One of the hot button issues of the day when it comes to gender and sexual politics is the question of "is it gay for a cis dude to date a transgirl," a topic often discussed mostly by cis dudes who are maybe kinda just a little bit homophobic or transphobic.
Now I'm not suggesting that asking the question is in itself a hateful or bigoted thing, and for that matter I wouldn't really use the term "hateful" to refer to most of the people asking; I don't think that it represents some epidemic of people who despise or fear gay dudes or transwomen and want to take away their rights; more so it just seems to be a conversation that's mostly had by mildly insecure straight guys who seem to have a vested interest in not being gay, and the discussion will often center around at least an implication of transgirls as "not really women," intentionally or otherwise. Obviously this leaves something to be desired.
Enter postmodern/feminist/trans-centric/inclusive/whatever the fuck you want to call it responses to this discussion, which... also leave something to be desired. Let's pick an example from a YouTuber I happen to like, ContraPoints. There are quite a few things that I like about this video and this post should in no way be construed as a "takedown" of the video or ContraPoints herself. I've certainly got criticisms, but let's not blow things out of proportion here. It's a good video, I just have complaints.
That said, it's time to DESTROY ContraPoints with FACTS AND LOGIC (read: present an alternative viewpoint)
It seems to me that most of this discussion amounts to a question of how terms are defined; to some degree "man" and "woman," but mainly "gay." There's certainly a degree of suggesting a line between "real women" which are totally straight to fuck and "trans women" which might be somewhat gay, but... Well, I think that running all the way with that is assuming a little too much. Simply suggesting that transgirls and cis girls aren't literally the same in every way isn't transphobic, it's empirically correct, and pointing out that these difference relate specifically to physical/anatomical gender signifiers which are often the standard by which "gay" or "not gay" is judged doesn't seem like a huge stretch; In other words, I feel that a lot of the "this question implies trans women aren't real women" criticism is based more on the fact that it's a politically advantageous argument to make in a world where trans acceptance is very much a work in progress than on a really rigorous examination of the terms being used and how they apply in different scenarios. Which is... fine, if your goal is more "trans acceptance by any non-evil means" than "let's actually talk about this topic in a way that fully examines each reference point and come to an understanding that will allow for ease of communication." Personally I prefer the latter, in part because it's less adversarial in the short term (even a polite, good-natured video like ContraPoints' has some degree of adversarialism just by nature of the angle from which the topic is being approached) and in part because I think that it's the most practical in the long term for the goal of "making society better at talking about things."
In my opinion, a better angle to take would be to examine the term "gay" itself, what it means, what it implies, and why it may simply be inadequate moving forward.
See, back in the days when "man becomes woman" was just a fantasy plot (or fetish plot if that's what you're into) and there was a near-universally understood cultural line between the two (as opposed to a hotly contested, fuzzy boundary that moves and jumps and jigs a lot, like there is now) the terms "gay," "straight," and "bisexual" could basically describe any gender-related sexual preference you happened to have, with the possible exception of crossdressing-related fetishes, but even those were predicated on a person clearly being one gender even if they were acting in the "role" of another. As long as "a man who's born a man is a man" and "a woman who's born a woman is a woman," "gay" and "straight" are perfectly workable descriptors for "I like men" and "I like women." Hell, in that paradigm, "I like men" and "I like women" are useful, informative statements in a way that they simply aren't in a post-trans society. (To clarify the FUCK out of that statement, I'm not suggesting that being trans recently started existing, only that it recently became a significant part of the cultural lexicon in western society, or at least american society. I'm no anthropologist so all my cultural statements will be very america-centric.)
One of the side effects of greater trans acceptance is that the terms "man" and "woman" get a lot fuzzier in terms of what they describe, or at least less obvious. What used to be strictly a biological category with related assumptions about aesthetics and behavior is now, depending who you ask, a category based on psychological identity, brain structure, personal preference/choice, or social behavior and presentation. (I'm not going to get into which, if any of these, I agree with in this post, all that's relevant to the discussion is the fact that a strictly biological definition is incompatible with the validity of trans expression and identity.)
The confusion comes into play due to the fact that changing the definition of "man" and "woman" will obviously affect the definitions of related terms, such as ones that mean "attracted to men" and "attracted to women" in a particular context; No matter what definition of "woman" you settle on, it means that what "straight" means to a cis man can't necessarily carry all the same implications. Specifically, if you're a cis man who finds vaginas appealing and penises off-putting, well you're kinda left in the cold, aren't you? If "straight," defined for a cis man as "attracted to women," only refers to one of the entries in that list of features which, you may notice, very much does not include any reference to biological features, then what term can be used to communicate this preference? At the end of the day, dicks are where a lot of guys just draw a hard line, and therefore there are a lot transgirls that they just won't be interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with. (Yes, I'm aware bottom surgery is a thing, but not every transwoman can afford to get that and furthermore not every one would choose to if she could (hi there, on both counts))
By the same token, if we were to agree that "straight" and "gay" refer purely to anatomical characteristics, what shorthand is there for men who are attracted to feminine aesthetics and social behaviors but don't particularly care what's going on under the hood? For that matter, how can the terms "straight" and "gay" apply in any way if "man" and "woman" are defined purely by how the person identifies? I can't imagine anyone genuinely suggesting that they're attracted to a person's internal self-identification, or brain chemistry.
What I'm getting at is that in a world where biological sex and gender identity are decoupled, the terms "gay" and "straight" become at best inadequate and at worst nonsensical.
A lot of people, despite being very progressive and postmodern when it comes to gender identity and such, seem more or less totally unwilling to acknowledge this. For whatever reason, there's a certain need to answer "are traps gay?" with "no, but gay is definitely still a term that carries meaning and usefulness in this discussion" and I can't for the life of me figure out why. You're already going to get pushback from a lot straight-identified cis dudes if you tell them that that identification doesn't preclude them from sucking a cock, so at that point you might as well go all the way. Just skip right past "this word that you've been using your whole life now means something different because I say so" and go for "this word that you've been using your whole life is no longer useful in a lot of contexts because society is in the process of letting go of some of the assumptions it's based on."
In addition to being, in my opinion, a more honest and precise approach to tailoring sexual language to fit what sex is actually like in 2019, it carries one other major benefit: It removes the need to condescendingly explain a person's own sexuality to them.
See, that's the part of this discussion that really grinds my gears. At best, redefining "straight" to no longer carry anatomical connotations pretty heavily implies a message of "you straight guys don't really find vaginas attractive and dicks off-putting, it's just everything around them that's important." In somewhat worse cases, you have people explicitly saying that they don't think genitals have much to do with what a person finds sexually attractive (this is an argument that a friend of mine actually made back when I was on Facebook.) At its ABSOLUTE WORST, you get the ContraPoints video linked above, which features a whole digression into how 'actually straight male sexuality is pretty much all based on surface-level aesthetic concerns and maybe also social behavior, and not only is a vagina not necessary, but actually straight guys find vaginas off-putting and are really enamored with penises (???)' [paraphrased, if you want the exact quotes watch the video linked above]
Now I'm aware that ContraPoints often exaggerates and memes around for the sake of humor, and maybe that's what's going on here, but I still find this to be in incredibly poor taste and to badly weaken the argument being made. Whether the point is genuinely "it's not gay because ACKSHHHUALLHY" or if it's just a case of "it's not gay because [joking condescension]" ...that's not really a good look, it's not helpful to anyone really, and it serves as a way to sidestep what I think is a genuine need to reexamine these terms and how they're used. There are simply way better ways to go about this discussion than trying to explain people's own sexual preferences to them, I would've hoped that a transwoman who's spent a lot of time dealing with things like the "autogynephilia" argument and other similarly presumptive "let me tell you how you actually feel" rhetoric would understand why this sort of thing can be very obnoxious and come across as dismissive and infantilizing.
Again, I don't think ContraPoints' video on the topic is a terrible video, I don't think she's a bad person, I don't think anyone should try to shame or berate her for this or anything along those lines. I don't even think it's particularly fair of me to single her out like this; she just happens to be the most easily visible example of what I'm talking about. I just think that this particular approach to the argument is both unsound and kind of a mean way to go about it, and I hope that she'll avoid making similar arguments in the future, and the same goes for a lot of other people making similar arguments on this topic.
Now I'm not suggesting that asking the question is in itself a hateful or bigoted thing, and for that matter I wouldn't really use the term "hateful" to refer to most of the people asking; I don't think that it represents some epidemic of people who despise or fear gay dudes or transwomen and want to take away their rights; more so it just seems to be a conversation that's mostly had by mildly insecure straight guys who seem to have a vested interest in not being gay, and the discussion will often center around at least an implication of transgirls as "not really women," intentionally or otherwise. Obviously this leaves something to be desired.
Enter postmodern/feminist/trans-centric/inclusive/whatever the fuck you want to call it responses to this discussion, which... also leave something to be desired. Let's pick an example from a YouTuber I happen to like, ContraPoints. There are quite a few things that I like about this video and this post should in no way be construed as a "takedown" of the video or ContraPoints herself. I've certainly got criticisms, but let's not blow things out of proportion here. It's a good video, I just have complaints.
That said, it's time to DESTROY ContraPoints with FACTS AND LOGIC (read: present an alternative viewpoint)
It seems to me that most of this discussion amounts to a question of how terms are defined; to some degree "man" and "woman," but mainly "gay." There's certainly a degree of suggesting a line between "real women" which are totally straight to fuck and "trans women" which might be somewhat gay, but... Well, I think that running all the way with that is assuming a little too much. Simply suggesting that transgirls and cis girls aren't literally the same in every way isn't transphobic, it's empirically correct, and pointing out that these difference relate specifically to physical/anatomical gender signifiers which are often the standard by which "gay" or "not gay" is judged doesn't seem like a huge stretch; In other words, I feel that a lot of the "this question implies trans women aren't real women" criticism is based more on the fact that it's a politically advantageous argument to make in a world where trans acceptance is very much a work in progress than on a really rigorous examination of the terms being used and how they apply in different scenarios. Which is... fine, if your goal is more "trans acceptance by any non-evil means" than "let's actually talk about this topic in a way that fully examines each reference point and come to an understanding that will allow for ease of communication." Personally I prefer the latter, in part because it's less adversarial in the short term (even a polite, good-natured video like ContraPoints' has some degree of adversarialism just by nature of the angle from which the topic is being approached) and in part because I think that it's the most practical in the long term for the goal of "making society better at talking about things."
In my opinion, a better angle to take would be to examine the term "gay" itself, what it means, what it implies, and why it may simply be inadequate moving forward.
See, back in the days when "man becomes woman" was just a fantasy plot (or fetish plot if that's what you're into) and there was a near-universally understood cultural line between the two (as opposed to a hotly contested, fuzzy boundary that moves and jumps and jigs a lot, like there is now) the terms "gay," "straight," and "bisexual" could basically describe any gender-related sexual preference you happened to have, with the possible exception of crossdressing-related fetishes, but even those were predicated on a person clearly being one gender even if they were acting in the "role" of another. As long as "a man who's born a man is a man" and "a woman who's born a woman is a woman," "gay" and "straight" are perfectly workable descriptors for "I like men" and "I like women." Hell, in that paradigm, "I like men" and "I like women" are useful, informative statements in a way that they simply aren't in a post-trans society. (To clarify the FUCK out of that statement, I'm not suggesting that being trans recently started existing, only that it recently became a significant part of the cultural lexicon in western society, or at least american society. I'm no anthropologist so all my cultural statements will be very america-centric.)
One of the side effects of greater trans acceptance is that the terms "man" and "woman" get a lot fuzzier in terms of what they describe, or at least less obvious. What used to be strictly a biological category with related assumptions about aesthetics and behavior is now, depending who you ask, a category based on psychological identity, brain structure, personal preference/choice, or social behavior and presentation. (I'm not going to get into which, if any of these, I agree with in this post, all that's relevant to the discussion is the fact that a strictly biological definition is incompatible with the validity of trans expression and identity.)
The confusion comes into play due to the fact that changing the definition of "man" and "woman" will obviously affect the definitions of related terms, such as ones that mean "attracted to men" and "attracted to women" in a particular context; No matter what definition of "woman" you settle on, it means that what "straight" means to a cis man can't necessarily carry all the same implications. Specifically, if you're a cis man who finds vaginas appealing and penises off-putting, well you're kinda left in the cold, aren't you? If "straight," defined for a cis man as "attracted to women," only refers to one of the entries in that list of features which, you may notice, very much does not include any reference to biological features, then what term can be used to communicate this preference? At the end of the day, dicks are where a lot of guys just draw a hard line, and therefore there are a lot transgirls that they just won't be interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with. (Yes, I'm aware bottom surgery is a thing, but not every transwoman can afford to get that and furthermore not every one would choose to if she could (hi there, on both counts))
By the same token, if we were to agree that "straight" and "gay" refer purely to anatomical characteristics, what shorthand is there for men who are attracted to feminine aesthetics and social behaviors but don't particularly care what's going on under the hood? For that matter, how can the terms "straight" and "gay" apply in any way if "man" and "woman" are defined purely by how the person identifies? I can't imagine anyone genuinely suggesting that they're attracted to a person's internal self-identification, or brain chemistry.
What I'm getting at is that in a world where biological sex and gender identity are decoupled, the terms "gay" and "straight" become at best inadequate and at worst nonsensical.
A lot of people, despite being very progressive and postmodern when it comes to gender identity and such, seem more or less totally unwilling to acknowledge this. For whatever reason, there's a certain need to answer "are traps gay?" with "no, but gay is definitely still a term that carries meaning and usefulness in this discussion" and I can't for the life of me figure out why. You're already going to get pushback from a lot straight-identified cis dudes if you tell them that that identification doesn't preclude them from sucking a cock, so at that point you might as well go all the way. Just skip right past "this word that you've been using your whole life now means something different because I say so" and go for "this word that you've been using your whole life is no longer useful in a lot of contexts because society is in the process of letting go of some of the assumptions it's based on."
In addition to being, in my opinion, a more honest and precise approach to tailoring sexual language to fit what sex is actually like in 2019, it carries one other major benefit: It removes the need to condescendingly explain a person's own sexuality to them.
See, that's the part of this discussion that really grinds my gears. At best, redefining "straight" to no longer carry anatomical connotations pretty heavily implies a message of "you straight guys don't really find vaginas attractive and dicks off-putting, it's just everything around them that's important." In somewhat worse cases, you have people explicitly saying that they don't think genitals have much to do with what a person finds sexually attractive (this is an argument that a friend of mine actually made back when I was on Facebook.) At its ABSOLUTE WORST, you get the ContraPoints video linked above, which features a whole digression into how 'actually straight male sexuality is pretty much all based on surface-level aesthetic concerns and maybe also social behavior, and not only is a vagina not necessary, but actually straight guys find vaginas off-putting and are really enamored with penises (???)' [paraphrased, if you want the exact quotes watch the video linked above]
Now I'm aware that ContraPoints often exaggerates and memes around for the sake of humor, and maybe that's what's going on here, but I still find this to be in incredibly poor taste and to badly weaken the argument being made. Whether the point is genuinely "it's not gay because ACKSHHHUALLHY" or if it's just a case of "it's not gay because [joking condescension]" ...that's not really a good look, it's not helpful to anyone really, and it serves as a way to sidestep what I think is a genuine need to reexamine these terms and how they're used. There are simply way better ways to go about this discussion than trying to explain people's own sexual preferences to them, I would've hoped that a transwoman who's spent a lot of time dealing with things like the "autogynephilia" argument and other similarly presumptive "let me tell you how you actually feel" rhetoric would understand why this sort of thing can be very obnoxious and come across as dismissive and infantilizing.
Again, I don't think ContraPoints' video on the topic is a terrible video, I don't think she's a bad person, I don't think anyone should try to shame or berate her for this or anything along those lines. I don't even think it's particularly fair of me to single her out like this; she just happens to be the most easily visible example of what I'm talking about. I just think that this particular approach to the argument is both unsound and kind of a mean way to go about it, and I hope that she'll avoid making similar arguments in the future, and the same goes for a lot of other people making similar arguments on this topic.
Comments
Post a Comment