So, I figured, why not put it here?
I'm an undergraduate Communications major at Northeastern University in
Boston, and I took a class in Gender Communication this quarter. Our
final project was to prepare and present a nine-minute speech to the
class, on something having to do with gender communication.
I had two visual aids: one was a Venn diagram with two intersecting sets,
one labeled "BDSM" and one labeled "Geek". I put in the "BDSM" circle
words like "kinky" "Sadism and Masochism", "spanking", "bondage", and a
few other words. In the Geek circle, I put "role playing games", "science
fiction," "computers," "Star Trek", and some other things like that.
I drew a leatherpride flag next to the BDSM circle, and a propellor beanie
next to the Geek circle, and drew a big arrow pointing to the intersection
of the two circles.
My other visual aid was a big chart showing the masculine, feminine,
neuter, and three forms of the non-gendered pronouns, for nominantive,
accusative/dative, posessive, and reflexive.
The audience for the speech was a group of undergraduates who'd never been
formally exposed to the ideas of BDSM, but for whom I assumed they had
some exposure to the ideas.
The speech reflects my own personal prejudices and assumptions, and I make
no apologies for that.
Here is the speech I presented:
Imagine a community where you weren't expected to act a certain way
because of your sex. A community where gender roles were assigned by
preference rather than biology. And you weren't restricted to merely two
choices: you could identify as all sorts of things besides simply "male"
or "female."
I belong to such a subculture. I call it "the BDSM-geek community."
I've been having a lot of trouble actually defining the terms "BDSM" and
"Geek", so, instead, I've listed a few words related to these topics to
help you understand who I'm talking about. I'm just trying to give a
general impression of the groups; people can be in either group without
being interested in all, or even any, of the things listed. But I thought
these would help give you a little bit of a mental picture.
As you can see, I've listed as traits under the "Geek" heading things
having to do with technology, science fiction, and the like. Under BDSM,
I've listed things like S&M, kinky, whips and chains, and so forth.
It may surprise some of you that there is a large overlap between these
two communities. I'm going to spend the next few minutes telling you a
little about those of us who are both geeky and kinky, and how we think
about gender. Both geeks and BDSMers have non-mainstream ideas about
gender, but it is when those two sets of ideas cross-fertilize that things
get really interesting.
Let's start with geeks. As a rule, geeks were ostracized as children. We
were never quite like other people, and, because of this, nobody really
wanted to have anything to do with us. So we tend to grow up lacking the
socialization rules that everyone else gets.
However, we also tend to be exposed, through science fiction and other
speculative fiction, to all sorts of strange ideas.
We generally end up regarding people in the mainstream, who haven't been
exposed to these ideas, with just a tiny bit of disdain. We call them
"mundanes."
So: we don't have ideas about gender from anyone else. We're trained to
think about things on our own. And we have exposure to ideas Tway outside
the mainstream and distrust for the ideas of the mainstream.
To quote one of my friends, "Gender roles are for mundanes."
Among kinksters, mainstream gender roles don't necessarily apply, either.
How could they? We have submissive males, submissive females, dominant
males, dominant females, people who play multiple roles and people who
don't fit any of the above categories. How can we assume anything about
gender roles when we have such obvious counterexamples staring us in the
face, all the time?
Admittedly, some BDSMers try to hold to gender roles. There are people
who use BDSM roles as an excuse to embody all the negative traits that are
associated with masculinity or femininity in our culture. There are women
who decide to use their roles as dominants to become bitchy, catty, and
nasty, and men who decide to use their roles as dominants to become
non-communicative, uncooperative, and domineering.
I've met people like that. They're truly unpleasant. However, I want to
make it clear that they are not typical of most BDSMers. Every group has
assholes in it, and one shouldn't judge the group as a whole by their
actions.
On the whole, BDSMers tend to be better at communication than people in
the mainstream. Because we deal with fantasy so much, we need to have
ways to distinguish between fantasy and reality. After all, someone who
likes the fantasy of being kidnapped and being helpless would probably
not like the reality of it! So, BDSMers have developed tools to
communicate the distinctions.
One of these tools is the "safeword", a word which someone can say while
playing, that means, "this isn't fun any more; let's stop." When a
"safeword" is uttered, everything stops. This allows someone to have the
fantasy of being helpless and having their protests ignored, while, really
being able to actually stop everything if it gets to be too much.
We have other tools, too, such as extensive negotiation about what limits
people have, and careful observation of non-verbal communication. Because
of this training, BDSMers tend to be more open and communicative than
mainstreamers.
So, what happens when you get a community of people who are both BDSMers
and geeks?
These are people who never internalized the mainstream culture ideas of
gender, and who are exploring areas of sexuality that most people don't.
And they discovered that mainstream ideas of gender don't accurately
reflect their experience.
Thus, we have a more fluid, less rigid definition of "gender" than the
mainstream culture does. BDSM-geeks don't think that people are simply
male and female. We believe that people can be both, or neither, or
something in between.
In fact, the bias against limiting people to only "male" or "female" is so
strong that BDSM geeks have made up at least three sets of non-gendered
pronouns. A "gender-free pronoun" is a pronoun that takes the place of
he, she, him, her, his, hers, himself or herself, and replaces it with a
pronoun that doesn't imply gender.
I personally tend to use the "sie/hir/hirs/hirself" constructions in my
own writing, but I wanted to show you two of the other major pronoun sets,
as well. I've written the one I use on the top, in red, another one I
see frequently in the middle, in green, and the Spivak system, which is
gaining in popularity, in purple on the bottom.
In my opinion, the Spivak system is likely to eventually become the
default gender-free pronoun. It's made the most headway into the
non-kinky geek population, and is expected to make its way into the
mainstream culture within ten years.
So, learn those purple words, folks! Within a decade, you may find
yourself using them.
Actually, I'd like to urge you to start using them now. Using
non-gendered pronouns has some interesting effects on your thought
patterns. The most obvious, of course, is that, once you get used to
them, you are no longer forced to use gender stereotypes of jobs.
Let me give you an example or two. Let's say that I told you, "I just had
an interesting conversation with my doctor."
You might reply, "Oh? What did he say?"
I could say, "The librarian chewed me out for having too many overdue
books," and you could reply, "Was she pissed?"
In these two examples, you've assumed that my doctor is male and my
librarian is female. The language forced you to make assumptions.
If you were able to say, "Oh? What did sie say?" or, "Was sie pissed?"
you wouldn't be forced to make those assumptions.
And this leads to more profound effects, especially when you're talking
about relationships. If I wish to, I can talk about my relationship with
my fiancee', without ever letting anyone know whether sie is male or
female. It puts heterosexual and homosexual relationships on the same
level.
And, even more importantly, it allows people to identify as things other
than simply "male" or "female."
Think about it. There are all sorts of people in the world, with all
sorts of gender and sexual identities. There are effeminate men, butch
women, transsexuals, transvestites, androgynous people, people who feel
that they have both male and female traits.
But, usually, we have to ignore all that, and assign people a binary
"male" or "female." We don't have any way of acknowledging that
diversity. Usually, we have to call someone "she" or "he". For most
people, there's no other choice.
We have another choice. We can accept that someone might not be simply
one or the other.
My friend Peonia is one such person. Biologically, sie is male, but sie
doesn't identify with "masculine energy". Nor does sie feel that sie is
exactly female. Sie feels that sie has aspects of both sexes.
Sie says that the only people who can really understand that are
BDSM-geeks. Mainstream people insist on thinking of hir as "male", which
just isn't the way that sie thinks of hirself.
I hope I've given you some food for thought. I'd like to urge you to
learn from some of the things that we've discovered: number one: how to
use careful negotiation to respect limits in personal relationships;
number two: that using non-gendered pronouns allows you to make fewer
assumptions; and, number three: that there are more than just two genders,
and we should respect that.
- Ian
(snip of text of speech written for grad class about people who are
both BDSMy and Geeky)
Cool, thanks for posting this. If anyone else does any academic
research/writing etc. about BDSM, I would encourage you to post about
it here. I think lots of us would be very interested, and I
personally would like to keep abreast of the growing body of knowledge
and educational fodder regarding "us."
xo,
VO
I very much enjoyed your speach. I'm not trying to be a punk but one aspect
was very difficult for me. Ok, many people speek English, so the pronoun
"sie" is not problematic. However, many people in Europe also speek German;
after all it has the economy behind the EU. Well, "sie" in German means she,
so I keep going oh yeh male and female, though, my immediate response was to
read it as referring to a female. Anyhow, just some constructive criticism, I
hope. After all, at some point we will be a global community. HTG
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> I mentioned here that I presented a paper about BDSM and gender roles, and
> Bruce Mills mentioned that he wanted to see it.
>
> So, I figured, why not put it here?
>
> <snip>
>
> So, learn those purple words, folks! Within a decade, you may find
> yourself using them.
>
>
>
> - Ian
>Ok, many people speek English, so the pronoun
>"sie" is not problematic. However, many people in Europe
>also speek German; after all it has the economy behind the EU.
>Well, "sie" in German means she, so I keep going oh yeh male
>and female, though, my immediate response was to read it as
>referring to a female.
Well, "sie" is also 3rd person plural ("they") in German. And
most proficient speakers of a foreign language have no problems
keeping the two (or more) languages apart. I don't think that's a
problem at all.
Hans
I'm planning to work with (research and/or clinical) pre- and post-op
transsexuals (and, to a lesser degree, people around them) in a sociolinguistic
context.
I got started on this when I read Deborah Tannen's work as an undergraduate
(she did a lot of work on gender-based approaches to listening and speaking -
she went on the lecture and talk-show circuit with her book "You Just Don't
Understand", where she went into how men and women listen and speak
differently), and realized that she'd started with the binary approach to
gender. Having been kinky in one form or another most of my life, I've never
quite subscribed to the binary approach, and I've *always* loved language in
all its forms, so it seemed to me that her work could be taken several steps
further.
What I think I want to do when I grow up is to study gender-based approaches in
language and communication as the gender definitions become more blurred,
especially looking at indviduals as they move from one societally-defined
gender to another.
I've also learned from talking with a number of people in varying stages of
transition that there is a market for some sort of counseling/communication
therapy, helping people 'pass' better as far as their gender-based
communication styles go.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a Master's program already in place for
this. So currently, I am talking with advisers about what the best next move
might be (keep looking for an appropriate department, look into another school,
try to wangle some sort of 'inter- / multi-disciplinary program).
[as usual, all comments, suggestions, and positive criticisms are welcome. all
flames will be fed to the compost heap]
Bladerunner,
in one of her rare grown-up moments
-------------------
Freedom is not enough.
--Lyndon B. Johnson
>Ian's speech was of particular interest to me because of what I'm planning to
>study in school.
<snip>
>Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a Master's program already in place for
>this. So currently, I am talking with advisers about what the best next move
>might be (keep looking for an appropriate department, look into another school,
>try to wangle some sort of 'inter- / multi-disciplinary program).
>
>[as usual, all comments, suggestions, and positive criticisms are welcome. all
>flames will be fed to the compost heap]
I'm suprised that you haven't found a "women's studies" department
appropriate for work like this -- queer theory, "third sex" theory,
etc., is typically seen as an expansion of women's studies (similar
pedagogies/issues).
At many universities that don't have women's studies departments,
typically it's the english department that hires women's studies
faculty.
Additionally, you may want to consider a sociology department oriented
toward liberal arts.
Good luck -- it sounds like a cool project! You should visit your
local library and probably do an MLA search (MLA = Modern Language
Association) -- I know that transgendered issues are catching on in
academia.
--Katharine
>So, what happens when you get a community of people who are both BDSMers
>and geeks?
SSBB ?
-------------------------------
(Sorry - couldn't help it - it was a great article :) )
>On 29 Aug 1998 15:49:32 GMT, i...@dillinger.io.com (Xiphias Gladius)
>wrote:
>(snip of text of speech written for grad class about people who are
>both BDSMy and Geeky)
Just to clarify: undergrad. I've been working on my bachelor's, on and
off, at various institutions, since '92. I don't want to claim more
academic status than I have.
- Ian
>Hi Ian,
>I very much enjoyed your speach. I'm not trying to be a punk but one aspect
>was very difficult for me. Ok, many people speek English, so the pronoun
>"sie" is not problematic. However, many people in Europe also speek German;
>after all it has the economy behind the EU. Well, "sie" in German means she,
>so I keep going oh yeh male and female, though, my immediate response was to
>read it as referring to a female. Anyhow, just some constructive criticism, I
>hope. After all, at some point we will be a global community. HTG
Hunh. I remember that I *intended* to mention that point. Yeah, I was
aware of that. That's the reason the "zie/zir/zir" constructions were
created.
I've been trying to train myself to use those instead of "sie/hir", for
exactly that reason, but it's hard to change habits. But I'm working on
it.
- Ian
>Ian's speech was of particular interest to me because of what I'm planning to
>study in school.
>I'm planning to work with (research and/or clinical) pre- and post-op
>transsexuals (and, to a lesser degree, people around them) in a sociolinguistic
>context.
Cool! Why didn't I email you to help with research? :)
[ details snipped ]
I would love it if you kept us appraised of your research. I'm fascinated
by that sort of thing.
If you were at Northeastern University in Boston, I could point you to a
possible thesis advisor . . . .
- Ian
Why didn't you? Maybe because you didn't have any idea who I was? Or maybe
the fact that I only decided on this about two or three years ago? I'm only
just going back to school now (I finished my undergrad 4 1/2 years ago and have
been busy paying off my loans and getting my husband through his own undergrad
degree).
I'm not in Boston (note the Portland part of my screen name - I'm in OR), but
some good schools on the West Coast have been recommended to me. And anyplace
that will consider distance-learning is worth looking into for me. I'd really
rather not relocate. I just can't get into the idea of moving to California,
even for only a couple of years.
Summary of my research, which is minimal, so far (for those of you keeping
count):
Deborah Tannen makes a good start with her work, and didn't carry it nearly far
enough. Her work is worth reading, but I don't think it's worth taking *too*
seriously, especially for those of us who either are or deal with
gender-benders of any sort.
I myself don't do much gender-bending, strictly speaking, and I found myself,
according to her, with more 'male' speaking and listening traits than female.
But that may just be the way my family worked, too.
As for personal experience, I've talked with pre-, mid- and post-op people who
have been able to 'pass' all their lives, as far as language patterns go. I've
also talked with people who say they could've used some help along the way.
I've seen crossdressers 'make it or break it' with language patterns. It
doesn't matter how great the dress looks on the guy, if he can't speak the way
we expect a woman to speak. And I've seen some very butch-looking women 'lose
points' because theyspeak and listen with female patterns.
I'd think about adding age-play to the research base (how do you reflect
changes in age-based personae?), but I think it would get in the way of my
personal enjoyment of that aspect, as well as become way too much very quickly.
Now that I'm asking questions, maybe I can ask this without getting flamed too
terribly -
Those of you who identify as MPD or DID, how do the people around you (or *do*
they) know when you've shifted identities (apologies if the word/concept isn't
quite right)? Can they tell by your language patterns? Or is it more of a
'body language' thing? Or does it tend to slip right past them?
Bladerunner,
who is getting anxious just thinking about starting school again
> As for personal experience, I've talked with pre-, mid- and post-op people who
> have been able to 'pass' all their lives, as far as language patterns go.
I have met people who seemed to have had this gift or skill, yes.
> I've seen crossdressers 'make it or break it' with language patterns. It
> doesn't matter how great the dress looks on the guy, if he can't speak the way
> we expect a woman to speak. And I've seen some very butch-looking women 'lose
> points' because theyspeak and listen with female patterns.
*nod* Yup, yup, exactly. I think some people don't notice it, but it's
something that I pick up on myself.
> Those of you who identify as MPD or DID
... or something related, I assume.
> how do the people around you (or *do*
> they) know when you've shifted identities (apologies if the word/concept isn't
> quite right)?
Hmm. Most people don't notice it, or would not call it that. I have spent
enough time "passing" that I'm pretty good at it, when it's necessary.
However, there are people close to me who are aware of such things. I'll
attempt to answer based on what I think they experience.
> Can they tell by your language patterns? Or is it more of a
> 'body language' thing? Or does it tend to slip right past them?
Both. But language patterns are certainly part of it. For example, IRC is
done using the same nick; selves do not change nicks to reflect presence.
Even so, there are people who can quickly tell which self or combination
is present. Since there are no visual clues, that's clearly language
patterns.
It's harder to tell with things like Usenet posts, because they lack some
cues only present in conversational context -- but I know people who can
make pretty accurate guesses here, too.
-Trin.
--
Cum manibus consecratus, fractum restitude.
Cum anima consecrata tende et pacem meam da.
Those of you who identify as MPD or DID, how do the people around you
(or *do*
they) know when you've shifted identities (apologies if the word/concept
isn't
quite right)? Can they tell by your language patterns? Or is it more
of a
'body language' thing? Or does it tend to slip right past them?
Hm... How do mpd's communicate to the world they have shifted? <g> Well,
generally, we try very hard not to. <g> People tend to get all wierd
about that.
But sometimes it's obvious. And often it's language patterns. If I shift
into a soft southern speech pattern, I'm not here any more. That's my
Twin Sister, Maude, who is very different from me. If she writes, she
uses a cartoon corn-pone accent just so there's no confusion. <g>
But with other female alters, it can be more subtle. I'm not sure how
I'd express it, but I think the thing that has gotten us busted the most
would be female-pattern conversational habits and thought styles. The
sorts of things we find funny and the sorts of things we DON"T find
funny. Listing/talking ratios. Degree of assumed intimacy; Maude, for
instance, calls people Darling and Hon all the time. <blanch> She
_touches_ people... <blanch> to make a point, for instance.
So it's partly body language too.. but I've managed to pass as a female
- with a full beard - at a table full of lesbians. Not sexually, but
socially, which to me is far more significant. And I might add, it
wasn't something I was _trying_ to do. It's just us. <g>
--
Regards;
Bob King
webc...@home.com ICQ#: 12880485
The Dark Castle http://www.munchltd.com/firewheel/
Update List: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/darkcastle
"A burnt child loves the fire"- Oscar Wilde
Could I encourage you further to describe what makes the language patterns you
describe male and female? What comes off as which to you? How do *you* define
the characteristics?
NOTE: This question goes to everyone else out there who does *any* sort of
gender-bending whatsoever. I'm really curious how this particular population
(SSBB posters) reads gender/language styles.
And Ian, I'm still waiting for copies of all your research. ;)
Bladerunner
------------------
A mind-fuck is a terrible thing to waste.
Wasn't nothin' to take offense at. :)
Part of being "out" as a multiple involves being a voluntary particpent
in the Intellectual Petting Zoo. : ) Folks are bound to be curious; I'd
rather they asked so we can tell them, rather than picking up dumb ideas
from pshrinks and therps and FMS Foundation don't-wanna-know-nothing's.
<G>
(It's just amazing how many weighty professional opinions about
multiplicity have been developed in the absence of any direct,
non-clinical interaction with a professinally-qualified multiple. And,
boy howdy, it ain't like there's a lack of frightingly well-credentialed
multiples. However, to be fair, most of them wish to continue to use
their credentials without being thoguht of as loopy. <G>)
> Could I encourage you further to describe what makes the language patterns you
> describe male and female? What comes off as which to you? How do *you* define
> the characteristics?
[image: centepede experinceing sudden locomotive incompetance due to
thinking about it.]
Um.. I don't. [image of several baffled people of various genders
looking at one another] I mean, I realize one probably could - but we
just _do_ it.
Female communication seems to be less confrontational, more oriented
towards building consensus and relationships. It's more socially "ept."
We are far more aware of the social nuances when there's a female "out".
At the same time, we are much _less_ likely to be confrontational.
Oh, and just in case anyone is jumping to conclusions here, I have domme
females and sub males, and it seems to apply to them as well, though of
course the degree of confrontaion/consensus-building varies as to role
as well.
> > Bob and Trinity, thank you so much for sharing with me (and not tearing me up
> > for not having all the concepts and words 'just right' beforehand - I've gotten
> > flamed in other boards while specifically stating that I've still got a lot to
> > learn).
>
> Wasn't nothin' to take offense at. :)
Yup, what he said.
> > Could I encourage you further to describe what makes the language patterns you
> > describe male and female? What comes off as which to you? How do *you* define
> > the characteristics?
>
> [image: centepede experinceing sudden locomotive incompetance due to
> thinking about it.]
*laugh* Or something.
> Um.. I don't. [image of several baffled people of various genders
> looking at one another] I mean, I realize one probably could - but we
> just _do_ it.
Again, what he said. Further, though I think there are probably gender
differences, other differences are much more noticable. For instance,
Hannah's tendency to drop all pronoun antecedents and refer to people
with descriptive nouns rather than their names. ("a person", "that
terrible girl", "that woman"). Or start in mid idea, assuming listeners
have more of a context in which to place a thought than they do.
> Female communication seems to be less confrontational, more oriented
> towards building consensus and relationships. It's more socially "ept."
> We are far more aware of the social nuances when there's a female "out".
> At the same time, we are much _less_ likely to be confrontational.
Well, I can't say that, because social nuances are a big thing here all
the time. I don't know. I think I'm too close to the situation to be able
to observe well the differences and notice them as gender-related. Part
of that is the resistance against gender-typing here, since anything
"womanish" is seen as inherently negative compared to more masculine
forms of interaction. I get pretty instant shit for "acting like a girl"
in social context, though sometimes it's excused as a necessary social
tool, to gain, consolidate or otherwise manipulate power.
> But as far as the mid-idea thing goes, I'm a bit stumped. I don't suppose
> you have a couple of examples you could point out of where I've done this?
I wasn't talking about you. You snipped the relevant parts of the thread.
Maybe you should reread it? I think it's pretty clear from the thread
that I wasn't talking about a poster.
> (I'm not upset, and I suppose it's flattering to be used as a stylistic
> example. I'm just confused.)
I wasn't using you as an example. See above.