(no subject)
Bon voyage, and return home soon. While the world is your oyster, your place certainly seems to be here.
2003-05-26
(no subject)
I'm still slogging away at this, and I can't quite figure out my take on it all. I've talked previously about my desire to find myself reflected in it, and the frustration at not being able to as much as I'd like, particularly among the pieces by the more strident genderqueer (as in, those for whom that label is extra-important) writers. It raises more questions than answers, this book; while that would often serve as a recommendation, I've been finding it more frustrating than not.
I've said a lot that sexuality isn't contingent on parts, specifically genitals, for me, and I know that to be true, for me at least. I'm really clear on that; it seems painfully simple, now. I also think that identity isn't contingent on those parts, either, or that it isn't naturally contingent on them (I would suggest that, in most cases, people authorize identity by parts. I think that's a mistake, too, though I make it myself sometimes, though only punatively). I know that there are people out there for whom this is so; there has to be, else I couldn't have the conception in my own mind, could I? (There's some Socratic stuff for you, and no Hegel in sight) That there are all sorts of cute girls and guys out there who may or may not have "appropriate parts" seems a given, and I have absolutely no problem granting that identity either in theory or in practice. For some reason, I have a hard time doing it for myself.
I suspect a lot of it is that I don't like the either/or, while at the same time I'm practically beside myself with jealousy over the comfort I suspect most (even those who choose it, rather than have it thrust upon them) take in having a home in gender as it is known. But while I may pine for the comfort of a stretched idea of "girl" (largely in part because it's the known alternative to "guy", which I know isn't right), I know it would only be a temporary thing, and I'd start to chafe at it like I chafe at the given alternative. I don't know why I can't just "get along", conform like I'm supposed to, but I can't.
I guess that's part of the problem with this book, in specific; most all of the writers seem to want/need those labels a great deal, and then try to change things from "the inside". I can see that as a valid strategy for some, but to me, the whole damned construct is flawed. The idea of a "gender continuum" is no better to me than a stark binary; in a sense it IS the same stark binary, wherein deviance only confirms the pole positions. Or, in the common parlance, it doesn't work for me, because I think what I want/need is something decidedly other than either/or. I do not mean to suggest that it's wrong for people to choose labels that are currently on the poles, but I do emphatically mean that it's wrong to state or imply that those are the only choices.
I keep coming back to words; I don't know what I am, in a gender sense, probably in large part because I don't have a word for it. To simply say I am me, while ideal, is also pretty damned impractical in a world in which binary gender is the social norm, and where it has a lot of meaning. All too often, to me when someone suggests that, I take it as well meaning condescension from those who don't really see the problem anyway.
I've said a lot that sexuality isn't contingent on parts, specifically genitals, for me, and I know that to be true, for me at least. I'm really clear on that; it seems painfully simple, now. I also think that identity isn't contingent on those parts, either, or that it isn't naturally contingent on them (I would suggest that, in most cases, people authorize identity by parts. I think that's a mistake, too, though I make it myself sometimes, though only punatively). I know that there are people out there for whom this is so; there has to be, else I couldn't have the conception in my own mind, could I? (There's some Socratic stuff for you, and no Hegel in sight) That there are all sorts of cute girls and guys out there who may or may not have "appropriate parts" seems a given, and I have absolutely no problem granting that identity either in theory or in practice. For some reason, I have a hard time doing it for myself.
I suspect a lot of it is that I don't like the either/or, while at the same time I'm practically beside myself with jealousy over the comfort I suspect most (even those who choose it, rather than have it thrust upon them) take in having a home in gender as it is known. But while I may pine for the comfort of a stretched idea of "girl" (largely in part because it's the known alternative to "guy", which I know isn't right), I know it would only be a temporary thing, and I'd start to chafe at it like I chafe at the given alternative. I don't know why I can't just "get along", conform like I'm supposed to, but I can't.
I guess that's part of the problem with this book, in specific; most all of the writers seem to want/need those labels a great deal, and then try to change things from "the inside". I can see that as a valid strategy for some, but to me, the whole damned construct is flawed. The idea of a "gender continuum" is no better to me than a stark binary; in a sense it IS the same stark binary, wherein deviance only confirms the pole positions. Or, in the common parlance, it doesn't work for me, because I think what I want/need is something decidedly other than either/or. I do not mean to suggest that it's wrong for people to choose labels that are currently on the poles, but I do emphatically mean that it's wrong to state or imply that those are the only choices.
I keep coming back to words; I don't know what I am, in a gender sense, probably in large part because I don't have a word for it. To simply say I am me, while ideal, is also pretty damned impractical in a world in which binary gender is the social norm, and where it has a lot of meaning. All too often, to me when someone suggests that, I take it as well meaning condescension from those who don't really see the problem anyway.