The Traffic Circle where Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation, among other roads, Meet*

[lavendertook]

Right before I became aware of the conflict on using the term cisgender that is occurring on Pam's House Blend and journals of LJ and DW, I had listened to an NPR segment for Gay Pride month that interviewed a gay man who was rhapsodizing on the image of the map for states with marriage equality in the US resembling the Big Dipper and what a great gay symbol this could be. He was being cute, and I was smiling along with him until he went on to proclaim its phallic shape and how that made it such a perfect gay symbol, and hello! just like "men" sometimes means people and sometimes means just males and how such a dual use promotes the exclusion of women from the concept of what it is to be human, so the use of gay I was being included under was suddenly yanked off of my table and I was banished to the corner, as this guy considered me nonexistent in his movement and never included under his use of the term gay to begin with.

And yeah, I'm used to seeing this myopic shit from many gay men forgetting and resenting that other queers exist. And they wonder why gay isn't a good enough term for all of us all of the time and why we keep adding letters to the LGBTIQ mix. When I go to the DC Pride celebration in a town where the majority population is POC, the majority of the participants are white and male, and my quasi-gay white hobbit dolls fit in there better than I do.

So, I was inclined to just write off the white gay men's objections to the use of cisgender as privileged discomfort, since it's a term coined to reveal the privilege of the unmarked category of feeling that your gender identity lines up unquestioningly with how you and other people perceive you. Autumn's forbidding of the term cisgender was not helpful, and Pam calling kynn's use of the term "weaponizing," is overkill, as well as Bush-quasi-military-industrial-complex speak, which really can't be a good thing, and I do think they really dumped badly on kynn.

I do have big reservations about the term cisgender from a different angle, about the kind of work describing a binary does and what this particular binary elides, but I didn't think I was seeing that angle being brought up in the posters' objections to the term and I do get the strategic importance of marking the unmarked category. So it looked like privileged objections to being marked to me.

I finally read eftychia's post that browngirl linked to, and it got me thinking, as good posts do--it really gets across the strategic importance of marking the unmarked as the term cisgender does. I'm now, however, reconsidering how I wrote off the objections coming from gay men and how the term cisgender/cissexual applies here and wondering if Pam shares this consideration of the intersections of lived experience that are clashing here.

Some background I'm thinking about: Euro-American/western culture is still in a state of transition in how it regards sexual orientation in relation to gender identity. It is progressing toward separating out these categories, but it is not there yet. It is still mainstream in this culture to question the masculinity of a gay man and the femininity of a lesbian--to assume a gay man will exhibit what is considered feminine characteristics and a lesbian masculine ones. When someone asks who is top and who is bottom (my fellow slashers--I is looking at u, too) it is part of this conflation of sexual orientation with gender identity and the way we regard sex acts as a determinant in how we regard someone's gender. I have reservations about whether or not separating categories of sexual orientation from gender identity is a liberatory development (progressive and liberatory are not synonymous), but this process is inescapably in progress.

Much of Latina/o cultures historically have not made this separation--if you identified as male and you took a dominant role in sex with another man your masculinity was not in question. Gay, transgendered, and feminine identities, and sexual practice are all intertwined here. There are similar models in some Asian and African cultures and some Native American groups, and most of these cultures, Euro-American included on this one, are not as concerned where people considered female fit into the equation because women, you know, aren't as important--it's who gets included in male identity that counts, so marking sexual orientation as third gender becomes important. The transition in separating out sexual orientation and gender identity is very culturally specific to only certain cultures, Euro-American being among those (with Hispanic cultures liminal inclusion in Euro). And some Native American groups where women are important, have a whole different way of looking at gender and sexual orientation as well. My knowledge here is really superficial, and there are other Asian and African cultures I know nothing of. And keep in mind there is a variety of intersections between Native American, African, and Latina/o cultures with multiple sensibilities in regards to gender and sexual orientation, with Euro-American culture influencing all of them.

With all this in mind, there are some problems with calling a gay man, regardless of color, cisgendered, because there is a strong thread in mainstream Western culture that denies him this identity. Now, the violin I pull out here to play for white gay men may be quite small, since my first thought is "Welcome to the unsafe world the rest of us live in!" but the fact is, he is being denied the privilege of being considered unquestioningly male and the top of the pyramid that other people regarded as male and white feel entitled too, and may be subject to the same violence that a transgendered person who does not pass is subject to, and that is oppression--very real lived oppression.

Also the fact that cis- has an uncomfortable aural resemblance to the term sissy does make it a really, really, really unfortunate term to apply to gay men who are policed by such terms.

With these issues in mind, a gay and bi man's objections to the term cisgender, is not the same as a straight man's objections, and does deserve consideration. And one has to keep in mind that straight men are also policed by the term sissy, so this is an issue for them as well. In the process, all people who identify as women are reminded that we are the lesser category of being that male identified people are fearing to be associated with--yay!

Although the association with sissy does not affect lesbians and bi women as a policing term, our cisgender status is also under questionno matter how we identify by gender, especially a lesbian who is regarded as butch, whether or not she considers herself/hirself transgendered or cisgendered. Straight women regarded as butch get all kinds of fun thrown their way too, as do straight men perceived as feminine regardless of their gender identity. And race figures significantly into how feminine or masculine a person is regarded by mainstream white culture. Not all people who would be considered cisgender actually have across the board cisgender privilege if they don't pass other people's conceptions of gender.

How much the term cisgender really does apply to anyone's self-identification is also a question for me. Lyrics like "You make me feel like a natural woman" would make absolutely no fucking sense at all and not have such mainstream appeal if the average person really did take their gender status completely for granted--I don't think they do. They may not have noticed since they were knee high that gender categories and what gets ascribed to gender is a total crock like I did, and felt that de Beauvoir's formulation that no one is born a woman is a given, or they may not have regarded these categories as totally real and feel their bodies do not fit the gender identities they were assigned, but I'm skeptical on how seamless anyone's gender identity may be.

eftychia's call for more consideration of terms here is a really good one because this shit is really, really complicated. Some of the liberatory potential I see in transgender as an identity category is in expanding or breaking with the gender binary of Euro-American culture, more so than in reinforcing a binary that marks "the" unmarked gender category of the moment. So I'm more inclined to go for the overlapping of the categories of transgender/genderqueer/cisgender/intersex, rather than one simple binary myself. I regard the whole gendering system as largely incoherent, anyway. And I'll get into the bogusness of separating sex from gender while using socially constructed language--the only kind we've got--to describe the biological another time.

But in the current moment, cisgender does not neatly map onto any other queer identity, including that of gay white men (even the ones who think their trauma over having to add more letters to the movement they think they started is paramount over the need of others to feel included), and I think that needs to be noted. Matthew Shepard wasn't murdered only because he was gay, but because he troubled his murderers' sense of their own masculinity and status as male. This stuff isn't simple. It's not simple at all. So I think it's a good idea to tread a little more lightly on each other's oppressions here while at an intersection.

--------------------

*Yeah, I'm from New Jersey, yo--you guys wanna make something of it?**

**The US state of New Jersey, where I grew up, is famous for its insidious preponderance of traffic circles, but I'm not certain how worldwide that fame may be, hence this footnote.

My standpoint here in regards to gender identity and sexual orientation--I identify as genderqueer, and hence transgender fits me better than cisgender if a binary must be applied. I'm queer by sexual orientation: lesbian-identified pansexual to be precise, if you care for some reason. I use the term bisexual strategically and have been involved in bi activism and organizing, but I do have problems with the binary the term inscribes and how it does not describe my sexual orientation well. I identified as lesbian for a few years in my 20's (when I found out it was possible!!--was sheltered and repressed before then) and got involved in some lesbian and gay activism, then I came out again as bisexual, but now I prefer pansexual as a descriptor and still feel more affinity to primarily lesbian than primarily bi spaces (depending on the particular community). I do generally go by the term woman (I don't use the spelling variants), or grrl, specifically queer grrl (hey, I came out in the 80's). I go back and forth on the term femme and whether or not or how to use it as an identifier. I've always been very fond of the term person as well, and used it more insistently when I was a child and teen to try to ward off the arbitrariness of applying gender as I saw it. I don't use the term man or men or mankind to refer to generic people--and still prefer the term people to humans, though I use both. But when someone says "doctor," I still often see a male person in my head even after decades of feminist revisioning--OMG, I HATE that guy! Lalalalala.

Comments

[hederahelix]

Completely unrelated to any of the weighty issues that you tackle here, I just wanted to comment on traffic circles.

I moved to Los Angeles from Boston. After three years, I just happened to move very close to one of the only larger rotaries in all of LA county.

They have the nerve to call it a traffic circle. As soon as I heard that, I went "Okay, and what engineer moved here from New Jersey?" ;-}

(Yes, I'm sure I'll come back and say things about your very smart post in a bit, but I just got back from a bike ride, so my brain is all "duuuude, sun and surf" mode. After I've eaten and showered, it's possible I'll be able to think again.

[lavendertook]

Our fame stretches coast to coast.

Duuuuuuuuude.

[crantz]

I haven't really got much to say on the rest of this, as I had no disagreements, but I will tell you I've had the mental image of Frodo and Sam being teleported from middle earth to a pride festival. It keeps switching from them dancing on a float to holding eachother and quaking in terror.

[lavendertook]

Was it a good dream?

[acrimonyastraea]

Excellent post, a lot to digest here. This really helped me understand where you're coming from, though. There's still a lot about this that I'm trying to understand, especially the way I tend to see gender identity and gender expression as different things.

But I have to say, if I had seen this kind of discussion at PHB I would respect their decision about the term "cis."

[lavendertook]

I see those as different as well. Then there's how people interpret your gender expression and perceive your gender identity and treat you, which is where your privilege levels come in, and how that reflects back on your self-identity. All of these can be different or line up in a row, or partially line up. And people are struggling with grappling with these in relation to multiple definitions of transgender, and I think more of that grappling needs to be done with the definitions of cisgender as well, if it's going to be put as widely into currency, or you wind up reinforcing gender norms.

Big Dipper

[(Anonymous)]

Responding to the point about "what a great gay symbol" the big dipper would be.

I respect peoples opinions on the big dipper issue but, for the life of me, I can understand why it is even being considered as a gay identity symbol? Doesn't everyone know that it (the big dipper) has been a continuous symbol for the IRA (Irish Republian Army),terrorists, as well as socialists, labor unions since the early 1900's. They call it the "Starry Plough." IRA members have been tattooing the symbol on them, literally, for the last 100 years. The political wing of the IRA - Sinn Fein - still flaunts the symbol. Doesn't that bother anyone and is this what the community wants to be associated with? Just throwing it out there for thoughts. Spread the word that less terroristic symbols would be more appropriate.

[kynn.livejournal.com]

Good post. Stuff to think about.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Yay! (-:

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

On occasion I've tended to think about sexual identity in terms of an n-space defined by at least eleven axes: genetic, anatomical, gender importance (androgyny through to gendered state), gender identity (man through to woman), orientational preference (gay, bi, straight), orientational exclusivity (importance of partner's gender), bonding preference (monogamy through to polygamy), general relational preference (power balance in relationships), sexual relational preference (power balance in sexual expression), presentation (butch through to femme - used here with any gender identity), and performance (social construction of femininity through social construction of masculinity). Note that I see all of these as continua, not discrete states.

And implicit in all of these is the potential for either being close to or distant from the social expectation of what you "should" be based on external perceptions of who you are.

I think this is how my brain handles concepts of intersectionality, with analytical geometry.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Race is another important axis to add in there that has a huge effect on gender identity and expression and who gets to be considered masculine and feminine, and class, too, in more amorphous ways in the US and Canada, than in Europe probably.

I have an idea of what you mean by gender importance, but what you have in parentheses modifying it confuses me.

I'd also go for a more amorphous form than a continuum because constructions of the extremes of masculinity and femininity are multiple and incoherent, which is another reason why the binary doesn't work..

And also how you perceive your gender identity and expression and how others perceive you, and which of those others have varying degrees of influence on you, and how your social group and your place in it changes, are all factors that aren't always coherently covered when we use gendered terms. Wheee!

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

transgender/genderqueer/cisgender/intersex

And "intersex" is stuck on the end of a list of gender-related terms because?

Or did you actually intend two spectra: transgender/genderqueer/cisgender AND cisexual/intersex/transexual/third sex?

I wasn't going to say this but I changed my mind....

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

And, presuming there are (at least) two spectra of causes/effects here then my tiny violin for cisexual-but-possibly-not-cisgendered gay men and cisexual-but-possibly-not-cisgendered lesbian/tomboy/butch women is, frankly, very tiny indeed when we're in a conversation/situation which is not All About Them* but should instead be centred around the lived experiences of intersex/transexual/third sex people.

* As someone who grew up in a time/place when "tomboys" were unacceptable and, for example, many careers/basic financial services/necessities of life were exclusively available to men, Them has sometimes been more of an Us but I still always had cisexual privilege and some cisgendered privilege and I own it.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I actually intently wanted to avoid creating any kind of spectrum or continuum with the terms and tried to set them down in an amorphous blob, because there is no coherent divide between the biological and the social.

All our concepts of the biological are formed through social constructs. I'm not saying there isn't a "real", just that our conceptions of the real are always going to be socially mediated.

Judi Butler for the win for taking the binary between essentialism and constructivism and wrestling it to the ground!

[claudia603.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was a fascinating and educational read. There is so much I do not know. Thank you for that post. I'm going to need to read through it a few times.

How did the spelling of "grrl" come about? I know I've seen that before...

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Thank you--glad you liked. I know that feeling--it's a good antidote to ever being bored.

It's out of the riot grrrl movement. OK, so they're still going to call grown women girls. So this is what you do: You take girl, take out the i and add a growl to make the identity of girl a formidable one. You wear fucking pink when you fucking want to; you play with fucking dolls when you fucking want to; and NO ONE BETTER FUCKING MESS WITH YOU OR YOU"LL PUNCH EM IN THE FUCKING THROAT!!! GOT IT? GOOD!!!

That's riot grrrl. :-D

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the post and links. Definitely food for thought.

As you may know, I've already posted that I wish to be considered cis, rather than so normal I need no word.

It seems that many people learned cis- and trans-, as chemical prefixes, where they're a binary. I learned them as geographical, where they're matters of degree.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Thanks for reading!

I saw and I respect self-identifications. I get what you're saying--again the marking of the unmarked. My concerns are with other ways in which the term has normalizing potential in taking a variety of gender experiences of varying degrees of privilege and lack thereof, and grouping them into the category of the gender unproblematic.

Yes, most, if not all of the usage of the term cisgender I have seen has been as binary to transgender. Transgender is a term under debate. I would like to see cisgender be constructively debated more, as well, to better uncover the fissures in so-called normative gender identities, and who is included and who isn't. What I don't want is one more fucking uncomplicated binary--the one we have for gender already is bad enough. Where did you acquire your understanding of the terms as geographical?

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

This is a very interesting essay, and certainly a more nuanced take on it than I had. Thank you for this.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Thank you for reading and for first linking me to dglenn's!

[sethg]

Have you read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl? I think her model of "traditional sexism" and "oppositional sexism" is very useful here. (Shameless blogwhoring dept: I reviewed the book here.)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Heee-love your icon! I haven't read any Serrano yet, but I know that title and it is on the get-to-someday list. Thank you for the link--great review! You've got me interested in her definitions of sexism--wondering if she tackles any materialist angles to them now.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I think that this is a really good post, and full of a lot of interesting, thoughtful stuff.

Having said that, I do find myself jarred at certain moments. Take this point, for example:

Matthew Shepard wasn't murdered only because he was gay, but because he troubled his murderers' sense of their own masculinity and status as male. This stuff isn't simple. It's not simple at all. So I think it's a good idea to tread a little more lightly on each other's oppressions here while at an intersection.

I totally agree with this point, and think that it's an important point to make.

But when Riki Ann Wilchins made this same point shortly after Shepard's murder, she was criticized, strongly, for trying to appropriate a gay man's death into the struggle for freedom of gender expression / identity.

I guess, if I'm honest with myself, what I feel is that when trans people have been trying to talk about the complexities of gender identity and the way that gender is read -- not only in the context of trans lives, but also in the context of other intersecting or related identities -- we've either been ignored, or patted on the head and told that our ideas are quaint.

And it's only in the context of talking about cis privilege that all this complexity suddenly needs to be discussed and recognized.

What you're saying is important and I think that it's a great contribution of this conversation. But I can't say that I'm not torn in my reaction to it.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

There's absolutely nothing unique about the point that homophobia directed at gay men is tied in with misogyny and the policing of masculine identity that I'm making here for anyone doing a good amount of queer, gender, and feminist studies in the academy, which isn't where my focus on gender identity started in life, but where I wound up for some years. Eve Kosofsky Segwick was one of the pioneers on that point, but it's been taken up by many scholars. Again, there's not enough connection between the academy and activists on the ground--I think because the academy is so rough to navigate that if you went in as an activist, it's hard to keep touch outside--doubly so when you're queer, trans, POC, any combination of the above--I'm still trying to put myself back together. And not enough people are focusing on how race functions in relation to gender identity and sexuality.

Anyway, I tried to google so as not to bother you, but I haven't dug up much yet--do you remember who it was who trashed Wilchins for making the connection, or what community factions were they representing, because I missed that conflict--was buried in the academy and trying to just keep my head above water, and not always succeeding.

Who are the groups in particular that you've felt have been ignoring trans folk's efforts to talk about the complexities of gender identity?--other parts of the queer community? I'm sorry for contributing to the frustration by only bringing up all these issues in this context--I do a lot more reading around than speaking up, am a slow reader and writer, and dglenn's essay got the ball rolling for me on some issues I keep musing on.

Part 1

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

The thing about privilege and oppression, or well, a thing is that people who are privileged can still experience some of the same things that people who are oppressed can experience (along a particular axis). As a white trans woman, I've experienced profiling (as in being stopped and interrogated about whether or not I was a sex worker because I happened to be in a neighborhood that sex workers frequented), although I was able to convince the officer to let me go, and not arrest me, or extort free sex or what-have-you, whereas I hear about trans women of color who are arrested from just about anywhere at any time in New York City and Washington DC - so, I have an idea of what it's like to be profiled, but I don't know what it's like to be systematically profiled and harassed by the police, or get a criminal record because I walked down the street.

And I think, while it's important to acknowledge the ways that cis gay men and cis lesbian women have their genders disrespected, it's important to acknowledge that what they experience is not what trans people experience. That like my being trans occasionally mitigates my white privilege, their being gay or lesbian occasionally mitigates their cis privilege.

For an example, butch lesbians are often challenged in restrooms, and occasionally asked to leave by people who believe they're men, but I've never heard of a butch lesbian being asked to use a unisex bathroom that's farther away than the women's restroom, or being asked to use a bathroom in a different building or establishment. As in, I know one trans woman who was not allowed to use the women's restroom at her place of work, but had to clock out, travel to another restroom about 10 minutes away, use that one, return, and clock back in. A bathroom trip would cost her one-third of an hour of her pay.

And I think, when it comes down to it, when trans people are subjected to scrutiny in ways that cis gay men, lesbian women, bisexual and pansexual people, are not, and at the same time, trans people are frequently conflated with gay men and lesbian women (another friend of mine once said that once people realized she was trans, that they decided she was a really gay man, and that even when faced with a lesbian trans woman, they still see her as a really gay man), that it's important to mark the fact that cis people of any orientation are not subjected to quite the same social censure and problems as trans people.

And yes, I absolutely do not want to deny that cis gay men and cis lesbian women are also victims of hate crimes - Matthew Shepard, for example, has practically become iconic for hate crimes. It's interesting, at the same time, that when trans women of color are murdered, they get different coverage - that Angie Zapata was presented in the news as sympathetic was more the exception than the rule. Trans people who are victims of hate crimes are systematically misgendered, their birth names are revealed, their medical history is splashed across the news, and occasionally, cis LGB organizations try to claim that the hate crimes against trans people are actually against cis LGB people (see how the gay media tried to present Calpernia Addams as a gay man and a drag queen after her boyfriend was murdered, and how many times Brandon Teena has been described as a lesbian).

Part 2

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

And, of course, the person who was referred to as cis, that prompted so many objections from the cis gay men to being referred to as cis, was John Aravosis, who wrote this article to explain why trans people had to sit back and let the cis Gl(b) get their half a loaf first, "and why are trans people even in the movement in the first place?" and I think this points something out - how John is writing from a position of privilege, how he demeans trans women and describes the medical procedures we undergo in gross and dehumanizing ways. And he sounds exactly like many cis straight people, uses many of the same insulting comparisons and similar language, to deny trans people our humanity.

And cisgender and cissexual are about marking that privilege, about highlighting it, and the assumptions that frequently come with it, and how those assumptions oppress and disenfranchise trans people, just as the ways that straight people tend to oppress and disenfranchise LGB people.

Another thing is that while some people do apply a binary - you're either transgender or cisgender - not everyone does. I have frequently tried to explain the concept in ways that goes beyond even a binary and a spectrum, and eventually gave it up in preference for cissexual, because I'm usually dealing with cissexual people who think that choosing not to transition makes them superior beings to those of us who do prefer to transition.

I didn't write these comments to paint cis people in general as bad people, or cis lesbian women, gay men, bisexual or pansexual people as bad people. But I think in a lot of ways it's easy to use oppression to elide privilege. Like men who say they don't have male privilege because they're poor, or radical feminist cis women who insist they can't be racist because they experience sexism, and while obviously you can't> pop elements of privilege and oppression off of someone's life like beads on a string, I think that privilege mitigated by other oppression is still present. A cis gay man like John Aravosis has tremendous social power over trans people, as evidenced by the article he wrote, and that Salon's editors did not even question the way he invoked transphobic and trans misogynist slurs (as well as the nasty comments about bisexuals). And you can see it play out over and over again - Norah Vincent, Julie Bindel, Chris Crain... I can't even remember his name now, but a cis gay man in the late 90s wrote an article for (IIRC) the Village Voice in which he lamented how transsexual women were really gay men and how we should be gay men and not succumb to heteronormativity. And you see this particular argument come up rather frequently - I've seen it within the past year in comments on trans-related articles on the Advocate, how trans people only transition out of a desire for heteronormativity.

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

Sorry for spamminess:

I do think this is a good post and it raises some good points. The purpose of my last two comments isn't to say "You're totally wrong," but to explain why I believe it's possible (and in fact pretty normal under kyriarchy and in terms of intersectionality) to benefit from privilege while at the same time experiencing oppression that can mitigate that privilege under some circumstances.

Mainly, I wanted to add I do think this is a good post, because I forgot to include that in the previous comments.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I think the John Aravois's on some level would like all of us to get out of HIS movement and stop with this silly queer coalition business and stop adding letters because OMG the Alphabet--iz so hard!!! But we are here, and he has to deal with us.

I believe it's possible (and in fact pretty normal under kyriarchy and in terms of intersectionality) to benefit from privilege while at the same time experiencing oppression that can mitigate that privilege under some circumstances.

I do agree, at the same time, in a culture that still, to a large degree, conflates gender identity and sexual orientation (and why the clueless will assume a lesbian transwoman is a gay man)and has conflicting racial and racist markers added to it, a feminine presenting gay man in the US is going to have his masculinity come under question more often than a feminine presenting straight man, and add in if he is Asian, with white mainstream cultural assumptions about Asian masculinity, and he may have far less cisgender privilege than a feminine presenting transwoman, especially if she transitioned early. The reality of his oppression is not being accurately described by the way the term cisgender is being used. Passing privilege and cisgender privilege are mapping incoherently. So I'm troubled about what the term cisgender is eliding when used as a simple binary, which is most of the ways I am seeing transfolk and allies apply it (with my own gender-identity issues added in), so yay that you're using more of a continuum model--it might help some if more people did.