Yes, you can write characters that don't look like you...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

A Note to White, Straight, Cis, Able-Bodied Men: Conversation is More Useful Than Fear.

As always, the people who most need to read things like this are the least likely to actually do so.

 

[Vladd67]

Never heard of cis before, yet another insult to be hurled at us white straight guys I suppose.

 

[Dan Jones]

Hey don't knock it. Apparently we're "the most coveted demographic." As if that's a Thing.

 

[Ursa major]

Never heard of cis before, yet another insult to be hurled at us white straight guys I suppose.

No, given that 'cis' means

Having a gender identity which matches one's birth sex

and so can be applied to women, people of all ethnicities, those with any beliefs or none, etc.

 

[Vladd67]

In other words everyone but a very small minority. As an ex employee of the Revenue CIS immediately made me think of the construction industry.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, but the term is useful in discussions of gender.

What is less useful is the title of the linked article. If one ventures into the deeper recesses of the Grauniad, you'll find that a lot of otherwise right-on cisfeminists seem to get far more heated about transwomen than anyone else one finds there writing articles, because these particular** cisfeminists don't see transwomen as women but as men pretending to be women in order to infiltrate their cisfeminist bubble. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if I found out that some of them believed transwomen were a plot conjured up by The Patriarchy.)


** - Other cisfeminists hold different views, obviously.

 

[Vladd67]

I find the deeper darker parts of Cif just as mad as the comments in the Mail.

 

[Ursa major]

I find the deeper darker parts of Cif just as mad as the comments in the Mail.

Very much so. And a lot of the madder articles are based on stores that appeared in the Mail a day or two before, so there's a lot of... er... mirroring going on.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think this article, while well intentioned, is a bit naïve. The writer asks “What are you so afraid of?” The answer is, unfortunately, “You, and people like you”. If I tell people to get off my lawn, and then invite them to walk on it provided that they’re walking in the way that I like, should I be surprised when nobody takes me up on the offer?

 

[Ursa major]

She's correct about the use of the word, exotic, though. As someone who is truly exotic -- those with** red hair are very small component of the world's population -- I find it appalling that this term is applied to those whose appearance is in no way rare (outside of gated communities*** and the membership of country clubs***, that is).


** - Although I'm now blond, which may be affecting the quality of argument in my posts....

*** - Other beacons of oppression are available.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

No, given that 'cis' means [Having a gender identity which matches one's birth sex] and so can be applied to women, people of all ethnicities, those with any beliefs or none, etc.

Thus is a social construct. It and other LGBT issues are not things with a proven scientific basis, though some people may argue it has. Certainly people should be free to believe any aspect for themselves and not be discriminated against. But nor should they insist that everyone else should be identical to them. Oddly Thailand has a tradition of non-cis, sort of, though I might be misunderstanding it. If people want to be non-cis, that should be their own decision, they should have freedom to do so and in no way be penalised.

I'm getting bit weary of people proscribing and prescribing the actual ethos and content our writing should and shouldn't have. If you think you won't like it, don't buy it. If it annoys you, put it in the bin. The content is only an issue for mandatory texts at school and college, some factual books can be dodgy. Who is qualified to be a guardian or judge of content in an open society? Social censorship. There are authors I really really dislike and disagree with their ethos. I however defend their right to publish, as long as they don't slander or incite to violence or promote lies about nasty things in history, as we have decided that those are laws, free speech must have some limits when it gets to the point of physical damage to other people (slander might lose someone a livelihood, position in Government etc, if it's proven true in UK, then it's not slander. You'd better be sure and have deep pockets).

I don't mind people advising me HOW to write. But as long as I don't slander or incite to violence or promote lies about nasty things in history, surely the content of my fiction is entirely my affair. No-one has to read it.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

She's correct about the use of the word, exotic, though. As someone who is truly exotic -- those with** red hair are very small component of the world's population -- I find it appalling that this term is applied to those whose appearance is in no way rare (outside of gated communities

About half the world is female (slightly less due to abortions and infanticide).
A minority is "White", though to Northern Europeans, some Southern European look more "coloured" than some Indian subcontinent groups.
There are about five skin types, NOT TWO! (categorised by ability to cope with UV, the most delicate is Northern European in origin, but has best ability to produce vitamin D from little sunshine). Referring to people's skin colour at ALL, is bigotry. It's not a personal choice and maybe to do with where your ancestors lived 100 to 5,000 years ago. IMO "White Caucasian" and "Person of Color" equally display American bigotry. Tribe or Ethnic Origin is better than Race, which DOESN'T exist! Only Albinos have no colour in the skin.

Red hair is really exotic.
Real Blonde less so (most you see is as fake as purple hair), but overwhelmingly most people are brown to black, till they are white haired with age. Maybe "white" hair is the majority. I'm told some Chinese / Han go white earlier than many Europeans, but the women dye it.
Brown eyes is the common. Blue rarer, real green rather than hazel/grey is pretty rare.

I'd like to colour my hair, but people mock grey haired older white men doing that (not my original colour, but orange to purple, gold to copper, what ever takes my fancy. Why should it only be acceptable for punks, goths, trans, and women?).

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm in two minds about linking to this, because it's close to pure politics, of a non-party-political sort. However, it expresses itself better than I could have done, and states the fact that changing language doesn't (necessarily) change reality. I suppose some might see it as a sort of charter allowing anyone to say anything about anyone, but I don't think that's what the author, Nick Cohen, is intending. It seems to me more to be a call to avoid point-scoring and self-censorship that limits free speech.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/how-to-defend-the-arts-using-liberal-values/

 

[Phyrebrat]

Toby, I'm happy you did. It encapsulates my own beliefs on the scourge of equality; political correctness. PC is a whitewash cure all to prevent people educating themselves on minority/other culture.

I have to disagree with his comments on the Exhibit A furore. Without going too off-track on Fishbowl's great thread; when a white South African artists tells a black demography he's 'doing it to help raise awareness' and they say 'not this way, please'. He should listen. Otherwise it's another example of white Imperialism.

Getting back on topic; if your story is set in an urban contemporary setting your cast will probably reflect this.

I think it's down to privilege and entitlement; if you're aware of that, you're probably aware enough to write mature, representative fiction.

pH

 

[Ray McCarthy]

We cannot use the ordinary speech of people who are not remotely malevolent without implying that we are malevolent or our character is malevolent or the person we are quoting is malevolent.

The author does point out at the start that 10 minutes gives no time for nuanced explanations. So on that basis, I rate this pretty good.

an impeccably liberal exhibition at the Barbican, announced its opposition to slavery and racism by showing the public black actors in chains. Protestors forced its closure. They were not extreme right wingers who wanted to defend racism, but left wingers, who could not tolerate the display

Recently a Playmobile set was criticised by NAACP for a black pirate having a the remains of a slave neck thing. Do people want to deny that slaves existed or ex-slaves (freed or escapees) became pirates? Besides, it fitted the neck of any pirate or even could be left off. Maybe next the Mini-Series "Roots" will be banned by demand from NAACP because it depicts slaves as "People of Color". Slavery still exists, perpetrated often against Africans (some times forcibly trafficked) in Certain Middle East / Gulf countries. Poor Asians workers are treated worse than serfs and as badly as slaves in some of those countries today. People Trafficking for sex or below minimum wage labour, virtually slaves still exists in Western Europe and USA.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

when a white South African artists tells a black demography he's 'doing it to help raise awareness' and they say 'not this way, please'. He should listen.

Or may be having listened, totally ignore it!

However Tribalism is worse than Apartheid. (It's ultimately a more localised stupider Racism).
Not all Whites supported Apartheid.
Coloureds in S.A. means Asians (many living there for generations), they are now persecuted and discriminated against.
Some S.A. whites are quite acceptable to native Africans. Not all Africans support the ANC, who have demonstrated how corrupt and Partisan they are.
If a "white" S.A. (there are two "white" main tribes, the Afrikaans and English) is promoting apartheid sure, the "black" people can object strongly. Otherwise a "white" S.A. surely can say what they like. People can debate it. To censor it BECAUSE he is "white" is absolutely wrong.

Let's stop judging what people say on basis of their skin pigmentation or tribal background, but on what they actually say?

Racism exists and is evil. Race doesn't exist.

 

[Ursa major]

Thus is a social construct.

Sorry, but it only looks, to you, to be a social construct because you are cis; for someone who isn't cis (and so is trans), this is their reality, not a construct.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

for someone who isn't cis (and so is trans), this is their reality, not a construct.

I did suggest that some people hold alternate views. I'm happy for them to hold their views. But currently it's not generally accepted as science, so it's social. Obviously it's totally real that the person is experiencing a conflict between their physical sex and the gender they believe they are. No-one has a proven explanation as to why this occurs. They shouldn't be discriminated against, any more than someone should be discriminated against for red hair or very dark or very pale skin.

It and other LGBT issues are not things with a proven scientific basis, though some people may argue it has.

only looks, to you, to be a social construct because you are cis; for someone who isn't cis (and so is trans), this is their reality, not a construct.

There are many assumptions about that statement. So many, that it could be nonsense.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Some would argue that gender issues can be quantitatively and qualitatively studied by Social Sciences.

Whether or not they are real sciences is open for debate.

 

[Ursa major]

I did suggest that some people hold alternate views. I'm happy for them to hold their views. But currently it's not generally accepted as science, so it's social.

You're missing the point I made, which is that you see this as a matter of people having "alternate views" because you don't have any non-cis experience (and neither do I). But in addition, you seem unwilling to accept that there are others who do have non-cis experiences that are not simply them taking a view of the kind of person they are (i.e. deciding what they are almost on a whim); instead they are living with -- are having to live with -- reality as they experience it, and their choice in this is limited to what to do about it, not what it is.


By the way, there exist social sciences, which recognise that "science" and "social" are not mutually exclusive. That the reality in which these social sciences operate is different** to that of the harder sciences (give or take bits of fundamental physics which may never turn out to be falsifiable) does not make them any less founded on reality.


** - It's far more complex, both at the level of individuals and of groups (of varying sizes) of individuals, and harder in which to set up falsifiable experiments (because we tend to frown on people who experiment on other people without their consent or knowledge.