I guess I just have trouble separating the concept of "appropriation" from policing someone's identity, in the same way I have trouble separating the concept of "feminism" from silencing male rape victims. It's probably because of the arguments that I've been in.
I think the harm comes not from what one chooses to identify as, but who one silences. The harm done by acts of appropriation, I think, is when they silence those who were born with or otherwise compelled to have a given identity, and set up the appropriator(s) as the new arbiter of what this identity means as though the others no longer exist.
Meanwhile, I think that it's also an act of appropriation to claim that somebody else cannot identify as something. Not that this other person does not speak for all X'es, but that this person is not an X, period. Even when there's a reason or definition behind it, it's still an act of negation against someone compelled to have an identity; like saying "Therians aren't animals because they're biologically human," or "Mormons aren't Christian because they don't worship our version of Jesus."
Maybe sometimes that correction is necessary, like when you're pointing out that the Mormon church's institutional focus on power and wealth (and its vicious anti-gay campaigns) are grossly incongruous with what the historical Jesus taught. Or it could even lead to discussion, like about how a therian feels that they actually are an animal because (whichever belief they have). But a lot of the time I see it used to just silence someone, and the place that that seems to come from is one that says "I want to be special, and danged if I'm going to let you take my specialness from me."
That's the kind of thing that leads to oppression olympics and groups turning on each other, I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-09-16 12:23 am (UTC)I think the harm comes not from what one chooses to identify as, but who one silences. The harm done by acts of appropriation, I think, is when they silence those who were born with or otherwise compelled to have a given identity, and set up the appropriator(s) as the new arbiter of what this identity means as though the others no longer exist.
Meanwhile, I think that it's also an act of appropriation to claim that somebody else cannot identify as something. Not that this other person does not speak for all X'es, but that this person is not an X, period. Even when there's a reason or definition behind it, it's still an act of negation against someone compelled to have an identity; like saying "Therians aren't animals because they're biologically human," or "Mormons aren't Christian because they don't worship our version of Jesus."
Maybe sometimes that correction is necessary, like when you're pointing out that the Mormon church's institutional focus on power and wealth (and its vicious anti-gay campaigns) are grossly incongruous with what the historical Jesus taught. Or it could even lead to discussion, like about how a therian feels that they actually are an animal because (whichever belief they have). But a lot of the time I see it used to just silence someone, and the place that that seems to come from is one that says "I want to be special, and danged if I'm going to let you take my specialness from me."
That's the kind of thing that leads to oppression olympics and groups turning on each other, I think.