I agree with you that straight people and cis people can also have confusing timelines in terms of experiences and growth and you of course don’t know what any person you meet has gone, or is going, through. Regardless of sexuality and gender.
I think the point made, the way I read it, is that because the general public still does not quite grasp the gender debate fully, there’s a tendency to think of transgender people in a very stringent way (to be transgender you must fit x, y, z standard). How can you be transgender if you didn’t know from being born? Why are you only coming out now? You’re not really transgender, etc. To be honest, similar to how gay people have been, and are being, treated too: Okay, we will “accept” you, but only if you fit a narrow definition that makes us the most comfortable (in this case a more chronological timeline to express yourself in).
I’m a genderqueer bisexual myself, just as an fyi.
Edit: I will say, however, of course you’re allowed not to like a certain writing style. Maybe this book just wasn’t for the people complaining about the lack of a chronological timeline and that’s also fine.
Personally i do like non-straight storytelling (yep, pun intended). But most folks i know irl are way out of their depth with any story not moving linearly.
Yeah, and I think that’s fair enough. I think the point is to just recognise whether it’s a bias or if it’s just due to that type of story telling. You know?
I mean both, I’ll try to elaborate a bit, hopefully that helps!
It’s okay to not be a fan of a certain type of story telling (in this case non-chronological)
However
Do you struggle with the story telling because of the chronology or is it really because it’s outside of your comfort zone due to the content (a transgender person’s journey)?
Elliott wrote the story that way to make a point, that a transgender person’s journey is not linear.
Sometimes, I think we as people put the focus on something that isn’t the actual issue. But it takes a lot of reflection and introspection and can be uncomfortable.
I have not read the book, so I don’t know if I would consider it bad story telling or not, it’s just something worth considering, in my humble opinion.
Most people who try their hands on this book probably know wether they like this kind of story telling (if they get that information before) and wether a trans persons biography is outside their comfort zone. Some will even read it because it’s outside of it.
But i suspect biased people will use the non-linear story telling as a pretext to bash the book and thereby the story and person behind it.
Sometimes, I think we as people put the focus on something that isn’t the actual issue. But it takes a lot of reflection and introspection and can be uncomfortable.
Yes, that’s so true. I still have to work on it, despite many years of practice.
On another note, this conversation made me read the wikipedia article on Page and rather curious about the book. I barely knew their name before and never saw a film with him.
I agree with you that straight people and cis people can also have confusing timelines in terms of experiences and growth and you of course don’t know what any person you meet has gone, or is going, through. Regardless of sexuality and gender.
I think the point made, the way I read it, is that because the general public still does not quite grasp the gender debate fully, there’s a tendency to think of transgender people in a very stringent way (to be transgender you must fit x, y, z standard). How can you be transgender if you didn’t know from being born? Why are you only coming out now? You’re not really transgender, etc. To be honest, similar to how gay people have been, and are being, treated too: Okay, we will “accept” you, but only if you fit a narrow definition that makes us the most comfortable (in this case a more chronological timeline to express yourself in).
I’m a genderqueer bisexual myself, just as an fyi.
Edit: I will say, however, of course you’re allowed not to like a certain writing style. Maybe this book just wasn’t for the people complaining about the lack of a chronological timeline and that’s also fine.
Personally i do like non-straight storytelling (yep, pun intended). But most folks i know irl are way out of their depth with any story not moving linearly.
Yeah, and I think that’s fair enough. I think the point is to just recognise whether it’s a bias or if it’s just due to that type of story telling. You know?
English isn’t my first language. So, do you mean that regarding this book in particular or in a more general sense?
I mean both, I’ll try to elaborate a bit, hopefully that helps!
However
Elliott wrote the story that way to make a point, that a transgender person’s journey is not linear.
Sometimes, I think we as people put the focus on something that isn’t the actual issue. But it takes a lot of reflection and introspection and can be uncomfortable.
I have not read the book, so I don’t know if I would consider it bad story telling or not, it’s just something worth considering, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for elaborating!
Most people who try their hands on this book probably know wether they like this kind of story telling (if they get that information before) and wether a trans persons biography is outside their comfort zone. Some will even read it because it’s outside of it. But i suspect biased people will use the non-linear story telling as a pretext to bash the book and thereby the story and person behind it.
Yes, that’s so true. I still have to work on it, despite many years of practice.
On another note, this conversation made me read the wikipedia article on Page and rather curious about the book. I barely knew their name before and never saw a film with him.