And you said that comment couldn't be a spring-board for continued discussion :)
That was chewy. I can't give it the reply it deserves (not least because I haven't walked in those shoes), but I think "transgressive" is absolutely the key word here. Thank you for surfacing it. I, personally, do not believe hacking is transgressive. For evidence I point to how easily "hackers" slip into corporate roles.
> A postmodern/conceptual reading of queerness could state that the subversion is more integral to the concept of queerness than the actual details
I think I instinctively lean towards this definition. It reminds me of maximalist vs minimalist definitions of religion. Choose a maximalist definition and you end up including things like philosophies and political ideologies. Choose a minimalist defintion, and you end up missing out some things that are self-evidently religions. Truth is, religion is one of those "you know it when you see it" things, and maybe Queerness is too?
I'm glad it was chewy! My personal 0th law is that everyone is entitled to the best version of arguments/information possible, so I do try to be able to steelman/articulate the arguments of people I disagree with as faithfully as possible.
I can't agree with transgression being a key component of queerness, but there's an asterisk to my disagreement: I think that could be a plausible reading if we split the gay community from the queer community, but I also think that's both unlikely to happen and a terrible idea.
The reason that I disagree is because it leads to situations where a bisexual woman who's only had relationships with men is 'queerer' than a lesbian if the lesbian lives somewhere that isn't homophobic or the bisexual woman has the 'right' politics. There are also logistical problems/concerns with defining the queer community based on transgression that would prohibit the community from performing what I see as key functions of the queer community:
* Support for young queer people and queer elders, as well as disabled queer people. There are many, many issues with queer elders, for example. Transgression is often limited to people with time and independence to transgress (or for whom the trade offs aren't as severe). A community defined on transgression is necessarily one that won't support its members throughout their entire lives and will be overly weighed with the concerns of adolescents and young adults. Adolescents and young adults definitely have a place: As a group, they're the best at raising hell about things we've all accepted that actually aren't okay, and the best at reminding us that change is possible. However, they aren't the only people who have a place. I knew I was gay when I was 6 and started hanging out in queer spaces online at about that age. How transgressive could I be at six? On the flipside, how transgressive can an 84 year old man who was put in a nursing home by his homophobic kids and now can't see his lover of 30 years be if he lacks the independence to leave? Likewise, many disabled people can't work and can only collect SSI, which usually means they have to live with relatives. Sometimes those relatives are homophobic/transphobic and they can't be transgressive without risking literal death (homelessness and severe disability are not a good combination).
* The queer community has a practical role for homosexuals and trans people: Facilitating places where we can meet prospective partners is one example. As a gay woman, it's really hard to find partners out and about because...well, most people are straight. Do boring lesbians or gay men not deserve places to meet partners? Likewise, trans people deserve places they can go where they know people won't be transphobic dicks and can meet potential dates that both aren't chasers and that are respectful of their gender identity. A passing trans man with a good, boring job still needs to find a partner that won't flip at the fact that he's not cis, and disclosure in non-queer specific settings is dicey at best and dangerous at worst.
* Personally, I've noticed that communities based on transgression often turn into cults of personality, because whomever is the coolest/most outspoken/most brash sets the temperature, and anyone who objects isn't cool/punk/transgressive enough. This makes it REALLY easy for bad people to get away with things because there's no principle behind the transgression, and that means that a lot of Chesterton's fences are torn down. I'm extremely anti-authoritarian and I still agree there are certain social mores that exist for a reason: for example, the more that you shouldn't involve unconsenting people in your kinks/sex life. Have all the kinks you want, but forcing them into spaces in the name of 'transgression' without consent is bad. Or that erotic conversations shouldn't happen between minors and adults several years older than them. (I phrase it that way because obviously it's fine if a 17 year old and an 18 year old cyber, and I also, because of my 0th law, believe it's fine to provide dry, factual sexual information to minors. I specify erotic for a reason.)
Splitting the communities would solve those problems but introduce new ones:
* Splitting the gay and queer communities would put trans people who value passing and blending in into a very difficult spot. It would suck for them and I don't want things to suck for them.
* It'd create a huge logistical hurdle for trans/queer rights, since a lot of the activist infrastructure was built for the LGB and if you take out the 'let people marry who they love/have families with who they love/live with who they love' aspect of queer activism, straight cis people will relate way less and be less supportive. Most straight people can understand 'I love this person and can't be with them and that makes me sad' more than they can 'I feel a deep seated need to have a vagina/penis'. Unfortunately, relatability is a key aspect in gathering support, tactically speaking. It would be tactical/strategic suicide for the trans and queer community to decouple from the gay community.
I fully agree that hacking isn't ipso facto transgressive. It's people exploiting systems for their own purposes. Those purposes vary widely. I'm sure there are plenty of hacker types in the three letter agencies, which is about as non transgressive as you can get in that they're literally a secret authoritarian arm of the state.
You really need to work all this up into an essay and chuck it on Medium or somewhere. Honestly.
I think I'm about to present as the traditional logical-to-the-point-of absurdity HN nerd here, but:
> I think that could be a plausible reading if we split the gay community from the queer community, but I also think that's both unlikely to happen and a terrible idea.
If "Queer community" and "Gay community" are different, it is possible to separate them. Or rather belong to just one, the other, or both.
Is the difference between Q and G not, essentially, one of politics?
(Not my communities, not my country, looking in from the outside, "politics" in a very broad sense, all those caveats. I'm picking up on that one sentence because I don't think there's anything else I can disagree with - I either agree, or I don't know enough to disagree).
BTW, have you ever run across the concept of a purity spiral? I'm not a fan of the source, but I think the concept is a good spanner to add to the mental toolkit. I think it would appeal to you: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
I've considered writing publicly, but most of the things I have to say would resulting in doxxing/harassment at best and more severe pushback at worst. (I want to say some things that all 'sides' of American power holders wouldn't like). I currently lack the emotional resilience and financial resources to withstand that, so I need to build those first. I have every intention of entering the arena somehow, but since nobody knows I exist, I have the benefit of getting to prepare myself first.
> I think I'm about to present as the traditional logical-to-the-point-of absurdity HN nerd here...
An overreliance on logic in my HN? It's more likely than you think! ;)
Logically, you would be correct, but there's specific social history and context that makes the break a very bad idea. I'd compare it to the feasibility of a nationally competitive third party in the US: It's possible in theory but in practice, extremely unlikely. (I apologize that most of my analogies rely on US specific cases; there are a few other countries I could use instead but I don't know which one you're from so I'm not sure how to adapt my content to your situation.)
In this case, the problem is that the people who are currently agitating for a separation of the two are mostly homosexuals (and a smattering of bisexuals) who are actively hostile to trans peoples' issues. This results in a situation where there can be no neutral discussion of the separation. In addition, since the queer community runs on vibes, that means that the leaders of each 'side' tend to be the loudest and most extreme, because they care the most and have the most time to devote to these feuds. Plus, pretty much all decisions/opinions in left-leaning American spaces tend to be viewed from solely a moral lens: Discussion of action from a strategic lens is almost seen as immoral. (For instance, my objection to bisexual women who are mostly attracted to women claiming the lesbian label + my objection to neopronouns are seen as moral judgements rather than a reflection of my Linguistics background meaning I prefer us to adapt our terms to what we know of how language works. This is from people who both agree and disagree with me.) Interestingly, I do see this changing slowly and I feel hopeful about that - the moral shaming and self righteousness is very online-Millennial coded and we're (I'm 36) aging out of youth culture, which means the kids are starting to push back on our stupid ideas. We seem more like busybodies than people speaking truth to power. Good.
Because of the social context behind who is leading both the 'LGB drop the T' movement as well as their enemies, instead of a clean break, we'd get a messy circular firing squad that likely would greatly damage both sides in the eyes of larger society. It would also result in both sides being used as proxies in political disputes, whereas together we're a strong enough band to stand on our own merit/advocate for our own interests. It's kind of similar to how Black Americans will never break away from the Democrats despite having a substantial religious, socially conservative contingent: There's too much benefit in getting to exercise power as a voting bloc and it's more advantageous to play along in public while socially policing/arguing among themselves in more private arenas.
tl;dr: Separating would be a Pyrrhic victory for everyone involved. So nobody will do it.
> BTW, have you ever run across the concept of a purity spiral? I'm not a fan of the source, but I think the concept is a good spanner to add to the mental toolkit. I think it would appeal to you: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
I'm very familiar. One of my more feminine traits is that I'm an irredeemably nosey gossip. I'm an aficionado of stupid Internet drama. I think purity spirals are a huge problem because they strip all resilience and principles away from people, which makes them fragile and vulnerable to outside influence and disruption. I'd much rather have a community where everybody can defend their principles rather than one that crumples upon first contact with someone who disagrees. Not to mention other types of values and moral rankings. I can make most of my arguments from a place of practicality, religious morality, tolerance/diversity, and social stability. Knowing what different audiences value is key to effective communication and defense of ideas and principles, and good Lord do most people fail on that point, right and left.
Interestingly, one of the things I greatly object to is the American-centric viewpoint/America specific social situations being extrapolated to other regions of the world and other countries. (I mention this because you said you aren't American). It's deeply offputting to me to see people who go on and on about how they're standing up for the marginalized but who also enforce American norms/ideas everywhere - it's deeply revealing of a lack of actual thought/principle and I find empty parroting repulsive.
You're almost certainly not (wrong age group) but man if you don't sound like an ex-MeFite.
IMO the kids are shaping up to be more like GenX than anything. (The kids are alright).
America's the navel of the world, culturally, militarily, financially. The rest of us just kinda have to roll downhill. It's not good or bad, it just is. And I'll take The Mouse over Pooh Jinping any day. (UK BTW). What does annoy me is that because we share a language, we get the overspill from US-targeted propaganda. We've even developed our own Sovereign Citizen movement.
> In this case, the problem is that the people who are currently agitating for a separation of the two are mostly homosexuals (and a smattering of bisexuals) who are actively hostile to trans peoples' issues.
Reminds me of the Mens' Rights, movement. Ok, yeah, in theory it's a great idea. But who wants to hang out with the kind of guys Mens Rights attracts?
I did read a lot of MeFi, actually. I'm an edge case: I'm a third generation programmer/nerd. (Maternal grandmother did punch card and C programming, paternal grandfather was a television repairman/gadget dude, both parents were hackers/programmers). So I got internet access at home extremely young: When I was 4/5. I am probably one of the youngest people to have any first-hand memories of External September, and I remember the Gen X era of the Internet pretty fondly. (It had its issues, of course, but every era does). I actually find it really amusing to watch other Millennials freak out about not being the center of the Internet anymore because none of them have experienced not being the default whereas I did, as a baby Millennial on Gen X's/the Boomers' playground.
> What does annoy me is that because we share a language, we get the overspill from US-targeted propaganda. We've even developed our own Sovereign Citizen movement.
Yeah, the Canadians are dealing with this shit too.
One thing I'm hopeful for is that as more and more politics becomes entwined with the digital world is that things might be able to balance out a bit on that front. Prior to instant communication, geography was a hurdle, but now we can have more cooperation between all the areas of the world that are overshadowed by America/neglected in online discussions. As more and more Africans, South Americans, Central Asians, etc. join the party, they can start calling us out on our self-centeredness more. Hopefully.
> Reminds me of the Mens' Rights, movement. Ok, yeah, in theory it's a great idea. But who wants to hang out with the kind of guys Mens Rights attracts?
Basically. And, like with the Men's Rights guys, both 'sides' attract people who like righteous anger and complaining more than anything tedious like 'work' or 'learning'.
That was chewy. I can't give it the reply it deserves (not least because I haven't walked in those shoes), but I think "transgressive" is absolutely the key word here. Thank you for surfacing it. I, personally, do not believe hacking is transgressive. For evidence I point to how easily "hackers" slip into corporate roles.
> A postmodern/conceptual reading of queerness could state that the subversion is more integral to the concept of queerness than the actual details
I think I instinctively lean towards this definition. It reminds me of maximalist vs minimalist definitions of religion. Choose a maximalist definition and you end up including things like philosophies and political ideologies. Choose a minimalist defintion, and you end up missing out some things that are self-evidently religions. Truth is, religion is one of those "you know it when you see it" things, and maybe Queerness is too?