Asymptotic Gender
Feb. 3rd, 2016 02:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ahunter3Asymptotic Gender
Did you click on this thinking it said "aSYMPTOMATIC" gender? Ha! Tricked you into looking!
My dictionary defines an "asymptote" as "a line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at any finite distance." It's a math thing, which isn't really my speciality area, but hold onto that notion for a moment anyway...
In the political arena where gender identity gets discussed, there are people who believe that gender differences are for real, solidly built into reality quite aside from how we perceive (or don't perceive) them; and then there are people who believe that gender differences only exist as social constructs — you know, stereotypes, arbitrary notions imposed by society, conventions that aren't anchored in anything except tradition.
It probably seems likely to most people that the first group is the problematic group for people who don't ascribe to a conventional gender identity. I mean, that's the broad category that's going to include all the people who think of gender and biological sex as the same thing: "if you got a cock you're a man, if you own a cunt you're a woman, end of story", those people. On the other hand, this first group is ALSO going to include people who believe that transgender people have a gender (not just BELIEVE that they have a gender) that is at odds with their biological sex, and that's why it makes sense for them to transition medically. They may believe that gender consists of neurostructural differences in the brain or the cognitive and behavioral after-effects of hormonal exposures... or they may not have a physical explanation... but whatever gender is to them, they don't see it as an artificial collection of roles and expectations foisted onto people by society.
At any rate, meanwhile we've got this second group of people, who at first glance would seem to be the ones who would harbor liberal tolerant attitudes that would benefit us gender-nonconformist atypical folks. For them, gender IS artificial. Except for history and the unfinished business of getting rid of sexist ideas about male and female characteristics and nature and so on, there's no THERE there; gender, they'd say, is a myth, or a social problem caused by sexist society.
Well, I often get into arguments with people of the second sort, arguments that go something like this:
ME: ... Yeah, gender issues is my main issue at the moment. Trying to
move towards a world where young people who are like I was can grow
up with more understanding and acceptance instead of being treated
like something's wrong with them.
THEM: That's not really an issue any more, though, is it? Things have
changed, I think kids don't have to face that any more.
ME: No, I can't agree with that. No doubt that things are a whole lot
better, but there's still no mental image and no role or role model
for a male-bodied person to live as one of the girls outside of the
boxes marked "gay" and "trans". And by "trans" I mean transitioning.
Deciding that the male body needs fixing in order to be an OK person.
THEM: But what does "live as one of the girls" mean anyway? Girls don't have
to "live as one of the girls" anymore, themselves. We're free of all
that. Boys don't have to live as one of the boys either. It's not
like it was.
ME: You mean there's more acceptance of people who don't conform to the
old sex-specific expectations than there used to be. I agree with
that...
THEM: See, exactly! Now, you take a young boy today, he's got the freedom
to be all macho-man if he wants but he can also choose to be outside
of all that and be androgynous, metrosexual, show his feminine side,
that's all cool now. For awhile it was really only girls who had
that freedom but now it's pretty much true for the boys too. David
Bowie and Boy George, hey, the world isn't what it was when you grew
up in it. So he's got freedom to choose whatever gender expression
fits him best.
Well, no. There's a problem there, hidden in plain sight right there in that very description. Let's conjure up a random and hypothetical observer and stick that observer in the middle school hallway. Into the hallway walks an individual we identity as male, someone presenting as male-bodied, and that's all we know about him, all we've got to go on so far. Our expectations, our anticipations, are that he MAY be a conventionally masculine, stereotypically gendered male-bodied person, or he MAY be a sensitive new-age guy all metrosexual and androgynous, one of the people who do not buy into that old masculinity stuff, and all of that is socially acceptable. Our expectations, in other words, are sort of smeared across an area between masculine and androgynous. What if he's feminine?
"Why would he be feminine?", the liberal social-constructionist voice interrupts.
I shrug. I point down the same hall to where a person presenting as female-bodied is now walking. "You anticipate that SHE might be. Also, of course, that she might NOT be, that she might be androgynous, free of all that feminizing sexist whatchamacallit, but you haven't stopped anticipating that she MIGHT be feminine".
So the socially liberal folks who think of gender as an artificial social construct maintain different expectations. Not because they think gender is inherently real but because they expect some people to still ascribe to it, and because they haven't withdrawn acceptance for female-bodied people who are indeed exhibiting traditionally-feminine characteristics. Why would they? If asked, they would say that they believe strongly that people should not be FORCED or PRESSURED to conform to the gendered expectations associated with their sex, but that doesn't mean that everyone should get frog-marched at the point of a politically-correct disapproval-gun into the androgynous zone whether they like it or not.
Within the framework of their liberal acceptance, the expectations and anticipations projected onto females and those projected onto males approach each other asymptotically, and we hail it as progress, but they do not meet.
-----
So my big new project of the moment is a colloquium-class of six people, taught by a professional who has been an author, an editor, and a literary agent. It's an online course (so no physical classes together) but presumably we will interact through software and via commenting on each other's writings, both our big writings-in-progress and our little essays and exercises and whatnot. It officially starts Thursday and I'm looking forward to it!
In other news, my presentation to Baltimore Playhouse, "Gender Inversion, Being Genderqueer, and Living in a World of Gender Assumptions", was postponed because of the big snowstorm and has been rescheduled for April 29. Between now and then, I hope to do some readings in Manhattan at various "writers read their works" / "open mike" events. My partner A2 (she who lives @ lower east side) has made a concerted effort to link me up with several such opportunities and I've submitted some of my work to "Word" at the Sidewalk Cafe, and plan on submitting samples / proposed readings to Dixon Place and Cornelia Street Cafe and a few others. I've anointed this spring and summer as my season to get myself in front of a microphone (or podium) and start presenting my material. Also in this broad category is the possibility of presenting to some combination of Women's Center and LGBT Center at SUNY / Old Westbury.
I continue to seek to get my book published, of course.
Four small publishers have rejected it: Seal Press, Harmony Ink Press, Bookoutre, and Triton Books.
I have inquiries pending at Manic D Press and Neuroqueer Books.
... and here's the status of my pitching The Story of Q to lit agents:
Total Queries to date: 718
Rejections: 700
Outstanding: 18
As Nonfiction, total queries: 500
Rejections: 483
Outstanding: 17
As Fiction, total queries: 218
Rejections: 217
Outstanding: 1
————————
Index of all Blog Posts
Did you click on this thinking it said "aSYMPTOMATIC" gender? Ha! Tricked you into looking!
My dictionary defines an "asymptote" as "a line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at any finite distance." It's a math thing, which isn't really my speciality area, but hold onto that notion for a moment anyway...
In the political arena where gender identity gets discussed, there are people who believe that gender differences are for real, solidly built into reality quite aside from how we perceive (or don't perceive) them; and then there are people who believe that gender differences only exist as social constructs — you know, stereotypes, arbitrary notions imposed by society, conventions that aren't anchored in anything except tradition.
It probably seems likely to most people that the first group is the problematic group for people who don't ascribe to a conventional gender identity. I mean, that's the broad category that's going to include all the people who think of gender and biological sex as the same thing: "if you got a cock you're a man, if you own a cunt you're a woman, end of story", those people. On the other hand, this first group is ALSO going to include people who believe that transgender people have a gender (not just BELIEVE that they have a gender) that is at odds with their biological sex, and that's why it makes sense for them to transition medically. They may believe that gender consists of neurostructural differences in the brain or the cognitive and behavioral after-effects of hormonal exposures... or they may not have a physical explanation... but whatever gender is to them, they don't see it as an artificial collection of roles and expectations foisted onto people by society.
At any rate, meanwhile we've got this second group of people, who at first glance would seem to be the ones who would harbor liberal tolerant attitudes that would benefit us gender-nonconformist atypical folks. For them, gender IS artificial. Except for history and the unfinished business of getting rid of sexist ideas about male and female characteristics and nature and so on, there's no THERE there; gender, they'd say, is a myth, or a social problem caused by sexist society.
Well, I often get into arguments with people of the second sort, arguments that go something like this:
ME: ... Yeah, gender issues is my main issue at the moment. Trying to
move towards a world where young people who are like I was can grow
up with more understanding and acceptance instead of being treated
like something's wrong with them.
THEM: That's not really an issue any more, though, is it? Things have
changed, I think kids don't have to face that any more.
ME: No, I can't agree with that. No doubt that things are a whole lot
better, but there's still no mental image and no role or role model
for a male-bodied person to live as one of the girls outside of the
boxes marked "gay" and "trans". And by "trans" I mean transitioning.
Deciding that the male body needs fixing in order to be an OK person.
THEM: But what does "live as one of the girls" mean anyway? Girls don't have
to "live as one of the girls" anymore, themselves. We're free of all
that. Boys don't have to live as one of the boys either. It's not
like it was.
ME: You mean there's more acceptance of people who don't conform to the
old sex-specific expectations than there used to be. I agree with
that...
THEM: See, exactly! Now, you take a young boy today, he's got the freedom
to be all macho-man if he wants but he can also choose to be outside
of all that and be androgynous, metrosexual, show his feminine side,
that's all cool now. For awhile it was really only girls who had
that freedom but now it's pretty much true for the boys too. David
Bowie and Boy George, hey, the world isn't what it was when you grew
up in it. So he's got freedom to choose whatever gender expression
fits him best.
Well, no. There's a problem there, hidden in plain sight right there in that very description. Let's conjure up a random and hypothetical observer and stick that observer in the middle school hallway. Into the hallway walks an individual we identity as male, someone presenting as male-bodied, and that's all we know about him, all we've got to go on so far. Our expectations, our anticipations, are that he MAY be a conventionally masculine, stereotypically gendered male-bodied person, or he MAY be a sensitive new-age guy all metrosexual and androgynous, one of the people who do not buy into that old masculinity stuff, and all of that is socially acceptable. Our expectations, in other words, are sort of smeared across an area between masculine and androgynous. What if he's feminine?
"Why would he be feminine?", the liberal social-constructionist voice interrupts.
I shrug. I point down the same hall to where a person presenting as female-bodied is now walking. "You anticipate that SHE might be. Also, of course, that she might NOT be, that she might be androgynous, free of all that feminizing sexist whatchamacallit, but you haven't stopped anticipating that she MIGHT be feminine".
So the socially liberal folks who think of gender as an artificial social construct maintain different expectations. Not because they think gender is inherently real but because they expect some people to still ascribe to it, and because they haven't withdrawn acceptance for female-bodied people who are indeed exhibiting traditionally-feminine characteristics. Why would they? If asked, they would say that they believe strongly that people should not be FORCED or PRESSURED to conform to the gendered expectations associated with their sex, but that doesn't mean that everyone should get frog-marched at the point of a politically-correct disapproval-gun into the androgynous zone whether they like it or not.
Within the framework of their liberal acceptance, the expectations and anticipations projected onto females and those projected onto males approach each other asymptotically, and we hail it as progress, but they do not meet.
-----
So my big new project of the moment is a colloquium-class of six people, taught by a professional who has been an author, an editor, and a literary agent. It's an online course (so no physical classes together) but presumably we will interact through software and via commenting on each other's writings, both our big writings-in-progress and our little essays and exercises and whatnot. It officially starts Thursday and I'm looking forward to it!
In other news, my presentation to Baltimore Playhouse, "Gender Inversion, Being Genderqueer, and Living in a World of Gender Assumptions", was postponed because of the big snowstorm and has been rescheduled for April 29. Between now and then, I hope to do some readings in Manhattan at various "writers read their works" / "open mike" events. My partner A2 (she who lives @ lower east side) has made a concerted effort to link me up with several such opportunities and I've submitted some of my work to "Word" at the Sidewalk Cafe, and plan on submitting samples / proposed readings to Dixon Place and Cornelia Street Cafe and a few others. I've anointed this spring and summer as my season to get myself in front of a microphone (or podium) and start presenting my material. Also in this broad category is the possibility of presenting to some combination of Women's Center and LGBT Center at SUNY / Old Westbury.
I continue to seek to get my book published, of course.
Four small publishers have rejected it: Seal Press, Harmony Ink Press, Bookoutre, and Triton Books.
I have inquiries pending at Manic D Press and Neuroqueer Books.
... and here's the status of my pitching The Story of Q to lit agents:
Total Queries to date: 718
Rejections: 700
Outstanding: 18
As Nonfiction, total queries: 500
Rejections: 483
Outstanding: 17
As Fiction, total queries: 218
Rejections: 217
Outstanding: 1
————————
Index of all Blog Posts
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-03 11:09 pm (UTC)You're neurotypical. When you were young you were accustomed to having credible models for most of the roles that grabbed you, and you noticed that there was no societal support for a male-bodied girl. I'm autistic. Like you (I recite for the benefit of any young folks who happen by), I grew up before there was an Internet. I had no credible role models for anything! I know that my gender (as you would call it) is nonstandard from society's perspective, but the nonstandard aspects of my gender are only a small subset of a much larger set of socially unacceptable quirks. And different people have different ways of demarcating the subset of behaviors that they identify as determining my gender, which tends to further erode the importance (even the credibility) of gender to me.
The difference in neurotype is also apparent in your lament about not being accepted as one of the girls. I learned real early that I wasn't going to be accepted at all. "One of the girls," again, is just a subset, as arbitrarily demarcated as any: no reason for me to think of it any differently.
So now I've got it: You want societal support for a male-bodied girl. I'd rather abolish the need for societal support entirely (not just with regard to gender), but I suppose wanting to cure neurotypicality is as stupid as some folks' desire to cure autism, so I'm with you. It sure would have been something!— to be explored by a curious and sexually aggressive tomboy! Just tragic, that we missed out on that!
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 05:30 pm (UTC)To get to a world without "acceptance rules" ( / make acceptance irrelevant), it is first probably useful and possibly necessary to negate the acceptance rules already in effect, rather than trying to move directly to "acceptance rules are bad so we won't use them any more".
I'm happy to think that eventually gender will be meaningless except to people studying human archeology and cultural anthropology. But for now we have gendered expectations. And rather than thinking we're going to accomplish much more than we already have by saying "sex specific expectations are sexist and bad", I think we need the antithesis, the notion of male girls and female boys, the specific identities that contradict the existing gender rules; with those as plausible and claimable identities, the ground is set for gender to cease to matter if that's the direction things are going to take. No more acceptance tied to gender conformity.
Oh, and I do think that gender conformity is one of the keystones of the whole social-acceptance / conformity thing in general, if not THE keystone at the root of it all. (The other likely keystone perhaps being child/adult stuff).
I haven't entirely missed out on being explored by curious and sexually aggressive tomboys, it just happened later and significantly less often than it might have :)
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 06:32 pm (UTC)My own rejection of gender is idiosyncratic, and my intention was to give you an inside view of how it works, in much the spirit that you offer an inside view of how your gender identity works.
To the extent that I've influenced people to look at the world differently, it's almost always been by leading them through my reality rather than by negating theirs. They get bewildered rather than defensive, so it works pretty well. And that's what you do in your book, at least as I understand it. I'm sure the book will do a lot of good: there will definitely be people who will come away from it with a revulsion for gender bias (even their own). But some of those people still won't see a need for specific societal support for the role of male-bodied girl. (They'll hate all the villains in your story, and they'll imagine that they themselves would have treated you better, but that's something different.) So it goes. Someday it'll be history, with most of the uncertainty removed.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 03:50 pm (UTC)K.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 05:33 pm (UTC)peached pickles
Date: 2016-07-05 10:02 pm (UTC)I saw a something you posted in 2007 about your dad insisting on calling pickled peaches--"peached pickles." My husband's mother did the same! We had never heard of anyone else doing this till seeing your post. Was your father from Mississippi by any chance?
Karen Fleming
KarenFleming71@yahoo.come
no subject
Date: 2017-01-24 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-24 12:09 pm (UTC)