I tried to leave 2 replies and I think they might have replaced each other, oops
But I was thinking about how you would express this and I ended up finding
and the symbol latin symbol ‘vel’ as in -> “A
B ” which then would be a typographic representation of a venn diagram! and expresses a situation in which the outcome is true if either or both A or B are true, so one could say “Women∨Trans*” and have either or both identities still included. I thought someone also suggested something like “FAAB∨Trans*” which might connote something somewhat different and speak less to a claimed identity but I’m curious of your thoughts?
But thats where I was saying that It seemed really important for there to be a way to describe this kind of unifying situation that includes without enforcing any ideas about there certain default for any of the terms, and given a wider recognition the ‘vel’ might be a nice symbol since even visually it seems to express a kind of branching unity ‹3
this might spur me into a downwards spiral of trying to figure out the Logical Connectives of identity politics….
Thanks! This is so awesome! It’s exactly what I was talking about with using math-logic “or.” We could also use set notation; maybe more people know that?
I know that if I were using this type of notation to indicate who was welcome in a space, I would be more likely to say “women V trans* people” because I know that there are women who were assigned male at birth and who do not necessarily feel connected to a trans* identity and who should be welcomed into such a space, whereas I would kind of wonder what someone who was assigned female at birth and did not identify as a woman or somewhere under the trans umbrella would want with such a space; I mean, I’d bet there’re a couple folks out there by that description who do want in, but I imagine that they, like the rest of us whose identities are consistently relegated to the “etc.” part of any description, are used to understanding themselves to be intended welcome or intended unwelcome depending on the circumstances rather than the shorthand.
I know that as a non-woman-identified person who feels most at home in women’s spaces, I find it important to check in with every new women’s space that I approach that it’s ok that I be there. I make sure to find out which genders they intend to welcome into the space and what they’re doing that would make gendered exclusions valuable, and I let them know why I feel I deserve access to the space. I am not a woman, and I understand that this means that I should have to initially (though not continually) make a case for why I belong in women’s space. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that someone of any body or body history who does not identify as a woman and/or as trans* and wants access to a space dedicated to women V trans* people might feel as though they should approach said space similarly.