[33/366] re-do, and some queer theory

[cosmolinguist]

2 If you could redo today, what one thing would you do differently?

I'd have stayed asleep between 6 and 7:30 am. I was so tired when my alarm went off for work. I had lots of sleep but it still wasn't enough. I dozed a bit this afternoon and I'm still so tired. And tomorrow, instead of an 8:30 alarm for uni, I'm going to have like a 6am alarm for work: my employwer has a hospital appointment tomorrow, in a city a two-hour train ride away. It's gonna be a long day.

--

A thing happened this morning that I felt kinda weird about but it also helped me coalesce some thoughts. A friend asked on social media for the opinions of her trans/non-binary/genderqueer/etc. friends. She's starting a new event for women and all those sorta of people, and she wanted to know how we felt about a proposed logo, if it'd make us less likely to go to the event or if it'd feel unwelcoming to us. I happened to see it just as she'd posted it and I said that it would make me less likely to go; the logo was just the "female" symbol ♀️ in a thing relevant to the event. (I don't want to make it about this one instance, and some of my friends might know this so to avoid singling my friend out, let's just say that it's not a knitting group but if it were, the ♀️ symbol would've been made with yarn. That type of thing.)

But the more I thought about it, the more my real problem wasn't (just) with the logo, it's the whole idea, not just of this event (which is why I don't want to pick on it particularly) but of the whole "women and non-binary people" thing. I've never felt great about it but couldn't articulate why. Talking with some friends about this was realy useful in helping me realied that it makes non-binary identities into "just another kind of woman." It reminds me so much of when queer women's projects stopped being just "lesbian" and started being "lesbian and bisexual women" and thinking nothing else would have to change about their group. "Women and non-binary" makes it sound like non-binary identties are "just another kind of woman," and while there are non-binary people who (as an agender friend of mine put it) "caucus with the women," there are also plenty of problems caused by this: it risks invalidating AFAB (assigned femaile at birth) people by sending the message that they're "still just women really," and often these spaces are still hostile to AMAB (assigned male at birth) people who have beards or deep voices or whatever as not the demographic that the people describing this space as for women and non-binary people were really after.

But my biggest problem isn't even with any of that. It's that people are doing an unreasonable thing in order to achieve a reasonable goal. I'm sure any of us could think about times in our lives that cis men were horrible to us, all the way from #EverydaySexism to actual trauma. And especially when it comes to groups for people who are queer/kinky/polyamorous/anything about sexualities and relationships, safety becomes even more important. But keeping all the cis men out isn't the way to do that. I'm not even saying "not all men," I'm saying "not only cis men." Not all predatory, boundary-crossing, consent-lacking behavior comes from them. Keeping them out is not necessary or sufficient for a space to be safe or welcoming.

The last time I felt really objectified and dysphoric about the landscape of my chest was at a "women and trans" event. Some of the people who said the thing that made me feel that way are good friends of mine who'd be mortified at the effect they had on me (I haven't talked to them about it and I don't feel up to doing so), but I also would bet a lot of money that they felt more like they could say what they did because we were at a "no cis men" event.

For much longer than I've been one, but certainly explicitly in the time that I've been one, LGBT+ activists have stressed the difference between identity and behavior -- be that in HIV prevention, who can give blood, the definition and subsequent outreach of bisexuality, on and on. And that's all I want here: to police behavior, which is what matters, and not identity.

Anyway I didn't say this in reply to my friend about the logo, I just said it would make me feel less welcome. And when I went back a bit later to see if there were any more comments, the entire post seemed to have been deleted or disappeared to where I couldn't see it. I don't know if anything else happened or my immediate negative reaction was enough to put my friend off asking. But I feel weird about that. But I'm glad I got to have the conversation that I did elsewhere, it really has helped make sense of why I've been so wary of "women and non-binary" type descriptions. Here I thought it was just because I really don't consider myself either of those things, heh. (I know anyone who doesn't have a binary gender can technically be said to be non-binary, and it's not a description I argue with if someone else uses it for me. But I don't really use it for myself. Anyway, that's a whole other complicated queer quibble, for another day!)

Comments

[kaberett]

[my general take on the women-and-non-binary thing is that the issue here is imposing a binary on gender in the first place: we are okay with the concept of "space for people with disabilities" or "space for people targetted by racism" but Gender Binary I think sometimes obscures that the idea people are groping towards is "space for people targetted by or with lived experience of misogyny"]

[cosmolinguist]

This is a really good way of articulating that, thank you.

It feels like even the people who are cutting-edge have just traded the old gender binary for the new binary/non-binary binary. It is still exhausting.

[softfruit]

Someone defined their sexuality in a conversation online recently as "pansexual but I'm not into cismen". Um... Loads of things not least "how quickly can you tell?"

It's not the right word for it but this women-trans-women-non-binary-people-who-feel-connection-to-womens-space coalition probably needs a single word* like "soft". We could tell people it meant "Sometimes/Often Female/Thingywotsit".

* I am in no way saying this is the ideal word.

[cosmolinguist]

"Loads of things" indeed, argh. Right after "how can you tell" I think we need to go over "what is a gender" again with these people because cis men is not one! That's the kind of thinking I expect from bigots.

I know it's not the right word but "soft" would make your username even better. :)

[softfruit]

Is prolly why it seems a good word to my branes

[rmc28]

I had an interesting chat with someone at New Year's Eve; we were talking about how UCAS is going to allow a non-binary gender marker from next year, and how the women's Colleges in Cambridge would respond to that for admissions, whether they would want to be a "women's College" or a "not men's College". Anyway, their point about is that any time people start wanting to say "women and non-binary", they should think again and focus on the *purpose* of the grouping. Their example was a College "women and non-binary choir", which after a bit of prodding from this person, realised that what they wanted was a "sopranos and altos" choir. Which is not quite the same thing!

The climbing wall I would like to start taking C to has a women+NB night and I do find myself wondering if they just mean "smaller lighter-bodied people" or "people who don't want to get hit on by macho climbers" or "people who feel in a minority a lot of the time at climbing walls" or something else. (But as the night in question is a schoolnight and I am not yet able to go to the wall regularly at *any* time it's all a bit theoretical at this time.)

[cosmolinguist]

Yes all those options for things like choirs and climbing are very possible and it'd be so useful to know which one(s) specifically was intended! They'd each attract different people.

[rmc28]

Although I am thinking a "no hitting on people night" would be hard to pitch without massive bro-backlash :-(

[hrj]

Every night should be "no hitting on people night."

[wolby]

+1

I keep trying to say more but keep going on weird tangents. If I ever figure out why any of them are relevant....

[hrj]

The problem I have with the collective category "women and non-binary" is that in an essential way it continues to center men as the concept around which the universe is organized. That is, it creates a new binary of "men and not-men". And while the historic place that the category "men" holds in socio-political dynamics means that there *are* common goals that "not-men" might want to unify around as a group, it's still a problematic way to organize categories.

I have some of the same reaction to the way that "queer" as a collective sexuality category (setting aside the gender aspects of queer for the moment) functions to center straight/monogamous/other-normativities as the organizing concept against which queerness is defined/understood. (And yet, I find queer an incredibly useful concept/category in spite of this.)

[cosmolinguist]

You're so right about it centering men and creating a new binary, thanks for articulating that so well. And that's a good point about "queer" too.

[silveradept]

"Women and" phrasing sometimes sounds like "women, but we don't want to sound like TERFs" to me. Especially when there's a more descriptive word or phrase that could be used.

[softfruit]

There's an organisation locally that uses language along those lines and it can confuse the hell out of me. They'll say something like (not digging out a quote so some inaccuracy here) "women and nonbinary and trans and BAME and disabled" and I wind up unsure whether you have to be BAME and disabled or whether they are just trying to make sure people know it's not meant to be just for white people etc.

[silveradept]

And if they wanted it to be "not for white cis allo het men", they can say that phrase and be done with it. (Except, of course, for all the feedback they're likely to receive about that because putting it in that stark of terms tends to get those same men complaining about being excluded.)

[cosmolinguist]

Yeah, this is why I think it's better to make it about behavior (or, as others have said, experience, like "being affected by misogyny") than identity: the worst-behaved cis men do so chafe at being identified as cis men and no one should have to deal with the ones who'll complain at "not for white cis allo het men."

[silveradept]

Indeed. Behaviors or intersection points are often much better and easier to say "okay, that's a thing you've experienced (or are likely to), welcome!" than getting caught on games of "but are you really [Z]?"

[cosmolinguist]

Yes, not wanting to sound like TERFs is an admirable goal, of course! But there has to be a better way to do it.

[softfruit]

"caucus with the women" is a very fine phrase and I wish more people outside of political nerdery in the UK would have a handle on it. I think you kinda have to be an NUS / BYC hack or the like for it to make sense here; maybe more in the US with the way Primaries sometimes work?

[cosmolinguist]

Maybe, I don't know if it's any more widely understood there (a lot of states don't have caucuses, only primaries). I mean, my friends say it, but my friends are nerds. :)

[finding_helena]

Oh, in the US we have a couple independents in the legislature who caucus with one party or the other, and at least one of them (Bernie Sanders) is extremely well-known nationally. So I understood (and was entertained by) the phrase immediately.

[barakta]

I am too stoned to dig for it, but I found an article/blog about exactly this "not cis men" spaces and the various nuances behind how to define those and so on. I've re-asked on twitter if anyone knows of it to hand cos I'm far too stoned and despooned to dig for it. If I find it, I'll share it here.

[cosmolinguist]

That'd be an interesting read, but I totally understand being too despooned!

[worlds_of_smoke]

"Women and non-binary" makes it sound like non-binary identties are "just another kind of woman,"

yeah. this is a huge problem. I don't want to be included in the gender of "woman", period. And when you just tack non-binary on to the end of "women's", you are absolutely including them as a subset of women.

And these spaces are often VERY against non-binary people who read as cis men. Those people deserve support too. In fact, I would say they might need a bit more support in some ways precisely because they are, by default, excluded from these sorts of events. I mean, yes, non-binary people who are perceived as female deal with misogyny and non-binary people who read as male are less likely to deal with that. But that doesn't mean they don't need support or have anything to contribute to the community. And, by saying they're "too manly" to participate in events for non-binary people, you're denying their very existence.

I often wonder if the solution is to just dissociate non-binary spaces completely from spaces meant for binary gendered people. But we're such a minority that it'd be very difficult to get any sort of community built that way. :/

[cosmolinguist]

Yeah, I know a few amab non-binary people who struggle with this kind of thing and I really feel for them. I think being more specific about what people want when they include "non-binary" in their list of who should go to their event or whatever.

[gender_euphoric]

Totes. One of my abusers is an afab NB person and well...I always hate feeling like what I suffered “doesn’t matter” and is kinda shoved under the rug as it were.

Certainly attendance policies are in no way a substitute for good rules.

[cosmolinguist]

Yes I know another friend of mine has an abusive afab NB ex and it's not only shoved under the carpet (which is a huge problem in) but it's been difficult for my friend to get proper support without running the risk of either being perceived as nb-phobic or people trying to impose gendered narratives on the abuse based on the ex's assigned gender. It's just a minefield.

I'm sorry for your experience and it does matter, fwiw. <3

[sfred]

<3

[jesse_the_k]

Brilliant points here — thanks so much for stimulating this discussion!

[cosmolinguist]

I have such good friends! The discussion has really helped me clarify my thoughts too, I'm so glad I could write this.

[momentsmusicaux]

> Not all predatory, boundary-crossing, consent-lacking behavior comes from them. Keeping them out is not necessary or sufficient for a space to be safe or welcoming.

All the times I've been gender-policed in my adult life, it's been by women, and in most cases by women who considered themselves feminists!

[cosmolinguist]

One thing my upbringing taught me is that women do a lot of gender-policing. The voices in my head telling me there's something wrong with my choice of clothing, my haircut, my (usually lack of) jewelry or accessories, my complete lifelong lack of make-up... Those are mostly my mom, and then uther female relatives, and then girls from my school, and so on. Always woken. I've never had a man care (or at least, tell me he cared) if I shaved my legs but my mom still does.

And part of policing womanhood is keeping men in their place because most women define their gender in opposition to anything manly, which is why they say they don't want a man shorter than them, and etc.

[momentsmusicaux]

> which is why they say they don't want a man shorter than them

I'd never thought of it like that!

It does really bug me when women's profiles on Tinder say 'nobody under X ft'. Even though it doesn't affect me as I've yet to see one that would exclude me.

> I've never had a man care (or at least, tell me he cared) if I shaved my legs

Ha, my rule is always (jokingly) that I don't care as long as I'm the hairier one.

[sovay]

And that's all I want here: to police behavior, which is what matters, and not identity.

Here via jesse_the_k. This is a useful set of thoughts; thank you.

[cosmolinguist]

Thanks for stopping by and letting me know! I'm so pleased with how this discussion has turned out; I know some good people here.