Memes and Message Themes

Meme (n.) -- an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.


When I first came out as an identity not yet on people’s maps, I was intrigued by the rapid spread of popular snippets, little ideas that raced through communities as trendy notions you were supposed to know about if you were cognizant. “Hey”, I said to myself, “if I could figure out what makes an idea catch on and take off like that, I could leverage that to get the word out, to spread awareness of people like me existing in the world!”

And although I was not particularly witty and clever nor anything akin to popular, I watched people’s behavior to see what caused them to latch on to one thing instead of another as an item to pass on as if it were the Most Brilliant Thing Ever.

Eventually I decided that there was no identifying characteristic that was making the phenomenon happen around any specific morsel of an idea. If anything, the near-emptiness in content made it slightly more likely to become the newest trend, rather than any element of profundity or exceptionally clever twist. What I saw were people listening to the crowd and trying to discern early on what was being embraced so they could embrace it a little bit before other people, who would then copy them by embracing it themselves.

That’s not strictly 100% true (some appreciation of quirkiness does seem to play a role), but by and large these trendy ideas were being popularized because they were popular. People were competing to see who could jump on the next bandwagon before it became fully crowded, and would jump to the next one when they could sense it, but it was bandwagon behavior at the root. People weren’t adopting these memes because they agreed with them or thought they were insightful or cute. They were adopting them because they were catching on.



One of my friends, a performance artist, ends one of her pieces with the final line “If you live long enough, you become relevant”. After 40 years of trying to come out as a sissy-esque femme who accepts his nature and his physically male body, I may have lived long enough to attain relevancy, as genderqueer is trending. It isn’t all specifically my version of genderqueer, but yes, there are more and more people pushing away from the expectation of transgender “passing”, of asserting the vlable identity of their gender independent of their physiology or their presentation.


I spend a lot of time and energy complaining that MOGII / gender-variant communities are too much geared towards a kind of groupthink, where there is hostility and condemnation for anyone who doesn’t use the right words or echo the sentiments and viewpoints that have been embraced as the Right Way to Think of It. I shouldn’t let it surprise me. People within communities – any type of communities – tend to engage in the bandwagon-hopping because it is how human networks operate, it’s how the collective self, the “us” that forms a community, does its thinking. But I do, I grouse and snarl and complain about it, expecting all the individuals to examine ideas carefully and to be ready and willing to dissent from those around them and offer a different perspective at least a dozen times per week, and to quit chasing the bandwagons.

That may seem natural to me simply because I’ve been a loner for so long, a social hermit without a group. Like so many other MOGII kids, I was a misfit growing up. But in my case, coming out didn’t provide me with entry into a group of like-minded misfits. I sought it, fervently and desperately, wishing to belong. But because it didn’t happen for me, I suppose I developed less of the interactional patterns that lend themselves to bandwagon-jumping.

Which (I should keep in mind) means I’m not necessarily “a more independent thinker” so much as my tendency to independence has been an accident of not having found a place to fit in.


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Genre Variant

Originality has its limits; to make sense to people, we have to begin in familiar territory; to say something new, we must connect it with something people already know.

But the worlds of publishing and producing constrain originality far beyond that, in their expectation that books and other creative works fit into an existing genre, and that books within a genre fit narrow specifications and tick off the requisite number of anticipated elements.

The popular mystery/detective genre has its well-established requirement of Clues, Character-Suspects (among whom the perpetrator must exist), the Escalation of further perpetrations of subsequent crimes (and further clues), and the False Suspect thrown in our path to throw us off the scent, and so on. I've never written one, although like most of us I've read many over the years.

The romance genre should have the protagonists Meet Cute but initially behave more like antagonists, give us some Steam but establish reasons to defer pleasure for awhile, and insert a Setback just as things are lighting up (a misunderstanding or an unreconcilable difference) before it resolves as HEA (happily ever after) or at least HFN (happily for now). Nothing I've written qualifies as a romance novel, although I've read my share of these as well.

If an author writes within a popular genre, and writes well with an interesting twist that makes their book ever so slightly different while still mostly fitting the template, they stand a chance of finding a literary agent and landing a publishing contract as a debut author. The publishing industry knows they have a built-in audience.

There are some genres that have fallen by the wayside, styles of writing that were once written and sold in large quantities. Would you like to be a brand new author today and find yourself pitching a book set in the 1800s in the west, featuring an upright male citizen who is a bit of a loner, who rides into a town where the establishment institutions of social order aren't working, so he makes a stand, bravely facing death and being outnumbered, but with his skill with a pistol he and his sidekick, with whom he has his conversations, prevail, only to find it necessary to ride off into the sunset because the little town is ambivalent about him?

Or perhaps you'd like to be fishing for a lit agent for your debut book that features a vivacious gal who finds herself in surrounded by deceptive creeping danger, and is fraught with self-doubt and doubt about the attractive but flawed male of wealth and power who lives in near-isolation in a crumbling old mansion; he starts off hateful but she forces his reluctant admiration and shows him her mettle, then she gradually finds that beneath his compromised and ethically questionable exterior and all his characterological flaws, he's actually shiny and principled -- ?

If you're an established author with a proven track record, it might please you to put forth a book that's a clever twist on the old classic western or gothic genre, but I suspect it would be a far more difficult sell for a first-timer.

One of my favorite examples of a creative work that doesn't shoehorn nicely into existing genres is actually a film (originally a screenplay), Miracle Mile. It kicks off as a conventional romance / romantic comedy, invoking the trope of a main character reaching a misunderstanding about something that makes him believe there's a crisis afoot, resulting in him behaving in amusingly silly ways and luring others into doing likewise. Except this time it turns out that the crisis isn't the result of a miscommunication and the story becomes an apocalyptic end-of-world tragedy.

That it ever got made (without being revamped to make it fit into genre packaging better) is a testimony to screenwriter Steve De Jarnatt and his durable stubbornness. He was a graduate of American Film Institute and had credentials for prior work on Hollywood films, but even after the Miracle Mile screenplay won awards there were misgivings about proceeding with the project as written:

De Jarnatt decided to shop the script around to various Hollywood studios and was turned down several times by executives that didn’t like the downbeat ending. The filmmaker said, “I certainly could have made it a few years ago if (the hero) woke up and it was all a dream, or they saved the day.” In fact, at one point, he was approached to shoehorn Miracle Mile into Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) only with a happy ending, but he turned that offer down as well.

-- from Radiator Heaven


I hadn't anticipated as much difficulty fencing my manuscript as I encountered. Like most newbie authors probably do, I thought the writing was the primary challenge. Thousands of people crank up their word processors for NaNoWriMo every year thinking maybe they've got a novel in them, probably assuming that if they do indeed write one, and it's good, they can get it published.

I thought of my book as fitting into a genre: the LGBTQ coming-out story. I figured it would fit on the same shelf as Conundrum: From James to Jan and Rubyfruit Jungle and The Best Little Boy in the World and Stone Butch Blues and Emergence and so forth.

Unfortunately, as with the western and the gothic romance, the LTBTQ coming-out tale is treated as an "old genre". As I wrote in my various query-letter incarnations, there have been such stories for lesbian coming-out, gay male coming-of-age, and transgender (in both of the conventional transitional directions) stories *, but nothing addressing that "Q" that sits there at the end of the acronym; nothing that explains genderqueer -- or gender variance by any other name -- that doesn't overlap with the previous four letters. Well, that may have been part of the problem: the people I was trying to sell on the story's concept didn't see any unaddressed need there, because they, too, didn't have a notion of any remaining category for which we didn't already know the story.

Aside from that, "need" isn't the operative word by which the publishing industry makes its assessment. They think in terms of "market", not "need". They consider manuscripts in terms of their potential audience, the people already poised to go out and buy such a book. Genre, in other words.

Instead of being conceptualized as a part of an LGBTQ coming-out genre, my book was typically seen as either an LGBT book or as a memoir. The LGBT genre is mostly fiction, and mostly erotica-romance at that, with an occasional literary fiction piece from an established author. The memoir genre is occupied by the personal narrative by someone we've already heard of, a celebrity or a person who made the news and attracted our attention, and hence has a "platform".


Submission Stats as of October 2019:

Total Queries to Lit Agents: 1453
Rejections: 1441
Still Outstanding: 12

Total Queries Directly to Small Publishers: 117
Rejections: 58
Still Outstanding: 43
Pub Contract Signed (then went out of business): 1
Pub Contract Signed (rights reverted, creative diffs): 1
Pub Contract Signed (publication pending): 1



* to be fair, there aren't many bisexual coming-of-age / coming-out stories either. As with so many things pertaining to bisexual people, I think there's an attitude that if we have lesbian and gay equivalents covered, the story / concerns / situation of bisexual people won't be meaningfully different so we dont need to bother.



———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Compassion and Tenderness

Part of what “femininity” means to many people, not just by association but embedded in the definition, is a capacity and an inclination to care, to be empathic, to listen and to provide supportive efforts, both of the practical variety and in the form of expressions of understanding and concern. When people are discussing male (and/or Assigned Male At Birth) people who are feminine (femmes, sissies, girls, women), the traits and expressions that they focus on may not emphasize compassion and tenderness, but at least for some of us it is it’s pretty central to why and how we think of ourselves as feminine.

“Everyone should”

In the decade after I first came out as a sissy (which was my word for it, specifically as a heterosexual sissy in order to untie the confusion between gender and sexual orientation), I mostly embraced a feminist analysis of sexist polarized gender expectations: there was no damn reason to foist onto male people all that masculine adversarial belligerence and selfishness and emotionally truncated immaturity.

One way of reading that interpretation is that all of us male people possess the same capacity and tendency to be compassionate as female people do, and that as a male feminist (or profeminist or whatever) person I was just being loud about saying so. And during this era of my life, I did tend to de-emphasize the notion that I was inherently different from other males, because I was positioning my own politics to fit within that feminist framework.

Another, more nuanced take on that is that all of us male people could be that way but that male role socialization and the conformity of typical males to those masculine expectations meant that most males did not develop those traits, whereas those of us who rejected sexist roles and rules and embraced healthy traits labeled “feminine” were far more free to develop as compassionate and tender people. That was more the approach I put into words when discussing the matter in those days.

But when I first came out, the central insight was that I was different from men in general, that how and who I was made me not one of the men but instead one of the women, and that that was why my experiences and, in particular, my frustrations with heterosexuality, were as they were. The political analysis that posited that I was actually a surviving, relatively healthy person in an unhealthy sexist world came a bit later. And now, when I am positioning my politics within queer theory and LGBTQ identity frameworks, I’ve returned to that. (If all the other males wish to say that they, too, are not correctly described by “masculinity”, that they, too, are actually far better described by the components that make up “femininity” instead, then they can certainly say so, but these days I speak for myself and, to an extent, for others who identify as I do). So here is the notion that the sissy femme is perhaps inherently inclined to be more compassionate and tender as an expression of innate femininity. I have often described the “differences between the sexes” using the Snow Cone analogy. Hurl a mango snow cone at the wall, then pick up a mint snow cone and throw it against the same wall but make the center of impact a bit to the right of where the mango cone’s center of impact was. You get a spray of colored ice with orange-colored flecks interspersed with green-colored flecks, lots of overlap, and even though as a group the entirety of the mango particles skew to the left of the mint particles, there are individual mango particles even way over on the right where the mint flecks predominate, and likewise for mint ice-flecks on the far left. So being a sissy femme is being one of the exceptions, genuinely different at least in the statistical / generalization sense, and hence, to whatever extent female people in general are innately more compassionate and tender, the feminine sissy may be feminine in exactly that way, among other ways.

Take your pick. Any way you go at it, it’s a set of character and behavioral traits that I claim to exhibit and to which I aspire and which forms a big part of my sense of who I am.

Not Just Selflessness

As with the entire basket of attributes called “femininity”, compassion and tenderness are often not seen as things that benefit the person who has them. Instead, they’re often thought of strictly in terms of the benefit that they accord other people. Feminist analysis has often pointed to how women are placed in a position of providing multiple kinds of service and support to men, and that this is among them, yet one more form of social labor for which women are exploited and from which energies they are alienated, their efforts along these lines appropriated for men’s use. But we have to be careful not to fall into the pattern of devaluing those ways of being in the world that are part of the feminine, of ratifying the patriarchal definition of them as second-tier and inferior.

We can’t really do that without taking a frank look at the benefits to the feminine person of being compassionate and tender.

I first became really and intensely aware of this from experiencing its absence as a child: I was capable of being a caring person, of being a good listener, a sympathetic and supportive friend, but as a boy (or person perceived in those terms) it felt like no one wanted it from me. I was jealous of the kind of emotional sharing and reciprocal connections I saw among girls my age and felt strongly that I could participate in that, would be good at it if given the opportunity, and felt very much left out. Over the years of thinking about this and analyzing it more fully in the years after I came out, I came to think of this flavor of emotional intimacy as something for which we have an appetite, and from which we derive personal pleasure from the connection. Conceptualizing it as some kind of selfless sacrificial service to others denies this; and it’s wrong. It’s the same kind of cognitive mistake that a person would be making if they were to think that no one gets sexual pleasure from pleasuring someone else, or has an appetite prompting them to do so. On an emotional level, we get off on being compassionate to others and making them feel loved and understood and cared for. It is seldom spoken of in this fashion, to be sure, but in order to claim it for myself and to explain that being deprived of it is indeed a deprivation, being blatantly honest about this aspect of the experience seems vital.

Then there is the ancillary social aspect of being perceived as such. It should be easy enough to see why one might wish to be thought of as a compassionate and tender caring person. Alternative gender identities are proliferating, and one fake-tolerant pseudoliberal response to it takes the form “you can identify as whatever the heck you want, hey you can identify as a pine tree if that suits you, and more power to you, as long as you realize that I don’t get it and probably never will”. The problem is that we don’t need anyone’s permission or cooperation to be who we are within the interiors of our own heads or even, to a significant extent, within our everyday behaviors; but like everyone else we receive the identitities projected onto us by everyone else who perceives us, and, again like everyone else we derive some degree of social comfort and satisfaction from being perceived in ways that are congruent with how we perceive ourselves. Cisgender males are generally perceived as men and expected to be masculine, and they are, and they get the received / perceived signals like a warm friendly thumbs-up, a confirmation of identity.

There are specific nice things that come with being seen as compassionate and tender, and woven into them, for us, the confirmation of identity in which we are vested.

Finally, going back to the notion that caregiving is a service that others do benefit from, there are transactional advantages to being the resource to whom other people turn in order to obtain it, being in demand for it. In the interpersonal economy of human interaction, it is definitely to the advantage of a person who has these traits to be appreciated for them, to be sought out for them. Just like being a good cook or being a funny person who can be counted on to tell entertaining stories and jokes, having a capacity to give people something that they benefit from brings them to you and in the resulting interaction it is something of value for which those others may give other benefits and services in exchange.

Against Trivialization

I said up above that when people think or talk about sissy femme male (or AMAB) people, compassion and tenderness isn’t typically what they will choose to emphasize. More often they make it all about lipstick and high heels, being prissy and fabulous, and behaving seductively.

Now, there’s definitely a positive good in fun, frolic and frivolity. Joy and pleasure are among the components of life that have been devalued in favor of anger and seriousness and sacrifice and all that, and I am happy to be in the tradition of Emma Goldman, who said that if she can’t dance at it, then it isn’t her revolution. So let’s not even trivilialize the playful accoutrements of femininity…

But yes, a part of the devalorization of the feminine – as attested to by Julia Serrano in Whipping Girl, among other prominent places – takes the form of treating the entire feminine package of traits as if there’s very little of real substance going on there.

You’ll get no traction from me if you devalue compassion and tenderness. There’s absolutely nothing trivial about it. These are among the most noble and important of human characteristics and I have always been proud of being a part of them and them a part of my identity, and never had any sympathy or interest in a masculine identity that seemed founded on disparaging all that, of treating it as weakness or dismissing it as less relevant than winning and triumphing over opponents and whatnot.

I am a proud sissy and I have never for a moment looked across the aisle at conventional masculine males and felt that I was in any shape way fashion or form LESS THAN.



———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

My Pronouns

They ask me what my pronouns are. It's a respectful and appropriate question. I have no easy answers.

I was born with a physical configuration that was assigned the value 'male', and I've always been one of the girls from as far back as I can remember. I was pressured to adopt and embrace masculinity, to become one of the boys, all throughout childhood, but I wasn't so inclined. Later, I was repeatedly invited to transition or to present as female, so that I would not get misgendered, but the price of not getting misgendered was to be mis-SEXED. You see, the body I was born in isn't wrong, and the historical fact of being perceived and treated by others as a male is a lifelong part of who I am, and I have no wish to discard it. I'm not female, I'm a girl. Gender isn't sex. I'm a male girl. Get used to it.

So, pronouns, huh? You want the pronouns that would appropriately reference my gender, or the pronouns that would designate my sex?

Yeah, exactly. Here we are, all woke and conscious and liberated from the gender binary and all that it evokes, and yet we still posit that one syllable is sufficient to designate our sex and our gender, regardless of the combination thereof. What's the pronoun most commonly used for a male girl?


I do get misappraised quite often. People treat me as a brother, a guy, one of the boys, another man, the identity that (normally) goes with a male body. In my case, that's misgendering. Occasionally people get my gender correct -- most often when I'm on the phone and they start calling me "ma'am" and assuming me to be feminine; it also happens sometimes when I'm approached from behind, especially if I'm at a table with other women, and they see the long hair and hear my voice and make assumptions. Problem is, they also assume female along with feminine person, and thus they mis-sex me. So I'm used to being gotten wrong. Doesn't mean I like it.

Pronouns are not among the most egregious of the aspects of misassignments like these. Think about it. If they're addressing me directly, they're going to use the pronoun you. The gender-specific pronouns are pretty much limited to third-person references, when someone is talking to a second person and says something about me. He, him, his; or she, her, hers. I don't spend a lot of my day overhearing people refer to me in the third person. So why (you may ask) do gender activists make such a big deal about pronouns? Because it's an opportunity to do public education. It's a learning moment. Getting people to rethink how they think of us. The pronouns themselves are a symptom of that thinking, but it's the thinking that the activists want to change.

We care how other people think about us. It affects how they treat us. It shapes their behavior towards us, ranging from big conscious stuff to tiny subtle subliminal stuff that they may not be aware of.

Conceptualizing me as "she" doesn't really fix any more problems for me than it causes.

In my case I don't particularly crave having people think of me as female. In particular, I do not crave the sexual attentions of people whose attraction is towards female people. I would think that would make compelling common everyday sense to people, insofar as I do not in fact have female morphology, and also because people whose attraction is towards folks with male morphology would also be assuming me to be female and would therefore not be giving me attention.

Upon expressing this, I have on a couple occasions been informed that I've expressed a homophobic attitude. Seriously? Gay males are attracted to males, why would presenting as female (or being altercast by other people as a female person) expose me to uncomfortable gay male attention? I've also been told that this attitude on my part is somehow transphobic. I don't see that either. I don't wish to be taken for a binary transitioning transgender woman, that's true, but not because that would be insulting or anything. Just that it isn't accurate in my case.


Back to the pronouns. I could reasonably tell people "Please use he/his/him when you're thinking in terms of my physical structure, and use she/her/hers when you're dwelling on my gender". Use them situationally, you know?

I could embrace "they/their/them" of course. Why don't I? Well, there's no specificity. The use of that pronoun indicates that I'm non-mainstream, but it doesn't elaborate on how. It definitely doesn't say "male girl" to people. Admittedly that's true of "genderqueer" as well, and I've embraced that term.

Well, OK, I could also come up with my own pronouns, I suppose. Other people do. "Hi, my pronouns are 'nee, ner, ners'. I've decided that that's the pronoun for a male gender invert".

But if my intent is to do consciousness-raising and public education, I think anywhere that people are savvy enough to ask about my pronouns is a place where I can accomplish more public education by saying "none of the above, they're all wrong", and explaining why.


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Critical Mass: Chicken or Egg Questions

In order to get published, promoted, distributed, represented, featured, etc, you first need to have a critical mass of people paying attention to what you're saying. People begin taking you seriously enough to pay attention to you once they realize that other people, not just themselves, are encountering what you've written or said, which in turn is largely dependent on being published, promoted, distributed, etc.

This is the "platform" conundrum I am up against. Publishers (and literary agents too) want to know if the authors who query them already have a built-in audience of people. People who read their blogs, who watch their YouTube videos, who read and follow their tweets and retweet them, who come to hear them lecture.

I have had some of them informing me that getting a book published is no longer a mechanism for reaching people with your ideas. It is something that you do when you are already successfully reaching people with your ideas.



I have a prepared "about the author" statement that I include in my queries when the instructions for submitting to them say to give some background information about yourself, your prior publications (if any), your education (if relevant), position of employment or expertise (ditto), and, yes, your platform. At the end of it, after describing my academic background and history of being a gender activist and so forth, I have this:

About the Author's "Platform" — Many literary agencies and publishers, when they request the nonfiction author's bio, are primarily interested in knowing who will buy the book based on the author's reputation and stature in the field. This isn't that kind of memoir. No one (except maybe my Mommy) will read it simply because I'm the author; the book is interesting (and marketable) as a "representative" or "illustrative" memoir, the story of what it is like to be a particular TYPE of person (genderqueer, in this case).

Yes, I'm aware that that's probably not what you meant by "platform", that you're less interested in whether I'm a household name than in whether or not I have a following of potential readers and purchasers of my book. Well, I blog weekly; in this day and age, no one leaves comments directly on blog pages, but I post links to my new blog entries in a couple dozen gender-centric Facebook groups and I have a modest but supportive audience who follow me there.

The whole situation is frustrating, but I believe it makes it difficult, not impossible, to get traction. I keep reminding myself that I have twice had a publishing contract for this book, and if it had indeed gone into print I would have reached many people and more people would pay attention to the things that I say and write because I was a published author on the subject.

It's also useful to remind myself that only some people will not pay serious attention to a person's thoughts and ideas until and unless they believe that a lot of other people are also being exposed to what that person thinks. There are, fortunately, people who will get quite excited about or supportive of a line of thought that "clicks" for them, no matter where it comes from or who else is likely to be exposed to it.

Getting to critical mass is to some extent a random thing, a matter of chance. The longer I keep doing this, the more likely it is that my writings will affect someone who has something of a platform of their own, either in the sense of having the ears and eyes of a lot of people or in the sense of knowing some specific key personnel whose attention to this project could help propel it forward. That would, of course, include literary agents and publishers, who certainly possess the power to make my book a success.


Meanwhile, none of the other modalities of communicating with people make more sense to pursue instead of focusing on trying to get my book published. I already have a blog; a small handful of people read it and I don't know how I would increase that. I already post links to my new blog posts all over Facebook, and that's one reason I have the handful of readers that I do have, but again I don't know any magic tricks for drawing more attention to them. I have a Twitter account and I tweet about my blog posts, but I'm a clumsy and clueless twitterer and I'm not likely to suddenly become adept at expressing myself usefully in postage-stamp sized textmorsels. I've addressed some groups, giving presentations and leading discussions, but it's not easy getting booked when one has no authoritative position or official role and does not have a book published. I've even made a few YouTube videos, but they don't tend to pull in people any more rapidly than my blog posts do. And meanwhile, I've got a book, already written, so it kind of makes sense to continue to try to get it into print.

(Be all that as it may, if you have suggestions for how to get more people to tune into my thoughts and words, or for more useful ways in which for me to render them and make them available, by all means give them)

I probably should hire someone to make a home page for me, perhaps with the table of contents (i.e., "Index of all Blog Posts", see below) embedded in it. Or at least find out if I could afford it, etc. I could do something along those lines myself, but graphic design is not my strong suit and my HTML skills are pre-CSS, HTML 1.1 edition stuff at best.


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Altercasting and Presenting

ALTERCASTING is the act of assigning an identity to someone else. That may seem at first glance like an intrusive act: shouldn't the assignment of identities be reserved for the people themselves? But we do it all the time. Those of us with the most fervent commitment to people's authority to define their own identity may work hard at not stereotyping people and trying to be open to multiple possibilities, but in the absence of being able to literally read other people's minds, we still do it. We formulate in our own minds a sense of who each other person is, in order to be able to interact with them, in order to be able to even think about them. At a minimum we tend to think of them as humans, and the moment we do that we altercast them in the role of human as we define and understand human. And we usually don't stop with only perceiving a person as an undifferentiated human. We notice things, clues to a person's identity, we make some educated guesses based on our own experience of people and society.

We care about other people's altercasting of us, it matters to us. If it did not, there would not exist any such thing as misgendering. If it did not, if we truly didn't care how others perceived us, we would also have to not care how others behaved towards us, how they treated us, because their interactive behaviors towards us are a direct outcome of how they perceive us.

This is why a person's identity is not composed entirely of who that person is to themselves, how they choose to identify. We may wish it to be that way or want it to be that way, particularly as a vehicle towards empowering them to self-define, but the real fact of the matter is that a person's identity is always the subject of dialogue between that person and all of the other people who perceive them and interact with them. A person's identity is always in a state of negotiation.

PRESENTING is the act of soliciting an ideal altercasted identity from other people, of getting them to altercast us with an assigned identity that pleases us, and often that will be at least a close approximation of our self-defined identity. Not always: the concept of being in the closet is about presenting so as to disguise one's identity instead of presenting so as to be seen and recognized. But as people who are out, as people who are political about our identity, we tend to devote a lot of energy into presenting our identity to the world, attempting to get people to altercast us the same way that we cast our own identities in our own minds.

It doesn't work if the people that we interact with do not have the necessary concepts to be able to think of us in the same way that we think of ourselves. If one happens to have a visible appearance that is culturally understood as a representation of one gender or sex (and in our culture's mainstream and in our culture's history, gender and sex have been one and the same), but also exhibits other signals (behaviors, et al) that are culturally understood as representative of the other, this is a presentation that could elicit an altercasting as gay, could evoke an altercasting as transgender or nonbinary or otherwise gender-atypical, but if the other people that one is interacting with have in their heads no interpretation of this combination except that it is wrong and pathological, it is instead going to inspire an altercasting as sick, twisted, wrong. And so we educate. We teach. We describe and defend and elaborate and we tell our experiences and outline how we think of ourselves, and we do all this in order to create in other people's head-space the possibility of seeing us more the way we wish to be seen.

Some of our PRESENTATION is a deliberate oversimplification; although our orientation or gender identity labels are not the entirety of our identity, any more than our age or our ethnicity is, the complex entirety of who we are is certainly not something that random strangers and casual acquaintances already have inside their heads to categorize us as. And so although we don't want to be reduced to a label or two in perpetuity and never known by anyone beyond a couple of general categories, most of us do position ourselves for easy recognition and categorization by the labels that let most people jump to some fairly decent first-tier approximations. Most cisgender heterosexual men present as men; most cisgender heterosexual women present as women; it is a cultural imperative that one should be clearly recognized and categorized by gender and treated accordingly. It is not that these individuals do not wish to ever be seen for the complex and unique people that they are, but that having folks react to them with these starting points is far more comfortable to them than for them to not do so. In fact, it is quite often a person's discovery that they themselves are uncomfortable with that altercasting that leads to a person's awareness of themselves as gender-atypical!

At any rate, we use a lot of shorthand when we present. We use the equivalent of a logo and a slogan on an everyday basis because we only occasionally get the opportunity to provide people with the equivalent of an article, let alone a novel.

Part of the price tag of marginalization is that all of this--the act of presentation and the successful result, an appropriate altercasting by the other people we encounter--is much more complicated and difficult. I said above that most cisgender heterosexual men present as men. A cisgender gay man who does not wish to be altercast as a heterosexual male is likely to attempt to present as a specifically gay man. He has to encode more information in his shorthand, still conveying that he is a man but due to being an exception to the rule, a marginalized variant, he has to convey additional information to avoid being altercast as something he is not, see? And his success (an appropriate altercasting by other people as a gay man) depends on them having that possibility in their head, that when they think of people they are aware of that possibility and that they recognize the shorthand cues and clues that he uses. If this individual were a nonbinary pansexual demiboy, their situation is quantum leaps more difficult and the likelihood of provoking a successfully correct altercasting from other people is extremely attenuated. The signals and cues have to convey a lot more information (they're not merely an exception to the rule but an exception to the exception to the exception) and the likelihood of the typical person they interact with being aware of the possibility of their identity is vanishingly small, and on top of that the people interacting with them would need to recognize the shorthand, which is even less likely than having heard of it or read about it.

———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

So Many Labels!

Person A (on a message board):

What exactly is your sexual orientation?


Person J (i.e., about nine replies down):
...apparently I need a Wikipedia page and a science degree to know for sure? No offense meant, but I had no idea of all these labels and what they mean.

Is this helpful? To have all the labels so people can put themselves in boxes? Or on a scale? I guess it is or people wouldn't do it. I know I'm completely naive so would anyone care to venture why? To identify with others?





I think that for the majority of people, all such labels are unnecessary. That's because the majority of people have a majority orientation, and there's absolutely 100% nothing wrong with failing to deviate from what's typical, there really isn't! :) And labels exist for the purpose of differentiating. It sometimes seems unfair to us weirdo deviant atypical folks that mainstream folks get to strut around simply thinking of themselves in an undifferentiated way as "just people, you know, normal people", but I can understand it and I don't think it's oppressive. I don't even think it's oppressive for most of you to go around treating everyone and expecting of everyone that they will be normal in all the ways you are normal, as long as you're willing to be nonjudgmental and adjust accordingly when folks explain "nope, I'm different".

So you want to know why so goddamn many labels and such complexity and never-ending proliferation of categories? That's also a reasonable question.


When you're a mainstream person, you get a pretty unified and consolidated experience about your sex / gender / orientation. Like everyone else who is part of human culture, you get a barrage of messages from other people, messages that are aimed at all people with your kind of body, messages that are pointed to all people with your kind of personality-and-behavior, messages that focus on all people who share your sexual appetite's object of desire, messages that speak to all folks who harbor your general sexual-romantic tastes and expectations, and so on.

What makes this ongoing experience unitary and consolidated is that, for mainstream folks, they don't contradict each other! The messages for folks with a body like yours, for example, say that such people will find people with this other specified bodytype to be sexy and attractive (and you do), that you will have a personality matching a certain description (and, hey, it happens to be mostly true for you), that the sexy attractive people that you're attracted to will tend to have a different set of personality and behavioral characteristics (hmm yeah, pretty much true for you), and that the actual WAY that sex and courtship and attraction and relationship-formation will tend to take place will be according to the following overdone movie script or TV sitcom set of scenarios (yep, watched them, and corny or oversimplified or not yeah they aren't foreign to you). So those messages reinforce each other. They don't prompt a bunch of questioning inside your confused little head.

Not so for some of us outliers, the exceptions to the rule. (And for some of us weirdos, the exceptions to whatever general rule you can make about the exceptions to the rule, and exceptions to whatever generalizations you can make about those folks as well).

Oh baby, things are a snarly mess on our side of the experience-continuum. The messages aimed at people with our type of body describe a personality that is not ours, or perhaps indicate that we'll be attracted to a body-type other than the ones we find attractive, or describe our likely sexual behavioral patterns in ways that completely don't mesh with how things are for us, and so on and so forth. And there are messages we hear specifically about the exceptions and those are generally not good messages either — in part because they tend to be the general consensus not of us about ourselves but of you normal folks and whatever conclusions y'all have reached about the deviant-from-normal folks you've run into or heard about or observed from the outside — and in part because they tend to be prescriptive messages that designate us as wrong, examples of how not to be. We hear those too, and bouncing back away from those as well as bouncing back away from the non-fitting normal messages means we do spend a lot of time contemplating all this shit. Or many of us do at any rate.

Well, guess what? We don't reach a single unified and consolidated "minority opinion" consensus! Instead, first you get a sort of first-tier "voice of the exceptions" and after that's been out there and ingested a bit you get the next tier of dissenting exceptions who AREN'T that way and THEY put out a second set of descriptions of experience and identity and after that's hit the airwaves / magazine covers etc you get another tier and another tier.

It's like one of those statistical graphs where you've got a long tail fading off from the concentrated blob that represents the main trend.

———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Difference and Marginalization

At a certain point in my life, I began saying something that other males around me were not saying. Something that men in general had historically not been saying. I was stating that certain things were true for me personally, and in making this statement I was contradicting a whole lot of what men in general had said about male experience, about being one, what it was like, what it meant.

Did this mean that I was different?

What if, in saying these things, I was actually speaking for all men, saying things about the male experience that never get said but which basically all men, not just me, have to confront in their lives?

Or maybe I was not speaking for all men but for a minority of males, a hitherto silent minority, a group of males who were different from the rest, a group who didn't yet have a name and a voice?

Or perhaps I was only speaking for myself and myself alone.

I didn't know. I spoke without knowing.

I've received my share of dismissive reactions. I'm a special snowflake. I'm a boringly normal hetero cis guy who desperately wants to be edgy. I have a lot of nerve using a slur term ("queer") that was hurled at other people, as if that were my right. I've been told countless times that I lack any relevant difference. Meanwhile I've only now and then been told that what I say is true for me is true for them too.

Marginalization is a word you hear bandied about quite a bit these days, especially in MOGII (aka LGBTQIA)* communities. It literally means to exist right on the margin, or edge, of things, pushed to the side.

Well, here's what marginalization is like. It's when most of the time you get treated as part of an undifferentiated group you don't consider yourself to belong to, and the rest of the time you get singled out as weird and peculiar, and treated and thought of as such, with your difference defined by other people as they see it, without any input from your own self-definition.

And yes, it is edgy.


* MOGII = Minority Orientation, Gender Identity, and Intersex. LGBTQIA = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (etc/other) and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual/Agender. I like MOGII better.


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

If You Could Be...

So I was casting about for a topic to blog on. (I don't usually have difficulty coming up with something, but given that I try to pump these things out once a week I guess it's inevitable that sooner or later I'd have nothing in particular in mind when the time came, right?) I mentioned this to my partner and she joked that I could borrow a page from those silly corporate exercises and ask my readers "If you could be any animal, what animal would you be?".

Hmm, well... perhaps an appropriate variation of that.

If you could be any GENDER you wanted, which one would you be?

The conventional modern understanding of what it means to be a transgender woman is along these lines: The world consists of men and women; a transgender woman is a person who was born male but wants to be a woman, and transitions.

Trans women themselves would probably be more likely to say: Although I was born with a body that was assigned male initially by others, I *am* a woman. Transitioning is either to correct the body to make it correspond with a person's identity or else to shift the perceptions of other people.

I myself am not a transitioner, and my answer would be like this: The world consists predominantly of male men and female women, but there are also male women and female men, and folks in-between, and others. Just like transgender people, I am already the gender I want to be: a male woman

I want to change people's perceptions (i.e., I want to be seen as and treated as who I am), but I have no interest in changing myself.



What does it mean to "be a woman", though? There are all the attributes and characteristics, behaviors and roles and so on, but interspersed with that is the notion of a correspondence to some degree with the social construct called "biological femaleness" — breasts, vagina, menses, uterus, pregnancy. And it's all wrapped together as a package deal. Even among people who mentally distinguish between femininity (or "the sex role expectation of femininity", if you prefer) and biological female morphology, there are often many things that are thought of, consciously or unconsciously, as part of biological femaleness that someone else would classify differently: sexual positioning and mate selection strategies, the question of desirability or attractiveness, the gatekeeper role as the person who gives or withholds consent, and nurturance and other related manifestations of hormonal states, social interaction patterns determined by having a smaller size and less physical strength, and so on. So while it is highly useful to distinguish intellectually between sex and gender, between biological femaleness (social construct though it may be) and the complex constellation of things we call femininity, there still isn't a consensus about which is which, or which contains which elements, if you see what I mean.

What if we teased it apart into a sort of checklist, then? For those who wish to (continue to) be a woman, what do you mean when you say you are a woman? For instance (keeping in mind that for cisgender women as well as anyone else identifying as a woman, not all of these will apply)...

[ ] Demeanor and behavior, that yours matches the overall pattern exhibited by women in general

[ ] Perception and interpretation of your demeanor and behavior by others as feminine

[ ] Perception and interpretation of your body: being viewed by others as morphologically female

[ ] The experience of being a sex object, a target of the sexual appetite of those people who are of the sex and/or gender you wish to be sexy to, especially to the extent that this is a different experience for women

[ ] Having the personality and holding the priorities and values and overall perspective and viewpoints that women have more of a tendency to hold than men do

[ ] Others' perception and interpretation of you as having such a personality and being likely to hold such values and priorities etc

[ ] Breasts, vagina, relative hairlessness, slender neck, smaller chin, vertical navel, hourglass figure, smaller stature

[ ] Menstruation, ovulation, lactation, capacity for pregnancy

[ ] A history of having always been a girl or woman, perceiving yourself as such consistently all your life

[ ] A history of having been perceived and treated as a girl or woman throughout your life


To do this right, we'd need a fill-in-the-blank line after each item to add a comment as need be.

Now, I can readily imagine some people rejecting this sliced-up deconstruction. I've encountered that in a few discussions, in fact, the notion that something gets killed or ignored when you divide the concept up in this fashion, and that "woman" (or "man" for that matter) is an entire package and that to be what it is and retain its meaning it has to continue to be that way.

But I'm not fond of that, since that attitude erases me. It's as reductionistic as the attitude of some of the people on Facebook who post things like "If you got a dick yer a man".

I definitely need to order a la carte. Here's my own response, checks for what I would place an order for and x's for the ones that already apply:


[x] Demeanor and behavior I've got that already

[√] Perception and interpretation of my behavior as feminine Yeah, that's what I want

[ ] Perception and interpretation of my body as morphologically female No thank you

[√] The experience of being a sex object / to those of the sex or gender to which I want to be attractive well yes, actually

[x] Personality and priorities and values and overall perspective I already have that too

[√] Perceived by others as having that personality and priorities etc This is important

[ ] Breasts, vagina, relative hairlessness, slender neck, smaller chin, vertical navel, hourglass figure, smaller stature Umm, no, I'm fine with the factory installed parts

[ ] Menstruation, ovulation, lactation, capacity for pregnancy Neither need nor have any of those

[x] A history of having always been a girl or woman, perceiving yourself as such consistently all your life I have that, too, actually

[ ] A history of having been perceived and treated as a girl or woman throughout your life I don't have that but I'd be a different person if I had


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

Arguing Against Someone's Identity-Label is a Form of NOT LISTENING

= A =

I'm amazed at how often someone introduces themselves as having a specific identity and goes on to explain in more detail how life has been for them and what their experience has been, only to have people immediately contradicting their identity: "Well I think that makes you this other thing, not what you are calling yourself", or "You shouldn't use that term, it doesn't belong to you, only people who fit such-and-suchg other description should call themselves that", or even "You're just a mainstream person with no relevant differentiated identity to speak of, and you should quit calling yourself by any identity-label".

It happens within generic LGBTQIA community groups, it happens within highly specific support groups organized around one or more solitary letters from that acronym, and it happens within the larger surrounding society as well. "I reject all of what you're saying about yourself -- because you're calling yourself something that you're not".

It's a special form of not listening. I mean, any time a person uses a label for themself, it's a form of shorthand, like a book title or the title of a term paper or something. It's never going to express the entire thought process, but it's their chosen starting point. Then they go on to elaborate and explain about themselves and how they fit in (or fail to fit in) against this backdrop and that backdrop and how they have come to understand themselves as a person.

Now, it's one thing for someone to give a long thoughtful reply to the other person's entire narrative and offer comments and show understandings of that person's experiences, and to then mention along with all that other stuff that they think maybe this or that other term might be more appropriate or more useful. But to give a reply where the entire focus of the response is "you're not what you just called yourself"? That ignores the person's story and puts all the focus on the label as if the correctness of the label were the only important thing being said here.

It's the equivalent of writing a movie review of Sixth Sense that contained nothing except "This isn't about the sixth sense. The sixth sense is extra-sensory perception, like when you know what is going to happen before it happens. This Bruce Willis flick is just a ghost story, give it a pass". Or reviewing Boy Meets Girl by writing "Robby already knew Ricky at the beginning of this movie so it has nothing to do with 'Boy Meets Girl', don't bother".

People in narrowly defined groups sometimes do this as a gatekeeping function: "You tell a nice story but you aren't one of us and you shouldn't really be here in our space". People in broader LGBTQIA groups often do it as a form of shoehorning: "I divide the queer world up into these categories and excuse me but you belong in this category". People in the broad mainsteam culture do it fairly regularly as a way of denying the legitimacy of a marginalized identity: "You say you're that specific kind of person but really you're just a normal person who is trying to explain away your behavior or the outcome of it".

In all cases, it erases the full detailed story that the individual is trying to tell, by refusing to acknowledge that it has meaning aside from functioning as an example of a piece of terminology.


= B =

This is not just a case of people being dense or of getting caught up in little things that don't matter. It's political. They're rejecting what is being said because they don't like it, they feel threatened by it, they don't want a wider awareness of this kind of experience or understanding to catch on and they want to shut it down.

A person's choice of their own labels is also political, of course. To label our experience in the first place, in this manner, is to assert that it is part of a larger pattern, and that what we've been through has been the way it has been because of stuff that we have in common with other people who share the same identity-factor, that it is categorical, that it's an aggregate identity and not just our own personal narrative or our own unique personal quirks and traits.

There's always a backdrop, too. One chooses one identity as a way to push away some other identity, a default identity of some sort, that is otherwise constantly being foisted upon one. For example, if there were not a heteronormative expectation no one would need to come out as gay or lesbian. In the absense of being able to identify as gay and be recognized and understood as such, an individual's behavior, if still seen through heteronormative assumptions, looks strange: "Eww, you are so sex-obsessed and so unpicky that you would do perverted things like have erotic experiences with people of the same sex, which is clearly less desirable, so you are therefore a sex maniac and a threat to public decency!" Asserting the different identity (gay) shifts perception by establishing a different norm, a different set of expectations and values for understanding those same behaviors: "Oh, so for you, erotic experiences with the same sex are the desirable ones, so when you're sexually interested at all, that's where it will occur and it doesn't mean you're more sex-obsessed or less picky, you're different".


= C =


Our backdrop includes a world of existing labels, too. But they may not be useful to us, especially because labels that describe people so often bundle together a whole batch of meanings and implications that the person trying to explain their identity needs to untie and separate from each other.

Imagine a female person, perhaps from a previous century, who wants to designate herself as an expert in her field. The male people in her world call themselves "masters" of their subject areas. But "master" is a term that in her time is reserved exclusively for male people. The corresponding term for female use was "mistress". But the two terms have very different connotations, and she finds that saying she is a "Mistress of Science" doesn't convey at all what she wants to express. Perhaps she chooses to refer to herself as a "Master of Science" only to be contradicted by people who tell her that it is inappropriate for her to use the word "master" because it means she is male, and she isn't. The problem is that mastery, in the relevant sense, has been regarded as male, and yet she is. A person possessing mastery. Her choice of the term "Master of Science" is political. It is controversial (or was, once upon a time) because it is political. The people rejecting her entire claim on the basis of not liking her term for herself, that is also political, and their rejection of the entirety of what she's trying to say by focusing exclusively on her choice of term, that's also political: the politics of Not Listening.


———————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts

The Art of the Coming Out Story: Seeking the Sweet Point

A pair of somewhat-recent rejection slips:

It is written in what I will refer to as an "extreme" narrative, i.e. it reads like a diary. The promise of an interesting read on the subject of a young man's struggle to determine his sexuality is never realized because the author lapses into a commentary on his being bullied by those who prey on the "undecided" identity seekers. One thing that makes this interesting is that although the author identifies more as a female, his orientation is clearly heterosexual. Readers may well be inclined to 'slug' through the pity in order to see how his obvious conflicts are resolved. Three stars because it is at best a 'possible."

-- from Black Rose, a small independent publisher

You’ve struck on relevancy with your premise. The story of coming-of-age trans during the 1970’s while battling a prejudice environment is compelling, but there still needs to be a gripping arc to carry the narrative. The characters didn’t come to life for me. I felt more like I was being told events, rather than living them with Derek.

-- from Judith Weber of Sobol Weber, a literary agency


I'm not sure how I can do a better job of making the characters "come to life" and bringing the reader to the point of living events with my main character Derek while at the same time avoiding making it an even more "extreme narrative" that reads "like a diary" in which readers have to "slug through the pity".

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to participate in author's reading events at Amateur Writers of Long Island as described in this earlier blog post. I read a 1500-word excerpt from the 8th-grade chapter early in the book and the other authors gave me much more pleasant feedback than the publishers and lit agents:

Your ability to express your vulnerability is amazing! It flows with ease.

Well-written, strong emotions. Sad, powerful.

Very well written and effective. Keep at it, it's near perfect.

Still, among the rejection letters I've received over the years, there have been two main themes (aside from form letters and short choppy "not for me" replies): that I don't have enough of a platform and that the story doesn't sufficiently grab the reader and draw them in.

We were impressed by The Story of Q's holistic approach to the underwritten topic of growing up queer. However, we struggled to engage emotionally with Derek because of the lack of specificity in prose. For example, it was difficult to understand why, in middle school, Derek found boys' behavior to be "bad" (rather than merely displeasing or disruptive), when Derek had not expressed a desire to be "good" or why Derek was ostracized growing up without knowing how exactly he was teased in each school he attended.

-- Nora Long for / Susan Cohen at Writer's house

I read you query with interest. Your premise is unique and definitely stands out! Unfortunately, the writing style did not draw me into your story's world as much as I would have liked.

-- Johanna Hickle at Talcott Notch


Well, that kind of feedback tends to make me think of perhaps letting go of my self-imposed barriers on manuscript length. Because for any individual event, writing it as a vivid scene with dialog and main-character mental processes and feelings and sound and smells and colors and all that means taking up more words to do it. In a vintage-2014 blog post I explained why. I'm still sure that the story I'm telling is the story I want to tell (as opposed to trying to include less). So the price tag for punching it up further is, at a minimum, to stop worrying about manuscript length and just let it take as many pages (and words) as it takes, you know?

Many of the books I've enjoyed the most have been quite a bit longer than The Story of Q in its present incarnation: Marilyn French's The Women's Room at 135,700 words (526 pages), Marge Piercy's Small Changes at 171,400 words (562 pages), Wally Lamb's She's Come Undone which comes in at 116700 words (465 pages). Mine has hovered around 97,000 words which would probably take up somewhere between 320 and 375 pages. Hmm, I could include a lot more dialog in the scene where the girl from Boston comes to visit and she become the love interest I obsess about... and I could insert some scenes with Boy Scouts illustrating more about how I was sort of not fully merging and kind of holding myself back from them, maybe a scene where the other boys are telling dirty jokes or something, and maybe some scenes at pot parties where I get into philosophical conversations with some of the girls while we're stoned...

But I also looked at some of the classic coming-out stories, to compare for length within the same genre, and that's a bit scary.

Rita Mae Brown's Rubyfruit Jungle ("Bawdy and moving, the ultimate word-of-mouth bestseller, Rubyfruit Jungle is about growing up a lesbian in America--and living happily ever after") is only 246 pages (63,960 words).

The Best Little Boy in the World by Andrew Tobias ("The classic account of growing up gay in America. An autobiography in which he spoke of his experiences as a gay boy and young man. He published it under the pen name "John Reid" to avoid the repercussions of being openly gay") was 247 pages (64,220 words).

Jan Morris wrote Conundrum ("One of the earliest books to discuss transsexuality with honesty and without prurience, tells the story of James Morris’s hidden life and how he decided to bring it into the open, as he resolved first on a hormone treatment and, second, on risky experimental surgery that would turn him into the woman that he truly was.") in a mere 176 pages (45,760 words).

Mario Martino did Emergence ("The autobiography of a female-to-male transsexual, written as a cooperative effort by the author with a medical journalist. It is one individual's story of the transition from female to male") in 273 pages (70,890 words).

The Last Time I Wore a Dress ("At fifteen years old, Daphne Scholinski was committed to a mental institution and awarded the dubious diagnosis of "Gender Identity Disorder." She spent three years--and over a million dollars of insurance--"treating" the problem...with makeup lessons and instructions in how to walk like a girl.") was 224 pages (55,552 words).

Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg ("Woman or man? This internationally acclaimed novel looks at the world through the eyes of Jess Goldberg, a masculine girl growing up in the "Ozzie and Harriet" McCarthy era and coming out as a young butch lesbian in the pre-Stonewall gay drag bars of a blue-collar town") was 308 pages (77,000 words).

And Jennifer Finney Boylan's She's Not There ("The exuberant memoir of a man named James who became a woman named Jenny. She’s Not There is the story of a person changing genders, the story of a person bearing and finally revealing a complex secret; above all, it is a love story") ran to 352 pages (91,520 words).

None of those is quite as long as The Story of Q. Is that worrisome? Relevant? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't make me very comfortable with the notion of making my book yet longer in pursuit of more vivid scenes and paragraphs.

I had two publishers sign contracts to publish this book; I need to remember that and not blame my writing for the rejection slips I get.

I'm looking for the sweet point, where I've laid down the trajectory of experiences I went through that culminated in me deciding I had a different kind of identity than the people around me, and explained that in enough detail and enough emotional vividness to convey that.


————————

This LiveJournal blog is echoed on DreamWidth, WordPress, and Blogger. Please friend/link me from any of those environments on which you have an account.

————————

Index of all Blog Posts