Tweet
There is a fruit called apple. As a term, apple has dictionary meaning, to include:
- the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
- the tree, cultivated in most temperate regions.
- the fruit of any of certain other species of tree of the same genus.
- any of these trees.
- any of various other similar fruits, or fruitlike products or plants, as the custard apple, love apple, May apple, or oak apple.
There are there are few kinds and dozens of types of apples. In a broad sense, there are red apples, yellow apples, green apples, and apples that are multicolored. In a more micro sense, there’s specific types of apples you’ve likely heard of (e.g. Pippin, Red Delicious, Fuji, and Granny Smith apples), and specific types of apples that unless you’re a real connoisseur of apples, you’ve likely never heard of (e.g. Pixie Crunch, Belle de Boskoop, Queen Cox, and Thome Empire apples).
But we have an overarching term for that red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family, and that term is apple.
But what if we didn’t have an overarching term for apple? What if we considered each type of a completely unique type of fruit that had nothing to do with the other kinds and types of apples?
Welcome to the world of people who don’t conform to western societal sex and gender norms, exclusive of non-heterosexual sexual orientation, we don’t have an overarching term equivalent to the term apple.
Oh, we have the term transgender that is meant to encompass a broad spectrum of identities under an umbrella term, but the reality is that just as every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified person doesn’t identify as a member of LGBT community — for a myriad of reasons — not everyone who could fall under the umbrella term transgender identifies as transgender — also for a myriad of reasons.
We have genderqueer people; we have crossdressers; we have drag performers, and we have intersex people — many embrace the term transgender for themselves, but many do not. We can’t sort apples as red apples, yellow apples, green apples, and apples that are multicolored if they’re we can’t call these fruits of various colors apples.
Heck, even transsexual is an umbrella term that not everyone who could fall under the term embraces. There are people who see themselves as pre-operative transsexuals, non-operative transsexuals, post-operative transsexuals, women of operative history, ‘true’ transsexuals, etc., as well as women who identify with the term “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” — many who could fall under the term transsexual embraces the term transsexual for themselves, and many do not.
We have a variety of pippin apples: Newtown Pippin, Beverley Pippin, Cox’s Orange Pippin, and Galloway Pippin for example. But, imagine if we not only couldn’t sort these apples as red apples, yellow apples, green apples, and apples that are multicolored, but we couldn’t even sort these particular apples as pippins. This is what we have for categorizing people into subgroups who don’t conform to western societal sex and gender norms regarding what sex they were assigned at birth and the gender identity to which they know themselves to be.
Now imagine trying to collect data on apples without the overarching term apple. Heck, imagine trying to collect data on apples without terms like red, yellow, green, and pippin being useful.
What it comes down to is that for those who don’t conform to western societal sex and gender norms, exclusive of non-heterosexual sexual orientation, we don’t have a word for apple.
And even if we did have a word for apple, the apples would reject the term out of hand.
10 Comments
Hi Autumn
I always respect your posts – Pam’s Houseblend is one of the few sites that regularly includes posts by a transperson. My wife is trans (we recently celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary) and today she had her SRS to complete her transition. She is not just an apple, she is the brightest in the bushel!
Although we are in Ireland, I want to thank you for helping not only to understand and come to terms with who she is, but for standing up for trans rights everywhere.
Helen in Ireland
Thanks Helen. I appreciate the thoughts. =)
And congrats on the long-lasting, wonderful relationship! =)
I am *so* going to get you for stealing my apples bit, Autumn.
Somehow, somewhere…
At least Autumn didn’t run off with your aguacates.
Apples aren’t good for those of us with high blood sugar.
Seriously? You’ve posted on this?
Wow. This was written completely independent of whatever you’ve said or written on apples and trans terminology. Seriously, I’ve never seen the apple and trans terminology posted on the web before.
This must be a case of great minds thinking alike! …But at the same time, it feels pretty creepy weird that we both apparently have drawn the same parallel without comparing notes.
As usual, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here:
And when they did, it would be our responsibility to listen to the language they had for themselves, and try to understand why they’ve parsed it that way. If society was given license to just name everything arbitrarily according to the majority, I’d still be “halfbreed,” instead of “Métis.”
Defining the language implies a kind of ownership, or at least an authority to define the experience that the word describes.
While I don’t buy into the repudiate-everyone mentality of “separatism,” I do think that this is an area where we seriously need to reassess our activism. Ironically, I believe that gender diverse people are just as erased and harmed by single-naming / single-representation as anyone else (or even moreso, since it is most often a transsexual-specific — or even transsexual female specific — representation that is discussed with legislators and / or in the public eye).
Hi Autumn, I think we’re discussing “apples” and “oranges.”
To the extent we’re talking about *classifications,* it doesn’t matter how the individuals identify – if they have the defined characteristics, they fit the classification.
TO the extent we’re talking about *identities,* that’s a completely diferent subject – and while someopne may well fit in a classification, they may not *identify* as having a membership in the group. (I will define classifications as make sense, but will also respect an individual’s honest self-identification.)
Even with classifications – the classifications themselves are only as good as the definitions that are used. There are more different, confusing and conflicting definitions for the terms that we use, that it becomes nearly impossible to communicate without indicating which definition one is using – and even then, there are people who will ignore the stated definition and react as if *their* particular definition of the term is being used.
For example, much of the time, when I define “transgender” I include anyone whose gender identity (“Sex identity” for those who think of gender as performance) is different from that associated with the sex assigned at birth.
This definition leaves out gay men who identiofy as men, but who do drag, and it leaves out those crossdressers whose crossdressing is motivatated by clothing as a sex object (fetish) and do not have a gender identity at variance with their assigned sex. The definition includes everyone who might be classified as transssexual, even those who see themselves as post-transsexual.
Other definitions could vary the population covered under the definition.
Taking another example, both the Roman Catholic Church and radical feminists define male on the basis of a certain form of birth genital essentialism – male, to them, includes all persons who were born with a penis, who will under their definition always be male.
Definitions should not eb arbitrary – but unfortunately, it’s difficult sometimes to perceive where a definition is arbitrary.
In 1965, for example, the Roman Catholic/radical feminist definition of male is likely to have been commonly accepted. Today, a mass of scoientific evidence suggests that this definition is unacceptable.
My definition of transgender seems to be just fine to me – but there may well be a further nuance that might be required, or material fact that is missing.
Still – classifications can be “apples” while identity gets to be “oranges” – the fruit (or creatures) we classify don’t have an opinion as to where they fit in – people do.
Joann said
“For example, much of the time, when I define “transgender” I include anyone whose gender identity (“Sex identity” for those who think of gender as performance) is different from that associated with the sex assigned at birth.
This definition leaves out gay men who identiofy as men, but who do drag, and it leaves out those crossdressers whose crossdressing is motivatated by clothing as a sex object (fetish) and do not have a gender identity at variance with their assigned sex. The definition includes everyone who might be classified as transssexual, even those who see themselves as post-transsexual.”
You probably already know that we are dealing with a continuous spectrum and not individual lines using a physics analogy.
I use as a definition for transgender anything that is non-traditional gender identity, expression, presentation and more. The traits are transgender traits, but a person can identify as transgender or not. A feminine gay man may have transgender traits, but not be transgender. And it always is up to the individual to decide if they are transgender or not. I would not make judgement on a crossdresser who does it for fetish, because it may be more than just a fetish, and the person may not realize why they do it completely.
But that then is my feminine gender expression at work, inclusion, make people feel welcome, give them a safe place.
Deanna
LOL.
For about two years, now. Possibly longer.
IIRC, the first time I used it, in fact, was on one of your posts, in response to someone.
Which isn’t a big deal. It is an excellent analogy that allows one to escape the traps that come.
I’ll seriously worry if you suddenly wake up one day and realize that identity is a zero sum game — ever reducible, and that it is distinct from a the entirely voluntary association of social affinity.
But then, I’ve been talking about that even longer.