“Our categories are important. We cannot organize a social life, a political movement, or our individual identities and desires without them. The fact that categories invariably leak and can never contain all the relevant ‘existing things’ does not render them useless, only limited. Categories like ‘woman,’ ‘butch,’ ‘lesbian,’ or ‘transsexual’ are all imperfect, historical, temporary, and arbitrary. We use them and they use us. We use them to construct meaningful lives, and they mold us into historically specific forms of personhood. Instead of fighting for immaculate classifications and impenetrable boundaries, let us strive to maintain a community that understands diversity as a gift, sees anomalies as precious, and treats all basic principles with a hefty dose of skepticism.” —Gayle Rubin, “Of catamites and kings: Reflections on butch, gender, and boundaries,” The Persistent Desire: a Femme-Butch Reader, Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992, pg. 477-478

Rubin was talking about lesbian political fights about trans people and the overlap and boundaries between butch and transsexuality (and there’s LOTS of expressions of what we’d nowadays call trans and gender dysphoria in A Persistent Desire), but I think the same ideas apply to multi/plural/many-selved stuff too. Goodness knows I spent enough time chewing on my arm because I couldn’t figure out how to express a concept without it turning into a hopeless argument over the terms in use. This whole essay has a lot of great quotes (“sexual preference, gender roles, and political stance cannot be equated, and do not directly determine or reflect one another”) and is worth reading.

Also it’s just really nice to see an essay over thirty years old saying “cool your jets about trans people, it’s fine. Your politics will survive.”

Mori wants this book like burning. Too bad used paperbacks start at $100.

Rogan: Okay, so, in the "Summary of Legal Survey Data from the False Memory Syndrome Foundation" paper we talked about, we came across this contorted sentence:

"The most dramatic toll on families queried by the Legal Survey is loss of contact with children and grandchildren, loss of consort by non-accused husbands of wives who are developing images of parental child abuse, loss of privacy, injury to reputation, increased health problems and marital stress." (4)

Mori asked what the fuck "loss of consort by non-accused husbands of wives who are developing images of parental child abuse" meant. I replied that it sounded like "women dealing with memories of being abused don't want to fuck their husbands and that's so hard FOR THE HUSBANDS," but that sounded so over-the-top evil that even I couldn't believe the FMSF would say it.

Readers, I checked, and that's EXACTLY what it means. But why is this bad?

( aaaaAAAAAAaaaah )

Hey guys! Friday, October 24th will be the New England Graphic Medicine Summit, and I'm gonna be giving a presentation! Remember when I was gathering up all those many-selved family portraits? THEIR TIME HAS COME!

But now that I'm looking back at all those portraits I accumulated almost a year ago, jeez, I realize I have no memory of whether anyone's consent was given. So: if you've given me a selves-portrait, please let me know whether you'd be okay with me using it at a live event in Boston, which will then be recorded (and probably put on Youtube). Those of you I have contact info for, I've gone to poke!

For other folks who missed all this a year ago: please, send us your selves-portraits! All mediums and skill levels welcome, all interpretations of “family portrait” and “many-selved.” Please give a date and artist/s name for attribution and citation purposes. You can link in the comments below or send them to us at loonybrain at healthymultiplicity.com