![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Asymptotic Gender
Feb. 3rd, 2016 02:28 pmAsymptotic 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
