Arguing Over Isness

>> This whole argument about 'passing' -- whether it's about gender, race, or any other trait -- is fundamentally over the damn fool idea that society's perception of a person is more important than their own identity. It's not. <<

And "passing" gets a whole lot tougher when one's identity (*briefly raises hand just a bit*) doesn't come with a commonly understood model against which one's conformity to the model can be measured. I cannot choose whether I wish my gender identity to be recognized as nonbinary ("pass as nonbinary") because acknowledgment of "nonbinary" as a valid gender requires that one actually has decided to think about something (gender and all of its components) that the vast majority of humanity doesn't even realize is an issue. The cherry on the top of that sundae is that having an individual and personal model for one's gender expression makes it so the only way to decide how I'll feel about something considered gendered is to ask me. And having to do that puts a lot of people ill at ease.

This post has an interesting commonality with what I've been discussing recently in gender counseling. One thing that has held me back from publicly claiming my gender identity is that there is no recognized narrative for it. Even in the gender-variant community, narratives like mine are often met with invalidation and erasure. And the narratives (in *all* areas of gender variance) that have historically been provided by the medical professionals who were supposedly trying to understand gender variance are very seldom accurate, and sometimes frankly horrifying. Things are starting to change now, but progress is slow and fitful.

"Passing" is fundamentally about controlling one's narrative. One "passes" as a member of a group if one's narrative aligns well enough with one considered valid for members of that group that people can successfully forecast that person's behavior and reactions. Feeling that one needs to "pass" in order to maintain one's validity, autonomy, and agency is yielding control over one's narrative to others. This is incredibly stressful, and should not be accepted.

(And this is a big part of why "tell all the stories" is so important. The more that folks become aware of just how many different kinds of stories there are out there, the more likely that someone will be able to point to a story and say, "that one's mine, more or less" -- and won't have to contort themselves into a narrative that doesn't really work for them.)

A last note on your first link regarding the Jenner narrative, and the author's reaction to how it is unfolding. I'm of two minds about this. Yes, Jenner having money and access made it possible for her to choose a high-end custom spec for her new, more appropriate body, and retain a surgical team that did an excellent job of realizing that spec. She got what she wanted, and it's great that that makes her happy.

On the other hand, I see claiming that her transition sets unrealistic expectations for other folks seeking transition and reinforces stereotypes about femininity as also off-base and ignoring *her* narrative. The "Bruce Jenner" narrative (her expression) has been a version of the "celebrity male athlete" narrative since her making the 1976 US Olympic team. She solidified her celebrity by winning the men's decathlon, and apparently chose to align herself with the "celebrity man" narrative -- probably because the value to her of "celebrity" was worth the pain of accepting "man". The choice was hers because of her celebrity. This should not be used to denigrate or invalidate her choice, or the choices made by others who did not have her resources.

Given her background, it is no real surprise to me that in addition to her gender transition, Caitlyn Jenner has chosen to transition to a "celebrity woman" narrative. Her choices of surgery, expression, and presentation (including media interaction) are very much in line with a popular version of that narrative. From here, it should be up to her as to how much of her celebrity she chooses to wield in the name of personal exposure, and in the name of expanding the transgender narrative. Neither one should invalidate her narrative or her existence, and anyone who thinks otherwise should jolly well STFU.

Once again, I wrote way too much. I'm going to have to slice my comments in two.

>> for people of mixed heritage, <<

I expected that phrase to lead in a different direction -- over where adding more cultural isolators (sexuality, morphology, different cultural background) usually multiplies the degree of difficulty, rather than just adding to it or capping at the maximum for any factor. The staggering suicide rates for transfolk dealing with intersectional issues are the most graphic illustration of that. The likelihood of life being anything other than a constant struggle for those who don't or can't be themselves is pretty much zero, though, so I have a good deal of respect for anyone who takes that step, regardless of the outcome.

>> as for bisexual or genderqueer folks. <<

(*waves at you twice*) The main nastiness here is most often expressed as "so make up your mind already!".

To which I will respond: "I *have* made up my mind. I refuse to filter my sexuality or gender expression by the factors you seem to think are important. I recognize that some people value membership in groups characterized by the application of those filters. I will not dispute your decision regarding this matter. Please do not dispute mine."

>> Nobody wants you around; everybody sees you as "other." Most of the terminology is rude. <<

Yep. People are paying way too much attention to the differences to respect the commonality, and the common experience of poor treatment.

>> Where there's no good vocabulary, it's harder to think and talk about things. Where people ignore stuff, there is no good vocabulary for it. You see the problem. <<

Seen it for a long time; lived it for twenty years or so. (Too busy with other things that seemed important to worry about it much before then.) Been staring it in the face for about five years now, and haven't blinked yet.

>> one's identity goes unchallenged because people assume that the presented identity is the born/assigned one. This is why outing people is so devastating. <<

I'd prefer to go with "one reason why...". Another *big* factor relates once again to controlling one's narrative. Outing someone is hijacking their narrative. That's non-consensual, and deserves to be treated with the same scorn other non-consensual activities ought to face.

>> You are what you do. To live as a woman is to be a woman. To live as a black woman is to be a black woman. <<

Indeed you are. What sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, though, is who gets to define the phrase "live like a ...". There's way too much infighting among subgroups -- almost universally, it seems. And how much meaning can "live as a black woman" have when it has to cover the range between someone who faces a constant flood of insults while scrambling all over town cleaning houses all day before she works swing shift at the local big box store and hopes nothing bad happens so she can make the rent, let alone have a few bucks left over for food, but also extends to a highly praised talk show host with a multimillion-dollar media company, or the First Lady and her daughters? Who gets to decide what that meaning is?

Yes, there is some commonality there. There are undoubtedly at least as many insults, for some of the same reasons, directed at the latter two examples as at the first example, but very few are rash enough to throw it in their faces.

>> But a black woman working for the NAACP? Congruent. <<

Interesting -- and interestingly related to discussions of identity and narrative -- that you should mention that around the same time as an NAACP official who, from what I can tell, may have felt unqualified to have that position unless perceived as being "black" (news article word, not necessarily mine), and used skin and hair treatments to create that impression. Which not only adds another instance of feeling like one needs to conform to a narrative, but also dredges up a lot of cultural appropriation sewage from the swamp where our culture has been enthusiastically dumping it and trying way too hard to crowd folks who fit the "other" pattern into living on its boundaries.

>> It's why we also need crowdfunding, so that folks without a narrative or ability to tell their own story can ask for someone else to do that ***using their input.*** << *** (emphasis mine) ***

That part is absolutely essential. Until then, it's just another instance of controlling another's narrative, and it's no better than the now-discredited transgender narratives that were based on insufficient information and promoted for the sake of empowering the "professionals" who proposed them, rather than for the people they were supposed to be trying to help.

I have seen how diligently you work to get and use input from the people you tell stories for. It keeps me coming back, remaining engaged, and funding your efforts as a way of saying "thank you."

>> That's true of all the high-profile celebrity transitions. It's harmful for people to think they're going to turn into that. Usually you just wind up an ordinary woman, like you've always been, but with a more woman-shaped outside. <<

Thank you for making that point clearer. The best way I can see for people to think something different is to get more transition stories -- most importantly, by those who have transitioned -- so people considering transition can see that they can own their own narrative.

Just a few more things that seem worth of comment...

>> But the things that make me turn my head and say "Oh that's HAWT!" about someone I don't know? Intelligence or red hair. *shrug* I have non-standard mate selection routines. <<

Doesn't everyone, when you get right down to it? But I get what you're describing: your selection routines are rather extreme outliers. So, from what you've said about yourself, are you. I can't say I'm surprised by the coincidence.

>> Currently I like genderqueer and metasexual. <<

I'll join you on the genderqueer and add nonbinary to that. For sexuality, I'm liking omnidemisexual right now. Like yours, it has an essential emotional/spiritual component, and emotional rapport is a significant attractor.

>> Divide and conquer. >_< <<

I had actually been looking more at the internal politics, but your statement reminded me that the external politics are also significant. However, I'm not sure the objective of the mainstream is conquest so much as it is "chop it up into tiny little chunks that are easier to ignore/dismiss/digest". What do you think?

>> Who gets to decide what that meaning is?

The people doing it, and they get one vote each. <<

THIS. And these meanings are far too often the blades of grass that our mass-culture elephants trample.

That will probably continue until it is generally understood that the grass was growing in a diverse natural meadow, and "repairing" the damage by installing a monocultured, artificially supported lawn incurs significant cost and risk. Until then, I'm afraid the elephants won't be restrained.

And yes, the gap between what is and what would be best is another symptom of seeking narrative control.

>> That is the postracial future I want to live in. It may not fix all the out-of-place feelings but at least it holds up an inclusive ideal. <<

I'll join you there. I think it's somewhere on the way to Tomorrowland (seen it yet?).

>> The best way I can see for people to think something different is to get more transition stories -- most importantly, by those who have transitioned [...]

Agreed. <<

Thank you for helping with this -- for the other people who can see themselves in the characters you write, as well as for myself. Reading about -- and participating in creating -- Astin and V is helping me write my own narrative to the point where I can share it with others.