DiscussionHow should LGB actually go about dropping the T(Q+)?

submitted by PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust from (self.LGBDropTheT)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But this group is a broad church, there are a lot of people arguing from the "traditional conservative values" perspective who probably balk at the idea of gender abolitionism.

Yes, this is exactly my concern about just going full-steam-ahead on the gender-free approach.

So I've been thinking... perhaps, rather than serving as the foundation of LGB's argument, gender-abolition should figure in more as a logical implication thereof. Like this:

The foundation: asserting our identity. Who we are: what makes us LGB in the first place. And that's same-sex attraction. Meaning: our own biological sex + the biological sex of those to whom we are attracted = LGB. Thus, being LGB is inherently ABOUT biological sex; the two are inextricably linked.

It follows, then, that, with respect to LGB, "gender" is: A.] at best irrelevant; B.] at worst actively homophobic/biphobic, insofar as it undermines the very concept of biological sex.

So, by logical deduction: 1.] TQ+ doesn't belong in LGB; 2.] gender itself is often antithetical to very existence of LGB.

Constructing our strategy in this way has the virtue of retaining the opposition to gender, but making that conditional on a premise with which I think we can all agree.

How does this reformulation sound?