Your ignorance just means you’re a privileged bigot
A sad story of identity and misunderstanding.
I’ve always known I was working class, even before I had the words to articulate it. Aged three, I used to call my dinner “tea”. My father, a high court judge, hated it but I kept on doing it all the same. I’ve no idea how I just knew the word “tea” was working class for “dinner”. I guess it’s something that was just in me.
Back in the 1980s no one ever discussed working-class children who’d been falsely assigned middle-class status at birth. It was as though we didn’t exist. Because of this I’d retreat into a fantasy world where I’d been swapped at birth and Den and Angie off Eastenders were my real mum and dad. I couldn’t talk to my parents about this. My mother, a bus conductor’s daughter and the youngest of six children, was always telling me how lucky I was with my holidays abroad and ballet lessons. I don’t think she meant to hurt me; it was just her identified-poor-at-birth privilege that made her such an evil bitch.
Mothers are all like that. Women old enough to be mothers, whether they are or not, are all like that. They get worse every year – exponentially worse. Scary bad.
There’s a word for people like me: überpoor (don’t worry if you’ve never heard of it; your ignorance just means you’re a privileged bigot). Basically, it describes the state of being poor while enduring the added oppression that comes with having money and a middle-class background. The queer poverty theorist J’amie Olivier came up with it in his brilliant work Whipping Chav. If you’ve not read it, please do. It explains so much about how poor people are not oppressed due to having no money but due to “poorphobia”: a widespread antipathy towards dog racing, Lambrini and the Waitrose Essentials range. Hardest hit by this are the überpoor: people who have been wrongly assigned middle- or upper-class status but are in fact poor. For centuries, such people have simply been invisible. No one has wanted to talk about us and our needs.
Thankfully, the release of Park Life in the mid-1990s came as something of a tipping point for überpoor people. Damon Albarn’s affected mockney accent finally proved to the world that yes, we did exist. To paraphrase Paris Lees on Conchita Wurst, Damon wasn’t middle-class or a millionaire pop star or any of these restrictive categories: he was just Damon, showing what it means to break through all the barriers! Obviously there was some opposition to such an image of liberation. Vile bigots such as Jarvis Cocker started releasing überpoorphobic anthems such as Common People, erasing our lived experience by claiming we merely thought “that poor is cool”. I always felt the NUS should have no-platformed Pulp due to that line about how we would “never understand how it means to live [our lives] with no meaning or control”.
You know who’s the worst that way? Socialists. Überpoor excluding radical socialists, aka ÜERs. ÜERs are always going on and on about literal poverty and class oppression and inequality, which excludes the überpoor who are already the most marginalized people ever.
My hope is that eventually, more and more assigned-poor-at-birth people are able to recognise how privileged they are, welcome us into their communities and hand over all their lager and pool tables. So many APAB prople think it’s enough just not to mind if I rent a flat above a shop, cut my hair and get a job, but this implies being überpoor isn’t in fact more valid and painful than simply being poor. It’s essential that these poor people put us first given that we bear the double burden of not just being überpoor but of having lots of money while being überpoor and hence being mis-classed (it never ceases to amaze me, by contrast, how welcoming the rich are to the überrich, allowing them to adopt plummy accents while continuing to do all the former’s domestic work).
Down with the ÜERs.
Hahaha APAB! I nearly choked on my tea when I read that.
That is really funny. Loved the Jarvis Cocker/Blur references. And yes, there are things you won’t know unless something quite terrible happens to your world – like suddenly becoming a refugee.
Uberrich people have hundreds of millions– I don’t think they work for anyone else.
Other than that, its brilliant.
Samantha, I have clients who are having to refurbish their 50m super yachts because they can’t afford to buy a new one every 2-3 years any more. It’s a cruel cruel world out there.
Hey the queen had to totally GIVE UP her yacht. Won’t somebody please think of the queen?
Sooooo yeah, this is just a straight up mockery of transgender people.
Har har, I get it. It’s funny because there’s a transgender writer called Julia Serano who has a book called “Whipping Girl” (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fR5ji5h5g1MC&redir_esc=y). So clever and not at all obvious! :/
The recasting of Serano as a man in this analogy is a deft touch – it’s little details like this that really add to the nastiness.
Put me in mind of the guy in The Jerk who was asking Steve Martin for some of the money he was giving to deserving charity cases. Needed to reupholster his private jet. Martin was incensed, but the guy persisted about how one of the seats had a little crack in it and he couldn’t afford to redo all the seats and now how was he going to face his friends with mismatched leather in his jet and… well, by the end he had Steve blubbering along with him and handing him money.
Some people are just so damned deserving – just ask them!
I’m with Falcon here. I don’t understand why this kind of mocking is so much fun in this context when you would not accept it were it directed at, e.g., feminists in general.
I neither understand why you consider it worthwhile to write about absurd things like “Steph-On-Knee” as if the fact that there is an absurd extreme to which transgender political opinions can be taken would say anything about transgender politics in general. This does not fly for feminism (one woman saying that all male-female-sex is rape does not invalidate anything; one woman making a false rape accusation does not render the statement “If a woman tells you she was raped, you should believe has as a default position” wrong). If this does not work there, why here?
I love the posts where you argumentatively try to show how difficult it is to speak about things like gender or where you show that the demand for “including trans women” (or trans men in the context of pregancy) may serve to damage feminism. (And the fact that you write insightful posts like those is the reason why I followed this blog over from FTB.)
But the gleeful showing of these extremes (or the nasty “humour” of the text you quote here) as if they would prove anything is beyond me. (I was tempted to write “and beneath you”, but since I don’t know you personally this would be inappropriate – this comment is not about judging you but about telling how these posts make me feel.)
Sonderval – I write/blog about things for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes I argue, sometimes I joke, sometimes I just point something out. Often I do all three at once. I posted about Steph-on-knee because I’d been seeing the story repeatedly for many days, and the particular story I shared caught my attention.
This one – it’s parodic but it’s also serious. There’s a real question behind it. Why is gender being treated as so readily swappable when other social categories aren’t? I’m interested in that question.
And then…I’m disgusted by the dogmatic and bullying way the ever-changing but nevertheless mandatory Orthodoxy about swappable gender is being enforced. That’s one reason I post what you call nasty “humour” – because I think there’s a lot of very nasty politics behind the Orthodoxy.
I get why you don’t like it. I appreciate your saying so without being abusive about it. But I think the parody is good as well as funny; I think it makes a good point and makes it well.
Terrific bit of satire. But, alas 99 and 44/100% of humanity will have no clue of what it is about.
Falcon, I missed the significance of that particular line. In the context of the wider piece I struggle to get too bent out of shape about it. The beauty about that piece is that it simultaneously raises legitimate questions about gender and poverty issues and how those are reflected in the privilege of a certain type of middle class westerner.
Parody and satire can be very uncomfortable and that piece qualifies. That doesn’t make it either nasty or wrong.
@Ophelia
Thanks, I think I get some part of it now – it may be a question of power dynamics: In general, trans people are a socially oppressed group so “just joking” about them makes me cringe. However, your point is that trans activists (what you call the orthodoxy) are nowadays in a position of power at least in some circles and that – as you write elsewhere – they use this to attack feminism and suppress the point of view of women (like in “pregnant person”…), so you see these kind of jokes as punching upwards on the power hierarchy.
I still cringe a bit (because I am afraid that posts like this may still cause some splash damage), but at least I think I understand where you come from.
My answer (at least, what I currently feel is most likely true) may or may not be true, but I think there’s a pretty compelling case for it in terms of parsimony and plausibility.
Gender must be treated differently because it is different. It is not just a social category like class. With varying degrees of intensity, some people have a biological sense of gender, of “being male” or “being female”, and a biological drive to be perceived by others as such. For those who experience these sensations, being mis-gendered or, worse, forced to mis-gender themselves, can bring about acute psychological distress. Subjecting someone to that distress frequently and over long periods of time (as is often the plight of transgender individuals) can lead to chronic anxiety, depression, and even suicidal behavior. Having a biological, not social, basis means being transgender is not something people were talked into; and is unlikely to be something they can be talked out of. For those reasons, it is imperative that we accept people as the gender they claim to be. Doing so is of little harm or cost to us, while refusing to do so can lead to the suffering, and even life-threatening harm, to others.
Getting back to the question asked: there’s no evidence to suggest the same is true of other social categories; hence the disparity in how we ought to treat transgender people vs, say, uberpoor people.
My affinity for that view is not politically motivated; it’s not what I’ve always believed, and I do not consider it to be Orthodoxy. To me, it’s simply the most parsimonious explanation for many converging lines of evidence. Having a little time on my hands, it seems fair to lay out some of the bigger points that have convinced me to accept this viewpoint.
1) Transgender identity is far more common than any other trans-social-category (fictitious characters of parodies aside). Absurdly so. To find the rate of at which transgender people die of AIDS, one can look to medical journals for results of population surveys. To find the “rate” at which trans-racial people contract HIV and die of AIDS, one only needs to check Rachel Dolezal’s wiki page to [hopefully] verify it’s holding steady at 0%.
Consider the parody itself: if transgender people are just experiencing the effect of “social-category-envy”, and if “social-category-envy” alone is sufficient to compel millions of transgender individuals to endure taunts, ostricization, and worse in order to swap their gender social-category… why don’t we actually see “social-category-envy” having the same (or even a inkling of similarity in) effect on any other social category? Why aren’t there thousands, or even millions, of Rachel Dolezals? If “social-category-envy” is the powerful driver it must be to account for the transgender phenomenon, why did the author need to invent a uberpoor person, rather than looking up his town’s local uberpoor support group and asking for an interview?
2) If “gender-swapping” is an “all nurture, no nature” phenomenon, it should correlate with environmental factors that make up the “nurture” side of things. But there seem to be no environmental factors (socioeconomic status, parental approaches, early-childhood experiences, etc.) that differentiate those children who identify as transgender from those who do not. Not even in probabilistic terms: given full knowledge of the lived expreiences of a hundred two year olds, and challenged to figure out which might be trans, is going to be a crap-shoot.
In fact, research looking at same-sex fraternal twins raised together (where two individuals would be most likely to experience a common set of environmental factors) found that one twin being transgender had no statistically statistical effect on the likelihood that the other would be (see point 6).
Given the near-random pattern of distribution of transgender individuals within the population; what the “it’s just a social construct” theory needs to be is some obscure “magic recipe” of an external cause. Something like “being transgender is an acute effect caused by having the number of one’s pets times the number of one’s siblings plus the number of diaper changes in the first two weeks of life adding to exactly 93”
Furthermore, effect size should scale with levels of exposure – there’s definitely a sizeable number of people who don’t “flip” 100% from their assigned gender to their preferred gender. But for a huge majority of those who wish not to identify as their birth-assigned gender; it *is* an all-or-nothing thing. I’m not saying this falsifies the idea of an external factor; but if transgender is driven by environmental conditions, there should be a lot more wishy-washiness than what’s seen.
In short, the “nurture” variable would need to be so subtle that it only affects a slight fraction of the population in a seemingly random way; but so powerful that most of those who it affects are completely flipped to a psychological need to live as the opposite gender.
3) Transgender identity begins manifesting at a young age, and often does so as a striking pattern of behaviors rarely seen in other kids. But
* there is no “how to be a transgender child” playbook (and even if there were, 2-3 year olds don’t have the best study habits).
* Many transgender kids go their entire childhood without even knowing other kids like them exist, so have no chance to “compare notes”
* Many transgender kids have parents who don’t even know what “transgender” means; much less have any ability or incentive to model or encourage such behavior.
And yet, this untaught, un-encouraged (often discouraged – sharply), and unmodeled behavior is exhibited in uncannily similar ways among many transgender children.
4) This transgender expression is often insistent, persistent, and consistent; and does not fade but grows in intensity over time. It’s not how kids at that age behave when they simply want something they can’t have. The “social-category-envy” theory that transgender kids just feel “the grass is greener over there”, and just “want” to be a boy or girl, completely fails to explain why that desire alone, unlike any other, would be expressed in so many kids in that fashion: unwaveringly and intensely for years on end.
Not only does it fail in explaining the depth and breadth of transgender expression; it gets the “flavor” of the expression wrong. It predicts a causal chain that’s the exact opposite of what’s usually seen. For instance, my son’s expressed preferences were almost never along the lines of “I want to be a boy so I can wear shorts instead of a dress”; they much better aligned with “I want to wear shorts like the other boys so people won’t think I’m a girl.” As I’d said once elsewhere – there is zero doubt in my mind that if the fashion-de-jure for boys and men was to wear a pink frilly dress & tutu; that is *exactly* the outfit my son would’ve clamored for.
5) The rate of suicide attempts falls 55% for transgender kids whose families accept their preferred gender. Put another way, whatever the alleged external factors are that cause people to seek to transition, not only must they be so subtle as to show no significant correlation with any plausible environment factors, but they must be so powerful that denying somebody so “afllicted” by those factors the freedom to transition DOUBLEs the likelihood that they’ll try to take their life. That seems… like a stretch.
6) Research has shown the rate of concordance of transitioning among identical (monozygotic) twins to be quite high (if one twin had transitioned, about 40% of the time their twin would have transitioned as well). However, among same-sex fraternal (dizygotic) twins, no measurable concordance was observed.
Interestingly, one study included 3 pairs of identical twins raised separately (one pair separated at birth). Against pretty astronomical odds (if we’re talking social-construct-theory), in all 3 cases both twins transitioned independently (that is, prior to being reunited in adulthood).
———
Brevity was never my strong point (I actually have a few other points I could tag on), but my reason for laying this all out was simple. I do believe that gender has a biological/neurological component, and I believe that because it’s the only model that has seemed compatible with what I’ve personally seen/learned/experienced over the past 5 years.
If anyone thinks I’m wrong – if any of the above observations seem flawed, if I’ve overlooked observations which contravene my current view, or if there’s any non-biological “nurture” explanation that better aligns these points (i.e. simpler idea with same or higher degree of parsimony), I’d like to hear about it.
Kevin #14,
What “population” do you refer to?
Kevin @ 14 –
But – as I’m sure you know – that claim is massively debatable. Many sociologists and philosophers and feminists would tell you that gender is indeed “just a social category like class” – although they would probably skip the “just,” since social categories are hardly trivial. Many would tell you that’s what gender means: the stuff we humans attach to human sexual dimorphism.
And I really don’t know what “a biological drive to be perceived by others as such” would be.
I understand having a strong desire to be perceived in a certain way. I think Kevin is attributing this strong desire to a biological drive because he has witnessed it manifesting in a young child (and knows of multiple other cases where young children express such a desire). For lack of a plausible alternative to explain how such a desire would arise at such a young age he proposes that there is a biological drive involved. Kevin, is my thinking correct, or do you have positive evidence for said biological drive?
Another problem I have with your answer, Kevin, is that it’s really just restating the claim that I asked about. You assume that people having a sense of who they are that doesn’t match the material facts is so intense as to be “biological” only in the case of “gender” and not in any other case. I don’t think you know that. It’s not clear to me that it’s knowable.
Ophelia, while we know adults (and teens) who desire to be perceived as members of specific social categories other than gender, do we know of young children who express such a wish in any area other than gender?
Hmm, actually my own kid can be said to have experimented with ‘trans-racialism’ once in kindergarten. There was that time they colored their face in black sharpie marker because ‘I want to look like my friends’. Just as we were about to leave for a workplace holiday party. But you know what? After we explained that while people come in all kinds of skin colors, it is completely OK for people of different looks to be friends, and besides ink wasn’t good for one’s skin, that was the end of it. In contrast with the behavior of trans kids, who persist in insisting on their gender.
Once again, I think the problem here largely comes down to ambiguities introduced by the word “gender.” It’s a polysemic, imprecise, and confusing word.
I think what Kevin describes makes good sense if we swap the term “gender” with “sex.” His description of his son wanting to wear shorts, not for their own sake but because it’s important to him to be perceived as a boy, is understandable in terms of body-mapping (which is certainly biological.) “Gender,” for such a child, is simply his attempt to fit in to the category to which he feels he belongs. I agree with Kevin that that feeling–“I’m really a boy (read: male)!”–is most likely innate. How society organizes and signals the social categories “male” and “female” into boy and girl, masculine and feminine–ie, gender–likely isn’t, or mostly isn’t, outside of reproductive functions.
@15 Cressida
Meaning the human population. Naturallly, it’s be expressed in different ways and at different frequencies from one culture to another (much like “there are no gay people in Sochi Russia”). But my point is that there seem to be no cultures without transgender people; and, within any given culture, no rhyme or reason as to which individuals will turn out to be transgender.
@16 Ophelia
Okay, but even using it that way, I would still say, “Gender is different from race”, per the definitions:
“Gender is the stuff we humans attach to sexually dimorphic physical traits.”
“Race is the stuff we humans attach to certain heritable, but largely visible/cosmetic, physical traits.” [more precisely, it’s the stuff we attach to individuals based on their parent’s traits]
The difference is perhaps best expressed as what I’d expect of a thought experiment.
Say we made perfect copies (to the molecule) of a group of 100 human newborns: 50 baby boys and 50 baby girls; half having white/European racial traits and half having black/African racial traits (so we wind up with 4 groups of 25 children).
A magical spell is cast upon these 100 children: for the first 5 years of life, their racial and sexually dimorphic traits would be “masked” from observation (even from themselves); They are adopted out (randomly) to 50 white families and 50 black families. As the babies are assigned to a familiy, a secondary spell is cast on them. This spell casts the illusion of racial traits on each child matching those of its adoptive family; and the illusion of sexually dimorphic traits according to a coin-toss (tails=baby appears to have penis/testicles; heads= baby appears to have vagina).
Note: in this experiment, we can assume the spells are completely illusory. They have no impact on the children’s actual morphology (working down to the nitty-gritty: appropriate hygienic practices would be followed, but perceived and remembered as having been done only according to the illusion).
The Test:
On the day before their 5th birthday, the stress levels of each child are measured (scoring each child with, say Chandler’s Stress Response Scale).
The Experiment:
We can set up two sets of comparisons:
* [X] indicates the average stress score of the ~12 children described by X;
* M&F refer to male & female genitalia;
* B&W refer to black & white racial traits:
COMPARISON SET 1: Groupings of children whose actual and illusory racial traits match:
[Actually F/B appearing/raised M/B] vs [Actually M/B appearing/raised M/B]
[Actually M/B appearing/raised F/B] vs [Actually F/B appearing/raised F/B]
[Actually F/W appearing/raised M/W] vs [Actually M/W appearing/raised M/W]
[Actually M/W appearing/raised F/W] vs [Actually F/W appearing/raised F/W]
COMPARISON SET 2: Groupings of children whose actual and illusory genitalia match:
[Actually M/W appearing/raised M/B] vs [Actually M/B appearing/raised M/B]
[Actually F/W appearing/raised F/B] vs [Actually F/B appearing/raised F/B]
[Actually M/B appearing/raised M/W] vs [Actually M/W appearing/raised M/W]
[Actually F/B appearing/raised F/W] vs [Actually F/W appearing/raised F/W]
In this thought experiment, I would expect the results of COMPARISON SET 1 to be very different from those in COMPARISON SET 2:
COMPARISON SET 1 With all 4 comparisons being among children *raised* in the same way, I believe each comparison would show significantly higher levels of stress in the left-hand-side group (children whose actual genitalia did not match their illusory genitalia) vs those in the right-hand-side group (children whose actual genitalia did not match their illusory genitalia).
COMPARISON SET 2 I believe *none* of these comparisons would show any statistical difference in the left-hand-side vs right-hand-side.
THAT is what I mean when I say “gender” is fundamentally different from other social categories like “race” (I’d expect same results if the experiment was done on “class” – cloning 50 babies born to wealthy parents and 50 born to poor parents). And because it is different, it is appropriate to treat it differently.
Two questions:
1) Would you expect a similar outcome – that COMPARISON SET 1 would differ significantly from COMPARISON SET 2?
2) If not, if you think SETS 1 and 2 would be the same – a meta-thought experiment: if this thought experiment were conducted, and yielded results consistent with my predictions, would that convince you that “gender” is different from other social categories; and might therefore be appropriate to treat it differently?
Addendum:
Of course we can’t conduct this thought experiment – we don’t have magic, and the closest technological approximation of the “magic” would violate just about every ethical standard we have for human experimentation.
Of note – though the situation for intersex children differs from the thought experiment in significant ways, there are enough similarities to be suggestive of how this experiment would turn out. In particular, there are many case studies showing that when parents “guess” at an intersex child’s sex, and assign a gender identity according to that guess, they can induce tremendous amounts of distress in their child by, seemingly, “guessing wrong”.
Furthermore, I’d contend that the 6 points/observations I’d originally listed (and many others I could add) are far more compatible with my expectations of the experimental outcome; and thus far more compatible with the proposition that gender is fundamentally different from other social categorizations like race and class.
One final point – lest this all be viewed in isolation from other posts I’ve made:
Though I do believe there is a neurological aspect of sex, I steadfastly reject any suggestion that this neurological difference extends beyond “sense of being male/female” and “drive to be perceived as male/female by others”. Virtually all proposals of sex-based differences in personality or intellect are backed by pseudo-scientific, sexism-biased quackery. There is zero basis for claims that the gender roles and gender expressions of our culture have any grounding in the natural/biological world. I wholehearted support everything about the feminist movement that seeks to eradicate gender roles; with particular emphasis on the dismantling of those roles which have utterly horrific effects on the lives of billions of girls and women.