My KFA talk: Basic Gender Theory and Why You Should Care

[rax]

So my goal in giving this talk was to get through a coherent arc explaining gender theory and why you should care in 12 minutes and then have time for discussion. (KFA time slots are 20 minutes long.) I left out roughly a zillion things, which is OK, because that was sort of the point; I also think I actually did a good job, and got people thinking, and sparked interesting discussion, and hopefully encouraged people to do some further reading and/or conversing.

In giving the talk, I set myself the challenge of not using the words "discourse," "problematic," or "deconstruct." Obviously (or at least obviously if you talk to me a lot) this is not because I think those words have no value; I find them important in how I understand the world around me and if anything overuse them. Arguably, though, theorists and genderheads as a whole if anything overuse them, and it's something people have explicitly said turns them off to thinking about theory at all, and so I figured in a basic brief talk, I should avoid them. Another word I've been told is a major turn-off, although I didn't explicitly set out not to use it in this talk, is "oppression;" I've as a result been trying to think twice before using it. Unlike the others, which generally have less loaded (if also less usefully loaded) synonyms, not using "oppression" makes me nervous for calling-a-spade-a-spade issues. I'm torn, and I figure "thinking about it" is the right place for now.

You can watch the presentation video by clicking on this link. I'd embed it but I'm pretty sure LJ won't let me do that due to the recent security issue; just in case, here it is:

Gender Theory and Why You Should Care from maymay on Vimeo.

I'd really love to know what people think. I'd especially love to hear from people about what you think the most important things missing are; I have some thoughts but I want to hear other perspectives before I share them all. A bit of explanation (not that it necessarily negates potential criticism) --- I wasn't sure how to introduce myself because I wanted to avoid using identity labels but also wanted to express that it was worth spending twenty minutes listening to me talk about this topic. In general (and I blame circuit_four in part for this, as well as the whole ##crawl-offtopic gang) I've been trying to hold both "identity affiliations are powerful" and "identity affiliations reinforce things I don't like" in my head at the same time lately. It takes a lot of energy, but they do interesting things when put in the same place; I think that the end of this talk is one of them. If you have suggestions for things I should go read by other people who have been holding those ideas in their head together for much longer than I have, I'd love them; in particular I recently read Covering by Kenji Yoshino (Amazon link) and while he doesn't focus on that duality, he does touch on it. Really, though, that book should be its own post...

Anyway, I'd love criticism, and I'm also in a mood where I could really go for any praise you've got lying around, too. :)

Comments

[tasha18.livejournal.com]

I definitely don't know enough about gender theory to coment on what you left out, but I enjoyed your presentation and thought your delivery was clear, informative and engaging. I was actually thinking about these kinds of things last week in my family therapy class because this girl mentioned wanting to do a paper on gender reassignment surgery . She seemed to be in favor of the standard of care that said you had to have two letters from a psychotherapist before you could go through the surgery. Again, I don't know enough about this issue, but immediately I started thinking about whether imposing those requirements was an example of the medical community exercising authority over people's lives when they shouldn't. I also related to your discussion of how group membership is tied up with normalization; as I mentioned to you, part of why I feel abnormal as a blind person is because I don't fit into the typical blind box. When sighted people don't get you, and blind people judge you, you're kind of screwed. Anyway, thanks for posting this.

[rax.livejournal.com]

I am of the opinion that yes, those requirements are an example of the medical community exercising authority where it shouldn't. It's difficult, because I can understand why one would not want to provide gender reassignment surgery to someone just for showing up at the door with $20K and asking (or, in a world where insurance covered transition expenses, just for asking); the current system, though, is really broken for people who identify outside of gender binaries and even for people who are more "traditionally trans" can impose a bunch of hardships. I guess for me it comes down to: Why does a therapist who read a couple of books know better than me what I'd like in my pants? :)

The best argument in favor of letters I've heard is "it's important to make sure the person is capable of making that sort of decision." This still places so much power in the hands of someone else though... I don't know.

Also as an aside the name "Gender reassignment surgery" always confuses me (although I think it is in fact the current term in use). It sounds like something that should be done by a neurosurgeon, an acting coach, and a priest. (Walk into a bar....)

[iainuki.livejournal.com]

I've always heard "genital reassignment surgery." That's what I use the GRS abbreviation to mean, though.