It seems you feel like people should personally educate you on a topic when you demand it, rather than pointing you at the people who have specifically taken the time to actually provide such education.
Complaining that the community will have to explain itself like everyone else, and then refusing to use the resources that community has prepared for people like you seems… I dunno, disingenuous, overbearing, weird, kinda crazy?
Of course, the comic isn’t saying that. It’s not saying “never ask questions, just go google it”, it says “If you want to participate in an ongoing discussion, don’t derail it by demanding that people explain the issue to you instead of discussing it. You can ask questions of people outside the context of the discussion (which would be you going and asking your trans friends, outside the context of discussion of a particular issue), but within the context of the discussion it is very much a derail”. In particular, this panel (see how baldy is asking the person on their own, instead of barging into an ongoing discussion?):
[quote=“Franko, post:9, topic:59054”]
just telling people, “go google it or read these books” is off-putting, doesn’t build understanding, and, frankly, is lazy. oh, you get annoyed explaining “trans issues 101” over and over to people? welcome to the world.[/quote]
Well, here’s an example of someone who is actually trying to build understanding - in this case, gently explaining how derailing using education can end up marginalizing and disruptive to them. And your response was to brush away everything they just said, and declare that result as something they should just accept.
Note that despite your description, the comic doesn’t really say “you should just google it”. It says you should take some responsibility for basic research, but it doesn’t say it’s wrong to ask for more. To the contrary, it actually suggests the difference between questions that interrupt and questions that help you learn more - edit: as @WearySky just highlighted.
Edit 2: mrmcd is right, this point was poorly overstated. I have fixed this post accordingly.
This is true to some extent, but the problem is how much you take responsibility for them; whether you’re asking someone for help on the way to answers, in which case a little research is no big deal, or making your education their responsibility. Again, I think these panels show the difference reasonably well.
And if I wanted to talk about Starcraft with someone, constantly stopping to explain the races to someone else wouldn’t go very well either. So I guess the lesson is that sometimes people don’t want to win people over on gender identity, not at that moment, they’d just like to be able to talk about it on their own terms now and then.
I decided to respond to you guys because you guys seemed to agree so strongly with the comic. Actually, it looks like Boing Boing won’t allow me to respond to multiple people at once, so I went with you Spunky. But I encourage people to feel free to respond to me. To me the book analogy doesn’t work at all, because discussing gender politics isn’t anything like casually discussing a book you like. It is more analogous to finding a book so important you believe that high schoolers should be required to read it. In which case, yes, you would need to patiently and politely explain your reasons each time.
Now, I’m not saying this to be antagonistic, I’m genuinely trying to bridge understanding, so hear me out. First, I think gender politics is the wrong approach to these ideas entirely. I think they reinforce gender stereotypes when what we should be working towards is eliminating gender stereotypes. And I have read Gender 101. The idea that you were born a man, but identify more as a woman, say, because you like dolls more than trucks, well, we don’t need to come up with a new label for that. You can just be a man who likes dolls over trucks. Creating a label reinforces the idea that there is something inherently masculine or feminine about trucks or dolls.
Second, I guess I don’t know who this article is geared towards. If it’s geared to the LGBTY community and the question is, do I have to care about these issues so much that I try to change Everyone’s minds. I agree the answer should be, Of course not. It’s not any one person’s responsibility to change everyone’s mind.
But, if the question is, do I need to be polite and patient with the public when trying to sway public opinion, I think the answer is, yes, of course you do. If the public has no vested interest in caring about these ideas that matter to you, and you want them to care? Polite and patient is the way to go.
@SpunkyTWS ! I liked your response! I messed up and responded to two responses to me incorrectly, so then I tired to delete them and re-enter, but that didn’t work either, and now I’m locked out of this discussion. But, if you see this, I liked your response.
Christianity is a minority religion?
@MikeTheBard’s pagan, I think?
whoosh 
Unfortunately, no. Even many of the LG members of “LGBT” are stonkeringly ignorant on this count.
I had a well-known local “LGBT activist” tell me once that bisexuals don’t really exist - anyone who identifies as such is either a closeted homosexual unwilling to admit they’re really gay, or a straight person seeking counter-cultural ‘cred’ for being queer.
And anyone who denies that is just “in denial”.
Don’t even get me started on what the straight people sometimes say.
I wish to Ghu no one had ever heard of Tila Tequila.
Thank you, and I think you’ve highlighted something I didn’t say or think but wish I had: the comic represents an individual’s view of how they’ve seen some people, apparently well-meaning, behave, and an individual’s response to that behavior.
I may be mistaken but I thought the comic’s target audience was the well-meaning friends of transgender people, or anyone who might be described as “different”. A cis person will very likely have a lot of questions for a transgender friend, and the part that appealed to me was the message, There may be inappropriate times to ask these questions. That’s where I feel the book analogy held most strongly, and it stood out for me because it’s something to keep in mind in a lot of different contexts.
I agree that “just go Google it” comes across as dismissive, and while I didn’t read it that way–I was too wrapped up in the initial “don’t interrupt other peoples’ conversations” part–I can see why people get that from it. And it would be pretty stupid of me to suggest that “don’t be rude” is a rule that should apply to only one side.
I feel like you’re still kind of missing the point, though. The book analogy is to give the example of when two people are discussing it on their own, and somebody walks up and barges in asking them to explain it all to them. Even if they feel it’s a super important book that everybody should be required to read, that’s not the discussion they were having when the person barged in. Likewise when people (that are already familiar with the topics) are discussing gender identity issues related to a specific topic, if they are in the middle of discussing the issue in question with people already familiar with it, it’s kind of rude to barge in and say “I would like to discuss this topic too. Please explain it to me instead of having the discussion about this particular issue”. As the panel I pointed to above points out, politely asking as an aside for some good references to bone up on the topic so you can become conversant as well is totally fine, and I don’t think anybody would have a problem with that. It’s the “stop discussing the specific issue at hand, and explain to me the whole thing” behaviour that this comic is aimed at curbing.
There are two issues here: What is obligatory and what is effective.
The comic is pointing out that nobody is obligated to explain gender identity concepts to you. This is important because it means that “ignorance is no excuse” - you can’t expect your shitty behavior to be excused just because you didn’t understand it was shitty.
However, obligations aside, it’s very ineffective to expect people to educate themselves, if the goal is to transform all of society. People don’t want to learn independently about gender identity, because they are lazy and apathetic. Even if they do, they will very possibly learn a toxic perspective on it.
Now, we could always call those people out, telling them they’re lazy, apathetic and/or misinformed. But given that there’s not very much to be gained by correctly understanding gender identity, there’s very little incentive for them to care.
Unless, of course, correct understanding offers acceptance into a subculture, scene, or intellectual clique. Then you have a very powerful engine for motivating people to self-educate, because knowledge translates to social status. A subculture or clique depends on exclusion, though, hence the resentment towards outsiders who have not “put in work” to gain acceptance.
I don’t begrudge people their subcultures. You’ve a right to develop specialized ideas, and you’ve no obligation to answer questions. In fact, if your subculture is successful, playing “hard to get” may actually make your specialized ideas even more appealing and interesting. This is the success mode - your scene becomes so popular and desirable that everyone is willing to put in whatever work is required for inclusion.
But the failure modes are many:
I think that approach is legitimate but not effective or strategic - again, if the goal is widespread change. There are too many ways for it to fail, and anyway it just feels kind of manipulative. Better is a direct, earnest effort to inject ideas, practices, and values directly into culture at large, deliberately keeping the social boundaries and cultural signifiers as ambiguous as possible.
For me, this comic evokes a sense that there’s an “in group” who gets it and has cool interesting conversations, and an “out group” who doesn’t. That should be avoided at all costs. Yes, some people don’t get it and they should learn, but the sense that there’s an initiated in-group also implies the out-group, and the danger is that by defining the out-group, it actually strengthens them and weakens your ability to generalize your ideas.
I guess the thing about the comic that bothers me so much is that it’s implying that people who are otherwise coming to a conversation trying to be open and supportive should be treated like they are doing something wrong if they haven’t invested in some minimum amount of research and self-education first. It might be tiring and frustrating to explain basic concepts over and over again to the inexperienced, but that’s a fundamental part of advocacy.
To go back to the automobile analogy, if I barged into a meeting of experience automotive engineers at Toyota HQ and demanded to know what a carburetor is and how it works, that’s pretty shitty behavior on my part.
If I go to the local “Automotive Enthusiasts Meetup” group because I want to learn about autos, and if I ask someone to explain how a carburetor works, they might also find explaining such a thing exasperating and not what they showed up for. However, snarkily telling me to “go learn to use google” is going to result in most people thinking “wow those auto guys are real assholes”, because “Automotive Enthusiasts Meetup” is usually pitched as something for the general public to learn about, discuss, and advocate for automobiles.
The other thing that bothers me is that it conflates people genuinely asking questions with people being intentionally dense as a means to derail discussion. The latter is just a subspecies of trolling.
Maybe the main problem is that online, general advocacy and a discussion among credentialed experts look very similar?
edit: Oops, that wasn’t replying specifically to zikzak. I just can’t figure out the bbs interface today.
Well, since racial constructs are social, then no! Ethnic considerations also vary by country where in some places cultural identity is more important than lineage. so… you can be anything you want!
Again hear me out, if you thought that book was so important that every high school student be required to read it, wouldn’t you want to start at the beginning? Or at least, find a polite and patient way to commit your time and energy into bringing that person up to speed? I have a few things I care about passionately. And if someone shows interest in that I find it to be a gift from god because they have no reason to be passionate about the same things I’m passionate about. I’m not going to say I’m polite and patient every time I have to bring someone to my thinking, but that’s definitely the goal.
@WearySky I sort of agree with you. I agree that it’s just rude to interrupt people when they’re talking, regardless whether you are even up to speed or not. Right? Like, wouldn’t it be just as rude to break into someone’s conversation and you Had read the book? Since I’m not honing in on that point, I feel there’s an attitude in the comic that’s generating all this discussion, the attitude of - it’s not my job to educate you go google it. I’m not getting paid to educate you. If the sole point of this comic was, don’t interrupt people when they’re having a conversation, I don’t think it would be generating as much discussion as it is.
@tachin1 - I like you.
Like say, “The bible”? wink
Yeah, that’s always goes well. If you want people to know what you know so badly, you proselytize right? But if somebody is already having a conversation about this most important topic, its not a sign that they don’t think its important if they don’t stop in the middle of having said important conversation on a topic that is most dear to them and begin another one with you personally.
This would be making the conversation about you, and most certainly a derail.
It does sort of make me feel like the people having said conversation doesn’t feel the topic is important enough. Or that they don’t deem the outsider worthy of their time. If you interrupted devote Christians or Muslims who were having a deep conversation on theology and asked - so, what is it about your religion anyways? They would stop their conversation to bring you up to speed. In fact, you would have a hard time getting them to talk about anything else, ever again. I’m not asking for that level of commitment, but really, no one outside the community has that much of a vested interest in caring about these ideas. If they do, that should be greeted with enthusiasm, not annoyance.
Now, I’m not saying this to be antagonistic, I’m genuinely trying to bridge understanding, so hear me out. First, I think gender politics is the wrong approach to these ideas entirely.
So do you initiate conversations on this topic or do you hijack other conversations to make your point?
Ah a topic near and dear to my heart!
Not every conversation is about convincing people, in fact, some conversations are for working things out.
Some conversations are only useful for blowing off steam with like minded individuals before bravely going out and teaching the world to be more tolerant.
Some conversations do try to influence public opinion, but they are not won by who is more polite, they are won by who is more persuasive, and who persuades more people.
And I may have been confusing. I wasn’t trying to make the point the being polite, by itself, will win anyone over to any set of ideas. I’m saying if you do want to win people over, and they don’t share your opinion, and they may be ignorant to all the information that has lead you to your opinion, you need to be patient and polite with them.
That’s not what the comic is saying, though. There’s nothing wrong with coming to a conversation trying to be open and supportive. But when somebody comes to a conversation, and turns the direction of the conversation away from discussing the specific topic and towards explaining the overarching themes in general, that’s where they are doing something wrong. The comic is instead suggesting that they come into the conversation and say “Hey, I’m really interested in supporting you guys, are there some good references I can use to learn more about the general topic, so that I can be conversant in this specific topic?”
Of course, which is why the comic suggests that people ask (outside of the context of the specific discussion) about more general information, if they want it. What the comic is specifically asking people not to do is demand that all conversation about the specific topic come to a halt so that they can be educated about it in general terms.
I’m sorry, that’s just a core part of being an effective advocate for something and swaying people who aren’t already in your camp, even if it’s frustrating or repetitive.
I’m not talking about people who are intentionally trying to derail, interrupt, shutdown, or insert themselves uninvited into a conversation. That’s driving trollies, and should be treated as such. Otherwise telling people to "go look this up on google " is essentially saying “You ask too many questions and I don’t want to explain it to you.”
Whoops, I somehow edited my previous post instead of responding to your post… Let’s try to fix that…
You still seem to be missing the point of the comic, and I’m not sure how many times I can explain it. Maybe it’s that one instance of a search box in the comic that is causing the problem, but the comic isn’t really advocating that people “go look this up on google” instead of asking questions. Specifically, it’s asking that people who are interested in supporting the cause in general stop derailing discussions of specific topics (whether intentionally or not) in order to have the whole background explained to them. The panel further down (which I’ve already posted, but will repost again) nails it:
Maybe so; but in some contexts that can be fair. Look at the first example here: blue- and purple-hair want to talk about something, and they can’t because brown-hair buries it in too many questions and makes everything all about explaining things to her. They should be able to say that’s not what they want right now.
It’s good to talk about effective advocacy, but we should also stick up for people being able to have conversations about identity besides basic education. There are after all lots of people who are trying to educate about it, and have provided many resources accordingly. Why is asking people who come into a conversation to check those out first, instead of expecting everyone else to drop everything and advocate to them, a bad thing?
You’re breaking into other people’s conversation with eachother, and trying to derail the thread with a different topic, instead of doing your own research on the issue.
No, just kidding.
It would be correct according to the author of the comic though.
Forums are larger conversations with everyone taking part, not the simplistic duality the comic portrays.
The point is understood, but it was rendered poorly IMO.
As per your question, I personally couldn’t tell you. Identity has become far too fractured in modern times. Each to their own.
I just go with ‘Homo Sapien’.
