I love this (finally figured out how to comment without the app).
My sibling went to an international leadership conference in US. Looked like a diverse bunch, people from all over the world. A lot of the conversation was about “queering” the revolution, queering leadership, queering academia. I was like, wtf does that even MEAN?!
Apparently it was about being comfortable in the in-between spaces. About rejecting dualism and dualistic hierarchies (man/woman, human/animal, mind/body, reason/emotion, culture/nature, public/private, technology/nature, white/black) where the upper side is the oppressor and underside is powerless victim. And the idea was that by doing this, we could move beyond division that results in oppression…
I find this tricky because dissolution of all boundaries seems like a “we are all one” type of cop out. So I shouldn’t take sides on Israel/Palestine? Shouldn’t even call out racism or sexism because we are all one?
I read an amazing book by eco feminist Val Plumwood once, called “Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.” She cautioned against the reification of boundaries on the one hand (hyperseparation/radical exclusion) and the dissolution of all boundaries on the other (assimilation/incorporation / merger / homogenisation). She talked about a more sane way, to see the other as unique and related - not “othering” in a dehumanising way, but not “incorporating / assimilating” the other in a you-are-me merging kind of way either. Separation but not hyperseparation . Relatedness but not sameness.
Western culture in my view is very much responsible for the polarity swing from sex role hyperseparation (and accompanying dehumanisation, backgrounding, denial of dependency, oppression) on the one hand to the “uncritical feminism of reversal” on the other where gender is fluid, we are all one, you are whatever you feel like, and distinctions do not matter (or are downright oppressive).
I also fully agree with your emphasis that just because Black and brown people are prominent in the trans space, doesn’t mean it’s radical, revolutionary, anti-colonial or anti-establishment. I just finished “New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World” by Kehinde Andrews and he talks at length about how just because we have a few more Black heads of World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation, corporations, former President of US etc, doesn’t mean they aren’t advancing colonial logic and oppression. White culture has always used Black and brown people to do its dirty work. Obama did nothing about Guantanamo Bay nor Afghanistan/Iraq. WTO head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is still advancing the neo-colonial neoliberal extractive genocidal racist capitalist global trade enterprise.
You could argue colonial capitalist white culture almost requires the heads of its dirtiest organisations to be brown - to convey an aura of virtue and goodness. “We must surely be doing good things, if even the brown people are leading the way!!” US must surely have been good because Kamala was Vice President even though US was actively funding a genocide in Gaza…And if you disagree with Kamala you must be racist!
Hey! I love your insights here, thank you for sharing. It's interesting what you gathered of the definition of "queering" all these institutions and dynamics. My understanding of "queering" was that it's meant to subvert the traditional image of what that thing is supposed to be or look like.
It's not always about rejecting dualism, though-since gender ideologues still embrace the idea of racial blackness and whiteness. They understand that colorblindness is a copout for anti-racist work, but they try to be "gender-blind" wherever they can.
Also, yes-just because we're the face of a movement doesn't make it radical or anti-colonial. We're STILL not (numerically) the majority in the gender identity movement. But we are increasingly being used as pawns to further that agenda because it looks good for all the reasons you mentioned.
True! I should hasten to add that what I wrote on queering was just my interpretation from engaging with sibling’s work and writing. I haven’t actually read anything on it beyond that so this is all just some of my musing. If my musing around the dualism thing has any truth to it then yes, they would be hypocritical for being ok with black and whiteness while rejecting male and femaleness.
I have seen this in other spaces where I’ve firmly rejected the transracial ideas of white folk with ancestry only to England/Scotland/Ireland who “feel brown in the inside,” use brown face/hand emojis etc.
The queer folk who also do anti racial work are quick to side with me. “Yes that lady trying black face is inappropriate “, they say.
But when I say “Well if a white person trying to “identify as” a brown person is Inappropriate then isn’t a man trying to identify as female inappropriate? What’s the difference? Both require cosmetic changes /surgery etc to realise it…”
And there’s no real answer. Just a stunned silence (probably thinking how bigoted I am) and a weak hand-waving insistence that “it’s just *different*”. With that smug knowing look. That I should just “get it.” Transgender is ok, transracial is not.
I will however go read more on “queering” to enlighten myself on what they’re trying to get at!
This is so excellent! Thank you! I wish I could afford to pay for subscription, but I don't make enough to live on. I'll spread the word though. A friend in Sweden sent me your link.
Thank you for your support 💜 I'm considering creating a referral program where folks can earn the equivalent of $1 towards a monthly paid subscription for each person they refer. Let me know if it's something you'd be interested in-I want to make my writing accessible for those who can't pay, and offer other ways to support my publication. ☺️
I just don’t get it - it seems like handmaidenry (is that even a word?) to me, as certain groups hold the erroneous view that many black women look more “masculine” than other women. I mean, wouldn’t someone want to disprove that view instead of upholding it? I may be wrong here, but wtf.
Brilliant article, and great how you trace the by usurpation of language. I sometimes think of this as a neocolonisation of other cultures.
Here is a piece that talks about how gender ideology is incoherent and how trans activists use third gender concept of other cultures to promote their own ideology:
I love this (finally figured out how to comment without the app).
My sibling went to an international leadership conference in US. Looked like a diverse bunch, people from all over the world. A lot of the conversation was about “queering” the revolution, queering leadership, queering academia. I was like, wtf does that even MEAN?!
Apparently it was about being comfortable in the in-between spaces. About rejecting dualism and dualistic hierarchies (man/woman, human/animal, mind/body, reason/emotion, culture/nature, public/private, technology/nature, white/black) where the upper side is the oppressor and underside is powerless victim. And the idea was that by doing this, we could move beyond division that results in oppression…
I find this tricky because dissolution of all boundaries seems like a “we are all one” type of cop out. So I shouldn’t take sides on Israel/Palestine? Shouldn’t even call out racism or sexism because we are all one?
I read an amazing book by eco feminist Val Plumwood once, called “Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.” She cautioned against the reification of boundaries on the one hand (hyperseparation/radical exclusion) and the dissolution of all boundaries on the other (assimilation/incorporation / merger / homogenisation). She talked about a more sane way, to see the other as unique and related - not “othering” in a dehumanising way, but not “incorporating / assimilating” the other in a you-are-me merging kind of way either. Separation but not hyperseparation . Relatedness but not sameness.
https://takku.net/mediagallery/mediaobjects/orig/f/f_val-plumwood-feminism-and-the-mastery-of-nature-pdf.pdf
Western culture in my view is very much responsible for the polarity swing from sex role hyperseparation (and accompanying dehumanisation, backgrounding, denial of dependency, oppression) on the one hand to the “uncritical feminism of reversal” on the other where gender is fluid, we are all one, you are whatever you feel like, and distinctions do not matter (or are downright oppressive).
I also fully agree with your emphasis that just because Black and brown people are prominent in the trans space, doesn’t mean it’s radical, revolutionary, anti-colonial or anti-establishment. I just finished “New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World” by Kehinde Andrews and he talks at length about how just because we have a few more Black heads of World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation, corporations, former President of US etc, doesn’t mean they aren’t advancing colonial logic and oppression. White culture has always used Black and brown people to do its dirty work. Obama did nothing about Guantanamo Bay nor Afghanistan/Iraq. WTO head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is still advancing the neo-colonial neoliberal extractive genocidal racist capitalist global trade enterprise.
You could argue colonial capitalist white culture almost requires the heads of its dirtiest organisations to be brown - to convey an aura of virtue and goodness. “We must surely be doing good things, if even the brown people are leading the way!!” US must surely have been good because Kamala was Vice President even though US was actively funding a genocide in Gaza…And if you disagree with Kamala you must be racist!
Hey! I love your insights here, thank you for sharing. It's interesting what you gathered of the definition of "queering" all these institutions and dynamics. My understanding of "queering" was that it's meant to subvert the traditional image of what that thing is supposed to be or look like.
It's not always about rejecting dualism, though-since gender ideologues still embrace the idea of racial blackness and whiteness. They understand that colorblindness is a copout for anti-racist work, but they try to be "gender-blind" wherever they can.
Also, yes-just because we're the face of a movement doesn't make it radical or anti-colonial. We're STILL not (numerically) the majority in the gender identity movement. But we are increasingly being used as pawns to further that agenda because it looks good for all the reasons you mentioned.
True! I should hasten to add that what I wrote on queering was just my interpretation from engaging with sibling’s work and writing. I haven’t actually read anything on it beyond that so this is all just some of my musing. If my musing around the dualism thing has any truth to it then yes, they would be hypocritical for being ok with black and whiteness while rejecting male and femaleness.
I have seen this in other spaces where I’ve firmly rejected the transracial ideas of white folk with ancestry only to England/Scotland/Ireland who “feel brown in the inside,” use brown face/hand emojis etc.
The queer folk who also do anti racial work are quick to side with me. “Yes that lady trying black face is inappropriate “, they say.
But when I say “Well if a white person trying to “identify as” a brown person is Inappropriate then isn’t a man trying to identify as female inappropriate? What’s the difference? Both require cosmetic changes /surgery etc to realise it…”
And there’s no real answer. Just a stunned silence (probably thinking how bigoted I am) and a weak hand-waving insistence that “it’s just *different*”. With that smug knowing look. That I should just “get it.” Transgender is ok, transracial is not.
I will however go read more on “queering” to enlighten myself on what they’re trying to get at!
This is so excellent! Thank you! I wish I could afford to pay for subscription, but I don't make enough to live on. I'll spread the word though. A friend in Sweden sent me your link.
Thank you for your support 💜 I'm considering creating a referral program where folks can earn the equivalent of $1 towards a monthly paid subscription for each person they refer. Let me know if it's something you'd be interested in-I want to make my writing accessible for those who can't pay, and offer other ways to support my publication. ☺️
That sounds like a good idea. I so want to support you. I'm not sure how to do it though?
Don't worry about how to do it-I will figure it out and get back to you, and it will be simple 💜 Thank you again. 🙏🏾
Wow! So excellent! Thank you!
Thank you!
I just don’t get it - it seems like handmaidenry (is that even a word?) to me, as certain groups hold the erroneous view that many black women look more “masculine” than other women. I mean, wouldn’t someone want to disprove that view instead of upholding it? I may be wrong here, but wtf.
Brilliant article, and great how you trace the by usurpation of language. I sometimes think of this as a neocolonisation of other cultures.
Here is a piece that talks about how gender ideology is incoherent and how trans activists use third gender concept of other cultures to promote their own ideology:
https://open.substack.com/pub/sanesociety/p/the-madness-of-crowds-and-the-new?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4av3x8
Your perspective is brilliant. Thanks for this essay.