Entrenched stereotypes

Obviously, people see what they expect to see. Obviously, if someone has been fed the stereotype of black men being scary, dangerous, criminals, etc. they will remember and recount the ethnicity of the mugger when a young black man steals their wallet, and forget about race altogether when they're recounting their other three muggings by young white men.

And obviously, they won't remember the race of the black man who holds the door open for them, smiles nicely at them in the street, etc.

(I was thinking of that particular example because I've had too many accounts like that from white people, recently - "This BLACK man assaulted me" vs "These men assaulted me" and "I thought he was going to attack me because he was black, and then he did" - well, yes, but also NO! logic FAIL! you eejit.

Anyway, this insightful post reminded me that, in the case of stereotypes about trans people, the need for many of us to pass as non-trans adds an extra layer of difficulty.

The post points out the doublethink inherent in social attitudes to trans women - that all trans women can somehow be hilariously obvious "men in dresses", AND "deceptive" enough in their exact "portrayal" of femininity to "trick" nice young men.

The second concept is more dangerous than the first, of course - it ensures that trans women are murdered, and their killers get off with a slap on the wrist. It gives an excuse to deny trans women employment, etc.

However, the first stereotype ensures that trans women are mocked and ridiculed.

Of course, if a trans woman passes as non-trans, it's impossible to tell that she is trans. That's... kind of the point. So, the first stereotype continues - the average person has only noticed trans women who, in their eyes, look "humorous."

We need to get rid of this concept that a male-assigned person in female-assigned clothing is inherently funny. I'm not sure how, in real terms, we manage that - ban humourous drag shows? Banning things is generally not the way to go...

But anyway, less seriously, it made me laugh how tenaciously stereotypes, particularly this one, hang on. I went on a trip, to an undisclosed location, with a cis male friend and a friend who is a trans woman. This cis male friend has been known to act with even less tact than myself. Therefore, a while before the trip, I said to him "You might notice that my friend is trans. Please, please don't say anything incredibly appalling. Kthx."

Although this particular trans woman passes as non-trans, she didn't seem too bothered about people knowing on this occasion, or perhaps she just assumed that everyone did. So when we were in our little group, she talked about her obstinate stubble, not being able to take off her trousers because she hadn't packed more forgiving undergarments, how she'd been on hormones for enough time to compete in the Olympics, had she wanted to do so... And throughout the trip, my cis male friend, indeed, said nothing incredibly appalling.

On the final day, I was with that friend, and I was talking about something to do with trans... ness, I forget what. "It's like this for me, but for some trans women like *name of trans woman friend*, it's..."

Whereupon, my cis male friend stared with eyes like saucers. "She's trans???"

She just didn't look enough like a hairy lumberjack in a frock, it seems. Thus, the evidence of his own ears could be discounted.

Casting directors...

Are like very small children with ADD in the Shiny Land of Shiny.

I'll carefully craft a submission for, I don't know, a 25-year-old South Asian slim, stunning one-legged female plumber who can sing and play the barrel-organ, and they finally pick a tone-deaf, pasty John Prescott clone with five legs.

And am I the only one who dies a little inside when asked for a "named" actor? 'Cause actors are actually given names at birth, like everybody else - they're not like a modified Inuit tribe where, instead of getting a name at two or so, you only get it once you've gone through the rite of passage that is appearing in a bloody awful soap?

Gee, Olly, calm down!

Yes! More passive-agressive blog posts that serve no useful purpose!

Edit: I has had apology. Now I feel embarrassed for being so upset. One really can't have everything...

So... my friend behaves like a complete arse, and ruins my day.

I get upset with him, and leave the building he is in, because ONE MORE SECOND of his presence and he will be seriously injured.

Later, he apologises to me - more a "I'm sorry you feel that way" apology than an "I'm sorry I behaved like that" one, but hell, that's all you ever get from him.

Because I'm aware that he will just *never understand* why his behaviour was upsetting, or even which part was upsetting, I decide to be polite, and I say something like "It's probably partially me, I haven't been feeling so good lately".

Throughout the next day, he makes "hilarious" comments about how irrational I am, and implying that he is the Great God of Magnanimity to forgive my existence.

Erm... NO, I was being NICE. I don't actually like upsetting him, so didn't want to say something like "So you should be! Your behaviour was absolutely terrible! I know the other guys are more relaxed about it than I am. This is because I am clinically depressed. I think I have hormonal problems because my brain knows that my body shouldn't be female. I think my friends should, incidentally, be supporting me when I'm very depressed. Also, I have more emotional investment in you behaving decently, because I am a closer friend than, say, that other guy over there, whom you just bewilder."

Also, he calls me *my old name* throughout the two days (everyone else now calls me "*my old name*ImeanOlli", which I don't mind*).

He then complains that we're not giving him a lift home! Which is eleven miles out of our way.

I've waited in vain for the grovelling apology for a week (Gareth just hasn't been waiting, because he spends less time on the metaphotical m00n than I do), so I'll show him this. If we don't get an apology then, I might keep his birthday present :-D

Now, feminists know about the fashionable C19th malady that was hysteria, yes? We know that the arguments of females can still be shattered with one well-placed "irrational" or "shrill". Women have no chance when that's coupled with their socialisation into hilariously polite individuals.

So... next time, I'm going to follow the other socialisation, the kind I'd have gone through had I not been trans. The guy kind.

I'll nut whoever it is in the face, because I reckon my skull's got to be more durable than the majority of noses. And I'll use the line "It's not me, it's you" a lot.

It can be a social experiment, if you like.



*apart from the Mr Bewildered, who has Stan Laurel hair and says "Gee, Olly," at every available opportunity, and some that aren't really opportunities at all.

Shock

If you spend any time around Gareth, light of my life and champion eater of dairy produce, you'll have been subjected to his "devaluation of verbal emphasis" speech.

For example, he thinks that people should stop saying "like, awesome" when they actually mean "yes, quite good".

I always dredge up historical examples at this point - what class of 16-year-olds doesn't laugh when Shakespeare says of his villain, "This naughty man,"?

Gareth thinks it's a reflection of our culture - we have to prove to everyone, constantly, that our lives are meaningful and full of interest; especially while our preoccupations become more and more shallow in reality.

I don't really mind the devaluation of positive emphasis - heck, we might start to believe what we're saying, and an obsessive love of something quite mediocre isn't all that bad a trait (Gareth's love of dairy products comes to mind for the second time). Cheerfulness never killed nobody, nohow.

No, what I don't like is the devaluation of negative statements. In the past few years it seems to have become fashionable to say "GOSH, this place is like working in a concentration camp," - is it? Is it *really*?

Just so we don't get into a logical loop, I understand when people exaggerate with humorous intent. That's why I'm *not* upset by jokes, as long as those jokes don't dehumanise anybody.

My absolute least favourite of the negative statements that are thrown around inappropriately is...

Shock. As in "I was shocked," or "Don't shock anybody,".

Physically, a state of shock can be fatal. The body is shutting down - therefore, I'd interpret the emotional equivalent as a feeling of horror, of disgust, that is so great that the human mind can't cope - news of a murder, or a rape, or rhetoric that is truly inhuman; betrayal by someone close to you; cruelty to the innocent or defenceless; they are all things that might cause it. The realisation that people are starving, all over the world, and the average person can do very little to save them.

Those things are shocking.

One of my friends has recently been betrayed by a close relative - she doesn't appear to be shocked, just sad. THAT shocks me, because she ought to believe that she is worth treating well.

(Gareth's just told me that, like everyone else, he feels betrayed by Nu Labour. I pointed out that he's only ever voted Lib Dem*. I feel that lacks the essential qualification for a betrayal)

Nudity isn't shocking. Pornography isn't shocking - it might shock and frighten children, because they might interpret even the most vanilla scenario as painful, and they certainly won't understand that the more extreme varieties are fictional. That's why it should be kept out of their hands.

Some kinds of pornography are *surprising* - "Egad, how does that go in THERE? It's bigger than her head!" as is a lot of nudity - "Gosh, those are hirsute buttocks you've got there."

"Bad" language is *surprising* if you hear it in some situations - "Would sir like some fucking mixed vegetables?"

An unusual hairstyle, particularly one that defies gravity, is also *surprising*, as are some more unusual body modifications - "How does that go in THERE?" is often a relevant question concerning those, too, I suppose.

What I'm trying to say is that, if you tell me how *shocking* it is that your new microwave has broken, or how *shocking* it is that that young man had his tie undone, I will be less than impressed.

In a few of these cases, the individuals concerned just have a dry sense of humour (people don't understand mine a lot of the time, so I get that). However, in the case of most of those people - they're being deadly, deadly serious.

As I probably said when ranting about Kim's bullies, why don't they just stand up and say "My life is so perfect! It's so perfect that I have the luxury of shock and horror whenever I encounter a new situation! Your life is terrible by comparison, because mine, you see, is perfect. Just thought I'd tell you that, in case I don't seem important enough."

They could say it repeatedly. We could allocate them certain times of the day, and the whole brouhaha would become a lot easier.



*Yes, from time to time he's eaten the ballot paper as an alternative, or stuffed it up the bum of a nearby hippopotamus - he obviously believes in his vote making a difference.

Wherein Olli is a hypocrite

Hokay, so - women who explain how you'll be SO GOOD TO YOURSELF and HAPPY and FULFILLED if only you think *just* like them...

Now, I know that the Powers that Be do that a lot, obviously, but it's somehow worse when given as friendly advice from people who should know better (supposedly feminist women).

Now, some could accuse me of hypocrisy - in the last year or so, I've told several women to leave partners/friends who were very obviously abusive. I haven't minced my words or abided by social niceties in any way.

Well, I might be a hypocrite, but I honestly don't care. There is a difference between women whose mental health is questionable owing to abuse, and women who are capable of making their own decisions. If you're the sort of "feminist" who doesn't agree, I will not start a dialogue with you, as *you* are deeply misogynistic.

So, Gareth and I are monoamorous, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Gareth's happy as he is, and I don't meet people as marriageable as him every day of the week. Or ever (if they were roaming the streets in dozens, we'd happily navigate a poly relationship).

Sexually, however, it's less clear-cut. If one of us wants sexual contact with someone, we have to gain both the consent of that person and our partner. If we don't get the consent of that partner, the other person must be immediately forgotten.

If I would feel jealous, I would say no. If Gareth would feel jealous, he would say no. If either of us didn't abide by a "no", we would be cheaters, the vilest of people.

If you think that you would sleep with EVERYONE IN THE WORLD in that kind of relationship, because it's AWESOME, you might be wrong... Our conquests each are seriously well in the lower half of single digits.

Because we don't fancy that many people.

And not many people fancy us.

And we both have lower than average libidos.

And we're both on the autism spectrum, so are unskilled in the art of seduction...

And we feel jealousy sometimes, like normal humans often do.

Now, we have rows and upsets. But they have never, ever been about anything to do with extramarital attraction, because we have the aforementioned arrangement, like, y'know, mature adults.

Why am I telling the world this? Because I don't want people to see me flirting with another human and think I'm cheating scum.

Because of not being cheating scum and all.

Also, I don't really like secrets - they resemble non-white lies too much.

On to this conversation, in which I have tried to break the arrangement gently to several people, all of whom have been women who are proud of being strong feminists who know their own minds:

"I wouldn't mind if Gareth slept with somebody else, as long as I'd consented beforehand,"

"Yes, you would. You would be hurt."

Well, as long as I know my own mind in this *purely hypothetical* situation that is, of course, *purely hypothetical* and has not been tested in practise in any way.

It always seems to be under a "we're all women here! And men are BASTARDS who will TAKE ADVANTAGE of you, ALWAYS, ALL MEN, ALL THE TIME, and you are an innocent little flower who couldn't possibly FIND THE IDEA ATTRACTIVE SOMETIMES because that would be like AROUSAL, and we're ACTUALLY IN EIGHTEEN-FIFTY-EIGHT" subtext.

And no, it's not different for me because I don't ID as a woman, and "gay men can do that sort of thing". Many women are consensually nonmonogamous! Many women are polyamorous! They are real women, not crazy loons who live solely in the imaginations of straight men.

Of course, females in poly relationships must have this nonsense much worse, and it must hurt worse because they're actually in love with their other partners. It's pure virgin-whore dichotomy patriarchal nonsense - and, of course, pure SEX! THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR! I WILL OBSESS OVER IT 4 U! disguised as "Honestly, these people are sex-obsessed".

Because we've *never* seen that attitude in sexism... homophobia... transphobia... everything that's bad.

On to happier subjects - we played D&D today, and had many encounters of the random (draconic) kind. And lots of food and good coffee. I need to do something nice for the people who made us all the food and coffee.

For a Ginger Lady

The incidents I'm about to describe happened over a month ago, but still infuriate me - and I want to examine why.

I also want to make myself feel better by posting a passive-aggressive rant about someone I don't like - well, why do y'all think they invented the blogosphere?

So, I have a good friend whose name is Kim (she's doing the best she can with Kimberley Leeanne - and no, I'm not giving her a pseudonym, because she has nothing to be ashamed of, and is awesome in every way).

In many ways, she is an ideal of 21st-century womanhood. Both attractive and smart, she refuses to take shit from anyone - but she's still nurturing and caring (yeah, personally, on that coach trip, I would have moved seats away from the girl whose face threatened projectile vomit, not looked after her...). Kim also has a strong County Durham accent and insatiable curiosity.

Most of the people doing my degree don't have regional accents. The department - heck, the university - is full of public school alumni, who seem to specialise in saying clueless things about people outside their arenas of experience.

Anyway, the godly Martin Carver (eminent archaeologist is eminent) was talking about the African Burial Ground in NY. It seems that some authorities fought some rather more ethical authorities over the remains therefrom, and the remains themselves got moved around quite a bit. They even spent a while stored in the World Trade Center.

When this was mentioned, Kim asked (I remember this verbatim) "But the whole thing over the bones was quite recent, wasn't it? Were they still there during 9/11, confusing the firemen?"

Whereupon one girl took it upon herself to tell everyone, loudly, how OFFENSIVE that remark had been and how HORRIBLE and OFFENSIVE she found it.

After the lecture, when she wasn't *supposed* to be sitting silently, she strode up to Kim and shouted at her. Whereupon, I said (verbatim) "Who is it offensive to?"

She then said, "*my old name* I wasn't talking to YOU!"

Having realised that I was dealing with a person who thought she could choose who replied when she spoke I started shouting back :-D

Then she proceeded to tell Kim that, by disagreeing with her, Kim was removing her freedom of speech.

During the next few days, I heard this girl
1) Call someone a "retard"
2) Sit there saying nothing while someone else used "retard" repeatedly
3) Laugh when someone compared his fieldwork experience to "a concentration camp"

And I spent as little time with her as possible. I wonder what else she found funny?

So, y'know, it becomes crystal fucking clear that this girl's vendetta against Kim doesn't come from a desire to uphold standards of decent human behaviour. It comes from her DARING to be working-class and wanting to make something of herself, DARING to have a regional accent and to STILL WANT HER VOICE HEARD, and DARING to argue with her "betters".

I wouldn't be upset if this girl was just one lonely asshat. In fact, however, we found Kim crying that next Monday - it seemed that everyone on the course found her offensive.

Not everyone, exactly - everyone with the same level of privilege in their background, who had never heard somebody from the ACTUAL REAL WORLD say ACTUAL THINGS before.

And they still laugh at her when she doesn't know a long word, at a dyslexic woman who grew up on a council estate.

And they talk about her in terms designed to denigrate all "mouthy" women. I wish I could revoke all their rights when they do - guess what, "gobby" women, women who weren't nice, "appropriate" young ladies - earned them.

Kim had tried so, so hard to come to university. She had worked more than any of them could even imagine. She is as strong as anything. And these people had reduced her to tears - something all kinds of abuse rarely managed.

I was angry at these people for another reason, too. Hasn't anyone who knows anything about American politics noted the reason for their national oversensitivity? Their ridiculous insistence that everything said, everything, has to be beautifully patriotic?

Their politicians want us to forget the children without health insurance; the elderly people, many veterans, starving in their homes; police and other official brutality towards people who have dared to be poor or black; the fact that millions of people are living in third world conditions in a First World superpower. Yes, actual third world conditions. Where running water is an unobtainable luxury. Those kinds of third world conditions.

How about they stop contributing to that culture of silence? No, but as I know by your treatment of Kim, those people are obviously less than people to them.



Hmm. I guess I know why I'm angry now.

edit: this post seems to be mainly about teh womens - I'm not letting the other guys get off scot-free. I was the only guy chivalrous enough to stand up for a woman who was very obviously being bullied. I don't care how many rugby medals and penises you have, I might revoke your right to self-define as men...