This is one in aseries of blog posts in which I discuss some of the concepts and terminology that I forward in mywritings, including my new bookExcluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive.

So the word “subversivism” pops up a couple of times inExcluded, but I first began using theterm in my first bookWhipping Girl,specifically Chapter 20, “The Future of Queer/Trans Activism.” While the wordhad previously existed (Merriam-Websterdefines it as “the quality or state of being subversive”),I began using it to describe a form of sexism that is quite prevalent withinfeminist and queer subcultures, albeit absent from straight mainstream society.

InWhipping Girl,I describe it this way:

Subversivism is thepractice of extolling certain gender and sexual expressions and identitiessimply because they are unconventional or nonconforming. In the parlance ofsubversivism, these atypical genders and sexualities are “good” because they“transgress” or “subvert” oppressive binary gender norms. The justification forthe practice of subversivism has evolved out of a particular reading (althoughsome would call it a misreading) of the work of various influential queertheorists over the last decade and a half. To briefly summarize thispopularized account: All forms of sexism arise from the binary gender system.Since this binary gender system is everywhere—in our thoughts, language,traditions, behaviors, etc.—the only way we can overturn it is to activelyundermine the system from within. Thus, in order to challenge sexism, peoplemust “perform” their genders in ways that bend, break, and blur all of theimaginary distinctions that exist between male and female, heterosexual andhomosexual, and so on, presumably leading to a systemwide binary meltdown.[p.346]

There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrating andpraising supposedly “subversive” and “transgressive” expressions of gender andsexuality (although the assumption that such activities undermine the genderbinary, or patriarchy, or what have you, seem rather dubious to me for reasonsthat I discuss throughout the second half ofExcluded). However, in practice, subversivism usually winds upcreating a new sexist double standard:

Subversivism doesn’t merely target the heterosexualgender-conforming majority. InExcluded,I discuss how transsexuals (see Chapter 12), femmes (see Chapter 6), andbisexuals (see Chapter 9), in addition to other gender and sexual minorities,regularly face accusations of “reinforcing patriarchy/heteronormativity/thegender binary,” or of “not being queer/feminist enough” because of theirappearance, dress, or partner preference. Indeed, subversivism is a commontactic that is used to marginalize and exclude these groups (and others) withinthese movements.

Anyway, to continue:

I define sexism as any type of double standard (e.g., anassumption, expectation, stereotype, or value judgment) based on a person’ssex, gender, or sexuality. InExcluded,I make the case that there aremyriad double standards—somewhich are pervasive, and others which are more temporary or fleeting; some ofwhich exist in mainstream society, and others which exist in specific settingsor subcultures; some of which we are aware of, and others which we areoblivious to. And I make the case that, as activists, we should work tochallengeall double standards,rather than ignoring some and reversing others.

Thus, while subversivism may not be prevalent in mainstreamsociety, we should be concerned by it and we should work to eliminate it.

I have had a couple people challenge me on this. Theirargument went something like this: People who are subversivist within feministand queer settings constitute an oppressed group, and as such, they do not havethe institutionalized power with which to oppress other people within theircommunities. I find such views to be quite short-sighted, as they ignore thevery real material benefits that come from being considered a legitimate memberof a community or movement.

Take people who fall under the bisexual umbrella as anexample. Such people are often not fully accepted within queer movements andcommunities, in part, due to subversivist attitudes that malign bisexuality asinherently conservative and heteronormative. As I point out inExcluded:

This lack of communityhas had a devastating effect on [bisexual] folks. For instance, even though weoutnumber exclusively homosexual people, we have poorer health outcomes andhigher poverty rates than gays and lesbians, and we are generally not acknowledgedor served by LGBTQIA+ organizations, even the ones that have “B” in the name.[Excluded, p. 85. In a footnote, Icite references for this: San Francisco Human Rights Commission, “Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations”;Shiri Eisner,Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution, pp. 59-93;Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Persons in Massachusetts”]

Similarly, as I discuss inWhipping Girl, within many feminist and queer women’s settings, theembrace of trans male/masculine folks and reluctance to accept transfemale/feminine folks is largely driven by subversivism, in that the former areseen as “bold,” “rebellious,” and “dangerous,” whereas the latter are dismissedas “timid,” “conventional,” and “safe.” I can tell you first-hand that nothaving a community or movement that accepts you—whether it’s due to blatantmonosexism or trans-misogyny, or occurs indirectly via subversivism—has a veryreal impact on one’s life and ability to survive in a world where we arealready marginalized by mainstream society to begin with.

When I first used the term inWhipping Girl, I used it to describe how subversivist attitudesplay out in contemporary queer/trans spaces, wherein trans male/masculineidentities are viewed as more subversive than trans female/feminine ones, andwhere gender-blurring identities and expressions (e.g., drag, genderqueer) areviewed as more subversive than binary ones (e.g., transsexual women and men).

However, different activist movements and communities maydeem different identities and expressions to be more (or less) subversive thanothers. So for instances, trans-exclusive radical feminists tend to view dragperformers, genderqueers, transsexuals, and other transgender spectrumidentities as equally conservative (as we all supposedly “reinforce patriarchalgender roles” in their eyes). Such feminists also tend to view BDSM and porn asinherently conservative, whereas in more sex-positive/sex-radical circles thosesame expressions may be celebrated as subversive and liberating.

So subversivism doesn’t function in the same way that we areused to thinking about “isms,” as it does not target a specific group ofpeople. Rather, subversivism is perhaps better thought of as a mindset thatoften arises within activist movements, and which provides a convenient excusefor either perpetuating hierarchies that already exist within society, or tocreate newfangled hierarchies within that specific movement. Given this, Ithought that it would be more fruitful to highlight the arbitrary nature ofthese subversivist hierarchies more generally—I do this in multiple chapters ofExcluded, especially Chapter 12, ‘The Perversion of “The Personal IsPolitical”’ and Chapter 16, “Fixed Versus Holistic Perspectives.”

[note: If you appreciate this essay and want to see more like it, please check outmy Patreon page]