I should not be linking this disappointed

[aesmael]

I should be linking to this post in the spirit of sharing uplifting humanist rhetoric.

Here's the text:

Dear America:

Some women have noticeable curves. Some women have less noticeable curves. All of them are real women.

Some men hew quite closely to traditional male stereotypes. Some men's gender expression is wildly different from traditional male stereotypes. All of them are real men.

Some men and women are attracted to the opposite sex. Some men and women are attracted to the same sex. Some men and women are attracted to both sexes, or neither. All of them are real men and women.

Some women and men were born the same gender they will die. Some women and men will transition to another gender during their lifetimes. Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral. All of them are real women and men.

Some women wear pink. Some women don't. All of them are real women.

Some men eat meat. Some men don't. All of them are real men.

Some Americans are brown. Some are white. Some are black. Some are some combination thereof. Some are Pacific Islanders. Some are indigenous people to this land. Some are from families that owned slaves. Some are from families that were enslaved. Some can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower. Some are recent immigrants. Some are religious. Some are not. Some believe in one god and some believe in many. Some Americans think George Bush is a great guy. Some Americans think Barack Obama is a great guy. Some Americans don't like either one of them. All of them are real Americans.

I am a real person. And so are you.

Authentically Yours,
Liss

The greater part of the post seems to be focused on emphasising that regardless of a person's adherence to gendered characteristics or ideals ey is still validly a member of the gender ey claims, before shifting at the end to assert the same for the quality of being American.

I like that. I am glad people are saying so, think it an important message mostly well presented.

This is the part I have a problem with:

Some women and men were born the same gender they will die. Some women and men will transition to another gender during their lifetimes. Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral. All of them are real women and men.

The way this is written it clearly presents all people as being born with a particular gender - those we call woman or man - and describes trans people as changing their gender over the course of their lifetime.

There are people whose gender does change, or who change theirs. Mine seems to change relatively often, sometimes deliberately. However... that is generally a fairly offensive way to refer to trans people since most don't change their gender, only their presentation or expression. The way this paragraph was phrased it is saying trans people were 'really' women or men before transitioning to 'become' men or women, when it would be more accurate to say there are women and men who are assigned inaccurate genders at birth, but still are real. In fact...

The other problem which leaps out to me about this is the sentence "[s]ome will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral." It is immediately followed by an assertion that all these people are real women and men, which is... wrong and disrespectful. Plenty of people present in a gender-neutral fashion are not actually women or men. Plenty of people who present in a gendered fashion too.

What bothers me most is the comments. We see, right at the beginning, someone pointing out that asexuality was excluded and this being promptly acknowledged and edited in to the piece. That's great. Felt included by that. But we also have a couple of people pointing out the problems mentioned above and that gets met by people defending the original phrasing. People, including the writer of the post, saying they are not talking about anyone whose identity is not woman and is not man, that they are not included in this affirmation of identity, of right to claim.

Well. That's a bit harder to sell when the post moves on to affirm the reality of US Americans and ends with the line "I am a real person. And so are you." You know what? I am a real person. I resent being told like this the sort of person I am a real one of is a woman or is a man. And I resent being told that, sorry, we're actually only affirming the reality of binary genders today.

I can believe, however, that it really was not intended that way. That the paragraph in question was intended to say something like "Regardless of whether your appearance conforms to expectations for your gender, or if you have been presenting it all your life, or not, it is still your gender and it is still real."

But when this comment was made - "How sad is it that - like the shout out to nonbelievers during Obama's Inauguration speech - that your mention of asexuals as well as androgynes makes me happy? Damn, I'm a real person. Twice over, even! Thanks Liss. :)" - we don't see anyone stepping up to say "Well, actually, we don't mean you."

So while I'd really like to be happy sharing this piece, mostly I'm disappointed that something which could have been affirming and inclusive ended up being needlessly exclusive instead. I'd really thought it was a minor miswording at first, to accidentally negate the reality of those not woman or man.

ETA: Or this exchange:
celesteh: "If I chose to present s gender neutral, can I just be a real person and not have to pick sides?"
Melissa McEwan: "Zuh? Already in the post: "Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral.""
But this is followed by affirming the womanhood or manhood of those people. So no.

Comments

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

*applause*

:) You said it perfectly. It still frustrates me so much that she's basically declared that it's going to stay the way it is despite changing it to include asexuals. Her reasoning seems to be "I don't know how to word it and still keep my rhetorical style so I'm just not going to try".

Mentioning non-cis ppl is great and all, but it's not enough if you want to be inclusive. Simply remembering we exist is not enough if you can't be bothered with accuracy and respect.

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

Also is the idea that people already think nebody who exists outside the idea of "women and men" aren't "real" or are deluded or something, and by saying that she doesn't want to talk about them here and then ending with what she says about everybody being a real person just feels like more of a slap in the face. Esp since even being a trans woman who identifies as a woman, I dun feel included in her wording b/c of how she acts as if I only changed gender when I transitioned >:O

You can't refute society while playing by their rules >:\ So society thinks there's only men and women, whoopie for them, they're wrong, completely, not just that we should include a few more ppl in those categories. >:\

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

ETA: Or this exchange:
celesteh: "If I chose to present s gender neutral, can I just be a real person and not have to pick sides?"
Melissa McEwan: "Zuh? Already in the post: "Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral.""
But this is followed by affirming the womanhood or manhood of those people. So no.

Yus. >:| Esp since she's saying "present" instead of identify (and I have a feeling that the commenter didn't mean just superficial presentation, but I can't speak for them) and.. arugh... the follow up that they are REAL women and men is just a slap in the face >:| "well they may look weird and like neither men nor women but they're still men or women!"

I still think the way out of this mine field is to talk about how we are really who we self-identify as, regardless of our presentation or birth identification. I mean that's what society REALLY has a problem understanding and accepting and that's what needs to be affirmed.

[allieflowlight.livejournal.com]

I quit that thread after her clarification that she meant that paragraph to reply to those who say, "But you're not a real man/woman!" Since then, I haven't seen any cause to assume that any slight against non-binary-fitting people was meant.

[aesmael.livejournal.com]

That's okay. This is all based on stuff that was said up to that point.

[allieflowlight.livejournal.com]

I'm confused, then. I'm trying to figure out what it is you want her, and her commenters (which I presume includes me--am I incorrect in this?) to do.

[laura-seabrook.livejournal.com]

The way this is written it clearly presents all people as being born with a particular gender - those we call woman or man - and describes trans people as changing their gender over the course of their lifetime.

I said something about that here (http://hunter.apana.org.au/~gallae/QueerStuff/tiresiasfactor/PwithPasing.htm).

[freelark.livejournal.com]

When I read the piece, I objected to the same parts you did, even before seeing your analysis. You're definitely not alone.