(RNS) — When one digs just beneath the surface of the Bible and engages its stories in their ancient culture and context, it becomes very clear the Bible is very queer.
you are using “trans” in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning, i.e. you seem to use it to mean a person who was born one gender of the binary and who transitions to be the other, rather than as the umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically.
You are splitting hairs on the gender binary as if we should be considering it as a separate from the anti-trans gender concept. Instead I think there is a dominant gender ideology that both thinks of gender as binary and is trans-denying.
Here were some of your statements I was responding to:
[“two genders”] does not at face value refute directly gender transitions,
the false idea that the adage “there are only two genders” has anything to do with the existence of transgender people
I think to the contrary that the “there are only two genders” does relate to transgender people - particularly trans people who do not fall strictly within that binary or who fall somewhere on a spectrum between two poles, but even for people who do fit one one pole or another of the binary, transitioning from one pole to the other often gets treated as wrong / impossible / invalid under the gender binary concept because it’s baked into the concept that the binary is rigid - you can’t “change” your gender, and you can’t be in between, which is how people see and understand gender and trans people under that gender concept (as trans people “changing” and as being in-between, esp. during transition, but even after).
So while I don’t disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it’s a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.
So while I don’t disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it’s a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.
You are splitting hairs on the gender binary
I agree with both the above. Sure I am nit picking, but for good reasons (I explain below). But you are mistaken in assuming I am “angry” at the author. I am just expressing the only noteworthy thought I had about this article. I upvoted the thing!
you are using “trans” in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning
Well, normally I don’t, in fact I recently explained that since biological sex is not a fixed binary it is absurd to assume that gender identity is.
umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically
This is a very well put together and comprehensive list, and I don’t even think these terms are mutually exclusive. But I do make some conceptual distinction between (just an example) drag queens and trans women, I think it is more accurate to define “trans” in terms of gender identity not expression or performance. I would use “trans*” or “GNC” as an umbrella term, like in a future red book or style guide.
Since we can now use some shared terms, let me rephrase. 3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That’s why I pointed it out.
Ah, thank you for your reasonable response - I really appreciate it! 😊
It sounds like we’re making progress.
First, let me apologize for assuming anger on your part, I think I misread your tone and I sometimes conflate calling out injustice with being fundamentally an expression of anger (even though it is righteous anger). Either way I am listening and I hear that you weren’t coming from a place of anger, but instead you are trying to make a point.
Second, I think “trans*” was short lived and has died as an umbrella term, and just “trans” has largely replaced it - however, I’m happy to use “trans*” moving forward anyway, I think it’s helpful in this particular context to clarify when we mean an expansive umbrella.
Within that trans* umbrella, I think the reason drag performers are included has to do less with identity reasons (i.e. it’s not a claim that trans* identity is performative), but rather because trans* is a political identity that has to do with alliance of disparate groups who are victimized by the same oppression. The same people banning drag shows are passing anti-trans legislation, so trans* is a banner that allows us all to work together against our common enemy. This is a bit like when anti-racism activism is based in racial concepts that are rooted in racism, an uncomfortable reality if you try to reify the identities based on that, but a necessary way of operating when engaging in projects of justice. So it’s because drag performers are engaging in a kind of gender activity that gets punished the way trans people and other gender non-conforming people do that we end up all calling ourselves trans*.
That said, drag almost assumes a cis identity and the cross-dressing as artifice, and many would never feel comfortable calling themselves “trans*” - this is a struggle the community has been having for a long time, the origin of the term “transgender” was originally to be an umbrella term that is inclusive of these kinds of gender non-conforming people who don’t feel comfortable identifying as “transsexual” at the time (i.e. people who transition).
The terminology is so messy and it seems like every time we try to create a more inclusive umbrella term, it just becomes the new term for “trans people who medically and socially transition” (i.e. what “transsexual” used to mean). So “transgender” now feels awkward applied to drag performers (despite the term being created for them and cross dressers, etc.), and now the new umbrella term “trans” has likewise come to feel awkward that way too.
OK, finally I wanted to dig into your statement:
3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That’s why I pointed it out.
I wanted to check in on this and see what this means exactly. So, one way I understand this is that you’re saying all gender non-conforming / trans* folks are dehumanized by third-gendering. At face value I understand what you mean intuitively - there is a tendency for cis people to feel uncomfortable with people who are not conformist in their gender, and they then theorize or think about these people as a “third” gender - an example might be the Thai katoey who are not respected or seen as women, but instead are referred to as effeminate men in some kind of third gender category (not “real men”, but not women either).
So I understand “third-gendering” as an activity is often dehumanizing and other-izing.
However, from a logical point of view, I can’t help but wonder what some non-binary identities are if not a “third” (or “other”) gender? Many people have gender identities that don’t seem to align with the binary, and I suspect you are very on-board with abandoning the gender binary in favor of a different way of looking at gender (please correct me if I’m wrong here, it’s sometimes hard to read exactly - on the one hand it feels like you’re affirming the gender binary for binary trans identities, but on the other hand you have admitted this makes no sense given what we know about the biology).
So if you’d like, please help me understand what you’re saying - I assume you just mean the author’s mistake is a bit too close to this practice of cis people lumping all trans* together and thinking of them as being in an “other” category, and that this is a big oopsie woopsie.
There are a few problems here:
you are using “trans” in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning, i.e. you seem to use it to mean a person who was born one gender of the binary and who transitions to be the other, rather than as the umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically.
You are splitting hairs on the gender binary as if we should be considering it as a separate from the anti-trans gender concept. Instead I think there is a dominant gender ideology that both thinks of gender as binary and is trans-denying.
Here were some of your statements I was responding to:
I think to the contrary that the “there are only two genders” does relate to transgender people - particularly trans people who do not fall strictly within that binary or who fall somewhere on a spectrum between two poles, but even for people who do fit one one pole or another of the binary, transitioning from one pole to the other often gets treated as wrong / impossible / invalid under the gender binary concept because it’s baked into the concept that the binary is rigid - you can’t “change” your gender, and you can’t be in between, which is how people see and understand gender and trans people under that gender concept (as trans people “changing” and as being in-between, esp. during transition, but even after).
So while I don’t disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it’s a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.
I agree with both the above. Sure I am nit picking, but for good reasons (I explain below). But you are mistaken in assuming I am “angry” at the author. I am just expressing the only noteworthy thought I had about this article. I upvoted the thing!
Well, normally I don’t, in fact I recently explained that since biological sex is not a fixed binary it is absurd to assume that gender identity is.
This is a very well put together and comprehensive list, and I don’t even think these terms are mutually exclusive. But I do make some conceptual distinction between (just an example) drag queens and trans women, I think it is more accurate to define “trans” in terms of gender identity not expression or performance. I would use “trans*” or “GNC” as an umbrella term, like in a future red book or style guide.
Since we can now use some shared terms, let me rephrase. 3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That’s why I pointed it out.
Ah, thank you for your reasonable response - I really appreciate it! 😊
It sounds like we’re making progress.
First, let me apologize for assuming anger on your part, I think I misread your tone and I sometimes conflate calling out injustice with being fundamentally an expression of anger (even though it is righteous anger). Either way I am listening and I hear that you weren’t coming from a place of anger, but instead you are trying to make a point.
Second, I think “trans*” was short lived and has died as an umbrella term, and just “trans” has largely replaced it - however, I’m happy to use “trans*” moving forward anyway, I think it’s helpful in this particular context to clarify when we mean an expansive umbrella.
Within that trans* umbrella, I think the reason drag performers are included has to do less with identity reasons (i.e. it’s not a claim that trans* identity is performative), but rather because trans* is a political identity that has to do with alliance of disparate groups who are victimized by the same oppression. The same people banning drag shows are passing anti-trans legislation, so trans* is a banner that allows us all to work together against our common enemy. This is a bit like when anti-racism activism is based in racial concepts that are rooted in racism, an uncomfortable reality if you try to reify the identities based on that, but a necessary way of operating when engaging in projects of justice. So it’s because drag performers are engaging in a kind of gender activity that gets punished the way trans people and other gender non-conforming people do that we end up all calling ourselves trans*.
That said, drag almost assumes a cis identity and the cross-dressing as artifice, and many would never feel comfortable calling themselves “trans*” - this is a struggle the community has been having for a long time, the origin of the term “transgender” was originally to be an umbrella term that is inclusive of these kinds of gender non-conforming people who don’t feel comfortable identifying as “transsexual” at the time (i.e. people who transition).
The terminology is so messy and it seems like every time we try to create a more inclusive umbrella term, it just becomes the new term for “trans people who medically and socially transition” (i.e. what “transsexual” used to mean). So “transgender” now feels awkward applied to drag performers (despite the term being created for them and cross dressers, etc.), and now the new umbrella term “trans” has likewise come to feel awkward that way too.
OK, finally I wanted to dig into your statement:
I wanted to check in on this and see what this means exactly. So, one way I understand this is that you’re saying all gender non-conforming / trans* folks are dehumanized by third-gendering. At face value I understand what you mean intuitively - there is a tendency for cis people to feel uncomfortable with people who are not conformist in their gender, and they then theorize or think about these people as a “third” gender - an example might be the Thai katoey who are not respected or seen as women, but instead are referred to as effeminate men in some kind of third gender category (not “real men”, but not women either).
So I understand “third-gendering” as an activity is often dehumanizing and other-izing.
However, from a logical point of view, I can’t help but wonder what some non-binary identities are if not a “third” (or “other”) gender? Many people have gender identities that don’t seem to align with the binary, and I suspect you are very on-board with abandoning the gender binary in favor of a different way of looking at gender (please correct me if I’m wrong here, it’s sometimes hard to read exactly - on the one hand it feels like you’re affirming the gender binary for binary trans identities, but on the other hand you have admitted this makes no sense given what we know about the biology).
So if you’d like, please help me understand what you’re saying - I assume you just mean the author’s mistake is a bit too close to this practice of cis people lumping all trans* together and thinking of them as being in an “other” category, and that this is a big oopsie woopsie.