Jack Monroe on being non-gender binary

[IShouldBeSoLurky]

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/being-non-binary-i-m-not-girl-called-jack-any-more-i-m-not-boy-either

I've got a lot of time for Jack and Jack's brave stance on poverty and honest approach to discussing it. I also think the the taunting Jack came in for when the Daily Mail took agin Jack was appalling (but then the DM treats everyone appallingly if they thing it's going to get them clicks).

But this article... I don't know. It seems to me it would all be SO much simpler if one were able to say, "I was born a girl and given a girl's name which I later changed. I'm a lesbian and a mother and proud of both those things. And I don't feel it's necessary for me to perform gender, because I think the things I enjoy like pushing weights and wearing high heeled shoes sometimes shouldn't be gendered things."

Instead we have this tortuous charade of writing copy that's confusing because individuals want to be referred to by a plural pronoun, and the massive shenanigans about deadnaming (of course it's offensive, but no more so than calling a woman by her husband's surname when she hasn't actually changed her name) - some of it might be bigotry but some might just be confusion. And some of it, like referring to the Olympic medalist as Bruce, not Caitlyn, Jenner, is just factually accurate.

I was talking to DP about it earlier and saying that almost all languages (all, maybe? I don't know) have been structured with gender as pretty fundamental, because when language was developing, a person's biological sex WAS significant in a way it perhaps isn't, or shouldn't be, now. What if language just wasn't gendered at all (eg if the phrase "Ladies and gentlemen..." were never used), and it was only necessary to refer to a person's biological sex when it was fundamental to the subject (eg pregnancy and childbirth)? What if we were all they/zhe/something else?

I'm sure this has all been gone over multiple times on here, but I find it so difficult. Part of me wants to give Jack the respect Jack deserves, and part of me is like, "Look, lots of us aren't comfortable with gender roles. Stop making out that you're some special snowflake who gets misgendered at every turn." And then I think maybe I'm just as out of touch and carmudgeonly as people who insist it's fine to call gay people "queers".

What do others think about all this?

I am not a gender essentialist - I do not believe in a gender binary that is universal and true for all time and irrevocably tied to biological sex. Tied to that, I don't believe in an 'inner' identity - I think identity is largely constructed relationally, outside of the person, in a social context and that it is inevitably shot through with power relations, because at any given time there is a horizon to what it is possible to think.

However, I do believe in the existence of a cultural binary, that we have inherited and that has a long and oppressive history. (And we all have ample evidence from our own lives and this forum that it continues to be very active - girl and boy party bags, anyone?) And I do think that this is part of that social domain in which identity is constructed. So (thinking aloud a bit here) I think I'd tend to see actions like this not as attacks on any holy cows of my identity, but as allied help in dismantling a system of thinking about gender that I find personally constraining and historically repressive. And I am happy to return the favour by using whatever pronouns they want.

I'm also mindful of the fact that how we "feel" is a relation of dominant power. I don't feel white most of the time. Until I hang out with my bessie mate who is black, and see the totally different reactions that we both get from random strangers, and I realise that she can't count on a lot of the things I take for granted. I'm not saying that this is analogous to gender (I think different kinds of discrimination tend to operate quite differently, and we're only starting to get more sophisticated at analysing this), merely casting some skeptical shade over the idea that we can always judge from the strength of the feelings we experience in relation to our own identity to the legitimacy of the feelings of others. (Or, indeed, that those feelings are deeply personal and inside and not cultural and social in nature).

So this has come up on facebook for me and a lovely friend has done a really nice post about accepting people, which I love :) And I'm now feeling anxious because I want to talk to her (privately) about gender and sex and trans* but I don't have time currently to write a long post/email to her. In fact, I'd like to post on facebook directly but I'm not brave enough yet.

I wish that the two groups - those who think gender is bullshit and oppressive and ought to be scrapped and those who think gender is important/real but that the binary is oppressive and ought to be scrapped could see eye to eye.

I don't believe in gender. Sadly, gender seems to be focussed on believing in me, in constraining how I can act, what I can do, how I can behave all the time.

Sex is biological, without changing your DNA, your sex will be your sex from the womb to the grave, on the whole, sex in humans is binary, with very few exceptions. And, as intersex people are generally completely over the whole TG argument, I'll pay them the respect of not bringing that into the discussion.

Gender roles are the mechanism by which women are held back and subjugated. Getting rid of all gender roles would free men and women to perform their lives as they wish, without fear of censure or violence.

Dysphoria is something completely different from "feeling" like a woman. It is an acute and devastating mental illness, and is simply awful for the sufferer. If JM is suffering from dysphoria or dysmorphia, then I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for her.

None of those things equates to anyone "being a man". Men are adult human males, they have recognisable primary and secondary sex organs that develop due to the genetic make up.

Calling JM by whatever name or pronouns she desires may or may not be good manners.

PlaysWell, of course it's good manners. How could it be anything but?

Also, Flora, your point that

Fine but since I am female I am not an "it" and you will look foolish.

Well, Jack Monroe has said they're not a woman but you're happy to still refer to them as one. How is that any less foolish?

Most people are unaware/only vaguely aware of this whole gender identity concept so haven't stated what their gender identity is.

I assume I'm agender but can't really know that in some kind of social vacuum. When (if) other people widely start claiming to have various gender identities, I'll get a feel for what each one is and know for sure.

I know for certain that I am not in the same group as Jack Monroe. All the stuff that they finds very important in terms of gender sounds irrelevant to me, but I respect that it matters to them.

I still want their to be role models in the world who are the same bio sex as me. I think that wanting their breasts removed makes them no longer a role model for me personally.

Thanks for answering, Movingon - am just catching up with thread (was called to get ds1 from school just before you posted so may not have a chance till tomorrow).

Can people not refer to others as it?

Calling people it has a long, dehumanising history.

I agree with Dan Savage that we should not call people it, even if they choose that as their own pronoun, because it is distressing to many minority groups who have been called it.

All these initially interesting positions seem to have a habit of degrading gently into 'Oh no, I'm not one of those..."wimmin" thingies, I'm much more interesting than that'. It is sad.

Wheres... I mean from a MHP point of view.

George.. I think part of that is because of the imposition of gender roles on women that subjugate them and imply they are 'inferior' to men. Why on earth would any woman choose to be seen as inferior? IYSWIM?

I'd also wholeheartedly agree with Almond, where she says that the use of the word 'it' as a pronoun is deeply problematic, given it's history of being used to dehumanise the 'other'. Ffs, it was used as a dehumanising device in Silence of the Lambs... not a good look really.

I don't know if people do find it interesting George. The social phenomenon of gender identity as some kind of political movement is interesting, but people describing their individual gender expression is incredibly boring.

I mean, who cares that sometimes Jack Monroe likes to wear vintage dresses and stilettos and other times they like to pose in only boxer shorts? Is it really interesting enough to warrant a New Statesman article?

The social phenomenon of gender identity as some kind of political movement is interesting, but people describing their individual gender expression is incredibly boring.

Well, that's certainly true. I find it interesting only as a springboard to this kind of discussion. But solipsism is now our culture's defining characteristic, so expect lots more of this kind of thing.

Yy MyFavourite the article made me wonder if Jack considers woman to be a dirty word.

I disagree with the idea of non-binary because it positions everyone who doesn't explicitly identify as such as an adherent of either male or female gender roles/expression. Which is bullshit.

Hmmm, I think I might have got the wrong end of George's post, and for that I apologise.

No, I don't think so. I'm not cross either way, so no harm done.

Phew!

Well, Jack Monroe has said they're not a woman but you're happy to still refer to them as one. How is that any less foolish?

Because Jack Monroe is a woman. She is an adult human female, of the biological category the produces eggs and bears children. That is a material reality not a philosophical notion of what it means to be a woman.

I just think gender is a load of bullshit. I suppose you could say I'm 'agender', but if you did I wouldn't be happy as in doing so you're supporting the existence of gender as being the default.

Gender is a bunch of made up stuff and all this non-binary nonsense panders and enforces it. It needs to disappear, people need to be free to do whatever they want and express themselves how they want, and ideally not announce it to the world because it's not that interesting.

It makes me feel old. Not because I disapprove, just because gender is now conceived and discussed so much more prominently and in a completely different way from how it was when I was younger. It is discombobulating.

And now I've started to sound like my mother, so I think I will log off.

If Jack Monroe is not a woman, why have they not withdrawn from the "Woman of the Future" award they are nominated for, and which they mention oh-so-casually in the NS article where they insist at length that they are not a woman?

"Jack's identity does not diminish or impact on your identity, my identity or anyone else's in any way."

If Jack's identity only impacted on Jack, this conversation wouldn't be happening at all. The only reason I give a stuff is that Jack's declaration of their own identity came along with Jack's expression of a whole lot of sexist, gender-essentialist and homophobic attitudes, presented as cool and progressive attitudes, all of which impact very negatively on my life and the loves of a lot of other women.

(I like Jack. I am really horribly disappointed that they've gone down this homophobic route.)

*lives, not loves. Though loves, too.

I don't think she's being essentialist at all. She says in that article that she is revolting against 'the society-imposed candy pink and baby blue'. SOCIETY-imposed being the opposite word. Every thing about her article sounds non-essentialist to me: this is gender as social construct, not gender as inner nature - but it's a social construct that was not only historically oppressive, but continues to be enforced (which is the point of her mentioning being chucked out of nightclub toilets for looking male, and of discussing the uniform for her passing out parade). What she seems to be celebrating is freedom from that socially-formulated binary, to find all kinds of positions that are inbetween the old polarities.

While I find the whole 'rebel' think kind of old, this is probably because I'm too cynical and too goddamned privileged to recognise that this cynicism comes from being around a pretty liberal bunch of people for whom this stuff is old news - though it wasn't even that long ago that I was working for a boss who was a sexist dinosaur, rating the women in the office on their figures, complaining about those who turned up in trousers, talking salaciously about his DIL's look in a bikini, etc. He would never forgive nor forget being challenged on any of it, and would find ways to make the life of anyone who stood up to him absolutely miserable. There are many girls and women stuck in positions (families, jobs) where deviation from 'girlishness' is still punished.

*operative, not opposite.

God I am hungover this morning

There are many girls and women stuck in positions (families, jobs) where deviation from 'girlishness' is still punished.

Yes, and as long as we continue to insist that if you aren't "girly" then you can't possibly be a girl, those women will continue to be punished if/when they stray an inch from this imposed norm.

eg: I hate that in that article a fit, hard body must be described as "masculine". Because women never have fit, hard bodies...