7 ms·

The Trans History of the Wild West

60 points by pmcpinto 7y ago

BorRagnarok 7y ago
It's so nice to learn that back then, as now, trans people at some point in their live transitioned and then tried to live out their lives as the other gender, and were successful at it. Some only being found out after death or by becoming really ill. Luckily we're more open about it now. Also, now, as back then, most trans people just want to fit in and not be labeled 'other', or 'trans' for that matter.
- krapp 7y ago
  When society doesn't believe you exist, or that your existence is simply an expression of mental illness or moral degradation, then such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels provided by that society. But yes, it is also useful to be able to abandon those labels altogether, or not have them define one's identity.
  - BorRagnarok 7y ago
    > such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal? I also kind of find it stroking with a way to broad of a brush to say that "society" puts "hostile labels" on groups. This isn't always the case. I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal? I think it does, albeit slowly and not necessarily without backlash. The alternative to having LGBT people assert their own identity is to have their identity asserted for them, by people who may not understand them or who may be hostile to them, and that sort of thing never goes well. And the desired goal is to remove the stigma of LGBT existence and have it be accepted as being normal. One way to facilitate that normalization is for LGBT people to simply not be hidden, and to participate in society, and the most obvious way to do that is as part of a culture that can be easily recognized by an outgroup. It's progress for people to simply complain about there being too much gay representation in the media, rather than for it to be illegal to represent it as anything but an illness (as was the case under the Hayes code.) >I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do. This seems to trip a lot of people up when discussions about the intersections of race, gender and culture come up. It's difficult to argue that, for instance, toxic aspects of masculinity can exist without people interpreting that as a claim that all masculinity is toxic and that, therefore, all men are toxic. Likewise, discussing rape culture leads to people dismissing the concept entirely because they, themselves, are not rapists. Yet both are criticisms of group dynamics, systems of power and identity politics, not of individuals or of all members of a class. Individuals can differ in the way they respond to the influences of society, but its influence still exists. Speaking at the level of abstractions rather than individuals is important because those abstractions are what form people's concepts of normality, decency and justice, and because people act both as individuals and as conformist (or non-conformist) members of a group. Men who don't display toxic masculinity are still participants in the culture of masculinity, and men who don't rape are still participants in rape culture. Women participate in both as well. Likewise, it's entirely possible to correctly claim that society puts hostile labels on LGBT groups, and for that not to apply to you personally. If so, that's fine, but not relevant, and there's no need to be defensive about the premise.
always4getpass 7y ago
I always get so confused when 'they' is used for a single person. Is there any alternative? Everything seems to sound silly
- pluma 7y ago
  You get confused because you're not used to it. It gets less confusing the more you see it used. There are some cases where it introduces unnecessary confusion but the same is true for any other pronoun. There are some proposed non-binary or gender neutral pronouns but none of them seem to be in use much.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Considering singular they has been in common use for centuries[0], changing it now would be an uphill struggle. People have used words like "ze" but they haven't caught on. [0] https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
  - kmm 7y ago
    Its use with an unspecified antecedent is centuries old, but usage for specific persons is not. Time will tell whether it'll catch on.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      The article I linked to gives 1794 as an example of using singular they to refer to a specific person. And as it also points out, there's nothing particularly unusual about using they in the context of a specific person as well as being a plural. It is commonly accepted that "you" is now both singular and plural.
      - iguy 7y ago
        I can't decode what the 1794 usage was. The article describes it as "singular they", used presumably in reference to one of these three authors, but, well, it would help to see the passage in question.
loraa 7y ago
One day we will look back at Halloween and try to come to a political conclusion to make ourselves feel better.

60 points by pmcpinto 7y ago

It's so nice to learn that back then, as now, trans people at some point in their live transitioned and then tried to live out their lives as the other gender, and were successful at it. Some only being found out after death or by becoming really ill. Luckily we're more open about it now. Also, now, as back then, most trans people just want to fit in and not be labeled 'other', or 'trans' for that matter.

krapp 7y ago
When society doesn't believe you exist, or that your existence is simply an expression of mental illness or moral degradation, then such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels provided by that society. But yes, it is also useful to be able to abandon those labels altogether, or not have them define one's identity.
- BorRagnarok 7y ago
  > such labels are useful to establish an identity around which to build a cultural and political movement, particularly to counteract and attempt to replace the typically negative or hostile labels Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal? I also kind of find it stroking with a way to broad of a brush to say that "society" puts "hostile labels" on groups. This isn't always the case. I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Ehm, does that actually work however? I see what you say happening, but does it bring the desired goal? I think it does, albeit slowly and not necessarily without backlash. The alternative to having LGBT people assert their own identity is to have their identity asserted for them, by people who may not understand them or who may be hostile to them, and that sort of thing never goes well. And the desired goal is to remove the stigma of LGBT existence and have it be accepted as being normal. One way to facilitate that normalization is for LGBT people to simply not be hidden, and to participate in society, and the most obvious way to do that is as part of a culture that can be easily recognized by an outgroup. It's progress for people to simply complain about there being too much gay representation in the media, rather than for it to be illegal to represent it as anything but an illness (as was the case under the Hayes code.) >I'm part of society, but I for sure aint doing that, and I don't really want to be put in the same box with people who do. This seems to trip a lot of people up when discussions about the intersections of race, gender and culture come up. It's difficult to argue that, for instance, toxic aspects of masculinity can exist without people interpreting that as a claim that all masculinity is toxic and that, therefore, all men are toxic. Likewise, discussing rape culture leads to people dismissing the concept entirely because they, themselves, are not rapists. Yet both are criticisms of group dynamics, systems of power and identity politics, not of individuals or of all members of a class. Individuals can differ in the way they respond to the influences of society, but its influence still exists. Speaking at the level of abstractions rather than individuals is important because those abstractions are what form people's concepts of normality, decency and justice, and because people act both as individuals and as conformist (or non-conformist) members of a group. Men who don't display toxic masculinity are still participants in the culture of masculinity, and men who don't rape are still participants in rape culture. Women participate in both as well. Likewise, it's entirely possible to correctly claim that society puts hostile labels on LGBT groups, and for that not to apply to you personally. If so, that's fine, but not relevant, and there's no need to be defensive about the premise.

always4getpass 7y ago

I always get so confused when 'they' is used for a single person. Is there any alternative? Everything seems to sound silly

pluma 7y ago
You get confused because you're not used to it. It gets less confusing the more you see it used. There are some cases where it introduces unnecessary confusion but the same is true for any other pronoun. There are some proposed non-binary or gender neutral pronouns but none of them seem to be in use much.
ChrisSD 7y ago
Considering singular they has been in common use for centuries[0], changing it now would be an uphill struggle. People have used words like "ze" but they haven't caught on. [0] https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
- kmm 7y ago
  Its use with an unspecified antecedent is centuries old, but usage for specific persons is not. Time will tell whether it'll catch on.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    The article I linked to gives 1794 as an example of using singular they to refer to a specific person. And as it also points out, there's nothing particularly unusual about using they in the context of a specific person as well as being a plural. It is commonly accepted that "you" is now both singular and plural.
    - iguy 7y ago
      I can't decode what the 1794 usage was. The article describes it as "singular they", used presumably in reference to one of these three authors, but, well, it would help to see the passage in question.

loraa 7y ago

One day we will look back at Halloween and try to come to a political conclusion to make ourselves feel better.