Kate Tempest - new name, new pronouns and a haircut

[MarSeeAh]

I was listening to Jo Wiley’s show earlier and she announced that Kate Tempest, singer/poet, has announced that she is non-binary, now to be known as Kate, changed her pronouns to they ....

To be honest, I didn’t even know what Kate Tempest looked like, and the only song of hers which I know is “Peoples’ Faces” which Jo had just played - otherwise I wouldn’t have had a clue who she was talking about.

www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/06/kate-tempest-announces-they-are-non-binary-changes-name-to-kae

Going by images of Kate/Kae online, she had long hair until recently.

I grew up in the ‘70s and 80s when hair length was no indication at all of sex - because it isn’t!

Now, every time I see a girl or young woman get her long hair cut short, I’m waiting for the new name and pronouns to be announced.

Why this fixation on the superficial?

I can’t think of any other role models like KT that girls can look up to

Australian musician Courtney Barnett, also a lesbian, blows her out of the water.

I tend to think that an approach like '13' comes out of anger and pain. It's an expression of the frustration and rejection felt on observing/feeling social pressures exerted on women. (Not commenting on the quality of the poem - she's not a poet's poet, put it that way.)

What it lacks, I suppose, is the suggestion or even consideration that other scenarios are possible. (I don't think poetry is necessarily obliged to offer solutions to social issues). And could it look deeper at why these things are issues? Or investigate a bit further than 'my feelings are hurt'?

I suppose I would suggest the poem is giving up and falling before it reaches what is, to me, the crux of art - the 'volta' or the deep change. Is that the entire poem?

@NotBadConsidering I was about to post exactly what you said about Prince’s name change being driven by dispute with label. And the idea that Prince would be GN is laughable, he was most definitely nonnconforming but never any question about his sex!

[quote DidoLamenting]I can’t think of any other role models like KT that girls can look up to

Australian musician Courtney Barnett, also a lesbian, blows her out of the water.

[/quote] Love CB, and agreed - lyrically, musically so much more talented.

What it lacks, I suppose, is the suggestion or even consideration that other scenarios are possible

I think that's a problem some of the feminist theory on FWR. generally.

I find there's so much concentration on picking at superficial aspects (which is what I'm getting at with the lists of competitive gender non-conformity) yet at the same time a weary resignation that "female socialisation" is overwhelming.

Could be, Dido. Sometimes I think we need space to simply express how these things impact us.

As a whole, I suppose solving the problems needs to address ways to improve and tackle the roots of the issues. It's a fairly enormous subject, so I'm not really surprised anyone finds it overwhelming. Maybe it's so large we can only tackle it in tiny increments, day by day, bit by bit?

I'm always happy to hear ideas, and especially to see different ways of being modelled in the course of discussion, which I've seen on here many times. Women supporting other women, refusing to be drawn into destructive patterns of argument, questioning accepted but subtle and hard-to-spot social 'rules' and roles, for example. Things that can seem quite small but I think can effect deep internal change, especially over time.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm just sick of telling students 'you don't have to conform to sex stereotypes if you don't want to, not conforming doesn't mean you're not a' real' girl/boy' then the next week the example I was giving (e.g. Sam Smith, KT, Antony/Anonhi and the Johnson) comes out as trans or non binary, thus sending the opposite message to my students.

I can’t think of any other role models like KT that girls can look up to

Sigrid

Christine and The Queens

@DidoLamenting

What it lacks, I suppose, is the suggestion or even consideration that other scenarios are possible

I think that's a problem some of the feminist theory on FWR. generally.

I find there's so much concentration on picking at superficial aspects (which is what I'm getting at with the lists of competitive gender non-conformity) yet at the same time a weary resignation that "female socialisation" is overwhelming.

"When I was ten I spent all my free time out on my bicycle and playing football with my (mostly male) friends. I had short hair (more practical) and wore jeans (more practical). Now my 10-year-old daughter/granddaughter is just the same, and people keep telling her she must be a boy."

Not a real quote, but this is the sort of post I have seen people making on here. Is this what you mean by competitive gender non-conformity? If so, I would say that you have most definitely missed the point.

I don't think I've ever seen Posie Parker criticised on here for her overly feminine appearance (her views, yes - her appearance, no). In fact when anyone makes a comment about another woman's appearance it's roundly criticised as unfeminist.

There is very definitely an element of competitive gender non conformity and by implication how much more enlightened and superior they are to those of us "performing feminity".

As I've already said, any woman who sees herself as an equal to men and carves out a career in what is still a man's world is not 'performing femininity'.

You really don't seem to understand what feminism is. It's not about your appearance - apart from the fact that your appearance doesn't matter.

I think it would been more powerful to stretch the idea of what a woman is than to equate a new appearance with non binary.

Although I know I’m if my generation and education - studying feminism in the 90s

Christine and The Queens

She now calls herself 'genderqueer',which appears to be an alternative term for 'non-binary'.

Asked the meaning of 'genderqueer', the 31 year-old explains: "Someone who subverts gender norms and doesn't identify as either [gender]."
www.attitude.co.uk/article/christine-and-the-queens-explains-what-it-means-to-be-genderqueer-1/22160/

Not a real quote, but this is the sort of post I have seen people making on here. Is this what you mean by competitive gender non-conformity? If so, I would say that you have most definitely missed the point

No. What I am talking about are the posts after posts listing (indeed boasting) how fabulously "gender-non-conforming" posters are ; how they never wear dresses or heels or make-up; have short hair how they played with lego and rode a bike !! . And this does then lead on to criticism of women who waste their time on these frivolities. You, general you, will deny that happens but it does.

Yet on the other hand this raised consciousness never seems to help in avoiding taking on "wife- work" , not buying presents for husband's family, dividing child care equally. That is always too difficult because of "the patriarchy" or "female socialisation"

You really don't seem to understand what feminism is. It's not about your appearance - apart from the fact that your appearance doesn't matter

Yeah, I'm thick. Actually you are missing the point. Apearance is laboured at length on here. (Hence the lists) My point is that feminism as practised on here seems to be a tool to enable women to deal with trivial things but not to do deal with more important issues.

If feminism means you , general you , have the ability to dress exclusively from the Army and Navy stores but can't help you in throwing off "wife work" it seems a failure to me.

Posters sometimes illustrate how they are not conforming to gender stereotypes because there is a narrative that gender is somehow tied innately to sex. It's just a demonstration of that. I don't think it's boasting at all - I think it's an observation that many if not most females tend not to buy into the hyper-feminine roles, as pushed by genderists.

Because 'gender' as described by many TRAs and 'non binary' people is apparently defined largely by appearance. Hence Kae's new short hair being significant, when most of us would probably just call it a haircut.

I think it's an observation that many if not most females tend not to buy into the hyper-feminine roles, as pushed by genderists

But it seems to me so often to be so superficial. I've said so often in relation to "wife- work" , child care and personal domestic issues that women need to address this with their families and partners. They can't wait for the patriarchy to be dismantled by some unknown third party. That has been met with indignation that it's not that easy- I'm victim blaming.

I'm not interested in the theory of waves of feminism and radical feminism versus liberal feminism but it strikes me radical feminism seems to concentrate on identifying issues at a class level but then falling back on some sort of vague notion it will all be better when the patriarchy is overthrown (how? when?) whereas liberal feminism, because of the individualistic element, works better on an individual level by offering practical solutions.

Oh and there is very definitely boasting involved- frequently references to things like "pink shit" "and the like.

Good for Kae. Nice to see a talented UK musician speaking so openly about their identity. We need more of this, so kids whose parents would be less accepting have role models to turn to.
X

Accepting of what? Getting their hair cut, not being 'girly'.. being different to 'other girls'?
Fwiw I don't think that makes for a great role model, I'd be happier if my GNC child knew they were loved and accepted exactly as they are by me regardless of how they appear.
Identity labels are for their peers not their parents.

Agree with Beamur's 'it takes more courage to declare you're a woman these days'

Do you think that KT has noticed that since KT's surname begins with a T, KT's name sounds EXACTLY THE SAME?

Or is KT dropping the Tempest bit?

I think this non-binary thing is a brilliant way to get people to out themselves as stupid narcissists. She's similar to Sam Smith in that sense.

Yet on the other hand this raised consciousness never seems to help in avoiding taking on "wife- work" , not buying presents for husband's family, dividing child care equally. That is always too difficult because of "the patriarchy" or "female socialisation"

I seem to have missed those threads. Can you post some links?

My point is that feminism as practised on here seems to be a tool to enable women to deal with trivial things but not to do deal with more important issues.

One of the main issues discussed on here at the moment concerns children being unnecessarily diagnosed with something which isn't an illness which results in them being medical patients for life and sterilised before they are adults. I don't think that's trivial. Do you?

People who these children might view as role models deciding that they are not women/men because they don't 100% conform to regressive gender stereotypes and hence encouraging these children to make similar decisions about their 'gender identity' means that more children will end up going down this medicalised route. Do you think this is trivial?

I don't think any of my trans or gender non conforming colleagues are harmful for children by hiding identities. I work with and for children and young people and have seen firsthand that this causes no issue.

I thought this forum would be more accepting of modern viewpoints. shame.

@Rumble85

I don't think any of my trans or gender non conforming colleagues are harmful for children by hiding identities. I work with and for children and young people and have seen firsthand that this causes no issue.

I thought this forum would be more accepting of modern viewpoints. shame.

What do you think is 'modern' about people declaring that they are not really women/men because they don't conform to regressive gender stereotypes? Why do you think this is a good thing?

@Rumble85

I don't think any of my trans or gender non conforming colleagues are harmful for children by hiding identities. I work with and for children and young people and have seen firsthand that this causes no issue.

I thought this forum would be more accepting of modern viewpoints. shame.

Modern viewpoints? You mean putting people into sexist stereotypes and saying they aren’t actually women or men, if they don’t follow the rules of ‘gender’? Telling women to centre male bodied people in their feminism or you might hurt their feelings? Those modern viewpoints? You’re alright, you can keep your modern viewpoints. I’ll stick to sex based reality.

@rumble85, welcome to mumsnet. You might want to read the room a bit and realise that we know that you can't opt out of womanhood by cutting your hair and changing your name, and to pretend as much doesn't help anyone, least of all girls who don't adhere to feminine stereotypes.

Oh no - we might not be modern enough.

It does make me laugh how people think attacking feminists for being old is going to be a real killer insult. Because obviously, the worst thing a woman could possibly be is slightly unyouthful...