Despite the awkward-in-places thread the paperclip sparked (I suspect there are some concepts involved that I haven't understood as completely as I'd thought) I would have to say that Clippy serves simultaneously as a clever introduction to the context of the bingo card, and as a summation of it. So it would have had a significantly different effect without the paperclip.
I agree with its importance as an introduction/summation, but I think the wording is a bit sloppy and does imply inflammatory things beyond what the creator may have intended. I think something along Redbird's phrase (below), like "Do you need Trans 101? Yes/No/Do Not Ask Again" would have worked better.
I must say, this makes me rather angry. The "Bingo" thing is mostly fine, although there are a few gems there too, but the Clippy is utterly insulting.
I dare say, I'm about as clued on the subject as any mostly-cisgendered person _might_ be. I am generally polite, respect people's self-identifications, am supportive to my friends and considerate of strangers. This tells me that I oughtn't be allowed to have opinions, or dare claim that I'm not phobic, or even talk about trans issues.
Excuse me? Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off? Maybe I _shouldn't_ try to correct the utterly clueless when they hit the rest of the bingo. Maybe I _shouldn't_ use my priviledge in trying to explain to the ignorant that the transgendered are not scary weirdo freaks (and probably be labeled a scary weirdo freak by association in the process).
Yeah, I understand, there's plenty out there to be pissed off at. This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off?
yes.
This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
actually, you have cis-gendered privilege, the flaw in your thinking is that all sins of cis-gendered privilege are being laid at your feet.
rather than focusing on and dealing with those cis-gendered privileges you do participate in, you're avoiding your privilege altogether by focusing on the cis-gendered privileges you don't think apply to yourself.
that is cis-gendered privilege behavior. it's what privileged behavior looks like in general.
omg, you have privilege. that's not the end of the world. what are you going to do about your privilege?
I am going to do is exactly what I have been doing - which is live my life, be good to my friends, make use of any priviledge I have to the fullest extent to which it doesn't impinge on others, fight for it in the ample variety of contexts in which I am not the priviledged group, and bitch like hell when broad generalizations are made by _anyone_.
I believe that you are missing my point. My point isn't that I am denying the priviledge. My point is that the link in question ascribes a variety of behaviors to all priviledged individuals, and that is what I am annoyed by.
The short version of my gut-reaction to your complaint is, "Well it's not meant to include you, 'cause you're cool and clueful." But wow, when I type that aloud it sounds ... just like unsatisfactory responses I've gotten in other situations when I've complained about feeling unfairly categorized.
Which is a warning sign for me.
I think I might get away with that excuse on the grounds that someone like you would already have passed the point where you would have turned the paperclip off. But that's still a bit glib. And you're probably not in the mood for glib.
I do have what I think are better reasons than that for excusing this (and for "why it really doesn't apply to you"), but I'm going to sit back and chew on them a while first, to make sure that I'm not just reacting to your criticism with reflex defensiveness.
'Cause as much as there is out there to be pissed off at, I don't want to drive away allies or friends, and I consider you both.
I will say this much now, for the record: I personally do not wish to silence clueful cisgendered people from speaking up, and I consider your having gotten that message to be unfortunate, something I'd like to rectify.
Not exactly, though I can certainly see how what I wrote can be read that way. My intent here was closer to a combination of, "I'm sorry that reminding you how people similar to you make my life miserable alienated a personal friend who I know isn't part of my problem and attempts to contribute to the solution," and, "Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.
"Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.
people similar to you
male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
By the way, the response I feel your brief, snide, but (yes) useful criticism deserves is also something I want to put more thought into than what I've written in reply so far. Both in big-picture aspects and in omphaloskepsis. I see an odd sort of balancing act, wherein sometimes the correct move is to deliberately tip all the way to one side, and part of the challenge is deciding when to do that and when not to ...
... and I'm noticing recently the situations where I think and speak like a member of a privileged class in one of the contexts where I'm looking at the other side of that coin, and still figuring out what actions these observations warrant.
It's especially confusing when fairly small topic shifts within a single conversation shift the context from one where I'm a (or the) privileged speaker, to one where I'm a non-privileged speaker, and back again, as I've noticed happening a couple of times in the last few weeks.
I'm a member of enough flavors of minorities myself to know how lashing out against the associated majorities is bonding, catharsis, bringing light to the issues, all manners of worthwhile things. But even in the cases when it does not include me personally, I despise generalization. There is no way to defend yourself from it, and any attempt _will_ sound like apologetics of the priviledged. The only acceptable recourse is to shut up and take it.
You know me, so you knew enough to read what I said in the spirit of how I meant it. The previous commenter doesn't, and therefore took it, well, like it sounds.
I'm going to point out (perhaps unhelpfully) that this conversation is a rehash of the same conversation about privilege that has gone on in a number of other communities women's, homosexual, communities of various persons of color, religious, etc). I will also, (probably equally unhelpfully) point out that there isn't really any satisfactory resolution to it. One thing worth keeping in mind is that nearly no one belongs to no category of oppression (yes there are a few, but they're pretty rare overall). Most of us live in matrices of intersecting identities, and we are obliged to deal with the shifting realities that that produces. Meaning: while some person who identifies as queer may be "the oppressed person" in a given interaction, in the next one, they may not (black woman in a wheelchair meets passing FTM in line for a job joke inserted here). Moreover, these categories themselves aren't stable: passing is a major factor in these shifting categories, of course, but so is transforming of the discourse in different contexts (e.g. while I wouldn't say that being Japanese -let's say a Japanese man to make it simpler- makes one completely free of prejudiced stereotypes and limits on class mobility, partner choice, etc, it certainly doesn't have nearly the same level as it did even 50 years ago. In fact, Japanese have *the* highest exogamy rate of any ethnic group; example 2: less than 50 years ago, Jews were generally considered to be non-white. Now (despite the fact that in fact most Jews AREN'T "white," the stereotype of Jews is that they are white - point of note, despite looking white, I grew up thinking that I wasn't white - that's what my parents told me, and to some extent, that's how I was treated, although not by everyone, since I am pretty far from 50. The local country club continued to exclude Jews up until quite recently. SO am I white or non-white? Does my definition count, or is it up to someone else? Does the group decide about itself, or is there an interaction between the group and those outside of it?). So, stoneself, I suggest that as much pain as you are in, you make a certain attempt to deal with it in a more friendly way. I know, I know, there's all the same stuff about well, I'm the oppressed one, why should I be the one obligate to educate the clueless. The answer being that if you don't they won't get educated - is that preferable? And secondly, take your friends where you find them. There aren't so many in the world that you can spare what you've got. None of us can.
So, stoneself, I suggest that as much pain as you are in, you make a certain attempt to deal with it in a more friendly way. I know, I know, there's all the same stuff about well, I'm the oppressed one, why should I be the one obligate to educate the clueless.
"i'm sorry you're upset that telling you the way you harm me upsets me."
The answer being that if you don't they won't get educated - is that preferable?
depends on what i'm trying to educate about. as a practical matter, being blunt and clear works in ways that being indirect/"friendly" doesn't.
And secondly, take your friends where you find them. There aren't so many in the world that you can spare what you've got. None of us can.
that kind of condescension is bizzare. the world is full of friends.
"i'm sorry you're upset that telling you the way you harm me upsets me" Actually, I don't particularly care. I happen to think that the scientific evidence of these and other syndromes not generally considered related to sexual identity, but similar in neurological patterns contradicts a great deal of the doctrines within your community. Nonetheless, on the whole, I couldn't care less what sex other people want to be, can't imagine that it effects me in any way other than the way that the happiness of people generally is something I want to look out for, and think that the government's business in this is only to a. protect people from danger where necessary, b. promote the general good where possible, c. support those who require it as part f the duties of a common society and d. otherwise butt out.
"being blunt and clear works in ways that being indirect/"friendly" doesn't" Not if your clarity requires you to be be nasty. One can say the same thing in lots of different ways, and if people may be inclined to be your ally, even if they are *completely* clueless, the long term benefit - to others in your predicament, if not yourself- is to win them over, and it is true that honey catches more flies, even if producing it exhausts the bees.
"the world is full of friends." Really? SO many, that you can spare yourself adding a few more?
Really? SO many, that you can spare yourself adding a few more?
the world is full of people who care. they make great friends; the ones that don't - not so much.
I happen to think that the scientific evidence of these and other syndromes not generally considered related to sexual identity, but similar in neurological patterns contradicts a great deal of the doctrines within your community.
you happen to think? how much research and listening to the transcommunity have you done? how well have you listened when you did look at the information, since you've state you don't care.
Not if your clarity requires you to be be nasty. One can say the same thing in lots of different ways, and if people may be inclined to be your ally, even if they are *completely* clueless, the long term benefit - to others in your predicament, if not yourself- is to win them over, and it is true that honey catches more flies, even if producing it exhausts the bees.
have you done work on training and teaching and recruiting effective allies? it's not being "nasty" to point out what people are actually doing. it's unpleasant, and really there's no way around it because... it's unpleasant. people need to understand how unpleasant it is.
BTW, I think that stoneself is confusing receiving the benefit of privilege with acting on privilege. It is pretty universal that one receives certain benefits by being male - even if one is only perceived to be male, or if one is gay, for example. I don't think one can stretch that argument to saying that one always acts on that privilege, which is something a little different. There are certainly men who have sympathies with the way women are in the world who try very hard not to take advantage of said privilege, nevertheless, somethings just come their way regardless of whether they do something about it or not.
you are confusing being anti-sexist with being not sexist. being sexist and anti-sexist are not mutually exclusive. being racist and anti-racit are not mutually exclusive. you can actually be both at the same time.
OK, so interestingly, according to Peggy MacIntosh, then Jews would still *not* count as having white privilege. I find that quite interesting, since most people in communities of color see Jews as having that privilege. SO how does one reconcile that? IO think this is a relevant question, because again it forces us to examine what one means when one speaks about privilege. Who defines who has it? Is it the group that has the most oppression? Do we then have to get into a pissing match of who is the most oppressed?
some jews are transitioning into white. just as italians and the irish did. however, sephardic jews are not likely to become white.
"white" is not about skin color, genetics, ancestry. it's a social construct - and as a social construct when you get the "edges" it gets illogical.
Who defines who has it?
society/culture teaches people how to do so this, it's people who grant/implement privilege. who has privilege is empirically observable.
Is it the group that has the most oppression? Do we then have to get into a pissing match of who is the most oppressed?
there are many kinds of privilege/oppresions. trying to rank oppressions is a loser's game. you can compare and contrast them, but trying to point which oppression is worse is useless. it doesn't work.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
eftychia at 08:01am on 2008-04-08
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I dare say, I'm about as clued on the subject as any mostly-cisgendered person _might_ be. I am generally polite, respect people's self-identifications, am supportive to my friends and considerate of strangers. This tells me that I oughtn't be allowed to have opinions, or dare claim that I'm not phobic, or even talk about trans issues.
Excuse me? Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off? Maybe I _shouldn't_ try to correct the utterly clueless when they hit the rest of the bingo. Maybe I _shouldn't_ use my priviledge in trying to explain to the ignorant that the transgendered are not scary weirdo freaks (and probably be labeled a scary weirdo freak by association in the process).
Yeah, I understand, there's plenty out there to be pissed off at. This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I reserve the right to feel insulted at the generalization. You, of course, have an equal right to get equally huffy about me daring to do so.
(no subject)
rather than focusing on and dealing with those cis-gendered privileges you do participate in, you're avoiding your privilege altogether by focusing on the cis-gendered privileges you don't think apply to yourself.
that is cis-gendered privilege behavior. it's what privileged behavior looks like in general.
omg, you have privilege. that's not the end of the world. what are you going to do about your privilege?
(no subject)
I believe that you are missing my point. My point isn't that I am denying the priviledge. My point is that the link in question ascribes a variety of behaviors to all priviledged individuals, and that is what I am annoyed by.
(no subject)
Which is a warning sign for me.
I think I might get away with that excuse on the grounds that someone like you would already have passed the point where you would have turned the paperclip off. But that's still a bit glib. And you're probably not in the mood for glib.
I do have what I think are better reasons than that for excusing this (and for "why it really doesn't apply to you"), but I'm going to sit back and chew on them a while first, to make sure that I'm not just reacting to your criticism with reflex defensiveness.
'Cause as much as there is out there to be pissed off at, I don't want to drive away allies or friends, and I consider you both.
I will say this much now, for the record: I personally do not wish to silence clueful cisgendered people from speaking up, and I consider your having gotten that message to be unfortunate, something I'd like to rectify.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
(no subject)
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
(no subject)
... and I'm noticing recently the situations where I think and speak like a member of a privileged class in one of the contexts where I'm looking at the other side of that coin, and still figuring out what actions these observations warrant.
It's especially confusing when fairly small topic shifts within a single conversation shift the context from one where I'm a (or the) privileged speaker, to one where I'm a non-privileged speaker, and back again, as I've noticed happening a couple of times in the last few weeks.
(no subject)
I'm a member of enough flavors of minorities myself to know how lashing out against the associated majorities is bonding, catharsis, bringing light to the issues, all manners of worthwhile things. But even in the cases when it does not include me personally, I despise generalization. There is no way to defend yourself from it, and any attempt _will_ sound like apologetics of the priviledged. The only acceptable recourse is to shut up and take it.
You know me, so you knew enough to read what I said in the spirit of how I meant it. The previous commenter doesn't, and therefore took it, well, like it sounds.
(no subject)
I will also, (probably equally unhelpfully) point out that there isn't really any satisfactory resolution to it.
One thing worth keeping in mind is that nearly no one belongs to no category of oppression (yes there are a few, but they're pretty rare overall). Most of us live in matrices of intersecting identities, and we are obliged to deal with the shifting realities that that produces. Meaning: while some person who identifies as queer may be "the oppressed person" in a given interaction, in the next one, they may not (black woman in a wheelchair meets passing FTM in line for a job joke inserted here). Moreover, these categories themselves aren't stable: passing is a major factor in these shifting categories, of course, but so is transforming of the discourse in different contexts (e.g. while I wouldn't say that being Japanese -let's say a Japanese man to make it simpler- makes one completely free of prejudiced stereotypes and limits on class mobility, partner choice, etc, it certainly doesn't have nearly the same level as it did even 50 years ago. In fact, Japanese have *the* highest exogamy rate of any ethnic group; example 2: less than 50 years ago, Jews were generally considered to be non-white. Now (despite the fact that in fact most Jews AREN'T "white," the stereotype of Jews is that they are white - point of note, despite looking white, I grew up thinking that I wasn't white - that's what my parents told me, and to some extent, that's how I was treated, although not by everyone, since I am pretty far from 50. The local country club continued to exclude Jews up until quite recently. SO am I white or non-white? Does my definition count, or is it up to someone else? Does the group decide about itself, or is there an interaction between the group and those outside of it?).
So, stoneself, I suggest that as much pain as you are in, you make a certain attempt to deal with it in a more friendly way. I know, I know, there's all the same stuff about well, I'm the oppressed one, why should I be the one obligate to educate the clueless. The answer being that if you don't they won't get educated - is that preferable? And secondly, take your friends where you find them. There aren't so many in the world that you can spare what you've got. None of us can.
the tone argument
Re: the tone argument
Actually, I don't particularly care. I happen to think that the scientific evidence of these and other syndromes not generally considered related to sexual identity, but similar in neurological patterns contradicts a great deal of the doctrines within your community. Nonetheless, on the whole, I couldn't care less what sex other people want to be, can't imagine that it effects me in any way other than the way that the happiness of people generally is something I want to look out for, and think that the government's business in this is only to a. protect people from danger where necessary, b. promote the general good where possible, c. support those who require it as part f the duties of a common society and d. otherwise butt out.
"being blunt and clear works in ways that being indirect/"friendly" doesn't"
Not if your clarity requires you to be be nasty. One can say the same thing in lots of different ways, and if people may be inclined to be your ally, even if they are *completely* clueless, the long term benefit - to others in your predicament, if not yourself- is to win them over, and it is true that honey catches more flies, even if producing it exhausts the bees.
"the world is full of friends."
Really? SO many, that you can spare yourself adding a few more?
Re: the tone argument
(no subject)
(no subject)
men unthinkingly and automatically access privilege/sexism.
a long list of what accessing privilege is White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack and what is privilege?
* * *
you are confusing being anti-sexist with being not sexist. being sexist and anti-sexist are not mutually exclusive. being racist and anti-racit are not mutually exclusive. you can actually be both at the same time.
(no subject)
(no subject)
"white" is not about skin color, genetics, ancestry. it's a social construct - and as a social construct when you get the "edges" it gets illogical.society/culture teaches people how to do so this, it's people who grant/implement privilege. who has privilege is empirically observable.there are many kinds of privilege/oppresions. trying to rank oppressions is a loser's game. you can compare and contrast them, but trying to point which oppression is worse is useless. it doesn't work.