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.
"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."
Quite a bit. One might even say extensive. I didn't say I didn't care about transgendered people, I said I didn't care about your tone, personally.
"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"
Yes, although not in your particular community. I didn't say that pointing out what people was doing was "nasty" what I said was that the way you convey your information can have the opposite effect of the one you wish for - look at your discussion just on this list- between people who are known to be on your side already, and they're feeling unhappy with *your* tone. Now, I grant that these are people who aren't going to go away and become angry at all trans people just because you were feeling defensive one wednesday, but you might consider that not everyone is as safe as you: suppose your comments take someone who is I dunno, on the fence and living in a state where there is some kind of litigation coming up. The wy you say what you say probably won't have much effect on you, specifically, personally, but it might on someone else. When I say "friends" I don't mean, your personal friends, I mean people who can be of service to your community - or not. The world is full of nice people, but it's also full of people who aren't necessarily going to be won over by your waving the you are privileged flag in front of them. Think about it in terms of some other situation: white guys in this country, on the whole don't feel very privileged. Most of them, aren't rich white dudes who went to Harvard and make a mil a year. Most white guys are struggling to make it, and when they lose their house, they don't feel like privilege has done anything for them. That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense to organize communities by bashing white guys, or whatever - it makes the group feel good (it's not *my* fault -and it isn't, but so what? What's it gotten them to say that?) and in particular, rather than focusing on the *real* problem (lack of economic opportunity, ridiculous privilege for a few, denied to everyone else, increasing class division, government interference amongst those who would band together to force change,etc) everybody is busy saying it's someone else's fault, it's an individual problem or a group problem, rather than saying it's all of our problem and we all need to fix it. How far are we going to get as long as we keep labeling child care as a women's problem? How far are we going to get as long as we keep saying violence against transpeople is a trans problem. It's not it's all of our problem and it's the failure of civil society not to prusue it as such.
I didn't say I didn't care about transgendered people, I said I didn't care about your tone, personally.
parsing. think about who i am wrt caring.
I said was that the way you convey your information can have the opposite effect of the one you wish for
what effect do i want?
between people who are known to be on your side already
what? on my side? how much are they on my side if they can't deal with what they themselves are doing?
When I say "friends" I don't mean, your personal friends, I mean people who can be of service to your community - or not. The world is full of nice people, but it's also full of people who aren't necessarily going to be won over by your waving the you are privileged flag in front of them.
until they understand the problem, they can't actually do anything effective. there's all kinds of crazy shit that happens when people don't actually understand the problem and that they are actually part of the problem.
focusing on the *real* problem
...
the various oppressions are interlocking - not more real than one another.
* * *
Yes, although not in your particular community.
which community?
* * *
When I say "friends" I don't mean, your personal friends, I mean people who can be of service to your community - or not.
effective support is support that understand the services needed, not just the support "friends" are "comfortable" giving. services that are not relevant are not helpful or desired.
(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
Re: the tone argument
Quite a bit. One might even say extensive. I didn't say I didn't care about transgendered people, I said I didn't care about your tone, personally.
"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"
Yes, although not in your particular community. I didn't say that pointing out what people was doing was "nasty" what I said was that the way you convey your information can have the opposite effect of the one you wish for - look at your discussion just on this list- between people who are known to be on your side already, and they're feeling unhappy with *your* tone. Now, I grant that these are people who aren't going to go away and become angry at all trans people just because you were feeling defensive one wednesday, but you might consider that not everyone is as safe as you: suppose your comments take someone who is I dunno, on the fence and living in a state where there is some kind of litigation coming up. The wy you say what you say probably won't have much effect on you, specifically, personally, but it might on someone else. When I say "friends" I don't mean, your personal friends, I mean people who can be of service to your community - or not. The world is full of nice people, but it's also full of people who aren't necessarily going to be won over by your waving the you are privileged flag in front of them.
Think about it in terms of some other situation: white guys in this country, on the whole don't feel very privileged. Most of them, aren't rich white dudes who went to Harvard and make a mil a year. Most white guys are struggling to make it, and when they lose their house, they don't feel like privilege has done anything for them.
That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense to organize communities by bashing white guys, or whatever - it makes the group feel good (it's not *my* fault -and it isn't, but so what? What's it gotten them to say that?) and in particular, rather than focusing on the *real* problem (lack of economic opportunity, ridiculous privilege for a few, denied to everyone else, increasing class division, government interference amongst those who would band together to force change,etc) everybody is busy saying it's someone else's fault, it's an individual problem or a group problem, rather than saying it's all of our problem and we all need to fix it. How far are we going to get as long as we keep labeling child care as a women's problem? How far are we going to get as long as we keep saying violence against transpeople is a trans problem. It's not it's all of our problem and it's the failure of civil society not to prusue it as such.
Re: the tone argument
the various oppressions are interlocking - not more real than one another.
* * *which community?
* * *effective support is support that understand the services needed, not just the support "friends" are "comfortable" giving. services that are not relevant are not helpful or desired.