the Actor Aleksa Lundberg assigned at birth sex. Uppväxtskildringen similar to many others but it must be told again and again: a parent opposed to homosexuality, unsympathetic teachers, insults and bullying. He, the homosexual, Mattias, and later she said, ”bögtjejen” Aleksa, mark desperately between society's prejudices.
It should be obvious: No operating environment shall prevent a child from playing with unconventional gender roles, to embrace a different gender dress code, love people of any conceivable gender, or to even undergo a well-researched gender correction treatments.
Read more: Aleksa Lundberg ”need not be either or – I can be a bögtjej”
the content is important, I have first found it difficult to see the depth in the text. It is completely ogestaltad; well-formulated, but unaware of what literary grip that is available in order to create the charge, the undercurrents, the disturbing paradoxes and broken läsarkontakt.
At the beginning of Aleksa Lundberg's transformation, I would like most protest against a enkelspårighet located both in the text itself and in the behavior depicted – what is she doing? Ordering salad at a restaurant to be perceived as a Real Woman, though she really would kill for a steak? Compare themselves in appearance with the transkompisen Vera and suffer to be less female than she is? The vision of what a transkvinna need to do to pass is, to say the least stereotype. You are ruining for yourself, I think. We are many who will do anything to solve the where the hierarchical maktspelen, we slafsar beef with bea so it runs along the chin, we refuse to stand with the iron and thermoform knytblusar in difficult materials, we identify ourselves not with the feminine and infantile chores or attributes just to be. We reveal kvinnofällorna.
I understand certainly that it is a privilege to protest against something you already have access to. But still: don't you Understand that we are on your side, and that the labels for the exclusion you are trying to fit in does more harm than good?
Nothing feels better than giving its deviant name, to find a subculture, a freakflock.
today's society works, it is hardly to be deviants without a label. It is not avvikarnas wrong, but I recommend a step back to think about who earns the most of all the freaks shall nischas and niche themselves. Someone answers: to be able to highlight oppression, to pursue the policy, and disseminate knowledge about their nischfränder.
And yes, nothing feels better than giving its deviant name, to find a subculture, a freakflock. It can even be life-changing. But if there are a few shades of gray beyond the social control and I have to choose between fourteen genderkategorier when I tick the box in the form from the conference in the united states – who is actually to earn the most from this? The political individual or a repressive society? The risk is that all the anomalous tämjs, except that which is so difficult to define that it is pushed even further out in the margins.
in other words: Aleksa Lundberg makes me wonder why everyone with ickestereotypa identities must fit into the new stereotypical boxes. The labels creates, by definition, conformism. ”Ickebinär” as a fixed category in a control system. ”Transtjej” as long as it can pass as a girl in idiotpatriarkatets eyes.
Scenrecension: ”King Kristina Alexander”, by Aleksa Lundberg
me with this book and that allowed me to surrender in the face of Lundberg's reasoning is that she is soon itself come to these things, by trial and error in flesh and blood. The undercurrents and mångtydigheter reveals itself despite the lack of literary composition, simply through her increasingly complex life experience. In line with this also increases the book's political potential, because it is difficult to imagine the life experience is a sharp-pointed steel blade weapons against anyone who tries to maintain the inhibitory normalitetsfasaderna.
One of Aleksa Lundberg's lessons is that transfobin also located within the transvärlden, in the hierarchical battle to be the most normal. Another is that the true self may not exist on the other side of the könskorrigeringen nor, to the essence of a man is not sex: ”Many people believe that I have seen life from two different sources, one male and one female. But really I am standing here where I always stood, somewhere in between.”
Or when she has to train the voice to become feminine and logopeden says: ”Men are talking in a more straight paths than what women do. You will with overly aggressive claims, you will be automatically perceived as a man. However, if you are using flexible fluctuations and adds to the hesitant words you are guaranteed to be taken for a woman.” Aleksa react with suspicion: ”I would deliberately, on the advice of an authority within the health care system, do me a mespropp.”
Aleksa Lundberg: the Theatre is one of the worst places for sexism and the macho image
logopedens words a little bit extra in the heart, because I know that scary many cis-women running this strategy in order to fit in. The punishment for a woman who is perceived as aggressive is hard – she dismissed generally as difficult, bitchy, or downright crazy. Aleksa will arrive to the only right one: ”I never went back. It was just not so and today I know why. I already have a voice. It is good just the way it is.”
From the to be gripping on an individual plan grows Aleksa Lundberg's book to be existential and intelligent political in its refusal to make the true self to a checkbox on a form. Everyone should come out as abnormal, especially those who are trying to be desperately normal, and no one should whine over or put a spanner in the wheel for someone else's annorlundahet, as long as it manifests itself in physical violence. First bridge to the fear of the foreign. You must simply be able to put up with each other's konstighet without labeling or tame each other.
And the question He is asking is crucial for all of us: ”Had it not been better to adapt the society, rather than our bodies, how we are and can be as human beings?”