So I’ve been poring over the numerous responses that I’ve received on this article.
Julia Serano
657

I think that you could do an excellent job writing an article for one of the more mainstream journals/magazines, if you want to. I think, however, that from the perspective of editing a piece by someone who has direct experience with a subject, as you do, your writing would be more effective if you spoke directly about your experiences. You can use sarcasm as a tone if the editors think that will resonate, but it’s been my experience that mainstream sources prefer a more “objective” voice. The entire idea of “objectivity” is contentious, of course, and it’s part of what you’re fighting against (but this is another of many extremely complicated subjects fought in the trenches of academia every day). From my perspective, having worked in academia and dealt with PC issues for many years, the voice that is authorized to speak (by the powers-on-high) fluctuates. As social movements change attitudes towards a subject, the subject itself shifts to respond to, and reflect, those changes. Eventually trans people will have to be recognized officially, if that is indeed where their power “needs” to come from. I do think that every time we authorize the current authority structure by bowing down to its tenets, we fail to disrupt the norms we were raised with. It’s only when you allow Authority to define you that you become marginalized, because you’re using their definitions, their rhetoric, their ideas, to construct you, rather than constructing yourself and defining yourself. I prefer to continue coloring outside their lines, at least some of the time.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.