The Serpent's Wisdom

Any God who has ordained rape as part of His 'divine plan' for people is a God I oppose and defy to the last atom of my being.

Signal boosting for Kyrene Ariadne:

I want to form a group devoted to Artemis for the benefit of supporting women (both cis and trans) who have undergone assault, abuse, and/or gender discrimination.

I’d like the group to do community work, fundraisers, that sort of thing. Fundraisers could include things like publishing hymns and stories about the goddess and donating the proceeds to a related charity of choice. I have publishing connections that can help us out in this arena and give us the capacity to be both in print and e-book.

This will not be about tiara-chasing, priest(ess)ing, feathers in your cap, or what-have-you. It’ll be about doing *work*.

If you’re interested, leave me a message here or email me at kyrene(at)gmail(dot)com. This group will be open to anyone regardless of where you fall on the pagan/Hellenismos/recon/
whatever line, I truly don’t care. The cause is what matters. The only thing I insist is that a safe space is supported for anyone who joins up, as they may be survivors themselves.

In light of Activision-Blizzard's RealIDFail, it's dawned on me that there is a sizable void.

There are lots of women who play games. There are no developers catering to them.

Gaming has been historically extremely male-centered. The stereotypical gamer is a teen boy in his parents' basement hunched over an XBox or a Nintendo. The stereotypical game designer is a man who, ten years ago, was that boy. Game designers target boys' and men's idea of fun. Game advertisers target the interests of boys and men. And, as RealIDFail demonstrates quite clearly, game developers have little interest in the specific concerns of women online, where those concerns differ from men's, or in the specific ways in which women use social networks differently from men.

I'm cherry-picking my examples here for emphasis, but as anyone in the wide world of woman-gamer blogging can tell you, dealing with misogyny -- as well as racism, homophobia, and transphobia -- in the gamer universe or in game advertising or content is an everyday thing.

So... why should we? Make that trade-off to play games we enjoy, I mean?

If there are any development studios with an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-'phobic perspective, I want to find out who and where they are. A very cursory google search does not reveal the names of any studios developing from this perspective.

If there aren't... I want to play a role in founding one. Anyone else interested?

Privilege is the most contentious topic I have ever posted about. It brings up righteous anger, defensiveness, refusals, claims of "opting out," claims of not really having it, claims that the assertion that someone else is privileged is "an attack" or "an accusation," such that the nuances of it are rarely ever examined. But I've been thinking about this and I think I have a clearer understanding of why this is.

At heart, privilege is a measurable notion, and it starts at the top of society. Almost all presidents and members of the House, Senate, Cabinet, and Supreme Court throughout 233 years of US history have been white male outwardly-heterosexual Protestant landowners. Until about 50 years ago almost all CEOs, bank presidents, lawyers, doctors, and university professors were white men. What change there has been from this did not happen except at the behest of a massive multifaceted civil-rights movement. Some of the unevenness has been addressed but even still the average white person in the US is wealthier and has a higher income than the average person of color and the average man in the US has a higher income than the average woman. And still, the values, laws, and ideologies that permeate and define society are based on the experiences, needs, and preferences of white male heterosexual Protestant landowners/shareholders. (This is not, BTW, an exhaustive list of privilege axes.)

The notion of privilege suggests that the fewer of those characteristics that you display, the more you will find that law, values, religion, and ideology is an obstacle rather than a source of support. The law was not written for you. Religious doctrine was not defined by people like you, and is not currently taught or professed by people like you. Your experiences and needs are not reflected by law or religion. You are less likely to be listened to when you request a change in the law or (goddess help you) religious doctrine that would better reflect your experiences and needs, because authorities are less likely to sympathize with your accounts of difficulty. You are more likely to be victimized and less likely to succeed if you seek legal redress for wrongs committed against you. You are likely to be more harshly penalized if you are found to be guilty of an infraction, because the judge and jury is made of people who are less likely to sympathize with you. This is... let's call it institutional privilege.

The last paragraph is the subject of considerable debate. Most of the dispute in my experience takes the form, "But I am [white]/[male]/[heterosexual]/[Protestant] but I don't feel privileged." There are two things going on: (1) intersectionality, and (2) centering in cultural discourse. Intersectionality comes from the fact that there are many axes of privilege and almost everyone is underprivileged in one way or another. A most common form of underprivilege is income. Most people make less money than the authorities who define the laws, doctrines, economic patterns, and values that affect them and who settle their disputes -- who, in short, lessen their range of possible choices and opportunities.

The other thing, though, is centering in cultural discourse. Our culture is centered around the idea that being wealthy is the norm. This goes from depictions in the media (how many supposedly 'middle-class' families on TV are shown as living in a far-wealthier-than-average environment) to economic institutions (why are payday lenders allowed to operate?) to law (legal mandates for almost anything seem to cost more than most people can afford).

To say that cultural discourse is wealth-centered is to say that people who are not wealthy see the difference between the cultural "norm" and their own lifestyle, and from this know exactly the degree to which they fall short. But their own way of life is not depicted in the media -- it is effectively invisible. So they see the difference as something that's wrong with them or their life, not as a common experience.

So they take this to mean that they are underprivileged, and, being underprivileged in one way or another, react with vehement resistance to the notion that there is any way in which they are privileged.

But also, the centering of cultural discourse makes invisible to them the ways in which they do have privilege because that privilege is made to look normal to them. For example, since cultural discourse is white-centered, white people perceive white values and white ways of life as the "way things are," and the values, experiences, and ways of life of people of color are invisible to them. So it is easy for someone who's white to not know the ways in which they are privileged over people of color unless they specifically look to see the difference.

Centering of cultural discourse goes much deeper than it sounds: it is not merely an external thing, but we tend to internalize the values that are centered and presume they describe the way the world works, or should. Deviation is devalued and denigrated, and people who deviate are frequently insulted and abused. It is odd, though, because the "center" of cultural discourse is not the demographic center; it is quite far from the average experience. So we see the unusual phenomenon of a majority of people actively defending laws, values, and politico-economic systems to which they have rather limited access.

There's been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere lately around the word "cis." It was coined 15 years ago so that there would be a word that means, basically, "someone who lives as a member of the sex they were assigned at birth." Why do we need such a word? Because those who are not cis are discriminated against horribly in this society (by families, friends, strangers, the law, schools, employers, social clubs, and religious institutions) and we deserve to not be the only people whose gender identity is given a name: trans.

wildeabandon posted a poll yesterday, the results of which match what I have seen in other discussions about "cis" in recent weeks: many or most of those who recognize that the term is meant to refer to them do not really object to it, though they often find it odd or awkward. But the objections are interesting, and it is those to which I wish to respond today.


A. General linguistic objections.
1. "Cis" sounds like you are calling me a sissy.

I've seen this objection cited several times in the last few weeks, entirely (as you might imagine) by men.

2. "Cis" is too clever.

"Cis" as opposed to "trans" is a terminology arising out of chemistry (or Classical studies, take your pick), a sort of accidental tribute to the general geekiness of the average trans person. So, 9 out of 10 times it's used, it has to be explained; it is only intuitive to those who are familiar with chemistry or Latin.

1 & 2 are not really objections to the assertion that there is a need for this term, merely objections to the actual morpheme in use. What term might we use instead, and in what way would it be an improvement?


B. Philosophical objections.
3. You're imposing an identity on me and I don't consent.

"Gentile" is a word that means "someone who is not a Jew," and it describes most of the human race. The term does accurately represent me, but it is not a part of my identity. I don't identify as a gentile, but I don't deny that I am one.

There are other terms that describe people which we do not incorporate into our identity and worldview. For example, I do not identify as "a person of medium height." But I chose "gentile" here because of what I see as an obvious parallel to the term "cis:" they are both terms that describe most of the human race which have been introduced by the minority for whom the term does not apply.

I'm not sure why those who are described by the term cis would assume the term's existence means they have to incorporate it into their identity. Is it because society sees "trans" as an identity? Is it because of political parallels to "gay," "straight," "white," "black"?


4. If you call me "cis," that implies that I am comfortable with the sex/gender I have been assigned by society. I've always felt uncomfortable with the gender role imposed on me, so it is not fair or accurate to associate it with me.

Being trans has very little to do with being uncomfortable with sex or gender roles. To put it bluntly, I am not trans because I am uncomfortable with the male gender role, I am trans because I am a woman. I am a woman whom most of the world insists is a man.

Everyone chafes against gender roles. Some people respond by acting or dressing in unconventional ways: a man might wear eyeliner; a woman might shave her head and refuse to wear skirts. Transition is fundamentally different from this. It's not simply gender-bending taken to a higher degree. Someone gender-bends because it's interesting or exciting or sexy; someone transitions because they are looking for relief.

I didn't petition the court to change my name because I am a nonconformist, I changed my name because my parents gave me a man's name by mistake. I needed to have a name that didn't increase my stress every time I had to answer to it.

I had my facial hair lasered off because afterward I could finally recognize the person I see when I look in the mirror. After puberty I had very excessive facial hair that made it likely that people would mistake me for a man. Getting rid of it has been a tremendous relief.


5. If you call me "cis," that implies that I identify strongly with the way my body is shaped and/or the politics that go with having a particular body shape.

This is an objection I've only seen from women. I suppose it's not impossible that a man might feel the same way, but I've yet to see it.

The women I've talked to who feel this way describe having lived their lives with a sense that womanhood is an artificial construct that people around them expect them to identify with and act like. Womanhood is imposed on them because of the shape of their body, even though their body is itself alien and disconnected.

The sense that one's body is not who one is, is far more profound than basic chafing at gender roles. On the face of it, this is rather like what it feels like to be trans, with an important distinction. Relief for this dissociative dysphoria would not come from transition, because manhood is just as alien and artificial to them as womanhood.

Labeling those who have this experience as "cis" is probably inaccurate, though they are not trans either. We might need a new term altogether. "Iso" perhaps?


A final point: we might be well served by defining a spectrum of terms that range from "cis" to "trans" rather than having an either/or distinction. For example, quite a few people identify as genderqueer and this seems to be a relationship to sex and gender that falls between cis and trans.

As a feminist and a leftist i get this a lot: the implication that if i find something offensive which they did not -- or especially if it is something they found funny or amusing -- that i am overly sensitive and, if i am so easily offended, maybe i shouldn't be using the internet.

Look, please don't say this to people. It's not helpful.

If i say i found something offensive, or even say i can see why someone might be offended, i am not implying that you're a horrible person for finding that same thing amusing. If i happen to think someone is a horrible person, i'll say so, but it takes a lot for me to think that.

But, here's why this upsets me.

Reaction A: "Oh, that offended you? Huh. I was actually amused by it."
Reaction B: "Oh, that offended you? Huh. I was actually amused by it. I guess you must just be really sensitive. If you're so sensitive, maybe you shouldn't even be on the internet where people can hurt you."

Reaction A is a simple expression of "Okay, i didn't have the same reaction." It's fine for people to not agree on things or have the same reaction.

Reaction B goes further and belittles you. It's is exactly the same as, "Why can't you take a joke?" But someone who says this may as well also be saying, "If people can hurt you by doing/saying X, maybe you shouldn't do anything you find fun or even leave the house." Because it's not just a game or an internet forum where someone might be triggered, it's anywhere and everywhere you go.

Reaction B is victim-blaming because we don't choose what triggers us. "Triggering" is when something random and unexpected reminds you jarringly of a traumatic event in your life. It's especially frustrating when something insensitive done or said by someone else triggers you. Again, we don't choose to be triggered by something. Also, not everyone is triggered by the same thing.

So when you say Reaction B, you are blaming someone for being triggered by something. They aren't going to read your comment and say, "Oh, gosh, you're right, i'm choosing to be offended by something so little and silly," because their response wasn't a choice in the first place.

the Not Rape epidemic [trigger warning] (from a locked entry on my friends list)

A couple of times in the past i've written about the misappropriation of transgender. My point then has been, essentially, that popular culture, the media, and numerous ideologies, have created their own narrative of what it is and what it means to be transgender, and present this in lieu of allowing us to speak for ourselves. Any resemblance this faux-trans narrative has to the genuine experience of transgender people tends to be accidental. Any sympathy extended to transgender people by the cisgender culture is invariably marred by continual references to the superficial trappings of gender presentation ("high heels and lipstick") essentially implying that "dressing up" is what transgender is basically about.

Autumn Sandeen raised an interesting point regarding the extent to which drag (some drag, all drag?) is possibly comparable to blackface. Like her, i do not believe that this comparison can be made some or maybe even most of the time.

For one thing - and this is a significant point and not an aside - many of the drag performers i've met over the years have at least a touch of genderqueerness (and sexual queerness) about them, and so they use drag as a way of expressing this part of their nature in a somewhat safe environment.

Just going off the cuff, and based on my own experiences from having seen drag done in many different ways in many different times and places, the cases i might compare to blackface tend to be the most blatantly caustic and misogynistic. Ms. Sandeen cites an example which falls pretty squarely into this, the case of three male Westchester County (NY) legislators who thought it would be funny to dress as campy prostitutes and perform a Broadway song.

The New York Transgender Rights Organization responded with a protest and a press release [PDF] comparing the event to "a KKK blackface show."

Even in the comments to the post i linked, there are people admonishing us to "have some fun" because this is "funny." Yes, we've all been trained to think it is high-larious when men dress in the most ridiculous caricature of femininity possible and prance around. Maybe it *is* funny and my leftism has just made me humorless, a question i ponder sometimes. OTOH maybe it's worth asking what it is about humor that is supposed to make jokes something light and un-serious which only a uptight stick-in-the-mud would criticize. I'll try to remember that it's perfectly normal to laugh at such a spectacle the next time someone 'reads' me on the street and laughs in my face.

The people of Lesbos want gay women to stop calling themselves Lesbians.

Yes, i can illustrate the problem by imagining a Big Gay Sketch in my mind's eye: a man on a flight from Athens tells a US Customs Agent that he's a Lesbian; hilarity ensues. Gee, how funny.

The use of the term to refer to homosexual women dates to the Victorian era. It was, like so many other Victorian terms, a euphemism designed to hide what could not be talked about. It was adopted alongside the now archaic term sapphist; both refer to Sappho, the ancient resident of Lesbos who wrote love poems to women.

It is not the only geographic name which has been appropriated to describe women who live as partners; see for example the term "Boston marriage," which dates to roughly the same time period. (Hmm, someone on my friend's list wrote about this term in the last week, but i don't remember who, sorry.)

Since the political lesbian movement of the 1970's, the term "lesbian" has been cemented in our cultural consciousness, so much so that the term "gay" has come in many contexts to be seen as exclusively referring to men. But, just as 'transwoman' is not a real word but a composite term made of a norm + a modifier, 'gay woman' is not a real word; but neither is 'lesbian,' being an appropriated geographical term (still being used by the people who live there today) and is more of a moralistic erasure. It is more like the heteronormative imposition of a big "CENSORED" bar than a word itself. It is another example of the dominant culture using language as a weapon to deny identity; and we queer folk have made do with the modifiers and erasures given us, but we have yet to have actual words for who it is that we are.

This lovely story at Pandagon has me thinking of the time i was stopped at a light on Claiborne Avenue just beside the French Quarter, when a guy walked up to the car and asked me for a date. By the time it dawned on me that what he was doing with his hand wasn't just a nervous tic, he was climaxing on the side of my car. Yes, all this happened in the time interval of a red light.

Reading the various accounts in the comments to the post i linked above has me wondering... how many people do i know who have had something like this happen to them?

For purposes of this poll, i am asking about cases where the event in question happened to you without your consent or prior awareness, especially in situations where you felt intimidated, humiliated, or threatened. However, i am not restricting this to strangers.

And yes, stuff that's happened on Bourbon Street might count. I would say, answer yes if what you saw involved non-consent, demands, or pushy creepiness. Not every instance of exposure in an environment like that is threatening or unwanted, but many times i've seen a pretty girl lift her shirt because a woman on a balcony asked her to, only to have 15-20 men crowd around her with their cameras out, or to then receive aggressive demands to show more or even do more.

ETA: Only a few people have answered so far, but i know that there could be a lot of responses to the poll. I think people don't realize just how common this sort of thing is; i'd love to see some dialogue on just what it means that aggressive creepiness is as common as it is.

ETA: Please comment if the event in question was reported to the police and/or if the perp faced any actual consequences (legal or, uh, extra-legal). None of the men who have done this to me faced any legal consequences whatsoever.

[Poll #1156275]