Some People See Me as THE STRAIGHT DOPE

In My Humble Opinion
1

No, I don’t mean I’m seen as the poster child of the SDMB, or as the person most associated with it. I’m a long way from that.

Also not the real deal, the genuine article, the “shoot from the hip / tell it like it is” person. Nope, not that either.

More along the lines of “So check it out, there’s this straight dope who thinks he’s, like, transgender, except he’s not, he’s not gay or bi, he’s attracted to women and he identifies as male, but he says he’s genderqueer, because, I don’t know, reasons and shit. Like he played jump rope with the girls when he was a kid or something. So, like, I guess straight people can be in denial, too, huh?”

And, in response to that, “He wants to be edgy and trendy. He feels left out when he sees all these transgender and other LGBT people describing their experiences so he goes running along after them with his hand waving in the air, saying ‘me too, me too’, and they’re all probably looking at each other and going, ‘Who is this straight dope who keeps trying to tag along?’, like how pathetic is that?”

Yeah, that kind of straight dope.

From my vantage point, this translates as “You don’t get to talk about your situation and experiences. We’ve got the list right here of the relevant categories of marginalized orientations and gender identities, and, dude, you ain’t on it, so you don’t count!”, along with “He’s trying to explain stuff by tying it in to stuff we have already been hearing about from other people, how lame is that?!”

I could try explaining my issues as a cisgender straight male who is at odds with sexist expectations of males, and with the male gender role. I’ve done that, I did that for years. It was a different way of packaging my stuff, but I still had stuff I wanted to talk about, see? The same stuff, really. Just packaged differently. I was a women’s studies major in college. Back then I was tagging along after the feminists. Waving my little hands in the air and saying “me too, me too”.

It’s something different. It isn’t already being said by other people, it isn’t representative of ideas and concepts being promoted by a social movement you’ve read about. Does that mean I don’t get to talk about it? That it doesn’t count, because if it was real and of genuine importance someone else would have already made it a Thing?

Well, it could legitimately mean I’m nuts. That’s always something you need to consider when one person, by themselves, is going on about something and there aren’t other people who appear to see things the same way and have the same concerns. But I’ve certainly acknowledged that. I’ve given people plenty of opportunities to consider the possibility they should dismiss me as a mental case, if they think there’s sufficient reason to do so.

The burden is on me to make sense.

One of the primary ways to go about making sense to people is to connect what you’re trying to say to things they already understand. Or, to put that the other way around, one of the primary ways to NOT make sense to people is to NOT connect what you’re saying to things they can already relate to.

Yes, I do package the things I’m trying to say in what I hope to be familiar wrapping paper, a set of concepts I expect people to already be aware of.

But there’s nothing cynical or dishonest about my choosing the LGBTQIA environment and explaining myself as genderqueer. They’ve raised a very inclusive umbrella and the issues and experiences I’m trying to describe do fit there. And the specific term genderqueer describes me and my situation even more closely. Even though I am not a really representative or typical genderqueer person (most of the people who identify as genderqueer are either genderFLUID or AGENDER; they also tend to be considerably younger, not that that should be terribly relevant), it’s a good fit for me.

This is a repurposed blog post. Cleared with the mods in advance.

2

a) What I like best about the LGBT community (as someone hopelessly straight and boring) is all the people who don’t quite fit the classic perceptions. I really like reading about and/or meeting the people who fall between the solid cut-offs that rainbow is often portrayed with. I see the world more as

than

but I admit that mileage across the universe varies greatly.

b) You personally never struck me as anything more than an interesting poster.

3

Ooh, I like your rainbows visual analogy!

4

Feel free to adopt/use it as you see fit. I’ve used it before to explain how I see things and it seems to get through most brains. Not all but -------------- enough.

5

I didn’t understand a word of that OP.

Well, maybe a couple.

6

So one thing I always wonder (from the perspective of the straight white male) is how much of the LGBTQIA+ terminology implicitly reaffirms, or even depends on, just those stereotypical gender norms and social structures it seeks to question.

For instance, take the term nonbinary: in order for it to make sense, one must first stipulate that there’s something that’s picked out by ‘binary’ in order to negate that; so if gender simply isn’t binary, it makes no sense to call oneself ‘nonbinary’, since there’s nothing there that’s being negated.

So to me, it seems there’s a possibility that those disagreeing with your self-characterization do exactly the opposite of boxing you into some pre-defined category: your self-characterization, from what little I’ve read about it, is as a ‘male girl’. This, presumably, due to the fact that, while you’re biologically male, you exhibit some characteristically ‘girlish’ traits—behaviors, attitudes, feelings, and so on.

But one might want to deny that there is such a thing as characteristically girlish traits (please note that I don’t mean for ‘girlish’ to carry any diminutive connotations; I just can’t think of anything else but ‘essentially girl-appropriate’ or something similarly clunky). That, for instance, those traits perceived to be girlish are simply social construction, historical accident, and without basis in objective fact.

Consequently, the label ‘male girl’ would not make much sense to them: there is nothing essential to tell apart a male girl and a male, as there is nothing inherently girlish (or boyish) beyond misguided expectations.

Or, perhaps, to get at it another way: do you believe somebody in your situation would be wrong to simply call themselves male? If so, what exactly is it that would make them wrong?

I apologize if I’m going about this in a too simplistic way. Part of the above is the issue with the neatly delineated vs. continuous spectrum rainbow posted above: in a sense, the whole problem is people judging other people by what boxes they fall into (or are sorted into by others, often those doing the judging); but the reaction seems to be to build more boxes. To me, in my naive way, that’s always seemed sort of the wrong tack: shouldn’t we rather try to question the grounds for boxing at all? To just live with the fact that human beings and their identities (gender- or otherwise) are simply big, messy, fuzzy things, and that we’re actually pretty much all the same on that accord?

7

No, not at all, Half Man, Half Wit, your observation is spot-on and it’s a major paradox-problem affecting gender activism.

To state it starkly, a person in my position is either saying “there are differences between the boys and the girls, but I’m different, I need to be seen as one of the girls” or else “the attributed differences between the boys and the girls is an illusion, a lie, and I’m not an exception because we’re all pretty much the same under the hood”.

But if I go the first route, I’m perpetuating the “boys are like this and girls are like that” attitudes and expectations that I’m complaining about when they’re directed at me. I’m leaving the fence intact while demanding to be allowed to hop the fence to the other side in some sense.

Going the second route looks “cleaner” —denying that the socially-believed differences actually exist and that therefore we’re all victims of sexist stereotyping and restrictive gender roles and all that —but then I’m telling people I know more about how and who they are than they do: “Oh, no, you only think you’re a conventionally masculine male and that all the stuff you grew up hearing about how boys and men are different from girls are women do indeed apply to you? Not at all, sir, not at all, you’re a victim of sexist propaganda and I’m here to liberate you!”

Me, I’m trying to steer this conversation down the excluded middle: the notion that there are generalizations which, as generalizations, do accurately apply, but that, as with most generalizations, there are exceptions to the rule, and that I speak as an example of one of those exceptions, and that we, the exceptions, exist as a minority. It’s closer to the first version but more nuanced — I’m seeking to modify the notions about the differences so as to include more social awareness of the exceptions and what our experience is like, while still granting that the generalization is valid as a generalization. That’s different from insisting on the correctness of the existing notions of difference while wanting “special snowflake” status for myself and also different from attacking the entire generalization as flat-out wrong.

8

The other consideration here is that… let’s suppose there are indeed no meaningful differences between the boys and the girls (just a bunch of bullshit notions that lots of people believe, wrongly).

What am I doing to myself by carrying around the notion that there are such diffs and that I’m “like one of the girls”? Obviously most of the people who do believe in built-in differences in personality and behavior and all that stuff consider themselves to be accurately described by the notions attached to their own sex. We could view them as self-limiting, these people, that they’re constraining themselves to damaging stereotypes and trying to live up to a gendered image instead of just being themselves. But I’d be doing the same thing except embracing the feminine set of damages and restrictions instead of the masculine ones, and yes I can see that this would look unfortunate and perhaps even pathetic to someone who doesn’t believe the differences exist in real life. So close to seeing through the illusion of sex differences, and still encumbered by them!

Yeah, maybe.

I tell people I’ve probably internalized less of the damaging stuff that female people get exposed to. I mean, I’ve seldom had my behaviors shut down by other folks’ admonitions that “Hey AHunter3, that wasn’t very ladylike”. But does that mean I haven’t managed to internalize some of them anyhow, as a consequence of carrying around in my head the notion that who I am is a person who is like one of the girls? I don’t know. If being a purely androgynous being with no internal concept of differences between the sexes is the most liberating state to be in, I fall short of that. I haven’t attained that. I’m a gendered being.

9

I personally am feeling fatigued by all the layers of sex/gender discourse that keep emerging. I understand that it is interesting to lots of people, but none of it is very interesting to me. I suppose it could be because I don’t inhabit my own gender very strongly, being without an apparent sexuality. So I’m totally fine with folks being gender-bendy and challenging old-fashioned notions about what guys and gals do and like, because that’s how I live my life. I just don’t enjoy the discourse. So I struggle with getting much meaning out of it.

10

Okay. I think this makes sense, because it’s pretty basic. But you give this subject so much ink, so much analysis, one would think what you’re saying isn’t basic. Do you ever wonder whether you are overexplaining yourself on this board? Because this concern should’ve crossed your mind a long time ago.

If you get the sense that people see you as crazy or whatever, it’s likely NOT because you see yourself as gender queer despite your sexual orientation. It’s your apparent assumption that we are as equally intrigued about figuring out what label applies to you as you are.

I don’t think “weird dude standing on the street corner pontificating about minutiae that exists only in his mind and is of zero consequence to anyone else” is the look you are going for. But it’s where you are heading.

I’m not a psychologist, but your writing doesn’t seem healthy to me.

11

a) I figured the cogent parts of this out in 1980 when I was 21

b) I realized immediately that I wanted to be an activist about this, that I viewed it as a social cause. That it wasn’t just about finding an individual solution (or comfort zone) for myself, but rather that other kids growing up behind me were (or would be) subjected to what I’d been through.

c) I spent the years between 1980 and 2000 attending college, writing papers about it, and viewing myself as someone “who was doing this”, who was being an activist in this sense. I didn’t get a whole lot of traction or connect up with as many like-minded people as I’d hoped to. Around 2000 I sort of let it go dormant, tired of it and/or questioning whether I still considered it relevant and important.

d) Around 2010 I picked it back up again and this time with more of an emphatic sense of “if I’m ‘doing this’, I’d better do a better job of doing this than I’ve done so far. I can’t just be a dilettante and occasionally pontificate, I need to attract some attention and make some waves”. To that end, I wrote a book about it, using my own life as Exhibit A.

e) Starting in 2014 I began trying to get my book into print. I was advised that my chances of publication were better if I “had more of a platform”, meaning a bunch of folks already tuning in to what I was saying. I began blogging. Early this year I got permission from the moderators to crosspost my weekly blog posts here on the board.

I write about it all the time because it’s my assignment to do so. I hope some folks find it interesting. I’m aware that not everyone will.

12

a) Have you given consideration to the possibility that your target audience is far too small to ever reach critical mass?

b) Is it possible that you spend too much time and energy describing this from your personal point of view and not enough time making it relatable for those of us who don’t necessarily share your experience but would otherwise be your natural allies in bringing social awareness and acceptance to all LGBTQ issues?

c) If you can’t find a way to make it interesting and relatable to those who don’t share your experience, how do you expect to achieve success in building that larger platform you seek?

d) Your posting style does come across as personal therapy via public diary entries. It lacks connection with the audience you’re trying to attract. In other words, why should the reader care about your story?

13

Yeah. all those things. I can’t tell if I’m getting better or not.

14

What does “better” look like?

If you don’t know where you’re going, how are you ever going to get there?

15

As someone who has read a reasonable number of your posts on this and other subjects you seem to at least be getting much better at expressing yourself in type. As someone who wishes he could say the same thing about himself --------------- that ain’t a bad thing in and of itself. :slight_smile:

16

Some people call him Maurice.

17

This seems non-remarkable. Does anyone really disagree that generalizations generally apply and that there are exceptions to all generalizations? I see a whole spectrum of male and female behavior, and–apart from the actions of a few assholes–most people seem pretty accepting.

18

This, exactly. The idea that everybody is as fascinated about every small detail of your life as you are. If your ideas are restricted to a subject matter of 1, then your enrapt audience is going to be limited to 1. You are asking “Who am I, and why am I here?” Everybody else in the world is also asking “Who am I, and why am I here?” not “Who is AHunter 3, and why is AHunter 3 here?” If you want to reach people, you have to show them something that they see in themselves. Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.

19

My feedback remains the same. Your posts on this subject are alienating because they presume we care about how you label yourself. Why *should *we care, though? Do you care if we care? I honestly can’t tell.

Just wondering, do you care how perfect strangers label their own sexuality/gender? Suppose I decided to write at length about being a self-identified {insert Category} because I see myself as different than the typical straight female. How likely is it that you would read round after round of my writings on this subject, especially if the thesis always boiled down to the same basic point:

This would get boring after a while, would it not? I mean, what am I offering you by going on and on about my “exceptionality”? Am I giving you anything that will change how you view the world? Nope. Am I giving you anything that will change how you view yourself? Nope. Because it’s all about me.

To get a following, you actually need a message that speaks to people’s interests. I honest to goodness wonder what evidence you have that your personal labeling schemes for your own gender/sexual self are of interest to others outside of you.

20

Thanks! Yours may or may not be a majority opinion but I’ll take what i can get!