QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill?

submitted by DistantGlimmer from (self.GCdebatesQT)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Yes, you’re correct! Nothing about gender has or ever will be precise. It’s a bunch of made up, subjective bullshit. I absolutely agree.

If it' s bullshit, then it should be treated as such. It shouldn' t be used as the basis of social interactions.

Even if you could provide concrete examples of harm induced by accepting a person (socially) as the gender they identify as, it would not outweigh the harm that gender (in its current form) has caused and will cause. Not only this, but I can point to the plethora of research which suggests that the well-being of transgender people is greatly improved when we accept them socially as the gender they identify as. Harm reduction is incredibly vital to the end goal of gender abolition.

So trans people first, fuck all the others. Who cares if saying things you don' t believe brings harm to anyone, the well being of trans people comes first!!!!!

The issue you seem to be experiencing here is not with an identity basis for gender, but with legal and legislative policy being changed to revolve around gender identity.

No, the issues I would be experiencing would be based on having to say things I don' t want to say. And pretending to believe things I do not believe in. ALl of this for the sake of other people who couldn' t give a lesser shit about my well being.

This sentence is incredibly problematic. Gender is not physiologically or biologically conceptualized, therefore there is not an objective basis to one’s gender and there is no “visible” incorrect nature of being one gender or another.

I am not talking about gender, I am talking about sex. A woman is a person who belongs to a certain sex category. A male who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

Are you really unironically going for the feels-over-reals line of reasoning here? “I know it’s incorrect” is one of the most dogmatic things I have heard coming from a supporter of GC ideology.

Do you think a male who identifies as a woman is female?

“It feels good, so let me do it” is an oversimplification of my position, though. The primary reasoning for acceptance of one’s gender based on self identification is the social utility that it provides over gender based on expression/stereotypes.

It only brings social utility to the 0, 6% of the population.

Gender does not offer any social utility as an oppressive force; however, because it is a social construction, we can shape it in such a way that is least harmful as we fight for gender abolitionist causes.

If we can shape it, then it means that every single person can behave in regards to it however they want. I choose to shape it in a way in which gender is considered bullshit and treated as such, instead of something that should be played along with.

I’d rather not get into the prescriptivist language aspect of this discussion. It doesn’t go anywhere. Long story short: Terms like “man” and “woman” wouldn’t exist in a postgenderist society.

Yes, they would: they would describe what they have always described, which is an adult human fe/male.

Yes, words certainly are used to describe something, but they are also used for the purposes of social utility. If “woman” and “female” are the same, I would go as far to argue that having both terms is completely unpragmatic, and we should select one or the other in our social usage.

They aren' t the same: female is used to describe non-adult and non-human individuals who belong to the female category.

“Pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals.”

The productivity and happiness you are talking about are limited to the ones of people who would give a damn about this. I would definitely not be happy in a world where I have to call a man a woman.

I am not saying identity-based gender is the end goal, just that it is better than living in an expectation-based gendered society. This is the same issue I take with the whole “Trump vs Biden” debate I have with people on the left. We have two attainable choices right now and in this very moment. Evidently, Biden is objectively better than Trump. Similarly, identity-based gender is objectively better than expectation-based gender (because of social utility). Harm reductionism is incredibly vital to this discussion.

You are talking to someone who doesn' t vote in AMerican elections, but if she did, she wouldn' t vote for either candidate. I don' t believe harm reductionism should be a goal in these specific cases. Destroying both systems and replacing it with something else would be better, and I would fight for that.

Yes it does. Self identification of gender is entirely rooted in “if you identify as X gender, you are X gender”.

What I meant is that using one doesn' t mean that the other is going away. Just that some people will use it.

As mentioned before, the social utility of socially accepting trans people as the gender they identify as far outweighs any kind of potential harm that might possibly come about from identity-based gender.

And I said before, this is your own opinion based on the fact that you want it to happen.

What are some concrete examples of harm induced by identity-based gender, that outweighs the benefits it has compared to the current status quo regarding gender?

You don' t have concrete examples of it being beneficial either. All you have is a bunch of trans people saying that they are happy. Which is not concrete, not provable, not measurable and not objective. It is all based on feelings, and if it is based on feelings, then the feelings of the people who would be happy to not follow your plan are as valid as the feelings of trans people following it.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

If it' s bullshit, then it should be treated as such. It shouldn' t be used as the basis of social interactions.

Right. But unfortunately, we live in a gendered society, not a postgenderist one. Gender abolition is going to take centuries. In the meantime, we should be modifying the social construction of gender to be least oppressive, and least harmful.

So trans people first, fuck all the others. Who cares if saying things you don' t believe brings harm to anyone, the well being of trans people comes first!!!!!

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument. Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

No, the issues I would be experiencing would be based on having to say things I don' t want to say. And pretending to believe things I do not believe in.

Why are you so triggered right now? Good grief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Like I said several times, I’m against self identification legislation, which includes things like compelled speech/misgendering. You can do whatever you want, you can choose to misgender trans people if you’d like, however, you’d be epistemologically incorrect in a world which accepts gender is rooted in self identification.

I am not talking about gender, I am talking about sex. A woman is a person who belongs to a certain sex category. A male who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

Got it. Unironic feels-over-reals. “Woman” would not exist in a postgenderist society. “Man” would not exist in a postgenderist society. They are entirely products of a gendered society.

Do you think a male who identifies as a woman is female?

No. A male who identifies as a woman, is a woman, but not female.

It only brings social utility to the 0, 6% of the population.

Is your argument really “minorities don’t matter”? Really? Given your inability to show how it negatively impacts the other 99.4% of the population, I absolutely support something which brings social utility to 0.6% of the population.

I choose to shape it in a way in which gender is considered bullshit and treated as such, instead of something that should be played along with.

That’s good, fuck gender. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a gender-free society, and it matters to almost the entirety of the population. These labels matter significantly to people. Hence why gender abolition is centuries away. Furthermore, why harm reduction through identity-based gender should be undertaken in the meantime.

Yes, they would: they would describe what they have always described, which is an adult human fe/male.

I’m not interested in GC prescriptivism. Moving on from this aspect of the discussion.

They aren' t the same

Perfect. You can stop right there! You’re right.

The productivity and happiness you are talking about are limited to the ones of people who would give a damn about this.

I’m sick of repeating myself, so see above points on social utility.

I would definitely not be happy in a world where I have to call a man a woman.

I am strongly against compelled speech, so we can end this aspect of the discussion. My position does not include demanding people by force to gender trans people correctly. That being said, I don’t care, sorry. The “harm” of your limited unhappiness does not override the harm induced by not accepting transgender individuals in the social sense, as well as the transition to identity-based gender.

You are talking to someone who doesn' t vote in AMerican elections, but if she did, she wouldn' t vote for either candidate. I don' t believe harm reductionism should be a goal in these specific cases. Destroying both systems and replacing it with something else would be better, and I would fight for that.

I’m inclined to agree that a brand new system is ideal; however, we don’t have that option right now. We have to look at the material conditions of this very moment, not some utopian future. While we can hope for a better world, we have to accept the conditions we are a part of, and that includes understanding that harm reduction in electoralism is the only thing we can do in that regard. Of course, I’m for direct political action and the like, but it is self evident that Trump is a worse candidate than Biden. Therefore, we can do both: harm reductionism and fighting for something better. I appreciate your consistency, though.

What I meant is that using one doesn' t mean that the other is going away. Just that some people will use it.

Oh no, it absolutely does. Gender being the binary of men/masculinity and women/femininity is not compatible with gender identity. Identity-based gender is not a binary. And of course only some people will use it at first. You think it’ll be easier to detach people completely from gender right away? Of course not.

And I said before, this is your own opinion based on the fact that you want it to happen.

It’s a fact-of-the-matter that the social utility of socially accepting trans people as the gender they identify as outweighs any kind of potential harm that might come from identity-based gender. Of course, you have yet to provide a concrete example of “harm” induced by gender identity which is inflicted upon most people.

You don' t have concrete examples of it being beneficial either.

I love how your argument has now succumbed to “no u”.

You have 0 concrete examples, 0 data backing your claims. Meanwhile, if you’d like to, I can provide you a plethora of research which directly shows that trans people are positively impacted by being socially accepted. Meanwhile, you’d need to present evidence that there is evident harm against everyone else that somehow outweighs the harm not accepting trans people would cause.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument.

I feel like the only examples needed are that sex-based oppression is real and happens because of sex and sex-based socialization. If you remove the ability to discuss sex by taking the words away to describe an adult female or a female child, we aren’t able to talk about the problem and organize against it. That seems like an obvious harm to women. It also obscures who is doing the harm and who is being harmed.

Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

Please explain how anyone other than some subset of trans people (and I say subset because I don’t see how it would benefit me or others like me) would benefit. Why can’t people just be how they are rather than have to assign themselves a box?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If you remove the ability to discuss sex by taking the words away to describe an adult female or a female child, we aren’t able to talk about the problem and organize against it.

If "woman" is about sex there wouldn't be so much talk about "socialization" playing such a heavy role in what it means to be a woman. My position is that terms such as "woman" and "man" would not exist in a postgenderist society, because they are solely dependent upon the sociocultural and historical understanding of gender which exists in one place or another. Therefore, it would be not only more pragmatic, but also more accurate to use "female" in relation to sex and sex-based oppression.

It also obscures who is doing the harm and who is being harmed.

Not really? What specifically can I not accurately explain about the concept of sex-based oppression from the perspective of QT which is an obscurity compared to that of the GC perspective? (Aside from personal experience, which I do not have with regard to sex-based oppression)

Please explain how anyone other than some subset of trans people (and I say subset because I don’t see how it would benefit me or others like me) would benefit. Why can’t people just be how they are rather than have to assign themselves a box?

We live in a heavily gendered society, I don't think anyone disagrees with this. This is due to the fact that gender is expression-based and expectation-based. This is harmful to everyone who lives under it, because we are restricted from being who we are. That being said, gender abolition should be a long term end goal; however, the ends don't always justify the means.

Culturally speaking, society is not ready to let go of gender in its entirety. This is why we have this clash of identity vs expression in gender right now, and confusion around gendered language and conflations of these ideas with biological realities. Most people in society currently would not be willing to drop the social construction of gender because they have been socialized to believe we need it. Therefore, an adverse reaction to things such as gender abolition.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with identity-based gender, where anyone can be who they are and ascribe whichever label they wish for themselves, to reach the long term goal of gender abolition? Pragmatically and from a harm reduction perspective, this seems to be most ideal.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If "woman" is about sex there wouldn't be so much talk about "socialization" playing such a heavy role in what it means to be a woman. My position is that terms such as "woman" and "man" would not exist in a postgenderist society, because they are solely dependent upon the sociocultural and historical understanding of gender which exists in one place or another. Therefore, it would be not only more pragmatic, but also more accurate to use "female" in relation to sex and sex-based oppression.

Woman is about sex. Like everything else, society makes assumptions about people based on what they are, but that is just baggage attached to a word that means nothing other the fact that someone is a female and an adult. Trying to get rid of the baggage seems like the better thing to do rather make it only about the baggage. Unless you think somehow the majority of female people would stop identifying as women in your scenario, you would be actively making things worse for them, by naturalizing that females who don’t identify out of womanhood accepting the baggage (especially since you’ve previously said you think there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria).

Not really? What specifically can I not accurately explain about the concept of sex-based oppression from the perspective of QT which is an obscurity compared to that of the GC perspective? (Aside from personal experience, which I do not have with regard to sex-based oppression)

If anyone can be a woman and it’s just an identity then male violence perpetrated by males who identify as women will not be seen as the sex-based violence that it is. It is something that is already happening. When transwomen commit violent crimes and sexual crimes against women or children, they are often reported as a woman committing a crime against another women or a child. We won’t be able to accurate statistics about these type of violence and be able to correctly identify is because of changing theses words to be about identity rather than sex.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with identity-based gender, where anyone can be who they are and ascribe whichever label they wish for themselves, to reach the long term goal of gender abolition?

I don’t think so because the categories will still be prescribed for most people. If you try to make woman about something other than being a female it will make it harder for females (unless you think they all will de-identify, which seems unlikely if not impossible). Same for males (especially GNC ones). I feel like the goal of abolishing gender would be better served by making any sort of baggage around sex less naturalized rather than more naturalized. Women and men, boys and girls, can come in millions of varieties and that is fine. I feel like I would have had an easier childhood if that had been the message. If someone really feels like they want a label for their gender, they can make one up that isn’t already a sex word.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

baggage attached to a word that means nothing other the fact that someone is a female and an adult.

Do you think words can change meanings, or are there specific definitions we should follow prescriptively speaking?

Trying to get rid of the baggage seems like the better thing to do rather make it only about the baggage

My position is the removal of both physiological and socialized concepts attached to gendered terminology. I don't think there's a pragmatic usage to gender as a concept outside of its sociocultural expectations, nor terms such as "man" or "woman," which only exist as a result of living in a gendered society.

especially since you’ve previously said you think there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria

I don't believe there is a biological cause to gender dysphoria, if I said that previously I mistyped. Gender dysphoria is entirely a product of an individual being socialized in a gendered society. I would contrast this with "sex dysphoria" which is more rooted in physiological phenomenon, but might also have some socialized/learned causes as well.

We won’t be able to accurate statistics about these type of violence and be able to correctly identify is because of changing theses words to be about identity rather than sex.

Use "male" and "female" as a means to classify crimes and violence. My position is for identity-based gender in the social context, not in the legal context. There are ways to aggregate this data appropriately under this proposition, and I don't see how this is any more or any less accurate or more obscure than any GC take on this particular issue.

If you try to make woman about something other than being a female it will make it harder for females

But the question is how? I've mentioned in previous comments on this thread that I do not support self-id based legislation and I strongly advocate for using terms such as male or female in specific contexts (medical, crime stats, violence, prison systems, etc). Only in the social context would these terms (like man and woman) be based in identity. I'm failing to see where things become more obscure in terms describing sex-based oppression.

That being said, I'm not female so I will never have a complete understanding of such oppression; however, in the sense of describing it as an issue, I don't see how QT is more or less accurate than GC in this particular position I have taken.

I would go further to argue that GC actually obscures the oppression many trans individuals face in society, in the sense that their oppression is analyzed from the birth sex of the individual, which isn't always reflective of the lived experiences of said individual. Therefore, if we're talking about obscurity and inaccuracies, I would argue QT does a better job at avoiding such obscurities.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Do you think words can change meanings, or are there specific definitions we should follow prescriptively speaking?

I feel like words can change meanings, but I’m speaking about what the word means now and how it is used.

I don't think there's a pragmatic usage to gender as a concept outside of its sociocultural expectations, nor terms such as "man" or "woman," which only exist as a result of living in a gendered society.

I agree with the first part, but not the second part. Man and woman are words that describe adult human beings of a certain sex the same way buck and doe describe deer of a certain sex.

Use "male" and "female" as a means to classify crimes and violence. My position is for identity-based gender in the social context, not in the legal context. There are ways to aggregate this data appropriately under this proposition, and I don't see how this is any more or any less accurate or more obscure than any GC take on this particular issue.

I feel like the problem is that these things don’t exist in a vacuum. If you change the social meaning of words, it will change the way things are recorded, like in the examples I provided. We are already seeing this both formally and informally. We can wish it wasn’t the case, but if you say that someone is a woman because they identify as one and it helps if you treat them and address them that way, you can’t expect people not to codify those things. I don’t think you can just separate those things and say you support one and not the other because one leads to the other.

But the question is how?

I feel like it’s naturalizing gender roles. If you take an existing word like woman that means adult human female but also has behavioral expectations and stereotypes attached to it and say that this male person is also that, the only conclusions that makes sense, because the person is male, is that they are a woman due to fitting into some other part of the definition (the baggage). It emphasizes the importance of that baggage to being a woman and works against the long term feminist goal of our sex just being a neutral thing that has nothing to do with behavior, personality, career choices, etc. I feel like butch and gender nonconforming women are already experiencing being asked their pronouns or pressured to identify as trans in a way they weren’t years earlier because of the way trans identities reinforce stereotypes. If someone wants to define themselves with a gender word, I think that is fine, but they should choose one that isn’t already forced onto half the population.

GC actually obscures the oppression many trans individuals face in society, in the sense that their oppression is analyzed from the birth sex of the individual, which isn't always reflective of the lived experiences of said individual.

That could true, but I don’t think it makes sense to harm females just so aspects of my life would be understood slightly better.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That could true, but I don’t think it makes sense to harm females just so aspects of my life would be understood slightly better.

But how are females harmed?

There is nothing about gender identity which naturalizes gender roles. Even if 100% of trans people conformed to gender stereotypes, I would only take issue with the specific individuals which did so claiming their identity was rooted in such conformity and/or claimed there was a specific gender expression required to be one gender or another.

The entire conceptualization of gender identity is rooted "you are X gender because you identify as such". Nothing about the promotion of this in the social sense amplifies gendered associations. In fact, it openly opposes the current gender dichotomy. It is a transitory step in the process of developing a postgenderist society. Eliminate gendered associations, then abandon gender completely over time.

The issue you mentioned:

If you change the social meaning of words, it will change the way things are recorded, like in the examples I provided

Is something which can be resolved by not redefining the sex dichotomy (male/female), something which the modern trans movement is seeking and has been seeking to accomplish. This is why we're seeing so much confusion about sex, gender expression, and gender identity right now. Which is evident given the spike in social awareness of trans people.

Second, I disagree with the notion that man/woman are used to refer to sex in the current sense. Perhaps in the broadest sense, these terms refer to a combination of sex and gender; however, the amount of weight in the defining traits of the terms vary drastically in various regions.

For example, in the US South, pretty much anyone with long hair and a feminine to androgenous-leaning-feminine appearance typically might be called a woman (or refered to with she/her) regardless of their sex and regardless of their gender identity. Meanwhile, other areas are more accepting of both gender nonconformity and of gender identity (i.e. preferred pronouns). Other regions may place more weight on sex to define what a man or a woman is.

I would argue neither these physiological nor sociocultural bases should refer to gender. Simply put, gender identity is a temporary solution as we transition from a society which is heavily rooted in the gender dichotomy to a postgenderist one. Sex can remain the same, I don't think its unfathomable that male/female could be 100% correlative with sex, and man/woman could be 100% correlative with gender identity.

The question becomes: "Well, why can't people just be themselves without any of these labels?"

The answer is that I think it's unreasonable to think that people are going to change their way of thinking about gender and sex overnight. It's going to take centuries to bring about a postgenderist society. In fact, I actually have doubts that a gender-free world might be even possible, given the heavy variance that gender has in different cultures. I worry that gender abolition carries some aspects of colonialism with it, that can irrevocably damage the cultures of different people.

It's a very complicated task, and I think gender identity is an important step in the right direction. It's not the solution, but it's a step in the right direction nonetheless. Although, even with this concept on its own, we can see what happens when gender identity is taken to an extreme legally and socially speaking. For example as your mentioned:

I feel like butch and gender nonconforming women are already experiencing being asked their pronouns or pressured to identify as trans in a way they weren’t years earlier because of the way trans identities reinforce stereotypes

This is incredibly problematic. And I think this is because we are trapped between two definitions of gender socially speaking right now: one that is expression based and one that is identity based. I think this is something that will clear up with time, but also something which deserves to be challenged, especially when we have gender clinics putting young females on cross sex hormones which permanently alter their lives.

Even accomplishing a transformation of gender from gendered associations to gender identity will be a complex transition. So I don't pretend I know all the answers. I just don't support the notion that the QT position on this issue (or at least, my slightly watered down version of it, as I'm not 100% on the QT train) is arbitrarily less effective in defining the nature of sex-based oppression than the GC position on this issue.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But how are females harmed? There is nothing about gender identity which naturalizes gender roles.

I’ve explained how changing woman to an identity naturalizes gender a couple of different ways. I’ll try again. If you say you are a woman or that someone is a woman based on anything other than the chance of being born female you are reinforcing gender because there is nothing else in that concept. Turning woman from a physical descriptor into a “gender” that can be used by anyone makes it worse for females who are prescribed that gender. I’m really not sure how else to say it unless you don’t understand how naturalizing gender harms females, then I feel like you need to get a better understanding feminism before engaging with these topics.

The entire conceptualization of gender identity is rooted "you are X gender because you identify as such".

That would be true if you were using made up words that didn’t already have generally accepted meanings. Like if you identified as star gender that would be fine because no one is born into star gender that would have to deal with whatever was important to you about star gender, but if you take an existing category, then you are making it about something other than sex which naturalizes sex based categories as having meaning outside of sex. I just don’t see any way around it.

Second, I disagree with the notion that man/woman are used to refer to sex in the current sense.

I guess we can just disagree on that. Even if you think are defined some other way, making them about sex avoid them being about gender (as much as that is possible).

I’m not sure how to address the rest of what you said other than to reiterate that gender identity that uses man or woman (or boy or girl) reinforces gender so it seems like it is moving us in the opposite direction of gender absolition and making like more difficult for females and males, especially those of us who are gender nonconforming. I feel like many of my beliefs on this subject have a lot to do with being a feminine, gay child. People believing in gender roles as natural hurts GNC kids the most.

I worry that gender abolition carries some aspects of colonialism with it, that can irrevocably damage the cultures of different people.

I feel like this comment is super revealing about your priorities.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Turning woman from a physical descriptor into a “gender” that can be used by anyone makes it worse for females who are prescribed that gender.

It doesn't though. Allowing people to identify as whatever gender they choose for themselves would lead to less people being forced/prescribed a certain gender from birth. That's a natural implication. It normalizes identity-based gender, not expression-based gender.

I’m really not sure how else to say it unless you don’t understand how naturalizing gender harms females, then I feel like you need to get a better understanding feminism before engaging with these topics.

I feel pretty comfortable engaging in these topics, as they not only affect me but I have a heavy interest in feminism, feminist theory, literature, etc. If I wasn't, I wouldn't bother coming here to engage with a form of feminism I do not fully understand/am not willing to completely prescribe to. Besides, I don't engage in topics that I'm not particular knowledgeable in, or make conclusions without having a reasonable level of understanding of these topics.

but if you take an existing category, then you are making it about something other than sex

It's evidently more than sex, even in its current definition. Even so, there's no harm induced by an individual identifying as a woman and going about their lives. So long as that individual does not demand conformity to gender roles for other women to be valid as their gender nor claiming to speak for all women's experiences, there is no harm.

making them about sex avoid them being about gender (as much as that is possible)

I would agree with this if we didn't live in a gendered society. I would also argue making them about sex is unpragmatic in the linguistic sense. Either way, we will have to move on from this out of disagreement.

reinforces gender so it seems like it is moving us in the opposite direction of gender abolishion and making like more difficult for females and males, especially those of us who are gender nonconforming. I feel like many of my beliefs on this subject have a lot to do with being a feminine, gay child.

Again, I'm not reinforcing gender roles, I'm in direct opposition to it. A society using identity-based gender is far closer to the end goal of a postgenderist society than one using expression-based gender.

People believing in gender roles as natural hurts GNC kids the most.

Yes, which is how most people view and describe gender in the current sense, unfortunately. Ideally, we would eliminate this completely, but we don't live in an ideal world.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel like this comment is super revealing about your priorities.

Care to elaborate?