![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 29th, 2006
it ain't the hetero-
Dec. 29th, 2006 03:16 pmI've been trying to tackle the concept of heterosexism for some time now, but have had trouble finding traction. I think my problem was linguistic and sequential; I'd keep starting with the prefix, hetero-, but it never made any sense. Definitionally, heter- means simply "other" (note: not necessarily "Other") or "different", and in general contexts this makes sense: heterodox, heterogeneous, etc. I simply didn't understand how what should be an acknowledgement of difference (generally a good thing) could be applied in such a way as to limit, control, to project strict boundaries and fierce policing.
But, thanks (?) to the recent blow up of trans-hate on another blog and the excellent commentary about it elsewhere, it really drives the point home that there is a problem, but it’s not the prefix. The damage is done in the -sex.
The problems here are manifold, including but not limited to the mistaken idea that humans are uniformly and unambiguously binary in terms of physical sex, and the conflation of gender and sex, that the two will always match, are equally binary, and that the former is the same in all contexts and across all cultures. I don’t think this is at all true, but I suspect I’m in the minority.
If you start out from the premises above, it makes perfect sense that heterosexism becomes an instrument of restriction and control, because it’s rooted in the idea of a clear line delineating two and only two kinds of difference. Attraction to “other” becomes not an appreciation of the field of difference run through the filter of personal taste but a resistance based tool of identification and categorization, and makes it very easy to justify all sorts of discriminatory behavior based on the model that has been ‘naturalized’.
[Personal disclosure: I break the sex/gender rules pretty severely in my own life. I’m a flavor of trans that doesn’t hew to the either/or of man/woman, and strongly resist the idea that I’m an “in-between” or a “genderfuck”. My attractions are not exclusively based on apparent sex or gender, nor are they based on specific genital configuration. I resist “bisexual” because I don’t like just men or women, and “pansexual” because I don’t like everything. ]
Structurally speaking, I think this is where all sorts of bad things come from, but the line extends beyond the standard gay/straight conflict. By no means do I mean to suggest that heterosexuals have the corner on this kind of reaction; there are too many examples to list of gays hating on transfolk, transfolk hating on gays, and pretty much everyone hating on bisexuals. All of this is wrong. Point is, if anyone encounters something that makes them uncomfortable, challenges some of their unexamined beliefs, maybe the point isn’t to attack or exclude those who engender this reaction, but look at the place internally where it comes from, and why.
Difference is a fact of life, no matter how hard people try to fight against it. Coming to terms seems like the best long term option.
But, thanks (?) to the recent blow up of trans-hate on another blog and the excellent commentary about it elsewhere, it really drives the point home that there is a problem, but it’s not the prefix. The damage is done in the -sex.
The problems here are manifold, including but not limited to the mistaken idea that humans are uniformly and unambiguously binary in terms of physical sex, and the conflation of gender and sex, that the two will always match, are equally binary, and that the former is the same in all contexts and across all cultures. I don’t think this is at all true, but I suspect I’m in the minority.
If you start out from the premises above, it makes perfect sense that heterosexism becomes an instrument of restriction and control, because it’s rooted in the idea of a clear line delineating two and only two kinds of difference. Attraction to “other” becomes not an appreciation of the field of difference run through the filter of personal taste but a resistance based tool of identification and categorization, and makes it very easy to justify all sorts of discriminatory behavior based on the model that has been ‘naturalized’.
[Personal disclosure: I break the sex/gender rules pretty severely in my own life. I’m a flavor of trans that doesn’t hew to the either/or of man/woman, and strongly resist the idea that I’m an “in-between” or a “genderfuck”. My attractions are not exclusively based on apparent sex or gender, nor are they based on specific genital configuration. I resist “bisexual” because I don’t like just men or women, and “pansexual” because I don’t like everything. ]
Structurally speaking, I think this is where all sorts of bad things come from, but the line extends beyond the standard gay/straight conflict. By no means do I mean to suggest that heterosexuals have the corner on this kind of reaction; there are too many examples to list of gays hating on transfolk, transfolk hating on gays, and pretty much everyone hating on bisexuals. All of this is wrong. Point is, if anyone encounters something that makes them uncomfortable, challenges some of their unexamined beliefs, maybe the point isn’t to attack or exclude those who engender this reaction, but look at the place internally where it comes from, and why.
Difference is a fact of life, no matter how hard people try to fight against it. Coming to terms seems like the best long term option.