I have the luxury of being able to not restrict my responses in my blog. Google imposes a 4,096 character limit on comments; by putting my response in a post, I circumvent that arbitrary and awkward limit. Rebecca recently commented on two posts of mine; the first was about that whole "cis" debate, and the most recent was some of my observations of life.
So, without further ado, here is my reply. :-)
Rebecca,
I must admit my thinking rarely has fine clarity after I've consumed a few pints of beer and substantial quantities of that elixir of the gods: single malt whisky. :-)You didn't bother reading my point before launching into a debate about it? I suspected as much, to be honest.
Anyway, to your points. I do stand by the allegation that the transgender community feigns interest in why "cis" is a derogatory term. I never said you were lying about "cis", I simply said you, and others, were not interested in the explanations. There's a difference. The question was asked, but the explanations were not really listened to.
The transgender community does simultaneously simplify and complicate gender. "I am a woman" with no explanation or justification is the simplification. (I could go into the whole pronoun thing, but I suspect it's been thoroughly beaten over the years and needs a vacation.) The all-encompassing transgender moniker is another example. But at the same time we have endless discourse on what it means to be a transgendered man or woman.
If you want an example of how it is both complicated and simplified, I can only suggest a broad reading of some transgender activist blogs, or some of the more activist Internet forums. Not a specific reading of certain posts - just do a general survey, not concentrating on any one point or post. Read the comments, too.
Another example might be the one you just gave. You introduced complexity into what is a generally simple point. In the vast panoply of human experience, any generalization, no matter how generally accurate, can be "refuted" by pointing out the few exceptions. Does it negate the general point being made? No. It is recognizing when a generalization is useful. Besides, I did point out that if nature gets the generalization wrong - it's a raw deal.
Personally, I'll toss a wrench into any concept I find faulty. I also despise lazy thinking and logic that is blatantly self-serving. I may not like the conclusion I come to, but if I think that conclusion is valid, I'll abide by it. Far too many seem to think that logical thinking requires an answer that is comfortable, or fitting for whatever situation. The pious develop a logic that defies logic (or simply blames their god), the political hack develops a logic that defies explanation and some in the transgender community have developed a logic that is, at best, baffling and worst contradictory to itself. I'm more than happy to toss wrenches of all sizes into that. (I must admit that it's not made me the most popular person in the tranny blogosphere! :-) )
I'm happy you're happy. Or at least achieving your goals. But please, I implore you to read what you're critiquing!
Carolyn Ann
Thanks for the reply. No worries about moving to a separate post to avoid the character limit.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that, when the trans community asked questions about the use of cis, answers were ignored. The fundamental question being asked was, "How should the non-trans population be described?" Cis already exists, but I'm open to alternatives. However, you has used strawman after strawman while expressing what members of the trans community think, allowing you to claim to have given a full and complete explanation of your views and a full and complete refutation of the trans community's arguments, while ultimately failing to do either.
(For example, you claimed "'I am a woman' with no explanation or justification is the simplification" of gender. And yet, what's actually being said is that the definition of woman should revolve around self-identification, not imposed identity. But by setting up an argument that doesn't exist - that there should be no debate or discussion over what constitutes "woman" - you of course have an easy time knocking it down.)
Ultimately, I'm going to state my disagreement with what you're saying about cis, and about how you characterize what the trans community is saying, and try to move on. You were totally valid in saying I didn't do a good enough job exploring why people were against using the term "cis." But, now that I have done some more exploration and delved more into my own thoughts and attitudes, it seems like you and I simply won't be able to see eye to eye. It's become obvious to me that either I'm not making myself clear or you aren't willing to listen, and vice versa.
I'll continue to try and refine my views, and I'll definitely try to do a better job in the future of listening to those with whom I have disagreements, but I think my attempts at discussion with you are really going nowhere.
Ah well.
ReplyDeleteI trust you haven't actually read anything I've said re the claim "I am a woman"? I absolutely do argue against it being a matter of personal identification alone. I argue that personal identity is merely a part of it. I think there are a few women who would agree with me, too. But their views are dispensed with, usually with invective, because they don't agree with the idea that being a woman is not purely self-identification.
I'm confused about your sentence "But by setting up an argument that doesn't exist - that there should be no debate or discussion over what constitutes "woman" - you of course have an easy time knocking it down."
Of course you'll disagree with me on the whole "cis" thing. You've made that perfectly clear.
I don't think you will try and refine your views. I think you will continue to try and fit arguments to the outcome you desire. If you did anything else, you would be forced to examine the claim that being a woman is more personal perception and self-identification. You'd realize the problems with the argument re self-identification. But you don't, so I'm guessing you'll keep on maintaining the party line.
Still, I did enjoy this little discussion. I gather you're not going to be reading my blog again. So be it. I wish you the best in your endeavors, and in your life.
Carolyn Ann
I can't help but mention that it's really quite insulting to comment on a post - and to not have read the damn thing in the first place!
ReplyDeleteYou can write well, Rebecca. I also believe you can think. I consider it insulting that you imply that I do not consider what you have stated - it's as if you're saying I am being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I have "listened" - you were the one who engaged in a conversation with me, without knowing, or bothering to investigate, what I was saying.
Anyway, I think you've made yourself clear. We just disagree, and not superficially. I am more than happy to continue a vigorous debate about all aspects of gender. I'm just not willing to do it with someone who doesn't spend some small amount of time reading that to which she is responding.
Carolyn Ann