you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Soo. Guess I'm gonna be the QT unicorn in this sub. I came over from reddit, but I'm using a different name here. Mostly for a fresh start, but some may recognize my position and style.

I'm moderate QT. Some would call me truscum, but I'm still not sure if I fit that label.

I'm honestly a bit to lazy to write out my whole struggle with gender and especially sex in all it's beautiful [s] forms, so I'm just gonna throw out my current position on the issue:

Gender roles are bullshit and should rightfully be abolished. GC has all of my support in that regard, even if they don't want it, because I happen to have a Y chromosome. I disagree on some of the details and am not sure if a world without stereotypes is possible [maybe the best we can get is that Noone is forced to conform] but we can argue about those once we get there.

Dysphoria exists. I don't believe that gender roles are the cause of dysphoria. Mostly because of the way I and many other experience it. Gender roles can worsen dysphoria, because they are a constant reminder of your sex, but aren't the cause of it. I personally use gender identity as a placeholder for the cause of gender dysphoria.

I also think that the model of symbolic interactionism is more important in day to day sociology, than the class analysis GC follows. Don't get me wrong. Both are important and useful when looking at certain issues. In my mind they are both tools with different jobs.

I might post a more detailed description of how I got to these opinions if anyone is interested.

Please respect that I'm currently not able to debate all of you at once for both time and personal reasons. So I might not engage in debates for now.

[–]tamingthemindradfem (GC) 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Damn, I have a degree in a linguistics-adjacent field yet I have never heard of symbolic interactionism. I'm intrigued - thanks!