Source
r/GCdebatesQT•
CannotIntoGender

Question about QT and the relationship between identity and oppression/marginalization

Some QT scholars that there is no essential self and that identity is constructed by repeatedly performing actions that reinforce identity. The idea that there is no essential self is not exclusive to QT; in fact as far as I am aware it is mutually exclusive to GC, at least when it comes to internal landscape. Another philosophy that holds that there is no essential self is, from my understanding, Bhuddist thought. Some believe that overcoming the illusion of separate self can free people from suffering and reflects a more enlightened state of mind.

My little dumbass thought experiment posits that such an enlightened person, who in their day to day life does not experience a sense of separate identity, would still be oppressed or marginalized based on material conditions, regardless of their enlightened mental state. They could be discriminated against based on race or sex or sexual orientation or trans status or intersex status or medical condition or disability. Additionally, they could be discriminated against based on things like religious practice or being gender non-conforming. They could also face persecution based on political expression. You get the picture.

So: does this example demonstrate the irrelevance of identity to oppression and marginalization? What do you think?

Posted Aug 30, 2019, 6:16 AM UTC

108
Hypocritical-Cunt•

The thought experiment only holds if you only follow Buddhist philosophy halfway, though.

Nirvana is not a state that individual people achieve and then they, personally, are enlightened individuals. That’s a very western conception of Buddhism, similar to how the Buddha is often posited as a god — we’re trying to make it fit our conception of religion. If you have achieved nirvana, there is no self to be oppressed — there is no oppressive force separate from an oppressed force, everything is empty. Clinging to the idea of an oppressed/oppressor dichotomy is a cause of suffering, just as clinging to the idea of self is.

So it’s not really a meaningful argument unless you already think Buddhism is bullshit and are going to dismiss many of its fundamental claims in order to make it work. (Which is not to say that you’re wrong about the conclusions you draw. Only that I don’t think this is a persuasive argument.)

7
CannotIntoGenderOPSome of my best friends are man people.•

Whether or not you agree with bhuddist thought is aside the point. The point is that this hypothetical person does not regularly experience essential self identity.

2
Hypocritical-Cunt•

They also don’t experience discrimination. There is no “they.”

Either they have an identity and experience discrimination, because you reject Buddhist thought, or they have neither, because you accept it.

It’s not beside the point. The experiment doesn’t function because of it.

2
CannotIntoGenderOPSome of my best friends are man people.•

Whether or not Bhuddist philosophy is correct is completely aside the point, I just used it as an example. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it so as not to confuse people.

The question is "someone who does not experience a sense of self identity can be subjected to treatment that would generally be considered marginalization/oppression by others; what is the implication for queer theory?"

1
qualifiedaccount•

Aight but I thought that being transgender requiers gender identity

But that people don't read your mind and that you're discriminated based on what people can actually see is true, is this somehow controversial?

5
CannotIntoGenderOPSome of my best friends are man people.•

Someone who is medically transitioning is likely to face discrimination because of it, regardless of how they describe themself and their subjective experiences of dysphoria and transition. And I think most people would consider someone who is transitioning to be trans.

I don't think it should be controversial but a lot of people stifle discussion of biological and gendered socialization because it doesn't rely on identity. Any discussion about oppression/marginalization that isn't about how identities are oppressed/marginalized is terfy and evil -_-

5
villanelle23eve•

Yeah, that seems problematic. There's not much difference between expressions of indoctrinated gender and performances of gender identity. It should be allowed to analyze that.

2
CannotIntoGenderOPSome of my best friends are man people.•

Yeah I agree.

1
villanelle23eve•

I think so. I think it's important to note that it's possible to conceptualize identity as having a role in all oppression, on a societal level. For example, you can be a certain race, but it's society that gives that race meaning, and constructs a golem of an identity, that then can be used to discriminate against you.

Some identities are easier to crush than others, for example race. Others, like disabilities have more of a material reality. In that case, even if the whole world was identity politics free and egalitarian, disabled people would still be at a disadvantage and therefore would be discriminated against. Even if we got rid of all inequality, physical situations would occur, and emotions and reactions would arise, that would cause discrimination based on physical grounds. That's why feminism is so circular.

2
CannotIntoGenderOPSome of my best friends are man people.•

I think so. I think it's important to note that it's possible to conceptualize identity as having a role in all oppression, on a societal level. For example, you can be a certain race, but it's society that gives that race meaning, and constructs a golem of an identity, that then can be used to discriminate against you.

Yeah, my point is more that someone's subjective experience of identity isn't what matters. In these cases as you say it's society influencing someone that is the key.

​

Some identities are easier to crush than others, for example race. Others, like disabilities have more of a material reality.

Yeah race is weird because different physical features are materially real but the whole idea of race is just socially made up.

In that case, even if the whole world was identity politics free and egalitarian, disabled people would still be at a disadvantage and therefore would be discriminated against. Even if we got rid of all inequality, physical situations would occur, and emotions and reactions would arise, that would cause discrimination based on physical grounds. That's why feminism is so circular.

I agree.

1