Item three: labeling vs self-identification
So there are a lot of new words popping up lately. This is a topic I've discussed before. Transgender vs genderqueer, bisexual vs pansexual. With an awareness of the diversity of human characteristics comes a diverse language to describe it.
But then we get a disconnect (between geographically or informationally isolated contemporaries), because this discourse isn't advancing everywhere at the same speed. I'll start with one story of a high school adolescent. I begin with a gender neutral designation, because to this day I don't think anyone can say with confidence how this person would identify. Born male, this young man was very shy and reserved until he started dressing up in girl's clothes and demanding that he be addressed by a girl's name, at which point "he" became much more self-confident. But, at least from what I could find, the only word ever used to describe him was "gay." The word "transgender" didn't come up until after his death (he was shot by another young man who he had been sexually harassing).
So here's the problem. Anyone from a metropolitan center that hasn't been living under a rock could immediately look at this person and identify him as transgender, male to female. The reporter of the case made note on television to say that this was not a matter of sexual orientation but of sexual identity. Okay. So now everyone from the outside has labeled this kid. Great.
But (it would seem that) this kid self-labeled as "gay." The question becomes, why? Did he not know the word "transgender" and simply pick the only word he knew to describe sexual/gender deviancy, because it seemed relevant? That's a story I can identify with, to an extent. But here's the other large possibility, that is now at the forefront of the sexual/gender identity discourse. It is possible to cross-dress without identifying as trans, or to identify as trans without having body dysphoria. This is a confusing concept, even for me, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate.
My conclusion is, who are we to say that this kid was not gay but transgender? If he calls himself gay, then isn't that what he is? And to what extent are people on the outside defining words, and people who actually experience these deviations defining the words through self-application and self-description? Don't I, in some way, define what it is to be transgender, by continuing to have severe gender identity issues without pursuing hormone therapy and continuing to tolerate, and sometimes even enjoy, my birth-assigned gender roles? And can't this young man, whether or not he was aware of the breadth of terms available to him, define what it is to be gay by selecting that self-label as befitting his unique constellation of attributes?
There occurs a problem when individual identity has to be translated into language, for the purpose of language is for one word to have the same meaning to many people, so that they can share ideas on the topic. Except that a person's identity cannot be constrained by a word that is intended to describe many other individuals. That would suggest that they're all alike (to a greater extent than they may actually be).
This doesn't seem like a problem on the outset, except that some people are so driven by their label that they will change aspects of themselves to fit the label "better" than they did before. One example is of a gay man who, once he identified that he liked other men, also started acting flamboyantly because that's what he thought it meant to be gay. It took many years for him to regain control of his identity, to accept that this word only described one aspect of him, and that the other attributes were not applicable. This man came through it fine, but you can see how such a situation could quickly become destructive for a different individual.
In large part, it should already be true that many words were invented to fit the personalities of individuals who, at the time, served as reference points for the definition. Unfortunately, as it turns out, there are lots and lots and lots of people who can seem similar to these reference point individuals, but who sport subtle differences that nonetheless deserve our attention. So what do we do? Invent a new label and say "you are not this, you are actually this other thing," or do we broaden the definition to include the subtleties of all individuals who choose to self-label with that word? What does gay mean? What does transgender mean? These words used to have one-sentence answers, but if you've read this article the way I intended in writing it, there should be some new breadth, if not downright confusion, on the matter.
Perhaps the two sources of definitions need to be maintained as separate. We all see how putting businesses and individuals under the same tax laws has worked out. So why not keep "I am called" and "I call myself" separate? That would be the most convenient. The boy I mentioned earlier could call himself gay all the way home, and we could call him transgender and be confident that we had a clear language and he had the self-identification he desired.
Well, no. I don't think that will ever work. Because part of rejecting someone's self-label is an inherent disrespect, a paternalistic disregard for their autonomy and freedom to define themselves. And part of a self-identity is being accepted as yourself by the people around you, or your friends at least if not the public at large. Who is anyone else to tell you what you are? But then, why would you choose a word to self-describe that doesn't match the at-large definition?
It seems that the key would be education. If this kid had known the word transgender, then we would know much more about him based on whether he continued to self-label as transgender or as gay. Because a cross-dressing guy that likes guys can still identify as male. That's part of the multi-dimensional spectrum that we (as a society) are becoming aware of. The same way that I can identify as trans while still operating with a cis public identity, and being the cis sexual interest of my partners. I have not yet been with a partner that appreciated me as my trans gender. Being okay with that, or at least continuing to tolerate that, is also part of who I am, and might be subject to labeling in some way, though if there is a designation for "identifies as trans but has relationships as cis", I'm not aware of it yet. Clearly even I am under-educated.
A lot of really fantastic essays are written on the subject, as part of gender studies classes, etc, that I truly believe could add something meaningful to the public discourse but once they are turned in for a grade, practically disappear from existence. And I think that's a problem. Why go to college if you're just going to keep your meaningful thoughts and lessons to yourself? Sure, education is largely viewed as training for the "real world", but a lot of good stuff is produced by people while they're there. I think it's wrong to ignore the important advances in discourse that can be made by students, just because they are students. Not to mention that the stuff written by 18 year olds can be a lot more accessible than high-browed academic writings to the target audience at hand, that is, young people who are trying not only to figure out who they are, but to communicate that to the people around them, to be accepted as themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment