Gender and Debate

[Eun Young Choi]

Hi all.  This is my first substantive post on edebate, I guess simply
because I feel I have stronger personal views about this issue in comparison
to others.

I don't think that the conflation of the gender kritik of ir and that of the
gendered language debate is appropriate.  It seems as if the majority of
Katy's post assumes the kritik of gendered language, as opposed to the
problems of ir's realist framework and its in/exclusion of conceptions of
gender (aka the very clever term "gendertivity").  I believe that the
educational value of examining ir through the lens of gender is not, as
Rachel very eloquently put it, any less a valid academic endeavor than PICs
bad, or NTR debates, and it certainly is a road less traveled.  I think
probably the reason this was so is that the resolution, as a whole, did not
link to many of the flaws pointed out by such authors as flawed in their
conception of ir (although, I guess WGA's success w/ this argument might
prove me wrong), since sanctions seem, by their very nature, to embody a
foreign policy that these academics would critique most severely.

I have no issue with emotions / personal views in debate.  I guess my
biggest problem is that I feel sometimes issues that people feel very
passionately about (such as gendered language) evolve into more personal
attacks against their opponents.

I will say that I am oftentimes at fault for not using more gender
appropriate language.  As Sherry will attest to, I'm not so great at
remembering the genders of my opponents while referencing their args in my
1AR.  I've been trying to work on that throughout the year, mainly because
others voice how they feel silenced by such references, and I've tried to
understand their point of view.

Personally, I do not feel silenced or that my arguments are being discounted
or that I'm being ignored as a person because someone referred to me as he.
It's annoying, but I don't take it to be my opponent's testament that I am
not who I am, or that I should "be a man" or something, but just their
forgetfulness.  I can imagine how others might feel that way, however.
Similarly, I don't think being referred to in "hey guys" or the use of
"brinksmanship" is offensive.  If language is a fluid as opposed to static
term, I think that although perhaps terms like "brinksmanship" and "guys"
were once used to only describe gentlemen running their nation states and a
group of boys, they do not necessarily mean that today.

I take issue that cards that are read that use gendered language are
becoming so discounted because of it, or when people, who have realized the
faults in gendered language and are trying to rectify the situation spend
time crossing out, in academic exercise, words that could be construed as
gendered in an effort to realize this problem, and still have this
argument run against them. This, I think, seems to be the ultimate goal
of the authors (and the arguers) of the kritik of gendered  language:  the
acknowledgement that this is a problem and it should be fixed.  It is
impossible for me, personally, to discount Kant (or Joy  Gordon, a woman
who interpreted the Categorical Imperative and applied it to
Iraqi sanctions) because he used gendered language at a time when such ideas
had not yet developed.  Yes, he was wrong about his views about the
rationality of women.  However, does this discount other views he held that
seem to justify such noble ends?  Such arguments seem to mean that
any author, prior to the 1990s, would probably be subject to similar
censure, which means that the evolution of modern political and
philosophical thought would essentially be impermissible to most
rounds.  Yet, I've lost a ballot to this argument this year, as have
others.  It seems to be disingenuous to hold people who
read other authors responsible for the words they employ to make their
arguments when they make a valiant effort to understand and respect the
concerns raised by gender activists.  Using the ballot in support of such
an act  seems to me to be superfluous in that instance, simply because it
punishes the opponents despite their acknowledgement and respect for the
other team's concerns.  However, I feel like oftentimes judges are put in
this position  where on the one hand, they realize that the other team has
tried to reconcile this problem of gender (through apology or
permutation or some other mechanism) but they feel like they are
obligated to vote for the critiquing for, honestly, fear of being labeled,
in the same way, as disrespectful towards women's issues, especially in
debate, and because they personally cannot discount the value of the
ballot because they are not women and do not know the experience of being
a woman in modern society.

The above makes this particular argument substantively different than a
Clinton debate.  There are weighty implications to voting in such rounds, which
makes them more contentious and perhaps more akin towards labeling the other
team or anyone else who might disagree as "sexist" as opposed to simply
trying to enlighten, empower and unify.

I liked it best when one female I watched debate in an out round this year
said "I'm a she, thank you."  It did not become a voting issue, nor an
attack against the other team.  Just an expression that she'd like to point
out the rhetoric of her opponents and their exclusion of gender.

I know that I might cause a lot of controversy, and I've been chicken (as I
know some of my female colleagues are) to post something
about this subject.  I don't want this to be construed as a personal
attack on any  womyn or women who run such arguments.  However, the
controversy this message might ensue perhaps is evidence to the fact
that, even among women in debate, these issues are divisive and not
universally agreed upon.

I cannot speak for anyone else, nor dare to, but personally, I find debate
to be the most empowering activity I've ever been a part of, and one of
the most inclusive and loving communities imaginable.  I just pray
for the day that I won't be known as a woman or a minority, but just
someone who loves the game...


Yours most sincerely,



Eun Young Choi

Harvard Debate '02