...and who actually says that?

[hebinekohime]

http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=478

Actually, I think sorting people based on genitals or minor physiological features is pretty fucking stupid. I know I'm not comfortable with people jumping to conclusions based on what they see... so why is seeing it more given as the progressive solution for everything? UGH.

Would someone mind telling me what the caption is on about, anyway? If it's saying "not everyone can be androgynous or bisexual, and it'd be foolish to see the world that way", I don't have a problem with that. But if it's saying "accidents of genetics should trump one's own chosen image", then I can only see it as more oppression posing as insightful social commentary. I can't speak for anyone else, but PLEASE be gender-blind when you look at me.

(edited; still thinking this one over)

Comments

[From: miang]

It's easier for me to understand in terms of race, because it's a lot easier (generally speaking) to fuck with people's perceptions of your gender than it is to change how they perceive your race. But gender -- and race -- are automatically processed, in the sense that visual perception leads to automatic, near-instantaneous categorization into whatever categories you've learned to put people in, and it's either disingenuous or extremely, extremely naive to act (pretend?) like this doesn't happen. (How you treat people, or make decisions about such, on the basis of these categorizations is another matter entirely -- but the mental processing happens whether you want it to or not.)

Incidentally, this is one of the arguments a trans friend has given me for why he felt the need to fully transition, and it's the one that actually makes the most sense to me: he's fine with the ideas of gender fluidity / genderqueerness / what-have-you, but at the end of the day he realizes that other people still make snap judgments on the basis of that instantaneous gender categorization, and that being the case he'd rather be read as male than female because they have a better chance of interacting with him appropriately that way. I get that, even as I pine for a world where people would stop letting that categorization determine how they act...

[From: hebinekohime]

Yeah, I get that, too, though I don't feel it quite as strongly.

I guess I view "not seeing gender" as not claiming to literally not see it, but to not prioritize gender, or choosing to disregard gender in favor of other information. IME, I've found trans/queer spaces more welcoming largely because of the lack of assumptions made about me when I walk in the door. It's with that context in mind that I interpreted the quote, rather than the uber-political-correctness I think it was meant to stand for.

[From: miang]

I get that, too, though I don't feel it quite as strongly.

Likewise, which is probably the central clash between androgyny and 'real' transgender/transexuality -- the "other" option isn't necessarily a better set of stereotypes, just a different one. :Þ Binary gender system FTL.

I guess I view "not seeing gender" as not claiming to literally not see it

This is why I immediately alluded to race -- although I have no firsthand experience with people claiming to literally not see gender, I definitely have witnessed that claim with regard to race, which strikes me as equally ass-chapeau'd. For that reason it wouldn't surprise me if Emily or Joey had actually run into someone making that literal claim...

Certainly I agree with the rest of your post/comment; sorry it's taken me a few days to make time to say so. :)

[From: hebinekohime]

Anyway, edited the post a little. I may have cast the net too wide at first.