This article was cross-posted on The Asexual Agenda.
Recently, there was a very short documentary entitled “I’m Graysexual”
(NSFW), featuring a man about my age, and using the same identity as I
do: gay and greysexual. He does nothing more than briefly explain his
personal experience, which is somewhat different from my own, and as I
said, it’s very short.
What was particularly significant to me was not what was said, but
what was unsaid. Specifically, the documentarian chose a stream of
clips that imply close interaction with urban gay culture. He walks
around what appears to be West Hollywood (the gay neighborhood in Los
Angeles). He hangs out at gay nightclubs, watching go-go boys. He
looks quizzically at packaged dildos, racks of porn videos, Grindr.
This is all incredibly familiar to me.
I often feel like I’m the only ace who interacts with that kind of gay
male culture. This is not surprising: this is only one of many gay
cultures, the ace community is dominated by women, and not all ace men
are homoromantic, gay, or bi. But even among those in the right
demographics, I often hear that ace men simply aren’t willing to put up
with it.
That, too, is not surprising, and can be explained in one word:
S-E-X. I don’t need to explain the stereotype, you already know it.
Gay culture… is not really what I would have created if I were
dictator. But because of my disposition, I find it tolerable. I even
find benefits to it, since a space where people openly talk about sex gives an opening to talk about asexuality.
And to be honest, I’d take it over straight culture any day.
Straight people are space aliens. They think that the only way to
proceed in life is to get married and have children. They think men
should have initiative, and women should just be receptive. I don’t
understand it, and I feel sorry for all the people who have to live in
it, particularly the non-straight people. Other people have lamented a
lack of older single role models, so I should mention I’ve known plenty
of older gay bachelors. I’m in a stable relationship so I’m not going
in that direction personally, but it wouldn’t feel odd to me if I did.
So here I am, choosing to deal with a very sexual culture, rather
than dealing with that other heteronormative one. I’ve been to gay
nightclubs packed full of sweaty men. I’ve had awkward encounters with
rice queens, and then befriended them because what else are you going to
do? I’ve wandered the Castro many times, where inexplicably the best
place to get beer is the wine bar. And I’ve sat through a million
conversations about Grindr (a popular hookup app), and seen a million
more online articles about it, from the many online gay websites that
are basically like teen girl magazines, except for older gay men.
People argue back and forth about Grindr the same way that they argue
back and forth about looking at smartphones during social outings. It’s
the same argument, really, because what else do you use a smartphone
for, amirite?
I spend a lot of space talking about Grindr, because that represents
the amount of attention it gets in reality. Eh, it’s more amusing than
talking about sportsball, another aspect of space alien culture I don’t
miss.
In gay culture, I blend in fairly well. Acquaintances assume I’m gay
until otherwise noted. It eventually becomes otherwise noted, as I
haphazardly come out to people as ace. At that point I become an
oddity, that one asexual guy that people know. They’re puzzled how that
works, why I’m bothering to be here, and what I do with my boyfriend,
but they rarely ask such questions directly. I wonder if this is how
bisexual men feel.
If there’s one advantage of heteronormative straight culture vs
hypersexual gay culture, it’s that heternormativity can be opposed.
Sexual culture cannot be opposed, because at least superficially, it has
some decent justifications. There is an ongoing discussion
about the level of sexuality in gay culture, but it’s not a discussion
that aces play any role in. The discussion is about Grindr, about
hookup culture, and about assimilationism vs liberationism.
I don’t give a shit about assimilating, but I would like it if there
were more public concern about sexual assault, or even the social
capital placed on sexual desirability and ability. Sadly, such concerns
are more typical among feminists, who are typically women. I will be
waiting for a long time for the gay male feminist revolution.
So that’s the social life I have, and it’s okay. There are some
problems, but nobody is pressuring me to follow a fixed life
trajectory. Dropping heteronormativity is great, I recommend it.
Showing posts with label lgbta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lgbta. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
GLBT backwards
On The Asexual Agenda, I
wrote a satirical piece which imagines an alternate world where instead of gay men being the central example of queerness, asexuals are.
Rather than starting with the acronym GLBT and arguing that asexuals
should be included too, I start with the acronym AABT (asexual, aromantic,
bisexual, transgender) and feebly argue that gay people should be
included too.
Silliness aside, I've long thought that the acronym GLBT is completely backwards, and reflective of backwards priorities in queer activism. Let's not even talk about asexuals and aromantics because I am biased on that point. Compared to bisexuals and trans people, gays and lesbians are more privileged, and should not be the center of the movement. We really should be talking about TBLG or BTLG.
Silliness aside, I've long thought that the acronym GLBT is completely backwards, and reflective of backwards priorities in queer activism. Let's not even talk about asexuals and aromantics because I am biased on that point. Compared to bisexuals and trans people, gays and lesbians are more privileged, and should not be the center of the movement. We really should be talking about TBLG or BTLG.
A few quick citations. Basically no one denies that trans people have it the worst off, attempting suicide ten times more frequently than the general population, and twice as frequently as the LGB population. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, and you can read about many more problems in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. From my understanding, trans people are less common than gay or lesbian people, but if you care about raw numbers you'd have to prioritize bisexuals. Bisexuals are more numerous than gays and lesbians, and fare worse on most measures of quality of life.
It
seems to me that the reason so much money and attention is given to gay
and lesbian issues is precisely because they are relatively
privileged. It's not that there aren't real concerns worth addressing
for gay and lesbian people. But rather, bisexual and trans people have
problems that run so deep that they even infect the focus of activism.
And when I started thinking about it this way, I started seeing its effects everywhere. For example, in my satirical essay, I mock the way that "queer" is seen in opposition to "straight". If trans people ruled queerdom, then the opposite of "queer" would be "cis", and then we'd spend a lot of time arguing that gay people were still queer despite many of them technically being cisgender.
And when I started thinking about it this way, I started seeing its effects everywhere. For example, in my satirical essay, I mock the way that "queer" is seen in opposition to "straight". If trans people ruled queerdom, then the opposite of "queer" would be "cis", and then we'd spend a lot of time arguing that gay people were still queer despite many of them technically being cisgender.
Put another way, we're more likely to let transphobia slide precisely because transphobia is more widespread than homophobia and has done more harm. There's a logic to it, but it's also fucked up.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Make an ass out of you and everyone
Pop quiz
Imagine that I give you a quiz where you're supposed to determine whether a bunch of statements are true or false. Upon reading the statements, you find that they are too obscure, and you have no idea what to make of any of them. However, I give you the hint that 80% of the statements are true, and the other 20% are false. How should you proceed?
If you say that 80% of the statements are true and the other 20% are false, then your expected score will only be 68%. Clearly, you should guess that every single statement is true. You will only get an 80% on the quiz, but that's the best you can do.
Now imagine instead that we're talking about people. You're at a high school reunion, and to be honest you haven't interacted with a single person here since graduation. You know that around 5% of your former classmates are queer, but you don't know which ones. How would you make your guesses?
This is a loaded question of course. Why would you ever need to guess? Why not just assume nothing of anyone?
The irony is that while queer people (or anyone who invisibly deviates from the norm) are the biggest losers in the assumption game, they are also in a unique position to recognize the value of the same assumptions.
Assumption spaces
There's a reason why queer safe spaces are needed. They are spaces where you can assume that everyone else is queer, or at least very sympathetic. When an intruder comes into a safe space and attacks people, it's considered worse than the same attack outside the safe space, because it's also an attack on our ability to make assumptions.
Queer dating, clubbing, and hookups are even more in need of assumptions. Among my queer male friends, it's a perpetual problem to be meeting men in straight spaces (such as the gym), and to have to guess, based on subtle cues, whether they're straight or not. In an ideal world, you could just ask, but in the real world, this is potentially dangerous, as a lot of straight guys don't take kindly to the mere thought that they could be like us. Even when not dangerous, it can be uncomfortable, and just plain disheartening to know you'll be automatically rejected 95% of the time. A lot of queer guys simply aren't up to the risks, and prefer to meet people through designated queer spaces.
[cn: sexual assault] Spaces with special assumptions can have problems. For example, one of the things I complain about is the ubiquity of sexual assault in gay night clubs. The problem is there are multiple ideas about what kinds of assumptions are acceptable. Some think it's okay to grope people non-consensually because they think it's the social assumption in those spaces. Other people in the same spaces think that's not an acceptable assumption anywhere and you should get consent first (nonverbal consent due to loud music). The common response is that it's the victim's fault for not understanding the assumptions. No, I understand the assumptions, I just reject them, and reject the supposition that everyone in the space has ever shared those assumptions.
Signals vs stereotypes
Moving beyond queer spaces, many queer people are still sick of the assumptions placed upon them on a daily basis. So often they'll adopt signals to make their queerness more visible. Often the most effective signals you can adopt closely resemble stereotypes. With gay men in my area, there are a number of fashion markers and mannerisms that allow a gaydar to work. People aren't necessarily signalling intentionally, but many gay men happen to like these markers, and aren't especially bothered by appearing gay, since they are gay, after all.
This is understandably uncomfortable, because aren't we basically contributing to the stereotypes? And by merely reading those signals, aren't I imposing those stereotypes on possibly unwilling people? Rather than combatting assumptions, we're trying to take advantage of them and guide them in the right direction.
And what about people who can't access those stereotypes? Black queer people can't make themselves white, but unfortunately in our culture that's basically what they'd have to do to send a clear signal. "I hate signals so much!" "I wish I could signal too!"
Guessing is a battleground
Many people have talked about a distinction between "ask" culture and "guess" culture. In ask culture, if you want something then you ask for it, even knowing that you may not get it. In guess culture, it's only polite to ask for things that you're reasonably sure you'll receive.
Ask and guess culture also apply to gender. In many queer spaces, it's common to ask people for pronouns, because in general you can't tell what gender a person is by seeing how they look. This is especially important for inexperienced people (unfortunately the same group of people who tend not to understand why it's important), since they may otherwise base guesses on harmful stereotypes.
But trans people, understandably, don't want to spend their entire lives confined to queer spaces, and they have to deal with these guesses and assumptions everywhere. I've heard many queer people express a desire that we should ask people for pronouns everywhere, not just in queer spaces. Unfortunately, this strikes most people as extreme. Society at large clearly has a guess culture with respect to gender; many people would find it insulting if you asked their pronouns when they think they're being perfectly clear.
It's a common saying that "When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME". But people clearly like assumptions and derive some value from them. Assumptions in the public realm are defended fiercely. Queer people also derive value from assumptions and create spaces and signalling structures around them.
It's about time that we recognize assumptions on their own terms, containing both good and bad.
Imagine that I give you a quiz where you're supposed to determine whether a bunch of statements are true or false. Upon reading the statements, you find that they are too obscure, and you have no idea what to make of any of them. However, I give you the hint that 80% of the statements are true, and the other 20% are false. How should you proceed?
If you say that 80% of the statements are true and the other 20% are false, then your expected score will only be 68%. Clearly, you should guess that every single statement is true. You will only get an 80% on the quiz, but that's the best you can do.
Now imagine instead that we're talking about people. You're at a high school reunion, and to be honest you haven't interacted with a single person here since graduation. You know that around 5% of your former classmates are queer, but you don't know which ones. How would you make your guesses?
This is a loaded question of course. Why would you ever need to guess? Why not just assume nothing of anyone?
The irony is that while queer people (or anyone who invisibly deviates from the norm) are the biggest losers in the assumption game, they are also in a unique position to recognize the value of the same assumptions.
Assumption spaces
There's a reason why queer safe spaces are needed. They are spaces where you can assume that everyone else is queer, or at least very sympathetic. When an intruder comes into a safe space and attacks people, it's considered worse than the same attack outside the safe space, because it's also an attack on our ability to make assumptions.
Queer dating, clubbing, and hookups are even more in need of assumptions. Among my queer male friends, it's a perpetual problem to be meeting men in straight spaces (such as the gym), and to have to guess, based on subtle cues, whether they're straight or not. In an ideal world, you could just ask, but in the real world, this is potentially dangerous, as a lot of straight guys don't take kindly to the mere thought that they could be like us. Even when not dangerous, it can be uncomfortable, and just plain disheartening to know you'll be automatically rejected 95% of the time. A lot of queer guys simply aren't up to the risks, and prefer to meet people through designated queer spaces.
[cn: sexual assault] Spaces with special assumptions can have problems. For example, one of the things I complain about is the ubiquity of sexual assault in gay night clubs. The problem is there are multiple ideas about what kinds of assumptions are acceptable. Some think it's okay to grope people non-consensually because they think it's the social assumption in those spaces. Other people in the same spaces think that's not an acceptable assumption anywhere and you should get consent first (nonverbal consent due to loud music). The common response is that it's the victim's fault for not understanding the assumptions. No, I understand the assumptions, I just reject them, and reject the supposition that everyone in the space has ever shared those assumptions.
Signals vs stereotypes
Moving beyond queer spaces, many queer people are still sick of the assumptions placed upon them on a daily basis. So often they'll adopt signals to make their queerness more visible. Often the most effective signals you can adopt closely resemble stereotypes. With gay men in my area, there are a number of fashion markers and mannerisms that allow a gaydar to work. People aren't necessarily signalling intentionally, but many gay men happen to like these markers, and aren't especially bothered by appearing gay, since they are gay, after all.
This is understandably uncomfortable, because aren't we basically contributing to the stereotypes? And by merely reading those signals, aren't I imposing those stereotypes on possibly unwilling people? Rather than combatting assumptions, we're trying to take advantage of them and guide them in the right direction.
And what about people who can't access those stereotypes? Black queer people can't make themselves white, but unfortunately in our culture that's basically what they'd have to do to send a clear signal. "I hate signals so much!" "I wish I could signal too!"
Guessing is a battleground
Many people have talked about a distinction between "ask" culture and "guess" culture. In ask culture, if you want something then you ask for it, even knowing that you may not get it. In guess culture, it's only polite to ask for things that you're reasonably sure you'll receive.
Ask and guess culture also apply to gender. In many queer spaces, it's common to ask people for pronouns, because in general you can't tell what gender a person is by seeing how they look. This is especially important for inexperienced people (unfortunately the same group of people who tend not to understand why it's important), since they may otherwise base guesses on harmful stereotypes.
But trans people, understandably, don't want to spend their entire lives confined to queer spaces, and they have to deal with these guesses and assumptions everywhere. I've heard many queer people express a desire that we should ask people for pronouns everywhere, not just in queer spaces. Unfortunately, this strikes most people as extreme. Society at large clearly has a guess culture with respect to gender; many people would find it insulting if you asked their pronouns when they think they're being perfectly clear.
It's a common saying that "When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME". But people clearly like assumptions and derive some value from them. Assumptions in the public realm are defended fiercely. Queer people also derive value from assumptions and create spaces and signalling structures around them.
It's about time that we recognize assumptions on their own terms, containing both good and bad.
Friday, August 28, 2015
A personal history with trans issues
Since
I'm resolving, as a cis person, to talk about transgender issues more
often, I wish to explain the personal trajectory that lead to my current
perspective.
I first started identifying as queer in 2009. More specifically, I'm gay gray-A, meaning that I'm on the boundaries between asexual and gay. Back then, I was nominally accepting of trans people, but I didn't think about them that much. And the reality is that in this society, transphobia and ignorance are so pervasive that if you haven't thought about it you are almost certainly the holder of many problematic views and behaviors.
But I would say I was eager to learn, and here enters the asexual influence. Asexuals were a small group that hardly anyone in the queer student groups understood or spoke of. Transgender people were in the same boat. Clearly we should be friends.
Essential commentators
I didn't actually have a personal friend who was trans until 2010. We were both affiliated with queer-themed housing and were outcasts of sorts from the main cliques (which consisted of gay men and straight women, naturally). We ended up talking a lot about trans issues, often so she could vent about things that other people in the house were saying.
This was of course very eye-opening. But the most eye-opening stuff I learned was not trans 101, but learning about the turbulence of trans politics. The very first thing I learned about were trans-exclusive feminists. And then the real kicker was learning about transphobia among trans people. The overall impression I had was of a bunch of people on a boat that's been hit with a missile. As it sinks, everyone shouts over whose fault it was and then tries to throw each other off the boat.
That isn't what you'd think of as an ideal introduction to a subject. But I tend to think inter- and intra-community conflict is intriguing and hashes out a lot of details that would otherwise go undeveloped. And sometimes skipping to the advanced issues makes the basic issues seem all the more obvious and urgent.
Since then, I've found trans writers to be essential commentators. I don't mean to treat trans people like magical social justice wizards, but over the years I happened to like a lot of social justice critics who were trans activists. I don't know if I could really pin down the emotional reasons why. I would say... progressive movements are absolutely essential to trans people, but trans people also tend to have a healthy degree of cynicism about the same movements. I also need those progressive movements, and need that cynicism.
Non-binary aces
Most of the trans writers I'm thinking of are trans women. But my central image of a trans person is someone who is non-binary. Because being in the ace community, non-binary people are everywhere. There are more non-binary people than there are men.
A few anecdotes might establish that non-binary people weren't simply present, but taking important roles. Back in 2011, I wrote a short history of the Livejournal asexuality community. That history was based on an interview I had with the founder, Nat Titman; Nat is non-binary. They're like the dark knight of asexuality. They played a very important role, but dropped out of public view for many years, partially out of concern that people would confuse asexuality with gender.
Also in 2011, I conducted an interview (not available online) with Charlie, one of the figures in the Transyada community. The Transyadas were a big deal in 2011. They started out as a massive thread on the AVEN forums, but later decamped and moved to the Transyada forums. Note the reason they decamped was because they were dissatisfied with the amount of transphobia on AVEN, so that's a hint while non-binary people have always been around, ace communities haven't always been friendly to them.
Aside from that, I've had many colleagues, cobloggers, copanelists, interviewees, and friends who were non-binary.
That said, I've never made any concerted effort to learn about non-binary issues. What I know about non-binary people is mostly from osmosis over the years. I understand pronouns, and much of the vocabulary, but that's very much on a different level from being able to blog about it extensively.
On blog focus
When you have a personal blog, your choice of topics is a very personal decision, and one that I don't need to defend. But I'll briefly comment on why I haven't blogged much about trans issues in the past despite considering them important.
The basic reason is that I mostly use this blog to share original thoughts. When it comes to trans issues, the most appropriate thing is not to share my original thoughts, but to amplify trans voices. And I don't have very much power to amplify so what's the point?
I feel the same way about Black Lives Matter. It's a very important movement but also I don't know what to say about it. When I comment on an issue, I tend to complicate things and add nuance. But do I really need to bring any nuance to the issue of police being violently racist? That strikes me as straightforward.
But now I want to talk more about trans issues. Following my usual blogging style, that means adding nuance. But I'm keenly aware that as a cis person, my ability to add nuance is limited, and I will ultimately make mistakes. I hope I have enough trans readers around that they'll poke me if I say something wrong.
TL;DR
-Trans issues are important to me, and I also find trans women activists to be great social critics in general.
-In my experience with the ace community, I interact with a lot of non-binary people, but I don't necessarily understand their issues in great depth.
-As I begin to comment more on trans issues, I try to be aware of the limitations in my cis perspective.
I first started identifying as queer in 2009. More specifically, I'm gay gray-A, meaning that I'm on the boundaries between asexual and gay. Back then, I was nominally accepting of trans people, but I didn't think about them that much. And the reality is that in this society, transphobia and ignorance are so pervasive that if you haven't thought about it you are almost certainly the holder of many problematic views and behaviors.
But I would say I was eager to learn, and here enters the asexual influence. Asexuals were a small group that hardly anyone in the queer student groups understood or spoke of. Transgender people were in the same boat. Clearly we should be friends.
Essential commentators
I didn't actually have a personal friend who was trans until 2010. We were both affiliated with queer-themed housing and were outcasts of sorts from the main cliques (which consisted of gay men and straight women, naturally). We ended up talking a lot about trans issues, often so she could vent about things that other people in the house were saying.
This was of course very eye-opening. But the most eye-opening stuff I learned was not trans 101, but learning about the turbulence of trans politics. The very first thing I learned about were trans-exclusive feminists. And then the real kicker was learning about transphobia among trans people. The overall impression I had was of a bunch of people on a boat that's been hit with a missile. As it sinks, everyone shouts over whose fault it was and then tries to throw each other off the boat.
That isn't what you'd think of as an ideal introduction to a subject. But I tend to think inter- and intra-community conflict is intriguing and hashes out a lot of details that would otherwise go undeveloped. And sometimes skipping to the advanced issues makes the basic issues seem all the more obvious and urgent.
Since then, I've found trans writers to be essential commentators. I don't mean to treat trans people like magical social justice wizards, but over the years I happened to like a lot of social justice critics who were trans activists. I don't know if I could really pin down the emotional reasons why. I would say... progressive movements are absolutely essential to trans people, but trans people also tend to have a healthy degree of cynicism about the same movements. I also need those progressive movements, and need that cynicism.
Non-binary aces
Most of the trans writers I'm thinking of are trans women. But my central image of a trans person is someone who is non-binary. Because being in the ace community, non-binary people are everywhere. There are more non-binary people than there are men.
A few anecdotes might establish that non-binary people weren't simply present, but taking important roles. Back in 2011, I wrote a short history of the Livejournal asexuality community. That history was based on an interview I had with the founder, Nat Titman; Nat is non-binary. They're like the dark knight of asexuality. They played a very important role, but dropped out of public view for many years, partially out of concern that people would confuse asexuality with gender.
Also in 2011, I conducted an interview (not available online) with Charlie, one of the figures in the Transyada community. The Transyadas were a big deal in 2011. They started out as a massive thread on the AVEN forums, but later decamped and moved to the Transyada forums. Note the reason they decamped was because they were dissatisfied with the amount of transphobia on AVEN, so that's a hint while non-binary people have always been around, ace communities haven't always been friendly to them.
Aside from that, I've had many colleagues, cobloggers, copanelists, interviewees, and friends who were non-binary.
That said, I've never made any concerted effort to learn about non-binary issues. What I know about non-binary people is mostly from osmosis over the years. I understand pronouns, and much of the vocabulary, but that's very much on a different level from being able to blog about it extensively.
On blog focus
When you have a personal blog, your choice of topics is a very personal decision, and one that I don't need to defend. But I'll briefly comment on why I haven't blogged much about trans issues in the past despite considering them important.
The basic reason is that I mostly use this blog to share original thoughts. When it comes to trans issues, the most appropriate thing is not to share my original thoughts, but to amplify trans voices. And I don't have very much power to amplify so what's the point?
I feel the same way about Black Lives Matter. It's a very important movement but also I don't know what to say about it. When I comment on an issue, I tend to complicate things and add nuance. But do I really need to bring any nuance to the issue of police being violently racist? That strikes me as straightforward.
But now I want to talk more about trans issues. Following my usual blogging style, that means adding nuance. But I'm keenly aware that as a cis person, my ability to add nuance is limited, and I will ultimately make mistakes. I hope I have enough trans readers around that they'll poke me if I say something wrong.
TL;DR
-Trans issues are important to me, and I also find trans women activists to be great social critics in general.
-In my experience with the ace community, I interact with a lot of non-binary people, but I don't necessarily understand their issues in great depth.
-As I begin to comment more on trans issues, I try to be aware of the limitations in my cis perspective.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Flibanserin/Addyi: Potential problems for asexuals
The FDA recently approved Flibanserin/Addyi as a medication to treat low sexual desire in women. Let's talk about what that means for asexuals.
Background
I apologize for repeating some background, but it's necessary because of the many misconceptions about Addyi.
Addyi is the very first drug approved for low sexual desire. No, Viagra was never a treatment for low sexual desire. Furthermore, Addyi is taken daily, while Viagra is taken as needed. Addyi also has serious side effects. Most significantly, it absolutely does not mix with alcohol. It's also considered too dangerous to take in the daytime.
Additionally, the effects of Addyi are extremely marginal. In a trial, women with sexual desire disorders started with a baseline of ~2.7 "sexually satisfying events" per month. Placebo increased this number by once a month, and Addyi increased it by less than twice a month. So we're talking about an increase of about 20%, which for all I know could be achieved by Addyi's sedative side effects.
Hypothetically, a drug like Addyi could do some good for some people, but let's talk about the drug we actually have. And regardless of the good that it might hypothetically do, we also need to weigh that good against the bad.
Asexuals vs Desire Disorders.
The basic problem is that there may be some people with sexual desire disorders, but asexuals exist too, and not everyone can distinguish between them. Asexuality as an orientation has only come to public awareness over the past decade or so, and it's extremely common for asexuals themselves to be unaware of it. When confronted with asexuality, many doctors, asexuals, and people in general deny what is unfamiliar to them.
Even if we were to approach the problem from a clear-minded perspective, no simple rules can be used to make the distinction. You can't use distress as a distinction because asexuals may be distressed about their orientation, and often are. Even if the distress is due to society, the asexuals themselves may not make that connection until later. You can't use a sudden change in sexual desire as a distinction, because sexuality can fluctuate. Someone who was happy with higher sexual desire may also find happiness with low sexual desire.
Some people think that there are at least a few clear cases, such as women with low sexual desire due to other medical conditions, or as a side effect from other drugs. But Addyi is explicitly not approved for such cases, because the risks haven't been assessed.
Predicted problems
These are my predictions for what problems will occur affecting people on the asexual spectrum.
Ad campaigns - There will likely be ads for Addyi which encourage people to view low sexual desire as a problem, even if they wouldn't otherwise.
Unaware asexuals - People who don't experience sexual attraction might be even less likely to learn about asexuality.
Disbelieving public - Partners, friends, relatives, and the general public are often already predisposed to disbelieve asexuality, and might be even more encouraged by Addyi and its marketing.
Pushy doctors - Doctors who do not recognize asexuality, or simply unaware, might encourage their patients to take Addyi without making them aware of the asexual spectrum.
Disbelieving doctors - Doctors who hare aware of Addyi may be less likely to believe patients who disclose their asexuality.
Pushy partners - People with partners with higher degree of sexual desire might be persuaded or even blackmailed into seeking Addyi. It could be used as a tool for control in abusive relationships.
If you can think of any other predictions, I'd like to hear about them.
Proposed solutions
Since Addyi is already approved, nothing can be done about that for now. But to counteract some of the negative consequences, I propose that:
Background
I apologize for repeating some background, but it's necessary because of the many misconceptions about Addyi.
Addyi is the very first drug approved for low sexual desire. No, Viagra was never a treatment for low sexual desire. Furthermore, Addyi is taken daily, while Viagra is taken as needed. Addyi also has serious side effects. Most significantly, it absolutely does not mix with alcohol. It's also considered too dangerous to take in the daytime.
Additionally, the effects of Addyi are extremely marginal. In a trial, women with sexual desire disorders started with a baseline of ~2.7 "sexually satisfying events" per month. Placebo increased this number by once a month, and Addyi increased it by less than twice a month. So we're talking about an increase of about 20%, which for all I know could be achieved by Addyi's sedative side effects.
Hypothetically, a drug like Addyi could do some good for some people, but let's talk about the drug we actually have. And regardless of the good that it might hypothetically do, we also need to weigh that good against the bad.
Asexuals vs Desire Disorders.
The basic problem is that there may be some people with sexual desire disorders, but asexuals exist too, and not everyone can distinguish between them. Asexuality as an orientation has only come to public awareness over the past decade or so, and it's extremely common for asexuals themselves to be unaware of it. When confronted with asexuality, many doctors, asexuals, and people in general deny what is unfamiliar to them.
Even if we were to approach the problem from a clear-minded perspective, no simple rules can be used to make the distinction. You can't use distress as a distinction because asexuals may be distressed about their orientation, and often are. Even if the distress is due to society, the asexuals themselves may not make that connection until later. You can't use a sudden change in sexual desire as a distinction, because sexuality can fluctuate. Someone who was happy with higher sexual desire may also find happiness with low sexual desire.
Some people think that there are at least a few clear cases, such as women with low sexual desire due to other medical conditions, or as a side effect from other drugs. But Addyi is explicitly not approved for such cases, because the risks haven't been assessed.
Predicted problems
These are my predictions for what problems will occur affecting people on the asexual spectrum.
Ad campaigns - There will likely be ads for Addyi which encourage people to view low sexual desire as a problem, even if they wouldn't otherwise.
Unaware asexuals - People who don't experience sexual attraction might be even less likely to learn about asexuality.
Disbelieving public - Partners, friends, relatives, and the general public are often already predisposed to disbelieve asexuality, and might be even more encouraged by Addyi and its marketing.
Pushy doctors - Doctors who do not recognize asexuality, or simply unaware, might encourage their patients to take Addyi without making them aware of the asexual spectrum.
Disbelieving doctors - Doctors who hare aware of Addyi may be less likely to believe patients who disclose their asexuality.
Pushy partners - People with partners with higher degree of sexual desire might be persuaded or even blackmailed into seeking Addyi. It could be used as a tool for control in abusive relationships.
If you can think of any other predictions, I'd like to hear about them.
Proposed solutions
Since Addyi is already approved, nothing can be done about that for now. But to counteract some of the negative consequences, I propose that:
- Doctors certified to prescribe Addyi should be educated about asexuality.
- Addyi marketing materials should be criticized and mocked.
- There should be more mainstream articles thoughtfully addressing Addyi and sexual desire disorders in relation to asexuality.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Meta-issues with petition
Earlier, I wrote about a petition to the FDA to disapprove the drug Flibanserin (brand name Addyi), and expressed my (lukewarm) support of it. The petition is no longer circulating, since the FDA has already made its decision. It was approved.
Previously, I made an error: I said that Flibanserin was a treatment for Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD). In fact, it was tested for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), which is an out-of-date diagnosis. That's bad because HSDD doesn't have a loophole for asexuals. Furthermore, HSDD is defined to include people with "interpersonal difficulties", which means if their partner is unhappy with it they could get diagnosed.
So now that it's done, I have to say, I really don't get the point of the petition. A drug should be approved or disapproved on scientific grounds. And a petition is not exactly proper scientific protocol.
The basic problem with petitions is that they only contain information about how many people agreed, and not how many people disagreed. Circulate a petition widely enough, you can get as many signatures as you want. Even petitions signed by scientists are pretty useless, as parodied by Project Steve.
Many people signing the petition dwelt long on arguments over whether the clinical trials show that Flibanserin is effective. I don't see how that is relevant to the petition. The FDA already knows about the clinical trials. It doesn't need thousands of people on the internet to offer their own opinion. That's why, in my argument in favor of the petition, I waved away the results of clinical trials in favor of discussing the social ramifications of the drug.
At the same time, I'm highly doubtful that the FDA even considers social ramifications in its approval process. I'm also doubtful that they should. Say that the FDA is deciding on a contraceptive drug, do I really want them to even consider arguments that birth control ruins our culture? I don't think so.
The Ace Flibanserin Task Force was also plugging another petition which urges the FDA to stick to the science and ignore all the pro-Flibanserin PR. The thing about that petition, its message is inconsistent with first petition. One petition says, just look at the science and nothing else. The other petition says, also look at these social ramifications. Well. That's politics I guess.
Really, the main point of this petition seems to be to get people in the asexual community to talk about Flibanserin. Fine, it got me to talk about it. It didn't get me to stop being a cynic.
Now that it's been approved, I suppose we'll see what its social ramifications are.
Previously, I made an error: I said that Flibanserin was a treatment for Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD). In fact, it was tested for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), which is an out-of-date diagnosis. That's bad because HSDD doesn't have a loophole for asexuals. Furthermore, HSDD is defined to include people with "interpersonal difficulties", which means if their partner is unhappy with it they could get diagnosed.
So now that it's done, I have to say, I really don't get the point of the petition. A drug should be approved or disapproved on scientific grounds. And a petition is not exactly proper scientific protocol.
The basic problem with petitions is that they only contain information about how many people agreed, and not how many people disagreed. Circulate a petition widely enough, you can get as many signatures as you want. Even petitions signed by scientists are pretty useless, as parodied by Project Steve.
Many people signing the petition dwelt long on arguments over whether the clinical trials show that Flibanserin is effective. I don't see how that is relevant to the petition. The FDA already knows about the clinical trials. It doesn't need thousands of people on the internet to offer their own opinion. That's why, in my argument in favor of the petition, I waved away the results of clinical trials in favor of discussing the social ramifications of the drug.
At the same time, I'm highly doubtful that the FDA even considers social ramifications in its approval process. I'm also doubtful that they should. Say that the FDA is deciding on a contraceptive drug, do I really want them to even consider arguments that birth control ruins our culture? I don't think so.
The Ace Flibanserin Task Force was also plugging another petition which urges the FDA to stick to the science and ignore all the pro-Flibanserin PR. The thing about that petition, its message is inconsistent with first petition. One petition says, just look at the science and nothing else. The other petition says, also look at these social ramifications. Well. That's politics I guess.
Really, the main point of this petition seems to be to get people in the asexual community to talk about Flibanserin. Fine, it got me to talk about it. It didn't get me to stop being a cynic.
Now that it's been approved, I suppose we'll see what its social ramifications are.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Moore's paradox and gender
After just criticizing myself for being overly philosophical about trans people, I can't help myself. Philosophy ate my brain, and anyway it's an attention hook. Let's talk about Moore's paradox.
As nonsensical as that is, sometimes people say something similar about gender identity:
In queer discourse, we talk about our identities all the time. So sometimes I might say, "I'm gay", and the act of saying so is an act of identifying myself. Other times, I might say, "I identify as gay", and that's a statement of my typical actions. And there are a lot of nuances. For instance, I might identify as gay on Facebook, but not in a job interview. Or maybe "gay" tells an imprecise story about me, and sometimes I prefer to tell a more precise story.
I surmise that trans people are similar, and for this reason often talk about which genders they identify as.
Many cis people are privileged enough that they never have to think about their gender identities or the nuances thereof. So when they see trans people saying they identify as X or Y gender, they see an opportunity to assert the superiority of their own gender identities. The thought process goes, "All those trans women only identify as women, but I am different. I am a woman." But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by identity.
I also learned that some people--feminists--have something different in mind when they say they don't identify as women. They are trying to say that they don't identify with all the trappings of women's gender roles--pink dresses, makeup, shopping, homemaking, being overly emotional and caring. This is a fine thing to say, but also represents a misunderstanding. Trans women may also express discomfort with all the trappings of women's gender roles, or they may not. Just like cis women. When they identify as women, they aren't really making a statement either way.
This is all part of the myth that trans women always take femininity to the extreme. And for decades, the image of trans women has been that of hyper-feminine women. However, this image comes from outright erasure of less feminine trans women (as well as the rest of the trans spectrum), and also the medical barriers which basically required trans women to exaggerate their femininity in order to get life-saving treatments.
It is raining, but I don't believe it is raining.or,
P, but I don't believe P.The funny thing about Moore's paradox is that the statement might very well be true. Sometimes, a fact is true even though I don't believe it. On the other hand, if I actually made that statement, you would know that either I'm lying or that I think I'm lying.
As nonsensical as that is, sometimes people say something similar about gender identity:
I don't identify as a woman, I am a woman.By saying that you're a woman, isn't that in itself identification as a woman? What are we to make of this nonsensical statement? What is the intended meaning?
In queer discourse, we talk about our identities all the time. So sometimes I might say, "I'm gay", and the act of saying so is an act of identifying myself. Other times, I might say, "I identify as gay", and that's a statement of my typical actions. And there are a lot of nuances. For instance, I might identify as gay on Facebook, but not in a job interview. Or maybe "gay" tells an imprecise story about me, and sometimes I prefer to tell a more precise story.
I surmise that trans people are similar, and for this reason often talk about which genders they identify as.
Many cis people are privileged enough that they never have to think about their gender identities or the nuances thereof. So when they see trans people saying they identify as X or Y gender, they see an opportunity to assert the superiority of their own gender identities. The thought process goes, "All those trans women only identify as women, but I am different. I am a woman." But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by identity.
I also learned that some people--feminists--have something different in mind when they say they don't identify as women. They are trying to say that they don't identify with all the trappings of women's gender roles--pink dresses, makeup, shopping, homemaking, being overly emotional and caring. This is a fine thing to say, but also represents a misunderstanding. Trans women may also express discomfort with all the trappings of women's gender roles, or they may not. Just like cis women. When they identify as women, they aren't really making a statement either way.
This is all part of the myth that trans women always take femininity to the extreme. And for decades, the image of trans women has been that of hyper-feminine women. However, this image comes from outright erasure of less feminine trans women (as well as the rest of the trans spectrum), and also the medical barriers which basically required trans women to exaggerate their femininity in order to get life-saving treatments.
Monday, August 10, 2015
The petition against Flibanserin
Background
Flibanserin (trade name: Girosa) is a drug that treats low sexual desire in women (Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder, or FSIAD). It is not publicly available because it has not (yet) been approved by the FDA. The FDA will approve or disapprove of it by the end of the week.
Flibanserin is not like Viagra, although that's a common misunderstanding. Viagra does not treat low sexual desire, but rather erectile dysfunction. Furthermore, Flibanserin is intended to be taken on a regular basis. Trials show that women with acquired sexual desire disorders who take Flibanserin had on average 0.7 more satisfying sexual events per month, as compared to placebo. Specifically, it increased the number from 2.8 to 4.5, whereas placebo increased it from 2.7 to 3.7. There are also side effects, though I'm not too familiar with what they are.
The Ace Flibanserin Task Force is circulating a petition among aces to recommend that the FDA disapprove. The existence of Flibanserin would encourage doctors to diagnose asexuals with FSIAD, and it is likely that the Flibanserin/Girosa ad campaign will involve shaming women for low sexual desire.
This has sparked some argument over whether the petition is right. Asexuals may be "happy" with a lack of sexual desire (though there are always external factors affecting their happiness), but that doesn't mean that everyone is happy with it, and perhaps some people have conditions that are best treated within a healthcare framework. Is it right for asexuals to take away that choice?
These are good questions to ask. Way back in 2010, Flibanserin was also being considered for approval by the FDA (it was rejected), and a similar petition was being circulated. So I helped create this interview with a sexual dysfunction activist, so that we could learn what the "other side" is concerned about.
Why I support this petition
Is it right for asexuals to take away the choice of people who want effective treatment for sexual desire disorders? While this is an important question, it is not the same as the question of whether to sign the petition. A petition simply doesn't have the power to take away an effective medical treatment. The petition is neither created or signed by scientific experts, and the FDA knows this.
The purpose of the petition, in my view, is to ask the FDA to consider the externalities of approving Flibanserin. Principally, I am worried about that public ad campaign which will amplify the social shaming of low sexual interest, and doctors' inability to distinguish between asexuality and sexual desire disorders. The harms caused by these externalities would be difficult, if not impossible to measure with scientific studies, but they are still real harms. And without a petition, the FDA would not have much of a basis to consider these harms.
In many of the arguments over the petition, people are talking about the scientific research into Flibanserin, and its exceedingly marginal effect. If you're willing to read the research, you may let that inform your decision. However, in principle, you shouldn't have to. It's the FDA's job to consider the body of research, and as a non-expert I cannot meaningfully contribute to that.
All that matters is that, at a glance, the effects of Flibanserin look marginal, so there's a chance that the external costs might matter. The FDA can weigh the petition in their own cost-benefit analysis, and can still decide either way. Since I am not an expert, I trust the FDA's judgment more than my own.
On people with sexual dysfunction
In the interview with the sexual dysfunction activist in 2010, we learned a few important things.
While it is true that many asexuals have difficulty getting their doctors and therapists to recognize their asexuality, the flipside is that people with sexual dysfunctions have the same difficulty. Even when the dysfunction literally causes pain, doctors may not recognize it or offer treatment.
Furthermore, there are also many feminists who oppose any drug to increase sexual desire, even if effective. Instead they take the view that "low sexual desire" is a social problem, or that we're socialized to think it's a problem. I looked around to see what feminists are saying against Flibanserin now, and they do raise many valid concerns. On the other hand, the articles minimize or wave away people with sexual dysfunctions. As our interviewee observed in 2010, voices from people with sexual dysfunctions are entirely absent.
Though I support the petition, I do not support the silencing of the concerns of people with sexual dysfunctions.
Corrections 8/18/2015: Flibanserin's brand name is Addyi, not Girosa, and it was tested to treat Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) rather than FSIAD.
Flibanserin (trade name: Girosa) is a drug that treats low sexual desire in women (Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder, or FSIAD). It is not publicly available because it has not (yet) been approved by the FDA. The FDA will approve or disapprove of it by the end of the week.
Flibanserin is not like Viagra, although that's a common misunderstanding. Viagra does not treat low sexual desire, but rather erectile dysfunction. Furthermore, Flibanserin is intended to be taken on a regular basis. Trials show that women with acquired sexual desire disorders who take Flibanserin had on average 0.7 more satisfying sexual events per month, as compared to placebo. Specifically, it increased the number from 2.8 to 4.5, whereas placebo increased it from 2.7 to 3.7. There are also side effects, though I'm not too familiar with what they are.
The Ace Flibanserin Task Force is circulating a petition among aces to recommend that the FDA disapprove. The existence of Flibanserin would encourage doctors to diagnose asexuals with FSIAD, and it is likely that the Flibanserin/Girosa ad campaign will involve shaming women for low sexual desire.
This has sparked some argument over whether the petition is right. Asexuals may be "happy" with a lack of sexual desire (though there are always external factors affecting their happiness), but that doesn't mean that everyone is happy with it, and perhaps some people have conditions that are best treated within a healthcare framework. Is it right for asexuals to take away that choice?
These are good questions to ask. Way back in 2010, Flibanserin was also being considered for approval by the FDA (it was rejected), and a similar petition was being circulated. So I helped create this interview with a sexual dysfunction activist, so that we could learn what the "other side" is concerned about.
Why I support this petition
Is it right for asexuals to take away the choice of people who want effective treatment for sexual desire disorders? While this is an important question, it is not the same as the question of whether to sign the petition. A petition simply doesn't have the power to take away an effective medical treatment. The petition is neither created or signed by scientific experts, and the FDA knows this.
The purpose of the petition, in my view, is to ask the FDA to consider the externalities of approving Flibanserin. Principally, I am worried about that public ad campaign which will amplify the social shaming of low sexual interest, and doctors' inability to distinguish between asexuality and sexual desire disorders. The harms caused by these externalities would be difficult, if not impossible to measure with scientific studies, but they are still real harms. And without a petition, the FDA would not have much of a basis to consider these harms.
In many of the arguments over the petition, people are talking about the scientific research into Flibanserin, and its exceedingly marginal effect. If you're willing to read the research, you may let that inform your decision. However, in principle, you shouldn't have to. It's the FDA's job to consider the body of research, and as a non-expert I cannot meaningfully contribute to that.
All that matters is that, at a glance, the effects of Flibanserin look marginal, so there's a chance that the external costs might matter. The FDA can weigh the petition in their own cost-benefit analysis, and can still decide either way. Since I am not an expert, I trust the FDA's judgment more than my own.
On people with sexual dysfunction
In the interview with the sexual dysfunction activist in 2010, we learned a few important things.
While it is true that many asexuals have difficulty getting their doctors and therapists to recognize their asexuality, the flipside is that people with sexual dysfunctions have the same difficulty. Even when the dysfunction literally causes pain, doctors may not recognize it or offer treatment.
Furthermore, there are also many feminists who oppose any drug to increase sexual desire, even if effective. Instead they take the view that "low sexual desire" is a social problem, or that we're socialized to think it's a problem. I looked around to see what feminists are saying against Flibanserin now, and they do raise many valid concerns. On the other hand, the articles minimize or wave away people with sexual dysfunctions. As our interviewee observed in 2010, voices from people with sexual dysfunctions are entirely absent.
Though I support the petition, I do not support the silencing of the concerns of people with sexual dysfunctions.
Corrections 8/18/2015: Flibanserin's brand name is Addyi, not Girosa, and it was tested to treat Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) rather than FSIAD.
Friday, August 7, 2015
"Cis by default" and privilege
Earlier, when I wrote Cis Diversity,
the popularity of that post surprised me. I don't think I was saying
anything new, rather, I was simply sharing Ozy's idea of "cis by default". But perhaps it's an idea that deserves explanation, spreading and re-explanation.
Now, let's talk about the problems with "cis by default".
As a political tactic, it's useful to convince cis people that they may be cis by default. The political message is, even if you don't understand gender identity, you should still trust trans experiences. If you don't understand it, maybe it's you, not them.
On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of cisgender people initially think they're cis by default when they're not. This suspicion comes from my own experience, where I initially thought my gender wasn't that important to me. But upon increased interaction with non-binary people I realized that my gender is actually pretty important to me. I think an internal sense of gender may not be immediately obvious. If you're trans, you notice something wrong, and after a lot of thought and investigation you figure out what it is. If you're cis, you don't notice anything wrong and then you just aren't motivated to think about it very hard.
It's not that cis-by-default people don't exist. I'm sure they do. But often I think the best evidence for this is not in listening to cis experiences, but in listening to trans experiences. Many trans people clearly have an internal sense of gender, and many others just as clearly do not. Any theory of gender that does not account for transgender experiences is a pretty poor excuse for a gender theory.
On that note, here's Zinnia Jones, discussing more or less the same topic:
There's also a transcript.
Notice the immediate differences in the way Zinnia talks about it and the way I do. I'm clearly coming from a cisgender perspective. The idea of an internal gender sense is of philosophical interest to me, and to my cis readers as well. To a trans person, this is not a philosophical issue, it is a practical one. Trans people can't treat it as a spherical cow problem. It's probably overly simplistic to suggest that some people just have an internal gender sense, and others just don't.
Zinnia also talks at length how the question of what it "feels like" to be a gender is not politically neutral. People use this question to invalidate trans experiences, because they think trans people can't really know what it's like to be a woman or be a man.
The great irony here is that it's often cis people who don't know what it's like to be a gender. We often have the privilege of being able to leave it as an eternal mystery. Trans people don't have that luxury.
Now, let's talk about the problems with "cis by default".
As a political tactic, it's useful to convince cis people that they may be cis by default. The political message is, even if you don't understand gender identity, you should still trust trans experiences. If you don't understand it, maybe it's you, not them.
On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of cisgender people initially think they're cis by default when they're not. This suspicion comes from my own experience, where I initially thought my gender wasn't that important to me. But upon increased interaction with non-binary people I realized that my gender is actually pretty important to me. I think an internal sense of gender may not be immediately obvious. If you're trans, you notice something wrong, and after a lot of thought and investigation you figure out what it is. If you're cis, you don't notice anything wrong and then you just aren't motivated to think about it very hard.
It's not that cis-by-default people don't exist. I'm sure they do. But often I think the best evidence for this is not in listening to cis experiences, but in listening to trans experiences. Many trans people clearly have an internal sense of gender, and many others just as clearly do not. Any theory of gender that does not account for transgender experiences is a pretty poor excuse for a gender theory.
On that note, here's Zinnia Jones, discussing more or less the same topic:
There's also a transcript.
Notice the immediate differences in the way Zinnia talks about it and the way I do. I'm clearly coming from a cisgender perspective. The idea of an internal gender sense is of philosophical interest to me, and to my cis readers as well. To a trans person, this is not a philosophical issue, it is a practical one. Trans people can't treat it as a spherical cow problem. It's probably overly simplistic to suggest that some people just have an internal gender sense, and others just don't.
Zinnia also talks at length how the question of what it "feels like" to be a gender is not politically neutral. People use this question to invalidate trans experiences, because they think trans people can't really know what it's like to be a woman or be a man.
The great irony here is that it's often cis people who don't know what it's like to be a gender. We often have the privilege of being able to leave it as an eternal mystery. Trans people don't have that luxury.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Ontology and Gender
Part of this whole kerfuffle was that someone said, in response to the question "Are trans women
women?" that they supported trans women politically, but weren't sure
about the ontological question.
As someone who doesn't believe in the existence of gender, I am profoundly unsympathetic.
As I've said before, I endorse a form of nominalism, which means I believe in the existence of things, but not categories. Most of the things we talk about are really categories; for example, this shoe is a collection of particles. The particles exist, the collection does not. Most things we talk about don't exist. Gender doesn't, football doesn't, money doesn't, rocks don't, atoms don't.
The thing about categories is that they're always human-dependent. If we started to take apart my shoe, the point where we stop calling it a shoe is subjective, and decided pragmatically based on human needs. If we remove everything but the shoelace, we'd call it a shoelace instead of a shoe, because a shoelace is a part that we can buy separately and replace. If you remove some other combination of parts of the shoe, we might disagree on whether it's still a shoe because practically speaking we don't have to deal with border cases much and thus haven't come to a consensus about them. You could say that the shoe is "socially constructed" in that there's a social agreement that this category is the best way to think about how stuff in the universe is arranged.
I think this is a fairly useful philosophy, as it makes me immune to all varieties of essentialism in identity politics. But the primary disadvantage is that it's hard to translate, and sometimes I may even fool myself with poor translations. See, I know very well that when people talk about whether gender exists, and whether it's socially constructed, they don't mean it in the same way I do. They're not asking for my opinions on nominalism.
So while I think most things don't exist, maybe there's another meaning of "exist" under which some things exist and others don't. Maybe there's another meaning of "social construction" under which some things are social constructions (gender, football, money) but others are not (rocks, atoms). I don't think I quite understand what meaning is intended, and I doubt its coherence, but okay, I can get a feel for it. "Social construction" appears to mean that other human societies could reasonably use a different category in its place.
When someone says they don't understand the ontology of gender, and are equivocal about whether trans women are "ontologically" women, I can only understand that in translation, and none of the translations are very nice.
Maybe it's a form of gender essentialism. They think "woman" is a real category (which is a concept I find incoherent). Although, they're not sure what this real category includes, and in particular they're not sure whether it includes trans women.
Or... maybe it comes from the belief that gender is a social construction. They think "woman" is a category that can be reasonably changed. If so, shouldn't the political question and ontological question be one and the same? By calling the question ontologically uncertain, they're saying that they're not sure whether the changed category of "woman" should include trans women or not. Or maybe they think the correct change is to abolish gender entirely despite the harm this would cause.
I find all of these translations deplorable, and you can't really excuse them with philosophical sophistication. Furthermore, like Heather, I am very skeptical when people suddenly become curious philosophers when it's convenient to waffle about trans people. If you really wanted to talk about philosophy and not just trying to say something politically, you could start with less contentious topics, like the existence of shoes.
As someone who doesn't believe in the existence of gender, I am profoundly unsympathetic.
As I've said before, I endorse a form of nominalism, which means I believe in the existence of things, but not categories. Most of the things we talk about are really categories; for example, this shoe is a collection of particles. The particles exist, the collection does not. Most things we talk about don't exist. Gender doesn't, football doesn't, money doesn't, rocks don't, atoms don't.
The thing about categories is that they're always human-dependent. If we started to take apart my shoe, the point where we stop calling it a shoe is subjective, and decided pragmatically based on human needs. If we remove everything but the shoelace, we'd call it a shoelace instead of a shoe, because a shoelace is a part that we can buy separately and replace. If you remove some other combination of parts of the shoe, we might disagree on whether it's still a shoe because practically speaking we don't have to deal with border cases much and thus haven't come to a consensus about them. You could say that the shoe is "socially constructed" in that there's a social agreement that this category is the best way to think about how stuff in the universe is arranged.
I think this is a fairly useful philosophy, as it makes me immune to all varieties of essentialism in identity politics. But the primary disadvantage is that it's hard to translate, and sometimes I may even fool myself with poor translations. See, I know very well that when people talk about whether gender exists, and whether it's socially constructed, they don't mean it in the same way I do. They're not asking for my opinions on nominalism.
So while I think most things don't exist, maybe there's another meaning of "exist" under which some things exist and others don't. Maybe there's another meaning of "social construction" under which some things are social constructions (gender, football, money) but others are not (rocks, atoms). I don't think I quite understand what meaning is intended, and I doubt its coherence, but okay, I can get a feel for it. "Social construction" appears to mean that other human societies could reasonably use a different category in its place.
When someone says they don't understand the ontology of gender, and are equivocal about whether trans women are "ontologically" women, I can only understand that in translation, and none of the translations are very nice.
Maybe it's a form of gender essentialism. They think "woman" is a real category (which is a concept I find incoherent). Although, they're not sure what this real category includes, and in particular they're not sure whether it includes trans women.
Or... maybe it comes from the belief that gender is a social construction. They think "woman" is a category that can be reasonably changed. If so, shouldn't the political question and ontological question be one and the same? By calling the question ontologically uncertain, they're saying that they're not sure whether the changed category of "woman" should include trans women or not. Or maybe they think the correct change is to abolish gender entirely despite the harm this would cause.
I find all of these translations deplorable, and you can't really excuse them with philosophical sophistication. Furthermore, like Heather, I am very skeptical when people suddenly become curious philosophers when it's convenient to waffle about trans people. If you really wanted to talk about philosophy and not just trying to say something politically, you could start with less contentious topics, like the existence of shoes.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Cis diversity
So, let's talk about cisgender people, and how
our sparing cis intellects assume the most ingratiating posture of
surrender whenever the subject of trans people is broached.
When a trans person says they feel like this gender or that gender, many cis people find that confusing. "What does it feel like to feel like a man? *I* don't feel like I am a man. Rather, I'm a man because society railroaded me into this role."
If you feel sympathetic to this response, you may be interested in the theory of cis by default. Under this theory, some cisgender people simply do not have an internal sense of gender ("feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman"), and simply go by the gender they're told they are from birth.
This implies that not all cis people are the same. Some cis people have an internal sense of gender, some do not. If you're confused by the very idea of an internal sense of gender, maybe you're one of the people who doesn't have one.
An additional complication is maybe some people can't tell whether or not they have an internal sense of gender. I bring this up as it applies to myself. When I first encountered the concept of transgender, I didn't understand this idea of feeling like you are a gender. Frankly it's bizarre and the universe is pulling hella shenanigans on us all. But upon years of reflection, I realized I'd feel pretty uncomfortable if everyone started treating me, respectfully, as a woman. So maybe these gender-feels, however bizarre, exists in me? Or is does it just come from the fact that male gender roles involve inculcating us all with a fear of the feminine? I don't know, and I probably never will.
As far as I know, all this diversity appears in trans people too. Some trans people have a strong internal sense of gender. Others may simply have to compare their experiences being seen as a man vs a woman, and find that they feel much better one way, even if they don't have an explicit "I am a woman" kind of feeling. Some trans people may not have an internal sense of gender at all, and identify as non-binary for that reason (people ID as non-binary for other reasons too).
In my interactions with nonbinary people, they never universalize their feelings about gender. Queer people don't have the luxury of being able to assume everyone feels the same way they do. Cisgender people have never had that luxury either, but sometimes they think they do.
The fact that some, if not all, people have an internal sense of gender is what makes gender identity completely incomparable to racial identity, and what makes "abolishing gender" ultimately undesirable.
(This post was inspired by comments by Ophelia Benson.)
When a trans person says they feel like this gender or that gender, many cis people find that confusing. "What does it feel like to feel like a man? *I* don't feel like I am a man. Rather, I'm a man because society railroaded me into this role."
If you feel sympathetic to this response, you may be interested in the theory of cis by default. Under this theory, some cisgender people simply do not have an internal sense of gender ("feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman"), and simply go by the gender they're told they are from birth.
This implies that not all cis people are the same. Some cis people have an internal sense of gender, some do not. If you're confused by the very idea of an internal sense of gender, maybe you're one of the people who doesn't have one.
An additional complication is maybe some people can't tell whether or not they have an internal sense of gender. I bring this up as it applies to myself. When I first encountered the concept of transgender, I didn't understand this idea of feeling like you are a gender. Frankly it's bizarre and the universe is pulling hella shenanigans on us all. But upon years of reflection, I realized I'd feel pretty uncomfortable if everyone started treating me, respectfully, as a woman. So maybe these gender-feels, however bizarre, exists in me? Or is does it just come from the fact that male gender roles involve inculcating us all with a fear of the feminine? I don't know, and I probably never will.
As far as I know, all this diversity appears in trans people too. Some trans people have a strong internal sense of gender. Others may simply have to compare their experiences being seen as a man vs a woman, and find that they feel much better one way, even if they don't have an explicit "I am a woman" kind of feeling. Some trans people may not have an internal sense of gender at all, and identify as non-binary for that reason (people ID as non-binary for other reasons too).
In my interactions with nonbinary people, they never universalize their feelings about gender. Queer people don't have the luxury of being able to assume everyone feels the same way they do. Cisgender people have never had that luxury either, but sometimes they think they do.
The fact that some, if not all, people have an internal sense of gender is what makes gender identity completely incomparable to racial identity, and what makes "abolishing gender" ultimately undesirable.
(This post was inspired by comments by Ophelia Benson.)
Monday, July 27, 2015
Asexual Agenda: Asexuality in China
For those interested, on The Asexual Agenda, I wrote a summary of a paper on asexuality in china.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Marriage and privilege
I've seen some queer
commentators complain about the recent legalization of same-sex marriage
in the US. I will comment only briefly.
First, I am entirely sympathetic to a lack of enthusiasm and celebration, and understand why people might be annoyed by other people's enthusiasm and celebration. Man, whatever, what about employer discrimination and poverty and suicide? If anything I'm glad it's over so that the big activist organizations will move on to more important things. I'm worried that they will lose donors and momentum. More trans advocacy please.
Second, I am honestly puzzled by the racial dimension. For instance, Darkmatter said, "The institution of marriage has and continues to exacerbate the (racial) wealth divide in this country," but does not explain how that works. I've also heard that marriage imposes a nuclear family structure, which is colonialist/capitalist. Some of the connections here are difficult for me to understand, since I come from a wealthy extended Chinese family that basically makes its money by renting out capital.
Third, people argue that marriage privileges certain kinds of relationships, and disprivilege others. This is true, although I think it is right for government to grant privileges to grant rights to some pairs of people and not others. I don't want strangers to have hospital visitation rights for instance, even though strangerships are the most important relationships. Therefore I support even more kinds of "relationship contracts" for more kinds of relationships, without the romantic/sexual assumption. More, not fewer.
First, I am entirely sympathetic to a lack of enthusiasm and celebration, and understand why people might be annoyed by other people's enthusiasm and celebration. Man, whatever, what about employer discrimination and poverty and suicide? If anything I'm glad it's over so that the big activist organizations will move on to more important things. I'm worried that they will lose donors and momentum. More trans advocacy please.
Second, I am honestly puzzled by the racial dimension. For instance, Darkmatter said, "The institution of marriage has and continues to exacerbate the (racial) wealth divide in this country," but does not explain how that works. I've also heard that marriage imposes a nuclear family structure, which is colonialist/capitalist. Some of the connections here are difficult for me to understand, since I come from a wealthy extended Chinese family that basically makes its money by renting out capital.
Third, people argue that marriage privileges certain kinds of relationships, and disprivilege others. This is true, although I think it is right for government to grant privileges to grant rights to some pairs of people and not others. I don't want strangers to have hospital visitation rights for instance, even though strangerships are the most important relationships. Therefore I support even more kinds of "relationship contracts" for more kinds of relationships, without the romantic/sexual assumption. More, not fewer.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Surveys and validation
This has been cross-posted on The Asexual Agenda. Obligatory disclaimer: My views do not necessarily reflect those of the AVEN survey committee. I speak only for myself.
When the AVEN Community Census, a volunteer-run survey of asexual communities, approached the data analysis phase, someone on the committee said, "Who will help me eat the bread?" That phrase stuck with me as a particularly apt description of survey creation, albeit completely backwards.
The question, "Who will help me eat the bread?" comes from the folk story, "The Little Red Hen". In the story, the hen asks for volunteers to help in the various steps to create bread, but none will volunteer. Finally, she asks for volunteers to eat the bread, and suddenly everyone is feeling helpful!
As the committee member put it, writing the questions and disseminating the survey is the hard work to make bread. Analyzing the survey is eating the bread. Everyone wants to know the results!
But having actually worked on the survey analysis, my impression is that writing the questions is eating the bread, while data analysis is just plain work. Even when it comes to myself, I'm enthusiastic about doing analysis but it's a lot of work and I can't seem to find the time. (In contrast, finding time for blogging is much easier.) And this is not a singular pattern. You can see from the history of asexual community surveys that the hardest part is getting the analysis moving.
Writing questions also garners a lot of community interest, judging by the abundance of complaints about questions, and scarcity of complaints about the lack of analysis. More specifically, people are interested in what's in the questions, because questions are a form of validation. People really want to see their particular identity, their particular experience, and their particular views reflected in the survey.
And this is all wrong, in my opinion. What makes a good survey question is independent of validating identities. For example, when choosing what romantic orientations appear on the survey, the primary consideration is to capture the most common combinations of identities, basically so we can minimize the labor of interpreting write-in responses, and create a succinct summary of results. To assign validity according to whether the romantic orientation appears in the survey is to assign validity based on popularity.
There are other concerns too, such as whether an experience can be easily quantified, whether it tells us something we already knew, and whether it's the sort of thing we want to measure on an annual basis, or just for one year. Plus there are a bunch of random personal factors and plain stupid oversights, so I'm not saying it's wrong for people to complain.
Complaints about survey questions evoked many mixed feelings in me. Some critiques of the survey were valid, and I don't wish to discourage people from giving them. And even if there's nothing to be changed, people's feelings are still valid and can be expressed freely. But clearly a lot of people have an emotional need for validation from authority, any kind of authority at all. I don't want to be your benevolent authority, I want you to be free.
When the AVEN Community Census, a volunteer-run survey of asexual communities, approached the data analysis phase, someone on the committee said, "Who will help me eat the bread?" That phrase stuck with me as a particularly apt description of survey creation, albeit completely backwards.
The question, "Who will help me eat the bread?" comes from the folk story, "The Little Red Hen". In the story, the hen asks for volunteers to help in the various steps to create bread, but none will volunteer. Finally, she asks for volunteers to eat the bread, and suddenly everyone is feeling helpful!
As the committee member put it, writing the questions and disseminating the survey is the hard work to make bread. Analyzing the survey is eating the bread. Everyone wants to know the results!
But having actually worked on the survey analysis, my impression is that writing the questions is eating the bread, while data analysis is just plain work. Even when it comes to myself, I'm enthusiastic about doing analysis but it's a lot of work and I can't seem to find the time. (In contrast, finding time for blogging is much easier.) And this is not a singular pattern. You can see from the history of asexual community surveys that the hardest part is getting the analysis moving.
Writing questions also garners a lot of community interest, judging by the abundance of complaints about questions, and scarcity of complaints about the lack of analysis. More specifically, people are interested in what's in the questions, because questions are a form of validation. People really want to see their particular identity, their particular experience, and their particular views reflected in the survey.
And this is all wrong, in my opinion. What makes a good survey question is independent of validating identities. For example, when choosing what romantic orientations appear on the survey, the primary consideration is to capture the most common combinations of identities, basically so we can minimize the labor of interpreting write-in responses, and create a succinct summary of results. To assign validity according to whether the romantic orientation appears in the survey is to assign validity based on popularity.
There are other concerns too, such as whether an experience can be easily quantified, whether it tells us something we already knew, and whether it's the sort of thing we want to measure on an annual basis, or just for one year. Plus there are a bunch of random personal factors and plain stupid oversights, so I'm not saying it's wrong for people to complain.
Complaints about survey questions evoked many mixed feelings in me. Some critiques of the survey were valid, and I don't wish to discourage people from giving them. And even if there's nothing to be changed, people's feelings are still valid and can be expressed freely. But clearly a lot of people have an emotional need for validation from authority, any kind of authority at all. I don't want to be your benevolent authority, I want you to be free.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
What liberal Christians are saying about same-sex marriage
When
the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal throughout
the US, many people responded with celebration. But there were other
kinds of responses as well:
-Activists reminding us that the fight is not over.
-Radical queers, feminists, poly folk, and singles complaining about the way marriage privileges certain people.
-Libertarians opposing all state marriage.
-Presumably there's a range of conservative responses as well, but I don't pay attention to them.
Here I wish to highlight a different response, those of liberal Christians. Surely it is possible to find liberal Christians who say all sorts of things, so I will constrain myself to the links shared by Christian friends on Facebook . These are all friends from IVCF, a relatively liberal evangelical college campus ministry, although that does not necessarily reflect the views of the links they shared.
1. SCOTUS by Dora4Yiu
-Dora briefly mentions the distinction between the sacred contract of marriage and the government contract of marriage. She believes that the government contract is all the LGBT activists really wanted. This sounds like saying, it's fine for same-sex couples to have equal legal rights because we all know they're still symbolically second-class citizens.
-Dora also echoes some of the points that I hear from my radical queer friends: same-sex marriage is mostly being celebrated by white people, and also marriage privileges certain relationships. I have opinions about this, but there isn't space here.
-Dora thinks Christians need to clean up their own act and stop idolizing marriage. I honestly don't understand the point being made, since the idea of idolatry has no secular translation.
2. Some Advice on Same-Sex Marriage for US Church Leaders From a Canadian by Carey Nieuwhof
-The main thrust of the article is that it's okay for the church and law to be at odds, since that's how it's always been. He's basically trying to comfort anti-gay Christians for their loss. I hope this isn't too flippant (that's a lie), but no, you should not be comforted, you should stop being anti-gay.
-"Judgment is a terrible evangelism strategy." I dunno, social justice advocates are pretty judgmental and seem fairly successful. The problem is when most people can tell your judgments are wrong.
3. How I Came Around on Gay Marriage by Liz Lin
-Like Dora, Liz also makes a distinction between the religious idea of marriage and the civil rights associated with it. By thinking of same-sex marriage in terms of a civil rights question rather than a religious question, she was able to support it earlier on. Later she came around on the religious question too.
-The reasons for Liz's change of religious views come from careful consideration of the Bible, and hearing stories from LGBT people. From the perspective of someone who thinks reading the Bible is a lot like reading tea leaves, I sure am glad that the tea leaves were arranged that particular way!
TL;DR
Being a Christian and also a decent person is a struggle. :'-(
-Activists reminding us that the fight is not over.
-Radical queers, feminists, poly folk, and singles complaining about the way marriage privileges certain people.
-Libertarians opposing all state marriage.
-Presumably there's a range of conservative responses as well, but I don't pay attention to them.
Here I wish to highlight a different response, those of liberal Christians. Surely it is possible to find liberal Christians who say all sorts of things, so I will constrain myself to the links shared by Christian friends on Facebook . These are all friends from IVCF, a relatively liberal evangelical college campus ministry, although that does not necessarily reflect the views of the links they shared.
1. SCOTUS by Dora4Yiu
I have many mixed emotions right now. Probably more than I can articulate well.-I don't find it very inspiring when the liberal Christian response is "it's complicated." So... you think that the pro-gay and anti-gay sides both make good points and that the truth is somewhere in the middle? It's difficult to tell from such a short piece.
-Dora briefly mentions the distinction between the sacred contract of marriage and the government contract of marriage. She believes that the government contract is all the LGBT activists really wanted. This sounds like saying, it's fine for same-sex couples to have equal legal rights because we all know they're still symbolically second-class citizens.
-Dora also echoes some of the points that I hear from my radical queer friends: same-sex marriage is mostly being celebrated by white people, and also marriage privileges certain relationships. I have opinions about this, but there isn't space here.
-Dora thinks Christians need to clean up their own act and stop idolizing marriage. I honestly don't understand the point being made, since the idea of idolatry has no secular translation.
2. Some Advice on Same-Sex Marriage for US Church Leaders From a Canadian by Carey Nieuwhof
I hope [this essay] pulls debate away from the “sky is falling/this is the best thing ever” dichotomy that seems to characterize much of the dialogue so far.-Like the first article, Carey seems to think it's complicated and that both sides have good points.
-The main thrust of the article is that it's okay for the church and law to be at odds, since that's how it's always been. He's basically trying to comfort anti-gay Christians for their loss. I hope this isn't too flippant (that's a lie), but no, you should not be comforted, you should stop being anti-gay.
-"Judgment is a terrible evangelism strategy." I dunno, social justice advocates are pretty judgmental and seem fairly successful. The problem is when most people can tell your judgments are wrong.
3. How I Came Around on Gay Marriage by Liz Lin
A few years after I changed my stance on gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the needle started to move for me theologically as well.-This is the most positive essay of the three. Like in the others, Liz expresses "it's complicated" views, but these are only part of her personal trajectory towards a more gay-friendly view today.
-Like Dora, Liz also makes a distinction between the religious idea of marriage and the civil rights associated with it. By thinking of same-sex marriage in terms of a civil rights question rather than a religious question, she was able to support it earlier on. Later she came around on the religious question too.
-The reasons for Liz's change of religious views come from careful consideration of the Bible, and hearing stories from LGBT people. From the perspective of someone who thinks reading the Bible is a lot like reading tea leaves, I sure am glad that the tea leaves were arranged that particular way!
TL;DR
Being a Christian and also a decent person is a struggle. :'-(
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Writing about writing about writing
One of
the reasons I stopped writing so much about my attempt at a novel is
that I hated all the encouragement I got. It's not as if every bit of
praise caused a jab of pain. Rather, it was weeks or months later that
the flattery slowly began to sour on me.
The first problem is that whenever I talk about my novel, it turns into an advertisement. It gives me all the negative feelings I get from self-advertisement. But unlike self-advertisement, I don't actually get any sales out of it. It will be a long time before this novel is published, if at all.
Advertisement has never been my goal. I just want to dabble a completely different kind of writing from what I'm used to, blather about all the junk that I learn, and vent about petty insecurities (see: this post). I am not attempting to be deep or impressive.
The second problem is that I feel like people don't get excited about quite the same things I do.
For example, I feel burdened by the pervasive expectation that I am writing sci-fi, fantasy, or YA. I want to write realistic (or surrealistic) literary fiction, but I can hardly tell what that means, or how it might be different from more popular genres. I feel disconnected from most online conversations about writing, because I never know when the ideas that float around really pertain to what I'm trying to do. I am used to living on the long tail of culture, but this is one instance when it really starts to grate, and I start ranting about geek cultural hegemony.
And people aren't sold on my novel, they're just sold on the premise. In particular, readers of The Asexual Agenda were excited that I would have an asexual character. This is understandable, since clear asexual characters are extremely rare in fiction, and indeed I wouldn't write asexual characters in if I didn't find the idea exciting myself.
But my mind already skips ahead to a future era. Some day, there will be lots of ace characters in every conceivable medium and genre. And 90% of everything will be crap. I want judgmentalism, discernment. I want stories that are different, even in the hypothetical world where there are lots of things to be different from. I want to talk about what happens in the stories, not just the fact that the stories exist.
The first problem is that whenever I talk about my novel, it turns into an advertisement. It gives me all the negative feelings I get from self-advertisement. But unlike self-advertisement, I don't actually get any sales out of it. It will be a long time before this novel is published, if at all.
Advertisement has never been my goal. I just want to dabble a completely different kind of writing from what I'm used to, blather about all the junk that I learn, and vent about petty insecurities (see: this post). I am not attempting to be deep or impressive.
The second problem is that I feel like people don't get excited about quite the same things I do.
For example, I feel burdened by the pervasive expectation that I am writing sci-fi, fantasy, or YA. I want to write realistic (or surrealistic) literary fiction, but I can hardly tell what that means, or how it might be different from more popular genres. I feel disconnected from most online conversations about writing, because I never know when the ideas that float around really pertain to what I'm trying to do. I am used to living on the long tail of culture, but this is one instance when it really starts to grate, and I start ranting about geek cultural hegemony.
And people aren't sold on my novel, they're just sold on the premise. In particular, readers of The Asexual Agenda were excited that I would have an asexual character. This is understandable, since clear asexual characters are extremely rare in fiction, and indeed I wouldn't write asexual characters in if I didn't find the idea exciting myself.
But my mind already skips ahead to a future era. Some day, there will be lots of ace characters in every conceivable medium and genre. And 90% of everything will be crap. I want judgmentalism, discernment. I want stories that are different, even in the hypothetical world where there are lots of things to be different from. I want to talk about what happens in the stories, not just the fact that the stories exist.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
In which I am mean to trolls
Recently, I got one of my first trolls since the comments RSS feed went down. It was rather amusing.
They were saying, asexuality is bullshit. So I responded in a particularly mean way: I asked them to explain their opinions, and then justify them with reasoned arguments. It's funny because your average troll doesn't know how to offer reasoned arguments for shit. This particular troll didn't even seem to understand why it was necessary.
A little background. Given that my blog is not that widely read, and does not have particularly active comment sections, I generally don't attract trolls. The trolls that I do attract, are typically wayward googlers (as I tend to think of them) who found some old page in my archives on the second page of some search term I don't care about. Usually they're just incensed by the topic and don't respond in any way to what I wrote.
Before, other people could theoretically see the trolls' comments via the "recent comments" on the sidebar or following the comments RSS feed. There weren't many readers tracking comments in the first place, but now that these features are broken, the only person who can possibly see the trolls' comments is me, because I alone have access to the moderation queue. If the trolls are trying to get attention, they are doing it in about the least effective way possible.
In short, the only trolls I get are the ones who are thoroughly incompetent.
There are basically four reasons why I might care about a person's opinion:
1. The person has power.
2. I care about the person.
3. The opinion is backed up by arguments.
4. The opinion is succinct, eloquent, novel, or otherwise intrinsically interesting.
In the case of incompetent rando trolls, they don't have power, I don't care about them, they are too incompetent to argue, and too tedious to be interesting. I like to poke at them until they either make coherent arguments or realize they've been wasting their time all along.
Of course, I'm much nicer to commenters who don't appear to be trolling. Even when commenters don't offer supporting arguments for points of disagreement, I at least tend to care about their opinions by #2.
They were saying, asexuality is bullshit. So I responded in a particularly mean way: I asked them to explain their opinions, and then justify them with reasoned arguments. It's funny because your average troll doesn't know how to offer reasoned arguments for shit. This particular troll didn't even seem to understand why it was necessary.
A little background. Given that my blog is not that widely read, and does not have particularly active comment sections, I generally don't attract trolls. The trolls that I do attract, are typically wayward googlers (as I tend to think of them) who found some old page in my archives on the second page of some search term I don't care about. Usually they're just incensed by the topic and don't respond in any way to what I wrote.
Before, other people could theoretically see the trolls' comments via the "recent comments" on the sidebar or following the comments RSS feed. There weren't many readers tracking comments in the first place, but now that these features are broken, the only person who can possibly see the trolls' comments is me, because I alone have access to the moderation queue. If the trolls are trying to get attention, they are doing it in about the least effective way possible.
In short, the only trolls I get are the ones who are thoroughly incompetent.
There are basically four reasons why I might care about a person's opinion:
1. The person has power.
2. I care about the person.
3. The opinion is backed up by arguments.
4. The opinion is succinct, eloquent, novel, or otherwise intrinsically interesting.
In the case of incompetent rando trolls, they don't have power, I don't care about them, they are too incompetent to argue, and too tedious to be interesting. I like to poke at them until they either make coherent arguments or realize they've been wasting their time all along.
Of course, I'm much nicer to commenters who don't appear to be trolling. Even when commenters don't offer supporting arguments for points of disagreement, I at least tend to care about their opinions by #2.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Feedback on Feedly plug
Last month I was talking about selling RSS to people on Tumblr, so that they might follow things that aren't on Tumblr. This is a fairly small project. I'll simply make a post on Tumblr, and hope that it reaches a lot of people.
Here is a draft of the post. I would appreciate feedback, particularly from people who are new to Feedly. Since I've been using Feedly for years, I don't have a good sense of what might be confusing.
ETA: This project is done. See here.
Here is a draft of the post. I would appreciate feedback, particularly from people who are new to Feedly. Since I've been using Feedly for years, I don't have a good sense of what might be confusing.
Follow Aces in All the Places!And here are the startup packages I'm using:
Isn't it great that Tumblr lets you follow all your friends in one place? Don't you wish you could also follow Wordpress, Youtube, and webcomics in the same place?
There is a way!
Try Feedly. It's a place where you can gather subscriptions to all kinds of websites. You'll need to create a new account, or connect to your Google account, but it's well worth it. (Also see iOS and Android apps.)
FAQ Below
[cut]
How do I add subscriptions?
On the left bar of Feedly, click on "add content". Type the url of the website you want to follow. Then click on the + button to subscribe. It's that simple!
Alternatively, on the website you can look for a link with the word "RSS" or "subscribe", and often the link will let you subscribe on Feedly.
It's too hard to add all these subscriptions one by one!
It's easy to import all the Tumblrs you follow. Go here and download the OPML file. On the left bar of Feedly, click on "Organize". Then click on "Import OPML", and give Feedly the file you just downloaded.
I don't even know who to subscribe to!
Here are a few startup packages. Any of these can be imported by going to the left bar of Feedly, clicking on "Organize" and then "Import OPML".
Terrific Tumblr Aces (thanks to Arf)
Wonderful Wordpress Aces
Yes! Youtube Aces (thanks to Ivy)
Webcomics with Ace Characters
All of the above!
I don't like how everything's mixed together!
On the "Organize" page, you can create separate "collections" for different kinds of things. Then when you browse Feedly, you can read one collection at a time, or everything together. For instance, I keep separate a separate collection of websites that I mostly just skim.
I don't like some of those subscriptions!
On the "Organize" page, you can unsubscribe to subscriptions by clicking on the x next to it.
Feedly is ugly!
Feedly's appearance is more customizable than Tumblr! On the left bar, go to "preferences" and try a different default view. The options are "Titles only", "Magazine", "Cards", and "Full Articles".
Additionally, on the left bar you can try looking at "Themes" to change the colors.
Feedly isn't showing old articles!
That's because Feedly won't show articles you've already read. You can change this in the preferences. Turn off "Hide read posts".
Feedly isn't showing the entire article! And how do I reblog stuff?
If you click on the title of an expanded article on Feedly, it will take you to the original page. You can reblog from there.
I use Tumblr Savior or XKit. Can I use it on Feedly?
For Feedly, you can try an add-on called SPOI Filter. I don't think you can block based on tags, unfortunately.
How do I follow Tumblr tags, reblogs, and asks?
I'm afraid you can't, except on Tumblr. No one ever said you should stop looking at Tumblr. It's just that if you also use Feedly, you can easily follow things outside of Tumblr in the same place.
Wow! How does it work?
Feedly is an RSS reader. RSS stands for "really simple syndication."
You can search for RSS readers and you will find many others with the same function. Some people have suggested Bloglovin, NetNewsWire (for Macs), or Newsify (a Feedly app for mobile).
Many people consider RSS to be old fashioned, and it is. But it's practical! One of the reasons Tumblr is great is because it borrowed ideas from RSS, simplifying it for the masses. My only complaint is that Tumblr is a bit selfish, and only lets you follow Tumblrs. That's why I'm advocating RSS.
I hate Feedly! But I want those startup packages.
Well I tried. You can find the startup packages here [link to be added]. You'll have to follow them one by one.
Terrific Tumblr AcesSince I'm clearly such a Feedly shill, do you think I could get them to pay me anything?
Concept Awesome
Becoming a Person
TL;DR
Wonderful Wordpress Aces
The Asexual Agenda
The Asexual Census Blog
Asexuality Archive
Prismatic Entanglements
The Ace Theist
The Notes Which Do Not Fit
A Life Unexamined
Acing History
Next Step: Cake
Cinderace blogs
Critique of Popular Reason
Cake at the Fortress
YAPBNWECA
The Minus Roots
From Fandom to Family: Sharing my many thoughts
FISTFELT
Asexual Artists
Yes! YouTube Aces
Swankivy
AmeliaAce
Aces Wild
QueerAsCat
Webcomics with Ace Characters
Shades of A
Supernormal Step
Ignition Zero
David Doesn't Get It
Girls With Slingshots
ETA: This project is done. See here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Link: on label culture
On The Asexual Agenda, I've written something on ace label culture. An excerpt:
It does not escape my notice that whenever people complain about excessive identity labels on Tumblr, a bunch of the examples given are clearly from ace and aro discourse. For example, Gawker lists demisexuality alongside otherkin and transethnicity. Someone on Urban Dictionary used "gender-fluid asexual heteroromantic two-spirit toast-kin" as an example. Thing of Things, while defending the trend, used "requiessexual bipoetisexual squidgender moongender aroflux lesbian" as an example.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Gay culture: a tragedy
In the category of things I wish I had blogged about at the time, some years ago I saw the movie Broken Hearts Club: A Romantic Comedy.
It was a film about gay men, released in 2000. It didn't get exactly
good ratings, but we have a lower standard for gay movies. Roger Ebert gave it 3/4 stars, saying, "It insists on the ordinariness of its characters, on their everyday
problems, on the relaxed and chatty ways they pass their time. The
movie's buried message celebrates the arrival of gays into the
mainstream."
I'm not going to remember the plot details, but what I remember is my overall impression: This movie makes much more sense when read as a tragedy.
The movie portrays a group of friends, and they are absolutely awful to one another. They should clearly break up. However, the writer doesn't see it that way, and treats the near break-up of the group as the "conflict" of the story. In particular, I recall that one of the friends leaves to make new friends--a group of heroin addicts. Eventually he overdoses, and the friends all come together at the hospital. They resolve to stay together, not because they are actually good friends to each other, but because gay people need to stick together.
On IMDB, you can find lots of people who liked the movie because it was exactly like their own life. I get that people are happy to finally see a movie that sweeps away the stereotypes, but what we find underneath is just sad.
The more I think about it, the more this feels symbolic of larger things wrong with gay male culture. People accept all kinds of abuse, basically because the alternative of leaving gay culture is worse. And while lots of people know that something's broken, hardly anyone shows self-awareness of how they're part of the problem.
Many specific kinds of abuse are showcased uncritically in the movie. There's rampant femmephobia, such as a bunch of bad dates, where the date is bad basically because they're too effeminate. There are the body image issues, encapsulated in this quote:
I don't know if I am the right person to make this sort of cultural critique. I've always been on the boundaries of gay culture, and I've been out of the dating pool for several years. This is more something that affects my friends, and which pervades discourse among gay men.
On the other hand, when hearing from people who do personally deal with the problems of gay culture, I don't hear cultural critique, I hear self-pitying. Like the character in The Broken Hearts Club, who complains that he's only a six in attractiveness, but doesn't even think about how he treats other sixes. Without pointing to other specific examples, I see this theme repeated endlessly in popular gay media--fiction and nonfiction.
I'm not going to remember the plot details, but what I remember is my overall impression: This movie makes much more sense when read as a tragedy.
The movie portrays a group of friends, and they are absolutely awful to one another. They should clearly break up. However, the writer doesn't see it that way, and treats the near break-up of the group as the "conflict" of the story. In particular, I recall that one of the friends leaves to make new friends--a group of heroin addicts. Eventually he overdoses, and the friends all come together at the hospital. They resolve to stay together, not because they are actually good friends to each other, but because gay people need to stick together.
On IMDB, you can find lots of people who liked the movie because it was exactly like their own life. I get that people are happy to finally see a movie that sweeps away the stereotypes, but what we find underneath is just sad.
The more I think about it, the more this feels symbolic of larger things wrong with gay male culture. People accept all kinds of abuse, basically because the alternative of leaving gay culture is worse. And while lots of people know that something's broken, hardly anyone shows self-awareness of how they're part of the problem.
Many specific kinds of abuse are showcased uncritically in the movie. There's rampant femmephobia, such as a bunch of bad dates, where the date is bad basically because they're too effeminate. There are the body image issues, encapsulated in this quote:
All of the men in L.A. are a bunch of 10's looking for an 11. On a good night, and if the other guy's drunk enough... I'm a 6.Perhaps the only thing missing is the constant complaining about how nobody else wants long-term relationships (then where do all these complainers come from?). But you can find plenty of that theme in other gay movies.
I don't know if I am the right person to make this sort of cultural critique. I've always been on the boundaries of gay culture, and I've been out of the dating pool for several years. This is more something that affects my friends, and which pervades discourse among gay men.
On the other hand, when hearing from people who do personally deal with the problems of gay culture, I don't hear cultural critique, I hear self-pitying. Like the character in The Broken Hearts Club, who complains that he's only a six in attractiveness, but doesn't even think about how he treats other sixes. Without pointing to other specific examples, I see this theme repeated endlessly in popular gay media--fiction and nonfiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
