviors. GQ to me is trans identity, but I respect those who do not feel trans. I also respect people who are binary trans on some level, but also genderqueer. For instance, I know many FTM genderqueers and love them dearly. If your gender does not fit the “man” or “woman” box, then you are genderqueer. Anything else around that is just another factor in one’s gender.
nome
27 Feb 10 at 8:35 pm
@Skrappy:
“biologically female”???
“gender is a joke”???
worth a read…
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/how-to-check-your-cis-privilege/
confused.
27 Feb 10 at 9:37 pm
language note: i think language is important, and while humyn and persyn have separate etymologies (so the argument that applies to womon/womyn doesn’t work), i mainly use them to reclaim them from transphobes, in addition to decentering men.
I want to especially note my agreement with nome and Fury. I especially want to quote this line from Fury for truth: “I’m not terribly interested in telling people they are or are not anything…”; I’m interested in the behavior that goes along with the appropriation. No, I can’t see into anyone’s head, but, as a genderqueer persyn, like Betsy notes, I know appropriation when I see it, by the behavior it leads to.
Let me be more clear: I have zero interest in judging anyone’s genderqueerness, because as a femme, as some who has accessed medical transitioning, as someone who is constantly read as a womon, it’s happened way too much and in too many busted ways to me. I am interested in the cissupremacy that leads to appropriation of genderqueer identities (because it’s about erasing actual genderqueer people), and calling out the behavior that goes on.
And I’m way more worried when it’s a binary gendered cis persyn policing genderqueer people or appropriating genderqueerness, because they have systemic power in issues of gender that binary gendered trans people just don’t have. It doesn’t mean binary gendered trans people should do it, just that they do qualitatively less harm when they do.
anarchafemme
27 Feb 10 at 9:47 pm
the URL I meant was:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/five-axioms-about-gender-and-bodies/
confused.
27 Feb 10 at 9:48 pm
@confused:
Skrappy isn’t saying the sex is biologically based, just that they (not sure pronouns, sorry if “they” is offensive but it seems better than assuming anything else and I tried just using your name but that’s… awk) identify that way. Not to speak for skrappy but that does not to me indicate that they believe sex to be something determined by society.
And why can’t skrappy relate to their gender how fits best? I know lots of genderqueers who do this. Hell, I play with gender in a very GQ way. Is that privileged? Yes, I am privileged to present the way I do and not worry for my well-being. But that is more about economic and racial privilege than gender.
nome
27 Feb 10 at 9:49 pm
@anarchafemme: you said, ” I’m way more worried when it’s a binary gendered cis persyn policing … or appropriating…”
I ask you again, how would you know whether the binary gendered person in question is cis or trans? would you react differently to them based on an assumption about medical history, identity, etc?
To be clear- it’s my view that all binary-gendered people need to read what you’ve written and take your words seriously. I only object to positioning cis people as 1) more harmful and 2) somehow distinguishable from trans people
confused.
27 Feb 10 at 10:02 pm
“Two, not being adequately described by man or womon self-evidently makes one trans.” Except for some of us who don’t seek out medical transition, other people pretty quickly place us in one of those categories and allow us certain priviledges that either binary identifying trans folks or not easily placed trans folks don’t have. If you have an E cup and don’t identify as male, you get the social priviledges of a cis female. Do I ever feel comfortable checking the F box or using binary bathrooms? No, but I can do so without being challenged in any way. I don’t think of myself as trans because I don’t see myself as having the lived experiences that affect trans people’s lives dramatically. I quite often exclude myself when I think about women, but I also don’t think of myself as a man and my presentation tends to vary a lot, but the shape of my body means that unless I medically change it or insist on placing myself as male, I’m given cis priviledges. I feel that, for me, based on the way I get about in the world, I would not want to use a trans identity because it feels too much like appropriation.
cat
27 Feb 10 at 11:43 pm
Debating whether GQ is trans or not seems.. wrong. It seems to me that GQ is such a huge range of experiences that it has to be left up to the individual. I experience GenderQueer on a very trans level, but I also respect those who don’t. I’m very wary of these ideas about saying all genderqueers are ___ since it’s bound to exclude some.
nome
27 Feb 10 at 11:56 pm
“Debating whether GQ is trans or not seems.. wrong.”
and isnt the point of the OP.
romham
28 Feb 10 at 1:20 am
I’m always wary of discussions of ‘posers’.
I remember well as each successive wave of goths were often criticised for being ‘posers’ or just doing ‘pretending’ to be goth to be popular. Dissmissive terms like Baby Bats and Rivethead and more flung about and then claimed as legitimate sub-sub-cultures. And most of those who derided the newcomers are now ‘norms’ living in the suburbs with not a cure poster or spiked bracelet to be seen while some of those ‘posers’ 20 years on are still Goths.
Sure for many things can be fads, or perhaps more accuratly reflect a temporary non-core part of their identity that is true while it lasts and then ceases to be true as they move on. While others were Goth long before the term or culture existed to define it even as children and others have to find their way to slowly become comfortable in themselves passing through awkward stages till they find their feet often shedding (and sometimes gaining) prejudices as they do so.
I would not be surprised if some of the alleged ‘posers’ are still working through their own internalised transphobia. Others may well be weakly-gendered bi-gender people for whom being genderqueer is far less important than it is for others, something they can explore and exist as for a time but not a core part of their identity.
As for me, I sometimes self identify as GenderQueer. Also as Bi-Gender. Also as Crossdresser. If i fit others notions of any or all of these well thats for them to determine. My motives are simple, finding a term that best explains and expresses the state i feel to be in at the time.
I sometimes get called ‘Miss’ ‘Maam’ and even ‘Darl’ (that last several times by a roadworker) when i thought i was presenting fairly male. Othertimes when presenting female i’ve been read instantly.
At the end of the day the term used for me and for others is of only minor importance to me as long as its not intrinsicly offensive or used offensively. What I’d rather is for me and all others to be protected under the law equally and under social programs appropriate to our relative needs.
I’d like not to feel fear of attack or harassment when i use the bathroom. I’d rather not have at the back of my mind when i’m buying clothes that a business could legally refuse me service in my current state of New South Wales because i don’t count under its binary-transition-specific definition of Transgender. Thats far more important to me currently. But of course thats me, others may have far different needs and priorities.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 1:43 am
Hmmmmm. Like many other commenters, I’m kind of taken aback by queer definitions of authenticity which seem derived from our level of exclusion and pain. It is really easy to point to part time trans folks — whether in the genderqueer/not genderqueer frame, or trans/just a perv, or…what have you. The people over here are real, the people over there are not. I cannot think, looking back at the last 16 years as an out transwoman, that those distinctions have done anything but deepen our already crippling sorrow and diminish our voice. Mileage varies.
It is of _course_ true that cis people who play at things don’t bear the same costs and when they speak, generally don’t know what they speak of. This is also true of people who cling strongly to medical models. But y’know, being genderqueer is, I think, educational as hell, even if it is only to get a date or make a point. People explore gender and sexuality in different ways, and they learn things whatever their initial motivation — about themselves, the world. Just because I bleed for it daily doesn’t mean that Jill next door, who packs and shaves her head and will probably end up marrying a stockbroker, is wasting her time or being inauthentic. She’s growing, and learning about an aspect of human experience I live every day. And good for her, really.
This isn’t a fancy opinion, or up to the standards of QT discussion, but my feeling is that in terms of political action, we should emphasize that for people who are medically trans or “full time” genderqueer (and barring a fortune in passing money, the groups aren’t so far apart until you hear us savage each other) — there are particular and unique vunerabilities, and legal protection is a great need. We should ask the part time, the once in a lifetime, and the everyday queer to be part of that effort, and we should keep the focus on real lives, not some idealized goal. I think it makes sense to push the distinction, politically — but not to make it in terms of anyone’s choices or personal journey.
Jessica
28 Feb 10 at 2:38 am
I have a friend who has, in the past, expressed issues surrounding their gender that may, or may not, allow them to personally apply the GQ label. Let’s just say, if you’re taking the mass media projected image of what a man or a woman is supposed to be, then this individual fits neither (although, it’s my perception that intresting and real people never do).
The thing that saddens me is that the person in question is hyperaware of appropiating trans identities, to such a point that they typically shy away from expressing themselves for themselves. On one hand, I figure maybe their not ready, but on the other hand any perceived notion of ‘policing boundaries’ (scare quotes as i know it’s a loaded term, and i know the OP is not suggesting such a thing) may, in my mind, mean that they feel less safe in expressing and exploring themselves, just on the off chance somebody does call them a faker. Hell, I remember way back when I was scared of calling myself trans in case somebody came along and called me fake (since then people have called me fake, and now i’ve got the confidence to laugh at them, but gaining that takes time).
So, the undercurrent that the other commentors have picked up on, I wholeheartedly agree.
In addition,
‘Genderqueer, in terms that are likely to fit everyone who is genderqueer, is having a gender where neither man nor womon is a fully adequate description of it.’
My initial question is how does the OP define man / woman? Of course, you don’t have to indulge my question, but it’s one that intrests me a great deal as I’ve yet to really meet a person, trans or otherwise, who actually dares take that question head on. Hence, I’m intrigued as to a GQ perspective.
For what it’s worth, I don’t identify as GQ, even though I feel that the description of ‘woman’, in a wider social majority context, the sort that would get rammed down my throat by television and magazines if I ever bothered to watch or read, is woefully inadequate. However, I do identify as a woman, even though I, admittedly, despite what my previous question might suggest, cannot really tell you what that actually means to me.
Hm. Might have just answered my own question.
Armour
28 Feb 10 at 3:36 am
I think a good deal of responsibility lies not on trans and gq folks to seek out appropriators, but for cis kids to own their shit. As a cis chick and the only cis kid in my massive group of friends/queer family, I’ve learned this lesson over and over again. In my opinion, it’s all about prevention.
Prevention occurs when cis folks create an environment where owning your privilege is not just encouraged but mandatory. I do not, under any circumstances, assign a gender to people. When my trans and gq friends feel that they have identified an appropriator, I support them but cannot mispronoun the alleged appropriator because it is a slippery slope for a cis kid to do that. I have no role in taking action against people who have already begun to appropriate. My role is in prevention.
By speaking to cis people as another cis person and encouraging them to own their shit, I try to present the obvious and non-busted option of remaining cis-identified and still standing in solidarity with trans* people.
Also, anarchafemme, I think another reason why cis people appropriate gq culture is because of cis guilt. You kind of touched on it when you spoke of people taking on gq ids in response to oppression call outs, but I think it’s more than just that. Especially in the radical queer community, a cis identity is becoming more and more “uncool” (as you mentioned) and, also, analyzed. Cis people are feeling the pressure of coming to terms with the fact that yes, they(/we, since I’m cis too and have to come to terms with this) are part of an oppressive class. It’s been my experience that occasionally, cis people have instead taken on gq ids to avoid unpacking their cis privilege.
August
28 Feb 10 at 7:59 am
cat: there’s a difference between cissexual and cisgender privilege. What you’re describing is the experience of being cissexual and genderqueer. You still get cissexual privilege, yes, but not cisgender privilege. Such a person is not transsexual, obviously, but they are transgender, which is the ‘trans’ being referred to here.
sqrrel
28 Feb 10 at 8:26 am
Batty: Again, the point of this post is not to tell people if they are GQ enough or not. In fact, that’s explicitly not the point. If you feel it, awesome! Welcome to the fam!
The thing being called out is people using genderqueer to get cool points. But goth and genderqueer really are not the same thing at all. Goth is a fashion trend, a type of music, an aesthetic. Genderqueer is a gender, soemthing intrinsic to one’s identity. Yes, some people id strongly with “goth” but it’s on a very different level. But that argument is moot anyhow, since we’re not discussing who is or isn’t a poser, but rather what happens when our identity is appropriated.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 8:46 am
Jessica: Genderqueer as an identity is no more a learning tool than any other gender. That’s like me saying “Hey, ya, I’d love to be a trans woman for like.. an hour. I bet I’d learn a ton from it.” Ya, I probably would but being a trans woman is not about learning.
It sounds like you’re meaning also that people should play with gender. Sure! Of course! Do that! That’s why there’s a difference between “genderfucking” and “being genderqueer.” Everyone should genderfuck but genderqueer is an identity you have to actually identify with to use. However, I’m not interested in making any sort of criteria for what it means to identify with GQ.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 8:53 am
nome,
I apreciate what you mean, just saying that alarm bells go off for me reflexively.
And no Goth is for most Goths far more than “a fashion trend, a type of music…” or i sure wouldn’t have risked the violence i did to be Goth in small rural towns. I was a Goth cause i liked what i liked all my life contrary to fashion, without a ‘scene’ to join and at the time rejecting the ‘label’ of goth. Goth for most Goths is a part of their identity. One many endure a lot for. My rubber bat collection started in 1980!
For years while i couldnt dare to admit my gender variance to myself i could not repress so effectively my Gothness. Now that may suggest i had more internalised transphobia than internalised altphobia but still I was punched and spat on all the same for both. Though gender diversity expression amongst Goth culture is a worthy subject itself, theres a lot of community overlap.
I see definate parallells. In the crossdressing community as in Goth and in pretty much every community i encounter and so think it worth considering if its a part of whats happening with Genderqueer.
As i said some of the seeming ‘posers’ may end up being legitimate life-long folk still going through their own self acceptance and shrugging off internalised bias and bigotry and discomfort while many objecting to their presence may be objecting to diversification of the community, to increasing inclusiveness, to loss of the specialness and exclusiveness and underground cool-factor when something goes ‘mainstream’. Sometimes people are really upset when younger folk turn up and take some of the attention away (of course there’s a lot of ageism in each direction in that). I’ve seen a number of crossdressers getting upset that younger more self-accepting less-binary more expressive and more often bisexual people were ruining their neatly constructed hetero binary-expression conservative-dressing community and ruining their neat homophobic and transphobic demarcations and so risking scaring their homophobic transphobic cis wives into unacceptance.
So i wonder how we can tell neatly and with any certainty when the problem is generational, the old-guard objecting to the newbies especially newbies with new ideas and the usual newbie issues or when the problem really is an influx of posers only after a brief bit of publicity.
With other groups For me personally i found only when the dust has settled and the publicity gone and the bigots of the old guard left and the trendies moved on to the next trend that who was legit all along can neatly be seen. Will that be the case with this?
And what is a good response to this situation? Weeding out the suspected posers, closing ranks, forming cliques and subgroups based on the narrowest definitions of who are ‘true’ genderqueers etc all seem bad ideas.
Is there an inclusive way to educate the newly out folk, to help expedite their challenging their own transphobia and sexism and increase their awareness of the Ethics? Maybe a way that’d work no matter if they are legitimate intrinsics, legitimate but nevertheless transient or trendy posers?
Cause even without appropriating trendies i could see that a large influx of newly out people with legitimate claims but a high ratio of internalised issues could just as effectively dilute quality discussion of the issues of and representation of the community.
Whereas with appropriate contagious education by the legits could the trendies actually be useful in carring education to the broader community as well as helping more legits come out and reach self acceptance? Now thats a subversice thought.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 9:56 am
So, I want to pose a question and hope it’s not offensive (but… if I have to frame it that way, it might be… so that’s a warning).
Why is drag and being a CD not considered Genderqueer? Is it because they’re two other distinct groups which predated the formal indentification of GQ? I’ve long wondered why being a CD isn’t equated with being Genderfluid/Genderqueer?
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it seems as if there is a culture (at least where I live) of people who consider themselves GQ (I think the description of college-educated ‘boyish’ women-bodied people is pretty apt) but does that mean a male-bodied person who works as a trucker somewhere and regularly cross-dresses and has a situational female identity isn’t genderfluid or genderqueer as well? Does the fact their expression is highly binary makes them not genderqueer or is it the way social stricture make demands on their gender which allows the “stereotypical GQ college grad” that ID of between genders while someone who lives in a very rigid world of gender expression has to go to extremes? Does that question make sense?
Someone mentioned “playing with gender” and wouldn’t that come under that category? Yes, GQ people tend to be out in the world more than CDs, but isn’t due to the social danger of being perceived as “male” and crossdressing or expressing femininity whereas most female-bodied people (and sorry I’m using a binary term) have more latitude to seem “between” and go out in the world. I find it interest how a lot of drag kings define themselves as GQ but not that many drag queens do.
I’m also curious that a lot of the people who identify as Radical Faeries don’t usually seem to also identify as GQ and I’m wondering what that’s all about? Perhaps they’re more male and not “between” identified, but they’re very connected to the culture (and people) which produced the Cockettes.
Could some GQ people discuss your relationship to GQs, CDs, Radical Faeries and, specifically drag queens… I’d be interested in hearing that discussion. Thanks.
Gina Morvay
28 Feb 10 at 10:45 am
I apologize for saying “between”identified… I should have said “neither”. My mistake.
Gina Morvay
28 Feb 10 at 10:48 am
“Also, conversation here needs to center genderqueer people, and not the concerns of cis people or binary gendered trans people have about genderqueer people.”
romham
28 Feb 10 at 10:51 am
Romham: Indeed. I would love to discuss this from a gq standpoint, rather than having to justify my existence. I’m sorry the conversation is veered so far off track, if it was ever on track in the first place. Once again, what is supposed to be a non-binary space has turned into binary folks questioning our very nature.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 10:55 am
I’m sorry if, specifically, my question was going in a direction which made some GQ people uncomfortable or angry. I thought the OP was asking about how cispeople appropriate GQ identities to gain membership within the trans community. What I was asking about is how GQ meshes with other parts of the trans/GV community to understand more about the process of appropriation.
Gina Morvay
28 Feb 10 at 11:52 am
Gina: I do think your question is off-topic, but I appreciate how you realize this and offer it as something someone can talk about *if they should choose to.* I am frustrated with how this conversation has gone in general, with people ignoring that fact that the OP is not trying to police GQ or be exclusionary, but rather address how cisfolk appropriate GQ as a political idea rather than gender identity.
If you are still curious about your question, you can email me at mnomedenimp@gmail.com but I don’t want to discuss it here.
I am not particularly interested in whether such-n-such is genderqueer. A person is genderqueer if they feel like they are. Nuff said. What is being discussed (or trying to be) is how many folks, generally always cis, claim genderqueer as an identity when it is advantageous for them – to get a date, to deny privilege, to deny being transphobic, etc.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 12:01 pm
also, i think many people use “genderqueer” differently. Some people use it to describe their own sexual orientation (i.e. attracted to any/all/no gender), and others use it to describe their own gender identity. Still others combine those.
Personally? i use the term “queer” to describe my sexual orientation, and “genderqueer” to describe my gender identity (ergo the “gender” part). For me, its important to honour both of those, that there are differences between.
id like to see the centering of genderqueer people here, but am unsure that can happen in this conversation.
romham
28 Feb 10 at 12:34 pm
If someone “is genderqueer if they feel like they are” – which you can only know if they say so – then there is no basis on which to claim that anyone is appropriating the identity, beyond the authorization of other self-identified genderqueer people for whom “it’s pretty much something we know when we see.”
cigfran
28 Feb 10 at 1:06 pm
…it’s the predictable whooshing sound of a point flying over a dozen heads.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 1:21 pm
lol @ Betsy.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 1:22 pm
cigfran, as much as I hate to compare oppressions, but do you also think there is no basis on which to claim that, say, a white person is appropriating Native American identity, since it’s not about blood quantum or tribal membership or what someone looks like?
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 1:24 pm
Betsy: If First Nation identity is not about affinity with ethnic descent or consensual cultural participation, what is it? How could anyone claim such an identity just on the basis of “feeling like it?”
cigfran
28 Feb 10 at 1:41 pm
Cigfran: That’s the point. People do it all the time. White people decide that they feel Native American and appropriate the label when convenient for themselves. There are also many cases of people doing it for benefits.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 1:47 pm
I’d like to specifically ask GQ-ID’d people if they consider there is an contradiction in someone considering themselves a “GQ woman”? (supply your own appropriate spelling of woman). To take it a step further, is there an issue (or have you experienced problems) with GQ persons attending what are determined to be women’s events? If GQ represents a “neither/other” rather than a “both/between” why are there so many GQ-IDd people at Michfest? The same question came up in SF over the (now defunct) Osento women’s bathhouse. There were GQ IDing people who went to Osento even though it was, ostensibly a bathhouse restricted for use by people with women’s bodies (in other 2nd wave words, no pre/non-op trans women allowed). Some questioned, “well why are GQs permitted if they don’t consider their bodies male or female?” Again, I understand some people may think this is off topic, but these are real world examples of where the GQ, cis and trans communities have interfaced and I’d like more perspective on them
Gina Morvay
28 Feb 10 at 1:54 pm
@nome: this is regarding your point many comments ago, not the discussion b/t Betsy, cigfran, Gina, and yourself right now.
not all self-identifications are OK, particularly when you state them out loud. one example is an appropriative self-ID, the very subject of this post! other problematic self-IDs are those which put you in the in-group while implying awful things about the out-group.
for that last point, consider if a non-trans person is self-IDing as a “real man”, specifically to distinguish himself from trans men. surely everyone on this blog can see how that’s a problem.
so, self-ID as “biologically female” is problematic. what does it imply about all other females? surely they’re not actually robots? in addition, “biological sex” is itself a myth or at best a binary simplification. sex is defined by many as a combination of many factors (which don’t always align in a binary way)- including gender identity, hormonal configuration, gonads, secondary and primary sex characteristics. anyone who understands this could see how the self-ID of “biologically female” would be near meaningless, even if it weren’t offensive.
as for “gender is a joke”- I think it’s justified to see the damage statements like that have historically done. see the post under Trans 101 on the right sidebar: “Nobody Gives a Shit That You Don’t Believe in Gender”.
as for centering on gq concerns. there are gq trans people and gq cis people. if comments here weren’t saying/implying cissexist malarchy, I likely would have kept my trap shut, as I haven’t much to contribute regarding appropriation of gq ID (I don’t move in the type of community where that ever happens)
confused.
28 Feb 10 at 2:06 pm
nome:
I understand the analogy that Betsy thought she was making, and that you have continued. But I don’t think it holds.
You said “a person is genderqueer if they feel like they are.” There is only one way to know if someone feels like anything: by their own report of it. And for Genderqueer there seem to be no other meaningful criteria. But the basic premise of this post is that there are some people who say they feel like it who don’t really mean it. My point is that you can’t have it both ways. If you base an identity entirely on someone’s assertion of it, then you have no basis on which to claim “appropriation.” You have no grounds on which to say that anyone doesn’t mean what they say. “I know it when I see it” doesn’t pass muster. And the apparently ephemeral or conditional nature of someone’s assertion of Genderqueer identity is no indicator either, since “gender and identity fluidity” is an axiom of our identity politics.
cigfran
28 Feb 10 at 2:09 pm
@confused Mmkay, I can see your point on that. I have tended to refer to people as cis-female when they are born female and connect with it. However, there is a lot of grey area. I do not identify with my femaleness entirely, so am not cis, but I don’t really have a word for how I relate to my body. It’s not trans OR cis. So sometimes using bio-female works in saying, “ya, I was born that way and it’s wrong but I don’t have another word right now.”
Cigfran: It’s been stated so many times, I’m really not sure why you’re missing the point. It is appropriative when a person only identifies as genderqueer for personal gain. That is what we are specifically calling out. So, for instance, when a person normally identifies as a man who may genderfuck, but is definitely a man, but uses the term “genderqueer” to be able to date someone who only dates non-binary genders. There, a solid example and one that happens quite a bit.
Gina: That bathhouse is so intensely transphobic. The whole idea of making a space that is women-only and excluding trans-women, or qualifying it on whether she has had some certain surgery or not? Disgusting. And there is no such thing as a “woman body.” Nuff said. About if you can be a gq woman/man? I would say, in that case, you are using gq as an adjective or a qualifier and are not identifying as genderqueer in the same way that I do. BUT AS HAS BEEN STATED: this is not a space to define for binary folks what genderqueer is. So would you please, please, please check yourself and stop asking these questions. I told you how to contact me if you want to have such discussions but this is a space to talk about appropriation, not “is this gq? What about that? And if you’re gq, can you do ___?”
nome
28 Feb 10 at 2:29 pm
“It is appropriative when a person only identifies as genderqueer for personal gain.”
Thank you. That is concise. I know it’s been said several times already in this thread, but this is the first time I think I’ve seen it as crisply distinguished from all the other elements. Thanks.
cigfran
28 Feb 10 at 2:40 pm
i’d like to chime in again to thank all the other genderqueer people and people in solidarity with genderqueer folk who’ve stepped up in dealing with the constant derailing going on here.
as much as the analogy with Native American identity can be useful here (or, in general, how the identity of other oppressed groups is used by members of the oppressor class for their gain), i think the derail into talking about what Native American identity means is not something that it’s my place as a settler privileged persyn to address, or anyone else here who has settler privilege. we can call out cultural appropriation (and we should), but it’s not our place to decide how that group structures who is in the group.
a lot of the comments here are making me feel like i should have written a genderqueer 101 first, but, they’re also making me feel like the majority of the comments there would have been about us (genderqueer people) justifying ourselves, or non-genderqueer people judging who is really genderqueer or not.
anarchafemme
28 Feb 10 at 2:53 pm
@anarchafemme: I would still enjoy reading that, even if the comments would make my head explode-y a little. :)
nome
28 Feb 10 at 2:58 pm
Let me reiterate that throughout this exchange I have been solely interested in how genderqueer people judge who is really genderqueer or not. And I’m sorry that the state of present discourse now apparently reduces all questioning and exchange to “derailing.”
It also occurs to me that the distinguishing feature of appropriation, as defined by nome, is “intent.”
cigfran
28 Feb 10 at 2:59 pm
@cigfran: just, no. because the majority of comments from binary gendered people here? have been about who is genderqueer or not, not how they can be in better solidarity dealing with the appropriation of genderqueer identities. it’s been about binary gendered people getting to draw the lines, rather than recognizing the lines, and helping with the issue at hand.
and, no, intent doesn’t matter as much as you’d like it to with appropriation – what matter is that appropriation of identities, culture, traits of the oppressed group by the oppressor group makes the oppressed group unnecessary and contributes to its erasure. thus, no matter what the appropriator intends, appropriation is an act of violence against the oppressed group.
anarchafemme
28 Feb 10 at 3:09 pm
Cigfran: you can be appropriative without intending to be. Just like any oppression, intent is not the important thing, it’s the impact. For instance, I may not have meant to be oppressive by saying bio-female but that doesn’t make it suddenly not a cissexist term. That example given was intentional but it does not need to be.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 3:09 pm
Yeah, my point was to provide another example of a privileged class of people appropriating the identities of an oppressed people (which are… not simple to define or police, let’s leave it at that rather than fucking engage in a fucked up “who is NA/FN” conversation) for personal gain, in a way that contributes to the on-going oppression of those people.
Again, coming away from this with “but where do we draw the line?!?” misses the point of this post completely. And when I said that it’s something we just know when we see, the point was not to recommend we form a committee of Genuine Genderqueers to vote on every individual and decide who is/n’t.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 3:17 pm
I think I’m genuinely genderqueer because I”m trans female but feel pretty uncomfortable with female pronouns and the label “woman” most of the time (not always tho) but I also think I’ve been guilty of appropriating too to help deal with body and social dysphoria and stuff. Like to try to escape transphobic misogyny against trans females and to try to make my sometimes too masculine body “ok” with me.
I can muster much of an apology for it tho because its taken everything I had to get to where I am now, mentally dealing with the sress of body dysphoria. and also I mostly keep all of my gender stuff to myself and suffer a lot more from being id’d as a woman and she then from ppl respecting my non-binary id (frankly most of the time ppl aren’t binary gendering me, there not respecting my gender there just ungendering me for there own comfort.)
estrobutch
28 Feb 10 at 5:14 pm
in other words when somebody omits pronouns with me, it mostly feels like there just saying “wtf are you freak” then “i respect that your a hard butch that doesn’t feel exactly comfortable with female pronouns.
actually as transsexual (and female) I feel like I mostly don’t have a right to get as fancy about my gender as cissexual ppl do.
estrobutch
28 Feb 10 at 5:17 pm
I guess this is kinda of O/T of cis pppl appropriating gq tho.
sorry enough serial commenting.
estrobutch
28 Feb 10 at 5:21 pm
@estrobutch: i think it definitely plays into the related topic of how people who have accessed medical transition aren’t seen as legitimately genderqueer (especially people who are trans female or just AMAB), and i think the way you talk about it is a good illustration of why i’m just not nearly as concerned about people who’ve accessed medical transition (as a group) appropriating genderqueer identities as i am about cis people doing so. not to turn you into a teaching example – but, like, we (all of us who’ve accessed medical transition, whether we’re genderqueer or not) don’t get the respect for our identities to give us the sort of power to do the harm that cis people do.
anarchafemme
28 Feb 10 at 5:28 pm
http://transgroupblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-oz-show-and-transgender-unbrella.html
(a post by a genderqueer person re/ genderqueer invisibility in the trans community)
javier
28 Feb 10 at 6:34 pm
I’m just catching up on this thread, but I’d like to ask people to be careful about the use of:
“biologically fe/male”
“fe/male-bodied”
“wo/man-bodied”
“Assigned fe/male at birth” works a heck of a lot better and doesn’t imprint a host of coercive meanings on people’s bodies.
Lisa Harney
28 Feb 10 at 6:53 pm
That some will proclaim themselves anything for their own benefit if they see any benefit in it is of course a given. Some will have a competative dog-eat-dog worldview which to them would justify such an Unethical act.
Seeing as ascertaining which is the genuine GQ and which the appropriator unless they themselves reveal it is not the focus of this discussion and is problematic and maybe impossible then delineating what is the effect of appropriation and what is another effect, like increasing numbers of people with internalised issues and lower degrees of awareness and understanding of the issues coming out as GQ bringing more cis-centric concerns into the community, also impossible untill hindsight can be applied after any broad trends of GQ trendyness have passed and appropriation spiking has dropped to a minimum and even then telling the difference between those two phenomena may still be impossible.
So then are we forced to just predict and speculate what effects appropriation will have?
What are our options in responding to the certainty of cases of appropriation?
I’ve seen plenty of groups react by determining criteria of ‘true’: Lesbians, Gays, Bis, Transsexuals, Transgenders, Crossdressers, Drag Queens, Drag Kings, Men, Women, Aboriginals, Full-blood aboriginals, Koori’s, Gypsies, Asians, Eurasians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, bhuddists, Wiccans, Goths, Cyber-Goths, Mili-Goths, Romanti-Goths, Rivet-Goths, Geeks, Nerds, Gamers, Gamer-Girls, Role-playing-gamers… actually i can say I’ve seen this in every community i’ve ever been in or known someone else who was in. Also note i realise that a number of those catagories are very offensive, but it was the group delineations used by the groups at the time so it’s worth mentioning.
Another alternative is to try and raise genuine GQ isues as widely as possible to be sure that appropriator concerns, or internalised concerns for that matter, do not drown out the genuine issues. There is even the possibility that having done so in order to mainatin the appearance they are appropriating the appropriators will disseminate these views. But again ensuring the genuine voices are the ones heard remains problematical because we cannot tell in this case who is genuine and attempting to do so may harm many in the community in the process.
Despite the natural reactions of anger and outrage members of an oppressed group will naturally have when someone who has not been weighed down with lifelong oppression swans in and takes up what advantages there will be in that identity especially when those may be limited opportunities being taken up I suspect that this phenomenon may be inevitable and unavoidable.
Even encouraging those with a genuine claim to the identity to make the most of the advantages revealed by others attempts to claim them may result also in more outsiders being attracted to those advantages and so more appropriating. But insular wall raising usually leaves legit people on the outside as well as slowing progress in broader social acceptance and progress on core issues.
Could it be even that appropriation is a sign of progress and success?
I suspect that in fact we should indeed encourage more to make use of the advantages of being GQ even though it may raise appropriation because like other trends the appropriators will leave after a little while when they tire of it and the rest may be in a better place afterwards.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 8:34 pm
sure. let’s open it up and leave it completely devoid of meaning.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 9:51 pm
because appropriation has done so much good for other marginalized groups!
anarchafemme
28 Feb 10 at 10:01 pm
I think Battybattybats might be saying this better than I can but I’ve been following this thread all day and can’t help but wade in: perhaps those who are “appropriating” are in some way signaling that non-gq people are becoming more comfortable with the idea of gq. It is still wrong and hurtful, of course, but perhaps it could be seen as a stepping stone to something better at the same time.
thewhatifgirl
28 Feb 10 at 10:08 pm
Also, I think most of the binary-gendered posters above ARE trying to understand how they can be better allies, however clumsily they may be doing it.
Of course, it seems like it would be easier to just say, “how can I, as an ally who is not gq myself, help stop this from happening?” And in fact, I would like to ask you that very question: what do you recommend?
thewhatifgirl
28 Feb 10 at 10:16 pm
only chiming in to note that Osento is now an ex-bathhouse.
belledame222
28 Feb 10 at 10:26 pm
Or, as I tend to view gender as an interaction between one’s self and others
This particular genderqueer cissexual woman is fucking thrilled to see someone else say something like this.
The genderfeel in my head changes a hell of a lot faster than my presentation is capable of, and some of it doesn’t have markers that will get respected even if I were able to change the stuff. Which means I deal with a certain amount of “close enough for government work” at all times. I pass for cisgendered female; sometimes I arguably am cisgendered female, but only part-time.
But there are times that other people’s eyes just grind on my nerves, because I know they see something that isn’t there right now, and there’s not a damn thing I can do to change it.
(And there are times that I don’t get someone’s glitch – I got sirred by a concession clerk once and it took forever to get her to stop apologising and give me my damn popcorn. No, really, male identifiers are fine, I don’t need another apology even if it were a problem, could I have my food now? To interject a little funny in here.)
I’ve often been really concerned about being appropriative, because I am not trans. But at the same time… I do get these social dysphorias from being seen wrong, because I too experience gender as living in the nexus-space between my head and what people react to, and … that leaves half of it that isn’t socially constructed, y’know?
And I wish I had better language. Because the mechanisms I have to talk about this are in the negative space, and that makes for very shaky communication.
Dw3t-Hthr
28 Feb 10 at 10:44 pm
Well speaking as a Goth, itself most definately a marginalised group subject to hate crimes including murder the massive wave of appropriation that occured because of The Crow and The Craft movies made them trendy… or rather perhaps took a culture with growing visibility and by making profit from that visibility vastly increased the knowledge of and exposure of that group and thus by its appropriating Goth encouraged both more Goths to come out and more products to cater to Goths as a culture and more Goths to produce Goth products for Goths but also more to appropriate Goth identities.. so yeah appropriation has had some positives for marginalised groups.
Goths are far more welcome and far more visible now than they were in the beginning of the 90′s. I havent had someone spit on me or attack me for looking Goth in a decade or more. Problems remain and much negativity especially false negative stereotypes has been transferred over to Emo, some of which being the fault of some Goths objecting to “poser Emo’s” its important to acknowledge.
The cost at the time was accusations that all Goths were doing it for attention, that it was teenage rebelliousness, white middle class teen angst, that it was a result of depression and uch more. Most of this came from anti-Goth haters, many christian, some came from Goths themselves and some from people who claimed to be Goth for brief periods of time when it was adventurous and trendy.
Increased exposure is a double-edged sword and I think appropriation is a symptom of gains being made. Why would a ‘norm’ appropriate anything Goth unless there was recognised value in Goth? Why would someone Cis appropriate GQ unless there is recognisable value in being GQ?
It has definate negative effects i don’t dispute that.
I don’t think it’s at all feasible to directly prevent appropriation. Attempts to do so I think do massive harm to the legitimate claimants to the identity and have little-to-no impact on the appropriation phenomena.
Instead harm-minimisation seems to me a much better course of action.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 10:44 pm
I’m a genderqueer trans guy, and I can’t really think of that many people I’ve met in the communities I’ve been in that seemed to be appropriating genderqueerness, and even fewer who I would assume self-identify as genderqueer as a way to dodge responsibility on cissexism/cisgenderism. I mean, yeah a few, but not a whole lot. Apparently this is something fairly common (given anarchafemme writing about it, and others’ commenting on it). Of course, I also don’t get out a whole lot of the time. Where does this happen? Have I just not been noticing people doing this around me?
TheDeviantE
28 Feb 10 at 10:51 pm
It happens a lot in radical spaces. Genderqueer gets equated with tearing down the gender binary. GQ is also a rather trendy identity for people, regardless of whether they actually feel that way. That’s where I’ve seen it most.
nome
28 Feb 10 at 10:57 pm
Actually… it could be a very important discussion to consider why cis folk are appropriating genderqueer when many non-binary folk like crossdressers do not. It may actually be important to the discussion of appropriation as i think it can tell us much of the phenomena of appropriation.
The crossdressing community is one that is heavily riddled with internalised transphobia and homophobia. So these will often lead many crossdressers to reject the idea of Genderqueer just like most still struggle daily with being crossdressers.
While Cis people while having grown up in a homophobic and transphobic society have taken such less personally, so are less deeply effected by it. So then it may be easier for many Cis people to see and be effected by gains in GQ awareness and to be more easilly able to both recognise and utilise the advantages of a GQ identity as they do not have that baggage holding them back and blinding them to the possibilities.
This may be part of the profound injustice of appropriation, not only have the appropriators not been disadvantaged by past discriminations they then may gain advantage from the hard work of the oppressed that the oppressed may not make as much use of.
It does though if my speculations are corect speak to the degree of gains made.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 10:58 pm
“perhaps those who are “appropriating” are in some way signaling that non-gq people are becoming more comfortable with the idea of gq. It is still wrong and hurtful, of course, but perhaps it could be seen as a stepping…..” NO.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:06 pm
“Well speaking as a Goth, itself most definately a marginalised group subject to hate crimes including murder the massive wave of appropriation that occured because of…” NO.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:07 pm
I am also part of a marginalized group! As a raver, I was forced into the closet and forced to “pass” as a non-raver in the late 90′s after crackdowns on all my favorite clubs and when techno and baggy pants went out of style and the news media portrayed us as drugged out.. oh wait. None of this has a fucking thing to do with genderqueer concerns.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:13 pm
Betsy: THANK YOU!
nome
28 Feb 10 at 11:15 pm
This OP is not talking about what non GQ Goths have or have had to put up with. Or what non GQ crossdressers have to put up with. This post (as per the title of the OP) is about people who appropriate GQ identity to, variously, get in peoples pants, evade discussions of privilege, gain entry into spaces they otherwise wouldnt have access to, etc.
i would really love to come back here again and find that discussion actually happening.
romham
28 Feb 10 at 11:16 pm
I can’t even walk down the street in my old Kikwear pants, candy necklaces, silver soccer jersey, glowsticks, and platinum bleached hair without everyone staring at me! They appropriated our culture for movies like Go and they pillaged our music for car commericals and !!!SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:20 pm
There is little value to discussions in words like ‘no’ without a ‘why’ that goes along with it to show why the no is correct and what the no is in response to is incorrect.
My suggestion is that clear repeated patterns occur in communities in similar and common circumstances. Something that would make intersections of marginalised groups one of the most rich for understanding the processes that effect those groups and others. And so from looking at those groups we nay learn a great deal of potential relevance to many other groups. And thats without suggesting all are the same. There needn’t be any direct connection between the groups other than the circumstances and patterns. And so what may superficially seem unrelated may still be directly relevant if the causal reasons/effects/mechanisms are related.
Now i may be wrong, and thats fine if i am because as my Grandmother taught me its vital to understanding to explore ideas and be willing to be incorrect and proven so, to then scrap the theory and try again. But if i am wrong there will be a valid cogent ‘why’ that shows it, though it may not be imediatly evident. And if I’m not wrong there will not be one.
The ‘why’ is one of the most important things in any discussion to lead to truth whether personal and subjective or more than persoanl and/or objective.
So i’m quite happy to be wrong if i am, but why am i if i am?
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 11:29 pm
“Could it be even that appropriation is a sign of progress and success? I suspect that in fact we should indeed encourage more to make use of the advantages of being GQ even though it may raise appropriation because like other trends the appropriators will leave after a little while when they tire of it and the rest may be in a better place afterwards.”
IMHO? Absolutely not. To me AS A GENDERQUEER PERSON, no appropriation is not a sign of progress and success and something people should be encouraging. Just no. i cant believe this is even on the table here.
romham
28 Feb 10 at 11:31 pm
ME ME ME ME ME IT’S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEE
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:31 pm
So, I too want that convo. Here’s a question I have: How can we call it out? What tactics have worked and which have failed? What argument do people who are appropriating gq identities tend to make?
I don’t see it often but I know people who experience. How can I prepare for the inevitable?
nome
28 Feb 10 at 11:32 pm
The goth digression is derailing. I’d like it if the supposed oppression of goths didn’t clutter this page up.
Lisa Harney
28 Feb 10 at 11:43 pm
Also, whatever the reasons that cross dressers identify within the gender binary, please do not non consensually place them – or anyone else – outside the gender binary. Let people who are outside the binary identify themselves as such.
Lisa Harney
28 Feb 10 at 11:44 pm
nome, I’m not certain we should focus so much on calling individuals out so much as speak our own truths, keep this wider discussion in the macro domain, continue to articulate our identities as something more meaningful and enduring than college political stunts or another middle class youth subculture, etc.
Granted, there will be times to say, ‘you know, you didn’t bring up your genderqueer identity until after you were called out for transphobic behavior/you don’t seem to understand what this actually means/etc. so I hope you’ll understand that I’m a bit skeptical…’ Or maybe there will be times to call bullshit more directly. There will probably be times when you pretty much know it, but circumstances dictate that you give the person the benefit of the doubt. I mean, generally speaking, it’s pretty much the rule that I believe people. It’s what I expect people to do for me. Calling out requires a lot of certainty, and I think it’s more important to talk about the wider social trends and how it impacts us.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:44 pm
nome, my concern is that calling it out and related tactics do more harm to legit claimants than to the amount of appropriation that occurs and rather ways to try and propagate the issues of definatly legitimate claiments over the voices of appropriators speaking directly to critical issues to the community would be more effective.
The physical bloodshed between ‘Full-blood’ and ‘Koori’ Aboriginals in parts of Australia in the 80′s as to how much white you could have in you and still claim to be Aboriginal is one of the starker examples I’ve witnessed.
The answer they came up with which worked for them was that if the local elders and community accepted you then you were Aboriginal so there are now people of even 100% white descent who the community considers Aboriginal and ranking of degrees of Aboriginality based on skin tone or fractions of blood are considered vulgar and harmful.
As for Betsy, taking on your mentions of appropriation of Rave culture indeed i concur that often appropriation may do more damage than any good and be devestating to the community effected and that this is a good example of it you raise.
Battybattybats
28 Feb 10 at 11:45 pm
No.
Betsy B
28 Feb 10 at 11:47 pm
yknow, i think i just realized that perhaps i just dont want to have this conversation with non GQ folks at this point.
“speak our own truths, keep this wider discussion in the macro domain, continue to articulate our identities as something more meaningful and enduring. … talk about the wider social trends and how it impacts us.”
what you just said there, Betsy B, resonated with me for sure.
romham
28 Feb 10 at 11:49 pm
And then they came for the hippies…
estrobutch
28 Feb 10 at 11:52 pm
Batty, please keep this on the topic of genderqueer people. How things shook out for other groups isn’t necessarily applicable or helpful here.
Lisa Harney
1 Mar 10 at 12:02 am
“speak our own truths, keep this wider discussion in the macro domain, continue to articulate our identities as something more meaningful and enduring. … talk about the wider social trends and how it impacts us.”
I agree with this also. I think it’s at least one essential tactic to ride through any storm of trendyness.
Lisa regarding crossdressers i’m speaking as a genderqueer, bi-gender, crossdresser myself, partner of a FtM Crossdresser and member of the crossdressing community as to things i have seen in my community, my own experiences and those of my friends. I do not say all crossdressers are non-binary but i know more than a few who are and i can tell you that internalised oppression is very much a factor in the way many of us relate to ourselves and others effecting what identities we claim for ourselves.
As for other groups well it might be apllicable though. Isn’t that important to determine that first? If we can get the answers from others past experiences in advance then surely we should at least determine if it will or will not be helpful before dissmissing the possibility? When i introduced the idea of Internalised Oppression with an article of its effects with racism and sexism and homophobia to crossdressers many objected to the idea entirely and felt it couldn’t possibly be applicable but others found it an explanation for much of their lives and of great healling.
So shouldn’t we see if there are reasons why the experiences of other groups who have been through surges of appropriation will or will not be relevant to the experiences of Genderqueer which it is alleged is going through a surge of appropriation?
Battybattybats
1 Mar 10 at 12:13 am
The problem is that doing so has contributed to the massive decentering from genderqueer concerns in this thread, and why are we having a back and forth on this?
Lisa Harney
1 Mar 10 at 12:18 am
Agree with the OP on the substantive nature of the concerns addressed.
This does happen, frequently, and the reasoning behind why they do it is not nearly as important as the overall impact it has on the lives of GQ folks.
Personally I see some issues with defining something by what it is not — but that typically indicates that there’s no uniform phonological descriptor for it, and one is needed.
This is a consistent pattern of oppression, as well, using what something is not against or even for it, and I think at that a great deal of the appropriation that occurs is based in part on people feeling that “it isn’t a “real” identity” and so it’s open and fair game.
Which pisses me off, personally, but then I get pissed off whenever I see such a thing.
Thanks for this.
Dyssonance
1 Mar 10 at 1:06 am
@Dyssonance. Maybe the descriptor needs instead to be applied to potential appropriators? So one could use a term like GQ explorer to denote a cis person with a reasonably constant gender identity exploring ways of going beyond the binary, etc. If there’s a clear ‘questioning’ identity then the act of transgressing that and asserting GQ identity becomes rather more difficult.
Lovely post. I’m still wondering about the intricacies of wider erasure, though. GQ seems to have problems in this regard somewhere between visibly signed sociocultural movements like Goth and the IS cross of the hemaphrodite figure in decoupling itself from the androgyne cultural archetype. In a sense this is a derailing consideration, but it would seem that the OP necessarily asserts this as a background to the specific appropriations considered.
Sophia
1 Mar 10 at 6:26 am
The most frustrating example I have experienced of gq appropriating is, well, someone who fits my description more closely than I would like her to. A queer cissexual woman, dating transitioning guys, who hates the idea of “political lesbians” but has identified as “politically genderqueer.” I don’t know how that’s reconcilable.
Jac
1 Mar 10 at 6:51 am
@Jac Yikes, that sounds frustrating. I wish people who wanted to be political about it would just use the term “genderfuck.” I don’t know why they need to latch onto an actual identity when there is a word that more accurately encompasses the message they want to send out to the world.
nome
1 Mar 10 at 8:31 am
nome, it might have something to with the term “queer”, which is itself seen as a politicized claim by some.
(Side note: the comments seem to cut off at 100? Like, I can’t see any comments before the 100th? Lisa, is this a blog setting or a weirdness?)
cigfran
1 Mar 10 at 9:35 am
@nome Or use it as a verb — “I fuck with gender.” I don’t know why it seems that it’s stronger to coopt an identity than to say “I’m not genderqueer, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a responsibility to respect and ally to gq people.” Appropriating gives such a pass to recognizing one’s privilege. (I say this while acknowledging that I’ve gone through phases of thinking that appropriation was a good strategy. I’m happy to say those are long long gone.)
Jac
1 Mar 10 at 9:36 am
There’s a link under the latest comment that is:
< Older Comments
I have QT set up to start a new page every 100 comments.
Lisa Harney
1 Mar 10 at 9:44 am
what message is a non-gq cis person trying to communicate when they appropriate gq identity?
what non-appropriating alternatives are available to them, to express whatever they’re actually trying to say?
@lisa thank you for calling out / backing up on why the terms “bio”/”-bodied” are not ok
confused.
1 Mar 10 at 9:49 am
What is a good term for people identifying with politically motivated gender transgressions and smashing the binary?
Genderfuck seems to be about the action, not an identity. Is using androgyne bad for those persons for the same reasons as GQ is?
Also it might be a good idea to note that the cissexual people appropriating GQ can usually have cissexual privilege and thus can be called out on transphobia. But this may vary from community to community.
For non-cissexual people it seems that the typical problems surfacing have more to do with separatism from the wider community (e.g. “only binary identified people should be qualified for transition”) rather than appropriation, but it might be very different in the US/UK.
(Coming from non-english speaking country and thus missing finer points of how the identity words play out in english context)
Violet
1 Mar 10 at 10:03 am
“The most frustrating example I have experienced of gq appropriating is, well, someone who fits my description more closely than I would like her to. A queer cissexual woman, dating transitioning guys, who hates the idea of “political lesbians” but has identified as “politically genderqueer.” I don’t know how that’s reconcilable.”
Thank you Jac! That very much what I was trying (less successfully) to point out. This ID is becoming kind of epidemic in the Queer communities where I live. And it impacts not only the GQ people whose identities they’re appropriating, but the trans-community they are now not only “allies” or “partners of trans” but self-IDing members. And I don’t like a lot of the of the narrow, transphobic attitudes given legitimacy by this phenomena.
Gina Morvay
1 Mar 10 at 10:08 am
^”That very much what I was trying” how about: “that IS very much…” grrr, no editing button.
@Nome: Genderfuck is very much about noticeable expression. These ‘claimants’ aren’t expressing in an obviously genderfuck manner. Btw, it’s not only partners of transmen. There’s a very high profile author/partner of a transwoman who has used this same GQ ID to make some very broad pronouncements on the trans community.
Gina Morvay
1 Mar 10 at 10:29 am
Lisa, thanks for pointing that out.
Side topic, really, but what the heck:
“‘Or, as I tend to view gender as an interaction between one’s self and others’
This particular genderqueer cissexual woman is fucking thrilled to see someone else say something like this.”
Completely agree. I’ve been saying for years that gender is a relation, not a thing.
cigfran
1 Mar 10 at 10:32 am
Thanks for writing this.
There was one time that, in a similar way, I had a cisgendered man friend who only dated and was sexy with cisgendered women who told me he thought he would start saying he was queer as a political statement. Because he had expressed all those self-identifications, it was pretty easy to express that I didn’t think it was okay to take that identity, but I think that kind of close relationship is the only setting I could call out identity appropriation. Because we genderqueers are constantly questioned for not being trans enough, I think your recommendation to accept people’s self-identification is right on.
Otr
1 Mar 10 at 10:50 am
@confused:
Again, thanks for sitting my ass down and giving me a very 101 lesson. Dunno why I needed to hear it again, but apparently I did.
Anyhow, I think your questions have been covered many times within the conversation.
Motivations: There are many. It could be to look cool, to avoid owning cis privilege, to gain something (like get to date someone who normally wouldn’t be attracted to you), stuff like that.
Preventions: We’ve suggested using the verb “genderfuck” rather than calling oneself genderqueer. You can also say you want to break down the gender binary w/o appropriating a non-binary gender. However, as you can see, these alternatives do not match up to the motivations because most-times the motivations are not as well-intended as the person is hoping for.
nome
1 Mar 10 at 10:57 am
for YOU it’s a relation, not a thing.
Betsy B
1 Mar 10 at 11:10 am
I should say – I empathize with that notion yet I think it falls into dualistic social/solitary logic that just doesn’t work in the end. My gender is high femme, and it’s something I engage with/in while I’m by myself. It’s not just an armor against other individual people, it’s that I’m never outside of my culture.
Not to mention, masturbation is a lot better post medical transition.
Betsy B
1 Mar 10 at 11:25 am
“Not to mention, masturbation is a lot better post medical transition.”
I <3 you.
Jac
1 Mar 10 at 11:33 am
I tend to see my gender as two-fold. My gender is of course influenced by society, how I am treated/perceived/expected to act/etc. But then there is an internal gender that is different than that. It’s the gender that shines through when I am in a safe space and/or alone.
nome
1 Mar 10 at 11:39 am
Betsy: It’s my theoretical position and I’ll be as declarative about it as I please. I did not indicate anything about “armor” – that defensive posture is your interpretation. That you are never outside of your culture in some way is in fact part of the point.
nome: Yes. Relations are contextual and “with one’s self” is a kind of relation.
cigfran
1 Mar 10 at 11:46 am
its twofold(at least) for me as well. genderqueer is not always and only based in my interactions with others and the assumptions made and outcomes of those interactions; and isnt always and only based in my own identity, how i think and feel about myself, or how i express that in the relatively few safe spaces i might be able to access time to time.
romham
1 Mar 10 at 11:47 am
always nice when someone’s “theoretical position” is supposed to trump our lived experiences.
Betsy B
1 Mar 10 at 11:51 am
also, my gender IS in part both a defensive and an offensive posture. I’m not the only person I know who views being femme as “armor” in some sense. I wasn’t making any statement about what any given gender is for anyone else.
Betsy B
1 Mar 10 at 11:53 am
it’s a problem to try and define what gender is. or to make generalizations about everyone’s experience with it.
it’s better to respect what people say about their own gender. for some, that will be a fixed, “boring” gender. for others, more fluid. all are valid gender identities and experiences.
confused.
1 Mar 10 at 11:59 am
jeezus i cant even stay on topic without veering off into justifying why and how im genderqueer. Sorry for that. i’ll try to stay on topic. i see appropriation of GQ identity happening sometimes, and it feels grose. How do i respond to it? Being totally honest, i usually dont, because im so busy defending my own GQ identity when it comes up. Sort of like here. i dont know what the answer is, but it isnt this.
romham
1 Mar 10 at 12:14 pm
And yet we all – and I do mean all – do it all the time. Especially when trying to describe a group experience for the sake of parsing.
For the most part I do in fact respect others’ declarations about their gender and their experience of it. I was providing an axiomatic shorthand for how I believe gender functions.
I think I’ve already said elsewhere that I don’t play these kinds of card games.
cigfran
1 Mar 10 at 12:22 pm
my point, with “gender as a relation” is that it’s a dialectic, that gender is made up of the interaction between our feelings and what we do with how we state who we are, our anatomy (whether we access medical technology to change it or not), and how we present ourselves, with the culture we’re in. and we’re never outside of culture. the main point is that what we say about our genders only has meaning in the culture we’re in, and that’s the same for a cis persyn as it is for a binary trans persyn as it is for a genderqueer persyn.
a comment made by August that got buried was that a lot of cis people appropriate genderqueer identities out of cis guilt. and when someone appropriates because of guilt over their privilege, it blocks them from actually acknowledging their privilege and how their positionality shapes their social relations and role in resistance to heteropatriarchy.
genderfuck is a somewhat related point; it’s mainly seen as something you do, and anyone can genderfuck. it’s pretty fortunate that we have a separate term for the action of mixing or messing with gendered cues than we do for occupying a position out of the gender binary; if someone goes out, intentionally mixing gendered cues, they’re not genderqueer for the evening, they’re doing genderfuck. not all genderqueer people genderfuck, and not all people who genderfuck are genderqueer.
anarchafemme
1 Mar 10 at 12:23 pm
“not all genderqueer people genderfuck, and not all people who genderfuck are genderqueer.”
THIS.
romham
1 Mar 10 at 12:29 pm
@anarchafemme
Thanks so much for this post! In addition to what August said about cispeople’s guilt and unwillingness to deal with privilege playing a role in their appropriations of genderqueer identities, I really appreciated hearing that cisgendered folks in August’s community are expected to take on the responsibility for having conversations with appropriators. I’ve never seen that happen in my community, but it sounds like it would be a really simple and effective way to avoid putting genderqueer people (like myself) in the position of telling people we feel are being appropriative that their identities are not as legit as ours. I think those conversations would be a ton easier for people who can use their cis-privilege to get heard.
In the absence of any cis-folks-in-solidarity, though, my instinct is to try and explain that although I have a lot of fun being genderqueer, it isn’t a game or a hobby, and that cashing in on whatever political currency it affords you may sound attractive, it’s important to remember that there’s a lot of marginalization going on in the lived realities of genderqueer people, and it doesn’t do anybody (except you, appropriator!) any good to identify as genderqueer only when it’s convenient. In fact, as some have been saying here all along, it serves to erase actual genderqueer people. This is how I try to explain the problems with cultural appropriation to other white people, and it’s been a (mostly) effective strategy.
charlie
1 Mar 10 at 2:18 pm
“Cis people appropriate genderqueer identities for several reasons. One of the biggest is as a political statement. This occurs when someone decides that they are totally down with smashing the gender binary, and that they’ll show it by taking on a genderqueer identity.”
I am grateful that you wrote this article, anarchafemme, and I will be directing people I know who do *just that* to it in future.
*boggles over the derailing*
snakeyjack
1 Mar 10 at 2:28 pm
This
the people who to binary gendered perceptions are most obviously genderqueer are those who fit the most common expression of genderqueerness accepted by larger trans and queer communities: perceived to be assigned female at birth, white, college educated, young, thin, temporarily able-bodied, and masculine in a way that is often perceived as boyish.
seems strange to me. Although I basically fit this description, it always seemed to me that people were more likely to dismiss my genderqueer identity and label me as “just tomboyish” because tomboyishness is thought to be something that women sort of experiment with or play at. But I’d have to give this a little more thought.
I also have to echo some previous comments from GQ individuals that 1) reference an experience of not feeling a strong sense of gender identity at all, but rather being constantly pushed to either identify as cis and own one’s GAAB, or identify as trans and actively transition to the other binary position, to the point where you sort of reluctantly accept whichever one is easiest just as a coping mechanism, and 2) being cissexual but genderqueer can make you feel sort of insecure about how authentically genderqueer you really are in other people’s perceptions. And that doesn’t mean I think the OP or anyone here is trying to “out” people they think are posing as GQ, but it seems like there’s often so much emphasis placed on gender expression and less placed on the person’s experience of their gender, that this can lead to a problem. For instance, it’s true that I can very easily pass as feminine and cis, and when it’s expedient I do. And I recognize that as a privilege of mine. But that doesn’t change my internal experience of myself.
Which brings me to the last issue that interests me about this post and comment thread. I hesitate to place genderqueer under the trans umbrella, and instead think of it as a third category. This is mostly because I feel like I’m privileged in ways that most binary-gendered trans people I know are not (I have choices and options and coping mechanisms available to me that they don’t). Also, I never had to transition in the sort of big, life-changing, risky way that they had to. Instead I had the comparative luxury of negotiating my gender over the course of my childhood and teen years, and fought a lot of small battles, but never had to “put it all on the line” in the way they did. And of course this isn’t the experience of all GQ people, and not all binary-gendered trans people have had to transition in a big scary way, but generally speaking I think there are some significant differences that make me hesitate to classify genderqueer as a trans identity. And it might be that some genderqueer individuals have an experience that’s much more in line with the binary-gendered trans experience, so maybe there’s some significant overlap between the categories, but I’m uncomfortable with the umbrella model.
Rachel_in_WY
1 Mar 10 at 4:32 pm
….where do we even start
Betsy B
1 Mar 10 at 5:07 pm
Rachel: Who says being trans means being binary, or having bodily issues? You can’t conflate transgender and transsex and it seems like that’s what you’re doing. Also, it seems like you’re focusing on medical transition as the entire “point” of being transsex but that’s not the case either, necessarily. Many transfolks pass as cis for safety. That to me is not the measure of one’s trans-ness. I get passed as a woman *all the time.* That doesn’t make me any less trans. I mean, if you don’t feel trans, that’s fine. I’m just saying that you can’t press that feeling onto GQ all together. There’s so much variation in the GQ tribe that making any such statements – GQ being trans, or cis, or something else entirely – will automatically be leaving people out. Your GQ experience is quite different than mine, which I very much so label as trans. However, I respect your experience. Please respect mine in return and don’t generalize the GQ community like that.
nome
1 Mar 10 at 6:00 pm
I’ve noticed (and unfortunately perpetrated in the past during my own self discovery phase) that some binary trans folk will appropriate GQ/NB (genderqueer and/or nonbinary) identities as a sort of “halfway option” to allow ourselves to stay in denial about our needs.
The damage that this does orientates mostly around creating this viewpoint among the binary trans community (which has led to things as big as denial of resources to GQ/NB folks in trans community areas) that GQ/NB is just some sort of “I’m confused and in denial” thing that’s really similar to the biphobia in the GL and straight communities, that whole concept of “pick a side! Stop being confused!”
I can solidly bet that attitude already existed before binary trans folk pulled appropriation on y’all but it certainly worsens it and it has resulted in some really nasty denial of resources, space and gender policing against GQ/NB folk within the trans community.
Bad enough even that a whole new online community was created after a mass exodus from one of the big TG/TS online communities (I won’t name names publicly, not ready for that shitstorm yet) to give GQ/NB people a safe place to talk and find support.
So I think that while binary trans folk, like you said, may be less capable of creating systemic oppression for GQ/NB people than cis people are, we’re still very capable of creating smaller scale systemic oppression within our own, admittedly minuscule, resources and support systems. And that’s something that really should not be glossed over and allowed to continue.
genderbitch
2 Mar 10 at 11:32 am
@Genderbitch: Mhm, I’ve definitely seen this. To mean, cisfolks can oppress on a large scale but it’s equally painful for me to see transfolks oppress non-binary folks. It kicks us out of the little bit of community we have.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 11:52 am
I know a fair number of transfolk – some of whom are fully transitioned – who lay no strong claims to gender identity, and a few of whom strongly deny any. Are these people GQ by default, or is GQ something of which one must be somehow actively aware, and which one must claim? In other words, is it identity or condition?
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 12:25 pm
Cigfran: What are you talking about? Firstly, this is NOT a space to define “gq.” We’ve established that many many MANY times. Secondly, what do you mean by “fully transitioned?” Because it’s coming off like you mean a person needs to get X, Y and Z surgeries to be “fully transitioned,” and if that’s what you mean, you need to re-examine your view of transfolks. If you mean they are comfortable in their bodies and identities, then that’s different. But based on your last question, you need a trans 101 lesson hardcore since no trans-ness is a “condition” but rather an identity. By asking if transfolks are automatically GQ you are third gendering many people who identify in the binary. GQ is an identity the same way “man” and “woman” are.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 1:21 pm
Now, back on topic: I have a friend on fetlife who is in a forum called “ask a cis.” This forum is meant to be a very sarcastic response to a forum called “ask a trans,” where many transphobic and chaser-esque statements were made. A cis-male got involved in the “ask a cis” forum, claiming that gender isn’t important and that people need to chill their buns, basically. When called out on it, he says things like “but I do feminine things and my masculinity doesn’t feel challenged!” This would be a variation, in my eyes, of the sort of appropriation described here. A person who even ever-so-slightly queers gender feels they have a say in trans matters. And since no one fits the archetype “man” and “woman,” then that means everyone could make this argument. Thoughts?
nome
2 Mar 10 at 1:26 pm
Please note that I have not seen this forum and am not on fetlife. This is second-hand info. However, it’s also a rather common phenomena.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 1:29 pm
Speaking as somebody who kinda ‘moved through’ GQ herself, way back when, I find the charge of questioning ‘binary gendered’ trans people appropiating GQ identity a problematic one. This isn’t appropiation, it’s a part of self-actualisation. The simple fact is people do move through GQ, or to include your other example, bisexuality. Some people stay, some people move on. It doesn’t make it a ‘halfway’ house anymore than a GQ person who moves through medical transition to finally realise that they are GQ makes transexuality a ‘halfway option’.
I’m not even sure it’s neccessarily about staying in denial about our needs, either, as often simply working out your needs can be a whole marathon. I mean, when I was rejecting gender left, right and centre I wasn’t even all that sure what my needs ~were~.
As for binary gendered trans people pulling appropiation on GQ folk. It’s funny, because it wasn’t so long ago that binary gendered trans people were accusing GQ peeps of pulling appropiation on ~them~. Bit of reading from 2003 -> http://www.deadletters.biz/skirmishes.html (intrestning discussion about the actual use of the term appropiation in there as well). It’s all swings and roundabouts, kids.
Armour
2 Mar 10 at 1:42 pm
nome:
1) This is a thread, not a place. I am asking a question. It is relevant to my understanding of the topic. if you fail to see how it might be so, then don’t berate me for my methods of knowledge forming. In any case, I wasn’t asking anyone to “define” GQ. I was raising a point of interest (to me, at any rate).
3) I am trans. You may have missed that memo. If you did not, your reply is a little oddly put.
4) By “fully transitioned” I mean whatever a person might mean when they apply the term to themselves – which many trans people do, in case you were unaware. Often, that term is employed by people who have had GRS. It is not universal. At no point did I make any particular declaration about it, so your emphasis here is misplaced.
5) You evidently require the 101 yourself, since you have just contradicted the stated experience of quite a number of trans people for whom trans-ness is in fact a condition, not an identity. I will leave it to others to provide the required yelps about imposed perspectives. I am not as easily offended.
6) I did not ask if trans people were “automatically” GQ… not even close. I was presenting a specific circumstance within my experience. If you can re-read the question and supply a relevant response, I will of course appreciate it. If you need to continue to over-generalize both it and me, please don’t bother.
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 1:47 pm
Armour: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going through phases. I know people who have done similar things, or have gone from binary trans to gq trans. Our understandings of self can change. However, I can also see how people can end up using a label in the way GB described, and have heard of it happening.
As a GQ, I can tell you I still get shit for “appropriating trans identity” (eye roll) and even had to battle a lot of that in my own headspace before really wearing the term “trans.”
nome
2 Mar 10 at 1:49 pm
‘no trans-ness is a “condition” but rather an identity.’
*coughs*
I actually consider the fact I’m trans to be, well, a matter of circumstance. It’s not an identity for me.
Don’t generalise.
Armour
2 Mar 10 at 1:50 pm
Armour: what’s interesting to me is that, not only do some trans people move through something that might be considered a GQ condition as they work themselves out, but some *wind up* there, even after going through what one might think of as a complete transition (which was the background of my prior question). In come cases it seems to me just laziness… they get tired of “gender performance” as a way of life and they slide into a kind of in-between-or-nowhere-at-all kind of state. In others it is a further evolution of their awareness, based on a very critical understanding of their real histories. And others yet I’m sure come to it in other ways. It’s fascinating and curious (again, to me… even if strangely insulting to nome).
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 1:55 pm
@cigfran Wow, ya, Imma douche. >.< I read your statement differently than you intended it and exploded rather than asking for clarification. I read your statement as meaning that they don't have a strong attachment to a trans identity, not a lack of attachment to a gender. I'm sorry, this thread has gotten me overly jumpy and some of your phrasings hit some triggers for me, so it was a bad combo. But I still shouldn't have reacted as I did. Please accept my apology.
My non-douchy answer to your question is that if someone doesn't feel that they have a gender, that's more a-gendered than genderqueer. But, yes, the person should wear the label before having the label applied to them, as with anything else. If someone doesn't identify a certain way then why label them that? That would be like me saying "so-n-so acts really masculine so I'm going to call them a man, even if they're actually a woman."
I still strongly challenge HBS ideas around trans being a condition, but if that's how people need to define themselves then whatever. I've found that language oppressive and hurtful for me but I also can't tell others how to feel about their bodies, nor do I want to. But that's not the point of this thread (which i do label a "place" or "space," eh)
nome
2 Mar 10 at 1:56 pm
> “I actually consider the fact I’m trans to be, well, a matter of circumstance. It’s not an identity for me.”
This reminds me of one of my mentors’ Unified Etiology of Trans:
“Shit happens.”
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 1:57 pm
nome: Apologies accepted and no harm done (please disregard my petulant jab at you in my response to Armour). And thanks for the response, it was very much in the vein of what I was looking for.
And yes. HBS. Feh.
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 2:00 pm
@Nome: Please speak for yourself, trans is not my identity. My identity is a woman.
@Armour:, Thank you for your post! I don’t hear people saying trans men who, prior to transition, lived as butches were appropriating butch identities. A lot of exploration is sometimes required before people find where their identities fit. I would hope they wouldn’t be criticized for that necessary process.
As to appropriation binary vs. GQ: I know of a very large trans forum (Genderpeace) which fell apart, to a large extent, because several trans-ID’d GQs got on it and continued to make statements about SRS being “mutilation.” It does go both ways
Gina Morvay
2 Mar 10 at 2:02 pm
^Didn’t read the prior post. Sorry.
Gina Morvay
2 Mar 10 at 2:04 pm
@gina Indeed, I’ve already taken back those statements. As I said, I unfairly exploded.
And, yes, nasty stuff gets said on all sides (let’s not create a binary between gq identified folks and binary since I know plenty of folks who are binary transsexed and gq identified). This isn’t a one-kind-of-trans vs another. This is supposed to be discussing cis appropriation of gq identities. But perhaps I should give up..? Because every time I’ve tried to redirect the convo to that, it gets derailed into… anything else.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 2:13 pm
nome: I neglected to apologize in turn for hitting any of your triggers. Sorry about that. I try very hard to be crisp, and I know it can grate sometimes.
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 2:14 pm
> “This is supposed to be discussing cis appropriation of gq identities.”
If I might make a suggestion: There are very few cis people here, and I suspect not many GQ people (this is an assumption which I am happy to have corrected). So perhaps the tangents taken are in keeping with the available audience.
cigfran
2 Mar 10 at 2:17 pm
Cigfran, yep. That’s pretty much what I was thinking of. And, ‘Shit Happens’….. heheheh. Yeah, that covers it :)
Nome, I think you’re possibly slightly conflating ‘condition’ with ‘pathology’. Being born in, say, Sweden is a condition, for instance, which actually says bugger all about a person come to think of it. It doesn’t neccessarily mean you’re Swedish.
My actual identity? It’s a little more complicated than any words I know ;)
HBS….. nice idea, shitty politics.
Okay, there is bugger all else I can add, and I need soup.
Armour
2 Mar 10 at 2:17 pm
Cigfran: *sigh* indeed. That’s kinda what I was meaning. I mean, I love discussing trans stuff in general but I rarely get to discuss GQ, since I generally end up only talking with binary transfolks. So this convo seems rather done, or completely unrelated to the post.
And, ya, I tend to flip my shit when I read “fully transitioned” without any explanation of what that means, since it generally means a ton of surgeries. And, armour, true, I was conflating condition and pathology, since that’s also generally how I see it used. Thank you for apologizing. Most people don’t care much about triggers.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 2:22 pm
‘A cis-male got involved in the “ask a cis” forum, claiming that gender isn’t important and that people need to chill their buns, basically. When called out on it, he says things like “but I do feminine things and my masculinity doesn’t feel challenged!”’
Okay, I know I need soup, but you reminded me of something that happened a number of years ago. I’d sussed my direction at the time, but it’s kinda basically ~exactly~ the same thing.
I’m going to be mean in my retelling. I warn you.
I was talking to this guy who confided in me that he liked wearing skirts and stuff. Okay, I thought, WhyAreYouTellingMe? That was point one. Because I’m gender variant it makes anybody who is just the teensiest bit gender wobbly think I’m open to hearing their nasty little secrets. Okay, whatever, it’s not a nasty secret, but I was out having a drink for fcuk’s sake. Like, Give Me A Break.
Then we got talking about me. Now, I was dumb, because I’d speak to anybody who listened after a few drinks, and we got onto discussions of surgery, and he pretty much started telling me exactly what Nome’s Ask A Cis peep did: why do you need surgery? Can’t you have the best of ~both~ worlds? What does it ~matter~? Then he couldn’t understand why I was really frikkin’ offish and pissy with him.
It was like, just because he did the odd bit of crossdressing every now and again, maybe once a year or something, when he could find a girlfriend who thought it was cute, he felt he could enter into a discussion with me about something very private, personal and, hell, terrifying as hell.
A second story, that I’ve just remembered, was when a gay cis guy thought that I’d be incredibly intrested in seeing pictures of himself in drag. Like, uh, ~what~ are you trying to say? Why on earth would I be intrested? I mean, I was, sorta, but the presumption really got on my nerves.
It’s like some guys look at you and go, oh, you’re gender variant. I sometimes wear a wig. WE SHALL BE THE BEST OF FRIENDS. I *UNDERSTAND*. No. Just no. You don’t.
These might both be other variations along Nome’s theme. I’m not sure I consider them appropiations….. not sure of the word I would use. I’ll think about it while I have soup. But, they sure as hell got under my skin.
Armour
2 Mar 10 at 2:40 pm
the OP said: “We’ll look at the reasons that cis people might appropriate genderqueer identities, and then discuss what it looks like, and what sort of responses might be appropriate, from binary gendered and genderqueer people.”
so can we PLEASE talk about that and stop with all the “who is/nt genderqueer” stuff already?
Genderqueer trans person here, btw, if anyones keeping track.
i have witnessed cis folks identifying themselves as genderqueer in certain circles, and specific occasions when it specifically seemed advantageous to their dance card, and then literally the next day theyre totally not identifying that way, when hookup possibilities were negligible for whatever reason. That seems like appropriation to me, to get action + some kind of cred. i dont know how to or even if can respond to it, honestly. i want to respect peoples identities (which can flow just that easily), as i want mine respected, it isnt my place to dictate peoples identities. i dont know what an appropriate response is, if any, and i thought this post was intended to talk about that. So what do other folks do?
romham
2 Mar 10 at 3:17 pm
@nome (far above) Just to note wrt the lack of cis and genderqueer folks here: I’m cissexual and genderqueer, and sometimes cisgender.
re Ask-a-cis and similar situations
I think it’s the intersection of appropriation and paternalism plus cis privilege run amok. It’s starts with the homogenization of your identity/label/situation and theirs (which requires appropriation), and then it goes to the “but I’m so happy and perfect and special and that’s all about inner peace and accepting ME for MEEEE, so why can you be super like meeeee?” I generally reject the idea that I always know what’s right for me at any given time, so the idea that someone else could possibly know what’s right for me is flabbergasting.
I remember seeing a video of Vagina Monologues done by all trans women, and in the documentary part of it, Eve Ensler says some crap about “Someday, no one will have to transition.” *cringe* I would much rather hear someone say, “Someday, everyone will have access to whatever it is they need, medically or otherwise.” I think the difference between the two sentences is the presence or absence of paternalism.
Jac
2 Mar 10 at 3:37 pm
“i dont know how to or even if can respond to it, honestly. i want to respect peoples identities (which can flow just that easily), as i want mine respected, it isnt my place to dictate peoples identities. i dont know what an appropriate response is, if any, and i thought this post was intended to talk about that. So what do other folks do?”
Right, okay, so I’m a cis person, and like you and most of us here (I assume), I tend to respect people’s stated identities. However… Here’s one example that seemed pretty egregious from not that long ago:
Basically, Peterson Toscano (of Beyond Ex-Gay) publicly identifies most often as a binary cis gay male. Anyway, last year he did this one man play based on Bible stories (“Transfiguration-Transgressing Gender in the Bible”) in which he dressed up in trans “drag” and played all these Biblical people as “trans characters.” When he was met with criticism from the trans community and from trans allies (about how he was exoticizing trans experience), he deflected criticism by simply stating that he was “genderqueer” and refusing to hear the criticisms. This proved so useful to him that he ended up making this a talking point for all the publicity interviews he did for the show. And he wrote off all of the people who questioned his motives as “trolls.” And he continued performing his transphobic performance piece throughout the tour.
I think this was a good–and pretty clear–example of appropriation. Now… I cannot possibly know what is in his heart of hearts, but it certainly seemed as if he adopted a genderqueer identity when it became politically expedient for him to do so. He would not listen to critiques of his transphobia on account of “not being cis” himself. And when trans people came in to criticize his motivations, he’d counter with stories about his “trans friends” who were moved to tears by the play (as if the “but I have trans friends!” card is a viable argument).
You wanted to know how people deal with it? I dunno… I tended to say things like, “Dude, as one cis-privileged queer person to another, I have to call bullshit here. You’re just trying to deflect critiques of your transphobia.” But this wasn’t helpful ’cause he never apologized, not even when multiple trans people joined the conversation to call him out.
So, I’m not sure… I’m very interested in how others have gone about dealing with this kind of thing? On one hand, it’s *really* awful to disrespect someone’s actual identity. On the other, it’s fucked up and, at minimum, questionable to suddenly announce one’s genderqueer identity only after one has been accused of transphobia–and it’s also a dangerous trend that elides all kinds of cis privilege to give the person who fucked up a free pass. So, honestly? I don’t know.
I didn’t want to jump in because I didn’t want to center my cis impressions of things, but I do think there are ways to be in solidarity with people…and that includes in dealing with the matter of appropriation. I’m interested in what folks here think is most helpful in these communities.
Kristin
2 Mar 10 at 3:47 pm
cgifan: “If I might make a suggestion: There are very few cis people here, and I suspect not many GQ people (this is an assumption which I am happy to have corrected). So perhaps the tangents taken are in keeping with the available audience.”
There’s a lot of GQ people who’ve posted in this thread, we’ve mostly just given up on it being a productive space because of the constant derailing and left, is all.
sqrrel
2 Mar 10 at 6:12 pm
“There’s a lot of GQ people who’ve posted in this thread, we’ve mostly just given up on it being a productive space because of the constant derailing and left, is all.”
THIS. If I weren’t, you know, the OP, I would have given up here long ago – which is sad, because a lot of good stuff is getting buried by derail after derail.
@Kristin – I think the best thing to do is to recognize that there are a lot of different positionalities under the trans umbrella, that people don’t have special knowledge of positionalities really different than theirs, and that horizontal hostility is always a possibility. someone saying, “oh, I’m genderqueer” (or anything else under the umbrella) is a bit non sequitor to “what you just said or did was transphobic”, so I think focusing on the hurtful action is the best bet. it’s a tricky line for cis people, because you don’t want to get involved in intragroup dynamics, but, you don’t have to judge anyone’s identity to view a statement as problematic.
anarchafemme
2 Mar 10 at 7:05 pm
anarchafemme: Oh, I know, absolutely. This person had previously identified as *not being trans,* which was why it seemed so sudden, unexpected, and opportunistic. But, yeah, I think you’re right. Also, there’s the fact that identities can evolve and change, which is possibly what was happening here.
Kristin
2 Mar 10 at 8:50 pm
Kristin: Did Peterson ever retract? That’s sad to me, as he has written some good cis ally stuff that I see every now n again. Although, it was highly binaried so it may be that he’s solid on some trans stuff, but not all, and certainly not non-binary. I’m not sure. I hadn’t heard about this controversy.
Mhm, I get people a lot trying to talk out their weird gender issues. I haven’t seen it as appropriation but it kinda makes me go, “… and I care why..?” A reaction I’ve gotten when I don’t get excited about their gender transgressions is they sometimes respond with “but you’re gender variant! Why can’t you be excited about mine?” It’s not quite appropriation but it’s drawing false conclusions. I don’t consider my genderqueerness to be gender variant on the level of a gender bending cisfolk.
nome
2 Mar 10 at 10:34 pm
“Kristin: Did Peterson ever retract? That’s sad to me, as he has written some good cis ally stuff that I see every now n again. Although, it was highly binaried so it may be that he’s solid on some trans stuff, but not all, and certainly not non-binary. I’m not sure. I hadn’t heard about this controversy.”
Not that I know of. He changed his blog address after this happened. You’re probably right that he’s solid on some stuff, but not all.
Kristin
3 Mar 10 at 7:57 am
@anarchafemme: “I think the best thing to do is to recognize that there are a lot of different positionalities under the trans umbrella, that people don’t have special knowledge of positionalities really different than theirs”
this point is so freakin’ true, it blows my mind to see it stated so sensibly. thank you so much for that.
@nome: I did not mean to derail or repeat questions. I recognize that bringing up genderfuck is one method of possibly getting non-trans, no-gq folks to reconsider appropriative BS.
but in some of the examples in this thread, it seems part of the issue is the appropriating party’s complete disregard for 1) their own privilege and 2) the needs, thoughts, and feelings of the genderqueer people whose identities they’re using for their own ends (as OP put it).
so my questions were a bit of wondering out loud. how does a gq person or an ally to gq people respond in a way that will not only convince the appropriating party to use different terminology (genderfuck), but also have them really understand that what they were doing was as problem? get them to care about what effects their actions have on the genderqueer community?
I realize this could be seen as centering cis* (non-gq) concerns. not my intention. this post suggests it’s a gq concern to get the appropriation to stop.
finally, I also do consider my own transition a medical treatment for a medical condition (but do not agree at all with many HBS stances on things). I fully respect and actively work for the rights of trans people who don’t share this experience or perspective. I found your wording here a little dismissive and grating:
“if that’s how people need to define themselves then whatever.”
confused.
3 Mar 10 at 8:36 am
@confused: As stated, I realize that my statements were way off on a number of levels. I’m sorry that it came off as dismissive, I promise it was not intended that way. I realize my usage of the term “whatever” is not the norm and I need to watch that. I’m in the middle of writing massive papers so my phrasing is not being as intentional as I would prefer. I mean it as however you feel is chill and it’s not my place to tell people how to describe themselves. I really don’t like generalizing the trans community so it’s a highly ridik that I did it.
About the other part of your comment? Ya, that’s what I’m lost on. I don’t know how to tell people they are being oppressive. It’s too often been my experience that you can’t. You can’t teach people since they mostly don’t want to learn. :s
nome
3 Mar 10 at 12:06 pm
‘I don’t know how to tell people they are being oppressive. It’s too often been my experience that you can’t. You can’t teach people since they mostly don’t want to learn.’
I don’t agree with the way you’re talking about oppression here. In my experience, oppression is usually systemic, and individual people are offensive/unaware/rude/etc. I don’t think it’s about “teaching” and “learning” so much as it is about listening (as a privileged person). I’ve been on several sides of this in different kinds of oppression.
1- (I’m a woman.) In a room full of feminist, anti-misogyny, anti-oppression guys, I needed to call out misogyny. It was rough because I know they think it’s important to be called out on things, but it surprised me that something happened. I ended up saying something out loud about how I thought that what they were doing was misogynistic, and I would like them to stop. When no one listened, I pulled aside the person I was closest to and told him that I thought it was fucked up, and he talked to them, and shut it down.
2- (I’m able-bodied.) Someone I have a troubled relationship with wanted to call me out on ableism, but because there is no trust between us I couldn’t see that going well. I told him that while I realize it’s a privilege to do it, I didn’t think that we could have a productive conversation about it. I still feel pretty shitty about it, because the only thing I felt I could do productively was find mutual friends who I know identify with similar (dis)abilities, and ask them to call me out and talk me through.
3- (I’m cissexual.) When I was defending a cissexist and uninclusive trans health project at a “women’s” clinic, someone I trust quite a bit called me out on the fact that the clinic could move as slow as it pleased with fixing its stuff, and it wouldn’t be a matter of life or death for me. It wouldn’t even be a matter of inconvenience for me because I wouldn’t have trouble going to any random gynecologist. No one likes pap smears, but I would never be turned away, my records would never be confused, and no one would ask me stupid questions about if I’ve “had the surgery.”
So, yeah. I don’t think it’s about teaching and not wanting to learn. I think it’s about saying something when someone is already in the right place to hear it. How to get people into a place where they want to hear it, well, I have no idea.
Jac
3 Mar 10 at 12:35 pm
Here is how I see oppression: It is the systematic priviliging of some through the disadvantage of a group. This is done at all levels of society – from governmental/structure to everyday interactions. The appropriative behaviors I see as oppression because they are the individual acts of systemic oppression.
But can we wait for people to be in that space, open to learning? I highly doubt that since, however you phrase it, I don’t think most people want to get there. So how do you say, “No, actually you have to listen to me. You have to learn.” Giving someone the option to wait is just playing into their privilege of being able to wait.
nome
3 Mar 10 at 4:09 pm
@nome, no problem. also I strongly agree with what you’ve said in the last couple comments.
I’m sad to see the discussion fizzled out. it seemed to be going somewhere productive (and possibly novel?)
confused.
4 Mar 10 at 7:51 am
One of the things that I used to see in my formet community was an understanding that “genderqueer” was the most… nebulous of options, if not outright imaginary; an adjective, not an identity. People who were genderfucking often conflated that with being genderqueer (and relatedly, identifying as politically genderqueer as a METHOD of genderfucking), people who were trans-questioning used it as a midpoint marker on a binary scale, etc. It was a particularly derided identity as it lacked, in an obviously fucked up way, proof, and the aforementioned free-for-all of meaningless came to pass. *cough*
I have a bit of a soft spot for struggling to grasp a definition that people are misapplying all around you, as I’ve been there, and another one for instances of self-centering conversations as a ham-handed method of questioning. Been there too. Those to me seem to be the most correctable, and possibly inadvertent, forms of GQ appropriation.
The point of appropriation that bothers me the most is the, well, I’m genderqueer, therefor whatever I said was not trans (or whatever) phobic. Not only is it another flavor of, “Oh but I have FRIENDS who are suchand such, therefor I can say fucked up things” but the argument BASES ITSELF on the “lack of supporting evidence” interpretation of genderqueer; you can’t catch me, genderqueer is all in my head and you don’t know what I’m thinking.
Since when does anybody’s identity give them a free pass on being a shithead? That sort of a call-out, on the fucked up shit, neatly sidesteps any personal attacks on an appropriated identity, and renders it a moot defense.
Livia
4 Mar 10 at 6:26 pm
@Armour:
Alright, that’s fair. I’ll retract the blanket statement and adjust to:
“Moving through GQ/NB as a binary trans person is a problem if that binary trans person starts treating GQ/NB as a halfway house and uses that to invalidate them”
Since that doesn’t class as appropriation so much as invalidation, it’s off topic and I’ll drop it.
The rest is a derail that I won’t bother with.
genderbitch
5 Mar 10 at 10:07 am
Rather late to the party, but wanted to say that I really appreciated this post and am glad to see anarchafemme guest-blogging here.
Just Some Trans Guy
8 Mar 10 at 7:24 pm
When I was asked “Do you identify as transgender?” my answer was a firm “No. My only identity is woman. I got to womanhood by (like the Dixie Chicks) taking the long way around. But now I’m here to stay.”
I often explain to cis people when in education mode: “Trans cannot be an identity for me. It’s a pain in the ass is what it is.”
I’m transitioned, over it, just a woman. All the way over into my half of the binary. Deal with it.
It took me two years and nine months preparing for transition before I made it. During that time I became increasingly de facto genderqueer. Especially the last six months before transition, the wait was getting unbearable; I was at maximum genderqueerness, and it was awfully uncomfortable. It was such a sweet relief to finally slip all the way into womanhood and just be. Just be.
I have plenty of respect for genderqueer people. Identifying outside the boundary may be easier materially–only transitioning partway. But it can be so much harder mentally, if not for oneself, then for the big unhip world out there. It means going through life with who you are not being generally understood. That can have practical repercussions. All told, I’d rather get through the physical, financial, and emotional pain and effort up front… then enjoy a happy peaceful binary life as a woman in the long term… than spend a lifetime swimming upstream.
I totally support genderqueer equal rights and respect. But personally, I am so not there.
Hypatia
9 Mar 10 at 9:11 pm
sigh.
romham
9 Mar 10 at 9:26 pm
…. what did that have to do with identifying as genderqueer? Please explain.
And what does surgery have to do with being GQ? Lots of GQ folks want surgery, just as lots of binary trans don’t want it. Identity has nothing to do with medical transition.
nome
9 Mar 10 at 9:40 pm
Hypatia,
“I totally support genderqueer equal rights and respect. But personally, I am so not there.”
That has as much to do with this post as a cis person saying “I totally support trans equal rights and respect. But personally, I am so not there.” I mean … duh? ‘Cause you’re not, y’know, genderqueer?
And frankly, your post doesn’t read as very respectful to genderqueer folks to me. I mean, honestly, lecturing GQ folks on how hard it is to create space for GQ identities in the world? Is rather condescending. And unhelpful; I don’t know any genderqueer person who isn’t aware of the bigotry and ignorance they face.
“Especially the last six months before transition, the wait was getting unbearable; I was at maximum genderqueerness, and it was awfully uncomfortable. It was such a sweet relief to finally slip all the way into womanhood and just be. Just be.”
And lots of genderqueer people feel awfully uncomfortable when they’re forced into binary identities. God. Genderqueer people are NOT failed binary identified trans people!
Just Some Trans Guy
10 Mar 10 at 8:55 am
Thnx, JSTD
nome
10 Mar 10 at 9:22 am
“God. Genderqueer people are NOT failed binary identified trans people!”
THIS. I wish I had heard this TEN YEARS AGO.
::gets back to enjoying the sweet relief of finally slipping all the way into genderqueerness.
Livia
11 Mar 10 at 9:04 am
“as binary gendered trans people don’t have the systemic power to oppress other trans people”
They don’t have the power to oppress us on a major level- but they *do* have power. Especially on-line.
There’s a trans forum where a moderator was literally attacking anyone who used a term he didn’t like. There was someone who I’d knew from another forum to be really confused and worried about trying to find who they are, and they came up with the word ‘trigender’. The mod essentially called him out for personally ruining trans acceptance by using a made-up “word” (in quotes, he loved using quotes).
On that same forum if anyone wanted to use the pronoun ‘it’ for themselves, they’d get frowned at and told to work on their self esteem. Same with if someone identified as anything outside the ‘gender spectrum’ (aka- between male and female), just an eyeroll and a ‘that doesn’t exist’.
I agree they don’t have the power on a massive scale- but don’t discount the ability for humans to oppress other humans.
chartreuseflamethrower
12 Mar 10 at 3:51 am
@chartreuse:
I hope this thread will open up a wider discussion about the relationship and interface between transsexuals and gender variant or genderqueer people (and there is certainly overlap between those groups). There are many ways members in each group IDs and labels itself which push buttons in other groups. Using the term “it” would likely push a lot of buttons among most transsexual people (even if that might be a very legit way for some GQ or androgynes to identify). Some of the language overlaps oppressive terms used to put down trans people from the larger society. I can totally imagine how a binary framing of trans issues would seem oppressive to GQ people.
Part of being in this sometimes absurdly wide trans umbrella means giving each other private space in which to deal with our own unique issues, being respectful to not try and represent each other’s identities and learning to understand how our identities and terms might affect others within this coalition. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a GQ ID’d person say “gender is purely a social construct” or “I’ve evolved to where I’m happy with my queer body and don’t need to artificially alter it”. Uggh.
For me, what I take from this thread is how people try to use their own identities/labels to dis someone else’s identity. And when people can’t use their own identity to dis other’s identities, they’ll go to the depths of appropriating other identities to get a “pass” to do so. Needless to say, it goes both ways… people appropriate both trans and GQ to back up their own assumptions, oppression and justifications.
Gina
13 Mar 10 at 11:06 am
am i the only persyn who thinks that the OP wanted to discuss CIS appropriation of genderqueer identities? i.e. “When I’m talking about genderqueer identities being appropriated, I’m mainly concerned with cis people, as binary gendered trans people don’t have the systemic power to oppress other trans people, though, of course, appropriation can cause hurt, even if it isn’t systemically oppressive. We’ll look at the reasons that cis people might appropriate genderqueer identities, and then discuss what it looks like, and what sort of responses might be appropriate, from binary gendered and genderqueer people.”
id very much like to hear more about that experience. Of cis people appropriating genderqueer identities, what it can look like, and what kinds of responses might be appropriate, from genderqueer folks.
romham
13 Mar 10 at 11:29 am
romham, I’ve gotta say I’m impressed that you’re still trying to have an on-topic discussion here. I figured all of us had given up like a week ago.
Betsy B
13 Mar 10 at 12:52 pm
Betsy, im sick, in a different city, and clearly delirious.
romham
13 Mar 10 at 12:59 pm
@Ronham:
Yes, that was the OP’s main point. But what I believe you’re ignoring is WHY cis people are doing that appropriation and how it doesn’t just involve the GQ community. That the appropriation is often happening to get a “free ticket” into the trans community, to appropriate oppression and, especially, to gain entitlement to speak on trans issues without seeming like an ignorant outside oppressor.
Yes, I know the OP mentioned centering on GQ people, but this site is still called Questioning Transphobia and I suspect a large majority of the people who come on here are trans-identified (GQ/Queer/or binary) and whether you like it or not, cis-people appropriating GQ-identities and making transphobic statements is also part of what the OP was discussing.
If you or other GQ people wanted to make more comments on the thread, you’ve had ample time to do so… it’s been mostly fallow for the last couple of weeks.
Gina
13 Mar 10 at 1:09 pm
wow. ok. that’s me told, i suppose.
Gina, im not ignoring anything. The focus of this one post is about CIS people appropriating genderqueer identities, not about defending genderqueer identity, not listening to people debate what genderqueer means, not focusing on non-genderqueer trans peoples appropriations of genderqueer identities. If you’d like to open up a wider discussion about “the relationship and interface between transsexuals and gender variant or genderqueer people”, im all for that, just not on this thread. i am interested in hearing how other genderqueer people respond to CIS appropriation of genderqueer identities. And though this thread was meant to deal with that, i am clearly looking in the wrong place to get that.
romham
13 Mar 10 at 1:19 pm
and ive already made comments, but have felt like much of this thread has been nothing but a derail. Doesn’t exactly make it a space to have a serious conversation about the topic.
romham
13 Mar 10 at 1:21 pm
The problem goes, though, that it’s difficult to discuss appropriation without a clear working definition of whats being appropriated. Hence some sort of discussion of what constitutes genderqueer, especially in regard to cis appropriation, isn’t totally a derail.
Equally trans, IS and genderqueer ( and personally I’d also argue for bi )all suffer a spectrum of appropriative cis assertions of understanding and identifying.As much of the discussion has made clear,GQ is particularly vulnerable in this respect. But is it necessarily different in kind ? With all, there’s working out of demarcations based on the extent to which the identity is necessitated by nature or is simply elective behaviour. All share the clear desire to clearly call appropriation when it’s clearly happening by resorting to clearly defined principles of identity which clearly …don’t clearly exist. And all have the problem of seeking to have a simple notion of who they are being socially available, without that being a ground for appropriation.I would have thought that these areas would be suitable for both Gina and romham to find room for dialogue that took the OP themes on.
Actually, for personal reasons, I’d quite like to know where GQ’s might draw a line between desirable and undesirable appropriation. I would self describe as a GQ trans woman, with the GQ as a modifier for trans which is a modifier for woman. The GQ descriptor is one that’s important to me in that I maintain a 2 gender narrative history and don’t want to limit myself to less than I am, and because of other complexities. Though I’m not claiming GQ as an identity, I’m uncomfortably aware that I may be being appropriative. But I’m not sure that this kind of appropriation isn’t desirable. It’s similar to having a cis person say they understand being GQ or trans by reference to some trivial set of behaviours. On the one hand one doesn’t want to accept them as grounds for claiming shared identity, but partially understanding allies are obviously desirable.Equally by accepting, one doesn’t want to lay the ground for identity appropriation.
Sophia
14 Mar 10 at 6:34 am
Ok as I’m GQ and do care about this topic i’ll set up an imaginary conversation to explore these issues, between me and me. Sure it’s a bit old-fashioned these days but it may prove helpful to show my mixed feellings on the matter as well as my reasoning and conclusions. One me is marked by * the other me as ~
* Do cis people appropriate GQ identities?
~ Yes.
* Why?
~ Because being GQ has value. Is a realisable asset. Especially to someone who has no internalised oppression by living always prior as Cis.
~ From an attempt to base a dissmissal of criticism (itself a logical fallacy as we all know a member of an oppressed group can themselves be part of that oppression of themselves and others) to trying to get into bed with GQ-attracted people and eventually if not already someone will do so as a money-making junket.
* What does it look like?
~ Brief, temporary, situational or periodic identification as GQ when it seems likely advantageous.
* But doesn’t that look like something else too?
~ Yes, a GQ person struggling with their identity and/or struggling with being out and fears of intolerance transphobia etc might also be like that.
* Is there a ceratain way to tell those appart and be sure someone is appropriating and not struggling with it?
~ No. No there isn’t. Not untill they long-term come down on the side of a GQ identity and even those that do not may still be repressed and keeping their GQ self secret and no matter what they say no matter how much they claim to not be GQ and even anti-GQ and transphobic nevertheless they could still be closeted and merely trying to hide it and bury their GQ self and past.
* Can’t we just define GQ in a way that will kick out all the appropriators?
~ Not without also harming innocents who don’t neatly fit whatever definition you decide. This is always a tactic that harms innocents. It’s no good.
* What other kind of response is appropriate if I suspect someone is appropriating a GQ identity?
~ None that might harm them if they were a genuine GQ struggling with their own inner identity and internalised oppression.
* Even if they are being phobic and hateful?
~ Yes. That may be coming from inner hurt and smacking them down is not likely to heal them but exacerbate their hurt and therfore likely to make them be even more harmful to the community.
* But they are damaging the community! How can i stop that if I can’t attack them for appropriation because i cant ever be certain they are appropriating?
~ Help them heal and understand GQ and GQ issues and accept GQ in all it’s diversity. If they are genuinely GQ you will help them and the community tremendously. If they are not they will still act as if they are as they will better understand what they are imitating and so that still helps the community by preventing the damage they’d otherwise be doing.
* Oh c’mon you mean i should be nice to them? Seriously? Help them appropriate from my own birthright better?
~ If they are genuinly GQ the answer must be yes, if there is any minute iota of doubt the answer must be yes, if they are appropriating and theres not just strong belief but absolute proof that they are appropriating and not a struggling GQ (which i already said appears impossible to obtain) well still if it’s what helps the GQ community the most and the alternatives are bad shouldn’t that still be yes?
* But thats not what would make me feel good. I want to smash the injustice and punish the interlopers.
~ Sure but thats a destructive desire no matter how understandable as attempts to do so will hurt innocent GQ’s.
* It just seems so wrong to do it that way! It goes against common sense.
~ Reality is often counter-intuitive, wisdom often even moreso.
* Yeah well it galls me to see people using who i am against me and my community, to profit from it and make he money and get the hot partners and publicity when they can just saunter away afterwards when i had to deal with the crap side of this my whole life.
~ Of course. Who wouldn’t find that angering and hurtful. But it’s the internalised oppression that holds many of the genuine folk back and in the healling of that more will get further. Sometimes it’s the appropriation that shatters some of the beliefs caused by the internalised oppression and shows that profit, success etc can all be achieved by the community.
* So what can i do about that?
~ Strive to ensure your own voice remains a part of the community. Make use of the realisable assets of being GQ so the appropriators don’t hog it all. Ensure genuine GQ is visible so the public get to hear and see egnuine GQ… always being ware of the diversity of GQ and that none can be certain to be false.
* Even though i have to put up with the downsides they avoid?
~ Yep. What else can you do? And if they are making headway or showing that headway has been made and are taking advantage of that then you can be a part of that and reduce the downsides for yourself and others.
* Ok ok, so you reckon i should be nice to possible appropriators in case they really are struggling GQs, avoid judging anyone as false or trying to define people out of GQ and i should see how some are making good use of GQ etc but are you really sure that its the only way? That innocents will really be harmed if i try and chuck the appropriators out rather than try and help them in case they are struggling genuines?
~ Well when have you ever seen a fight over defining a ‘true’ identity that didn’t hurt large parts of a community? Didn’t increase prejusdice? Didn’t leave some people caught in gaps between new definitions? didn’t propagate false and harmful stereotypes?
* Well…
~ Ever?
* ok ok I have no examples and untill i see a better argument i’ll accept your right.. for now! But I’ll be looking for and thinking about ways to show your wrong in the meantime.
~ Me too to be honest. No-one says these are easy sugestions, they are just what appears to be the right ones.
Battybattybats
14 Mar 10 at 8:54 pm
im going to have to have a conversation between me and myself now too. this is good to see all laid out like that. thanks for getting creative.
romham
14 Mar 10 at 9:49 pm
“Strive to ensure your own voice remains a part of the community. Make use of the realizable assets of being GQ so the appropriators don’t hog it all. Ensure genuine GQ is visible so the public get to hear and see genuine GQ…”
This meshes so nicely with erring on the side of believing what people say about their identities, rather than policing. Provide a good example, within a safe/welcoming community, and bad examples will eventually reveal themselves without anybody having to do an appropriation call out (DONT WORRY. Busted actions? Still game for getting called out.)
Now. Let’s talk about this dance card business, since that’s so often a rubber+road situation. I have never had the pleasure of loading my bed simply by stating my identity, and watching folks come flocking. Does such a thing actually… work? Isn’t it hilariously transparent?
More seriously, what I’ve seen with some regularity is the adoption of a genderqueer identity as a method of dodging the charge of “tranny chaser”. (NB: I think that term is fucked up in a whole host of ways, but that’s not for this post.) This type of appropriation as a defense mechanism is complicated; it’s a weird little piece of attempted self-othering as a means of avoiding criticism, which I think we’ve already established is busted. Yes, the term being avoided is toxic, but why is jumping on a GQ identity even seen as recourse? Much less effective recourse? Plus, folks with trans partners have been known to eventually navigate to their own genderqueer identities. What’s the best response to it? How can the problematic term and the problematic appropriation be detangled? I’d like to think that it comes down to participation and visibility, but then that gets into expectations of outness, and I don’t like that a whole lot.
Livia
15 Mar 10 at 11:09 am
yeah, thanks guys, a conversation with myself seems preferable here also.
Betsy B
15 Mar 10 at 1:10 pm
To everyone who’s been keeping this thread GQ-centered and not allowed it to be derailed into anything else: I LOVE YOU! I’ve been away from a computer the last few days and it’s great to see y’all’s resilience. There have been countless attempts to derail it to a more cis or binary focused thread.
I’ve been thinking about it and I’m siding on the idea that we cannot draw lines in the sand, say who is or is not appropriating. What we can do is challenge the trans/genderphobic statements/actions/thoughts/etc. That’s really all that’s left. When someone tries to play that card we just shoot them down. We say, “no, that is not valid reason why that statement is wrong. We all internalize oppressions, no matter our genders.” I kept talking about call-outs earlier, so this is a nice shift of thought for me. The idea is to address the issue and let that attempt at not owning shit fall away.
nome
15 Mar 10 at 6:56 pm
First for everyone as this subject neccessarily deals with internalised oppression I’ve found this article invaluable: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1172.htm
@ Livia, indeed liberating Trans-attraction from stigma is an essential part of ending Transphobia and increasing acceptance. It’d increase the number of allies and as their may be a strong part of hating being trans-attracted and blaming and lashing out at individuals found attractive blaming them for the inner conflict as a possible motivation of some transphobia and hate crimes doing so might even save lives. So i think the part of this discussion that the use of GQ to avoid the stigma of being Cis and Trans-attracted is a very important one.
@ nome while i agree that no transphobic remark or view should be left unanswered the method used can be cucial. The value of standing strong and powerful against such words is in the galvanising and inspiring effect that can have on others from our own community to speak up… but it has plenty of problems too as those spoken too may be in places of deep trauma and emotional delicacy making any ferocious response unlikely to lead them to understanding and healling and growth but instead to further reactionary responses polarisation etc.
So usually i try to be gentle the first time i try and raise to someone that they are doing something bad, to try and be convincing with my words rather than defensive.. a tough thing to do and I don’t always succeed. To convince someone in such a case you are of course doing battle with their internalised oppression which starts with substantial advantage having been whispering poison into their thoughts and emotions for usually decades. Getting them onside and rebelling against the fear and prior convictions is not easy.
And if my recent post was not seen as derailing but my prior ones were.. well that just shows how it really is all about the framing as the argument is the same, the essential wisdom gleaned from cross-community comparisons remains (though is more unspoken and therfore loses the value of that acknowledgement in return for framing the argument narrowly and so seeming more personal and seeming more relevant when it always was as relevant). My argument remains the same holistic one. Thats a lesson i need to remember for later, sad though i find it.
Battybattybats
15 Mar 10 at 9:39 pm
> “There have been countless attempts to derail it to a more cis or binary focused thread.”
This implies a conscious effort to wrest some kind of control over something, as if this were a competition, not a conversation.
I think I resent that. I have not “attempted to derail” anything. I have written what this thread brought to mind, and attempted both to learn and to suggest. That it did not follow the evidently strict boundaries of someone else’s expectations – and that Battybattybats had to almost completely restate what sie, I, and perhaps others had been trying to work towards all along, just to be actually heard instead of condescendingly dismissed – reinforces an increasing prejudice on my part against the “rules of discourse” in the realm of identity politics.
cigfran
16 Mar 10 at 5:43 am
@batty Of course you need t be gentle about such things, sometimes. Never do I say “Charge full-speed ahead and start arguing with the person before you even understand what’s going on.”
Trying to effectively counter oppression, whether from someone who faces that oppression or not, is an art. It takes the patience of firstly figuring out *exactly* what the person means/thinks and then knowing how to counter those thoughts in a calm, logical manner.
nome
16 Mar 10 at 9:08 am
I doubt there’s a conscious effort, cigfran. But it’s one of those things that seems to develop out of conversations like this, and it’s better to be careful and try not to do it than do it unintentionally or intentionally.
Lisa Harney
16 Mar 10 at 8:49 pm
[...] Posted in Uncategorized by z on 2010-03-17 So something seemed to blow up on QT, namely, that a post regarding appropriation of genderqueer identites. I haven’t looked into the full two-hundred comments, partly because the discussion seemed to [...]
Boundaries, lines, boxes, and labels « the letter z
17 Mar 10 at 12:51 am
[...] couple of weeks ago, Anarchafemme posted about dealing with genderqueer appropriation. What ze was talking about was working out how to call [...]
Late, but relevant: « Questioning Transphobia
19 Mar 10 at 1:21 am
Wow, there are way too many comments here for me to read.
I don’t identify as genderqueer, but according to your definition, I could be genderqueer. I consider myself genderless. I simply do not identify with gender. And I do not get any positive or negative responses for it, that I am aware of. Why one needs to reap negative responses for being genderqueer is beyond me. The worst negative response I got about my views on gender came from two genderqueer/trans people who demanded that I refrain from using gender neutral pronouns when I wasn’t aware of a person’s gender identity, even though I find it hegemonic to insist that anyone even has a gender identity. One of them was like, “You should always ask what pronoun they prefer, but you can usually guess based on how someone presents.” Wtf? Isn’t that exactly in opposition to what it means to be genderqueer – that you can guess and put them back into the gender binary based on their “presentation”? I don’t see a dress as inherently feminine, anymore than I see pants as inherently masculine.
Of course, I often do guess, but that is more out of convenience than any real sense of need to do so, and it pissed me off that these non-cis people were trying to command me to do as they like… just what this world needs is some pronoun police. In most languages, pronouns are not gendered.
I never get a negative reaction when I tell people I am genderless (again, the worst is that the people above started arguing with me that genderless is a gender identity). It’s not important enough to me that I feel the need to police people about what pronouns they use for me. I prefer gender-neutral, but I don’t get upset if someone refers to me with a gendered pronoun. For me, being genderless does not make me less privileged than others because it’s *not* a gender identity. If I went into a society that forced me to wear a dress because I am female, I would be really disgusted because I don’t like dresses and because I find it degrading and oppressive to force anyone to conform to gender norms (I’d also be afraid of facing all sorts of discriminations and abuse in such an oppressive society)… but I probably would not even describe it in terms of me being genderless. I would simply say, “Look, I don’t identify as a woman. And regardless of that, I don’t like to wear dresses.” I should be allowed to wear whatever I feel like, and that shouldn’t have to have anything to do with gender/sex.
Louëlla
27 Mar 10 at 10:39 am
[...] like he thinks we’re trying to be self-important attention whores. There are some people who appropriate a genderqueer identity for whatever reason.But for the most part, we’re just trying to be ourselves [...]
That damn forum « Chartreuse Flamethrower
24 Apr 10 at 6:32 am
[...] Ms.: Is Feminist Hulk genderqueer? [...]
FEMINIST HULK SMASH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH MS.! : Ms Magazine Blog
7 Jun 10 at 6:02 am
As a word person… I have to question the use of the term Persyn. Woman does have potentially sexist connotations (although not the ones people think — it doesn’t derive from “Man”, but rather from “Wifman”… which literally means “female person”, so why should the term for “male” just derive from the term for “person” without modifiers? It carries an apparent connotation that “male” is the natural state for a person, while “female” is an aberration that needs to be commented on), but person has nothing to do with the masculine term “son.” As roughly 5 seconds on Google would show, Person derives from the Latin “Persona” — meaning “Person”, but originally meaning “character” or “mask” — while Son derives from the Old English “Sunu” — the etymology prior to that gets much more hypothetical, but does not involve Persona at any point
Nezumi
10 Jun 10 at 10:12 am
[...] 24, 2010 by chartreuseflamethrower So on ‘Questioning Transphobia’ there was a blog about binary people appropriating a genderqueer identity. It was going great, until: I tend to say genderqueer pronouns rather than gender neutral pronouns, [...]
Gender neutral=Genderless? « Chartreuse Flamethrower
29 Jun 10 at 3:14 pm
@Nezumi: I’m well aware of the etymology of “person” and how it’s not related to “son”. It’s half tongue-in-cheek for me, half making sure it’s not only transphobes using the alternate spelling.
So, yes, I’m not taking it that seriously, but, I’m not just being a jerk about it.
anarchafemme
30 Jun 10 at 12:05 am
[...] I think this is oxymoronic and inaccurate. And I think, as with a guest post a few months back, it plays into the “trans enough” thing that I don’t think any of us win. And I [...]
So, “Cissexual Genderqueer” Needs to Go Away at Questioning Transphobia
4 Oct 10 at 1:21 pm
One result of this appropriation in my life is that it made me afraid to come out as genderqueer for over a year. I feared my friends would think I was doing it just to make a political statement or get attention. I don’t want to be a side show, I just want to be me.
The Nerd
4 Oct 10 at 4:32 pm
I dont understand why people dont just own their privilege and speak-up when they know they are being privileged and it is causing someone else to be oppressed rather than genderfucking to smash the gender binary?
i’m glad that this post was put up, i have been in a queer youth space where it seems that a number of people have been appropriating a gq identity for all of the reasons that have been previously stated, mostly to be “different and cool” and i haven’t know what to do about it along with a few other gq folk there. we find the space to be really unsafe when we are talking about how we feel excluded in hs sex-ed classes and have people claiming qg identities telling us “its like that for a reason” and that “they dont feel that way at all.” i actually have stopped going for a while because it is such an unsafe and oppressive place to be. I would like to go and bring this up for discussion with the group but fear being attacked when i do. Also i dont want to be defined by other people, but claiming that someone is appropriating a gq identity feels like im defining them, but it’s hard not to say anything when they are making me feel like crap. we actually have ppl saying they use “shablamee pronouns” and “mr. princess pronouns” it’s so offensive. I have decided to make a question box so i can put the question in it anon and then we can have a discussion. i was thinking an inside talking circle and outside listening circle would be a good set-up, but i would like to know if there is anyone here who has any other sugestions or has attempted to tackle something similar to this and could help.
xoxo
6:-)
6:-)
23 Dec 10 at 9:27 pm
I’m curious, as a queer identified trans woman…
If “genderqueer is the state of constantly being misgendered in some way in a binary gendered culture”, then where does the assumption that binary identified trans people cannot be genderqueer come from, as a great many are gendered both ways quite regularly.
My other matter of curiosity in the article, is that whether trans or cis, if to identify as genderqueer is to appropriate the identity, then how are there any genderqueer people at all? Surely there comes a point at which a person realises that they are genderqueer? Surely, until that point, many people will only have the doctrine of the binary gender system on which to fall, and as such are likely to identify that way.
Finally, of course, if a cis person rejects the gender binary (and thus notions of their own gender being a part of that binary), what does that make them? ‘Ungender’?
Genuine questions – not intended to be difficult or awkward.
Krissie Pearse
28 Dec 10 at 6:43 pm
[...] I still don’t like the word gender-variant and this person is doing nothing to fix that, can’t believe a trans person would actually say “Isn’t transitioning just reinforcing the gender binary?”. That said, I think I know someone who was Trans Until Graduation. I don’t know if she identifies as such, but it seems to fit the bill. Now, I know trans people who don’t medically transition at all are out there, and they can’t always stay out after college, I won’t try to describe the differences as if they’re all-encompassing, but there are differences between that and this. Again, not what I’m talking about. This is much more related to cis appropriation of genderqueer identities. [...]
Trans Until Graduation | Binary Subverter
18 Mar 11 at 10:41 am
[...] I generally like this blog even though it has a feminist bias, but I just found this article: here [...]
The Mind of Silentblood
5 Apr 11 at 11:16 am
this article, while helpful in some aspects, wounded me in others. maybe it’s the too-many-damn-word writing style that’s confusing me, but this seemed to say to me “this is what genderqueer is, it’s very specific”. um. that’s not my percetion of it. i though genderqueer meant anything outside, or encompassing both sides of, the gender binary. i identify as female/transgender/genderqueer, because i was born male, but identify as a woman with a penis. yes, you read that right. birth gave me a penis, which it was supposed to. it just forgot the boobs and other feminine features. i’m a mix of butch and femme, and my scale regularly tips one way or the other for a while, because both are a part of me. and yet this article seemed to say to me “no, that’s not genderqueer. you’re just appropriating that term for your own needs.”
Lizzie
13 Mar 12 at 5:24 pm