Both: Would explaining feminist theory using trans activist terms better highlight the discrepancies between the two views on gender?

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Honestly that's actually an inaccurate use of the term non binary [agender would fit way more] and transition as commonly understood by trans people. Gender is fine to use. Just clarify what aspect of gender you're talking about [roles, identity, expression] when talking to TRAs. If you do that GC feminism is honestly quite easy to talk about in QT terms.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agender & non-binary is the same thing. Non-binary is an umbrella term. Agender people see gender as being two categories which represent the extremes, while there is a massive neutral zone, where they reside, while other non-binary people view gender as a spectrum, without a neutral zone, where every trait that exists registers to some degree on the masculinity &/or femininity scale. These latter non-binary people place themselves somewhere in the middle too. Those are two perspectives of the same thing.

I believe, however that non-binary encompasses even more than these two views, like gender fluid people, for instance are also considered non-binary. But, as far as I know, the majority take of either of the two views I outlined above.

Gender identity isn't actually fine to use, since QT believe that a person's gender identity & their sex sometimes don't match. GC say it's your sex that informed your socialisation into your gender identity. And that coming out as a different gender identity than the one you were raised as, would be like saying that your mother tongue is a different language from the one you were raised with.