![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because it's relevant to another conversation, and also something I find interesting in it's own right.
Note: This is largely about cis female characters being read as cis male characters in fictional settings where everyone is assumed to be both cis and binary gendered. I think a lot of the ways this issue is discussed erase or belittle trans people (eg I am not a fan of the phrase "man in a dress"), and I hope I haven't done that, I have used "genderswap" a few times because in these settings there are only two genders.
So. I would never describe a female identified person as "effectively male". There are very limited circumstances in which I might describe a female fictional character that way, and none come to mind. And I have seen way too many examples of fans of all genders dismissing female characters for either being "too much like men" or "too much the kind of character men like" (feminine, sexy etc), and in a way which implicitely erases the existence of real life women with similar traits, or at the very least is hurtful to female fans who identify with that female character. For this reason, the phrase "effectively male" or statements like it rub me the wrong way.
But there are many times when I would say about a female character that "they are equivalent to a male character in X respect" or "I felt about them the way I would feel about a male character doing those things", and I know that's all a lot of other people mean when they say a female character is "effectively male".
For example, there are lots of stories where the female protagonist is Not Like Other Girls. She can do all the things men can do, often because of some Special Gift/Upbringing etc, but she and the narrative still dismiss women in general. A lot of Urban Fantasy does this. I don't think of these characters as men, but I often feel like the writer does, and it does stop them from hitting my "yay competent female character" buttons.
Bioware player characters are written as genderless with a few minor male/female differences. This "genderless" writing often feels pretty male, especially since both I and the writers know that most players are men playing male characters. I think of my female PC as a woman when I play, but there are often moments when I go "Ew this was written for a male character and in that context it's gross" eg anything involving punching female NPCs and the dynamic with a lot of the female love interests.
The world of "A Brother's Price" by Wen Spencer is basically a genderflipped patriarchal eurofantasy setting. In it a much older female character seduces a teenage boy. I did not think of her as "really" a man, but I did think of her as equivalent to a man seducing a teenage girl, and it grossed me out way more than a much older female character seducing a teenage boy would in a tradionally sexist setting.
And in general I considered the women in that society to be equivalent to men in ours. Not because women in matriarchies are automatically male, but because (a) it's a useful and familiar rule of thumb for analysing gender dynamics when all you (and the author) have ever known is Patriarchy and (b) the women in this matriarchy weren't just in charge, they behaved like men. I have read about matriarchal societies which didn't feel like a genderflip of Patriarchy, this was not one of them.
So it would make sense to describe a female character in that book as being, say, "A Nice Guy" or say that "they are effectively a prince hitting on some peasant girl". That's maybe not how I would put it, because I am really cautious about that sort of thing, but it's not the same kind of awful as saying, say, "Korra is effectively a dude because she's a butch violent protagonist, so Korra/Asami isn't really femslash" (I have not seen anyone make this exact argument, but I've seen similar)
Speaking of matriarchies, in Mass Effect the all-female alien species the Asari are definitely not genderswapped human men, but there are still times when I think it makes sense to describe one as being equivalent to a male character in a specific narrative, eg Liara's long lost grumpy bartender "father" (the asari term for non child bearing spouse) who left her ex-wife to do all the child rearing.
Getting back to Ancillary Justice (since that inspired this train of thought), you can see us all reacting differently to Seivarden's ambiguous gender, and the gendering of her role in the narrative. Speaking for myself, I sometimes suspected the narrative of seeing her as male but I liked her much more as a woman or non binary gendered so am sticking strongly to that reading unless the series explicitely tells me I'm wrong. And I am not sure how I feel about the idea that she fills a male role in the narrative, and wonder how different our feelings would be if we had not been told early on that she is seen as male by others. But I don't think anyone who reads the book and thinks of her as a man is wrong.
So, yeah. I would not generally say that a female character IS a male character, but I might say she is an awful lot like one in a lot of respects, and can see why other people might be more direct.
(Am I missing something? I fel like I'm missing something. Other POVs appreciated! EDIT: Also, this was inspired by a question about race, but I don't think you can model one very well with the other. Still, getting my thoughts on gender figured out seems like a good place to start)
Note: This is largely about cis female characters being read as cis male characters in fictional settings where everyone is assumed to be both cis and binary gendered. I think a lot of the ways this issue is discussed erase or belittle trans people (eg I am not a fan of the phrase "man in a dress"), and I hope I haven't done that, I have used "genderswap" a few times because in these settings there are only two genders.
So. I would never describe a female identified person as "effectively male". There are very limited circumstances in which I might describe a female fictional character that way, and none come to mind. And I have seen way too many examples of fans of all genders dismissing female characters for either being "too much like men" or "too much the kind of character men like" (feminine, sexy etc), and in a way which implicitely erases the existence of real life women with similar traits, or at the very least is hurtful to female fans who identify with that female character. For this reason, the phrase "effectively male" or statements like it rub me the wrong way.
But there are many times when I would say about a female character that "they are equivalent to a male character in X respect" or "I felt about them the way I would feel about a male character doing those things", and I know that's all a lot of other people mean when they say a female character is "effectively male".
For example, there are lots of stories where the female protagonist is Not Like Other Girls. She can do all the things men can do, often because of some Special Gift/Upbringing etc, but she and the narrative still dismiss women in general. A lot of Urban Fantasy does this. I don't think of these characters as men, but I often feel like the writer does, and it does stop them from hitting my "yay competent female character" buttons.
Bioware player characters are written as genderless with a few minor male/female differences. This "genderless" writing often feels pretty male, especially since both I and the writers know that most players are men playing male characters. I think of my female PC as a woman when I play, but there are often moments when I go "Ew this was written for a male character and in that context it's gross" eg anything involving punching female NPCs and the dynamic with a lot of the female love interests.
The world of "A Brother's Price" by Wen Spencer is basically a genderflipped patriarchal eurofantasy setting. In it a much older female character seduces a teenage boy. I did not think of her as "really" a man, but I did think of her as equivalent to a man seducing a teenage girl, and it grossed me out way more than a much older female character seducing a teenage boy would in a tradionally sexist setting.
And in general I considered the women in that society to be equivalent to men in ours. Not because women in matriarchies are automatically male, but because (a) it's a useful and familiar rule of thumb for analysing gender dynamics when all you (and the author) have ever known is Patriarchy and (b) the women in this matriarchy weren't just in charge, they behaved like men. I have read about matriarchal societies which didn't feel like a genderflip of Patriarchy, this was not one of them.
So it would make sense to describe a female character in that book as being, say, "A Nice Guy" or say that "they are effectively a prince hitting on some peasant girl". That's maybe not how I would put it, because I am really cautious about that sort of thing, but it's not the same kind of awful as saying, say, "Korra is effectively a dude because she's a butch violent protagonist, so Korra/Asami isn't really femslash" (I have not seen anyone make this exact argument, but I've seen similar)
Speaking of matriarchies, in Mass Effect the all-female alien species the Asari are definitely not genderswapped human men, but there are still times when I think it makes sense to describe one as being equivalent to a male character in a specific narrative, eg Liara's long lost grumpy bartender "father" (the asari term for non child bearing spouse) who left her ex-wife to do all the child rearing.
Getting back to Ancillary Justice (since that inspired this train of thought), you can see us all reacting differently to Seivarden's ambiguous gender, and the gendering of her role in the narrative. Speaking for myself, I sometimes suspected the narrative of seeing her as male but I liked her much more as a woman or non binary gendered so am sticking strongly to that reading unless the series explicitely tells me I'm wrong. And I am not sure how I feel about the idea that she fills a male role in the narrative, and wonder how different our feelings would be if we had not been told early on that she is seen as male by others. But I don't think anyone who reads the book and thinks of her as a man is wrong.
So, yeah. I would not generally say that a female character IS a male character, but I might say she is an awful lot like one in a lot of respects, and can see why other people might be more direct.
(Am I missing something? I fel like I'm missing something. Other POVs appreciated! EDIT: Also, this was inspired by a question about race, but I don't think you can model one very well with the other. Still, getting my thoughts on gender figured out seems like a good place to start)
no subject
Er, rant.
Anyway, as to Seivarden in specific, hasn't it been said already that the Radchaai don't have genders? Regardless of how someone from another culture might interpret her body or her behavior, that doesn't mean their opinion means anything.
no subject
The Radchaai don't use gendered pronouns or care MUCH about gender, but it's possible they still have genders or at least gendered presentations, and it's just that Breq sees it as so minor she doesn't bring it up. That's the impression I've gotten from reading some extra things Anne Leckie has said.
"Is" is "is"; "written as" is "written as"
HMMMMmm. True, though I don't see "written as" as inherently a bad thing in and of itself as long as they're not written as bigoted towards or clueless about their own group eg I am actually mostly happy with Bioware's "female" protagonists. But it is a problem that you don't get well written three dimensional complex characters who aren't "written as". Also, I get the feeling this may be more of an issue for race than gender and I am one of the clueless white writers who doesn't get it.
no subject
And, well,
>But it is a problem that you don't get well written three dimensional complex characters who aren't "written as"
isn't that the core for a lot of problems with representation? That there is a trend of underrepresented people only being included with certain specific traits? Of course there are different extents, but it seems patterned along the same line.
no subject
Yeah, true.
The more I think about it the more I realise my issue is not that canon strongly suggest that the Radch recognise gender, but that my understanding of human gender means I feel they must, and for them not to feels like it has unfortunate implications for trans people or anyone who doesn't think their gender identity is purely socially constructed. It comes a bit close to that rad fem idea that gender is inherently awful and we should (and can) all aim to be genderqueer and androgenous, which as a (sometimes) femme leaning woman I find quite upsetting. If the Radch were a genuinely separate society or species it wouldn't feel like an implication about real world humans, but they are made up of exactly the same kinds of people as the gendered societies of that universe.
But you're right, Breq at least really doesn't seem to get gender at all. I think for my own comfort I shall headcanon that as saying more about her (and ships) than the Radch in general but I admit that's as much headcanon as canon.
no subject
I see. So here's how I see it: gender identities are personal, but gender systems are, pretty much by definition, socially constructed -- there are societies in the real world that have three genders or more, and they're also "made up of exactly the same kinds of people as the [two-]gendered societies of [our] universe", right?
It doesn't mean that the Radchaai are right or that all Radchaai are genderless or that humans are or should be genderless by default, it just means that the Radchaai gender system is flattened, trivialized so thoroughly that a locally omnipresent ship responsible for the well-being of her people wouldn't have any reason to understand it, or nonexistent.
No gender system fully captures the identity of every individual in its purview -- it would strain belief, especially considering the amount of cross-cultural exposure that would make them aware of alternative models, if the Radchaai gender (non)system adequately described every Radchaai person.
no subject
HMMMMMM that makes sense. Hmmmmmmm. This conversation is making me realise I'm standing on the edge of a great bit empty spot in my brain where a proper understanding of gender should be. Because I know other cultures have geneuinely different conceptions of gender intellectually but I don't really get it, or understand the way people's gender identities react to the mixing of cultures with different frameworks. Especially in a big complicated melting pot colonised empire like the Radch.
I do find it interesting that Breq sees it as other cultures having bizarre gender practices that the Radch are confused by but politely accept, when in all other respects she's very aware of a pressure to conform to Radch cultural norms. Maybe it's like religion, as long as you tick the boxes of Radch gender roles (or lack thereof) you're allowed to follow your own as well.
Maybe that's what bugs me: that Breq treats it as a given that the Radch way is the most logical and the narrative doesn't seem to question it the way it does other times Radch norms are taken as given. Breq being so baffled by gender makes for a fantastic gender-neutral first person narrator, but hmmm. It feels sometimes like the narrative agreeing with her going "lol gender roles whatever" in a way it doesn't about religion, attitudes to tea etc. But I need to think about this some more!
EDIT: and there is a fair chance I will think about this some more, look back and decide I am off base. Thanks for your very thoughtful comments they've shaken loose some interesting things in my brain.
no subject
So, Leckie's work has managed to create a gender-neutral society in my head.
no subject
nods
I do still think about the character's genders, but that probably says more about me than the book.