"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.
(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.