I read it as mapping out a set of common pitfalls that members of the priviledged class need to be mindful of, ones that are so commonplace that they're suitable for buzzword bingo. The implication (to me) is that clueful others will make fewer of these mistakes and make them less often, to the point that they do not serve as callers for the buzzword bingo, and the complaint is directed at those who still do say these things. That is, that recognizing that you don't say these things 'ought' to signal that you're not its target ...
... but the fact that it struck you as an accusation that all cisgendered people do these things, means that there's a communication glitch somewhere, and it would be wise for me to sit back and examine the situation without knee-jerk defensiveness, to try to figure out whether the problem was unclear speech on the part of the original poster, distorted hearing at your end, or distorted hearing on my end, misinterpreting the OP's intent before deciding to amplify the message. If the brunt of the problem is the first or the third of those, then finding a clearer way to communicate the message I {intended to communicate} / {thought I was communicating}, is just a matter of effective communication, irrespective of the privilege issues.
And that's what I'm trying to back up far enough to do (even though you've already let me off the hook).
I think my trouble is exactly in the notion of "recognizing that you don't say these things 'ought' to signal that you're not its target". I am fully willing to believe that it was intended thusly, and that the vast majority of readers took it that way.
I, however, know I tend to very (perhaps overly) literal, and focus on what such things say, as opposed to mean to say. I am willing to allow that my hearing is distorted, in as far as I consider the written as the entirety of the statement, and dismiss the implied "in the cases in which it applies", "present company excepted, of course" and so on. To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count". I suppose, whether it's my failing or the message's can be considered a matter of opinion.
Well, there was a reason (caution mostly) that I put 'ought' in scare-quotes ...
And the phrase "present company excepted, of course," is a bit of a red flag, which is why, when I realized my gut-reaction was to say pretty much that, I figured I should stop and think. If I'm going to call others on the times when the phrased is used to mean, "but please don't get mad at me for saying it because you're not like The Rest Of Them [because I know you and that makes you human to me]" -- which isn't always what it means, but it's used that way often enough to be careful around it -- then when I catch myself saying it I'd better be completely certain that wasn't how I meant it.
On the other hand, I am saying that I thought there was an implied "in the cases in which it applies" that you didn't hear. It may take reactions from more people to figure out whether that was clear enough to reasonably expect it to have been heard most of the time or a generally unclear message.
"To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to 'count'."
Out of curiosity, do you think there's a language/culture reason for that, or it's just a personal idiosyncracy, or something else, or is that not a question you've really felt the need to explore?
To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count".
that is one of the other privileges.
a privileged group is granted the position of "normal". when something doesn't match "normal" it is marked. also, the presumption is that something that is unmarked only refers to "normal".
from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the "norm"? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the "norm"?
and ironically, but not contradictorily, generalities about the "norm" are acceptable with out "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" as long as they are flattering, but "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" are requested when the generalities are not. the problem isn't the generalities, but the valence of the generalities.
the ability to "require" and "define" the parameters of the discussion is privilege.
"from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the 'norm'? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the 'norm'?"
Oh! Izzat why, when I used the term 'neurotypical' (that I'd picked up in conversation with someone with Asperger's), in a conversation with somebody who hadn't been part of the earlier conversations, I got a scowl and a disapproving comment about the coinage? Because it marked the norm? And is that why some people react to 'cisgendered' as though it were derogatory or accusing instead of descriptive? (But why is 'heterosexual' okay in that regard?)
I think the discomfort probably stems from the realization that the term is necessary. "Heterosexual" is sufficiently firmly in our vocabulary that nobody needs to think twice about the notion of self-identifying that way. But "cisgendered" and "neurotypical" are both virtually unheard of outside of the communities in which they are used. Since, as stoneself pointed out, the norm usually goes unmarked, so the very act of marking it calls the normalcy into question.
I believe it's also the case that "cisgendered" and "neurotypical" _are_ used as derogatory within the communities, generally in the context of expressing frustration with the "norm" or its representatives. In my experience, "heterosexual" usually isn't used the same way, but "straight" often is, and it would not surprise me if it were found more derogatory by the heterosexuals.
Fair enough on the second point. "Sorry, but no" on the first.
While I am, in fact, priviledged on _this_ issue, there are others on which I'm not. For those contexts, it also annoys me greatly when the descriptor of the majority group is used as a denigrating slur by the members of my group.
While I am, in fact, priviledged on _this_ issue, there are others on which I'm not. For those contexts, it also annoys me greatly when the descriptor of the majority group is used as a denigrating slur by the members of my group.
1) knowledge about one privilege/oppression (e.g. racism) doesn't give as much insight into another privilege/oppession (e.g. ableism) as most people think.
2) while labels can be used to show contempt (any term can be), that is not the primary function of "cisgendered". note: words in and of themselves don't have meaning, it's how people use them that gives them meaning. and mind that use is not simply individual and idiosyncratic, but also not limited to social contract.
3) your complaint is rooted in the condemnation you feel by having your privilege pointed out. because that's what you focused on, instead of what transgendered people are trying to say about society at large. you found a way to blame the oppressed group for how you feel about having your privilege pointed out. there is a lot of stuff to address here about how transgendered people are oppressed, but you have done on and on and on about how "i'm not bad like that".
1. Yes and no. The very first mark of priviledge is never having to think about it at all. Once one is immersed in communities that raise the notion of priviledge as a common subject of discussion, one can learn to notice it in other contexts. Declaring that one's own minority is somehow more different and special and worse off than other varieties is the sort of narrow thinking common to many types of minorities.
2. Granted, that is not how they are intended. Which is why I will be outraged every time when it's how they are used.
3. No, that is simply not what I am saying, and I am not sure how to explain it, since there is nothing that you will not misinterpret. You are reading me wholly wrongly, and I don't believe there is anything I can do to correct your assumptions.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
one of the common things to say about raising privilege is how people who do so see privilege under every rock. as a matter of fact is practically under nearly every rock. it's in the unmarked language of what is considered "normative" - once it's in language it's just about everywhere. it's also in social attitudes. it's in the culture. it's also in the physical artifacts.
this point is usually raised to look away from one's own privilege in situ.
* * *
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
you still misfocus. you're still blaming the oppressed for pointing out the oppression.
No, I'm blaming some of the oppressed for seeing oppression everywhere, including places where it's not, and for not acknowledging that such places might possibly exist.
it sounds plausible. but i don't have any linguistic data to back up your observation (but i can back up the use of unmarked as "normative"). not that there might not be any, i just don't know of any evidence myself.
heterosexual and homosexual arose together, which might explain the difference how they are taken. better pairings to illustrate your idea might be gay/straight (though the original pairing was bent/straight which clearly favored straight in valence), or queer/breeder.
I disagree. I think stupid, jerkful generalizations are stupid and jerkful no matter what priviledge level of the group they apply to.
To take a different context, examine the statements:
All gay men are effeminate. Some gay men who wear pink tutus and mascara are effeminate. All straight men are assholes. Some straight men who swear are assholes.
The first item of each pair is ludicrous, and deserves being slapped down on account of stupid. The second is narrower, and calls for at least some consideration before potential dismissal.
Likewise, here I believe we have the statements: All cisgendered people are ignorant and should be mocked. versus Some cisgendered people who are ignorant should be mocked.
It is the ability of every human being, when engaging in discourse, to specify what they are talking about. It is not an attribute of priviledge, but in my opinion, every person's obligation. Yes, such specification is largely necessary when the generality is unflattering, but the ability to be unflattering is _not_ exclusive to priviledge.
This cisgendered person didn't read that as saying "All cisgendered people are ignorant and should be mocked," but as a combination of "Do you need Trans 101, or can we throw away the annoying reminder software?" and "here are some common stupid errors."
Clippy signaled "we will save you from some really basic errors, but there isn't a lot of clue in this software, and you will often know better" to me.
(no subject)
... but the fact that it struck you as an accusation that all cisgendered people do these things, means that there's a communication glitch somewhere, and it would be wise for me to sit back and examine the situation without knee-jerk defensiveness, to try to figure out whether the problem was unclear speech on the part of the original poster, distorted hearing at your end, or distorted hearing on my end, misinterpreting the OP's intent before deciding to amplify the message. If the brunt of the problem is the first or the third of those, then finding a clearer way to communicate the message I {intended to communicate} / {thought I was communicating}, is just a matter of effective communication, irrespective of the privilege issues.
And that's what I'm trying to back up far enough to do (even though you've already let me off the hook).
(no subject)
I, however, know I tend to very (perhaps overly) literal, and focus on what such things say, as opposed to mean to say. I am willing to allow that my hearing is distorted, in as far as I consider the written as the entirety of the statement, and dismiss the implied "in the cases in which it applies", "present company excepted, of course" and so on. To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count". I suppose, whether it's my failing or the message's can be considered a matter of opinion.
(no subject)
And the phrase "present company excepted, of course," is a bit of a red flag, which is why, when I realized my gut-reaction was to say pretty much that, I figured I should stop and think. If I'm going to call others on the times when the phrased is used to mean, "but please don't get mad at me for saying it because you're not like The Rest Of Them [because I know you and that makes you human to me]" -- which isn't always what it means, but it's used that way often enough to be careful around it -- then when I catch myself saying it I'd better be completely certain that wasn't how I meant it.
On the other hand, I am saying that I thought there was an implied "in the cases in which it applies" that you didn't hear. It may take reactions from more people to figure out whether that was clear enough to reasonably expect it to have been heard most of the time or a generally unclear message.
"To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to 'count'."
Out of curiosity, do you think there's a language/culture reason for that, or it's just a personal idiosyncracy, or something else, or is that not a question you've really felt the need to explore?
(no subject)
a privileged group is granted the position of "normal". when something doesn't match "normal" it is marked. also, the presumption is that something that is unmarked only refers to "normal".
from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the "norm"? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the "norm"?
and ironically, but not contradictorily, generalities about the "norm" are acceptable with out "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" as long as they are flattering, but "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" are requested when the generalities are not. the problem isn't the generalities, but the valence of the generalities.
the ability to "require" and "define" the parameters of the discussion is privilege.
(no subject)
Oh! Izzat why, when I used the term 'neurotypical' (that I'd picked up in conversation with someone with Asperger's), in a conversation with somebody who hadn't been part of the earlier conversations, I got a scowl and a disapproving comment about the coinage? Because it marked the norm? And is that why some people react to 'cisgendered' as though it were derogatory or accusing instead of descriptive? (But why is 'heterosexual' okay in that regard?)
(no subject)
I believe it's also the case that "cisgendered" and "neurotypical" _are_ used as derogatory within the communities, generally in the context of expressing frustration with the "norm" or its representatives. In my experience, "heterosexual" usually isn't used the same way, but "straight" often is, and it would not surprise me if it were found more derogatory by the heterosexuals.
(no subject)
(no subject)
While I am, in fact, priviledged on _this_ issue, there are others on which I'm not. For those contexts, it also annoys me greatly when the descriptor of the majority group is used as a denigrating slur by the members of my group.
blame the oppressed
2) while labels can be used to show contempt (any term can be), that is not the primary function of "cisgendered". note: words in and of themselves don't have meaning, it's how people use them that gives them meaning. and mind that use is not simply individual and idiosyncratic, but also not limited to social contract.
3) your complaint is rooted in the condemnation you feel by having your privilege pointed out. because that's what you focused on, instead of what transgendered people are trying to say about society at large. you found a way to blame the oppressed group for how you feel about having your privilege pointed out. there is a lot of stuff to address here about how transgendered people are oppressed, but you have done on and on and on about how "i'm not bad like that".
Re: blame the oppressed
2. Granted, that is not how they are intended. Which is why I will be outraged every time when it's how they are used.
3. No, that is simply not what I am saying, and I am not sure how to explain it, since there is nothing that you will not misinterpret. You are reading me wholly wrongly, and I don't believe there is anything I can do to correct your assumptions.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
"under every rock"
this point is usually raised to look away from one's own privilege in situ.
* * *you still misfocus. you're still blaming the oppressed for pointing out the oppression.
Re: "under every rock"
Re: "under every rock"
ps are you still arguing about requiring hedge language?
Re: "under every rock"
No, I think at this stage I'm no longer arguing about anything.
(no subject)
heterosexual and homosexual arose together, which might explain the difference how they are taken. better pairings to illustrate your idea might be gay/straight (though the original pairing was bent/straight which clearly favored straight in valence), or queer/breeder.
(no subject)
To take a different context, examine the statements:
All gay men are effeminate.
Some gay men who wear pink tutus and mascara are effeminate.
All straight men are assholes.
Some straight men who swear are assholes.
The first item of each pair is ludicrous, and deserves being slapped down on account of stupid. The second is narrower, and calls for at least some consideration before potential dismissal.
Likewise, here I believe we have the statements:
All cisgendered people are ignorant and should be mocked.
versus
Some cisgendered people who are ignorant should be mocked.
It is the ability of every human being, when engaging in discourse, to specify what they are talking about. It is not an attribute of priviledge, but in my opinion, every person's obligation. Yes, such specification is largely necessary when the generality is unflattering, but the ability to be unflattering is _not_ exclusive to priviledge.
(no subject)
the way you choose to read the bingo as totalizing when it is not is the problem. not what is being said.
(no subject)
Clippy signaled "we will save you from some really basic errors, but there isn't a lot of clue in this software, and you will often know better" to me.