Don’t forget, bell hooks will be at ASU (Tempe) tonight! 7-8:30PM, Katzin Music Hall, free admission and open to the public!
Sometime I’d really like to write a full piece on social construction, because the term gets thrown around a lot (both by opponents and proponents) in often very sloppy ways. For now, here’s a little about how I interpret the notion of social construction with regards to gender. I don’t claim to speak for anyone except myself — my interpretations of other authors are necessarily my own.
- It doesn’t imply voluntarism. This is a pretty common misconception. The argument runs, for example, that gender is a social construction, so anyone can adopt any gender at any time! This is something of an oversimplified interpretation that is not supported by many folks writing about social constructionist theory. For example, prominent theorist Judith Butler argues that gender is constructed, but that subjects are constructed within the framework of this construction itself. There is no subject prior to construction, so it doesn’t follow that construction is an individually-motivated act.
- It doesn’t mean that something isn’t “real,” meaningful, or important. Sometimes people take constructionism as a direct attack — e.g. “my gender isn’t constructed!” This is probably because the person promoting constructionism is doing so in a very simplistic way that implies that gender, as a construction, is frivolous or fake. Identity systems are socially constructed in that they are built up through human processes of language and meaning-making. This doesn’t contradict anyone’s right to identify however they choose and to be the authority on their identity.
- It doesn’t imply an etiological argument about gender variance. It’s not saying that “socialization” is the cause of gender identity. It’s saying that the notion of gender (or sexuality) itself is a historically-specific, human-created system of meaning. Constructionist arguments generally oppose transhistorical invocations about the existence of LGBTQ folks across all times and places, because those labels did not and do not exist everywhere. Surely there has always been gender variance and same-sex sexual activity, but to subsume all of those who participated in these phenomena into modern identity labels is to naturalize and universalize concepts that are distinctly modern (and western).
- Finally, and this is probably my most controversial argument, the distinction between “biological” and “social” aspects of gender is itself a construction. Sex (here used to mean “biological gender”) is constructed in that particular aspects of bodies (e.g. hormones, genitals, secondary characteristics) are awarded status as determinants of sex while others are not.
mark your calendars, you Tempe/Phoenix area locals. free and open to the public.
Or how a riot started by queers, drag queens, transgender people and sex workers became ruthlessly hijacked and monopolized by normatively attractive, affluent, masculine gay men who value assimilation and heteronormativity over universal healthcare - and who viciously spurn those magnificent queens who came before them - and gave it a universally accepted brand name (the GAY rights movement) that highlights its own exclusionary nature.
On November 9th, Dan Savage was the recipient of a “glitter bomb” stunt for the second time this month so far. He was continuing his MTV tour at University of California Irvine. One of the students involved in the stunt was grabbed by the police and arrested.
According to my source at the event, Savage was in the middle of answering a question from a student who was wondering if her boyfriend was a freak because he watched porn featuring trans women. Savage suggested that her boyfriend was a freak, while freely using the terms “shemale” and “freaky tranny porn.” That is when two individuals ran up and threw glitter on him yelling “Transphobe!” Someone from the MTV tech crew muttered “Oh, not again!” Savage laughed it off and said that being gay he loves glitter.
Later, when another student was asking him about the incident, Savage answered, “I’m used to it.”
Savage’s use of the terms “tranny” and “shemale” are a minor part of the complaints being lodged against him, however, the use of those slurs is the most visible and most discussed part of them. Savage has claimed that he was transphobic 15 years ago but isn’t anymore, however, if that is true than why would Dan choose to use those same derogatory slurs knowing how much anger it draws from the trans community and so soon on the heels of the first glitter stunt?
Was he being antagonistic or just oblivious?
Considering that he is being called transphobic so frequently that he now says he is “used to it,” it’s hard to understand how he can continue to see himself as a spokesperson for the LGBT community rather than solely a gay spokesperson. Especially when he apparently has begun bringing police to his events to protect him from the community he claims to represent.
It’s worth noting that as far as I can tell activists from previous glitter stunts have not been arrested or faced charges, including those targeting Karl Rove, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich. It is not clear if Savage requested charges be pressed or if local police are pressing charges on their own initiative, but if he allows charges to be pressed on his behalf, it will be extremely disappointing if he is less capable of handling glitter-based criticism than the conservatives that had previously been the target of it.
After the first glitter stunt, many reported on the fact that it was being used to criticize a gay man, calling it a queer-on-queer glitter bombing. Unlike previous glitter bomb stunts, the message was clearly based on anti-trans actions rather than anti-gay ones. In this light, calling it a queer-on-queer would be akin to calling Michele Bachman a target of a white-on-white glitter bombing. The shared identities are besides the point, Bachman’s glitter bombing was not about whiteness and Savage’s glitter bombing was not about gayness.
There is still significance in the fact that gay and trans communities are supposed to be in coalition together and that infighting can damage that coalition. However, for those concerned about infighting, it is vitally important to see the whole picture and acknowledge Savage’s anti-trans actions as unprovoked infighting that this is responding to.
As a movement, we have to be able to criticize our allies or else they are not really allies. That doesn’t mean beating upon them like a punching bag as a way to vent our frustration with the world. That doesn’t mean the good things they are doing don’t count. It’s not about who they are deep inside or their value as a human being. It just means that something they did was unacceptable and has to change.
It was hard not to notice all the cis (non-trans) people rushing to defend Savage’s transphobic actions and argue that he should be free to continue them. In many cases, this was based on an appreciation of the good work he has done with only a minimal understanding of the complaints against him.
As our community has a conversation around this issue, I would suggest that those who consider themselves allies to trans people and feel the urge to aggressively defend Savage may benefit by prioritising listening to trans people’s voices on the matter. And it goes without saying that no weight should be given to those who do not consider themselves allies to trans people and insist on telling trans people that their concerns are not valid.
Update: Dan Savage has responded via text message to Joe My God. He dismisses the criticism against him as “ridiculous” and notes that he was only mirroring the language a cis audience member was using and did mention that “some people have a problem with it.”
It is disappointing that he continues offer excuses and be unwilling to listen to the concerns of the trans community. It was that unwillingness to listen that prompted activists to resort to these stunts to the community’s attention. As I note in a comment below, if a white audience member used a racial slur, that would not be an excuse for him to nonchalantly use the slur after mentioning that “some people have a problem with it.” It should not be an adequate excuse here, either.
______________________________________________
It’s also very important to note that UCI has a violent history with the police. Please see issues with the Irvine 11 and the Irvine 19 for more details (linked below).
http://occupyca.wordpress. com/2011/09/15/breaking-uc ipd-simulating-an-anti-occ upation-operation-at-uc-irvine/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/irvine-11-sentenced-probation-no-jail-time.html
http://occupyuci.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/chalk-is-still-free-speech/
http://www.ucrebelradio.com/2011/10/grim-future-of-humanities-uc-irvine.html
I don’t care how many classes you’ve taken. Nor do I care how many POC friends you have. It also doesn’t matter how much rap you listen to, or how much you loved the Cosby Show.
Anti-racism is an ongoing effort to not fuck everyone else’s life up. And it is a constant effort to sit your ass down and listen to POC and listen to what they say without expecting them to take time out of their lives to hold your hand and walk you through the process of getting yourself unfucked.
[TW warning: anti-trans bigotry and violence]
The following is a piece I wrote for a zine, QUAC , about the topic of Queer Violence
Queer People Not My People
I expected to lose a lot transitioning from a gay identified boy to a trans woman. I’ve lost family, once-called “best friends”, and the ability to find a man on A4A for some anonymous one night stands. What I didn’t expect was the loss of queer communities as a safe space for me. I once idolized queer spaces, now I always enter them in trepidation, even the ones I’ve helped build and maintain. I write this piece still reeling at how much anger I felt last night, still picking out the tear-dried clumps of mascara from my eyes. It’s the slow realization that I am often the only trans woman in the room, and that queer people love throw around my identity as part of their little acronym, but would rather not hear from me.
READ THIS.
