Taylor Mac and 'judy'

[Alex Kulak2]

So we learned about Taylor Mac in my Fundamentals of Theatre Class a few years ago, and I remember learning that Mac used 'judy' as a gender pronoun. However, in the recent NYT article about Gary: A Sequel to Titus Andronicus, Sasha Weiss only refers to Mac as 'he/him'. Do you know where Mac stands with this? Did Mac give permission so it would be more legible on the page?

[dramamama611]

As said in the another thread: judy is a performing pronoun, he/him/his is his personal pronoun.  (I might not be saying this as eloquently as the other post.)

[Kad]

I think Taylor Mac would tell you not to worry too much about it. 

"My gender is performer and my gender pronoun is 'judy’ because I wanted a gender pronoun that is an art piece, that makes people pause and consider and laugh because everyone is so uptight about getting it right.”

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-taylor-mac-los-angeles-20180314-story.html

[dramamama611]

I think it's post 237

[JudyDenmark]

Kad said: "I think Taylor Mac would tell you not to worry too much about it.

"My gender is performer and my gender pronoun is 'judy’ because I wanted a gender pronoun that is an art piece, that makes people pause and consider and laugh because everyone is so uptight about getting it right.”

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-taylor-mac-los-angeles-20180314-story.html"

Man, I wish this was clearer in his bio! (Instead of just declaring without explanation that Taylor Mac uses the gender pronoun judy.) Knowing that he himself is laughing about it makes me respect him a WHOLE lot more. Because it IS ridiculous. Really, my whole opinion of him just changed based on this thread, so thank you!

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Ah. It makes much more sense knowing that the whole "judy" thing (obviously a camp Judy Garland homage) is supposed to be silly, especially since in his play HIR, he toes the line between promoting the idea of made-up pronouns and making fun of people who do that.

Seriously, if someone truly feels that they identify as neither male nor female, "they/them" is as far as I'm willing to go. I want to be respectful and supportive of transgender people, but let's not get too ridiculous. Glad to know that Mac has a sense of humor about it all, since traditional gender roles and expectations are stupid anyway. I am a straight male, and I am obsessed with the theater, my favorite color is purple, I cry when I am very emotional, and my wife makes more money than me and I am totally okay with that!

[DoTheDood]

I get this kind of confusing for cis people (including myself), but I think for Mac gender is a complicated thing, something that goes beyond our understanding of it. Everyone has a different understanding of gender and I get some people will not like any non-binary pronouns or maybe any pronoun past "they/them", but I for one actually like 'judy' as Mac's pronouns. It's a little tricky to use at times (mostly in conversions irl, online it's not hard at all), but it's also kind of fun. Judy is right that you can't help but smile when saying it.

[GavestonPS]

I support differently gendered people (though I'm suspicious that "non-binary identified" is anything but a fad with a very short shelf life).

But I also support clarity in language over obfuscation. If people are really so non-binary identified, we have neuter pronouns in English: it/its/itself. Using they/their for an individual makes many paragraphs incomprehensible.

Anyone who took the meeting where "cis" was adopted to mean "identifying as one appears to others" should be put in stocks in the village square. That word will never achieve widespread acceptance, particularly not among males. It is onomatopoeically challenged.

I think it's fine for somebody to use "judy" as a pronoun as an act of performance art. But let's don't pretend it's something we are all going to say all the time. (As nobody in this thread has done.)

And, while I'm on the subject, get off my lawn!

[DoTheDood]

GavestonPS said: "If people are really so non-binary identified, we have neuter pronouns in English: it/its/itself."

Unless someone is really pushing 'it/itself', I would really avoid that since that is very dehumanizing (at least that's from my point of view). 'It' basically makes someone an object and, again, it's okay if that is how a person identifies with that, but I've known almost no non-binary people who would be fine with 'it'.

 

"Using they/their for an individual makes many paragraphs incomprehensible.!"

I don't get how? Like if you mean it's plural, 'they/them' has not been solely used in the plural sense. It's been used as a singular pronoun since Shakespeare. I get it can be confusing with either multiple people or with multiple non-binary folk, but that problem is the exact same with multiple men or multiple women. Here's a really good video from Tom Scott, a man with a degree in linguistics, that explains it very well 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ehrFk-gLk

[haterobics]

Alex Kulak2 said: "Do you know where Mac stands with this? Did Mac give permission so it would be more legible on the page?"

The NYT policy is to respect people's pronouns on a case-by-case basis working together with the subject, so one imagines he approved it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/insider/reporting-limits-of-language-transgender-genderneutral-pronouns.html

[Kad]

Mac isn't dismissive of nonbinary pronouns, per se. It's just not what he's focused on as an artist. He uses "judy" to make a point- gender is a construct, so have fun with it, and if you don't like someone identifying as "judy," well, just try being dismissive of it without looking a little silly yourself:

"The other part is that I’m an artist, and it’s part of my job to make people think outside their norms a little bit. And I wanted a gender pronoun that was fun, and that immediately emasculates you – because you can’t roll your eyes and say ‘judy’ without being camp.” (The Guardian)

Few are seriously advocating for the elimination of binary pronouns, or for everyone at all times to be aware of every single pronoun possibility and to know exactly when and with whom to use them, but if you encounter a person and they tell you they prefer "they" or "hir" or "judy," you should at least respect that and try to adjust your language accordingly. You wouldn't dismiss a Jew who keeps kosher for asking for a meal that doesn't mix dairy and meat as being ridiculous for requesting the accommodation, even if slightly inconveniences you . 

[Tom5]

"Judy" is new to me, but I hope "Hir" will hurry up and become part of the general usage. (Like Ms. is now) I hate  having to write he/she or otherwise contorting my syntax in letters to achieve the same gender neutral result.  P.S. When I type "Hir" in here I get flagged with spell check.

[GavestonPS]

DoTheDood said: "GavestonPS said: "If people are really so non-binary identified, we have neuter pronouns in English: it/its/itself."

Unless someone is really pushing 'it/itself', I would really avoid that since that is very dehumanizing (at least that's from my point of view). 'It' basically makes someone an object and, again, it's okay if that is how a person identifies with that, but I've known almost no non-binary people who would be fine with 'it'...."

Tough titty (to quote THE ROAR OF THE GREASEPAINT)! If people are hellbent on reinventing language (something I do not necessarily oppose), then let them reinvent the English words we already have for nonbinary gender. Make "it" personal in the process, if it likes.

As for the confusion of the "singular they" (a term I just learned yesterday), yes, it occurs when a sentence or paragraph refers to both an individual as "they" and a group as "they". Which is not at all uncommon. The fact that Sondheim uses the singular they impresses me more than Shakespeare, but not enough to tip the scale.

Yes, "they" and all pronouns require a little identification to avoid confusion. (My husband drives me crazy with this, because he will suddenly begin a discussion with a pronoun but without identifying who is "he", "she" or "they".)

As a rule, I am all for self-labeling. And I understand the video's point (thank you, DoTheDood) that all language is constructed not organic. Nonetheless we have the language we have. I haven't minded periodically changing the terms I use for race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender. But those changes mostly reflected universally accepted characteristics. As I've said, I'm no more convinced that "nonbinary gender" is a thing than I am that "bisexuality" is a thing (except in describing most individuals' capacity for sexual response or some individuals' sexual behavior over a lifetime).

Moreover, I agree with the poster above who says that those who insist on their "nonbinary" gender identity do more to reassert the gender binary than those of us who merely follow tradition.

But while I'm on the subject, I admit I'm not entirely consistent. I *DO* use "s/he" and "hir" when writing on the internet. These are actually clearer and more efficient than the traditional, written choices. I simply decline to have my language choices subjected to the tyranny of the pseudo-leftist vocabulary police.

When I was teaching I kept track of my usage during lectures and alternated "he" and "she" when referring to the typical playwright or director, say, to avoid implying that such persons are necessarily one gender or another.

 

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Sex/gender only matters when you are looking to make babies or are receiving medical care. Otherwise it’s irrelevant and should not be given so much thought."

Ah, yes, I bet if you are a straight cis dude this comment makes a lot of sense. For the rest of us... not so much. But I’m glad you’ve established sex/gender only matters when it comes to breeding and doctors. Is this really how low the bar is set for so-called allies? Give me a break, dude.

[GavestonPS]

ray-andallthatjazz86 said: "The Distinctive Baritone said: "Sex/gender only matters when you are looking to make babies or are receiving medical care. Otherwise it’s irrelevant and should not be given so much thought."

Ah, yes, I bet if you are a straight cis dude this comment makes a lot of sense. For the rest of us... not so much. But I’m glad you’ve established sex/gender only matters when it comes to breeding and doctors. Is this really how low the bar is set for so-called allies? Give me a break, dude."

I think DB's point was that "gender SHOULD only matter" in those instances that deal with procreation. S/he knows that people are often treated differently based on perceptions of their gender. But we get it: it sucks to be you. 

[haterobics]

Tom5 said: "When I type "Hir" in here I get flagged with spell check."

Add it to your personal dictionary for whatever software you're using?

But it will be a long, long, long time before you can write that and it won't be mentally underlined for everyone reading it...

[A Director]

GavestonPS said: "I support differently gendered people (though I'm suspicious that "non-binary identified" is anything but a fad with a very short shelf life)."

WOW! A fad?  How conservative of you!  Your comment comes close to, "I love gay people; just hate the sin!"  There are people who believe being gay is a choice or just a fad!
 

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

A Director said: "GavestonPS said: "I support differently gendered people (though I'm suspicious that "non-binary identified" is anything but a fad with a very short shelf life)."

WOW! A fad? How conservative of you! Your comment comes close to, "I love gay people; just hate the sin!" There are people who believe being gay is a choice or just a fad!
"

Ha! I love the idea that non-binary folk are “a fad” as if they just randomly showed up yesterday. Just because we now have a language to understand different people’s relationship to sex and gender constructs does not mean that it’s a “fad.” 

And, Gaveston, as a cis gay man (look at me using this weird language that no one could ever possibly understand because it’s oh-so-confusing), it does suck to be me when I go on a Broadway message board and read so much close-minded nonsense and silly pearl-clutching about folks who are smartly and bravely claiming their own identities. 

 

[Kad]

We didn’t have language to describe what we would call homosexuality until the late 19th century. We didn’t even have a conception of what we would identify as homosexuality.

[haterobics]

Kad said: "We didn’t have language to describe what we would call homosexuality until the late 19th century. We didn’t even have a conception of what we would identify as homosexuality."

At least we had the sense to just change the meaning of gay, an existing word, rather than make up new ones.

[darquegk]

Full disclosure: straight, cis, no actual dog in this fight, but I do have a women, gender and queer studies master's certification I got (partially by accident) back in 2013. This is when the question of nontraditional pronouns was first really coming into public discussion in a big way, and ALSO when Tumblr was moving from being a basic Myspace replacement to being the center of the burgeoning "queer teenagers" internet. Around this time, phenomena like "otherkin" and furries began to play in the same circles that previously had been about LGBTQ identity, and most people dismissed this as either a fad or mental illness. But I still remember a class-long discussion of "other identity play" of that sort, and the question my teacher raised: "if we can reject and reinvent first standard identifiers of sexuality, and then do the same with gender, are we, or are we not, able to do the same with all factors of identity? Or even with identity itself? We decide WHO we are, and HOW we are- why not WHAT we are as well?"

Perhaps this is just a long-winded way of saying I get the humor and serious intent in the use of "judy," but wonder if its deliberate playfulness and absurdity isn't harming the overall discourse by legitimizing trollery like the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" joke that keeps circulating the internet.

[DoTheDood]

darquegk said: "Perhaps this is just a long-winded way of saying I get the humor and serious intent in the use of "judy," but wonder if its deliberate playfulness and absurdity isn't harming the overall discourse by legitimizing trollery like the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" joke that keeps circulating the internet."

First off, god those jokes are annoying, wish those died off in 2014. Second, I feel like trolls are going to happen regardless of who people are, as long as they are outside what is considered the "norm". Like anything that leans into a stereotype or anything that cis/straight people find confusing that can be seen as making the group "look bad", is the not the best way to look at it. It's like agreeing with the trolls and dismissing how people really are. I mean I get your point that, yes queer issues should be taken more seriously, but there are far too many people who will never even consider trans/non-binary identities as true or real. 

[Kad]

The difference between Taylor Mac's "judy" and an internet troll's "attack helicopter" is that the latter is lacking good faith, but the question they both raise- "why can't we decide what we are?"- is the same, and could be put to anyone's identity/pronoun use.

(sidebar: I am glad that the "otherkin" phenomena has quietly died off).

[darquegk]

If only it had gone away, Kad. The ongoing love affair between young people seeking to redefine their identity and the phenomenon of (for lack of a better term) transhumanism goes on. It didn't go away- Tumblr went away, or at least left the mainstream when it banned large quantities of content late last year.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

GavestonPS said: "ray-andallthatjazz86 said: "The Distinctive Baritone said: "Sex/gender only matters when you are looking to make babies or are receiving medical care. Otherwise it’s irrelevant and should not be given so much thought."

Ah, yes, I bet if you are a straight cis dude this comment makes a lot of sense. For the rest of us... not so much. But I’m glad you’ve established sex/gender only matters when it comes to breeding and doctors. Is this really how low the bar is set for so-called allies? Give me a break, dude."

I think DB's point was that "gender SHOULD only matter" in those instances that deal with procreation. S/he knows that people are often treated differently based on perceptions of their gender. But we get it: it sucks to be you."

Since both my original post and my response to ray-andallthatjazz86 were deleted by the moderators, but my post is still being referenced in a quote, I will clarify my opinion with this, and then walk away from this conversation: if gender (as opposed to biological sex) is indeed an unnecessary social construct, then we should dissolve that social construct, not add to it with even more pronouns. Anything beyond he, she, and they just digs us deeper into this hole we've already made for ourselves over the centuries with our misguided ideas about gender. 

Thank you, and goodnight.