When is it appropriation and when is it identity?
Another resolution from the NUS Women Conference:
Motion 512: Dear White Gay Men: Stop Appropriating Black Women
Conference Believes:
1. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men is prevalent within the LGBT scene and community.
2. This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE- African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to Black women. White gay men may often assert that they are “strong black women” or have an “inner black woman”.
3. White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege.
4. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men has been written about extensively. This quote is taken from Sierra Mannie’s TIME piece entitled: “Dear white gays, stop stealing Black Female culture”:“You are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. There is a clear line between appreciation and appropriation. I need some of you to cut it the hell out. Maybe, for some of you, it’s a presumed mutual appreciation for Beyoncé and weaves that has you thinking that I’m going to be amused by you approaching me in your best “Shanequa from around the way” voice. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t care how well you can quote Madea, who told you that your booty was getting bigger than hers, how cute you think it is to call yourself a strong black woman, who taught you to twerk, how funny you think it is to call yourself Quita or Keisha or for which black male you’ve been bottoming — you are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. It is not yours. It is not for you.”
I’m sure you see the problem before I point it out. Isn’t that…trans-exclusionary? To tell men they’re not women, and that they don’t get to claim womanhood? Isn’t it trans-exclusionary to tell anyone that, because if people identify as women then they are women? Isn’t Sierra Mannie doing a very wrong thing by saying that? Aren’t women absolutely forbidden to say that anyone is not a woman? That’s certainly the impression I’ve been getting.
Conference Further Believes:
1. This type of appropriation is unacceptable and must be addressed.
2. Low numbers of Black LGBT women delegates attend NUS LGBT conference. This can be attributed to many factors, one of which may be the prevalent appropriation by white gay men, which may mean that delegates do not feel comfortable or safe attending conference.
But there again – isn’t it trans-exclusionary to call it “appropriation” when men pretend to be identify as women?
Conference Resolves:
1. To work to eradicate the appropriation of black women by white gay men.
2. To work in conjunction with NUS LGBT campaign to raise awareness of the issue, to call it out as unacceptable behaviour and, where appropriate, to educate those who perpetuate this behaviour.
How do they know the white gay men aren’t women? How do they know?
They are, at least, gender-nonconforming. Since trans is an poorly-defined category and they identify as women at least part of the time, doesn’t that mean they are at least gender fluid and fall under the trans category? Haven’t we been told trans folk do not need to have surgeries or other treatment to change their physical selves? I guess race trumps gender and sex for oppressed-ness. (Which, yeah, sort of, but when teenage girls are expected to share a bathroom with big hairy women with beards in flannel shirts and blue jeans (presentation doesn’t matter either), it seems like there are actually more serious concerns than feeling uncomfortable with mannerisms).
Actually, come to think of it, this is consistent. The allegedly white woman who identified as a black woman for all of her adult life was outed and had her career and relationships damaged. So the problem isn’t gay men claiming to be women. It’s that they are claiming to be black.
No, it’s claiming to be black and women. They didn’t omit the word “women.”
Samantha, since when are ‘flannel shirts and blue jeans’ a problem for women? That was my after-school outfit around ages 14-17.
I kind of suspect these “intersectional” resolutions were drawn up from outside the intersections in question. In the case of “cister/sister”, I was a bit gob-smacked. I’d never heard of anyone, trans, gender queer or otherwise, who objected to the use of gendered familial terms consistent with their identified gender. Googling for any references to combinations/variations of terms “cister” “sister” and “transgender” failed to turn up anything remotely close to a plea of “I am a woman, but hate being called ‘sister'”. Maybe my google-fu is weak here, but it seems to be a sentiment that pretty much zero people are rallying around (if anyone has more luck than me, please post a link or two – I would be interested in hearing the rationale/backstory to such a sentiment).
Constrained as we are by a deeply-gendered language, I’ve only known people to express a preference for one of three “semantic packages” (even including those who experience gender dynamically, who only “complicate” matters in that they may prefer a different set at different times):
male: {man,boy;he,him;brother,father,uncle,son}
female: {woman,girl;she,her;sister,mother,aunt,daughter}
neutral: {adult,child;they/xe,them/xem,sibling,parent,”auncle”/”parsib”,child/kid}
Furthermore, welcoming trans individuals as “sisters” and “brothers” can be a powerful reassurance that they’re entering a warm and supportive atmosphere; I’d expect (if asked), many of the trans community would actually object that these vernacular restrictions are anything but “intersectional”.
That said, I can respect that there may exist individuals (not even necessarily LGBTQ) who relate to gender in such a way that while they are most comfortable identifying as a woman, they are uncomfortable with “sister”. In which case, the only “resolution” one need adopt is, “on a case-by-case basis, be respectful of individual preferences”.
Same basic criticism goes for the “dear white, gay men” resolution: did the group bother to actually reach out to any gay men? Was it lost on them that a respectful path forward might be… I don’t know… deigning to have a conversation? Something along the lines of:
“It harms/upsets us when you do X because it comes across as racist/sexist appropriation.”
“Well, we do X because Y, and demanding we not do X comes across as transphobic/homophobic.”
… and so on. There’s no guarantee that a mutually acceptable resolution will be found (perhaps an agreement to work toward a modified X which still satisfies Y but lacks the air of racist/sexist appropriation); but I’d wager anything that such a conversation.
1) did not happen prior to the penning of the “dear gay white men” resolutions and
2) would have done far more to lower animosity levels between the marginalized groups of black women and gay men than this character-judgment-laced resolution
I also think the resolution makes a mess by blending orientation, race, and gender – left totally ambiguous by this decree: Are gay black men okay to engage in feminine expression? Any issues with straight white guys greeting one another with “Wassup, my niggah?”. Are some lesbians acting “too butch”?
In summary, in formulating these resolutions, I doubt there was any demonstration of respect (shown via actual communication) with those of the marginalized groups the feminist society would nominally claim to support.
I should add to the above, there is one group of people expressing “I am a woman, but hate being called ‘sister'”: those who’ve left cults, e.g. ex-Jehovas-Witnesses and ex-Mormons. Which strikes me as absolutely legitimate… and is exactly what I meant by the need to be respectful of individual preferences on a case-by-case basis.
Kevin – I actually hate being called “sister”. I dislike that word, and feel it is condescending, though why it should feel more so than brother I don’t know. This is a purely emotional reaction on my part, perhaps because I have actual sisters, and there is nothing in my relationship with them that encourages me to want other sisters.
That being said, I do not feel like my personal preferences should be in any way encoded in someone else’s resolution. I am merely objecting to the idea that no one objects to being called sister. If someone calls me sister, I will take it in the spirit in which it is meant, and not feel like they are trying to condescend or put me down (unless, of course, they are making it obvious they are using it that way). I have no desire to be a member of a “sisterhood” of women, for some visceral reason. Possibly because my first introductions to that term were in the worst connotations of womanhood I was familiar with at the time, those that felt women are inherently more compassionate, motherly, sensitive, intuitive, and not sciencey or thinky (these were feminists saying this, or so they said, and it was the majority of feminist theory I was exposed to in my college…ouch).
If anyone out there cares to address me as sister, I do promise I will not bite your head off, call you names, or say nasty things about you to my friends. Anymore than I will do that if you hug me, but I probably will not hug you back, and might pull back a bit, because I am not a hugger.
Kevin @ 5 – thank you. Admirable summing up.
I personally don’t love being called “sister” either, for various vague reasons…it has a whiff of the churchy and a whiff of the earnest / hippy / sanctimonious. But then I don’t get called sister, so it’s not an issue, and it’s not the kind of thing I would ever want to see being made a solemn Motion at an annual national meeting of student women. I don’t think the NUS Women need to issue a long list of Motions micromanaging a lot of trivia that’s really none of their business.
I also found this assertion ridiculous:
Yes indeed, so did I. That line is SO VERY UNCLEAR.