I frequent Bicon, and many people there have self-identifying labels which, if I use them in the outside world, are rejected or laughed at by even my closest friends. This upsets me. I am often told that “label x” just doesn’t mean that, it means this, and therefore the person doing the self-labelling is wrong. I can’t agree. What I can say is that if their label is obscure or badly understood by the general populus, most people aren’t going to get it, and perhaps it is therefore a useless label.
What I would prefer is that when a minority group comes up with a label that against all odds most of them agree on the meaning of, the wider world would do well to accept it and its meaning as a shorthand for what it represents.
An example, to make this all a lot less vague:
Sex
What chromosomes you have, and what primary and secondary sex characteristics you have. It is possible for even these to be “mismatched” for want of a better word, either through having a different set of chromosomes from XY/XX, or by your body developing in different ways that the expected (given the chromosomes), or by surgery.
Gender
Gender is an individual’s self perception as male or female or both or neither or something inbetween. It may or may not line up with what their chromosomes or physical characteristics are. It is possible, for example, for someone to have female genitalia and be brought up female, and identify as female, and yet have XY chromosomes. Many combinations are possible. There IS NO EASY WAY to say what someone’s gender is by simply looking. Take the difference between perhaps a transwoman and a transvestite - both could appear identical, and yet one identifies as a woman, the other as a man (very often). The point is that gender is not a black and white issue, and gender and sex do not mean the same thing.
Statistically, in the ‘real’ world, you’re not going to get it wrong very often. Most people who want to be thought of as male do all the things society expects of men, and vice versa for people who want to be seen as women. Thus, even the least convincing (physically) male transvestite or transwoman is going to be called “she” or “her” by all but the most insensitive souls, as long as she’s put on a bit of makeup and a dress so you know what to do. Likewise, any transman wanting joe public to treat them as a man will don typical male clothes, maybe somehow achieve a bit of stubble, short hair etc. because it makes it easier for everyone else to guess the right pronoun.
There is no easy solution, however, for those people who reject gender labels entirely, or believe themselves to be in the middle. You can’t dress like someone with no gender, because society doesn’t have a blueprint for that. Whatever you do, people are most likely to go on your physical characteristics and plump for one thing or the other. And it’s hard to blame them. Thus, such people find a term to describe themselves, so that people who know them can at least be sensitive to it. Usually that term is genderqueer or transgender.
If someone said “I am a couch, not a person” I could refute it, because being a couch is not a social construct, it is a physical description of an object. I think it’s different when you are referring to your place in society, and that is pretty much all gender refers to. The trouble is the same words are used at the physical level as at the social level. Thus, a genderqueer person who e.g. feels they have no gender, and yet was “born” a woman, can reasonably state “I am female” (sex characteristics) and also “I am not female” (identity). What do we do about this? What about if we could magically make all words gender neutral, so you could only be referred to as a person, never as a woman or a man? Would different people be upset at that? It is all compounded by some people feeling very strongly about gender whilst others don’t believe it exists at all.
Here’s a completely different example: What if someone says “I don’t believe there’s a God, but I’m a Christian?” Is that concrete enough that we can say “No you aren’t”? What about if they say “I’m a Jew” instead? Now it’s a race too, but which is meant, the race or the religion? What about “I’m a Catholic”? Dara O’Briain manages that one, though I’m not sure how seriously he means it.
I don’t have an answer, but I wish there was more respect given from all sides. There isn’t an obvious solution for every situation. I identify as an atheist but by some logics come out agnostic. That annoys me because of connotations *I* make when someone else says they are agnostic (e.g. that they don’t care, or are 50/50 on the matter). I want to assert my right to be called atheist, even if society in its entirety thinks I’m agnostic! And that is no use to me, or to them. Therefore I am inclined to think that the more people who understand a label the same way, the more useful it can be. Maybe we should just talk more instead of giving one-word answers to everything and hoping that the other person has made the right assumption.
Wikipedia’s article ‘transgender’ was really useful when writing this post.
Statto | 14-Sep-09 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
I think the fundamental problem is that language is inherently imprecise. As the tedious paradox of the heap demonstrates, it’s a bit insensible to try to take words’ definitions as too serious an attempt to categorise the complex world around us. Any word for something is bound to come with exceptions. Try defining a concrete noun, like chair. It’s good fun trying to come up with something which allows all the objects you might call a chair whilst disallowing other objects you can sit on with a back, like, say, lions.
Language is a convenient shorthand which allows us to rapidly make ourselves (usually not mis-) understood.
I’ve run into the atheist-who-could-be-convinced-by-er-y’know-evidence one. One solution I tried was to call myself an agnostïatheist (not sure if the etymology of that works!) to emphasise that my position may not fall into the category the listener understands by ‘atheist’. Perhaps making up words rather than adopting pre-existing terms with preconceptions pre-attached is one way forward, though made-up words can sound anything from absurdly pedantic (like agnostïatheist) to silly (as made-up words often sound: I give you jabberwocky).
The other problem is that there are a lot of idiots who do not go to the bother of understanding a position more nuanced than a cursory inspection indicates to them.
Matt in the Hat | 14-Sep-09 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Just read about the heap of sand and wish to ask; if you have 1,000,000 grains of sand but not one atop another, are they a heap?
I’m afraid that I am one of the people that would classify someone else’s use of a label as wrong, in certain situations. Language, to me, is a way of defining and quantifying our experience of the world and so when wishing to pass on our experiences to an unexperienced party the terms must be either commonly understood or clearly explained. e.g.; If A is telling B about C then A must use terms that mean the same to A as they do to B (though not necessarily those that C would either use or agree with), however if B is talking directly with C then the terms used are inconsequential as B is ‘experiencing’ C directly and not relying upon an interpretation through a common language with common definitions.
Better example? An English-speaker describes to a Russian-speaker the English countryside through an interpreter, or the English-speaker takes the Russian-speaker to the English country side: if the terms used are precise, clear and agreed upon then the first option can work but the second option will work without such a caveat.
***
Perhaps the term for an atheist who could be persuaded by reasoning could be scientist?
Ruth | 15-Sep-09 at 10:08 am | Permalink
I didn’t realise it was actually upsetting you, so I’ll try and be more sensitive on this topic on future.
However, I’m sticking to my position that a lot of these labels are for the convenience of others, not a form of self-expression.
F’rinstance, if I choose to describe my relationship structure as ‘polyamorous’ rather than ’slutty commitment-shy ho-bag’, that’s ok because people will still understand what I mean. If I decide to self-identify as ’single’ despite my two boyfriends, other people will have inaccurate expectations about the amount of free time I have, my possible receptiveness to a monogamous relationship etc etc.
Eskoala | 15-Sep-09 at 11:23 am | Permalink
Ruth: Definitely isn’t just you, but thank you. Regarding your other points, I think that yes, mostly you’re right, but there can’t be no words for expressing one’s self-identity, unless you’re saying that you can’t have one! Some people describe themselves as poly when they are single (have no partners), because that’s a better description of who they are, and as you say leads to better assumptions on availability. It is no good, therefore, someone else coming along and saying to them “you’re not poly, because you’ve got no partners, so technically you’re single”, or worse, say they had one partner, someone saying “well, you’re monogamous then”.
Similarly someone saying they identify as a woman, or not, might lead you to ask better questions about how your sex life might go, or how they would prefer to be referred to. If you can manage not to make assumptions in the first place, hurrah, but often labels are cues to others to think before they put their foot in things. Telling other people who you really are is difficult and sometimes using unexpected labels might make them question assumptions they’ve made about you. As long as you’re not expected to use someone else’s invented language the whole time you’re with them, it can be appropriate to relax the strict definitions you have in your head for the words they are using, if it facilitates understanding of what the person actually means by their use of them. It’s all about trying to understand each other.
Matt, yeah, I think there are situations where people just use the wrong words. Self-identity is a toughie though because it can be very personal. I think telling someone e.g. “you can’t call yourself a lesbian because you sleep with men” would be said by someone with a fair understanding of the word ‘lesbian’ but a failed understanding of how people work.
Overall, I think people should take the time to explain themselves properly instead of getting offended when their unfamiliar labels are misunderstood. Also, people should take the time to ask the right questions to get underneath what someone means when they use such a label.
Take time for people, people.
Eskoala | 15-Sep-09 at 11:26 am | Permalink
Statto, Matt:
I think the smallest heap has 4 grains, 1 on top of 3. I think it’s about shape, not quantity. But I’m probably not looking at the problem the right way! Of course everything has fuzzy boundaries, few things moreso than language.
Incidentally I really like ‘Jabberwocky’.