Quote:
Originally Posted by Heart
Focusing on individual pronoun use does not address institutional inequities. There is a kind of obsession with individuality in the gender movement that feels like it becomes a distraction from deeper systemic issues. I do understand that using pronouns not burdened with stereotyped histories (in the 1970s Marge Piercy suggested "per," Kate Swift suggested "tey, ter, tem"), is appealing, but does it dismantle anything, or is it an option for a privileged few?
|
It absolutely has become an obsession. An obsession, that has turned the "movement" into a self-preoccupied, individualistic, gender hierarchy. I don't care that many don't see this. It's enough that I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heart
....The idea I don't support is that gender is useless, out-dated, and needs to be erased, done away with. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMO.
|
Gender is not outdated. What is outdated is the gender binary. To the extent that, that binary is reified, or rendered invisible, we all remain oppressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heart
I think where the more interesting discussion lies is in notions of the BINARY. I never experienced male/female feminine/masculine as restricted boxes. They have always been a landscape to me from as far back as I can remember....
|
I don't want my "landscape" rendered invisible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heart
Perhaps I don't want to see that hard and worthy battle reduced to an array of pronouns from which we can pick like a buffet. On the other hand, perhaps that is exactly what I fought for.
Heart
|
Pronouns are not the issue. The meaning attached to them, are.
Certain behaviors and terms have been designated off limits, even illegal, in polite society, has that eradicated hate crimes, racism, sexism, xenophobia, or bias?