Let’s Talk About “Gender-Marginalized”

New starting with this blog: you can find some follow-up questions and a glossary of some of the terms I use at the end of the essay! This will be a feature I implement as needed across future posts. Hi, everyone. It’s been a bit since I last posted anything even quasi-regularly on here. I’m…

I’m Not Welcome at IWBC 2022.

At a passing glance, it may seem odd that the International Women’s Brass Conference, a nonprofit that’s worked with (at least some) gender-marginalized people since its inception, might not handle gender very well. Folks who can’t see non-cis microaggressions may never spot any issues in their social media content. People who have never been to an IWBC conference (or who only stayed for the competitions) may be unfamiliar with the ways in which gatekeeping is enforced not only in how expensive attendance is but in how attendees are treated once they arrive. Those who aren’t aware of the current legislative firestorm around trans and gender-expansive people in the U.S. may not think to question the assertions IWBC has made regarding its upcoming 2022 conference at the University of North Texas.

However, all of these things and more have crossed my mind over the course of 2021. And in light of continuing missteps and inaction from IWBC leadership, particularly as acceptance and rejection letters are being sent to hopeful presenters, I’d like to chronicle some of the biggest red flags here so those interested can access many of them in one place. This is by no means a comprehensive accounting—my own experiences with IWBC only date back to about mid-2018, I’m white and abled, and I attended the 2019 conference at ASU while all but the handful of folks I’d confided in assumed I was a cis woman. There are important, differently-marginalized perspectives that I can reference but cannot represent myself, especially the experiences and concerns of our Black, Brown, Indigenous, and Asian colleagues. As more writings and public online commentary about IWBC cross my desk, I’ll link them within this post. If you’re here, I implore you to seek out not only the thoughts I’ve laid out below but also insights I’ve missed and those that are yet to be articulated.

As transformative an experience as IWBC 2019 was for me in some ways, certain events made me pay close attention to the organization’s forthcoming endeavors. I’d hoped to see scholarships (to the conference or otherwise) and other opportunities specifically aimed at offering financial assistance or recognition to Black, Brown, Indigenous, and Asian brass players, preferably alongside other endeavors targeting trans, nonbinary, gender-expansive, and Two-Spirit brass musicians. Because I wasn’t familiar with IWBC’s specific policies on gender-marginalized people who aren’t cis women, and in part because I was largely still closeted at the time, I held off on being too loud in the aftermath of the 2019 conference. I knew I’d want to talk shortcomings eventually (and I did, a little), but at the time, I was clinging tightly to the sense of belonging I’d found in small pockets, even as I feared it was both conditional and temporary. Then we had the pandemic, and then ADHD fucked up most of my 2021, so I’m much later to writing more about IWBC than I wanted to be, but here I am.

For ease of reading, I’ve separated some of the events that highlight my biggest concerns regarding IWBC and gender into the sections listed below. Use the links in this paragraph to access specific topics at will, though I’d recommend a full read through to get a bird’s-eye view of what I’m seeing.

Full disclosure: my membership lapsed quite some time ago, but while I am not currently a dues-paying IWBC member, much of my current decision not to renew is based on one idea: I cannot in good conscience financially support an organization that claims to welcome (in some capacity) me and so many other gender-marginalized people yet does not have the expertise or the infrastructure to ensure they can deliver on that promise.

Eleven pages of ICD's 2020 internal review, layered on top of each other, fill the frame. They are heavily marked up, with underlines, scribbles in the margin, and seven colors of highlighter denoting important sections of text. The number "3" is overlaid over the picture in a large black serif font.

The ICD Internal Review Part 3: Resign, Rob (And Other Big Takeaways)

[A note from 2023 Eris: As my writing about the Institute for Composer Diversity (unfortunately) continues to expand, I’ve given up and created an entire blog category for these analyses. You can now find all my posts focusing on ICD by clicking here. Posts that mention them in passing but do not focus on their actions specifically will still be tagged, but you’ll need to search “ICD” in the bar at the bottom of the page—and likely scroll a little—to find those. Thanks!]

Welcome back! Today we’re wrapping up our multi-day adventure through the ICD review. If you haven’t read the previous installments, I recommend checking out Part 1 and Part 2. After we conclude our point-by-point walkthrough, I’m going to mention some major concerns I didn’t get to talk about previously. As always, thanks for being here! I would’ve given up at Point 10 without y’all.

Eleven pages of ICD's 2020 internal review, layered on top of each other, fill the frame. They are heavily marked up, with underlines, scribbles in the margin, and seven colors of highlighter denoting important sections of text. The number "2" is overlaid over the picture in a large black serif font.

The ICD Internal Review Part 2: Holy Plagiarism, Batman

[A note from 2023 Eris: As my writing about the Institute for Composer Diversity (unfortunately) continues to expand, I’ve given up and created an entire blog category for these analyses. You can now find all my posts focusing on ICD by clicking here. Posts that mention them in passing but do not focus on their actions specifically will still be tagged, but you’ll need to search “ICD” in the bar at the bottom of the page—and likely scroll a little—to find those. Thanks!]

Greetings, one and all, and welcome back to our multi-day escapade through the ICD internal review. If you’re new here, fear not! You can go back and read Part 1 to catch up on what we’ve discussed previously. Today, we’re finishing our look at ICD’s communications breakdown; we’ll also discuss ICD’s impact on composers, touch briefly on tokenism, and begin the long slog through the leadership review. I can’t say any one part of the report is the review’s darkest hour, but today’s chunk is certainly a contender. Let’s dive in.

Eleven pages of ICD's 2020 internal review, layered on top of each other, fill the frame. They are heavily marked up, with underlines, scribbles in the margin, and seven colors of highlighter denoting important sections of text. The number "1" is overlaid over the picture in a large black serif font.

The ICD Internal Review Part 1: There’s No Policy Like No Policy

[A note from 2023 Eris: As my writing about the Institute for Composer Diversity (unfortunately) continues to expand, I’ve given up and created an entire blog category for these analyses. You can now find all my posts focusing on ICD by clicking here. Posts that mention them in passing but do not focus on their actions specifically will still be tagged, but you’ll need to search “ICD” in the bar at the bottom of the page—and likely scroll a little—to find those. Thanks!]

Good evening, folks, and welcome to my analysis of the 2020 ICD Internal Review. After spending months systematically failing the marginalized composers they claim to advocate for, the Institute for Composer Diversity has finally taken time to stop making non-apologies and engage in some institutional introspection. While this internal review should’ve been external, this document is the most comprehensive look we’ve ever gotten at ICD’s policies, goals, and priorities. On the surface, it looks good; they grapple with many criticisms from the past year, and they make some effective changes. However, a deeper dive reveals a heavily-plagiarized document that hides major issues while further stigmatizing the composers in its care.

Overall, the review reflects the legacy of performative activism ICD has grown into. I believe the review team did their best, but the Institute doesn’t walk the walk. This hamstrings their efforts—particularly while Director Rob Deemer refuses to relinquish control.

That sucks, because I wanted better. I used to be listed in the database; Rob informally recruited me to be a data-entry lackey when I met him at the International Women’s Brass Conference in 2019. Hell, I loaned ICD one of my blog posts last spring before realizing the full extent of their harm! I want to believe this organization that gets mentions in the New York Times is doing intersectional, antiracist work to tangibly better the lives of marginalized composers. I want to believe I don’t need to warn my band director friends every time I hear they’re looking for a new batch of ensembles to recruit. But I can’t believe in ICD when they have the chance to do something right yet squander it with linguistic carelessness and inconsistent policy decisions.

It’s important that we analyze both ICD’s sweeping policy choices and the little wording decisions they make along the way. Many of ICD’s (and Rob’s) mistakes in the past year relate to concepts many of us learn over time. As a major organization dedicated to representing marginalized populations, it’s their responsibility to already know better, and I’m going to point that out a lot. When others have made the critiques publicly before, I’ll link to those posts.

But the knowledge I’m sharing here is for you, too—because with the right tools, you are capable of being a powerful force for change. And I’m really glad you’re here.

JK Rowling, TERFs, Bioessentialism, Sexual Assault, and Trauma Performativity (or, in other words… yikes)

I read the essay.

Some of you likely know exactly which essay I’m talking about, but for those who don’t, I’ve just finished reading JK Rowling’s lengthy response to the correct and justified backlash she’s received this week for being more openly anti-trans than usual. As folks on Twitter may know, this isn’t Rowling’s first TERF-y moment: for at least several months, she has made statements in support of or liked Tweets by known anti-trans public figures. This week, she took severe issue with delineating a difference between “people who menstruate” and “women,” sparking the backlash that’s led to where we are now.

First, a note on this: we need a difference between “people who menstruate” and “women,” because those two things aren’t inherently linked. The Venn diagram of the two is not a circle. In obvious ways, it ignores both the trans community and the intersex community, and I’d be remiss to erase either group from the conversation. (If you’re not sure what intersex means, here’s a great primer. Please note some historical descriptors of this community are considered degrading and should no longer be used.) It also imposes ridiculous limits on AFAB (assigned female at birth) people: what happens when you hit menopause? Do you no longer count? What about if you’re on an IUD, and as a result you don’t have a period? What about AFAB people who never have a period at all?

That said, we’re not going to spend time centering cis women past this point. The argument is massively more harmful to transgender and intersex people, whose biological features may not align with the tropes (and, by extension, societal expectations) associated with their gender(s). And while it can be easy to encourage marginalized people to not care what society says, have you ever educated yourself (by reading plenty of available material, NOT by foisting emotional labor on your nearest relevant person) on how difficult it is for trans and intersex people to get quality health care? Are you aware that literally yesterday the Trump administration made this even more difficult by giving insurers and health care providers the ability to openly discriminate against trans people? Did you know that many intersex people are operated on at a young age without their consent to attempt to make their bodies conform to one binary or the other, often with negative long-term side effects? Have you realized that the insidious goal of anti-trans rhetoric is to produce tangible policy changes that, by doing things like cutting off access to health care (at any time, but especially during a pandemic), further disadvantage the trans community and will literally, quantitatively cost lives?

Hello Pretty Lady

[CW: sexual harassment]

Hey, men friends? Y’all who believe in equality and want to be on the right side of things? I need you to listen to this one. Bear witness. Brass players, this would be good for y’all to read intentionally, too.

I’ve spent the last couple days trying to figure out how to deal with a bass trombonist close to three times my age who showed up in my Messenger inbox, completely unprompted, and decided “Hello Pretty Lady” was an appropriate and acceptable way to start his brief introduction (which ended with a link to his website). He’d entered my social media sphere as part of the absolute deluge of Facebook friend requests I’ve gotten over the past week. Most folks have been brass players, and in the interest of community, I’ve okayed the vast majority. Many of those will turn out to be good decisions; this guy was not.

A blurry, black-and-white photo of a performance. On the left, two dancers move upstage, one in front of the other. On the right, close to the photographer, a dancer inserts a mute into a trumpet played by a seated musician.

on assault and high school boyfriends

By the time I started dating in high school, I’d already been sexually assaulted. Those early relationships were a little extra fraught for me—I’d only had the terminology to accurately describe what had happened to me for about a year, and the idea of talking about it in any detail was downright terrifying. Still, I was a teenage girl who rocked out to Taylor Swift and desperately wanted to know love, and when presented with the opportunity, I dove into dating.

My first boyfriend, who lasted approximately three months and was away for summer vacation for almost all of that time, never found out about my assault. (We still follow each other on Instagram, though, so maybe he knows now.) My second boyfriend, whose tenure neared a year and spanned my final months of high school, did. He was the first person I’d told besides my mom, who found out when it happened.