#binary thinking

I’m a binary man sometimes. I’m nonbinary other times. I’m often a genderqueer man. When I’m a man, I’m sincerely a man. By the logic of “trans men are men and therefore have male privilege”, I must be bobbing back and forth between having male privilege and not! I’ll have male privilege when I feel like a man and then *poof* it disappears when I’m feeling more unaligned nonbinary.

Except this doesn’t fit with my experiences at all. This isn’t how it works. Being a man doesn’t automatically give me male privilege that I’ll then lose in a moment by no longer being a man.

Adam-Troy Castro ·

Somebody who just saw BLADE RUNNER for the first time discovered, as no one ever has before, that the escaped replicants are slaves and that Deckard is a bad guy serving an evil cause for a corrupt society.

And it honestly makes no difference to me that she was seeing the film for the first time and making these critical judgments for the first time, but I grimace uncomfortably at the position that this subtext is hers to find as an indictment of the original Baby Boomer audience that didn't know any better.

As if the movie itself didn't happen to wear its attitudes toward this situation on its sleeve.

Look, folks, those of you encountering these iconic works for the first time: some of them were very smart. They were nuanced and they were sometimes deliberately self-contradictory. They were made by people who could keep two ideas in their head at the same time and thought you were bright enough to keep two ideas in your head at the same time.

And so, these are not startling discoveries, though I have read posts and essays where various feti took the position that these were things that no one recognized at the time.

Yes, BLADE RUNNER knew Deckard was shooting slaves in the back, and wanted you to shift your empathy to the Rutger Hauer character. It was inherent in the material. They were aware of it. It wasn't the product of old people who were so blind they didn't know.

Similarly, comma, the people who made THE FRENCH CONNECTION knew that Popeye Doyle was a foul-mouthed racist and not a paragon human being. They were aware of it. They expected you to be aware of it. It wasn't the product of old people who were so blind they didn't know better.

Further, the guys who made THE SEARCHERS knew that John Wayne's character was a brutal and racist uncivilized lug with no place in civilization. John Wayne was playing unsympathetic protagonists as far back as RED RIVER. You were supposed to get this.

The people who made THE APARTMENT were well aware that Shirley MacLaine's character was being cruelly exploited and that Jack Lemmon's ambitious young exec was betraying his better nature by helping to support it; and that is the engine of his entire arc, and hers, and that it why the makers of that film did not "hate women," as you claimed. You were supposed to get it.

(And yes, this applies to 3 BILLBOARDS too. The makers of the movie knew that Sam Rockwell's character was a terrible cop and they did not give him a full redemption arc, only a change in direction.)

(from wikipedia)

Also that shades of grey exist does not mean black and white does not exist. That you have 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc up through 1, does not mean you don't have 0 and 1, it's simply that you don't collapse the gradient into it's extremes. There certainly are cases of black and white - like robbing a bank for shits and giggles is wrong, there is no grey area. But it's also uninteresting because there is no need to dissect it further.

Describing Gender Beyond the Binary, a game created by frogwatching

Content: Rated G. Friendly for all ages.

Medium: A zine. 16 pages, with covers. Layout for reading on screen.

About: A workbook for describing your gender by plotting it on a grid, where the reference points are other concepts than a male-female axis.

Vibe: Innovative, approachable, makes difficult concepts look easy.

Ex: I really value native plants and am working toward adding more natives in my gardening. But as I get to know the plants in my yard, I see many that are non-native and even invasive in my region. A lot of us have the urge to treat that as a moral loophole, a guilt-free place to treat the living world with brutality and disdain. Think "kill it with fire" and gleefully stomping on lanternflies. We see them as evil so we can see our hostility as righteous.

But none of these things are evil; none chose to be here. Like me, they are descendants of others who came or were brought here, participating in destruction without their consent.

So apparently another Twitter battle broke out about PoV and which of TWO were the best. And I'm like but there are more than two and the combinations have different effects and they are all awesome. And the person delivering the news agreed with me and said they were tired of it. Then another Twitter battle broke out on if audiobooks are "really" "reading" which creates another what? fucking binary. You're with them, or you're with us, and no nuance in there or other options and urrgghhhh. I hate you for doing that.

Then people do this shit to sexuality and sexual orientation and then romantic attraction and sexual attraction, and if you cross the line from the imagined binary, welp, you have to be a specific category in that. Nuance, what? What do you mean nuance?

PINK or BLUE Shit, then what is I prefer the breath of color combinations through color theory? *Confused look* What? I'm not allowed to worship color theory more?

People justify these binary choices usually with conflict theory, but when I slap down the Jewish tradition of asking exploratory questions to add nuance and examine if the question is legitimate... That's SUPER rude. Or people have told me. (Screaming in the corner). You aren't supposed to examine the question in Christianity. Look, you took from Judaism, but 100% missed this part of it. Yes, you ask questions about the question and the lines of evidence. Anyone who has been in a Jewish debate session knows this. It makes it super pedantic at times, yes. It's literally baked into a seder. But in doing this, it means you demand evidence. Exploratory questions aren't the same as the Greek rhetorical questions that Christians seem to love. But you see, this brings me to the next bit in the binary: Asking questions is evil.

Wha~ Why?

The answers come back usually this way:

It's inherently weak

It makes you weak

It makes you vulnerable to attack.

You mean it makes you appear like a white female. (Since you hate the question form).

White women tend to use according to a study on an Italian American family, higher percentage of adverbs, adjectives, superlatives and placating questions.

Waiiiiittt... Isn't that what Writing manuals tell you not to use. There you go.

It also hates on Jews and other groups that use questions in another way... but then that's nuance. And nuance in this binary system is evil.

I love nuance, though. Trained as a Jew, and also as a Korean where the rhetoric is done differently, there isn't as much binary thinking in either.

I've spoken to people who didn't take their opinions 100% from TV, and when I ask questions, I try to find points that the television hasn't spoonfed them, to find nuance.

Is the basis of the question even valid? You're not supposed to ask that. Is the basis of the question, racist, sexist, ableist, etc, and maybe you should phrase it differently? Not supposed to ask that. Can I insert nuance and variety and greys into this question? No.

And you can start to see the flaws of binary thinking. Also why I tend to dislike it.

Also, have to point out, asking a question does not make you "weak" there are a ton of types and reasons for questions. Your thou shalt nots doesn't even invite seeing the glory of the world around us and your binaries mean even larger exclusions than what culture and experience offer.

"There are only two PoVs"

First person or third person. And if you use omniscient, WTF is wrong with you? What? Because a third option isn't supposed to exist and there aren't valid reasons to want to switch in a literary sense because the next binary is Literary fiction or Genre fiction and how dare you want to mix those. (Basically from what I can find of the early genre subscribers, white straight abled men v. everyone else).

Reading Writing manuals of this type stress me out. Why do we need a binary anyway in European texts. Can't greys and all of the colors inbetween ALSO be beautiful. But always texts try to slow it down as a competition or a conflict and I would think you all would be tired of the depression and anxiety that brings.

It's whites v. Blacks. Woah, Asians and Latines exists? How dare you. We have to take this one by one even if there is clear overlap. <-clearly sarcasm. And then Indigenous people... What are you saying here? Anyone else... we should forget they exist. ==;; You can only choose one. at. a. time. (though we are oppressing you in similar ways).

So I'm saying let go of the binary in everything, not only in gender. I've met people who were never Christian and atheist all their lives who 100% still bought binary thinking, but to me, that's an invitation to poke and prod and ask the more "invasive" question about if the binary thinking is valid in the first place.

TT Some NBs have let it go in gender, but religiously follow it elsewhere. But maybe do as the Jews do and first ask if the question creating a binary is valid first? Maybe I'm asking too much of the algorithm because it's constantly confused when I try to point it towards nuance.

BTW, Nuance to the audiobook question is (Excuse my Jewishness with exploratory questions):

What disabilities does the audiobook help or hinder?

Certain forms of ADHD. Visual impairment (obviously) and certain learning disabilities as well.

But it might hinder those who are deaf, have certain types of language processing disorders, or might be fixated on their imagination over the audio.

Sometimes when I write a book, I have very specific voices attached and will leave it in the text. (SPD, has that side effect FOR ME, not everyone. I tend to be fixated more on sound, etc). So if it's incongruous to the voice in my head, or said wrong I'll sometimes be editing the audiobook.

Do certain audiobooks sound better read than others because of a strong oral tradition in the community that the author grew up in? (Kwik Kwak, BTW, is an oral form, so the stories are always designed to be read out loud. Griot, Seanchaí (Irish storytellers), etc all have an oral form to them. Some South Pacific traditions also are designed to be told out loud and once you do, it flows magically. So demanding it only be in print might miss out on them.

Do you want to get rid of audiobooks altogether and this is why you're asking this inane question?

'cause to the visually impaired community, it sounds like a threat. And why are you even asking this question. Why can't you let it effing go already?

What if you are doing both at the same time?

Some people DO read and LISTEN to the audiobook at the same time. They might have a disability that makes it so. I know some people with ADHD that do both to help them concentrate and consume it more efficiently.

Your brain just broke. Good. !@#$

You care that deeply about how people consume books and want to invalidate the way they consume media because, frankly, invalidating entire populations, traditions of people, does exactly what for you, morally? What power trip do you exactly get by declaring this question in the first place? This is what a Jew would ask you. Because is it really that much of a difference that you need to spend hours on this making other people feel bad and bringing it up over and over again without any level of the nuance it deserves to create conflict and us v. them? Does that truly create any sense of community, cooperation, or is your entire existence as you see it is to create division and conflict? (I believe even the New Testament is against that, but sure, ignore that. I actually sat and read it. lol My favorites whom I wish there were sects for are Matthew and Luke [Granted both Jewish, which I found out after the fact, so I might be Jewish biased by accident]. But apparently writers/Christians like Paul, Peter and John more?).

Because I am a part of the dyke community. I spend most of my time around other dykes. Butch Dykes, Femme Dykes, Bi Dykes, Transfem Dykes, Trans Masc Dykes, FTM Dykes, Dykes, Dykes, Dykes that's what I am and who I love.

And it is a term that I reclaim. For some reason, Tumblr seems to be under the impression that only queer people belonging to certain groups can reclaim certain slurs, when that's not how reclamation works at all. As a trans man, the slur people use most against me is "dyke", it's the word that has been shouted at me on the streets and when I was in school what people referred to me as, I was quite literally stripped of my clothes in middle school in the girl's bathroom and the word "dyke" and "tranny" were sharpied across my body. When people want to misgender me as a trans man, guess what they call me? Dyke. When people assume I'm a lesbian, guess what they call me? Dyke. When people know I'm a trans man, guess what they call me? Dyke. Reclaiming that word means taking that power back and being able to say "Yes I am a dyke, that doesn't mean I'm not a man, I contain multitudes beyond your monosexual binary perception of gender and sexuality.

Dyke is also an identity that many many trans men use, both currently and historically. It's a way of clarifying that just because we are trans men that doesn't mean our sexuality is the equivalent of that of a heterosexual cis male, and that our love of women is just as queer as it was when we were lesbians and/or part of the lesbian community and used that label to describe ourselves. We might no longer be lesbians but many of us reamin dykes.

I'd also like to point you to this post from an ask "if youre a trans man "lesbian" does that mean youre a straight trans man or? sorry, genuine question"

As well as this post, on the history of Butch and Dyke as terms used by trans men. (Please note that this is a very long post, but also a very important one that will likely answer many of your questions, also it has one of my favorite zine covers, which I've attached below)

The fact is, trans men are allowed to have complex relationships with our gender and sexuality and the terminology we personally use to label or define ourselves by. Queerness does not conform to "You must be x to be x" and "you have to choose this if you are this", it's an exhausting binary form of thinking that actively hurts many people in the queer community, especially those of whom are trans.

You'll aslo want to note that MANY trans women and transfem folk ID as "Tranfags" or "fags" in general (many of my friends do in fact) Most people will agree that telling trans women they can't refer to themselves as fags or reclaim that slur is a form of transmisogyny, since it polices trans women's language and ignores that "fag" is one of the most frequent slurs used to attack them. So why is it that people don't regonize the fact that it's transandrophobic to police the langague that trans men use and ignore the fact that "dyke" is one of the most frequent slurs thrown at us?

(also, another fun fact is that many butch AFAB lesbians ID as "Faggot Dykes" since this is a term used to refer to some butch4butch couples ((as well as gay trans men who are t4t)), there is a very nice poem that talks about this, that I sadly can't find right now.)

I was thinking about that scene in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith when Obi-Wan says to Anakin "only a Sith deals in absolutes." It's really funny because in that moment Obi-Wan is also using an absolute, thus negating his statement: Obi-Wan is definitely not a Sith.

Humans do this all the time in so many places, especially places like Tumblr in which discourse is high. People pick and choose which binaries they will reject and which ones they will embrace and enforce. On Tumblr for example, which is a primarily liberal space, we're pretty much in agreement that things such as disability, autism, gender, etc, are not black and white binaries and there is so much nuance, not even among a gradient but among a matrix.

These same people will then turn around and use other binaries such as rich versus poor, Democrat versus Republican, urban versus rural, etc. (I could write a whole post on how liberal culture both places rural living and being "one with nature" on a pedestal, while also vilifying the people that already live here and our established practices of living in nature, including [especially] hunting).

An example of this selective thinking I've witnessed is the whole discourse seen in some lgbtqa+ spaces surrounding the inclusion of Ace/aro individuals: people that don't neatly fit the binary (ex: aro but het) are considered with suspicion.

I've also heard stories of masc non-binary people not fitting in in various genderqueer spaces because they come across as too masculine to be perceived as gender non-conforming, but oddly enough I've minimally encountered the same issue when it's someone being femme.