post queer theory

I HATE special snowflake label culture because its so much of “my identity is more niche and obscure than yours so therefore I’m more oppressed” and I HATE it because then we ignore things like corrective rape, housing discrimination, adoption denial, continued difficulty obtaining marriage certificates, immigration as a couple, and physical violence against lesbians and gays because “asexual demiromantic afab nb demigirls” feel “erased”

But with the institutionalization of queer theory, and its acceptance by the academy (and by straight academics), have come new problems and new challenges. There is something odd, suspiciously odd, about the rapidity with which queer theory–whose claim to radical politics derived from its anti-assimilationist posture, from its shocking embrace of the abnormal and the marginal– has been embraced by, canonized by, and absorbed into our (largely heterosexual) institutions of knowledge, as lesbian and gay studies never were. Despite its implicit (and false) portrayal of lesbian and gay studies as liberal, assimilationist, and accommodating of the status quo, queer theory has proven to be much more congenial to established institutions of the liberal academy. The first step was for the “theory” in queer theory to prevail over the “queer,” for “queer” to become a harmless qualifier of “theory”: if it’s theory, progressive academics seem to have reasoned, then it’s merely an extension of what important people have already been doing all a long. It can be folded back into the standard practice of literary and cultural studies, without impeding academic business as usual. The next step was to despecify the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or transgressive content of queerness, thereby abstracting “queer” and turning it into a generic badge of subversiveness, a more trendy version of “liberal”: if it’s queer, it’s politically oppositional, so everyone who claims to be progressive has a vested interest in owning a share of it […..] This has resulted in a paradoxical situation: as queer theory becomes more widely diffused throughout the disciplines, it becomes harder to figure out what’s so very queer about it, while lesbian and gay studies, which by contrast would seem to pertain only to lesbians and gay men, looks increasingly backward, identitarian, and outdated.
—  The Normalization of Queer Theory - David Halperin
Types of Literary Criticism

NEW CRITICISM, or: “READ THE FUCKING TEXT”


  • Also known as ‘practical criticism’.
  • This theory was dominant in the US and UK between the 30s and 70s. 
  • A formalist, decontextualised approach to literature where the text is examined independently of other influences.
  • Explores the essential elements of language, imagery, symbolism, figures of speech, ambiguity, irony, paradox.
  • Pretty huge span of approaches - for example, within Shakespearean new criticism you had A.C. Bradley’s character-based critique, Harley Granville-Barker’s study of stagecraft, G. Wilson Knight’s exploration of image and theme, and L.C. Knights’ suggestion that Bradley is a douche and Shakespeare was a poet, not a dramatist. (Yeah, fuck you, Knights.)


HISTORICIST CRITICISM, or: “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, DUH”

  • Funnily enough, this approach believes that historical context influences interpretation.
  • Stuff like: religion, political idealism of the time, cultural shifts, social attitudes, war, colonialism (although that’s a whole other bag of cats, see below), pop culture references and in-jokes, and anything that might have influenced the text during the era in which it was written.
  • Within historicist criticism there should be a distinction between text and context; history is the background that the text passively reflects.
  • Buuuut often this approach reveals more about the critic’s political/social/personal values than the period they are studying. Natch. 


LIBERAL HUMANISM, or: “STORIES ARE JUST A REFLECTION OF THE AUTHOR, DUDE”

  • Popular at the beginning of the 1900s - literature and art are timeless, revealing a universal truth about humanity.
  • Like, writers are totally free agents whose intentions shape the meaning of their writing, man. 
  • Like, human consciousness shapes language, culture and society, NOT the other way around.


MARXISM, or “WE’RE ALL SLAVES TO THE ECONOMY” 

  • A criticial theory systemised in the 20s, based on the materialist philosophy of Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) whereby the material circumstances of life are determining factors in the individual’s experience.
  • So, like, the economic organisation of society shapes culture, politics, philosophy, religion, education, law and art.
  • So, like, fuck liberal humanism; people are shaped by their environment, NOT the other way around. Authors and their works are basically products of society. 
  • These guys believe that art reflects changing economic conditions and class values. There’s a little cross-over with historicist criticism in the approach that literature should be interpreted within the context of the period and its political inflections - often with a focus on the lower classes.
  • Get yourself familiar with the Marxist concept of ‘ideology’ - a function which ‘naturalises’ the inequalities of power through a complex structure of social perceptions which renders class division invisible. 
  • Yeah. It’s heavy, dude.


STRUCTURALISM, or: “LANGUAGE IS EVERYTHIIIING!”

  • Based on the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913)
  • The belief that language shapes humanity, culture, communication, and the way we perceive the world. Yay, go language.
  • Structuralism was a radical theory during the second half of the 20th Century whose central argument opposed liberal humanist ideas (Recap: lib-humans reckoned that human consciousness creates language and culture - structuralists reckoned the complete opposite. At this point everyone is basically being completely contrary for the sake of it.)


POST STRUCTURALISM, or “WE’RE SORT OF ON THE FENCE ABOUT LANGUAGE SO JUST GO WITH IT”

  • A critical theory prominent in France in the 1960s, primarily associated with philosopher Jacques Derrida and critic Roland Barthes - a reaction against structuralism as well as a development of it. <sigh>
  • Ok, so this language thing? How about we agree that reality is constituted through language BUT language itself is unstable and beyond our control. Like, language is an unreliable narrator, yeah? Yeahhh.
  • Essentially, it’s language that speaks, not the author. So let’s call it THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR because we are needlessly dramatic. 
  • So, like, literary texts don’t present a single or unified view and the author cannot claim authority on interpretation. (The curtains are blue…)
  • You can trace a whole thread of critical development here from formalist criticism to structuralism to post-structuralism and later to deconstruction - all of which are concerned with the ambiguity and contradictions within text and language. To make it even more confusing, new historicism (see below) can also be seen as post-structuralist since it places stress on a text’s connection to culture rather than relying on the autonomy of the text itself.
  • Time for a stiff drink.


NEW HISTORICISM, or “IT’S THE CIIIIRCLE OF LIIIIIIFE - ART AND HISTORY ARE STUCK IN AN INFINITY LOOP” 

  • A term coined by Stephen Greenblatt (Shakespeare-critic-extraordinaire) in the 80s - a reaction against old historicism (where text is a reflection of historical background) and a move away from Marxist and post-structural theories.
  • New historicism asserts that the text is an active participant in historical development.
  • So, like, art and literature help to create the cultural values of the period in which they are produced. BUT, we are also formed and tied to cultural ideologies, so it ain’t all about the text. 
  • Involves close reading of the text, taking into account political ideology, social practice, religion, class division and conflict within society.
  • A pessimistic take on Foucault: the belief that we are ‘remarkably unfree’ of the influence of society and socio-political power operates through the language of major institutions to determine what’s normal and demonise ‘otherness’.
  • Seriously. Fuck society. 


CULTURAL MATERIALISM, or “WE NEED A BRITISH VERSION OF NEW HISTORICISM”

  • We can’t let the Americans monopolise this kind of criticism.
  • Goddamn Greenblatt.
  • So consider this: how much freedom of thought do we actually have? Does culture shape our identities or can we think independently of dominant ideologies? Huh? Huh? Are we saying anything new yet? 
  • Basically, a historicist approach to political criticism with a revised conception of the connection between literature and culture. 
  • Culture is a complex, unstable and dynamic creature which offers an opportunity for the radical subversion of power and society.
  • Unlike historicism or Marxism, cultural materialists believe the author is able to achieve a degree of independence from prevailing structures of power and discourse. 
  • Often demonstrates optimism for political change - once again, critical theory reflects the critic’s personal opinions and hopes for change in present day society. Literary criticism can change the world, man.
  • Some crossover into feminist/queer/post-colonial theory, because FUCK ALL THOSE OLD WHITE GUYS.


FEMINIST THEORY, or: “LET’S RECONSIDER 100 YEARS OF CRITICISM FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT ISN’T CIS/MALE”

  • Following the women’s movement of the 1960s, feminist theory was established in the 70s and 80s and founded on texts Le Deuxieme Sex by Simone de Beauvoir and Sexual Politics by Kate Millett.
  • Explicitly political – similarities to new historicism and cultural materialism - challenging the subordinate position of women in society and deconstructing/contesting the concept of essentialism, whereby men and women have intrinsically separate qualities and natures. 
  • Often seen as an attack on the Western literary canon and the exclusion of female writers throughout history. Focuses on female characters and authors, exploring the influence and restrictions of patriarchy, and constructions of gender, femininity and sexuality (both in text and culture).
  • Feminists influenced by post-structuralism tend to disregard the positive discrimination of women writers, claiming “it is language that speaks, not the author.”
  • Feminism and psychoanalytical theories (esp Freud and Lacan) contributed to the erosion of liberal humanist ideas, redefining human nature and the concept of child development, and exploring the psychology of patriarchy and male-dominated culture. 


GAY/LESBIAN CRITICISM AND QUEER THEORY, or: “LET’S RECONSIDER 100 YEARS OF CRITICISM FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT ISN’T CIS/MALE/STRAIGHT”

  • During the 80s, queer theory was influenced by post-structuralist ideas of identity as being fluid and unstable, and investigates the role of sexual orientation within literary criticism from a social and political viewpoint.
  • An opposition to homophobia and the privilege of heterosexual culture and an exploration of themes that have been suppressed by conservative critical theory.
  • A look at LGBQTA, non-binary characters and authors and their influence within a historical, political, religious and social context.
  • The end of ‘gal-pals’ and ‘no-homo’, fuckboys.


POST COLONIAL THEORY, or: “LET’S RECONSIDER 100 YEARS OF CRITICAL THEORY FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT ISN’T WHITE”

  • A critique on the English canon and colonial rule with a focus on canonical texts written during periods of colonisation.
  • An exploration of cultural displacement/appropriation and the language and cultural values thrust upon/developed by colonised people.
  • Post-colonial theory gives voices to colonial ‘subjects’ and looks at the impact on individual and collective identity, as well as the complexity of colonial relationships and interaction.
  • Gonna have a lot to do with politics, history, social ideology, religion and international/race relations, obvs. Stay woke.

anonymous asked:

do you believe non dysphoric trans people are actually trans

definitely, i take issue w/ the idea of defining trans people on the basis of dysphoria for a lot of reasons;

  • firstly because it equates being trans with distress + discomfort, suggesting that to be transgender is an inherently uncomfortable and undesirable experience, which is at best a very shallow understanding of trans identities and all that they encompass. there are parts of being trans that are heavy and difficult (these aspects mostly stemming from the reactions of society and cis people to trans people and not stemming from the experience of having a trans identity in and of itself), but it would be untrue to define transness as intrinsically shameful and miserable. being trans also encompasses the relief of discovering your most authentic self, the warmth and love of meeting others who understand and relate to your experience, and the comfort and groundedness that comes with living your truth

  • secondly because basing transness on dysphoria sends the message that gender identity is something that outsiders can decide. if you’re telling someone that they’re not trans because they’re not dsyphoric, you’re essentially telling them that you know their gender better than they do. you’re telling them “you say you’re trans, but i don’t know if i believe you” which is the same thing cis people do to us all the time. members of the trans community need to be aware of the ways in which they’re policing the identities of others, especially within the trans community. imo this comes from internalized transphobia which, even for people who self-identify as trans can be hard to unlearn. but we need to do better and make that effort

  • thirdly because it privileges some narratives over others and reinforces the idea that some people “aren’t trans enough”. saying that if you don’t have dypshoria you’re not “trans enough”  is divisive and invalidating. (this is something that nonbinary people experience all the time.) most trans people know exactly what it feels like to have their identity invalidated by others. it’s not a good feeling. trans people get enough of that from cis people, we don’t need it from within our own community too. we need to stand with and support each other instead of acting like being trans is some elitist club that you have to meet a certain checklist of criteria to get into. i’m not interested in the idea of some trans people being inherently better or “more trans” than others. there is no such thing as not being “trans enough”.  

  • lastly (just b/c i’m tired, not because there aren’t a million more arguments for not defining transness on the basis of dysphoria), equating transness with dysphoria is a really western way of looking at being trans. there have been “trans” experiences in lots of cultures globally, long before the west had any concept of “transgender” (two-spirit, hijra, kathoeys, as an example, and they have a history that procedes ours.) transness has existed outside of the west (and for longer than the west), with its own definitions, language, insights, and experiences. trying to speak for all trans people by saying that transness is exclusively about experiencing dypshoria is an idea based in western understandings about gender and entirely erases indigenous and international identities and experiences 

TL;DR: you don’t have to experience dysphoria to be trans.

Are cishet aces/aros cis? Yes. So are cis lesbians, gay men, bisexuals. We don’t kick sexually queer people out of the community because they’re cis, or intra-community transphobia would be a lot less of a problem. They’re still aro/ace. Whether that’s sexually queer is then the question.

Are heteroromantic cis aces queer? Yes, because coercive heteronormativity doesn’t just mean “not ‘sga,’“ it means “experiences heterosexual sexual attraction.” Their romantic attraction does not override their asexuality, just like it wouldn’t override a trans person’s gender. (For the record, coercive cisnormativity requires experience of the assigned gender as well as nonidentification wiht non-assigned genders, so being agender = trans.)

Are heterosexual cis aros queer? Yes, because coercive heteronormativity doesn’t just mean “not ‘sga,’“ it means “experiences heterosexual romantic attraction.” Their romantic attraction does not override their aromanticism, just like it wouldn’t override a trans person’s gender.

Do these people still have to account for the privileges for the rest of their gender, sexuality, or romantic identity? Absolutely–as they do for race, class, ability, etc.; as does everybody else. But nothing overrides anything, even if relative other privilege can mitigate some effects of specific oppressions.

This is extremely basic stuff. End of discussion.

i still get so mad when i think about how much these really abstract and unrealistic ideas about queerness contributed to my abuse. like, if you ever wanna know why i’m so bitter towards post-modern queer theory (aside from the more surface level stuff, like…fuckin’ ace discourse and who’s allowed at the pride parade or whatever) this is it. it’s real and it’s common and it’s happening to more women than anyone wants to admit.

you have these predatory, pseudo-leftist, pseudo-feminist men finding ways to claim queer identity, and then using this self-ascribed status to more effectively prey on women. and let’s be real here, they’re usually lesbians. but because “queer” has become this ambiguous term that can literally mean anything, we’re taking away women’s agency to name their own abuse and we’re pretending that these inherent power structures no longer exist as soon as a man finds a way to identify into queerness.

my abuser literally changed nothing about himself. he still used male pronouns, still dressed the same way he’d always dressed, still only dated other women, and still functioned as a man in the world at large. but because he told me that he was queer and non-binary, and because i was so fucking entrenched in these immaterial and abstract ideas about queerness, he abused the shit out of me for a year and i wasn’t allowed to talk about it or confront him about it or stand up for myself, because he wasn’t *really* a man and i wasn’t *really* a woman. 

he convinced me that, because i have masculine features, i wasn’t actually a woman, so if anything, i was posited as the bad guy for being the one who was actively displaying and embracing masculinity, whereas he supposedly didn’t possess any masculinity. 

but let’s be real here. i was a woman, he was a man, and i was being abused in the same way that men have been abusing women since the beginning of fucking time. and i know i’m just being an evil, gatekeeping dyke or whatever, but it’s so fucking frustrating to feel like i’m the bad guy for wanting us to be cautious in our use of the word “queer” so as to avoid this really ambiguous term that allows for the concealment of abuse and manipulation. 

i still feel like i’m not even allowed to talk about this, because i’m doing something wrong by questioning his identity or whatever. but i know what i experienced, i know what other women have experienced, and it’s so fucking immaterial to keep acting like this isn’t something that can and does happen.

anonymous asked:

hey, referring to your rant. i think the original argument was that ace people are not *necessarily* queer because they might not experience attraction to the same gender or identify and non-cis. not to erase the experience that ace people are marginalized. but if you're say a heteroromantic asexual, you're not queer.

speaking as a biromantic bisexual myself, i don’t agree, even a little bit. i appreciate that you’ve been polite and calm, and therefore i’m also going to be polite and calm when i explain the reasons why i disagree:

1. not “necessarily” queer as a concept is something i take umbrage with. the notion that queerness is even potentially situational is offensive in the highest degree and has a horrific and violent history, which to sum up quickly is the following and more: conversion therapies, correctional rape, queerness as mental disorder, queerness as criminal, having to “pass”, the association of queerness with sexual abuse, the association of queerness with teenage rebellion, queerness as phase. there is not one of these things that has not been experienced as a response to asexuality, whether it is heteroromantic or otherwise.

2. the arguments used to qualify asexual persons as non-queer (again, whether heteroromantic or otherwise) are the same arguments that have historically been used within queer communities to attack bisexual persons. see, the above with regards to “situational queerness” that has been used as an argument in both cases to exclude bisexual and asexuals. take the following example: a monogamous bisexual person who is a cis female marries a heterosexual person who is a cis male and remains in that marriage until the end of their life. the relationship is not “heterosexual” they are still bisexual, even when there is no possibility of entering into a sexual or romantic relationship with a person of a gender other than male. now replace bisexual with asexual. the argument stands. they are not defined by their relationship or current partner.

3. likewise, if a bisexual heteroromantic person is queer, why is an asexul heteroromantic person not queer? are we to imply that their queerness is defined by their partner and not by themselves as an individual? this an absolute fallacy of logic.

4. if, for a moment, we do consider that an asexual heteroromantic person is not queer, then what are they? they are not straight. they cannot rightly be grouped with heterosexual heteroromantic persons as they face prejudice, marginalisation and potentially violence within society that heterosexual heteroromantic persons don’t by virtue of their sexuality (which is an experience they do share with the rest of the queer community). if we briefly rearrange the argument and use race as a hypothetical example, you are either white or a poc. “poc” as a term is not an individual race, nor should it be treated like one and every race within the term “poc” experiences highly individuals racism. however, we could not take say, koreans, and suggest that they were not poc whilst conceding that they were also, indeed, not white. it would be a fallacy of logic and offensive and have massive detrimental effects just as this entire notion of “the asexual discourse” is having right now. take the same argument again and apply it to gender or to disability. it does not work.

5. i am not only bisexual and biromantic, but i also identify as polyamorous, which has a similar status as “only debatably queer”, much the same as asexual heteroromantic and heterosexual aromantics (or any heterosexual non-heteroromantics). i can testify to the fact that when one is a part of a group that are marginalised - and believe me, you don’t understand just how much the world is set up around the notion of monogamy (or monogamy featuring cheating) and how difficult it is to navigate as someone who is non-monogamous - to be told that you are not marginalised and do not deserve to be a part of a community of others with similar experiences is heartbreaking and cruel and rather pointless. [Note: this isn’t to imply polyamoury is inherently queer, I’m still working that one out for myself, but as a polyamorous person, I do have authority on my own identity and it is definitively something]. what does the queer community gain from excluding asexual heteroromantic people? nothing. literally nothing.

so yeah, there’s my reasoned argument to why i disagree with the notion that asexual heteroromantic people are not queer and frankly find the “discourse” surrounding it offensive.

anonymous asked:

Watch Magdalen Berns. 1) Intersex = abnormality. It leans closer to male/female (ex. micro penis). Abnormalities = outliers, faulty to its purpose: reproduction. Btw intersex don't ID as genderspecial, cis do. 2) Hormones =/= sex (No 'brain sex,' please. It's empirical). "Two genders" = cis/trans. 3) Sexism is because of perception. If raised as a man, one has entitlement from birth, unlike women. This is where violence/etc. comes in. This = TERFs' issue. Btw the guy behind "gender" was abusive!

Yeah, see, I was assuming you were a TERF the whole time, but I didn’t want to say it, because I had hope you were genuinely curious instead of a hopeless bigot, but nope! I guess I should have gone with my gut feeling.

[For my readers’ sake in case you somehow don’t know this yet: TERFs are Trans-Exclusionary “Radical” “““““Feminists”””””, and I’m not using these ironic quotes for no reason. As someone else coined, they’re doing the work of the patriarchy and branding it feminism more often than not, all in the name of equating women to their uteruses so they can exclude trans women from the spaces they need and deserve.]

Just for the record before I start: I won’t be replying to any further message from you, because I honestly don’t feel like giving TERFs a platform even if it’s just long enough to refute your points. So don’t bother sending more. I’m only posting this one (and therefore bothering to argue back) because I want to make it clear that TERFs are not welcome here.

I don’t even know where to start. But hey, you listed them with handy numbers, let’s do that.

  1. Sorting people as “abnormalities”? Because there’s nothing more scientific than saying everything that doesn’t fit your bias is just wrong, right? It’s not like the “norm” isn’t in and of itself something we as a society decided upon (social constructs! They’re everywhere!)
    “Intersex don’t ID as genderspecial” [I had to look that up, because I guess TERFs had to come up with another term once tucute was thoroughly ridiculed] is…not even a debunking of my point? I only pointed out intersex people exist as a debunking of the sex binary, not the gender binary.
    As for saying that the purpose of gender and/or sex is reproduction: wow, way to really fail to earn that F in the TERF acronym, right? Because there’s nothing more feminist than reducing people (especially women) into their sex organs!
  2. Hormones isn’t sex? Okay. So you’re telling me that, as a cis man, if I go to a doctor, they won’t assume that I have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen? I’m not saying hormones alone define sex. Then again, I am saying we need to move away from sex as a notion altogether and start talking about the specifics of what is relevant to any given conversation. So really, I’m wondering if you’re not just regurgitating talking points.
    “Brain sex”? Where did I use that? That’s an obsolete theory and it’s one that enforces the gender binary and sexist gender roles by saying that the “male” and “female” brain are fundamentally different. Of course I’m not defending that theory.
    “Two genders = cis/trans”…um. I’m starting to feel you don’t even know what gender is on a colloquial level. Are you saying a cis man and a cis woman have the same gender?
  3. Ah, the good old “trans women have male privilege”. I mean, I didn’t even bring it up anywhere, but sure, I’ll be happy to address it while I’m at it.
    Trans women don’t have male privilege while in the closet, anymore than a gay person who’s in the closet has straight privilege. They’re in the closet. There’s a reason the closet is considered a bad place to be. Does a closeted trans woman face different forms of violence as a cis woman, or as a trans woman who’s out and presents as a woman? Well, yeah, of course. But it doesn’t mean they face none at all, or that they have privilege.

And then we devolve into “the guy behind ‘gender’ was abusive” which…I don’t even know how to properly refute. I mean, gender has been a grammatical notion since…I don’t know, forever? I assume you mean the person who coined gender as a part of a person’s identity (if there even is a singular person who did that, which again, I highly doubt, seeing as the notion derived from grammar), but even then, it’s not like gender didn’t exist beforehand. We didn’t suddenly start identifying as male and female (and eventually as other genders) because one guy said we should.

Besides, you know, [citation needed] and all.

tl;dr I’m not interested in debating TERFs, you can go away and never come back, please and thank you, bye. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

anonymous asked:

Awhile ago you posted some links of queer theory books and pdfs that i read and I really liked. And I'm just wondering if you had any more that you would recommend.

oh cool i’m glad u read them and liked them!! here’s a bunch more u might find interesting

i have a loooong long list so let me know if you want more 

Is it possible that, by taking the path that it has, psychoanalysis is reviving an age-old tendency to humble us, to demean us, and to make us feel guilty? Foucault has noted that the relationship between madness and the family can be traced back in large part to the development that affected the whole of bourgeois society in the nineteenth century: the family was entrusted with functions that became the measuring rod of the responsibility of its members and their possible guilt. Insofar as psychoanalysis cloaks insanity in the mantle of a ‘parental complex,’ and regards the patterns of self-punishment resulting from Oedipus as a confession of guilt, its theories are not at all radical or innovative. On the contrary: it is completing the task begun by nineteenth-century psychology, namely, to develop a moralized, familiar discourse of mental pathology, linking madness to the 'half-real, half-imaginary dialectic of the Family,’ deciphering within it 'the unending attempt to murder the father,’ 'the dull thud of instincts hammering at the solidity of the family as an institution and at its most archaic symbols.’ Hence, instead of participating in an undertaking that will bring about genuine liberation, psychoanalysis is taking part in the work of bourgeois repression at its most far-reaching level, that is to say, keeping European humanity harnessed to the yoke of daddy-mommy and making no effort to do away with this problem once and for all.
—  Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

So the real point of me posting that photo…
My purchasing of this album is a lil late, but still a sound decision. The Hybrid Theory CD was given to me by my father when he found out I liked one of the songs. I cite it as the album that really started my music taste, not to mention how many rough points in life it got me through.

Chester Bennington’s suicide was significant to me, even if it isn’t the most important thing happening at the moment.
RIP Chester Bennington

Mod Em Posts

Hey guys, Mod Em posting here again. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile but since I work in a resource center I have access to a lot of LGBT related // queer theory essays and books, I was wondering if people would be interested in maybe a weekly or bi-weekly (or monthly) posting of various essays or book excerpts regarding important or popular theories and topics. 

I understand these essays and books can be somewhat dense to read like Sedgwick for example, but I thought it might be an interesting and fun opportunity for those who may not have access to these sort of resources. If a certain topic, essay or book excerpt is difficult to digest or interpret, perhaps we could have small discussions or Q&A sessions regarding the material. 

Maybe like or comment on this if this is something you guys would be interested in?? (: 

-Mod Em

Just an expansion of something I said earlier, on my main:

Cis people cannot have a complicated relationship with gender.

They can have complicated relationships with secondary aspects of cisnormativity, such as heteronormativity, racism, ableism, sexism, etc. But if you take those intersections out, a disabled cis person or a non-white cis person or a cis woman does not have a complicated relationship with gender per se. They’ll have issues with the hyper- or de-gendering of their race, or of their specific disability, things like attribution of violence or sexual availability or, heck, penis size or the “autism is an extreme male brain” thing, but not binary gender itself. Admittedly, a non-Straight cis person still might, but that’s because heterosexism is so tied up in seeing anything non-Straight as doing gender wrong; on a certain level, anyone non-Straight is also at least a bit non-cis (and transphobic non-Straight people are just assimilationists), but that’s a tangent for another post.

But denying someone’s transness by calling them “a cis person with a complicated relationship to gender” is actually calling them trans. I mean, give it a couple of years and it’ll be the trans version of the bi character who always “doesn’t like labels,” only actually a bit more of a synonym than a real euphemism. It’s a shitty and avoidant way of saying it, but it’s for sure saying it. Yeah, you think that the person you’re yelling about using a label you don’t like or disagreeing with your exclusionist politics is some sort of creepy invader who doesn’t know what transness is (because you’re a recycled TERF with your head so far up your ass you can’t even see it, pardon my language), but you’re still literally calling them not cis. And unlike gender, cis/trans really is a binary; whether you want to use the word “trans” or not, a person who isn’t cis…isn’t cis.