I've been thinking a lot about language lately, especially concerning pronouns. The gender/sex dichotomy lingual system we operate under is something activist try to deconstruct. I could blog about this forever, and I probably will eventually, but another word I want to talk about it "race."
At first, I really wanted to find a new word for racism, and that's because of the root's origin. "Race" was a scientific term was once a heavily "researched" concept. Race implies that there is a genetic difference between those of a different skin color, and hence that there is a "pure blood" that is superior to the rest. And this concept does NOT limit itself to black vs. white like we so often think. Plenty of groups were "impure" including the Irish and Italian. We can use the word ethnicity, even though we very often are still asked to identify our "race." So I went on a mini-campaign to find a new word for racism as well. If race doesn't exist and is actually a social construct, kind of like gender, why is it that we still use the word racism? People don't discriminate based on genetic differences, they make judgments based on skin tone, among other factors.
I was told by a few people that it wasn't worth it to try to put a new word out there for racism. That this word was never going to change.
I got frustrated, and took a nap, and then had some thoughts. I think the word racism is actuallyok, because it's definition is not flawed. Racism is the discrimination or assumptions based on the notion that there is a genetic difference between people of different colors. Well yeah. There is a good chance that racist people still actually believe that. Racism is alive and well, just ask those principles who wouldn't allow President Obama's message to be broadcasted in their school. "Staying in school" is totally a liberal agenda.
I just think that instead of asking people what their "race" is or saying they made a decision based on your "race..." we should utilize the word ethnicity. Whether the perpetrator of the assumption knows it or not, ethnicity (among other factors including class and dress) is the real reason why we make "racial" assumptions in the first place.
So what's my "race"...human.
What's my ethnicity...Jamaican, Italian, German, Irish, Dutch, and Cherokee Native American.
Why is the word racism still relevant...because people are ignorant enough to believe that there is a genetic difference between humans with beautiful differences.
But I still want to try really hard to begin using queerphobic! Homophobia is based on homosexuality which is based on that gender/sex dichotomy. We do use transphobia to more inclusive, but what about those who are intersexed? Just like the word queer has become an all encompassing, unifying term for the LGBTTIQA community, I hope we realize that the word "homophobia" leaves out a lot of people!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Let's Talk Language.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16034
"Human" is, technically, a species.
Context: 21st century America
The problem with using "ethnicity" instead of race is that it allows white people to play with semantics--"I can't be racist because Irish people used to be considered black, you know!" (I am Irish-American, for the record). Also, racism is not based on ethnicity in the sense of national origin, unless we follow George Bush in considering Africa a country. People aren't discriminated against because they are Igbo or Yoruba. They're discriminated against because they are black. Racism is discrimination based on skin color and related physical attributes. Period.
* So this post totally turns racism into a black-white binary. I'm sorry. I should amend it to say "...in calling Africa a country, and by extension Asia a country, and Latin America a country, and so forth" and "people are discriminated against because they are not white."
Again, apologies.
I don't want to derail at all here, so feel free to post just one response and then let it go, or link me to a 101-style blog or article, or point me toward other resources, or tell me to start my own topic, or ignore me altogether... but...
I am curious to hear more about why some folks do not like the word "queer" or would not like it applied to them.
I personally like the word and apply it to myself, and I tend to apply it to other people when I want a "shortcut" to refer to "people who do not comply with societal norms regarding gender presentation and / or sexual orientation" -- so I would like to know if there's a reason I shouldn't be using this word in some contexts.
Oops... I hit reply in the wrong place. Meant to be replying to the folks who mentioned that we should be careful about using the word "queer." Sorry...
Briefly put, it is a little bit along the lines of "bitch"--the use of 'queer' as a put-down hasn't gone away. While there are a lot of people who feel that it has been "reclaimed," others still see it as an attack. This is not an exact parallel, but it's at least in the same sports league, if not the same ballpark.
And on the other hand, there's the problem with trying to come up with one term for "LGBTQQI", as the OP said. One of my trans friends (male, attracted to women) is very, very adamant that he is *not* queer, he is trans and het.
Also, be careful about the word "queer." It's not as universal as you think--not everyone in the LGBT community feels safe applying it to themselves. Speaking from personal experience.
Race implies that there is a genetic difference between those of a different skin color
I know that I'm making a purely semantic point, but since semantics are relevant to this topic, I'll go ahead: skin color and similar physical characteristics are genetically coded, which means that there are consistent genetic differences between members of what (most people refer to as) different races. The point is not that there are not genetic differences, but rather that those genetic differences are not relevant to a person's essential humanity, yes?
Also seconding the "queer is not an appropriate label to apply people without them choosing to embrace it."
You have a point, that skin color and other physical characteristics ARE genetically encoded but that we should be focusing on how this doesn't affect essential humanity. In addition, it's important to note that the physical characteristics we're talking about don't put people in racial categories the way our society does.
For example, if you lined up everyone in the world from lightest to darkest skin, there'd be a huge amount of subtle variation. It's practically impossible to decide where to draw the line and declare who is white and who is a person of color (and various other categories). So genetics create a vast spectrum- it's a social process that creates artificial categories with strict boundaries.
Also, studies of the genetic code have found that individuals are not necessarily the closest, genetically, to people who share the same social "race" designation. And there are more similarities than differences between any two human beings' genetic codes.
More to the point, the issue isn't the genetic differences themselves but attaching relative value to them and the people that possess them...
Interesting discussion, I love language (I'll be right here to comment when you do one about gendered language, I'm nearly salivating for it).
Obviously I'm a sociologist, which affects my perspective on the matter. Consider yourself warned ;-)
For me, it seems dangerous to abandon the term "racism." Now, I'm totally with you on the fact that it's a social construction and has no clear foundation in biology. But the history of that social construction is so tangled up in the IDEA that the biological differences between races are real!
So, in the U.S., someone is considered black or African-American based on the color of their skin. This is a physical characteristic that's assumed to be a signal of genetic differences, of a fundamental biological difference. I know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but the fact that dark skin= black person doesn't make any sense at all if you don't know that history. If it's just ethnicity, why does the skin color matter?
I'm all about teaching the world that race is a social construction, that race and racism have verifiably false biological bases. It's why I'm trying to finish my PhD, so I can teach people things like this for a living.
But you can't divorce our ideas about race from our history. If we choose a new word for racism, the media will just declare racism to be over. I think this is an instance where we need to fight something in its original package, rather than wrapping it up differently.
Thanks for posting this! I just left my graduate Race seminar. (I'm a sociology PhD student, too.) I was going to recommend Mary Waters' two books about the difference between race and ethnicity and why how your phenotype is "read" still really, really matters.
In addition, we think about gender as a social structure and we think about race as a social structure. So I don't think we'll have the tools if we don't talk about race explicitly.
Well I'm glad you are getting your PhD in this because you just took all of my thoughts and put them into words I wouldn't have used on my own. I just want to clarify and say that my initial feeling was to change the word racism, but in the end (after my nap), I came to the same conclusion you did.
Racism and the concept of different "races" has historical implications that can not be ignored or separated from the reasons why discrimination occurs. It's just that when someone asks me what my race is they are really asking for my ethnicity.
Thanks for the compliment! And thanks again for bringing up the topic in the first place, this was fun.
Well, not only is race/ethnicity determined by genetics, but the genetics of it all goes much deeper than skin color. Certain races/ethnicities are more resistant to some diseases/disorders, and are less resistant to others.
Theres actually a much more profound (physical, of course) difference, imho, between races than between the sexes, since the differences between the sexes are kind of "built in" differences to allow/ease reproduction, while the differences between the races/ethnicities are a result of evolution (depending on the enviroment), and can and will change over time, which I personally find rather fascinating.
I disagree.
With all respect, I think your post demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution.
Sex differences evolve too! Sexual differentiation and sexual reproduction are evolutionary innovations which also respond to the environment and change over time.
Yes, there are genetic differences between racial and ethnic groups, some of which have evolutionary origins (for example, groups who have lived in high altitude for hundreds of generations can evolve greater lung capacity). But the differences between racial and ethnic groups that you mention (for example, susceptibility to certain diseases, skin color) are not large differences in how bodies are put together and how they interact with their environment, the way the differences between women and men are.
The genetic and physical differences between women and men, on the other hand, are vast compared to the differences between races. We've got distinct sex chromosomes and huge genetic differences which lead to a number of very important physical differences. Women and men (on average) have different body sizes, muscle composition, hormone levels, neural responses to certain situations... not to mention that women have entire body parts that men do not have and vice versa... and intersex folks add even more variety to the mix!
In other words, a woman (defined as XX... not talking at all about gender here!) is genetically and physically much more similar, on average, to any woman than to a man (XY) of her same racial and ethnic background.
I think you should be careful in defining a woman as being XX chromosomes, disclaimer not withstanding. Woman is a social concept and an identity. If you say woman equals chromosomes you are pushing out any woman, trans or intersex, who does not have XX chromosomes. I think you would be better saying "physically female sexed", FAAB or somthing similar. Not to mention that your desciption of bodies is very gendered. Yes usually a man's body conforms to a male sexed body, and vice versa, but there are plenty of men and women whose bodies do not conform to the usual definition of sexed attributes. I'm a trans woman, I have body attributes that are usually considered male - in a man. However I am a woman, so they belong to a woman, and so for me they are female. I also now have body attributes considered female. It is very important that sex and gender are not mixed up in this way. Bodies and what constitutes them as male or female need unbundling from gender. Indeed, if I could invent words it would be to have new ones for body types that carry no gendered conotations at all.
I understand and agree with all that you said -- I just assumed that on a feminist site, I wouldn't have to go through the full disclaimer, because folks would understand that we are all operating on the assumptions you just mentioned -- that of course gender is a social construct, and that someone's gender identity and whether they identify as a woman does not necessarily line up with their chromosomes and / or primary and secondary sex characteristics, but that we can still talk about the average biological differences between people with XX chromosomes and people with YY chromosomes.
I realize that not everyone shares these assumptions though, and that maybe I should be more explicit. I'm really sorry if anything in my comment sounded like I was trying to be dismissive of trans people, or any other folks who consider themselves women but who aren't XX.
How about this rewording? People with XX chromosomes and the primary and secondary sex characteristics that usually go with those chromosomes (often, but not always, people who identify as "female"), have significant physical and genetic differences from folks who have XY chromosomes and secondary sex characteristics (often, but not always, people who identify as "male"). In addition to that fact, there are lots of folks who have other combinations of chromosomes, and who have other combinations of primary and secondary sex characteristics. And these differences are of greater physical consequence than the very small genetic and physical differences between racial groups.
I did feel you didn't have the intent to do that, I just think it's good to always make the clarity be present, regardless of where one is saying it :) Words have power and shape thought!
I think your rewording is a good one.
For alternatives to "homophobia", there's already the term "heterosexism". While not nearly as broad as something like "queerphobia", it's a bit better. If we want a term more parallel to existing terms like racism, sexism, etc, we'd need something like "(sexual) orientationism", but that's a bit clunky.
Also, "transphobia" isn't a more inclusive term than "homophobia"; it's a distinct but often related problem.There's also the terms "biphobia" & "monosexism".
You can really blow your mind trying to find the most inclusive term or word possible. The more voices you add to the discussion, the more people will disagree with the exact nomenclature.
The movement to reclaim epithets is interesting. The word "queer" was once an awful insult and now it has been reclaimed as an umbrella term to describe anyone who is not exclusively heterosexual. Sometimes the simplest solution is the easiest.
Because how dare an LGBT person make YOUR life a little more difficult by making you use an extra word or two.
I think the point Comrade Kevin was making wasn't that he objected to trying to use inclusive or inoffensive language, but rather that in our attempt to do that we may sometimes inadvertently offend someone (see the discussion of "queer" above).
Well, I don't think the word "racism" is totally irrelevant because many people use race to describe themselves and other (without any malice--just as a descriptor).
Here's a suggestion albeit a silly one:
How about replacing "racism" with "face-ism"--it emphasizes the superficialness of race. Basically, "face-ists" don't like certain groups of people based on their faces--their complexion, their facial features, the texture of their hair...A stupid reason to hate others.