Language Disability

Discussing "non-normative" gender is about as easy as writing good poetry in a language you haven't mastered: you know just what you want to say, but you just don't have the linguistic ability to say it! Lately I have been frustrated in my writing attempts by the feeling that I need to qualify every sentence with a one-page footnote explaining why my word choice is actually problematic. You simply cannot write an academic paper that way, no matter who your professor is! But trying to define concepts whose definitions are all problematized in your field of study, or discuss categories whose boundaries are sites of never-ending, politicized and publicized border wars is like groping for solid ground in a murky, mucky swamp. I have written and re-written sentence after sentence, and constantly aware of how each version is so loaded with preconceived notions that I couldn't possibly submit it for the thoughtful consideration of another human being, I've had to keep scrapping every attempt to say something clear and meaningful.

The only way to say something clear and meaningful is to turn the discussion to how these terms and their concepts are problematic. That discussion has been going on for some time, and some people have become quite good at telling us just how problematic all the words are. My favorite voice in this discussion is Riki Anne Wilchins, who mixes biting commentary with incredible insight and jaw-dropping humor. Riki has her own blog, several books and published articles, and her own organization that focuses on gender activism. She referrences French philosopher Michel Foucault and feminist/queer theorist Judith Butler often enough that I feel like I know their work even though I've yet to make it through a complete book by either of them (they require their own special academic decoder ring, and mine hasn't arrived yet).

As much as I love Riki Wilchins' work, I want to say something else, to take the conversation in a different direction. The problem is that I can no longer discuss gender in conventional ways, nor can I expect that my readers - be they blog readers, professors grading my papers, or friends reading my MySpace or Facebook posts - will know anything about what Wilchins, Foucault, or Butler have said. Worse, they may know just enough to catch me up if I'm not careful enough with each and every word, if I don't explain in a footnote a concept they haven't yet encountered. Am I to rehash all that has gone before every time I open my mouth? Do I, out of convenience, revert to less complex, more widely understood conceptions of sex, gender, sexuality, and gendered behavior? If I simply continue the conversation from the point where I am at, ignoring the possible ignorance of my audience, will I need to start handing out my own specialized decoder rings, or gender-theorist-to-English dictionaries?

Butler and Foucault have a different audience than I do. Their writing is meant for those already well into the field and well-versed in the discussion. My audience is almost never those people. Wilchins has done a great job of translating and expanding the academic discourse on gender for the general populace. Perhaps I should just attach copies of her work to everything I do! Add a warning label: Warning! Do not attempt comprehension of enclosed material without first reading the following books by Riki Anne Wilchins! Somehow, I don't think that will go over well with my professors.

Plan for a future project: creat a short, distilled synopsis of everything I have learned about gender. Make copies. Use it like a literature review, to contextualize whatever it is I have to say.