Lead

Mar 16 17 9:32 AM

Tags : :

Opening notes for a paper I'm putting together -- email to a colleague. All of this derives from my blog, reading, posts. Recently the reading is about natal development and sex determination, gender mapping.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Sex signifies biological status and function -- e.g. reproduction.

Gender is the socio/cultural paradigm through which sex is mediated. Socio/cultural paradigms are linguistic.
Linguistic discourse is the cooperative, cultural exchange of semiotic signification.
Gender is linguistic, comprised of signifiers, semiotics, heuristics, surface/deep structure, speech act performance, etc. 

But then I view everything as significant (pun intended). Awash in a linguistic sea of cultural significance. What I am seeing in the literature is a widening accommodation of the "middle" -- the identity space between the hetero-normative dyad of "M or F." 

Also what I am seeing in the forums is an either/or sort of fixation. Objectification of the "feminine" polar extreme. The extremes are a hard bar to clear -- cis-F or cis-M. We all cannot be Brad Pitt nor Nicole Kidman. I can pull off Janet Reno, Angela Merkel.  

And so the question I arrive at is: To what extent is the gender medium used to convey significance beyond sexual status?

Allison Wunderland's Transcend Dance
http://allisontranscend.blogspot.com/

Last Edited By: AllisonWunderland Mar 16 17 9:36 AM. Edited 3 times

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 21 17 9:26 PM

AllisonWunderland wrote:
Compose a post, try to link a photo, lose the whole gawd damned page and the tab I have open on this forum.

SUX

You need to start documenting what you're doing so we can help figure out how to make it work. Or else stop complaining about it.

We would love to help you, but you have to help us too.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Mar 22 17 1:29 PM

Seemingly I'd rather simply vent my annoyance.

Sandy Stone writes "The Empire Stikes Back: A PostTransSexual Manifesto"

https://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/info/rqtr/biblioteca/Transexualidad/trans%20manifesto.pdf

Available in PDF for download. It's a foundational essay in trans-gender theory, AND a rebuttal to Janice Raymond's 1979 book The TransSexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male."

Excerpt:
 

[8] Such results might have been considered marginal, hedged about as they were with markers of questionable method or excessively limited samples. Yet they came to represent transsexuals in medicolegal/psychological literature, disclaimers and all, almost to the present day. During the same period, feminist theoreticians were developing their own analyses. The issue quickly became, and remains, volatile and divisive. Let me quote an example.  “Rape . . . is a masculinist violation of bodily integrity. All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves...Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception.”  This quote is from Janice Raymond's 1979 book The Transsexual Empire: The Making Of The She-Male, which occasioned the title of this paper. I read Raymond to be claiming that transsexuals are constructs of an evil phallocratic empire and were designed to invade women's spaces and appropriate women's power. Though Empire represented a specific moment in feminist analysis and prefigured the appropriation of liberal political language by a radical right, here in 1991, on the twelfth anniversary of its publication, it is still the definitive statement on transsexualism by a genetic female academic. 

A trove of work related to gender, gender theory, history of gender theory on my blog:


 

Allison Wunderland's Transcend Dance
http://allisontranscend.blogspot.com/

Last Edited By: AllisonWunderland Mar 22 17 1:45 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help