habitually probing generalist

<context> This post is in follow-up to 2 previous posts of mine and a post and comment at Biblioblatherblog. </context>

I do see how gender neutral citations can solve some issues of gender discrimination, I just don’t see how they solve most.  The problem is a whole lot larger than academic citations.  I am willing to be educated on this one, and I admit that this may be a (current) limitation of my indoctrination as a Western white male.  [Although no one should assume that just because I am a Western white male that I have any particular views.  There's a good possibility that you'd be very wrong.]

I would assume that in the study under discussion the gender of all authors was "guessed."  Nothing was mentioned of contacting the authors of the articles in the three LIS journals looked at, nor of contacting all those cited by these authors.  So I think we must assume that gender was inferred from names.  This is definitely a limitation of the study.

Another limitation which I didn’t elaborate is the assumption that all citations were used to bolster an argument.  This may be generally the case in much of the LIS literature, but it is not exclusively the case.  I have seen citations used as counter-arguments to be undermined or critically evaluated.  What does the the rhetorical theory of reference, and, in the case of this article, its assumption of the reliance on gender, tell us in this case?  It would seem to be contradictory to the assumption made.  What would the use of citations from the same or opposite genders tell us in the case of use of said citation as counter-argument?

Thank you, Babylon Sister, for reminding me of multiple genders.  I am aware of the critique of two genders.  I agree that this binary division is immensely limiting, and even destructive to many people.  This binary opposition is far older even than the English language’s codification of it though.  And while I certainly think these people need to be recognized and embraced into the fold of the so-called "normal" community, I do not know any of these folks that I am aware of.  Now I can think of many reasons why this is so as society, or I should say my experience of it, is currently structured.  These are not justifications, but it does reflect the contingently historical situation—society’s and mine.  Living most of my life in the plains of the Midwest or somewhere with the Army means I have not had much personal exposure to transgendered people.

My point is that I do believe these people should be entitled to the same sort of quality of life as myself or anyone else, irrespective of their gender.  But I do not personally know any of these people and thus have little comprehension of the issues they face and how they are affected by them.  It is quite simple to have a universal belief for such abstract concepts as human rights, equal rights, freedom for all, and so on.  It is quite another thing to actually live those beliefs when indoctrinated into a society like ours, especially if you do not personally know any of these folks.  Belief is far simpler than action; particularly if never presented with the opportunity to act on those beliefs.

And, yes, based on the society I am critiquing here, it is quite possible that I do know someone of a gender other than male or female without actually knowing it.  And I understand why it is the case that they may not make this publicly know, but am I to be faulted for not fully understanding their situation?  It is next to impossible to understand something fully that you have not experienced.  At least by getting to know others who have you can possibly begin to understand.  If all you have to go on is "theory" or an intellectual idea then it is pretty hard to actually understand or even empathize.

Returning to the first initial "solution," I do not understand how a concealment of gender is being spoken of at the same time as an expansion of gender.  They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but they sure don’t seem complementary to me either.  We should eradicate gender reference so we can include more genders?  I am not implying that Lisle or Babylon Sister made this argument.  But the point (and it is a good one too) was brought up about the exclusivity of a binary gender opposition while discussing how to limit gender discrimination.  It does highlight another limit of the study under discussion though, and is to welcomed for that.

I am against the first initial solution, for now, primarily because I am seriously opposed to any change of the language which reduces its expressiveness.  If someone can help me understand other reasons to be for it, or how it can retain, or increase, the expressiveness of our language, I am happy to be convinced.

I thank Lisle and Babylon Sister for helping me think through these issues, and as I said I am happy to be helped to further understanding of how our society marginalizes and discriminates against others.  But I still believe that Håkanson’s  "The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly" article contains some untested assumptions, and other methodological issues.