I want to first say that I follow this person because I find her compelling. I think has incredible insight and profound experience on the topic of gender and her method of communication is both compelling and educational more than it is accusatory and hateful. At a time when or a lot of people, this idea is new or p ossibly even uncomfortable, the last thing someone needs is to be attacked, shamed, and mistreated for using the wrong pronouns or accidentally using transgender as a verb in the past particle form (i.e. someone is transgender, not transgendered).
So while honestly trying to understand that for which I am fully in support of, I have found that the people most qualified to teach me are often too embittered and too frustrated to recognize an ally that simply lacks the linguistic chops to sound supportive. But I don’t even have a problem with that, I figure it must be difficult to deal with the negative reaction to someone trying to be themselves and others just not getting it.
But that’s what I love about this creator. From what I have gathered, she suffered (or perhaps suffers) from gender dysphoria and felt pressured to transition when she had a breakthrough that gave her a new perspective and helped with her dysphoria. Rather than be supportive, several people in the community turned on her and she is simply telling us her story and hoping to reach others that have successfully found ways of combatting gender dysphoria without having to change genders.
Today, however, I was watching a video where I think she got it wrong. And honestly, I shouldn’t care, we all make mistakes, but I think it is important to clarify because she expresses a great deal of frustration and angst over the topic when I don’t think it is necessary.
The video starts with a quote from her comment section. She describes the lead-up to the comment and then proceeds to make claims that aren’t supported by the comment. If there was more to this person’s comment, it wasn’t apparent.
The problem is that with 150 character limit, trying to use the term ‘general masculine demeanor” is gonna use up a lot of your space.
Okay. (pause/dramatic deep breath and smile)
First, I'm gonna give some context...
and then I am going to explain how completely ridiculous this is just in case it's not obvious already.
“No, I’m not. I live in LA. Women who look like her use he/him pronouns. Short hair and general demeanor.”
Comment on Tik Tok
Had the person said, All women who look like her use he/him pronouns” there would have been some reason to be upset. Even if you think the word “all” is implied, what if you implied a different word? “Some women in LA that look like her use he/him pronouns” That is a fact, I know a couple of them myself. If anything this refutes the idea that how you look determines your gender and he is citing his experience to support it. Just because you look like a woman doesn’t prohibit you from identifying as a man or using your own preferred pronouns. Maybe, he’s on your side? Maybe his response to “look at her, she’s a woman” is spot on.
When he adds to the description to further qualify that the women he is talking about have short hair and a general masculine demeanor. The creator knew precisely what he meant by that but took petty potshots over it. No big deal.
But at no point did he claim that a stereotype was useful, though that is exactly what stereotypes are: useful. Not always in the way you would expect them to be, but rather in the way that everyone knows the stereotype so why not reference it? The important thing about stereotypes is that we all know exactly what a stereotype is and we know that very few people fit the stereotype. Stereotypes are not a problem. Believing that they are more than what they are is the problem. Nobody who references “blond hair and big tits” for example really thinks this is what qualifies a woman—but we all know the stereotype and what it means–regardless of how vile it is. This is especially useful when someone completely defies the stereotype. He never claimed that you should do anything. That you should look any particular way to satisfy the stereotype that we all know but pretty much don’t know anybody who fits it. It is a caricature, and stereotypes when used in this manner are very very useful.
We all know who Tom & Jerry are and we can all reference certain things about them because they are public knowledge. Nobody thinks they are real. That’s how stereotypes work. Nobody believes them, they are gross exaggerations and that’s all.
Regardless,
He simply stated his experience and was responding to the idea that even though you look like a woman, doesn’t prohibit you from using he/him like other women he knows in LA do.
So, why do I give a shit about this little misunderstanding? Because I think it is a source of pain for the creator that could be avoided if she considered one change in how she perceived the comment. I support everything she said in general about how stupid it is to expect women or anyone to look and act a certain way.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that comments like, “but look at her, she is obviously a woman” aren’t necessarily true. Surely you see that just because you look like a woman, doesn’t mean that you identify as one. He was on your side and defending your choice to look like a woman without having to identify as one.
I hope she gets a chance to read this and to reconsider her position. It’s not that her perspective on it is hard to understand, but perhaps there is a better or more healthy perspective that simply involves one more letter imagined (some=4, rather than all=3)
Regardless, this is yet another example of how terrible TikTok’s comments are and how easily they get distorted. I look forward to more content from this creator and hope she hears my message as one of loving support that makes his comment supportive, not abusive like it sounds like she felt that it was.