Monday, March 31, 2014

Bi doesn't [always] mean "attracted to people of the same or a different gender"

So, Natalie Reed seems like an admirable blogger and all I know about her is her blog header and this one post that I am nitpicking against, but, really, I have to laugh in kind of a derisive counterstrike, intentionally offending due to feeling offended, when she says
Just like “bisexual” only means “has the dangerous connotation of “only into cis men and cis women and nothing else”, and the “bi” in “bisexual” only refers to a “male/female” binary rather than a “same gender/other gender” duality, BECAUSE WE TREATED IT THAT WAY AND BEGAN ENCOURAGING EVERY TRANS/GQ-FRIENDLY PERSON TO USE PANSEXUAL INSTEAD. We *created* the meanings and definitions we opposed, by opposing them.
 Now, I've heard this definition of bisexual once before and have no idea where it came from [1], but I spoke out against it then and I will do so now.

My complaint is pretty simple: What the fuck does "same gender" or "other gender" mean to someone like me?

I don't feel like a gender. I have some elements of feeling bigendered androgynous or genderless androgynous or male or female or geek-as-gender and I'd describe both my presentation and gender experience as genderfluid. I feel a little bit like and a little bit not like most every gender I've come across. If I use the word "pansexual," it's probably to include myself.

I use bisexual as well. I adopted it as an identity first, for one thing, and I'm deeply satisfied with it as part of my history. It's also nice because it's an older and more common word, so it literally includes more people who identify as part of the bi community. My community. I also hear pansexual used by people who are actually monosexual or mostly monosexual, who explain pansexual as meaning being attracted to someone's soul, not their gender. Bi doesn't have that layer of meaning/ambiguity.

To me, "bi" doesn't have to imply a binary. It can mean flexibility, ambiguity, ambidexterity. "Ambidexterity" here summoning an image of exploration and simultaneous movement, of looking from side to side to take in a four-dimensional world, the opposite of focusing in one factor and asking whether it's a one or a zero. "Ambiguity" I guess could be offensive, but my gender is definitely ambiguous, not because there's some big mystery or I'm hiding anything, but because the question was phrased in such a way that it can't get a clear answer on its terms. And my attractions to others, who I'll be attracted to for what reason, the lines between physical attraction and sexual attraction and emotional attraction and romantic attraction, platonic vs non-platonic, all fall in misty, ambiguous territory. "Ambiguous" can mean wild, untamed, uncodifiable, and to me both my sexuality and gender fall easily into this territory. I bring up gender because the way "straight," "gay," and "lesbian" are defined make sexual orientation inseparable from gender identity. I feel happy and free to be bisexual because, in its normal connotation, it frees the bearer from the burden (for people like me at least) of defining and disclosing a gender identity just to explain who they're attracted to. The framing Reed favors takes that away from me, and I'm not about to give it up.

Another Reed quote on the bi/pan issue from that post:

 a problematic pattern one can also note in things like people insisting “pansexual” is more inclusive than “bisexual” (and thereby that trans men, and trans women and non-binary-identified individuals require some special and exceptional acknowledgment and consideration in people’s sexuality)

This one I do partially agree with. Why on earth would people attracted to binary trans people need a new label? On the other hand, if we're saying that the gender of people someone's attracted to is a crucial issue, and that is what almost our entire society has been saying for at least decades, then why on earth wouldn't people of previously overlooked gender experiences not need acknowledgment?

I don't take our current constructions of sexual orientation and gender too personally, so I don't feel left out if someone dating me doesn't identity as androgynophile or pansexual or queer or any of the other identities that would explicitly include people like me. I actually find the term "pansexual" kind of uncomfortable at times, both for the "attraction to souls" definition I mentioned earlier and because of another formulation that says it's attraction to people of all genders without their gender playing a role. I can't meet that bar, even though I have been attracted to people of about as many genders as I've encountered. There are specific patterns of attraction that I am much more likely to have for people of certain genders, and I'm generally attracted to some gendered feature of a person I'm attracted to.

Sexual orientation labels are by their nature going to be over simplifications. I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool is with someone insisting that this definition of bisexual gets rid of all the problems and doesn't erase anyone and is totally cool when that's just not true. You are GENDERING me if you say bi means "same gender/other gender duality," and I don't feel good when people gender me. Language is fuzzy, words have multiple definitions and ranges of connotations, and people are going to prefer different labels for what's basically the same thing. That's a lot better than someone insisting their own words are the only true ones.

[1] Edit: I think the original person I heard say this attributed it to Kinsey. Didn't find a source on a quick Google, but was reminded of the Kinsey scale, which could be its own primary source.

[2] Added [always] to title, since I don't want to police other people's definitions. Phrasing things inclusively is hard.

Some disorganized thoughts on the trans/trans* debate

Was writing this as a reply to

http://practicalandrogyny.com/2013/10/31/about-that-often-misunderstood-asterisk/

when I realized this was a good use-case for "get my own blog."

Thanks for this post, and especially for empathetically describing a wide range of gender experiences that get ignored in dominant cis and trans gender narratives.

Made me think of saying I don't have a gender identity, because on some level it seems like I've spent the past many years pretending very hard to myself and sometimes others that I have one just because you don't get admission to the table if you don't. Even contemplating changing to that self-description gets me buzzing with anxiety--the obvious-to-me argument, now that I remember it, matches "I don't have a gender identity" to the invisibility-of-privilege pattern--what if I just feel like that because I can't *see* my really-cis identity? Damn, no wonder I've spent the last few years mostly avoiding thinking about my trans(*) status and gender experience (I prefer "experience" to "identity" because I do experience gender in ways but I'm uncomfortable with the dominant-among-trans "identity" narrative).

I don't worry too much about using or not using the asterisk consistently, since I know both are umbrella terms. I have often felt the need to distance myself from the "trans" community that is binary and/or medical, since I feel like our experiences are wildly different. I changed my name to be gender neutral and that's all I really NEEDED to keep gender issues from being a regular struggle. Luckily I don't work service jobs and live in an English-speaking country so people rarely gender me to my face. And it doesn't always hurt when they do, anyway.

I'm not even sold on inclusivity across all these gender variant lines being valuable. I like other transbrellans (port-trans-teau for trans and umbrella) with vastly different experiences and seem to have an unintentional as well as intentional social magnetism for them, but if a group of medically-transitioning transfeminine people are talking about discrimination in the doctor's office, I am an outsider, and if I speak up I'm potentially derailing their conversation (recent real life example). I've experienced at least a certain amount of angst and social dysphoria over the dominant trans narrative focusing on things like gender identity, preferred pronouns, and transition, which don't fit my experience of gender variance.

Fellow commenter Sable says something similar, "I guess I wonder why gender variant was not a good term. Saying "trans*" still feels like it it trying to place some level of trans on individuals who either do not feel trans or are actively working to resist the colonizing implications of everyone being placed under some form of (essentially white, Western) trans labeling."

It resonates. I'm white and Western, but it still resonates because trying to fit the concept of gender identity on my brain just doesn't work.

I don't want the transbrella to stop hanging out together and fighting together and working for each other's rights and acceptance in society, but are we really one community? Do we have need for an inclusive word for anything other than potluck and conference invites, since using the same word leads to us accidentally speaking for each other leads to erasure leads to ;_;?

I definitely agree that the best way to show inclusivity is by actually meeting the needs of various groups. And meeting their needs often means using more specific terms. Have a group for cross-dressers and another one focusing on medical transition. Include stories from as diverse a group of people as you can in your Gender Variance 101 materials, not a list of pithy definitions of incredibly complex subjects. Facilitate mingling across lines but don't mangle identities by trying to fit everyone into a given framework.

All that said, sitting around a campfire a couple weeks ago I heard a couple of trans people discussing what I think was probably the Reed article, and they both agreed on using trans to emphasize the umbrella-ness of its original intent as opposed to trans*, and that had a positive impact on me. I was like, "Yeah, these obviously adequately trans people want/need me in their tent, huzzah!" and decided to stop erasing myself and my experience from the trans community and the larger societal dialogue about gender definitions by ceding the entire trans rights movement to people who aren't like me.

By the way, I like GSM (gender and sexual minorities) as a good biosphere-sized umbrella term to take the place of LGBT, which came along at a time when people still presumably thought there weren't going to be that many identities.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Oh, look, a social group claiming to be for all queer women is sickeningly monosexist

 Local social group on meetup:
***THINGS TO KNOW BEFORE YOU APPLY TO JOIN US***
- For the time being, this group is ONLY open to gay/bi/pan/poly/queer and transwomen who like females. IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY MARRIED TO A MAN, there is a good chance that this group IS NOT a good fit for you (however, special circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case basis). Please respect this, and if you are looking for a fun group for women of all orientations, you should check out some of the other awesome local women's groups on Meetup! Some examples include: Sex in the Salt Lake City (Women's Social Club) or theLadies Drinking Society of Utah and many many more!
-WE ARE NOT A DATING SITE! If you are looking for romance, a better option would beOkCupid or any of the other dating services available on this big ol' internet of ours. That said, if you happen to meet someone you like then that is great, but it's definitely not our focus here.
They say more things under the "things to know" header, but I want to talk about these two points--the first thing they want to know is that they're ragingly biphobic while claiming to be for all women who like women, and listing a variety of specific identities. Monosexists, please give me my non-monosexual labels back. It's only polite to abstain from using them if you're going to reject people actually expressing behavior common to those sexual identities.

They're really effective at erasing non-monosexual identities right after listing them--they say, "if you are looking for a fun group for women of all orientations" and I stop breathing for a moment the insult is so outrageous. They just said they were a group including bisexuals and pansexuals. So far all they've objected to is someone marital status + gender of their partner. NOW THEY'RE IMPLYING THAT YOU AREN'T BI, PAN, OR QUEER IF YOU MARRIED A MAN. Someone's orientation doesn't go away when they get married. (This is even funnier given that they listed "poly", which often means polyamorous, among their included identities list. The list they're using to justify excluding non-monosexual women.)

And maybe this is just awkward wording, but it also seems like they're erasing transwomen's sexual orientations or gender identities, too, given that they list "and transwomen who like women" as separate from a reasonably exhaustive list of orientations. Do they think there are trans but not cis women who like women but don't identify as anything already in the list?

The second thing they want you to know is that the first problem is sheerly one of prejudice--they're not a dating site, so you being married to a man should be 100% irrelevant.

Salt Lake City Rainbow Girls Social Club, you're erasing queer identities, cutting non-monosexuals off from their community, and co-opting their identities in your slimy self-justification. What you're saying is, "It's okay if you're bi/pan/queer/poly, as long as you act gay." And I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that this is based on trouble with one or more past members--in which case, what you're saying is, "Non-monosexuals are a lesser group and it's okay to stereotype and reject them and get them to beg to be forgiven for things they didn't do on a 'case-by-case basis'".

I suspect you think that bisexuals just have straight privilege, and, hey, a bisexual married to someone of "the opposite sex" probably does have some forms of straight privilege. But bisexuals have higher rates of poverty, worse health, and greater likelihood of having experienced intimate partner abuse than monosexual gay people. By a long shot.

I'll repeat the links from this post:

Does your college/community have a writing center?

In college, I worked as a writing consultant at my school's writing center. People would come in with a paper, other piece of writing, or idea, and we'd sit down and talk about it. Afterward I'd write a summary of the consultation while logging them out. Alyssa's post on writing to ask for a job with help from a friend reminded me of that, but in this case from the other side.

It occurred to me that some disabled people/people with disabilities might have a writing center available to them, either explicitly to serve the community, at school, or at a school but open to the community like mine was, but not know about it or its benefits. As someone who spent 3+ years as a writing consultant and student with communication and executive function impairments, I think I can say something on the matter.

What is a writing center?

Writing centers are varied, so my description might not fit the one(s) you have access to, and some of this relies on hazy memory/hearsay, but I'll do my best:

Writing centers generally fall into the category of "peer tutoring"--where students work with you one-on-one to improve your skills or develop a particular piece of writing collaboratively. Not all writing center consultants (also called tutors and a variety of other things, but I'll go with what my title was) are students--some may be professors or, especially if it's a community writing center, people with degrees and experience in teaching writing--but even those with more official qualification will likely approach you as equals. When my boss, an exceptionally brilliant professor, gave consultations, students were often surprised to discover afterward that he wasn't a student as well.

Writing centers may (and probably will) serve other functions as well:

  • Provide a place to write and/or resources on writing. My writing center was pretty small, but if we had room someone could stay with their laptop or pencil and paper and work without having to break their groove by driving home or going to a distracting dorm room. We were also located in the college library, and the writing books were in our room.
  • Give workshops, either in the writing center space or by coming to you. We gave workshops that anyone could go to, presented in classes when a professor wanted us, and went offsite to try working with youth programs (I never did that, alas).
  • Hold writing groups. The local community writing center often holds writing programs to empower groups like veterans or abuse survivors.
  • Provide online tutoring (e.g. using email or Facebook) and/or other online resources
Writing center pedagogy is an academic field with conferences, blogs, and at least one journal, so that teenager helping you with organization and flow might be doing academic research on gender or disability in the writing center. Most consultants probably won't be experts on the pedagogy, given that they're busy undergrads, but will know of its existence and be influenced by its seminal ideas or at least buzzwords.

As a field of discourse, writing center pedagogy strikes me as awkwardly earnest and very liberal. We were taught to be "non-prescriptive, non-directive, and non-hierarchical," and there's a real tension between the people the writing is often for (professors, people at work) and the writing center philosophy--which wants to be non-judgmental, to value voice over prescriptive/proscriptive, usually bullshit grammar rules, to focus on process over how the end result is supposedly supposed to be, and to make "better writers, not better writing."

At the same time, we're trained with praxis in mind--applying theory to practice--and we quickly realize that adjusting to an individual's needs at a given time is really the main part of our job. And, yes, the literature has long since noticed this.

Here's a blog post referencing this because I don't have any actual academic references on hand. The post is by Sarah Groenevald and refers to Nora Brand and Logan Middleton:

Nora and Logan, both doing research on Writing Centers and disability, helped me think about this even further. Nora, in her research, ended up organizing instructors’ responses to learning disabilities into four categories: direct engagement (focused attention on aspects of a student’s writing that are affected by his or her disability), overlooking (focused attention on any element of a student’s performance that is not related to his or her disability), celebration (recognition of the positive attributes of a student’s disability) and individualization (tailoring methods to specifically meet the needs of a student). She outlined the pros and cons of each kind of response, but concluded that each of these can be appropriate at different moments and with different students. While no tutors adhered entirely to one category, all of those she interviewed did at times practice individualization. And Logan also ended up talking about how important it is “to target the individual student and give them the tools they need to succeed.”
Meanwhile, Pomona College's writing center talks about adjusting the "non-directive" stricture for students who need it:

So, how can we apply these strategies to our consultations?
-take a more direct approach in consultations with LD students; the student may require more structure than other consultations.
Sidenote: I am personally not so keen with generalizing advice like this to all LD (learning disabled) writers, so I would have phrased that as, "Ask the writer if they would like or benefit from you taking care to provide structure."

As an example of how liberal writing centers tend to be, here's the first sentence of the local community writing center's self-description on its home page:
The SLCC Community Writing Center (CWC) supports, motivates and educates people of all abilities and educational backgrounds who want to use writing for practical needs, civic engagement and personal expression.
The visit

You may be able to walk in, schedule an appointment online, and/or schedule an appointment by phone. Some will require rigid time slots (probably 30, 45, or 60 minutes), while others like mine are more flexible. We tried aiming for 45 minutes, if it was less than 20 minutes that was a warning sign that we weren't going deeply enough, and some stretched up to 2 hours. If you can walk in, you may be able to come back later that day after working on your writing independently, or you may have to schedule a series of appointments with maybe 2 a week.

The writing consultant will ask you what you want to work on. Note that if you have more than one piece of writing, disclose all of them at the beginning--don't finish one essay or application and whip out another stack of them. You may come in without anything already written--you can come in at any stage of the writing process, including brainstorming or getting over a mental block.

Usually, if you have a draft already, the consultant will read it silently or ask if you want to read it aloud or have them read it aloud. Some students with certain writing problems benefit a lot from reading the paper aloud--they see typos or bad wording that they didn't just on the page. Others actually correct typos or improve on the writing without noticing they're not reading exactly what they wrote, which can itself be a major clue to the consultant. However, consultants may choose to read silently either for speed, to help their own concentration, or to accommodate their own need to, say, re-read certain parts several times. Some follow pedagogies that prohibit them from writing on the page, or even taking notes on a separate pad--others may ask you if they can write on your paper and then do so, sometimes cryptically, sometimes in notes you'll understand later. (I would often use a small dot or line in the margins as my note system.) They shouldn't write on your paper without asking but might out of habit--call them on it if you can. Because many consultants benefit from marking papers, our center had a policy of preferring printed papers rather than electronic form.

Before and after reading the paper, the consultant will attempt to ask you important questions: What is this writing for, what are the requirements (bring a copy if there's anything to bring), is there anything you're unclear on about the requirements, what do you want help with, what is your writing process, why did you put this sentence here, etc. You will likely also have to provide them with enough knowledge about the specific domain to understand the paper, and whether that word means what you think it means (hey, not everyone consultant can be an expert on neuropsychology, business writing, microeconomics, Hamlet, nursing abbreviations, guppy breeding, and real estate in northern Colorado, no matter how hard we try). You can and should ask questions and work through misunderstandings, as well.

Note that it's really easy for consultants to auto-pilot into micro-level issues (like punctuation, spelling, and mechanics), especially if you're a non-native speaker or have another obvious set of issues at this level of writing. We're trained to focus on higher-level issues at first, but sometimes understanding whether the paper is clearly organized and clearly develops its ideas is hard, but micro-level issues aren't. For this or other reason, you may have to cut the consultant off and redirect the consultation yourself--and you absolutely would be right to do so. Conversely, if you mainly want help with micro-level issues and you don't have a compelling reason to need it, the consultant might balk at being your proofreader--especially if your piece has significant higher-level issues. As I said before, consultants should tailor the consultation to your needs, so if you just brought in real-world writing, like a cover letter or soon-to-be-published pamphlet, or your professor docks heavily for punctuation mistakes, they may be completely willing to take on a proofreading role. But if they start to do so and realize your paper doesn't even make sense, they'll probably try focusing on that, instead.

A disorganized list of specific things that might happen in the writing center:
  • The consultant gets you talking and makes an outline based on what you're saying.
  • The consultant gets you talking and makes you make an outline based on what you're saying.
  • Arrows get drawn on your paper indicating rearranging paragraphs or relocating sentences.
  • The consultant has a confused thought about something which prompts you to realize something and go into a flurry of writing several sentences or reorganizing things and you both realize that it is now awesome.
  • The consultant takes dictation for you, because you're saying very fluent things but your writing is much more awkward.
  • The consultant tries teaching you a grammatical structure but can't rewrite your sentences for you, instead modeling the use. You may or may not be able to apply it in your own writing.
  • You realize you need to completely rewrite your paper.
  • You butt heads. Maybe the consultant thinks you need to completely rewrite your paper and you don't.
  • You reread your paper, can't tell the consultant what you meant, and start rewriting it based on a conversation with them.
  • The consultant realizes you don't know how to cite things correctly and are accidentally (or maybe intentionally?) plagiarizing. Side track into citation land.
  • The consultant happens to understand your domain pretty well and helps you sharpen your analysis.
  • The consultant doesn't understand the domain very well but you get ideas about how to sharpen your analysis from revisiting the paper.
  • You get started on a paper and that's mainly what you need, not any specific help they give you.
  • You have your anxieties allieved now that someone else has signed off on your paper, and that's all you really needed.
  • You become a regular and greatly improve as a writer over time.
  • You become a regular and mainly get help on areas you will always be limited in, but that's perfectly fine.
  • You talk through life troubles. The consultant may be happy to be a surrogate therapist or may set professional boundaries that don't include getting this personal.
  • Resumes, fiction, Prezzi, cover letters, application essays, brochures, poetry, essays, personal narratives.
Finding a consultant

If you don't go to a school with a writing center, look for a community writing center or contact a local college's writing center and see if they take community members (mine did, but at a lower priority than students).

If you can, I would talk to the consultants before making an appointment and try finding someone who will work well with your particular type of writing (or even your particular issues). Note that consultants do help other writers with disabilities, whether disclosed or not disclosed. Many but by no means all of the regulars are regulars because they have disabilities (or something that isn't a disability but is a lot like one, like being a non-native speaker).

I went to a small school with a relatively large writing center staff, but in any case, if you're a student, the consultants really are your peers so you can actually make friends with them, and a friend might be the person who works best with you. Or just try different consultants.

Sometimes writing centers are very time-limited. In those cases, and some others, you may be able to hire a writing consultant as your own tutor outside of their writing center hours, or pay them to do additional work with you and your paper. I had a couple times where I worked with someone after hours or provided extensive electronic feedback on a paper and they gave me a $20.

Or, as Alyssa did, just go to a friend who doesn't ask you to pay them. I enjoyed what I did and wasn't doing it for the money, and I'd still help someone with their writing if they came to me and I had time.

Some thoughts on the writing process

Alyssa's post is basically a reflection on her writing process for this particular piece of writing. I'm certain it's a wildly different writing process than she uses for her blog posts. One thing that might help if you're facing a brain-blanking writing task likes hers, or just want to breathe new life into your writing, is to translate one form of writing to another. In the "ask for a job" example, that could mean starting with a free-write reflection on past experiences that qualify you for the job, and another on why this job opportunity is interesting. You might have to block out the "qualify you" and "job opportunity" part if you're like me and that kind of thing produces enough anxiety to freeze your thoughts. Alyssa's penultimate writing sample is basically an illustration of this, where she's written a series of responses to related questions her friend guided her through. You may be able to come up with a set of questions (or get someone else to provide you with them) that will be re-usable next time you do a certain type of writing.

Another possible step to add to your process is to get a template or example of that type of writing, especially if it's open-ended, something you don't understand well, or, conversely, a highly formal writing form. A lot of business writing, including the job letter, probably falls under that--it needs to be formal and concise, so following a tried and true format is a good idea. When someone came into the writing center needing help with a cover letter, I'd pull a business writing book off the shelf and flip to the right page. They even have different formats for email vs. print cover letters. Even for academic essays, you can google to find an example of that type of paper, or ask your professor if they can share past years' students' work. For me, seeing other students' work could give me confidence that my own way would fall within the parameters of the assignment, because the good example papers tended to be diverse.

Finally, my most specific suggestion in this post--from Alyssa's post, it sounds like the scaffold her friend gave her didn't do much for her. (It may have helped the friend, and deserves credit for that). This scaffold is basically an outline of the content of the letter, but that's not the only way to do an outline. In a functional outline, you list the purpose of whatever you'll be writing in a given position, rather than (or in addition to) the content.

Judging from the tightness of the final draft of Alyssa's letter, it's pretty clear that she and her friend had a clear implicit understanding of the functional outline of the letter. I can't help but wonder whether starting with a functional outline instead of the content scaffold would have been at least somewhat more useful to Alyssa (or maybe to someone else reading this one day!).

State purpose—asking about research position in specific area
Remind addressee that you were in their class and did research in a related area under them
Introduce qualifications: Interest and past research in field
Give past research professor's info as reference/for verification/credibility
Describe research (in order to show you know what you're talking about and that it was related)
Describe how research went well and give evidence that professor trusted you
Relate past research back to current project you're trying to get hired for—shifting focus from your research to yourself as research assistant, in order to segue into good personal attributes
Good personal attribute is language skills
Conclude politely with request for reply, including non-binary option in case addressee doesn't immediately say “yes!” (offer to supply references)


Here's a more generic version of this:

State purpose—you're asking for a specific job
Introduce yourself/remind addressee who you are if you've met
Establish qualifications:
Name drop (technical terms you've known from working, people/organizations more prominent in the field who you've worked with) while letting the reader know what your experience actually is
Give a highlight or two of your most impressive successes during those past work experiences
Mention any additional skills or experiences that are highly persuasive but not tightly coupled to the specific position
Remind the person of what you're applying for and nudge them to visualize you in the job by saying you'd be good at it
Conclude by saying you're hoping for a response and offer to provide further information


So, here's me trying out this version of the scaffold by pretending to ask for a job at the community writing center. For kicks I'll make it less formal, more email-y:

Hi <Whoever>,
I'm writing in hopes that you'll have a position available at the <name of organization>. My name is <name>, and I worked with <former coworkers who work there> during my 3+ years as a consultant at the <my college's name> Writing Center under <name of director>. I enjoyed the creativity and constant challenge of each unique writer and each piece of writing they brought in, working across domains of discourse, abilities, cultures, stages of the writing process, and levels of writing. In the two years since I graduated, I have done highly collaborative work in information technology at <name of current company>, where I was promoted rapidly to my current title, Software Developer II. My supervisor describes me as passionate in pursuing the best solution for the company and exceptional in time management and completing tasks. I hope to translate my history of one-on-one and small-team work with culturally diverse people, my understanding of business and technology, and my experience as a writing consultant at a liberal arts college into a connection with the community of <place I'm applying to>.

I'm looking forward to your reply and will be happy to answer further questions and supply references. Say hi to <former coworker that still works there> for me.

Best wishes,
<My name>

I've geeked out and gone on too long in this post, so I'll end my composition musings here, but if anyone's interested in further talk, I say, “Bring on the discourse!” (Message me.)

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Monosexist Aggressions: Denying Someone's Self-Description

In this blog post, I’m responding to something some people I don’t know said at a party. It’s a specific incident, but echoes many others I’ve seen over the years. I haven’t gotten the hang of confronting monosexism when I hear it, so I’m blogging instead. This is a relatively subtle form of monosexism for some people to recognize for what it is, so I think a post on it might help.

Last night, some guys were talking about a guy who’d had sex with one or more of them (hard to tell, since this guy was apparently representative of many guys who do the same thing), and afterward said, “You know, I could totally see myself settling down with a woman and having kids,” before going back to his highly heterosexist church.

Now, what this guy said was awful and the guy he said it to totally has the right to complain about it. Some reasons it’s awful:

1. The culture/church/possibly parents or other important people who made this guy internalize homophobia and dream of a heteronormative existence, thus devaluing his own reality
2. This guy for spewing his own internalized homophobia back at someone who trusted him enough to have sex with him, right after the height of intimacy
3. The conflation of a normative lifestyle (married with kids) and a normative sexuality (with a woman)

But the conversation at the party hinged on another supposed awful thing: That this guy was in denial about being gay due to internalized homophobia. That’s what people seemed to be saying they were frustrated/disgusted with.

Now, I don’t know what this guy identifies as, and since he stands in for many guys they presumably run the gamut of orientation labels. But I don’t need to know his label since the assumption that “just had sex with a guy” and “might one day have a relationship with a woman” is by itself monosexist/biphobic, denying the possibility of orientations other than straight and gay (and also equating behavior with orientation).

Someone else at the party brought this up, “Maybe he’s bi.”

“No, he’s never interested in women. He’s only interested in men.”

“Maybe that’s just because he was suppressed before and is now exploring this side of himself.”

“No,” repeat the same reasons.

The truth is, they don’t know whether this guy is or has ever been attracted to women. Maybe he’s sexually fluid, and goes through phases of being or not being attracted to women. Maybe he’s demisexual for women and needs to already be in a strong emotional relationship with a woman to be sexually attracted to her, whereas he’s instantly sexually attracted to men. Maybe he’s attracted to 10 times as many men as women--that doesn’t mean he isn’t attracted to women. Or maybe he isn’t attracted to women and will one day decide to identify as gay (or maybe he isn’t attracted to women and will never decide to identify as gay).

They should respect what he says about himself. His sexual identity is his, not theirs, and it’s up to him, not them, to define it. Bisexual men exist. Straight men who have sex with men exist. It’s wrong to wipe out their existence just because gay men who used to identify as bi, but now think they were wrong or were lying at the time, also exist.

Some monosexuals seem to think they have the right to undermine bisexuals. After all, straight people are better than queers, right? Or else gay people are the “real” queers and the “real” sufferers of heterosexism and the “real” organizers of the movement, right?

There were nonmonosexuals at Stonewall, nonmonosexuals who started major pride parades, nonmonosexuals who orchestrated the fight against AIDS. We own the movement as much as monosexual queers do. And, statistically, bisexuals worse off in terms of poverty, health, rape, and intimate partner abuse. Like, often TWICE as bad as heterosexuals and/or gays and lesbians.

Another thing bisexuals suffer from more than monosexuals? Teen pregnancy. You know a really major reason bisexual teens engage in more risky sexual behaviors? They feel like they have to prove their sexual orientations, because they hear people around them questioning others who don’t identify as gay or straight.*

I felt that way too. It was a major source of teenage angst. I didn’t take care of my emotional safety in my first few sexual relationships, and yes, I have PTSD and had it before I dated the guy who outright raped me.

I’m not saying that the needs of bisexuals should supercede the needs of monosexuals, within or outside of gender and sexual minority communities. I am saying that monosexual privilege is a thing, gay or straight, and that gossiping about how someone isn’t really the sexual orientation they identify is, or doesn’t really have attractions they claim to, is real oppression that really hurts people. You wouldn’t want to be told that you’re gay because someone of the opposite sex abused you; don’t tell the world that non-monosexuals’ identities are up for debate because churches/culture/family abused them.

*I’ve also heard and read accounts by asexuals who engaged in unwanted sexual behavior to try to prove themselves, either as asexual--by proving they didn’t like it--or as sexual, because they didn’t know there was another option or were afraid to take it--not trying to exclude asexuals here, just don’t have any studies of them at hand.

Some references:


Saturday, March 15, 2014

Techniques for Disabling Students: Assign Homework During Class

Consider the social model of disability. Consider homework assignments.

When I was maybe 18 - 19, I participated in a NAMI program called "Parents and Teachers as Allies." As part of a panel including a parent and an educator, I got to tell my story of growing up with mental illness to a room full of teachers, and try to impress on them things like "Please send a kid to the nurse/counselor if they're nearly starving to death one semester." The main educational point I stressed? "Never just verbally give or alter a homework session!"

This stuff should be written prominently and reliably in the same place on the board every day. Much better, it should be available online. And even better, to really stop disadvantaged kids from falling through the cracks? Move to a flipped classroom.

In a flipped classroom, the only work assigned for "home" are short video lectures. Instead of giving lectures in class, the students do activities (including traditional homework-style exercises) and the teacher works individually with students who are having trouble, on the things they're having trouble with. (They can email that or post on a discussion forum.) Kids find it easier to watch videos at home, so some who didn't do homework (I was definitely one of them) start watching the videos. The ones who don't? Well, it's a lot better to miss a video but do the activities and get help one-on-one than it is to watch a lecture in class, probably not absorbing much of it, go home to an environment where there is no help, and never do the exercises (I'm paraphrasing something I read in a NYT article in this sentence).

This is the most exciting (on a personal level) educational innovation I have ever heard of. YEARS of my life were spent feeling worthless and behaving accordingly because I couldn't do homework and supposedly that was about "work ethic" and therefore I would not be able to support myself as an adult and would either die on the streets or be a burden to whatever relative had to grudgingly support me.

(Why couldn't I do homework? Academic anxiety, poor executive function, lack of self-efficacy, lack of parental help, depression, an inability to follow what was going on in the classroom and therefore hear these assignments, losing track of what was do when, internet/media addiction--I felt like I was drowning and like even basic control over what I did when I got home from school slipped away from me every time I tried grasping for it.)

To get back to the point of this article: If you give homework assignments by speaking, you are disabling students with attention or auditory processing problems. (Attention doesn't mean ADHD: It can be anything from hunger to depression to worries about an unstable home life.) If you write homework down only in the classroom, you're disabling students who will have a hard time remembering to write it down and then not losing the paper you wrote it on. If you assign homework online (and all your students have internet access at home or stay after school to do homework), you're re-enabling a huge group of students but still disabling those who lack the executive function, self-confidence, stable home-life, and/or parental support to do the homework. Flipping your classroom re-enables a huge group of students to learn, and I would recommend it. But at least post your assignments online.