Fetishizing Non-European Cultures

My gender makes it difficult to have any interest in European languages. They are difficult, genderwise. The best Spain & German could do to make "gender neutral" language was to change a/o to @ (spain- Latin@ vs Latino/Latina) and capitalize the 'i' in female words (German- Pilotin becomes PilotIn). I don't think French even has a word for "it" and just uses 'he' (I zoned out in class and looked into it for all of 1 hour this summer, correct me if I'm wrong). Europe is just very, very, very bad with gender. And this has grated on me even before I realized I was a non-binary. It also makes me hate English with a passion- not just for gender, but for how flipping impossible we have made it to speak without either erasing/othering/discriminating against a marginalized group or being completely incomprehensible to the lay person. Although that might be a problem in all lanugages.

At first I thought that I just hated languages- then I found Icelandic and fell instantly, truly, and deeply in love. This love has only deepened- every time I'm reminded that you can avoid using pronouns and make the adjectives neutral, that hetja mín (female noun) can be used to refer to a werman and it's still a deep complement (lit. "My hero!"), that some the word for human being is female. And I've found other languages as well- I believe Japanese is much better about gender as well, I've heard from a few non-binaries that it's easier to be referred to or talk about people without revealing gender or it being obvious you aren't. Russia also has adjectives and even verbs that bend easily to gender, including neuter, and using gendered nouns that don't bend to the person's gender is common and, again, not misgendering. China... it depends. Thailand- I'm hesitant, the view of trans women is either good or bad, and I really want to know which (they are lumped in with gay men and drag queens as "ladyboys" and "kathoey", lit. "not man" and not seen as women but something else- not nice to gay men either) is either good or bad, and I really want to know which.


And it's possible it applies to the indigenous people who Europeans completely fucked over when taking over what is now the "Americas" as well, as they held trans people in a bit higher respect than the white people who feel they "own" the country did, and I don't even know about Africa or Australia (same thing in terms of being fucked over by Europeans, though) because they're erased in our USA-centric, Euro-centric, White-centric curriculum. I also don't think it's as easy to find resources for studying it- aside from Thai & Icelandic, all the languages I've listed are taught at my college and it's easy to find resources on them. For at least 2 languages in Chinese, too. (There are at least 10 spoken languages in China)

Russia, Japan, Thailand (as well as what are now the Americas, Africa, and Australia)- they all have something in common. They're not European and, for the most part, the people there aren't white. Except Russia. I think, I actually have a hard time keeping track of all the distinct cultural identities we've erased and shoved into "white" to reinforce our privilege and which we aren't counting as "really" white to, again, reinforce our privilege.

With Japan, I've seen too many white anime "fans" who go around completely butchering the Japanese language (this is at least part of why I used to hate Japanese with a passion- my knowledge of it was "NARUTO CHAN IS SUGOI KAWAII DESU NE BAKA GOMEN NASA~I"). And, at least Americans, don't really have the greatest track record with Asian women. I don't know where the line between admiration and appropriation is- does anyone? Do I just like these languages because, to my white European ears, they sound "exotic"*? Am I assuming that they'll be better about gender because I'm idealizing the culture as being so "unusual" and "different" to European culture rather than being aware of the reality? Am I just an Asiaphile trying to justify this?

I actually don't know, it's hard to tell. I've seen people of color complain when white people use something from a non-white culture because, too often, it's appropriation (hint: If you don't know the country, just the continent, you might be appropriating). Does that include language?

* Japanese, Thai, Korean, and everything else that I've never been raised on sounds a bit like nails on a chalkboard to me. (I'm getting better with Japanese because I'm listening to it more- but at first it was painful) Sooo, hopefully not?

Misassigned At Birth

I'll be honest, I don't like the term transgender. It's incorrect- it implies our genders cross something when, with the exception of multigender and genderfluid people, they really don't. It works with transsexual in a way- most people do see their sex crossing over to the other. I know a neutrois who now considers itself "transsexed" because it finished transition.

But our language is difficult and trans people aren't accepted enough for me to figure out a viable alternative (although, of course, it's hard to find one that works for everyone no matter what you do). As I mentioned before, my definition for transgender is "an adjective describing a person who’s gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth". And I've been thinking about it- and I kind of like the idea of misassigned at birth. I've seen a few trans women say "the doctor should have said "it's a girl"." and, as I've been pointing out a bit lately, not all trans people feel that their body is wrong- just how people perceive them. Misassigned works better for me.

Aside from bodily issues that transsexual deals with, a big problem for trans people is that they were assigned and raised and, in no small part due to this socialization, are still perceived as the wrong sex. It also helps that a lot of people can have issues with the idea of "assigned-____" because too many people assume that it's a correct assignment (doctors know everything, right?). Misassigned emphasises the mistake that was made, that the assignment was not correct.

Like I said- it won't work for everyone. Some trans people don't think they were misassigned. But I hope it's a step in the right direction.

Ask

I was reading over an article about a woman of color dealing with reactions to her taking care of her children (varying from "his he yours" to complimenting how good a nanny or babysitter she is and asking if she can be hired) or asking a racially diverse family "Where did you adopt [your child]?". To "is zie yours?": mixed feelings here- if the question is "are you really his mother or did you adopt him/is he a step-child?": that's busted, because an adopted/step child can be just as much yours as a "biological" child, and because it's probably at least a bit race based (if they looked the same, no one would assume the kid is adopted). People assuming she's the nanny? Busted. But if people just ask if a kid is the adult's rather than assuming? Not so much. One homophobic person replied demanding to know why it's okay to not assume a person is straight because "What? You think I look butch?!"- busted. Which allows for an excellent way to start my post. The difference between "Is this a "traditional" family or two mommies?" and "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met.".


The question "Is it a "traditional" family or two mommies?"- is showing tolerance, depending on the tone ( a sarcastic or "two "mommies"?"- not so great) and reaction to "two mommies". The doctor is showing that zie is accepting of same-sex couples having children together and is (hopefully) non-judgemental about the fact that some children are raised by two parents who are not hetero. Not only that- but it makes no assumptions*. It isn't calling the person a lesbian- it's keeping an open mind because you can't tell sexuality by looking at a person. Assuming that everyone you meet is straight  does damage.

The statement "You’re one of the most prompt babysitter’s I’ve met"- is showing intolerance. Or, at least, close-mindedness. And it makes assumptions. It's assuming that an adult who is not close enough to the skin tone/facial structure/hair color or quality of the child cannot be the child's parent, because two people who aren't obviously of the same race couldn't have had a child. It also assumes that she couldn't be related to the child in any way- not even by friendship. That this person who is darker than the child couldn't possibly be a good enough friend of the "white" family to be taking care of the kid.

Next is intent or "what are they really asking". For example, "Is zie yours"- on the surface, tame. But not when the real question is "Is zie your biological child?" (as opposed to adopted/step/kidnapped/whatever the person thinks) and can be followed up with "Where did you get zem?" (because you couldn't be related to a kid with that much darker/lighter hair color/skintone/eyes than you!) or "I mean really yours" (because only biological children are REALLY yours). Obviously, this is pretty messed up for the same reason that assuming the person is the nanny/babysitter is- it's clear that the asker doesn't believe that mutli-racial children exist and doesn't think that a parent who doesn't look "enough like" their child is "really" that child's parent.  But sometimes the question is asked because the person is aware that  they can't exactly tell family dynamics just from meeting people and asking avoids complications that assuming creates- and then it isn't really a bad question.

Next I'll go with entitlement. Take this scenario: Person 1: "That's a really cool bracelet you have. Where did you get it?" Person 2: "Actually, it's a really long story and I'm just not up to telling it right now and I don't really know you well enough, sorry." And person 1 replies in one of these ways: 1. the person says "Oh, alright, if you ever feel comfortable telling me then" and leaves it at that. 2. the person demands to know what the backstory is, pestering the person about it.

If the response is the first: That's good. Person 1 is respecting Person 2's wishes. If the response is the second: VERY BAD. The person clearly feels entitled to this knowledge about Person 2- regardless of how Person 2 feels. (and, if Person 2 relents, it's very possible that zir right to making these decisions will be further attacked by Person 1 saying "I don't get why you didn't just tell me that in the first place") This one really depends on your relationship- but if you have a close enough relationship, you know what questions you are and aren't allowed to ask already.  This guide is pretty much for near strangers. And when you don't know someone well, you have no right to know anything about them that they don't want to tell you

That said, I hope we have a pretty decent grasp on good vs bad questions. Good: Respecting the person, not making busted assumptions, not having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. Bad: Disrespecting the person, making busted assumptions, having an underlying question that you can't ask because it's offensive. That said...

ASK!

Ask about anything and everything! Ask about pronouns! Ask about orientation (when relevant) rather than assuming straight! Ask about personal space/contact limitations! Ask about acceptable/unacceptable labels to use for the person!  If you don't know: ASK!

And this goes to people being asked, too. If a question makes you uncomfortable: Ask why it was asked. (and don't make busted assumptions, either!) if a person asks you what your sexuality is- don't assume that they think you "look gay", maybe they just don't want to add into the bustedness of heteronormativity. If someone asks you your pronouns- don't accuse them of saying you look like a [opposite gender], maybe they just realize that you can't tell a person's pronouns by looking at them. (you can guess correctly 90% of the time, but you can't know).

For the world to be a place where privilege no longer hurts people (especially regarding things that aren't visible)- we need to ask. We need to stop assuming things. Don't assume everyone is straight (or even sexual), don't assume that you know someone's gender & pronouns from looking at them, don't assume that they have the same education/views/experiences/abilities/needs as you, don't assume that one aspect of anyone's life/personality necessarily determines how they feel in any other part of their life, don't assume that a person in a wheelchair or with a seeing eye dog or anything else needs your help just because they're in a wheelchair or have a seeing eye dog or anything else and you aren't. Just don't assume!

But we also need to be in a place where questions CAN be asked. I do NOT mean that you have to answer every question- I already made it clear that people 100% have the right to say "I don't want to answer that". But reacting violently because someone doesn't assume something? That's not going to get us anywhere (and, of course, it's mostly privileged people who do it- because privileged people are allowed to get offended when a person asks them something that attacks their privilege and are also allowed to demand answers and get offended when we don't get them).

*okay, well, it does. It assumes a monogamous relationship in which the two partners have binary genders. Baby steps....

Transgender and Crossdressing

Disclaimer: I'm not a crossdresser, crossdreamer, nor a drag ace†. Clue by four.

"I would never want to be a woman. That would spoil all the fun of dressing like one." - Carly*

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I put up the definitions of the words I use (and feel free to mention if I need to add any more or you have problems with the ones I put up). I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why I define transgender as I do. Which is:

An adjective describing a person whose gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender makes no assumptions about the person’s genitalia, sex, gender role, presentation in daily life, or anything else- only the disconnect between what the doctors assumed the person would be and what the person actually is.

Now, I know that's not how everyone uses it- particularly as an umbrella term. One thing that there tends to be some disagreement on is whether or not people who don't uphold gender norms (crossdressers, drag royalty†, etc) are included in this. And here's my take on it.



Some crossdressers and drag royalty are bigendered or genderfluid (or actually trans [wo/wer]men but haven't accepted that yet) or something along those lines- the "desire" they have to crossdress is the same as a werman or woman "desiring" to dress like a werman or woman, respectively. To me, that isn't really crossdressing. A bigendered maab who wears dresses to express her womanhood isn't "crossdressing" any more than a woman wearing a dress is- she's expressing her female gender by wearing clothes associated with females. The fact that she isn't always a woman or is also a werman doesn't devalue her female gender in any way. And even if this person is crossdressing, aka dresses like a woman when he's a werman even though he's a woman at other times, they still fit into trans because their gender both does and doesn't match their assigned sex- not because of the clothes. (of course, in the literal transgender sense of "across-gender", they might be the only ones who really are transgender, as they actually go across genders)

So what about the wermen, the people with only one gender and whose gender matches their assigned sex, who want to wear a dress? (or women who... whatever counts as crossdressing for women, I'm not really sure)

I don't think clothing has a gender. Now, yes, socially genders are assigned to clothing. But the bounds of what's considered "acceptable" for wermen and women are ill-defined and change with time. Are wermen who wear "skinny jeans" crossdressing? Are women who wear loose jeans? They aren't even consistent over all of US culture- subcultures, age groups, races, classes, and geographic locations can all have different limits of what is and isn't "acceptable" clothing for wermen and women, much less all countries. Is a werman who wears a kilt crossdressing? What about if he's wearing an unbifurcated garment designed for wermen? Now, people can obviously crossdress in the same sense as crossplaying- dressing up with the intention of dressing as a different gender, but I don't think it makes you trans any more than playing a character who's another gender  makes you trans.

A person can't express gender they don't have- I can't express my female gender by wearing a skirt because I don't have a female gender. Even if a werman (and, yes, this applies to women- but generally you hear about maab crossdressers and drag queens) is intentionally dressing to look like a woman, he isn't expressing his gender as a woman- his gender is still that of a werman. And, seriously, no one bring up the bi/multi-gender thing, I just spent a paragraph explaining that.

Similarly- I don't include otherwise cis people who have non-standard presentation/traits for the same reason. I don't think a werman who likes shoes is less of a werman than one who likes football (or that a person can't like both), and a woman who prefers playing rugby to getting her nails done isn't less of a woman either (and rugby players can enjoy getting pampered as much as anyone).

I also don't like the concept of clothes having a gender because people use it as a basis for discrimination. If a person is perceived as crossdressing, even if they're wearing clothing quite appropriate to their gender (just not assigned sex) or don't feel what they're doing is crossdressing, they can face a lot of problems for it. Last year a man was threatened with arrest for wearing a skirt in a courthouse (a skirt that would have been appropriate on a woman, based on the description). If that's what applying genders to inanimate objects gets us- I don't see any benefit in it.

For the time being; crossdressing, gender variant, and other people who have a gender that matches their assigned sex but don't entirely fit the gender roles/traits/expectations of that gender might  functionally fit in (at least with 'queer') in the sense that they can face trans- & homophobia for it, but I really don't like the idea that someone is somehow "less" their gender just because of the clothes they wear or the things they enjoy. And, of course, trans does not mean "less"- but why would we call a person who is otherwise cisgender "trans" just because of the clothes they like to wear? A person being trans implies that their gender is different than what cissexist society expects people with the genitalia zie had at birth to be, and that zie'll have a harder time being accepted as that gender because of that.  A maab werman has a gender that very much matches what society expects, people will rarely have a difficult time believing he really is a werman- even if he expresses that gender by painting his nails pink, strapping on 6" heels, and putting on a lovely dress.

It also causes confusion when it comes to trans people who have non-standard presentation or who enjoy crossdressing/playing, drag, etc. If a cis werman is transgender just because he likes to wear dresses (even if he does full-time)- what is a trans werman? Trans people already face far more pressure to fit their gender's roles/traits/expectations than a cis person is ever likely to face, saying that your presentation somehow effects your gender only adds to that.

*The quote is from "Too Much Information", a webcomic featuring a transvestite- Carly (born "Carl Lee"). It comes from this page, but I'll give a warning that I'm not sure if it's misgendering or not. It either says that he thinks Carly is a trans man, or that he thinks trans women are really men, Carly's reply implies the latter- and also mislabels the fact that trans women are women and says that they just "want" to be a woman, implying they're actually men or at least not "really" women. That 1-page slip aside, the comic is pretty cool- though adult and NSFW. I put it as a footnote to explain this, though.
†Drag Ace is a joke, but I like it. Basically my line of thought was "What would you call a neutrois in drag?", as most titles are gendered, and going over the face cards in a deck (one thought was "joker")- since 'ace' is slang term for an asexual, I liked it. Drag Royalty is because there aren't really non-gendered terms for queen/king, but both are royal titles. I think that one's more self-explanatory than ace.

“Singular “they” and the many reasons why it’s correct” via Motivated Grammar

read the full post here

Suppose you were reading and came to the following line:
“She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who falls into deep water in their clothes.”
Would you …
(a) continue reading, because that’s a perfectly acceptable sentence, or
(b) throw a tantrum and insist that the author is an imbecile speeding the wholesale destruction of the English language?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’re probably answering (a). If you’re answering (b), I regret to inform you that you hate the writing of C. S. Lewis.

And if you’re the sort to answer (b), the sort of person who rages at the alleged grammatical buffoonery of your fellows, I’m sure it’s because you think you’re doing us all a favor, and that your condescending tone is justified because: first, you’re being helpful regardless of the tone you’re using; second, people only learn through negative conditioning, and so it is your duty, however unpleasant, to rub their noses in it to keep them from going on doing it; third, only a truly illiterate mouth-breather would be so moronic as to make such a mistake, and such imbeciles are below contempt and probably don’t even realize that you’re condescending to them anyway; and fourth, given the Heruclean effort you’ve put into learning the English language as impeccably as you did, it’s really only fair that you get to be a little self-satisfied and perhaps even gloat a smidge.

The only problem with this view is that all you’ve managed to learn about English is how to get your brain to release some satisfying endorphins every time you blindly regurgitate some authority figure’s unjustified assertion. You’re not helping; you’re just getting someone to pretend to agree with you long enough to shut you up. Or worse, you’re scaring people into submission to a point where they feel compelled to preface their speech with apologies for any unknown violence their words are committing against the presumed propriety of the language. Never forget, though, that language is the people’s. Your witless superstition will, by-and-large, be ignored by the speakers of the language, and the alleged impropriety will almost certainly win out in the end. Don’t mistake yourself for a brave defender of our language against the barbarians at the gates when, in truth, you’re nothing but a millennialist shouting about the end-times of the English language. Meanwhile, the world spins on, and the language flourishes, hale and hearty.

One great example of this situation is the shouting down of those who use singular they. I’ve wanted for some time to have one place to send everyone who complains about singular they, a single page that can debunk whatever junk they’re peddling against it. There’s been lots of great stuff written about why singular they is acceptable, but every time I want to smash the arguments against it, I have to waste time jumping through old Language Log posts and books and whatnot, so I figured I’d finally go about summarizing it all. Without further ado, here’s the evidence for singular they, and why you ought to stop “correcting” it.

This is a delightful read no matter who you are, and should be required reading for anyone who tries to use the argument that "singular they" is inaccurate. The full post goes on to point out 'singular they's historical usage, usage by good writers, acceptance by authorities, and a few other arguments used against this pronoun.

Personally, my view on singular they is this: As long as singular "you" is acceptable, so is singular "they". (yes, I do want to bring back thou)

Who is it?

Before we get this post started, I'm going to say this on the pronoun "it" used for people: Yes, it is way too charged to be a pronoun to use when you don't know what the gender/pronoun of a person is- but it's still a pronoun that some people do prefer being called by. That should be respected.
Now, on with the show.

"Inspector, do you know if the killer was a man or woman?" -Journalist
"Well of course I know that! What else is there? A kitten?" -Clouseau (from 'the Pink Panther 2')

Because apparently the objections to 'it' actually run deeper than I realized, as a person has expressed that even "Is it a boy or a girl?" is dehumanizing. Now, unfortunately, the commenter has no public information on their blogger profile so I cannot send them a message to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding this (I also cannot send them a message asking their preferred pronouns, hence the 'they'- I'll happily fix it if someone who knows this person lets me know the right ones). I did ask in the comments why the person feels that asking "is it a boy or a girl?" about an infant is dehumanizing- but it's a personal blog and a post on an extremely sensitive issue so I can appreciate Helen not wanting to publish any comments she doesn't want on there. So all I've really got to work with is what the comment says, which is this:

I know that “it” starts bloody early (“is it a girl or a boy?” – whatever sex a child was assigned, they’re not a fucking ‘it’) and I hate “it”, it’s a cheap and nasty way to de-humanise someone.

This person is making it clear that if this child's preferred pronouns are 'it', which does happen, then that is unacceptable. The kid isn't even crawling yet- and already this person is setting limits to what its gender can and cannot be, what is and is not acceptable (along with the rest of society, so I'm hardly shocked). But, this person is also doing it while accusing other people of dehumanizing the child by using pronouns that express a lack of knowledge as to the child's gender or preferred pronouns (although the question does lead to the kid's gender and identity being heavily policed). So, basically, this person is complaining about other people being dehumanizing while possibly dehumanizing the child by saying its gender and pronouns are inherently insulting. (in this hypothetical the kiddo grows up to prefer 'it'- why not, I know enough people who have) And that's actually why I have an objection to people who get so angry whenever anyone calls anyone else 'it' and claim it's "dehumanizing" no matter what (even when a person calls itself 'it'- which was just busted).

Binary-gender Privilege

I've been adding things to this list and it may not be up to date, to see the full list, please check HERE

You can reasonably expect that...

• words to describe your gender not only exist in every natural language, but are commonplace
• characters with your gender commonly appear in fiction as more than just a joke, and are often mentioned in serious non-fiction
• everyone is aware that people of your gender exist and have met people with your gender
• words exist to describe your sexuality and to describe people attracted to those of your gender, and most people have heard those words
• there is a way to pass as your gender, and roles/clothing/actions associated with that gender that you can use if you wish to be read correctly
• people will not have to "get used" to using your pronouns, as they use them for people on a daily basis, and will not tell you that your pronouns are "too hard" or treat them as some sort of novelty
• no one will say that humans can not have your gender, or treat the words and pronouns you use to describe your gender as an insult
• you can expect to find safe spaces for people of your gender
• in gender-based safe spaces, it is obvious if people of your gender are welcomed/allowed or not (from the One With No Name)
• it will be obvious which bathrooms, locker rooms, and facilities to try on clothes people of your gender are allowed to use (from the One With No Name)
• you will not have a hard time finding a partner who has heard of your gender, much less one who understands and accepts your gender and pronouns
• you will not have to educate people about what your gender is to have any hope of having that gender respected, because they have grown up around people who have that gender
• when you see a gender therapist, zie has dealt with people of your gender and will treat you with respect
• if your body is not "normal" for your gender, surgeries exist to help fix it and you won't be denied them due to your gender
• you do not have to create an entirely new legal sex to be legally acknowledged as your gender
• if parents raise a child as your gender, people will not consider this abuse
• people do not think it's okay to tell people of your gender that asking your child to respect your gender and pronouns is wrong because no one has heard of your gender
• from a young age, you are aware that people with your gender actually exist and will not have to go looking for or invent definitions that fit you. -(from AlextheSane)

I thought we needed one. I'm sure I'm missing some, critique is welcome & encouraged. Although some are somewhat binary trans specific, the fact that much of cis society doesn't accept trans genders can limit the amount of binary privilege they actually enjoy, but it's still there.

For example, with pronouns- a woman who doesn't look like a cis woman will not always have her pronouns respected, but she can still expect that people are accustomed to referring to people as 'she' and 'woman' and other words associated with her gender, and she won't have to deal with people struggling to add new language to their vocabulary to describe her gender. Also, in terms of safe space, women who happen to be trans are often excluded from so-called "women only" spaces (and let in trans men)- which erases their gender, but it's still blatant that, by all rights women should be able to join women-only spaces; however it can be difficult for non-binaries to tell if they'd be welcomed or accepted even in trans-only spaces.

This is What a Male-Bodied Person Looks Like

via This is What a Man Sounds Like. (highly related to this site, which I linked earlier, and suggest everyone also read.)

Male is a modifier, a word used to describe things that pertain to men. I am a man. Therefore, I, a man, have a male body, and I am a male-bodied person. My uterus, my clit, my soft chest, and my rounded hips are all part of my male body. Of course, other people have different body experiences, and I speak only for my own experience.
[...]
Often, people call me female-bodied when they’re addressing my experience of misogyny. Since I was raised as a girl, and I am a non-passing transman, I experience a lot of misogyny. I definitely got sexist street harassment when I lived in Boston. Similarly, people are likely to assume that I don’t know what I want when I go into a bike shop, or when I go dancing, that I’m a follow. Misogyny isn’t fun, but I don’t aspire to take on male privilege. That doesn’t make me a female-bodied person, although it does indicate that people perceive me that way. A more appropriate way to address my experience of sexism is to talk specifically about the experience and what’s going on, rather than to tell me what my body is like. For example, people could express their views of street harassment along with my expressed experience and analysis of being street harassed.

Another reason people try to call me a female-bodied person is in dealing with shared body experiences, like menstruation. In that case, instead of saying “women” or “female-bodied” folks could say “people who menstruate.” That avoids defining people by one biological process. It would also be important to never tell anyone about their own bodies. I experience menstruation, but I can only speak for my own experience, so I would not assume that other people experience the same thing. So, for example, I would not say, “The Diva Cup is great for women,” nor “The Diva Cup is great for female-bodied people.” I would say “The Diva Cup is great for me when I’m on my period, and it might be good for other folks.”

The third reason people assign me as female-bodied is to put me in a category of people who were socialized as girls, based on the way I act or relate to others. It’s true: I do tend to take care of friends and devalue my experiences and needs in comparison with others, at least in part because I was raised as a girl. Although the perception of my body by others led to me being raised as a girl, it is very important that no one tries to teach me about my own experiences. If I locate my learned behavior of devaluing my own thoughts and feelings, I will say those tendencies came out of the systematic devaluation I experienced from being socialized as a girl, not being “female-bodied.” So, if we’re talking about socialization, let’s talk about socialization, but let’s not blame it on bodies, and thus, injure by assigning.
Read More

Transgender and Crossdressing

Disclaimer: I'm not a crossdresser, crossdreamer, nor a drag ace†. Clue by four.

"I would never want to be a woman. That would spoil all the fun of dressing like one." - Carly*

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I put up the definitions of the words I use (and feel free to mention if I need to add any more or you have problems with the ones I put up). I wanted to elaborate a bit more on why I define transgender as I do. Which is:

An adjective describing a person whose gender (part or all of it) does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender makes no assumptions about the person’s genitalia, sex, gender role, presentation in daily life, or anything else- only the disconnect between what the doctors assumed the person would be and what the person actually is.

Now, I know that's not how everyone uses it- particularly as an umbrella term. One thing that there tends to be some disagreement on is whether or not people who don't uphold gender norms (crossdressers, drag royalty†, etc) are included in this. And here's my take on it.