The Politics of Gender

[North Buffalo]

Thanks Josie, LTS and Aud.  Interesting read, deal folks from all walks of life in the ER.  I just ask a person's name without pronoun to avoid that kind of issue.  That being said, I both got educated and confused by this thread.  Great read and I will have to do some thinking on it to see how well I address folks from those walks of life.  Hmm food for thought.

[Sabel79]

I will just never understand (this is not directed at anyone here, I've just been given cause to think about it having read this thread and because of a recent conversation I had with somebody) why people get so up in arms about this subject.  This isn't a new issue.  There are records of trans people in Pharonic Egypt, Precolonial Africa and America, Asia (specifically India), Ancient Greece and Rome.  Heck, the story of Joan of Arc becomes so much more understandable if you look at it under this lens.  So the idea that we should look at rising acceptance of the transgendered as some sort of evidence of societal decline is off the mark.  

It comes down to letting others be who they are, as I'm sure most of us enjoy the same privilege.  It does damage to exactly nobody, effects even fewer people, and is the right thing to do.  IMO.  I have a coworker who goes around the bend about the bathroom issue.  Which, to be clear, isn't an issue.  Has been going on for decades, but I digress.  People need to pee.  That's all there is to it.  Sexual assault, peeping, and other untoward behavior is already illegal.  Conservative congressmen are statistically far more likely to engage in such behavior than trans people.  I do not get the angst.  

Sex and gender are two different things.  One is a function of what dangles off you and the other is far deeper and more complicated.  As we work to understand all that entails, perhaps we can be understanding and nice to one another.  Then again, this is humanity we're talking about.  

[That Aud Smell]

On 7/6/2018 at 8:21 AM, Sabel79 said:

I will just never understand (this is not directed at anyone here, I've just been given cause to think about it having read this thread and because of a recent conversation I had with somebody) why people get so up in arms about this subject.  This isn't a new issue.  There are records of trans people in Pharonic Egypt, Precolonial Africa and America, Asia (specifically India), Ancient Greece and Rome.  Heck, the story of Joan of Arc becomes so much more understandable if you look at it under this lens.  So the idea that we should look at rising acceptance of the transgendered as some sort of evidence of societal decline is off the mark.  

It comes down to letting others be who they are, as I'm sure most of us enjoy the same privilege.  It does damage to exactly nobody, effects even fewer people, and is the right thing to do.  IMO.  I have a coworker who goes around the bend about the bathroom issue.  Which, to be clear, isn't an issue.  Has been going on for decades, but I digress.  People need to pee.  That's all there is to it.  Sexual assault, peeping, and other untoward behavior is already illegal.  Conservative congressmen are statistically far more likely to engage in such behavior than trans people.  I do not get the angst.  

Sex and gender are two different things.  One is a function of what dangles off you and the other is far deeper and more complicated.  As we work to understand all that entails, perhaps we can be understanding and nice to one another.  Then again, this is humanity we're talking about.  

I agree with what you've posted above. I am all for kindness, and allowing people to become who they feel they are and must be in order to be who they are and must be. 

I think the discussion I am seeking is maybe a little more theoretical.

In any case, this showed up on my Twitter this morning, and I find myself struggling with the theoretical principles of this all over again. 

Comrade Elon Husk  ?‏ @Alysonesque

FollowFollow @Alysonesque

More

Trans women are not men who became women. They are women who were coercively and violently assigned male at birth by a patriarchal society obsessed with sexual difference and heterosexual coding of infants. Want to overcome heteropatriarchy? Then respect trans women.

1:15 PM - 7 Jul 2018

 

•  

[That Aud Smell]

There's language and tone in there that are obstacles to me. But I think I'm starting to gain a more nuanced understanding of how people feel about the issue.

On 7/6/2018 at 8:21 AM, Sabel79 said:

Sex and gender are two different things.  One is a function of what dangles off you and the other is far deeper and more complicated.  As we work to understand all that entails, perhaps we can be understanding and nice to one another.  Then again, this is humanity we're talking about.  

Maybe it partly arises from ^ this ^.

What is @Alysonesque saying there? She's saying that it's wrong (violent, in fact) to look at a baby's genitals at birth (their sex) and assign them a male/female designation (their gender)?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that.

[josie]

2 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I agree with what you've posted above. I am all for kindness, and allowing people to become who they feel they are and must be in order to be who they are and must be. 

I think the discussion I am seeking is maybe a little more theoretical.

In any case, this showed up on my Twitter this morning, and I find myself struggling with the theoretical principles of this all over again. 

Comrade Elon Husk  ?‏ @Alysonesque

FollowFollow @Alysonesque

More

Trans women are not men who became women. They are women who were coercively and violently assigned male at birth by a patriarchal society obsessed with sexual difference and heterosexual coding of infants. Want to overcome heteropatriarchy? Then respect trans women.

1:15 PM - 7 Jul 2018

 

•  

This is an example of someone crossing the line like I've mentioned above. 

 

This person is reacting to something that happened over the weekend at London Pride- a group of people who are anti trans-women having their place as lesbians (remember me saying the happy rainbow is a bunch of infighting? Yep) essentially took over the start of the parade. They're called TERFs- and they're just bigots in a different group. So there's a lot of impassioned anger right now trying to demarcate those lines. 

[That Aud Smell]

8 minutes ago, josie said:

This is an example of someone crossing the line like I've mentioned above. 

This person is reacting to something that happened over the weekend at London Pride- a group of people who are anti trans-women having their place as lesbians (remember me saying the happy rainbow is a bunch of infighting? Yep) essentially took over the start of the parade. They're called TERFs- and they're just bigots in a different group. So there's a lot of impassioned anger right now trying to demarcate those lines. 

(But, thanks - seriously.)

[josie]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

 

What is @Alysonesque saying there? She's saying that it's wrong (violent, in fact) to look at a baby's genitals at birth (their sex) and assign them a male/female designation (their gender)?

I'm not sure I can get on board with that.

Sorry, had a meeting-

Nah I agree with you- this is an extreme view. I'm on board with the whole "can we please stop making all the clothing for girls pink with slogans like "I hate my thighs" (yes, really- it was a onesie) while the boys get "future astronaut" and stuff" thing, but like, some people are so far the other way (NO PINK FOR GIRLS BLAH BLAH BLAH) that it just hurts their fight. 

They do refer to a person's gender as "assigned at birth" in a trans situation. I used to say "biological", turns out that's kind of a no-no. Lots of semantics, it changes a lot as they try to define their existence as a magnifying glass is put on them in the media. Lots of very passionate and extreme rhetoric. Doesn't mean it's all good, or even sensical. 

 

But yeah- while I find gender reveals and all that to be really stupid, it's not violence in my opinion. That's ridic. If i have a kid, they're getting gendered, and if they find when they're older that they are trans or nonbinary or whatever, I'll support 'em 100%. 

[LTS]

There's no intent to sound unaccepting in what I am about to say, I just don't know any other way to say it.

Male parts are male parts and female parts are female parts.  They are fundamentally different and via biology are designated as such.  Biologically, if you have the parts then you fulfill that role in nature. You can call it anything you like but they'd never be called the same.  Tab A, Slot B, whatever.

Now, assigning any additional meaning to how life is supposed to be lived, whether someone wants to trade in their parts, etc.  That's all up for the spectrum of behavior and modification.  If a person goes out and trades in their parts then they are getting female parts or male parts.  It is what it is.  You walk in and say I need a #### then you get a ####.  You can't walk in and ask for a #### and get a ######.  So, there is an identity associated with the parts. 

 

[That Aud Smell]

I appreciate that contribution @LTS.

Here's an excerpt from an essay in ... The Economist, maybe.

In my experience even people who declare themselves trans allies and committed to social justice, non-discrimination and inclusion, may hesitate if asked whether they think natal males who have been through male puberty before declaring themselves women should be allowed to compete in women’s sporting events, or whether natal males who have been convicted of violent or sexual offences against women should be eligible for transfer to a women’s prison if they switch gender identity during their sentences. Many people are also surprised to discover that natal males who retain male genitalia but identify as women are, if they are sexually attracted to women, regarded in activist circles as lesbians. If any of this makes you bristle—whether because you take all these propositions as self-evident or because you think they are ludicrous—I urge you to test them on people of various ages and political leanings.

[That Aud Smell]

This called to mind a very recent story about a HS or college athlete who's biologically male competing against other biological females because she identifies as female. And she's crushing the competition.

Like I said upthread: The gay rights movement was/is so intuitive. So straightforward. There are no externalities associated with it.

The trans movement is way more complicated, even for many who are inclined to sympathize.

Edited July 9, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[That Aud Smell]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

Athletic conference rules allow high school athletes to compete based on the genders with which they identify. Critics say the rules give male-to-female transgender people a competitive edge over cisgender women -- whose biological sex matches their gender identity -- because some have higher testosterone levels than non-trans females.

“I think it’s unfair to the girls who work really hard to do well and qualify for Opens and New Englands [competitions],” sophomore sprinter Selina Soule, who finished sixth in the 100-meter State Open Finals, told the Hartford Courant. “These girls, they’re just coming in and beating everyone. I have no problem with them wanting to be a girl.”

[LTS]

I'm going to selectively comment rather than quote everything.

With regards to the competition and men who identify as women competing as women.  I'm not sure there's a good answer.  Do we need to divide the sports into testosterone levels above X and below X?  I mean, if a female is born with abnormally high testosterone and wins would anyone say she had an unfair advantage?  I honestly don't know enough behind the science of all of it.

Are there instances of the opposite occuring where a trans-gender male (do I have that right?) wants to compete in male sports as opposed to female sports? It's unfortunate but there very well may be instances of people completely making up their identification just to try and win in youth sports.  There's plenty of evidence to show that people do all kinds of insane stuff when it comes to youth sports.

The question about prisons, etc. is a bit easier for me.  If you went out and committed a violent crime I would not be too concerned with where you think you should be or even how you want to identify.  I have very little tolerance for violent criminals or listening to their complaints.

[That Aud Smell]

14 hours ago, LTS said:

With regards to the competition and men who identify as women competing as women.  I'm not sure there's a good answer.  Do we need to divide the sports into testosterone levels above X and below X?  I mean, if a female is born with abnormally high testosterone and wins would anyone say she had an unfair advantage?  I honestly don't know enough behind the science of all of it.

My guess: They should divide athletic competitions based on the "natal" sex of the individuals. I think that's the term - "natal."

[ubkev]

Scarlett Johansson just dropped out of a movie in which she would have played a trans character. She took a bunch of heat from the trans community for taking a role that they said should have been for a trans actor. This movie is probably dead in the water now. 

The question is, does having ScarJo as the star, making this movie a big deal, drawing attention to a subject that many(most?) aren't exposed to in their lives serve as a credit to the trans community or not? Obviously the trans actors (and others) that took offense to this didn't think so.

If you put a trans actor in this film in place of Scarlett Johansson is it ever getting a wide release? 

[LTS]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:11 PM, ubkev said:

Scarlett Johansson just dropped out of a movie in which she would have played a trans character. She took a bunch of heat from the trans community for taking a role that they said should have been for a trans actor. This movie is probably dead in the water now. 

The question is, does having ScarJo as the star, making this movie a big deal, drawing attention to a subject that many(most?) aren't exposed to in their lives serve as a credit to the trans community or not? Obviously the trans actors (and others) that took offense to this didn't think so.

If you put a trans actor in this film in place of Scarlett Johansson is it ever getting a wide release? 

This kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more.  This desire that the actor must be the same as the character they represent. I guess all those war movies better start hiring real soldiers.

I think it's ridiculous.  A well known name is going to bring attention to their lifestyle and they don't want that?  So, let's get a trans actor in there and then the only people who will care about the movie is the trans community, who already knows about their lifestyle.

 

[josie]

19 hours ago, LTS said:

This kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more.  This desire that the actor must be the same as the character they represent. I guess all those war movies better start hiring real soldiers.

I think it's ridiculous.  A well known name is going to bring attention to their lifestyle and they don't want that?  So, let's get a trans actor in there and then the only people who will care about the movie is the trans community, who already knows about their lifestyle.

 

Ehhhhhhhh

 

There are trans actors. They rarely get well known roles (short of Laverne Cox playing a trans character in orange is the new black). I think a lot of the ScarJo fire is because she has repeatedly played minority roles despite being white, the latest one being the main role of Ghost in the Shell. The exact same director is doing this movie, where she was cast as a trans person. 

I don't find it ridiculous to try. As always I see both sides of it. It's just an appropriation issue that I believe can be worked around now.

To your comparison of soldiers... soldiers are usually soldiers. Some go in to acting, sure. People like Oliver Stone took those experiences and worked it into film. And on most military films, they bring in veterans/active duty for consulting. There are plenty of trans actors, so... why not let one portray the struggle they've lived? They can't even get close to the same opportunity as someone who is cis (non trans). If you're going to make a film and make money while using that storyline, bring someone in, at the very least in a consulting role. Otherwise, why bother? Here's the struggle of a group of people I never bothered to talk to- doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe they mean well but, eh, on such a niche issue (unlike war/soldiers which requires many bodies in uniform, not like we need 150 people to be trans on set), make the extra effort to get it right. I think the environment is right at the moment for a movie like that to make it with "small billing". Maybe even get more attention than it deserves because of it, even. This article does a better job taking the time to look at it than I can right now: https://www.glamour.com/story/should-cisgender-actors-be-allowed-to-play-transgender-characters

[LTS]

4 hours ago, josie said:

Ehhhhhhhh

 

There are trans actors. They rarely get well known roles (short of Laverne Cox playing a trans character in orange is the new black). I think a lot of the ScarJo fire is because she has repeatedly played minority roles despite being white, the latest one being the main role of Ghost in the Shell. The exact same director is doing this movie, where she was cast as a trans person. 

I don't find it ridiculous to try. As always I see both sides of it. It's just an appropriation issue that I believe can be worked around now.

To your comparison of soldiers... soldiers are usually soldiers. Some go in to acting, sure. People like Oliver Stone took those experiences and worked it into film. And on most military films, they bring in veterans/active duty for consulting. There are plenty of trans actors, so... why not let one portray the struggle they've lived? They can't even get close to the same opportunity as someone who is cis (non trans). If you're going to make a film and make money while using that storyline, bring someone in, at the very least in a consulting role. Otherwise, why bother? Here's the struggle of a group of people I never bothered to talk to- doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe they mean well but, eh, on such a niche issue (unlike war/soldiers which requires many bodies in uniform, not like we need 150 people to be trans on set), make the extra effort to get it right. I think the environment is right at the moment for a movie like that to make it with "small billing". Maybe even get more attention than it deserves because of it, even. This article does a better job taking the time to look at it than I can right now: https://www.glamour.com/story/should-cisgender-actors-be-allowed-to-play-transgender-characters

 Based on your response I have now read more background on the project and see that even the reference to the lead character is flawed as it chooses to use the female name as opposed to the name Gill went by.  (Using Jean Marie rather than Dante "Tex").

The soldier discussion wasn't about the hundreds of extras.  It's about leading characters playing the part of a military person.  It's not a perfect example (and I wanted to stay away from race).  Let's try this another way and perhaps make it a more interesting question.

With transgender people stating that only transgender people should play a transgender role, then is the reverse logic also supported?  Should transgender people be allowed to play the role of a non-transgender person?  Assume this is not talking about roles where there is no romantic involvement such that the sexuality of a character is not remotely relevant to the film. 

Always curious how that works...

 

[josie]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

 Based on your response I have now read more background on the project and see that even the reference to the lead character is flawed as it chooses to use the female name as opposed to the name Gill went by.  (Using Jean Marie rather than Dante "Tex").

The soldier discussion wasn't about the hundreds of extras.  It's about leading characters playing the part of a military person.  It's not a perfect example (and I wanted to stay away from race).  Let's try this another way and perhaps make it a more interesting question.

With transgender people stating that only transgender people should play a transgender role, then is the reverse logic also supported?  Should transgender people be allowed to play the role of a non-transgender person?  Assume this is not talking about roles where there is no romantic involvement such that the sexuality of a character is not remotely relevant to the film. 

Always curious how that works...

 

Well, I think the same argument applies. Sure, why not? Trans people are seen as an other, just like race. I find them to be similar- they're minorities. Happens with male/female all the time anyway, where female characters are written out for male parts instead. You can't help the color of your skin, you can't help what you identify as- I think that's the crux of the argument- and people shy from it because race. Some people pitch fits when a person of color has a role in what would be a caucasian universe . Do they have a point? Sure. Is it hurting anyone? Nah, not really- unless you're rewriting a historical figure or something, then maybe. But to go the other way around, to "whitewash" (the term is broader than race in this example, maybe "erasure" is a better word- "appropriate" is overused and ill defined now) a minority's story when there are plenty of people who live that truth and are able to portray the tale themselves, that's damaging and avoidable. And now we come down to the same argument that always comes with these things. And I think with trans- you've probably met a lot of trans people and never realized it. Society doesn't notice people who "pass"- but their documentation/ID cards can keep them from getting jobs in places like Hollywood. I think many people have a near cartoonish idea of it- that a woman in a movie is going to be played by a person with a huge adam's apple and five o clock shadow or a drag queen because that's what they envision.  

It's a different life experience than most people's- it is the exception. So have the exception represented by the exception, the norm is well documented and not in any danger of being challenged or erased, even if the exception (which isn't even usually a visible difference, which could admittedly matter in a visual format like movies) is chosen to represent it occasionally here and there.  The whole "oh they can go one way but what about the reverse" argument is always used when minorities are given some sort of protection, be it sex or race or anything else. People just get all extra squidgy when it might involve genitals haha

I see the argument with sports. I get it, and to some extent agree with it, and am powerless to offer up a good solution, as is everyone else. But with things like film? I think we're at a point where it's lazy and somewhat boorish to put someone like ScarJo in to tell a story that plenty of people are public and capable of telling. There's no active affirmative action thing for trans people. No cis actor is losing his or her job because transgender folks are barging in and gobbling up roles. But talented transgender people are losing roles to cis actors because that's easier/more palatable. 

 

Always a tricky subject. 

[ubkev]

Thanks to @josie and @LTS for keeping that discussion going. 

Josie, to the easier/more palatable point. What about the marketing angle? Isn't the director and the studio just going for the $ angle with the A-List actress? (Definitely doesn't look good after her and the director took a ton of heat for Ghost in the Shell)

 

Also, unrelated related question. I work with a girl(with a traditional female name) she started work with her name tag as such. She's very androgynous looking and has since shortened her name to a very androgynous/slightly masculine name. She very well might be transitioning, but I'm not positive/never going to ask her, ever, ever while in a position over her at work. I always call her by the name that she wants everyone to call her by and I never use pronouns with her. Seems like I should leave it like that until she states otherwise, right?

[josie]

On 7/16/2018 at 11:13 PM, ubkev said:

Thanks to @josie and @LTS for keeping that discussion going. 

Josie, to the easier/more palatable point. What about the marketing angle? Isn't the director and the studio just going for the $ angle with the A-List actress? (Definitely doesn't look good after her and the director took a ton of heat for Ghost in the Shell)

 

Also, unrelated related question. I work with a girl(with a traditional female name) she started work with her name tag as such. She's very androgynous looking and has since shortened her name to a very androgynous/slightly masculine name. She very well might be transitioning, but I'm not positive/never going to ask her, ever, ever while in a position over her at work. I always call her by the name that she wants everyone to call her by and I never use pronouns with her. Seems like I should leave it like that until she states otherwise, right?

Sorry, I've been in a rage mood all week and didn't want to risk spilling it all over this board and muddling up already fragile topics haha

 

Yeah the marketing is def part of it. Huge part of it. But there's a lot of outcry that hey, THIS is the time to do something outlandish and bring in an unknown actor - you could actually do it now - the public is more receptive than it's ever been, and may even champion a director that would do something like that. More movies recently have been grabbing actors that aren't A listers and it's generally been positive. I love IMDB trivia-ing movies when I watch them- loads of great films have tidbits like "other people who tried out for lead role are: A lister, A lister, A lister etc" and dark and I usually agree that having a recognizable face in some of those situations would've ruined the character. Kind of a different discussion, but it all ties up together in a little bow of "oh just fu*king give it a try, somebody, please" for that community. 

 

Your coworker- it's kinda like pregnancy. Unless the woman is currently crowning on the floor, and even then, never ask haha 

If they bring it up to you then fair game. But yeah, that can get sticky! One of my students emailed me before the semester to let me know that he was transitioning and to call him by his male name, not the one that might show up on the roster, etc. Great. We were able to talk about it through assignments and he ended up being my teacher in that subject. Another student of mine presented androgynous, went by a female name and all, but I could tell was kinda prickly. There was another person transitioning in that same class (and a drag queen as well), and the subject came up a few times- this student would get mighty uncomfortable and find an excuse to leave. They graduated last spring, and he added me on facebook- is now a gent, seems wayyyy more comfortable and seems really happy. But I definitely waffled on what to say to him because it was clear something was going on but it wasn't really my place to ask- he'd wince when I'd use his name and such, but yeah... I didn't want to maybe make it worse. 

If you ever did find yourself in a place to use pronouns with your coworker and you're going "uh eh blah durr" just ask "what pronouns do you prefer?". Could be awkward, but could also put them at ease. Seems to be the "accepted" way to handle that- a lot of cis people have taken to posting their own pronouns on their accounts as a show of support/normalizing it as well. Or you could always be a creep like me and stalk their social media and see if they have it anywhere haha 

[Taro T]

Jo, just wanted to say thanks for your input on this subject.  Though still am, don't feel completely clueless on the subject now.