discriminations are always complex. there are no simple, monolithic discriminations which can be added up in politics and analysis or which are arbitrary or interchangeable. genderistic discrimination for example, is always also constituted by racism_ableism. genderism is different for Black, PoC or white trans_x_ing persons. it is interpreted differently, experienced differently, ascribed differently and it materializes in different ways.

maybe the concepts genderism/sexism as such are already racist because they imply that racism_sexism are separable. this is not and has not been the case for Black women and WoC. to introduce and apply sexism/genderism as monolithic concepts is maybe a powerful presupposition for introducing a concept like intersectionality – and it is thereby manifesting a universalist white ableist position which can explain everything.

in a societal situation in which power relation are categorized as separable, interdependencies have to be taken into account in any case. starting from this presupposition genderism and racism and ableism are inseparably interwoven and present all the time. the idea of the existence of genderism beyond racism and ableism is creating a white ableist norm as universalist. therefore, every analysis of genderism and every politics against genderism needs always be differentiated referring to other, only analytically separable discriminations as racism and ableism as well as migratism and classism.

not to perceive interdependencies simplifies discriminations in ways which make them more difficult to work against: for example when trans politics are fighting for the right to have a transgender-category in a german passport: illegalized trans-persons within germany and their discriminations are thus excluded from this politics.

inspiring_empowering reading: combahee river collective (1981): „a Black feminist statement“. in cherrié m. moraga and gloria anzaldúa (hg.): this bridge called my back. writings by radical women of color. new york, 210-218.


aesthetics, being used in a conventional way, is the hegemonic understanding of something “beautiful brilliant artistically impressing important expressive literary relevant” – or the opposite of all this

how could any aesthetic evaluation be beyond political impact and significance?

to put it more radically: how can something racist be beautiful?

in discussions on and about racist linguistic actions white people are claiming for themselves to be experts for everything. they say that certain uses of terms or texts are literarily and aesthetically important. this point is still made even if Black people and PoC demand not to use certain terms anymore because they are racist. it is argued that single terms cannot simply be changed – they are evaluated as historically aesthetic and hence untouchable. what does that mean for what aesthetics is!?

it seems as if beauty and aesthetics existed as values and imaginations beyond concrete political effects, political actions, concrete situations, discriminations – or even beyond statements of discriminated people about their usage. who is still evaluating something as beautiful if it is discriminating!? does that mean that beauty is part of the discriminating regime?

if a white person is using a (however historicized) term that discriminates Black persons, in what way could that ever be “aesthetic”? what kind of aesthetics would that be? aesthetics of racism?

how is it possible that feminist language changes – x-forms, underscore forms – are interpreted as non-aesthetical, if, at the same time, it is so evident that these are forms chosen by genderistically discriminated people? whose understandings of aesthetics are thus being normalized and whose are being evaluated as affected_emotional_extreme? are aesthetics privileged and discriminating normalizations?

aesthetics in a de_politicizing usage, and decontextualized from the presence and effect and power of structural discriminations is thus itself discriminatory, structural, artistically playing down and presented as coming from an decontextualized other sphere. such an understanding of aesthetics constitutes a politically structural discriminatory understanding of art. xart splitta does not share this understanding but tries to challenge it.

inspiring readings: send us your ideas and references to texts you know!


critique is feeling alive


being criticized is being noticed

is willing to deal with me and my positions_statements_actings

critique is being open for contact

is wishing communication

and expressing differences

differences as a positive resource

critique is productive

critique is important to deal with each other, to learn from each other, to communicate and work with each other

critique for us starts with acknowledging of what another person thinks_does_means

critique is respectfully accepting differences – if it is not genderist_racist_ableist_classist_migratist – then critique can be severe and clear and strong and loud – because what was before was not respectful

we are trying to realize critique as form of acting

through asking open questions, asking further questions, listening, framing own positions and ideas, through avoiding universalisms, avoiding generalizing evaluations, avoiding degradations and hierarchizations

we, xart splitta, perceive critique as coming closer to one another, moving conjoined – in contact and in difference


the more we are thinking about it, the more insecure we feel about what art means to us.

there are so many kinds of art which we do not identify with when understanding xart splitta as artistically active.

what we are thinking about when talking about art:

  • modes of empowering interventions
  • creating actions and expressions against interdependent discriminations
  • crossing conventions of genre
  • trying new forms of communication
  • irritating expectations
  • choosing new spaces, new words, new gazes, impressions and expression – always also localized against interdependent discriminations
  • reflecting and transfering interdependent structural discriminations into wordings
  • disidentifying with capitalist logics
  • challenging logics of functionality
  • inviting to pause, remain, or change your point of view
  • moving, challenging, making fun, connecting and giving space …


for further reading:
talking visions. multicultural feminism in a transnational age. ella shohat (ed.) 1998, mit press.


is living

and noticing_sharing

acting, again – anew and again – differently and again


language is

hegemonic and violent

injuring me

forcing people into discriminatory self-categorizations and denaming their privileges

(for me: forcing me into binary genderings and denaming my white and ableist privileges)

again and again


language is

at the same time also

a possibility

finding expressions

trying to mediate, to connect




language is always acting

if i speak or dont speak

if i remain silent and turn around

if i join the laughter or nod my head

when i drown others with my words

when privileged people assign discriminated people aggressions and thus distract from their own discriminatory and yet denamed aggressions

and continue not listening when discriminated people ask and demand that certain expressions are not being used

when privileged people do not want to listen when discriminated people speak

when i do not interrupt or disturb when discriminatory things are being said

when i interrupt when hearing things confusing me, being unfamiliar to me


all these are linguistic actions

trying to speak, listen and write and read less discriminatory

again and again

through new words like x-forms, trans_x_ing styles: expressing actings and not identities

through asterisks, @-forms, new namings, careful and caring addressings of me and others

all attempts to dissolute universalizing „we’s“

everything not yet said or written which is challenging binary genderings and which is explicitly expressing interdependent localizations and critical positionings

every decision of listening to, citing or authorizing discriminated voices

and all open questions


language is living



always in motion

always challenging and


to challenge