#and does NOT have to correlate At All to our gender Identity

[tigsbitties]

you there. i wanna ask you a question. In the Dialtown Phone Dating Sim Universe would yaoi be a word used to describe m/m pairings like it is in our world or would it be used to describe pairings between two phone headed people? I ask because out of universe Oliver and Karen are both described as "gay", but this only extends to them wanting to date exclusively phones or typewriters-- gender doesn't actually factor into the equation at all. And from an out of universe perspective it is simply set up this way as a compromise so characters don't all have to be vaguely bisexual but players don't have to play the game as any specific gender if they don't want to. Which is all well and good. but it opens a beautiful world of implications.

First. we have to ask ourselves if this is the standard everywhere or just how these two specific characters experience sexuality. Like there very well could be characters who are, for example, exclusively attracted to women and the head type doesn't matter. The topic simply isn't explored enough in depth within the game itself to make any definitive conclusions--but i have to assume there's variation on this given the nature of human sexuality is hardly rigid.

It should be noted that head type and gender often going together but not necessarily correlating is a progressive stance in universe. Typewriter=girl and phone=boy is both, likely seen as a more rigid, unchangeable rule by more conservative people and is something that the game itself doesn't really challenge outside of the player character. There are no canonical phone women or typewriter men npcs in the game. So even in Dialtown, a place said to be more progressive than other areas in terms of object head politics on account of being its origin point, its not particularly common. And the assumption is if your head doesn't correlate with your gender identity than you would want to change it.

But like. Gingi can't be the only person with the potential to defy this. statistically speaking. There have to be phone women and typewriter men who either can't get their head changed for one heath reason or another or simply want to have their head not one to one correlate with their gender either as an expression of identity or occupation. I'm sure their are male journalists or authors who have typewriter heads or female telemarketers or hotline operators with phone heads for the sake of convenience who have nothing extraordinary to say about their genders otherwise. After all, occupation seems to outrank gender in terms of head presentation, at least in Dialtown.

Plus, the head type gender dichotomy is extremely arbitrary (as all socially gendered things are) and is only set up that way because one guy 50 some years ago liked the idea. But that doesn't change what is and isn't considered ""normal"" in the game's world. Is head/gender discrepancy a big enough issue to have a bearing on pop culture? is yaoi only yaoi if its both m/m AND phone/phone because thats the baseline expectation or does only one half of the equation have to be true and if so WHICH takes precedent

[dykeulous]

I'll also offer my thoughts on your post about being cis or not. I'm very tired and tend to devolve into word salad when I'm sleepy so apologies if any of this is scrambeled.

The issue is that it's such a basic term. If one truly only conceptualizes themselves as their AGAB, it becomes a matter of semantics and a seemingly impossible gulf in how we see reality, because to you that's an inherently gender neutral act but to most trans people dividing people exclusively between Male and Female is just dividing them between Man and Woman. Our conceptualization of "female" is on totally different planets.

So it's like, okay, Radfem A doesn't believe in gender, and identifies as lacking a gender. So she's agender? Because that's what it sounds like, but I get that that is itself a gender identity. She can call herself whatever she likes, or not be called whatever she likes, but for her to just go "well I'm just a Female" is at least as much a gender identity since it happens to be the only way most radfems - explicit TERFs, I mean - have conceptualized gender, and how it's been conceptualized by most of humanity for most of history.

It's exceptionally difficult to try and make these two worldviews compatible because at the end of the day you can call a trans woman a woman but that doesn't really mean anything if she's also a male in the way a cis man is. The TIRF viewpoint seems to me to be just dressing up TERFery with trans affirming language. So it's like, okay, someone is doesn't have a gender, but agender still too much identification, so they identify as Female which isn't the same as woman or girl, which means they aren't cis but they aren't trans...again, no one has to identify as anything they don't want to, but it's hard to make any of trans identity at all work with these ideas, because it treats Male and Female as essentially Trve Gender.

Being cis does mean, essentially, not being trans, or at least it does to most** trans people the way certain sexual characteristics make someone female to you. There could be greater discussion on how to talk about people who are dysphoric but do not identify as trans, but the biggest part of the split in ideology here is on such a fundamental level that's very hard to do. Elon Musk was completely ridiculous when he got upset about being called cis and I could never change my mind on that. The absolute aversion to simply being called trans doesn't make sense to me even though I try to understand and respect people who would want to avoid it because they don't feel it matches it them. And then that's a problem, because they feel excluded, but they're the ones refusing to be considered trans in the first place? Like, someone who has dysphoria like that but rejects the label would just be a cis person with dysphoria, I would think.

I personally would support people who identify as their AGAB, but have dysphoria, as being trans without them having to be something else, if that was the primary issue.

*emphasis on most

**again, emphasis on most

thank you for sharing your perspective. that means a lot to me.

yes, “cis” is a very basic, one-dimensional word, and that is the problem. i see & understand that a lot of trans people get upset at the classification of female/male & correlate it to simple categorization of woman/man– because dysphoria, after all, is a condition that includes certain triggers, so i’m not going to complain about that (because i understand). but even before i got into radical feminism, i never really was upset about being called female; like you point out, it was simply gender neutral to me. it was a fact of life. just like it is to me now; a completely neutral, grey fact of life. of course, the way i view it is somewhat different to the way cis radfems do, since i am dysphoric, and i do have a different relationship with my sex characteristics than non-dysphoric people do: but ultimately, i understand that it is a neutral aspect of the human body, and i do my very best not to connate it with any gender stuff.

that being said, i don’t think it’s fair to say that a radfem (or any cis woman for that matter) who says she doesn’t identify as a woman, and rather just is female, has a gender identity “in her own way”. the trans community & the radfem community have a lot of ideological conflicts, which is why i understand why you would think this way. however, to me (i won’t say “us” because i know a lot of radfems disagree with me on this anyway & i don’t want to spread misinformation on general radfem beliefs), “female” is just a neutral state of being, while “woman” is the socio-economic class that was coercively ascribed to the female body. a lot of radfems are going to say, “i am a woman because i am female and a woman is an adult female human”, but i personally believe that is way too simplistic. most of the time, a woman is an adult female human– but i don’t strictly associate this with biology. i recognize two sets of gender: a) gender class and b) gender identity. a lot of radfems are going to tell you, “sex is material reality, gender is not”– which i disagree with. gender identity isn’t material reality. gender identity is personal, mutable, malleable, subjective (however still a production of gender existing as a division of the working-class), however; gender class is material. your experiences rely on gender class, and how you are perceived in society. that doesn’t mean that there is some inherent value to gender class, or that there is a scientific basis to it– it simply means that it is your lived experience, your material reality– which is most of the time, but not always, ascribed to your sex/biology.

i also do not believe that tirfs are “trying to cover their terfery up with trans affirming language”. i do not mean this offensively, but if you’re constantly looking for secret agents & traitors, you are efficiently locking yourself up in an echo-chamber. someone validating & acknowledging trans women’s gender identity, and also taking into consideration their lived experience as women if they have transitioned into the gender class of woman, while simultaneously not erasing the fact that they are male– is not trying to “cover their inner transphobia”. they are simply stating facts. i think the problem here is that you believe radfems hold some fundamental belief of having to do something in order to be male. “at the end of the day, you can call a trans woman a woman, but that doesn’t really mean anything if she’s also male in the way a cis man is”– a trans woman cannot “be male in the way a cis man is”, because a trans woman is a trans woman, not a cis man. i do not believe that anyone can be male in any way, someone just is male. radfems do not view male biology as something inherently evil, monstrous, oppressive, disgusting, or something to be distanced from. we do not believe there is a right or wrong way to be male, and we do not view the male biology as our enemy: we hold the system as our enemy. i understand your deep desire to distance your own self from it, because after all, you are dysphoric; but take this with a grain of salt; acknowledging that you are male, and that this does not define you in any way, shape, or form; and that you still can keep your subjective gender identity, as well as medically migrate into the woman gender class if you so wish– will probably ease your dysphoria a million times. i know it did mine. you can change your sex characteristics, but ultimately you cannot change your sex, the clear canvas that should carry no gendered connotations at all.

i will also acknowledge that some radfems are, in fact, attempting to “revert back to sex categorization instead of gender categorization”, or how you here point it out; “gender has been conceptualized that way throughout the whole of history”. however, i still believe we have somewhat of a different understanding of this. a lot of radfems don’t understand that in order to abolish gender, we also need to abolish sex categorization. that doesn’t mean, “ignore the fact that there are legitimate anatomical differences”, it means– “acknowledge that those anatomical differences hold no social significance whatsoever, and acknowledge the fact that these very anatomical differences have been appropriated by the patriarchy in order to justify the creation of the cultural system of gender”. after the neolithic revolution, female humans became secondary, and this marks the emergence of gender as the ideological, religious, and cultural system, a.k.a. the beginning of ascribing gender to one’s biology. then followed sex categorization, the canonization & essentialization of the gender system; this meant using pseudoscientific measures & approaches to “justify” why males had superior biology, and thus the man class is & should be the natural leader. you are, however, wrong in the fact that “this is just how it has always been”, because human history did not begin at neolithic, and it certainly did not stop there, either. for most of our history, humans have lived in quite egalitarian communes, where neither gender nor sex categorization existed. gender as a system of exploitation expands, develops, evolves, and varies from culture to culture. as an example, we are currently stuck up in the imperialistic view of the colonial binary gender system: this doesn’t mean that the gender systems prior to imperialism were somehow more progressive or less oppressive, it simply means that the gender system has evolved to fit the current era, which is the highest stage of capitalism.

essentially, we cannot separate sex categorization from gender. both need to be dismantled. for that, we need gender communism, or gender acceleration– the process of speeding up, or accelerating gender, until it no longer has any meaning [which it doesn’t on a scientific level, but it certainly does on a socio-cultural one]. humans have lived in egalitarian communes before, or as karl marx explained it through historical materialism; primitive communism. we are currently living under the highest stage of capitalism, and we need to reach for the better, the final stage of human society; communism. anatomical differences between females & males are real, but no classification has any fundamental or scientific basis that explains the gendering of human biology. neither sex is better nor worse, neither sex is superior nor inferior, and neither sex has any inherent personality traits, hobbies, iq, abilities, or capabilities. there is no right or wrong way to be female or male. there is no scientific basis that supports gender identity, it simply exists because of the division of gender, and the division of gender exists because of the patriarchy.

i appreciate your open-mindedness on the existence of dysphoric people who aren’t trans-identified, and for respecting their choice of not wanting to be called trans, while trying to also include them in your conversations about dysphoria. that does clear up some of my concerns, however i will still say that this certainly is not the opinion of the majority of the trans community, or at least how i have seen it. i do ultimately believe it is absurd & ridiculous to be extremely upset at being called cis, as it was originally just meant to be a harmless distinction between trans & non-trans people, and it would be downright insensitive to take away the right of an oppressed group to name the people who aren’t part of their specific social class.

[theneutralhumanproject]

how would you stereotype the female panther?

and this question is meant sincerely. what could this panther do to be more “feminine”? how many octaves does she have to raise her roar for you to hear her as a female? does it matter when she’s chasing you at full speed?

is she less violent with less melanated fur or skin? is she more violent the darker she is? does it change her existence as a female panther? does it change how she scales a tree in search of prey? does it change her love for her cubs, or the way she loved her mother when she was a cub? does it change the sharpness of her canines?

do you look at her and see her as a female? or do you see her as a panther first, with her femaleness being secondary?

and why would a human be different?

why would a human female be stereotyped the instant she’s perceived? why does her skin correlate to violence or docility? why is she female before she is human? why is her existence inherently sexual, inherently meant for consumption?

it doesn’t have to be this way.

welcome to The Neutral Human Project, a space for envisioning a future beyond the myth of gender, beyond the myth of race, beyond the tangled web of identity as inherently political. this project is a work of theory, ever evolving before your very eyes, aimed at narrowing down the path toward the next stage of humanity, one with unity, equality, compassion, and connection at the forefront of all human interaction, political or otherwise.

this project values the human as another species of animal. despite our minute differences in epigenetics, culture, upbringing, class, and environment, this project makes it clear that there is simply more that unifies us than divides us. through advocacy for separation of church and state, dissolution of gendered stereotypes and discrimination, normalization and separation of sex from the gendered myth, the rights of all human females, and the freedom to be who you are without the burden of overcomplicated labels, this project aims to make a clear and ever changing plan for evolution beyond the boxes and borders of modern human society.

welcome to the future of humanity in text. we are equal, we are united, and we will stand indivisible against all problems— no matter how tricky they may be.

[zignifier]

i mean gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender are all words that identify somebodys class position materially. there's no cohesive class definition of aromanticism or even asexuality; [link]

i think [asexual/aromantic] are only useful in communicating to hypothetical sexual or romantic partners very specific things. [link]

#like same down to hypothetically being asexual#but like. i refuse the label lmao#its not relevant to anyone but me and my partners!!! [link]

@deepseasmetro I disagree with you here, and I think you would see the issue with asserting one's "LGBT" identity as being only communicatively useful "in the bedroom," as it were.

there is just not a meaningful material difference between me and an asexual person. we have both been pressured to have sex, we have both had sex we didnt want to have, we have both felt displeasure over the focus placed on sex in relationships..! like. What Is The Difference. can you list me the differences. how does Being Asexual tm change the way society makes one feel about sex. [link]

You are correct here, but none of the other identities you mentioned have a cohesive class definition, nor are there meaningful material differences in the identifying with them or not.

(That allosexual is an unserious and offensive term does not prove asexual useless, just as bisexual is not rendered useless by the unseriousness of monosexual, nor nonbinary by exorsexism.

The unseriousness arises from not accounting for the reality that there is more to being rewarded in matters of gender and sexuality than just, for example, having/desiring sex. It is not enough to not be asexual, bisexual, or nonbinary.

The usefulness of the terms straight and cisgender come from them not being one-dimensional opposites of gay and transgender. That is, to be straight requires more than not being gay, to be cisgender requires more than not being transgender.)

Insofar as to "validate" the existence of any of them is to obfuscate that they are an Other in a system of measure that plainly should not exist in the first place. You joke on how the Woman coerced into sex with her husband cannot broadly be understood as experiencing aphobia; I would argue similarly she cannot broadly be understood as experiencing homophobia, etc.

The construction of this Other who experiences these things is essential to making natural such subordinations! There is no list of differences I can provide to you that constitute the categories of LGBT+, because it's all provisional and contextual; it's about the allegiances people [are able to] make in the unrelenting moment-to-moment policing of gender power.

I phrase it like this because I understand the value and risk in "coming out" and/or the qualitative difference in feelings after "accepting one's identity," so I cannot say that the identifying with a term is a mere articulation of how one has already been gendered, clearly it is an Action in itself.

Thus, I would tentatively put forth that such identity-formation is correlated with hermeneutical advance, which does not necessarily have to take that same form. E.g. there is a difference between a person who says, "I don't understand those transgenders, but I support them," and one who says, truthfully, "I am transgender," in that it indicates one's class proximities and incentives regarding gender power, in that it indicates a potentiality for valuing interpretations of gender not well within hegemony. But those things can be assessed and understood by other means, as I'm sure you're aware with the discourse on the terms TME/TMA. Which is to say, there exist people who do not identify as "a transgender woman," or gay or what have you, yet materially cannot be said to be distinct from those who do.

But I'd think it rather flippant to say everyone should individually abandon these labels entirely in our present moment (They will, one day, wither away when gender is abolished, of course.) or, again, to say their uses are relegated to the private sphere. The coercions of compulsory heterosexuality and gender conformity are as mundane and public as clouds in the sky; it's unfair to only call their oppositions without merit.

If you, personally, do not feel like making a part of your public self-presentation the aspects of your life that could constitute an "asexuality," then that is fine. I think you must keep in mind people are psychiatrized and othered for these variations and differ in their responses to being subjected to that.

I have used transgender/cisgender here for my analogies on there not being a material difference between identities, but I, ultimately, "identify" as transgender. Which is to say I have many qualms on with what most people would take that to mean, but I feel my context demands this of me. I have been diagnosed with "gender dysphoria," I am on HRT, a large portion of my family has harmed and shunned me for openly identifying as transgender, etc, which adds up to me seeing articles on how there is growing fear and uncertainty for transgender people in my country and I know that the article pertains to me. If I were to now say I identify as cisgender, it would not change the fact those articles pertain to me.

But there are things I could do to change that. At any point, if I wanted to, I could become one of those detransition grifters, disavow my allegiances, demonstrate to my family a willingness to Be Cisgender. (I must make it clear here that this is very different from returning to the closet.) That this would not only be a shot to my happiness, but an unacceptable violation of my principles, indicates to me my proximities and incentives, and informs my identity.

I can definitely see someone who could summarize their life experiences similarly, yet concludes they do not have to "identify as transgender," that to do so would be a concession that their navigations in gendered autonomy constituted a suffering in itself (gender dysphoria) rather than speaking to the broader efforts to police them. Perhaps this person thinks a bit differently than me to not have such a dichotomy internally on trans/cis-gender and is comfortable in the ambiguity.

I can imagine that abstractly because that is how I feel about the labels lesbian and aromantic. I don't want to make the concessions that gendered/romantic attraction are meaningful measurable differences between people.

I don't want to assert that I "am not attracted to men" categorically because, to me, that diminishes the focus I'd like to bring to the results of my exercises in autonomy to de-center men and as I implied earlier naturalizes the role of the heterosexual woman. I also just don't care to monitor my inclinations such that one day, perhaps, it will have Turned Out I am bisexual, as evidenced by my involvement with a man. I just can't view that as unearthing some self-truths. It would just mean something happened to change the broad strokes of my gendered decision-making and I could very well renege my bisexuality and make lesbian-esque decisions again. Why assert that I "am" anything rather than just summarize my present decisions as I am doing now?

materially is there really a difference between Self Identified Asexual Person and person with low T or highly stressed or busy with other things in life so they arent having sex rn, or ever? [link]

You ask if there is a material difference between a self-identified asexual and a person undergoing Circumstances, similarly I ask is there a material difference from a self-identified lesbian and someone who avoids getting emotionally involved with men, due to that being evidently stressful? I think someone with the same feelings of "attraction" as me could very well identify as either lesbian or bisexual, that's their prerogative, and I wouldn't take it as them claiming they have no agency and are subject to their innate unchanging nature.

there are people who do not have sex or engage in typical romantic relationships for all kinds of reasons. generally men are not marrying men for funsies or w/e. [link]

No one is getting married for funsies. Marriage is a violent apparatus of patriarchy. I think it's pretty reductive to bring in "gay marriage" as the thrust of what constitutes gayness.

Are you asserting that people's relationship configurations are one-to-one with a given LGBT identity, excluding asexuality and aromanticism specifically? That, for example, a person not having sex can be doing so for any number of reasons, but a person having sex is to be neatly categorized as being straight or one of LGB, because the reasons and material circumstances do not differ amongst people? Would it be any of your business to tell me I am a lesbian for my choices in sexual partners? Do you think people mean exactly the same thing in saying, "I'm so gay"?

Again, I do not identify as aromantic. I refuse to concede that there exists some existing and measurable compilation of feelings that can be dubbed "romantic." Therefore, it cannot be said I "lack" these feelings in comparison to others. When people explain their boundaries around intimacy to me and categorize acts by [un]acceptable outside of their romantic relationship[s], I find it mind-boggling that they can even give enough credence to that concept to expect me to understand!

But I can understand another person having gone through the same othering experiences as me, and finding value in naming that othering as an identification with aromanticism. I also understand that your arguments pertain to me, that I have incentive to take issue with your claim that the factors that could constitute an identity with aromanticism are only useful with prospective partners.

That is nonsensical. I am expected to go along with normative views and behaviors surrounding romance in everyday, public contexts. If you can understand that there is a utility in saying, "I'm gay. Stop asking me that." in response to "When are you getting a girlfriend?" despite it not communicating anything specific, despite another person perhaps opting to explain they do not have a desire to pursue a girlfriend, or that they think the designation of a person as a "girlfriend" is unacceptably tied up in patriarchal expectations, then you can understand the same for asexuality and aromanticism. I'm sure you understand also that that is a simple example, and the relevancy of an LGBT+ identity extends outside of being asked these things directly.

I am not trying to tell you that you must conceptualize aphobia in exactly the same ways as you do misogyny, homophobia, etc. My main concern is your hypocrisy and credulity towards other arbitrary categories. I understand that in the history of asexuality and aromanticism, there have been many an unserious claim for what constitutes aphobia. I would ask you to investigate beyond these and come to more well-rounded conclusions, whatever they might be.

For example, my own stance results in me not thinking it necessary to quibble with someone if they were to call the House MD episode "Better Half" aphobic. That episode very specifically attacks the then-nascent hermeneutics regarding asexuality, I would think it inadequate to only say it reinforces heterosexuality, in much the same way I can identify most House MD episodes reinforce heterosexuality, but specific ones can be called biphobic.

That point gets into pathologization and the validity of that particular hermeneutical tradition, which I glossed over because I would be seriously tempted to elaborate on my opinions on psychiatry, and I'm trying to keep a scope more immediately relevant to your claims. Which is to say I have much more I could talk about, but I'll cut myself short and hope this was enough for you to understand my viewpoint.

Thanks for reading, that is all.

[atowncalledher]

hmmm I can't remember if I made a post about the two different layers on which our system operates so imma do it again.

We have the top layer that we talk about, where we have all of our different named members and their sometimes overlapping identities, but underneath that we have the color layer.

The color layer is made up of parts and fragments and more simple, base level brain functions (I call it the color layer because a lot of more general pieces of it have strong color associations. idk if it's just synesthesia or what but. whatever lol). But these are the actual building blocks of our system, and i think our brain as a whole.

The main parts of the color layer are (or in some cases were; it's a little hard to tell where some of them are and whether or not they have fused); Sky (Green), Sable(Black), Mika (Pink), Grey, and mTau (Yellow). (Those first three have names because they are actually the first pieces of our system the N met when she discovered we were plural; we're not really sure how solid some of the top layer identities were before the point where she met them. Taylor, for instance, started out as a fragment before fusing with another fragment to get where she is now. Four turned into KK (who was Mika but also light blue) before she fused into Chloe). These different pieces contain different parts of our identity and history. Green is our caretaker tendencies, Black is rebellious, righteous anger, and Pink is our little. Grey is actually a dissociative barrier that surrounds those three, as well as I think some loose unnamed parts (while also in some ways being a protector for our system as a whole). Yellow is actually on the other side of that barrier, and I think that's because it contains some bad shit from our teenage years (high school bullshit, gender dysphoria stuff, and maybe some other stuff. the primary reason i think that is because Ash is yellow and so is mTau but we'll get to that in a sec).

So the color layer contains more basic pieces of our identity, and each identity on the top layer (which again is where we have our properly named and defined members) each draw from or contain sections of these parts from the color layer. Sky is, well, Green. Leo is mostly Grey. Sierra is pretty much all Black. mTau is all Yellow, Ash and Ren are both part Yellow and part Black. N is a lot of Green, and so is Emma, though they both contain other small parts. Saai is yellow too. Like half of our masculine identifying and masc leaning parts are yellow (Leo and Alyx are an exception, though Alyx is bigender). There are strange associations like that. A lot of Green headmates use She/They, it seems to have some correlation to gender identity.

At some points though it gets really hard to tell who's who and what's what. Like Four was initially Silver, and then when she broke apart and those formed KK they were a Light Blue, and then now Chloe is definitively Red. Idk if those are just unrelated synesthesia things or if they are smaller parts in the color layer that just never got properly identified. And like Dizzy was partially Black (all the Emo Kids contain Black) but we also associated her with purple, but that association disappeared when she fused into Chloe. Was purple just a color she liked? Does Chloe contain Purple, or is Purple now a loose unaffiliated part in the color layer? No idea tbh. Doesn't seem to be around anymore though.

The color layer is also more varied tho. I think some of the pieces in there are just loose memories. I think there might be one in there, completely isolated, from a pretty bad car crash we were in when we were 12. Just a loose part containing those few seconds of memory. Interestingly I think that part is a shade of Light Blue but was unaffiliated with KK, who was also Light Blue.

Honestly who knows. Brain works in weird ways. I try to understand and I'm kinda the member of our system who keeps track of all this but like. fuck dude i dunno. brain works weird who knows. I'm just out here doing my best.

[pokegyns]

Sex dysphoria as an incongruous body map is the most sensical, persuasive and not-misogynistic argument for the innateness of gender identity I've ever seen, much more than I've ever got from a TRA, but then you start talking about young future-transwomen showing culture-bound signifiers of femininity in very young childhood. Why would there be any correlation between sex incongruity and gender nonconformity? You specifically say that this is even before they are aware of their own incongruity. Why? Are you saying it's a form of extremely subconscious mimicry of the gender roles of the sex the brain believes its body is? Even before the child even understands the sex-gender connection?

I can tell you're not saying that gnc=trans, I'm not misreading you quite that badly. But what could a correlation between sex incongruity and childhood gender nonconformity imply except either terfism or bioessentualism?

I'm asking in pure good faith. I want to believe.

i do not believe there is an innate, inherent biological connection between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity. however, due to societal indoctrination & environmental circumstances, sex incongruous children most of the time do not feel connected with their peers of the same sex. gender is not just a bystander, it is a large system and a huge superstructure that is built in every aspect of our society. it is something that can have war-torn impacts on people, and i think we all can see the way that this system uniquely disadvantages & impairs sex incongruous & dysphoric people– which does have a very lasting effect on dysphoric children. as children are most of the time raised under a strict gender binary, under the [current] colonial gender system, which is hierarchical & totalitarian based on assimilation that outcasts any ambiguity & deviation– it is no surprise that sex incongruous children will be impaired in numerous social aspects, and that their socialization will be very much affected by this rigid gender categorization which leaves them feeling alienated.

under a system without gender, there would likely be less connections between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity; as there would be no such thing as gender to conform or not to conform to in the first place– and i do believe that the currently existing connections between the two are real, however not biologically ingrained, fixated, or determined in any way– but are rather socially shaped, similarly to how social dysphoria is. just because a phenomenon exists, does not necessarily mean that it is inherently biologically predisposed in any individual. there is evidence that dysphoric children are in fact alienated from their peers & that they have face bigger struggle conforming to their specific assigned gender role, however that is not because their brain somehow misaligns with their sex [which would be neurosexism], nor are they at fault for being socially impaired to a degree; it is the extremely strict, fixated & totalitarian system of gender that unfairly & unjustly punishes those who deviate in any way. we cannot say that the phenomenon itself isn’t real, much like how we cannot say that gender is not– both are real, but they have no scientific basis, nor are they biologically determined. gender is forced on us, and the connection between gender nonconformity & dysphoria is formed due to the existence of gender itself– which must be abolished.

– mod zoroark

[our-queer-experience]

This is kind of an add on to the otherkin ask thing, so if you don’t want to post it cause it doesn’t fit the theme of the blog that’s cool. Also, I’m not the same anon as previously

From what I understand about otherkin and therians, the majority of people taking those terms/labels view it as a spiritual thing. Kind of like ‘I fully understand that I’m a human, however I feel a deep connection with this animal’ or ‘I was born as this animal in a past life’. Stuff like that. And I think that’s fine, that’s cool. I’m not going to try to interfere with other people’s beliefs, especially since I’m not familiar with any kind of spirituality so I’m really not knowledgable to comment on it

However, I do have a lot of problems with the concept of transpeciesism and ‘species dysphoria’. As a trans person, I find these labels to be pretty offensive. People who call themselves transspecies, from what I’ve seen, view this as along the same lines of being transgender, and genuinely believe that they need to be in an animal’s body/have animal’s characteristics. To me at least, this is really fucking offensive to the trans community. There is no possible way to be an animal but in a human’s body or whatever. You can’t be born with an animal’s brain, animals aren’t a social construct, there’s literally no way. To me, this is on the same level as being transage, transabled, or any other idiotic transid identity

People who identify this way need to get therapy. The only types of people I’ve seen aching like this is a thing are kids, trolls, and incredibly mentally ill people who are separating themselves from humanity and latching into animals as a coping mechanism for their trauma (this isn’t even me stereotyping or whatever. When I went out looking for information on this, the only people who I saw talking about why they identified this way were saying that they’d had intense trauma that left them disconnected and dissociated from their own humanity). People should not be making identities out of this! People should not be talking about transitioning to another species wtf! And I know that this is just a small portion of the internet, but it’s still there, and it’s still harmful against the trans community and to the people who participate in it, and it’s a fucking problem

ok so. i was with you until “these people are all mentally ill and need to be FIXED!!!” if people are otherkin bc trauma, first identify: does the otherkin identity help them cope and feel better. because usually yeah it does. it hurts no one. fuck off.

being otherkin isn’t comparable to being transgender. duh. our gender is an innate sense of self that everyone has or doesn’t, not changeable, not caused by trauma, often correlated with transexual acts and gender dysphoria though not always. and transracial refers to cultural things- being born one nationality and raised another, not “transitioning race”. if we mean “im a white person is a black body” i’ve never seen someone say that except for to be racist and to mock trans people. never in good faith. so i don’t think that’s giving us a bad name either. “transage” i’ve never seen someone claim this identity in good faith either, so i could not give two shits about that. irrelivant.

and the whole “it’s harmful to the trans comunity” NO IT’S NOT. you could be the most cis-passing, heterosexual, transexual and transgender person and people WILL STILL HATE US.

say it with me. michael knowles did not call for the “complete eradication” of “transgenderism” because otherkin are giving us a bad name, he says it because he hates trans people and wants his five minutes of fame.

ultimetly, if the otherkin identity is not directly harming the individual(typically it isn’t) then i don’t know why you care.

canada is accepting trans people as refugees. i keep seeing headlines about trans kids killing themself. they’re calling for our complete eradication. they’re calling us paraphiliac sexual predators or poor confused children who need saving. people on the internet will actively say they wish you were dead and threaten to dox you. dylan mulveney is getting bomb threats over a bud light commercial. donald trump said he’d ban all transition with no exception if he got elected. russia is doing that right now.

the world has gone to shit and i guarentee you it’s not because some people on the internet decided spiritually, they felt more animal than human(as if we’re pretending there’s a difference between us and an animal besides biologies, we’re not special.)

i get it. it’s hard to confront how litteral nazis are protesting pride parades and people are getting assaulted and the world is shit. but don’t misplace that anger on literal strangers who understand reality a bit different from you.

[i-dont-pay-taxes]

Sky should be high from guilty gear is actually about being trans and I didn't completely make that up!

Lyrics we'll be referring to throughout this analysis:

//it should be noted this song is not actually about being trans, but i find this reading of it interesting, everything I say is completely my own interpretation so take that as you want

"I just tried to take the PATH

that led me to be FREE and ended in this bind

The PAST is what it's called

FILTH is what it is.

That's the wall of the CELL"

The beginning of this song is the closest to having outright trans themes, with it talking about taking the path to be free, which could be seen as the process of transitioning. What I find more interesting is how it talks about being binded by the past, referring to it as filth. There is a clear disgust towards it, comparing it to a part of a cell trapping the person going through this.

A common feeling after transitioning is a certain disliking of our past, and thinking we are trapped by what we were. This idea that we are somehow not being true to the person we were before can develop, leading to us feeling trapped by our own identity.

The song sets up our main issue within this first section, that being the hardships of transitioning.

"Fades away

Fades away like footsteps on the shoreline

why? They try to bring me down.

Sky should be high... Backflow"

The song brings up the idea of the past slowly fading away, and while calling the past a filth, it still has a somber tone while talking about it disappearing. The next line, about others trying to bring the person down, without any understandable reason, is quite obvious in it's correlation to the trans experience.

The last sentence is a repeating line throughout the song, and it's the most important idea this song has to offer... a rejection of death. The sky it refers to could be seen as an afterlife, a place we go to so we may rest, and this song states that such a place should be far away from us. We shouldn't give up on life, on our choices, and as such our sky should be high.

The backflow part doesn't have much to be interpreted. If i had to draw some kind of conclusion, I'd say it's the idea of changing gender, changing the flow... (It's a stretch, but so is everything)

"HERE we go again CON-tradiction

Should I stay or should I die

TRIED to pave a path

DUG a huge hole

had no clue that was my GRAVE"

Sometimes, after transitioning, we can feel like we are contradicting our own body, this whole verse of the song is an almost rageful rant about the hardships experienced throughout the process of figuring it all out.

The idea of staying or dying is a dark concept many trans people have to face, having to choose between gender dysphoria or possible social shunning.

The song again mentions the idea of paving a path and this time it results in almost giving up. It should be mentioned that it does something interesting vocally here, with the word DUG being pronounced so that the D sound is emphasised, making it sound like the word DIE before the UG sound and further context is added. This is used to show the descent of the song, going from doubt to almost completely giving up.

The last two lines further reinforce this, with it now representing the transition as a grave which will lead to death, a death of one's own creation.

"Fades away

Hands and feet are bound, Can't even see

why? They try to bring me down.

Sky should be high... Backflow"

This verse is mostly the same as the one before it, with the important distinction of the second line. The past is now almost completely faded, and that can be scary, feeling like we can't change anything about our future or see what we were like can be a scary idea.

"Backflow

Backflow... As dark shades are made by the sun

Backflow... Good booze is just making it just worse

Backflow... The more words, the less I get

This world is built in brimstone"

The constant repeating of the word backflow is meant to be an attempt to forcefully get through this, continuing with the transition despite the contradictions consistently being brought up within the person.

Dark shades made by the sun can be seen as the negative effects of the transition, with the sun representing the transition itself, while the shades are meant to show how this, at its core healthy and good process, has negative effects due to the way trans people are treated.

Addictions can be developed because of these internal (and tbh in huge part societal) issues. The booze is used as an example of a furthering spiral downward, making everything worse.

The idea that the more words are used to express this feeling, the less the very person explaining it understands themselves is also quite powerful.

It ends by stating that the world is built in brimstone, which could be taken as society being unwilling to change and co-exist with the idea of trans people. This is the lowest point of the song, having it feel like the whole world is against the very idea of being trans.

"Can't you see?

The innocent may find the way

Wise men lose track of the single path

No one knows tomorrow"

A change in perspective. The first line suggests this is a different person completely, as with an almost rhetorical tone it asks the question we thought we knew the answer to. This idea that the answer is obvious, but we've been blind to it, is the major theme of this verse.

Firstly, it claims that as long as we stay innocent, as long as we stay good and moral people, we may find the way.

Secondly, it says that even the wisest of us can lose track of said path, and that there is no shame in that.

Third, it presents the idea that no one knows tomorrow, that no one is certain what the future may bring.

These words contrast the verse before, claiming that no matter the hardships we face, this world isn't built in brimstone, it can change, we can find our own path, and we may get lost along the way, but even the best get lost occasionally.

"I'll never ever kneel down"

This might be my favorite sentence in a song ever, a complete rejection of giving up, refusing to not live because of hardships. Something not innate to the trans experience, but one of the things that defy it. The song has presented the hardships, and the answers, but this, this is the conclusion.

"Stairway

Jaded town of god... what the hell

Stay away... not going there

Sky should be high"

The town of god is another synonym for the afterlife, with the song, now with certainty, proclaiming it wishes to stay away. Rejecting death, giving up and this fake peace, it repeats the idea of how the sky should be high.

"Oh Fades away

Fades away like footsteps on the shoreline

(Yeah) Fades away just one moment left

Sky should be high Backflow"

The past is fading away for the final time, but this time, due to the certainty gained, the song doesn't have a regretful and somber sound. As the last moment finishes, we repeat the ideas we mentioned, and the ending lyric of backflow signifies the completion of the transition, finally accepting ourselves and finding our path. The sky should indeed be high.

//again, overdramatic trans reading of a song for a fighting game, do not take too seriously

[dailyanarchistposts]

What’s the deal with feminism and anarchy?

What’s the correlation between the two? I’ve heard some a-feminists say all anarchists are (or should be) feminists. Is patriarchy really that prevalent or that big of a problem? Feminism just seems like a whiny way of saying women need to be treated equally, yet differently and even better than men.

dot

First—this question seems to be trolling, both in its language and in its content. But since this topic hasn’t been fleshed out here much, I will continue on the premise of good faith. This answer is not going to be a tome, so it doesn’t go into sufficient detail about the complexities around gender vs sex, etc...

Patriarchy is in fact that big of a problem. Women (and women-identified people, which includes tons of people, including entirely straight men in certain contexts) are still attacked as women, paid significantly less then men for the same type of work, devalued in many levels of society (politics, etc), ignored, trivialized, etc. That is just on the bare surface level. If you consider patriarchy to be the thing that keeps us locked in a gender binary, which many feminists (and anarchists) do, then the fact that most of us don’t get to have the kinds of relationships that we want, or be the people we want to be, regardless of our gender/sex, is based on patriarchy.

There are at least as many kinds of feminists as there are of anarchists (probably more).

Since on one level feminists are saying that the standard way of doing things is a problem because of inherited and recreated hierarchies that don’t allow people our full expression, then yes, feminism and anarchy can be seen as intimately related. On the other hand, some feminists just want more women in government, so those feminists have nothing in common with anarchists.

Calling feminists whiny makes me want to hit you in the face.

While identity politics (the idea that a particular identity is a fundamental issue that is worth organizing around—and can be organized around) has a lot of problems and weaknesses, it is one of the easiest ways to (start to) look at many of the inequities of the system we live in. Many people get to that stage and make a home there, replicating power trips that mirror (as in reverse-image) the dynamics in the larger society. Those people are particularly prone to contradictions in what they are asking for (treat me the same and treat me differently). But sometimes what appears to be a contradiction is actually someone taking into account the different contexts of women and men. For example, what self defense looks like for women vs what it looks like for men can be significantly different, since women and men are mostly socialized with diametrically opposed understandings of physical violence.

fnk

“if you consider patriarchy to be the thing that keeps us locked in gender binary...”

I see most feminist responses to patriarchy as absolutely perpetuating the “gender” binary, just as patriarchy does. Some might see that as inherently wrapped up in the bogeyman of feminism patriarchy, where everything that “results” from patriarchy is somehow explainable (or even justifiable) as such. I see that perspective as a far-too-easy avoidance of the complexities of power dynamics in every relationship.

This raises a few related questions in my head. Are patriarchy and feminism, by definition, manifestations of binary thinking?

Is feminism merely a response to patriarchy? Or is it a separately existing concept/ideology, that would/could exist even without patriarchy? One that is not really about gender, or race, or class, ... Or perhaps is the same concept/ideology?

One final thought on the original question. Patriarchy is, at some level, an institution (at least it is seen that way by many). Any anarchist I care to hang with is against all institutions (which are inherently controlling and homogenizing). A feminist who is against patriarchy but not against other institutions (work/capitalism, government; these seem to be the contexts within which patriarchal behavior is measured, at least on the broad scale), is really no different from the communist who is against one institution (capitalism) but not the rest (including, but not limited to, the state, industrialism, etc). Just my 2c.

dot

“I see most feminist responses to patriarchy as absolutely perpetuating the “gender” binary”

Sure. and most anarchists maintain fucked up patterns of behavior that contradict what anarchy is too. Not trying to make an exact correlation or anything, and I hang with anarchists not feminists for exactly the reasons that you mention, but it is true that very few people push the things that they believe in, in the directions that seem appropriate (and/or obvious) to me.

[adglaciem]

well its over for you hoes because lys said i should post it so

forgive the organizational mayhem here

so basically id like to compare and contrast the utilization of gendered traits and the resulting way in which characters are perceived both ic and ooc between geten and trumpet. basically. because ive already written an embarrassing amount about the weird pair-esque foiling of the characters and what they represent

like, the interactions between masculinity and femininity in getens design arent intentionally meant to be indicative of permeability between the two (as in, by him). getens "femininity" comes entirely from physical traits he has no control over, but they visually register as strongly enough to forcefully shift the understanding of who he is as a person ic and as a character ooc. its jarring and further serves to indicate his strangeness and existence outside of the social order and specific alignment to the himura clan, who are, as he explains, closed off and insular. * thats a special tool to help us later

conversely, we read trumpet as effeminate, but we dont do so because we see indicators of Active Femininity so much as we compare his perceived masculinity to the characters around him and find his genteel demeanor and specific physical traits to be "lacking" . and im not gonna sit here and say we're in the wrong or inherently bigoted for using these gendered assumptions because its very intentional on both the part of the author and character to insinuate these things in this way.

and on kokus part, you see a phenomenon thats really not all that uncommon: the taking on of specific performances of perceived femininity in order to appear less imposing. soft pinks and purples, hearts for the logo, the lower lashes, intentional passivity… he needs people to trust him as an ideological leader, and while going for a hardline masculine type of charisma COULD work, this one brings an element of class alongside it. he poses no threat to other men, and hes given more leeway by women because hes able to act within the code of mannerisms womens spaces ask for, and it adds an element of novelty that makes him stand out. the cismasculine fascination with femininity abhors it but at the same time cannot help but admire the integration of femininity into masculinity especially from the higher class. like geten, it moves trumpet into a very specific social sphere, but one of privilege. and this privilege isnt BECAUSE he performs femininity-- its because koku also performs masculinity in a way that reassures the public that femininity is not a core tenant of his identity, its not part of his ideology-- he is the rational, logical Man, he is the respectable man, he wears well cut suits and keeps his hair appropriately styled, he sports facial hair, he never acts in a way that is not masculine, just not aggressively so. the femininity is some flavoring. an artistic garnish.

and whats interesting is we get a chicken and the egg situation here where its like, do we assume kokus behavior is effeminate because of how he looks or do we presume hes effeminate because of how he acts? koku is frequently put in a more "womanly" role compared to redestro, and we use more feminine terms to refer to him-- but at the same time, we do so in a way that correlates it with physical weakness, more concern over decorum, nagging, etc. his appearance has become associated with "womanly" behaviors, even though koku doesnt really have a feminine identity. or, is it that we read more femininity out of his design than is actually there, simply because he acts in a way that we automatically associate with a lack of masculinity, especially in comparison to his peers. its almost the opposite of the geten issue, where our notions around his behavior influence how we view his appearance instead of his appearance influencing our notions about his behavior

and if you want to approach it from an ic perspective its like, okay, well, does koku utilize femininity because he knows his behaviors will be read that way? does he behave the way he does because he knows itll indicate a lack of hyperaggressive masculinity? at what point does it cease to be a very careful balancing act of Intended Messages and where does it become an aspect of a deep rooted personal identity? and like i mentioned before with trumpet being able to exercise acts of perceived femininity as a part of an expression of class you see this the same way with the himuras, except it isnt an act so much as we are meant to implicitly understand that the reason the himura men can be so waifish and beautiful is because of their class and wealth, because they have not had to be laborers and have become so separate from the rest of the world theyve essentially created the "himura look" based on that specific lifestyle and a desire to be seen as upper class, an intentional cultivation of genetics and mannerisms that in and of itself serves to indicate aristocracy and inherent superiority, as opposed to something like the individual act of wearing certain things or styling your hair a certain way. Their obsession with blood purity speaks for itself.

the association of beauty with morality is millennia old there is a societal directive that assumes a direct connection. the wealthy, intellectuals, politicians, artists, etc all have a vested interest in maintaining that kind of reputation because of the nature of their work. Koku needs that-- Geten does not, hence Geten's typical gear.

geten with his hood up and in a large coat obscures most immediate visually gendered traits, and he tends to be a lot more quiet with his colleagues than he is once his coat is gone. while compress does call him "iceman", likely using his voice as a point of reference, we all remember the geten gender controversy. the presentation itself is ambiguous because geten himself is meant to exist outside of the social sphere, specializing in covert missions and a powerful combatant. hes removing his personally identifiable traits in order to impress upon those he interacts with a sense of unfamiliarity and inhumanity and to intimidate them (which i think is further demonstrated by the fact the dude is moving like a critter he pounces on dabi, hunched over, face obscured). Geten's not performing masculinity here so much as he is "not performing femininity", combined with a level of aggression and ideology that we read as masculine because of social gender roles.

Not only that, but the removal of those personally identifiable traits, so closely associated with his family, continues the theme of his name, "apocrypha", texts of unknown origin. he has obfuscated any sign of where he came from and what lineage he carries.

geten removes his hood during the skirmish with the heroes because it is no longer advantageous to have that kind of presentation and instead he needs to take on a more active, aggressive, leading role that gives his troops a Person to look up to and gives his enemies a clear view of his body language and posturing

his more naturally androgynous appearance isnt really presentation because he has no real choice in it like hes not choosing to look that way. but he does read as feminine to others, enough so that we had years of people still fucking debating whether or not a guy could have those eyelashes. it is almost a necessity to remove those traits in order to cultivate the imposing air that a villain like geten is supposed to have

conversely, we only ever see geten without the coat when hes in detainment and explaining his connections to the himuras, and his appearance is very much intended to make him look a lot more like rei to emphasize that connection. his behavior is ALSO very different, expressing much more sentimental ideas and smiling as he speaks to mr compress and asks what kind of gossip he has to tide them over till the war is done. His behavior is drastically different than his usual aloofness or battle-hungry behavior: he almost sounds GENTLE, reminiscing about how he wonders if people's hearts will change. Geten isn't serving as a villain there, and so the viewer is encouraged to see him at his most "human": but more than that, geten's soft features, intentionally resembling a character the viewers have been called to sympathize with from the start, push it to an almost cartoonish extent that tempers out what we've seen of his behavior prior and prevents the viewer from feeling like its dissonant with his character.

[butchpeace]

I’m not fearmongering, and I have read the research. The fact that twins are more likely to both transition does not automatically prove a genetic cause. You also have to rule out other possible explanations. Did the study we’re referencing rule out all other explanations? No.

This is the study you’re basing your conclusion on.

Some key points:

Only 17 male and 16 female sets of twins were included in the study. This is a small sample size.

The study designers are basing their conclusion that transsexuality is genetic on the fact that the twins self-reported different answers to questions related to the way they subjectively felt they were treated by their parents as children.

Let’s assume those self-reports are completely objective and paint an accurate picture of each person’s childhood. The study designers have still made an assumption that the way a child is raised within their home is the only possible environmental influence that could lead to transition. So they conclude that if the kids were raised differently, that means it’s genetic. Logically that doesn’t follow, because it ignores the fact that there are other possible causes.

Nowhere in the study did they look at the potential influence of sexual orientation, stigma related to gender non-conformity, possible fetishes or porn consumption, or other social factors such as friend groups, similar experiences outside the family, or experiences in adulthood that could lead to trans identification.

We also know from more serious, better done studies that homosexuality is strongly correlated with identical twins. The concordance rate is much higher in that study compared to the trans twin one.

Homosexuality could be the actual cause of HSTS transsexuality being more common in twins. We have no proof that transsexuality is a biological phenomenon separate from homosexuality. Until we have that evidence, even the best designed study on trans twins would only be providing further evidence for the biological basis of homosexuality.

Long story short, there are more possibilities than “This is genetic” that need to be taken into consideration before anyone can draw conclusions about where trans identity comes from.

This is why we can’t just take a study with a conclusion we like and say it proves our point. We have to actually look at the study, understand what it’s saying, understand the background of research it’s part of, and decide whether or not it was well designed and came to logical conclusions. Then form our opinions about the topic.

sometimes trans reddit is good

[paaopalpoerepr33]

I don't say this to invalidate attachment styles necessarily, but I often read people talking about their relationships and attachment styles, and kind of try to read them against Lacanian analysis.

I mean really, pretty sure avoidant behavior is just repulsion that's kind of a part of obsessional neurosis (and often fits on the male discourse side) at least traditionally as it regards the whole early stages of psychical development and shit. But also repulsion is a huge sign of attraction (desire, not just for avoidants, not just for "sick" people-- like it just is. It's a part of why you feel strongly in the first place). I'm not entirely sure what this means for the anxious which weirdly kind of correlates to the hysteric (female discourse). And like... neither male/female discourses are actually indicative of one's gender whatsoever, they're not fixed, they're changing positions taken up through language.

On the other hand, I think it can be read from the courtly love dynamic... wherein the avoidant takes the place as the beloved object carved hollow by ego ideal of the pursuant, who kind of loathes the object for its imagined tortures

Anyways, while I think it's helpful (definitely to me) for people to start recognizing patterns and things. I do also kind of take it with a grain of salt because I think it's weirdly also indicative of the insidious ways that capitalism needs the model of romance to function. Replacing the beloved object with the commodity as the thing that satisfies is romance. Love is not complementary, there is not satisfaction. You are giving your own lack to another, it is not satisfying.

Secure attachment... does make sense I see it possibly more as that which is sort of actually on desire, having not the resentment of jouissance. The Antigonic type... but it just is not... possible to be constant. I do think a huge part of the problem is relying on fixed identities for relationships which are processes.

So basically yeah... could be read so many ways psychoanalytically and I think it's really fascinating. But also seeing how often people on like reddit will be like "dump them" over really small things, pulling the "there's other fish in the sea" is like... it's not wrong, but I do also think it smacks of the language of surplus after a point like... you are not shopping for a car, you're talking about humans and this all sounds very.... idk punitive.

But also I think we're really fucked in thinking about love and also loss. I think we're attempting to shield ourselves from the necessary trauma that is love and failing to understand that most loves involve some/all these dynamics, as well as that Antigonic love.... and it can still fail. Our reactions to the absolutely necessary breaking of our boundaries of our sense of self causes a lot of reactions... that's desire. But it should elevate that status of that beloved object to dignity, to loving a subject. and your desire should set you on course for that. That's..... kind of the bottom line and I think we're sort of flopping about terribly here with this shit.

For the record I do actually learn from hearing or reading about attachment styles, because I feel like it basically condenses and conveys inter/intrapersonal conflicts in a shorthand that is kind of cool and accessible. But as with something like DSM and pop psychology... It feels like it's sorta lacking and you know I gotta chime in on my two cents wherever I feel Lacan may be of some help.

[sapenvs3000f23]

Unit 03: The Privilege in Nature Interpretation 🐛

What role does “privilege” play in nature interpretation? Please include your working definition of privilege.

Hi fellow interpreters! I hope everyone is having a lovely start to October and enjoying the ebbs and flows that come along with changing seasons :) 

In highschool, I was introduced to the term “intersectional environmentalism”, an inclusive approach to environmentalism that advocates for the protection of both people and the planet. The term opened my eyes to a framework that deeply interwove social and environmental justice through amplifying historically excluded voices and approaching environmental education, policy, and activism with equity, inclusion, and restorative justice in mind. Without recognizing this connection, we design exclusive and harmful systems— systems where privilege is not recognized. 

My working definition of privilege has evolved significantly with age through first-hand experiences, active listening of stories told through diverse perspectives, and extensive inner reflection. As a young teen, I found myself becoming highly resentful of a system that was also directly benefiting me, an awareness that drove me in unproductive circles. However, my definition of privilege currently resides in direct correlation with intersectionality, a term with roots in Black feminist activism (originally coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw). Intersectionality describes how our overlapping social identities relate to social structures of racism and oppression by merging many identity markers (race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religion, disability, etc.). Together, these characteristics build every individual’s complex identity, but how does privilege come into play? There is a significant power imbalance created through norms and systems that leads to the unjust treatment or control of people (oppression), while providing direct advantage for others (privilege). Intersectionality shows that oppression and privilege cannot be reduced to only one part of an identity, but are dependent on and shaped by all aspects. These concepts link back to the established idea of “intersectional environmentalism”, an approach to nature interpretation where the role of privilege is highly considered. 

Our Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage for a Better World textbook highlights some of the key roles privilege plays in nature interpretation, including economic, cultural, and communication barriers, lack of knowledge, and fear. The topics delve into the privilege associated with transportation to natural environments, costs when accessing interpretative sites, higher socioeconomic positions, cultural perceptions of outdoorsy activities, language used in educational material, acquiring knowledge, general safety concerns, fear of wildlife, and discrimination during participation. Clearly, privilege plays a HUGE role! 

In addition to our textbook, when thinking of privilege in nature interpretation, I was reminded of the Mishkos Kenomagwen: The Teachings of Sweetgrass chapter from Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. The entire novel is a beautifully orchestrated gateway into Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. However, this particular chapter highlights the inequity involved in environmental academia. Indigenous knowledge holders carry valuable information about the intricate relationships and interactions between humans, animals, plants, and our environment. Yet, Western science views have far more privilege and “higher value” in environmental academia, making it challenging to incorporate Indigenous teachings into nature education spaces.  

Overall, reading the textbook limiting factors for nature involvement and reflecting on Robin Wall Kimmerer’s sharings encouraged more personal reflection on the privilege I’ve carried throughout my nature interpretation journey.  Nature has provided me with mental sanctuary, emotional fulfillment, spaces for physical activity, employment income, and an academic path— all of which have been rooted in remarkable privilege and accessibility to natural spaces. How lucky am I to have lived next to a conservation area? A conservation area that inspired me to pursue a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences, which was initially funded by money earned by working at that same conservation area! Recognizing privilege is crucial as a nature interpreter, and I hope to continue my journey of nature interpretation through an intersectional lens.

Reference: Kimmerer, R. W. (2015). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, 156-166.

[adhbabey]

[ID: 15 Slides with a blue, pink and purple gradient background and mainly black text, about Multigender Awareness goes as follows.

The first slide has a purple and pink gradient circle in the middle, with the text "Happy First Annual Multigender Awareness Day!" within it, and at the bottom, has a white arrow pointing to the right, with text that says "Swipe to become aware of multigender experiences".

The second slide asks the question, "What does it mean to be multigender?" with the definition below within a white outline, stating, "To experience more than one gender. The genders can be alternating, distinct or blurred, constant or fluctuating." Below that, there is more text that says, in boldened letters, "Contrary to popular misunderstanding, most multigender people are not fluid. We experience our genders at the same time, not switching back and forth. However, genderfluid does fall under the multigender umbrella! Regardless of whether one shifts between only one gender or more at a time."

The third slide poses the question, "What does it look like to be multigender?" And the answer in bold yellow letters and chromatic aberration says, "Anything!" Below that, it continues the explanation in normal text. "Same as everyone else, gender presentation does not equal gender identity. We may choose to present as a single gender every day, switch it up (maybe because we're fluid, or maybe randomly), combine associated traits of our genders at the same time, etc." Below that, there is a note, highlighted in gold. "Names: Multigender people may use one name (gendered or gender-neutral), or we may use multiple names. Some want their names to be switched up (the way pronouns are). Some want their names to be used together as a unit (a double first name, like Jean-Marie, Ana Maria, or Minnie Bruce)."

The fourth slide also asks the question "What does it look like to be multigender?" Below is highlighted text in multiple colors. The first highlighted text in purple says, "Pronouns: Multigender people may or may not use: pronouns correlated with each of our genders, only one set of pronouns, many pronoun sets, neopronouns, it/its, all pronouns, or no pronouns." Beneath that is text highlighted in light pink, "People who are both men and women commonly use both he/him and she/her, but not they/them. Once you know someone's pronouns, don't include they/them, it's not okay to use they/them!" And lastly, there is text highlighted in light blue, "Respect multigender people's pronouns as you should for everyone else, and ask for clarification when necessary!"

The fifth slide has a header stating "Multigender Identities: Bigender", with text that follows below, the definition saying, "To have two genders. Although they are commonly man/male and woman/female, they can be any two genders. For example, male and neutrois, woman and butch, maverique and androgyne, and the list goes on." Below that there is a question that says, in bold letters, "Some multigender people identify as bigender even if they don't have exactly 2 genders- Wait, really?" The answer highlighted in white states, "Yes! Because bigender, has a bigger history than multigender, it's many people's first introduction and connection to multigender identity and community. Like bisexual, the bi in bigender, is sometimes used to mean two or more."

The sixth slide continues on from the last one, with the same header, "Multigender Identities: Bigender". Below is text as follows, "There are no restrictions on how the two (or more) genders are balanced. Some bigender people feel that their genders are equal, others that one outweighs the other, and some fluctuate. Bigender people, whose genders are fluid (i.e., experienced sequentially, not simultaneously), or fluctuate may add -fluid or -flux onto the end of the term (bigenderfluid/bigenderflux)." Below are pictures of three different bigender flags, one with seven stripes in muted colors, from top to bottom has magenta, pink, purplish-grey, white, purplish-grey, light blue and blue. The second one with five stripes, colors from top to bottom are pink, yellow, white, purple and blue. And the third flag with seven stripes, colors from top to bottom are blue, light blue, white, purple, white, pink, and dark pink. The text next to the last flag says, "The third one is the most recent redesign and the most popular bigender flag".

The seventh slide has a header that says, "Multigender Identities: Other" with four flags and definitions below. Pangender is first, with a flag that has five stripes in light colors, yellow, pink, lighter pink, white, light pink again, pink and yellow. The definition of pangender is as follows: "Having all genders. As some genders are culturally-specific, those are only included if one belongs to said culture." Following Pangender, to the right is Polygender, with a flag that has five stripes, in the colors of black, grey, pink, yellow and blue, from top to bottom. The definition of polygender: "A synonym to multigender or specific to experiencing multiple genders at the same time. In the past, it meant what non-binary means today." Below pangender, there is Genderfluid, with a flag with five stripes, top to bottom, are pink, white, bright purple, black and blue. The definition of genderfluid: "Switches between genders. A popular label, so there's lots of information about genderfluid experiences out there!" Lastly, next to genderfluid lays Trigender, with a flag that has five stripes, in the colors top to bottom, pink, light purple, green, light purple, and pink. The definition of trigender: "Having three genders. (A lot of the bigender section applies)." Below that there is highlighted text in pale yellow, "There are lots of other multigender experiences yet to be described with one word!"

The eighth slide has a header that says, "Multigender & Other Identities", following is text highlighted in white that says, "Multigender, itself an umbrella term, falls under the umbrellas of trans and nonbinary. However, multigender individuals may not identify with those terms." Below that there is the trans flag (blue, pink, white, pink, blue) and the nonbinary flag (yellow, white, purple, black) right next to each other, and text below, in blue, that says, "For example, bigenders who have the two binary genders often express feeling very binary!" Next to that is a graphic of an umbrella.

Following, the ninth slide has the same header, "Multigender & Other Identities", below that is black and pink text that says, "Alternate Gender Modalities". Beneath, there several groups of text all highlighted in different colors. A question highlighted in white says, "So, if some multigender people don't identify as trans, then what are they?" Below that is text highlighted in yellow that says, "Cisgender and transgender are both gender modalities, ways of relating to one's gender assigned at birth." Text highlighted in light green follows, "Some people self-describe as both cis and trans, or neither cis nor trans, or words like cisn't/transn't." Next to that there is text that says, "Transfeminine and transmasculine are also gender modalities". Below that there is text highlighted in light blue that says, "Neologisms have been created to describe the variety of experiences people* have! As they are still young, it's yet to be seen, which will be common. One that's gained significant usage is isogender! Isogender simply means neither trans nor cis." The asterisked text says, "*not just multigender; also intersex, plural, demigender and more!"

The tenth slide has a header that says, "Multigender & Other Identities: Intersex". Next to the header is a flag of the intersex flag, yellow and a purple circle in the middle. Text below highlighted in yellow states that "Being intersex is physical. It is not the same thing as being multigender, which is a gender identity. Intersex people can be gender gender; they are not necessarily multigender, but they may be! Whatever their gender identity, it may not be related to their intersex identity." Below that there is regular text saying, "Due to extreme medical discrimination and trauma intersex people face, it is disrespectful to say one wishes they were intersex. You cannot transition to being intersex (especially since there is a very wide variety of conditions that are classified as intersex). There are other ways to describe wanting to have mixed sex-associated traits!"

The eleventh slide continues with a header that says, "Multigender & Other Identities". Below that, there is highlighted in white text that says "Multigender people are not systems by default." Below that there is regular text saying, "This means we don't all have DID/OSDD. We don't all switch alters/self-concepts when we switch genders (but some do). We do not become multigender due to trauma." Beneath there is pale grey highlighted text that says, "However, we welcome and love the system members of our community, whether they identify as multigender because of their experience, or because of one member! ♥"

Following this, the twelfth slide has a header that says, "Problems Multigender people face: Ignorance and erasure". Following says, "Due to lack of representation, our identity is misunderstood, and often confused with non-gender identities or conditions. Many multigender people have extended periods of struggling to understand themselves, because they don't know being multigender is an option. As with other lesser-known identities, it's more daunting to come out when you know you'll have to explain all of this."

Continuing with the same header, the thirteenth slide says, "Problems Multigender people face: Ignorance and erasure". Text below states, "Ways of using names and pronouns, describing gender and sexuality common to multigender people are some of the least normalized: Pronouns options frequently include she/they and he/they, but not he/she. Most people aren't familiar with using multiple names. Denial of multigender sexual/romantic orientation labels is such a big issue that I should have made a page for it, but ran out of time."

Following the previous slide, the header says, "Problems Multigender people face: De-gendering". Following there is text that states, "De-gendering is denying part or all of someone's gender by describing them as/forcing them to be gender-neutral. It is also used against binary trans people (example, calling a trans person they, instead of he or she). Even within queer spaces, multigender people frequently are pressured to pick one gender- for example, things that are only for non-men. People find it hard to understand being both masculine and feminine and not neutral. Pronouns options are just one illustration of this."

The last slide says, "Our genders don't cancel each other out. We can't be limited to one gender. We are multigender and proud."

End ID.]

This took way longer than I expected lol. It's posted to instagram on multigender.awareness . Happy Multigender Awareness Day!

[theaceandaroadvocacyproject]

In honor of Women's History Month, we've published an article highlighting the experience of women, women-aligned, and feminine-aligned ace people: https://taaap.org/2022/03/26/ace-women/

Thank you to all our contributors!

[ID: "I wish [allos] knew that just because women are asexual, it does not correlate to religion, purity culture, or what society has told us." - Jasmine. "I'm white, which means that it's easy for my asexuality to be read as "purity" that must be "protected," a privilege that non-white ace women don't have access to. In order to be a good ally to all in the ace community, I have to actively disrupt the way white supremacy has always wielded white women's purity as a favorite weapon." - Brooke. "When I finally began to define myself as ace, I didn't question or change my gender identity, but it did make me feel more comfortable about where I was." - Jessie.

"Society often views feminine people as not being interested in sex as "the norm," often leading people to believe that the label is just me trying to be a "special snowflake". When really, that statement is both factually wrong and invalidating." - Kaye. "A recent viral tweet challenged Mexican women not to "hit the wall" at age 22, as if we have to stay consumable." - Tori R. "People often don't take my asexuality seriously, because they think that the only reason I haven't had sex is because of religious celibacy, while in fact, asexuality and not experiencing sexual attraction play a big, possibly even bigger, part in that." - Passant. End ID.]

[luxe-pauvre]

Another word that women and feminists are increasingly throwing out is “patriarchy,” to acknowledge and draw attention to the fact that in our society as it currently stands, power is stacked in favour of men and against women. This word also riles up some men, often when they individually don’t feel that they have much power in society. But the point is that far more men than women do hold power, and the structures of society favour men, so this skewing of the scales is deeply embedded. Some men may particularly feel that they have not benefited from the so-called patriarchy — for example, gay men and poor men. One black male professor has told me that he thinks all women, including black women, are better off than black men in terms of the support they receive in life and the outcomes they experience. For these reasons I try to qualify references to “patriarchy” by calling it the “straight white patriarchy” or the “straight white rich patriarchy” or the “straight white rich cis-patriarchy,” but this leads me to wonder how many more adjectives we will have to attach to this situation. I do believe that it is important for us to take all these identities into account when considering the fairness of the world, even though some people, usually straight white men, roll their eyes at “identity politics.” But importantly I think we also need a way to think about relevant characteristics of people separately from the whole identity discussion. We need to stop blurring the issues. When someone’s identity is relevant because of prejudiced attitudes of people around them or inequality embedded in society, then that is a genuine problem, but when we’re thinking about characteristics or abilities, those things do not need to have anything to do with gender or other identities. Whether or not they correlate with gender is not relevant, because correlation is not causation and does not completely determine what will be true about someone.

Eugenia Cheng, x + y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender