Feminism and Anti-Trans Sentiment

After a certain rant published in the Observer, there has been a flare-up of what is seen to be an animosity between transwomen and feminists (as if these two groups can be lumped into two monolithic rivals...), stemming from outright transphobic sentiment from feminists. I'd like to start with saying that I see people as individuals, and judging them on gender expression is pretty much never going to be something that I do. I judge people on whether or not they are nice to others, and that's about it. 

Feminism was supposed to be about creating a world in which men and women were truly equal, and while there have certainly been an improvement in many societies, the world is still not an equal place, not even in countries where women are legally equals, and therefore our battles are not done. Part of what feminism has fought for is seeing women as people, and not pigeonholing them by their genitals, so it seems exceedingly hypocritical when people who call themselves feminists go around pigeonholing others according to their genitals. 

To the feminists who are quite a way outside stereotypical gendered behaviour:

On this blog I often write about stereotypically "feminine" things like dresses and makeup, fashion, etc. These are only some of my interests, and a lot more of my interests are things that are traditionally "masculine", and I know very well what it is like to be mocked, bullied, and ostracised by other women for not being girly enough, and treated badly by men for the same 'reason', and I know what it's like to have abuse hurled at me in the street for not presenting as "feminine" enough for the standards of lowlife drunks. 

{It was only a few days ago that I had "Oi! Mosher! F**k off you lesbo dyke, f**k off out of town, we don't want your kind, you aren't even f**king FEMALE" shouted at me by a gang of yobs in the town centre because I happen to prefer combat trousers, army boots, a trench-coat and a short hair-style to the short skirts, high heels, and long blonde-hair worn by many party-goers that January Friday night. I was also still listening when the same yobs shouted lewd sexual comments at the girls in heels and short skirts...}

I know that it hurts when you're on the receiving end of the prejudice against those who do not conform to gender stereotypes, but the existence of transgender people does not somehow confirm these insults to be right, and it is not another attempt to say that you, as a non-stereotypical woman, ought to go become a man, because women aren't supposed to be like that. It is the way some others want to lives, and it is not an attack against yours. 

To feminists in general:

If someone born in a biologically male-sexed body has surgery or uses other means to alter that body into one with female appearance, and live life as a woman, then they are going to receive a lot of the nasty inequalities aimed at women, as well as the prejudices that exist against transgender people. I can see why they'd want to join in with the feminist cause. Actually, I can see why any logical thinking person would want join in with the feminist cause; because anyone with any shred of empathy would realise that a world in which half the population are treated differently and as inferior to the other half is wrong. On a lot of feminist issues, whether someone is cis-gendered or trans-gendered should only really matter to their doctors and has no impact on the debate. Yes, there are certain health issues that can only affect cis-gendered women, and that things like reproductive rights issues are going to be particularly important to women who can get pregnant, but to outcast transgendered women from feminism because of this is equal to saying that cis-gendered women who have had hysterectomies, or are sterile, or whatever, cannot partake in feminism. 

Spend less time arguing about who does and does not get to be a feminist, and spend more time making the world a fairer place. Being mean to somebody else is not doing anything helpful to make others not be mean to you; this is playground stuff, I shouldn't have to explain it outside of work.

Oh, and never, ever get into the whole 'suffering Olympics' of trying to rank each other's woes and out-woe each other. Everyone's experiences are unique, and the amount of negativity they will get for being a certain minority will vary due to various factors. Really, this sort of behaviour is just pointless attempts at point-scoring. 

Goth, Definitions and Inclusivity vs. Elitism

Today I ended up in a rather involved and passionate debate over what it takes to be a Goth.

The term Goth, or any other label, exists to summarise interests in terms of describing an aesthetic, a musical genre, and participation of a subculture.  In terms of the word 'Goth' describing a level of participation in the subculture, to me  there is a sort of Goth 'triumvirate' of aspects (I know that the word triumvirate refers usually to three leading people) - a Goth is someone that is interested in Goth music, admires the Goth aesthetic (including fashion) and has the broader mindset and lifestyle. A Goth is someone who is involved in all three aspects. Some believe that the term Goth can apply to someone who is involved in only two of  the three. I know that what does and does not constitute the music, lifestyle or aesthetic is up for enough debate, let alone the level of involvement it takes to call oneself a Goth, and that each Goth probably has their own standards, but that is the definition I use. 

What I actually want to talk about is not so much where to draw the line, but how that line is used in the subculture.

It seems that in attempts to be very inclusive of people with a variety of interests, all sorts of things that are not actually Goth, and sometimes not even alternative or dark, get lumped under the term, as do other subcultures such as Steampunk and Lolita. I have no problem with being accepting of people with interests in Goth and other subcultures, people who have hybrid subcultural affiliation, and other forms of subcultural and cultural cross-polination, but for the term Goth to remain a useful description, it needs to have some sort of definition. One does not need to say, for example "oh, Gothic Lolita is Goth" or some such in order to socially accept Gothic Lolitas. All that does is muddy the waters and make it more difficult for people to communicate their actual interest - the proliferation of terms has coincided with the proliferation of hybrid subcultures, new subcultures and    , with the rise of the internet, a globally connected alternative scene where people want to communicate with and connect to people with similar interests. If the term 'Goth' becomes too broad, it stops signifying a reasonable amount of potential interests and becomes vague. 

The biggest issue, though, is the imaginary correlation between Goth-ness and acceptance, and a concept that how Goth someone is equates to how cool, or how pretty, or how interesting, or how nice they are as a person or a whole load of other equally unrelated assumptions and non-existent relationships between terms.  If you accept or reject people purely on how close they stick to a label, then you are probably a very shallow person indeed - people are a lot more than the sum of their music collection,  clothes and interests. There is nothing wrong with being a metalhead that likes Goth fashion, or a Gothic Lolita that likes Goth music, and just using terms like those to describe it should not mean a lack of acceptance by the groups involved, but sadly it seems that some people feel that unless they are 'true Goths' they can't have acceptance, and equally, there are people who would have Goth as an isolated subculture exclusively for participation in by those who are, to them, 'true Goths'. Surely we should be open-minded and accepting enough for it not to matter how Goth someone is? 

There seems to be a confusion between the exclusivity inherent in a term that describe something - as for a term to be a valid description a word does have to exclude certain things,  for example the word purple does not mean pink, red or blue, it only means purple; pink and, red and blue not being purple doesn't make those other colours any less colourful, it just makes them not purple - and a sense of exclusivity in terms of a closed club for only certain people. People should be able to freely participate in the subculture at any level they choose, from an interest in only certain aspects of it, to living as a Goth for all 24 hours of every day, all seven days of every week and all 365 (or 366) days of every year, and do so without judgement. It is far more important for people to be true to themselves than it is for them to adhere to a label. Goth is not an exclusive club or a clique; it is a descriptive term; there is no value judgement to it. It is open to participation by anybody interested, and people can participate at a variety of different levels and contribute in a variety of ways. 

Acceptance of non-Goths with an interest in the subculture should not be a case of "You're not goth enough, but I still like you" as if whether or not liking someone has ANY RELEVANCE to how much they participate in the subculture, on what level, and in what manner. Those things ARE NOT RELATED, or at least should not be. It is creating some kind of relationship between acceptance and aesthetic/musical preference/lifestyle that I see as the problem. You can like someone who does not have all the exact same interests as you do, and you can despise someone who does - there are certainly people who share a huge amount of common interests with, but whom I cannot stand (and sometimes wish I could hit over the head with a sturdy cane...).

If it was not for the term 'Goth' being used for the purposes of creating social boundaries, we'd be discussing what musical techniques define the sound in musical terms, or what artistic movements have contributed and how the visual aesthetic can be described, or some such instead of discussing elitism and exclusivity. To me, Goth is something akin to Romanticism; a creative movement, something defined by a musical and visual aesthetic and way of looking at the world, and therefore, ultimately something like Romanticism or Impressionism. Nobody argues over whether the definitions of either are elitist (or at least not anywhere I come across) because as historical movements of times past, the terms mean little in terms of social inclusion or acceptance in the present day (says someone who calls herself a latter-day Romantic) and thus people feel much freer to define them by specific aesthetic, musical, literary and philosophical styles and differences. 

It is time that elitism within Goth dissipates, and that people feel free to clear about their interests, and to admit their extra-subcultural interests, or a desire not partake in certain aspects, without people judging them as somehow lesser for not being Goth enough. Such shallowness breeds a feeling that it is somehow  not right to explore or other paths, or to admit that for example, one likes the fashion but not the music. There is nothing inherently wrong in liking Goth fashion but preferring say, folk music. It might not be Goth music, but if the person is happy listening to it, then there is no issue. There is far more of an issue when people force themselves to adhere to a certain subculture against their own preferences in order to feel accepted. 

Goth, Sub-Genres and Boundaries

I don't think Goth should be cliquish, or that it is at all wrong to use 'Goth' as a label if you like things that are outside the scope of the original 1980's subculture as well as things that are. If you're into commonly overlapping groups like Cyber/EBM, Japanese fashion, Metal, etc. or into completely not-usually-associated-with-goth hobbies like rambling, cookery, various sports, etc. it does not mean you should suddenly have your ability to call yourself 'Goth' revoked, after all, if someone is trying to fit themselves in a narrow box by avoiding all activities outside it as well as actively doing all those things within it, they are not being themselves at all, and being yourself is far more important than being Goth or not being Goth. 

Nobody should try to be Goth, they either like that sort of thing, or they don't, and that is all that should be to it. A lot of people get pressure from outside the Gothic community to try and be "normal" and the last thing they need is to get pressure from inside the Gothic community trying to force them down someone else's definition of Goth. Nobody has the right to dictate another person's taste, regardless of decades in the subculture. Also, anyone who has been in the subculture since the 1980's should have the emotional maturity becoming to their age and know better than to mock people for liking bands or fashion outside their tastes, and even if they don't think it truly Goth, they should approach the subject in a positive way (e.g encouraging people to listen to Sisters of Mercy or Bauhaus) instead of a judgemental way. This is common politeness, and no matter how Punk you are, there is a place for it. 

Goth has changed over the last 30-ish years, and it has changed a lot, and become an umbrella term for a lot of darker forms of self-expression, and it has mingled with other subcultures, like Visual Kei/J-Rock, and Lolita, and Metal, and while all these groups are different subcultures in their own right, and always will be, they have had an impact on Goth, and personally, I think it is this diversity that is keeping the subculture alive. Goth has gone from being the fans of a small group of bands from the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's and become a broad, vibrant movement, an umbrella under which people can be their own dark selves, and find avenues to explore. Goth has grown, and this is no bad thing - an influx of new music that doesn't sound like the Post-Punk or Deathrock of the 1980s does not mean that people will stop listening to the original bands, it just means that they'll listen to other things too. These new bands are not calling themselves Goth (not that the original bands called themselves that); they are calling themselves Gothic Metal, or Dark Cabaret or Industrial or EBM, and are making no claims on the original subculture. What they are, though, is influenced by the original subculture and influencing the current subculture as it grows. 

Goth, after all, is a mere label that summarises a person's tastes, fashion and lifestyle, it is a name for a broad subculture that is as diverse as its members, and it has never, and will never, be a line in the sand on one side of which is Goth and on the other side of which is everything else. The boundaries of what is and isn't Goth are different for every single Goth, and while there are some that are approximately agreed on, those areas are fuzzy and indistinct. 

A lot of people who from the outside are clearly Goth renounce the name, and I think it is partly from this pressure from certain sections of the Goth community to adhere to certain criteria. If you stop calling yourself Goth, you're free to like all the Goth things you previously enjoyed, and yet are at liberty to enjoy anything else too, as you are no longer under pressure to stay within the bounds of Goth. This situation, though, should not arise. Goth should not be a limiting pigeon-hole, it should be an accepting community of dark outsiders, individuals who are outside the mainstream and drawn towards more morbid and unusual artistic expression, especially music and fashion. 

There is also an external pressure on professionally Goth members of the subculture - Goth has been identified as a target market, a demographic to sell to, and therefore it is in the commercial interest to pander to an interpretation of that market (and it is only an interpretation because it is coming from outside) and so, as a professionally Goth person or group, for example a band, get more popular, they will come under pressure from those financially involved to stick to a certain brand (or band) image that they assume will be popular and keep fans loyal.  Unfortunately this can very easily lead to either selling out or becoming bland and thus being totally counter-productive, or switching target audience to babybats. 

What motivates people to be militant about the boundaries of the subculture mystifies me. Received wisdom is that it is fuelled by their own insecurities as regards their subcultural identities, but I'm not sure  this really true. I don't think that the arguments over what is and isn't Goth and the judgement of people as their status of Goth or Not Goth is that simple. I think some of it is to do with how broad the subculture has got, and how a lot of people who are very different indeed from the original subculture (e.g cybergoths) identify as Goth, and this isn't something that people who have big hair and danced to strains of The Sisters of Mercy in the '80s do not recognise as part of what they know as their subculture. One thing that should be noted when it comes to these less traditional manifestations of the subculture is that someone who is dressed up as a Cybergoth and dancing to T3RR0R 3RR0R might also be fond of back-combing their hair and dancing to Siouxsie and The Banshees - they are not mutually exclusive. 

One very important, and probably obvious point that I shouldn't have to mention but sadly do, is that just because someone doesn't like a band, brand, shop, item of clothing, etc. that does not impact whether or not it is "Goth" or whether or not someone else should like it or think it is good. Opinions are not absolute truth. 

What IS Goth?

I think one of the most common questions I get are those of "What is this whole "Goth" thing" as it seems that people  tend to either know of shock stories in tabloids and gossip magazines or just see these strange-looking people in a lot of black and metal walking around and are understandably curious.  There are already numerous attempts to answer that question that present it as a fashion,  a music scene, an artistic movement, a lifestyle, a subculture. I believe it is all of those things, or rather that it is a subculture that encompasses being all of the other things, and am going to make my attempt at explaining this. Goth is probably far too shifting and broad to ever define properly, and so this is quite brief and while I've tried to be as inclusive as possible, I'm probably missing bits.

Goth is one of my favourite aesthetics, or rather it is one of my favourite way of blending all my other favourite aesthetics. I can combine Baroque, Art Nouveau, Deco, Neo-Gothic, Victorian, etc. and then I can throw in some futuristic things I saw in Ultra Violet or The Matrix or off the cover of a science fiction paperback... Goth is this wonderfully huge umbrella that covers everything from the cutesiest halloween kitsch to the most elegant funereal anachronism because rather than a specific stylistic guide, it is an approach, its basic premise is to look at the dark side of life - the deathly, the dystopian, the twisted, and bring it into the light whether by turning it into macabre high art or looking at it with humour or turning it into something adorable. In that way, it is an art movement defined by approach that spans music, literature, visual arts, fashion and decor.


Goth is also a fashion. You can wear goth clothes without reading Poe, Neil Gaiman and Anne Rice; watching Interview With A Vampire, Sweeney Todd and The Crow; and listening to Bauhaus, Emilie Autumn and Sisters of Mercy, although I think that being fully immersed in the subculture leads to being more individual and better dressed because you can then be inspired by what you've read about, or by the stage costumes and clothes of musicians, costumes from films, etc. It is perfectly possible to go into certain shops or look on the internet and assemble a beautiful outfit or several and only be in it for the clothes without any real interest in the rest of Goth. Many teenagers do this badly as a rebellious phase, quite a few Goths who weren't around in the '80s probably started out this way, and there are probably quite a few people who simply like the clothes. Of course, mainstream fashion and the hipster subculture routinely mine the fashion side for inspiration too.

Goth is definitely a music scene. While there have been darkly inclined people for centuries doing the this sort of thing (Paganini, Liszt, Theda Bara, to name a few) the Post-Punk and Deathrock scenes  in the latter 1970s and 1980s gave it point about which to crystalise and grow.  The music itself has changed a lot since the days of Siouxsie Sioux and Bauhaus, and is now as broad as the space between Emilie Autumn and Centhron (not that either artist is Goth, just that they have a significant number of Goths in their fan-base), not to mention people like Marilyn Manson (he is clearly a Goth, but his music's between shock-rock and metal) and the influence of the Visual Kei scene. The other aspects of Goth have broadened with the music as various musical genres have merged and diverged and brought with them different band aesthetics and different inspirations. The music is important, but cannot be divorced from its musical antecedents and non-musical inspiration.


The visual aesthetic and lyric content and dark but danceable sound links back to the concept of Goth as an art-movement, but  at the same time, it is a form of "pop culture" although it wasn't all that popular, even in the 1980s. Goth, as well as being in fine hand-made Victorian  gowns, art photography of graveyards and bones and macabre sculpture is also in mass-produced consumables available in Hot Topic. This is probably why the word "scene" developed its modern meaning, to describe what happens around a pop-culture focus. Yes, someone somewhere drew the kitsch zombies on Iron Fist shoes  and people made their own collars before you could buy them for a fiver, and somebody had to design  Draculaura and her classmates, but that initial effort has been turned into things produced in their thousands. Monster High isn't even actually aimed at goths, but Draculaura combines Gothic Lolita fashion with pink New Rock boots (not branded, of course) and bringing a parasol to school.


Goth is also a lifestyle. The longer you spend in the subculture, the more likely you are to decorate your house to your own take on that aesthetic, probably because it takes time to be able to afford one's own place and the materials to decorate it! But it's more than the aesthetic creeping in to all aspects of your life until you have black crockery and spiderweb toilet paper. It is appreciating the old architecture you see, it is taking photographs of dead flowers, it is visiting graveyards that aren't the final resting place of any of your relatives, it is in visiting parks to appreciate their beauty rather than just to have a space to drink or play sport in, it is writing letters by hand in purple ink instead of sending e-mails, it crafting your own dark aesthetic. It's more than going to concerts and Goth clubs and gatherings.

Look what I found in Tesco at Halloween...

The important thing is to do things because you enjoy them, not because they are on the fictitious Goth Lifestyle Tick-Box List, but some activities (like reading too much, lighting the house with candles even when the electricity is working and having picnics in the graveyard) have become stereotypically Goth for a reason - people who like the fashion and the music tend to like doing those things too. That's not to say that anyone in all black and spikes collects weaponry or skulls or both, eats lunch in the Graveyard and has more black candles than black socks, but you will find goths that do.

For a less text-intensive version of answering that recurring "What is Goth?" question check out this video by Jillian Venters aka The Lady of the Manners from Gothic Charm School (there's always a link to her site in my Blog Roll) ::here::