I think, interestingly, that a term for "Members of large group A who are NOT members of subgroup X" is a big step in acceptance for subgroup X.
Why? Because the first step in getting non-X to deal with you is getting them to admit you exist.
A comparison that may show a bit more of what I'm thinking:
--If you were to ask a lot of hetero people what sexual orientation they were, almost all of them would say "heterosexual." Very few people see the labels "heterosexual" and "homosexual" (and "bisexual") as being forced in some way. Now, I'm not saying that all those hetero people think it's okay NOT to be hetero. They may think that non-straightness is morally wrong, icky or gross, or just plain unfair (because the lesbians never come over to THEIR house to fix the computer and get naked). However, they admit it exists and they are all right with calling themselves something that clearly labels them as another kind of person than that.
--However, if you were to ask a bunch of cisgendered people what their combination of sex and gender was called, assuming you stopped to explain it to the ones who weren't familiar with the idea, a good many of them would balk at labeling themselves "cisgendered." Not, mind you, because they think of themselves as trans, or some kind of gender rebel who transcends the oppressive gender hierarchy or whatever, but because they don't think of being transgendered as REAL, and thus they don't need a word for not-transgendered. For people who think that, it's like having to state your species on the driver's license; of course I'm H. sap. sap. you buffoon! What am I going to be, a Vulcan? a dolphin?
I think the problem that people have when they make a not-X term is that people aren't equidistant. "Neurotypical" is a very nice term, except that it doesn't apply to someone who's had a stroke or taken a railroad spike through the head, even if they aren't autistic. "Heterosexual privilege" doesn't apply so much if you're a black man dating a white woman at certain times and places. People don't really allow for that, and that's where the problem with these sorts of terms comes in.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 03:52 pm (UTC)Why? Because the first step in getting non-X to deal with you is getting them to admit you exist.
A comparison that may show a bit more of what I'm thinking:
--If you were to ask a lot of hetero people what sexual orientation they were, almost all of them would say "heterosexual." Very few people see the labels "heterosexual" and "homosexual" (and "bisexual") as being forced in some way. Now, I'm not saying that all those hetero people think it's okay NOT to be hetero. They may think that non-straightness is morally wrong, icky or gross, or just plain unfair (because the lesbians never come over to THEIR house to fix the computer and get naked). However, they admit it exists and they are all right with calling themselves something that clearly labels them as another kind of person than that.
--However, if you were to ask a bunch of cisgendered people what their combination of sex and gender was called, assuming you stopped to explain it to the ones who weren't familiar with the idea, a good many of them would balk at labeling themselves "cisgendered." Not, mind you, because they think of themselves as trans, or some kind of gender rebel who transcends the oppressive gender hierarchy or whatever, but because they don't think of being transgendered as REAL, and thus they don't need a word for not-transgendered. For people who think that, it's like having to state your species on the driver's license; of course I'm H. sap. sap. you buffoon! What am I going to be, a Vulcan? a dolphin?
I think the problem that people have when they make a not-X term is that people aren't equidistant. "Neurotypical" is a very nice term, except that it doesn't apply to someone who's had a stroke or taken a railroad spike through the head, even if they aren't autistic. "Heterosexual privilege" doesn't apply so much if you're a black man dating a white woman at certain times and places. People don't really allow for that, and that's where the problem with these sorts of terms comes in.