Within an online context my experience is the opposite as I’ve rarely found those expressing homophobic or racist ideas using privilege. I’m a big fan of privilege theory because I believe it’s a useful lens to examine issues of race, sexual orientation and even other interactions within a culture. However, I have found that in many online forums the label privilege is used as a club. “Check your privilege at the door” isn’t a playful joke it’s saying “your point of view and opinions are neither welcome nor appreciated here.” Fortunately the SDMB isn’t one of those places I’ve seen where privilege is used as a club.
Referring to someone as cisgendered is useful in certain circumstances. For example, if you’re addressing a group that includes people of various sexual orientations and gender identities. Outside of some gender classes as an undergraduate in in online discussions I can’t think of any time I heard anyone use the term cisgendered.
The thing that bothers me in all this is that gay people are “allowed” to co-opt the word “gay” for their own use and frown on the use of “queer”, etc., and special people are “allowed” to co-opt that word for their own and frown on the use of “handicapped”, etc. So why are “normal” people not allowed to use their own choice of word to describe themselves rather than cisgendered.
Probably depends on what choice of word you had in mind. “Normal” is insulting to those excluded by it, “queer” isn’t. I’m sure there are other terms that exist or could be invented as an alternative to “cisgendered” that no one would have a problem with, much as “straight” seems passable enough as a term for an orientation.
Why? Not to be overly rude, but pretty much by definition, all these groups are decidedly NOT normal.
I mean, stuff like autism, Asperger’s, Tourette’s, etc… is decidedly abnormal. Worthy of derision, abuse, etc…? Definitely not. But normal? Not so much.
Life sucks… bad shit happens to people, but this constant redefinition of terms in order to not offend people is getting pretty absurd when it goes so far as to try and redefine the term “normal”.
You have the best solution right here without realizing it: “the average person is not an intersex transwoman.”
Average works perfectly fine for any type of situation in which the statistically average person fits one set of parameters, but many people do not. It’s already used in discussing the fairly non-controversial concept of height, and can be expanded to discussions of intelligence, weight, various types of health status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and any other situation in which someone can differ from the average but still be a perfectly normal person.
I have adopted the use of the term “average” in many of the instances I mention, and have found that it is very helpful in making discussions less awkward and condescending.
bump - I have to disagree with you on your assessment of the term normal. When you say to someone with autism or Tourette’s (or someone who is transgender) that they are not normal, or make a reference to “normal” people that specifically excludes them, you do imply that they are somehow alien, not a “real” person, and it is insulting. The same is not true when you differentiate them from “average” people. Average implies only a statistical fact, not a condition of acceptance by society.
This is ultimately about Tumblr Social Justice Warriors who are insane special snowflakes who go so far to be overly inclusive that they wrap around and become about as tolerant as Nazis (especially when you get into their views of “cultural appropriation”). Where everybody has to fit into a nice special box, and if you don’t have a magical label you’re just cishet scum (but really, I’m sure you, reader, have a label and if you don’t you can invent a new imaginary illness/sexual orientation/gender identity and they’ll accept you).
But let’s not act like labels and concepts like privilege are inherently evil. There’s plenty of room for terms like genderqueer, cissexual, and asexual as long as you don’t go off the deep end into the demisexual, gray-asexual, otherkin, headmate bandwagon. Privilege is abused, a lot, and does often get used to mean “I’m right and you’re wrong because you’re a cis white male so shut up”, even on more normal feminist sites I’ve seen this happen. It doesn’t change the fact that in a sociological context it’s useful. It’s just that it’s annoyingly misapplied and used as an offensive insult and a way to dismiss an argument.
This is really the problem with many internet (but mostly Tumblr) activists, they start from reasonable premises and observations and drag it kicking and screaming into some insane, somewhat scary conclusion. Don’t let Tumblr ruin the terminology and arguments that people with legitimate grievances use, just because Tumblr went insane long ago.
Jragon, and this is what I mean. You’re largely bashing a whole huge group of people off of not only the actions of a very few, but the parody made of those people. There are even people who openly admit to making fake accounts, pretending to be feminists, black, trans, or whatever, and then causing trouble just to make those groups look bad. Somehow, the fact that some people can’t tell hateful parodies from the real thing makes the activists bad people…
I mean, can we describe the SDMB as “The place that goes so far to be overly inclusive that it wraps around into becoming as tolerant as the nazis, as proven by the many threads supporting racial supremacy” ?
I think one could argue that the extremists that Jragon describes play an important role. Any movement needs the “out there” faction to make the “reasonable moderate” seem that much more reasonable and that much more moderate.
I found this piece in The Economist interesting. The use of the creative pronoun initially triggered a feeling of “oh for heaven’s sake!” in me. But it did open my mind just a little.
What? How did you get that from my post? I specifically referred to Tumblr Social Justice Warriors, which is a very, very narrow subgroup that is legitimately crazy. It doesn’t reflect on Tumblr as a whole, Tumblr activists on a whole, or even internet bloggers as a whole. Trust me, as many trolls as there are, there are legitimately crazy ones.
One story is that of Jeph Jacques, the author of mediocre webcomic Questionable Content. He has his slipups and problems, but for the most part he tries hard to be inclusive, having non-white characters, non-sexualized lesbians and otherwise does pretty well. He has an overweight character with body image issues, and there was finally a comic where she wore a swimsuit.
He got bombed with emails by Tumblr SJWs, and he suffers from depression and self harm. He got hit so hard he got drunk, stabbed his hand with a knife, and had to take two weeks off his comic because of it. Why? Because he didn’t draw her fat enough. These are not trolls, these are insane people.
Then there’s Laci Green, a (from what I can tell, I’m not very familiar with her work) fairly normal feminist vlogger who, at once point earlier in her career, had used the word “tranny” in one of her videos. The video was defending trans people. It was pointed out to her. Her response was along the lines of “oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know it was the preferred term at the time, 4 years ago I was just starting and hadn’t read up on trans issues yet. I’ll take it down.” Then the SJWs, again, being totally reasonable people, unleashed a storm of hatred and vitriol that was incredibly severe. Up to and including doxxing her and posting maps to her apartment. She had to stop vlogging and go underground, I don’t know if she started being active again, but she did stop for a while because of it.
I highly doubt that all of these people are just trolls trying to “make a group look bad”. Yes, I acknowledge that Tumblr SJWs are a minority, but they are a harmful, hateful minority. They do not reflect on feminism, gender studies activists, or anything else on the whole, but I do think that they are loud and visible enough to cause real damage on legitimate concepts. And they really, really do like to make up imaginary things to defend and be incensed about.
Edit: Oh, and they fucking threatened Boggle for trying to talk somebody out of suicide. That was cute too.
The problem is this is a label begun to be used on anyone who could even come close to being described as “decent people”. I have been labeled myself as “SJW” because I suggested that a game designer who said he didn’t care if his game with unnecessary flashes was giving people unnecessary seizures, telling them to “stay off the internet” was not fit for his job. You see, by doing that, I was being a bully!
I have seen enough that I can’t doubt that. To use another example - Grey DeLisle, a voice actress, was making tons of transphobic and bigoted remarks, and was called on it, and suddenly she started receiving all these death threats for people who were saying they were transgender!
…only, it was later proven that she sent the death threats to herself, along with false encouragement from people who were claiming they were transgender and supported her.
You really cannot take anon death threats as meaning anything. We can talk about specific instances and such with names attached, but there are groups of people from places like 4chan and nazi websites who send anon death threats to people while pretending to be "SJW"s just because they think it’s fun, and in the end it gets blamed back on the original groups.
Typically, when “hateful parodies” can’t be told from the real thing it’s because the people being parodied are indeed “bad people”. If they weren’t “bad people”, then the parodies wouldn’t look so much like their real behavior.
[QUOTE=Jragon;16805688
Edit: Oh, and they fucking threatened [Boggle]
(http://boggletheowl.tumblr.com/) for trying to talk somebody out of suicide. That was cute too.
[/QUOTE]
Where are the threats? I don’t see threats, just somebody who is battling depression having a problem with Boggle’s warning, apologizing for using overly harsh language and Boggle agreeing that they could have been clearer as well, and then the person who tried to talk to Boggle being attacked and insulted over and over to the point where Boggle had to ask them to stop. If anything, it seems to be a case that is the direct opposite of your point - the internet asshole brigade thinks it’s ok to pile onto and attack anybody just because they can.
The actual shitstorm wasn’t posted on the blog, AFAIK. It was what prompted this comic because Something Awful made a “counter-attack” by sending her a bunch of emails of support and reassuring her.
That’s if the revolutionaries are the sort that put people up against the wall; and if history is any guide, if they are that sort, when they start running short of folks in actual mansions they WILL come get you and *me * regardless of the upside-down mortgage on the tract house. In that sense, historically you and I may be “privileged” to inhabit a society where that sort of revolution is highly unlikely (and aren’t you on record as believing it likelier that it will be the reactionaries who’ll be putting people against walls?).
But I do not disagree with you that “privilege” talk is often made the blunt instrument of a strategy that dismisses the unique experience and POV of the “other” as not worth even considering (whether as just a white male, or as part of a self-selected cultural/academic elite, or whatever pigeonbox we choose). As in Saintly Loser’s example, it degenerates into Pot vs. Kettle, when those wielding it are themselves “privileged” in ways within their identity group – this comes up for instance in discussions as to whether mainstream feminism has been dominated by white middle-class educated cis women. There are levels within levels of relative privilege and often those who call out privilege-check are ignoring that.
Because “abnormal” has a negative connotation to it. It’s that simple. It’s not a question of accuracy.
It’s not redefined, there are simply some contexts where it’s impolite. “Colored” and “Oriental” didn’t get redefined either, and it’s the same phenomenon at work here.
There’s a difference between what’s clearly a label and a term that’s not usually meant to be a label, but rather a definition.
Saying someone’s “African-American” instead of “Colored” is switching the label. Saying someone’s normal is more of a matter of definition, not labeling.
Nobody’s really going to argue that an 8 foot tall man is normal or not; clearly he’s out of the normal range of height for adult men. It may be natural, and it’s not his choice, but it’s not normal either. It’s a matter of definition, not of labeling.
There’s a segment that’s defined as “normal”, and it’s that part of the distribution that most people fall into, whether it’s behavior, size, sexual identity, or whatever. People who fall outside that range are not normal by definition. Co-opting that word to say that it’s offensive because it’s not all-inclusive is silly and ultimately probably ultimately hurtful if it leads people to believe that their autistic kids are only neuro-a-typical (or whatever) and don’t need intensive educational intervention.
“Normal” is also a label, though, and it’s the use of it as a label - as the counterpart to homosexual, transgender, left-handed, or what-have-you - that’s objectionable. It’s objectionable because of the connotation of “normal” and “abnormal”, not the denotation.
I don’t follow your thoughts on it being hurtful, either. If the peers of a parent of an autistic child refer to their own children as being “neurotypical” instead of “normal” around that person, you think that would lead the parent to believe their child wasn’t autistic? I can’t see that happening.
Maybe not, but you have to remember people entirely ignorant of feminism concepts (like myself) might experience the “weapon” use first, before the “entire concept” has been explained.
As I said before, I’m still not 100% confident in what it means, but I certainly recognize it being used as “shut up and go away” when I see it, because that’s obvious from context.
to inhabit a society where that sort of revolution is highly unlikely (and aren’t you on record as believing it likelier that it will be the reactionaries who’ll be putting people against walls?).