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.

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

I am once again struck by how staggeringly dumb this all makes me feel.

[sprrwhwk.livejournal.com]

It's a good talk. The introduction seemed like an effective ice-breaker. :-) I never got around to Foucalt when I took the sexuality and gender identity class, and this suggests I should at least read the first bit before I sell my copy.

If we can't make enough categories for everybody to feel comfortable... what do we do?

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

I really don't know what to make of this. It's like fish discussing water.

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

Good talk, a very nice introduction. It makes me want to read about the subject more.

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

Do you think that employers should be allowed to fire people for how they present themselves?

If you think of a job like a waiter, a waiter can certainly be fired for presenting himself as a slob, in terms of hairstyle and clothes, because it makes the customers uncomfortable. So why shouldn't a employer be allowed to fire a waiter for presenting himself as "gay"? After all it makes (some of) the customers uncomfortable.

Can you think of a reason better than "he can't help the fact that he presents himself as gay"?

[probabilistic.livejournal.com]

So tell us, what DOES come after polyamorous marriage? :-P

[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....)

[rax.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what we do. I think people brains are wired to categorize. I think there are a zillion positive uses for this wiring. Lately I've been trying to see if it's possible just to not quite as much categorize myself. I'd love to hear more answers to this question.

[rax.livejournal.com]

Legally speaking I'd point to Yoshino's work in Covering where he suggests modeling protections after protections of religion, which is not innate, but is clearly important to its practitioners. It would not be wrong to fire the waiter for handing out Chick tracts to customers; it would be wrong (I think anyway, I don't know if there are cases on this) to fire the waiter for wearing a cross on a chain or something similar. What parts of "acting gay" are more like wearing a cross and what parts are more like handing out Chick tracts are hard to determine offhand... but I think it might be a better model than the current one?

In terms of reasons why, personally I think "because those customers being made uncomfortable are homophobic and should go suck an egg" is a great reason, but I recognize that's an opinion not everyone might share. :)

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

Well I've heard some right wing folks say that at this rate eventually people will be able to marry minors and animals.

However I don't think that's true, considering that neither minors nor animals can sign contracts.

[rax.livejournal.com]

In general? I don't know yet. :) Specifically to marriage? Ideally a breakdown into more specific and flexible contracts, but more likely I expect some sort of way of constructing semi-arbitrary family groups with overlaps between marriages.

[rax.livejournal.com]

Maybe by the time we've passed polyamorous marriage, we'll have animals who can sign contracts. :) "You were technically right about the animals thing, buuuuuuut...."

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

That's not a very clear bright line. Take for instance clothes, some religious groups require people to dress a certain way (iirc), so do you believe that if should be illegal to fire someone for dressing a certain way, but not if they're doing it for religious reasons. Or should companies not be allowed to enforce dress codes, or is dressing a certain way expressing yourself too strongly, and thus companies should be allowed to enforce dress codes in all cases.

As for the second paragraph, it certainly sounds like a good reason to me, but legally how do we distinguish between mannerisms that we can legitimately be made uncomfortable by, and ones that we can't?

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

I don't get why your :)ing

Wouldn't that imply that poly marriages are a long way off :(

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

Robo-fuckers. *grin*

[rax.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's not a very clear bright line; I do think it's better than "intrinsic" versus "extrinsic" which is the current standard as I understand it. Ideally I think that the level of dress code and level of enforcement should depend on the necessity of the dress code and the necessity of specificity; those are easy words to say and hard to actually pin down.

I'm going to have to plead "not actually a lawyer" on this one, but I'd definitely recommend Kenji Yoshino's work if you're interested in more on this. That's where I'm crudely distilling most of my arguments here from.

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

Or is it saying that? Are you saying that you know about of some kind of super science advantages in biology that I don't know of?

Or are you saying that you wish to be legally recognized as not a human, but still a sapient creature with rights, and that once that is granted, it provides us with a place to go from poly marriages.

[rax.livejournal.com]

Maybe it just means that furries are coming soon to a planet near you! :)

[rax.livejournal.com]

I don't want legal recognition as not a human, but some others might. Honestly, I was being glib. :)

[scwizard.livejournal.com]

I know that some otaku would like to be able to marry fictional characters...

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

Many already are, if you count headpeople.

[q10.livejournal.com]

this is one of the more accessible general audience presentations of ‘ ____ theory’ that i've seen ever. i'm sure you miss some things, and there are little stylistic details, but overall it's pretty awesome.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

And I REALLY look forward to the day that academic learns of, embraces, and starts giving serious thought to, headpeople as anything other than an abnormal (read: "pathological") psych topic. In part because it means I won't have to go to grad school and DO IT MY DAMN SELF. :)

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

Seriously. I can point to maybe twenty or thirty people I know with headfolks/soulbounds who are living saner, healthier lives BECAUSE of their "abnormal psychological condition". At that point I really don't think you can dismiss it as a statistical blip.