I keep daydreaming about last summer, of how I had a sense of queer community for the first time, and actually knew other genderqueer people, and could talk about gender with people (in agreement rather than in argument or explanation -- I value those too but they're not satisfying if that's all I get). I wish I had words to explain it. I need to make it a priority to attend some of the queer events happening in Atlanta, because at this point the lack of consonance is costing me more than the time, effort, and gas to go there.

I did go to my first "pride alliance" meeting at school today, ( ........ )

I know I'm sorta a broken record on the subject but it's occupying my free mind space lately. Pretty intensely. I was talking to Kyle about it lately -- about how some people have higher priorities than being "out" as queer or genderqueer but I don't, because for me it is like a calling. And that was a new realization for me -- this isn't just one step which, once learned, I will lose passion for. I've already learned it to the level I learned self-love, and it's just become a stronger and stronger force in my life. I'm meant to be a genderqueer catalyst -- it's part of what I need to do with my life.

encouragingly! Kate Bornstein has a new book out! and Christie Elan-Cane is making some headway for genderfree and genderqueer people in the UK. (if you live in the UK and you support those who do not wish to be identified as "m" or "f," please read this) and one family has allowed their transsexual child to choose to delay puberty to allow for easier sex change (please ignore the "this is a MEDICAL CONDITION and it's RARE don't worry you can't catch it" tone) and zir father changed in reaction to this, instead of trying to "fix" zir child. "I learned real change means acceptance—not tolerance—and an acceptance that includes equal rights and freedoms for my daughter as I’d want for her friends. With time my wife would also begin to forgive me for the time when I denied the truth to try to protect my fragile dream. As I changed, I learned a lot from others too. People who were not on board with the needs of our transgender child taught me that changing people’s perception of “normal” was essential, not just for my daughter’s safety, but for the safety of all children that are perceived as different."

It's been four weeks since I started classes again and it just hit me that this path I've committed to is not what I want for my life. I don't want a safe degree and a good job with a steady paycheck. I want to run away, I want to be free, I want to live on the edges and scrape by, I want to live out of my car, I want to have just enough to survive. At this point though, I feel like I've made a commitment and I have to see it through. But everything about it feels so WRONG. The ridiculous hoops one has to jump through to 'prove' that one has learned, the rating of progress by numbers. I loathe it. I just want to live. Why are there so many damn rules about how to do that?

And for whatever reason, it seems to have set off my -- I don't know what to call it, cisgender dysphoria? -- ( I feel completely alienated and disconnected )

It does NOT HELP that people keep faking agreement with my genderfree philosophy and then saying "oh just kidding, I think you're a dumbass/liar/whore." (I'm not kidding or exaggerating) How can I have genuine conversations with people about gender when they either just don't understand what I'm saying or they understand it and don't care about it or they fake agreement to get something and then reveal it for a lie when the attempt fails? Why does no one care that people aren't allowed to be fully human?

I just want to live in a world where everyone is uncomfortable with prefabricated, limited identity and everyone shows their trueself and everyone refuses to rate other people and everyone calls out faking or non-thinking actions. Why is that so fucking impossible to find?

"Curl and Tangle, Color and Thorn" by me:



This is a photo I took on a trip with Ben to Big Trees in November. It expresses the entire year to me -- the sharp pains and vibrant joys, and most of all the crazy tangled unforseeability of it. And the focus too -- not seeing far behind or much ahead. Oh, what a wild ride.

I dedicated 2009 to risk-taking (since the focus of 2008 became faith-building instead) and I feel that I fully met that goal. I practiced living in the moment, doing things because they feel right without concern for how they might turn sour; being with Viv, going to San Francisco, deciding to end my partnership with [ex], beginning a relationship with Ben, moving in with Ash, hanging out with people I didn't know well and didn't feel miraculously connected to, couchsurfing, driving a rental car. Those are all things I wouldn't have done a year ago out of a habit of thinking "but what if bad stuff happens."

This year brought me the greatest disappointment and the greatest joy I've ever experienced. It's been such a blend, every joy right next to suffering (and vice versa). This is the first year I have had local friends since I was 20, and the first time in my life I've had a sense of community, an actual CIRCLE of people whom I love and feel that I belong with. It used to be so rare that I spent time with friends that every single time was intensely noteworthy and now it has become NORMAL to me! I feel immensely rich. I get hugs at least every single week -- after YEARS of feeling like a leper because no one touched me. I speak and people listen and care and respond -- after years of having no one to talk with in person (well, no one who cared about the same things or was very interested in my thoughts). I am so profoundly grateful. Thank you Deity, thank you universe, thank you localtribe, thank you everyone and everything!

( important events in 2009 )

I've been thinking a lot about gender and how it relates to me (I know, what else is new) -- specifically, whether or not I identify as transgender and/or transsexual. ((trans friends, please forgive and gently correct me if I say something erroneous/ignorant about trans issues, I've just begun educating myself))

The dictionary defines transgender and transsexual as the same thing -- someone who has transitioned or deeply desires to transition physically to the 'opposite' sex. The American Psychological Association and wikipedia define transgender as an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity/expression differs from that usually associated with their birth sex. That makes more sense to me, so in my LJ: transsexual = wanting/making physical changes to sex, and transgender = not identifying with the 'gender' of one's birth sex and identifying as trans.

Until recently I knew next to nothing about trans identities (still don't know much, but am learning!). I had always thought that transsexual people believed in gender as something immutable and inborn, since the reason I always heard for people transitioning was, "I feel [female/male] inside." Then I met someone who does not have that reason (I don't want to paraphrase zir reasons because I would surely do a clumsy job), and realized hey, people can want to change their bodies for other reasons, and there are trans people who actually feel the same way I do about gender (that it is just a set of stereotypes). I'd always thought that trans people would hate me because many cisgender people (those who identify with the gender associated with their birth sex) get angry enough at me for questioning/disdaining gender, and trans people go through so much more to create their gender, so I thought they'd be that much angrier at me. That idea was recently dismantled for me through a conversation with another transgender person I favorited on okcupid, who didn't get upset with me at all but just asked thought-provoking questions (ze had thought that ze embodied an idea I was against). ( my response to that )

So I've realized that I technically fall under the umbrella of transgender, and even though I know there are those who would consider me anti-trans, I'm feeling more and more of a sense of community with transgender people. I am not yet comfortable referring to myself as transgender because I don't know what the broader trans community would think of me, and I don't want to put myself where I'm not wanted. But realizing that some trans people might welcome me makes me kinda excited. I've never felt that I fit in any queer community because I'm not gay or lesbian and bisexuals just don't have a community. But I share a common goal with trans people (changing the current system of gender), and it's thrilling to feel so strongly about something and discover a group who ALSO feels strongly about it, and is making tangible progress.

Whether or not I consider myself transsexual is even more confusing. I don't think I'd ever refer to myself as such because it would simply not communicate what I meant -- people'd assume I want to change my body to male, which is not the case. I am perfectly happy with my female body. I like everything about it. BUT. If a body genie appeared to me and told me I could design my own body, I would choose intersex -- vulva, vagina, penis, breasts, and facial hair only on my chin (more than my 13 hairs, heh). I don't think I would want to use surgery to create that body because 1) they can't do it the way I'd want it, 2) I'm only willing to undergo surgery for a life-threatening condition, 3) I would feel like I was rejecting my current body (which would hurt my feelings), and 4) it's expensive. But if I had that shape I'd love my body even more because I'd be sure to never have sexist lovers, haha! And I'd fuck with everybody's mindsets just by being myself. And I'd get to experience the feeling of being inside someone else in that way.

Identifying as trans also becomes more complex/questionable ( when I look cisgender )

SO, Saturday Ash, Alivia, and I went to a drag show! (the Mr. & Mrs. YouthPride Pageant) :D It was a little more... objectifying than I was hoping for, but not so much that it kept me from enjoying it. People did come up to tip the performers but they didn't poke it into their clothes, and the tips went towards YouthPride (the organization that held the pageant). Apparently the performers had been told not to dress scantily (since it was a youth event) but some of them didn't listen :-p

The main reason I went was that Viv was participating :D I liked zir view of drag -- how it's a way of showing that gender is something one performs, not something one is. But if there isn't at least one genderqueer* or genderfree* person performing, I don't think I'd want to go to drag shows in general because if no one fucks with it and everyone does it the same way, I don't really see it as any more progressive than if the people on stage were born male wearing 'male' clothes or vice versa.

*For me, the term genderqueer does not work because I feel like it implies inherent gender rather than socialized gender (even though it actually doesn't), but I was delighted to realize that it can mean essentially the same thing as genderfree. Genderqueer means rejecting gender norms for oneself; genderfree means rejecting the whole structure of gender. I had thought that being genderqueer meant approving of stereotyped roles in general while rejecting them for oneself; actually, it simply makes no comment on the roles except in how the particular person expresses zirself. So genderfree is a subset of genderqueer :D



( photos! :D )

Like race, gender is "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." (Katya Mevorach)

When prejudice is based on race/ethnicity (or apparent race/ethnicity), ( here's what it can look like: )

I specified "people who look like" because these beliefs are not based on looking at someone's pedigree or typing their DNA, but rather simply by looking at them; it's not about the blood but just about the look. (and what 'looks like' each one is determined by the looker) I chose the positive prejudices because they are less likely to be recognized as racism (since people think racism is always about hate), yet they are indeed beliefs that race/ethnicity accounts for differences in human character/ability/preferences. Even if such patterns exist, if a person chooses to believe that those trends speak about the individual's innate character/ability (rather than the path which society has created for them), that person is prejudiced. And if that person treats people differently based on these appearance-determined categories, that person is racist.

When prejudice is based on sex (or apparent sex), ( here's what it can look like: )

I specified "people who look like" because these beliefs are not based on looking at someone's genitals or testing their hormone levels, but rather simply by looking at them; it's not about the blood but just about the look. Female humans who wear very short hair, 'masculine' clothing, and no makeup are perceived to be aggressive/strong/practical. Male humans who wear long hair, 'feminine' clothing, and makeup are perceived to be submissive/dainty/communicative. I chose the positive prejudices because they are less likely to be recognized as sexism (since people think sexism is always about hate), yet they are indeed beliefs that sex accounts for differences in human character/ability/preferences. Even if such patterns exist, if a person chooses to believe that those trends speak about the individual's innate character/ability (rather than the path which society has created for them), that person is prejudiced. And if that person treats people differently based on these appearance-determined categories, that person is sexist.

screening new comments, will unscreen when I get time to respond!

Like race, gender is "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." (Katya Mevorach)

When prejudice is based on race/ethnicity (or apparent race/ethnicity), ( here's what it looks like: )

I specified "people who look like" because these beliefs are not based on looking at someone's pedigree or typing their DNA, but rather simply by looking at them; it's not about the blood but just about the look. (and what 'looks like' each one is determined by the looker) I chose the positive prejudices because they are less likely to be recognized as racism (since people think racism is always about hate), yet they are indeed beliefs that race/ethnicity accounts for differences in human character/ability/preferences. Even if such patterns exist, if a person chooses to believe that those trends speak about the individual's innate character/ability (rather than the path which society has created for them), that person is prejudiced. And if that person treats people differently based on these appearance-determined categories, that person is racist.

When prejudice is based on sex (or apparent sex), ( here's what it looks like: )

I specified "people who look like" because these beliefs are not based on looking at someone's genitals or testing their hormone levels, but rather simply by looking at them; it's not about the blood but just about the look. Female humans who wear very short hair, 'masculine' clothing, and no makeup are perceived to be aggressive/strong/practical. Male humans who wear long hair, 'feminine' clothing, and makeup are perceived to be submissive/dainty/communicative. I chose the positive prejudices because they are less likely to be recognized as sexism (since people think sexism is always about hate), yet they are indeed beliefs that sex accounts for differences in human character/ability/preferences. Even if such patterns exist, if a person chooses to believe that those trends speak about the individual's innate character/ability (rather than the path which society has created for them), that person is prejudiced. And if that person treats people differently based on these appearance-determined categories, that person is sexist.

screening new comments, will unscreen when I get time to respond!

A year ago I wrote a post declaring that I do not believe in gender. Now I KNOW (as well as believe) that gender is a social construct; I am now aware that there is no reliable scientific evidence of brain differences based on sex.

Like most people, you've probably heard of the 'studies' that show that men and women are 'just inherently different' in the way they think (and therefore in the way they behave). I've been suspicious about these for a long time because out of all the people who tried to justify sex roles by biological roles, not ONE actually had done any research on the subject -- they'd just heard it somewhere, you know, and taken it as gospel. I've now done some research on the topic, which I will share bits of in an attempt to encourage you to question this hearsay -- to actually look at these studies with a critical eye.

There have been many studies which attempted to show inherent, biological differences between male and female brains. There are so many problems with these studies that it really boggles the mind; it's as if scientists forget how to do science when it comes to the concept of gender. The first and most obvious issue is that nearly all of these studies are created around the assumption that gender does, in fact, exist. They do not ask the question, "do brains differ based on the sex of the body they are in?" instead they ask, "HOW do brains differ based on sex?" Then studies which show no difference are thus considered irrelevant, and only the studies which DO show a difference are examined. Thus, if five studies are done, three of which show no difference and two of which show a sliiiiight difference, the scientist does not say, "hey, it's most likely that there's no significant difference" -- instead ze looks exclusively at the ones which DO show a tiny difference and then publishes on those! (that's not hypothetical either -- I can't remember the exact number but one set of scientists did several studies, the majority of which showed no difference, and they ignored the majority in favor of the ones that showed difference) ( and if they really can't squeeze any significance out of it, well they just move on to another lobe or hormone. )

And besides the assumptions which do not get questioned despite being unproven, we have the issue of purely bad science. Poor sample sizes, inadequate or inappropriate or NO controls, statistical manipulation, lack of blind and double-blind experiments -- usually a nice mix of all the above. And these absolutely unscientific studies are Big News and get published in national media; not sharing actual data so that the reader could decided for zirself what it meant, but simply stating their interpretation of the data. The reader assumes that the scientist did a good job with the study and takes the article at face value because it fits perfectly with the reader's world view. And thus hearsay becomes a 'well-known fact.'

I really can't explore all of the ridiculousness that is sexist science, but I'll give you ( a prime example )

Also! Even socially-induced differences are not nearly so large or immutable as people tend to believe. For instance, boys and girls have equal math scores if you throw out a few outliers and control for the number of math classes taken. Men are every bit as nurturing as women; in a study* of single parents, the males were just as good at caretaking as the females (but in married couples the children usually had only one nurturer). And the males in that study became single parents through circumstance, not choice. Another study* showed that women are every bit as warlike as men (though they differ in their reasons to go to war). Women are often considered more intuitive -- to the point that it is common for people to refer to 'women's intuition' as if a vulva has anything to do with it. A study* on the behavior of men and women in leader/follower positions showed that a better term would be 'subordinates' intuition' because the follower in each group was more sensitive to the leader's cues than vice versa, regardless of sex.

* Representative example -- for more, read The Mismeasure Of Woman.

I recently finished reading two very in-depth books that examine many, many studies on the subject.

12. Mismeasure of Woman: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex by Carol Tavris (non-fiction)
( ... )

16. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men by Anne Fausto-Sterling (non-fiction)
( ... )

( if you're thinking about arguing with me... )

screening new comments, will unscreen when I get time to respond!

A year ago I wrote a post declaring that I do not believe in gender. Now I KNOW (as well as believe) that gender is a social construct; I am now aware that there is no reliable scientific evidence of brain differences based on sex.

Like most people, you've probably heard of the 'studies' that show that men and women are 'just inherently different' in the way they think (and therefore in the way they behave). I've been suspicious about these for a long time because out of all the people who tried to justify sex roles by biological roles, not ONE actually had done any research on the subject -- they'd just heard it somewhere, you know, and taken it as gospel. I've now done some research on the topic, which I will share bits of in an attempt to encourage you to question this hearsay -- to actually look at these studies with a critical eye.

There have been many studies which attempted to show inherent, biological differences between male and female brains. There are so many problems with these studies that it really boggles the mind; it's as if scientists forget how to do science when it comes to the concept of gender. The first and most obvious issue is that nearly all of these studies are created around the assumption that gender does, in fact, exist. They do not ask the question, "do brains differ based on the sex of the body they are in?" instead they ask, "HOW do brains differ based on sex?" Then studies which show no difference are thus considered irrelevant, and only the studies which DO show a difference are examined. Thus, if five studies are done, three of which show no difference and two of which show a sliiiiight difference, the scientist does not say, "hey, it's most likely that there's no significant difference" -- instead ze looks exclusively at the ones which DO show a tiny difference and then publishes on those! (that's not hypothetical either -- I can't remember the exact number but one set of scientists did several studies, the majority of which showed no difference, and they ignored the majority in favor of the ones that showed difference) ( and if they really can't squeeze any significance out of it, well they just move on to another lobe or hormone. )

And besides the assumptions which do not get questioned despite being unproven, we have the issue of purely bad science. Poor sample sizes, inadequate or inappropriate or NO controls, statistical manipulation, lack of blind and double-blind experiments -- usually a nice mix of all the above. And these absolutely unscientific studies are Big News and get published in national media; not sharing actual data so that the reader could decided for zirself what it meant, but simply stating their interpretation of the data. The reader assumes that the scientist did a good job with the study and takes the article at face value because it fits perfectly with the reader's world view. And thus hearsay becomes a 'well-known fact.'

I really can't explore all of the ridiculousness that is sexist science, but I'll give you ( a prime example )

Also! Even socially-induced differences are not nearly so large or immutable as people tend to believe. For instance, boys and girls have equal math scores if you throw out a few outliers and control for the number of math classes taken. Men are every bit as nurturing as women; in a study* of single parents, the males were just as good at caretaking as the females (but in married couples the children usually had only one nurturer). And the males in that study became single parents through circumstance, not choice. Another study* showed that women are every bit as warlike as men (though they differ in their reasons to go to war). Women are often considered more intuitive -- to the point that it is common for people to refer to 'women's intuition' as if a vulva has anything to do with it. A study* on the behavior of men and women in leader/follower positions showed that a better term would be 'subordinates' intuition' because the follower in each group was more sensitive to the leader's cues than vice versa, regardless of sex.

* Representative example -- for more, read The Mismeasure Of Woman.

I recently finished reading two very in-depth books that examine many, many studies on the subject.

12. Mismeasure of Woman: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex by Carol Tavris (non-fiction)
( ... )

16. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men by Anne Fausto-Sterling (non-fiction)
( ... )

( if you're thinking about arguing with me... )

screening new comments, will unscreen when I get time to respond!

This focuses a lot on male/female sex, but applies to all sex -- the inequalities that have to be overcome are just more obvious in male/female sex, but because we are conditioned to roles, they often apply in male/male and female/female sex also.

There are three components to equalist sex:
1) considering mutual desire an essential component to sex, and acting accordingly
2) considering penetration NOT an essential component to sex, and acting accordingly
3) initiating/giving/leading equally

( explanations )

comments screened

Building on the post about lack of community, what I yearn for is to know more people who see the world in these ways*:

★ spiritual (not religious) -- believing in spiritual things, yet adhering to no external creed or tenets; believing in what resonates with one's own spirit, and questioning anything that does not.

( explanation )

★ genderfree* -- believing that sex (physical genitalia) does not create an inherent difference in the inner-self, that we have the power to rid ourselves of gendered thinking, and that it is important for the sake of equality to choose to change one's thinking/language to eliminate* gender (not necessarily to the point of using genderfree pronouns).

( explanation )

★ a radical feminist/equalist -- believing that all human beings should be treated with the same respect yet are not, and taking responsibility to change the world by eliminating hate speech as well as other forms of discrimination.

( explanation )

★ queer (and activist) -- being true to oneself after having deeply and open-mindedly considered one's sexual attraction, and taking responsibility to change the world so that all adult-human-to-adult-human sexual attractions are treated with equal respect.

( explanation )

★ polyamorous (committed, not-kinky)* -- open to multiple serious romantic relationships that do not involve b/d/s/m.

( explanation )

( and randomly )

* ETA August 2009: this needs editing because some of my views have expanded, though they maintain the same core.

( conversation with Sam on bias in science, etc. )

This led to a discussion of sexism/equalism/anti-exclusionism -- what an explosive topic. We must have discussed it for at least an hour. I believe that the only way to truly respect people is to treat everyone the same (until you get to know them, then obviously tailor your behavior to who they are). Sam feels that it is not necessary to treat everyone the same in order to respect them; ze feels that it is okay to have different default treatments for different people, such as opening the door only for women. I feel that it is best to examine one's motives. If I open the door only for one sex, why am I doing this? is it because I am blindly following a path laid out for me by my culture? is it perhaps a habit which enforces beliefs that society holds about the relationships between the sexes? is it because I have carefully thought it over and found a good reason to give this respect only to one sex? I think the latter is theoretically possible but I cannot think of a good reason to behave more (or less) kindly to a person because of their body shape. Especially considering that I may be mistaken as to what their body shape is -- not everyone fits neatly into one category or another.

Then we branched off into exclusionism as it relates to race. Sam believes it is only wrong to assume negatives about a person -- to assume positives is okay. I think that assumptions about a person based on outward appearance lead to setting up boundaries between people. For instance, if I assume that all people who are elderly are enlightened because they have seen so much, this is a flattering assumption but it creates a boundary. To assume is to create a generic picture of someone; when you see that generic picture, you have a much harder time seeing them as they truly are than you would if you left the canvas blank and allowed them to paint from scratch rather than editing what you have made. I believe that in order to respect a person, one has to see them as they truly are. Love needs respect which needs understanding -- assumptions hinder understanding.

At the very end I made sure to explain that I spoke forcefully because I believed in what I had to say, not out of trying to force agreement. Sam admitted that ze was trying to change MY mind which I found hilarious. :D (my partner told zir that I do change my mind, but only when given new ideas/information/interpretations. Ze described how I react to that, and imitated my facial expressions, heh.) And I realized that I used to try to change people's minds when arguing opinion, and now that is hardly ever my goal (I would say never but I don't check my arguing-motives often enough to say). Instead, I want to explain my point of view in such a way that the other person can understand why I believe the way I do, and then they can agree or disagree. I think that a person never gains truth by having it forced on them, so all I do is share my truth and invite a person to explore for themselves. I don't see truth as some objective thing that can be found -- I think that in order to have the whole truth one would have to fully understand every person and every creature and every thing at once (I believe that after we die we will know fully, even as we are fully known). All we can do is find a facet of the truth that resonates with us, and then share it to inspire others to find their own.

It was SUCH a fun conversation! I love speaking to someone who respectfully disagrees because it gives me the opportunity to hone my own views to a shining point. Few things annoy me more than feeling that the other person isn't listening when arguing with me, but I felt that Sam listened and responded in a curious way, attempting to understand, and never summarily dismissed anything I said. (unlike M, who I argued with the other day, heh -- when I made a really good point ze dropped the topic and said "well we just disagree." PAH. fuck that shit.) I think eventually and slowly Sam and I might become good friends.

Switching to gender-neutral pronouns has been difficult, but has been really incredible. Unfortunately it has had the side effect of making me even more aware of when people speak in gendered ways -- "oh yeah, he's a guy, got a one-track mind" "dressing girly" etc. (note: the pronouns don't bother me from other people's mouths, except in reference to me -- just the gender assumptions) Even though usually it is done in affectionate ways, it bothers the hell out of me. I feel like saying "no! that is a HUMAN quality" every time but I don't. I think it is my silence that bothers me. It's just such a complicated subject and people get SO UPSET about it. I don't mind challenging/irritating people but I do mind being misunderstood, and I feel like it is so easily misunderstood. So if I don't feel like devoting a large chunk of time and energy to a weighty discussion, I just keep quiet.

( but my wonderful partner decided to 'out' me as genderfree to zir sibling )

An interesting thing I have noticed is that when speaking of people I do not respect, I have a hard time referring to them by gender-neutral terms. For me, calling a person 'ze' or 'zir' is a recognition of the spirit within, the purest self with no societal affectations. So I have to wrestle myself when it comes to those who have buried their trueselves under piles of societal affectations (my bioparent 'M' for instance!). And people I respect and admire more than usual are the easiest for me to refer to in gender-neutral terms (though I still slip up a lot) -- when it comes to my partner it actually feels more accurate to refer to zir as 'ze', even though ze is not much of a gender-transgressor, outwardly. (incidentally, ze has agreed to help me by reminding me when I slip up if ze catches it! that makes me so happy!)

On first undertaking this, I was planning to abide by others' wishes if they specifically asked to be referred to a certain way. I've since changed my mind on that -- I am not going to use gender-specific pronouns for any reason. I see how it could be disrespectful to refer to someone in a way they do not like, so if a person doesn't like to be referred to as ze/zir, I will try to avoid that. Referring to someone only by name seems to ME as if it would be most respectful and acknowledging of their individuality and identity (though hella more difficult!). So far I've been lucky in that respect. Only one of my friends has requested gender-specific pronouns, and I've agreed not to use pronouns at all with that person (instead referring only by name, and by doing this sort of round-about in this sentence, heh). With strangers, I've also been using names and round-about to avoid confusion if I didn't want to get into the explanation (I'm hoping to get more comfortable with that once I stop slipping up all the time).

A lot of people seem to feel that to change my language is to force my belief upon others; I vehemently disagree. I consider it freedom of speech for me to express myself however I feel is best. The only way I could force my belief on others would be for me to insist that they use my language when speaking with me* -- which is why I ask people to refer to me in a gender-neutral way, but I'm fine if they don't. People are still free to identify however they want, and use whatever language they want; but the words in my mouth and mind are MINE and changing them does not force anything upon anyone. I am expressing myself in such a way because that is how I see -- and if I were to use gender-specific pronouns, I feel that would be hypocritical of me. I would be thinking/believing one thing and saying another -- I would be lying. (I recognise that this is not true for all people but it is true for me) I would feel that I was pretending to agree that the other person is a gender, when I don't believe gender exists. To me, it would be more disrespectful for me to outwardly agree when inwardly I do not, than it would be for me to disagree in language as well as mindset.

( in my head and in my heart, I do not believe in gender, and if my language does not reflect that, it lies )

*there is one aspect of language that I do force my belief on others -- I will break off relationships over casual or 'humorous' use of the word 'rape' (after discussing it with zir, if ze is important to me). Though I still don't see that as 'forcing' -- I see it as a boundary that is necessary for me.

notice:

I am training myself to use genderfree language, and specifically, gender-neutral pronouns. Disbelieving in gender is an important part of my worldview and I want it to be reflected in my language. ( further explanation of why ) I would prefer if you used genderfree pronouns in reference to me but I will be fine if you don't -- I know it is hard to remember. So for future reference, here in my LJ:

zir = her, his
ze = he, she
zirself = herself, himself

This is not a request for you to do the same (though that would thrill me), so if you don't like the idea, simply ignore this post. If it is going to intensely bother you to read, feel free to unfriend. mourningdoveava is my buddy in this journey, and ze will hopefully remind me if I slip up. ;-)

ETA: This is really just for me -- not to ignore physical differences, but to remind myself of their unimportance. I'm becoming the change I wish to see in the world. I'm not attempting to change anyone else's mind.

ETA #2: I am fully and completely comfortable with my sex -- I'm a girl, and I like it. I am a 'she.' But I see no reason to have my sex referred to in casual conversation. For me, being a girl is about having female body parts and that is it. And I don't wish to have my body parts referred to whenever someone speaks of me.

These gender-neutral terms are not an 'other,' they are inclusive. They're not for people who are other than male or female, they are for all people -- male, female, intersexed, transsexual. It is not meant to ignore or take away a person's sex; it is meant to speak of the person within the body. So if I call you 'ze' I am referring to the person that you are, without happening to mention your sex.

in response to dragonwine's long-ago asked question: "What is your personal view on gender in a sociological sense? Do you think gender, like sexuality, is fluid or not?"

I don't think it's fluid because I don't believe it exists. I think the physical sex characteristics of a body are irrelevant to the qualities, behaviors, attractions, etc., of the person living inside it.

I don't believe there is a such thing as a masculine or feminine quality (except as pertains to the body itself). Strong, weak, stoic, emotional, callous, sensitive, aggressive, submissive, repressed, expressive -- all of these are HUMAN qualities. And I find it extremely offensive when someone stereotypes them as masculine or feminine. The most commonly stereotyped quality, in my opinion, is compassion. (sometimes called 'sensitivity' or 'being pussy') The ability to feel someone else's feelings and understand their experience through that. It is stereotyped as a 'feminine' quality to the point where a person who is supposedly very wise and enlightened said that "the female is the source of genuine human compassion." I find that so. fucking. sickening! So men can't have compassion? what are they, monsters who care about no one else, doomed to selfishness forever because they made the mistake of being born into a male body? Or perhaps they are beggars, who can only come about compassion by being given it by a female. And what does this say about being female? that we are to be the source of all humans, while men give nothing? ARGH. Showing emotion is a part of compassion. Crying is often an expression of compassion for yourself or someone else, and this behavior is stereotyped as feminine. I could go on and on about every one of the qualities that is commonly stereotyped as being somehow related to genitalia. And then again, about behaviors/dress. With the exception of bras, there is no real reason for any difference in clothing due to sex. And then again, about attractions. Hello, it is not genitals that are attracted to genitals, it is a person who is attracted to a person.

This is why I am bisexual/queer. People generally come in two sexes, with the rare variation, and I am attracted to the spirit within a person. I find female, male, intersexed, and transsexual people equally attractive in the same way that I find slim and thick people equally attractive. Beauty is variety.

ETA: for a more structured explanation, read the userinfo of abolishgender. I agree with it completely.

ETA #2: in this post, by 'gender' I mean social/cultural categories, (stereotyped qualities, behaviors, dress, attractions), not physical sex characteristics (genitals, reproductive organs, hormones).

I went to south GA, where I spent my early childhood, and met Nea! We went exploring in the woods (bridges through swampy areas, dark like old forests are) and came upon a semi-deserted strip mall. As we walked down the street I noticed a flyer saying Missy Higgins was coming to town in about two weeks, and we excitedly discussed the possibility of Nea coming back to town for the concert (I think I was offering to pay, or knew of a way it wouldn't be too expensive). We moved on from the teeeeeeeeeeeeny town and came upon a lake/pond where about 20 of Nea's friends were (!?!). We all got in the water, me naked of course -- cops came around but I managed to escape notice by putting my arms on top of my (cartoonishly) buoyant breasts and submerging myself. Then the cops left and we all got out of the water and lounged on the bank in a large circle, talking. One of her friends joked about the difference between male and female (something not-body-related), which pissed me off since I don't believe in that shit, but I kept my mouth shut. THEN he made some 'joke' about having sex with her, and I turned to her and said, "You better kick his ass! ... unless he was talking to someone else," because I realized he didn't specify who he was talking to and there were two other girls sitting next to Nea. (this whole dream happened at night, but it must have been a full moon because it was easy to see)

( Hannah and I spend lovely time, she leaves and doesn't know why, I talk to her about being disassociative, encourage grieving )