While I do respect and agree with you on many points concerning gender and naming in the warriors world (e.g. Rose- being for any cat, not just she-cats, Cardinal- being for either red or brown cats regardless of gender, etc.), I can't help but feel like you're trying to belittle those who stick to a more gender-based naming system or have different beliefs on gender in general than you do. I'm not gonna quote the whole conversation but basically in response to that one kangaroo ask, (cont.)
(cont.) you said you could only see something like that happening in a clan written by “an insecure writer who is clinging desperately to a rigid gender binary”? Like, I get that’s not your style, but it honestly seems like you’re just trying to insult people. How exactly would that make them insecure or desperate?? Maybe that’s just their personal preference, or maybe they really do stick to a more “rigid gender binary” but so what? Why is that a bad thing?
Your instincts are right. I am straight-up judging the people who take that route, and my judgement is that they are being silly and need to take a good look at what they’re doing. But it’s unreasonable of me to insult them without explaining why, so I should have done that in the first place, and I apologise for expecting people to read my mind.
First of all, there are some cases where “agree to disagree” is a reasonable response to conflict. For example, if my friend and I were discussing our favourite foods, we might reach an impasse and agree to disagree, because neither of us can be swayed by the other’s impassioned argument about the qualities of sushi or stir fry, respectively. We’re not swayed, because how much we each enjoy our favourite meal is not something that can be rationally debated and our favouritism is The Truth to us. There can be multiple truths in this situation. Additionally, my friend and I love each other and our love of different meals doesn’t harm either of us.
I am saying this to give a contrast to times when “agree to disagree” is an inappropriate and impossible stance to take. For example, when one person says, “I’m homophobic and I don’t think LGBTQ+ people deserve to live in safety,” and another person says, “I’m gay, and I think you’re being a tool.” These are not equally acceptable opinions. One person is dehumanising and threatening the other’s existence, and there are real and dangerous consequences for the gay person who has to live in a society where they are not safe. By the way, I’m sorry for how long this answer is going to take to read, but it’s important to me that I make myself very clear about this issue.
So to follow on from that–if someone’s beliefs on gender are “the gender binary is a good idea and I love it,” then I cannot take the stance of “agree to disagree,” because I completely disagree and I disagree to such an extent that saying, “Oh well, that’s your opinion,” just isn’t good enough, because the gender binary–like homophobia–has real world consequences for everyone. The gender binary is a harmful, restrictive invention that assists in perpetuating sexism and misogyny, heteronormativity, colonialism, creates anxiety and stress in individuals, contributes to a high suicide rate in men, and a lot else besides. It’s not an aesthetic; it’s a poisonous method of societal control with serious ramifications on people’s lives. To me, my truth–the one that says, “Actually, the gender binary is a terrible idea,”–is the sensible opinion to have, in the same way, “Actually, LGBTQ+ deserve to be safe,” is the appropriate response to homophobia, and because I know what I’m talking about, I’m not going to change my mind. You can’t debate it with me. (Also, my criticism is aimed at the Western gender binary, because it’s not my place to go critiquing anywhere else–there are plenty of people out there with first-hand experience who’ve got that covered).
The thing about the Warriors world is that it is largely devoid of the gender binary. There are no inherent gender roles for clan cats. Aside from the pronouns assigned to the characters by Erin Hunter and the correlation with canon gender, I would say that there aren’t any gender expectations at all (especially when you theorise about “real” clans, instead of heteronormative commercial ones). I’ve talked about this a fair bit in the past: x, x, x, x, x.
Keeping in mind that the world-building of the clans is essentially without a harmful gender binary already and functions well and makes sense within its context, then trying to shove in a gender binary strikes me as a very desperate move, because it doesn’t fit the setting to do that. It doesn’t enrich the setting. It certainly doesn’t improve the setting. It just drags all the preexisting problems that come along with a gender binary, and shoves them into a world that didn’t have them or need them. To me, I’d define that as the opposite of progressive. What kind of writer is so threatened by the absence of the gender binary? I would expect a writer–especially a fantasy writer–to want to find interesting new ways of telling stories, of trying to create refreshing and different ways of experiencing the world. Not recreate the same world we already live in. That’s hardly escapism.
That’s why I criticise the move to add a gender binary to the clans. It’s just silly. You could argue that a gendered naming system is simply an “aesthetic” of the gender binary, but then I’d be obliged to ask why it developed at all. A binary gendered naming system looks a lot like a symptom of a society with a gender binary to me. I see it as a bad thing, because the gender binary is a bad thing, and a story that chooses to privilege a gender binary where it doesn’t fit strikes me as a bad thing. Overwhelmingly, it seems to indicate a writer who is either ignorant or bigoted. The real gender binary is bolstered by media that supports it, because literature influences people. With great power comes great responsibility and all that.
Also–and I apologise again for how long this is–but I’ve got an issue with your question. You said, “Maybe that’s just their personal preference,”–but so what? Just because something is someone’s preference doesn’t mean it’s not allowed to be criticised. Most preferences don’t just come from nowhere–they’re influenced by the society’s culture, and a lot of things that people describe as “preferences” are actually prejudices that they’ve internalised.
Someone could say, “I’m only attracted men,” and that would be a legitimate orientation. That’s a preference that’s innate to that person. But saying, “I’m only attracted to thin men,” is very likely influenced by a fatphobic society that privileges and depicts thinness as attractive and demonises fat, and thus the preference is formed through prejudice and media. Or saying, “I’m not attracted to bisexual men,” is a ‘preference’ that indicates a biphobic attitude, most likely stemming from sentiments of “bisexual people are greedy/cheaters/[some ignorant opinion]”.
So when someone defends their use of a gender binary as “a preference,” I am inclined to wonder: 1. how much of that preference is conditioned by a gender binary society? 2. what part of the gender binary appeals to this person, and why, and what does that say about them? and 3. to what extent has this person reflected critically on their preferences?
Reflecting critically on our preferences is often hard and uncomfortable, and some people forgo analysing their own reasons and motives and prejudices and so on in favour of being comfortable. That’s insecurity. Rather than facing up to themselves and learning, they cling to what they think they know and opt for an “ignorance is bliss” approach in regard to everything else. But writing is important, and if you want to write, I think it’s best to see yourself in the same way readers will–i.e., if you write sexist books, you will–unsurprisingly–appear sexist.
Everyone has flaws, because that’s normal, and it’s possible to write an enjoyable book that has bad parts in it, but that doesn’t mean complacency is okay and that’s why I rattle people who I think aren’t paying attention. The ones that respond are typically the ones who haven’t been thinking critically about these things, because they’re defensive and jumpy. The ones who have been thinking critically would, I expect, just brush my comments off and keep on with their work, because they know what they’re doing and can justify their choices and have enough faith in the value of their story to they know I’m probably not talking about them.
I hope this answers your questions.
