I think this rebuild clarifies a lot of things and allows me to grasp it more firmly but in doing so I also have more clear criticisms. firstly, the things I agree with or generally appreciate.
l agree that gender is largely something done to people
l agree with the point of socialization (though I prefer the term patriarchal socialization)
I agree with the section on class fluidity
I also much appreciate the locating of contradictions in explicit terms
that being said, I have some nitpicks and one major question.
1. I'm not too sure if class structures are always trivially evident. many systems intentionally obscure who benefits at whose expense. though I agree it must be legible to enforce on a systemic level, I don't see evidence for the presupposition that it is always trivially legible. The bourgeoisie for example goes to great lengths to downplay class distinctions, adopting language and dress of the working class, while dedicating many resources to enforcing the idea that class distinctions are only numerical and not antagonistic or even in contradiction.
2. In saying that some trans or gay people are not subalternized, sizhens specifies the following (emphasis my own)
Just as not all who “identify” as “nonbinary” are intrinsically Subaltern in gender, likewise, not all who “identify” as “transmasculine” or even “transfeminine” are intrinsically politically underclassed. Rather, this is itself a mechanism of how much one transgresses or complies with punitive gender force. Further, there are people who are, by all means within the contemporary discourses, “cisgender,” who are meaningfully subalternized by gender hegemony.
This seems to run dangerously close to the rhetoric which denigrates "binary trans women" as not being subversive enough with their presentation and thus reinforcing the system. I don't think this was the intent but framing an individuals subalternaziation in how "transgressive" they are, I think it lends ammo to those who argue that being something like a "genderqueer fagdyke" is innately more progressive, more disruptive, than simply being a trans woman. Again, this is mostly a nitpick and I don't think it's the intent here but it was something I noticed. The last portion of the indented quotation I think raises more questions though, which brings me to,
3. The distancing from the terms of man and woman seems to go against the idea of this framework being inherently legible, and to me complicates the analysis further. Sizhens says that cis fags may share a Gender-class with trans women and other subaltern groups, but to me this is reductive. While they're both oppressed, cis gay men for example still clearly benefit from their manhood, their Gender relation is obviously different to that of a trans woman, even if they're both cast out of a particular relationship to the patriarchy. To me, saying this only makes sense if we remove the term gender from these classifications entirely, and speak of them purely in their relationship to patriarchy, lumping sexuality and gender based discrimination into a single axis.
This brings me to my last and bigger question, which is how does Subaltern meaningfully differ from "Queer"? If we hold the idea that Subaltern is about Gender, then classifying cis men this way goes against the evident privileges we can see reflected in society and flattens intersectional analysis, but if we complete the disconnection of the Subaltern from Gender, as Sizhens seems to want to do by disconnecting P and NP from "man" and "woman" then from my perspective, it's primarily replicating the framework and concept of Queerness.
turnnoffyourmind
titsay
dailybridgerton
snowghoul
andulkaphoto
annaxmalina
discoholicmusic
ellievsbear
2087
prguitarman
