One of the warnings that contributed to Reddy Mercury’s banning was:
At the outset, let me be clear that I don’t disagree with the thinking behind the warning, or indeed the banning, because it’s clear to me that "…any trans members…’ was intended to be dismissive or provocative, as Chronos suggests.
However, because this is the SDMB, and we are interested in reducing misconceptions in the world, it occurs to me that hidden in the trash of his comment there is an opportunity for some truth.
It’s possibly true that all trans members here are either guys or gals, but it’s not certain, nor may we comfortably assert that all members are either guys or gals. This is an example of genderism, the uncritical acceptance of the gender binary. Gender is understood today as encompassing non-binary or genderqueer people, those whose expression of their genders transcend the cisnormativity that is the historic norm.
I’ve placed this in ATMB because it rests on a warning, a banning, and a moderator comment, but it may belong in GD, and I have no objection if it moves, since the focus is on the assumption of the gender binary, not the moderator actions of warning or banning.
To be clear, yes, there are people who, for one reason or another (and there are multiple possible reasons) don’t fit into the binary gender categories. But such a person would also not be described by the “trans” label. If the quote had instead been “guys, gals, and any nonbinary folks out there”… Well, given the context, it probably still would have been intended as being provocative, but I wouldn’t have given a Warning on it.
From the start, in that particular case, the gender (or lack thereof) of the respondents was immaterial. Plus, “trans” is not a gender anyway, and given the context of that poster’s history of mocking the subject, I don’t see that there is any extenuating circumstances.
If someone wants to post a question in which gender is an important distinction, I don’t see any reason why that person can’t ask for responses from “guys, gals and other gender options” or even list them specifically in a poll. Or, ask posters to identify their self-identified gender or lack thereof in their posts. No big deal, as long as it’s not part of your schtick to mock the subject.
I felt it was something of a reach. A lot of people attempt to be inclusive by saying things like “men, women, and others.” Arguably, somebody might express that idea as “guys, gals, and any trans members.” So it could just be a clumsily worded attempt to include non-binary gendered people.
But this is Reddy Mercury. He has expressed his contempt for this kind of inclusiveness in several other threads, including some in which he has mocked the idea of there being other genders. So I feel it was reasonable to assume he was being sarcastic.
Reddy expressed some level of contempt about almost everything and everyone and sarcasm was pretty much his usual pattern of speech. And in that he wasn’t alone here. Its not the norm but he never struck me as malicious in the manner some others have. I didn’t like him very much but he did start an interesting thread or 197.
As for the “guys, gals, and any trans members” thing; I took it as a bad attempt at being flip. I’ve sometimes made some comment something about “men, women, and those investigating other various options” and possibly because the people know how active I’ve been in the fight for equality for all it didn’t draw any attention. Kinda like the http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=836077
thread. Everyone speaks badly some time or another.
Yeah, this kind of ambiguity (“is this smarm? Is this snark? If I don’t make my opinion clear, how can you tell?”) is really obnoxious if it’s intentional. If it’s accidental, it’s out of character – but even Bricker nods, so that’s fine, if so.
I’m not suggesting any changes. I’m just reminding readers that it’s not necessarily correct to say that all trans members here are either men or women, and certainly not correct to say that all members here are men or women.
To expand: I think we, as a society, have an automatic and unexamined bias towards cisnormative gender-binary classifications. It was my thought that that pointing out that even a seemingly uncomplicated line like Chronos’, delivered with every effort to be inclusive to the real nature of transmen being men and transwomen being women still unconsciously locks the discussion down to those, and only those, gender identities.
I’m hardly an expert on this, but if you are transgendered, then you identify as a man or a woman. If you don’t identify as a man or a woman, then you are something else, not “trans”. Does one “transition” into a non-binary gendered state? Again, I am no expert, but that would seem to change the meaning of what “transgendered” is.
If I am wrong, I would argue that such knowledge is not something the average person would be expected to know, at least not at this time.
Are you serious? Do you really expect posters to concern themselves with cisnormativity when they reply to someone? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. I don’t even know if a poster I’m answering is male or female much of the time nor do I care. Unless it affects the argument in some way it is quite irrelevant.
The poster concerned was rightly warned for introducing such an immaterial labeling.
I think Reddy Mercury’s tone wasn’t always as respectful as it could have been. The problem for Reddy was even if that sort of tone is common around here, the subjects of his commentary weren’t on the approved list.
Is including “trans” in the title provocative? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Language is obviously shifting and it’s not entirely clear what is the most proper. And some of what is considered “proper” I consider ridiculous. But who am I to fault people for trying to write in a way that acknowledges these linguistic shifts?
I think you’re wrong for a very small number of cases.
The whole point of non-binary gender understanding is that some people do not identify as either traditional gender.
A transman is certainly someone who was not biologically completely male but is in fact male. And a transwoman is someone who was not biologically female but is in fact a woman.
But I can certainly also picture other people who might well fall under the rubric of “trans” without identifying as male or female. Most obvious is a person born biologically intersex who may seek surgery but nonetheless identifies as genderqueer.
The key point is this: it’s factually inaccurate to say, even in passing, that every person is either male or female.
I am serious. But I recognize that the gender binary is so embedded in our society that any expectation of eradicating it in speech in the near term is unlikely to be successful.
But I can chip away at the preconception by taking opportunities like this to point out when it is unconsciously used.
A point that I agree with, and made clear in my OP.
Well, let’s see what our residence experts have to say. The current locution is LGBTQ, where Q = queer or genderqueer. You seem to be suggesting that we need: LGBT[T-Q]Q, which seems a bit excessive.
Yep, and I said the same in my first post. However, it should be noted that Chronos did not say that in his moderator note.
I don’t know if Bricker is correct that some people identify as both trans and genderqueer. But if he is, there would be no need to modify LGBTQ to include such people. Many people consider themselves members of more than one category. You might be, for example, a bisexual transwoman. So even if you considered yourself trans and genderqueer, you wouldn’t need an additional category for that.
But “Q” is different. For instance, if you are “Q”, can you also be “Bi”? My understanding is that “Q” is more of a catch-all phrase for everyone who doesn’t fit into the LGBT categories. If we were being rigorous about such things (and I’m not sure we need to be), we would replace “Q” with “A” for asexual, “I” for intersex, etc. etc. etc.
Q means, among other things, questioning, queer (regarding sexual orientation), and/or genderqueer. So, yes, you can be both Q and B. That is, even if you regard Q as to orientation as mutually exclusive with B, you could be Q as to gender identity and B as to sexual orientation.
But as you note, the whole spirit of the thing is that sexual and gender identities are fluid spectrums. So I don’t think most people read that much into the precise boundaries of each category.
