Showing posts with label gender queer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender queer. Show all posts

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Gender-Neutral Pronouns: When ‘They’ Doesn’t Identify as Either Male or Female

http://api.ning.com/files/vuUh0rgUyT5x36zjYRuNTCzeCmVYXt5tjbfep1fxznLcys3YAq6seS01fP3QHEdQMxeMllNNO0prEGgze2bvC7Xi*Jh8Phhs/binary.jpg

Interestingly, this is from the Washington Post. I didn't even know this column existed.

http://broadsideonline.com/files/2013/04/genderqueer.jpg

Gender-neutral pronouns: When ‘they’ doesn’t identify as either male or female




By Steven Petrow, Columnist, Civilities
October 27, 2014

Dear Civilities: Recently, a young woman I know explained to me that she now considers herself to be “genderqueer,” which is a new phrase for me. My first question is: What does she mean by that? I also understand that she no longer uses female pronouns to refer to herself (i.e., “her” and “she”) but prefers “they,” “them” and “their” because, as she told me, they identify her as a person, not as either a man or a woman. She has asked her friends to adopt that language, too, but maybe I’m old school, because I find it odd and grammatically incorrect to say something like, “Oh, they went to the movies this afternoon,” in reference to one singular person. What is the right thing to do, and say, in this circumstance?” — Name withheld, Washington, D.C.

A: My first reaction is: Wow, this is complicated. But really, it’s not. Language is about respect, and we should all do our best to recognize how people wish to be identified, whether it is using their preferred name or a pronoun spelled any which way. In other words, do your best to adjust to changing times and terms, and address people the way they ask you. Or more bluntly, use a person’s preferred gender pronouns even if they are unfamiliar to you and not in the general lexicon. (This would only apply to those who make such a request; our own pronouns remain the same.)

But this latest evolution of the English language has felt awkward to me as well, as I have witnessed my inner Strunk and White struggle with what I first saw as “political correctness.” My first step was to learn more about “genderqueer,” which the National Center for Transgender Equality explains as a “term used by some individuals who identify as neither entirely male nor entirely female.” Jacob Tobia, a recent college grad who identifies as genderqueer, also helped me:
“Genderqueer people see gender not as binary with men or women, but as a spectrum that ranges from masculinity to femininity. Most genderqueer people identify somewhere between or outside of conventional masculinity or femininity.”
Jacob Tobia is a recent college grad who identifies as genderqueer.

Jacob (whom I’ve known for years) prefers the pronouns “they” and “them,” and so here’s how I would write about Jacob: They have a gender identity that encompasses both male and female, and their attire ranges from pencil skirts, high heels and lipstick to blazers, bow ties and facial hair on any given day.

This past week I attended a presentation at Duke University’s Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity, whose name was the LGBT Center but was changed to reflect a more fluid understanding of gender. At the outset, the speaker asked the audience to introduce ourselves and declare our preferred gender pronouns. Most of us stated an adherence to the traditional — “he/him/his” and “she/her/hers” — but several individuals chose gender-neutral pronouns, “they/them/their.” One person preferred to use “ze” (“ze smiled”) and “hir” (“I work with hir”).

Clearly, there’s change afoot in the language to refer to gender identity, and this clashes for some people with strong feelings about established rules of English. On my Facebook page, when asked for input about this question, many expressed views along these lines: “The letter writer needs to follow the rules of grammar and pick a singular. You can’t just toss the rules on a whim.”

I think it’s wiser to take a longer view on matters of language evolution. It’s not as if this is the first time the language we use to describe gender has prompted debate. Think back to the early 1970s when the term “Ms.” was introduced as an alternative to “Miss” and “Mrs.”

There was vociferous opposition to that change by linguists and etiquette experts. But it made good sense because it obviated the need to guess a woman’s marital status. To this day, the Economist magazine’s style guide states: “The overriding principle is to treat people with respect. That usually means giving them the title they themselves adopt.” And then it calls out “Ms.” as being “ugly.”

Linguist Dennis Baron at the University of Illinois points to the evolution of the word “you” as another example: “Purists object that a plural pronoun like ‘they’ can’t be used as a singular. But they are wrong: ‘You’ began its life as plural (the singular second person was ‘thou’). Then ‘you’ began serving as singular as well. . . . Today we use ‘you’ to refer to one person — ‘Are you talkin’ to me?’ — without worrying about number. And for most people, ‘they’ works the same way.”

Even the “they” and “them” debate itself has been going on for some time. Baron referred to an 1878 issue of the Atlantic magazine arguing that tired old “he” and “she” needed replacing: “We need a new pronoun. The need of a personal pronoun of the singular number and common gender is so desperate, urgent, imperative, that according to the established theories it should long have grown in our speech, as the tails grew off monkeys.”

There you go, folks — the history. Now without my Strunk and White sword to fall on, I’d add only that grammar evolution should be bolstered with respect. My friend Jacob is not a pronoun, but a person. And if they want me to refer to them with a gender-neutral pronoun, I will do my best. You should, too. (As for “ze” and “hir,” I’ll try, but I’m still going to need a little more time to learn how to pronounce them.)

~ Steven Petrow, the author of “Steven Petrow’s Complete Gay & Lesbian Manners,” addresses questions about LGBT and straight etiquette in his column, Civilities. View Archive

E-mail questions to Civilities at stevenpetrow@earthlink.net (unfortunately not all questions can be answered). You can reach him on Facebook at facebook.com/stevenpetrow and on Twitter @stevenpetrow.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

AZ SB 1045 - Discrimination Against TRansgender People and Anyone Who Does Not Identify or Appear as Biologically Male or Female

I received this email today from the Arizona Counselors Association - I have sent a letter to Mr. Kavanagh, who drafted this "strike everything" amendment to Senate Bill 1045 expressing my concerns around legalizing discrimination against anyone who does look or identify as strictly male or female by traditional standards.

If you are a counselor or even a concerned citizen in Arizona, please write to one the representatives below.


Social Justice Action

Transgender SB1045 - No Loo 4U

Re: SB 1045
Who: All Mental Health Professionals
When: ASAP, prior to March 27th 2pm
How To: See Below

Transgender SB1045
No Loo 4U


The Appropriations Committee will be hearing a strike everything amendment tied to SB 1045 proposed by state Representative John Kavanagh. The strike everything amendment is clearly targeting and discriminating transgender individuals and is an affront to civil rights and human rights. The Government Relations/Public Policy Committee and AzALGBTIC of the Arizona Counselors Association are asking that Professional Counselors, Counselor Educators, and Counseling Students write the members of the Appropriations Committee expressing their reasons that they vote "NO" on the Kavanagh Amendment. As counselors, part of our identity is addressing oppression and abuses of power and privilege, this is an opportunity for counselors to practice Social Justice. Please take a few minutes and write to the Appropriations Committee.

This is a link to read the strike out amendment:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/proposed/h.1045jk.pdf

Here are some talking points you can pick and choose from:

There is no problem for this bill to solve. There are no cases of transgender people causing problems in "private" spaces. It is unnecessary and only promotes discrimination. Instead of the government protecting the most vulnerable, this only encourages people to bully them.

This law tries to single out transgender people with targeted discrimination. It serves no purpose but to deny a specific minority with rights others enjoy. Such laws are unconstitutional.

This is fear mongering, a victimization of transgender people. The problem isn't them, it's other people's irrational and unjustified fear. Legislating discrimination against the innocent to satisfy the irrational fears of the privileged is the worst kind of discrimination.

This bill is written with the presumption that transgender people are inherently dangerous and society needs to be protected from them. There is no rational basis for this.

Transgender people are struggling with a recognized medical condition, they face horrible levels of discrimination, and most of them live in poverty. This just encourages people to pick on the weakest among us. This is bullying in law.

Transgender people are the most murdered minority in America. We are the ones who need protection. Others do not need protection from us. Laws like this promote the hate that gets people killed.

Everyone has a gender expression, not just transgender people. This makes it legal to humiliate men for having long hair by forcing them to use a women's room, or degrading women who wear pants by pointing them at the men's room.

This bill in no way addresses physical anatomy, which is what Kavanagh claims it is about. It just characterizes all transgender people as deserving denial of access to all private places.

Last week, Mr. Kavanagh said all transgender people should be in jail. This week he says they should just be degraded and humiliated when trying to use a public restroom. Perhaps next week he will actually get to know one of us and realize that we are just people. You are rushing in and passing laws on something you know nothing about. This is not governance.

This is an inappropriate revision to the law to be coming out of Appropriations. This law has absolutely nothing to do with government expenditure and is nothing but condoning of discrimination in the private sector.


Please send your emails to the members of the Appropriations Committee before 2:00 pm Wednesday, March 27, 2013.


Chairman: John Kavanagh (R) jkavanagh@azleg.gov 602-926-5170
Vice-Chair: Justin Olson (R) jolson@azleg.gov 602-926-5288 https://www.facebook.com/justin.olson.779?fref=ts
Lela Alston (D) lalston@azleg.gov 602-926-5829 https://www.facebook.com/lela.alston.5? fref=ts
Rick Gray (R) rgray@azleg.gov 602-926-5993 https://www.facebook.com/rickgrayaz? fref=ts
Michelle Ugenti (R) mugenti@azleg.gov 602-926-4480 https://www.facebook.com/michelle.rita.ugenti?fref=ts
Paul Boyer (R) pboyer@azleg.gov 602-926-4173 https://www.facebook.com/pauldboyer? fref=ts
Adam Kwasman (R) akwasman@azleg.gov 602-926-5839 https://www.facebook.com/AdamKwasman?fref=ts
Chad Campbell (D) chcampbell@azleg.gov 602-926-3026 https://www.facebook.com/chad.campbell.52687?fref=ts
Stefanie Mach (D) smach@azleg.gov 602-417-3126 https://www.facebook.com/StefanieMachAZ?fref=ts
Thomas Forese (R) tforese@azleg.gov 602-926-5168
Andrew Sherwood (D) asherwood@azleg.gov 602-926-3028 https://www.facebook.com/sherwood.andrew?fref=ts

I would also copy your state Senators and Representative by using the link below to find out who they are:

http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Elizabeth Forsyth (elizabeth.forsyth@me.com), or Chad Mosher (chadmosher@gmail.com)

Thank you for your efforts to stand for justice and equality,

Gordon Gray and Elizabeth Forsyth (President of the Arizona Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling- AzALGBTIC)

Gordon Gray II
Government Relations/Public Policy Chair
AzALGBTIC Bylaws Chair
Arizona Counselors Association
P.O. Box 38652
Phoenix, AZ 85069
602-300-6198 (Cell)
623-748-9599 (FAX)
gordongray@me.com

Flexible Gender Identities Confound Expectations Of A Male And Female World

This article comes from NPR's 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog. Barbara King reports on an incident that happened in Virginia (where she lives) in which a transgendered woman was asked to leave a spa (with sex-segregated baths) because of five complaints that she didn't look feminine enough (she is a marathoner and happens to be muscular). The complaints had nothing to do with her genitalia, only her muscular appearance.

From this story, King moves into the complex world of fluid gender identities, something this culture is going to have to deal with as more and more people become gender-queer (whether they identify that way or not).

Flexible Gender Identities Confound Expectations Of A Male And Female World

Riya Suising

by BARBARA J. KING
March 14, 2013

Last month, a traveler from California named Riya Suising came to Virginia (where I live) on business. While here, Suising decided to visit a spa and relax in its communal, sex-segregated baths, something she, a marathon runner, often does at home.


iStockphoto.com

What happened next shocked her. The spa's manager asked Suising to leave, based on what he said were five complaints lodged by other spa customers. For some people, Suising — who, by her own description is tall and muscular, with broad shoulders — did not look feminine enough to be sitting in the female baths.

Suising, a transgendered person, told The Fairfax Times: "None of the complaints, as they were described to me, referenced my genitalia in any way. I can't believe that they would discriminate based on physical appearance. I was not doing anything but keeping to myself."

It's that comment of Suising's — I was not doing anything but keeping to myself — that I find most poignant. And this was no momentary lapse in judgment for which the spa subsequently apologizes. No, as The Fairfax Times article makes clear, it's the spa's policy to not accept what it terms "any kinds of abnormal sexual oriented customers," a policy that's been interpreted as legal in Virginia.

I learned about what happened to Suising from my daughter, Sarah Hogg, after discussing with her a book we'd both just read: Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg. In this novel, a young person named Jess Goldberg, born female, struggles for many years with gender identity.

As an adolescent, Jess identifies as butch in a butch-femme culture, and later takes steps, including hormone therapy and breast-reduction surgery, to pass as a man. Later still, Jess embraces an identity that is neither wholly female nor wholly male.

Repeatedly, Jess loses hir job (this pronoun is meant to adress Jess' blended identity). Jess is also attacked and beaten. The attacks occur not only when police raid the bars Jess visits in the 1960s and 1970s (both before and after Stonewall), but also when Jess is out in the everyday world, shopping or waiting for the subway. In other words, harm comes to hir even when Jess is not doing anything but keeping to hirself.

There was something different about Jess. For some people, being unable to categorize hir as male or female upon sight was disconcerting enough to trigger discrimination, or worse.

Author Feinberg, a political journalist and gender activist, notes in an afterword that, though fiction, the book is "Real all right. So real it bleeds."

I asked my daughter Sarah — who thinks about these things in the course of her leadership role with James Madison University's Madison Equality organization — two questions: Was it believable that someone who just looked different would be the target of such discrimination in the everyday world, even when keeping to hirself? And even if that result had occurred decades ago, weren't people more informed, aware, and accepting now?

That's when Sarah showed me the article about Suising. While Suising wasn't physically harmed at the spa, the incident clearly and understandably has caused her much emotional pain. What happened at that spa was wrong. Suising identifies as female: end of the story (or it should be). As with anyone, she should be judged on her behavior, not her appearance.

I've written it here before: there's so much gender variety in our world, beyond a strict, imagined born-male versus born-female dichotomy. Some people identify as female, some as male, some as both male and female, some as neither. Feinberg has the character Jess speak this truth through fiction:
Who was I now, woman or man? I fought long and hard to be included as woman among women, but I always felt so excluded by my differences. ... Who was I now, woman or man? That question could never be answered as long as those were the only choices; it could never be answered if it had to be asked.

~ You can keep up with more of what Barbara is thinking on Twitter: @bjkingape