This is a draft. Copyright 2018. If you reference this writing, please provide the link.
These were my origainal thoughts before I looked further into the movement and became even more radicalized. Since the writing of this blog, i have not come to the conclusion that we should be helping trans people develop their own identity separet from tht of women. their stuggles differ from those of women, and they are currently co-opting omen's mvoemtns and interfering with their rights in a number of ways. I respect trans people, but it is not acceptable that men with penises are callign teh,seves women and demanding access to our marches, and rape refuges. A trans identity tht reflect tehir differing needs and stuggles is in order-one that does not co-opt womn's and deny that our bodies are integral to our idenntiy and rights. I also now reject the use of the term cis.
---------------------------
Here is the original draft
I'll start by mentioning that this is my first blog. I am not an exceptional writer, but I am formally trained in pre-law including logic, critical thinking, debate and philosophy.
I am writing for a few reasons. First, I am currently part of a very liberal sub-community in America. Its full of diversity of expression, which I love. What it is NOT filled with is : good debate skills, diversity of opinion, self-reflection and critical thinking. I know many many members are concerned about some of the narratives that are pushed in the community, and they are NOT being allowed to talk freely about them.
If you read this blog and you find your ideals being challenged, rather than defend against my insights, I ask you to consider them. I dont ask you to buy into them whole heartedly, but I ask you to challenge yourself., question yourself, consider the possibility that narratives that you push are not unquestionable truth. Most people i know in the community are too scared to do this. They are married to their ideals. They will defend them without really thinking about it. This is a problem for a few reasons that I will get to later. For now I ask you to TOLERATE dissent. Well informed, well-thought out, reasonable descent.
________________________________________________________________________________
This post will talk about problems with the theory that is behind the practice of advocating separate gender identities and gender-neutral pronouns. If you are deeply connected to that, you will probably already be defensive about me bringing it up. I am not suggesting that its wrong. I am suggesting that its problematic at the reasons people resist it cannot be chalked up to "bigotry," and hate.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Inconsistent theory.
1. My first and most important concern about this movement comes from the fact that it is based on a number of theoretical misconceptions and inconsistencies. First, these theories are based on the idea that gender is a construction. While I agree that most of gender is a construction, I this is a matter for debate. what does it mean to say that gender is a construction?? Well, a brief explanation would be to say that the way people present themselves as male or female is based on societal ideals, not something based in truth. The idea that woman should be pretty and have long hair, that men are "masculine" or like cars and tools, all of those things are social constructions, not real correlations.
I would agree with this. I would agree that there is no reason why a man cannot wear a dress, be feminine, and present himslef in a number of ways. These stereotypes are problematic because they put people in boxes and can prevent them from being who they are in terms of personal expression, interests and sometimes even career choices. Those unfortunate limitations in societal expectations should be changed-and are changing. Unfortunately, those who chose to fight this by claiming that there are no valid correlations between gender expression and sex, are expressing an opinion. Data and opinion are mixed as to whether or not there are some innate aspects of gender, and denying that by picking selective evidence to say its indisputable, is inflexibility and dogma. Furthermore, even if you accept that gender is a construction, the solutions being proposed by this movement are problematic. Those solutions involve recognizing, naming and labelling other constructions of gender, using the terms male and female to refer to "gender" rather than sex. There are serious problems with this strategy.
a) if you agree that gender is a construction, that goes hand in hand with the idea that gender is arbitrary, fluid, and mixed in all of us. i present aspects of self that conform with female stereotypes and male stereotypes. I am a mix of conformity and non-conformity. I agree that it makes sense to DE-stigmatize this and let people mix and match at they chose. BUT GIVEN THAT "constructed," fluid and arbitrary nature of gender construction, ... IT makes NO SENSE to IDENTIFY people using gender. This is why Facebook has 71 "gender options." because gender is opinion and construction. Anyone can make up an idea of expression and label it. While those labels bring some people some comfort, there is a reason why the rest of us resist this movement. First, you can be a mix of gender expressions without needing a new label. Second, its seems awfully contradictory to call current gender labels "oppressive" and then replace them with other labels.If male and female gender roles are oppressive constructions, why call yourself bi-gendered? Isn't that label also confining, arbitrary subjective. Why not just be a mix of gender expressions without denying that you have a sex. On the asme lines, some "genderqueer" people refer to others as gender conforming or cis. I accept the use of cis to refer to someone as being non-trans, but not an non-gender-queer or gender conforming. Why? because if gender does not exist, we are all gender fluid, a mix of conforming and non-conforming.
Gender queers sometimes make a big deal about how wrong it is that people "assume" their gender, (they call this cis-sexism or cis-assumption) yet they constantly evaluate others as being too "gender conforming" too "hetero-normative" too cis.
Sorry, you dont know what ways I secretly conform and don't. You don't know that my conservative boyfriend who appears to conform also cross-dresses. It is many gender activists who are making a cis-assumption. I don;t wear a sign that says queer, but by your definitions, I would qualify. Your need to label me is contrary to your own dogma.
The idea of CIS as a technical distinction between trans and non-trans people makes some sense (although there are some fair objections to the use of this word in this sense too, for now I will leave that.) In terms of gender queerness or non-conformity, it does not make any sense, since we all are all conforming and non-conforming, and denying that creates a new binary that is restrictive, judgemental and marginalizing. It creates an us/them that I see being used by the community all of the time. this is not accepting, compassionate or progressive, as these people claim to be. If they wanted to be those things, they should be fighting against all of these labels and the recognition that we all fall on a valid place on a continuum.
Unfortunately, gender activists are confused about the basic tenets of their own beliefs. They claim that sex and gender are different, yet they often mix them up. (for instance a trans person, transition from male to female shoudl be really called a transexual not transgender. hey are transitioning biologically, by sex, which is a real thing, not just by arbitrary and constructed elements such as gender expression.) By the way, i support treating trans people as the sex that they are transitioning towards fir this reason. That is, because they are changing sex, which is real, not "gender," which by all of this theorizing, can be changed, re-named, mixed, matched and played with. The problem with gender theory and activism is that is based on the idea that gender is constructed but then then demands that people be recognized by these arbitrary constructions. It also bemoans the oppression of a limiting "binary" but then espouses a new binary which is just as arbitrary, in some ways more artificial and constructed, and just as oppressive.
2. Practical problems.
The failure of gender theorists to understand the implications of their own theories ("gender is a construction" ) creates practical problems. As i said, one of the practical problems is 71 gender labels as that is the case on face book, or even infinite labels. most of us reject these labels, not because we are bigots (as is sometimes suggested), but bemuse its unwieldy, its unnecessary, and its an unreasonable thing to ask of most of us. I accept your right to express yourself in any number of ways but its not practical to name and recognize these conceptual categories as being any more special or useful than male and female. Demanding that people knowledge and address you according to a theoretically constructed label is the height of entitlement.
Removing the idea of sexes. One of the practical problems with this activism is that it hinges on the idea that sex and gender are different, that gender is "constructed" ...yet it often tries to deny the reality of sexes. As i said, its arguable that sex should not dictate gender. But that doesn't mean that we should deny sex. This is a sticking point with many of us. I am a woman because I have a vagina and xx chromosmnes, NOT because my "gender" expression is feminine. Demanding that we recognize people who like femininity as "women" but who have penises creates a number of practical problems. First, I accept that trans people are an exception-that biological males in transition to being female might be called "women." but that should be viewed as an exception. Gender theorists who say that anyone who feels like a woman is a woman, is denying us the use of the word woman in a way that is practical and important. yes, I have been told by gender theorists who were physically male that they were women, which I dont agree with. I also was called a lesbian by a guy a dated (who had a penis and had no plans to transition but cross-dressed.) the usefulness of the word woman to me means not having to explain to someone that i have a vagina. Its a shortcut for VAGINA. The usefulness of the term lesbian is that it is a short-cut for dating another vagina, which is something I dont do. So a gender theorist who has a penis and wears some female gender can be offended by me calling myself straight, based on my use of words that relate to biological sex. And yet, i am not allowed to be offended by being labeled a lesbian, based on terms being used for soemone who has a subject and constructed perception of female. The crux of this, and it matters to many of us is, its useful to have terms that refer to our biological sex. Most of us like that. sexual orientation refers to genitals and biological sex, not gender expression. I get that "trans" people can be an exception, but the solution to that is not to deny that sex terms matter for many of us and that we intend to keep using them. Important to note, I hear trans people complaining that they have to explain their genitals to people. While I am sorry about the inconvenience of that, they are creating a system now where we all have to explain or genitals. I can either say that I dress men than cross-dress. Normal people understand that means I date people with penises who express some feminine gender. If I am to accept what i am being told by gender theorists, those "men" aren't men. They are women. I now have to explain that while I am willing to accept woman-on woman gender expression, i dont do women on woman genitals. YES, now I have to explain that I could be considered a lesbian by some in this abstract way but not in terms of physiology. What makes sense instead is to refer to most penis-bearers as men and to allow them to stay men regardless of gender expression, rather than identifying them by gender and having to explain the genitals to others. In short, we can have male/female refer to either gender or sex but not both. It makes sense to refer to sex since that is objective and not changing, while allowing fluidity of expression to exist without having to label it.
many of us are rejecting gender politics because of these inconsistency. We are neither bigoted nor against non-conforming expression, but we are against cramming down people's throats a labelling system that is complicated, inconvenient, contradictory, and oppresses OUR OWN sexual identities.
This holds true to some extent with the idea of "gender-less pronouns" as well. I will not refer to a singular person as they, zee or zir. A person who does not want to reflect male or female gender is still biologically male or female and I dont support their demanding that the rest of us recognize and treat as special their expression choices. I attended a party this week with someone wearing a sign on his shirt saying ze/zir. While I think this person is lovely, he is not entitled to demand that I deny he has a sex. If he wanted to transition, to female, I would make an exception. Demanding that I recognize his genderless-ness misses a few points. first, he has a sex, and he doesn't need to deny his sex to express neutral gender. secondly, demanding that i call him this is wrong, oppressive and entitled. I dont want to participate and support the ideology that is trying to remove sex related terms from our culture, because that has a use for me, and many of us. You do not have my consent to demand that I participate in this linguistic change. This feels controlling, entitlement, manipulative, self-indulgent, and pretentious.
I would like people to consider an analogy. In feminist circles, we used to talk about how the "male establishment" messed up obstetrics for women. Male doctors, with their hubris and their "book knowledge" stated institute academic practices into OBGYN that hurt women. They unnecessarily complicated the birth processes. they put women on their backs, which was not natural and caused complications.
I see the same thing in feminist and gender theory. I see a bunch of academics sitting around and coming up with academic explanations for gender that do not work in practice for most of us. While their ideas might lead to some good things (as in medicine, the male establishment did institute some positive ideas), there are lots of flaws in tehir theories. they think they know best because the ideas came out of books, but what if many of those ideas are hyper-intellectualized, impractical, biased and unintentionally oppressive. If i want to be generous, I can give the theorists the benefit of the doubt and say they have good intentions. ....In truth however, I think SOME of it is based on good intentions, some of it is based on academic self-gratification, and some of it is based on hostility towards men. I dont think the terms male and female developed to oppress us. I think it developed naturally for good reasons, and while I think that there are oppression built into the system, that shoudl be addressed, but I reject some of these solutions.
Alarmingly, I have talked to graduates of these programs who have not had to take courses that question the theories that they espouse. Many of them don't even have the critical thinking skills to ask if there are other explanations for the phenomenon they are encountering. That is, most of them have not asked if there are valid reasons for labeling ourselves by sex. They have not asked themselves if creating new binaries created other division or oppression. They are told what to believe, not to question the possibility that they are being taught opinions. They are also being taught that its good to be angry, strident, and mean about the oppression they've faced. I support people fighting oppression, but before they do so, they should have to take a minimum of two courses in alternative explanations or viewpoint.
Some people complain about academics for this reason. they complain that the ideas coming out of these programs are harmful and stupid. I dont completely agree. I think the ideas are important. I think the lack of self-questioning is a problem. I think the some of the dogma being pushed as truth, is a problem.
3. Bullying. Name calling, taking safe places away from others.
As I have outlined , there are lots of reasons why I disagree with this activism. None of it has to do with the people involved, but the poor theory and some of the agenda behind it. unfortunately, because i feel strongly that some of these ideas are inconsistent and even oppressive to others, i feel its important to talk about it. The problem is, that talk has put me at risk. People who are emotionally invested in these theories are often bullies. Instead of recognizing and discussing the problems related with the theories and practices, people who feel the need to defend them at all costs can be violent-emotionally and otherwise. Calling people who don't agree with you Nazis and bigots ...is a form of intimidation.
There are those who disagree with me who are reasonable, caring, and capable of talking about these issues sanely. they are few and far between however. In the circles that i associate in, the majority of people share my ambivalence about these ideas and policies, but they are actively afraid of talking about them. being called a bigot when you are in fact not expressing bigotry but questioning dogma, is scary and threatening. Where I am, in a liberal community, in a liberal circle, ...most of us think these activists go too far but we are afraid to talk about it. While these people will claim to be marginalized, I woudl question whether that is an illusion. I mostly see very white, very entitled, mostly female or female-identifying males of economic/academic privileged, espousing these views (and expressing them uncritically.) I have also seen these views being espoused my men who I believe have been shamed by the feminist movement into hating their male identities. Some men have internalized this idea that men can't be pretty. Some have internalized this idea that they are all sexist and piggish and that they must atone for patriarchy. I also see lots of very privileged women who like to channel their anger at others through the cloak of activism. I know someone personally who "gets off" on calling people cis even though in my opinion she is by her own definition cis herself. Another person, a biological female who exhibits female gender expression(make up, feminiity, dresses) but claims to be without gender. She demands to be called they and says anyone who doesnt honor this is an oppressor. She claims to have. She also tried to educate someone I know and describing herself as having dysphoria. Dysphoria, I questioned??? What she meant, but was not educated enough to understand, was dysmorphia. The former is a type of depression, the latter is a feeling of not having your body match your gender. She also claimed to be wearing a dress and make-up because she was in "drag." This was not someone who was trans, this was someone who is biological female, who dresses female but calls it "drag" and claims that if you are a male who is attracted to her, you are "gay" since she perceives herself as male-ish. I take dysphoria seriously, and thats why I support trans people who want to transition. However, someone like this who claims that the term male or female itself is oppressive, based on theory, not based on wanting to transition, is problematic. It feels to me like the tale of the emperor's new clothes. She is not not female by sex, and she is not not female by gender. She is female by all standards. Demanding that I support that by demanding that I call her they is wrong. calling me a bigot for not doing it is manipulative.
Asking me to support something I don't believe in-that is, telling to deny that sex terms are useful and appropriate, is more than inconvenience. The reasons societies developed terminology is so that we can all agree what we are talking about. Words mean things to people, and i like having terms for people with penises and people with vaginas. If you need an identity separate from your genitals, use different terms, not terms that render terms that i identify with as invalid. Being told that my point of view is invalid, when i dont believe it is, is aggression towards me. being told that I need to say certain things publicly to support this policy, is coercion and it takes away my safe place. When your safe space demands that I follow specific, made up protocols for some people and not others, it feels like bullying. I saw on a blog a non-binary person who demanded to be called zee said "god, why don't people just nod and do what they are told." Umm. for the same reason you don't. Because it doesn't feel right. And unlike you, I have historical precedent and life time use of these words to support what they mean to me.
Other problems. I believe that some people are in the movement to
support diversity, which of course is great. However, I also see a
number of motives that concern me. I DO see people in this movement who
are in it because they need to define themselves against other people. I
also see people who enjoy calling other people "cis" so they can put
down others who in reality are no more "cis" than themselves. I see
privileged white women who I suspect feel guilty about their privileged
and who use aligning with "oppression" as a right to express outrage and
hate against oppressors (mostly white men.) And I see many many young
people who are claiming all sorts of gender identities because its fun
and its a fad. While I support their exploration of themselves and their
expression, I do not support them demanding special entitlements to new
pronouns, to change bathroom rights, or demand that professors who
disagree with them not hurt their feelings. The most important problem I
see in this movement, however, is the hypocrisy. I see a lack of
diversity of opinions and input, intolerance towards the beliefs and
needs of others. Tolerance is how your treat people who disagree with
you. I see an awful lot of intolerance towards anyone who points out
problems or criticisms of this movement. If and when tolerance is the
real goal, I would expect to see more sane discussions that include
recognition of problems in this movement. I don't see that.
This is why some people unfortunately call you snowflakes. Not because you cant mix and match your gender expressions, but because it feels as though your demands are attention seeking, entitled, controlling and lack concern for the feelings of others.
4. Backlash
The reasons why many of us resist this movement is not, for the most part, because we are bigots. calling people who raise real concerns about a movement bigots creates harder feelings than are necessarily. if you think those feelings don't matter, you are a) lacking in compassion for others and b) you don't realize you are harming your own interests.
After the Us election, i watched liberals wring their hands in agony crying out, how and why did this happen. I believe the far left is responsible for the election of trump. Most progressives live in their own world where it fails to hear the voices of many of us. Tehy surround themselves with friends watch racchel maddow, who will tell tehm how right tehy are, they surround themselves with fb friends and others who will always "like" the same memes. They believe the simplistic narrative that people who disagree with them are fascists. They don't understand the complexities and realities of the arguments against their polices, and they don't seek out alternative views to their opinions.
I saw a clip on the news of a reporter who said that during the election, many people leaned it to him, under their breath, saying they woudl vote for trump, despite thinking he was a bigot and a nutjob. i would not have voted for trump, but i sincerely sympathize. I don't like the agenda of the left. I dont like being told how privileged I am by academics who have much more than me. I dont like people redefining my sex and calling me names if i raise dissent. Ive seen and heard liberals dismiss the basic concerns of middle class and working class voters saying "that doesn't matter. that's not a real issue." Well, please be careful, because it may not be an issue that YOU understand or care about doesn't mean "its not an issue." And while you are demanding the use of a pronoun that did not previously exist, your demands might feel "not important" as well as highly abstract and extremely entitled.
Even though i am liberal in most ways, it is likely that I will be voting against the liberal candidates and agenda next election. At this time, I think the liberal special interests have too much power. Like other people who feel this way, I will do most of my protesting anonymously, because its being made unsafe to express different feelings on the matter.my concerns are not about disliking other's gender expression but their demand that I accept theories that I dont and adhere to behaviors that make safe places for some at the expense of others.
I will reiterate, Men and women should be able to express gender in a number of ways. Trans people should get special consideration. Gender fluidity means that we are all a mix of conforming and non-conforming at the same time and the need for 71 gender labels and made up pronouns is questionable. Calling people bigots for having concerns about this process is alienating them and causing backlash and that backlash might be hurt REAL and IMPORTANT aspects of the movement.
