Post by Quinn CPost by CDBPost by Quinn CPost by CDBPost by Quinn CPost by CDBPost by Quinn CPost by JanetThanks for mansplaining gender stereotypes.
Thanks for reminding me why I usually ignore your posts.
Oh, c'mon. That was pretty funny.
It was witty, and there was some truth in the jest.
Post by Quinn CPost by CDBPost by Quinn CPost by CDBPost by Quinn CNot at all. Janet has made it a point before that she doesn't
accept my gender identity.
I don't know about that. I don't know why you would care.
Then you don't understand the concept of gender identity, nay, of
identity, period.
There is a modern application of the word 'identity' to mean something
quite other than its traditional meaning, which is something unchanging
- as applied to persons, the essence of what is them and keeps them the
same person from cradle to grave, no matter how they develop and change
in other respects. It's the reason (perhaps not a good reason) why a
felon can't escape his criminal record of forty years ago.
I know we use 'identity' as a synonym for 'name', as in 'ID' or
'identity document', though in Anglo-Saxonia we can change our names
without changing our identities. But a person's identity attaches to the
continuum of their existence, and in this sense has nothing to do with
their moods or feelings.
'Gender identity' doesn't fit this understanding. It's fluid, whereas
real identity cannot possibly be fluid.
Post by Quinn CPost by CDBIt would be fair to say that I don't understand your conception of it.
Why this urge to control what other people think?
I see my identity as something that I'm sure of, at least to the point
that I don't need anyone else's acknowledgement of it. That doesn't
mean at all that I conform to all the male stereotypes, only that I
think that there is social value in maleness and that my life is my
business. I don't invite comment on it, and I certainly don't require
the right kind of comment from anyone else.
This squares with my remarks above, and my own sense of identity: I am
me, I don't share that me with anybody else, and that's it. I don't need
approval.
Post by Quinn CFirst of all, this is naive - most identities are social, and require
reinforcement from the people around you, even if it's often not in
words, but just by making you welcome or involving you.
This is the new identity. It's how other people perceive you. It looks
like a 'take me as I present, not as I am' identity.
Reading on, it struck me that this is all quite Shakespearean. All the
world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. Today I am
Hamlet: next week, Lady Macbeth. If my colleagues don't accept me as
Lady Macbeth, they are challenging my stage identity. Exactly so. But
the real me remains unchallenged.
Post by Quinn CIf people don't
let you participate in the club any more, if colleagues don't give you
information you need for your work, if your partner doesn't want to have
sex with you, they are challenging your identity, if not as obviously as
when your child shouts: "you are not my father!"
I don't "require" reinforcement. If you never say anything about my
gender at all, I'll be fine (although languages have a habit of tricking
you into commenting on people's gender.)
But I don't appreciate being let know I'm a fraud. This isn't limited to
gender - I also found it offensive when PTD had trouble believing that
I'm a linguist.
This may be hard to imagine when it comes to gender identity, because
outside of a few subcultures, cis people's gender identity is rarely
challenged.
Perhaps people try to be polite. Can you understand why I prefer sex to
gender as a mark of identity? Sex is objective, can't be swapped out and
replaced at will, or by any outside agency: gender is fluid and we are
told it is what its owner says it is - Hamlet, or Lady Macbeth - and
you're in no position to deny it. It's hard to equate that to true
identity in the sense that I, deep down, acknowledge as identity.
Post by Quinn CSo I'll give you a different example. If you were raised
Anglican, but are now an atheist, and have said so in one of the
recurring discussion on the God question here, I don't think you'd find
it particularly funny to be told, repeatedly, that "of course you as an
Anglican would say that."
That would not impinge on your true identity, though.
Post by Quinn CThis group, and the people I read, are company I choose, but there are
several people in the group who I choose not to engage with, or only
exceptionally so. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes long-term - among
regulars, Rey must have been the record holder so far for inhabiting my
killfile without any temptation to interrupt that for over 10 years.
Long before my gender was an interesting subject.
Well, I concede it has raised some interesting questions. But I can't
help thinking of /that/ sort of identity as a role, no matter how
honestly and sincerely played. See, I don't challenge sincerity. But I
do challenge Hamlet's claim to a true Danish princedom.
--
Paul