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

[mejomonster]

Im gonna be real. I cant do cant engage im tired of etc the femme blah the masc blah i hate gendered boxes fuck boxes thanks thats all

[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.

[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

[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

[wolfisland]

like i understand the issues people have with futch in the sense of the misconception that it was just made up as a mid point between femme and butch but i take issue with even that, honestly. all terms are made up. butch and femme were made up. they were invented to define an experience. the reality is that this is actually an experience people have, this is a term that could be used for people whose relationship with butch and femme could be a combination, it could be both at once, it could be entirely dependent on their gender expression or their relationship at the time, it could fluctuate, it could be and often is entirely their own.

futch exists in this weird space of "both" in a way people are often uncomfortable with. youre expected to pick one and youre expected to have a counterpart, but if one can be femme4femme or butch4butch i dont actually understand why its wrong for someone to be the butch OR femme depending on their relationship or current presentation.

im a butch, predominantly. i am often the more masculine partner, im often the counterpart of a femme, im the girlfriend whos a boyfriend, the wife whos a husband, the mom whos a dad. but i am also a futch, for my own reasons that i dont actually owe anyone an explanation for. my gender and presentation fluctuate and my dynamic with my partner directly correlates to my relationship with butch and/or femme. for a femme i could be a butch, for certain butches i could be a femme, and thats not even going into my experiences and solidarity with other butches.

but futch is so frequently left out of the conversation because i feel that something with so much potential is dumbed down to this concept of a shallow compromise between two more legitimate identities, which rubs me the wrong way ESPECIALLY when you consider a lot of people who do relate to futch are often bisexual or multigender as well.

after years of expecting bisexual women to coin new terminology for themselves (which is insulting, frankly. weve been part of this conversation and and community and always will be, and we should not have to identify with animals to convey our relationship with gender and sexuality and how we love others) its actually kind of absurd that people still disregard futch as some silly made up label, as though thats all it could ever be.

i just dont really get it. the stone butch high femme scale caused as much damage to futch as a concept as it did to stone and high, frankly. if we can understand a stone butch isnt just an extremely masculine butch and a high femme isnt just an extremely feminine femme, why is it so absurd to want to revisit and reconsider futch's place and potential within butch and femme and the experiences these labels were made for?

i know for an absolute fact im not the only person whos found a home in futch as a concept. my experiences as a butch arent lessened by my experiences as a femme with others, and vice versa. sorry if that statement conflicts with your own view on your identity but thats not my or any other person who identifies with futch's issue.

if we're starting to chip away at the incorrect and harmful take that butch/femme isnt inclusive of other lgbt identities, i think its time to actually acknowledge that futch does and always did have a purpose. its not "new", its not shallow, and its cruel to dismiss it and those whose experiences align with it based on misinformation.

[talisidekick]

Lmao you got "misgendered" at the doctor because medical science has to acknowledge biological gender. Men and women are fundamentally different and need to be treated different. Indulging your delusion does not aide anything.

Do you enjoy using big words in stupid ways to try and sound smart, or did you think your disproven pseudo-scientific jargon would work on the autistic trans woman with a science hyperfixation if you whipped out a thesaurus and Dr. Frankenstien-ed together words to try and make "new" fake terms? I swear, half of these "asks" aren't even actual bigots; I'm beginning to think my followers just love seeing me eviscerate the shit comments their homophobic and transphobic aunt or uncle said at dinner because I only seem to get these kinds of asks around the holidays and Pride Month, you know, the few times a year shitty people think it's okay to say horrible and cruel things because you either can't escape them or they're reminded that they need to harrass family with opinions on other peoples lives that don't affect them and no one really gives a shit about. I know I should ignore this but at this point you know I've hit "fuck it", so thank you for the enrichment, and lets get into it:

On the "biological gender" comment; anyone who uses "biological", denoting of the field of scientific study known as biology, and "gender", a term with it's roots in societal constructs and observed in the fields of science such psychology and sociology with a specific and deliberate separation from biology with the exception of behavioural observation with the intent of creating useful correlation but exclusively not attribution or causation, is ignorant, scientifically inept, and not in the fields of medical science or really shouldn't be because conflating sex and gender in a medical field is how accidents happen. So either shut up, or retire and then shut up, and read a modern biology textbook. There's a reason the terms are "male", "female", "hermaphrodite", "intersex", "Male to Female (MtF)", and "Female to Male (FtM)" to name a few to describe sex and sex characteristics of species (note: not people), and "Man", "Woman", "Non-Binary", "Cisgender", "Transgender", and "Agender" to describe people and individuals and their identities. It's baked into our very language and the definitions because science has always understood and observed sex and gender are different concepts. Trying to act like sex terminology and gender terminology are interchangeable has already had seriously detrimental effects within the medical, psychological, and social sciences that have lead to innocent uninvolved parties being harmed.

On the "men and women are fundamentally different and need to be treated different" comment: no, men and women aren't "fundamentally different" and don't "need to be treated differently". People are fundamentally different and deserve to be treated differently based on their needs, wants, and medical and mental wellbeing. For humans, the male and female sexes are sexually dimorphic, and have key differences but both have underlying similarities that make them part of the same species. When we have someone who's a hermaphrodite or intersex, while still being human, there may be key differences in medical care, and that also goes for people on cross sex hormones. All of this builds the unique medical care requirements of an individual which is further compounded by the genetic make-up of an individual as well as how that individuals body functions. Blanket saying people need to be treated differently based solely on binary gender identification is wrong. My body functions different than someone elses, even if we required the same drugs at the same levels. Mine especially functions different because I'm on HRT. Broad statements in medical care provide only an extremely loose description often only for the layman to grasp a bit of what is going on. Medicine and medical care is always specific and taliored to an individual based on medical science and biological factors that are never so cut and dry as falsely associating woman = female and man = male. That may be how its described to a layman patient, but thats because doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals seldom have the time to give an unknowledgeable patient 2-8+ years of knowledge in a crash course, there's other people who are possibly dying that they need to get to.

Lastly, the "indulging your delusion" statement: being transgender and transsexual isn't a delusion, it's a medically accepted fact with literal decades of modern science and thousands of years of history behind it. What's delusional is thinking sex and gender is the same thing and that how medical science works is men get the "man" branded drugs and medical care and women get the "woman" branded drugs and medical care. You're dumb, get smarter, read a modern science book. I reccomend this one:

It's called WPATH Version 8. And remember:

We all start stupid. Being dumb is the default, we become smart by picking up and reading books on subjects we're a moron in, listening to people smarter than us, and asking stupid questions to learn how to ask smarter ones. We don't become smart by making shit up. We become smart by asking "what if I'm wrong" about everything we think we know and looking for the answers.

[drbased]

Time for another major take-down

This is a Big One. I'm going to analyse I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out.

Part 1

Let's get into it. Firstly, the note at the start: I hate how it's become commonplace to write something online - a literal public space, accessible to anyone - and then when criticised immediately back-track and call it 'private' and 'a diary entry'. This applies to radfems on tumblr, or anyone tbh. If you want something to remain private, write it privately.

Correlation, meet causation.

Yeah, there's a reason the phrase 'correlation does not equal cause causation' exists. But this is the primary tool of human narrative-making and exactly why it is so easy for trans-identified people to discover past 'evidence' of their gender. Occam's razor is thrown out because the dull reality feels much less significant than the constructed narrative.

Ever the magical thinker, I tell myself that if I wish out loud one thousand times, I will wake up with long hair in cute pajamas with a different name — and maybe freckles.

One might consider it a minor nitpick, but here lies the primary issue: the gender essentialism that people internalise as children is not discarded as sexist nonsense, but instead the sunk-cost fallacy works its magic. Of course, the author might be using some flowery language to merely evoke the image of 'girl' in the reader's mind - but the mere fact that someone in this culture is able to communicate the exact concept of biological sex by referencing sexed roles/expectations shows just how ingrained these beliefs are in our society.

The next part, at eight years old, is especially sad. Causation and correlation definitely have a rocky relationship here. He describes getting on with mostly women. Something as basic as being friends with and admiring the females in his life is seen as 'proof' of his female identity. But of course, you're a transwoman in the closet. How many of these 'women' you like and admire, are actually women? You say you think divorced, tattooed, Catie's mum is cool - what if that person is actually a man? Or if that feels like a cheap argument, do you think that all these women especially like you, above all other 'boys' your age? Do you think they can tell?

When I ask to sleep over at my friends’ houses, I am told I am not allowed. Boys are not allowed. My friend Caitie’s mother argues about this on the phone with my mother. I realize my mother is not on my side.

No sarcasm here - I don't really get this bit. Did you mean to write that girls are not allowed? Because historically, parents are fine with boys having sleepovers together - it's typically cross-sex sleepovers that parents find an issue with, for all sorts of reasons. Not allowing sleepvers with other boys would be a concern of your mum specifically; nothing to do with gender. And speaking of your mum, your takeaway is that she's not on your side? What a strangely powerful conclusion to come to from one minor thing. Parents give their kids all sorts of weird and stupid rules. She might have her own reasons to not let you go to sleepovers - have you, say, asked her?

I love everything my sister loves, but I will not admit it. I know she and her friends will make fun of me. I know my parents will chastise me and correct me. I am learning the rules, and I am learning that boys liking girl things is a very high stakes issue. I am learning that adults react the same way to my interest in makeup as they do to my interest in matches and lighters.

Oh, you're learning the rules, are you? Did you ever want to un-learn them, maybe question them a bit, at least wonder for a second why the rules are that way? I once asked a trans person in DMs if they'd wondered why certain gendered expectations exist, and they responded 'to be honest, I hadn't really thought about it'. Remember, trans people are supposed to know more about gender than cis people. I've known trans people IRL to obsess over the details of their passing with zero questioning of the status quo. The fact that we're supposed to consider this rhetoric to be truly radical is telling.

As if maybe, by being what I am, I might burn down something very important to them. Something that makes their life more comfortable and easy.

The reason that following gender expectations makes life comfortable and easy for 'cis women' is exactly the same as it is for you: because it means that they don't have to feel angry at the world, that they can accept that everything they learned during childhood is natural and healthy and they don't have to hate their parents, peers and other adults for demanding certain things of them, and now as adults they retain certain 'perks' for conforming. You're only fractionally better because you're rejecting one set of expectations in favour of another - but in another way you're a whole lot worse because you're literally a member of the oppressor class wearing the costume of the oppressed class and thinking that makes you privy to their experiences. You're the one with a privilege so important to you that women's freedom and liberation would burn it down.

I am jealous of my sister’s clothing. One day, home alone after school, I sneak into her room and pull on her Tinkerbell Halloween costume. I slip the elastic straps over my shoulders, then the tights along my legs. It fits.

Ah, the classic. The charitable version of me acknowledges that many trans people have been perfectly willing to admit (especially pre 2016) that they're dysphoric over sex and will accept these surface-level associations purely to help them relieve dysphoria. And I understand that. But this man claimed at the start that correlation = causation, here. And you cannot tell me that everyone who has read this will be thinking as deeply as I am - many people are fully happy to admit that this has nothing to do with sex and entirely to do with gender i.e. gendered roles and expectations. To many people, that Tinkerbell costume is synonymous with 'female'. It makes you wonder why we decided to say that vaginas are female sex organs at all, if gender can be summed up with long hair and cute pyjamas.

[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

[beakers-and-telescopes]

The Science of Sexuality

Happy Pride!!!

We all know that being gay is not a choice... but then what is it? Is sexuality an innate quality that we are born with, something that develops over time as we grow, or something else entirely? Unsurprisingly, it is a question with a complex and not well understood answer. But there are many factors that have been shown to come into play.

Genetics

The idea that the key to sexuality could be in our genes is an idea that garners some mixed feelings- on one side it could help to further "legitimize" the queer community, but there are also people who hope that finding "the gay gene" can be used to prevent homosexual births entirely. Fortunately, it doesn't seem like that will ever be the case.

In general, you can determine if a trait is influenced by genetics by studying twins. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, while fraternal twins only share as much DNA as any other set of siblings. If the trait appears more often in identical twins than fraternal twins than the rest of the population, that suggests a genetic influence.

There have been multiple so called "twin studies" conducted on sexuality. Though the percentage varies strongly between studies, there is enough evidence to firmly conclude that two identical twins are more likely to both be gay than two unrelated people. This suggests that there is definitely a genetic component to being queer (though it is by no means the only factor). Several studies throughout the years have analyzed the human genome of heterosexual and homosexual people to try and pick up any trends. Again, there is no one "gay gene", but studies have found certain genetic markers that are more likely to show up if a person is gay.

Fetal Development

So if sexuality is only partly influenced by genetics, where does the rest come from? One hypothesis is that the hormones and environment that we are exposed to in the womb impacts our sexuality. The gist of this idea is that if the "wild type" (WT, most common) version of the male brain is attracted to females, and the WT version of the female brain is attracted to males, than hormonal or environmental changes that make certain parts of a female brain closer to a male brain (and vice versa) can cause homosexuality.

One theory is that gay men are exposed to abnormally low testosterone levels in the womb, while gay women are exposed to higher levels. Evidence (though contested) to support this theory include the fact that lesbians have, on average, a more masculine finger length ratio (meaning that the ring finger tends to be longer than the index finger) than straight women. Lesbians also tend to have a slightly larger right hemisphere of the brain, which is normally associated with men. In turn, gay men tend to have equally sized brain hemispheres.

Maternal Immune Response

One very interesting factor in developing sexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. A 1997 study found that with each older brother he has, a man's chances of being gay go up as much as 33%. This correlation has been verified, and is now one of the most reliable biological variables when assessing sexuality. The reason behind this may have to do with a mother's immune system.

When pregnant with a boy, male cells enter the mother's bloodstream. Since they are foreign to her immune system, the mother produces antibodies that neutralize a protein in these cells called NLGN4Y Y. Mothers who produce higher numbers of these antibodies are more likely to have a gay son, and since the number of antibodies increases the more times she is pregnant with a boy, this leads to the birth order effect. It is suggested that the reason this leads to homosexuality is that the NLGN4Y Y protein is related to some aspects of brain masculinization.

Socialization Theories

So being gay is at least partly due to genetics and the pre-natal environment, but what about once you're born? Queer people have very high rates of displaying gender non conforming behavior in childhood, so will pushing gender non conforming behavior on a child increase their chances of turning out gay?

Unsurprisingly, the answer to this is a decisive no.

TW Child abuse

From the 1960s all the way up until 2000 (yikes!!!!!) there have been cases where male infants were surgically reassigned into girls after being born with malformed penises, or after accidents such as botched circumcisions. These children were then raised as girls, often with no idea throughout their childhoods that they were born male. Cases have been published regarding these occurrences, and the 7 instances where sexual orientation was reported showed that all of the children grew up to be attracted solely or primarily to women, despite the fact that they were raised as girls.

END TW

These cases dealt with male homosexuality and they are limited in numbers, but they still suggest that the influence of post natal socialization on sexuality is minimal.

[detransdamnation]

archive . vn/o6ym2 Do you think this will follow through? I honestly kind of dont get it because to me mental disorders are biological conditions such as when ppl with ptsd develop abnormal brain stuff or with high level autism and sensory tissue. So like proving gd still doesnt mean souls in wrong bodies is also tru? Am i making sense? What do you think of the thread?

LINK

Next Friday at approximately 5:00 pm we will be publishing a groundbreaking article (written by a research scientist) that demonstrates that being trans is a biological condition.

If a national newspaper would like early access, please email [...]

Email was redacted by me.

I think I understand what you mean. However, even if transgender identity were theoretically proven to have some sort of biological basis, that doesn't mean that those who identify as transgender are literally born in the wrong body. Demonstrations of biology would not prove theories of gendered souls unless the individual were to try to make that correlation themselves. Unfortunately, with this organization, it may be a toss-up on as to whether or not they would make those connections; however, I always prefer to go in with an open mind.

I would have been interested in seeing what they have to say—but what I think does not matter because they will no longer be publishing.

On Sunday, we posted that we would publish an article on Friday regarding being trans is a 'biological condition' - the phrasing of the tweet was poor. The interest has been overwhelming, but many different concerns have also been raised, and, as a responsible advocacy organisation we have listened to all of these concerns. Consequently, we have decided not to publish.

We sincerely apologise for any disappointment or distress that we have caused - despite our good intentions to create a better and safer place for our community we appreciate that we won't always get things right but our commitment to fight on will never waver.

I think that the original thread speaks for itself. The general response from trans people can be easily summed up with just this response alone (emphasis my own):

I'm really worried about this. Anything which might indicate a test for "real" trans people will simply be used to hurt us. People should be able to be trans just because they want to be, regardless of whether they "biologically" are.

Even if transgender identity were proven to be biological in nature, this person would discard that proof in favour of validating those who would evidently not be transgender. Is this not anti-science?

Through validating the trans identity of these objectively "cis" people, this person would also be allowing them into spaces explicitly meant for trans people. Is this not transphobic?

And what is defined as "hurting" people, anyway? Being told whether you are or are not something? If so, that is just plain stupid.

Overall, this portion of the trans community showed their ass in that they, predictably, do not actually care about "The Science" that they claim is on their side. If a research scientist were to demonstrate that transness has a biological basis, that would mean that it could actually be innate, at least in part—but that would also mean that trans is something you either are, or are not. "Trans" would no longer be a personal identity but indeed a biological difference that, simply, not everyone who claims to be trans today likely has. The outrage is telling. As said by user Holly Grayle in the thread,

[A]ny 'proof' that it's a biological condition means that there must be a way to test, and a test would mean...no self-ID. Yikes!

[stevensaus]

When The Protest Sign Reveals A Lot More Than Intended

The news coverage of the protests outside a local (to me) YMCA yesterday missed the most important sign the TERFs (trans-exclusive radical feminists) were holding. The one that really revealed how they felt.Quick side note: While I am aware that "TERF" might not be the most accurate term -- I really doubt most of those folks were feminists in any meaningful way -- they were attempting to employ feminist language, so I'm going to run with that label for the moment.The background: The City of Xenia -- not the YMCA, to be clear -- decided to prosecute a transgender woman for utilizing the female changing room. To recap the Dayton Daily News coverage, a Fairborn, Ohio woman "was charged in Xenia Municipal Court with three counts of public indecency, for incidents in September, November, and a third incident between November 2021 and 2022." Xenia council president Will Urschel, in a video posted to YouTube in January 2023, "told a meeting of the Greene County Tea Party that if the city is able to successfully prosecute the person involved, they may bring legal action against the YMCA for aiding and abetting the alleged crime." The YMCA, in response, "has said that state non-discrimination laws require it to allow transgender individuals to use locker rooms, changing rooms and bathrooms that align with their gender identity." The organization also says "posted locker room guidelines ask patrons to 'remain properly covered while in public areas of the locker room.'" The court date has been pushed back due to publicity.Yesterday, 25 Feb 2023, three to five times as many pro-trans protesters showed up to show support for human rights (across the street in this photo), while a dozen or so TERFs protested against the policy, something you can pretty clearly see in some of the video from the news coverage. For quite some time, there were only four folks protesting against the YMCA - the guy with his cross-on-wheels, one man who kept letting the American flag he was holding hit the ground, one guy who seemed to think he was "owning" people by taking their pictures, and a single woman holding their anti-trans signs. That 3:1 ratio seemed to hold true for the anti-trans protesters, while it was easily the reverse for those protesting for human rights. There's a lot I could talk about and unpack there, but specifically, I want to focus on one sign that the anti-trans woman held. The read, "The YMCA cannot give consent for all women." (The sign is just barely visible below the flag in the photo linked here.)The assumptions embedded in that one sentence really reveal a lot. - Using "consent" here inherently brings in an implication of prurient (or sexual) interest to a non-sexual action. This was reinforced by the "keep our women safe" sign another TERF was holding. - It absolutely ignores the actual data about who commits sexual assault. - It ignores the YMCA's own policy of being "properly covered while in public areas of the locker room." - It ignores that gender expression is not -- and does not necessarily correlate to -- sexual orientation. The folks I know were all confused by the sign. Because to us, changing in the locker room or using the restroom is an individual act. The idea of "consent" is utterly misused here, and makes no sense whatsoever. I have never asked "consent" before going in the public restroom at, say, a truck stop, and I've never seen or heard of someone doing so. Even if you were thinking about knocking on the door before using an individual restroom or stall... well, your gender doesn't matter, you don't use the same stall (or individual restroom, or individual changing room) as someone else when they're using it. Problem solved.The anti-trans panic does not actually keep anyone safer. If anything, it distracts us from the actual perpetrators of sexual assault. Transgender people are overwhelmingly survivors of sexual assault. On the other hand, it is shockingly easy to find recent cases involving a church leader in Florida, a youth pastor in Mississippi, a youth pastor in Massachusetts, a pastor in North Carolina, a youth pastor in Arkansas, and a youth pastor in Virginia, and, of course, the Southern Baptist Convention's own released list of "about 380 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have faced credible accusations of sexual misconduct. Of those, roughly 220 were convicted of sex crimes or received plea deals."If actual "indecent exposure" happens, then it is actually a violation of the YMCA's rules already, and has nothing to do with a person's gender expression. Problem solved.The last point is the most telling to me, though... because these TERFs have already signaled that this is just part of their campaign against LGBTQIA+ people as a whole. The concept of people whose sexual orientation -- including asexuality! -- is not the same as their own simply did not occur to them. They were utterly unable to think beyond their own motivations and experiences.And if you put all that together, that brings us back to something I said at the beginning of the month. Their actions, their signs, make no sense when measured against observable data. At first glance, it seems nonsensical, even hypocritical.Then you look at who is assaulting women, is stripping away rights, is denying the existence of others for their identities.And then you realize.It is not hypocrisy.It is projection. Featured Photo by Lena Balk on Unsplash Read the full article

[cinnamaya]

An Examination of Transmedicalism in Impossible_PHD's Writing

I recently came across this article which is, unfortunately, another misguided essay attempting to be optimistic while heavily relying on transmedicalist claims as its basis. Here is the article in question. Let's look at the claims.

In the article, the author claims that being trans is determined by genetics, along with a vast overstatement of the confidence that there is a genetic component. Aside from being epistemically unsound, this claim is politically dangerous. But is it even supported by the studies?

The answer is no. In fact, the study twin linked in the article found that none(!) of the sampled same sex twins (not even monozygotic twins) were both diagnosed with GID. Even considering twin studies on trans twins are a microscopic sample, its unlikely that we would see no coincidence like this. The other studies are either just as inconclusive or don't study trans people at all, using criteria such as gender nonconformity or parent reports.

So if the science can barely make a correlation between genetic factors and actually being trans, surely that would dissuade any direct claims of biological or genetic causation right? Nope. The author doubles down on the claims.

This is followed by a paragraph warning that we cannot conclusively trace the biological cause of trans people (yet) but insisting that it does in fact exist. Fortunately the author has abandoned her previous faith in trans brain differences. Unfortunately, this this has done nothing to shake her faith that there is a biological cause of transness. She suggests a few alternatives such as gut bacteria and even hinting that it might have a shared cause or be the result of neurodivergence(!!).

Despite acknowledging that the cause is unimportant, the author veers into dangerous biological determinist territory, concluding that "We don’t really need to know for our purposes—knowing that there’s a biological basis is more than enough." Why is that enough? Enough for what? These questions go unanswered, but the implication is clear. The author clearly believes that biological origins lend transness some objective validity—a core tenet of transmedicalism.

The root of these beliefs rest on the assumptions that sex is not a constructed category, that today's concepts of sex and gender are eternal and natural, and not a product of our society. Transmedicalism cannot grasp other forms of transness besides the modern clinical definition. Human diversity alone is enough evidence that there would probably be more trans people if society would be more accepting. Confined to her narrow biological views, however, the author has to resort to an incredibly ridiculous mathematical "proof" to make her point. The final section of the article reflects a comical misunderstanding of demography, through which the author moves from the number of historical AIDS deaths, prevalence of AIDS in trans communities, and suicide rates to estimate a number of trans people alive today.

Although this part of the essay is laughably unscientific, it also reflects an absurd consequence of the author's transmedicalist views. According to the author, there are currently millions of people who are trans but do not know it. Is it a victory to claim that people's claimed identities are only an illusion, and who they really are lies hidden deeper in their genes? I would argue it is not. It's the same logic that has been used for decades to deny trans people medical care.

Even if the author doesn't support gatekeeping, her very attempt to base trans legitimacy off of biological determinism is a political danger which must be avoided.

[nerdykeith]

Without even mentioning the issue of gun violence, the issue I want to discuss here is the incitement of hate. Especially the incitement of hate towards the LGBTQ. There is a lot to be said about any public figure inciting hatred of a marginalised group and how this can rally their impressionable followers to act. Celebrity is a powerful thing. Celebrity can be used to being people together if a certain public figure is influential enough. However one’s celebrity can also be used to insight misinformation, defamation and hate mongering.

These anti-LGBTQ public figures do have a lot to answer for. They are not being responsible with their celebrity status, they are insisting hate a pond a hell of a lot of misinformation. Which is why so many on the right are so quick to claim all the LGBTQ are groomers and so fourth. Correlating one’s gender identity and or sexuality with “grooming” is blatantly homophobic and transphobic. Spreading this narrative will and does influence others to act and attack our community.

So yes people like the Lauren Boeberts of the world ought to be called out. And we persons of the LGBTQ community should take every opportunity we can get to call these people out. We need to denounce the conspiracies, lies, propaganda.

Being gay and trans is not something that needs to be hidden away, it’s part of our existence. We should remain proud and unapologetic. We are who we are, and have nothing to apologise for.

[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

[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.

[jadagul]

This feels like it does a great job of a tension in the way we talk about gender.

Gender abolition makes a lot of sense to me. There are very few cases where it matters to me whether the person I'm talking to has a penis or a vagina or something else. (Those cases exist, and are important! OKCupid should definitely have a checkbox for it or something.) But it makes sense to say "no one cares, it's not structurally different from 'is blonde' or whatever, we don't need it baked into our grammar and all our bureaucratic forms".

Conversely, it also makes sense to say, no, we have a rigid caste-based system, and everyone needs to know which caste you belong to. Maybe you can never change the caste you were born into, or maybe there's a specific ritual you can undergo to change caste, but either way we need to know at all times, because it determines large amounts about how everyone will treat you.

I don't support this, obviously, but it's totally coherent and I understand why in that system you'd want to record gender everywhere. Mike Pence really needs to know at all times who is a man and who is a woman, because he has a rule that he can't be alone in a room with a woman, and he needs to know when that does or doesn't apply.

But we mostly don't do either of these things today. (At least, in my social circles.) We don't say men can't be schoolteachers, or women can't be pilots. And we also don't say there are objective correlates of gender: you can have facial hair and a penis and still be a girl. So it's very important that you pick one of these two (or three, or N) labels, but the only thing it means is "that's the label you picked".

And the fact that it's not clear what these labels are doing, other than, like, "sitting around being labels", makes them potentially kind of contentious. There's no facts-in-the-world the resolve to, other than the fact of which label the labelee has chosen.

I've written before about how the modern gender paradigm sits uncomfortably for me—because it makes gender into a label/identity rather than a predicate roughly cutting out a set of physical facts. And one reasonable response to this is just say to hell with the whole thing, I don't even gender any more.

My elderly father started talking about how frustrating he finds “the pronouns thing” and I was like. Oh no. He had such a good stand on this, he’s been they/them-ing his cishet siblings for god’s sake! Is he regressing?? And he was talking about how difficult it is to remember, and how onerous it feels to expect strangers to keep track of it, and I’m like oh no oh no.

Then he says, “I mean, the problem isn’t the gender thing. The problem is four words: she, her, he, and him. We got rid of stewardess and turned it into flight attendant. It doesn’t matter if the flight attendant is a man or woman, so we got rid of it. We just need to get rid of those. I don’t need to know.”

“You don’t need to know… people’s gender?”

“No. I don’t care, I don’t need to know, and I don’t want to remember it.”

So we can relax. It’s just a continuation of his crusade to they/them the world. He doesn’t want to remember anyone’s gender. He’s abolishing the genders.