Huh? I’m a lesbian and was, indeed, making a witticism about MY community. But thanks for the lecture.
I’m a crossdressing male who sometimes considers myself transgender and sometimes doesn’t. When I hang out with other CDs/TGs, we certainly talk about what type of gender role we have. But we don’t spend our time hyperanalyzing our own situation, complain about why others don’t understand us, or say ours is the only true way. We compare situations instead of just thinking about ourselves. And we also talk about all the other subject people talk about–family, sports, TV, politics, childhood or college memories. Why do I bring this up? AHunter, by focusing on your gender politics and nothing else, you inadventantly imply that is all that matters about you. And you give no good reason for people to care about you, much less enjoy being around you.
I’ll end this post with an antecdote. This weekend, at a college library, I saw a man who had a totally male haircut and no makeup–wearing a dress, spike heels, and tights. Where was he (or whatever pronoun they choose) on the gender spectrum? I don’t know. He was just doing the studying and socializing students do, and he was getting full acceptance. That’s the person who people can relate to.
He’s a a very long-standing member of this community and people like him and care about him.
He’s writing here because he!s been writing here for 18 years. I doubt anybody suspects him of anything untoward.
Look, the navel-gazing and special snowflake-ism is annoying as fuck, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s a good egg and an asset to the community.
OK, let’s try and break down why your writing is vague, rambling, specious and annoying:
You start off with a term, The Straight Dope, and apply it to yourself, then promptly inform the reader that the meaning they might infer isn’t the one you mean.
Again, you’re arguing with your readers by telling them what they thinking and that they’re wrong. As an arguing technique, dishonest, alienating, and annoying.
Here we are again, you’re not only telling your readers that their assumptions about you are bound to be wrong, you’re putting the words that you claim they’re dismissing them with into their mouths. This is a rhetorical tactic called “making stuff up”. Again, caricaturing your audience is presumptous, arrogant, and dishonest. Cut it out.
In response to that? In response to what, the attitude you yourself attributed to your readers? So you’re not just putting words into our mouths, you’re attributing motives for doing so as well? The only people you’re arguing with yourself here are the caricatures you’ve made up. Straw men is what we call them.
So finally we get to an explanation of your title, and it’s that you were using the term “straight dope” literally all along! I mean that I was heterosexual and stupid! Wordplay! So we’ve had, what, four paragraphs just so you can explain a laborious and unnecessary joke, inform your readers what the title really means, and tell them they’re a bunch of big dumb meanies in the process.
OK, so now you’re “translating” the quote you made up in response to an imaginary argument that the imaginary detractors in your head have made up, and we haven’t even made it to you discussing yourself yet. Go outside and mow the lawn or something.
Penfeather I told you (and everyone else) I was going to be a little short on time to post, and to be patient. Quit poking me. I’ll get some answers out when I can.
I thought the lead-in to this latest essay was quite clever and attuned to this community. It seems to have drawn in more readers than usual, so it worked.
A lot of people say they can’t understand what AHunter3 is talking about, but everything he’s ever written is clear to me, which is more than I can say about some writers around here. I take an interest in the stuff he thinks about, and frankly he is competent at expository writing. His pieces are thoughtfully structured. So it’s all omphaloskepsis, so what? Lots of people do that. AHunter3 is able to write about it consistently well.
I get that by striking out in his own direction off the beaten path, he has to figure out for himself every step of the way instead of having all the pat answers. If the unexamined life is not worth living, A has established the worth of his by examining it thoroughly. Would that more people did the same in their lives.
I struggled like hell with gender stuff my whole life, until I finally accepted who I was and transitioned. Since then (10 years now), when was the last time you saw me post anything about my gender saga? Pretty much never. It’s because I settled right into the life of a woman that was always destined for me and was long overdue. I don’t have the need to confront and question gender issues all the time, because I’m just a girl and I fit right in. Now if I have anything to say on gender topics, it’s all about feminism, not about Johanna. The personal and political have to find their own level in each person’s life. My personal stuff is pretty well taken care of, unlike AHunter3. He’s taken the road less traveled by. I’m just another ordinary binary sort. If you think his stuff is dull, just be glad I’m not posting like that. 
Sorry, but I don’t think “lots of people do it” is a good defense. Lots of people like the sound of their own voice. But most aren’t trying to get an audience for that voice. People trying to get published shouldn’t be looking at what lots of people do. They should look at what lots of published memoirists do.
I do find it interesting that there is not a clear consensus on the quality of AHunter’s writing. I can understand only 75% of his writings at first read-thru. Perhaps I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think I am just as smart as the average poster here. It seems to me that many us are struggling. Are we just not giving him a fair shot? Or is it one of those things where you kind of have to already be familiar with the prose style and lingo to “get it”?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Nah, “working” is not prompting a critical mass of posters to put aside niceties and politeness, and finally start speaking their minds.
The title would only be clever if we didn’t already know the punchline.
I don’t think it is the prose style or the lingo - it’s just not very engaging. Most of it is an attempt to explain things that appear to be a distinction without a difference.
As an example -
So you are not gay, not bi, not transgender, but rather genderfluid. Because you played jump rope with girls when you were young. Even if you make the distinction clear, it isn’t a distinction that I can see much reason to be interested in. I am not saying that you are straight and in denial - I am saying that I can’t muster up interest in the distinction between genderfluid and transgender. Unless, thru your writing, you can cause me to become interested.
I get that you feel different. But after 8,000 words explaining that you feel different, I am left saying “OK, but so what?”
You can talk all you want, and if it is OK with the mods (as it apparently is) I and the rest of us can read and respond, or not, as we choose. But tying it in to other stuff by repeating “but that’s not me” doesn’t help very much.
Obviously I don’t have to understand all this. But, if you are going to post in an effort to get yourself understood, I need a reason to put forth the effort. And you have to provide it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m glad that the vast majority of posters don’t treat the SDMB like their personal blog. To his credit AHunter3 got permission to repost his blog posts here, but just because it’s allowed doesn’t mean it was a good idea. The SDMB isn’t a blogging platform, it’s a message board. While discussion on almost any topic is welcome here, people do expect a discussion and not a lecture or monologue. We have had posters who liked to start threads where they told lengthy personal stories, but with the exception of a few who told funny and entertaining stories, most of these posters get called attention whores and are advised to “Get a blog!”
AHunter3 is a long-time Doper and he seems like a kind person (and he’s been taking criticism here better than many posters would), so I’ve been reluctant to pile on him. But while I used to enjoy reading his posts, I think he’s become a tedious one-trick pony and I generally avoid his threads now. I only opened this one because I thought it was going to be about being a big fan of the Straight Dope column or having a reputation as a person who knows all the answers or something.
With my life experience and studies, I just have a knack for the sort of things he writes about, so I have no difficulty following it. There was a time years ago when I thought I would wind up something like what he describes for himself. Yeah no. When I tried that direction, it became clear that it would not work for me. The upside is that such experiences did prompt me to finally see the light of where I needed to be.
Someone who hasn’t trod a queer gender path something like this, I can understand why they wouldn’t follow it as easily. But hey, 75% is pretty good. Someday I hope to work up to that level with Finnegans Wake. (It helps if you read aloud it in an Irish accent. Seriously. The prose opens up its meaning with that one weird trick.)
AHunter3 is honest to gosh different from the rest of us queer folk, not to speak of straight folk. He’s sui genderis, so to speak. That makes his introspections interesting and worth reading. They give readers a personal glimpse into something genuinely different from the run of the mill narratives.
Exactly.
I did find it interesting to get a “personal glimpse” into his unique gender identity, but after a short while, I was (to quote my colleague above) left saying “OK, but so what?”
Say what now?
It was a brilliant turn of phrase.
Wikipedia:
Sui generis (/sua dnrs/; Latin: [s.i nrs]) is a Latin phrase, meaning “of its (his, her, or their) own kind; in a class by itself; unique”.
Wheeee, freed from jury duty!
Hi, meson, welcome to the Straight Dope and thanks for registering and posting! Look around, this is indeed a nice place to have discussions with thoughtful intelligent people. The place is addictive.
Wow, I’ve got a backlog of stuff to reply to…
First and foremost, I want to reply to this, which is the feedback that really leaps out at me:
I would like it if more people chimed in to describe their own experiences and/or their own notions and concepts. I think you’re right, I don’t do anywhere near enough to encourage that to happen.
Of all the things I’ve read that are likely to shift my behavior (or, at an absolute minimum, should), this one is the standout. Thank you for the advice. I’m going to do my best to incorporate it.
OK… I’ve informally sorted the various replies y’all have posted here into some broad categories.
That people don’t understand / can’t plow through my writings (Gatoescado, Arrendajo, cmyk among others )
That I seem obsessed with the subject / with my own personal gender identity in a navel-gazing self-obsessed way and it just isn’t interesting to anyone else (you with the face, Darren Garrison, vtxrider, John Mace, elbows, installLSC, Green Bean, and Lamia)
Doesn’t see any such social problem / World already seems reasonably accepting of such diffs etc (Procrustus, elfkin477 (somewhat))
What is it that I want from the readers who read my stuff? (Vinyl Turnip, Telemark, you with the face)
I’m reinforcing gender norms myself, I’m insisting that “feminine” males aren’t real men etc ** (Eyebrows of Doom, manson 1972, Guinastasia)**
What factor makes me a ‘male girl’ or different from anyone else (aside from the ways in which everyone is different)? (Penfeather, elfkin477 (more generically about gender variant people’s identities in general than ‘male girl’ per se), Moriarty, Shodan (somewhat – not getting the distinction that sets apart a ‘male girl’)
I’ll try to reply to all of those topics / considerations. I apologize to anyone who feels like I’ve dumped their perceptions and critiques into a pile where it loses the emphasis you intended it to have.
To the insistent Penfeather: I knew when I saw the trailers for Terms of Endearment that I was going to like that movie, and told my girlfriend of the time that we should go see it.
re: the complaint that I seem obsessed with the subject, and have delusions about how fascinating it is to anyone but me —
It’s a blog. I post weekly. I think of it as akin to a column. It has a dedicated and narrow subject area: being a gender invert, and, having written a book about same, the ongoing saga of trying to get said book into print. The typical size is 2000 words or thereabouts.
Lit agents and publishers and other authors in places such as the Absolute Write Water Cooler msg board advised me that it’s good to blog, to try to develop an ongoing readership. I’ve been doing the blog posts since 2014 but in January I committed to doing them regularly, weekly.
On Facebook, in dozens of “groups” I belong to, I began posting a link to the latest blog entry when it came out. The Straight Dope, however, doesn’t appreciate people who just post a link. “If you have something to say, we prefer you say it in here”. After a couple months I had the idea of asking the mods how they’d feel about me replicating the blog posts as SDMB posts, and they said “OK”.
I write about other things on the Straight Dope, just not in the weekly blog posts. Over the years I’ve posted so often on the topic of psychiatric oppression / psych patients’ rights etc that I’ve often been regarded as a one-trick pony on that topic. I often post (as John Mace notes) on the subject of anarchy, or as an anarchist within various political threads. I am predictably present in philosophical threads — determinism versus free will in particular, epistemology and metaphysics, consciousness, the role of emotion in cognitive processes, and so on. I often post in threads about abortion rights from both a political and a philosophical perspective. You’ll find me in a fair share of theology versus atheism threads, too.
I think it is a mistake, a misconstrual, to see these gender-blog posts as being me about me. When they are about me, 75% of the time I’m using “me” as Exhibit A to make a point about something in the larger context.
A lot of what comes across to you as “I want you folks to think of or behave towards me, personally, in the following ways instead of how you’re doing it which ruffles my feathers and hurts my feelings” is probably better understood as “You have mental space in your head for straight men and women, and for gay guys and lesbians too, and most of you also have added space for transgender people, the male-to-female and the female-to-male folk. I want you to add an additional category. Naturally, you would need to understand what that’s about, why it’s relevant and what it consists of, so let me tell you about me as Exhibit A…”
re: Doesn’t understand the original post / can’t plow through my writings, etc
This OP?? ** insert classic green rolleyes **
I have more sympathy for that with some of the others, but if you found this one opaque you aren’t even trying. You should have brought me your add/drop form and bailed out of the class before the end of September!!
oh, wait, this isn’t a classroom… :smack:
Except that, well, yes it is.
Many of you have said (and not without justification) that if I want to reach people I need to write more accessibly. And, as I have said more than once, I believe myself to have done so, in my book. My blog posts are nonfiction in the social-theorist vein; the book is written to be something that an 8th grader would not find offputting to read.
I suppose that kind of invites the question of why I can’t write that way for my blog posts. Well, mostly because the book is a STORY. You know, characters, dialog, events. It isn’t easy for me to illustrate a concept by telling a story, although I have occasionally done so. The book is different because I didn’t start off with the concept and then create the story to illustrate the message —the story came first, and the concept eventually became my post-hoc interpretation of what the story had, in fact, been about.
I think Darren Garrison is right, that novels or even short stories that were created expressly to be “vehicles” for expressing a concept tend to be really bad novels.