Awoo

Hexbear existed 2 years before everything else? Fucking wild. This loser's account is literally 3 years younger than my hexbear account and 2.5 years younger than my Lemmy.ml one and he thinks we're the late ones?

The only "ruining" I'm doing here is ruining his bullshit fuckoff attempt to associate lgbt and gender with being a corporate thing, it's fucking nonsensical. Dude deserves to lose teeth.

Eat my ass

If you think I would read this shit after that first sentence you're a fucking idiot

This is an absolutely garbage take. "Anonymous" defaults to male in everyone's mind because patriarchy is the basis of our society. Claiming everyone should just be "Anonymous" is a male supremacist and exclusionary of everything else position to take.

I veered off because it seems like a bigger issue, I was gonna come back around. It's a conversation it's how conversation usually tends to work when it's just two people talking to one another rather than reddit culture debate bro shit or the soapboxing people do where they talk past someone to the audience instead of to the person they're actually responding to.

Are people born inherently feminine or masculine or not ? It being 3d doesn't seem to matter here but rather that feminine and masculine being a component of gender at all forces me to ask the question. Either the answer is yes which is all kinds of fucked up, or the answer is no and we've found a component of gender that you agree is socially created.

This chart concerns me. Are you saying that "being masculine" and "being feminine" are biological? Not just gender? Can you define "being masculine" and "being feminine" without being gender-essentialist?

I'm veering off a bit, because we weren't talking about masculinity or femininity at all a moment ago, but these are 100% socially created things and to argue about them from a biological perspective requires being a gender-essentialist.

If not, I would err away from "masculine" and "feminine" as descriptors of gender itself.

I keep saying I do and you keep saying I don't.

I don't know what part of this youis being misunderstood so I'm trying to simplify and make clear.

1. People with NO gender are not the same as people who are genderfluid or non-binary or binary.

2. If your position is that gender is biologically intrinsic, you are absolutely excluding people with the absence of gender.

3. If you still believe those people are trans, but do not believe their interpretation is correct, then you do not believe their stated lack of gender.

These are roughly the things I'm trying to get across here. This is where the contradiction I am raising lies.

Yes. You did. When you reworded your "I believe all trans people" to "believe all trans people are trans" you did that explicitly because you were highlighting believing them on the trans part but not on the rest.

If you don't believe that they are not genderfluid, or that they are genderless (because you believe that gender is biologically intrinsic), then you do not believe their stated gender.

You believe they're trans but don't believe their stated gender? So you want? Secretly misgender them inside your head?

I'm being intentionally uncharitable here because I don't think you've examined this and really think you should. I do not think you're a bad person, just that you haven't yet examined these contradictions.

What I'm telling you is that you're stating things that are incompatible views.

You can't "believe all trans people" while explicitly saying that you disagree with trans people who say they have no gender, or trans people that say they are not gender fluid and very much feel like they can and have changed gender at a later point in life.

These are not compatible things. One of these things MUST be untrue.

You want to by hyper-inclusive and nice to all people, I get that you don't want to exclude people which is why you are saying "I believe all trans people" (because you're not a bad person). But at the same time you are stating a position that is not open to a certain position, largely for good reasons, you are defensive about how it could be used to harm us and have a naturally protective reaction that wants to reject the very idea of it because of the danger it also opens us up to. This has explicitly been the only reason you've presented for opposing it "this could be used to argue in favour of conversion therapy" - purely a position taken from a trans activism perspective. What I am trying to get at is that you shouldn't approach this from the trans activism position but rather than from a philosophical perspective analysing gender.

Doing a "I don't wanna talk to you anymore" doesn't make any of the things I've pointed out here any less true. You can't hold incompatible positions simultaneously. They need to be more deeply examined.

You can't "believe all trans people" while also not believing the trans people who say their experience is not gender fluidity but an actual mid-life change in gender.

Ultimately you can only be one or the other.

As for those people without dysphoria, several of them will openly say they think they can choose one or the other, but prefer one, but don't think this is the same as gender fluidity. Are they wrong?

"I believe all trans people" while having a biological gender essentialist belief is not possible.

I am seriously interested in gender abolitionist takes that aren't just abolishing the strict roles/styles/behaviors affiliated with gender. I don't think you can provide this

This is the basis for literally all cyberpunk and transhumanist takes on gender as the elimination of biological limitations turns the entire of sexuality into something of an avatar swap. If you've spent any time in VR, where some insight into behaviours of people and culture has played out, you start to get a sense for where this could go. What gender is that person with the smoke avatar? No gender. Which, for the record here, is a gender that a lot of people say they already are, which does not at all fit into the gender biological essentialism. You NEED to exclude people who say they have no gender at all (not non-binary, those with explicitly no gender) in order to fit this concept together.

Frankly, I'm kind of growing tired of discussing trans issues with cis people

I am not cis. Not sure why you've decided this, fucking disgusting response and the reason I waited days to bother responding to this tbh. The way this part of your response makes me feel is unlikely to ever go away when I see you elsewhere on this site, wtf were you thinking.

I believe all trans people.

I want to say, once again, that this is a platitude. It does not fit into the view that you're taking. You genuinely can't believe all trans people while having this view.

This reasoning errs much too close to bio-essentialism for me, it's the same line of thinking that leads people to "you have to have dysphoria or you're not trans".