#zablorg

[theroguefeminist]

I think a big thing stopping people accepting nuance in regards to the gendered socialization one picks up, is because so much of our theories about CIS gender dynamics can become very thorny and not as immediately satisfying if that happens. A very unambiguous socialization model seems super super baked into everything third wave feminism has to say.

The existence of trans ppl definitely throws a wrench into a lot of simpler frameworks for gender in society. That’s one reason terfs, who are 2nd wave feminists and even more behind, can’t stand trans ppl bc terfs can’t really reconcile their narrative about how being “female” can only be understood as an oppressed class you’re put into based on genitalia at birth and then imprisoned in due to socialization–and how abolishing these classes would solve patriarchy. Now suddenly you have ppl saying they identify as women despite being “socialized as male” and ppl saying they identify as men despite being “socialized as female”? That flies in the face of the framework. It starts to become clear that gender is more than a hierarchical class system rooted in power and oppression, but also has a component of identity and self-expression.

Fortunately, most of us have moved on from 2nd wave feminism. We have come to realize that gender is more than that. Most women and men don’t want to cease being women and men, and that desire isn’t necessarily incompatible with dismantling patriarchy or challenging gender norms.

Later strands of feminism take the identity and self-expression aspects of gender into account but tend to use clumsy attempts to reconcile the problems trans people bring up, i.e. disconnect between identifying as one gender but being treated as another, spending a large portion of your life living as one gender and another portion of your life living as another, being treated as one gender in some instances and another gender in different instances, opting to live as one gender despite years of being “raised” as another, being unable to identify or tell everyone’s gender by their behavior and appearance, identifying as /neither/ male or female, etc.

The fact that gender involves coercive socialization is not something any of us trans people would deny: we are the first to point out how we are all forcibly assigned a gender at birth and raised according to the strictures of that gender. In fact, our experience is even more painfully at odds with that gender assignment than the average cisgender person. Which is why most (non-feminist) cis people’s first objections to trans people are that we’re trying to say gender isn’t biological or innate but socially constructed and we’re all being pushed to play narrowly defined roles. The average person has to reconcile a completely uncritical understanding of gender as innate when presented with exceptions that prove the rule. Most cis people balk at this and just try to deny our existence in response.

Feminists on the other hand ALREADY KNOW gender is socially constructed. I think this is why SOME cis feminists are more readily able to absorb trans people into their worldview. After all: gender is socially constructed, it’s forced on all of us, and being gender nonconforming can be seen as a form of rebellion. HOWEVER, even the most well-meaning, trans-positive cis feminism will find points of conflict with trans existence. Like you say, that the explanations reliably model CIS gender dynamics and experience but not trans ones. Unfortunately, a lot of feminist critique of male power/privilege and female oppression rely on the very gender binary system that, in mainstream patriarchal society, situates male and female at opposite, mutually exclusive poles. 

We know to critique the gender binary of course. We know it’s “bad” or at the very least incomplete, but beyond an elucidation into restrictive gender norms that keep women down or further men’s toxic behavior, no feminist framework truly escapes the binary. We still talk in terms of men versus women, male and female socialization, etc. I’m not saying this is wrong per se when you consider that, in many circumstances this framework actually is correct. You can probably compare most mainstream current feminist thought to Newtonian physics: it’s a perfectly accurate model in the limited scope it was used to model phenomena. In fact, to do away with it would be a mistake.

And I guess that’s what I mean about trying to reconcile anything being next to impossible because I would say the trans model, like the Einsteinian model, is looking at things with a different lens. Using a lens that includes the phenomena of trans experience we see gender differently–and dynamics do not follow the predictions we would make with the cis feminist model. But I would say that like the Einsteinian model, the trans lens does reveal things the cis feminist model left out and see the original phenomena we measured in a different light. If someone accepts that gender is an identity, and not just a mode of oppression or power, that may change how someone approaches feminism and liberation, particularly in terms of how their actions and words might impact trans people.

One problem is we do not deal very honestly or thoroughly with this issue. We sidestep the conflicts that arise–the ways in which trans existence challenges cis feminism–for a variety of reasons, I think partially in the name of solidarity, partially because we fear minimizing/enabling/obfuscating the very real system of patriarchal power or, on the other hand, excluding or hurting trans people from the conversation by acknowledging the conflict. I think our constant quest for solidarity and intersectionality–for a wholeness of theory–has forced us to collapse the complexity of this issue. But the feminist lens and trans lens are different lenses, and that needs to be acknowledged sooner rather than later.

[theroguefeminist]

Your point about the social pressures of being out and trans basically making a filter for who is out at all is well observed- I actually hadn't thought about it like that at all before. Makes particular sense with the autism connection- I had previously assumed the relationship just had to do with neurodivergence on some level. I'd think the mental stresses and fatigue of being out probably causes some specific behaviors as well, right? I think that's true of a lot of marginalized identities.

I first had this thought when I was sitting in class and getting annoyed with this other trans person who I thought was abrasive and sort of outspoken about things when I realized that a lot of trans ppl I know are like that and it makes sense that ppl who are outspoken and sort of in your face would be more likely to come out and transition at all. And you’re also probably right that the stresses of being trans in and of themselves result in certain behaviors. That piece is something I’ve been noticing in myself lately now that I’ve been out more. I used to not get why nonbinary ppl on twitter can be such a hate mob and so overly sensitive about every little perceived slight but now...I actually get it. I have recently had a few conversations where it feels like I’m being judged and scrutinized for my identity and it REALLY triggered me. I understand better why people lash out so much, especially since being nonbinary in particular is so thoroughly alienating that you get shit from not only cis ppl but other trans ppl.

It’s hard to say exactly why autism and trans-ness overlap so much. Part of me is curious to see research done on that, but the other part of me is afraid of cis people fear-mongering more about autism and transgender identity in children, so it’s probably something we’ll just have to wonder about for the time being.

[theroguefeminist]

Something I've never seen addressed in these "people routinely do things for free" posts is the labour described is almost always done at the person's leisure, something they take satisfaction from, and something they can feel free to drop at any time. It's like, would I like to take a day learning to farm with a tractor for free? Absolutely, that sounds cool as hell. Would I be so motivated to farm for the hundredth day in a row to meet production? Probably not. Curious abt your thoughts here.

So I think there are various ways to address this issue. I’m far from an expert, but I can talk about my vision for what I always thought labor would look like in a socialist society. 

For one, I think it’s easy to underestimate the diversity of likes and dislikes among people. One person might gain satisfaction writing code, but another might get satisfaction working in a soup kitchen or re-organizing an office. One guy I met said he loved being a chef because of the adrenaline rush of getting and fulfilling orders during rush hour. I’d hate that. I wouldn’t want to cook tons of things all at once with people yelling at me. But he lived for it. One man’s drudgery is another’s passion. In a society where all labor is compensated equally, I would expect less competition for “prestige” jobs and more leveling out based on people’s genuine passions and talents. In addition, I think labor flexibility would be a thing: people could work more than one job and have a lot of control over when and how much they work.

I always felt like in a socialist society people wouldn’t have to have one job. Able bodied people could have a set amount of “communal labor” like construction, custodial work, garbage duty etc. sort of like volunteer work, and there’d probably be a lot of choice in what work you could do. I feel like if everyone had to do a set amount of that per week we’d have coverage. Young or adventurous people could even travel to do stints on farms or in community renovation, etc kind of like they do for Habitat for Humanity and other organizations–it could even be some sort of “community service requirement” college kids do. There is the issue of making these kinds of jobs attractive if people have free choice of where and how long to work and who aren’t doing it for money, but that actually might be a good thing: ideally, that would actually push our society to ensure labor conditions are good. The government would have to recruit and scout people and work hard to keep workers happy. That sounds challenging, but also like…well, a huge improvement. Currently, we actually do have employers that do that in high-paying competitive jobs like tech companies. What if all jobs were like that? I’d also like to add that I think there would be people motivated by The Cause - those who are passionate about building a socialist society.

Of course, there has to be some compulsory element in that, as you mention, there are things we need to get done as a society. I think it’s fair that a certain amount of labor be expected as a condition of being able to partake in all the benefits of a socialist society (free food, shelter, clothing, goods, healthcare, internet, etc), but that amount of labor would be significantly less than what it is now. I think we’d be able to work a lot less and share a lot more labor in a society where constant production isn’t pushed on people. (Would we need people driving buses so much if people weren’t expected to work all day? Would we need to produce so much food if we didn’t throw out so much of what isn’t sold? Would teachers need as long of days if kids’ parents aren’t working all day? Would we need nearly as many stores when people just go to pick up things they need? etc). Also, it seems that a lot of more repetitive, physical labor is going to become increasingly automated, anyway. We have self-driving cars and it’s only a matter of time before those become mainstream (there go Uber jobs), store clerks have been losing their jobs to machines, and machines are becoming more advanced. If things continue in this direction, that just makes socialism that much more necessary.

When people bring up the issue of labor in socialist society, they tend to focus on repetitive physical labor, but don’t consider how “high skill” labor would change. I often think about how becoming a lawyer or doctor would be a lot more accessible when education is free and so you just need to be willing to put in the time to obtain an education in that field and have the ability to do the job well. This to me would mean specialized jobs like doctors would have shorter hours than they do now, since more people could become doctors. So I think in this model, people who don’t want to put in the time and effort to gain an education in a specialized field (or who don’t enjoy working in any of those jobs or don’t have a talent for the work) would probably devote more time to more repetitive or physical labor. But in a socialist society no form of labor is “superior” - it would come down to what you want to do and what you’re good at, and also what society needs. So it would be up to the government to structure things for the fulfillment of all individuals as well as the collective.

@zablorg​ - Sorry this ask took me awhile to get to - I have been swamped at work lately (ironically enough) 

[theroguefeminist]

idk if I'd agree that communism is inherently anarchistic. I mean, it might be by specific communists' definition etc, but I've seen a LOT of ostensibly communist theory saying that a state/government would be required to admin. So in that sense I expect anarcho-communism is specified just to be more clear.

Well, communism is supposed to be stateless. I mean, at least according to Marx anyway. Government administration is really just supposed to be at the socialism stage when you’re transitioning to a stateless society. That’s why “workers of the world unite” is a slogan because the idea is no states, no boarders, worldwide revolution. It’s also one big reason nationalism/fascism is ideologically opposed to communism because it has the exact opposite values. A communist society is, by definition, a stateless, classless society with no government. IDK if we have actually ever seen a truly communist society. 

[theroguefeminist]

I've often wondered about the meaning of what it is to be non-binary in a binary framework. Not to veer too far from what you were talking about initially, but I feel this is why the experiment of neo-pronouns was never met with much success, for example- male and female pronouns hook into some common cultural understanding, and "they/them" basically says "neither of those". But more specific pronouns than that don't hook into a more specific understanding, because none is established.

yeah i mean...there’s an issue of what it really means to be recognized as nonbinary - i have noticed where i live a growing awareness and acceptance of nonbinary ppl but this has always been surface level because the deeper binary cultural norms remain in-tact. but there is a question of what it even looks like for our society to be truly inclusive of nonbinary people. would that actually entail a dismantling of gendering ppl altogether? bc it sort of seems that way, at least gendering ppl you dont know at all which is why you have activists who advocate for using gender neutral language and they/them pronouns as the default until you learn someone preferred language, which i think makes sense, but then the problem is that our society is so deeply gendered that it becomes difficult to do this in practice. like if i am on a bus and a man harasses me...i can’t really talk about this experience in a gender neutral way. and as much as i dislike teachers gendering their students, acting “gender blind” can have the effect of actually failing to address gender inequality or ignoring gendered dynamics in a space - not to mention the use value of gendered spaces in some situations

theres also the fact of course that gender is inherently political and patriarchal and tied to power. thats something none of us can escape. and the fact that binary trans ppl may often have goals completely at odds with nonbinary ppl in that they WANT to be gendered a certain way and have that gender validated and reinforced - they want to achieve an existing gender role in society whereas nonbinary ppl want to either NOT be put into a gendered category or to have a completely new gender category established for them, both of which necessitate a certain restructuring of gender norms and how we navigate gender in our lives. one criticism i saw was this weird argument that nonbinary genders simply add more rungs or gradations to the pre-existing system of gender inequality, but i never understood that because how would being agender or genderfluid be a “level” in a patriarchal gender hierarchy? 

more to your point, i was recently thinking about neo pronouns and another issue (which is actually related to the problem of asking ppl for personal pronouns) is that its probably impractical and unwieldy for so many ppl to have their unique set of pronouns and to expect others to memorize everyone’s personal set of pronouns. as an aspiring teacher ive thought about this in terms of dealing w/pronouns in the classroom. i guess you could default to they/them and gender neutral language, ask people their pronouns, and then make a note when someone has “unexpected” pronouns on your roll sheet/roster--pretty sure this is how one of my professors dealt with my situation. most people use “typical” pronouns, so you really only have to remember for the small percentage of people who go by pronouns other than what someone might presume. one problem ive noticed is almost always ppl ask for pronouns at the beginning of the school year and then everyone just calls me she/her after that. so again, people say they accept nonbinary people, but our thinking and behavior still falls in line with the binary. the only way to escape that to some extent is to genuinely confuse people about your gender, but they will always have the tendency to place you according to the binary

[theroguefeminist]

But in questioning what "acceptance" of nb people would mean, I suppose the best question to ask would be what do you, as a non binary person, seek to embody in being non-binary? Is it to be detached from the system of gender altogether, so that its rulings don't apply? As you've suggested that does imply a pretty extensive overhaul.

One problem is that “nonbinary” is a very broad category of people, so what I want personally may differ from what other nonbinary people want. Some nonbinary people actually do transition and try to adopt the gender role of the “opposite gender” because they are transmasculine or transfeminine and thus that gender is closer to their identity anyway. For them, there’s not a huge amount of difference necessarily between their goals and that of binary trans people. 

Then there are nonbinary people, as I mentioned in the last ask, who don’t feel the need to present in any noticeably “gender nonconforming” way. Someone like that is probably going to be read as their assigned gender by most people. Some of these nonbinary people may take great issue with that while others may not. There are also nonbinary people who identify as agender or androgynous and present in a gender ambiguous way or genderfluid people whose presentatoon changes. They may be interpreted as their assigned gender, as a trans person who “doesn’t pass,” inconsistently as either male or female depending on the context, or regularly confuse people.  Androgynous, agender and genderfluid nonbinary people may also physically transition to some extent. 

And among nonbinary people, a desire to be read a certain way still exists. For others, not being gendered whatsoever might be preferred. For me, as a genderfluid person, I often desire either not to be gendered or to be read according to how I present. As it stands, I’m read as female nearly always, so I guess I’d prefer being read as male or “androgynous” more of the time than I am now, to be able to achieve the ability to move successfully between gender presentations. The biggest issue I have at the moment is being constantly gendered as female, so i do wish people would adopt gender neutral language when addressing people they don’t know. That can be difficult in practice--I myself forget to consistently use gender neutral language--but it’s not such a far-reaching change. In California, we now have a gender neutral designation on our IDs and licenses, and the ability to change our birth certificates to this designator. But that change, in my opinion, isn’t far reaching enough. If our legal documents ceased to be gendered, this would be better--for all trans people. Having birth certificates, IDs, and other documents leaves a gendered paper trail that makes it harder for all trans people to live as their preferred gender. That’s a change we could all probably agree on. 

Realistically, I don’t think I can live outside of gender norms. In a patriarchal society, I acutely experience sexism regularly and what it means to be treated as a woman in society. On the rare occasions I’ve been read as male, at times I have been afforded brief glimpses of male privilege, but these were fleeting.  One problem with trying to enforce gender neutralism now is it’s premature. As long as gender roles codify power and oppression, we can’t truly treat people in a gender blind way. But we can probably, in our day to day lives, respect the preferred language of nonbinary people. I guess in some ways I answered my own question. It seems that maybe all we can do for the time being is push for pragmatic changes that make the day to day lives of nonbinary people easier to live, but a truly gender diverse and gender neutral society is probably not possible yet.

[theroguefeminist]

I think this question of perception ties into binary transness a great deal. You will of course be familiar with how trans men and trans women will both claim to not have male privilege for exactly the same reason but from different directions: that of the public at large considering them men or not, vs one's own sense that the opposite is true. As you point out it's more complicated in the nb case bc there's not an established case for what, I suppose you could call "passing", would mean.

Yeah, a complication of understanding transness in the context of patriarchy and gender inequality, regardless of whether a trans person is binary or not, is the disparity between how others perceive your gender and how you experience gender internally. Another related issue is how a trans person’s understanding and expression of their gender identity develops and changes over time. I actually think it’s pretty complicated for binary trans people still in that a trans man is going to be treated as a girl growing up and experience much of the same things cis girls experience in childhood, unless they transitioned at a young age. There’s also the fact that not all trans people identify as trans from a young age. Some identify as their assigned gender for many years before transitioning, which also shapes their experience.

But like you mention, if a trans person starts “passing” as their identified gender, then that disparity disappears. That’s because there is a pre-existing gender role they can inhabit. Unless the “opposite gender” is closer to their preferred gender, which is the case for some nonbinary people who then transition as a binary trans person would, nonbinary people either continue to present in much the same way they always have or attempt an androgynous, fluid or genderless appearance. In the latter case, there is no “passing” beyond confusing people’s “read” on your gender. 

[larksinging]

zablorg replied to your post: firstenchanterorsino replied to your post: ...

If you’re interested in this, there’ve been at least a couple of exposes on Telltale where employees cite pretty much every management/organization/planning fuckup in the book. They were pretty much doomed to close one way or another I think

i feel like i should have a more serious and nuanced response but honestly all i can think is “ruh roh”