Social LGBTQIA+

[Crux]

I agree with 100% of your post and the criticism is sound.

The only issue, that I feel, is that there does need to be a balance between providing a faster, simplified answer and a more thorough, complex answer, such as yours. If an uneducated person asks a question and receives a complex and educated response, it won't mean anything to them. It'd be like speaking another language at them. If the response didn't "mean" anything to the uneducated person, then the answer will ultimately be lost on them and they will have never gained anything from it.

LGBTQ 101 versus higher-level concepts

There are many ways you can describe gender variance without reinforcing colonial oppression.

 

[Unicorns]

There are many ways you can describe gender variance without reinforcing colonial oppression.

Yes, but if the person has no concept of the fact that colonial oppression occured/is still occuring, then they won't understand the answer.

 

[Crux]

Yes, but if the person has no concept of the fact that colonial oppression occured/is still occuring, then they won't understand the answer.

How is this relevant at all? Simply explain the point without reference to any of this. Frankly, your first paragraph was probably sufficient, and elaborating on that is a clear example of explaining it simply without being reductive and colonial.

 

[gum]

hi im gay

 

[dramlamb]

I understand the desire to establish a rich tapestry of LGBT history and to situate our own identities as having evolved from this historical context, but it is simply false.

For starters, Gender as we understand it is a Western tool of colonial repression. It was imported as a mechanism for demonising indigenous culture and perceived sexual and gendered deviance, as well as for enforcing colonial supremacy by forcing natives to adopt Western gender roles. Pointing to deviations in gender amongst non-Western cultures as evidence of deviations from gender in general makes no sense. These cultures had fundamentally different understandings of gender, and are not even remotely analogous to our current understandings of gender or transness. In fact, drawing equivalencies between transness and Indigenous genders is quite offensive and colonial – it seeks to justify these genders on the terms of colonial understandings of gender, while at the same time the settler is attempting to draw legitimacy from them, even while these people are the ones who face the brunt of the effects of colonial attempts to enforce a rigid gender binary.

The same is true of historical figures. Modern notions of sexuality and gender don’t emerge until at least Victorian times, and attempting to impute our understandings of gender and sexuality onto these people is at best ahistorical and at worst strips them of their autonomy. It is meaningless to point to historical figures 4500 or 1500 or 500 years ago and dub them gay, bi, or trans. Their relationships to gender and sexuality were so different to our own that similar identities did not exist as we understand them. It is more obviously harmful when these terms are applied to people who lived closer to the present who used different language to describe themselves and their experiences. Erasing the complexities of LGBT history and politics by declaring someone who presented in a gender non-conforming way as merely “trans” disrespects that person’s autonomy and obfuscates the often confusing interplay between gender and sexuality that people still experience today – people who certainly aren’t helped by this disrespectful shoehorning of labels onto people who didn’t use them in an attempt to paper over that complexity.

Unicorns said nothing wrong. The point they were making--clearly--is that gender roles are a social construct and that as such it has not been understood or expressed in the say ways in all times and places but are instead a product of the culture that defines them. Pointing to people in other times and places that either rejected the gender mores of their own culture or pointing to cultures who have different conceptions of gender and gender roles than we do is only meant to provide evidence that an essentialist view of gender is fallacious. Sure, ancient people's understanding and expression of sexuality and gender were complex and it's difficult to use modern terminology to describe their gender and sexual expression. But that really only adds to the original point being made, which is that gender is socially constructed.

hi im gay

Hurray! Welcome <3

 

[Crux]

Unicorns said nothing wrong. The point they were making--clearly--is that gender roles are a social construct and that as such it has not been understood or expressed in the say ways in all times and places but are instead a product of the culture that defines them. Pointing to people in other times and places that either rejected the gender mores of their own culture or pointing to cultures who have different conceptions of gender and gender roles than we do is only meant to provide evidence that an essentialist view of gender is fallacious. Sure, ancient people's understanding and expression of sexuality and gender were complex and it's difficult to use modern terminology to describe their gender and sexual expression. But that really only adds to the original point being made, which is that gender is socially constructed.

I don’t understand the point of this post, and I don’t think you understand the point of my previous post. Unicorns has agreed with my critique.

The point is that you can explain gender without resorting to examples that are harmful to people who were colonised, and also make no sense in the context of modern gender norms. The fact that people in other cultures interacted with gender differently is irrelevant to modern gender norms. The gender norms in question were different, the way that gender divergent people engaged with them were different, and it is reductive and offensive to try and draw equivalences. It not only makes no sense to use them as an example, but using colonised people as a mere rhetorical device in a context that makes no sense reinforces all of the structures that are used to oppress them, as I explained in my original post, which you have not engaged with.

You can explain that gender norms are a social construct without reiterating racist and colonial norms and expectations. These analogies add nothing to our ability to explain this, and are actively harmful – just use examples and explanations that actually make sense instead.

 

[dramlamb]

I don’t understand the point of this post, and I don’t think you understand the point of my previous post. Unicorns has agreed with my critique.

The point is that you can explain gender without resorting to examples that are harmful to people who were colonised, and also make no sense in the context of modern gender norms. The fact that people in other cultures interacted with gender differently is irrelevant to modern gender norms. The gender norms in question were different, the way that gender divergent people engaged with them were different, and it is reductive and offensive to try and draw equivalences. It not only makes no sense to use them as an example, but using colonised people as a mere rhetorical device in a context that makes no sense reinforces all of the structures that are used to oppress them, as I explained in my original post, which you have not engaged with.

The point is that I don't see how what Unicorns said is harmful at all. All the post said was that in different times and places gender meant different things. You are honing in on an an equivalence that was never actually formally articulated.

You can explain that gender norms are a social construct without reiterating racist and colonial norms and expectations. These analogies add nothing to our ability to explain this, and are actively harmful – just use examples and explanations that actually make sense instead.

Can you give me an example of this?

 

[Crux]

The point is that I don't see how what Unicorns said is harmful at all. All the post said was that in different times and places gender meant different things. You are honing in on an an equivalence that was never actually formally articulated.

Can you give me an example of this?

Look at modern Western gender roles: there are stay-at-home dad's, women in the military, etc. Gender has proven a very fluid and non-set concept. Similarly, many cultures around the world have options for third and even more genders. Off the top of my head, some Native American tribes have genders known as two-spirit and Hindu cultures have third, in-between genders. And cultures change over time. To imply that third- and non-binary options are a recent development is just kind of Western-centric thinking. Recently we've discovered proof that transgender people existed at least 4500 years ago!

This pretty clearly draws an equivalency to my mind. But this has literally reduced to an argument about exegesis and I see no further point to it. Even if it weren't the case, then bringing it up is still harmful for the reasons articulated in my first post, regardless of intent, as I have said and you have not responded to. As I said earlier, much of Unicorn's post explains it without the need for racist analogies. I'm really confused as to what you're taking issue with here.

 

[dramlamb]

This pretty clearly draws an equivalency to my mind. But this has literally reduced to an argument about exegesis and I see no further point to it. Even if it weren't the case, then bringing it up is still harmful for the reasons articulated in my first post, regardless of intent, as I have said and you have not responded to. As I said earlier, much of Unicorn's post explains it without the need for racist analogies. I'm really confused as to what you're taking issue with here.

I guess it's easy to say I'm not responding to you. I'm actually being pretty direct. Can you explain how making a simple observation that other cultures define gender differently than we do hurts people? Walk me through that.

Would you agree that genderqueer people have always existed?

 

[Crux]

No, genderqueer people have not always existed. Talking about Indigenous gender identities in this way is always harmful. I explained all of this in my original post. I will not be replying to anything further replies you make, unless you actually make an argument. At the moment this is just an exercise in reading comprehension.

 

[dramlamb]

Ok well when did we begin to exist? And I can see you say it's harmful but you don't really explain why or how. Your condecention is really uncalled for.

It's pretty clear to me that some of us have had issues conforming to traditional gender norms ever since there were gender norms to conform to. Diogenes talks about it. Moses talks about it. There are examples from art and mythology like hermaphrodite, the fusion of Hermes and Aphrodite. There are literally statues of trans people that are thousands of years old. What do you think Deuteronomy 22:5 is even about? I highly doubt that Moses (or whoever actually wrote Deuteronomy) would have felt the need to include commandments to adhere to gender norms if there were not already people inclined to reject those norms.

I see a lot more frequently historians ignoring an minimizing examples throughout history. Generally when there is a whitewashing of history, it isn't to amplify queerness but to explain it away. Often what I see is the transmisogyny of historians preventing them from seeing historical figures like Elagabalus as anything other than insane. Or to say that depictions of trans people in ancient art were "just meant as a joke."

 

[dramlamb]

This statue is about 2000 years old.

 

[dramlamb]

I think it's fair to say that there are nuances and complexites to sex and gender in the ancient world that make our language imprecise. But it's just flat wrong to say that there were no genderqueer people in the ancient world.

 

[Exeggutor]

Historians hesitate to apply any modern conceptions of gender and sexuality to anyone retrospectively for good reason. We cannot retroactively apply our modern labels to people who lived in different times, who had different understandings of their sexuality and gender.

Co-opting identities and descriptions for gender and sexuality from other peoples to try and fit them into whatever modern framework you'd like does not work - these labels are contextualised within cultures and/or time periods and shouldn't be reappropriated. It's not a controversial take to not apply modern labels like "genderqueer" to figures of the past - it's projection of a useless label that didn't exist in that timeframe.

 

[termi]

dramlamb the point is that our contemporary western understanding of gender cannot be directly translated to sex-based systems of social differentiation of pre-victorian cultures and contemporary non-western(ized) cultures. "transgender" and "genderqueer" are not ahistorical terms and are just as much a result of the contemporary western understanding of gender as anything else, therefore you cannot transpose these things and claim "elagabalus was queer" or "king louis xiv was nonbinary" or what have you. this does not mean that anyone here is vindicating the conservative fantasy that everyone throughout history was a "cis man" or a "cis woman" until very recently. all that is being said is that it is reductionist and oversimplifying to assume that our contemporary western understanding of gender can be used to generally explain any cultural and historical understanding of gender

View attachment 244687 View attachment 244688

This statue is about 2000 years old.

this looks like a statue of a pubescent boy idk what ur trying to prove here

 

[dramlamb]

Historians hesitate to apply any modern conceptions of gender and sexuality to anyone retrospectively for good reason. We cannot retroactively apply our modern labels to people who lived in different times, who had different understandings of their sexuality and gender.

Co-opting identities and descriptions for gender and sexuality from other peoples to try and fit them into whatever modern framework you'd like does not work - these labels are contextualised within cultures and/or time periods and shouldn't be reappropriated. It's not a controversial take to not apply modern labels like "genderqueer" to figures of the past - it's projection of a useless label that didn't exist in that timeframe.

Admittedly yes, it's difficult to apply modern language to the past. But the point is that it what has changed mostly is the language, not the need for it. We are not describing a new phenomenon. We are describing an old phenomenon more accurately.

dramlamb
this looks like a statue of a pubescent boy idk what ur trying to prove here

Sorry no. These are definitely not supposed to be teenage boys.

dramlamb
this does not mean that anyone here is vindicating the conservative fantasy that everyone throughout history was a "cis man" or a "cis woman" until very recently

You can't have it both ways. If you refuse to even apply extremely broad terms like genderqueer to anyone in the ancient world. All that you can do is say that everyone was cisgender until recently.

 

[Crux]

These statues depict intersex people, which is a medical condition and has nothing to do with your sexuality or gender. Not only can nothing about the sexuality or gender of any of these people be inferred from this, but claiming that intersex people have a specific sexuality or gender based on their genitalia is incredibly offensive.

 

[dramlamb]

No. They depict a Greko-Roman deity, Hermaphroditus. Perhaps the inspiration came from intersex people, but we don't know for sure. I'm sorry if my belief that people like me have existed before 2014 offends you. One thing that remains constant about history is that it always being revisited, reconsidered, and revised. I would recommend at least keeping an open mind about it. I'll try to keep an open mind about it too.

 

[talah]

No. They depict a Greko-Roman deity, Hermaphroditus. Perhaps the inspiration came from intersex people, but we don't know for sure. I'm sorry if my belief that people like me have existed before 2014 offends you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphroditus

Hermaphroditus' name is the basis for the word hermaphrodite.

 

[dramlamb]

Think about it this way. There is now evidence coming out that transgender people might have brain structures more similar to their actual gender and not to their assigned at birth gender. If this turns out to be the case, would it not stand to reason that it would also be true in the ancient world?

 

[trc]

Think about it this way. There is now evidence coming out that transgender people might have brain structures more similar to their actual gender and not to their assigned at birth gender. If this turns out to be the case, would it not stand to reason that it would also be true in the ancient world?

You are missing the point, it is not that people throughout history did not exist in ways unsatisfactory to cisnormative notions today, but that the very terms people use to describe gender and sexuality today are meaningless outside of Western contemporary context and applying them to societies in which this context is not the case is both inaccurate and revisionist

 

[dramlamb]

I appreciate that. Thanks for not assuming the worst about me.

 

[TheValkyries]

A lot of queer politics en vogue lately have been about The Proper Taxonomy of The Homosexual, The Transsexual, and the Interrelations Therein. And it's trash eugenicist bullshit. It's cool and rad that we're expanding the language for queer peoples! It is not cool and rad to start deciding that the language dictates rigid boundaries.

Addendum: nor is it cool and rad to apply these weird taxonomies to people we’ve never met nor interacted with even if it’s really attractive to align yourself with a real history. Be unapologetically yourself and don’t rely on the crutch of colonial scientific eugenics to validate your identity. The only reason to do that is to ease the conscience of people who disrespect your identity. Truly and sincerely: fuck them.

 

[Kate]

Hey all, I don't really know where to begin this post because I am very tired and am just generally very uncomfortable and nervous about making this post. It's def smth that I need to do though.

Anyway, I'm trans. I don't think that I have much to say about the whys and the growing up aspect about this, from a very young age I've felt uncomfortable being "me". I've never felt straight-up dysphoria, but I've always doubted me being a guy, and that idea never left my head like I expected it to once the thought entered. I think the main chunk of this is going to be me addressing some issues people are probably going to find with this. From around ~October of 2019, I started using the name "Kaitlyn" to refer to myself online (I don't share my documented name). A lot of people assumed this was a troll, which seems reasonable; I'm known for doing stuff like that, and I had told some close friends it was a troll. The whole time I was doing this, however, I was just hoping people would never look deeper at it. When I realized "holy shit I'm probably trans", I had literally no idea what to do or say. I've always been really bad at expressing how I'm feeling, so I tried to reach out in pretty much the only way I knew how; make it seem like a joke. Looking back on it, this was incredibly stupid and something I deeply regret. These actions will probably always make it so I have people doubting what I'm saying, but generally speaking it's something I'm used to at this point. Dealing with this and depression has me really feeling unwell recently, I haven't been myself at all lately, but I hope by at least briefly explaining some things it'll help. I've only really been honest with one person, both irl and online, so this may shock a lot of people. I delayed making this post for a while because I feared losing friends over it, but tbh if they can't accept me for who I am, they aren't really a friend. Sorry if this was completely incoherent, hope I didn't insult anyone or anything, I'm just really tired of having to lie and not talk about who I truly am. So, yeah, this is me.

tldr: Call me Kate or Kaitlyn and not mdbad

 

[Finchinator]

Enough.

I am glad that we are able to have representation for the LGBTQ community on Smogon and I am hoping that this can be used as a safe social space for positive interaction and positive interaction only. Let's not let it devolve into negative interaction and callouts.

edit: We had to delete a lot of posts, some of which were simply responding to deleted posts. Please do not take that personally, but this thread devolving beyond a safe space is the last thing that we want.