The cover of an “academic” journal. I kid you not. Someone probably thought this was “edgy”. It’s not edgy, but it is revealing. This is what #nodebate looks like. pic.twitter.com/R4qku3mgef
“well, i think it’s like your definition of ‘firefighter’ — quite circular, as it goes, because it is a messy, socialized term. a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect”
Gray Slavery uses a traditional MALE definition of a woman, but it isn’t actually a definition. It’s a male expectation. For those of us who are women, it is more restricting than a bra and a girdle. We got rid of hoop skirts, corsets, and laws that we couldn’t own property. It’s time to get rid of that stupid (non) definition.
Sometimes we moderate our statements out of propriety or kindness. But then reality laps us: Grey Slavery and his ilk express their belief that trans ideology has violence against women at its core.
I’m assuming it’s really a euphemism for “being penetrated,” but it amuses me to pretend it includes people who are just lazy in bed. “I’m genderfluid, because some nights I’m horny but tired.”
Lavery’s definition seems to come awfully close to implying that, for example, gay men who are “bottoms” are women. Which I seem to recall was considered a homophobic trope; gay-bashers were always obsessed with which member of a gay couple was “the woman.” (The implication, of course, being that it was “worse” than being “just” gay — showing again the linkage between homophobia and misogyny.)
Papito, I know that I’ve read studies showing that there are lots of “straight”, married men who ocasionally have sex with their male friends; do you think that they’re really all “tops”?
Screechy, I’m not sure it just means ‘being penetrated’ to ‘be passive in sexual intercourse’. I was taught that women are passive; they do lie there and let it happen, they don’t like it. And they never, ever, ever, ever, for any reason, no way no how, DON’T initiate sexual intercourse. (My mother spoiled that teaching by her various Thanksgiving Day tete-a-tetes with my grandmother and aunts where they discussed sex from the standpoint of obviously liking it and laughing at the narrative of passiveness they were taught…it’s weird to hear your mother and grandmother discuss these things).
I suspect that is at least part of what Lavery has in mind: men do things, women have things done to them. And women accept what is done to them by men without complaining.
laughing at the narrative of passiveness they were taught
Ah, so accordingl to trans ideology they were probably “actually” men, so, your father and grandfather.. Or, at the very least, nonbinary, so, your enbyparent and your enbygrandparent.
Iknklast, the trans religion ties itself in a neat little bow here:
I suspect that is at least part of what Lavery has in mind: men do things, women have things done to them. And women accept what is done to them by men without complaining.
If women complain about what Lavery and his TRA goons do to them, they are not being appropriately female, proving he is more of a woman than they are, so stfu terfs. Which justifies violence by the men who are really more women than women against the women who are doing it wrong.
Re “still claim they’re straight”: I think “straight” vs “gay” is another example of people insisting that they or others be stuck in one box or another, to me kind of like “racist” or even “Black”. That is, there’s more focus on justifying the label than on the actions or characteristics. Sexuality is a preference, perhaps an extremely strong preference, but it doesn’t mean an ironclad guarantee that a person’s sexual activity only ever is in accordance with this stated preference. Yet people get bothered by the possibility of a same-sex encounter, not because they don’t really want the encounter, but because “people might think I’m gay/lesbian”. The label is more important than the encounter itself. With some good reason, I’m sure, but still.
Sackbut @ 14: “I can’t let my straight card get taken away!”
Being counted as among the group identified (there’s that word) by [label] can, in general, have repercussions for one’s place in social hierarchies. The group in question needn’t be something as fraught as race, sex, or orientation. It doesn’t even have to be jocks, nerds, and theater kids. Humans spontaneously form hierarchies around things as minor as “who’s had sushi before”. These hierarchies are so normal and fleeting that we usually aren’t aware of them, and if we do notice them, it is only as one occasionally becomes aware of the feeling of the socks on your feet. Most people would probably even resist referring to them as such due to the word’s connotations. We tend to think of hierarchies as fixed and as holding across domains, but the reality is an undulating, ever-shifting chaos where one’s place changes radically from moment to moment.
All that is to say that there isn’t exactly nothing to the fear of losing a label. Something rising to existential angst, though, is silly and indicative of a certain variety of fragility.
I very much agree, gaining or losing a label can be disastrous; people often assume the label means they know a lot about someone who does or does not have it. (“I don’t do labels.” “Oh, you’re one of those no-labelists.”) I didn’t mean to imply it had no ramifications, just that sometimes the fights over seemed to miss the point so badly.
@Ophelia #17
Meta discussions are great fun. As Will Rogers never said, “I never meta discussion I didn’t like.”
Well, I was trying to concur, if that wasn’t clear. Everything I write somehow comes across as disagreement.
But yeah, I get pissy about label fetishism in trivial realms, such as film and literary interpretation. By memorizing tropes, people think that they gain deep understanding. Bah! Humbug!
I notice that hierarchies in all kinds of trivial shit thing in myself all the time. That fleeting sense of smugness, that quick slap upside the head for it.
Oh dear.
And Gray Slavery, who wrote this, is the editor:
https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1406183844701745153/photo/1
“well, i think it’s like your definition of ‘firefighter’ — quite circular, as it goes, because it is a messy, socialized term. a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect”
Sissy porn masquerading as academic work.
Gray Slavery uses a traditional MALE definition of a woman, but it isn’t actually a definition. It’s a male expectation. For those of us who are women, it is more restricting than a bra and a girdle. We got rid of hoop skirts, corsets, and laws that we couldn’t own property. It’s time to get rid of that stupid (non) definition.
I am actually chuckling about the passive role in sexual intercourse thing
At least they don’t have their dicks hanging out.
But yes, this makes perfect sense.
Sometimes we moderate our statements out of propriety or kindness. But then reality laps us: Grey Slavery and his ilk express their belief that trans ideology has violence against women at its core.
Naif,
I’m assuming it’s really a euphemism for “being penetrated,” but it amuses me to pretend it includes people who are just lazy in bed. “I’m genderfluid, because some nights I’m horny but tired.”
On a more serious note:
Lavery’s definition seems to come awfully close to implying that, for example, gay men who are “bottoms” are women. Which I seem to recall was considered a homophobic trope; gay-bashers were always obsessed with which member of a gay couple was “the woman.” (The implication, of course, being that it was “worse” than being “just” gay — showing again the linkage between homophobia and misogyny.)
Screechy, I think that phenomenon occurs so that men who sometimes fuck other men can still claim they’re straight.
Papito, I know that I’ve read studies showing that there are lots of “straight”, married men who ocasionally have sex with their male friends; do you think that they’re really all “tops”?
Screechy, I’m not sure it just means ‘being penetrated’ to ‘be passive in sexual intercourse’. I was taught that women are passive; they do lie there and let it happen, they don’t like it. And they never, ever, ever, ever, for any reason, no way no how, DON’T initiate sexual intercourse. (My mother spoiled that teaching by her various Thanksgiving Day tete-a-tetes with my grandmother and aunts where they discussed sex from the standpoint of obviously liking it and laughing at the narrative of passiveness they were taught…it’s weird to hear your mother and grandmother discuss these things).
I suspect that is at least part of what Lavery has in mind: men do things, women have things done to them. And women accept what is done to them by men without complaining.
Ah, so accordingl to trans ideology they were probably “actually” men, so, your father and grandfather.. Or, at the very least, nonbinary, so, your enbyparent and your enbygrandparent.
Iknklast, the trans religion ties itself in a neat little bow here:
If women complain about what Lavery and his TRA goons do to them, they are not being appropriately female, proving he is more of a woman than they are, so stfu terfs. Which justifies violence by the men who are really more women than women against the women who are doing it wrong.
So TRAs are members of ISIS now? Not a great look…
Glinner talks about this journal cover as rebranding male violence against women, and he presents some rather disturbing photos.
Re “still claim they’re straight”: I think “straight” vs “gay” is another example of people insisting that they or others be stuck in one box or another, to me kind of like “racist” or even “Black”. That is, there’s more focus on justifying the label than on the actions or characteristics. Sexuality is a preference, perhaps an extremely strong preference, but it doesn’t mean an ironclad guarantee that a person’s sexual activity only ever is in accordance with this stated preference. Yet people get bothered by the possibility of a same-sex encounter, not because they don’t really want the encounter, but because “people might think I’m gay/lesbian”. The label is more important than the encounter itself. With some good reason, I’m sure, but still.
@13: How does that work?
@14: Yes, definitely.
It’s meta discussion of labels here today – this one and the (ongoing, sorry) critical race theory one.
Sackbut @ 14: “I can’t let my straight card get taken away!”
Being counted as among the group identified (there’s that word) by [label] can, in general, have repercussions for one’s place in social hierarchies. The group in question needn’t be something as fraught as race, sex, or orientation. It doesn’t even have to be jocks, nerds, and theater kids. Humans spontaneously form hierarchies around things as minor as “who’s had sushi before”. These hierarchies are so normal and fleeting that we usually aren’t aware of them, and if we do notice them, it is only as one occasionally becomes aware of the feeling of the socks on your feet. Most people would probably even resist referring to them as such due to the word’s connotations. We tend to think of hierarchies as fixed and as holding across domains, but the reality is an undulating, ever-shifting chaos where one’s place changes radically from moment to moment.
All that is to say that there isn’t exactly nothing to the fear of losing a label. Something rising to existential angst, though, is silly and indicative of a certain variety of fragility.
@Nullius #18
I very much agree, gaining or losing a label can be disastrous; people often assume the label means they know a lot about someone who does or does not have it. (“I don’t do labels.” “Oh, you’re one of those no-labelists.”) I didn’t mean to imply it had no ramifications, just that sometimes the fights over seemed to miss the point so badly.
@Ophelia #17
Meta discussions are great fun. As Will Rogers never said, “I never meta discussion I didn’t like.”
Well, I was trying to concur, if that wasn’t clear. Everything I write somehow comes across as disagreement.
But yeah, I get pissy about label fetishism in trivial realms, such as film and literary interpretation. By memorizing tropes, people think that they gain deep understanding. Bah! Humbug!
Like literally humbug. You know: bullshit.
I notice that hierarchies in all kinds of trivial shit thing in myself all the time. That fleeting sense of smugness, that quick slap upside the head for it.